DOCTRINE: Simulationism

[Kentharu]

IMO it is key for a player to have the determination to "win" in the NES. However that MUST be put into a IC perspective and using IC means achieve "winning". In other words, the best possible path for your nation to tak in order to triumph over its IC rivals.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Ekolite]

You guys really do take these things too seriously, you know. Does it really matter that one person likes one certain type of NES even if you can't stand it? Why must you always be arguing, trying to force your opinion on people who don't want it? You surely realise that you're all so big-headed and stubborn that you never will actually manage to change someone's mind about anything, whether your argueing about the best type of NES, or whether a certain ''Doctrine'' is possible or even just American Politics. All of it is pointless and really, really boring.

This forum would be much better off if you could all stop argueing for five minutes and realise that it doesn't matter if some random guy that you don't even know, living half way across the word, doesn't have the exact same opinion as yourself.

Can't you just agree to disagree?

Just my £0.02.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Ekolite]

Nobody's making you read it.


Actually it does, as we interact with each other over a digital medium on a regular basis. I'm aware it's quite common to play the "Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics" card, however this activity takes place entirely on the Internet and that argument is therefore null and void. That said...


I've been saying this since the first page. There has been no discussion about forcing anyone to do anything. Anyone who doesn't like this subject material can ignore it or do something constructive to oppose it. Now, once more, for the final damn time, if someone doesn't want to talk about the topic, then I kindly entreat them to get the hell out of this thread. I am seriously done tolerating this being a dumping ground for collective forum angst.

I'm sorry, I think this is relevant to both the discussion and the subject of the thread.

I'm not talking about specific arguements, I'm talking generally. What I mean is that it's impossible to flick through a NES before joining it without digging through pages and pages or arguements, that the While We Wait thread, which is supposed to be a casual thread for chatting, in is one long, one-hundred-and-something pages of Obama verses McCain (as well as other various arguements), that the whole atmosphere in this forum is keeping new players from joining and causing it to literally stagnate. While you can avoid a single arguement, you cannot avoid these.

The arguements are null and void? What planet are you living on again? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard you say. Just because you are arguing on the internet does not make it somehow not exist. You might have to explain that one again . It makes the arguements pointless yes, but they're still arguements.

You've been saying since the first page? Errrr no. You've been suggesting new ideas, yes that's good. But, if anyone else shares their views on the idea, and you don't agree with them, you tell them they are going off-topic and should go elsewhere. I admit that I haven't read the *whole* thread, I really couldn't bring myself to do it, but this is the distinct opinion that I got from what I did see.

Can you imagine how someone new to the forum would react, if by chance, they had read this thread? They'd think they were way over their head. They'd think that the forum is full of complete bastards (not you specifically), which is not true.

 

[Masada]

Correction, there was and has been a small group of people who didn't get that A) nobody was trying to force Simulationism on NESing in general, B) were just being pigheaded and obstinate precisely because this thread was about Simulationism something they don't like or C) were just sniping at Symphony.

I was not the only one to comment that they were making a mountain out of nothing, and that their fundamental premise nominally A) was wrong. Not to mention the large amount of satisfaction of B) and C) in the mix. Never the less they didn’t get it. You should not have to back down because someone is screaming your wrong when that person is in-fact wrong. That is really just sanctioning further bad behaviour.

The argument was ultimately pointless, as you have noted, but read the thread and you’ll see it wasn’t Symphony egging it on. The argument simply was not of his creation. So if you want to castigate people, please castigate them in WWW, and if you don’t want to use names don’t, they know who they are.

So don’t start the next wave of stupidity because frankly I’m sick of it.

 

[Ekolite]

Correction, there was and has been a small group of people who didn't get that A) nobody was trying to force Simulationism on NESing in general, B) were just being pigheaded and obstinate precisely because this thread was about Simulationism something they don't like or C) were just sniping at Symphony.

Exactly. I never said it was just Symphony. It is a lot of people.

So if you want to castigate people, please castigate them in WWW

I disapprove of using the WWW thread for this purpose.

Anyway, seeing as now this really is getting towards OT, I am going to leave this thread and hope that pleasant conversation will ensue.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Sheep]

Okay have been thinking this over for the last few days and have come to a conclusion as to the main reason why I seem to be so against a simulationist nes.....

It is that in a Simulationist game, the focus is on the mod more, players have less autonomy, stories are less common and it becomes more of an actual game then what it was really designed to do... Not saying this in itself is wrong, but I do believe that games such as this have gone beyond what mere nesing was and is supposed to be.

