Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Simulationism isn't about freedom. It's about accuracy. In general, the more 'freedom' a player has, the less realistic their actions will be.
While We Wait: The Next Generation
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
- Status
Simulationism isn't about freedom. It's about accuracy. In general, the more 'freedom' a player has, the less realistic their actions will be.
I prefer lots of freedom within historical contraints.
das
Regeneration In Process
In my understanding that is Simulationism, or one possible definition thereof (it certainly doesn't sound like one of the other three).
Ofcourse, freedom in NESing is like saving the economy in real life; none would avoid promising that, and in a way it is unavoidable as well. Any possible philosophy of NESing can be boiled down to "lots of freedom within [insert something here] constraints", with "lots" being a relative and immeasurable value. In case of Simulationism, that top concern is realism (a.k.a. historicism, althistorical plausibility and so on), which is much-touted in any case (in Storyism, the integrity of the narrative will be the most important concern, but ofcourse "realism" is often vital for that as well).
EDIT: Suggestion: replace "freedom" with interactivity (more accurate, fewer possible connotations and interpretations). Games are interactive, and NESes are interactive stories.
das
Regeneration In Process
Yes; interactivity in our case means the degree to which the players could influence the (hi)story, or rather the degree to which every given player could influence the history of his respective country (and so implicitly those around it as all is intertied).
"Freedom" simply should not be mentioned too often lest this deteriorate into a general philosophy debate, which IMHO is so much worse than personal attacks.
"Freedom" simply should not be mentioned too often lest this deteriorate into a general philosophy debate, which IMHO is so much worse than personal attacks.
Abaddon
Deity
An Egypt does not have to remain backwards! 
das
Regeneration In Process
No, that's the exception that proves the rule.
Abaddon
Deity
Well good luck with Moscow
das
Regeneration In Process
I assure you that I have no intentions of tolerating the forces of loathsome progress in my bloated quasi-Asiatic despoty.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Any NES which is truly about "freedom" (that is, every other aspect takes a backseat to player freedom) would reduce the moderator's position to nil and be the approximate equivalent of real-world "true Communism." Needless to say that is impossible in any NES with a semblance of structure, and whenever a player and a moderator disagree on anything the dispute will ultimately be settled in the moderator's favor.
I used to think that player freedom was the most important part of NESing but I have become swiftly disillusioned with that. My next NES will be an experiment in quasi-Simulationism because I think that players who are educated and well-aware of the world they're playing in should be able to reasonably expect certain results of theirs' and others' actions, without relying on fundamentally unreliable "random" factors.
Just my thoughts, however.
I used to think that player freedom was the most important part of NESing but I have become swiftly disillusioned with that. My next NES will be an experiment in quasi-Simulationism because I think that players who are educated and well-aware of the world they're playing in should be able to reasonably expect certain results of theirs' and others' actions, without relying on fundamentally unreliable "random" factors.
Just my thoughts, however.
Sure, if you have a reasonable reason, go ahead.
Ninja Dude
Sorry, I wasn't listening...
Yeah! And maybe Ryukyu can actually rise and become a powerful empire in Asia!
Right guys? Right?
...
Ah...um...sure!
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
I think you are rather overestimating the rigidity of oceanic plates - consider that the tethys was crushed in rather quickly. As long as you're mainly shifting those in and out and the grand cratons from the Jurassic are retained in some form you have a huge number of options. Plus it was 160 million years between the Pangean break up and the modern day, plenty of time for new rifting, twisting and change.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
I think that this is exactly what an extreme Arcader game would be. Every player is trusted to administrate their own country however they see fit - the mod simply catalogues their vision in the stats and update. When players come into conflict, then they either work out the dispute themselves, or the moderator intervenes with a binding judgement.
I think that Arcader games are the easiest on the mod - they simply have to do whatever the players want. Boardgamer games require a lot of setup by the mod to come up with a good ruleset, but practically run themselves thereafter. Storyist games ideally need no more setup than "Here's your setting, let's tell a story," but then the mod needs to synthesize all the complex player actions into something consistent and interesting. Simulationist games have the biggest mod workload, requiring consistent, comprehensive rules from the start, and fair, realistic arbitration when it comes up.
