1            The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games

     2     [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |

     3     Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums

     4 

     5 

     6     Simulationism: The Right to Dream

     7     by [8]Ron Edwards

     8 

     9     Many thanks are due to Clinton R. Nixon, Paul Czege, Jared A. Sorensen,

    10     Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik, and Mike Holmes for comments on the

    11     manuscript. Several points, key text quotes, and nuances of argument

    12     wouldn't be in the article without their input. All inconsistencies or

    13     argumentative flaws, on the other hand, may be laid at my door.

    14 

    15     This is the first of three essays about the three GNS modes of

    16     role-playing. Each one is about both play and game design, with the

    17     former as the basic issue, and each one is intended to develop the

    18     points made in my "GNS and related matters of role-playing design"

    19     essay. I'm also drawing upon ideas I didn't express in that essay and

    20     many, many points of debate at the Forge over the last year. The

    21     original essay cleared up a lot of acrimony and misunderstanding that

    22     had arisen in the previous years, and I'm hoping that the current series

    23     plays an even more positive role in the current context - not only to

    24     remove negative connotations and interpretations (which are now much

    25     fewer anyway), but to encourage mutual understanding and appreciation

    26     among all role-players about all the available modes of play.

    27 

    28     Each essay isn't a segregated unit only about that one mode. Each will

    29     include more general issues, especially if they pertain especially if

    30     not uniquely to the mode under discussion, and each one is intended to

    31     clarify and develop "GNS and related matters" as a whole. Also, each one

    32     concludes with a Hard Question for those who prefer that mode of play.

    33     Each Hard Question is supposed to be interesting on its own, but I hope

    34     that the three taken together will be much more than merely

    35     "interesting."

    36 

    37     Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In

    38     the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one

    39     or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System,

    40     Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration

    41     as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the

    42     internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."

    43 

    44     Exploration reviewed

    45     Obviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of

    46     "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining,

    47     "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations.

    48     It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the

    49     top priority.

    50 

    51     I need to stop th'flow for a moment to explain some background, though.

    52     My original notions were mainly laid out in "System Does Matter," my

    53     first essay about all this stuff, based on my readings about the

    54     Threefold Model proposed in the r.g.f.a. discussion group. At the Gaming

    55     Outpost, lots of debate ensued about my essay, and eventually a poster

    56     called the Scarlet Jester objected to the term Simulationism in terms of

    57     its connotations, offering "Exploration" as the replacement - defined as

    58     the enjoyment of the "dream" or the imagination as an act in itself. He

    59     called his model "GENder" as an alternative to the then-existing GNS.

    60 

    61     GENder made a lot of sense to me, with one exception: Exploration, to

    62     me, seemed to be involved in all of role-playing. I decided to modify

    63     GNS severely and "float" the three modes on a "sea" of Exploration. In

    64     that context, Simulationist play priorities suddenly made more sense -

    65     as I saw it and still do, unlike Narrativist and Gamist priorities which

    66     are defined by an interpersonal out-of-game agenda, Simulationist play

    67     prioritizes the in-game functions and imagined events.

    68 

    69     From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978,

    70     1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are

    71     Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James):

    72 

    73       What is a fantasy role-playing game?

    74       A role-playing game is a game of character development, simulating the

    75       process of personal development commonly called "life."

    76 

    77     [In fairness, later text in the introduction brings in some adversarial

    78     GM/player context that sounds more Gamist, but the above quote is

    79     reinforced more often throughout the book's rules and text.]

    80 

    81     From the introduction of Skyrealms of Jorune, 3rd edition (Chessex

    82     Publications, 1992, author is Andrew Leker):

    83 

    84       Is it possible to win at role-playing? The whole idea of role-playing

    85       is to have a good time. Players work toward a common goal, often

    86       survival, but sometimes helping a friend in need, or accomplishing a

    87       task of unquestioned importance. Although there will be no winner or

    88       losers in an absolute sense, you will have the satisfaction of

    89       watching your character think through challenges, survive

    90       confrontations with other races, grow, and develop new skills.

    91 

    92     [Note the synecdoche: the "whole idea."]

    93 

    94     From the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc

    95     Miller):

    96 

    97       ... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character

    98       and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just

    99       as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the

   100       character ...

   101 

   102     [The above text is followed by some Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

   103     text which will be discussed in the Narrativism essay.]

   104 

   105     What's fun or good about that? Simulationist play looks awfully strange

   106     to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during

   107     play. "You do it just to do it? What the hell is that?"

   108 

   109     However, contrary to some accusations, it's not autistic or

   110     schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other

   111     role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and

   112     sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the

   113     emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps

   114     it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is

   115     a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you

   116     are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am

   117     referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated

   118     practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in

   119     heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing

   120     on throughout this essay.

   121 

   122     Sincere shared creativity: all role-playing has to have it. For some,

   123     it's the whole point.

   124 

   125     Is the term fatally flawed?

   126     More than once, people have called for abandoning the term "simulation"

   127     in its entirety. Most of the objections arise from connotations of one

   128     sort or another, since it gets used for all sorts of recreational or

   129     applied things. If it's Simulationism, then what's it Simulating, and

   130     what form does the resulting Simulation take?

   131 

   132     For better or for worse, this issue has never really struck home for me.

   133     My call is that the term is is defined locally and historically, and not

   134     really descriptive as such ("simulating") in nearly any application.

   135     Here's the variety that I see:

   136 

   137       * Simulation in wargaming = historical plausibility ("realism").

   138       * Simulation in computer games = rendering, reaction time.

   139       * Simulation in behavioral terms = "let's pretend" in terms of our

   140         expressions, gestures, and voices.

   141       * Simulate in emotional terms = related to lying, as in dissimulate or

   142         simulated passion.

   143 

   144     Since the term does not carry a single meaning among all the other

   145     contexts, assigning a specific meaning for role-playing just seems to be

   146     par for the course and not especially or intrinsically confusing.

   147     Hastily added: "to me." Maybe I'm just obdurate.

   148 

   149     Taking it role-playing specifically, a new issue arises: it's awfully

   150     hard to get at goals of any kind right out of the texts. A good place to

   151     start is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, in just about the first text ever

   152     that tried to explain what was going on (Dungeon Master's Guide, first

   153     edition, 1979, TSR; the author is Gary Gygax):

   154 

   155       Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best described as

   156       the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D

   157       is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any

   158       realism ... It does little to attempt to simulate anything either.