The fact is that NES stands for Never Ending Story... thus the story aspect is perhaps the most important part of it (cause neses are never realy never-ending) and the story aspect is the root origins of the whole phenomonea of nesing (which is the reason why it was in the Story forums at both cfc and poly!, and it died at poly when moved to Other Games...)

What Simulationism proposes is the move away from the story into what I call a more NEG type scenario or Never Ending Game. Once again I am not saying this is wrong (as everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how far off the mark I believe you to be) I am just saying that going to this extent pretty much removes the whole NESING thing to me.

While I would not particpate in such a NEG, I would be interested in seeing if it is feasiable to do so.... My thought would be that it would have a player limit of about 8 at the most (anymore and the mod would just have too much to do, to want to keep doing it week after week after week)


Symphony, just on your last post, I think Kol.7 was saying that say for example someone was to chance upon this forum and out of all the threads for some reason this was the first one to read it... I understand what you are saying, but under those circumstances I can see where Kol.7 was coming from too.

 

[Sheep]

IMO it is key for a player to have the determination to "win" in the NES. However that MUST be put into a IC perspective and using IC means achieve "winning". In other words, the best possible path for your nation to tak in order to triumph over its IC rivals.

A story by definition can't really be won... a game on the other hand....

I remember when we got medals for best stories, best tactics, best economy.... That was good and not just one person got a mention in it too... Of course there were also Best Overall... but of course these are all mod-based awards at the end of a suceesful nes (if a never-ending story should end at all, oxymoronic alert!)

The best way however to gauge ones sucess in any nes, wether it be simulationist neg types or more traditional neses is like Ken was saying, have an IC perspecitive, maybe even a list of things you would like to achieve in a nes before it starts to gauge how you are travelling... You then 'win' when you achieve the stuff on your list (although you are the only one who knows it really, maybe the mod and a player or two you have told)

 

[flyingchicken]

Even if players didn't post hack-job descriptions of how great their governments/armies/sexinesses are (not that everyone does so), there is still a story in the interactions between players interact diplomatically, militarily, economically, etc and how they lead their countries (as can be read from diplomacy and updates).

A Simulationist game won't be so much different from, say, the "classic" NESes, except that the Mod (usually the primary storyteller) can't just determine things on a whim, and players will think twice before expecting things to go their way if they act unrealistically. Although admittedly it disallows "fudging for drama," either kind of NES will still produce a story (whichever is more interesting is up to the personal taste of the beholder, and as we can see there are both Romantic and Realistic people around here in the NES board).

 

[Sheep]

While its a story of sorts however, given that definition all games create a story...

In fact given that definition I could make a story out of a game of checkers....

The black and the red guys werent happy with each other, so they decided that if they jumped over each other they would decide who was the better colour.... Then they made Kings to fight each other, and they could go backwards too because they were the Kings...

I think you get the idea, even if a very poor example.

Remember the fact that you called simulationism a game speaks volumes when true Neses are actually stories not games

 

[Kentharu]

There are both Story and Game aspects of NESing. Stories drive the game to make it mroe dynamic, The game drives people to create the stories to give the game more depth.

 

[Sheep]

True, that is the reality of modern day nesing.... I guess I just have an aversion of a simulationist approach to it that would lead to the elimination of most of the player based story telling..... it also puts alot more pressure on the mod in another respect.

Obviously I am waiting to see what this toolkit that some of the more pro-simulationist nesers are developing. Have tried something similar in the past when I did the Modern Battlefields nes with an excel spreedsheet with formulae, but found it cumbersome at times.

In reality I am happy to play more simple neses like Amon's and some people not, I understand that, doesnt mean I agree with it, but hell its a free forums and its big enough..... However the aspects of extreme simulationism that I would probably dislike the most would be the lack of player autonomy, in particular with those schemes which are slightly more zanier, and while improbable of occuring, they are entirely possible at the same time. A fair mod would probably allow something to occur, but just make it either expensive or time consuming, or for more extreme examples both. Most mods or prospective-mods that would follow this scheme would probably disallow it.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Well, I'm not really against people doing what they want on these forums. Like I stated earlier, we can all get along.

I wanted my second point to take precedence. What would be the way to deal with a lack of transparency in this style of NES?

