Simulationist versus Dramatist
Russell Wallace
conversation with someone else - why so much heat and little light
gets generated whenever Simulationist vs Dramatist comes up, and in
particular why Simulationists are so prone to finding the Threefold
useless or a positive hindrance.
In a nutshell: Dramatist is defined as making decisions with the
intent of creating a good story, and Simulationist is defined as _not_
doing so. (It can't be defined as making decisions with the intent of
creating a logically consistent and plausible setting, because every
halfway decent GM [1] does that, so the word would then have no
semantic content; and yet it's clear there is a real phenomenon to be
named.)
So why do Simulationists so often _reject_ this description of their
style?
Part of it is the difficulty of actually figuring out who's
Simulationist and who's not. [2] One reason I explained in this
snippet of the ICQ conversation I mentioned above:
Russell: *nods* I used to think I was quite strongly simulationist,
until I realized that was machismo brought on by an excessively high
ratio of testosterone to life experience, and in fact I'm much more
middle of the road.
Obviously this is a general condition of young males, and since that's
the bulk of the population who play games at all, it's a pretty
general condition. However, it's not the whole story.
Let's separate out those Simulationists who truly don't care about
getting a good story. (Warren Dew, perhaps you? I can't think of any
others.)
Of those who do... well, they can reasonably say "I care about story
too, I just go about it in different ways."
What ways? Well, it's basically about space versus time. The
Simulationist who wants a good story starts with a spacelike initial
condition that will generate stories by simulation from then on. The
Dramatist makes decisions _embedded in the time axis_ that generate
such.
That's the key _embedded in time_ versus _outside time_. The latter is
so much harder for most humans to grok (ref: functional programming
languages) that it's easy to miss it completely. However, we're still
talking about a situation where both Simulationists and Dramatists
make a great many creative decisions to produce a good story - it's
just a question of whether they're made outside, or embedded in, time.
Here's the last example from the ICQ discussion:
Russell: That's actually an interesting example of the time axis. I
knew he'd order Sinclair and Diana down that mineshaft, an apparently
wildly irrational act. I had no idea why; at the time, I still thought
Diana inherited her Talent purely from her mother. I also had no idea
why Diana's a full notch higher (on a very steep exponential scale!)
than anyone else who's ever lived on that planet.
I figured out the single fact that explains all three, and itself
follows logically from a motive - in time for the General to explain
it to Diana.
I don't know whether my ability to do that is something that would
baffle at least some hard-core simulationists as much as your ability
to create [*] in such a way that pure simulation would then produce so
many interesting sessions, but it wouldn't surprise me.
What, if any, difference this should make to the FAQ I right now have
no idea, but figured it'd be a return of favors over the years to this
newsgroup to post this much.
[1] I'm omitting from this discussion exceptions such as 'Paranoia'
that prove the rule.
[2] It should be obvious that tendencies among people are almost never
all-or-none, so fuzzy logic rather than strict Boolean logic is
intended here.
[*] Person asked me to leave their identity out of this.
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
George W. Harris
:I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an extended
:conversation with someone else - why so much heat and little light
:gets generated whenever Simulationist vs Dramatist comes up, and in
:particular why Simulationists are so prone to finding the Threefold
:useless or a positive hindrance.
Really? IME it is those who are likely to
prefer simulationist styles who are most likely see
the Threefold as a useful model for describing
their preferences, and Dramatists who reject it as
useless because they claim to be all things at once.
--
"Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Robert Scott Clark
news:3fcc15bf....@news.eircom.net:
> I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an extended
> conversation with someone else - why so much heat and little light
> gets generated whenever Simulationist vs Dramatist comes up, and in
> particular why Simulationists are so prone to finding the Threefold
> useless or a positive hindrance.
What?
Did you reverse the placement of terms?
Robert Scott Clark
news:6suosv8s76s3fujh8...@4ax.com:
> wallacet...@eircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote:
>
>:I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an extended
>:conversation with someone else - why so much heat and little light
>:gets generated whenever Simulationist vs Dramatist comes up, and in
>:particular why Simulationists are so prone to finding the Threefold
>:useless or a positive hindrance.
>
> Really? IME it is those who are likely to
> prefer simulationist styles who are most likely see
> the Threefold as a useful model for describing
> their preferences, and Dramatists who reject it as
> useless because they claim to be all things at once.
>
Flamebait anyone?
Ross Winn
that "proves" nothing.
Warren J. Dew
I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an
extended conversation with someone else - why so much heat
and little light gets generated whenever Simulationist vs
Dramatist comes up, and in particular why Simulationists
are so prone to finding the Threefold useless or a positive
hindrance.
As two other people have already posted, isn't that a typo?
It's us world oriented gamesmasters who tend to like the threefold, because it
allows us to express how our style differs from others, and in particular how
story and game concerns can be actively detrimental to our style.
In my experience, the ones who most object to the threefold are the vocal
minority of story oriented gamesmasters who are used places where their
approach is considered the one true way. In some of those communities, rgfa
has a reputation for being a simulationist stronghold very hostile to story
oriented gaming (or, as they would probably put it, 'very hostile to high
quality gaming').
Most gamists seem to be less hostile to the threefold, perhaps because they see
that a tradeoffs model would actually help them in their battle against the
dramatists. In 'one true way' arguments between gamists and dramatists, the
dramatists tend to come out on top: a story oriented style is associated less
with politically incorrect things like combat, story oriented people are
probably by nature more articulate, and gamists tend to be much less interested
in talking about games than playing them. Since gamists are used to being
pushed into a psychological ghetto by the dramatists in arguments about what
the one true way is, they are more open to a tradeoffs model where there is no
one true way - even if most would rather play a game than figure out the full
nuances of a model.
In a nutshell: Dramatist is defined as making decisions with
the intent of creating a good story, and Simulationist is
defined as _not_ doing so.
A bit of an oversimplification, but yes.
(It can't be defined as making decisions with the intent of
creating a logically consistent and plausible setting ...)
Correct, given the common definition of 'logically consistent'. Unfortunately,
world oriented gamers do often try to use a definition similar to this - I did
at one point, at least one other still tries to - because "internally
consistent" has a much stronger meaning to us than is understood by others.
That has a very harmful effect as gamesmasters who don't really understand the
definition, but think they run internally consistent worlds, think they are
simulationist, adding to the confusion.
So why do Simulationists so often _reject_ this description
of their style? ['not making decisions with the intent of
creating a good story']
Because it's often taken to imply that there are no good stories in world
oriented games - overlooking the possibility that good stories can sometimes
emerge even if there was no intent to create them.
Also because story concerns are only one of the concerns we avoid. There are
sim/game conflicts too; they just aren't discussed as much.
Let's separate out those Simulationists who truly don't care
about getting a good story. (Warren Dew, perhaps you? I can't
think of any others.)
You mean as an end result? Depends on what you consider to be a 'good story',
I guess. If you mean a traditionally good story - a beginning, a middle, and
end, a strong plot line with rising tension towards a climax, etc., you're
right, I don't. However, I don't think Peter Knutsen really cares about such
stories - he just pretends to sometimes when arguing that his way is the one
true way - and I'm not at all sure Irina Rempt does - though she seems to have
a broader definition of story that she does care about. With a sufficiently
tautological definition - or a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of 'good'
- I care too, though I still won't alter my game world to obtain one.
The Simulationist who wants a good story starts with a
spacelike initial condition that will generate stories by
simulation from then on. The Dramatist makes decisions
_embedded in the time axis_ that generate such.
Pretty close, though you'd have to modify that to "may generate" if it's a
roleplaying game - the player characters can always prevent the stories from
coming about.
It's also a very story oriented way of looking at things. If "wanting a good
story" - at least in the traditional sense mentioned above - is the
gamesmaster's highest priority, he's probably better off eschewing world
oriented techniques and using story oriented ones which are specifically geared
towards getting a good story. World oriented gamesmasters are far more likely
to be interested in things like exploring the world.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Wayne Shaw
>Most gamists seem to be less hostile to the threefold, perhaps because they see
>that a tradeoffs model would actually help them in their battle against the
>dramatists. In 'one true way' arguments between gamists and dramatists, the
>dramatists tend to come out on top: a story oriented style is associated less
By numbers, if nothing else.
>with politically incorrect things like combat, story oriented people are
>probably by nature more articulate, and gamists tend to be much less interested
>in talking about games than playing them. Since gamists are used to being
I also suspect in practice many gamists or quasi-gamists are used to
wearing protective coloration in public discussion.
>pushed into a psychological ghetto by the dramatists in arguments about what
>the one true way is, they are more open to a tradeoffs model where there is no
>one true way - even if most would rather play a game than figure out the full
>nuances of a model.
Though I'll note not all gamists are uninterested in such things;
though he disagreed with some characterizations of the model, Brian
Gleichman was an obvious counterexample, and both Bradd Szonye and I
are more gamist than not.
>Also because story concerns are only one of the concerns we avoid. There are
>sim/game conflicts too; they just aren't discussed as much.
Yes. They're very visible to me because I was more simulationist in
my younger days, and the changes in my style make them somewhat
obvious.
Russell Wallace
>Russell Wallace posts, in part:
>
> I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an
> extended conversation with someone else - why so much heat
> and little light gets generated whenever Simulationist vs
> Dramatist comes up, and in particular why Simulationists
> are so prone to finding the Threefold useless or a positive
> hindrance.
>
>As two other people have already posted, isn't that a typo?
No typo. There have been dramatists claiming things like "my settings
are logically consistent, therefore I'm simulationist as well as
dramatist", which is clearly not very helpful; but it seems to me that
simulationists are more prone to just flat-out saying "I'm not
interested in the Threefold, it doesn't work for me".
I could be wrong, mind you; I don't have statistics or anything. But
in any case, my comments here arose from considering the question of
why that particular group might feel that way.
>You mean as an end result? Depends on what you consider to be a 'good story',
>I guess. If you mean a traditionally good story - a beginning, a middle, and
>end, a strong plot line with rising tension towards a climax, etc., you're
>right, I don't.
I mean something a bit more general than the specific structure thus
outlined (for that matter, not all good works of non-interactive
fiction neatly fit the beginning/middle/end structure). I don't have a
precise definition, but one attempt at explaining what I mean is: a
sequence of events that's interesting to look at from the outside.
A counterexample would be a campaign where the characters just poke
around exploring the world without much in the way of meaningful
conflict beyond fighting off a few random monsters. This might be fun
to play if the players found the world interesting to explore (or
liked fighting random monsters), but wouldn't be a good story even
using a very liberal definition of the term.