   159       ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun

   160       and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

   161 

   162     How to parse this? It seems unequivocal. However, first, this text is

   163     palpably disingenuous regarding "simulates nothing" - the immense

   164     efforts devoted in this book to the importance of in-game time and

   165     in-game justifications of hit-points, retainer/hireling opinions, costs

   166     for castle parts, and much more, do not support his claim. Second, and

   167     more importantly, Gygax is speaking from a 1970s perspective of

   168     role-playing existing as a subset of wargaming. What he calls simulation

   169     or realism, I call historical accuracy; what he calls "game"

   170     (imaginative, creative), I call Exploration. As an "umbrella point,"

   171     although D&D and AD&D of this era were procedurally mainly Gamist, all

   172     accompanying text by Gygax in any publication represents, I think, very

   173     hard-line post-wargame Simulationism as conceived by GNS theory.

   174 

   175     A somewhat lesser issue concerns whether I'm doing great violence to the

   176     term Simulationism as proposed in the original Threefold Model. My

   177     answer to this has two parts. (1) The Threefold definitions, for all

   178     three modes, tend to benefit in this debate from being moving targets

   179     over the years. (2) My set of theorizing, usually called "GNS" although

   180     I'm starting to wish for a better umbrella term, explicitly disavows any

   181     need for consistency with the Threefold.

   182 

   183     However, although I'm not convinced it's necessary, one possible

   184     solution has arisen. Jack Spencer proposed "Emulation" for the goals of

   185     play that I currently call Simulationism. If I felt any need for a

   186     wholly new term, this would probably be it.

   187 

   188     Baseline Simulationist practice

   189     The five elements of role-playing as laid out in my GNS essay are

   190     obviously where we start. Modelling them is the ideal. My first point

   191     about that is that the model need not be static; dynamic characters and

   192     settings, for instance, are perfectly valid Simulationist elements. My

   193     second point is that different types of Simulationist play can address

   194     very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most

   195     deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and

   196     physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and

   197     politics, and more. I'll go into this lots more later.

   198 

   199     The second point is that the mechanics-emphasis of the modelling system

   200     are also highly variable: it can handled strictly verbally (Drama),

   201     through the agency of charts and arrows, or through the agency of

   202     dice/Fortune mechanics. Any combination of these or anything like them

   203     are fine; what matters is that within the system, causality is clear,

   204     handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's

   205     part. That's why it's often referred to as "the engine," and unlike

   206     other modes of play, the engine, upon being activated and further

   207     employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive

   208     force for the game to "go."

   209 

   210     The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It is

   211     causality among the five elements of play. Whether everyone has to get

   212     the engine in terms of its functions varies among games and among

   213     groups, but recognizing its authority as the causal agent is a big part

   214     of play. (To repeat, the engine's extent and detail aren't the point; I

   215     could be talking about a notecard of brief "stay in character"

   216     requirements or a 300-page set of probability charts.) By the way,

   217     moving the GM into a position of authority over the rules/system is a

   218     derived state of the rules' authority; I'll discuss that later.

   219 

   220     Many Simulationist systems also emphasize modularity - you've got the

   221     baseline engine for what happens, so for specialty phenomena, whatever

   222     new rules go on top must not violate or devalue that baseline. When a

   223     system is very strong in this regard, it's what most people call

   224     "universal" or "generic," by which they mean customizable through

   225     addition.

   226 

   227     My final point is that this mode requires clear

   228     player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character

   229     knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries

   230     that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in

   231     a given instance, they must be clear and abided by.

   232 

   233     How-to-play text

   234     A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal:

   235     that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly

   236     into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the

   237     NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with

   238     this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character

   239     generation is a form of Director stance. It supports the central point

   240     of this essay, that the value of Simulationist play is prioritizing the

   241     group imaginative experience, to an extent that expands the very notion

   242     of "play" into acts that from Narrativist or Gamist perspectives are not

   243     play at all.

   244 

   245     This ideal poses two problems: one for the GM in particular, and one for

   246     the group as a whole.

   247 

   248     The GM problem, only partly solved by GM-only sections, is that it makes

   249     it very hard to write a coherent how-to explanation for scenario

   250     preparation and implementation. Putting this sort of information right

   251     out "in front of God and everybody" is counter-intuitive for some

   252     Simulationist-design authors, because it's getting behind the curtain at

   253     the metagame level. The experience of play, according to the basic goal,

   254     is supposed to minimize metagame, but preparation for play, from the

   255     GM's perspective, is necessarily metagame-heavy, and if reading the book

   256     is assumed to be actually beginning to play ... well, then a certain

   257     conflict of interest sets into the process.

   258 

   259     The usual textual solution is to assume that the GM is already on the

   260     same page and to address him or her as a co-conspirator. In many games,

   261     however, such information is outright punted, such that a GM must bring

   262     a particular set of experiences and values to the text in the first

   263     place in order to play the game.

   264 

   265     The whole-group problem is that individually-conducted character

   266     creation often produces differing conclusions about the point of play

   267     from player to player, which is to say, the characters are fully

   268     plausible and created by the rules, but are also manifestly incapable of

   269     interacting in terms of any one person's desired genre/setting. The

   270     classic example in fantasy-adventure play is the party including a

   271     paladin and an assassin; the one in superhero play is the super-team

   272     that includes both a Spider-Man clone and a Wolverine clone.

   273 

   274     The usual textual solution is to urge that all character creation be

   275     subject to the approval of the GM, which in practice poses some

   276     problems. For instance, it assumes that the Social Contract of the game

   277     group permits such authority and presents no procedure to follow if that

   278     happens not to be the case. Also, I have never seen any text explaining

   279     what a GM is supposed to do or to say to the player regarding how to

   280     re-write the character or to design a new one; every example, and there

   281     are many, seems to assume that the GM "just knows" how to communicate

   282     the je ne sais qua to the player.

   283 

   284     I suggest that genuinely helpful, teaching-oriented text that does not

   285     fall into synecdoche ("real role-players," etc) would be a tremendous

   286     benefit to presenting straightforwardly Simulationist games. Such text

   287     would include methods for GMs to prepare scenarios from a fully-metagame

   288     perspective - which is to say, the ideal of the book "being play" would

   289     have to be lost temporarily - as well as methods for the GM's work

   290     during character creation itself. Furthermore, this text would have to

   291     be practical and compelling to players in a way that "All character

   292     creation is subject to the approval of the GM" is not - for instance, it

   293     would inspire players to avoid the paladin-assassin problem on their

   294     own, during the creation of the first characters rather than the second

   295     ones.

   296 

   297     Historically, such text has been rare. Well, actually, it's rare for any

   298     mode of play, but I submit that Simulationist-oriented games have tended

   299     to have special trouble with it due to the widely-held ideal of treating

   300     the text experience as play.

