distinctions between various sorts of "caring about the world"
Mary K. Kuhner
Part of the history behind the struggles over "simulationist" is that
there are at least four things that "I care about the gameworld" can
mean, and some players find them very far from interchangable.
(1) Consistency. "I care about the gameworld" means "Don't have things
happen that don't make sense internally." Don't have Rorrhiath be
two leages from Falston today and five leagues tomorrow. Don't have the
supergenius suddenly miss the obvious clue.
(2) Realism. "I care about the gameworld" means "Things should behave
as they do in the real (player) world." Don't have pistols that can't
fire across the street. Don't have every woman be a perfect 36D.
(3) Verisimilitude. "I care about the gameworld" means "Things should
behave as they do the source genre." For example, if your gameworld is
Batman's Gotham, you shouldn't set things up so that costumed crimefighters
are ineffectual or instantly jailed, or so that we can see that they
ought to be.
(4) Fidelity. "I care about the gameworld" means "Things should happen
as they would happen in the gameworld." This is the "avoids metagame"
idea in its positive form. The gameworld is Real and only things
that "really" happen there should happen there.
Players vary *immensely* in how much they value each of the four. I care
a lot about consistency, very little about realism except in the
specific realm of human behavior, not at all about verisimilitude, and quite
a lot about fidelity.
(It's possible I actually give a negative value to verisimilitude; I'm
not quite sure.)
I'd venture a description, based on what he said here, of Berkman as a
GM who cared about verisimilitude first and foremost, valued consistency
a fair bit, was pretty indifferent to realism and didn't care about
fidelity at all (in fact, didn't believe it existed). Possibly he would
have given it a negative value, since he tended to regard discussion of
fidelity as a symptom of mental illness.
The problem is that we have here four different things which readily
masquerade under the same names, especially in heated arguments: so
we get sequences like:
A: I want a faithful depiction of the game world. (meaning fidelity)
B: That's stupid! Your game world has magic in it, and we all know
that magic isn't real. (meaning realism)
C: You'd be better off abandoning the canon and just trying to make your
own world. (meaning verisimilitude)
D: Sure, you can have that *and* a strong plot at the same time!
(meaning consistency)
Given this mass of terms (I know, I'm sorry, but I needed all four....)
I can restate what I said about attempts to simulate genre stories
earlier as:
Verisimilitude and fidelity can very easily become enemies. Any slight
error in the design of the gameworld, or any slight change in it with
play, may put the GM and players in a position where to be faithful to
world (fidelity) will lead to a blatantly non-genre result. I personally
believe that there are some genres where this conflict cannot be avoided
no matter how carefully you design the world. Bradd's "serial amnesia"
is a good example.
Comments? Have I missed any?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Warren J. Dew
I'd venture a description, based on what he said here,
of Berkman as a GM who cared about verisimilitude first
and foremost, valued consistency a fair bit, was pretty
indifferent to realism and didn't care about fidelity
at all (in fact, didn't believe it existed).
Berkman cared about 'realism' in the sense of having a lot of details that were
the same as the player world; he described his players as 'gun nuts' who really
cared about much smaller differences than those between 9mm and .45 cal
handguns, for example. I'm not sure this is the same use of 'realism' as
yours.
In fact, I notice that you define both 'realism' and 'verisimilitude' in terms
of how things behave, while Berkman seemed to care much more about how they
appeared.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Joshua Macy
> (1) Consistency. "I care about the gameworld" means "Don't have things
> happen that don't make sense internally." Don't have Rorrhiath be
> two leages from Falston today and five leagues tomorrow. Don't have the
> supergenius suddenly miss the obvious clue.
>
> (2) Realism. "I care about the gameworld" means "Things should behave
> as they do in the real (player) world." Don't have pistols that can't
> fire across the street. Don't have every woman be a perfect 36D.
>
> (3) Verisimilitude. "I care about the gameworld" means "Things should
> behave as they do the source genre." For example, if your gameworld is
> Batman's Gotham, you shouldn't set things up so that costumed crimefighters
> are ineffectual or instantly jailed, or so that we can see that they
> ought to be.
>
> (4) Fidelity. "I care about the gameworld" means "Things should happen
> as they would happen in the gameworld." This is the "avoids metagame"
> idea in its positive form. The gameworld is Real and only things
> that "really" happen there should happen there.
>
I think that there are at least two other forms, for which I don't
have good names (but I'll name anyway):
(5) Plausibility. "I care about the gameworld" means that things should
behave in the gameworld the way that players think they behave in the
real world, even if the players are wrong. This is sort of the real
world as genre, but not quite. The basic thrust is that if you have to
stop and have an argument or pull out reference materials to convince
the players, the game is damaged even if the ruling was in fact
correct. It is better to match player expectations than to be right.
(6) Plausible Deniability. "I care about the gameworld" means that the
players should never catch the GM out on any fact, but anything that is
unknown or forgotten is fair game for filling in or retconning according
to the any considerations at all. In other words, inconsistency is not
a problem--and may even be desirable--as long as it's not noticed. If
nobody remembers that Rorrhiath is two leagues from Falston, then it
should be however many leagues would suit the current situation.
Joshua
tded...@excite.com
mkku...@eskimo.com (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> Just some food for thought.
>
> Part of the history behind the struggles over "simulationist" is that
> there are at least four things that "I care about the gameworld" can
> mean, and some players find them very far from interchangable.
(snip Consistency, Realism, Verisimilitude, and Fidelity)
Thanks for posting that. I found it very enlightening, and I think
(hope) it will help make sense of some of the "simulation" arguments.
Tim Dedeaux
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Angela
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
Wow! I like it a lot! It certainly explains a lot of the "talking past one
another" that can happen around here. It's all gaming, just different
/styles/ of gaming...
It took me a while, but now I get the distinction between (1) Consistency
and (4) Fidelity. Consistency, it seems from this description, refers to
the internal logic of a given situation, and Fidelity refers to the internal
logic of the game world. So, let's say that we have established that Batman
has a faster than light pogo stick (whatever) - it is not Consistent that he
takes all day to pogo from Los Angeles to San Francisco (unless he stopped
for burgers). This is not the same as Fidelity, where, let's say, the
game-world dictates that it is not possible to build a faster than light
device, pogo sticks included. So, if Batman had one, and could zip from LA
to SF near-instantaeously, that in itself would be Consistent, though it
wouldn't be demonstrating Fidelity. Fidelity is, in turn, if I understand
it correctly, also different from Verisimilitude. Fidelity means we don't
violate the world's basic "rules," and Verisimilitude means we adhere to the
genre conventions. So, as you said, these two can come into conflict
easily - if I establish a DC superhero game where the law and criminal
justice system is very realistically portrayed, it would be good Fidelity,
but poor Verisimilitude to let the heroes not get hassled by the police for
going around in masks beating people up, and vice versa, right?
