Re: Simulationist versus Dramatist

Russell Wallace posts, in part:

  I think I've finally figured out - not by myself, but in an 
  extended conversation with someone else - why so much heat 
  and little light gets generated whenever Simulationist vs 
  Dramatist comes up, and in particular why Simulationists 
  are so prone to finding the Threefold useless or a positive 
  hindrance.

As two other people have already posted, isn't that a typo?

It's us world oriented gamesmasters who tend to like the threefold, because it
allows us to express how our style differs from others, and in particular how
story and game concerns can be actively detrimental to our style.

In my experience, the ones who most object to the threefold are the vocal
minority of story oriented gamesmasters who are used places where their
approach is considered the one true way.  In some of those communities, rgfa
has a reputation for being a simulationist stronghold very hostile to story
oriented gaming (or, as they would probably put it, 'very hostile to high
quality gaming').

Most gamists seem to be less hostile to the threefold, perhaps because they see
that a tradeoffs model would actually help them in their battle against the
dramatists.  In 'one true way' arguments between gamists and dramatists, the
dramatists tend to come out on top:  a story oriented style is associated less
with politically incorrect things like combat, story oriented people are
probably by nature more articulate, and gamists tend to be much less interested
in talking about games than playing them.  Since gamists are used to being
pushed into a psychological ghetto by the dramatists in arguments about what
the one true way is, they are more open to a tradeoffs model where there is no
one true way - even if most would rather play a game than figure out the full
nuances of a model.

  In a nutshell: Dramatist is defined as making decisions with 
  the intent of creating a good story, and Simulationist is 
  defined as _not_ doing so.

A bit of an oversimplification, but yes.

  (It can't be defined as making decisions with the intent of
  creating a logically consistent and plausible setting ...)

Correct, given the common definition of 'logically consistent'.  Unfortunately,
world oriented gamers do often try to use a definition similar to this - I did
at one point, at least one other still tries to - because "internally
consistent" has a much stronger meaning to us than is understood by others.

That has a very harmful effect as gamesmasters who don't really understand the
definition, but think they run internally consistent worlds, think they are
simulationist, adding to the confusion.

  So why do Simulationists so often _reject_ this description 
  of their style? ['not making decisions with the intent of 
  creating a good story']

Because it's often taken to imply that there are no good stories in world
oriented games - overlooking the possibility that good stories can sometimes
emerge even if there was no intent to create them.

Also because story concerns are only one of the concerns we avoid.  There are
sim/game conflicts too; they just aren't discussed as much.

  Let's separate out those Simulationists who truly don't care 
  about getting a good story. (Warren Dew, perhaps you? I can't 
  think of any others.)

You mean as an end result?  Depends on what you consider to be a 'good story',
I guess.  If you mean a traditionally good story - a beginning, a middle, and
end, a strong plot line with rising tension towards a climax, etc., you're
right, I don't.  However, I don't think Peter Knutsen really cares about such
stories - he just pretends to sometimes when arguing that his way is the one
true way - and I'm not at all sure Irina Rempt does - though she seems to have
a broader definition of story that she does care about.  With a sufficiently
tautological definition - or a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of 'good'
- I care too, though I still won't alter my game world to obtain one.

  The Simulationist who wants a good story starts with a 
  spacelike initial condition that will generate stories by 
  simulation from then on. The Dramatist makes decisions 
  _embedded in the time axis_ that generate such.

Pretty close, though you'd have to modify that to "may generate" if it's a
roleplaying game - the player characters can always prevent the stories from
coming about.

It's also a very story oriented way of looking at things.  If "wanting a good
story" - at least in the traditional sense mentioned above - is the
gamesmaster's highest priority, he's probably better off eschewing world
oriented techniques and using story oriented ones which are specifically geared
towards getting a good story.  World oriented gamesmasters are far more likely
to be interested in things like exploring the world.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software