   301 

   302     Internal Cause is King

   303     Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what

   304     happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the

   305     imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well

   306     as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general

   307     sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to

   308     emerge without extra attention. It's a tall order: the relationship is

   309     supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on

   310     "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda.

   311     Since real people decide when to roll, as well as any number of other

   312     contextual details, they can take this spec a certain distance. However,

   313     the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from

   314     System outcomes, in application.

   315 

   316     Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor

   317     among the other elements. As I outlined in the previous essay, System is

   318     mainly composed of character creation, resolution, and reward mechanics.

   319 

   320     During character generation, layering and overt currency are frequently

   321     employed to engage the player in Simulationist play during the process.

   322 

   323     Layering may be employed to establish and identify the character's

   324     plausibility in terms of the game-world itself. For a look at the

   325     historical differences among games, compare the methods for establishing

   326     player-character skill competence in early RuneQuest (Simulationist)

   327     with those of Hero Wars (Narrativist). In Hero Wars, the system limits

   328     how many of the thirty or so starting abilities are assigned high values

   329     (two really good ones and one great one), but not which ones. Whereas in

   330     RuneQuest, every skill has a starting-character value based on its

   331     commonality and difficulty to learn, and every skill is rated in money

   332     regarding learning higher values of competence, based both on difficulty

   333     to learn and who teaches the skill. Hero Wars character creation, which

   334     is minimally layered, isn't concerned with the implausibility of having

   335     a mastery-level in Greatsword be just as "likely" as having it in

   336     Farming; RuneQuest character creation, which is maximally layered,

   337     emphatically is.

   338 

   339     To repeat, the above point is historical. Whether the distinction I've

   340     drawn holds for any and all Simulationist play potential, I don't know.

   341 

   342     A related issue is prerequisite attributes and abilities for a given

   343     ability, which represent a further step of layering. Prerequisites are

   344     common in historical Simulationist and Gamist design, and in the former,

   345     I think they are present specifically to reinforce the same

   346     plausibility/likelihood issue.

   347 

   348     For currency, consider Champions or many of the games based on its

   349     principles. From a Simulationist perspective on play, if a given feature

   350     costs more than another, or if it can be traded off with some other

   351     feature, or if it plus another feature mathematically yield a third,

   352     then it's all built to focus attention and assign cause from "is" to

   353     "does" in the imagined game-context. That cause must be (a) engaging (as

   354     for any RPG) and (b) causally continuous through the layers, providing

   355     for many equally-functional, equally-plausible, and potentially

   356     equally-enjoyable options.

   357 

   358     I think this combined approach and perceived purpose of layering and

   359     currency is why attribute + skill systems have remained entrenched - a

   360     strong sub-set of the Simulationist perspective demands that the

   361     in-world ontogeny of a character's ability be integrated into the

   362     process of establishing it on the character sheet.

   363 

   364     Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about

   365     the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important

   366     during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions

   367     and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two

   368     games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with

   369     childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning

   370     bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game

   371     (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.

   372     Before talking about dice or other specific resolution mechanics, I'll

   373     discuss two elements of Resolution which are rarely recognized: the

   374     treatment of in-game time and space. These are a big deal in

   375     Simulationist play as universal and consistent constraints, which must

   376     apply equally to any part of the imagined universe, at any point during

   377     play.

   378 

   379     To talk about this, let's break the issue down a little:

   380 

   381       * In-game time occurs regarding the actually-played imaginary moments

   382         and events. It's best expressed by combat mechanics, which in

   383         Simulationist play are often extremely well-defined in terms of

   384         seconds and actions, but also by movement rates at various scales,

   385         starship travel times, and similar things.

   386       * Metagame time is rarely discussed openly, but it's the crucial one.

   387         It refers to time-lapse among really-played scenes: can someone get

   388         to the castle before someone else kills the king; can someone fly

   389         across Detroit before someone else detonates the Mind Bomb. Metagame

   390         time isn't "played," but its management is a central issue for

   391         scene-framing and the outcome of the session as a whole.

   392       * Real time is, of course, the real time of play as experienced by the

   393         people at the table. I think comparing between its flow and that of

   394         the in-game time is a crucial issue as well - when is a huge hunk of

   395         real time necessary to establish a teeny bit of in-game time, and

   396         vice versa?

   397 

   398     The following text is also from the first edition of the Dungeon

   399     Master's Guide (TSR, 1979); the author is Gary Gygax.

   400 

   401       Game time is of the utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track

   402       of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies

   403       in the game. ...

   404 

   405       One of the things stated in the original game of D&D was the

   406       importance of recording game time with respect to each and every

   407       player-character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more:

   408       YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN UNLESS EXTENSIVE RECORDS ARE

   409       KEPT.

   410 

   411       [provides an example, then:]

   412 

   413       You may ask why time is so important if it causes such difficulties

   414       with record-keeping, dictates who can or can not go adventuring during

   415       a game session, and disperses player characters to the four winds by

   416       its strictures. Well, as initially pointed out, it is a necessary

   417       penalty imposed on characters for certain activities [making magic

   418       items - RE]. Beyond that, it also gives players yet another

   419       interesting set of choices and consequences. The latter tends to bring

   420       more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use

   421       precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and

   422       some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time

   423       is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from

   424       the lesser ones.

   425 

   426     That latter point bears close, close examination. Gygax is not talking

   427     about winning, I think, but about a quality. This is his value judgment

   428     about how to play this game. His "true to life quality," I think, is

   429     synonymous with his earlier reference to creativity and imagination, or

   430     Simulationism (prioritizing Exploration) as defined by me.

   431 

   432     Gygax's text perfectly states the Simulationist view of in-game time. It

   433     is a causal constraint on the other sorts. One can even find, in many

   434     early game texts, rules that enforce how in-game time acts on real time,

   435     and vice versa. However, most importantly, it constrains metagame time.

   436     It works in-to-out. In-game time at the fine-grained level (rounds,

   437     seconds, actions, movement rates) sets incontrovertible, foundation

   438     material for making judgments about hours, days, cross-town movment, and

   439     who gets where in what order. I recommend anyone who's interested to the

   440     text of DC Heroes for some of the most explicit text available on this

   441     issue throughout the book.

   442 

   443     So much for time; now let's talk space. Rules for characters' movement

   444     in the imagined space of the situation go all the way back to wargaming,

   445     in the (to us oldies) familiar forms of grids and hex-maps, counters,

   446     and even rules or tape-measures. The original context was pretty

   447     large-scale: the movement of troops, heavy vehicles, squadrons, and so

   448     on. For role-playing in the "new" sense, the scale got bumped down to

   449     the individual level, and so came to emphasize facing, movement rate,

   450     turn rate, number of personal actions, and similar.