Let me know if I have missed the point you were making, because, if I am
understanding it correctly, I like it lots.
Angela
No .sig
No .more Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream for me (diet time!
waaaaaaah!)
Brian Gleichman
news:90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> (1) Consistency. (2) Realism. (3) Verisimilitude. (4) Fidelity.
These work for me.
We've talked about each of these at various times before. It may be time to
firm up the concepts and enter them into the FAQ.
--
Brian Gleichman
glei...@mindspring.com
Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
Free RPG Reviews: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/Reviews.htm
Brian Gleichman
news:3A31E283...@webamused.com...
> (5) Plausibility. "I care about the gameworld" means that things should
> behave in the gameworld the way that players think they behave in the
> real world, even if the players are wrong.
In practice I would consider this is the same as Realism.
Judging from past debates I've had in this group, people are unlikely to
give up their view of how the world works even if one pulls out a mountain
of reference materials. Eventually the GM is just going to have to rule on
the subject of contention.
'Realism' as 'Things should behave as they do in the real (player) world' is
a large enough group to include a variety of methods for a campaign to
determine "in the real world' such as 'reference works' or 'GM's opinion'.
> (6) Plausible Deniability. "I care about the gameworld" means that the
> players should never catch the GM out on any fact, but anything that is
> unknown or forgotten is fair game for filling in or retconning according
> to the any considerations at all. In other words, inconsistency is not
> a problem--and may even be desirable--as long as it's not noticed. If
> nobody remembers that Rorrhiath is two leagues from Falston, then it
> should be however many leagues would suit the current situation.
Isn't this one a low 'Consistency' requirement? I think saying I value
Consistency only when there is an obvious fault gives the above result
without the need for another term.
Warren J. Dew
It took me a while, but now I get the distinction between
(1) Consistency and (4) Fidelity. Consistency, it seems
from this description, refers to the internal logic of a
given situation, and Fidelity refers to the internal
logic of the game world.
This isn't quite how I understood it.
Suppose a die is a real randomizer in the game world. Any of the results 1
through 6 is internally consistent - they don't violate the physics of the
world. Only one of the results, though, maintains fidelity to the game world -
the others, while consistent, do not actually happen.
Ero...@aol.com
[snip]
>
> Verisimilitude and fidelity can very easily become enemies. Any
slight
> error in the design of the gameworld, or any slight change in it with
> play, may put the GM and players in a position where to be faithful to
> world (fidelity) will lead to a blatantly non-genre result. I
personally
> believe that there are some genres where this conflict cannot be
avoided
> no matter how carefully you design the world. Bradd's "serial
amnesia"
> is a good example.
>
> Comments? Have I missed any?
What's the difference between very strong genre and drama? It seems to
me that the two blend into each other. That's where the conflict between
fidelity and versimlitude comes from, IMHO. I agree that there are some
genres where the conflict can't be avoided, and I think the reasons are
similar to the reasons why one can't write world-laws where fidelity to
the world will always turn the PC's adventures into interesting stories.
OTOH, I think that clever choice of world-laws can make it *more likely*
for both good stories and cool genre bits to fall out of a world run
with fidelity. It's the difference between a guarantee that a character
has survived a "nobody could survive that!" event if no body is found vs
it merely being a good bet.
It depends on the particular genre convention, too. My own rule of thumb
is that if a convention requires characters to be ignorant or to have a
blind spot, then the convention can't be successfully reified, but if
characters can be aware of the convention without the world turning into
a parody, then the convention can be reified. Thus "masks are really
effective at concealing ones identity" works as a reified genre
convention, but "serial amnesia" doesn't.
(On the third hand, reifying conventions will subtly change the world
even if the result isn't a parody. There's a difference between a James
Bond who attempts extreme driving stunts only when the Fate of the Free
World is at stake, vs a James Bond who knows he has an obscenely high
driving skill and who uses it to twit people with casual displays of
extreme stunt driving. Likewise there's a difference between a world
where only the naive and ignorant say "Nobody could have survived that!"
vs one where even experienced old hands say such things despite having
survives similar events themselves. I find I actually prefer worlds
where the heroes know what they are capable of.)
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com (mail drop)
Er...@ix.netcom.com (surfboard)
Mary K. Kuhner
they seem easy to confuse, and the distinction is very important
to some players. I won't tend to play in a game that's inconsistent;
I will play with or without fidelity, but I use a totally different
approach as player or GM. (And if I don't know whether I can count
on fidelity or not, I tend to play as though I can, and then get
mad at the GM if I find out I'm wrong.)
Consistency is about whether a result "makes sense", whether it can
be justified. Very often there is more than one consistent possibility.
For example, in almost all situations where a gun is fired at someone,
both a hit and a miss would be completely consistent with the gameworld.
Stringent concern for consistency will also worry about the pattern
of events over time; if a given gun type is inaccurate, over a long
period it should miss more often than others. A long series of hits
might be inconsistent even if each individual one was consistent.
However, many people don't care strongly about long-term consistency
as long as short-term is preserved.
Fidelity is more difficult to describe. There are two ways of looking
at it, one rather mystical, one more pragmatic.
The mystical description is that there "exists" a real result in the game-
world, and we need to find out what it is; any other result, no matter
how consistent, is wrong. For example, if I am channelling and I
see that the witch brings three bodyguards, it would be unfaithful
for me to say she brought four.
The pragmatic description is that we have agreed on a process (which
could involve reasoning, channelling, mechanics, perhaps other
things) for resolving events in the gameworld, and only the result
produced by that process is right. Another result, no matter how
consistent, is not the one produced by the agreed-on process and
is thus incorrect.
In either case, the restriction is different than "makes sense" and
"can be justified". In complex gameworlds it's possible for the
faithful result to appear quite inconsistent. For example, a
character who is normally brave may suddenly lose her nerve
completely for reasons that, while they certainly exist, are
difficult or impossible to explain to an observer.