My claims, then, are:
- The majority of simulationist GMs do indeed want good stories and
make decisions designed (whether by explicit reasoning or intuition)
to encourage these to come about.
- However, they make these decisions while setting up the initial
conditions ("outside time") rather than while steering events during
the campaign ("embedded in time").
- Therefore, at least some simulationists may find the Threefold
definition of the term ("does _not_ use story considerations")
unsatisfactory.
>Pretty close, though you'd have to modify that to "may generate" if it's a
>roleplaying game - the player characters can always prevent the stories from
>coming about.
Yep - pretty much everything in this sort of conversation has to be
qualified with terms like "may", "typically" etc.
>It's also a very story oriented way of looking at things. If "wanting a good
>story" - at least in the traditional sense mentioned above - is the
>gamesmaster's highest priority, he's probably better off eschewing world
>oriented techniques and using story oriented ones which are specifically geared
>towards getting a good story. World oriented gamesmasters are far more likely
>to be interested in things like exploring the world.
Well, I tend to use more story oriented than world oriented techniques
myself. But I got into thinking about this issue as a result of
talking to a world oriented GM who does care about a good story (and
usually succeeds in getting it by using world oriented techniques).
Robert Scott Clark
> On 02 Dec 2003 14:42:59 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
>
>>Russell Wallace posts, in part:
>>
>> I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an
>> extended conversation with someone else - why so much heat
>> and little light gets generated whenever Simulationist vs
>> Dramatist comes up, and in particular why Simulationists
>> are so prone to finding the Threefold useless or a positive
>> hindrance.
>>
>>As two other people have already posted, isn't that a typo?
>
> No typo. There have been dramatists claiming things like "my settings
> are logically consistent, therefore I'm simulationist as well as
> dramatist", which is clearly not very helpful; but it seems to me that
> simulationists are more prone to just flat-out saying "I'm not
> interested in the Threefold, it doesn't work for me".
>
> I could be wrong, mind you; I don't have statistics or anything. But
> in any case, my comments here arose from considering the question of
> why that particular group might feel that way.
As someone who is not a simulationist by any stretch of the imagination and
who would gladly wipe his ass with the threefold were it given corporeal
form, I can say I have never seen this. Simulationist, in my experience,
almost universally support the threefold. It actually makes a bit of sense
to me, as they are the only group that is accurately described by it.
Charlton Wilbur
RW> the so-called threefold model is. I think, a vast
RW> oversimplification that "proves" nothing.
The Threefold model is a model that is incredibly useful to some
people (the people who came up with it), though that utility is vastly
overshadowed by the perpetual flamewars over it caused by people who
consistently fail to understand that the Threefold isn't intended to
be a Theory of Everything or a Proof of One True Way.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Robert Scott Clark
news:87wu9fx...@mithril.chromatico.net:
>>>>>> "RW" == Ross Winn <ross...@mac.com> writes:
>
> RW> the so-called threefold model is. I think, a vast
> RW> oversimplification that "proves" nothing.
>
> The Threefold model is a model that is incredibly useful to some
> people (the people who came up with it), though that utility is vastly
> overshadowed by the perpetual flamewars over it caused by people who
> consistently fail to understand that the Threefold isn't intended to
> be a Theory of Everything or a Proof of One True Way.
Then they should name it "the reason why we simulationists are different"
and alleviate the confusion.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> You mean as an end result? Depends on what you consider to be a 'good story',
> I guess. If you mean a traditionally good story - a beginning, a middle, and
> end, a strong plot line with rising tension towards a climax, etc., you're
> right, I don't. However, I don't think Peter Knutsen really cares about such
> stories - he just pretends to sometimes when arguing that his way is the one
> true way - and I'm not at all sure Irina Rempt does - though she seems to have
> a broader definition of story that she does care about. With a sufficiently
> tautological definition - or a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of 'good'
> - I care too, though I still won't alter my game world to obtain one.
I used to be very allergic to altering anything about my world for a
'better' story, and fairly allergic to doing it for a better game.
These days I'll alter the world to improve the game, and sometimes to
get a better story, but I'll still only do it in such a way that it
doesn't contradict things I and others already know about the world.
I'd prefer to do things the 'old way', but I've found that running
things in what I consider a completely simulationist way is rather
harder work than using a more gamist approach. Besides, with the
people I currently have available as players I probably wouldn't have
a game at all if I were purely simulationist about it.
> Pretty close, though you'd have to modify that to "may generate" if it's a
> roleplaying game - the player characters can always prevent the stories from
> coming about.
Hell yes. IME most will then complain about the lack thereof and
refuse responsibility - a 'good story', or 'good game' is often seen
as the GM's job, not the players'. It doesn't seem to matter how many
games note that this is a collective game, many players see all this
stuff as the GM's thing.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Warren J. Dew
necessarily by being correct):
By numbers, if nothing else....
I also suspect in practice many gamists or quasi-gamists
are used to wearing protective coloration in public
discussion.
I've noticed that. Why do they/you wear the protective coloration?
I actually suspect that if the gamists didn't use protective coloration, they'd
find out they weren't in the minority after all....
Though I'll note not all gamists are uninterested in such
things; though he disagreed with some characterizations of
the model, Brian Gleichman was an obvious counterexample
...
And he's off gaming instead of talking about it now, right?
Actually, that's probably unfair. I don't even actually know for sure that
he's still gaming. In my experience, though, gamists that are actually
interested in learning about styles they'll never play are in the minority -
though I guess put that way, it's true of roleplaying gamers in general.
Yes. They're very visible to me because I was more
simulationist in my younger days, and the changes in my
style make them somewhat obvious.
I'm curious as to how your style has changed. Willing to say?
Warren J. Dew
it seems to me that simulationists are more prone to
just flat-out saying "I'm not interested in the
Threefold, it doesn't work for me".
I have to agree with Robert Scott Clark's post on this one: I've never seen
any known simulationist claim that about the r.g.f.a threefold.
Rupert Boleyn
<cla...@mindspring.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> Then they should name it "the reason why we simulationists are different"
> and alleviate the confusion.
That would imply that it's only a simulationist thing, though.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> Actually, that's probably unfair. I don't even actually know for sure that
> he's still gaming. In my experience, though, gamists that are actually
> interested in learning about styles they'll never play are in the minority -
> though I guess put that way, it's true of roleplaying gamers in general.
He was active on some other forums awhile ago, though I gather he's
left at least one. Why I don't know - they weren't forums I followed.
Russell Wallace
<cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>As someone who is not a simulationist by any stretch of the imagination and
>who would gladly wipe his ass with the threefold were it given corporeal
>form, I can say I have never seen this. Simulationist, in my experience,
>almost universally support the threefold. It actually makes a bit of sense
>to me, as they are the only group that is accurately described by it.
Heh, okay; probably selective memory on my part then. Anyway I'll
refrain from defending any position on the relative numbers, while
sticking with the rest of my claims.
Jeff Heikkinen
> On 02 Dec 2003 14:42:59 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> >
> >As two other people have already posted, isn't that a typo?
>
> No typo. There have been dramatists claiming things like "my settings
> are logically consistent, therefore I'm simulationist as well as
> dramatist", which is clearly not very helpful; but it seems to me that
> simulationists are more prone to just flat-out saying "I'm not
> interested in the Threefold, it doesn't work for me".
>
> I could be wrong, mind you; I don't have statistics or anything. But
> in any case, my comments here arose from considering the question of
> why that particular group might feel that way.
Which ones? My sample size is awfully small (the two hard-core
simulationists that currently post here), but the sims I know are two of
the most active people in any recent Threefold discussion I've seen. In
fact, the only Threefold discussion I've joined in any serious way
involved a Simulationist defending the usefulness of the Threefold
against my (and others') scepticism over whether it's a particularly
useful model.
Jeff Heikkinen
> the so-called threefold model is. I think, a vast oversimplification
> that "proves" nothing.
some respects intentionally oversimplified.
David Meadows
news:3fccceff....@news.eircom.net...
> On 02 Dec 2003 14:42:59 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
>
>
> No typo. There have been dramatists claiming things like "my settings
> are logically consistent, therefore I'm simulationist as well as
> dramatist", which is clearly not very helpful;
Umm... yes, that would be me. I think I'm a dramatist. But I can't see any
way to be a good dramatist without being a simulationist (unless I've
completely misunderstood the model, a very likely possibility).
Ok then... a dramatist must also be a simulationist. A simulationist need
not be a dramatist.
Therefore... pure dramatists don't exist. They are a sub-set of
simulationists.
(Waits for the explosion...)
--
David Meadows
Heroes: www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts/
A comic book -- without the pictures
Wayne Shaw
>Wayne Shaw posts regarding dramatists winning arguments with gamists (not
>necessarily by being correct):
>
> By numbers, if nothing else....
>
> I also suspect in practice many gamists or quasi-gamists
> are used to wearing protective coloration in public
> discussion.
>
>I've noticed that. Why do they/you wear the protective coloration?
>
Well, I don't; but then, my belligerance on the subject is second only
to Peter's on his own simulationist tendencies. But I suspect it's a
leftover from too many environments, especially a decade ago, when
playing an RPG as mostly a game made you an automatic lower form of
life.
>I actually suspect that if the gamists didn't use protective coloration, they'd
>find out they weren't in the minority after all....
Perhaps so, but like many things, who wants to be the one to take the
flak first?
>
> Though I'll note not all gamists are uninterested in such
> things; though he disagreed with some characterizations of
> the model, Brian Gleichman was an obvious counterexample
> ...
>
>And he's off gaming instead of talking about it now, right?
I doubt it's because he didn't like to talk about it from what I saw
of him, though.
>
>Actually, that's probably unfair. I don't even actually know for sure that
>he's still gaming. In my experience, though, gamists that are actually
>interested in learning about styles they'll never play are in the minority -
>though I guess put that way, it's true of roleplaying gamers in general.
This is what I was going to say. I have to assume that there's at
least a few more Simulationists than ever bother to pop their heads up
in discussion.
>
> Yes. They're very visible to me because I was more
> simulationist in my younger days, and the changes in my
> style make them somewhat obvious.
>
>I'm curious as to how your style has changed. Willing to say?
Using the terms crudely I know, I used to be about 40% Gamist, 40%
Simulationist, and 20% Dramatist; these days I'm probably about 55%
Gamist, 25% Dramatist, and 20% Simulationist.
David Meadows
> make decisions designed (whether by explicit reasoning or intuition)
> to encourage these to come about.
>
> - However, they make these decisions while setting up the initial
> conditions ("outside time") rather than while steering events during
> the campaign ("embedded in time").
