DOCTRINE: Simulationism

[Shadowbound]

I think the amount of effort and time you've put into stuff like this is, as always, astounding, but you'd be better served if you invested the energy into real-life or actual NESing. In that order.

It is a fun read, though, compiling a few interesting ideas.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As usual, Sym D presents his case well.

 

[Frozen In Ice]

Quite a interesting and helpful read. I have been thinking about running a simulationist NES for a while now and this has definately helped in many ways.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Dachs]

This I could accept as being reasonable, although I'm not entirely sure it's necessary for operations so much as an informational convenience. Some more exploration into the idea is warranted.

During my more recent forays into playing (viz. stazNES and ShadowNES), I actually did include these, because I wanted to establish a context for my actions. All secret diplomacy was described to the mod (with explanations for why I was doing X), so later actions would make sense. I roleplayed that various IM conversations were like signing Conventions, such as von Bismarck did at Biarritz and Cavour did at Plombieres...and that it would be kind of necessary for the mod to have that context to understand the sequel, that is to say the Seven Weeks' and Franco-Sardinian Wars with Austria.

The downside was that it doubled the length of my orders, as Azale can attest.

I think some kind of balance needs to be achieved between the two. Precisely what that is, I don't know.

Since they'll both be based on economic theory, won't people have a vague idea of what blackboxing will give them, if they have sufficient prior knowledge about what stuff does in that time period?

 

[Ekolite]

Quite interesting, although I don't think simulationism is really my thing. It's too restricted IMO. Still it would be interesting to see a simulationist NES take off, I understand a lot of people in this forum enjoy that kind of thing. (Although I find it difficult to look at that kind of thing without thinking ''boring history'') Still that's just my opinion.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Kentharu]

What Fuschia said

As Dachs put forth, giving the mod a context for actions may actually aid him in creating an update of greater depth and THAT is what I wanted to suggest. Not unneccessary crap for the mod to read.

I look at it this way, in order to create the depth that we seek (and a say we meaning you, I, and other Simulationist) in a NES you need to have a lot of information, not only about the world you intend to create but about the players actions. This goes both ways. Both Player, and Moderator, have to retain, process, and gain a lot of information about said world in order to participate properly and have "fun". With the Information=Fun assumption we can further safely assume that:
+ Information= + Fun

Very simple, IMO. So a quick perhaps 5 sentence summary of the "private" deals would suffice. One could even create a format for said presentation of deals.


All critism aside though you have done a very good job.

 

[The Strategos]

I find this one necessary as well. Whereas the other Doctrines can essentially "muddle through" due to different objectives, Simulationism more or less mandates a large and diverse toolkit to achieve its objectives. Those tools also need supplementary resources and documentation, and Guides are likely to form a critical part of that. What particular fashion they would take and what subject matter they would cover is a matter for debate that requires some more thought.

As I see it we have two options: 1) Continue with creating more specialist guides along the lines we have started as exemplified by the military and religion guides or 2) Suspend creation of new guides until a consensus is reached regarding “what particular fashion they would take and what subject matter they would cover.” The first option should be used if we believe that either the newest created guides fills our needs or if we feel they can be easily modified from their present form to fill our needs. The second option should be used if we believe that we will have to massively rework the guides in order to meet our acknowledged need.

Personally (as should come as no surprise considering the origin of much of the work on the contemporary guides) I believe that the military and religion guides provide a suitable fulfillment of our need in that area and all we need to do is expand the framework we already have in place. For areas of future expansion, I propose that a guide on politics, economics, and culture should be high on our list. I personally will begin working on a politics guide sometime next week unless the community overwhelmingly feels like we should suspend the creation of new guides pending discussion.

Possible, though it seems increasingly evident that we will probably be starting from an industrial and post-industrial viewpoint and then working our way backwards and forwards, since it's obviously what we're most familiar with.

Speak for yourself.

That's what I was trying to explain--you're going to have advisers who have some idea (how informed depends on the period) of how the system works, and as limiting The Player to just the chief executive is possibly unnecessarily constricting (the executive branch or the lead party seems more plausible--we haven't really hashed this out yet either), those advisers would presumably be within the context of The Player's entity.

Here is my main problem with “limiting” the player to just one person/party/branch: internal politics and other matters should be a big part of a Simulationist NES. However, on a practical level, can the moderator handle running all opposition parties/other internal powers/etc. for the country of every person who is playing in the NES. Assuming a Simulationist game attracts like-minded Simulationist players, could the moderator assign internal politics to be worked out by the individual player, the moderator only stepping in if a player neglects the area, or in order to introduce a needed correction, etc.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Regarding PM/IM Transparency: I think this is something the Story/Metastory distinction renders irrelevant. The Mod should have total knowledge of the Story and Game, at least in the sense that any fact known by a Player about the Story or Game will be known by the Mod as well. On the other hand, the Mod doesn't need to have total knowledge of the Metastory, as theoretically it should have no effect on their moderation.

That said, I know as a mod I love to be informed of behind-the-scenes dealings, but they're only really useful for creating tension between players--which just shows that I'm not a total Simulationist.

