diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/simulationism_the_right_to_dream.txt
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/simulationism_the_right_to_dream.txt	Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,1651 @@
+           The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games
+    [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |
+    Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums
+
+
+    Simulationism: The Right to Dream
+    by [8]Ron Edwards
+
+    Many thanks are due to Clinton R. Nixon, Paul Czege, Jared A. Sorensen,
+    Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik, and Mike Holmes for comments on the
+    manuscript. Several points, key text quotes, and nuances of argument
+    wouldn't be in the article without their input. All inconsistencies or
+    argumentative flaws, on the other hand, may be laid at my door.
+
+    This is the first of three essays about the three GNS modes of
+    role-playing. Each one is about both play and game design, with the
+    former as the basic issue, and each one is intended to develop the
+    points made in my "GNS and related matters of role-playing design"
+    essay. I'm also drawing upon ideas I didn't express in that essay and
+    many, many points of debate at the Forge over the last year. The
+    original essay cleared up a lot of acrimony and misunderstanding that
+    had arisen in the previous years, and I'm hoping that the current series
+    plays an even more positive role in the current context - not only to
+    remove negative connotations and interpretations (which are now much
+    fewer anyway), but to encourage mutual understanding and appreciation
+    among all role-players about all the available modes of play.
+
+    Each essay isn't a segregated unit only about that one mode. Each will
+    include more general issues, especially if they pertain especially if
+    not uniquely to the mode under discussion, and each one is intended to
+    clarify and develop "GNS and related matters" as a whole. Also, each one
+    concludes with a Hard Question for those who prefer that mode of play.
+    Each Hard Question is supposed to be interesting on its own, but I hope
+    that the three taken together will be much more than merely
+    "interesting."
+
+    Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In
+    the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one
+    or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System,
+    Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration
+    as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the
+    internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."
+
+    Exploration reviewed
+    Obviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of
+    "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining,
+    "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations.
+    It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the
+    top priority.
+
+    I need to stop th'flow for a moment to explain some background, though.
+    My original notions were mainly laid out in "System Does Matter," my
+    first essay about all this stuff, based on my readings about the
+    Threefold Model proposed in the r.g.f.a. discussion group. At the Gaming
+    Outpost, lots of debate ensued about my essay, and eventually a poster
+    called the Scarlet Jester objected to the term Simulationism in terms of
+    its connotations, offering "Exploration" as the replacement - defined as
+    the enjoyment of the "dream" or the imagination as an act in itself. He
+    called his model "GENder" as an alternative to the then-existing GNS.
+
+    GENder made a lot of sense to me, with one exception: Exploration, to
+    me, seemed to be involved in all of role-playing. I decided to modify
+    GNS severely and "float" the three modes on a "sea" of Exploration. In
+    that context, Simulationist play priorities suddenly made more sense -
+    as I saw it and still do, unlike Narrativist and Gamist priorities which
+    are defined by an interpersonal out-of-game agenda, Simulationist play
+    prioritizes the in-game functions and imagined events.
+
+    From the introduction to RuneQuest, second edition (The Chaosium, 1978,
+    1979, 1980; specific author for this text unknown; game authors are
+    Steve Perrin, Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, and Warren James):
+
+      What is a fantasy role-playing game?
+      A role-playing game is a game of character development, simulating the
+      process of personal development commonly called "life."
+
+    [In fairness, later text in the introduction brings in some adversarial
+    GM/player context that sounds more Gamist, but the above quote is
+    reinforced more often throughout the book's rules and text.]
+
+    From the introduction of Skyrealms of Jorune, 3rd edition (Chessex
+    Publications, 1992, author is Andrew Leker):
+
+      Is it possible to win at role-playing? The whole idea of role-playing
+      is to have a good time. Players work toward a common goal, often
+      survival, but sometimes helping a friend in need, or accomplishing a
+      task of unquestioned importance. Although there will be no winner or
+      losers in an absolute sense, you will have the satisfaction of
+      watching your character think through challenges, survive
+      confrontations with other races, grow, and develop new skills.
+
+    [Note the synecdoche: the "whole idea."]
+
+    From the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc
+    Miller):
+
+      ... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character
+      and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just
+      as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the
+      character ...
+
+    [The above text is followed by some Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
+    text which will be discussed in the Narrativism essay.]
+
+    What's fun or good about that? Simulationist play looks awfully strange
+    to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during
+    play. "You do it just to do it? What the hell is that?"
+
+    However, contrary to some accusations, it's not autistic or
+    schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other
+    role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and
+    sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the
+    emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps
+    it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is
+    a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you
+    are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am
+    referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated
+    practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in
+    heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing
+    on throughout this essay.
+
+    Sincere shared creativity: all role-playing has to have it. For some,
+    it's the whole point.
+
+    Is the term fatally flawed?
+    More than once, people have called for abandoning the term "simulation"
+    in its entirety. Most of the objections arise from connotations of one
+    sort or another, since it gets used for all sorts of recreational or
+    applied things. If it's Simulationism, then what's it Simulating, and
+    what form does the resulting Simulation take?
+
+    For better or for worse, this issue has never really struck home for me.
+    My call is that the term is is defined locally and historically, and not
+    really descriptive as such ("simulating") in nearly any application.
+    Here's the variety that I see:
+
+      * Simulation in wargaming = historical plausibility ("realism").
+      * Simulation in computer games = rendering, reaction time.
+      * Simulation in behavioral terms = "let's pretend" in terms of our
+        expressions, gestures, and voices.
+      * Simulate in emotional terms = related to lying, as in dissimulate or
+        simulated passion.
+
+    Since the term does not carry a single meaning among all the other
+    contexts, assigning a specific meaning for role-playing just seems to be
+    par for the course and not especially or intrinsically confusing.
+    Hastily added: "to me." Maybe I'm just obdurate.
+
+    Taking it role-playing specifically, a new issue arises: it's awfully
+    hard to get at goals of any kind right out of the texts. A good place to
+    start is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, in just about the first text ever
+    that tried to explain what was going on (Dungeon Master's Guide, first
+    edition, 1979, TSR; the author is Gary Gygax):
+
+      Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best described as
+      the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D
+      is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any
+      realism ... It does little to attempt to simulate anything either.
+      ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun
+      and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.
+
+    How to parse this? It seems unequivocal. However, first, this text is
+    palpably disingenuous regarding "simulates nothing" - the immense
+    efforts devoted in this book to the importance of in-game time and
+    in-game justifications of hit-points, retainer/hireling opinions, costs
+    for castle parts, and much more, do not support his claim. Second, and
+    more importantly, Gygax is speaking from a 1970s perspective of
+    role-playing existing as a subset of wargaming. What he calls simulation
+    or realism, I call historical accuracy; what he calls "game"
+    (imaginative, creative), I call Exploration. As an "umbrella point,"
+    although D&D and AD&D of this era were procedurally mainly Gamist, all
+    accompanying text by Gygax in any publication represents, I think, very
+    hard-line post-wargame Simulationism as conceived by GNS theory.
+
+    A somewhat lesser issue concerns whether I'm doing great violence to the
+    term Simulationism as proposed in the original Threefold Model. My
+    answer to this has two parts. (1) The Threefold definitions, for all
+    three modes, tend to benefit in this debate from being moving targets
+    over the years. (2) My set of theorizing, usually called "GNS" although
+    I'm starting to wish for a better umbrella term, explicitly disavows any
+    need for consistency with the Threefold.
+
+    However, although I'm not convinced it's necessary, one possible
+    solution has arisen. Jack Spencer proposed "Emulation" for the goals of
+    play that I currently call Simulationism. If I felt any need for a
+    wholly new term, this would probably be it.
+
+    Baseline Simulationist practice
+    The five elements of role-playing as laid out in my GNS essay are
+    obviously where we start. Modelling them is the ideal. My first point
+    about that is that the model need not be static; dynamic characters and
+    settings, for instance, are perfectly valid Simulationist elements. My
+    second point is that different types of Simulationist play can address
+    very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most
+    deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and
+    physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and
+    politics, and more. I'll go into this lots more later.
+
+    The second point is that the mechanics-emphasis of the modelling system
+    are also highly variable: it can handled strictly verbally (Drama),
+    through the agency of charts and arrows, or through the agency of
+    dice/Fortune mechanics. Any combination of these or anything like them
+    are fine; what matters is that within the system, causality is clear,
+    handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's
+    part. That's why it's often referred to as "the engine," and unlike
+    other modes of play, the engine, upon being activated and further
+    employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive
+    force for the game to "go."
+
+    The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It is
+    causality among the five elements of play. Whether everyone has to get
+    the engine in terms of its functions varies among games and among
+    groups, but recognizing its authority as the causal agent is a big part
+    of play. (To repeat, the engine's extent and detail aren't the point; I
+    could be talking about a notecard of brief "stay in character"
+    requirements or a 300-page set of probability charts.) By the way,
+    moving the GM into a position of authority over the rules/system is a
+    derived state of the rules' authority; I'll discuss that later.
