--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/simulationism_the_right_to_dream.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,1651 @@
+ The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
+ [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |
+ Forge [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums
+
+
+ Simulationism: The Right to Dream
+ by [8]Ron Edwards
+
+ Many thanks are due to Clinton R. Nixon, Paul Czege, Jared A. Sorensen,
+ Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik, and Mike Holmes for comments on the
+ manuscript. Several points, key text quotes, and nuances of argument
+ wouldn't be in the article without their input. All inconsistencies or
+ argumentative flaws, on the other hand, may be laid at my door.
+
+ This is the first of three essays about the three GNS modes of
+ role-playing. Each one is about both play and game design, with the
+ former as the basic issue, and each one is intended to develop the
+ points made in my "GNS and related matters of role-playing design"
+ essay. I'm also drawing upon ideas I didn't express in that essay and
+ many, many points of debate at the Forge over the last year. The
+ original essay cleared up a lot of acrimony and misunderstanding that
+ had arisen in the previous years, and I'm hoping that the current series
+ plays an even more positive role in the current context - not only to
+ remove negative connotations and interpretations (which are now much
+ fewer anyway), but to encourage mutual understanding and appreciation
+ among all role-players about all the available modes of play.
+
+ Each essay isn't a segregated unit only about that one mode. Each will
+ include more general issues, especially if they pertain especially if
+ not uniquely to the mode under discussion, and each one is intended to
+ clarify and develop "GNS and related matters" as a whole. Also, each one
+ concludes with a Hard Question for those who prefer that mode of play.
+ Each Hard Question is supposed to be interesting on its own, but I hope
+ that the three taken together will be much more than merely
+ "interesting."
+
+ Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In
+ the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one
+ or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System,
+ Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration
+ as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the
+ internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."
+
+ Exploration reviewed
+ Obviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of
+ "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining,
+ "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations.
+ It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the
+ top priority.
+
+ I need to stop th'flow for a moment to explain some background, though.
+ My original notions were mainly laid out in "System Does Matter," my
+ first essay about all this stuff, based on my readings about the
+ Threefold Model proposed in the r.g.f.a. discussion group. At the Gaming
+ Outpost, lots of debate ensued about my essay, and eventually a poster
+ called the Scarlet Jester objected to the term Simulationism in terms of
+ its connotations, offering "Exploration" as the replacement - defined as
+ the enjoyment of the "dream" or the imagination as an act in itself. He
+ called his model "GENder" as an alternative to the then-existing GNS.
+
+ GENder made a lot of sense to me, with one exception: Exploration, to
+ me, seemed to be involved in all of role-playing. I decided to modify
+ GNS severely and "float" the three modes on a "sea" of Exploration. In
+ that context, Simulationist play priorities suddenly made more sense -
+ as I saw it and still do, unlike Narrativist and Gamist priorities which
+ are defined by an interpersonal out-of-game agenda, Simulationist play
+ prioritizes the in-game functions and imagined events.
+
+ From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978,
+ 1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are
+ Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James):
+
+ What is a fantasy role-playing game?
+ A role-playing game is a game of character development, simulating the
+ process of personal development commonly called "life."
+
+ [In fairness, later text in the introduction brings in some adversarial
+ GM/player context that sounds more Gamist, but the above quote is
+ reinforced more often throughout the book's rules and text.]
+
+ From the introduction of Skyrealms of Jorune, 3rd edition (Chessex
+ Publications, 1992, author is Andrew Leker):
+
+ Is it possible to win at role-playing? The whole idea of role-playing
+ is to have a good time. Players work toward a common goal, often
+ survival, but sometimes helping a friend in need, or accomplishing a
+ task of unquestioned importance. Although there will be no winner or
+ losers in an absolute sense, you will have the satisfaction of
+ watching your character think through challenges, survive
+ confrontations with other races, grow, and develop new skills.
+
+ [Note the synecdoche: the "whole idea."]
+
+ From the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc
+ Miller):
+
+ ... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character
+ and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just
+ as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the
+ character ...
+
+ [The above text is followed by some Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
+ text which will be discussed in the Narrativism essay.]
+
+ What's fun or good about that? Simulationist play looks awfully strange
+ to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during
+ play. "You do it just to do it? What the hell is that?"
+
+ However, contrary to some accusations, it's not autistic or
+ schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other
+ role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and
+ sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the
+ emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps
+ it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is
+ a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you
+ are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am
+ referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated
+ practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in
+ heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing
+ on throughout this essay.
+
+ Sincere shared creativity: all role-playing has to have it. For some,
+ it's the whole point.
+
+ Is the term fatally flawed?
+ More than once, people have called for abandoning the term "simulation"
+ in its entirety. Most of the objections arise from connotations of one
+ sort or another, since it gets used for all sorts of recreational or
+ applied things. If it's Simulationism, then what's it Simulating, and
+ what form does the resulting Simulation take?
+
+ For better or for worse, this issue has never really struck home for me.
+ My call is that the term is is defined locally and historically, and not
+ really descriptive as such ("simulating") in nearly any application.
+ Here's the variety that I see:
+
+ * Simulation in wargaming = historical plausibility ("realism").
+ * Simulation in computer games = rendering, reaction time.
+ * Simulation in behavioral terms = "let's pretend" in terms of our
+ expressions, gestures, and voices.
+ * Simulate in emotional terms = related to lying, as in dissimulate or
+ simulated passion.
+
+ Since the term does not carry a single meaning among all the other
+ contexts, assigning a specific meaning for role-playing just seems to be
+ par for the course and not especially or intrinsically confusing.
+ Hastily added: "to me." Maybe I'm just obdurate.
+
+ Taking it role-playing specifically, a new issue arises: it's awfully
+ hard to get at goals of any kind right out of the texts. A good place to
+ start is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, in just about the first text ever
+ that tried to explain what was going on (Dungeon Master's Guide, first
+ edition, 1979, TSR; the author is Gary Gygax):
+
+ Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best described as
+ the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D
+ is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any
+ realism ... It does little to attempt to simulate anything either.
+ ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun
+ and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.
+
+ How to parse this? It seems unequivocal. However, first, this text is
+ palpably disingenuous regarding "simulates nothing" - the immense
+ efforts devoted in this book to the importance of in-game time and
+ in-game justifications of hit-points, retainer/hireling opinions, costs
+ for castle parts, and much more, do not support his claim. Second, and
+ more importantly, Gygax is speaking from a 1970s perspective of
+ role-playing existing as a subset of wargaming. What he calls simulation
+ or realism, I call historical accuracy; what he calls "game"
+ (imaginative, creative), I call Exploration. As an "umbrella point,"
+ although D&D and AD&D of this era were procedurally mainly Gamist, all
+ accompanying text by Gygax in any publication represents, I think, very
+ hard-line post-wargame Simulationism as conceived by GNS theory.
+
+ A somewhat lesser issue concerns whether I'm doing great violence to the
+ term Simulationism as proposed in the original Threefold Model. My
+ answer to this has two parts. (1) The Threefold definitions, for all
+ three modes, tend to benefit in this debate from being moving targets
+ over the years. (2) My set of theorizing, usually called "GNS" although
+ I'm starting to wish for a better umbrella term, explicitly disavows any
+ need for consistency with the Threefold.
+
+ However, although I'm not convinced it's necessary, one possible
+ solution has arisen. Jack Spencer proposed "Emulation" for the goals of
+ play that I currently call Simulationism. If I felt any need for a
+ wholly new term, this would probably be it.
+
+ Baseline Simulationist practice
+ The five elements of role-playing as laid out in my GNS essay are
+ obviously where we start. Modelling them is the ideal. My first point
+ about that is that the model need not be static; dynamic characters and
+ settings, for instance, are perfectly valid Simulationist elements. My
+ second point is that different types of Simulationist play can address
+ very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most
+ deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and
+ physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and
+ politics, and more. I'll go into this lots more later.
+
+ The second point is that the mechanics-emphasis of the modelling system
+ are also highly variable: it can handled strictly verbally (Drama),
+ through the agency of charts and arrows, or through the agency of
+ dice/Fortune mechanics. Any combination of these or anything like them
+ are fine; what matters is that within the system, causality is clear,
+ handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's
+ part. That's why it's often referred to as "the engine," and unlike
+ other modes of play, the engine, upon being activated and further
+ employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive
+ force for the game to "go."
+
+ The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It is
+ causality among the five elements of play. Whether everyone has to get
+ the engine in terms of its functions varies among games and among
+ groups, but recognizing its authority as the causal agent is a big part
+ of play. (To repeat, the engine's extent and detail aren't the point; I
+ could be talking about a notecard of brief "stay in character"
+ requirements or a 300-page set of probability charts.) By the way,
+ moving the GM into a position of authority over the rules/system is a
+ derived state of the rules' authority; I'll discuss that later.