A consistent result can certainly be unfaithful. A faithful
result can, at least, appear inconsistent. Whether it is
really inconsistent probably depends on your metaphysics and
wheter you tend to the mystical or pragmatic side of
fidelity.
Concern for consistency (or, as someone said, at least the
appearance of consistency) is fairly widespread and very easy
to explain. Concern for fidelity is much less common, and
people who don't care about fidelity tend to find it puzzling.
Me personally, in a complex gameworld I'm willing to grant the
GM quite a few lapses in consistency, as long as he fixes them
when they're noticed. Jon never can keep straight how far it
is from the inhabited planet to the edge of the system (should
be days, often becomes hours) but this is only slightly annoying.
However, if the game contract includes fidelity a pattern of
frequent small lapses will tend to spoil the game for me.
I can keep an eye out for inconsistencies and point them out
when they occur. I can't keep an eye out for infidelities,
both because I'm not privy to the full process, and because if
I start looking at each event in the gameworld and wondering
if it's unfaithful I lose my enjoyment of the game immediately.
The only useful approach I can take to a game where fidelity
is frequently going to be violated is to play in my Author/
Actor style, with no attempt to be faithful to character.
(Consistent, yes--I generally always try for that--but not
faithful.)
As the last paragraph implies, I think that players as well as
GMs can aim for various mixes of consistency, realism,
verisimilitude and fidelity, and they work about the same way.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Robert Scott Clark
>(1) Consistency.
>
>(2) Realism.
>
>(3) Verisimilitude.
>(4) Fidelity.
>
There has been some discussion of whether 1 and 4 are the same (and
I'll comment on that later), but no one has mentioned that 2 and 3 are
the same.
Verisimilitude is loyalty to the source material. Realism is loyalty
to the source material where the source material is the (players
perceptions of the) real world.
I don't see the need for 2 different lables.
As for 1 and 4 being the same, I think Warren hit the distinction
directly on the head, and I disagree with him completely. But we've
already had that conversation.
Irina Rempt
> In article <90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> What's the difference between very strong genre and drama? It seems to
> me that the two blend into each other.
As I see it, genre affects the setting and the *kind* of events that
can happen, and drama affects what actual events happen.
Irina
--
ir...@valdyas.org
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/index.html (English)
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/backpage.html (Nederlands)
Jeff Stehman
mkku...@eskimo.com (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in
<90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>:
>(It's possible I actually give a negative value to verisimilitude; I'm
>not quite sure.)
IIRC it can cause a problem if you suspect the GM is going for
verisimilitude, even if he isn't. Is that correct? In that case,
I'd say giving it a negative value would be reasonable.
John, I agree with Brian. Some form of this should probably go
into the FAQ, at least as a side article.
--jeff
Joshua Macy
>
> "Joshua Macy" <amu...@webamused.com> wrote in message
> news:3A31E283...@webamused.com...
>
> > (5) Plausibility. "I care about the gameworld" means that things should
> > behave in the gameworld the way that players think they behave in the
> > real world, even if the players are wrong.
>
> In practice I would consider this is the same as Realism.
>
> Judging from past debates I've had in this group, people are unlikely to
> give up their view of how the world works even if one pulls out a mountain
> of reference materials. Eventually the GM is just going to have to rule on
> the subject of contention.
>
> 'Realism' as 'Things should behave as they do in the real (player) world' is
> a large enough group to include a variety of methods for a campaign to
> determine "in the real world' such as 'reference works' or 'GM's opinion'.
Perhaps from the point of view of taxonomy, but I thought the point of
Mary's post was more or less that "realism" as variously thought of is
such a desirable quality that it helps to break out the ways in which it
is possible to desire it so that people don't work at cross-purposes in
attempts to achieve it. I think there's a fairly big difference between
the type of game I'd expect from people actually interested in what
would happen in the real world, and people only interested that the game
doesn't violate what they believe to be true of the real world.
>
> > (6) Plausible Deniability. "I care about the gameworld" means that the
> > players should never catch the GM out on any fact, but anything that is
> > unknown or forgotten is fair game for filling in or retconning according
> > to the any considerations at all. In other words, inconsistency is not
> > a problem--and may even be desirable--as long as it's not noticed. If
> > nobody remembers that Rorrhiath is two leagues from Falston, then it
> > should be however many leagues would suit the current situation.
>
> Isn't this one a low 'Consistency' requirement? I think saying I value
> Consistency only when there is an obvious fault gives the above result
> without the need for another term.
Again, I think there's a difference between the GM would would be
bugged by an inconsistency that only she knows about (perhaps even one
that only she could conceivably know about), and one who is bothered
only by manifest inconcistencies, even though both could claim
truthfully to be aiming for zero inconsistencies from the point of view
of the players. I suppose you could say that the latter is lying, but
a) I don't think it's helpful, and b) I think that position is a far
more common one than the former. It seems in keeping with the whole
approach to labelling these to give those GMs something that they can
say "I don't care about consistency as much as I care about X", instead
of "I don't care much about consistency" when from their point of view
that's not true.
Joshua
Brian Gleichman
> Perhaps from the point of view of taxonomy, but I thought the point of
> Mary's post was more or less that "realism" as variously thought of is
> such a desirable quality that it helps to break out the ways in which it
> is possible to desire it so that people don't work at cross-purposes in
> attempts to achieve it.
Yes. But that goal isn't helped by adding new terms to cover low levels of
the other terms. I'm much happier with having a single term for darkness
than one for bright, one for dark and yet five others for various grays.
Robert Scott Clark
>Yes. But that goal isn't helped by adding new terms to cover low levels of
>the other terms. I'm much happier with having a single term for darkness
>than one for bright, one for dark and yet five others for various grays.
Why not just one term "brightness" and then a rating from one end to
the other.
David Alex Lamb
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Verisimilitude is loyalty to the source material. Realism is loyalty
>to the source material where the source material is the (players
>perceptions of the) real world.
>
>I don't see the need for 2 different lables.
Hmm... Perhaps, but 'realism' in this sense is at least a commonly-occurring
special case.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
John Kim
David Alex Lamb <dal...@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Verisimilitude is loyalty to the source material. Realism is loyalty
>>to the source material where the source material is the (players
>>perceptions of the) real world.
>>
>>I don't see the need for 2 different lables.
>
>special case.
Well, I've said this before, but here goes...
I see loyalty to source material as being very different
than realism. The simple test is this: there are different genres
of non-fiction (i.e. travelogues, true-crime stories, social
commentary, etc.).