+
+    Many Simulationist systems also emphasize modularity - you've got the
+    baseline engine for what happens, so for specialty phenomena, whatever
+    new rules go on top must not violate or devalue that baseline. When a
+    system is very strong in this regard, it's what most people call
+    "universal" or "generic," by which they mean customizable through
+    addition.
+
+    My final point is that this mode requires clear
+    player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character
+    knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries
+    that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in
+    a given instance, they must be clear and abided by.
+
+    How-to-play text
+    A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal:
+    that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly
+    into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the
+    NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with
+    this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character
+    generation is a form of Director stance. It supports the central point
+    of this essay, that the value of Simulationist play is prioritizing the
+    group imaginative experience, to an extent that expands the very notion
+    of "play" into acts that from Narrativist or Gamist perspectives are not
+    play at all.
+
+    This ideal poses two problems: one for the GM in particular, and one for
+    the group as a whole.
+
+    The GM problem, only partly solved by GM-only sections, is that it makes
+    it very hard to write a coherent how-to explanation for scenario
+    preparation and implementation. Putting this sort of information right
+    out "in front of God and everybody" is counter-intuitive for some
+    Simulationist-design authors, because it's getting behind the curtain at
+    the metagame level. The experience of play, according to the basic goal,
+    is supposed to minimize metagame, but preparation for play, from the
+    GM's perspective, is necessarily metagame-heavy, and if reading the book
+    is assumed to be actually beginning to play ... well, then a certain
+    conflict of interest sets into the process.
+
+    The usual textual solution is to assume that the GM is already on the
+    same page and to address him or her as a co-conspirator. In many games,
+    however, such information is outright punted, such that a GM must bring
+    a particular set of experiences and values to the text in the first
+    place in order to play the game.
+
+    The whole-group problem is that individually-conducted character
+    creation often produces differing conclusions about the point of play
+    from player to player, which is to say, the characters are fully
+    plausible and created by the rules, but are also manifestly incapable of
+    interacting in terms of any one person's desired genre/setting. The
+    classic example in fantasy-adventure play is the party including a
+    paladin and an assassin; the one in superhero play is the super-team
+    that includes both a Spider-Man clone and a Wolverine clone.
+
+    The usual textual solution is to urge that all character creation be
+    subject to the approval of the GM, which in practice poses some
+    problems. For instance, it assumes that the Social Contract of the game
+    group permits such authority and presents no procedure to follow if that
+    happens not to be the case. Also, I have never seen any text explaining
+    what a GM is supposed to do or to say to the player regarding how to
+    re-write the character or to design a new one; every example, and there
+    are many, seems to assume that the GM "just knows" how to communicate
+    the je ne sais qua to the player.
+
+    I suggest that genuinely helpful, teaching-oriented text that does not
+    fall into synecdoche ("real role-players," etc) would be a tremendous
+    benefit to presenting straightforwardly Simulationist games. Such text
+    would include methods for GMs to prepare scenarios from a fully-metagame
+    perspective - which is to say, the ideal of the book "being play" would
+    have to be lost temporarily - as well as methods for the GM's work
+    during character creation itself. Furthermore, this text would have to
+    be practical and compelling to players in a way that "All character
+    creation is subject to the approval of the GM" is not - for instance, it
+    would inspire players to avoid the paladin-assassin problem on their
+    own, during the creation of the first characters rather than the second
+    ones.
+
+    Historically, such text has been rare. Well, actually, it's rare for any
+    mode of play, but I submit that Simulationist-oriented games have tended
+    to have special trouble with it due to the widely-held ideal of treating
+    the text experience as play.
+
+    Internal Cause is King
+    Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what
+    happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the
+    imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well
+    as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general
+    sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to
+    emerge without extra attention. It's a tall order: the relationship is
+    supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on
+    "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda.
+    Since real people decide when to roll, as well as any number of other
+    contextual details, they can take this spec a certain distance. However,
+    the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from
+    System outcomes, in application.
+
+    Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor
+    among the other elements. As I outlined in the previous essay, System is
+    mainly composed of character creation, resolution, and reward mechanics.
+
+    During character generation, layering and overt currency are frequently
+    employed to engage the player in Simulationist play during the process.
+
+    Layering may be employed to establish and identify the character's
+    plausibility in terms of the game-world itself. For a look at the
+    historical differences among games, compare the methods for establishing
+    player-character skill competence in early RuneQuest (Simulationist)
+    with those of Hero Wars (Narrativist). In Hero Wars, the system limits
+    how many of the thirty or so starting abilities are assigned high values
+    (two really good ones and one great one), but not which ones. Whereas in
+    RuneQuest, every skill has a starting-character value based on its
+    commonality and difficulty to learn, and every skill is rated in money
+    regarding learning higher values of competence, based both on difficulty
+    to learn and who teaches the skill. Hero Wars character creation, which
+    is minimally layered, isn't concerned with the implausibility of having
+    a mastery-level in Greatsword be just as "likely" as having it in
+    Farming; RuneQuest character creation, which is maximally layered,
+    emphatically is.
+
+    To repeat, the above point is historical. Whether the distinction I've
+    drawn holds for any and all Simulationist play potential, I don't know.
+
+    A related issue is prerequisite attributes and abilities for a given
+    ability, which represent a further step of layering. Prerequisites are
+    common in historical Simulationist and Gamist design, and in the former,
+    I think they are present specifically to reinforce the same
+    plausibility/likelihood issue.
+
+    For currency, consider Champions or many of the games based on its
+    principles. From a Simulationist perspective on play, if a given feature
+    costs more than another, or if it can be traded off with some other
+    feature, or if it plus another feature mathematically yield a third,
+    then it's all built to focus attention and assign cause from "is" to
+    "does" in the imagined game-context. That cause must be (a) engaging (as
+    for any RPG) and (b) causally continuous through the layers, providing
+    for many equally-functional, equally-plausible, and potentially
+    equally-enjoyable options.
+
+    I think this combined approach and perceived purpose of layering and
+    currency is why attribute + skill systems have remained entrenched - a
+    strong sub-set of the Simulationist perspective demands that the
+    in-world ontogeny of a character's ability be integrated into the
+    process of establishing it on the character sheet.
+
+    Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about
+    the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important
+    during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions
+    and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two
+    games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with
+    childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning
+    bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game
+    (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.
+    Before talking about dice or other specific resolution mechanics, I'll
+    discuss two elements of Resolution which are rarely recognized: the
+    treatment of in-game time and space. These are a big deal in
+    Simulationist play as universal and consistent constraints, which must
+    apply equally to any part of the imagined universe, at any point during
+    play.
+
+    To talk about this, let's break the issue down a little:
+
+      * In-game time occurs regarding the actually-played imaginary moments
+        and events. It's best expressed by combat mechanics, which in
+        Simulationist play are often extremely well-defined in terms of
+        seconds and actions, but also by movement rates at various scales,
+        starship travel times, and similar things.
+      * Metagame time is rarely discussed openly, but it's the crucial one.
+        It refers to time-lapse among really-played scenes: can someone get
+        to the castle before someone else kills the king; can someone fly
+        across Detroit before someone else detonates the Mind Bomb. Metagame
+        time isn't "played," but its management is a central issue for
+        scene-framing and the outcome of the session as a whole.
+      * Real time is, of course, the real time of play as experienced by the
+        people at the table. I think comparing between its flow and that of
+        the in-game time is a crucial issue as well - when is a huge hunk of
+        real time necessary to establish a teeny bit of in-game time, and
+        vice versa?
+
+    The following text is also from the first edition of the Dungeon
+    Master's Guide (TSR, 1979); the author is Gary Gygax.
+
+      Game time is of the utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track
+      of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies
+      in the game. ...
+
+      One of the things stated in the original game of D&D was the
+      importance of recording game time with respect to each and every
+      player-character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more:
+      YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN UNLESS EXTENSIVE RECORDS ARE
+      KEPT.
+
+      [provides an example, then:]
+
+      You may ask why time is so important if it causes such difficulties
+      with record-keeping, dictates who can or can not go adventuring during
+      a game session, and disperses player characters to the four winds by
+      its strictures. Well, as initially pointed out, it is a necessary
+      penalty imposed on characters for certain activities [making magic
+      items - RE]. Beyond that, it also gives players yet another
+      interesting set of choices and consequences. The latter tends to bring
+      more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use
+      precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and
+      some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time
+      is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from
+      the lesser ones.
+
+    That latter point bears close, close examination. Gygax is not talking
+    about winning, I think, but about a quality. This is his value judgment
+    about how to play this game. His "true to life quality," I think, is
+    synonymous with his earlier reference to creativity and imagination, or
+    Simulationism (prioritizing Exploration) as defined by me.
+
+    Gygax's text perfectly states the Simulationist view of in-game time. It
+    is a causal constraint on the other sorts. One can even find, in many
+    early game texts, rules that enforce how in-game time acts on real time,
+    and vice versa. However, most importantly, it constrains metagame time.
+    It works in-to-out. In-game time at the fine-grained level (rounds,
+    seconds, actions, movement rates) sets incontrovertible, foundation
+    material for making judgments about hours, days, cross-town movment, and
+    who gets where in what order. I recommend anyone who's interested to the
+    text of DC Heroes for some of the most explicit text available on this
+    issue throughout the book.