+
+ Many Simulationist systems also emphasize modularity - you've got the
+ baseline engine for what happens, so for specialty phenomena, whatever
+ new rules go on top must not violate or devalue that baseline. When a
+ system is very strong in this regard, it's what most people call
+ "universal" or "generic," by which they mean customizable through
+ addition.
+
+ My final point is that this mode requires clear
+ player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character
+ knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries
+ that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in
+ a given instance, they must be clear and abided by.
+
+ How-to-play text
+ A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal:
+ that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly
+ into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the
+ NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with
+ this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character
+ generation is a form of Director stance. It supports the central point
+ of this essay, that the value of Simulationist play is prioritizing the
+ group imaginative experience, to an extent that expands the very notion
+ of "play" into acts that from Narrativist or Gamist perspectives are not
+ play at all.
+
+ This ideal poses two problems: one for the GM in particular, and one for
+ the group as a whole.
+
+ The GM problem, only partly solved by GM-only sections, is that it makes
+ it very hard to write a coherent how-to explanation for scenario
+ preparation and implementation. Putting this sort of information right
+ out "in front of God and everybody" is counter-intuitive for some
+ Simulationist-design authors, because it's getting behind the curtain at
+ the metagame level. The experience of play, according to the basic goal,
+ is supposed to minimize metagame, but preparation for play, from the
+ GM's perspective, is necessarily metagame-heavy, and if reading the book
+ is assumed to be actually beginning to play ... well, then a certain
+ conflict of interest sets into the process.
+
+ The usual textual solution is to assume that the GM is already on the
+ same page and to address him or her as a co-conspirator. In many games,
+ however, such information is outright punted, such that a GM must bring
+ a particular set of experiences and values to the text in the first
+ place in order to play the game.
+
+ The whole-group problem is that individually-conducted character
+ creation often produces differing conclusions about the point of play
+ from player to player, which is to say, the characters are fully
+ plausible and created by the rules, but are also manifestly incapable of
+ interacting in terms of any one person's desired genre/setting. The
+ classic example in fantasy-adventure play is the party including a
+ paladin and an assassin; the one in superhero play is the super-team
+ that includes both a Spider-Man clone and a Wolverine clone.
+
+ The usual textual solution is to urge that all character creation be
+ subject to the approval of the GM, which in practice poses some
+ problems. For instance, it assumes that the Social Contract of the game
+ group permits such authority and presents no procedure to follow if that
+ happens not to be the case. Also, I have never seen any text explaining
+ what a GM is supposed to do or to say to the player regarding how to
+ re-write the character or to design a new one; every example, and there
+ are many, seems to assume that the GM "just knows" how to communicate
+ the je ne sais qua to the player.
+
+ I suggest that genuinely helpful, teaching-oriented text that does not
+ fall into synecdoche ("real role-players," etc) would be a tremendous
+ benefit to presenting straightforwardly Simulationist games. Such text
+ would include methods for GMs to prepare scenarios from a fully-metagame
+ perspective - which is to say, the ideal of the book "being play" would
+ have to be lost temporarily - as well as methods for the GM's work
+ during character creation itself. Furthermore, this text would have to
+ be practical and compelling to players in a way that "All character
+ creation is subject to the approval of the GM" is not - for instance, it
+ would inspire players to avoid the paladin-assassin problem on their
+ own, during the creation of the first characters rather than the second
+ ones.
+
+ Historically, such text has been rare. Well, actually, it's rare for any
+ mode of play, but I submit that Simulationist-oriented games have tended
+ to have special trouble with it due to the widely-held ideal of treating
+ the text experience as play.
+
+ Internal Cause is King
+ Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what
+ happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the
+ imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well
+ as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general
+ sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to
+ emerge without extra attention. It's a tall order: the relationship is
+ supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on
+ "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda.
+ Since real people decide when to roll, as well as any number of other
+ contextual details, they can take this spec a certain distance. However,
+ the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from
+ System outcomes, in application.
+
+ Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor
+ among the other elements. As I outlined in the previous essay, System is
+ mainly composed of character creation, resolution, and reward mechanics.
+
+ During character generation, layering and overt currency are frequently
+ employed to engage the player in Simulationist play during the process.
+
+ Layering may be employed to establish and identify the character's
+ plausibility in terms of the game-world itself. For a look at the
+ historical differences among games, compare the methods for establishing
+ player-character skill competence in early RuneQuest (Simulationist)
+ with those of Hero Wars (Narrativist). In Hero Wars, the system limits
+ how many of the thirty or so starting abilities are assigned high values
+ (two really good ones and one great one), but not which ones. Whereas in
+ RuneQuest, every skill has a starting-character value based on its
+ commonality and difficulty to learn, and every skill is rated in money
+ regarding learning higher values of competence, based both on difficulty
+ to learn and who teaches the skill. Hero Wars character creation, which
+ is minimally layered, isn't concerned with the implausibility of having
+ a mastery-level in Greatsword be just as "likely" as having it in
+ Farming; RuneQuest character creation, which is maximally layered,
+ emphatically is.
+
+ To repeat, the above point is historical. Whether the distinction I've
+ drawn holds for any and all Simulationist play potential, I don't know.
+
+ A related issue is prerequisite attributes and abilities for a given
+ ability, which represent a further step of layering. Prerequisites are
+ common in historical Simulationist and Gamist design, and in the former,
+ I think they are present specifically to reinforce the same
+ plausibility/likelihood issue.
+
+ For currency, consider Champions or many of the games based on its
+ principles. From a Simulationist perspective on play, if a given feature
+ costs more than another, or if it can be traded off with some other
+ feature, or if it plus another feature mathematically yield a third,
+ then it's all built to focus attention and assign cause from "is" to
+ "does" in the imagined game-context. That cause must be (a) engaging (as
+ for any RPG) and (b) causally continuous through the layers, providing
+ for many equally-functional, equally-plausible, and potentially
+ equally-enjoyable options.
+
+ I think this combined approach and perceived purpose of layering and
+ currency is why attribute + skill systems have remained entrenched - a
+ strong sub-set of the Simulationist perspective demands that the
+ in-world ontogeny of a character's ability be integrated into the
+ process of establishing it on the character sheet.
+
+ Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about
+ the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important
+ during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions
+ and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two
+ games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with
+ childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning
+ bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game
+ (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.
+ Before talking about dice or other specific resolution mechanics, I'll
+ discuss two elements of Resolution which are rarely recognized: the
+ treatment of in-game time and space. These are a big deal in
+ Simulationist play as universal and consistent constraints, which must
+ apply equally to any part of the imagined universe, at any point during
+ play.
+
+ To talk about this, let's break the issue down a little:
+
+ * In-game time occurs regarding the actually-played imaginary moments
+ and events. It's best expressed by combat mechanics, which in
+ Simulationist play are often extremely well-defined in terms of
+ seconds and actions, but also by movement rates at various scales,
+ starship travel times, and similar things.
+ * Metagame time is rarely discussed openly, but it's the crucial one.
+ It refers to time-lapse among really-played scenes: can someone get
+ to the castle before someone else kills the king; can someone fly
+ across Detroit before someone else detonates the Mind Bomb. Metagame
+ time isn't "played," but its management is a central issue for
+ scene-framing and the outcome of the session as a whole.
+ * Real time is, of course, the real time of play as experienced by the
+ people at the table. I think comparing between its flow and that of
+ the in-game time is a crucial issue as well - when is a huge hunk of
+ real time necessary to establish a teeny bit of in-game time, and
+ vice versa?
+
+ The following text is also from the first edition of the Dungeon
+ Master's Guide (TSR, 1979); the author is Gary Gygax.
+
+ Game time is of the utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track
+ of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies
+ in the game. ...
+
+ One of the things stated in the original game of D&D was the
+ importance of recording game time with respect to each and every
+ player-character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more:
+ YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN UNLESS EXTENSIVE RECORDS ARE
+ KEPT.
+
+ [provides an example, then:]
+
+ You may ask why time is so important if it causes such difficulties
+ with record-keeping, dictates who can or can not go adventuring during
+ a game session, and disperses player characters to the four winds by
+ its strictures. Well, as initially pointed out, it is a necessary
+ penalty imposed on characters for certain activities [making magic
+ items - RE]. Beyond that, it also gives players yet another
+ interesting set of choices and consequences. The latter tends to bring
+ more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use
+ precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and
+ some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time
+ is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from
+ the lesser ones.
+
+ That latter point bears close, close examination. Gygax is not talking
+ about winning, I think, but about a quality. This is his value judgment
+ about how to play this game. His "true to life quality," I think, is
+ synonymous with his earlier reference to creativity and imagination, or
+ Simulationism (prioritizing Exploration) as defined by me.
+
+ Gygax's text perfectly states the Simulationist view of in-game time. It
+ is a causal constraint on the other sorts. One can even find, in many
+ early game texts, rules that enforce how in-game time acts on real time,
+ and vice versa. However, most importantly, it constrains metagame time.