Anyway, I also have an announcement to make - Pre-ChaNES is entering its final turn, which will last about five times as long as the previous turns. If you intend to claim a colony in the main NES, claim it now and set its development along the path you want to take in the main NES.
Thlayli said:
I don't agree. If anything the freedom that a player has increases with a stronger regulatory framework, you loose some of the 'lulsome freedom' (invading the Americas in the bronze age) and instead gain some degree of 'nuanced freedom' (the freedom to do complex things in a complex environment). It's not a strict trade-off as you into enter into simulationism or complexity. Find me a 'glorified risk game' which allows me the 'freedom' of player action to found a trading company ala the VoC - in fact why would I bother all this freedom allows me to use my government in much the same way with no penalty. I'm not laying into NESs with few rules [I'm running probably the most anarchistic NES going at this moment] like LINES which almost always ends up in amusing situations [I don't count that as a 'glorified risk game' as a note]. What I'm questioning is the NESs of which we have seen many, that have simple rules, mods who are often loathe to include complexity in any way shape or form, stand for player freedom, never let the player exercise it beyond A>B if A1armies=0 and do not attempt themselves to make use of this freedom of choice to come up with interesting and to borrow a cliche thought provoking ends.
Simulationism is to me about freedom in detail. It places limits on the freedom of players with regards to a series of known variables and some degree of reality.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
I'm not arguing for or against Simulationism; perhaps you misunderstood my intent.
I'm simply saying that the more rules are used in a game system, the less "pure freedom," in the objective sense, the players have. But it would be unwise to misinterpret Simulationism as benefiting pure freedom. The "nuanced freedom" of which you speak is just that, freedom to act within the constraints of the rules. Just as players cannot reverse the laws of physics or godmod in any other way, a Simulationist ruleset imposes MORE restrictions on how a player must operate, and places MORE emphasis on statistics (the "physics" of the game) as the ultimate deciding factor in player interactions with their environment.
So, as you said, Simulationist players are less free than players playing "glorified risk," by this meaning some type of Arcader, game. The more "real" it is, the less "free" it is. That's simply the tradeoff that Simulationism makes. And to a certain extent, it is a good one.
Additionally, it is a grave mistake to equate simple rules with lack of complexity. Certain NESes, like N3S III for example, are VERY complex while retaining a very simple rule structure. That is how Storyism works: It reserves complexity for the narrative.
I'm simply saying that the more rules are used in a game system, the less "pure freedom," in the objective sense, the players have. But it would be unwise to misinterpret Simulationism as benefiting pure freedom. The "nuanced freedom" of which you speak is just that, freedom to act within the constraints of the rules. Just as players cannot reverse the laws of physics or godmod in any other way, a Simulationist ruleset imposes MORE restrictions on how a player must operate, and places MORE emphasis on statistics (the "physics" of the game) as the ultimate deciding factor in player interactions with their environment.
So, as you said, Simulationist players are less free than players playing "glorified risk," by this meaning some type of Arcader, game. The more "real" it is, the less "free" it is. That's simply the tradeoff that Simulationism makes. And to a certain extent, it is a good one.
Additionally, it is a grave mistake to equate simple rules with lack of complexity. Certain NESes, like N3S III for example, are VERY complex while retaining a very simple rule structure. That is how Storyism works: It reserves complexity for the narrative.
I'm not arguing for or against Simulationism either. I'm simply making the point that Simulationism and complexity far from being anti-freedom tends to correlate with more freedom than A>B if A1armies=0. Most of the 'glorified risk' games are not free, you can't do anything beyond grow econ or grow military to even ask as I have on a number of occasions for the freedom to do something unusual is balked at because it adds complexity.
The desire to retain player freedom through having minimal rules is a slavery all of its own because it stilts NESing evolution which is player derived. Take Isrealites NES (I'm going to be one very pissed of fellow Jew if he doesn't get back soon and mods) as an example, initially he had grave misgivings about my formation of companies and didn't wish to simulate them via the rules thereby limiting my freedom to act beyond saying 'I have formed groups A-E' he relented and gave me a significant boost in my freedom to play by giving me something to work within. Sure it was restrictive in the sense of quantifying something previously unquantified but it added freedom by allowing me to use my companies. To me it conferred freedom on me as a player in much the same way as a constitution does, by spelling out expressly what I can and cannot do. I was no longer subject to the arbitrary judgments of mods with regards to my express right to exercise the freedom - ie. to have a company - and while I was still subject to mod judgment I was subject only insofar as my actions complied with the rules.