Regarding Blackboxing: IMO, blackboxing is necessary because in a system where every action is defined, a player can analyze the system and find ways to exploit the rules (Gödel's theorem of NESing ).

An easier way of resolving this problem, it seems to me, is to have total rules transparency, but to add a "Rule Zero": As the purpose of the rules is to simulate the world, the moderator may, when necessary, bypass the rules and appeal directly to realism. This should also make the actions of Players more realistic, as there won't be a temptation to do unrealistic things simply to find out how they're covered by the rules (as, for example, there might be in Birdjaguar's NESes).

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

As you probably realized, that should read "considered necessary"--the rest of my post argues that there's a better solution. I fully agree that rules should be transparent--and shouldn't attempt to be exhaustive.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

But how can you create a rules system that accounts for absolutely every action that might, at some point, be seriously considered in the Game/Story? It's my belief that you can't--that of course you can, and certainly should, try to create a system that accounts for the overwhelming majority of cases, but you can't ever cover everything.

So imagine a player proposes one such action--one that makes sense in the context of the Game/Story but isn't covered by the rules? The Mod is then faced with a choice of either (1)rejecting the action because it isn't covered by the rules or (2)adjudicating the action according to their knowledge of the game world.

I guess all I'm saying is that there must be a role for a human Mod, not just an algorithm (hence the Godel reference). There needs to be some decision process, even if it's just deciding what probabilities to set for a random number generator, that takes into account actions not covered by the rules.

Ideally, of course, you'd then want to add that particular action into the rules, but you're obviously never going to achieve TOTAL SYSTEM COVERAGE !11!!

Here is my main problem with “limiting” the player to just one person/party/branch: internal politics and other matters should be a big part of a Simulationist NES. However, on a practical level, can the moderator handle running all opposition parties/other internal powers/etc. for the country of every person who is playing in the NES. Assuming a Simulationist game attracts like-minded Simulationist players, could the moderator assign internal politics to be worked out by the individual player, the moderator only stepping in if a player neglects the area, or in order to introduce a needed correction, etc.

Once again, I think this is where we appeal to the Game/Metagame distinction. The Player should be controlling the actions of only one entity (which in practice will almost be the head of a state or a political faction), but this doesn't prevent them from adding additional information to the Game. So providing a Player has sufficient strength of will to separate Game from Metagame, there's no reason they can't contribute ideas beyond merely ordering around the Controlled Entity.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Well I suppose it's my turn to throw my hat into this ring. Like Sheep, I speak from experience which only two others on these forums can claim. Between myself, Jason, and Sheep we've seen literally hundreds NESes, rulesets, and theories thrive or fail. To be honest, I also speak from a full-time moderator's position, as only rarely do I play in NESes. It's from this background I make the following statements.

1. I have to agree with crezth, this style proposed is completely against the origins of NESing. The first Never Ending Stories expressed complete user freedom and development, as well as the focus upon the story. I firmly believe that the story is the essence of any NES, and if you don't have some underlying story or plot going, then quite frankly, it's not a story worth telling.

2. Full transparency is incredibly difficult to achieve, I have in the past attempted to achieve such with one of my NESes I created. That turned out to be a failure because of the human aspect. Certainly, it does depend on the honor system, but among us are usually some rather dishonorable people. Also, we cannot be expecting that all NESers have the capacity or motivation to clarify all secret alliances and discussions with a moderator. While it is possible, moderators must accept that all NESers do have lives outside of NES, and this can unfortunately influence their chances to provide the information you would require. In this, boredom and "English literature classes" are quite probably the best friends a moderator can have.

3. To those critics of critics, well, Symphony D did place this thread out in the open, therefore he must expect some form of criticism. Very rarely does a successful NES idea rise from a single NESer. The greatest NESes in our short history have generally been the culmination of discussion and development not only from the moderator but from those who discussed or created the idea from the start. Criticism is what would make this style of NES ultimately successful, depending on how constructive it truly is.

4. Back to history. As I stated earlier, yes, Symphony's ideals go square against that of those of us who began everything. Despite that, we must acknowledge that the NESing forum has been always changing and developing. Ideas and styles rise and fall rather quickly on the forums, we are quick to forget that uknemesis himself started a board game NES rather soon after he started the thread which started everything. Times change dramatically, but with the continuing success of Amon's NESes, perhaps simulationism is on the decline. Quite frankly though, as has been stated to each his own, if Symphony wants to try this type of NES, I certainly wouldn't play it, but I won't wish him ill in his attempt.

5. To be frank there are some merits to the concept of "publishing" doctrine. I confess that it did seem to be rather arrogant and distasteful for Symphony to post a thread like this, but it serves several valuable purposes. First of all, as mentioned earlier it provides a window for criticism and discussion of his ideas, allowing for refinement and development before the release of an actual NES. Second, it allows the opening of an theory or doctrine for debate. Finally and most importantly, the posting of this thread and the resulting discussion has for nearly a dozen people staved off the unholy menace of boredom.

