DOCTRINE: Simulationism

[Masada]

To each his own. Simple.

But before we get all hot and bothered, it’s a doctrine for a particular type of NES, not for NESing in general. If that doctrine and its players derive fun from clear, concise rules, with a real world application and a well defined philosophy to back it up. It’s no skin of your back.

Bit of word play here remove the word “doctrine” and insert “school” and maybe it’ll make more sense. Symphony is defining and laying out a framework for the “school” of Simulationism. If you don’t agree with his vision, create your own.

And stay away from the character attacks, wilful misinterpretation, and misreprentation, it's unjustified.

 

[flyingchicken]

I'm getting the feeling some people think this doctrine is trying to present itself as the NESing doctrine. As far as I've read, it's not.

EDIT: Crosspost!

 

[Fuschia]

Seems a rather interesting thread, disregarding all the "What? I don't agree with that!" posts.

Going back to Kentharu's idea of full disclosure, there is a way to simplify it. Just require players to put in their orders ALL official/unofficial agreements between themselves and other players. You eliminate trivialities, allow the use of any form of communication, and get the part of the whole picture that is actually relevant to events outside of the diplomatic sphere.

Just a thought.

And, on another note, Symphony has modded an NES, Amon, and it was one of my favorites, even if it wasn't strictly simulationist. Too bad it's only at 10% restoration as of now.

 

[Sheep]

Even the thought of a school of nesing thought, is somewhat benign and wastes valuable time that could be spent actually nesing!

Do you not realise the each of us neses in a slightly different ways, and in a area where we are not stereotyped or pigeonholed into one of three or four categories, which is a very rare occurance in modern life? The very thought that people wish to impose this and create the thought that are acceptable and then therefore unacceptable ways to play a nes is just plain wrong in my eyes.

I know this is not a 'doctrine' or 'school' for the whole of nesing, but to even lose nesing to three, four, or even ten of these things would be somewhat against everything that the people who started nesing in the first place thought of.

Do you even realise that NESING when it first started DIDNT EVEN HAVE A MOD.... it was just six, seven or ten blokes sitting in front of their computers and writing a story together, feeding off each others stories to create a world.... Diplomacy soon followed.

The Mod is a CFC invention. It never took off in Apolyton until those who left 'Poly for CFC came back just as 'Poly nesing was dying. It has since died and disapperead completely for their forums.

On Alternatehistory.com there is a forum called 'Shared Worlds' which uses some of the principles of a non-mod nes in a game called a 'Shared World' There is however players that have the right to override 'erronous or unrealistic actions' done by the players... They also usually run off a system where one page on the forum equals a month in gameworld time. So it is constantly being updated as such.

While I do not advocate a return to those days to CFC (as evident as me not playing the SW on AH.com, but rather being here) I am and will remain against any move to categorize nesing or nesers to any great extent. Such complications remove the focus from what it should be... and that is a few people sitting down in front of their computers and creating a story for the fun and amusement of all involved.

If you wish to bring a scientific response into something which is essentially a hobby for most of us, a fun past-time, you begin to miss the point of it all, and begin to make yourself look like an egotistical megolomanical jerk.

 

[Masada]

Do you not realise the each of us neses in a slightly different ways, and in a area where we are not stereotyped or pigeonholed into one of three or four categories, which is a very rare occurance in modern life? The very thought that people wish to impose this and create the thought that are acceptable and then therefore unacceptable ways to play a nes is just plain wrong in my eyes.

Is it wilful misrepresentation or ignorance on your part?

Symphony has made it quite clear with this

Is that there are distinctly different and mutually exclusive ideologies as regards how a NES should be conducted.

And;

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.

If Symphony wants to run a certain type of NES according to completely voluntary rules, then it’s up to him, he isn’t pigeon holing, he is defining what he wants, and trying to achieve that. Where is the imposition, there is none in a voluntary, non binding set or rules, hell lets use guidelines because that’s closer to the truth. If people want to measure the acceptability or lack of acceptability of a NES according to those guidelines what’s the issue? Is someone putting a gun to their head and forcing them to think that way, or measure success by that way? If he wants ideological purity, then it’s up to him.

Do you even realise that NESING when it first started DIDNT EVEN HAVE A MOD.... it was just six, seven or ten blokes sitting in front of their computers and writing a story together, feeding off each others stories to create a world.... Diplomacy soon followed.

And is not simulationism just a result of incremental growth from the root of all NESing? It’s diverged granted, but it still traces back to that original sin if you will.

