This leads me to think that we should stick with “authoring games” as a broad category clustering “works that provide the means to create but with the introduction of game-like obstacles,” and then “authoring sim games” as a sub-category clustering “works that provide the means to create, with the inclusion of game-like obstacles, specifically obstacles which simulate those encountered in the process of creating.”

?

Consider this article by Noah and David Durand which also uses the term “authoring games.” Does “Cardplay” meet our criteria? The final text is not portable. Hmm, Jeremy might have some insights here.

So do we need a discrete end product?

I keep coming back to Authoring-Sim-Game, Authorware-Sim-Game, or Authoring Games.

More thoughts?

This makes sense in the context of this discussion, but I think if it were released more widely people would [maybe] just confuse it with sims more generally? Someone could say that Sim City simulates the “creation” of a city, even though that city is not “content” in the sense that we are using it in this thread.

I think you were right earlier when you said that the important part is that these programs both allow a user to create things, and simulate the hardships involved in that kind of creation. Unfortunately that makes only for unweildy acronyms like CPCSGs [Content-Producing Creation-Simulating Games]? Maybe better is to condense Mark’s original description–”authorware-sim game”–into just “authoring games,” which doesn’t sound too bad to me..?