+
+    So much for time; now let's talk space. Rules for characters' movement
+    in the imagined space of the situation go all the way back to wargaming,
+    in the (to us oldies) familiar forms of grids and hex-maps, counters,
+    and even rules or tape-measures. The original context was pretty
+    large-scale: the movement of troops, heavy vehicles, squadrons, and so
+    on. For role-playing in the "new" sense, the scale got bumped down to
+    the individual level, and so came to emphasize facing, movement rate,
+    turn rate, number of personal actions, and similar.
+
+    The interesting thing is that most of these specific details have been
+    lost in most, although not all, Simulationist rules design over the
+    decades, with nary a whimper. Why? Because second-to-second kinetics
+    ceased to be (or rarely were) the issue of Exploration at hand,
+    particularly in genre-heavy play (see later). The Situation of interest
+    typically isn't "facing" when we want Character, Setting, System,
+    Situation, and Color to fire on shared cylinders with full
+    internal-consistency and agreed-upon thematic outcomes.
+
+    It's significant, I think, that movement-specific mechanics do remain in
+    many Gamist RPG design as an element of tactical challenge.
+
+    Now for the more nitty-gritty resolution mechanics, or DFK (Drama,
+    Karma, Fortune). Historically speaking, the System has been based on
+    task resolution, not conflict resolution, regardless of scale. Don't
+    mistake "conflict" for "large-scale task." This point is independent of
+    the system's complexity; it applies to rock-paper-scissors and GM-fiat
+    as well as to dice and tables.
+
+    The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be
+    linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or
+    parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body:
+    how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact
+    hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain)
+    effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order,
+    on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn,
+    in time.
+
+    The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text,
+    sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is
+    classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and
+    to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS).
+    Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the
+    character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often
+    breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and
+    abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit
+    location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which
+    has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it
+    represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.
+
+    The most common Simulationist resolution is handled through Fortune,
+    specifically Fortune-at-the-End. This term refers to a dice roll (or
+    cards, or whatever) which is consulted after all possible pre-resolution
+    description of the actions in question has been delivered. Its
+    alternative, Fortune-in-the-Middle, is not historically observed in
+    Simulationist game design. (See glossary for definitions and links.)
+
+    A useful way to look at Fortune in much Simulationist play is to think
+    of anything that isn't rolled as being a 100% outcome on an implied
+    roll. The extreme view (see the Purist for System category below) is to
+    interpret the whole shootin' universe as tacitly operating according to
+    the d100 or the 3d6 or whatever that's used to handle character task
+    resolution.
+
+    An entire discussion awaits concerning the shape of dice curves,
+    modifiers' effects, separate vs. incorporated effects, and more. I look
+    forward to this on the forums. Also, more details about resolution in
+    Simulationist games are presented below, when I break down the sub-types
+    in detail.
+
+    Finally, reward mechanics remain a topic of vast debate and design
+    potential in Simulationist games. I think the following historical
+    categories barely scratch the surface.
+
+    BRP style: character improvement is literally a function of play just as
+    any other action, via practice and study. This is the famous "if you
+    succeed with a skill during play, roll over your skill percent between
+    sessions in order to improve." The pitfall is graininess, such that one
+    can then start debating about whether one should learn more or less
+    across ten "hits" against one opponent vs. one hit each for ten
+    opponents, why one does or doesn't learn from a failed attempt, and how
+    study is to be rated and applied (much less how it's to be played)
+    relative to the "experience" methods.
+
+    Hero style: the player gains points simply for being there (despite
+    attempts at parsing it, that's what it amounts to), and the
+    point-allocation based cost of character creation continues to be
+    applied. The character is added to in terms of the points that were
+    originally used to assemble him, and arguably as an expression of the
+    same in-game developmental processes involved. In this case, the
+    point-gains are metagame, but the spending is supposed to use in-game
+    logic, sometimes reinforced by "corralling" sections of the character
+    off from one another. The pitfall is reaching degrees of improvement
+    which themselves violate the genre-level standards of that particular
+    play, which some games overcome by making the intersession correspond to
+    substantial in-game time.
+
+    In either case, the key issue is that character change potentially
+    disrupts the current relationship among the components of the character.
+    Options to fix the problem are generally unsatisfactory: (1) slow it
+    down, and (2) permit only tiny changes. One option, rarely seen, is to
+    include kind of a secondary, add-on game with its own set of components,
+    as with Rune status in RuneQuest. (I realize that not everyone knows all
+    of the games I'm referencing, and I certainly don't have all historical
+    RPGs memorized. This topic definitely calls for more discussion in the
+    forums, where we have room to describe all the various examples in
+    detail.)
+
+    The diversity of Simulationist game design
+    Here's a quick overview of existing diversity in Simulationist play. I'm
+    focusing on fun, functional, coherent play - none of the following is a
+    criticism or indictment. Also, I've tried to represent as many
+    creator-owned titles as possible, but I'll refer to others as needed.
+
+    My overall point is that, although Simulationist play is defined as
+    prioritizing Exploration of the five elements, its diversity is not a
+    five-headed, one-element-per-submode hydra. All five elements are always
+    involved. In defining the subtypes of this mode of play, here are the
+    issues: (1) whether Exploring System is primary, and (2) which of the
+    other elements are necessary "support" or "chassis" and which ones are
+    diminished in emphasis.
+
+    Purists for System
+    What games are these? EABA, JAGS, SOL, Pocket Universe, and Fudge are
+    deliberately "generalist" regarding setting. The big commercial models
+    are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of
+    Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from
+    Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger
+    International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions). Whether D20
+    should be included in this category is a matter for some debate.
+
+    These games' five-element structure is consistent: System + Color
+    thereof, Setting, then Character + Situation. I'm trying to think of one
+    which switches the role of character before setting, which might include
+    some some superhero games. It might seem odd that Color is placed so
+    high in priority, but consider the engineering-text model for the game
+    text of GURPS - this is, actually, Color for System.
+
+    A lot of people have trouble with the notion of "Exploring System." They
+    argue that playing a game like Fudge is necessarily Setting-first. I
+    disagree, but this debate properly belongs in the forums.
+
+    In these games, the System is all about Fortune and all about Currency.
+
+    Regarding Fortune, probabilities are the key to achieving the basic
+    Simulationist internal-cause priority. Consider both comparative
+    probabilities among characters at a given moment as well as
+    probabilities in transition within a character over time - in action
+    (actually resolving tasks), these are what drive the game. For these
+    games, a unified probability mechanic to handle any game-modelled
+    instance is the ideal, usually resulting in a single tables-based
+    concept such as the Universal Table in DC Heroes.
+
+    Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences
+    among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so
+    forth. The usual issues surrounding incorporated vs. unincorporated
+    effects, opposed vs. target number mechanics, the interaction of
+    switches and dials, and probability-curvature shape are therefore the
+    main things to distinguish these systems from one another. Compared to
+    other designs, high search and handling times, as well as many
+    points-of-contact, are acceptable features. (Please see the Glossary for
+    the definition of points-of-contact).
+
+    Here's some text from the introduction to SOL: the Omniversal
+    Role-playing System (1994, Heraldic Games; the author is Keith W.
+    Sears):
+
+      I wanted to make an RPG that went beyond those described as
+      "Universal", "Generic", or "Multi-genre." Many of the games with these
+      tags fall short of what they're supposed to be...playable in any genre
+      of fiction.
+
+      It seems that whenever a very unusual situation pops up, many of these
+      "universal" games must revise the rules they already have in order to
+      cover it. An example would be the climactic battle between a very tiny
+      man and a normal-sized spider in the movie, The Incredible Shrinking
+      Man. You can't simulate that in most RPGs without a major reworking of
+      the rules just to handle that one situation. SOL was created to
+      encompass roleplaying on any scale--from gods to viruses.
+      ...
+      [in terms of my overall point for this essay, I couldn't help but
+      include his sign-off phrase - RE] Keep Dreaming!
+
+    Regarding Currency, in these games, the imagined universe is made of
+    "points." Therefore character creation and often resolution are often
+    characterized by layering: paying points to get values for named scores,
+    which themselves are mathematically derived to produce effective values.
+    Interestingly, in-game money and possessions are often considered merely
+    another facet of the universe that can be expressed in these points.
+    This relationship between points and reality seems very well entrenched
+    in Purist for System design, which is understandable, as it provides
+    concrete insights to the internal-cause heart of the game that a player
+    can latch onto prior to play.
+
+    In terms of character/player roles, characters in these games are
+    solidly defined in terms only of my third and fourth categories: in-game
+    character occupation, and the specific abilities that are associated
+    with or in addition to that. (See the glossary for a discussion of these
+    terms.)
+
+    In this sort of design, there's no possible excuse for any
+    imperfections, including scale-derived breakdowns of the fundamental
+    point/probability relationships. The system must be cleanly and at the
+    service of the element(s) being emphasized, in strictly in-game-world
+    terms. A good one is elegant, consistent, applicable to anything that
+    happens in play, and clear about its outcomes. It also has to have
+    points of contact at any scale for any conceivable thing. It cannot
+    contain patch-rules to correct for inconsistencies; consistency is the
+    essence of quality.