I think it's an interesting definition, but I'm finding it hard to imagine
how anybody human could practically make, at start-up, *all* the decisions
required to run a lengthy storytelling campaign -- and *never* add to or
modify those decisions while the campaign is running.
So what you're in effect saying is that simulationists who are interested in
telling stories must run "short" campaigns -- either deliberately
time-limited during setup, or grinding to a halt once the initial story
conditions are exhausted. Either that, or at some point during a long
campaign they explicitly change mode and become dramatists. Or they have
brains on a par with Arisian elders.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> Well, I don't; but then, my belligerance on the subject is second only
> to Peter's on his own simulationist tendencies. But I suspect it's a
> leftover from too many environments, especially a decade ago, when
> playing an RPG as mostly a game made you an automatic lower form of
> life.
Oh yes. I remember discovering these 'new' roleplayers I hadn't met
before at a party. Then they laid into me and my friends for not being
'real roleplayers' when they found we saw nothing wrong with doing
things like designing scenarios so they were an interesting challenge,
or doing world design and playing with no interest in story or drama.
I think they found our RuneQuest game the worst - it was an accepted
part of that game that your character could die at any time, and that
the death could be utterly meaningless - the world's rules said you
ran meet The Dragon while she was out hunting, and you blew you
perception checks so tough luck was a reasonable event.
Russell Wallace
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>Umm... yes, that would be me. I think I'm a dramatist. But I can't see any
>way to be a good dramatist without being a simulationist (unless I've
>completely misunderstood the model, a very likely possibility).
The latter, I'm afraid: Simulationism is defined in negative terms.
Roughly speaking, a simulationist isn't defined as what you are if you
(at least sometimes) do simulations; it's defined as what you are if
you do _nothing but_ simulations, i.e. you're _not_ a dramatist or
gamist.
Russell Wallace
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>I think it's an interesting definition, but I'm finding it hard to imagine
>how anybody human could practically make, at start-up, *all* the decisions
>required to run a lengthy storytelling campaign -- and *never* add to or
>modify those decisions while the campaign is running.
They couldn't, of course - the simulationist ideal isn't "never make
decisions after the campaign has started" but rather "after the
campaign has started, never make decisions for story or game reasons".
I still don't know how they're able to deal with even that constraint
(and still get a good story out of it for any length of time), but
I've seen it done.
Wayne Shaw
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:25:04 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> carved
>upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Well, I don't; but then, my belligerance on the subject is second only
>> to Peter's on his own simulationist tendencies. But I suspect it's a
>> leftover from too many environments, especially a decade ago, when
>> playing an RPG as mostly a game made you an automatic lower form of
>> life.
>
>Oh yes. I remember discovering these 'new' roleplayers I hadn't met
>before at a party. Then they laid into me and my friends for not being
>'real roleplayers' when they found we saw nothing wrong with doing
>things like designing scenarios so they were an interesting challenge,
>or doing world design and playing with no interest in story or drama.
Frankly, there were a lot of Dramatists during that period who
considered Gamists a plague to be chased out of the hobby. Still are
quite a few, but I think they've been slowly losing the moral high
ground they seemed to have a few years ago.
Peter Knutsen
Warren J. Dew wrote:
> Wayne Shaw posts regarding dramatists winning arguments with gamists (not
> necessarily by being correct):
>
> By numbers, if nothing else....
>
> I also suspect in practice many gamists or quasi-gamists
> are used to wearing protective coloration in public
> discussion.
>
> I've noticed that. Why do they/you wear the protective coloration?
Does Wayne wear protective coloration?
> I actually suspect that if the gamists didn't use protective coloration, they'd
> find out they weren't in the minority after all....
Yes. Gamists are, by definition, the majority since the most played
RPG system is D&D. They just don't speak up as much about their rights
(with a few, worthy exceptions), so the large Dramatist minority has
hi-jacked the zeitgeist, and succeeded at indoctrinating almost
everyone with stupid ideas about what a good campaign is.
[Gleichman]
> And he's off gaming instead of talking about it now, right?
I had email communication with him shortly after he left, and he told
me that he had no intentions of quitting gaming, it was just that he
didn't like the online discussions. I have every reason to believe him.
[...]
> Warren J. Dew
--
Peter Knutsen
Wayne Shaw
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>So what you're in effect saying is that simulationists who are interested in
>telling stories must run "short" campaigns -- either deliberately
>time-limited during setup, or grinding to a halt once the initial story
>conditions are exhausted. Either that, or at some point during a long
>campaign they explicitly change mode and become dramatists. Or they have
>brains on a par with Arisian elders.
Not really. It's always possible to set up an environment that's
simply so busy that it's unlikely the players will exhaust the story
potential during the desired length of the campaign. Andre Norton's
Witch World, particularly Escore strikes me like this; there's too
many problems to be solved in anything but a multi-year campaign.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> Frankly, there were a lot of Dramatists during that period who
> considered Gamists a plague to be chased out of the hobby. Still are
> quite a few, but I think they've been slowly losing the moral high
> ground they seemed to have a few years ago.
The annoying thing was that, IME, the end result when you listened to
their war stories was little different from many of our games, though
they probably didn't have as many dead PCs along the way.
Peter Knutsen
> On 02 Dec 2003 14:42:59 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
>>You mean as an end result? Depends on what you consider to be a 'good story',
>>I guess. If you mean a traditionally good story - a beginning, a middle, and
>>end, a strong plot line with rising tension towards a climax, etc., you're
>>right, I don't.
I care about those when I *write* stories. Well, to a large extent
anyway. I doubt I'll ever come up with a super-tight plot line for a
written story. Not sure I want to, either.
When I GM or play, those are irrelevant, since they can't occur
naturally, and unnatural occurences threaten to ruin my enjoyment of
the game. Also there is no reason for wanting to have them, as they
contribute nothing to the playing-my-character/running-my-world
experience.
Russell Wallace wrote:
> I mean something a bit more general than the specific structure thus
> outlined (for that matter, not all good works of non-interactive
> fiction neatly fit the beginning/middle/end structure). I don't have a
> precise definition, but one attempt at explaining what I mean is: a
> sequence of events that's interesting to look at from the outside.
That's not something I care about when I GM or play. I just want
situations that are interested for those participants which have
certain tastes which I find reasonable. Complex, interesting
situations where you almost never know the final outcome beforehand,
or can know what method will be used to get there.
> A counterexample would be a campaign where the characters just poke
> around exploring the world without much in the way of meaningful
> conflict beyond fighting off a few random monsters. This might be fun
That's how David Meadows thinks my campaigns are.
> to play if the players found the world interesting to explore (or
> liked fighting random monsters), but wouldn't be a good story even
> using a very liberal definition of the term.
>
> My claims, then, are:
>
> - The majority of simulationist GMs do indeed want good stories and
> make decisions designed (whether by explicit reasoning or intuition)
> to encourage these to come about.
>
> - However, they make these decisions while setting up the initial
> conditions ("outside time") rather than while steering events during
> the campaign ("embedded in time").
Yes, that's how it is (for pure Simulationsits).
> - Therefore, at least some simulationists may find the Threefold
> definition of the term ("does _not_ use story considerations")
> unsatisfactory.
[...]
No. They instead read between the lines and see: "does not use story
considerations *after* *game* *start*".
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
David Meadows wrote:
> Umm... yes, that would be me. I think I'm a dramatist. But I can't see any
> way to be a good dramatist without being a simulationist (unless I've
> completely misunderstood the model, a very likely possibility).
>
> Ok then... a dramatist must also be a simulationist. A simulationist need
> not be a dramatist.
>
> Therefore... pure dramatists don't exist. They are a sub-set of
> simulationists.
>
> (Waits for the explosion...)
You're saying that Dramatists do everything that Simulationists do,
and they do it as well as Simulationists do, or better, and on top of
that they do other good things which the Simulationists do not do at all.
Hence Dramatists are objectively superior to Simulationists.
--
Peter Knutsen
George W. Harris
:"Russell Wallace" <wallacet...@eircom.net> wrote in message
:news:3fccceff....@news.eircom.net...
:> On 02 Dec 2003 14:42:59 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
:>
:>
:> No typo. There have been dramatists claiming things like "my settings
:> are logically consistent, therefore I'm simulationist as well as
:> dramatist", which is clearly not very helpful;
:
:Umm... yes, that would be me. I think I'm a dramatist. But I can't see any
:way to be a good dramatist without being a simulationist (unless I've
:completely misunderstood the model, a very likely possibility).
You have misunderstood the model. A
decision is simulationist to the extent that it ignores
metagame factors, such as how the decision would
influence the 'story'; a decision is dramatist to the
extent that it pays attention to how the decision
would influence the 'story'. So, the more
simulationist a decision is, the less dramatist it can be.
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Warren J. Dew
Umm... yes, that would be me. I think I'm a dramatist. But I
can't see any way to be a good dramatist without being a
simulationist (unless I've completely misunderstood the model,
a very likely possibility).
No offense, but you have.
Then again, it took me a while to understand what the difference was. I spent
my first month or so on r.g.f.a. arguing that you could get fine stories out of
simulationist campaigns. After a lot of arguing, it finally dawned on me that
the story oriented people here at the time were *actually making game
decisions* to improve the story. I was stunned - simply could not believe that
anyone would be willing to warp their game world in such a way just to improve
a mere story.
Plus, they were willing to warp the game world merely to prevent such an
inconsequential thing as a pointless death of a single player character, out of
the thousands or millions of characters in the game world, merely because a
pointless death would be an unsatisfying end to the character's story. And
they'd view this as an *improvement to the game*!
It was at that point that I realized just how great a gulf there was between me
and them, and just how strange some of the people who play roleplaying games
are. In the decade since then, I've come to realize that by most peoples'
standards, the weird ones are us simulationists.
By the way, one of the things you posted a week or two ago indicated that not
only don't you run in a strictly simulationist manner, but that superhero games
cannot actually be run in a strictly simulationist manner. I can find the
quote if you are interested.
Warren J. Dew
I think it's an interesting definition, but I'm finding it
hard to imagine how anybody human could practically make,
at start-up, *all* the decisions required to run a lengthy
storytelling campaign -- and *never* add to or modify those
decisions while the campaign is running.
We don't. Ergo, strictly simulationist roleplaying campaigns are not
storytelling campaigns (unless they are very short, like one session).
Or they have brains on a par with Arisian elders.
Well, that too.
Ross Winn
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
> The Threefold model is a model that is incredibly useful to some
> people (the people who came up with it), though that utility is vastly
> overshadowed by the perpetual flamewars over it caused by people who
> consistently fail to understand that the Threefold isn't intended to
> be a Theory of Everything or a Proof of One True Way.