There is a difference between being loyal to a non-fictional
genre and being realistic. Being loyal to a genre means keeping in
the style of the narrative, which includes what sort of in-game events
are possible. On the other hand, "realism" is purely a question of
in-game events. Thus, I could be disloyal to the true-crime genre
while still being realistic.
Conversely, I can be unrealistic in my resolutions and still
be loyal to the true-crime genre. For example, in order to have a
true-crime book written about it, the events have to be truly
extraordinary. In keeping with this, there is one point early on
(before it is extraordinary) when the PC's are nearly caught.
Realisitically they only have a 10% chance of making it. However,
to make this a "true-crime story", I fudge it -- i.e. I roll the
dice secretly but ignore the result and say they get away.
This is unrealistic in its resolution. However, the result
is consistent and indeed matches many of the close shaves that often
appear in true-crime books.
--
John H. Kim | Whatever else is true you
jh...@fnal.gov | Trust your little finger
www.ps.uci.edu/~jhkim | Just a single little finger can
UC Irvine, Cal, USA | Save the world. - Steven Sondheim, "Assassins"
Robert Scott Clark
>In article <E163B871A92C5783.91373EC1...@lp.airnews.net>,
>Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Verisimilitude is loyalty to the source material. Realism is loyalty
>>to the source material where the source material is the (players
>>perceptions of the) real world.
>>
>>I don't see the need for 2 different lables.
>
>Hmm... Perhaps, but 'realism' in this sense is at least a commonly-occurring
>special case.
A very limited special case. I can't say that I have ever really seen
anyone who strives absolutely for "realism". At most, people try for
realism in some elements of the game. And in reality, there is not
much difference between saying "I want realism, except there is magic"
and saying "I want low fantasy".
Basically the only time I would say that there is a significant group
looking for realism is in character (npc/pc) psychology.
Robert Scott Clark
>while still being realistic.
No, you would be disloyal to the true crime genre, but loyal to the
"realistic" genre.
The question is whether "realism" is anything more than just a
different genre.
Angela
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9C24F6268A664F47.AE7ECBF2...@lp.airnews.net...
Oooooo... hey, neat.
(thinking about THAT one...)
Angela
No .sig
No .more exams! Yay!
Eric L
> A very limited special case. I can't say that I have ever really seen
> anyone who strives absolutely for "realism". At most, people try for
> realism in some elements of the game. And in reality, there is not
> much difference between saying "I want realism, except there is magic"
> and saying "I want low fantasy".
My preferred setting is "contemporary and realistic".
Eric Lestrade
Robert Scott Clark
>My preferred setting is "contemporary and realistic".
>
I didn't say there was no one who wanted this; I only questioned the
statement that it was common.
Eric L
>
> I didn't say there was no one who wanted this; I only questioned the
> statement that it was common.
no problem. More over I totaly agree (it is not common).
I just answered to <<I can't say that I have ever really seen
anyone who strives absolutely for "realism">>
Now you've read one!! ;)
Bradd W. Szonye
>Part of the history behind the struggles over "simulationist" is that
>there are at least four things that "I care about the gameworld" can
>mean, and some players find them very far from interchangable.
>
>(1) Consistency.
Considering the clarification you gave later, you could also state this
as, "What *could* happen in this game world?"
>(4) Fidelity.
And you could state this as, "What *must* happen in this game world?"
>(2) Realism.
>(3) Verisimilitude.
There are two ways I can see to interpret Verisimilitude:
1. "How does this work in this non-Realist game world?" or
2. "What would be *believable* in this game world?"
I'd be inclined to give the name Verisimilitude to the latter, not the
former; however, I think that's a matter of suspension of disbelief, and
in many cases it's more appropriate to Dramatism than to Simulationism.
For the former question, it's really just a generalization of Realism to
non-Realist worlds. Both of those, I think, are a different "axis" from
Consistency/Fidelity. Consistency/Fidelity asks the question "how
faithful?" and realism/"verisimilitude" asks the question "faithful to
what?"
I think we have three common conflicts:
1. People who desire different degrees of fidelity.
2. People who like different degrees of realism or different kinds of
game worlds.
3. People who think that degree of fidelity is important versus people
who think that the nature of the game world is more important.
As far as I can tell, the FAQ definition of Simulationism answers
question #1, and the answer is: A Simulationist decision has a very high
degree of fidelity to world. In common usage, we also sometimes use the
term "simulationist" to refer to decisions which strive for some degree
of fidelity (perhaps just the "consistency" level) but not to the same
degree as Simulationism.
(Unfortunately, it's not always clear whether you mean "simulationist"
or "Simulationist" -- that is, the general tendency as opposed to the
pure style -- and that often leads into conflict #1. When that confusion
occurs, people who prefer the pure style get upset, fearing that the
opposition is trying to "Berkmanize" Simulationism; meanwhile, the
mid-triangle people feel excluded because the Simulationists won't
recognize their weaker form of "simulationism," usually resulting in a
claim that the Threefold is "useless."
To use an analogy as I am wont to do: Simulationists prefer candy bars
that contain *only* chocolate, *maybe* with a few almonds or peanuts.
When somebody comes along and calls a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup a
"chocolate candy," the pure Simulationists get upset, often thinking
that the newcomer is insisting that all chocolate candies do or should
contain peanut butter. The newcomer wonders why all the fuss, because it
*does* contain chocolate! The Simulationists feel threated, shouting,
"Don't force your peanut butter on me!" or "Don't you see that that's
*not* a chocolate candy?" while the newcomer shouts, "But look! It's got
*chocolate* in it, dammit!")
Anyway, back to the main topic. We have the "how faithful" question:
What could happen in this world?
What should happen in this world?
What should not happen in this world?
What must happen in this world?
Different people will call each "faithful" or "concern for world." Each
group gets frustrated with the others; the "must happens" don't think
that the "could happens" are really being faithful, while the "could
happens" think the "must happens" are unnecessarily strict. Both show
*some* concern for world issues, but they have very different ideas of
how much input the world provides and how much room is left over after
considering world concerns.
Then there's the "world nature" people:
I want total realism.
I want a "realistic fictional" world.
I want the world to match Setting X.
