The Forge Archives

The reason that I role play is because I get to make things up.  Futhermore the stuff I make up has to be in some way compelling to the other people at the table and also that the stuff that I make up has to interact with the stuff that the other people make up.  The stuff that I make up at a gaming table has a greater capacity to surprise me than stuff I make up sitting at a word processor.  The social context forces me to think on my feet, and I like what that does to my creative process.

This, it seems to me, is the reason that I game in exactly the same sense that other people want Story Now, or Step on Up or the Right to Dream.  The question I have is am I genuinely talking about a fourth mode or a subset of an existing mode.

I can see a number of arguments, but I've not developed any of them to the point where I find them compelling.

Invention as a subset of Step on Up
Feng Shui certainly provides a mechanism whereby inventing stuff can be used for competitive advantage.  From Ron's actual play accounts of Tunnels and Trolls Invention in the use of Saving Throws seems to be an important part of the challenge there.  So Step on Up certainly doesn't rule out Invention - but pretty obviously it doesn't require it - a lot of my experience of D&D has been pretty low on Invention.

Invention as a subset of Story Now
It's fairly evident to me that you can make something up during play that has thematic weight, or something which has none - which simply adds colour.  I don't see anything about Narrativism that either requires making stuff up during play, nor prohibits it.  Which brings us to...

Invention as a subset of The Right to Dream
Certainly, making stuff up for the sheer joy of making stuff up, and kind of revelling in it has parallels with revelling in pure exploration.  However, most 'make stuff up during play' rules are metagame by their nature - and the received wisdom is that metagame mechanics are jarring for Simulationists.

If I had to define Inventionism as a subset of an existing GNS mode though I would argue it as a metagame form of Simulationism.

A couple of other obvious considerations:

Invention as Stance
Isn't the right to invent stuff during play just a fancy way of saying you like Director stance?  Well, a lot of the times that I enjoy Invention as a gamer, I'm a player with no access to Director stance, and I get my jollies just fine.   The invention happens during character generation - and the payoff occurs during play.  I create a disinherited nobleman who regains his fathers love through his adventures and exploits.  I get a particular kick out of this - seeing how something I made up interacts with other people's created elements (setting, other characters, etc.).

[This may clarify my point about Inventionism possibly being metagame sim]

Invention as a Technique
The right to make stuff up, who gets to make what up and so on is no more a creative agenda than the right to narrate is.  All roleplaying requires invention. All Invention is just in service to something else: creating theme, meeting challenges, having something interesting to explore.

I almost believe that but not quite - you could as easily argue exploration is always in service to something else.  I genuinely believe there are people (i.e. it's not just me) who go to the gaming table to make stuff up - and that's the main reason they're there.

* * * *

Any thoughts?

Ian,

From what I can tell, your approach of Invention fits nicely within the general Social mode I've presented in this forum previously here. The reason for this is an application of technical play, where modes are actually classes of material learned in play. From this perspective invention as you describe it is plumbing your own abilities, hence it is personal learning, in particular about yourself. On the other hand, if you only wished to learn what was invented, then it would fit under simulationism, which is primarilly concerned with declarative knowledge.

I expect most people on this site will disagree with me on this subject, but I view your concern as one area the theory would benefit from the addition of a social mode, even if only in an advanced variant.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

As a GNS newbie, I just have to ask:

isn't "Invention" simply a subset of "Exploration"?

Quote from: LxndrAs a GNS newbie, I just have to ask:

isn't "Invention" simply a subset of "Exploration"?

BL>  I would hardly call myself an expert but:  Yup.

 Given that everything in a fantasy is invented wholecloth, exploration of a fantasy is the same thing as invention thereof.

yrs--
--Ben

I'm with Alexander.  It seems to me that since we're talking about a shared imaginative space that is for all intents and purposes a blank canvas at the start of any game then Invention is a first a necessary step to Exploration.  Thus, if Inventing new things and placing them on the canvas for all to admire is the emotional payoff moment (i.e. priority) of the game then it's a subset of Simulationism.

I also don't really see how that's a metagame priority.

Jesse

EDIT - Where'd those other posts come from?  I swear I checked preview . . . anyway, what they said.

Ian,

I think . . . Invention as roughly synonomous with Exploration would be my guess.  Or maybe Invention as a subset of what Exploration requires.  I don't see anything in what you call "invention" that isn't covered by the idea of Exploring of a shared, imagined environment.

Maybe there is something that distinguishes Invention from Explorartion, but I'm not seeing it right now,

Gordon

QuoteIsn't "Invention" simply a subset of "Exploration"?

I believe it is. But I don't think that invalidates Ian's point. After all, Story Now is in turn a subset of Invention, and that hasn't prevented its being the hallmark of a distinct GNS mode.