+
+    As I see it, Purist for System design is a tall, tall order. It's
+    arguably the hardest design spec in all of role-playing.
+
+    In play, these games offer a lot of diversity because both the
+    character-to-player relationship and the GM-to-outcomes relationship are
+    fully customizable. Players might well utilize Pawn stance as Actor
+    stance or any other, and the GM may care greatly about a given goal or
+    situation to be set up during play, or not at all. The only required
+    priority is to enjoy the System in action. (I'm not claiming here that
+    the other four elements are irrelevant, though.)
+
+    High Concept
+    In cinema, "High Concept" refers to any film idea that can be pitched in
+    a very limited amount of time; the usual method uses references to other
+    films. Sometimes, although not necessarily, it's presented as a
+    combination: "Jaws meets Good Will Hunting," or that sort of thing. I'm
+    adopting it to role-playing without much modification, although
+    emphasizing that the source references can come from any medium and also
+    that the two-title combo isn't always employed.
+
+    The key word is "genre," which in this case refers to a certain
+    combination of the five elements as well as an unstated Theme. How do
+    they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as
+    the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style,
+    and more. "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events
+    that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre
+    during play.
+
+    This sort of game design will be familiar to almost anyone, represented
+    by Arrowflight (Setting), Pax Draconis (Setting), Godlike (Setting), Sun
+    & Storm (Setting + Situation), Dreamwalker (Situation), The Godsend
+    Agenda (Character-Setting tug-of-war), The Collectors (applied Fudge,
+    Situation + Character), Heartquest (applied Fudge; Character), Children
+    of the Sun (Setting), Fvlminata (Setting), and Dread (Situation +
+    Character), Fading Suns (Setting), Earthdawn (Setting), Space: 1889
+    (Setting), Mutant Chronicles (Setting), Mage first edition (Character),
+    Mage second edition (Setting), Ironclaw (Setting), and Continuum
+    (Setting with a touch of System). Many Fantasy Heartbreakers fall into
+    this category, almost all Setting-based. Some of the best-known games of
+    this type include Tekumel, Jorune, Traveller (specifically in its
+    mid-80s through mid-90s form), Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Nephilim,
+    Feng Shui, the various secondary settings for AD&D2 like Al-Qadim, and
+    quite a few D20 or WEG games which rely on licensing. I am coming to
+    think of D20 as a kind of High Concept chassis, a very new and
+    interesting development in RPG design.
+
+    Also, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High
+    Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as
+    the best-known examples.
+
+    At first glance, these games might look like additions to or
+    specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging
+    in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate, and
+    that the five elements are very differently related. The formula starts
+    with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then
+    the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in
+    first place), with System being last in priority.
+
+    I also recommend examining Theme carefully. In this game, it's present
+    and accounted for already, before play. The process of prep-play-enjoy
+    works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come
+    out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything
+    along the way.
+
+    Character creation is far more delimited as well, relying heavily on
+    Setting and Situation. In this case, the "points" are pure metagame for
+    purposes of making characters; they don't reflect or underly the
+    universe in action as in the Purist for System games. Starting
+    characters tend to be very colorful and described by many terms and
+    numbers, but relatively static: waiting for their hook, so to speak.
+    Hooks are often built-in; unlike the Purist for System methods, the
+    player-to-character relationship usually includes my second "role level"
+    in addition to the third and fourth.
+
+    Quantitatively, the more common character creation methods (which are
+    not unique to Simulationist design) include less layering but more
+    nesting (i.e. options within options, as well as the one-from-column-A,
+    one-from-column-B approach established by Vampire), and almost always
+    the relatively clumsy "GM approval" proviso. The specific method is
+    usually based on points, but sometimes with Fortune methods to render a
+    character role/type less likely to occur (making them more expensive
+    with points also aims at this function). Notably, in-game money isn't
+    modeled by the point-system during play.
+
+    The System is not all about Fortune, either, and these games can be very
+    uneasy in this regard. Dice-based resolutions sometimes represent much
+    noise and effort about not much effect, i.e., random factors tend not to
+    deviate from expected results very much. Some games display a small
+    range of possible Effect (i.e. damage rarely harms an opponent very much
+    at a time), slight metagame adjustments to minimize extreme results, or
+    a lot of offered strategies for the GM to soften or redirect the effects
+    that occur.
+
+    Points-of-contact are far more directional; things which aren't relevant
+    to the Explorative focus are often summarized and not "System'ed" with
+    great rigor. When done well, such that the remaining, emphasized
+    elements clearly provide a sort of "what to do" feel, this creates an
+    extremely playable, accessible game text. Dread offers the perfect
+    example for the lower points-of-contact end; Arrowflight and Godlike are
+    similar but more reassuringly nail-even-the-irrelevant-down at the
+    higher points-of-contact end. The truly outstanding games illustrating
+    this latter approach are Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, and Pendragon.
+
+    However, when it's done badly, resolutions are rife with breakpoints and
+    GM-fiat punts, and a great deal of effort during character creation
+    yields little sense of what the character is is about to do.
+
+    Reward systems in High Concept games are typically quite slow-acting,
+    requiring several sessions of play for any in-game benefit to kick in.
+    Strangely, they are also often hard to find in the texts, being
+    shoehorned in among character creation or GM instructions, or with their
+    parts (how to award points, how to spend points) dispersed.
+
+    High Concept play can be divided neatly into those which are greatly
+    concerned with "the big story" and those which are not. Historically,
+    the latter used to be the most common: Call of Cthulhu, Jorune, or more
+    recently Dread and Godlike, in which "the story" only refers to a record
+    of short-term events and set-pieces. However, following the spearhead
+    for this type of game text, Ars Magica, now the long-term story-type is
+    more common. A lot of internet blood has been spilled regarding how this
+    phenomenon is or is not related to Narrativist play, but I think it's an
+    easy issue. The key for these games is GM authority over the story's
+    content and integrity at all points, including managing the input by
+    players. Even system results are judged appropriate or not by the GM;
+    "fudging" Fortune outcomes is overtly granted as a GM right.
+
+    The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is a covert way to say the same
+    thing: ignore any rule that interferes with fun. No one, I presume,
+    thinks that any player may invoke the Golden Rule at any time; what it's
+    really saying is that the GM may ignore any rule (or any player who
+    invokes it) that ruins his or her idea of what should happen.
+
+    The functional version of such play is properly called Illusionism,
+    which has undergone a good deal of debate and clarification at the Forge
+    (see glossary). Most of these game texts overtly instruct the GM to
+    practice Illusionism, for example in Arrowflight (2002, Deep 7; the
+    author is Todd Downing).
+
+      Driving the Plot
+      Once you've constructed your magnum opus of a campaign plot, the
+      players will inevitably find ways to exploit, ignore, or downright
+      break all of your hard work. You can either let that happen, or you
+      can crack the whip and get them back in line. Don't be afraid of
+      exploiting a character's past or weakness to ensure complicity. After
+      all, you are the storyteller. Without you, they'd be playing Monopoly.
+      Some of the tried and true methods of driving a plot are as follows:
+
+      - Start the characters off in Adversity. Strip them of everything ...
+      - Alternately, have them called upon to serve the Common Good ...
+      - Appeal to any number of Baser Instincts ...
+      - Force them in a certain direction with Rule of Law ...
+      - Similar to the Rule of Law, you can direct your players with Threat
+      of Bodily Harm ...
+
+      Whatever you do, make sure it is not a no-win scenario. Nothing will
+      frustrate and alienate players more than a dead end with no way out.
+
+    "Story" emerges from the GM's efforts in this regard, with players being
+    either cooperative (passively or actively), or obstreperous, in which
+    case various "don't let them take over" methods are encouraged. Players
+    are enjoined to immerse, by which they mean "keep your metagame agenda
+    out of it," at the aesthetic level. It's best understood as Illusionism
+    by full consent, which is what keeps it from being railroading, in that
+    instead of making a story as an author does, the player is enjoying
+    being in the story. In system and character generation terms, that's
+    pretty much what's empowered to happen. I'll give this entire topic a
+    full comparison and analysis in the Narrativism essay.
+
+    A final point: writing a High Concept Simulationist game is actually
+    much easier than writing a Purist for System one, as complex
+    Setting-prep or Situation-prep have a lot in common with writing a story
+    and knowing "how it's supposed to go" but not finishing it. However,
+    playing this kind of game is actually harder in some ways - everyone
+    must be pumped about the in-game content, but without reference to a
+    corresponding metagame. Check out [9]Mongrel to see what you think of my
+    take on this sort of game design.
+
+    Rules-lite Story or Character priorities
+    This section is likely to get me into trouble, so I'll tread carefully.