In simple rule-sets your quite often completely at the mercy of the mod 'binding with briars, my joys and desires' as it were. On the one hand you have freedom defined by the mod and subject to all its inherent problems, on the other hand you have freedom expressly enshrined in the constitution of the game ie. the rules. Both have their pitfalls I'll grant.
You also have to realize that despite having simple rules, most of the NESs being questioned here have updates that could be expressed as A>B because A1army=3 B1army=2 you would probably gain more information that way. For all the freedom in the world your still stuck with the inescapable fact that all this much vaunted freedom is seldom used - notable exceptions aside.
Refer to above. I don't see the trade-off complexity as being a pure drain on freedom if anything it can sharpen it and expand it in other directions while it recedes on others.
I did nothing of the sort. "I'm not laying into NESs with few rules [I'm running probably the most anarchistic NES going at this moment] like LINES which almost always ends up in amusing situations [I don't count that as a 'glorified risk game' as a note]" would seem to be a fair attempt at differentiation. Also note that my primary thrust here has always been aimed not at those with few rules, but those who with few rules and no real freedom when A>B if A1armies=0 is appropriate. LINES and N3S could not be distilled down to A>B if A1armies=0 except as a really gross perversion of what it is they are ie. narrative driven, this is not an attack of storyism.
The desire to retain player freedom through having minimal rules is a slavery all of its own because it stilts NESing evolution which is player derived. Take Isrealites NES (I'm going to be one very pissed of fellow Jew if he doesn't get back soon and mods
) as an example, initially he had grave misgivings about my formation of companies and didn't wish to simulate them via the rules thereby limiting my freedom to act beyond saying 'I have formed groups A-E' he relented and gave me a significant boost in my freedom to play by giving me something to work within. Sure it was restrictive in the sense of quantifying something previously unquantified but it added freedom by allowing me to use my companies. To me it conferred freedom on me as a player in much the same way as a constitution does, by spelling out expressly what I can and cannot do. I was no longer subject to the arbitrary judgments of mods with regards to my express right to exercise the freedom - ie. to have a company - and while I was still subject to mod judgment I was subject only insofar as my actions complied with the rules. In simple rule-sets your quite often completely at the mercy of the mod 'binding with briars, my joys and desires' as it were. On the one hand you have freedom defined by the mod and subject to all its inherent problems, on the other hand you have freedom expressly enshrined in the constitution of the game ie. the rules. Both have their pitfalls I'll grant.
You also have to realize that despite having simple rules, most of the NESs being questioned here have updates that could be expressed as A>B because A1army=3 B1army=2 you would probably gain more information that way. For all the freedom in the world your still stuck with the inescapable fact that all this much vaunted freedom is seldom used - notable exceptions aside.
Thlayli said:
Refer to above. I don't see the trade-off complexity as being a pure drain on freedom if anything it can sharpen it and expand it in other directions while it recedes on others.
Thlayli said:
I did nothing of the sort. "I'm not laying into NESs with few rules [I'm running probably the most anarchistic NES going at this moment] like LINES which almost always ends up in amusing situations [I don't count that as a 'glorified risk game' as a note]" would seem to be a fair attempt at differentiation. Also note that my primary thrust here has always been aimed not at those with few rules, but those who with few rules and no real freedom when A>B if A1armies=0 is appropriate. LINES and N3S could not be distilled down to A>B if A1armies=0 except as a really gross perversion of what it is they are ie. narrative driven, this is not an attack of storyism.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
No, I realize it's not an attack on Storyism, and I find myself entirely too lazy to further labor the point.
All that I will say on this issue is that it's ultimately the quality of the moderator, and not the nature of the ruleset, that determines the ultimate quality of the game. But quality is subjective, and apparently you're elitist if you try and make an absolute standard for that.
All that I will say on this issue is that it's ultimately the quality of the moderator, and not the nature of the ruleset, that determines the ultimate quality of the game. But quality is subjective, and apparently you're elitist if you try and make an absolute standard for that.
- Status
Similar threads