Spend some time on the Forge, because that is exactly what people think
it is.
Ross Winn
Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
Spend some time in the Forge and say that.
Been burned in effigy lately?
Sea Wasp
> It was at that point that I realized just how great a gulf there was between me
> and them, and just how strange some of the people who play roleplaying games
> are. In the decade since then, I've come to realize that by most peoples'
> standards, the weird ones are us simulationists.
Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Sea Wasp
What's the Forge? Haven't heard of it before. Is it somewhere I
should go to ignite flamewars by my mere presence?
George W. Harris
: Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
:look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
yourself a dramatic simulationist?
:--
: Sea Wasp
: http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
--
Want to help fund terrorism? Drive an SUV.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Kizig
"Ross Winn" <ross...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:ross_winn-90FE8...@newsr1.tampabay.rr.com...
The Forge crew uses GNS theory rather than RGFA's Threefold. It's
heavily rooted in Threefold but has become distinct over time. GNS appears
to be part of an effort to create a comprehensive theoretical map of gaming
while the Threefold is basically a recognition that gamers have different
goals and need different techniques to accomplish them.
Kizig
--
Mmm, gamey! Free RPGs
Alternacy and Mnemonic at
www.alphazulugames.com
Wayne Shaw
Any psychosocial tool is turned into a god by someone; that's not an
inditement of the tool, but the people.
Wayne Shaw
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:59:01 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> carved
>upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Frankly, there were a lot of Dramatists during that period who
>> considered Gamists a plague to be chased out of the hobby. Still are
>> quite a few, but I think they've been slowly losing the moral high
>> ground they seemed to have a few years ago.
>
>The annoying thing was that, IME, the end result when you listened to
>their war stories was little different from many of our games, though
>they probably didn't have as many dead PCs along the way.
Well, I suspect that many of them, if they'd been capable of looking
at themselves honestly, were more Gamist than they'd like to admit.
Warren J. Dew
The Forge crew uses GNS theory rather than RGFA's Threefold.
It's heavily rooted in Threefold but has become distinct
over time.
'Heavily rooted' by their standards. By rgfa standards, it started out bearing
a passing resemblance, mostly by using similar terms to mean different things.
It seems clear to me that the GNS originator didn't really understand the rgfa
threefold to begin with.
Warren J. Dew
They couldn't, of course - the simulationist ideal isn't
"never make decisions after the campaign has started" but
rather "after the campaign has started, never make
decisions for story or game reasons".
Actually, it's not to make decisions for metagame reasons. Considering that
the gamesmaster is in the metagame, David Meadows' "*never* add to or modify
those decisions while the campaign is running" is actually quite close to
correct.
Warren J. Dew
>I'm curious as to how your style has changed. Willing to
>say?
Using the terms crudely I know, I used to be about 40%
Gamist, 40% Simulationist, and 20% Dramatist; these days
I'm probably about 55% Gamist, 25% Dramatist, and 20%
Simulationist.
Actually I was hoping for more detail - perhaps examples of situations you
might handle differently now, for instance.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> >The annoying thing was that, IME, the end result when you listened to
> >their war stories was little different from many of our games, though
> >they probably didn't have as many dead PCs along the way.
>
> Well, I suspect that many of them, if they'd been capable of looking
> at themselves honestly, were more Gamist than they'd like to admit.
I don't just suspect that - I'm sure of it, especially a goodly chunk
of the WW "we're following the Only One True Way" crowd.
Robert Scott Clark
news:o5dzb.25850$n56....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Cause god knows you need a convoluted, heavyhanded, and flame inducing
model to do that.
Wayne Shaw
A lot of it has to do with campaign design issues and choice of
systems these days; I used to chose systems based on how authentic
they were; these days I tend to chose them at least as much for ease
of utilization and unbreakability. On campaign design, I used to
chose general design for interesting play, but rarely messed with
events in-game for such, whereas I'm far more willing to do so these
days.
I suspect a lot of it came down to the fact running and designing
simulationist was a lot more work, and in the end, wasn't appreciated
any more by my players (perhaps less) than the way I'm doing it now.
Jeff Heikkinen
> In article <MPG.1a36c9251...@news.easynews.com>,
> Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>
> > Ross Winn, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > > the so-called threefold model is. I think, a vast oversimplification
> > > that "proves" nothing.
> >
> > Which is fine, since it's not *supposed* to *prove* anything, and is in
> > some respects intentionally oversimplified.
>
> Spend some time in the Forge and say that.
>
> Been burned in effigy lately?
I'm not a big fan of the Threefold, but the fact that there are idiots
on the Forge who misapply it (or something similar to it) is NOT one of
the many problems with it. It is a problem with those particular idiots
only.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> : Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
> :look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
> yourself a dramatic simulationist?
>
I arrange dramatic events on occasion, and am uninterested in
nonheroic games. OTOH, I am also uninterested in a world that lacks
consistency. So I make a world that simulates the dramatic reality.
George W. Harris
:George W. Harris wrote:
:> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
:>
:> : Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
:> :look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
:>
:> Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
:> yourself a dramatic simulationist?
:>
:
: I arrange dramatic events on occasion, and am uninterested in
:nonheroic games. OTOH, I am also uninterested in a world that lacks
:consistency. So I make a world that simulates the dramatic reality.
As I suspected, you are using the term
'simulationist' in a manner that differs from the
threefold. A simulationist is *not* someone who
strives for world consistency; a simulationist is
someone who does not allow metagame
concerns (such as how dramatic events are) to
affect game decisions. A decision which is
completely consistent with the gameworld, but is
made for story reasons, is a dramatic, not *at*
*all* simulationist, decision.
It's also important to remember two points.
1) The basic unit of the threefold is the decision.
It is intended to be used for describing whether
particular decisions are simulationist, dramatist, or
gamist. It can be used similarly for campaigns or
GMs (or the preferences of players), but in these
cases it is a composite of the basic units involved.
2) The threefold is a continuum. Even individual
decisions are rarely purely dramatist or gamist or
simulationist (although purely simulationist decisions
may be more common). The continual nature of the
threefold is even more evident when applying it to
GMs or campaigns, because typically such will use
a variety of methods. So, while most campaigns
may be primarily one vertex or another, very few
approach closely to a vertex.
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> :George W. Harris wrote:
> :> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> :> :> : Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
> :> :look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
> :> :> Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
> :> yourself a dramatic simulationist?
> :> :
> : I arrange dramatic events on occasion, and am uninterested in
> :nonheroic games. OTOH, I am also uninterested in a world that lacks
> :consistency. So I make a world that simulates the dramatic reality.
>
> As I suspected, you are using the term
> 'simulationist' in a manner that differs from the
> threefold.
But in a manner that makes sense to me, because I'm simulating the
operation of a world, and creating rules that permit the game to do
that work, rather than my having to just pull it out of my nether
regions all the time.
Wayne Shaw
>George W. Harris wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>
>> : Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
>> :look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
>> yourself a dramatic simulationist?
>>
>
> I arrange dramatic events on occasion, and am uninterested in
>nonheroic games. OTOH, I am also uninterested in a world that lacks
>consistency. So I make a world that simulates the dramatic reality.
That's what every good dramatist does who tries for a coherent world,
Wasp. It's particularly Simulationist by the standards of the
Threefold.
Wayne Shaw
Still, describing it that way when talking to someone using the
conventions of the Threefold, it's really deceptive.
George W. Harris
:George W. Harris wrote:
:> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
:>
:> :George W. Harris wrote:
:> :> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
:> :> :> : Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
:> :> :look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
:> :> :> Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
:> :> yourself a dramatic simulationist?
:> :> :
:> : I arrange dramatic events on occasion, and am uninterested in
:> :nonheroic games. OTOH, I am also uninterested in a world that lacks
:> :consistency. So I make a world that simulates the dramatic reality.
:>
:> As I suspected, you are using the term
:> 'simulationist' in a manner that differs from the
:> threefold.
:
: But in a manner that makes sense to me, because I'm simulating the
:operation of a world, and creating rules that permit the game to do
:that work, rather than my having to just pull it out of my nether
:regions all the time.
It may make sense to you, but that doesn't make
it any less wrong.
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
George W. Harris
I'm guessing that should be 'It's not
particularly Simulationist'.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* fifty states seem a little suspicious?
Wayne Shaw
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
>:On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:07:47 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>:
>:>George W. Harris wrote:
>:>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>:>>
>:>> : Indeed. I'm a dramatic simulationist, myself. Which allows me to
>:>> :look at BOTH sides as made up of wierdos.
>:>>
>:>> Just out of curiosity, why do you consider
>:>> yourself a dramatic simulationist?
>:>>
>:>
>:> I arrange dramatic events on occasion, and am uninterested in
>:>nonheroic games. OTOH, I am also uninterested in a world that lacks
>:>consistency. So I make a world that simulates the dramatic reality.
>:
>:That's what every good dramatist does who tries for a coherent world,
>:Wasp. It's particularly Simulationist by the standards of the
>:Threefold.
>
> I'm guessing that should be 'It's not
>particularly Simulationist'.
Yes. Bleah.
Sea Wasp
*shrug* I've never understood the threefold. The definitions seem
to either oversimplify or leave out chunks.
Jeff Heikkinen
Well, both. But any system of the sort is going to do that. I have
questioned the usefulness of it in the past, certainly, but any model of
that sort will be a bit simpler than real life; that alone isn't really
a problem with it.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> playing them.
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> I also suspect in practice many gamists or quasi-gamists are used to
> wearing protective coloration in public discussion.
Yeah, there's a lot of sneering at gamists, and many just don't want to
deal with it. However, to stretch your metaphor, some of us do wear
bright orange and come out with guns blazing. It seems to me that
something similar happens in mathematics, computer science, and history.
All of those fields have *lots* practitioners with a strong interest in
strategy, tactics, gaming, and military applications. (Indeed, I think a
lot of people take interest in those fields because of the gaming and
military connections.) Unfortunately, there's a strong tendency to see
the gaming and war stuff as "toy" problems and kids stuff, the nerd's
version of "I wanna be a fireman when I grow up."
Then you get folks like Gardner, Hofstaedter, and Feynmann who try to
evangelize and legitimize the "fun" applications of knowledge. It's
rare, but you do occasionally see folks who aren't ashamed of having
fun, and who have the chops to back up their interest in "toys" with
serious analytical thinking. IME, far more people either (1) try to stay
out of sight or (2) try to rationalize their gameplay by turning it into
something more "respectable."