+    I suggest that many self-described "rules-lite" or "story-oriented"
+    role-playing games represent a derived version of the High Concept
+    model, slanted heavily toward Situation - especially Situation which is
+    under complete GM control, overt or covert. Players get to contribute
+    tons of Color, even content, but never outcomes or final-resolutions,
+    and playing the character as conceived is the first priority, sometimes
+    taken to extremes of Actor Stance (e.g. Turku play, see the Glossary).
+    Character and Situation are prioritized with Color, with Setting next,
+    and lastly the formal System, which is slanted strongly toward
+    Drama-mechanics. This mode of play may be strongly linked with LARP
+    crossovers.
+
+    Here's my point: in application, a covert System is heavily, heavily
+    entrenched, regardless of whatever to-hit modifiers or dice rolls have
+    been peeled away. This system is based on Social Contract (what we all
+    agree is "good" or "fun") and Social Context (i.e. the subculture that
+    players belong to), and it is sternly reinforced through these means. I
+    think it's significant that literal referees - on-the-spot judges of
+    what can and cannot happen - are a necessary feature as soon as groups
+    get beyond a certain size.
+
+    It's not just High Concept though. It looks like it - the heavy emphasis
+    on story/genre, with overt eschewing of System, but it's also (a)
+    actually pretty heavy on Drama-driven or Karma-driven System and (b)
+    emphasizes customizable Settings as in Purist for System play. So I
+    think it's worth its own category.
+
+    From the introduction to Theatrix (1993, Backstage Press, authors are
+    David Berkman, Travis Eneix, and Brett Hackett):
+
+      Making a story come to life can be a difficult task. Previous
+      generations of game systems have been rules bound, trapped within
+      their own structure and rigidity. We wanted to produce a game that
+      would help you in every way, not hinder you. So we developed a system
+      of rules that is written to evolve along with your style of
+      storytelling and roleplaying. These rules can be used to guide every
+      facet of the game's progress, without becoming intrusive. You can use
+      all the rules, or easily peel them away in layers, until you're
+      running free-form games. The rules heavily encourage adopting this
+      style of play, making themselves unnecessary.
+
+    In other words, the system helps create story by fading away, much like
+    the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I think that this whole design
+    effort arises from a desire for "big story" in the face of
+    Purist-for-System design and mainly Fortune-driven High Concept design.
+    In the effort to get out of that sort of Simulationist play, the thought
+    is to get rid of the System that supports it, with any explicit System
+    being perceived as that sort of system. I consider this a problematic
+    design goal but it's widespread enough to merit a category. What makes
+    it difficult to discuss is that its explict story-creation goals are
+    similar to those of Narrativist play, but the operational process is
+    stripped-down High Concept Simulationism. (See the GNS stuff below for
+    further discussion.)
+
+    Fudge includes some text that might qualify it for this category, but
+    operationally, the "story-oriented" reader who is captured by this text
+    will swiftly be puzzled by the rules' emphasis on layered task
+    resolution and repeated (and repeated) focus on scaling. I think Fudge
+    is best described as low-search&handling-time Purist for System instead.
+
+    I'm probably going to catch heat for this, but it seems to me that The
+    Window and Theatrix both lend themselves toward this mode of play, if
+    Drifted a bit from their textual tenets, on the basis of their systems
+    and the GM's ability to organize the IIEE elements of play with a free
+    hand. (See the Glossary for the definition of IIEE.)
+
+    Some of the difficulties of this mode of play are outlined in the
+    comparison with Narrativism and my criticisms of transparency below.
+
+    Setting-creation and universe-play mechanisms
+    Another derivation of the Purist for System approach brings the Setting
+    creation process directly into play itself. The System-driven elements
+    of the Setting are as "active" as any particular character might be,
+    during play as well as during preparation. Basically, the setting is
+    played, even created, as a part of regular play.
+
+    Boink! I just realized that the original Traveller, or at least one way
+    to play it, represents an example of this approach. Star system and
+    planet creation are written right into the process of play, such that
+    adventures and missions become not only a means of enjoying and
+    improving characters, but also a means of enjoying and basically mapping
+    the game-space. This is very distinct from later versions of Traveller,
+    which were emphatically High Concept with a Setting emphasis. (Oh, and
+    just for credit where it's due, I should also mention that Traveller
+    pioneered the mechanics of overt character-creation-as-play.)
+
+    This mode of play is not merely creating more setting through
+    preparation as play progresses. It relies on doing so in a system-driven
+    fashion much like character creation, carried out as an overt or
+    near-overt part of actual play.
+
+    It's a pretty rare form of play and design, probably because the
+    economics of splat-book publishing overwhelmed the hobby, and Traveller
+    itself, from the mid-1980s onwards. The more recent examples include
+    Aria, Multiverser to some extent, and the currently-in-development The
+    Million Worlds. The design spec is to achieve the Color/kewl power of
+    High Concept with the uncompromising power and consistency of the
+    Purists for System, via inserting the explicit metagame world-creating
+    ability. I think this approach is interesting for the level of Director
+    stance potentially involved and I look forward to more role-playing
+    evolution along these lines.
+
+    Historical note: BRP
+    Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the
+    most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in
+    the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and
+    arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising
+    Simulationist design.
+
+    It's kind of hard to discuss just how it was influential, as its very
+    first appearance as a pamphlet accompanying a boardgame wasn't widely
+    distributed. The influence operated primarily through the popularity of
+    both RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. Looking across the early versions of
+    these games as well as Superworld, Questworld, and more, I think BRP is
+    identifiable as a Purist for System design and publishing. It's really
+    probably the precursor for the later GURPS mode of publishing.
+
+    However, that vision, plan, or phenomenon, whatever, swiftly evolved
+    into High Concept, both in RuneQuest (Setting) and Call of Cthulhu
+    (Situation) as they hit their early-mid-80s forms, which is what most
+    people are familiar with, I think. Call of Cthulhu remains High Concept
+    to the present day, whereas RuneQuest, upon being licensed to and
+    redesigned to the specifications of Avalon Hill, essentially evolved
+    into a new Purist for System game, with the setting, Glorantha,
+    relegated to the background at most. Moving into the late 80s and early
+    90s, the new BRP games (Pendragon, Nephilim) represented fairly radical
+    Drifting of Cthulhu-style BRP into their respective High Concepts.
+
+    GNS crossover issues
+    As usual for GNS-heavy text, I'll speak of games themselves in the GNS
+    terms, but with the proviso that I'm really speaking about the play
+    itself that is typical of or best supported by the rules of those games.
+
+    First, the FAQ
+    Q: Can Simulationist design be Abashed?
+
+    A: Sure. "Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to
+    play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts
+    of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift
+    is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two
+    modes (or sub-modes); e.g. I've said that Little Fears represents
+    Abashed Narrativist design, but it should really be called Abashed
+    Narrativism/Simulationism.
+
+    Q: So "Abashed" means combined?
+
+    A: No. Combined GNS modes which work well together would be "Hybrid."
+    There's a whole section on that below. Abashed games must be Drifted
+    (i.e. their rules must be operationally changed, or some sections
+    ignored) in order to play.
+
+    Q: Can Simulationist play be Vanilla?
+
+    A: Well, we don't say Vanilla and Pervy any more (too rude for some,
+    apparently). Now we talk about Points-of-Contact being low or high for
+    given portions of rules. But to lapse back into the old terminology,
+    yes, it can. Dread is a veritable poster child for Vanilla Sim, which I
+    would generalize to mean a High Concept Simulationist design with low
+    Points-of-Contact and a high emphasis on Situation. Pervy Sim basically
+    just ups the Points-of-Contact as well as the emphasis on Exploring
+    anything regardless of topic, which pretty much describes any member of
+    the Purist-for-System category.
+
+    Character generation
+    Character generation text and methods are extremely diverse within each
+    GNS mode, which is one of the reasons I favor group communication during
+    this phase of pre-play. For instance, some Gamist-ish games utilize
+    point-allocation systems, which looks similar to the widespread method
+    in Simulationist-ish games. However, for Gamist purposes, this method is
+    all about strategizing tradeoffs, rather than establishing a fixed
+    internal-cause to "justify" the character. Similarly, Gamist character
+    creation utilizing Fortune methods isn't the same as the few
+    Simulationist randomized methods - in the former, it's a lot like
+    gambling, whereas in the latter, it's about a character maturing through
+    Fortune's vagaries represented by in-game effects like culture, weather,
+    disease, and so forth (e.g. Harnmaster).
+
+    Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of
+    back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former,
+    it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward,
+    and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing
+    oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these
+    concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the
+    survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether
+    social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the
+    hobby.
+
+    Metagame mechanics
+    The term "metagame" is problematic throughout this essay for
+    Simulationist play and rules design. Metagame mechanics, by definition,
+    entail the interjection of real-people priorities into the
+    system-operation. Now, it is foolish to speak of Simulationist play as
+    lacking metagame; that would only apply if the people at the table were
+    themselves rules-constructs as well as the rules, and that's silly. But
+    compared to Gamist and Narrativist play, Simulationist play may be
+    spoken of as lacking metagame [i]interpersonal agenda[/i], like
+    "winning" or "doing well" in Gamism, or addressing a Premise in
+    Narrativism. Its metagame, although fully social, is self-referential,
+    to stay in-game. I recognize that it's a problematic issue and I look
+    forward to some discussion about it.