By "realistic fiction," I mean a world which differs from our own, but
behaves in a way that makes sense to real people, given some different
initial conditions and (maybe) physical laws. Roughly, this "axis" shows
how far you are willing to deviate from pure realism and still call it a
"faithful" world. There's also some interaction with the other axis,
because some people feel very strongly that you can't answer the
question "What must happen?" unless the world behaves in a more-or-less
conventional way. The FAQ doesn't address this question, but my
observation is that Simulationists fall mainly in the "very realistic
fictional world" category.
(By the way, I glossed over the "world nature" question; there are more
specific types like the "realism is gritty" and "total determinism"
camps, but I think that taxonomy is tangential and distracting to the
main issue.)
I have one more observation to make. The "how faithful?" question
applies not only to world concerns, but also to game, story, and other
concerns. I personally apply them as a sort of filter to the inputs to
my own decision-making. For example, I normally use the following
filters:
What could happen according to world concerns?
What should not happen according to game concerns?
What should happen according to story concerns?
That is, I only consider those things that make sense in the world, then
I rule out things that make for a bad game (usually by excluding options
which make a situation unwinnable through no fault of the players), then
-- if there's still any ambiguity -- I sometimes consider what might
make for a better story. The most important filter is the "game" filter,
but world consistency ("what could happen?") is fairly important too.
Sometimes, however, the world concerns are more important, and I replace
"what could happen?" with "what should happen?" Usually this is a kind
of channeling, where I get a clear impression of what the game world
"wants." Sometimes I need to suppress those inputs because they'd make
for an awful game, but usually the world and game filters are
compatible.
I get the impression that Warren (sorry for using you as an example
again, guy -- correct me if I'm wrong!) usually uses the filter, "What
*must* happen according to world concerns?" but for some player inputs,
he shifts to "What could happen for game concerns? What should not
happen for world concerns?" Likewise, Irina seems to favor "must" for
world, but she has some tolerance for story "coulds" filtered through
world "should nots."
--
Bradd W. Szonye Work: br...@cup.hp.com
Software Design Engineer Home: bra...@concentric.net
Hewlett-Packard Cupertino Site, iFL Phone: 408-447-4832
Robert Scott Clark
> The Simulationists feel threated, shouting,
>"Don't force your peanut butter on me!" or "Don't you see that that's
>*not* a chocolate candy?" while the newcomer shouts, "But look! It's got
>*chocolate* in it, dammit!")
>
You got yyour world concerns in my drama!!!
You got your story in my game world!!!
God I feel old.
Great post BTW.
>>again, guy -- correct me if I'm wrong!) usually uses the filter, "What
>*must* happen according to world concerns?" but for some player inputs,
>he shifts to "What could happen for game concerns? What should not
>happen for world concerns?" Likewise, Irina seems to favor "must" for
>world, but she has some tolerance for story "coulds" filtered through
>world "should nots."
I just want to add here that I still think this is a difference of the
degree of world complexity, not a difference of "type".
I think a correlary can be found in Dramatism with things that are
"good for the story", things that are "bad for the story", and things
that don't really matter.
Can anyone think of a good concrete example of this for a gamist? It
seems there should be something, but I don't know.
Bradd W. Szonye
>bra...@concentric.net (Bradd W. Szonye) wrote:
>> The Simulationists feel threated, shouting,
>>"Don't force your peanut butter on me!" or "Don't you see that that's
>>*not* a chocolate candy?" while the newcomer shouts, "But look! It's got
>>*chocolate* in it, dammit!")
>
>You got your story in my game world!!!
>
>God I feel old.
Don't feel bad. There's a *reason* I chose Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.
Yes, I'm that old too. (Well, I'm not pre-AD&D old, but I'm still not a
young pup anymore.)
>Great post BTW.
Glad I'm not a *complete* raving lunatic.
By the way, thanks for the advice, Mary. It did help to take a few days
off from the argument to spend some time thinking things over (and
thinking about other things).
>I just want to add here that I still think this is a difference of the
>degree of world complexity, not a difference of "type".
Yes, well, there is something important about the conjunction of "must
have X" and "must not have non-X." It's not just a quantitative
difference, but it's not quite a qualitative difference either.
>I think a correlary can be found in Dramatism with things that are
>"good for the story", things that are "bad for the story", and things
>that don't really matter.
I'm not quite sure how this relates. Er, it relates obviously to the
filtering idea, but it's not quite analogous to Simulationism versus
"simulationism."
>Can anyone think of a good concrete example of this for a gamist? It
>seems there should be something, but I don't know.
Easy: Pushing miniatures around and using wargame tactics is good for
the game (for a popular brand of gamist). Putting a PC in a no-win
situation because "the situation demands it" or "it's good for the
story" is bad for the game (for those same people).
Robert Scott Clark
>>I think a correlary can be found in Dramatism with things that are
>>"good for the story", things that are "bad for the story", and things
>>that don't really matter.
>
>I'm not quite sure how this relates. Er, it relates obviously to the
>filtering idea, but it's not quite analogous to Simulationism versus
>"simulationism."
Because I left the other option unstated. It is possible not to look
at three stated of influence (-1,0,1 : corresponding to "avoid
this","not relevant", and "desire this") that you call
"simulationism", and I would include "dramatism", but also there can
be a version of dramatism - "Dramatism" that corresponds to
"Simulationism" where the idea of "bad for story" doesn't exist, the
story predicts one particular thing.
My point was that "Simulationism" and "Dramatism" are just
degenerative cases of "simulationism" and "dramatism".
"Simulationism" is just the case of "simulationism" where there is
only one +1 choice and all other choices are -1.
>
>>Can anyone think of a good concrete example of this for a gamist? It
>>seems there should be something, but I don't know.
>
>Easy: Pushing miniatures around and using wargame tactics is good for
>the game (for a popular brand of gamist). Putting a PC in a no-win
>situation because "the situation demands it" or "it's good for the
>story" is bad for the game (for those same people).
Ok, now that corresponds to "gamism", what would "Gamism" be?
Bradd W. Szonye
>>>"good for the story", things that are "bad for the story", and things
>>>that don't really matter.
>>
>>I'm not quite sure how this relates. Er, it relates obviously to the
>>filtering idea, but it's not quite analogous to Simulationism versus
>>"simulationism."
>
>Because I left the other option unstated. It is possible not to look
>at three stated of influence (-1,0,1 : corresponding to "avoid
>this","not relevant", and "desire this") that you call
>"simulationism", and I would include "dramatism", but also there can
>be a version of dramatism - "Dramatism" that corresponds to
>"Simulationism" where the idea of "bad for story" doesn't exist, the
>story predicts one particular thing.