I've been working for weeks on an essay proposing that the range of behaviors called Simulationism be split into two distinct modes, one that prioritizes "Invention" as Ian calls it (I have a different term and a slightly broader concept in mind) and one that's more focused on creatively passive exploration, that is, imagining the elements that are being presented to you by the GM, source materials, or action of prescriptive system. The net effect is pretty much the same as Ian's proposal of "Inventionism" as a fourth mode.

The idea is to rescue half of Simulationism from its current state of negative definition (e.g. the lack of Gamist or Narrativist agendas) and from rumors of its nonexistence. This would come at the admitted cost of somewhat ghettoizing the remaining "non-inventive" forms of play, which would become even more negatively defined, as they would then become the "root" of a trifurcate GNS tree just as current Simulationism might form the joint of the "big horseshoe."

Now, I'm not sure how to handle my participation on this thread. I feel it might not be fair to dump a ton of my own "color" on Ian's idea, but I do want to go farther with this. Ian, what do you think? Would it be better to start a parallel thread (which could make the discussion awkward) or present what I've made so far of my own case on this one?

- Walt

Interesting Walt.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

I'd be tempted to take "Waltism" and wholely replace Simulationism (rather than add a fourth), and then relegate the bastard cousin negatively defined back to the root as just simply Exploration.  

From there it seems easiest to say "All roleplaying starts with Exploration.  From there there are 3 creative agendas that can be added (Step on up <shiver>, Story Now, or "Inventive Dreaming"). -- OR -- play can take place entirely at the Exploration level without adding an additional agenda.

Which nicely puts the negative definition back where it belongs...at the root.

Hello,

Quote"All roleplaying starts with Exploration. From there there are 3 creative agendas that can be added (Step on up <shiver>, Story Now, or "Inventive Dreaming"). -- OR -- play can take place entirely at the Exploration level without adding an additional agenda.

I consider that to be what I've been saying all along, especially in the big GNS essay.

I don't even want to speculate about what people think I've been saying, if they consider the above insight to be something different.

The only addition to the "entirely at the Exploration level" I'd make is to specify that social reinforcement of that level of play is occurring. You can find text to that effect in the Simulationism essay.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards

Quote from: Valamir"All roleplaying starts with Exploration. From there there are 3 creative agendas that can be added (Step on up <shiver>, Story Now, or "Inventive Dreaming"). -- OR -- play can take place entirely at the Exploration level without adding an additional agenda.

I consider that to be what I've been saying all along, especially in the big GNS essay.

Hi Ron,

The embedded quote describes four distinct possibilities for creative agenda: Exploration + Step On Up, Exploration + Story Now, Exploration + "Inventive Dreaming," and "play... entirely at the Exploration level without adding an additional agenda."

I've read nothing that indicates that GNS makes any distinction between the latter two. Nor anyting to indicate that such a distinction cannot be made (e.g. nothing that indicates that "inventive" is a necessary or universal quality of all exploration/dreaming). I believe such a distinction exists and is useful, and I really don't see where you've been saying that all along.

- Walt

Edit to add: To clarify, GNS appears to only make a distinction between the latter two as subtypes of Simulationism; in the above I meant "no distinction at the fundamental level of categorization of creative agendas where e.g. G is distinguished from N." While I believe such a distinction is justifiable.

Hello,

Walt, your edited-in bit is the key:

QuoteGNS appears to only make a distinction between the latter two as subtypes of Simulationism

My issue is that I simply fail to see the difference between "Exploration alone" and "Inventive Dreaming." I consider them synonymous.

In discussions, when I phrase things to be more like the former, I get hastily "reminded" that people care enough about Exploration per se to reinforce it socially and to put some attention toward maintaining it as a "thing," not just an absence.

Then, in other discussions (like recent ones), when I phrase things to be more like the latter, people start gesticulating at the Beeg Horseshoe and saying, "But that's 'just Exploration'!"

Whatever. I've pretty much given up on trying to rely on the older terminology in discussing this stuff, at least once the three "extended" essays are done. From that point on, I'll be writing a plain-English RPG Theory essay or short book, and I plan to stick with those terms only afterwards.

Best,
Ron

QuoteIn discussions, when I phrase things to be more like the former, I get hastily "reminded" that people care enough about Exploration per se to reinforce it socially and to put some attention toward maintaining it as a "thing," not just an absence.

Then, in other discussions (like recent ones), when I phrase things to be more like the latter, people start gesticulating at the Beeg Horseshoe and saying, "But that's 'just Exploration'!"