+ It works in-to-out. In-game time at the fine-grained level (rounds,
+ seconds, actions, movement rates) sets incontrovertible, foundation
+ material for making judgments about hours, days, cross-town movment, and
+ who gets where in what order. I recommend anyone who's interested to the
+ text of DC Heroes for some of the most explicit text available on this
+ issue throughout the book.
+
+ So much for time; now let's talk space. Rules for characters' movement
+ in the imagined space of the situation go all the way back to wargaming,
+ in the (to us oldies) familiar forms of grids and hex-maps, counters,
+ and even rules or tape-measures. The original context was pretty
+ large-scale: the movement of troops, heavy vehicles, squadrons, and so
+ on. For role-playing in the "new" sense, the scale got bumped down to
+ the individual level, and so came to emphasize facing, movement rate,
+ turn rate, number of personal actions, and similar.
+
+ The interesting thing is that most of these specific details have been
+ lost in most, although not all, Simulationist rules design over the
+ decades, with nary a whimper. Why? Because second-to-second kinetics
+ ceased to be (or rarely were) the issue of Exploration at hand,
+ particularly in genre-heavy play (see later). The Situation of interest
+ typically isn't "facing" when we want Character, Setting, System,
+ Situation, and Color to fire on shared cylinders with full
+ internal-consistency and agreed-upon thematic outcomes.
+
+ It's significant, I think, that movement-specific mechanics do remain in
+ many Gamist RPG design as an element of tactical challenge.
+
+ Now for the more nitty-gritty resolution mechanics, or DFK (Drama,
+ Karma, Fortune). Historically speaking, the System has been based on
+ task resolution, not conflict resolution, regardless of scale. Don't
+ mistake "conflict" for "large-scale task." This point is independent of
+ the system's complexity; it applies to rock-paper-scissors and GM-fiat
+ as well as to dice and tables.
+
+ The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be
+ linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or
+ parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body:
+ how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact
+ hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain)
+ effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order,
+ on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn,
+ in time.
+
+ The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text,
+ sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is
+ classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and
+ to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS).
+ Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the
+ character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often
+ breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and
+ abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit
+ location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which
+ has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it
+ represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.
+
+ The most common Simulationist resolution is handled through Fortune,
+ specifically Fortune-at-the-End. This term refers to a dice roll (or
+ cards, or whatever) which is consulted after all possible pre-resolution
+ description of the actions in question has been delivered. Its
+ alternative, Fortune-in-the-Middle, is not historically observed in
+ Simulationist game design. (See glossary for definitions and links.)
+
+ A useful way to look at Fortune in much Simulationist play is to think
+ of anything that isn't rolled as being a 100% outcome on an implied
+ roll. The extreme view (see the Purist for System category below) is to
+ interpret the whole shootin' universe as tacitly operating according to
+ the d100 or the 3d6 or whatever that's used to handle character task
+ resolution.
+
+ An entire discussion awaits concerning the shape of dice curves,
+ modifiers' effects, separate vs. incorporated effects, and more. I look
+ forward to this on the forums. Also, more details about resolution in
+ Simulationist games are presented below, when I break down the sub-types
+ in detail.
+
+ Finally, reward mechanics remain a topic of vast debate and design
+ potential in Simulationist games. I think the following historical
+ categories barely scratch the surface.
+
+ BRP style: character improvement is literally a function of play just as
+ any other action, via practice and study. This is the famous "if you
+ succeed with a skill during play, roll over your skill percent between
+ sessions in order to improve." The pitfall is graininess, such that one
+ can then start debating about whether one should learn more or less
+ across ten "hits" against one opponent vs. one hit each for ten
+ opponents, why one does or doesn't learn from a failed attempt, and how
+ study is to be rated and applied (much less how it's to be played)
+ relative to the "experience" methods.
+
+ Hero style: the player gains points simply for being there (despite
+ attempts at parsing it, that's what it amounts to), and the
+ point-allocation based cost of character creation continues to be
+ applied. The character is added to in terms of the points that were
+ originally used to assemble him, and arguably as an expression of the
+ same in-game developmental processes involved. In this case, the
+ point-gains are metagame, but the spending is supposed to use in-game
+ logic, sometimes reinforced by "corralling" sections of the character
+ off from one another. The pitfall is reaching degrees of improvement
+ which themselves violate the genre-level standards of that particular
+ play, which some games overcome by making the intersession correspond to
+ substantial in-game time.
+
+ In either case, the key issue is that character change potentially
+ disrupts the current relationship among the components of the character.
+ Options to fix the problem are generally unsatisfactory: (1) slow it
+ down, and (2) permit only tiny changes. One option, rarely seen, is to
+ include kind of a secondary, add-on game with its own set of components,
+ as with Rune status in RuneQuest. (I realize that not everyone knows all
+ of the games I'm referencing, and I certainly don't have all historical
+ RPGs memorized. This topic definitely calls for more discussion in the
+ forums, where we have room to describe all the various examples in
+ detail.)
+
+ The diversity of Simulationist game design
+ Here's a quick overview of existing diversity in Simulationist play. I'm
+ focusing on fun, functional, coherent play - none of the following is a
+ criticism or indictment. Also, I've tried to represent as many
+ creator-owned titles as possible, but I'll refer to others as needed.
+
+ My overall point is that, although Simulationist play is defined as
+ prioritizing Exploration of the five elements, its diversity is not a
+ five-headed, one-element-per-submode hydra. All five elements are always
+ involved. In defining the subtypes of this mode of play, here are the
+ issues: (1) whether Exploring System is primary, and (2) which of the
+ other elements are necessary "support" or "chassis" and which ones are
+ diminished in emphasis.
+
+ Purists for System
+ What games are these? EABA, JAGS, SOL, Pocket Universe, and Fudge are
+ deliberately "generalist" regarding setting. The big commercial models
+ are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of
+ Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from
+ Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger
+ International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions). Whether D20
+ should be included in this category is a matter for some debate.
+
+ These games' five-element structure is consistent: System + Color
+ thereof, Setting, then Character + Situation. I'm trying to think of one
+ which switches the role of character before setting, which might include
+ some some superhero games. It might seem odd that Color is placed so
+ high in priority, but consider the engineering-text model for the game
+ text of GURPS - this is, actually, Color for System.
+
+ A lot of people have trouble with the notion of "Exploring System." They
+ argue that playing a game like Fudge is necessarily Setting-first. I
+ disagree, but this debate properly belongs in the forums.
+
+ In these games, the System is all about Fortune and all about Currency.
+
+ Regarding Fortune, probabilities are the key to achieving the basic
+ Simulationist internal-cause priority. Consider both comparative
+ probabilities among characters at a given moment as well as
+ probabilities in transition within a character over time - in action
+ (actually resolving tasks), these are what drive the game. For these
+ games, a unified probability mechanic to handle any game-modelled
+ instance is the ideal, usually resulting in a single tables-based
+ concept such as the Universal Table in DC Heroes.
+
+ Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences
+ among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so
+ forth. The usual issues surrounding incorporated vs. unincorporated
+ effects, opposed vs. target number mechanics, the interaction of
+ switches and dials, and probability-curvature shape are therefore the
+ main things to distinguish these systems from one another. Compared to
+ other designs, high search and handling times, as well as many
+ points-of-contact, are acceptable features. (Please see the Glossary for
+ the definition of points-of-contact).
+
+ Here's some text from the introduction to SOL: the Omniversal
+ Role-playing System (1994, Heraldic Games; the author is Keith W.
+ Sears):
+
+ I wanted to make an RPG that went beyond those described as
+ "Universal", "Generic", or "Multi-genre." Many of the games with these
+ tags fall short of what they're supposed to be...playable in any genre
+ of fiction.
+
+ It seems that whenever a very unusual situation pops up, many of these
+ "universal" games must revise the rules they already have in order to
+ cover it. An example would be the climactic battle between a very tiny
+ man and a normal-sized spider in the movie, The Incredible Shrinking
+ Man. You can't simulate that in most RPGs without a major reworking of
+ the rules just to handle that one situation. SOL was created to
+ encompass roleplaying on any scale--from gods to viruses.
+ ...
+ [in terms of my overall point for this essay, I couldn't help but
+ include his sign-off phrase - RE] Keep Dreaming!
+
+ Regarding Currency, in these games, the imagined universe is made of
+ "points." Therefore character creation and often resolution are often
+ characterized by layering: paying points to get values for named scores,
+ which themselves are mathematically derived to produce effective values.
+ Interestingly, in-game money and possessions are often considered merely
+ another facet of the universe that can be expressed in these points.
+ This relationship between points and reality seems very well entrenched
+ in Purist for System design, which is understandable, as it provides
+ concrete insights to the internal-cause heart of the game that a player
+ can latch onto prior to play.
+
+ In terms of character/player roles, characters in these games are
+ solidly defined in terms only of my third and fourth categories: in-game
+ character occupation, and the specific abilities that are associated
+ with or in addition to that. (See the glossary for a discussion of these
+ terms.)