   451 

   452     The interesting thing is that most of these specific details have been

   453     lost in most, although not all, Simulationist rules design over the

   454     decades, with nary a whimper. Why? Because second-to-second kinetics

   455     ceased to be (or rarely were) the issue of Exploration at hand,

   456     particularly in genre-heavy play (see later). The Situation of interest

   457     typically isn't "facing" when we want Character, Setting, System,

   458     Situation, and Color to fire on shared cylinders with full

   459     internal-consistency and agreed-upon thematic outcomes.

   460 

   461     It's significant, I think, that movement-specific mechanics do remain in

   462     many Gamist RPG design as an element of tactical challenge.

   463 

   464     Now for the more nitty-gritty resolution mechanics, or DFK (Drama,

   465     Karma, Fortune). Historically speaking, the System has been based on

   466     task resolution, not conflict resolution, regardless of scale. Don't

   467     mistake "conflict" for "large-scale task." This point is independent of

   468     the system's complexity; it applies to rock-paper-scissors and GM-fiat

   469     as well as to dice and tables.

   470 

   471     The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be

   472     linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or

   473     parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body:

   474     how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact

   475     hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain)

   476     effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order,

   477     on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn,

   478     in time.

   479 

   480     The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text,

   481     sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is

   482     classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and

   483     to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS).

   484     Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the

   485     character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often

   486     breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and

   487     abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit

   488     location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which

   489     has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it

   490     represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.

   491 

   492     The most common Simulationist resolution is handled through Fortune,

   493     specifically Fortune-at-the-End. This term refers to a dice roll (or

   494     cards, or whatever) which is consulted after all possible pre-resolution

   495     description of the actions in question has been delivered. Its

   496     alternative, Fortune-in-the-Middle, is not historically observed in

   497     Simulationist game design. (See glossary for definitions and links.)

   498 

   499     A useful way to look at Fortune in much Simulationist play is to think

   500     of anything that isn't rolled as being a 100% outcome on an implied

   501     roll. The extreme view (see the Purist for System category below) is to

   502     interpret the whole shootin' universe as tacitly operating according to

   503     the d100 or the 3d6 or whatever that's used to handle character task

   504     resolution.

   505 

   506     An entire discussion awaits concerning the shape of dice curves,

   507     modifiers' effects, separate vs. incorporated effects, and more. I look

   508     forward to this on the forums. Also, more details about resolution in

   509     Simulationist games are presented below, when I break down the sub-types

   510     in detail.

   511 

   512     Finally, reward mechanics remain a topic of vast debate and design

   513     potential in Simulationist games. I think the following historical

   514     categories barely scratch the surface.

   515 

   516     BRP style: character improvement is literally a function of play just as

   517     any other action, via practice and study. This is the famous "if you

   518     succeed with a skill during play, roll over your skill percent between

   519     sessions in order to improve." The pitfall is graininess, such that one

   520     can then start debating about whether one should learn more or less

   521     across ten "hits" against one opponent vs. one hit each for ten

   522     opponents, why one does or doesn't learn from a failed attempt, and how

   523     study is to be rated and applied (much less how it's to be played)

   524     relative to the "experience" methods.

   525 

   526     Hero style: the player gains points simply for being there (despite

   527     attempts at parsing it, that's what it amounts to), and the

   528     point-allocation based cost of character creation continues to be

   529     applied. The character is added to in terms of the points that were

   530     originally used to assemble him, and arguably as an expression of the

   531     same in-game developmental processes involved. In this case, the

   532     point-gains are metagame, but the spending is supposed to use in-game

   533     logic, sometimes reinforced by "corralling" sections of the character

   534     off from one another. The pitfall is reaching degrees of improvement

   535     which themselves violate the genre-level standards of that particular

   536     play, which some games overcome by making the intersession correspond to

   537     substantial in-game time.

   538 

   539     In either case, the key issue is that character change potentially

   540     disrupts the current relationship among the components of the character.

   541     Options to fix the problem are generally unsatisfactory: (1) slow it

   542     down, and (2) permit only tiny changes. One option, rarely seen, is to

   543     include kind of a secondary, add-on game with its own set of components,

   544     as with Rune status in RuneQuest. (I realize that not everyone knows all

   545     of the games I'm referencing, and I certainly don't have all historical

   546     RPGs memorized. This topic definitely calls for more discussion in the

   547     forums, where we have room to describe all the various examples in

   548     detail.)

   549 

   550     The diversity of Simulationist game design

   551     Here's a quick overview of existing diversity in Simulationist play. I'm

   552     focusing on fun, functional, coherent play - none of the following is a

   553     criticism or indictment. Also, I've tried to represent as many

   554     creator-owned titles as possible, but I'll refer to others as needed.

   555 

   556     My overall point is that, although Simulationist play is defined as

   557     prioritizing Exploration of the five elements, its diversity is not a

   558     five-headed, one-element-per-submode hydra. All five elements are always

   559     involved. In defining the subtypes of this mode of play, here are the

   560     issues: (1) whether Exploring System is primary, and (2) which of the

   561     other elements are necessary "support" or "chassis" and which ones are

   562     diminished in emphasis.

   563 

   564     Purists for System

   565     What games are these? EABA, JAGS, SOL, Pocket Universe, and Fudge are

   566     deliberately "generalist" regarding setting. The big commercial models

   567     are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of

   568     Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from

   569     Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger

   570     International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions). Whether D20

   571     should be included in this category is a matter for some debate.

   572 

   573     These games' five-element structure is consistent: System + Color

   574     thereof, Setting, then Character + Situation. I'm trying to think of one

   575     which switches the role of character before setting, which might include

   576     some some superhero games. It might seem odd that Color is placed so

   577     high in priority, but consider the engineering-text model for the game

   578     text of GURPS - this is, actually, Color for System.

   579 

   580     A lot of people have trouble with the notion of "Exploring System." They

   581     argue that playing a game like Fudge is necessarily Setting-first. I

   582     disagree, but this debate properly belongs in the forums.

   583 

   584     In these games, the System is all about Fortune and all about Currency.

   585 

   586     Regarding Fortune, probabilities are the key to achieving the basic

   587     Simulationist internal-cause priority. Consider both comparative

   588     probabilities among characters at a given moment as well as

   589     probabilities in transition within a character over time - in action

   590     (actually resolving tasks), these are what drive the game. For these

   591     games, a unified probability mechanic to handle any game-modelled

   592     instance is the ideal, usually resulting in a single tables-based

   593     concept such as the Universal Table in DC Heroes.