>> Since gamists are used to being pushed into a psychological ghetto by
>> the dramatists in arguments about what the one true way is, they are
>> more open to a tradeoffs model where there is no one true way - even
>> if most would rather play a game than figure out the full nuances of
>> a model.
> Though I'll note not all gamists are uninterested in such things;
> though he disagreed with some characterizations of the model, Brian
> Gleichman was an obvious counterexample, and both Bradd Szonye and I
> are more gamist than not.
While I won't pretend to be one of those great thinkers listed above, I
do share their basic philosophy: I enjoy analyzing games, and the
analysis helps me to enjoy the games. Some folks (like Terry) argue it's
unhealthy to take your fun too seriously. I think they have it
backwards; I think it's unhealthy not to have fun with the "serious"
stuff.
>> Also because story concerns are only one of the concerns we avoid.
>> There are sim/game conflicts too; they just aren't discussed as much.
> Yes. They're very visible to me because I was more simulationist in
> my younger days, and the changes in my style make them somewhat
> obvious.
Personally, I feel the tension between the two all the time. In some
ways, I may be a "gamist" the same way that Warren once thought he was a
"dramatist." I strongly believe that fairness, impartiality, and rules
consistency are very important to games, and I also believe that the "no
meta-gaming" approach is the best solution to many issues in those
areas.
For example, consider the big flamewar about the "acting" versus
"abstract" styles of role-playing (i.e., speaking as your character vs
describing what your character does). You could easily argue that the
"acting" style requires a greater degree of player skill, and is
therefore preferable from the gamist point of view. However, IME it's a
very tiring and difficult skill. Specifically, it's a *social* skill,
which means that introverts will always find it tiring and somewhat
unenjoyable even if they do develop skill in that area.
I'm the sort of gamist who believes that greater emphasis on player
skill is pointless if it isn't fun. And I know that introversion isn't a
matter of choice; an introvert simply can't "get better" at social
interactions. Sure, they can develop the skills, but it doesn't make
them less tiring or more enjoyable. So I think it detracts from the game
to rely too heavily on social skills.
Does that mean that emphasis on player social skills aren't gamist? No,
not necessarily. It could mean that I feel the same ways about games
that Warren does about stories: Sometimes, less is more.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Robert Scott Clark
>>
>> Still, describing it that way when talking to someone using the
>> conventions of the Threefold, it's really deceptive.
>
> *shrug* I've never understood the threefold. The definitions seem
> to either oversimplify or leave out chunks.
>
Those two sentences seem contradictory to me.
Wayne Shaw
>> Still, describing it that way when talking to someone using the
>> conventions of the Threefold, it's really deceptive.
>
> *shrug* I've never understood the threefold. The definitions seem
>to either oversimplify or leave out chunks.
By some standards it does oversimplify, but that's just because people
are expecting it to do things it was never supposed to do.
Robert Scott Clark
news:b9daefcd62f69a46...@news.nntpserver.com:
Oh, you mean like it's only supposed to allow people to avoid real
discussion by assuming "we have different styles" is a meaningful and
useful statement by itself?
Charlton Wilbur
(in response to Wayne Shaw:)
>> By some standards it does oversimplify, but that's just
>> because people are expecting it to do things it was never
>> supposed to do.
RSC> Oh, you mean like it's only supposed to allow people to avoid
RSC> real discussion by assuming "we have different styles" is a
RSC> meaningful and useful statement by itself?
No, it's supposed to support discussion of *one* aspect of stylistic
difference, relating to patterns of intent in action-resolution. It's
not a Grand Theory of Everything, and was never meant to be.
(Why doesn't the theory of narrative stances attract this level of
idiocy? Perhaps someone should write up a confused version and post
it at the Forge.)
"We have different styles, and that's okay" is the beginning of useful
discussion, not the end.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Robert Scott Clark
news:878ylsx...@mithril.chromatico.net:
>>>>>> "RSC" == Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> (in response to Wayne Shaw:)
>
> >> By some standards it does oversimplify, but that's just
> >> because people are expecting it to do things it was never
> >> supposed to do.
>
> RSC> Oh, you mean like it's only supposed to allow people to avoid
> RSC> real discussion by assuming "we have different styles" is a
> RSC> meaningful and useful statement by itself?
>
> No, it's supposed to support discussion of *one* aspect of stylistic
> difference, relating to patterns of intent in action-resolution. It's
> not a Grand Theory of Everything, and was never meant to be.
>
> (Why doesn't the theory of narrative stances attract this level of
> idiocy?
Because what the idea of "stance" is relevant to all games, but the idea of
"reason behind ingame decision" isn't relevant to some playstyles.
Additionally, as far as I know, the stance model does not insist on it
being a tradeoff model.
Warren J. Dew
Why doesn't the theory of narrative stances attract this
level of idiocy?
Partly it's because the terminology is more natural, and partly because it just
seems to attract less attention in general, but mostly, I think, because there
aren't as many people here who strongly prefer any of the poles to the
exclusion of any of the others.
I would note that when the form of deep character play called immersive is
discussed, there's plenty of controversy.
Robert Scott Clark:
Additionally, as far as I know, the stance model does not
insist on it being a tradeoff model.
Actually I believe the original model claimed that one only played from one
stance at a time, though one could switch between them rapidly. That's
actually a stronger tradeoff than the threefold has, as the threefold allows
for mixed decisions at any time, as well as switching.
David Meadows
news:20031202195422...@mb-m19.aol.com...
[in response to me]
> By the way, one of the things you posted a week or two ago indicated that
not
> only don't you run in a strictly simulationist manner, but that superhero
games
> cannot actually be run in a strictly simulationist manner. I can find the
> quote if you are interested.
I'm interested. I've gone over my recent posts and I can't see what you are
referring to. Yes, I've said some things that violate the simulationist
mode. For example, I've talked about making game decisions to obtain a
required story, such as tidying loose ends when a player leaves the group.
So I admit I'm not a simulationist (in my current understanding, after
reading this thread). But I can't find anything to support the sweeping
statement that [all] superhero games *cannot* be run in a strictly
simulationist manner.
--
David Meadows
Heroes: www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts/
A comic book -- without the pictures
Wayne Shaw
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>So I admit I'm not a simulationist (in my current understanding, after
>reading this thread). But I can't find anything to support the sweeping
>statement that [all] superhero games *cannot* be run in a strictly
>simulationist manner.
Well, a lot of it depends on your view of how self-referential a world
can be and be coherent. More than anything but some types of pulp
games, superhero games have a fairly strong set of genre conventions;
genre conventions are almost always imposed from outside the world
setting, and as such are pretty much counter to the simulationist
ethic. I think I'd argue it's impossible to run a proper superhero
world without tainting decision making with some dramatist issues.
Warren J. Dew
But I can't find anything to support the sweeping
statement that [all] superhero games *cannot* be run
in a strictly simulationist manner.
Here's the quote:
It's very much the model Marvel and DC use to have their
superheroes affect the world without ever affecting the
world. Not entirely logical, but a genre convention and
therefore acceptable without affecting suspension of
disbelief.
In other words, the genre convention allows internal contradictions in the game
world - because there's kind of an agreement 'not to look to closely'. In
world oriented play, where the world is expected to be 'real', it's expected to
hold up no matter how closely people look - because, after all, some characters
might look.
For what it's worth, the subject of whether superhero games can be run in a
strictly simulationist manner has come up here before. I don't remember
whether a full consensus emerged, but I remember that I was not the only one
who concluded that any such world would end up looking like "Watchmen" - which
in many ways defies the genre's conventions - and not at all like a traditional
four color comic.
David Meadows
>
> Here's the quote:
>
> It's very much the model Marvel and DC use to have their
> superheroes affect the world without ever affecting the
> world. Not entirely logical, but a genre convention and
> therefore acceptable without affecting suspension of
> disbelief.
>
> In other words, the genre convention allows internal contradictions in the
game
> world - because there's kind of an agreement 'not to look to closely'. In
> world oriented play, where the world is expected to be 'real', it's
expected to
> hold up no matter how closely people look - because, after all, some
characters
> might look.
Ok, I'm arguing from shaky footing here because I personally can't see how
to run a pure simulationist campaign and make it interesting, but
hypothetically, if I was...
What you call an internal contradiction in the game world is simply a facet
of the game world which doesn't have a believable (real-world) explanation
but might still be treated consistently in the game world. As long as you
acknowledge that facet when you design your world and make it a condition of
the simulation, make it part of the decision-making process, then it
shouldn't break the simulation. But there is no reason why genre conventions
shouldn't be a valid part of any simulation.
Look at magic in a fantasy simulationist's game world. The first time
somebody pulls off a big spell, I could jump in and say, "your simulation is
broken because you've just violated the law of conservation of energy". You
reply, "but that is allowed in the simulation because the source of magic is
[hand wave, hand wave]".
Now look at my superhero universe, where you can don a pair of glasses and
become immediately unrecognisable to the person who was flying with you five
minutes previously. You jump in and say, "but disguises don't work that way,
humans aren't that dumb." I answer, "in the universe I have created,
disguises *do* work that way. It's not believeable to *us* but it is true to
the rules of the universe."
Or, "your brilliant scientist invented an unlimited clean energy source 20
years ago but the world still uses coal so your simulation is broken." I
answer, "no, it's well known that socio-economic factors in this world blah
blah [hand wave, hand wave]."
Postulating a world-wide quirk in human nature is no more "impossible" than
postulating a world-wide violation of physical laws.
In other words, I might be violating your sense of disbelief but I'm
violating it for reasons built in to the game, not for meta-game reasons.
Exactly as you do with magic in your fantasy world. The world I am
simulating has been set up to work that way and it's working that way
consistently.
If my argument is *not* true, than I submit that what you're saying is that
true simulationists can *only* simulate "our" real, scientific world.
> For what it's worth, the subject of whether superhero games can be run in
a
> strictly simulationist manner has come up here before. I don't remember
> whether a full consensus emerged, but I remember that I was not the only
one
> who concluded that any such world would end up looking like "Watchmen" -
which
> in many ways defies the genre's conventions - and not at all like a
traditional
> four color comic.
I'll try to read up on that because it's obviously an area very close to my
heart. I can see the reason for the "Watchmen" argument, but remember that
Watchmen was a specific kind of simulation: it's simulating what might
happen if superpowers existed in our world. A simulation of what would
happen if superpowers existed in the Marvel Universe (like, duh!) should be
an equally valid -- but different -- setting.
George W. Harris
:Postulating a world-wide quirk in human nature is no more "impossible" than
:postulating a world-wide violation of physical laws.
Except you aren't changing human *nature*,
you're changing human behavior. Villains don't set up
elaborate death-traps for any reason other than that
it's a genre convention; there isn't a well-reasoned
basis for this behavior.