+
+ In this sort of design, there's no possible excuse for any
+ imperfections, including scale-derived breakdowns of the fundamental
+ point/probability relationships. The system must be cleanly and at the
+ service of the element(s) being emphasized, in strictly in-game-world
+ terms. A good one is elegant, consistent, applicable to anything that
+ happens in play, and clear about its outcomes. It also has to have
+ points of contact at any scale for any conceivable thing. It cannot
+ contain patch-rules to correct for inconsistencies; consistency is the
+ essence of quality.
+
+ As I see it, Purist for System design is a tall, tall order. It's
+ arguably the hardest design spec in all of role-playing.
+
+ In play, these games offer a lot of diversity because both the
+ character-to-player relationship and the GM-to-outcomes relationship are
+ fully customizable. Players might well utilize Pawn stance as Actor
+ stance or any other, and the GM may care greatly about a given goal or
+ situation to be set up during play, or not at all. The only required
+ priority is to enjoy the System in action. (I'm not claiming here that
+ the other four elements are irrelevant, though.)
+
+ High Concept
+ In cinema, "High Concept" refers to any film idea that can be pitched in
+ a very limited amount of time; the usual method uses references to other
+ films. Sometimes, although not necessarily, it's presented as a
+ combination: "Jaws meets Good Will Hunting," or that sort of thing. I'm
+ adopting it to role-playing without much modification, although
+ emphasizing that the source references can come from any medium and also
+ that the two-title combo isn't always employed.
+
+ The key word is "genre," which in this case refers to a certain
+ combination of the five elements as well as an unstated Theme. How do
+ they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as
+ the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style,
+ and more. "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events
+ that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre
+ during play.
+
+ This sort of game design will be familiar to almost anyone, represented
+ by Arrowflight (Setting), Pax Draconis (Setting), Godlike (Setting), Sun
+ & Storm (Setting + Situation), Dreamwalker (Situation), The Godsend
+ Agenda (Character-Setting tug-of-war), The Collectors (applied Fudge,
+ Situation + Character), Heartquest (applied Fudge; Character), Children
+ of the Sun (Setting), Fvlminata (Setting), and Dread (Situation +
+ Character), Fading Suns (Setting), Earthdawn (Setting), Space: 1889
+ (Setting), Mutant Chronicles (Setting), Mage first edition (Character),
+ Mage second edition (Setting), Ironclaw (Setting), and Continuum
+ (Setting with a touch of System). Many Fantasy Heartbreakers fall into
+ this category, almost all Setting-based. Some of the best-known games of
+ this type include Tekumel, Jorune, Traveller (specifically in its
+ mid-80s through mid-90s form), Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Nephilim,
+ Feng Shui, the various secondary settings for AD&D2 like Al-Qadim, and
+ quite a few D20 or WEG games which rely on licensing. I am coming to
+ think of D20 as a kind of High Concept chassis, a very new and
+ interesting development in RPG design.
+
+ Also, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High
+ Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as
+ the best-known examples.
+
+ At first glance, these games might look like additions to or
+ specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging
+ in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate, and
+ that the five elements are very differently related. The formula starts
+ with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then
+ the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in
+ first place), with System being last in priority.
+
+ I also recommend examining Theme carefully. In this game, it's present
+ and accounted for already, before play. The process of prep-play-enjoy
+ works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come
+ out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything
+ along the way.
+
+ Character creation is far more delimited as well, relying heavily on
+ Setting and Situation. In this case, the "points" are pure metagame for
+ purposes of making characters; they don't reflect or underly the
+ universe in action as in the Purist for System games. Starting
+ characters tend to be very colorful and described by many terms and
+ numbers, but relatively static: waiting for their hook, so to speak.
+ Hooks are often built-in; unlike the Purist for System methods, the
+ player-to-character relationship usually includes my second "role level"
+ in addition to the third and fourth.
+
+ Quantitatively, the more common character creation methods (which are
+ not unique to Simulationist design) include less layering but more
+ nesting (i.e. options within options, as well as the one-from-column-A,
+ one-from-column-B approach established by Vampire), and almost always
+ the relatively clumsy "GM approval" proviso. The specific method is
+ usually based on points, but sometimes with Fortune methods to render a
+ character role/type less likely to occur (making them more expensive
+ with points also aims at this function). Notably, in-game money isn't
+ modeled by the point-system during play.
+
+ The System is not all about Fortune, either, and these games can be very
+ uneasy in this regard. Dice-based resolutions sometimes represent much
+ noise and effort about not much effect, i.e., random factors tend not to
+ deviate from expected results very much. Some games display a small
+ range of possible Effect (i.e. damage rarely harms an opponent very much
+ at a time), slight metagame adjustments to minimize extreme results, or
+ a lot of offered strategies for the GM to soften or redirect the effects
+ that occur.
+
+ Points-of-contact are far more directional; things which aren't relevant
+ to the Explorative focus are often summarized and not "System'ed" with
+ great rigor. When done well, such that the remaining, emphasized
+ elements clearly provide a sort of "what to do" feel, this creates an
+ extremely playable, accessible game text. Dread offers the perfect
+ example for the lower points-of-contact end; Arrowflight and Godlike are
+ similar but more reassuringly nail-even-the-irrelevant-down at the
+ higher points-of-contact end. The truly outstanding games illustrating
+ this latter approach are Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, and Pendragon.
+
+ However, when it's done badly, resolutions are rife with breakpoints and
+ GM-fiat punts, and a great deal of effort during character creation
+ yields little sense of what the character is is about to do.
+
+ Reward systems in High Concept games are typically quite slow-acting,
+ requiring several sessions of play for any in-game benefit to kick in.
+ Strangely, they are also often hard to find in the texts, being
+ shoehorned in among character creation or GM instructions, or with their
+ parts (how to award points, how to spend points) dispersed.
+
+ High Concept play can be divided neatly into those which are greatly
+ concerned with "the big story" and those which are not. Historically,
+ the latter used to be the most common: Call of Cthulhu, Jorune, or more
+ recently Dread and Godlike, in which "the story" only refers to a record
+ of short-term events and set-pieces. However, following the spearhead
+ for this type of game text, Ars Magica, now the long-term story-type is
+ more common. A lot of internet blood has been spilled regarding how this
+ phenomenon is or is not related to Narrativist play, but I think it's an
+ easy issue. The key for these games is GM authority over the story's
+ content and integrity at all points, including managing the input by
+ players. Even system results are judged appropriate or not by the GM;
+ "fudging" Fortune outcomes is overtly granted as a GM right.
+
+ The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is a covert way to say the same
+ thing: ignore any rule that interferes with fun. No one, I presume,
+ thinks that any player may invoke the Golden Rule at any time; what it's
+ really saying is that the GM may ignore any rule (or any player who
+ invokes it) that ruins his or her idea of what should happen.
+
+ The functional version of such play is properly called Illusionism,
+ which has undergone a good deal of debate and clarification at the Forge
+ (see glossary). Most of these game texts overtly instruct the GM to
+ practice Illusionism, for example in Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7; the
+ author is Todd Downing).
+
+ Driving the Plot
+ Once you've constructed your magnum opus of a campaign plot, the
+ players will inevitably find ways to exploit, ignore, or downright
+ break all of your hard work. You can either let that happen, or you
+ can crack the whip and get them back in line. Don't be afraid of
+ exploiting a character's past or weakness to ensure complicity. After
+ all, you are the storyteller. Without you, they'd be playing Monopoly.
+ Some of the tried and true methods of driving a plot are as follows:
+
+ - Start the characters off in Adversity. Strip them of everything ...
+ - Alternately, have them called upon to serve the Common Good ...
+ - Appeal to any number of Baser Instincts ...
+ - Force them in a certain direction with Rule of Law ...
+ - Similar to the Rule of Law, you can direct your players with Threat
+ of Bodily Harm ...
+
+ Whatever you do, make sure it is not a no-win scenario. Nothing will
+ frustrate and alienate players more than a dead end with no way out.
+
+ "Story" emerges from the GM's efforts in this regard, with players being
+ either cooperative (passively or actively), or obstreperous, in which
+ case various "don't let them take over" methods are encouraged. Players
+ are enjoined to immerse, by which they mean "keep your metagame agenda
+ out of it," at the aesthetic level. It's best understood as Illusionism
+ by full consent, which is what keeps it from being railroading, in that
+ instead of making a story as an author does, the player is enjoying
+ being in the story. In system and character generation terms, that's
+ pretty much what's empowered to happen. I'll give this entire topic a
+ full comparison and analysis in the Narrativism essay.
+
+ A final point: writing a High Concept Simulationist game is actually
+ much easier than writing a Purist for System one, as complex
+ Setting-prep or Situation-prep have a lot in common with writing a story
+ and knowing "how it's supposed to go" but not finishing it. However,
+ playing this kind of game is actually harder in some ways - everyone
+ must be pumped about the in-game content, but without reference to a
+ corresponding metagame. Check out [9]Mongrel to see what you think of my
+ take on this sort of game design.
