Last month, I published the only positively-phrased definition that I know of for Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying, outlining what it is and why it is desirable. I also discussed, in positive terms, what elements of game mechanics and play style are needed to support or facilitate Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying. If you haven’t read it, I strongly recommend that you do so before continuing.

Within this column, I’ll be discussing some of the questions about Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying that have arisen out of the conversations in the comments, then moving on to Pacing, Decisions and Perceptions, Firewalling, The GM as Player, Assumption Clashes, and The Human Factor, within the context of the seven Fundamental Elements of Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying:

1. The “Real” World
2. Event-Rich Environment
3. Proactive Player Characters
4. Gimme One Reason to Stay
5. Player and Player Character Agency
6. Always In-Character
7. Mechanics Are Physics

First Things First

Please forgive me if I spend the next page and a half or so briefly addressing some issues that came up in the last couple of months’ discussions. Feel free to skip it if you’re not interested in theory and want to get to the practical meat of the column.

Why am I using the phrase “Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying” instead of just simulationism? Well, partly because of conflicting definitions of simulationism as written in the ThreeFold, GNS theory, etc., and partly because I am talking about a specific way of “doing” simulationism, one in which the simulationist side (which describes the game designer and GM’s decisions and actions) supports and enables immersive(deep in-character) play on the players’ part. Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying describes a synergy of game designer, GM, and players which allows for a deeply authentic and internally consistent roleplaying experience.

With that in mind, much of what I’m discussing will be of use to people who want to run or play in simulationist games, people who want to play in an immersive(deep in-character) play stance (even if they are able to do so and prefer to do so within a dramatist/narrativist style game), people who want to combine the two, and maybe even people who just want to bring bits and pieces of this play style into their existing games.

I Am a Person, Not A Simulationist

There seems to be a misconception that a person can only “be” one type of player, that is, they can only enjoy one type of play style. Some people only enjoy one style, but I think most people can enjoy multiple styles, possibly all styles, if they give them a chance. I certainly do: a quick glance at my previous columns will prove that.

Some dramatist-evangelists who deny simulationism’s existence and gamism’s legitimacy will disagree, but the truth is, Switching between play styles is like buying chocolate ice cream this time and vanilla the next, not like changing religions. I’m not trying to make converts here, just get people to try a new flavor.

Wait, Simulationism Doesn’t Exist? Then What Were We Playing?

Some people who claim simulationism doesn’t exist are what I call dramatist-evangelists, people who believe their style is best and have little or no experience with simulationism. A careful reading of this Forge thread will make the contempt and ignorance of some prominent “there is no simulationism” writers obvious.

Others, however, just don’t understand what Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying is about. It’s a matter of knowledge, not arrogance. “I just don’t get what you’re doing here, and I’m skeptical about it,” is a perfectly legitimate statement. Let me try to address some of the issues.

Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying isn’t all-or-nothing.

Nobody’s perfect, and not every decision will be perfectly made without any metagame influence. Removing metagame influence is a means to the end of creating a world that is as authentic and ‘real’ as a fictional world can be, a world that operates on its own internal principles, not externally-applied concerns like story or challenge. The fact that nobody gets the means and methods 100% perfect doesn’t mean that the players’ goal of character immersion and world consistency don’t exist or exist only as pipe dreams. We’re all human (our PC’s may not be, but we are).

The truth is, so long as the GM operates within a Simulationist-Immersive mindset, it is not necessary for all of the players to do so. Not all players have to play from the immersive/deep in-character stance at all for a Simulationist-Immersive game to work, much less all the time ... so long as the GM does and those players don’t play so over-the-top that they ruin consistency and immersion for the immersive-stance players.

It’s Not Just Versimilitude

Secondly, I hear variations on this theme a lot: simulationism doesn’t conflict with dramatism/narrativism (or gamism). A more realistic world makes for better stories (or challenges). Therefore simulationism is just a means to a dramatist (or gamist) end, not a legitimate preference or play style.

Respectfully, this is missing the point. Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying is not about making stories more realistic, or making challenges more believable; it’s about keeping things as ‘real’ and authentic as possible for a fictional universe, whether it results in a good story or not. The difference is the goal and the difference in the subjective experience of the players and the GM, not in the observable (to an outsider) outcome. Sometimes the outcomes look identical, and sound identical in the retelling, but that’s because when we relate what happened, we’re telling a story, an inherently narrative event. Playing is a different thing than retelling.

When playing in a simulationist manner, the goals and mindset are different, and the subjective outcomes are different. It just feels different – those of you who have not played much or at all in this style could trust those of us who do, or you could give Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying a try and experience it for yourself.