I am and will remain against any move to categorize nesing or nesers to any great extent. Such complications remove the focus from what it should be... and that is a few people sitting down in front of their computers and creating a story for the fun and amusement of all involved.

If that’s the case, then win the debate, with a NES awesome enough to satisfy everyone. But if individual people don’t want to focus on simplicity, or on your own “brand” of NESing then why can’t you let them do that?

If you wish to bring a scientific response into something which is essentially a hobby for most of us, a fun past-time…

Well for Symphony and others the fun in the hobby of NESing is simulating reality.

As to your use of egotistical megalomaniacal jerk, this is coming from the person whose ego appears large enough to A) assume that he knows best for a group of individuals with diverse tastes, which he himself has championed (well some of those tastes, to hell with wanting a simulationist experience), B) appears to have grown a god complex by assuming that you know best for the group, regardless of the desires of said group, C) appears to be a gigantic hypocrite, by championing a shades of gray approach, hurling abuse and character attacks at someone for wanting to “impose” his own view, but paradoxically wanting to impose his own view on others ie. what NESing is, not by skill or by ability, but by decree.

So…. To each his own. Simple.

 

[Fuschia]

To make it shorter...

Symphony is not stating that this is the way NESes should be run. He is stating that this is the way a specific sort of NES should be run. It has, and should have, nothing to do with other sorts of NESes.

 

[JosefStalinator]

You'd think eventually Symphony's critics would learn not to play right into his hands and give his projects more attention. Then again, they do still try arguing with him after all this time .

 

[Sheep]

Yes and I agree, that they have every right to write this... But to express it as a Doctrine is wrong..... To express it as a School of thought is wrong as well..

Masada, if Symphony wanted to tell the world on how he thought a simulationist nes should be created then he should of used the title: ' A Suggestion on How to Create a Simulationist Nes.' Not as a doctrine which also prevent those who disagree on what a simulationist nes represents from get the full force of their views across.

This is not to mention the simple fact that a doctrine established by one person always smells somewhat arbitary and anti-fun.

 

[Masada]

I can ignore his Doctrine if I want to. I can create my own. If I'm not as forceful as Symphony is with his logic, then fine. He is not forcing anyone else out. Everyone here is big enough to disagree with Symphony in their own NES's I'm guessing his own personal tastes suffer effrontery quite often with certain NES's, he has a clear preference for what he likes, and doesn't like and he makes that clear. If you want to ignore him and his doctrine then do so, it isn't a monolithic entity with monopoly rights.

This is not to mention the simple fact that a doctrine established by one person always smells somewhat arbitary and anti-fun.

It is arbitrary, but someone has to start somewhere, without Adam Smith, there would have been no Marx, no Hayek, no Friedman, no Ricardo, etc [I think Symphony will readily acknowledge it’s arbitrary, he hasn’t put it out as anything else]. Without someone starting somewhere there could be no feedback, no checks, there would be a nice gaping hole. Consider it a point of reference, a place to build further work on. Now were onto the crux of the issue, fun, it's whatever you make it, not someone else, if Sheep you decide you don't like the idea, and find it anti-fun, the ignore it. I for one find it useful and interesting.

Not to mention that statement appears to be arbitrary and anti-fun to me.

'A Suggestion on How to Create a Simulationist Nes.'

All Symphony needs to do therefore is to change the title. So the whole long debate, was really over the name? The character attacks, the sniping and just general pettiness was over the name… what a waste of time and effort. This really just seems to me to be a vendetta, argument for the sake of argument, because Symphony fights back, and in this case he is perfectly justified in doing so.

So to reiterate my central point. To each his own.

Now good night.

 

[Sheep]

Ah I give up trying to explain it, I have done it three different ways, and three times someone has not been able to understand just what I was trying to get at.

I am now unsubscribing from this thread and no longer posting here... Have it known that my protest be noted, to the word DOCTRINE or the premise that this thread promotes, even if it is unintentional, is just PLAIN WRONG!

PM me if you wish to make any further comments to me relating this particular matter.

 

[Thlayli]

I think people came about criticizing this in the wrong way. It was more of a "WAT R U DOIN" outburst than legitimately pointing out what specific NESing techniques they prefer.

In sum, those who are saying, "This isn't fun" are being MORE arbitrary than Symphony, who is trying to say, "This is ONE WAY to design a fun NES."

 

[Disenfrancised]

'A Suggestion on How to Create a Simulationist Nes.'

But then he wouldn't be able to make a Alpha Centauri joke now would he?