+
+ Rules-lite Story or Character priorities
+ This section is likely to get me into trouble, so I'll tread carefully.
+ I suggest that many self-described "rules-lite" or "story-oriented"
+ role-playing games represent a derived version of the High Concept
+ model, slanted heavily toward Situation - especially Situation which is
+ under complete GM control, overt or covert. Players get to contribute
+ tons of Color, even content, but never outcomes or final-resolutions,
+ and playing the character as conceived is the first priority, sometimes
+ taken to extremes of Actor Stance (e.g. Turku play, see the Glossary).
+ Character and Situation are prioritized with Color, with Setting next,
+ and lastly the formal System, which is slanted strongly toward
+ Drama-mechanics. This mode of play may be strongly linked with LARP
+ crossovers.
+
+ Here's my point: in application, a covert System is heavily, heavily
+ entrenched, regardless of whatever to-hit modifiers or dice rolls have
+ been peeled away. This system is based on Social Contract (what we all
+ agree is "good" or "fun") and Social Context (i.e. the subculture that
+ players belong to), and it is sternly reinforced through these means. I
+ think it's significant that literal referees - on-the-spot judges of
+ what can and cannot happen - are a necessary feature as soon as groups
+ get beyond a certain size.
+
+ It's not just High Concept though. It looks like it - the heavy emphasis
+ on story/genre, with overt eschewing of System, but it's also (a)
+ actually pretty heavy on Drama-driven or Karma-driven System and (b)
+ emphasizes customizable Settings as in Purist for System play. So I
+ think it's worth its own category.
+
+ From the introduction to Theatrix (1993, Backstage Press, authors are
+ David Berkman, Travis Eneix, and Brett Hackett):
+
+ Making a story come to life can be a difficult task. Previous
+ generations of game systems have been rules bound, trapped within
+ their own structure and rigidity. We wanted to produce a game that
+ would help you in every way, not hinder you. So we developed a system
+ of rules that is written to evolve along with your style of
+ storytelling and roleplaying. These rules can be used to guide every
+ facet of the game's progress, without becoming intrusive. You can use
+ all the rules, or easily peel them away in layers, until you're
+ running free-form games. The rules heavily encourage adopting this
+ style of play, making themselves unnecessary.
+
+ In other words, the system helps create story by fading away, much like
+ the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I think that this whole design
+ effort arises from a desire for "big story" in the face of
+ Purist-for-System design and mainly Fortune-driven High Concept design.
+ In the effort to get out of that sort of Simulationist play, the thought
+ is to get rid of the System that supports it, with any explicit System
+ being perceived as that sort of system. I consider this a problematic
+ design goal but it's widespread enough to merit a category. What makes
+ it difficult to discuss is that its explict story-creation goals are
+ similar to those of Narrativist play, but the operational process is
+ stripped-down High Concept Simulationism. (See the GNS stuff below for
+ further discussion.)
+
+ Fudge includes some text that might qualify it for this category, but
+ operationally, the "story-oriented" reader who is captured by this text
+ will swiftly be puzzled by the rules' emphasis on layered task
+ resolution and repeated (and repeated) focus on scaling. I think Fudge
+ is best described as low-search&handling-time Purist for System instead.
+
+ I'm probably going to catch heat for this, but it seems to me that The
+ Window and Theatrix both lend themselves toward this mode of play, if
+ Drifted a bit from their textual tenets, on the basis of their systems
+ and the GM's ability to organize the IIEE elements of play with a free
+ hand. (See the Glossary for the definition of IIEE.)
+
+ Some of the difficulties of this mode of play are outlined in the
+ comparison with Narrativism and my criticisms of transparency below.
+
+ Setting-creation and universe-play mechanisms
+ Another derivation of the Purist for System approach brings the Setting
+ creation process directly into play itself. The System-driven elements
+ of the Setting are as "active" as any particular character might be,
+ during play as well as during preparation. Basically, the setting is
+ played, even created, as a part of regular play.
+
+ Boink! I just realized that the original Traveller, or at least one way
+ to play it, represents an example of this approach. Star system and
+ planet creation are written right into the process of play, such that
+ adventures and missions become not only a means of enjoying and
+ improving characters, but also a means of enjoying and basically mapping
+ the game-space. This is very distinct from later versions of Traveller,
+ which were emphatically High Concept with a Setting emphasis. (Oh, and
+ just for credit where it's due, I should also mention that Traveller
+ pioneered the mechanics of overt character-creation-as-play.)
+
+ This mode of play is not merely creating more setting through
+ preparation as play progresses. It relies on doing so in a system-driven
+ fashion much like character creation, carried out as an overt or
+ near-overt part of actual play.
+
+ It's a pretty rare form of play and design, probably because the
+ economics of splat-book publishing overwhelmed the hobby, and Traveller
+ itself, from the mid-1980s onwards. The more recent examples include
+ Aria, Multiverser to some extent, and the currently-in-development The
+ Million Worlds. The design spec is to achieve the Color/kewl power of
+ High Concept with the uncompromising power and consistency of the
+ Purists for System, via inserting the explicit metagame world-creating
+ ability. I think this approach is interesting for the level of Director
+ stance potentially involved and I look forward to more role-playing
+ evolution along these lines.
+
+ Historical note: BRP
+ Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the
+ most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in
+ the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and
+ arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising
+ Simulationist design.
+
+ It's kind of hard to discuss just how it was influential, as its very
+ first appearance as a pamphlet accompanying a boardgame wasn't widely
+ distributed. The influence operated primarily through the popularity of
+ both RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. Looking across the early versions of
+ these games as well as Superworld, Questworld, and more, I think BRP is
+ identifiable as a Purist for System design and publishing. It's really
+ probably the precursor for the later GURPS mode of publishing.
+
+ However, that vision, plan, or phenomenon, whatever, swiftly evolved
+ into High Concept, both in RuneQuest (Setting) and Call of Cthulhu
+ (Situation) as they hit their early-mid-80s forms, which is what most
+ people are familiar with, I think. Call of Cthulhu remains High Concept
+ to the present day, whereas RuneQuest, upon being licensed to and
+ redesigned to the specifications of Avalon Hill, essentially evolved
+ into a new Purist for System game, with the setting, Glorantha,
+ relegated to the background at most. Moving into the late 80s and early
+ 90s, the new BRP games (Pendragon, Nephilim) represented fairly radical
+ Drifting of Cthulhu-style BRP into their respective High Concepts.
+
+ GNS crossover issues
+ As usual for GNS-heavy text, I'll speak of games themselves in the GNS
+ terms, but with the proviso that I'm really speaking about the play
+ itself that is typical of or best supported by the rules of those games.
+
+ First, the FAQ
+ Q: Can Simulationist design be Abashed?
+
+ A: Sure. "Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to
+ play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts
+ of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift
+ is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two
+ modes (or sub-modes); e.g. I've said that Little Fears represents
+ Abashed Narrativist design, but it should really be called Abashed
+ Narrativism/Simulationism.
+
+ Q: So "Abashed" means combined?
+
+ A: No. Combined GNS modes which work well together would be "Hybrid."
+ There's a whole section on that below. Abashed games must be Drifted
+ (i.e. their rules must be operationally changed, or some sections
+ ignored) in order to play.
+
+ Q: Can Simulationist play be Vanilla?
+
+ A: Well, we don't say Vanilla and Pervy any more (too rude for some,
+ apparently). Now we talk about Points-of-Contact being low or high for
+ given portions of rules. But to lapse back into the old terminology,
+ yes, it can. Dread is a veritable poster child for Vanilla Sim, which I
+ would generalize to mean a High Concept Simulationist design with low
+ Points-of-Contact and a high emphasis on Situation. Pervy Sim basically
+ just ups the Points-of-Contact as well as the emphasis on Exploring
+ anything regardless of topic, which pretty much describes any member of
+ the Purist-for-System category.
+
+ Character generation
+ Character generation text and methods are extremely diverse within each
+ GNS mode, which is one of the reasons I favor group communication during
+ this phase of pre-play. For instance, some Gamist-ish games utilize
+ point-allocation systems, which looks similar to the widespread method
+ in Simulationist-ish games. However, for Gamist purposes, this method is
+ all about strategizing tradeoffs, rather than establishing a fixed
+ internal-cause to "justify" the character. Similarly, Gamist character
+ creation utilizing Fortune methods isn't the same as the few
+ Simulationist randomized methods - in the former, it's a lot like
+ gambling, whereas in the latter, it's about a character maturing through
+ Fortune's vagaries represented by in-game effects like culture, weather,
+ disease, and so forth (e.g. Harnmaster).
+
+ Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of
+ back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former,
+ it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward,
+ and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing
+ oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these
+ concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the
+ survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether
+ social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the
+ hobby.