 

[North King]

Well I suppose it's my turn to throw my hat into this ring. Like Sheep, I speak from experience which only two others on these forums can claim. Between myself, Jason, and Sheep we've seen literally hundreds NESes, rulesets, and theories thrive or fail. To be honest, I also speak from a full-time moderator's position, as only rarely do I play in NESes. It's from this background I make the following statements.

And to be quite honest and answer arrogance with arrogance, you have no right at this point to claim some kind of superiority over the rest of the forum. Plenty of people have been here for several years, many of us have also literally seen hundreds of NESes succeed or fail. The kicker, though, is that you have minimal experience with experimenting in rules, which makes your claims rather silly. I look at your rules for Brave New World and I see nothing that would have been innovative even a year ago. It is an antiquated ruleset that ignores most of the development we've done for the past few years.

1. I have to agree with crezth, this style proposed is completely against the origins of NESing. The first Never Ending Stories expressed complete user freedom and development, as well as the focus upon the story. I firmly believe that the story is the essence of any NES, and if you don't have some underlying story or plot going, then quite frankly, it's not a story worth telling.

That's all well and good for you, but why can't Symph have the NES he wants? Hell, I detest the system Symphony's advocating in this thread, but it's his right to do it as much as he wants.

4. Back to history. As I stated earlier, yes, Symphony's ideals go square against that of those of us who began everything. Despite that, we must acknowledge that the NESing forum has been always changing and developing. Ideas and styles rise and fall rather quickly on the forums, we are quick to forget that uknemesis himself started a board game NES rather soon after he started the thread which started everything. Times change dramatically, but with the continuing success of Amon's NESes, perhaps simulationism is on the decline. Quite frankly though, as has been stated to each his own, if Symphony wants to try this type of NES, I certainly wouldn't play it, but I won't wish him ill in his attempt.

Amon's success is going to start a trend? Forgive me, but I and several others I know have completely ignored Amon's NES as a style which is dull and unfulfilling. I think that more simulation-heavy rulesets are going to remain one of the core theories of NESing for a loooooooooooong time.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

North King, I think you misunderstand my post. As for not innovating, yeah, I haven't done anything recently, mostly because it seems to work. Maybe it doesn't for some, but the people who play seem to enjoy it, so why fix something that isn't broke? I'm not attacking Symphony's theory with the exception of perhaps my second point. I'm also not making a character attack. As for development, I guess that depends on your perspective. I look at some of the new things, which were shot down in debates a long time ago, and now make a resurgence. As for not experimenting, I think you'll find that you're incredibly wrong. I've worked with all types of NESes at one point or another. You cannot claim that my recent civil war NES was anything like A Brave New World.

As for point one, I never said anything against him having an NES. In fact, if anything I said otherwise in the second quote of mine you selected. It's a free forum, if he wants to try this NES, then he can.

As for you ignoring Amon, so what? Other people haven't. No NES has ever had 100% support from everyone on the forum. If Symphony opens this NES, it'll remain the same.

My overall point, which you seemed to have missed in your hurry to be hostile is that the NES forum is in constant fluctuation, and if Symphony wants to mod this style of NES, I only wish him the best of luck. Like he pointed out, fun is a perspective on these forums, and quite frankly, not all of us follow yours, his, or mine opinions on what an NES should be.

As a subpoint, we should be warned of fracturing. I've noticed in the past year or so that lines have begun to be drawn between certain aspects of the forum. Remember, it is only a game/story.

 

[North King]

I'm not attacking Symphony's theory with the exception of perhaps my second point.

The first point sure seemed like an implicit attack.

As for development, I guess that depends on your perspective. I look at some of the new things, which were shot down in debates a long time ago, and now make a resurgence.

And some things are entirely new. Why is it so hard to admit that we're progressing? You only need to look at the maps.

As for not experimenting, I think you'll find that you're incredibly wrong. I've worked with all types of NESes at one point or another. You cannot claim that my recent civil war NES was anything like A Brave New World.

All types? Please. Doing a few different systems doesn't mean you've tried everything.

As for you ignoring Amon, so what? Other people haven't. No NES has ever had 100% support from everyone on the forum. If Symphony opens this NES, it'll remain the same.

Some have had very close to 100%, actually. Apparently you missed those times.

My overall point, which you seemed to have missed in your hurry to be hostile

I'm not hostile to you in particular, I'm hostile to this inflated worth that you're assigning a couple of extra years of presence on the forums (given that it's been going on for six and a half years now).

As a subpoint, we should be warned of fracturing. I've noticed in the past year or so that lines have begun to be drawn between certain aspects of the forum. Remember, it is only a game/story.

*shrugs* I don't see much fracturing that wasn't there in the past.

 

[Amon Savag]

The only thing that's really different nowdays is that mods block actions that players want to do, simply because the mod disagrees with the realism involved. That, and the maps, are the only things that have "progressed". And I believe this to be anti-progression, because in the end it becomes the mod's story and not the players' story that's being told. There's no need for players in a NES that's overly regulated by the mod.