Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Merten, October 03, 2002, 05:48:12 AM
Quote from: Mike HolmesActually, their definition of Simulation is exactly what we use here. Simulationism, and Simulation are not one and the same, and in fact, thier association etymologically is in fact confusing rather than enlightening. Yet necessary as the model is a historical descendent of another. That said, there are many threads here that discuss the idea of changing the term Simulationism so as to avoid that problem.
Quote from: Mike HolmesIn fact, the document seems to jibe with most of the theory here. Until page eight, that is, where the political bent of the publishers bias rears it's ugly head in a nasty form. Note how these individuals only quote sources that are from their school. This seems very problematic to me. What starts as a reasoned attempt to create a definition for role-playing activities ends up diminished by it's politics.
Quote from: Mike HolmesOne point of personal interest, if one were to use their definition, Universalis would be considered Storytelling. That is because only GMs hold power in the game (no players, by their technical description). Since there is more than one GM, however, it would have to be a system for Collaborative Storytelling. Which we'd be satisfied with.
Quote from: MertenWell, that's good then, and the mistake was done by yours truly. And yeah, the term "simulationism" feels a bit misleading, at least to me - I've usually assosicated (perhaps because of the term "simulation") it to heavy rules systems that try to simulate reality.
Quote from: Mike HolmesNow, you lost me for a moment, here. Political bent? You mean the second paragraph?
QuoteAnd what comes to quoting sources that come from their school - well, the school there is a bit misleading term, since that particular school consists of about two individuals - the ones who wrote it.
QuoteWhen it comes to quoting from other sources - well, there aren't too many of them. I don't even know if they're aware of the GNS-model. Have to ask sometime.
QuoteWell, yeah - I actually did that (two GM game) with one of the writers not that long ago. Thought that was after they did that paper. So I suppose it sort of fits in their model.
QuoteUniversalis? Unless you're meaning the computer game with same name (Europa Universalis), drop me a reference?
QuoteSimulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; 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.
Quote from: Mike HolmesCommon error. But there are, for instance lots of "rules-lite" Sim games. No correllation at all.
Quote from: Mike HolmesI mean the point at which they go out of their way to point out how they feel that LARP has been marginalized, and their own biases against CRPGS. They actually drop out of the academic mode at that point to talk about how they "feel" about it. I think it's silly of them to say that LARP has been bashed, and should be looked at more closely in the name of gaming equality, and then in the very next paragraph bash CRPGs. And give no reasons why, other than feelings.
Quote from: Mike HolmesYep, pretty incestuous. No theory can stand if it isn't exposed to a larger community of thought.
Quote from: Mike HolmesI'm sure that aren't aware. Or they don't care. Not that they must. But the paper had an actual academic tone to it that lent it a great bit of crdibility in my opinion. Until such point as it betrayed it's political nature, and belied it's ignorance of theory exterior to the community.
Quote from: Mike HolmesIt might interest you to know that we've followed the Turku theory here. In fact, we formerly used a term for the sort of Immersion that you described that was a Finnish term so alien to the English mindset that we referred to it almost exclusively as the E-thing (Anyone remember the actual term?).
Quote from: Mike HolmesTo be precise, in Universalis there are only GMs, and no players. At least by the definition of the essay (and by some phrasology here in describing it as GM-full). In the game text we refer to them as players, but they woudn't qualify as such by the essay.
Quote from: Emily CareI sent them some feedback. In their paper they attribute almost all narrative power, what they call diegesis, to the gm. I pointed out that even if a gm-is required as they also state, it is quite possible for multiple participants to act as gm, and also for players to share greater diegetic (ie narrative) power. I referred them to Universalis and Before the Flood for the former, and various games including Sorcerer and DonJon for the latter case.
Quote from: MertenMost probably. Though I wouldn't mind having a few pointers for the rules-lite simulation games - I don't doubt that they exists, and I might actually be quite intrested in seeing one.
Quote from: Mike HolmesPossible, though I think you're now putting words to someone's mouth.
QuoteQuote from: Mike HolmesYep, pretty incestuous. No theory can stand if it isn't exposed to a larger community of thought.I might take this as a flamebait, but I'll take it as thoughtless comment.How would you know to how large community or audience the thoughts behind the paper have been exposed? I know that it's been presented and debated in one certain auditorium for several hours with something like hundred people, and discussed for longer time with smaller audiences.
