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