I am now unsubscribing from this thread and no longer posting here... Have it known that my protest be noted, to the word DOCTRINE or the premise that this thread promotes, even if it is unintentional, is just PLAIN WRONG!

doctrine (plural doctrines)

1. A belief or tenet, especially about philosophical or theological matters.
2. The body of teachings of a religion, or a religious leader, organization, group or text.

The use of 'doctrine' could be taken as Sym's belief or tenet of how a good NES in the simulationist style would be organised, or a body of teachings about organising a NES in said style.

 

[Amon Savag]

I posted a seperate view point than that expressed in the first post, and got talked down to. Thus, those who agree with my view at that point was also talked down to. You should understand why our dander got risen, not that it should have.

 

[The Strategos]

A couple of musings on the Simulationist topic:


Assertion: The establishment and expansion of “Guides” in various fields should be of paramount concern for the Simulationist.

Reason: Education is essential for a successful Simulationist game. However, knowledge of a period’s details is not enough. There must be a framework, provided for by “Guides,” which allows the player and mod to categorize the period’s details in a coherent framework and make intelligent decisions in deviating from the period’s details to construct a simulationist alternative history rather than merely simulating (that is repeating) history.



Assertion: A Simulationist should not be in favor of pure simulationary economics in NES

Reason: Unless your NES is of high timeframe covered per update, a pure simulationary economic system will neuter growth to such an extent as economic growth of such a size needed to make a change in the displayed stats will not be observed over the extent of a normal NES’ lifespan. Without noticeable and visible change, players will lose incentive to concentrate on such fields, redirecting their efforts to areas that do produce noticeable and visible change, which most often will be war. This will most likely result in a “wargame” NES, which is (in my opinion) the opposite of what a true Simulationist should strive for.



Assertion: The superior form of rules in a Simulationist NES is a “black box”

Reason: A non-black box ruleset does, in my estimation, several things which are against the core principles of Simulationist NESes. First, they cause an an "omniscient" leader, a situation where the ruler knows everything (or at least everything important to the game), such as how much they need to spend on infrastructure to cause a visible change or the education level of their citizens to the exact degree. It also encourages (or at least permits to a greater degree) non-immersive thinking including power gaming as people attempt to exploit the rules as given in order to gain some in-game advantage over other players.

 

[Crezth]

You'd think eventually Symphony's critics would learn not to play right into his hands and give his projects more attention. Then again, they do still try arguing with him after all this time .

I keep forgetting that Symphony is just an intellectual troll.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Assertion: A Simulationist should not be in favor of pure simulationary economics in NES

Reason: Unless your NES is of high timeframe covered per update, a pure simulationary economic system will neuter growth to such an extent as economic growth of such a size needed to make a change in the displayed stats will not be observed over the extent of a normal NES’ lifespan. Without noticeable and visible change, players will lose incentive to concentrate on such fields, redirecting their efforts to areas that do produce noticeable and visible change, which most often will be war. This will most likely result in a “wargame” NES, which is (in my opinion) the opposite of what a true Simulationist should strive for.

Objection! In the last few years of RL national growth rates have varied from -1% to +8%. A player who was expected a more than 10% rate of return per year for any of their policies is being silly. Plus if you check NES2VI as a base point: Even the Japanese Empire burning up the economy ranks with Symphony D at the helm only managed <20% a year (sans conquest) economy growth. Whilst you may be correct in positing a longer time interval per update, it seems to me that a mere 2-3 years would produce very noticable change to enjoy.

 

[Amon Savag]

Nazi germany from years 1932-1939? 8% growth per year?

 

[The Strategos]

Objection! In the last few years of RL national growth rates have varied from -1% to +8%. A player who was expected a more than 10% rate of return per year for any of their policies is being silly. Plus if you check NES2VI as a base point: Even the Japanese Empire burning up the economy ranks with Symphony D at the helm only managed <20% a year (sans conquest) economy growth. Whilst you may be correct in positing a longer time interval per update, it seems to me that a mere 2-3 years would produce very noticable change to enjoy.

Would this change meet the objections?

Assertion: A Simulationist should not be in favor of pure simulationary economics in a pre-industrial NES.


Also:

A player who was expected a more than 10% rate of return per year for any of their policies is being silly.

Is this 10% rate of return per year for policies which money is not being spent on or rate of return on money spent. For the first, yes I can see that, but for the second, assuming I need to wait ten turns to get each 1 unit I spend makes spending money on a particular policy to increase economy worthless. In the second case, you get so little for your investment that it is simply not worth it and so your money will be reinvested in things that are worth it: namely something war related.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Kozmos]

Interesting...I will read on it fully later. Looks promising so far.