+
+ Metagame mechanics
+ The term "metagame" is problematic throughout this essay for
+ Simulationist play and rules design. Metagame mechanics, by definition,
+ entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the
+ system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as
+ lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were
+ themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But
+ compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be
+ spoken of as lacking metagame [i]interpersonal agenda[/i], like
+ "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in
+ Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential,
+ to stay in-game. I recognize that it's a problematic issue and I look
+ forward to some discussion about it.
+
+ To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an
+ in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents
+ the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a
+ god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has
+ literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also
+ called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no
+ in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a
+ point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play
+ as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame
+ at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.
+
+ Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score
+ goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is
+ whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system -
+ does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact,
+ is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game
+ effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No
+ one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider
+ them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and
+ non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think
+ that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them -
+ character or player.
+
+ I suggest that Trouble in Orkworld, Hero Points in Hero Wars, and
+ Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel are Resource-based metagame
+ mechanics, whereas Power in RuneQuest, Sanity in Call of Cthulhu, and
+ these mechanics' many derivatives in other games, are straightforward,
+ non-metagame Resources. Similarly, I suggest that the role-playing
+ bonuses based on out-of-game neatness in Sorcerer are metagame, whereas
+ the Stunt rules based on difficulty or unlikelihood in Feng Shui are
+ not.
+
+ It's a tough discussion, though. One confounding factor is that metagame
+ mechanics are often present as "fixes" of otherwise-Simulationist
+ systems that proved to be mildly broken in play. The trouble with such a
+ thing is that it can lead to serious Drift of the sort that breaks
+ Social Contracts or renders systems incoherent.
+
+ Hybridization
+ As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of
+ potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the
+ other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive
+ elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual
+ result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or
+ to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in
+ order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say,
+ railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily
+ subverted, leading to incoherence.
+
+ Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social
+ Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and
+ Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent
+ design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist
+ character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire).
+ You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily
+ subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And
+ finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice
+ becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly
+ committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending
+ toward more agenda-based play of different kinds.
+
+ What happens? All the wedges widen, and the unfortunate thing is that
+ the more everyone likes the basic, fun interest of the topic ("genre")
+ at hand, the worse the rift becomes.
+
+ * The aggravated Narrativist leaves the play situation after butting
+ heads with the GM over the "story." Arguably, the early White Wolf
+ games in general are responsible for what amounted to a mass exodus
+ of Narrativist-oriented role-players from the hobby in the
+ mid-1990s.
+ * The Gamist runs rampant, moving from sportsmanlike
+ challenge/competition (as would be found in a coherent Gamist
+ design) to "break the system" vs.-game, vs.-GM
+ challenge/competition. The group typically either dissolves or
+ evicts the Gamist player; evictees find one another and enjoy
+ themselves with gusto, Drifting the rules significantly and focusing
+ on player-vs.-player challenge/competition. They tend to be quite
+ public and large-group oriented, via on-line and LARP play. [AEG was
+ clever enough to recognize this phenomenon and incorporate it into
+ the L5R market strategy.]
+ * The Simulationist, whether GM or player, fights a losing battle
+ against the Gamist, often feeling betrayed and desperate.
+ Simulationist groups which survive this conflict tend to be very
+ insular, clique-ish, and GM-centered, with the GM seen as the
+ conduit or channeller to "the game" as published. Such a GM is
+ usually given carte blanche authority over the social, system, and
+ plot-oriented content of the game, and the players become fairly
+ subordinated to the content of play. The group often Drifts the
+ rules significantly to reflect and reinforce the immediate Social
+ Contract; simultaneously, they become defensive and protective
+ regarding the game title as a subcultural item.
+
+ Champions, especially second and third editions, presented a fascinating
+ case of this same phenomenon for a game design that could functionally
+ Drift in any of the three directions (in all cases requiring severe
+ rules-interpretation and "fixing"). Thus Champions play could be
+ observed in all three modes, all of which were emphatically incompatible
+ and socially segregated. Champions fourth edition represents a
+ "takeover," if you will, by the Simulationist interpretatation, mainly
+ due to the editor of the line at the time.
+
+ Hybrids are much better off using Simulationism as a secondary design
+ feature, rather than as the primary. The Riddle of Steel is a successful
+ hybrid because its primary Narrativist emphasis is so mechanically
+ influential and integrated with the reward system, that it cannot be
+ ignored or subverted. Even so, it's interesting to observe the
+ consistent Simulationist reading of TROS' text, rife with suggestions
+ for repair of "obviously" inappropriate elements, by people who have not
+ played the game.
+
+ Rifts as well as well as many fantasy-adventure games use Simulationist
+ design features (heavy Setting Exploration) to support its primary
+ Gamist emphasis; I'll discuss this in more detail in the Gamism essay.
+
+ Shit! I'm playing Narrativist
+ In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or,
+ except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is
+ already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions.
+ Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even
+ its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and
+ players buy into this framework in order to play at all.
+
+ The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing
+ protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and
+ Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of
+ literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback.
+
+ I'll provide two examples, a simple one and a complex one.
+
+ The simple one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai
+ player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look
+ pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But
+ what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play?
+ I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the
+ character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral
+ profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the
+ formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for
+ failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to
+ which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS
+ (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the
+ parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the
+ crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play
+ in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion
+ would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of
+ contract.
+
+ The complex one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a knight
+ player-character in The Riddle of Steel and in Pendragon. This one's a
+ little trickier for a couple of reasons, first because Pendragon has two
+ sets of behavioral rules, and second because both games permit a
+ character's behavioral profile to change.
+
+ 1) The Pendragon knight includes a set of paired, dichotomous Traits
+ (e.g. Worldly / Chaste) which are scored numerically, and which change
+ scores inversely. They are used either (a) as behavior-establishers
+ (roll vs. Cruel to see whether you behead the churl for his rudeness) or
+ (b) as record-keepers for player-driven behavior (you beheaded him?
+ Check Cruel, which increases its chance to raise its score later). The
+ Riddle of Steel knight has no equivalent system to (a); all character
+ behavior is driven by the player. Its Spiritual Attributes, however, do
+ rise and fall with character behavior much as Pendragon's (b).
+
+ 2) The Pendragon knight also may develop one or more Passions, which are
+ expressed in the form of a fixed set of bonus dice for actions that
+ support that Passion. These are established through play and may
+ increase, although not decrease; different Passions may conflict within
+ a single character. The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes (Drive,
+ Destiny, Passion, Faith, Luck, and Conscience) act as bonus dice much as
+ in Pendragon Passions but (a) may be individually eliminated and
+ substituted with another Spiritual Attribute by the player with very
+ little restriction, and (b) are intimately connected to the most
+ significant character-improvement mechanic.
+
+ I suggest that both games include the concept that personal passion is a
+ concrete effectiveness-increase mechanic, but that Pendragon does so in
+ a "fixed-path-upwards" fashion (when the knight's passions are
+ involved), whereas The Riddle of Steel does so under the sole helm of
+ the player's thematic interests of the moment. Furthermore, the latter
+ game directly rewards the player for doing so.
+
+ I may be a little biased about this issue, but it seems to me that a
+ character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb,
+ whereas, for a character in Simulationist play, the bomb is either
+ absent (the GURPS samurai), present in a state of near-constant
+ detonation (the Pendragon knight, using Passions), or its detonation is
+ integrated into the in-game behavioral resolution system in a "tracked"
+ fashion (the Pendragon knight, using the dichotomous traits). Therefore,
+ when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue,
+ poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of
+ a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity
+ being necessary.
+
+ Before anyone flips out, stop for one more point, which is that my
+ perceived time-scale of play for all the above points is quite high. I'm
+ talking about whole sessions and sets of sessions, not moment-to-moment
+ combat decisons or dialogue. So the "poof" is a pretty prolonged thing
+ (and I better not develop this metaphor any further either).
+
+ Many people mistake low time-scale techniques like Director stance,
+ shared narration, etc, for Narrativism, although they are not defining
+ elements for any GNS mode. Misunderstanding this key issue has led to
+ many people falsely identifying themselves as playing Simulationist with
+ a strong Character emphasis, when they were instead playing quite
+ straightforward Narrativist without funky techniques.
+
+ I would very much like to participate in a detailed discussion of
+ playing L5R, which to my mind, in the absence of Drifting, poses some
+ irreconcilable problems in how its behavioral parameters are
+ constructed, such that it simultaneously asks about Honor and dictates
+ the answers.
+
+ El Dorado and Drift
+ El Dorado is a term coined by Paul Czege based on some ideas proposed by
+ Joachim Buchert (see glossary for links). As originally proposed, it was
+ essentially Narrativist play with a strong Simulationist supportive
+ element - a functional hybrid. When I surprised this debate by shrugging
+ and stating that hybrids, with one mode dominant, are viable, possible,
+ and functional, and when The Riddle of Steel demonstrated an
+ exceptionally fine example, the term changed a bit. Over time, it has
+ come to mean as well an experientially smooth and perhaps even
+ unnoticeable shift from Simulationist play-assumptions to Narrativist
+ ones.
