posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
benlehman at 09:06pm on 04/03/2005
benlehman at 09:06pm on 04/03/2005There seems to be great confusion about the use of the term Simulationism. To paraphrase Vincent, a lot of people want the word to mean something that is cooler than it is. Further, most of these people seem to talk about it in terms of a set of techniques for enhancing the "reality" of the experience.
I'd like to propose that there exists a set set of techniques, compatible with any creative agenda which encompasses what these people are talking about when they say "simulationism."
I'd like to propose calling these techniques "plausibility techniques" as a whole, with the subsets of "fidelity techniques" and "immersion techniques." The essential idea is that the goal is to render a plausible gameworld, and that this is achieved via two means: One is rules which make the game adhere to certain requirements, the other is an immersion which brings players into a trance-state where they will accept the strangeness of the world as reasonable and true.
Those two subsets are not the entireity of plausibility techniques -- there are other types, I'm sure.
How does that sound to other people?
(no subject)
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
"...so you're saying the car is red, right? So it has to be a sports car!"
"No! That one car happened to be red & a sports car, but it's red-ness has nothing to do with it being sports car! It could have been yellow!"
"So now you're saying sports cars are yellow!?! You're contradicting yourself! This is all bunk!"
Etc.
Sigh :(
(no subject)
Matt, who knows he needs to read more of the Forge before really getting into one of these discussions
(no subject)
The things discussed above -- rules that make the gameworld follow a certain set of laws and techniques for inducing "IC trance" into players -- are techniques. Anything that we actually *do* during an RPG is a technique, from dice rolling to playing songs beforehand to having friends come and play an NPC for a session, and a lot of other things besides. A technique might also be called a "practice --" a thing you do when you game.
Simulationism, and its cousins Gamism and Narrativism, are creative agenda. A creative agendum is a goal -- what you want to get out of the game. You use techniques to try to get to your creative agenda.
Example: You want to build a chair. To do this, you might use wood, nails, instructions on chair building, the action of hammering, sand paper, the way of rubbing sand paper in a circle that makes things extra smooth, etc. In this analogy, the chair is your creative agenda -- all those other things are techniques.
A technique is a description of what you do. A creative agendum is why.
Does that make any sense?
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
Matt
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
So you seem right, although there's some semantic fallout (I worry you're pushing the definition of 'plausibility' out side where it's intuitive meaning wants to be). Also, are there any games where you *don't* want plausibility techniques?
(no subject)
I'm sort of with you, and sort of not. I couldn't keep up with that discussion on Anyway past about post 45 or so...
One is rules which make the game adhere to certain requirements, the other is an immersion which brings players into a trance-state where they will accept the strangeness of the world as reasonable and true.
The thing is, for some people this is one of the by whys of play. Not for me, but I definitely know and have played with people who roleplay to get this. Now, I suppose that you could argue that there are people who play in order to exercise Scene Framing techniques, but that's probably more of a stretch.
So, these techniques really are a Creative Agenda in some cases.
My real problem with GNS theory is that the categories are treated as absolutes. It's generally thought that a game only facilitates one of the CAs. Then I look at Capes and see a game that firmly straddles the Gamist/Narrativist line. It's a competition to address theme. (This, by the way, is where I see Vincent's diagram breaking down. It's not a binary choice Address Theme OR Compete, they're two entirely different things and can both be present.)
I guess what I'm saying is that this problem we have with discussions of Simulationism (what it is exactly and all that) could be equally applied to Narrativism and Gamism.
So, yeah, GNS is useful, but not nearly as useful now as it probably was at its inception. You know... I think I'll put this in my LJ...
Thomas
(no subject)
Thomas
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
Where are we not communicating here?
Thomas
(no subject)
If their goal is immersion, they will use a bunch of immersive techniques (of which there are many) to achieve that goal. The techniques are not the goal, still.
Other goals may also employ the same immersive techniques.
Do we agree about all that?
(no subject)
I've personally used immersive techniques in the pursuit of theme, so I'm totally with you on this one.
This raises an interesting question... Can you have a set of techniques as an Agenda? You evidently think not, I'd be curious to know why. Feel free to take it to email or IRC or something if you wish...
Thomas
(no subject)
A technique is a process to get there.
They simply are different things.
It's like asking: Can all these nouns be a verb? No. They simply are different things.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
Thomas
(no subject)
The definition of goal (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=goal)
the definition of process (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=process)
Creative Agenda are *goals*
Techniques are *processes*
These simply occupy different places in the brain. They are different things. If your goal is to be immersed, that is different from the process of immersing yourself, still.
In NO CASE are the two identical.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
If that's what you're saying, then I apologize for all this. We're on the same page, I agree with you totally. Sorry 'bout all that.
Thomas
(no subject)
Too vague. The same could be said for G or N or, really, most any rule.
If you said "make the world adhere to certain requirements," then I think you might be closer to the mark. Sim rules are intended to model the environment within the shared blah blah etc.
(no subject)
Exactly what I've thought for a long time. "Fidelity," my friend. That's what to call it, and that's what it is: a commitment to plausibility, defined by the group by a certain set of guidelines, usually either based in physical laws or adherence to certain genre conventions.
(no subject)
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)