The Forge Archives

I boldly propose in this thread that the Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth.

I list the following links that posters should read and be familiar with before those who wish to comment on this provisional assertion actually do so.  Before anyone responds to this thread please read and take the time to understand the following four articles (I got the count right this time!)  –[list=1]

• On Charitable Reading (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13096).  Read this post first.
• Next read the article Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html).  Unless I'm the only moron here, it will take more than one day to read and understand the article as it took me several days to read and process it.  Read this article while keeping in mind the principles espoused in the post on Charitable Reading.
• Next read this thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10283)
• Finally read the thread On RPGs and Text [LONG] (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13560).[/list:o]The pivotal ideas of Bricolage and myth are discussed in great detail in these three threads and article.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't find the subject matter all that easy, so again I plead, please take the time to read and understand the material, as it is absolutely vital to this thread.
  
  So... any comments?

Well, only a "me too".

That is I think this is a useful distinction to draw.  I agree that Story is used far too widely - I am dubious that a group of Simmers set out to creat or appreciate Story, even though all too often this is how the statement would be expressed.  Story ahs acquired a virtuous ring, both in our media-saturated world as a whole and in our little RPG corner.  I hope this will result in fewer presumptions of story and more willingness to disengage from story as an express goal.

Second, the identifyication of the process of bricolage allows I hope some opportunity to examine the way in which Potential Setting is transformed into actual gaming situation, as discussed on other threads.  As a sally in that direction, I think we can see from bricolage principles that a heavy determinant in what gets picked up and used in actual game play is what is known to be available - that is, what exists in the bricoleurs available materials.  I would think the appropriate methodology for controlling this process would include selection or winnowing of the available objects and perhaps signposting some of them as more or less available or important.

Yah. Mostly "me too." As I commented to Chris Lehrich in one of the threads that spawned this, I feel like I really need to go back to the literature and study up a bit before having a lot that's really rigorous to say.

However, I think it's dangerously reductionist to say that Sim is bricolage. More that bricolage is the primary thing that's going on in Sim play (but it happens in all CAs!). Don't forget highly Illusionist Sim play, for example, where the GM is really the only bricoleur at the table. The typically lopsided distribution of credibility in Sim play means that not all participants are equally engaged in myth-making - some are recipients (critical ones, to be sure) of the myth-product.

I think this is what's intended by Chris' notion of Sim as being a rather "abashed" sort of myth-making - it tends to reify the symbols it uses so much that the "playful" and creative aspects of bricolage are difficult to sustain.

Provisionally, though, I think it's valuable to see the the "confirmation of input" referred to by Ron through the myth-making lens.

Best,

Mark

Hi Jay,

I think you are in the position I was in back in 1999 or so. No matter how well (or badly, in my case) one articulates the process of creating stories in a mindful fashion, the argument will never convince anyone not to use the term "story creation" to describe their role-playing. The term simply has too much status associated with it, as Gareth has pointed out. Also, a focus on stories as product rather than process is nearly impossible to parse out through dialogue, especially if the person is ferociously defending his or her perceived status as an author of stories.

If we all, here at the Forge, suddenly found ourselves singing "Sim is bricolage, Nar is story-making" in harmony, it wouldn't change a thing - it would only be throwing up a wall in the faces of those role-players who, in all fairness, are using Sim play to make stories - just in retrospect or in pre-play prep, with the actual role-playing being essentially Color.

Perhaps at this point, it is best merely to enjoy the conclusion you've arrived at, recognize that it's certainly compatible with the existing theory, and then later, see if the term "bricolage" and similar become slowly incorporated into the jargon as (and if) they prove themselves necessary and useful.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: SilmenumeI boldly propose in this thread that the Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth.

I find the term unfortunate because I've never come across it and I had to look it up in a dictionary.

But then,
(a) this may a bonus (because an outlandish word carries no baggage)
and
(b) I'm not a native speaker (i.e., it may not be as outlandish a word as I think).

I personally like the idea - Ron's, I think - of calling it *celebrationism*.

