DOCTRINE: Simulationism

Retroactive deletion.

In regards to the last paragraph. When you play this sort of NES, "realism" is really defined as whatever the mod will allow for. In some instances, you have situations where mods completely barring actions or swaying players to take actions other than that with which they would rather to do. This turns into "The Mods Game", and takes away alot from the players.

While in theory this style of NES tries to represent "Realism" it doesn't at the same time. Trying to simulate real world economics with a few stats simply doesn't allow for the gigantic rise and fall of economic patterns in the real world, and if the mod impliments these sorts of things he is further determining what happens within a player's country. Something that should be the player's realm of authority.

In short, the mod's reality and supposed realism deffinetly come at the detriment of "fun," especially when it so limits a player's ability to do as he wishes with his country. Why even play a game where the mod already has a plan for the world, and will not allow deviation?

Retroactive deletion.

the fun of a NES is to make a creation that is solely your own. This means it might not be the most realistic possibility, but it's yours. And if it's plausible in real life, and the mod rejects it, who's wrong? You, because you believe it is plausible, or the mod, who believes it to be improbable?

Battles shouldn't be solely decided by the mod, unlike what you have in a simulation, where the mod clearly acts as the whole interpretter. Each mod should fashion their own way to simulate a battle that has nothing to do with themselves, so that the battle is clearly "fair". I roll dice and add certain modifiers, based on situation and quallity, and the like.

I've got nothing against players allowing the mod to control their country for them, I just don't understand what could be fun about it.

Retroactive deletion.

Concise as ever. Bravo Symphy. Definitely interested.

So True Simulationism, as you have defined it through this conversation, is unnatainable in reality. A sort of NES communism.

Retroactive deletion.

What's constructive about saying "I agree with your thesis"? The above reasons are why I disaprove of the simulation style of NES, nothing more. I think that is quite constructive. Noone should recieve only an argument for something. There should also be an argument against, to be fair, which you forgot to put in your essay.

I applaud your 95% accurate system of determining the results of battles. This is on pre-modern and modern battles, though? Have you got a similar system for battles in the middle ages and before, where chance seriously did play a more important part in determining the results? (Many battles come off the top of my head where "on paper" a force should have won, but did not)

Retroactive deletion.

Symphony D. said:

If there are going to be laws, this Doctrine posits they should follow the same ones that exist in real life.

Click to expand...

I have to object to this statement, though only on a technicality. A Simulationist NES in a fantasy setting, or even just a setting with different laws of physics, should be entirely possible, as long as the magic/technology follows predictable, logical rules. Arguably, ChaNES itself is like this, with Stigma techology not existing in reality. I intend to try out much stronger versions of this in the future. Aside from that, it all looks solid to me.

Symphony D. said:

I write for what I approve of. This work is not, from Part Two on, unbiased. I have no obligation whatsoever to present an unbiased viewpoint as a consequence. If there is to be a dissenting opinion for the other three philosophies, their adherents (for example, you) can write them. I don't know where exactly you've been finding objective manifestos, but this isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

I think he's trying to say you should be forced to talk about other points, look at them and dispute them. Failure to do so only shows ignorance. A lot of good can come through the cognitive synthesis of different viewpoints over trying to achieve something thats "pure."

Retroactive deletion.

Symphony D. said:

Here's a hint: if you don't like my solutions, go write your own. I am not here to compromise with you. You can run your games the way you want. I know I wield quite a lot of influence in these here parts, but honestly.

Click to expand...

Or simply implement them yourselves. I can't help but disagree with Symphony on pretty much everything, but I'm going to let my NES itself speak for me.

I didn't say you had to reach some centrist agreement or anything. Just show that this style of NES isn't fit for everyone, and these are the reasons... And perhaps then outline why said reasons are wrong if you're trying to advance an agenda of Simulationism, would be nice.

Good work Symphony.

Now for a word from our sponsors.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, because if it were it would be black, white, have sugar have no sugar, and just generally not satisfy anyone but the politicians.

Retroactive deletion.

If you didn't want discussion regarding the essay, why did you post it?

Symphony D. said:

Which is why Democrats and Republicans so often strive to work across the aisle and work out centrist legislation, amirite?

Click to expand...

They should. Partisan bickering just runs the nation around in circle and breeds animosity between the members of the two parties. I am a member of neither fyi.

Maybe you lot didn't get the memo but the fundamental principle (one which you both observed by the way, given you both voted in one of the polls) is that there are distinctly different and mutually exclusive ideologies as regards how a NES should be conducted. But here you are telling me that for some reason, I have to write for everybody, including those I don't disagree with, to reach some sort of ultimate compromise position which would leave no one satisfied, when my entire purpose here is to... explain a particular one of those mutually exclusive ideologies, and not to advocate a position for everyone, nor to have a perfect solution, but to have a particular solution that I am some other people like.

Click to expand...

I don't believe they're necessarily mutually exclusive. For example I came out to be a boardgamer, but the NESes I run I wouldn't say are boardgames. I do this because I know The Player is important, and the moderator should be willing to bend to the demands of the player, for without the players the moderator is just making up an alt-hist story by himself. I do have certain limitation, some which players don't like (such as Amon Savag). I don't believe that an NES necessarily should or even could be 100% of a certain "philosophy." If I started a Monopoly NES, it wouldn't be much of a never ending story, unless I allowed people to write stories about buying out park place, or how their stay was at the New York Ave hotel was. Just playing a game of monopoly on an online forum wouldn't qualify as an NES.

Yeah, right, I'll get right on that, just for you two. Or you could both just learn to read between the lines and gain a working understanding of motive. Here's a hint: if you don't like my solutions, go write your own. I am not here to compromise with you. You can run your games the way you want. I know I wield quite a lot of influence in these here parts, but honestly.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see why we can't have a discussion rather than both of us being forced to write two ideologically separate essays and having a poll to see what the majority of people enjoyed reading more. I can go run my NES my way and you go run your NES your way, but then nothing is really achieved. Without taking ideas off of each other neither of us learn and we all stagnate.


I also have a question as to what you mean by "solution." What is the question being asked in the first place? How to make a better NES? If thats the case then I would argue discussion and synthesis would make a better NES, not the creation of some sort of pure, fundamental, philosophy. Doing so only turns off potential players who would join, or have more fun, if the moderator was just more flexible towards trying to experiment with other styles of NESing.

I think this is a well-formed doctrine for what Simulationism is.

A Storyist manifesto would be equally interesting, if someone is willing to step up and write it.