Sorry, had trouble parsing that. I think I understand now. Warren sees
"good for world" and "avoid bad-for-world" as the same thing, because
the world tells you everything you need to know, and thus anything
meta-game must be bad. That's Simulationism. However, what I call
"little-s" simulationism has a different standard for "good for world"
(which I think is necessary to be called sim at all) and "avoid
bad-for-world" (which I think can be pretty loose and still called sim
in some sense).
>My point was that "Simulationism" and "Dramatism" are just
>degenerative cases of "simulationism" and "dramatism".
>
>"Simulationism" is just the case of "simulationism" where there is
>only one +1 choice and all other choices are -1.
Gotcha! Yes. And I agree, there's a Big-D Dramatism and a Big-G Gamism.
>>>Can anyone think of a good concrete example of this for a gamist? It
>>>seems there should be something, but I don't know.
>>
>>Easy: Pushing miniatures around and using wargame tactics is good for
>>the game (for a popular brand of gamist). Putting a PC in a no-win
>>situation because "the situation demands it" or "it's good for the
>>story" is bad for the game (for those same people).
>
>Ok, now that corresponds to "gamism", what would "Gamism" be?
I see what you were asking for now.
Big-G Gamism is obviously a game where the GM makes up battlemaps and
pretty painted armies, and you use your character like a game token to
try to win all the battles. In between fights, you solve puzzles. You
resolve the battles with an objective system of rules, and you work on
the puzzles without benefit of PC "puzzle-solving skills."
Basically, it's a wargame and trivia game with names and pretty
paintings for the characters. You might play the character with a funny
accent, too.
That's being a little facetious, and it's not the only way to do Gamism
(just as Warren and Irina have different approaches to Simulationism),
but it's one kind of big-G Gamism anyway. And, honestly, when I started
playing AD&D1e again after many years, I also re-discovered the charming
Gamism of the system. It's really just a way to describe your playing
piece on the battlemap, and that's kinda fun.
Robert Scott Clark
>>My point was that "Simulationism" and "Dramatism" are just
>>degenerative cases of "simulationism" and "dramatism".
>>
>>"Simulationism" is just the case of "simulationism" where there is
>>only one +1 choice and all other choices are -1.
>
>Gotcha! Yes. And I agree, there's a Big-D Dramatism and a Big-G Gamism.
What I think is missing here is the term of what this axis is.
At one end we have deterministic Simulationism, where the world *can*
define absolutely everything that happens.
Near the other , we have a few options that are eliminated , a few
that are recomended by the world , and a wide margin that the world
doesn't care about one way or another. (theoretically, there is
something even further out that totally lacks structure, and can
neither recomend or deny any choice)
As you move to the right (I have to visualize it somehow), you get
more options that are eliminated by the world, fewer that are
recomended, and many fewer that are indifferent to the world.
I might be mistaken here, but this is what I thought you were talking
about when you said that "Simulationism is all or nothing."
People who defend the current model seem to see the simulationist axis
as being the degree of Big-S Simulationism. That's why they see the
need for tradeoffs. The world always recomends what will happen,
therefore if you don't listen to it, you must be taking something else
into account. They ignore that people may vary on the axis that we
are discussing here - the world might not tall you anything at all.
>>
>>Ok, now that corresponds to "gamism", what would "Gamism" be?
>
>I see what you were asking for now.
>
>Big-G Gamism is obviously a game where the GM makes up battlemaps and
>pretty painted armies, and you use your character like a game token to
>try to win all the battles. In between fights, you solve puzzles. You
>resolve the battles with an objective system of rules, and you work on
>the puzzles without benefit of PC "puzzle-solving skills."
>
>Basically, it's a wargame and trivia game with names and pretty
>paintings for the characters. You might play the character with a funny
>accent, too.
I agree, to a degree. This is the reason I say Brian G is not as
Gamist as he claims.
Warren J. Dew
Don't feel bad. There's a *reason* I chose Reese's
Peanut Butter Cups. Yes, I'm that old too. (Well,
I'm not pre-AD&D old, but I'm still not a young
pup anymore.)
Uh-oh. I think you guys are feeling old over and ad that came after my
television watching days.
Robert Scott Clark:
"Simulationism" is just the case of "simulationism" where
there is only one +1 choice and all other choices are -1.
Hm. Or possibly where there is only one +1 choice and all other choices are 0.
From another post:
[some consider that] the world always recomends what
will happen, therefore if you don't listen to it, you
must be taking something else into account. They
ignore that people may vary on the axis that we
are discussing here - the world might not tall
you anything at all.
If the world doesn't tell you anything at all, don't you have to take something
else into account to make an adjudication?
Irina Rempt
> Then there's the "world nature" people:
>
> I want total realism.
> I want a "realistic fictional" world.
> I want the world to match Setting X.
>
> By "realistic fiction," I mean a world which differs from our own, but
> behaves in a way that makes sense to real people, given some different
> initial conditions and (maybe) physical laws. Roughly, this "axis"
> shows how far you are willing to deviate from pure realism and still
> call it a "faithful" world. There's also some interaction with the
> other axis, because some people feel very strongly that you can't
> answer the question "What must happen?" unless the world behaves in a
> more-or-less conventional way. The FAQ doesn't address this question,
> but my observation is that Simulationists fall mainly in the "very
> realistic fictional world" category.
This seems to mean that "faithful" implies "faithful to something
outside the world" (like a genre convention, or a pre-existing
fictional model, perhaps a movie, or a historical stage of the world we
live in). What do you call people who insist that a world should be
faithful only to itself (like me or Warren)? I think this is what Mary
meant by "fidelity". Being faithful to something external to the world
would be "verisimilitude".
I'm not talking about what *happens* in the world; that can be driven
by the world itself, by characters, by story concerns, by application
of player skill, or almost anything else, without changing the *nature*
of the world.
> Sometimes, however, the world concerns are more important, and I
> replace "what could happen?" with "what should happen?" Usually this
> is a kind of channeling, where I get a clear impression of what the
> game world "wants."
What's wrong with "what happens?", when you admit to channelling anyway?
> I get the impression that Warren (sorry for using you as an example
> again, guy -- correct me if I'm wrong!) usually uses the filter, "What
> *must* happen according to world concerns?" but for some player
> inputs, he shifts to "What could happen for game concerns? What should
> not happen for world concerns?" Likewise, Irina seems to favor "must"
> for world, but she has some tolerance for story "coulds" filtered
> through world "should nots."