Regards,

Hal

I guess then that I'll be the first one to step out and disagree with this, if only in part.  But before I can get to the meat of my disagreement, I'm first going to analyze the concept of CA.  

The different Creative Agendas, are all, at base, attempts to answer the question What is fun about gaming?  More precisely, the question that CAs answer is What is fun, in and of itself?.  For an immersive Narrativist, his use of immersion is just a technique he uses to address Premise.  So while his use of immersion is fun, it is not fun in and of itself; hence Narrativism's defining features do not include immersion.  To the extent that our player finds immersion fun in and of itself, she is playing in the mode of a Creative Agenda other than Narrativism.  

But Creative Agendas are more than just answers to the question 'What is fun, in and of itself?'  If that was all there was to CA, we would have many many different CAs -- there would be one CA for players who get their fun from competing against the other players, and one CA for players who compete as a team against the difficulties that the GM has placed before them.  In fact, both of these are examples of the Gamist CA.  What draws them together is that they are both examples of the same class of answers to the question 'what is fun about gaming, in and of itself?'   CAs are essentially categories of different kinds of fun.  This makes sense:  the purpose of the CA categories is to help design fun games; by distinguishing what the different kinds of fun are, we can make our game designs to cater to them.  

Now, this is usually what people here seem to be talking about when they talk about CA.  But, then again, they often seem to be talking about techniques or processes.  I suspect that's just the occasional carelessness -- but I'm not really certain I've got this down yet.  

How about I give an example that might make the difference clear?

------------------------------------

Here's how I'm thinking one should make a CA categorization:  

Let's look at a couple of players that I know.  I have GMed for them, so I know something of their preferences – though it did take me a bit of time to figure them out.  I think that what these two players want from gaming is the feeling of empowerment.  One of them has said as much; he wants to feel empowered in gaming as an escape from his daily life, where he feels powerless.  This is an internal reward, based on the player's identifying with the character – player empowerment in the game has a low priority with them (one of them practically demands participationism or illusionism).  

How do we classify their preferred CA?  

First we should determine if CA classification is in order – is there a reason why they are gaming, rather than watching a movie?  I think so; no other medium offers the same potential for identifying yourself with a fictional character.  

They don't qualify as Narrativist, because they are not gaming to address issues, but rather to escape and avoid them.  

They don't qualify as Gamist, because they are not in it for competitive or other social rewards.  They are both more than happy to play powerful characters facing paltry resistance – and still revel in their success.  

They don't want myth.  They don't care about myth.  What they want is feelings of empowerment; myth is simply a useful tool to give them this.  So they are not Simulationist as defined here.  

What they really want is to heavily identify with a character who is successful and powerful – but how can we generalize this into a CA?  I've only got one idea, and I'm not sure it's a good one.  But here goes:

We could simply call their CA "Escapism" and be done, but that's unsatisfying – the whole point of CAs is to generalize into broad classes so that we don't have 57 CA's (and counting).  Another angle would be to focus on the "identifying with a character" part in the above description and say that what they really value is Immersion.  The relationship here is correct:  "Attaining Feelings of Empowerment" is a subset of "Immersion".    

Let's compare these people with the "Hard Core Immersives".  I've known several of them, though I've never gamed with one for very long.  As near as I can tell, what they really want out of gaming is to be feeling & thinking what their character would feel & think.  This is fun for them – and not just as a means to attain some other goals which are fun, it is fun in and of itself.  Nearly everything else about gaming is, to hard core immersives, merely a technique to achieve immersion.  

It's possible that these two groups share the same CA.  They both get their fun directly from identifying with their character.  

Note also that some people use immersion as a technique to achieve Myth-making.  These people are operating under the Simulationist CA (as defined here) and not the Immersion CA.  Probably many of these people both view immersion as direct fun, and as a technique to indirect fun via myth-making.  That means that they have more than one active CA.  I don't think that poses any problems for the Big Model.  