:
:In other words, I might be violating your sense of disbelief but I'm
:violating it for reasons built in to the game, not for meta-game reasons.
:Exactly as you do with magic in your fantasy world. The world I am
:simulating has been set up to work that way and it's working that way
:consistently.
If you can present a set of reasons from which
this alternate human nature can be derived, then it's
not for meta-game reasons; if you impose unnatural
behavior on every character in the world so it fits the
genre, then it's for meta-game reasons.
:If my argument is *not* true, than I submit that what you're saying is that
:true simulationists can *only* simulate "our" real, scientific world.
If you reify the genre conventions, then you'll
get something that looks *nothing* like the genre.
Villains will be pitied because they are doomed; villains
always lose.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
David Meadows
news:3a9e9013ce3fbcc6...@news.nntpserver.com...
I think genre conventions can be part of the simulation and I don't see any
problem if the conventions are explicitly built into the world when you
first create it, as I have expounded in more detail in my answer to Warren.
Wayne Shaw
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:3a9e9013ce3fbcc6...@news.nntpserver.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:20:49 -0000, "David Meadows"
>> <da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >So I admit I'm not a simulationist (in my current understanding, after
>> >reading this thread). But I can't find anything to support the sweeping
>> >statement that [all] superhero games *cannot* be run in a strictly
>> >simulationist manner.
>>
>> Well, a lot of it depends on your view of how self-referential a world
>> can be and be coherent. More than anything but some types of pulp
>> games, superhero games have a fairly strong set of genre conventions;
>> genre conventions are almost always imposed from outside the world
>> setting, and as such are pretty much counter to the simulationist
>> ethic. I think I'd argue it's impossible to run a proper superhero
>> world without tainting decision making with some dramatist issues.
>
>I think genre conventions can be part of the simulation and I don't see any
>problem if the conventions are explicitly built into the world when you
>first create it, as I have expounded in more detail in my answer to Warren.
The problem as someone else said is if you reify them, then villains
are victims of their own world laws; they can't win from the start
because their world laws cripple them. Similarly, if it's a given
that heroes triumph, what does heroism really mean?
Robert Scott Clark
news:rc72tvgife9ta63i4...@4ax.com:
> "David Meadows" <da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>
>:Postulating a world-wide quirk in human nature is no more "impossible"
>:than postulating a world-wide violation of physical laws.
>
> Except you aren't changing human *nature*,
> you're changing human behavior. Villains don't set up
> elaborate death-traps for any reason other than that
> it's a genre convention; there isn't a well-reasoned
> basis for this behavior.
I would find it odd if all human behavior in a game were well-reasoned -
even common behaviors. That's certainly not a pattern I have seen in
real life.
>:
>:In other words, I might be violating your sense of disbelief but I'm
>:violating it for reasons built in to the game, not for meta-game
>:reasons. Exactly as you do with magic in your fantasy world. The world
>:I am simulating has been set up to work that way and it's working that
>:way consistently.
>
> If you can present a set of reasons from which
> this alternate human nature can be derived,
Can you present a set of reasons from which actual human nature can be
derived?
Jesus, what kind of criteria is that? Do I have to have a unified field
theory of the gameverse if I want to change the physics?
> then it's
> not for meta-game reasons; if you impose unnatural
You are defining the gameworld and how it functions arbitrarily. No
behavior is more "natural" in that context than any other. If I design a
gameworld where all humans shout "I'm a flashlight" when they first wake
up, then there is nothing unnatural about that in the gameworld - that is
what they naturally do.
Sure, I can't explain evolutionarily why they do that, but you (and even
real experts on human behavior) cannot do that for all real world human
behaviors either. Giving humans some arbitrary behavior in the gameworld
is no different than having them behave like "real" humans - both are
valid decisions, and neither need be explained or justified.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Postulating a world-wide quirk in human nature is no more
>>> "impossible" than postulating a world-wide violation of physical
>>> laws.
> George W. Harris wrote:
>> Except you aren't changing human *nature*, you're changing human
>> behavior. Villains don't set up elaborate death-traps for any reason
>> other than that it's a genre convention; there isn't a well-reasoned
>> basis for this behavior.
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I would find it odd if all human behavior in a game were well-reasoned -
> even common behaviors. That's certainly not a pattern I have seen in
> real life.
Indeed, this is the root of why "reason always trumps charisma" is a
myth. For some reason, gamers seem to believe that humans behave
rationally, or that reason will always win out in the end. Humans are
flawed pattern-matching machines who occasionally learn or stumble onto
actual reasoning, but most of the time, we just see patterns (even if
they don't really exist!) and assume that we're interpreting them
correctly.
Robert Scott Clark
> Similarly, if it's a given
> that heroes triumph, what does heroism really mean?
>
And what is the sound of one hand clapping?
If I roll the dice, are the dice really rolling me?
If you doubt your powers you only give power to your doubts.
Seriously, who gives a shit? A C- worthy thesis statement for a Philosophy
101 paper doesn't make a game unplayable.
Jeff Heikkinen
(hits Save between gales of laughter)
George W. Harris
:>> "David Meadows" wrote:
:>>> Postulating a world-wide quirk in human nature is no more
:>>> "impossible" than postulating a world-wide violation of physical
:>>> laws.
:
:> George W. Harris wrote:
:>> Except you aren't changing human *nature*, you're changing human
:>> behavior. Villains don't set up elaborate death-traps for any reason
:>> other than that it's a genre convention; there isn't a well-reasoned
:>> basis for this behavior.
:
:Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:> I would find it odd if all human behavior in a game were well-reasoned -
I didn't say the behavior was well-reasoned; I said
the basis should be well-reasoned. A person's difficulty
dealing with members of the opposite sex isn't based on
that person's reasoning, but could have a reasonable
basis in that person's relationship with his/her parents.
So, the 'humans don't behave rationally' objection
is a red herring.
Warren J. Dew
basis" for behavior like villains settin elaborate death-traps:
I would find it odd if all human behavior in a game
were well-reasoned - even common behaviors. That's
certainly not a pattern I have seen in real life.
I don't believe he was saying that the villains needed to behave that way
because they themselves rationally concluded that the behavior was optimal;
rather, there needs to be some reason in the world for why villains behave
irrationally in that way.
Most Americans don't eat lots of unhealthy trans-fatty acids because they've
concluded that it's optimal to do so. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason
for the behavior, though. In fact, there is a reason: human evolution was
shaped more by lack of sufficient food than a surfeit of it, so we developed a
taste for energy packed fats; plentiful trans fats are a recent innovation so
we haven't had time to adapt to their particular harmful effects.
Robert Scott Clark
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
>:>> "David Meadows" wrote:
>:>>> Postulating a world-wide quirk in human nature is no more
>:>>> "impossible" than postulating a world-wide violation of physical
>:>>> laws.
>:
>:> George W. Harris wrote:
>:>> Except you aren't changing human *nature*, you're changing human
>:>> behavior. Villains don't set up elaborate death-traps for any
>:>> reason other than that it's a genre convention; there isn't a
>:>> well-reasoned basis for this behavior.
>:
>:Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>:> I would find it odd if all human behavior in a game were
>:> well-reasoned -
>
> I didn't say the behavior was well-reasoned; I said
> the basis should be well-reasoned. A person's difficulty
> dealing with members of the opposite sex isn't based on
> that person's reasoning, but could have a reasonable
> basis in that person's relationship with his/her parents.
Oh yea, psychobabble.
>
> So, the 'humans don't behave rationally' objection
> is a red herring.
No, my objection is that humans don't understand why human behavior is
the way it is. Not only are humans not rational, but we don't rationally
know why we aren't rational. And we don't rationally know why humans are
sometimes rational either.
It really is a common trait I have started to notice when discussing
simulationism - some people really thing they know a lot more about how
the world workd than they actually know.
>
Robert Scott Clark
news:20031205210001...@mb-m25.aol.com:
> Robert Scott Clark responds to George W. Harris regarding "a
> well-reasoned basis" for behavior like villains settin elaborate
> death-traps:
>
> I would find it odd if all human behavior in a game
> were well-reasoned - even common behaviors. That's
> certainly not a pattern I have seen in real life.
>
> I don't believe he was saying that the villains needed to behave that
> way because they themselves rationally concluded that the behavior was
> optimal; rather, there needs to be some reason in the world for why
> villains behave irrationally in that way.
Sure. But that doesn't mean the GM or players understand that reason any
more than we real humans understand our own behaviors. Look, if I make
NPCs behave as close to real humans as I can doesn't mean I know WHY they
act that way, so why should there be a more strict requirement for me to
know the reasons if I decide to make them behave in a manor NOT close to
real human behavior?
And as for your example...
You don't know that. It's a guess. A theory. Even if it's a good theory,
there are likely a dozen other competing theories that are just as good.
And then there are all other sorts of human behavior that we don't have
good theories for. YOU DON"T KNOW WHY HUMANS ACT THE WAY THEY DO. Sorry,
you just don't. I hate to break it to you.
Warren J. Dew
affecting the world", in part:
Ok, I'm arguing from shaky footing here because I personally
can't see how to run a pure simulationist campaign and make
it interesting ...
That's okay - I'm someone who can't see how anyone can write an in genre
superhero comic and make it interesting, so I'm on equally shaky ground there.
What you call an internal contradiction in the game world
is simply a facet of the game world which doesn't have a
believable (real-world) explanation but might still be
treated consistently in the game world.
In this specific case, I don't see how you can have people affecting the game
world and not affecting the game world at the same time and remain consistent;
"A" and "not A" can't coexist in a logically self consistent system.
It's possible that I'm reading you wrong or too literally, in which case I'd
welcome further explanation.
As long as you acknowledge that facet when you design your
world and make it a condition of the simulation, make it
part of the decision-making process, then it shouldn't
break the simulation.
If by making it a condition you also accept all the consequences, yes. You do
have to accept all the consequences, though - the world needs to hold up no
matter how closely one looks.
But there is no reason why genre conventions
shouldn't be a valid part of any simulation.
That depends on the genre convention. Some just affect the world; others
affect how you are allowed to look at the world. Genre conventions that have
as a consequence that the world falls apart off screen, for example, and only
prevent you from seeing it by prohibiting you from looking at the off screen
parts of the world, aren't consistent with simulating a real and complete
world.
The question is how the superhero genre fits in.
Look at magic in a fantasy simulationist's game world. The
first time somebody pulls off a big spell, I could jump in
and say, "your simulation is broken because you've just
violated the law of conservation of energy". You reply,
"but that is allowed in the simulation because the source
of magic is [hand wave, hand wave]".