   594 

   595     Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences

   596     among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so

   597     forth. The usual issues surrounding incorporated vs. unincorporated

   598     effects, opposed vs. target number mechanics, the interaction of

   599     switches and dials, and probability-curvature shape are therefore the

   600     main things to distinguish these systems from one another. Compared to

   601     other designs, high search and handling times, as well as many

   602     points-of-contact, are acceptable features. (Please see the Glossary for

   603     the definition of points-of-contact).

   604 

   605     Here's some text from the introduction to SOL: the Omniversal

   606     Role-playing System (1994, Heraldic Games; the author is Keith W.

   607     Sears):

   608 

   609       I wanted to make an RPG that went beyond those described as

   610       "Universal", "Generic", or "Multi-genre." Many of the games with these

   611       tags fall short of what they're supposed to be...playable in any genre

   612       of fiction.

   613 

   614       It seems that whenever a very unusual situation pops up, many of these

   615       "universal" games must revise the rules they already have in order to

   616       cover it. An example would be the climactic battle between a very tiny

   617       man and a normal-sized spider in the movie, The Incredible Shrinking

   618       Man. You can't simulate that in most RPGs without a major reworking of

   619       the rules just to handle that one situation. SOL was created to

   620       encompass roleplaying on any scale--from gods to viruses.

   621       ...

   622       [in terms of my overall point for this essay, I couldn't help but

   623       include his sign-off phrase - RE] Keep Dreaming!

   624 

   625     Regarding Currency, in these games, the imagined universe is made of

   626     "points." Therefore character creation and often resolution are often

   627     characterized by layering: paying points to get values for named scores,

   628     which themselves are mathematically derived to produce effective values.

   629     Interestingly, in-game money and possessions are often considered merely

   630     another facet of the universe that can be expressed in these points.

   631     This relationship between points and reality seems very well entrenched

   632     in Purist for System design, which is understandable, as it provides

   633     concrete insights to the internal-cause heart of the game that a player

   634     can latch onto prior to play.

   635 

   636     In terms of character/player roles, characters in these games are

   637     solidly defined in terms only of my third and fourth categories: in-game

   638     character occupation, and the specific abilities that are associated

   639     with or in addition to that. (See the glossary for a discussion of these

   640     terms.)

   641 

   642     In this sort of design, there's no possible excuse for any

   643     imperfections, including scale-derived breakdowns of the fundamental

   644     point/probability relationships. The system must be cleanly and at the

   645     service of the element(s) being emphasized, in strictly in-game-world

   646     terms. A good one is elegant, consistent, applicable to anything that

   647     happens in play, and clear about its outcomes. It also has to have

   648     points of contact at any scale for any conceivable thing. It cannot

   649     contain patch-rules to correct for inconsistencies; consistency is the

   650     essence of quality.

   651 

   652     As I see it, Purist for System design is a tall, tall order. It's

   653     arguably the hardest design spec in all of role-playing.

   654 

   655     In play, these games offer a lot of diversity because both the

   656     character-to-player relationship and the GM-to-outcomes relationship are

   657     fully customizable. Players might well utilize Pawn stance as Actor

   658     stance or any other, and the GM may care greatly about a given goal or

   659     situation to be set up during play, or not at all. The only required

   660     priority is to enjoy the System in action. (I'm not claiming here that

   661     the other four elements are irrelevant, though.)

   662 

   663     High Concept

   664     In cinema, "High Concept" refers to any film idea that can be pitched in

   665     a very limited amount of time; the usual method uses references to other

   666     films. Sometimes, although not necessarily, it's presented as a

   667     combination: "Jaws meets Good Will Hunting," or that sort of thing. I'm

   668     adopting it to role-playing without much modification, although

   669     emphasizing that the source references can come from any medium and also

   670     that the two-title combo isn't always employed.

   671 

   672     The key word is "genre," which in this case refers to a certain

   673     combination of the five elements as well as an unstated Theme. How do

   674     they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as

   675     the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style,

   676     and more. "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events

   677     that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre

   678     during play.

   679 

   680     This sort of game design will be familiar to almost anyone, represented

   681     by Arrowflight (Setting), Pax Draconis (Setting), Godlike (Setting), Sun

   682     & Storm (Setting + Situation), Dreamwalker (Situation), The Godsend

   683     Agenda (Character-Setting tug-of-war), The Collectors (applied Fudge,

   684     Situation + Character), Heartquest (applied Fudge; Character), Children

   685     of the Sun (Setting), Fvlminata (Setting), and Dread (Situation +

   686     Character), Fading Suns (Setting), Earthdawn (Setting), Space: 1889

   687     (Setting), Mutant Chronicles (Setting), Mage first edition (Character),

   688     Mage second edition (Setting), Ironclaw (Setting), and Continuum

   689     (Setting with a touch of System). Many Fantasy Heartbreakers fall into

   690     this category, almost all Setting-based. Some of the best-known games of

   691     this type include Tekumel, Jorune, Traveller (specifically in its

   692     mid-80s through mid-90s form), Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Nephilim,

   693     Feng Shui, the various secondary settings for AD&D2 like Al-Qadim, and

   694     quite a few D20 or WEG games which rely on licensing. I am coming to

   695     think of D20 as a kind of High Concept chassis, a very new and

   696     interesting development in RPG design.

   697 

   698     Also, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High

   699     Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as

   700     the best-known examples.

   701 

   702     At first glance, these games might look like additions to or

   703     specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging

   704     in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate, and

   705     that the five elements are very differently related. The formula starts

   706     with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then

   707     the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in

   708     first place), with System being last in priority.

   709 

   710     I also recommend examining Theme carefully. In this game, it's present

   711     and accounted for already, before play. The process of prep-play-enjoy

   712     works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come

   713     out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything

   714     along the way.

   715 

   716     Character creation is far more delimited as well, relying heavily on

   717     Setting and Situation. In this case, the "points" are pure metagame for

   718     purposes of making characters; they don't reflect or underly the

   719     universe in action as in the Purist for System games. Starting

   720     characters tend to be very colorful and described by many terms and

   721     numbers, but relatively static: waiting for their hook, so to speak.

   722     Hooks are often built-in; unlike the Purist for System methods, the

   723     player-to-character relationship usually includes my second "role level"

   724     in addition to the third and fourth.