QuoteQuote from: Mike HolmesI'm sure that aren't aware. Or they don't care. Not that they must. But the paper had an actual academic tone to it that lent it a great bit of crdibility in my opinion. Until such point as it betrayed it's political nature, and belied it's ignorance of theory exterior to the community.Again, how would you know? Both about being aware and caring - I'm quite sure that the first one might be true, since Forge doesen't have a public profile like, for example, the rpg.net, but your second pun is somewhat tastless.
QuoteSo, a sort of collaborative storytelling, then? Can't tell without knowing the details (thanks for the Universalis tip, have to check it out), but it's not an unknown phenomenon here - there are several games with at least some resemblance around here(one in which I have played and one of the writers has played - and I hate putting words into someone's mouth like this, but bear with me. Jaakko can skin me alive later if he wants to). Can't say for sure if they are similar.
Quote from: RonPrince Valiant was published in 1989. I'm not flashing, this minute anyway, on any games previous to that with explicit shared-GM structures, whether simultaneous or sequential.
Quote from: Mike HolmesWell, there's also the problem of perception of what lite is. Try Zenobia. Not extrememly lite, but lighter than most Sim games. (Note when I say Sim with a capital S that denotes Simulationist, not simulation)
Quote from: Mike HolmesI get the feeling from the paper, that you guys think that any attempt to simulate anything is "Rules Heavy". By that definition, there are probably few Tabletop Sim games that do qualify. Interestingly, however, the "Immerionist" style of LARP that you guys play would be considered Simulationist. Very Simulationist. So there's a good example of a bunch of lite Sim games. And that should give you an idea of just how different Simulationist and simulation are.
Quote from: Mike HolmesYou misread me. The incestuous part (and I use that term in a it's broad non-sexual sense; don't get me wrong),;)Quote from: Mike Holmesis the idea of only referring to each other in their papers. I know that there are only a couple of people in the school because you told me above. They need to look at other theory, IMO, to give their own theory more credibility.Well, there are five references on the end of the paper, one of them by either one of the authors - whom, as I said and to my knowledge, form the "Meilahti school". The authors of the four other articles aren't - so I sort of don't understand the bit about referencing just to each other. Unless you mean that because several of those people are being thanked in the introduction, makes them somehow part of the "school".Naturally I agree that they should look for other theories as well. It's just that there aren't too many of them available (but they've been informed about GNS now, if they didn't know about it already, no need to worry about that).Quote from: Mike HolmesYes, as I've said above, Collaborative Storytelling.Yeah, I knew I heard that term recently...Quote from: Mike HolmesCan you get us any details on the game you mention?Certainly, though it's a homebrewn game. I'll quote the GM about the system:"Zone is something you just play. The dice are unnecessary, unless you really want something to be randomized. This makes railroading possible, yes. Besides, there are no rules the players could learn by heart and then start quibbling about them (driving the GM crazy). This is fully intentional and makes the GM the absolute sovereign. This doesn't mean I'm necessarily unfair while running the game, however (you can ask the players - I hope they agree). While playing, the players may define small details about the world around them (like "There's a ladder leaning towards the wall, I'll use it to climb over the fence"), but should be careful with more radical definitions ("In this world it's hip for men to wear skirts" just might do if the world in question isn't traditionally paternal, but saying "the species of man has been found to have originated from the galaxy of Andromeda" would be a bit too heavy). Sorry, but it's my world and you're the ones taking a tour. In Zone, the GM must be trusted, for she is your friend. Honestly..."Not exactly theoretical text, but hopefully clear enough. No rules system, no randomization (unless someone really want's to use such), and letting players describe small details about the world - or universe, as it's a scifi-setting. I think those are the main points.The collaborative storytelling also comes into play because the players frequently take roles of NPC's, especially in situtations where one character does something alone (not all alone, but without the other characters). One example of this would be an interrogation, where other players take the roles of interrogators, and as the target character changes, so do roles.Not exactly collaborative storytelling with multiple GM's (and/or no players), but something similar.
Quote from: Mike Holmesis the idea of only referring to each other in their papers. I know that there are only a couple of people in the school because you told me above. They need to look at other theory, IMO, to give their own theory more credibility.
Quote from: Mike HolmesYes, as I've said above, Collaborative Storytelling.
Quote from: Mike HolmesCan you get us any details on the game you mention?
Quote from: lumpleyMerten, it seems to me that you've got power flowing backward. The article says that the GM is the authority, but releases some power to the players. Really the players lend some of their power to the GM, but are themselves the final authority, as a group.