simulationism

In “Simulationism: The Right to Dream,” Ron Edwards asserts that the heart of Simulationist play is internal causality: “Consider Character, Setting, and Situation—and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well as how they’re Colored, are intended to produce ‘genre’ in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention. It’s a tall order: the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on ‘ought’ to go on, based in internal logic instead of intrusive agenda” [emphasis his]. The “intrusive agenda” refers to the other goal of Simulationist play: the lack of “metagame intrusions” during play.

Because an RPG seeking to provide Simulationist play wants to cut down on “metagame intrusions,” according to Edwards, the games often have an “engine” that runs things. I found his discussion of engines in RPGs very interesting, especially since the only engine I hear referred to today is the Apocalypse World engine, and no one is accusing Apocalypse World of being Simulationist. (No one, that is, except me in a post late last night. I know well that Apocalypse World is the very embodiment of Narrativist design put into practice, but several things about the way the game creates reliable and reproducible narrative drama gave me the idea that to some extent Apocalypse World simulates the drama—and damn well!—that we see on TV, in movies, and in books.)

Here’s what Edwards says:

“Simulationist play can address very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and politics, and more. . . .

“[T]he mechanics-emphasis of the modelling system are also highly variable: it can [be] handled strictly verbally (Drama), through the agency of charts and arrows, or through the agency of dice/Fortune mechanics. Any combination of these or anything like them are fine; what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's part. That's why it's often referred to as ‘the engine,’ and unlike other modes of play, the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive force for the game to ‘go.’

“The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It is causality among the five elements of play. Whether everyone has to get the engine in terms of its functions varies among games and among groups, but recognizing its authority as the causal agent is a big part of play. (To repeat, the engine's extent and detail aren't the point; I could be talking about a notecard of brief ‘stay in character’ requirements or a 300-page set of probability charts.)”

There’s a lot here that puts me in mind of the Apocalypse World engine (by which I specifically mean “moves” and the narrative directions they create from the die roll). For example, “the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to the authoritative motive force for the game to ‘go.’” That is entirely true for Apocalypse World—the engine dictates movement and direction in ways that are out of the MC’s hands. Of course the MC can decide how hard or soft a move to make on a miss, and there are certainly metagame concerns at work throughout the game, but the results of a move are the law. You don’t reroll it or fudge the numbers; both the MC and the PCs have to live with the results. The move of Apocalypse World, as Edwards says, “is causality,” only the aspect of play being affected is not the “reality” of the world but the dramatic narrative of the world, and “recognizing its authority as the causal agent is a big part of play.”

This is what led me to posit that Apocalypse world might be Simulationist to the extent that its engine consistently creates dramatic narrative that can feel like its own end. What it is simulating, in other words, is not “reality” but the dramatic structures of other art forms (books, movies, TV, etc.).

In his response to my post, Vincent Baker cleared up what I was misunderstanding when I asked if narrative drama might not be a sixth element of Exploration. He said, and I’m rearranging his words here though maintaining their meaning: The modeling of reality in RPGs is a higher-level phenomenon that emerges from the patterned interactions of system, color, situation, etc.

Go ahead and read that again, because it is powerful.

As a quick follow up observation, here’s another passage from Edwards that comes right after the long passage I quoted above: “Many Simulationist systems also emphasize modularity - you've got the baseline engine for what happens, so for specialty phenomena, whatever new rules go on top must not violate or devalue that baseline. When a system is very strong in this regard, it's what most people call ‘universal’ or ‘generic,’ by which they mean customizable through addition.” The Apocalypse World engine is neither universal or generic, but it is incredibly modular, and we are seeing from all the hacks of the system that we have “the baseline engine for what happens” and that it is endlessly “customizable through addition.”