   725 

   726     Quantitatively, the more common character creation methods (which are

   727     not unique to Simulationist design) include less layering but more

   728     nesting (i.e. options within options, as well as the one-from-column-A,

   729     one-from-column-B approach established by Vampire), and almost always

   730     the relatively clumsy "GM approval" proviso. The specific method is

   731     usually based on points, but sometimes with Fortune methods to render a

   732     character role/type less likely to occur (making them more expensive

   733     with points also aims at this function). Notably, in-game money isn't

   734     modeled by the point-system during play.

   735 

   736     The System is not all about Fortune, either, and these games can be very

   737     uneasy in this regard. Dice-based resolutions sometimes represent much

   738     noise and effort about not much effect, i.e., random factors tend not to

   739     deviate from expected results very much. Some games display a small

   740     range of possible Effect (i.e. damage rarely harms an opponent very much

   741     at a time), slight metagame adjustments to minimize extreme results, or

   742     a lot of offered strategies for the GM to soften or redirect the effects

   743     that occur.

   744 

   745     Points-of-contact are far more directional; things which aren't relevant

   746     to the Explorative focus are often summarized and not "System'ed" with

   747     great rigor. When done well, such that the remaining, emphasized

   748     elements clearly provide a sort of "what to do" feel, this creates an

   749     extremely playable, accessible game text. Dread offers the perfect

   750     example for the lower points-of-contact end; Arrowflight and Godlike are

   751     similar but more reassuringly nail-even-the-irrelevant-down at the

   752     higher points-of-contact end. The truly outstanding games illustrating

   753     this latter approach are Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, and Pendragon.

   754 

   755     However, when it's done badly, resolutions are rife with breakpoints and

   756     GM-fiat punts, and a great deal of effort during character creation

   757     yields little sense of what the character is is about to do.

   758 

   759     Reward systems in High Concept games are typically quite slow-acting,

   760     requiring several sessions of play for any in-game benefit to kick in.

   761     Strangely, they are also often hard to find in the texts, being

   762     shoehorned in among character creation or GM instructions, or with their

   763     parts (how to award points, how to spend points) dispersed.

   764 

   765     High Concept play can be divided neatly into those which are greatly

   766     concerned with "the big story" and those which are not. Historically,

   767     the latter used to be the most common: Call of Cthulhu, Jorune, or more

   768     recently Dread and Godlike, in which "the story" only refers to a record

   769     of short-term events and set-pieces. However, following the spearhead

   770     for this type of game text, Ars Magica, now the long-term story-type is

   771     more common. A lot of internet blood has been spilled regarding how this

   772     phenomenon is or is not related to Narrativist play, but I think it's an

   773     easy issue. The key for these games is GM authority over the story's

   774     content and integrity at all points, including managing the input by

   775     players. Even system results are judged appropriate or not by the GM;

   776     "fudging" Fortune outcomes is overtly granted as a GM right.

   777 

   778     The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is a covert way to say the same

   779     thing: ignore any rule that interferes with fun. No one, I presume,

   780     thinks that any player may invoke the Golden Rule at any time; what it's

   781     really saying is that the GM may ignore any rule (or any player who

   782     invokes it) that ruins his or her idea of what should happen.

   783 

   784     The functional version of such play is properly called Illusionism,

   785     which has undergone a good deal of debate and clarification at the Forge

   786     (see glossary). Most of these game texts overtly instruct the GM to

   787     practice Illusionism, for example in Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7; the

   788     author is Todd Downing).

   789 

   790       Driving the Plot

   791       Once you've constructed your magnum opus of a campaign plot, the

   792       players will inevitably find ways to exploit, ignore, or downright

   793       break all of your hard work. You can either let that happen, or you

   794       can crack the whip and get them back in line. Don't be afraid of

   795       exploiting a character's past or weakness to ensure complicity. After

   796       all, you are the storyteller. Without you, they'd be playing Monopoly.

   797       Some of the tried and true methods of driving a plot are as follows:

   798 

   799       - Start the characters off in Adversity. Strip them of everything ...

   800       - Alternately, have them called upon to serve the Common Good ...

   801       - Appeal to any number of Baser Instincts ...

   802       - Force them in a certain direction with Rule of Law ...

   803       - Similar to the Rule of Law, you can direct your players with Threat

   804       of Bodily Harm ...

   805 

   806       Whatever you do, make sure it is not a no-win scenario. Nothing will

   807       frustrate and alienate players more than a dead end with no way out.

   808 

   809     "Story" emerges from the GM's efforts in this regard, with players being

   810     either cooperative (passively or actively), or obstreperous, in which

   811     case various "don't let them take over" methods are encouraged. Players

   812     are enjoined to immerse, by which they mean "keep your metagame agenda

   813     out of it," at the aesthetic level. It's best understood as Illusionism

   814     by full consent, which is what keeps it from being railroading, in that

   815     instead of making a story as an author does, the player is enjoying

   816     being in the story. In system and character generation terms, that's

   817     pretty much what's empowered to happen. I'll give this entire topic a

   818     full comparison and analysis in the Narrativism essay.

   819 

   820     A final point: writing a High Concept Simulationist game is actually

   821     much easier than writing a Purist for System one, as complex

   822     Setting-prep or Situation-prep have a lot in common with writing a story

   823     and knowing "how it's supposed to go" but not finishing it. However,

   824     playing this kind of game is actually harder in some ways - everyone

   825     must be pumped about the in-game content, but without reference to a

   826     corresponding metagame. Check out [9]Mongrel to see what you think of my

   827     take on this sort of game design.

   828 

   829     Rules-lite Story or Character priorities

   830     This section is likely to get me into trouble, so I'll tread carefully.

   831     I suggest that many self-described "rules-lite" or "story-oriented"

   832     role-playing games represent a derived version of the High Concept

   833     model, slanted heavily toward Situation - especially Situation which is

   834     under complete GM control, overt or covert. Players get to contribute

   835     tons of Color, even content, but never outcomes or final-resolutions,

   836     and playing the character as conceived is the first priority, sometimes

   837     taken to extremes of Actor Stance (e.g. Turku play, see the Glossary).

   838     Character and Situation are prioritized with Color, with Setting next,

   839     and lastly the formal System, which is slanted strongly toward

   840     Drama-mechanics. This mode of play may be strongly linked with LARP

   841     crossovers.

   842 

   843     Here's my point: in application, a covert System is heavily, heavily

   844     entrenched, regardless of whatever to-hit modifiers or dice rolls have

   845     been peeled away. This system is based on Social Contract (what we all

   846     agree is "good" or "fun") and Social Context (i.e. the subculture that

   847     players belong to), and it is sternly reinforced through these means. I

   848     think it's significant that literal referees - on-the-spot judges of

   849     what can and cannot happen - are a necessary feature as soon as groups

   850     get beyond a certain size.