Convoluted and as far as I can see slightly skewed, but as right as it
gets, I think. I don't think of it in terms of "must", but almost every
time in terms of "does", otherwise "might".
Robert Scott Clark
>
> "Simulationism" is just the case of "simulationism" where
> there is only one +1 choice and all other choices are -1.
>
>Hm. Or possibly where there is only one +1 choice and all other choices are 0.
I don't know if that really makes sense. Something that says "without
a doubt, X happens", must also say "everything - X doesn't happen"
>
>If the world doesn't tell you anything at all, don't you have to take something
>else into account to make an adjudication?
2 comments.
1. Yes, sort of. But the process is different than the tradeoff
described by the threefold.
2. No, not really. You just might not care. I'd likely flip a coin
or something.
Mark Grundy
news:90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> Just some food for thought.
>
> there are at least four things that "I care about the gameworld" can
> mean, and some players find them very far from interchangable.
Mary went on to define consistency, realism, verisimilitude and fidelity as
different criteria for successful game simulation.
In a subsequent article, I described these as "soundness" conditions: ie,
conditions by which you might check whether the game-world (and its plots
etc..) hold together soundly. I also went on to describe other soundness
conditions, such as verifiability, equity, relevance, and accuracy, and
possible "completeness" conditions such as "representability", "just
desserts" and "explication".
What popped up during the writing of this though was that all the soundness
and completeness conditions put forward, seem to serve drama, simulation and
game issues equally well -- they don't seem to me to be especially
simulationist issues at all.
But the words "simulationist", "dramatist" and "gamist" didn't seem
appropriate to describe the benefits from these conditions. Instead I
arrived at
* logic: can players or characters come to independent agreement that an
event was correct?
* aesthetics: is the game emotionally pleasing?
* equity: are the players all satisfied with their level of opportunity and
role in the game?
The soundness conditions all have something to say about logic, aesthetics
and equity.
But sound logic alone won't make good simulation, any more than fine
aesthetics (eg, in the form of beautiful imagery) will make good drama, or
player equity will ensure a satisfying social experience. Yet the choice of
logic, aesthetics and equity underpins all game and game-world designs.
I suspect that there's a deeper model than the threefold to be found, and I
suspect that it has at least four nodes:
* logic
* aesthetics
* equity and relationships
* challenge
Also, where the points of the threefold are normally thought of as pulling
one another apart, the nodes above are normally chosen to reinforce one
another. My game logic underpins my game aesthetic, equity, relationships
and challenge. But my game aesthetic enhances the logic with beauty and
binds the group with common interests.. And so forth.
From these emerge the decisions that affect how I simulate, build drama and
resolve game issues.
Any thoughts?
Mark
Mark Grundy
news:90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> Just some food for thought.
>
> Part of the history behind the struggles over "simulationist" is that
> there are at least four things that "I care about the gameworld" can
> mean, and some players find them very far from interchangable.
Mary goes on to define consistency, realism, verisimilitude and fidelity as
different criteria for successful game simulation.
Thanks, Mary... I liked this a lot. Here are some additional criteria people
use:
* Verifiability: ensuring that an outcome is repeatable under the same
circumstances
* Equity: ensuring that what applies to one individual, applies to others
* Relevance: ensuring that events are causally connected
* Accuracy: ensuring that the emphasis and detail does not shift according
to the
situation
Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Consistency
and Realism. It bugs many players when games don't work the same way twice.
But there are also games where you might want something verifiable but not
necessarily consistent with the players' understanding of the world (eg a
horror game).
Equity comes in a couple of common forms: player/player equity (all players
get the
same go) and player/nonplayer equity (PC's don't have an aura).
Relevance can bug players who like solving problems. The less relevance, the
more "red herrings", the harder it is to solve the problem. This doesn't
necessarily affect the credibility of the events themselves, but it can
affect the credibility of the characters' engagement in the story.
Accuracy often bothers players who don't like getting unsolicited clues as
part of
the narrative. Accuracy relates to the portrayal of the world, rather than
the world itself.
In mathematical logic, as well as soundness conditions there are also
"completeness" conditions, which address the question of how much you can
actually do with your logical
models. Soundness requires that the logic is not self-contradictory in
some sense; completeness requires that the logic can verify or discount
anything that it can express.
In a gaming sense you can think of several versions of completeness:
* Representability: ensuring that any plausible outcome can be captured in
the game
mechanics
* Just desserts: ensuring that all significant consequences of one's
actions are encountered in the game sooner or later
* Explication: ensuring that all plot holes are eventually explained
Any others?
Mark Grundy
news:90rts6$kuh$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> Just some food for thought.
>
> Part of the history behind the struggles over "simulationist" is that
> there are at least four things that "I care about the gameworld" can
> mean, and some players find them very far from interchangable.
Mary went on to define consistency, realism, verisimilitude and fidelity as
different criteria for successful game simulation.
In a subsequent article, I described these as "soundness" conditions: ie,
conditions by which you might check whether the game-world (and its plots
etc..) hold together soundly -- this terminology comes from mathematical
logic.
I also went on to describe other soundness conditions, such as
verifiability, equity, relevance, and accuracy. Also possible "completeness"
conditions such as "representability", "just desserts" and "explication",
which affect how much the game is expressing.
What popped up during the writing of this though was that all the soundness
and completeness conditions put forward, seem to serve drama, simulation and
game issues equally well -- they don't seem to me to be especially
simulationist issues at all.
But the words "simulationist", "dramatist" and "gamist" didn't seem
appropriate to classify the reasons for these conditions. Instead I arrived
at
* logic: can players or characters come to independent agreement that an
event was correct?
* aesthetics: is the game emotionally pleasing?
* equity: are the players all satisfied with their level of opportunity and
role in the game?
The soundness conditions all have something to say about logic, aesthetics
and equity.
But sound logic alone won't make good simulation, any more than fine
aesthetics (eg, in the form of beautiful imagery) will make good drama, or
player equity will ensure a satisfying social experience. Yet the choice of
logic, aesthetics and equity underpins all game designs.
