A proposal

[benlehman]

There 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?

Comments

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

People might play to experience immersion. (personally, I don't think that this is anyone's actual "why," but that's neither here nor there. Let's assume it is.)

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?

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Yes. Definitely. No question about it at all.

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

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

An agendum is a thing that you are trying to do. It is a goal.

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

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Okay... so would you say that no one ever has "I want to be immeresed in the character and the world of the game." As an final goal? I'm not sure that anyone does, but if they don't, what do all the people who say that that's what they're doing really want?

Thomas

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

That's not what I'm saying at all, no.

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

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. You're not saying that there isn't a Creative Agenda to be associated with Immersion (and the like), you're saying that people are conflating the Creative Agenda with the techniques that are commonly used to achieve it.

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