   851 

   852     It's not just High Concept though. It looks like it - the heavy emphasis

   853     on story/genre, with overt eschewing of System, but it's also (a)

   854     actually pretty heavy on Drama-driven or Karma-driven System and (b)

   855     emphasizes customizable Settings as in Purist for System play. So I

   856     think it's worth its own category.

   857 

   858     From the introduction to Theatrix (1993, Backstage Press, authors are

   859     David Berkman, Travis Eneix, and Brett Hackett):

   860 

   861       Making a story come to life can be a difficult task. Previous

   862       generations of game systems have been rules bound, trapped within

   863       their own structure and rigidity. We wanted to produce a game that

   864       would help you in every way, not hinder you. So we developed a system

   865       of rules that is written to evolve along with your style of

   866       storytelling and roleplaying. These rules can be used to guide every

   867       facet of the game's progress, without becoming intrusive. You can use

   868       all the rules, or easily peel them away in layers, until you're

   869       running free-form games. The rules heavily encourage adopting this

   870       style of play, making themselves unnecessary.

   871 

   872     In other words, the system helps create story by fading away, much like

   873     the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I think that this whole design

   874     effort arises from a desire for "big story" in the face of

   875     Purist-for-System design and mainly Fortune-driven High Concept design.

   876     In the effort to get out of that sort of Simulationist play, the thought

   877     is to get rid of the System that supports it, with any explicit System

   878     being perceived as that sort of system. I consider this a problematic

   879     design goal but it's widespread enough to merit a category. What makes

   880     it difficult to discuss is that its explict story-creation goals are

   881     similar to those of Narrativist play, but the operational process is

   882     stripped-down High Concept Simulationism. (See the GNS stuff below for

   883     further discussion.)

   884 

   885     Fudge includes some text that might qualify it for this category, but

   886     operationally, the "story-oriented" reader who is captured by this text

   887     will swiftly be puzzled by the rules' emphasis on layered task

   888     resolution and repeated (and repeated) focus on scaling. I think Fudge

   889     is best described as low-search&handling-time Purist for System instead.

   890 

   891     I'm probably going to catch heat for this, but it seems to me that The

   892     Window and Theatrix both lend themselves toward this mode of play, if

   893     Drifted a bit from their textual tenets, on the basis of their systems

   894     and the GM's ability to organize the IIEE elements of play with a free

   895     hand. (See the Glossary for the definition of IIEE.)

   896 

   897     Some of the difficulties of this mode of play are outlined in the

   898     comparison with Narrativism and my criticisms of transparency below.

   899 

   900     Setting-creation and universe-play mechanisms

   901     Another derivation of the Purist for System approach brings the Setting

   902     creation process directly into play itself. The System-driven elements

   903     of the Setting are as "active" as any particular character might be,

   904     during play as well as during preparation. Basically, the setting is

   905     played, even created, as a part of regular play.

   906 

   907     Boink! I just realized that the original Traveller, or at least one way

   908     to play it, represents an example of this approach. Star system and

   909     planet creation are written right into the process of play, such that

   910     adventures and missions become not only a means of enjoying and

   911     improving characters, but also a means of enjoying and basically mapping

   912     the game-space. This is very distinct from later versions of Traveller,

   913     which were emphatically High Concept with a Setting emphasis. (Oh, and

   914     just for credit where it's due, I should also mention that Traveller

   915     pioneered the mechanics of overt character-creation-as-play.)

   916 

   917     This mode of play is not merely creating more setting through

   918     preparation as play progresses. It relies on doing so in a system-driven

   919     fashion much like character creation, carried out as an overt or

   920     near-overt part of actual play.

   921 

   922     It's a pretty rare form of play and design, probably because the

   923     economics of splat-book publishing overwhelmed the hobby, and Traveller

   924     itself, from the mid-1980s onwards. The more recent examples include

   925     Aria, Multiverser to some extent, and the currently-in-development The

   926     Million Worlds. The design spec is to achieve the Color/kewl power of

   927     High Concept with the uncompromising power and consistency of the

   928     Purists for System, via inserting the explicit metagame world-creating

   929     ability. I think this approach is interesting for the level of Director

   930     stance potentially involved and I look forward to more role-playing

   931     evolution along these lines.

   932 

   933     Historical note: BRP

   934     Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the

   935     most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in

   936     the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and

   937     arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising

   938     Simulationist design.

   939 

   940     It's kind of hard to discuss just how it was influential, as its very

   941     first appearance as a pamphlet accompanying a boardgame wasn't widely

   942     distributed. The influence operated primarily through the popularity of

   943     both RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. Looking across the early versions of

   944     these games as well as Superworld, Questworld, and more, I think BRP is

   945     identifiable as a Purist for System design and publishing. It's really

   946     probably the precursor for the later GURPS mode of publishing.

   947 

   948     However, that vision, plan, or phenomenon, whatever, swiftly evolved

   949     into High Concept, both in RuneQuest (Setting) and Call of Cthulhu

   950     (Situation) as they hit their early-mid-80s forms, which is what most

   951     people are familiar with, I think. Call of Cthulhu remains High Concept

   952     to the present day, whereas RuneQuest, upon being licensed to and

   953     redesigned to the specifications of Avalon Hill, essentially evolved

   954     into a new Purist for System game, with the setting, Glorantha,

   955     relegated to the background at most. Moving into the late 80s and early

   956     90s, the new BRP games (Pendragon, Nephilim) represented fairly radical

   957     Drifting of Cthulhu-style BRP into their respective High Concepts.

   958 

   959     GNS crossover issues

   960     As usual for GNS-heavy text, I'll speak of games themselves in the GNS

   961     terms, but with the proviso that I'm really speaking about the play

   962     itself that is typical of or best supported by the rules of those games.

   963 

   964     First, the FAQ

   965     Q: Can Simulationist design be Abashed?

   966 

   967     A: Sure. "Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to

   968     play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts

   969     of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift

   970     is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two

   971     modes (or sub-modes); e.g. I've said that Little Fears represents

   972     Abashed Narrativist design, but it should really be called Abashed

   973     Narrativism/Simulationism.

   974 

   975     Q: So "Abashed" means combined?

   976 

   977     A: No. Combined GNS modes which work well together would be "Hybrid."

   978     There's a whole section on that below. Abashed games must be Drifted

   979     (i.e. their rules must be operationally changed, or some sections

   980     ignored) in order to play.