------------------------------------------

If we define the Simulation CA as simply "the process of bricolage", then I think we lose the difference between someone who thinks that bricolage is fun in and of itself, and the immersives that I have described above – and I think that's an important distinction, especially as regards game design.  The objective, presumably, is to design games that are fun.  The best way to do this is to have a good idea of what is fun, for the game's target audience.  I think that defining sim as

Quote
I boldly propose in this thread that the Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth.

misses this key distinction.  A better definition would be to define the Simulationist agenda as 'finding fun in the process of Bricolage itself rather than in any results that it brings.'

Quote from: Lee Short
If we define the Simulation CA as simply "the process of bricolage", then I think we lose the difference between someone who thinks that bricolage is fun in and of itself, and the immersives that I have described above – and I think that's an important distinction, especially as regards game design.  The objective, presumably, is to design games that are fun.  The best way to do this is to have a good idea of what is fun, for the game's target audience.  I think that defining sim as

Quote
I boldly propose in this thread that the Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth.

misses this key distinction.  A better definition would be to define the Simulationist agenda as 'finding fun in the process of Bricolage itself rather than in any results that it brings.'

I'm still analyzing the rest of the post, which I think is very good, but I noted Jay did say this in the other thread:

Quote
   * Gamism: The process of addressing challenge -> Effective Strategy/Victory
   * Narrativism: The process of addressing premise -> Theme/Story
   * Simulationism: The process of Bricolage -> Myth

Which I think would mean that, in fact, Sim enjoys Bricolage and Myth is the byproduct the same way that Story is the byproduct of Nar, not the point of play. I think that's part of his formulation.

-Marco

I dont have time to fully reply to this right now but I do want to make a few points.


First as Clerich pointed out in his post on myth sim does not create myth it may attempt it but it fails.  

Second myth  is an attempt to retell actual events in an artistic (if not dramatic) manner using objects that bring pre-existing meanings to the tale told.  It has a story as it's basis.  I question whether sim has any more focus on the meaning of the objects that appear in game then either gamism or narrativism do.

My conclusion would be that while sim may follow the form of myth, wandering seemingly meaningless storys that do have meaning for the participants, it fails to fulfill the function of myth.

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI think you are in the position I was in back in 1999 or so. No matter how well (or badly, in my case) one articulates the process of creating stories in a mindful fashion, the argument will never convince anyone not to use the term "story creation" to describe their role-playing. The term simply has too much status associated with it, as Gareth has pointed out. Also, a focus on stories as product rather than process is nearly impossible to parse out through dialogue, especially if the person is ferociously defending his or her perceived status as an author of stories.

All the more reason not to apply it.  However, I'm not just arguing semantics here, I am proposing a real and substantially different model (paradigm?) to the discussion of Sim.  I understand your point that people will use the term "story" out of habit, and that trying to break such habits is mostly an exercise in futility.  My point was that because people were using the word "story" in conjunction with Sim it followed that they would also apply the model of "story" to understanding/describing Sim.  The fact that Sim was identified (incorrectly in my opinion) with story distracted the debates and smothered the investigatory process.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIf we all, here at the Forge, suddenly found ourselves singing "Sim is bricolage, Nar is story-making" in harmony, it wouldn't change a thing - it would only be throwing up a wall in the faces of those role-players who, in all fairness, are using Sim play to make stories - just in retrospect or in pre-play prep, with the actual role-playing being essentially Color.

That's just a silly argument.  Why would that understanding "throw up a wall?"  Just because something is made understandable or something's inner working are fathomed does not prohibit people from doing what they were doing before?  Let me turn this around a bit.  If we don't say "Sim is bricolage" and "Nar is story-making" what about that wall that is in the face of all those role-players who are engaging in the mythic process?  However, I will in time argue that play that limits player input (whether voluntary or not) to Color is not Sim.  That is yet another problem that has plagued the Sim debates.  If players are engaged in bricolage they, by definition, cannot be limited to only Color any more than a Nar player addressing Premise can be or a Gam player addressing Challenge can be without deprotagonization.