I suspect that there's a deeper model than the threefold to be found, and I
suspect that it has at least four nodes:
* logic
* aesthetics
* equity and relationships
* challenge
Also, where the points of the threefold are normally thought of as pulling
one another apart, the nodes above are normally chosen to reinforce one
another. Eg: your game logic underpins your game aesthetic, equity,
relationships and challenge. But your game aesthetic enhances the logic with
beauty and binds the group with common interests.. And so forth.
From these emerge the decisions that affect how we simulate, build drama and
resolve game issues. If you want to justify a decision, or review it for
soundness, you'll often do so against the world logic, the aesthetics of the
decision, what it's likely to do to equity and player or character
relationships, and the challenge of play itself.
Any thoughts?
Mark
Mark Grundy
Mark Grundy
Mark Grundy
Mark Grundy
Mark Grundy
strange happened with my new posting software.
Mark
Bradd W. Szonye
>is.
>
>At one end we have deterministic Simulationism, where the world *can*
>define absolutely everything that happens.
>
>Near the other , we have a few options that are eliminated , a few that
>are recomended by the world , and a wide margin that the world doesn't
>care about one way or another. (theoretically, there is something even
>further out that totally lacks structure, and can neither recomend or
>deny any choice)
>
>As you move to the right (I have to visualize it somehow), you get more
>options that are eliminated by the world, fewer that are recomended,
>and many fewer that are indifferent to the world.
That sounds about right.
>I might be mistaken here, but this is what I thought you were talking
>about when you said that "Simulationism is all or nothing."
Well, sort of. Keep reading ...
>People who defend the current model seem to see the simulationist axis
>as being the degree of Big-S Simulationism.
Yes. However, that drops off pretty rapidly to zero. Once you get very
far from the Simulationist corner, you can't ignore meta-game concerns
any more, because the world simply doesn't resolve enough by itself.
It's not quite all-or-nothing, but basically the "avoid meta-game"
guideline doesn't work well outside the actual Simulationist corner.
The Sim corner is the intersection of "honor world" and "avoid
non-world." Now, the case where you avoid non-world but don't honor
world isn't very interesting -- such a game would be pretty arbitrary,
because you wouldn't have much world to go on, yet you wouldn't accept
other inputs. It would be the RPG equivalent of Chutes and Ladders.
Maybe somebody would enjoy it, but it doesn't sound appealing to me.
I'm more concerned with "honors world" but not "avoids meta-game,"
because that's the mid-triangle version of simulationism.
>>Big-G Gamism is obviously a game where the GM makes up battlemaps and
>>pretty painted armies, and you use your character like a game token to
>>try to win all the battles. In between fights, you solve puzzles. You
>>resolve the battles with an objective system of rules, and you work on
>>the puzzles without benefit of PC "puzzle-solving skills."
>>
>>Basically, it's a wargame and trivia game with names and pretty
>>paintings for the characters. You might play the character with a
>>funny accent, too.
>
>I agree, to a degree. This is the reason I say Brian G is not as
>Gamist as he claims.
Well, Brian is almost as Gamist as Warren is Simulationist. Neither are
really at the extreme, but both come pretty close. They're both solidly
in the corner area, if not at the corner.
Bradd W. Szonye
>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>> Then there's the "world nature" people:
>>
>> I want total realism.
>> I want a "realistic fictional" world.
>> I want the world to match Setting X.
>>
>> By "realistic fiction," I mean a world which differs from our own, but
>> behaves in a way that makes sense to real people, given some different
>> initial conditions and (maybe) physical laws. Roughly, this "axis"
>> shows how far you are willing to deviate from pure realism and still
>> call it a "faithful" world. There's also some interaction with the
>> other axis, because some people feel very strongly that you can't
>> answer the question "What must happen?" unless the world behaves in a
>> more-or-less conventional way. The FAQ doesn't address this question,
>> but my observation is that Simulationists fall mainly in the "very
>> realistic fictional world" category.
>
>This seems to mean that "faithful" implies "faithful to something
>outside the world" (like a genre convention, or a pre-existing
>fictional model, perhaps a movie, or a historical stage of the world we
>live in).
Remember when we were talking about reifying genre conventions? Lots of
people just wouldn't accept that characters might have blind spots
regarding the way the genre acts "screwy." They didn't feel that you
could play "humans" in such a world, because it would require an alien
mentality to cope with the genre aspects of the world. That's one
example of how the world set-up can make fidelity impossible: the genre
conventions conflict with the assumption of basically human mentality.
More generally, some people feel that if a world doesn't have a certain
amount of internal logic, it's impossible to be faithful to that world
-- that the inconsistencies preclude fidelity. The more different the
game world is from the real world, the more "fatal inconsistencies" you
get.
Other people don't think this is a problem at all.
>What do you call people who insist that a world should be
>faithful only to itself (like me or Warren)? I think this is what Mary
>meant by "fidelity". Being faithful to something external to the world
>would be "verisimilitude".
It's what I meant too. Plenty of folks, however, think that an
inconsistent world cannot be faithful to itself. And people also react
to very-different-from-ours worlds with the attitude that they *must*
have inconsistencies, or that we cannot comprehend them well enough to
be faithful.
>> Sometimes, however, the world concerns are more important, and I
>> replace "what could happen?" with "what should happen?" Usually this
>> is a kind of channeling, where I get a clear impression of what the
>> game world "wants."
>
>What's wrong with "what happens?", when you admit to channelling anyway?
It's "what happens" if I use it as-is, but most of the time I filter my
channeled "world instincts" through my gamist concerns. Thus, the world
influences are "what should happen" -- but sometimes I decide to modify
that a bit for other reasons.
If it weren't for my gamist needs, those channeled bits would become
"what happens," as you say. Sometimes I don't listen to my inner world
voice, however.
>> I get the impression that Warren (sorry for using you as an example
>> again, guy -- correct me if I'm wrong!) usually uses the filter, "What
>> *must* happen according to world concerns?" but for some player
>> inputs, he shifts to "What could happen for game concerns? What should
>> not happen for world concerns?" Likewise, Irina seems to favor "must"
>> for world, but she has some tolerance for story "coulds" filtered
>> through world "should nots."
>
>Convoluted and as far as I can see slightly skewed, but as right as it
>gets, I think. I don't think of it in terms of "must", but almost every
>time in terms of "does", otherwise "might".
Yes, right, good point. In the world, it just happens. In the game, it
*must* happen because that's what happened in the world, and the game is
the same as the world.
However, you're right: the "must" makes more sense in a rules-guided
Simulation than in a channeled one.