   981 

   982     Q: Can Simulationist play be Vanilla?

   983 

   984     A: Well, we don't say Vanilla and Pervy any more (too rude for some,

   985     apparently). Now we talk about Points-of-Contact being low or high for

   986     given portions of rules. But to lapse back into the old terminology,

   987     yes, it can. Dread is a veritable poster child for Vanilla Sim, which I

   988     would generalize to mean a High Concept Simulationist design with low

   989     Points-of-Contact and a high emphasis on Situation. Pervy Sim basically

   990     just ups the Points-of-Contact as well as the emphasis on Exploring

   991     anything regardless of topic, which pretty much describes any member of

   992     the Purist-for-System category.

   993 

   994     Character generation

   995     Character generation text and methods are extremely diverse within each

   996     GNS mode, which is one of the reasons I favor group communication during

   997     this phase of pre-play. For instance, some Gamist-ish games utilize

   998     point-allocation systems, which looks similar to the widespread method

   999     in Simulationist-ish games. However, for Gamist purposes, this method is

  1000     all about strategizing tradeoffs, rather than establishing a fixed

  1001     internal-cause to "justify" the character. Similarly, Gamist character

  1002     creation utilizing Fortune methods isn't the same as the few

  1003     Simulationist randomized methods - in the former, it's a lot like

  1004     gambling, whereas in the latter, it's about a character maturing through

  1005     Fortune's vagaries represented by in-game effects like culture, weather,

  1006     disease, and so forth (e.g. Harnmaster).

  1007 

  1008     Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of

  1009     back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former,

  1010     it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward,

  1011     and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing

  1012     oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these

  1013     concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the

  1014     survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether

  1015     social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the

  1016     hobby.

  1017 

  1018     Metagame mechanics

  1019     The term "metagame" is problematic throughout this essay for

  1020     Simulationist play and rules design. Metagame mechanics, by definition,

  1021     entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the

  1022     system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as

  1023     lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were

  1024     themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But

  1025     compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be

  1026     spoken of as lacking metagame [i]interpersonal agenda[/i], like

  1027     "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in

  1028     Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential,

  1029     to stay in-game. I recognize that it's a problematic issue and I look

  1030     forward to some discussion about it.

  1031 

  1032     To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an

  1033     in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents

  1034     the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a

  1035     god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has

  1036     literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also

  1037     called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no

  1038     in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a

  1039     point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play

  1040     as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame

  1041     at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.

  1042 

  1043     Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score

  1044     goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is

  1045     whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system -

  1046     does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact,

  1047     is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game

  1048     effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No

  1049     one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider

  1050     them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and

  1051     non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think

  1052     that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them -

  1053     character or player.

  1054 

  1055     I suggest that Trouble in Orkworld, Hero Points in Hero Wars, and

  1056     Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel are Resource-based metagame

  1057     mechanics, whereas Power in RuneQuest, Sanity in Call of Cthulhu, and

  1058     these mechanics' many derivatives in other games, are straightforward,

  1059     non-metagame Resources. Similarly, I suggest that the role-playing

  1060     bonuses based on out-of-game neatness in Sorcerer are metagame, whereas

  1061     the Stunt rules based on difficulty or unlikelihood in Feng Shui are

  1062     not.

  1063 

  1064     It's a tough discussion, though. One confounding factor is that metagame

  1065     mechanics are often present as "fixes" of otherwise-Simulationist

  1066     systems that proved to be mildly broken in play. The trouble with such a

  1067     thing is that it can lead to serious Drift of the sort that breaks

  1068     Social Contracts or renders systems incoherent.

  1069 

  1070     Hybridization

  1071     As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of

  1072     potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the

  1073     other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive

  1074     elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual

  1075     result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or

  1076     to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in

  1077     order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say,

  1078     railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily

  1079     subverted, leading to incoherence.

  1080 

  1081     Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social

  1082     Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and

  1083     Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent

  1084     design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist

  1085     character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire).

  1086     You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily

  1087     subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And

  1088     finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice

  1089     becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly

  1090     committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending

  1091     toward more agenda-based play of different kinds.

  1092 

  1093     What happens? All the wedges widen, and the unfortunate thing is that

  1094     the more everyone likes the basic, fun interest of the topic ("genre")

  1095     at hand, the worse the rift becomes.

  1096 

  1097       * The aggravated Narrativist leaves the play situation after butting

  1098         heads with the GM over the "story." Arguably, the early White Wolf

  1099         games in general are responsible for what amounted to a mass exodus

  1100         of Narrativist-oriented role-players from the hobby in the

  1101         mid-1990s.

  1102       * The Gamist runs rampant, moving from sportsmanlike

  1103         challenge/competition (as would be found in a coherent Gamist

  1104         design) to "break the system" vs.-game, vs.-GM

  1105         challenge/competition. The group typically either dissolves or

  1106         evicts the Gamist player; evictees find one another and enjoy

  1107         themselves with gusto, Drifting the rules significantly and focusing

  1108         on player-vs.-player challenge/competition. They tend to be quite

  1109         public and large-group oriented, via on-line and LARP play. [AEG was

  1110         clever enough to recognize this phenomenon and incorporate it into

  1111         the L5R market strategy.]

  1112       * The Simulationist, whether GM or player, fights a losing battle

  1113         against the Gamist, often feeling betrayed and desperate.

  1114         Simulationist groups which survive this conflict tend to be very

  1115         insular, clique-ish, and GM-centered, with the GM seen as the

  1116         conduit or channeller to "the game" as published. Such a GM is

  1117         usually given carte blanche authority over the social, system, and

  1118         plot-oriented content of the game, and the players become fairly

  1119         subordinated to the content of play. The group often Drifts the

  1120         rules significantly to reflect and reinforce the immediate Social

  1121         Contract; simultaneously, they become defensive and protective

  1122         regarding the game title as a subcultural item.

  1123 

  1124     Champions, especially second and third editions, presented a fascinating

  1125     case of this same phenomenon for a game design that could functionally

  1126     Drift in any of the three directions (in all cases requiring severe

  1127     rules-interpretation and "fixing"). Thus Champions play could be

  1128     observed in all three modes, all of which were emphatically incompatible

  1129     and socially segregated. Champions fourth edition represents a

  1130     "takeover," if you will, by the Simulationist interpretatation, mainly

  1131     due to the editor of the line at the time.

  1132 

  1133     Hybrids are much better off using Simulationism as a secondary design

  1134     feature, rather than as the primary. The Riddle of Steel is a successful

  1135     hybrid because its primary Narrativist emphasis is so mechanically