After the fact, you’ll be able to weave a narrative out of the events that happened in the game, regardless of the play style. People are notoriously good at weaving narratives out of anything that happens, in game or in the real world. But capturing the sense of freedom the players have when their characters move through a world that isn’t built around their stories or challenges, much less the emotions that come up when things happen in a truly world-consistent, spontaneous manner, is not nearly so easy. All games seem narrativist in the retelling, but the playing is another thing altogether.

Whew. Well, now that that’s over, I can go on to the column itself.

And Now, Back to Your Regularly Scheduled Column

Running a simulationist game is incredibly easy, in a sense. Just make every decision (as GM) as free from metagame concerns of story or challenge as possible, and make sure there are no mechanics that give your players narrative control. Bing! It’s easy. Of course, just doing that can end up with a game in which the PC’s wander off in a dozen different directions, nothing happens, players are frustrated, and the GM is disappointed. My goal over the next few columns is to tell you what I’ve done that has worked, and how to avoid the mistakes I’ve made that didn’t work. Running a Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying game that actually works can be challenging, but I believe it is well worth the effort.

Some Practical Examples of Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying

The key to a successful Simulationist-Immersive game is the foundation, and that means both character creation and world building, and I plan on covering both in future columns. However, there are a great many in-play issues that can make a huge difference, and I’m covering them first, in part because of questions that have arisen in the comments thread.

Pacing

I’ve been asked how to handle issues of pacing and scene framing in Simulationist-Immersive Roleplay, and it’s a very legitimate question (thanks, SavageHominid). The truth is, with an active, incident-rich setting and active PC’s who want something and have agendas of their own, I never really had to think about pacing and scene framing. To some degree, pacing and scene framing are narrative concepts, but they are present in Simulationist-Immersive games as well.

You don’t really have scenes, per se. You’re playing through a timeline, zooming out when it is advisable and zooming in as close as possible when necessary. How is this different than scenes? It’s pretty similar, honestly, but you don’t skip ahead without asking the players if they’re doing anything else before (supper/bedtime/the meeting with Don Julio).

No game should drag, but not every group will have the same definition of “drag.” The key is knowing how to move quickly over uneventful time. Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying doesn’t require a high degree of detail, or playing out every second in real-time, much in the same way it doesn’t require equipment lists with hundreds of hyper-detailed weapon write-ups.

Here are a few slightly more specific things you can do:

1) You don’t have to make dead ends boring. If the PC’s are investigating something that isn’t going to lead to an important lead, you can either sum it up quickly with a (futile) die roll, or play out the investigation (whichever the PC’s prefer). While seeking the dead end, the PC’s might find false leads, make new friends or enemies, pick up on local rumors, or get involved in what’s going on around the local area (there’s always something going on, even if it’s small-time, petty, and irrelevant to the players’ greater goals). Remember, you should create an event-rich environment, one in which something is always going on. If the players reach something you haven’t come up with yet, let your intuition, the material you already have created, and, if necessary, the dice, guide you.

2) When the PC’s are done doing stuff, move on. Unless, of course, NPC actions are about to be revealed. In that case, go ahead and reveal them. You can say “Everyone done? Yes? Ready to move on to the next village between here and Cassa? Yes? Okay, you’re on the road for about half an hour and ______________.” The players will stop you if their characters aren’t finished.

3) Speaking of pacing, ALWAYS give people time to react when their characters would have time. If one player says “My PC kills ____,” don’t assume that because no other player speaks out in the first 2 seconds that their characters are similarly dumbfounded. Some of the PC’s may be (players who are deeply immersed in-character will provide their own internal fear and surprise checks, and fail them a lot more than you’d think), but others may not be, and you need to make sure things resolve accurately, not just the way one loud-mouthed player or impulsive PC says they do.

4) Make sure the players know that the GM won’t be “making something interesting happen” – if they’re playing out every minute of a shopping trip, haggling with the merchants and flirting with the locals, and they’re enjoying it, fine. If they’re bored, and they’re still doing it, they need to know that the GM isn’t going to have ninjas crash through the window to give them something interesting to do. “Finish your shopping and get a move on if you’re bored.”

Decisions and Perceptions

Players should be able to make all decisions relating to their characters from a deep in-character perspective. This is generally a “negatively stated” rule, as players are generally able to do this unless you start adding meta-mechanics like Hero Points, personality mechanics, etc. Note that not every player has to play this way in order to allow immersive players to stay in-character. Another player might be making decisions with narrative or looking cool in mind, but so long as there isn’t a big discussion over player motivations, the immersive players can stay in character and interpret the other PCs’ actions at face-value. If one PC is constantly doing stuff that ‘looks cool,’ because that player wants it that way, that doesn’t matter, really. The immersive players will simply view the character’s actions from their own PCs’ perspectives, and react accordingly.