 

[The Strategos]

It is that in a Simulationist game, the focus is on the mod more,

False. The focus is on realism. To quote the essay at the beginning of the document "Simulationism can be said to be concerned not simply with roleplaying (to stay “in-character” and consistent with a particular perspective which may not have knowledge of some information known to the operator—The Player) but also roleplaying reasonably—that is, not just selecting an arbitrary perspective and adhering to it, but selecting a perspective appropriate to the situation." Thus, the focus is neither on moderators nor players, but a particular behavior to which everyone, both moderator and players, are expected to adhere.

players have less autonomy,

Every time one institutes rules, you limit a player. Simulationist doctrine merely states if we are going to limit players (and I have yet to see a NES which did not limit players in some fashion through the imposition of rules or moderator decisions) let us limit them in a realistic fashion rather than limit them in an arbitrary way dependent upon moderator whim.

stories are less common

False, or, if true, it is a non-causal relationship (that is, there is nothing in the Simulationist doctrine which would lead directly to less stories). Simulationist doctrine depends upon (to quote once again the opening essay) "roleplaying reasonably." There is no connection between being forced to roleplay reasonably and writing or not writing stories.




Now for those who wish to discuss this doctrine what are the key points that need discussion? Here is my list:

1) Rule Discussion: Assuming our goal, what is the best way to achieve our goal
2) Guide Discussion: What is the best way to achieve the baseline education needed by both players and moderator to run a successful Simulationist NES
3) Role Discussion: What do we want the player to roleplay? What is the moderator’s role (should they be roleplaying internal non-player institutions; when can and should a moderator interfere with the internal workings of a player country, etc.)
4) Apologetical Discussion: Given the rampant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Simulationist doctrine, as shown by this thread, what is the best way to resolve these, or is it better to ignore them? What is the most effective way to recruit players to this doctrine (as without players this doctrine will fail)?

 

[Kentharu]

I think we still need to modify what exactly simulationist think simulationism is. I know that this is your opinion Symphony but if it is to be representative of the "simulationist ideal" then it should have this added and subtracted, or atleast mroe clearly defined. So I would say Guide discussion and perhaps Role Discussion should be first. Rule discussion would be a by-product of the two.

 

[Amon Savag]

False. The focus is on realism. To quote the essay at the beginning of the document "Simulationism can be said to be concerned not simply with roleplaying (to stay “in-character” and consistent with a particular perspective which may not have knowledge of some information known to the operator—The Player) but also roleplaying reasonably—that is, not just selecting an arbitrary perspective and adhering to it, but selecting a perspective appropriate to the situation." Thus, the focus is neither on moderators nor players, but a particular behavior to which everyone, both moderator and players, are expected to adhere.

The person in the end who determines whether ot not something is to be considered "Real" is the mod. Therefore the focus is more on the mod than the player. If a player joins a simulationist NES as pakistan, for example, and wants to regime change to a crazy iran-like style of government, but the mod doesn't think that's realistic, he can block it. Everything goes through the mod, and in ALL NESes, the mod is the end-say on matters involving actions taken by players. If the player believes an action is realistic, but the mod believes it not to be, the mod wins. Therefore, the god-mod in this case is telling the story himself, and not allowing players to.

 

[Dachs]

The person in the end who determines whether ot not something is to be considered "Real" is the mod. Therefore the focus is more on the mod than the player. If a player joins a simulationist NES as pakistan, for example, and wants to regime change to a crazy iran-like style of government, but the mod doesn't think that's realistic, he can block it. Everything goes through the mod, and in ALL NESes, the mod is the end-say on matters involving actions taken by players. If the player believes an action is realistic, but the mod believes it not to be, the mod wins. Therefore, the god-mod in this case is telling the story himself, and not allowing players to.

That is why the mod, as per Simulationist doctrine, is expected to know what's supposed to be realistic or not. Immense amounts of contextual knowledge are recommended, nay, required, for this to work out. And, as previously mentioned, the mod doesn't just have to say 'no' in a Simulationist NES. Instead, the attempt could go forward, but there would be consequences to it similar to those done in real life; in your case, the attempt to change to a theocratic government would be met with strenuous opposition from large portions of the military and from the civilian government, and a destabilized Pakistan would probably end up doing really weird stuff with its nukes...in short, the country would be royally screwed up...

The point isn't that the mod is telling the story, but that the players are...but just like historical rulers, there may and probably will be unforeseen consequences of their actions. It's the mod's job to know what the consequences of these actions will be and to respond accordingly, not to drive the story.

 

[Amon Savag]

In your oppinion this is the way a theocratic revolution in Iran would go. Perhaps if I wrote a story depicting how the revolution happens, it SHOULD go as per the story. Hence, the NES idea. Such as, my theocratic guy (Let's name him "Balls") makes an alliance with the generals, and they allow him to go through with the revolution, and they quickly consolidate the nukes for themselves. A majority of the people in Pakistan probably wouldn't be too opposed to a theocracy in their country.

Were we playing a simulationist NES, what is to be done in this situation? Void the story, because you, as mod, believe that this story isn't realistic? That destroys stimulation to write further stories, and really peeves off the player.