+
+ Such a goal, both for play and design, has proven attractive to people;
+ they recognize that Simulationist assumptions are common among
+ established role-players, and the term "Simulationist-by-habit" has been
+ coined to describe people who might enjoy other GNS modes but don't
+ conceive of their functional existence.
+
+ An El Dorado game-experience would not be a hybrid - it would avoid all
+ confusion that hybrids tend to generate to some degree, and it would
+ certainly not be Abashed, as play-goals would not clash within the rules
+ and procedures of play. It would be operative Drift without rules-Drift,
+ for which the term Transition was coined in discussions of Fang
+ Langford's game in development, Scattershot.
+
+ Is it possible, theoretically? Sure! I think it's much harder than most
+ people think it would be. The System actually has to facilitate the
+ process of changing priorities during play, Drifting on procedural
+ "tracks" as it were. A couple of games point the way. The Riddle of
+ Steel is explicitly based on a rather brutal selection philosophy,
+ insofar as people who do not recognize the dominance of the Spiritual
+ Attributes over the more Simulationist-appearing baseline mechanics will
+ see their characters die horribly. Players who start with Simulationist
+ priorities will have to change or stop playing (I suspect, rather, that
+ many of them will "Drift to remain in place," actually). Scattershot, in
+ development, is the only Transition-oriented game design I know of
+ that's based on the rules themselves shifting and altering as a function
+ of play. (See Glossary.)
+
+ I'll discuss this issue in much more detail in the Narrativism essay,
+ but I'll pose the most serious problem facing the seekers of El Dorado:
+ idealizing story creation but refusing to do it. Oh, am I going to catch
+ it for this section ... well, people are just going to have to disagree
+ about whether stories can "create themselves."
+ Personally, I don't think they do, and we won't get anywhere by pushing
+ and pulling. In practical terms, lots of hassles and possibilities arise
+ when expecting story to "emerge" from metagame-absent play. Here are the
+ two extremes which arise.
+
+ * The bad one: A frustrated Narrativist-ish player takes over as GM
+ and relies on railroading. He or she insists that everyone care
+ about the story, but also insists upon everything going as he or she
+ desires. I consider this approach to rank among the least functional
+ role-playing in existence.
+ * The good one: Everyone agrees that story is a wonderful and
+ desirable emergent property, but commits to no metagame meddling or
+ prioritizing by anyone. In theory, this is quite functional, but the
+ tricky part is that everyone also has to accept that story might not
+ happen at all, and to be all right with that.
+
+ Less extremely, some game texts present relatively consistent
+ Simulationist-oriented rules, but with bits and pieces here and there
+ with Narrativist leanings. This is all very well, except that the text
+ accompanying these sections is almost always incoherent: the player is
+ given power (e.g. to dictate a target's response) - but the GM is warned
+ to override it if necessary - but then some text follows about how the
+ players are really the story-authors - but then, again, the GM needs to
+ keep a tight rein on the story's integrity - and so on. Usually the game
+ design is quite nifty in terms of the actual rules (e.g. Fvlminata), but
+ these text sections ultimately make no sense, being trapped in the
+ Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's as if the game authors play a
+ particular way but can't quite believe that anyone else would, and in
+ most cases, the game text and rules end up being Abashed.
+
+ Pitfalls of design
+ The first and most serious problem in Simulationist design is to rely on
+ habit and imitation for some mechanics features of the game and then to
+ try to tack on one's own ideas. I'm not talking about simple influence,
+ which is part and parcel of any RPG design, but the porting of whole
+ assumption-sets out of their integrated contexts with all aspects of the
+ parent game. This is very common in Fantasy Heartbreakers and usually
+ results in a lot of broken math. Obviously this problem is not unique to
+ Simulationism, but when it occurs in that context, it's really painful.
+
+ Another serious problem is the ideal of "transparency," especially as
+ applied to the High Concept approach. I cannot help but be blunt: System
+ is experientially inescapable. One cannot make Character, Setting,
+ Situation, and Color "go" without it. Drama-driven systems are just as
+ System as any other, for instance. (See the Transparency entry in the
+ Glossary.)
+
+ Really to remove System requires that anything and everything that
+ happens during play be mediated solely through the Social Contract,
+ without any formalized method even to do that. I think that such play
+ would be awfully difficult, requiring so much negotiation regarding how
+ to play per unit of play as to be hopeless. (Again, I am not discussing
+ well-organized systems based mainly on Drama, which are perfectly
+ wonderful and not subject to these criticisms.)
+
+ Therefore, I advise that design not ask, "How is System made invisible,"
+ but rather, "How is System directed toward particular Explorative
+ goals." The degree of complexity then becomes an aesthetic and focused
+ issue, not something to chop away at blindly. Instead of transparency,
+ let Coherence and an eye toward the desired Points of Contact be your
+ guide.
+
+ The third problem is the Realism tautology: setting "realism" as a goal
+ of play, which often gets brought up in debates about in-game events.
+ Never fall into this one - you cannot win. Plausibility, which is to
+ say, not violating a specific degree of contrivance-limits, is a fine
+ thing; it's central to the role-playing element of Situation. All
+ role-playing requires whatever degree of plausibility is necessary to
+ support the respective GNS goal. Reinforcing it can be a valid feature
+ of some Simulationist play and design (just as of some Narrativist and
+ some Gamist play), when that matters for specific goals for that play.
+ But to reverse it, to claim that the play itself exists at the service
+ of the "realism" among the components of the game, is madness,
+ especially for Simulationist play - such a statement presents a quagmire
+ of debate much like "balance" or "story."
+
+ Another common problem is rules-bloat, which usually creeps into
+ Simulationist game text as a form of anti-Gamist defense. I suggest that
+ adding more layers to character creation is a poor idea, as it only
+ introduces more potential points of broken Currency. I suggest instead
+ that the most effective "defense" is to avoid ratios in one's layering,
+ as in Godlike. More generally, beyond a certain point, anti-Gamist
+ defensive rules design has a negative effect: given an increased number
+ rules and punctilios, players simply punt in terms of understanding the
+ system, and the GM has to "be" the entire game. This is exceptionally
+ difficult in games like Rolemaster or GURPS (perhaps less so in Dread or
+ Call of Cthulhu). Therefore the effort - to preserve the integrity of
+ the Simulationist experience - often backfires as play gets harder and
+ more full of speed-bumps rather than easier.
+
+ Rules-bloat can also result from the design and writing process itself.
+ Cogitating about in-game causes can transform itself, at the keyboard,
+ into a sort of Exploration of its own, which results in very elaborate
+ rules-sets for situational modifiers, encumbrance, movement, technology,
+ prices of things, none of which is related to actual play of the game
+ with actual people. During the writing process, "what if" meets "but
+ also" and breeds tons of situational rules modifiers. When this effect
+ hits Currency, you get tons of layering in the form of prerequisites and
+ nuances of described competency (e.g. Awful vs. Really Bad vs.
+ Mediocre). The result is often what I like to call Paying to Suck, which
+ is to say that character creation includes paying many points merely for
+ the character to be bad or barely-adequate at things.
+
+ My recommendation is to know and value the virtues of Simulationist
+ play, specifically refined toward the goals of a particular subset (as
+ listed or make up your own), and to drive toward them with gusto. Don't
+ spin your wheels defending your design against some other form of play.
+
+ Conclusions
+ For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality:
+ the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda. For game design to
+ promote this goal, it must be openly valued and its virtues articulated,
+ not assumed (as it often is) to be "good role-playing" by anyone's
+ standards and hence left unstated. Design should be inspiring and
+ elegant in its own right, promoting the desire to see this Setting or
+ Character unfold, or to see this System do its stuff.
+
+ I now offer a couple of points that are probably going to draw some
+ objections.
+
+ It's a hard realization: devoted Simulationist play is a fringe
+ interest. It is not the baseline or core of role-playing, which is
+ Exploration. (Here is where my interpretation of the Scarlet Jester's
+ Exploration differs the most from his original presentation.)
+
+ Quite a bit of role-playing theory and design has taken a
+ training-wheels approach, especially using Purist for System games like
+ GURPS, in the assumption that role-playing at the Simulationist "level"
+ or "type" is the necessary skill to develop or grow to any other type. I
+ think this is both misguided and patronizing toward Simulationist play,
+ but even worse, it has the opposite effect on new players: selective
+ culling-out of people who bring developed Gamist or Narrativist agendas
+ to the activity.
+
+ Another good question is whether the claim is valid that role-playing
+ has been "Sim-dominated" through its history, whether in play or in
+ design. Regarding play, I think all the evidence points to all the GNS
+ modes, and much diversity within those modes, being present since the
+ beginning of the hobby. Regarding design and publishing, I think that we
+ need to distinguish between Simulationist elements vs. coherent design -
+ the former have certainly been widespread, but mainly in incoherent
+ games, with AD&D and Vampire as the chief examples.