One great thing about a Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying style is that it doesn’t impose immersion on others. A game that is immersive/deep in-character play stance-friendly is also friendly to the other play stances (like author and actor). On the other hand, most other styles (narrativist, Forge-sim, gamist) crush the Immersion play stance, forcing immersion-seeking players to disengage from their characters or just give up.

Firewalling:

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say “good roleplayers can separate player knowledge from character knowledge,” as if this were an “anti-cheating” measure.

That’s garbage. Good GM’s will do the firewalling for the players.

In dramatist play styles, player knowledge is used to help create the narrative, through meta-mechanics, aspects, or just play choice. The separation is almost irrelevant, in comparison to the story.

In gamist play styles, the players should be free to play as hard as they can in order to overcome the challenges the GM has created for them, and should not have to hamstring themselves by “separating player knowledge from character knowledge.”

And in Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying, the players don’t want to know anything their characters don’t know. The act of separating player and character knowledge inherently separates the player from the character, robbing the player of the opportunity to explore the character’s mindset.

Sure, there are obvious exceptions, like the formula for black powder when playing in a fantasy setting, but if the player is in-character, she isn’t going to be thinking about all of her twenty-first century technical knowledge and how she can shoehorn it into a medieval setting.

Immersive players like to be surprised when their characters are surprised. That said, the GM should be sure you give them the information their characters would know, so they can make decisions from their characters’ perspectives. Don’t expect them to read the GM’s mind, and if there’s been a miscommunication, it’s okay to allow a slight retcon, if the issue is addressed before much else happens. If ongoing game events have built upon the miscommunication, it may simply be necessary to leave it as is and explain it away some other way. Asking everybody to re-imagine an entire session’s worth of events is just too jarring for immersion, and it’s often the lesser of two evils to let the bad decision stand.

The GM as Player

In a way, the GM is a player, playing not a single character, but the world itself, specifically those parts of it that most focus on the player characters. The GM should leave some parts of world creation open-ended and wrap them around the PC’s, so that there will be relevant things happening and relevant people whose actions will impact the PC’s. Generally, it helps if the PC’s are part of some community or organization with inherent goals and conflicts. This isn’t just creating a sandbox, although that does sort of apply, but creating a setting in which the PC’s will be inherently engaged in what’s going on.

For example, five noble houses rule the city-state of Cassa, held together by a tenuous peace punctuated by scheming, assassination, and the constant threat of vendetta and war (Cassa is based on Renaissance Italian city-states as reported by professional historians like Muir, contemporaries like Machiavelli and, to a lesser extent, the Italian plays of William Shakespeare). If the PC’s are from Cassan noble houses, or even connected to them in some way, they will have patrons within, enemies without and within, and the danger of the city erupting into a fury of vendettas and house wars to keep them busy, even if no outside threat appears. And outside threats to a city can always appear.

In one of my two most successful Tarafore campaigns, two PC’s were nobles from different houses, who were close friends and colleagues despite their respective houses’ differences. A third PC was an assassin and spy in the service of the first PC, a fourth PC was introduced by a trusted NPC a couple of (real-time) months after the game had begun, and a fifth was the son of the second PC. They were all heavily invested in the city, even though they had different personal agendas and sometimes conflicting loyalties. The major NPC’s all had clear opinions (often wrong opinions) about the PC’s, and the reverse was also true. I played the NPC’s as honestly as I could, and the players played their PC’s the same way. The game practically wrote itself.

In the other long-running and well-loved Tarafore campaign, Medina was being hunted by bounty hunters, Lucius Senecus wanted to redeem his family and regain his fortunes as Nova Roman nobility, and Tomas wanted to find his roots and family. The other characters joined up with them, and those driving forces were more than enough to keep the game moving. As the GM, I did have to do more prep work for that game as it went along, but that’s fine.

It’s entirely possible to do a mission of the week (even monster of the week) game in a Simulationist-Immersive style, so long as the PC’s have a good reason to be involved in continual detective work, monster hunting work, or whatever, and the ongoing events are resolved in an authentic, internally-consistent way, no matter how things end up.

Assumption Clashes

As Paul DuPont pointed out, there can often be a disconnect between how the player and GM perceive a situation, realism-wise. You can see our short discussion of it here.

Long story short, I think that the most important ways to avoid assumption clashes are to keep the lines of communication open. You can usually tell if somebody is taken aback by a decision, difficulty number, or description. The time to break character and have the conversation is right then. It could be that the player knows a lot more than either the GM or the game designer about whatever it is her PC is attempting, and that information could be useful in making the game more accurate and preserving the player’s sense of immersion.