+
+    To clarify for purposes of the essay, compare the following: (1) an
+    in-game essence or metaphysical effect called "Karma," which represents
+    the character's moral status in that game-universe according to (e.g.) a
+    god or principle in that game-world; (2) a score on the sheet which has
+    literally nothing to do with the character's in-game identity, also
+    called "Karma," recognized and applied by the real people with no
+    in-game entity used to justify it. In both systems, Karma is a
+    point-score which goes up and down, and which can be brought into play
+    as, say, a bonus to one's dice roll. But I'd say that #1 is not metagame
+    at all, and #2 is wholly metagame.
+
+    Mechanically, how do they differ? One thing to consider is how the score
+    goes up and down - by player-use, or by in-game effects? Another is
+    whether the score is integrated with the reward/improvement system -
+    does spending a Karma reduce one's bank of improvement points? In fact,
+    is Karma a spent resource at all? Still another issue is whether in-game
+    effects must be in place, or inserted into place, to justify its use. No
+    one of these indicators is hard-and-fast, however; one must consider
+    them all at once, and how they relate to Simulationism (and
+    non-Simulationism) is a fascinating issue. At this point I tend to think
+    that the main issue, basically, is who is considered to "spend" them -
+    character or player.
+
+    I suggest that Trouble in Orkworld, Hero Points in Hero Wars, and
+    Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel are Resource-based metagame
+    mechanics, whereas Power in RuneQuest, Sanity in Call of Cthulhu, and
+    these mechanics' many derivatives in other games, are straightforward,
+    non-metagame Resources. Similarly, I suggest that the role-playing
+    bonuses based on out-of-game neatness in Sorcerer are metagame, whereas
+    the Stunt rules based on difficulty or unlikelihood in Feng Shui are
+    not.
+
+    It's a tough discussion, though. One confounding factor is that metagame
+    mechanics are often present as "fixes" of otherwise-Simulationist
+    systems that proved to be mildly broken in play. The trouble with such a
+    thing is that it can lead to serious Drift of the sort that breaks
+    Social Contracts or renders systems incoherent.
+
+    Hybridization
+    As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of
+    potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the
+    other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive
+    elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual
+    result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or
+    to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in
+    order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say,
+    railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily
+    subverted, leading to incoherence.
+
+    Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social
+    Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and
+    Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent
+    design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist
+    character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire).
+    You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily
+    subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And
+    finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice
+    becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly
+    committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending
+    toward more agenda-based play of different kinds.
+
+    What happens? All the wedges widen, and the unfortunate thing is that
+    the more everyone likes the basic, fun interest of the topic ("genre")
+    at hand, the worse the rift becomes.
+
+      * The aggravated Narrativist leaves the play situation after butting
+        heads with the GM over the "story." Arguably, the early White Wolf
+        games in general are responsible for what amounted to a mass exodus
+        of Narrativist-oriented role-players from the hobby in the
+        mid-1990s.
+      * The Gamist runs rampant, moving from sportsmanlike
+        challenge/competition (as would be found in a coherent Gamist
+        design) to "break the system" vs.-game, vs.-GM
+        challenge/competition. The group typically either dissolves or
+        evicts the Gamist player; evictees find one another and enjoy
+        themselves with gusto, Drifting the rules significantly and focusing
+        on player-vs.-player challenge/competition. They tend to be quite
+        public and large-group oriented, via on-line and LARP play. [AEG was
+        clever enough to recognize this phenomenon and incorporate it into
+        the L5R market strategy.]
+      * The Simulationist, whether GM or player, fights a losing battle
+        against the Gamist, often feeling betrayed and desperate.
+        Simulationist groups which survive this conflict tend to be very
+        insular, clique-ish, and GM-centered, with the GM seen as the
+        conduit or channeller to "the game" as published. Such a GM is
+        usually given carte blanche authority over the social, system, and
+        plot-oriented content of the game, and the players become fairly
+        subordinated to the content of play. The group often Drifts the
+        rules significantly to reflect and reinforce the immediate Social
+        Contract; simultaneously, they become defensive and protective
+        regarding the game title as a subcultural item.
+
+    Champions, especially second and third editions, presented a fascinating
+    case of this same phenomenon for a game design that could functionally
+    Drift in any of the three directions (in all cases requiring severe
+    rules-interpretation and "fixing"). Thus Champions play could be
+    observed in all three modes, all of which were emphatically incompatible
+    and socially segregated. Champions fourth edition represents a
+    "takeover," if you will, by the Simulationist interpretatation, mainly
+    due to the editor of the line at the time.
+
+    Hybrids are much better off using Simulationism as a secondary design
+    feature, rather than as the primary. The Riddle of Steel is a successful
+    hybrid because its primary Narrativist emphasis is so mechanically
+    influential and integrated with the reward system, that it cannot be
+    ignored or subverted. Even so, it's interesting to observe the
+    consistent Simulationist reading of TROS' text, rife with suggestions
+    for repair of "obviously" inappropriate elements, by people who have not
+    played the game.
+
+    Rifts as well as well as many fantasy-adventure games use Simulationist
+    design features (heavy Setting Exploration) to support its primary
+    Gamist emphasis; I'll discuss this in more detail in the Gamism essay.
+
+    Shit! I'm playing Narrativist
+    In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or,
+    except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is
+    already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions.
+    Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even
+    its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and
+    players buy into this framework in order to play at all.
+
+    The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing
+    protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and
+    Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of
+    literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback.
+
+    I'll provide two examples, a simple one and a complex one.
+
+    The simple one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai
+    player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look
+    pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But
+    what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play?
+    I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the
+    character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral
+    profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the
+    formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for
+    failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to
+    which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS
+    (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the
+    parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the
+    crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play
+    in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion
+    would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of
+    contract.
+
+    The complex one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a knight
+    player-character in The Riddle of Steel and in Pendragon. This one's a
+    little trickier for a couple of reasons, first because Pendragon has two
+    sets of behavioral rules, and second because both games permit a
+    character's behavioral profile to change.
+
+    1) The Pendragon knight includes a set of paired, dichotomous Traits
+    (e.g. Worldly / Chaste) which are scored numerically, and which change
+    scores inversely. They are used either (a) as behavior-establishers
+    (roll vs. Cruel to see whether you behead the churl for his rudeness) or
+    (b) as record-keepers for player-driven behavior (you beheaded him?
+    Check Cruel, which increases its chance to raise its score later). The
+    Riddle of Steel knight has no equivalent system to (a); all character
+    behavior is driven by the player. Its Spiritual Attributes, however, do
+    rise and fall with character behavior much as Pendragon's (b).
+
+    2) The Pendragon knight also may develop one or more Passions, which are
+    expressed in the form of a fixed set of bonus dice for actions that
+    support that Passion. These are established through play and may
+    increase, although not decrease; different Passions may conflict within
+    a single character. The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes (Drive,
+    Destiny, Passion, Faith, Luck, and Conscience) act as bonus dice much as
+    in Pendragon Passions but (a) may be individually eliminated and
+    substituted with another Spiritual Attribute by the player with very
+    little restriction, and (b) are intimately connected to the most
+    significant character-improvement mechanic.
+
+    I suggest that both games include the concept that personal passion is a
+    concrete effectiveness-increase mechanic, but that Pendragon does so in
+    a "fixed-path-upwards" fashion (when the knight's passions are
+    involved), whereas The Riddle of Steel does so under the sole helm of
+    the player's thematic interests of the moment. Furthermore, the latter
+    game directly rewards the player for doing so.
+
+    I may be a little biased about this issue, but it seems to me that a
+    character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb,
+    whereas, for a character in Simulationist play, the bomb is either
+    absent (the GURPS samurai), present in a state of near-constant
+    detonation (the Pendragon knight, using Passions), or its detonation is
+    integrated into the in-game behavioral resolution system in a "tracked"
+    fashion (the Pendragon knight, using the dichotomous traits). Therefore,
+    when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue,
+    poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of
+    a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity
+    being necessary.
+
+    Before anyone flips out, stop for one more point, which is that my
+    perceived time-scale of play for all the above points is quite high. I'm
+    talking about whole sessions and sets of sessions, not moment-to-moment
+    combat decisons or dialogue. So the "poof" is a pretty prolonged thing
+    (and I better not develop this metaphor any further either).
+
+    Many people mistake low time-scale techniques like Director stance,
+    shared narration, etc, for Narrativism, although they are not defining
+    elements for any GNS mode. Misunderstanding this key issue has led to
+    many people falsely identifying themselves as playing Simulationist with
+    a strong Character emphasis, when they were instead playing quite
+    straightforward Narrativist without funky techniques.
+
+    I would very much like to participate in a detailed discussion of
+    playing L5R, which to my mind, in the absence of Drifting, poses some
+    irreconcilable problems in how its behavioral parameters are
+    constructed, such that it simultaneously asks about Honor and dictates
+    the answers.