I've noticed that.  I've considered the possibility that that may be because each of the paragraphs above actually are two completely seperate things that are currently both being crammed into the Sim label...so whenevery you talk about one, the people who identify with the other object.

It seems like Walt had the same thought, so I'm interested in seeing where he puts the dividing line between the two.  

In other words I'm not completely sold that Simulationism is Exploration emphasised to the exclusion of any other creative agenda.  I think perhaps Simulationism is really Exploration + Something Else, just like the other two; leaving the base line Exploration + Nothing Else to be simply Exploration + Nothing Else.

That's why I changed the third phrase from "the right to dream" which seems rather passive; to "Inventive Dreaming" which I think might actually be something as equally proactive as Step on Up and Story Now, that right now we're just sort of stumbling around.

I have a thought, which leads on from Valamir's statements.  It's also tied in to M. J. Young's seperate thread about Simulation.  It's also sort of coming out of Ron's D&D History essay, where he says RPG gaming was developed simultaneously on a local level all over the place.

First, I think Valamir is right, that Simulation is Exploration + Something Else.  I think the 'Something Else' is something I'd call 'Simulation', though, and if I do that, how do I seperate 'Simulation' from Simulation?

Second, I think Exploration is a term which is misleading people because of connotation.  Or, at least, it's misleading me.

What I want to bring out, here, is pretty ill formed.  It's related to the very first time I gamed, and how it felt, and what we were doing.  There were three of us, plus my little brother, watching us play.  We played for a whole weekend straight, starting Friday night, then also spending all day Saturday and all day Sunday gaming because it was just too cool not to do.

Our initial experiences and encounters were all about learning the rules.  Don't get killed, try to kill this other thing, then take his stuff.  So there was a solid gamist component, but the only Step On Up was between the players and the GM -- we weren't competing against each other -- and in the initial encounters, it was far more about learning how to do it than it was about trying to win.

My elf Arwen (I was big into LotR) died in her first combat, so I took over a henchman.

The premise of the game was that it was like LotR.  The framework simulated the magic and combat in service of the premise, but there wasn't really any exploration, aside from working out how the spells were different from our preconceptions of LotR or Merlin or Prydain magic.  We exercised the system (so there were elements of Exploring), but it wasn't the primary focus of the game, either.

Finally, there were some Nar elements, mostly in the interplay between our characters and various NPCs, such as the woman we rescued from the pirates.  This was probably the weakest element of the whole thing, though.  It definitely wasn't given a priority.

Play was largely Pawn stance, with (very) occasional forays into Actor stance.

So, what were we doing?  Hanging out.  Our primary game-focus was spending time together doing something.  The metagame socialization was the game focus.  It was only after we internalized the process of playing the game that we started to focus on gamist, simulationist, and narrativist priorities.  Most play I've had with gamers I haven't gamed with before is characterized by this sort of 'metagame' play, as we all thrash out the Social Contract and Boundaries of one another through play (as opposed to explicit discussion), as well by making mild but obvious commitments to specific play modes and observing who reacts, how they react, and how enjoyable that reaction is.

I think this metagame social level is the core basis for all gaming.  It's the "Exploration"/"Inventive Dreaming" stage, and Nar, Sim, and Gam elements get layered on top of this stage once a given group is comfortable with each other at this level.

Plus, until the individuals have sort of absorbed and plumbed this level of interaction, there's little or no impetus to try, or even to really understand, the extra layers unless they are forced into it by their fellow gamers, which can lead to all sorts of problems.

I hasten to add that this is only my own comprehension of what my early gaming experience was like, and is filtered through my undoubtedly wonky comprehension of GNS and standard Forge vocab.

Does it make any sense to anybody else?

Jesse

A number of games have mechanics allowing players to invent things during play.  Adventure!'s inspiration points, for example.  I tend to see these as a metagame currency.  Although there's no reason why they couldn't be embedded as part of the sim - i.e. a character has a mystical power whereby they can alter reality and create a journalist contact who had not previously existed - these things seem usually to be handled at a player rather than a character level - hence I'd tag them as metagame.

Now, given that there tends to be a tendency to equate sim with immersion, and hence a dislike of metagame elements and given that I like metagame elements, I didn't immediately equate what I was doing with sim.

I'm happy with a conclusion that: what I'm describing is a form of sim and that sim and metagame elements are entirely compatible, where those metagame elements exist to develop and enhance whatever is being explored.

Unless anyone sees something controversial with what I've posted above, I'm not sure this thread has much further left to run.  Hence...

Walt -

I think a parallel thread would be a good idea.  I'm looking forward to reading it.

Thanks to everyone for the input so far.

Hi everyone,

Closed up!

Various comments about Sim-stuff are now being discussed in the "Clarifying Simulationism" thread.

Best,
Ron