Except that it can't actually be hand waving, because the reasons have to be
'real', and I have to accept their consequences. If I have a spell to freeze
cubic yards of water, I have to accept that refrigeration will be available in
the world even without freon, with all that that entails. If I have neither, I
have to accept that ice cream will not be available in the summer. If spells
are a cheap source of energy, it's going to change the economics of the world
by a lot - which by the way why I tend to avoid spells like that.
Now look at my superhero universe, where you can don a pair
of glasses and become immediately unrecognisable to the
person who was flying with you five minutes previously.
So far, so good.
You jump in and say, "but disguises don't work that way,
humans aren't that dumb."
I wouldn't say that - that would be a realism issue, not a simulation issue.
I answer, "in the universe I have created, disguises
*do* work that way. It's not believeable to *us* but
it is true to the rules of the universe."
No problem. But ... if it's a purely simulationist campaign, you have to be
able to come up with reasons, be consistent with them, and accept the
consequences.
So if I say, "my character tries to identify him by the shape of his lips", you
have to have an answer. And if your answer is, "all human lips are shaped the
same", you can't later describe one human with thin lips and another with full
lips, because we've established that there isn't any variation in human lip
shape in your universe. If you do very much of this, you end up having to
remember a heck of a lot of things that constrain how your world behaves.
I'll try to read up on that because it's obviously an
area very close to my heart. I can see the reason for
the "Watchmen" argument, but remember that Watchmen was
a specific kind of simulation: it's simulating what
might happen if superpowers existed in our world.
Right. But then, my understanding is that one of the superhero genre
conventions is that the world is supposed to be ours, except for the
superpowers.
A simulation of what would happen if superpowers existed
in the Marvel Universe (like, duh!) should be an equally
valid -- but different -- setting.
Only if the Marvel universe itself is simulationist, which I have been led to
believe is not true.
Robert Scott Clark
But what if the reason given is "it's the natuire of human psychology in
the gameworld that the general layout of the face is used for
recognition"?
What if, like real life, what we use to recognize patterns isn't well
known? Is it acceptable to say "I don't quite know why a pair of glasses
functions as a reasonable disguise, but there is some aspect of human
psychology in the gameworld that makes it so"?
If it's not OK, to do that, then you have a problem. Basically you have
to have the physics and psychology models of the gameworld worked out to
a much finer degree than we actually know about the real world -
potentially to an absolute degree. That's your claim - that "the world
needs to hold up no matter how closely one looks". Well, then what
happens when you have a scientist character? Either the character will
look too close, closer than you have broken the world down to, in which
case you cannot guarentee it will hold up, OR if you have defined the
world in an absolute sense then the character will know everything - he
will fully understand the workings of his world (and in the case of
psychology, that likely means you're going to have to deal with some
pretty strict determinism). And if the world is so simplistic that you
an ordinary, simple, flawed, limited human here in the real world can
concieve of it all, then it definitely simple enough that a half-assed
scientist in the gameworld should be able to figure it out without too
much difficulty.
That "no matter how closely" criteria is so impractical as to be
laughable.
Warren J. Dew
Look, if I make NPCs behave as close to real humans as
I can doesn't mean I know WHY they act that way, so why
should there be a more strict requirement for me to
know the reasons if I decide to make them behave in a
manor NOT close to real human behavior?
You don't, if you're not running a world oriented campaign.
If I'm running a world oriented campaign, I'm pretty safe with characters that
behave sufficiently like player world humans provided the world is sufficiently
like the player world, as the player world is known to be 'real'.
Once I stray from this, I'm on thin ice. If it's a world oriented campaign, it
must remain 'real'. The further I stray from the player world I know, the more
I have to know about it - either analytically, if I work things out
consciously, or subconsciously, if I'm 'channeling' - to ensure that I don't
stray from this 'real' world to a false, flawed copy.
My personal experience is that it doesn't take very much alteration in basic
character behavior to result in a world that is so foreign that it can't
realistically be used in a world oriented roleplaying campaign. That's why I
believe the approach is not well suited to genres that would require such use -
such as, perhaps, the superhero genre.
And as for your example...
You don't know that. It's a guess. A theory. Even if
it's a good theory, there are likely a dozen other
competing theories that are just as good.
Scientifically speaking, everything is a theory. This one at least has some
academic support:
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeato
n/eaton.htm
I'd be interested in any links you have to competing theories.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Look, if I make NPCs behave as close to real humans as I can doesn't
>> mean I know WHY they act that way, so why should there be a more
>> strict requirement for me to know the reasons if I decide to make
>> them behave in a manor NOT close to real human behavior?
Warren J. Dew <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
> You don't, if you're not running a world oriented campaign .... My
> personal experience is that it doesn't take very much alteration in
> basic character behavior to result in a world that is so foreign that
> it can't realistically be used in a world oriented roleplaying
> campaign. That's why I believe the approach is not well suited to
> genres that would require such use - such as, perhaps, the superhero
> genre.
I think that says a lot more about your personal quirks than it does
about how "realistic" the approach is. I suspect that you may have a
need for more information than is knowable in the real world. Perhaps
that's why you play RPGs, to play in a world that's more deterministic
and comprehensible than the real one. A specialized kind of intellectual
escapism.
David Meadows
news:Xns9448CA808B18Dcl...@216.77.188.18...
> > this alternate human nature can be derived,
>
> Can you present a set of reasons from which actual human nature can be
> derived?
>
> Jesus, what kind of criteria is that? Do I have to have a unified field
> theory of the gameverse if I want to change the physics?
> > then it's
> > not for meta-game reasons; if you impose unnatural
Robert's hit the crux of my argument. I don't believe simulationists build
up their worlds starting from an initial set of scientific "laws". (I'm just
guessing, not being a simulationist myself, but I don't see how anybody
could have the knowledge or time to accomplish that in a human lifetime.)
Therefore, no matter how detailed their world is, very little of it
"derived". It's all put there for metagame reasons when you create the
world. Yes, metagame reasons, I'm sorry simulationists, but every time you
draw a mountain on your map then, unless you've modelled a billion years of
geological processes, you've really just "decided" to have a mountian there
because you wanted it. It doesn't matter how faithfully you model PCs
walking up and down that mountain in the game, the mountain was still placed
there for metagame reasons. Exactly as my superhero-universe conventions
were, and I can follow those conventions just as fairly and accurately as
you simultionists perform your mountain climbing.
Robert Scott Clark
> Robert Scott Clark responds to me:
>
> Look, if I make NPCs behave as close to real humans as
> I can doesn't mean I know WHY they act that way, so why
> should there be a more strict requirement for me to
> know the reasons if I decide to make them behave in a
> manor NOT close to real human behavior?
>
> You don't, if you're not running a world oriented campaign.
>
> If I'm running a world oriented campaign, I'm pretty safe with
> characters that behave sufficiently like player world humans provided
> the world is sufficiently like the player world, as the player world
> is known to be 'real'.
Sure it may be known to be real, but the reasons are not known, and that
has been a distinction that was made. Not knowing exactly what
simulationist want, I have to go by what you guys say. So, is it a
requirement or not?
>
> Once I stray from this, I'm on thin ice. If it's a world oriented
> campaign, it must remain 'real'.
How are you using that word in this context? You know which one I'm
talking about.
> The further I stray from the player
> world I know, the more I have to know about it - either analytically,
> if I work things out consciously, or subconsciously, if I'm
> 'channeling' - to ensure that I don't stray from this 'real' world to
> a false, flawed copy.
>
> My personal experience is that it doesn't take very much alteration in
> basic character behavior to result in a world that is so foreign that
> it can't realistically be used in a world oriented roleplaying
> campaign. That's why I believe the approach is not well suited to
> genres that would require such use - such as, perhaps, the superhero
> genre.
>
I'm commenting on this in Bradd's post.
> And as for your example...
>
> You don't know that. It's a guess. A theory. Even if
> it's a good theory, there are likely a dozen other
> competing theories that are just as good.
>
> Scientifically speaking, everything is a theory. This one at least
> has some academic support:
>
> http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboyde
> ato
> n/eaton.htm
>
> I'd be interested in any links you have to competing theories.
I would try to find some, but there the small problem of me not caring.
I know the behavior exists. Beyond that, knowing the causes isn't going
to really affect my life or behavior in any way. I tend to look at RPGs
in much the same way.
Robert Scott Clark
news:slrnbt381f.l...@szonye.com:
>> Robert Scott Clark responds to me:
>>> Look, if I make NPCs behave as close to real humans as I can doesn't
>>> mean I know WHY they act that way, so why should there be a more
>>> strict requirement for me to know the reasons if I decide to make
>>> them behave in a manor NOT close to real human behavior?
>
> Warren J. Dew <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You don't, if you're not running a world oriented campaign .... My
>> personal experience is that it doesn't take very much alteration in
>> basic character behavior to result in a world that is so foreign that
>> it can't realistically be used in a world oriented roleplaying
>> campaign. That's why I believe the approach is not well suited to
>> genres that would require such use - such as, perhaps, the superhero
>> genre.
>
> I think that says a lot more about your personal quirks than it does
> about how "realistic" the approach is.
Something I have seen around here several times. I recall at least one
person saying that a specific world design couldn't be played in a
simulationist style because "I couldn't get into the characters' heads in
a world where that was true" or some equivalent statement.
I get the feeling that simulationism isn't defined by it's adherents so
much by a general category of game as by how similar a game is to how
they personally can and do play.
Robert Scott Clark
news:%qhAb.17566$lm1.1...@wards.force9.net:
> "Robert Scott Clark" <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9448CA808B18Dcl...@216.77.188.18...
>> George W. Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in
>> news:rc72tvgife9ta63i4...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > If you can present a set of reasons from which
>> > this alternate human nature can be derived,
>>
>> Can you present a set of reasons from which actual human nature can
>> be derived?
>>
>> Jesus, what kind of criteria is that? Do I have to have a unified
>> field theory of the gameverse if I want to change the physics?
>
>> > then it's
>> > not for meta-game reasons; if you impose unnatural
>
>
> Robert's hit the crux of my argument. I don't believe simulationists
> build up their worlds starting from an initial set of scientific
> "laws". (I'm just guessing, not being a simulationist myself, but I
> don't see how anybody could have the knowledge or time to accomplish
> that in a human lifetime.) Therefore, no matter how detailed their
> world is, very little of it "derived". It's all put there for metagame
> reasons when you create the world.
This is the main reason that the threefold is supposed to only represent
ingame decisions, but that has it's own problems. But if you try to
point those out there's going to be some backpedaling and twisted
justification about how design can be simulationistic too.