+
+    El Dorado and Drift
+    El Dorado is a term coined by Paul Czege based on some ideas proposed by
+    Joachim Buchert (see glossary for links). As originally proposed, it was
+    essentially Narrativist play with a strong Simulationist supportive
+    element - a functional hybrid. When I surprised this debate by shrugging
+    and stating that hybrids, with one mode dominant, are viable, possible,
+    and functional, and when The Riddle of Steel demonstrated an
+    exceptionally fine example, the term changed a bit. Over time, it has
+    come to mean as well an experientially smooth and perhaps even
+    unnoticeable shift from Simulationist play-assumptions to Narrativist
+    ones.
+
+    Such a goal, both for play and design, has proven attractive to people;
+    they recognize that Simulationist assumptions are common among
+    established role-players, and the term "Simulationist-by-habit" has been
+    coined to describe people who might enjoy other GNS modes but don't
+    conceive of their functional existence.
+
+    An El Dorado game-experience would not be a hybrid - it would avoid all
+    confusion that hybrids tend to generate to some degree, and it would
+    certainly not be Abashed, as play-goals would not clash within the rules
+    and procedures of play. It would be operative Drift without rules-Drift,
+    for which the term Transition was coined in discussions of Fang
+    Langford's game in development, Scattershot.
+
+    Is it possible, theoretically? Sure! I think it's much harder than most
+    people think it would be. The System actually has to facilitate the
+    process of changing priorities during play, Drifting on procedural
+    "tracks" as it were. A couple of games point the way. The Riddle of
+    Steel is explicitly based on a rather brutal selection philosophy,
+    insofar as people who do not recognize the dominance of the Spiritual
+    Attributes over the more Simulationist-appearing baseline mechanics will
+    see their characters die horribly. Players who start with Simulationist
+    priorities will have to change or stop playing (I suspect, rather, that
+    many of them will "Drift to remain in place," actually). Scattershot, in
+    development, is the only Transition-oriented game design I know of
+    that's based on the rules themselves shifting and altering as a function
+    of play. (See Glossary.)
+
+    I'll discuss this issue in much more detail in the Narrativism essay,
+    but I'll pose the most serious problem facing the seekers of El Dorado:
+    idealizing story creation but refusing to do it. Oh, am I going to catch
+    it for this section ... well, people are just going to have to disagree
+    about whether stories can "create themselves."
+    Personally, I don't think they do, and we won't get anywhere by pushing
+    and pulling. In practical terms, lots of hassles and possibilities arise
+    when expecting story to "emerge" from metagame-absent play. Here are the
+    two extremes which arise.
+
+      * The bad one: A frustrated Narrativist-ish player takes over as GM
+        and relies on railroading. He or she insists that everyone care
+        about the story, but also insists upon everything going as he or she
+        desires. I consider this approach to rank among the least functional
+        role-playing in existence.
+      * The good one: Everyone agrees that story is a wonderful and
+        desirable emergent property, but commits to no metagame meddling or
+        prioritizing by anyone. In theory, this is quite functional, but the
+        tricky part is that everyone also has to accept that story might not
+        happen at all, and to be all right with that.
+
+    Less extremely, some game texts present relatively consistent
+    Simulationist-oriented rules, but with bits and pieces here and there
+    with Narrativist leanings. This is all very well, except that the text
+    accompanying these sections is almost always incoherent: the player is
+    given power (e.g. to dictate a target's response) - but the GM is warned
+    to override it if necessary - but then some text follows about how the
+    players are really the story-authors - but then, again, the GM needs to
+    keep a tight rein on the story's integrity - and so on. Usually the game
+    design is quite nifty in terms of the actual rules (e.g. Fvlminata), but
+    these text sections ultimately make no sense, being trapped in the
+    Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's as if the game authors play a
+    particular way but can't quite believe that anyone else would, and in
+    most cases, the game text and rules end up being Abashed.
+
+    Pitfalls of design
+    The first and most serious problem in Simulationist design is to rely on
+    habit and imitation for some mechanics features of the game and then to
+    try to tack on one's own ideas. I'm not talking about simple influence,
+    which is part and parcel of any RPG design, but the porting of whole
+    assumption-sets out of their integrated contexts with all aspects of the
+    parent game. This is very common in Fantasy Heartbreakers and usually
+    results in a lot of broken math. Obviously this problem is not unique to
+    Simulationism, but when it occurs in that context, it's really painful.
+
+    Another serious problem is the ideal of "transparency," especially as
+    applied to the High Concept approach. I cannot help but be blunt: System
+    is experientially inescapable. One cannot make Character, Setting,
+    Situation, and Color "go" without it. Drama-driven systems are just as
+    System as any other, for instance. (See the Transparency entry in the
+    Glossary.)
+
+    Really to remove System requires that anything and everything that
+    happens during play be mediated solely through the Social Contract,
+    without any formalized method even to do that. I think that such play
+    would be awfully difficult, requiring so much negotiation regarding how
+    to play per unit of play as to be hopeless. (Again, I am not discussing
+    well-organized systems based mainly on Drama, which are perfectly
+    wonderful and not subject to these criticisms.)
+
+    Therefore, I advise that design not ask, "How is System made invisible,"
+    but rather, "How is System directed toward particular Explorative
+    goals." The degree of complexity then becomes an aesthetic and focused
+    issue, not something to chop away at blindly. Instead of transparency,
+    let Coherence and an eye toward the desired Points of Contact be your
+    guide.
+
+    The third problem is the Realism tautology: setting "realism" as a goal
+    of play, which often gets brought up in debates about in-game events.
+    Never fall into this one - you cannot win. Plausibility, which is to
+    say, not violating a specific degree of contrivance-limits, is a fine
+    thing; it's central to the role-playing element of Situation. All
+    role-playing requires whatever degree of plausibility is necessary to
+    support the respective GNS goal. Reinforcing it can be a valid feature
+    of some Simulationist play and design (just as of some Narrativist and
+    some Gamist play), when that matters for specific goals for that play.
+    But to reverse it, to claim that the play itself exists at the service
+    of the "realism" among the components of the game, is madness,
+    especially for Simulationist play - such a statement presents a quagmire
+    of debate much like "balance" or "story."
+
+    Another common problem is rules-bloat, which usually creeps into
+    Simulationist game text as a form of anti-Gamist defense. I suggest that
+    adding more layers to character creation is a poor idea, as it only
+    introduces more potential points of broken Currency. I suggest instead
+    that the most effective "defense" is to avoid ratios in one's layering,
+    as in Godlike. More generally, beyond a certain point, anti-Gamist
+    defensive rules design has a negative effect: given an increased number
+    rules and punctilios, players simply punt in terms of understanding the
+    system, and the GM has to "be" the entire game. This is exceptionally
+    difficult in games like Rolemaster or GURPS (perhaps less so in Dread or
+    Call of Cthulhu). Therefore the effort - to preserve the integrity of
+    the Simulationist experience - often backfires as play gets harder and
+    more full of speed-bumps rather than easier.
+
+    Rules-bloat can also result from the design and writing process itself.
+    Cogitating about in-game causes can transform itself, at the keyboard,
+    into a sort of Exploration of its own, which results in very elaborate
+    rules-sets for situational modifiers, encumbrance, movement, technology,
+    prices of things, none of which is related to actual play of the game
+    with actual people. During the writing process, "what if" meets "but
+    also" and breeds tons of situational rules modifiers. When this effect
+    hits Currency, you get tons of layering in the form of prerequisites and
+    nuances of described competency (e.g. Awful vs. Really Bad vs.
+    Mediocre). The result is often what I like to call Paying to Suck, which
+    is to say that character creation includes paying many points merely for
+    the character to be bad or barely-adequate at things.
+
+    My recommendation is to know and value the virtues of Simulationist
+    play, specifically refined toward the goals of a particular subset (as
+    listed or make up your own), and to drive toward them with gusto. Don't
+    spin your wheels defending your design against some other form of play.
+
+    Conclusions
+    For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality:
+    the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda. For game design to
+    promote this goal, it must be openly valued and its virtues articulated,
+    not assumed (as it often is) to be "good role-playing" by anyone's
+    standards and hence left unstated. Design should be inspiring and
+    elegant in its own right, promoting the desire to see this Setting or
+    Character unfold, or to see this System do its stuff.
+
+    I now offer a couple of points that are probably going to draw some
+    objections.
+
+    It's a hard realization: devoted Simulationist play is a fringe
+    interest. It is not the baseline or core of role-playing, which is
+    Exploration. (Here is where my interpretation of the Scarlet Jester's
+    Exploration differs the most from his original presentation.)
+
+    Quite a bit of role-playing theory and design has taken a
+    training-wheels approach, especially using Purist for System games like
+    GURPS, in the assumption that role-playing at the Simulationist "level"
+    or "type" is the necessary skill to develop or grow to any other type. I
+    think this is both misguided and patronizing toward Simulationist play,
+    but even worse, it has the opposite effect on new players: selective
+    culling-out of people who bring developed Gamist or Narrativist agendas
+    to the activity.