+
+ The Hard Question
+ Well, here it is. Before getting bent out of shape, remember that each
+ mode is gonna get one of these.
+
+ Role-playing is a hobby, leisure activity. The real question is, what
+ for, in the long term? For Simulationist play, the answer "This was fun,
+ so let's do it again," is sufficient.
+
+ However, for how long is it sufficient? Which seems to me to vary
+ greatly from person to person. Is the focus on Exploration to be kept as
+ is, permanently, as characters and settings change through play? Some
+ say "sure" and wonder what the hell I'm talking about, or perhaps feel
+ slightly insulted. Or, is Drift ultimately desirable? Is play all about
+ getting "it" to work prior to permitting overt metagame agendas into the
+ picture? Some might answer "of course" and wonder why anyone could see
+ it otherwise.
+
+ So! Is there an expected, future metagame payoff, or is the journey
+ really its own reward? Is Simulationist play what you want, or is it
+ what you think you must do in order, one day, to get what you want?
+
+ I judge nothing with these questions. I think that they're important to
+ consider and that answers are going to vary widely, that's all.
+
+ Glossary
+ Most of the jargon in the essay is defined in "GNS and related matters
+ of role-playing design." Most of the following are some terms that have
+ arisen during the discussions since then. Some of them (the ones without
+ links) are defined in the essay and repeated here for clarity.
+
+ Abashed
+ Game design which displays features of one or more GNS modes that, in
+ their applications, are operationally contradictory. It is a minor
+ form of Incoherence. However, an Abashed design is easily correctable
+ by ignoring or altering isolated portions of the rules (minor Drift);
+ typically, extremely coherent play can result in either of the modes
+ involved. However, this also means that two groups will effectively
+ be playing completely different games. See [10]Abashed Vanillaism and
+ [11]my review of Little Fears.
+
+ Currency
+ The exchange rate among different components of characters - their
+ Effectiveness values, their Resources, and their Metagame properties.
+ In many games, Currency is explicit in terms of character points, but
+ it is present in any and all role-playing games.
+
+ DFK
+ Short for Drama, Karma, and Fortune, as originally presented in the
+ game Everway and adopted by me. The terms refer to the resolution
+ mechanics of a given game, which may include any combination or
+ blending of the three.
+
+ El Dorado
+ Originally, used to indicate the search for a
+ Simulationist-Narrativist hybrid mode of play, with the Narrativism
+ being the main priority; more recently, it has come to mean
+ Transition from Simulationist to Narrativist play without noticeable
+ Drift in the rules-use. See [12]Simulationism and Narrativism under
+ the same roof and [13]El Dorado.
+
+ Fortune-at-the-End
+ Employing a Fortune mechanic (dice, cards, etc) following the full
+ descriptions of actions, physical placement, and communication among
+ characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and associated links.
+
+ Fortune-in-the-Middle
+ Employing a Fortune mechanic (dice, cards, etc) prior to fully
+ describing the specific actions of, physical placement of, and
+ communication among characters. The Fortune outcome is employed in
+ establishing these elements retroactively. This technique may be
+ employed with the dice/etc as the ultimate authority of success or
+ failure (e.g. Sorcerer) or with the dice/etc outcome being
+ potentially adjusted by a metagame mechanic (e.g. Hero Wars). See
+ [14]my review of Hero Wars, see also discussions in the [15]Alyria
+ forum.
+
+ Hybrid
+ A game whose rules include facilitating elements for more than one
+ mode of play. Observed functional hybrids to date include only two
+ GNS modes rather than all three, and one of the modes may be
+ considered primary or dominant, with the other playing a supportive
+ role. See [16]my review of The Riddle of Steel.
+
+ IIEE
+ Short for Intent, Initiative, Execution, and Effect, referring to the
+ relationship between announcements of action by real people and the
+ establishment of those actions into the shared imaginary game-world.
+ See [17]The four steps of action and [18]What is IIEC?.
+
+ Illusionism
+ A mode of story creation by the GM in which his or her decisions
+ carry more weight than those of the players, in which he or she has
+ authority over rules-outcomes, and in which the players willingly or
+ unwillingly do not recognize these features. See [19]Illusionism: a
+ new look and a new approach and [20]Illusionism and GNS for a more
+ complete definition and associated discussions.
+
+ The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
+ "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions
+ of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts.
+ Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the
+ other.
+
+ Layering
+ The relationship between the initial numbers derived for a character
+ (e.g. attributes) to the numbers eventually used most commonly in
+ play (Effectiveness Values; e.g. combat to-hit values). The more
+ steps of derivation, the more the system is said to be layered.
+
+ Points of Contact
+ The steps of rules-consultation, either in the text or internally,
+ per unit of established imaginary content. This is not the same as
+ the long-standing debate between Rules-light and Rules-heavy systems;
+ either low or high Points of Contact systems can rely on strict
+ rules. See [21]Vanilla and Pervy, [22]Pervy in my head, [23]Cannot
+ stand cutesie-poo terms, [24]Pervy Sim, points of contact,
+ accessibility.
+
+ Roles, "role levels"
+ (1) The player's social role in terms of his character - the mom, the
+ jokester, the organizer, the placator, etc. (2) The character's
+ thematic or operational role relative to the others - the leader, the
+ brick, the betrayer, the ingenue, etc. (3) The character's in-game
+ occupation or social role - the pilot, the mercenary, the alien
+ wanderer, etc. (4) The character's specific Effectiveness values -
+ armor rating, weapon attributes, specific skills and their values,
+ available funds, etc. See [25]The class issue and all internal links.
+
+ Social Context
+ How role-playing as an activity relates to one's social life in
+ general. Currently, the idea is that most functionally, one's "People
+ one likes" box is biggest, one's "People I like hanging with" box is
+ within that, and one's "People I game with" box is within that, but
+ that typically people reverse the boxes entirely. See [26]Social
+ Context, [27]Self-image, [28]Gay culture / Gamer culture, [29]What
+ does role-playing gaming accomplish?, [30]Christian gamers and
+ self-esteem, and [31]Sexism in gaming.
+
+ Social Contract
+ The interactions, emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and
+ expectations among the members of a role-playing group, relative to
+ the role-playing activity. It includes both verbalized and
+ non-verbalized components of these things.
+
+ Transition
+ Theoretically, shifting from one GNS mode to another (in the large
+ sense, in terms of the overall goals of play for everyone) without
+ Drifting the rules. Scattershot, in development, is designed with
+ Transition in mind. See the [32]Scattershot forum with reference to
+ threads begun by me.
+
+ Transparency
+ Rules design that does not call attention to the rules in operation;
+ highly controversial. See [33]Transparency and [34]Transparency
+ again.
+
+ Turku role-playing (Elaaytyjivism)
+ A mode of play first presented as a manifesto, in which in-character
+ feeling and thinking is given the highest priority, to such an extent
+ that even communicating the experience to others is secondary. By my
+ terminology, Simulationism, Character Exploration, mainly Drama or
+ low Points-of-Contact Fortune mechanics, highly reinforced through an
+ explicit Social Contract. The main site is not available, but see
+ [35]LARP manifesting in The LARPer magazine. See also the [36]Dogma
+ 99.
+
+ Vanilla/Pervy
+ Now-obsolete terminology to describe game-play in which the GNS mode
+ is easily-accessible and requires few if any complex rules-techniques
+ (Vanilla) vs. game-play in which the techniques are highly strictured
+ for the mode. Now replaced by the concept of Points of Contact, which
+ concerns the degree to which System is Explored. See [37]Vanilla
+ Narrativism and the more recent links listed under "Points of
+ Contact" above.
+
+ The Forge created and administrated by [38]Clinton R. Nixon and [39]Ron
+ Edwards.
+ All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+ designated author.
+
+References
+
+ Visible links
+ 1. file:///
+ 2. file:///about/
+ 3. file:///donate.php
+ 4. file:///articles/
+ 5. file:///reviews/
+ 6. file:///resources/
+ 7. file:///
+ 8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+ 9. file:///files/mongrel.pdf
+ 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1397
+ 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=8_0_5_0
+ 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=800
+ 13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1072
+ 14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=12_0_5_0
+ 15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
+ 16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=20_0_5_0
+ 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774
+ 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1273
+ 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4217
+ 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4232
+ 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4299
+ 22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4301
+ 23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4352
+ 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4416
+ 25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2802
+ 26. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4258
+ 27. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4336
+ 28. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4300
+ 29. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4414
+ 30. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4419
+ 31. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4433
+ 32. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22
+ 33. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1842
+ 34. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1909
+ 35. http://www.thelarper.org/archivearticles/edition_1/manifesto.html
+ 36. http://fate.laiv.org/dogme99/en/index.htm
+ 37. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1597
+ 38. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com
+ 39. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com