That said, it really helps if the game is at least somewhat abstract. This not only keeps the players from over-focusing on the game mechanics, but prevents the situation in which the game designer wrote a detailed, complex game mechanic about something he only thought he understood. As soon as a player comes along who really understands the topic, immersion is broken, heads hit desks, and faces hit palms. Keeping the game mechanics somewhat abstract also helps when the “truth” is controversial or undecided.

It also helps if you’re willing to retcon a slight amount of play-time, to reverse a very recent decision, as GM. It breaks immersion too much if you have to retcon an event whose consequences have already been felt and explored, but if it just happened, and it was wrong, fix it. This isn’t 1979, and this isn’t a D&D tournament with a prize for the winner.

It also falls on the GM to try to gain a fairly broad knowledge base about things that may come up in the game. A well-made game can help with this, but no game designer can think of everything. Be willing to improvise, abstract, and research. And always, above all things, keep the lines of communication open with your players.

Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying will only work if the players and GM are mature enough and on good enough terms to trust each other and treat each other with respect. Some groups have an antagonistic vibe, and, to be honest, may not be a good fit for this play style. That’s not an insult toward them; there’s no wrong way to play, so long as you’re all having fun. But respectful, honest communication and cooperation between players and GM is absolutely key to Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying.

The Human Factor

Playing immersively creates a more intense connection between the player and the character, which can mean that some in-game events can become too intense. While a Call of Cthulhu player whose character loses Sanity Points will react to that by playing as if the character is insane, an immersed player will experience their character’s reactions to traumatic events more personally. This will lead to less predictable outcomes, to be sure, but it may also create emotional pain or distress for the player.

Now, intensity is part of the point of Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying, but there comes a point at which things stop being fun. That point will be different with different groups and players. In my experience, most simulationists already know this, but I’ll say it anyway: Remember that first and foremost, you’re gaming with people, and they are more important than the “high art of roleplaying.”

Final Thoughts

It’s widely known that there are three key elements of a successful roleplaying experience: Communication, Communication, and Communication (pizza helps, too). Communication is the key to avoiding and resolving assumption clashes, ensuring that the human factor is a good thing instead of a problem, ensuring that players’ perceptions match their characters, and even keeping the pacing going smoothly.

I’ve said this before, but it needs to be said again. It’s absolutely imperative that the players understand where everyone stands. Everyone needs to be on-board with the play style, and know that they’re going to have to be responsible for what happens, from an in-character perspective. There won’t be an outside narrative to move things along, so if they choose to do nothing and wait on the story hook to drag them into adventure, it’s going to be a boring game for everyone. Not every player has to play from the Immersive (Deep In-Character) stance, but they have to know how the GM is going to be running the game.

To be fair, this mis-match should be avoided in any case. There’s nothing quite so frustrating to a White Wolf-style “Storyteller” than a “munchkin” (that is, a gamist player who didn’t get the ‘we’re real roleplayers here, and we’re trying to tell a story,’ memo and is still playing to win), except maybe a “‘it’s what my character would really do’ jerk” (simulationist and/or immersive player who’s doing his best to stay completely in-character, and isn’t jumping into the preplanned plot). And heaven help the sucker who tries to play Tomb of Horrors while immersed in character.

Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying, in addition to being difficult to type repeatedly (try it sometime: I keep typing “Immserive” instead of Immersive), is emergent, even more so than other play styles. The GM can prepare, but the game happens as it happens, based on internally consistent interactions between the PC’s, NPC’s, and game world as a whole … and neither the players nor the GM have any real mechanisms to pull this back toward the plan. Of course, that authentic unpredictability is a large part of the fun, but it means you have to have a greater tolerance for chaos and uncertainty than you would, say, in a gamist campaign (in which the GM can pull out a backup dungeon or backup adventure, change some names, and roll on), or even a dramatist/narrativist game wherein the GM and players can pull things back to a point of narrative sense, if they wish.

This emergent play style is off-putting to many people, at least at first. It’s important to keep in mind that not knowing what’s going to happen is part of the fun. Simulationism, like digital simulations (as opposed to video games), provides a safe place to try things out that might be disastrous if tried in the real world, to do things we physically can’t do in the real world, and to watch it all unfold in all its glory, infamy, or banality.

In the next few months, I’ll get into the nitty-gritty of game mechanics, discuss character creation and world-building, and provide examples of different complexity and crunch levels within a Simulationist-Immersive Roleplaying game. I have the bulk of these articles written, but, keeping with the emergent nature of the play style, I reserve the right to alter, rearrange, and rewrite in response to the ongoing conversations in the comments.

See you next month, and have a happy New Year!