+
+    Another good question is whether the claim is valid that role-playing
+    has been "Sim-dominated" through its history, whether in play or in
+    design. Regarding play, I think all the evidence points to all the GNS
+    modes, and much diversity within those modes, being present since the
+    beginning of the hobby. Regarding design and publishing, I think that we
+    need to distinguish between Simulationist elements vs. coherent design -
+    the former have certainly been widespread, but mainly in incoherent
+    games, with AD&D and Vampire as the chief examples.
+
+    The Hard Question
+    Well, here it is. Before getting bent out of shape, remember that each
+    mode is gonna get one of these.
+
+    Role-playing is a hobby, leisure activity. The real question is, what
+    for, in the long term? For Simulationist play, the answer "This was fun,
+    so let's do it again," is sufficient.
+
+    However, for how long is it sufficient? Which seems to me to vary
+    greatly from person to person. Is the focus on Exploration to be kept as
+    is, permanently, as characters and settings change through play? Some
+    say "sure" and wonder what the hell I'm talking about, or perhaps feel
+    slightly insulted. Or, is Drift ultimately desirable? Is play all about
+    getting "it" to work prior to permitting overt metagame agendas into the
+    picture? Some might answer "of course" and wonder why anyone could see
+    it otherwise.
+
+    So! Is there an expected, future metagame payoff, or is the journey
+    really its own reward? Is Simulationist play what you want, or is it
+    what you think you must do in order, one day, to get what you want?
+
+    I judge nothing with these questions. I think that they're important to
+    consider and that answers are going to vary widely, that's all.
+
+    Glossary
+    Most of the jargon in the essay is defined in "GNS and related matters
+    of role-playing design." Most of the following are some terms that have
+    arisen during the discussions since then. Some of them (the ones without
+    links) are defined in the essay and repeated here for clarity.
+
+    Abashed
+       Game design which displays features of one or more GNS modes that, in
+       their applications, are operationally contradictory. It is a minor
+       form of Incoherence. However, an Abashed design is easily correctable
+       by ignoring or altering isolated portions of the rules (minor Drift);
+       typically, extremely coherent play can result in either of the modes
+       involved. However, this also means that two groups will effectively
+       be playing completely different games. See [10]Abashed Vanillaism and
+       [11]my review of Little Fears.
+
+    Currency
+       The exchange rate among different components of characters - their
+       Effectiveness values, their Resources, and their Metagame properties.
+       In many games, Currency is explicit in terms of character points, but
+       it is present in any and all role-playing games.
+
+    DFK
+       Short for Drama, Karma, and Fortune, as originally presented in the
+       game Everway and adopted by me. The terms refer to the resolution
+       mechanics of a given game, which may include any combination or
+       blending of the three.
+
+    El Dorado
+       Originally, used to indicate the search for a
+       Simulationist-Narrativist hybrid mode of play, with the Narrativism
+       being the main priority; more recently, it has come to mean
+       Transition from Simulationist to Narrativist play without noticeable
+       Drift in the rules-use. See [12]Simulationism and Narrativism under
+       the same roof and [13]El Dorado.
+
+    Fortune-at-the-End
+       Employing a Fortune mechanic (dice, cards, etc) following the full
+       descriptions of actions, physical placement, and communication among
+       characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and associated links.
+
+    Fortune-in-the-Middle
+       Employing a Fortune mechanic (dice, cards, etc) prior to fully
+       describing the specific actions of, physical placement of, and
+       communication among characters. The Fortune outcome is employed in
+       establishing these elements retroactively. This technique may be
+       employed with the dice/etc as the ultimate authority of success or
+       failure (e.g. Sorcerer) or with the dice/etc outcome being
+       potentially adjusted by a metagame mechanic (e.g. Hero Wars). See
+       [14]my review of Hero Wars, see also discussions in the [15]Alyria
+       forum.
+
+    Hybrid
+       A game whose rules include facilitating elements for more than one
+       mode of play. Observed functional hybrids to date include only two
+       GNS modes rather than all three, and one of the modes may be
+       considered primary or dominant, with the other playing a supportive
+       role. See [16]my review of The Riddle of Steel.
+
+    IIEE
+       Short for Intent, Initiative, Execution, and Effect, referring to the
+       relationship between announcements of action by real people and the
+       establishment of those actions into the shared imaginary game-world.
+       See [17]The four steps of action and [18]What is IIEC?.
+
+    Illusionism
+       A mode of story creation by the GM in which his or her decisions
+       carry more weight than those of the players, in which he or she has
+       authority over rules-outcomes, and in which the players willingly or
+       unwillingly do not recognize these features. See [19]Illusionism: a
+       new look and a new approach and [20]Illusionism and GNS for a more
+       complete definition and associated discussions.
+
+    The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
+       "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions
+       of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts.
+       Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the
+       other.
+
+    Layering
+       The relationship between the initial numbers derived for a character
+       (e.g. attributes) to the numbers eventually used most commonly in
+       play (Effectiveness Values; e.g. combat to-hit values). The more
+       steps of derivation, the more the system is said to be layered.
+
+    Points of Contact
+       The steps of rules-consultation, either in the text or internally,
+       per unit of established imaginary content. This is not the same as
+       the long-standing debate between Rules-light and Rules-heavy systems;
+       either low or high Points of Contact systems can rely on strict
+       rules. See [21]Vanilla and Pervy, [22]Pervy in my head, [23]Cannot
+       stand cutesie-poo terms, [24]Pervy Sim, points of contact,
+       accessibility.
+
+    Roles, "role levels"
+       (1) The player's social role in terms of his character - the mom, the
+       jokester, the organizer, the placator, etc. (2) The character's
+       thematic or operational role relative to the others - the leader, the
+       brick, the betrayer, the ingenue, etc. (3) The character's in-game
+       occupation or social role - the pilot, the mercenary, the alien
+       wanderer, etc. (4) The character's specific Effectiveness values -
+       armor rating, weapon attributes, specific skills and their values,
+       available funds, etc. See [25]The class issue and all internal links.
+
+    Social Context
+       How role-playing as an activity relates to one's social life in
+       general. Currently, the idea is that most functionally, one's "People
+       one likes" box is biggest, one's "People I like hanging with" box is
+       within that, and one's "People I game with" box is within that, but
+       that typically people reverse the boxes entirely. See [26]Social
+       Context, [27]Self-image, [28]Gay culture / Gamer culture, [29]What
+       does role-playing gaming accomplish?, [30]Christian gamers and
+       self-esteem, and [31]Sexism in gaming.
+
+    Social Contract
+       The interactions, emotional connections, logistic arrangements, and
+       expectations among the members of a role-playing group, relative to
+       the role-playing activity. It includes both verbalized and
+       non-verbalized components of these things.
+
+    Transition
+       Theoretically, shifting from one GNS mode to another (in the large
+       sense, in terms of the overall goals of play for everyone) without
+       Drifting the rules. Scattershot, in development, is designed with
+       Transition in mind. See the [32]Scattershot forum with reference to
+       threads begun by me.
+
+    Transparency
+       Rules design that does not call attention to the rules in operation;
+       highly controversial. See [33]Transparency and [34]Transparency
+       again.
+
+    Turku role-playing (Elaaytyjivism)
+       A mode of play first presented as a manifesto, in which in-character
+       feeling and thinking is given the highest priority, to such an extent
+       that even communicating the experience to others is secondary. By my
+       terminology, Simulationism, Character Exploration, mainly Drama or
+       low Points-of-Contact Fortune mechanics, highly reinforced through an
+       explicit Social Contract. The main site is not available, but see
+       [35]LARP manifesting in The LARPer magazine. See also the [36]Dogma
+       99.
+
+    Vanilla/Pervy
+       Now-obsolete terminology to describe game-play in which the GNS mode
+       is easily-accessible and requires few if any complex rules-techniques
+       (Vanilla) vs. game-play in which the techniques are highly strictured
+       for the mode. Now replaced by the concept of Points of Contact, which
+       concerns the degree to which System is Explored. See [37]Vanilla
+       Narrativism and the more recent links listed under "Points of
+       Contact" above.
+
+    The Forge created and administrated by [38]Clinton R. Nixon and [39]Ron
+    Edwards.
+    All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their
+    designated author.
+
+References
+
+   Visible links
+   1. file:///
+   2. file:///about/
+   3. file:///donate.php
+   4. file:///articles/
+   5. file:///reviews/
+   6. file:///resources/
+   7. file:///
+   8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com
+   9. file:///files/mongrel.pdf
+  10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1397
+  11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=8_0_5_0
+  12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=800
+  13. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1072
+  14. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=12_0_5_0
+  15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
+  16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/review.php?id=20_0_5_0
+  17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774
+  18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1273
+  19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4217
+  20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4232
+  21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4299
+  22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4301
+  23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4352
+  24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4416
+  25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2802
+  26. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4258
+  27. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4336
+  28. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4300
+  29. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4414
+  30. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4419
+  31. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4433
+  32. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22
+  33. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1842
+  34. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1909
+  35. http://www.thelarper.org/archivearticles/edition_1/manifesto.html
+  36. http://fate.laiv.org/dogme99/en/index.htm
+  37. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1597
+  38. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com
+  39. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com