Warren J. Dew
I would try to find some, but there the small problem of me
not caring. I know the behavior exists. Beyond that,
knowing the causes isn't going to really affect my life or
behavior in any way. I tend to look at RPGs in much the
same way.
Okay. I won't trouble you with more explanations, then.
Warren J. Dew
I don't believe simulationists build up their worlds
starting from an initial set of scientific "laws".
(I'm just guessing, not being a simulationist myself,
but I don't see how anybody could have the knowledge
or time to accomplish that in a human lifetime.)
That's why we tend to draw heavily from the player world for basic scientific
laws.
When I was putting my game together, I did in fact explore some changes in
basic laws. For example, I looked at (1) changing gravitation so that heavier
things actually fell faster than light things, and (2) spells that violated
conservation of mass, conserving volume instead.
It turns out that any kind of change to the basic laws like that had far to
many strange consequences for me to be confident that I had caught them all.
For example, the self consistent rationales for heavier things falling faster
all have very counterintuitive results: one has to conclude that two similar
objects' falling speeds depend on whether they are touching or connected -
whatever it takes to make them be only one object, rather than two - or else
that the speed at which a rod falls depends highly on whether it's oriented
vertically or horizontally, or some other similarly weird consequence.
Violation of conservation of mass, if other physical laws remained the same,
was worse: I couldn't come up with any self consistent system at all. Once
you introduce spellcasting, the laws of magic are part of the world's physics;
if they violate conservation of mass-energy, you have to accept the existence
of perpetual motion machines, and figure out the consequences to the economy,
or figure out why they aren't being used and prepare to deal with player
characters who change that.
Yes, metagame reasons, I'm sorry simulationists, but every
time you draw a mountain on your map then, unless you've
modelled a billion years of geological processes, you've
really just "decided" to have a mountian there because you
wanted it.
Actually, if your world has continental drift at speeds similar to the player
world, it doesn't actually take a billion years, just a few hundred million.
And yes, I do have a good idea of the geological processes that formed the
geography of my Laratoa campaign, although I wasn't nearly as simulationist
when I created the campaign as I am now - and of course no one ever gets to
100%.
As George Harris noted, though, the standard Threefold model permits metagame
selection of initial conditions even for a simulationist campaign - it's only
in game decisions that can't have metagame influence.
It doesn't matter how faithfully you model PCs walking up
and down that mountain in the game, the mountain was still
placed there for metagame reasons. Exactly as my
superhero-universe conventions were, and I can follow
those conventions just as fairly and accurately as you
simultionists perform your mountain climbing.
Fairness, of course, is a metagame concern that a strict simulationist avoids,
so it's likely that your game is much fairer to the players than any
simulationist campaign would be.
If you follow them as accurately and also as extensively, I'd be interested in
how you deal with issues like the "identical mouth shape" issue I brought up,
and the "no heroism" issue that George Harris brought up.
Wayne Shaw
>
>Right. But then, my understanding is that one of the superhero genre
>conventions is that the world is supposed to be ours, except for the
>superpowers.
Well...sort of. In practice there are other areas of selective
divergence. It's just a convention that the impact of superpowers
(and the far more profound issue of super technology) is more limited
than you'd expect it to be. Sometimes there's an attempt to explain
why; sometimes not.
Wayne Shaw
I think I have to go in with Warren on this; to some extent the more
diverse a world from ours is, the less you can do intuitive modelling,
and the more you _have_ to know why it's different in the way it is.
At least if world consistency is really your aim, rather than
something else.
That doesn't mean the players will necessarily know the difference,
but as has been commented before, the Threefold approach is far more
about how GMs make their decisions than how automatically visible that
difference is on the output end.
Robert Scott Clark
> I think I have to go in with Warren on this; to some extent the more
> diverse a world from ours is, the less you can do intuitive modelling,
> and the more you _have_ to know why it's different in the way it is.
> At least if world consistency is really your aim, rather than
> something else.
Why would "intuitive modeling" be likely to produce consistency?
Russell Wallace
>Violation of conservation of mass, if other physical laws remained the same,
>was worse: I couldn't come up with any self consistent system at all. Once
>you introduce spellcasting, the laws of magic are part of the world's physics;
>if they violate conservation of mass-energy, you have to accept the existence
>of perpetual motion machines, and figure out the consequences to the economy,
>or figure out why they aren't being used and prepare to deal with player
>characters who change that.
Magic in your world obeys conservation of energy? I'm curious - for
something like casting a fireball then, where does the energy come
from? (Or do you just disallow such spells?)
(I usually use the rationale that magic draws on the zero-point
energy; you could in principle build a machine to do likewise, but it
would require more advanced technology than exists in the game world.)
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Russell Wallace
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>Look at magic in a fantasy simulationist's game world. The first time
>somebody pulls off a big spell, I could jump in and say, "your simulation is
>broken because you've just violated the law of conservation of energy". You
>reply, "but that is allowed in the simulation because the source of magic is
>[hand wave, hand wave]".
>
>Now look at my superhero universe, where you can don a pair of glasses and
>become immediately unrecognisable to the person who was flying with you five
>minutes previously. You jump in and say, "but disguises don't work that way,
>humans aren't that dumb." I answer, "in the universe I have created,
>disguises *do* work that way. It's not believeable to *us* but it is true to
>the rules of the universe."
For myself (and I suspect some of the other people who have a
preference here) the difference is simply that I don't care if game
world physics isn't true to physics as we know it, but I do care if
game world psychology isn't true to human nature as we know it; I want
to roleplay a human being, not an alien that looks human, but has a
weird, uninternalizable psychology.
(I'm not making any claim about one style being more realistic or more
worthy than the other, only explaining why I personally prefer it.)
If I did have to run a "disguises work that way" world, my take on it
would be that of course everyone can see Clark Kent is Superman, but
there's a general agreement to pretend one doesn't in order to let the
poor bugger have some peace and quiet when he's off duty.
Villains respect this as well, because they also benefit from it:
Superman doesn't just go along to Lex Luthor's house and beat the shit
out of him, he waits for him to come up with his next dastardly plot
before making a move against him.
Normally this would be morally reprehensible of Superman, since it
involves putting millions of innocent lives at risk for no adequate
reason, but in comic-book world it's okay to do things like this
because the villain's plan will always be foiled in the end, so it
turns out okay ^.^
Robert Scott Clark
news:3fd25408...@news.eircom.net:
>>Now look at my superhero universe, where you can don a pair of glasses
>>and become immediately unrecognisable to the person who was flying
>>with you five minutes previously. You jump in and say, "but disguises
>>don't work that way, humans aren't that dumb." I answer, "in the
>>universe I have created, disguises *do* work that way. It's not
>>believeable to *us* but it is true to the rules of the universe."
>
> For myself (and I suspect some of the other people who have a
> preference here) the difference is simply that I don't care if game
> world physics isn't true to physics as we know it, but I do care if
> game world psychology isn't true to human nature as we know it; I want
> to roleplay a human being, not an alien that looks human, but has a
> weird, uninternalizable psychology.
What makes you think you "internalize" any human psychology other than your
own any better?
Russell Wallace
<cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>wallacet...@eircom.net (Russell Wallace) wrote in
>news:3fd25408...@news.eircom.net:
>
>> For myself (and I suspect some of the other people who have a
>> preference here) the difference is simply that I don't care if game
>> world physics isn't true to physics as we know it, but I do care if
>> game world psychology isn't true to human nature as we know it; I want
>> to roleplay a human being, not an alien that looks human, but has a
>> weird, uninternalizable psychology.
>
>What makes you think you "internalize" any human psychology other than your
>own any better?
Having spent 33 years interacting with humans from this world, I find
it self-evident that however good or bad my understanding of human
psychology, it will be better than my understanding of the psychology
of beings I have never met.
Warren J. Dew
Magic in your world obeys conservation of energy? I'm
curious - for something like casting a fireball then,
where does the energy come from? (Or do you just
disallow such spells?)
There's a spell called "fireball", but in terms of energy release, it's not at
all like D&D fireballs: there's light, but there's no blast, not much heat,
and it doesn't tend to ignite things. Many magicians believe its effects are
more psychological than physical.
There does seem to be energy input, though - or at least people on half rations
seem to recover more slowly from casting spells than people with a normal
caloric intake.
(I usually use the rationale that magic draws on the
zero-point energy; you could in principle build a
machine to do likewise, but it would require more
advanced technology than exists in the game world.)
That works, but it has some of the same disadvantages that violation of
conservation of mass has: magicians can now substitute for the technology, and
a strictly simulationist campaign needs to account for the resulting
availability of large amounts of free energy.
Actually, if your spells are really so powerful that accelerated baryon decay,
or even plain old hydrogen fusion, are insufficient, you may also have to start
worrying about relativistic effects from local depletion of zero point energy.
Russell Wallace
>There's a spell called "fireball", but in terms of energy release, it's not at
>all like D&D fireballs: there's light, but there's no blast, not much heat,
>and it doesn't tend to ignite things. Many magicians believe its effects are
>more psychological than physical.
So basically you simply disallow spells involving the release of more
energy than could be provided from the mage's body without causing him
to keel over from heat stroke? Okay. That's a workable approach,
though personally I just plain like fireballs ^.^
> (I usually use the rationale that magic draws on the
> zero-point energy; you could in principle build a
> machine to do likewise, but it would require more
> advanced technology than exists in the game world.)
>
>That works, but it has some of the same disadvantages that violation of
>conservation of mass has: magicians can now substitute for the technology, and
>a strictly simulationist campaign needs to account for the resulting
>availability of large amounts of free energy.
I'm not sure I understand you; here's how I look at it:
Either I want magic to be common or I want it to be rare (that's a
decision I make up front at the start of setting design). If the
former, then I make mages common; no problem. If the latter, then I
make mages rare; again, no problem.
If magic is common, then the total energy supply from it will be large
- this is the desired result. If it's rare, then the total energy
supply from it will be small - again, presumably the desired result.
What exactly do you see as the difficulty?
>Actually, if your spells are really so powerful that accelerated baryon decay,
>or even plain old hydrogen fusion, are insufficient, you may also have to start
>worrying about relativistic effects from local depletion of zero point energy.
Very few of my spells are _that_ powerful! :) Hydrogen fusion would
normally be quite adequate as an energy source, but the energy comes
out as MeV range quanta, and as a matter of style I want things like
mage duels to involve fireballs and lightning bolts, not everyone
quietly taking a lethal dose of radiation. Zero point energy comes in
a nice selection of frequencies; it strikes me as easier to get it to
come out in the desired form.