This is where the double standard of the discussion of Sim rears its unwanted head.  In both Gam and Nar players are understood and expected to have an impact on Situation.  IOW the players are doing something substantial to the events in the SIS, not just passengers to the process.  Sim should not be held to any different standard.  If CA is defined by what process the players are engaging (the process of addressing Premise/Challenge or Bricolage), the it follows that by engaging they are affecting.  Color by the glossary definition is specifically devoid of any affect on Situation (action or resolution).  IOW such play is more or less akin to listening to someone else (the GM) read a script while the audience (the players) adds some flourishes with affecting the conclusion at all.

This type of play in considered dysfunction in Nar and I believe it is called Typhoid Mary.  In Gamism such "Color" limited play totally robs the players of Step on Up and is too considered dysfunction.  So to me it seems just as dysfunctional to lump such play in with Sim and call it functional as the Big Model rests on the proposition that player input should affect Situation.  Addressing Premise or Challenge presupposes that the players are going to have an effect on the Situation that precipitated the conflicts being labeled as Premise or Challenge in the first place.  IOW if the players only had input on Color, then they are not doing much more than watching a movie or a play.  I am not decrying such play as "bad", I'm just saying that it does not fit with the positivist nature of the model or at certainly at least not with the positivist nature of Creative Agenda.

Certainly Sim players would like a wall put up between them and Nar and Gam players when they are trying to play.  Are Nar players or Gam players offended by that on a conceptual level?  I don't think so.  Sim players want to play with other player who want to play Sim and Nar players want to play with other players who want to play Nar and Gam...  I know as a Sim player I would go just a batty as a Gam or Nar player limited to only color input.  Conversely as a Sim player I would not want anyone at the table who is not contributing the collective process of Bricolage – be that Gam/Nar (the wrong CA) or just adding Color (not engaging in Bricolage).  For that matter I don't thing a group of Gam or Nar players would want a player who is not engaging the CA process at their game as well.  This "Color" limited play is what Walt referred to as "Zilchplay."  Granted the term carries negative connotations and could possibly be renamed something more less disagreeable (recreational play, filmic play, conflict free play, neutralplay, baseplay, etc.), but point still holds.  Sim needs to be divested of this paradigm of play as well.  Bricolage is no more compatible with Zilchplay than addressing Challenge or Premise.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsPerhaps at this point, it is best merely to enjoy the conclusion you've arrived at, recognize that it's certainly compatible with the existing theory, and then later, see if the term "bricolage" and similar become slowly incorporated into the jargon as (and if) they prove themselves necessary and useful.

To reiterate, I'm not so wound up with the vocabulary as I am with presenting a model for discussion.  This model happens to be called Bricolage.  I grump about story and the careless (non-rigorous) way the term gets tossed around which inevitably leads to the careless employment of it as an all encompassing model.

At least that is what I am trying to accomplish by my proposition – model not jargon.

Hiya Hal,

Quote from: HalzebierI find the term [Bricolage] unfortunate because I've never come across it and I had to look it up in a dictionary.

I apologize for that.  I should have provided a gloss for the term.  I am working to present one as soon as possible.

No, the word is not English, and until I read it in some posts only a few short months ago, it was as alien to me as it is to you.  If you wish make the effort to read Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html) and Not Lectures on Theory [Long] (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10283) they have sections that describe Bricolage.

Quote from: HalzebierI personally like the idea - Ron's, I think - of calling it *celebrationism*.

There is nothing about the process of Bricolage and "celebarationism" that preclude one another.  The difference between this that the former is the main "process" of play, while the latter is what is motivating the players to play.  For example Gamism could be described as the celebration of Step on Up while Narrativism could be described as the celebration of Story.  So while it is perfectly legitimate to say the players are celebrating something, the term "celebrationism" is insufficient to describe what the players are actually doing at the table – addressing Challenge, Premise or Step on Up.

Hey Lee,

Quote from: Lee Short

Quote from: Silmenume
I boldly propose in this thread that the Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth.

misses this key distinction.  A better definition would be to define the Simulationist agenda as 'finding fun in the process of Bricolage itself rather than in any results that it brings.'

For my reply to this I shall quote Marco...

Quote from: Marco

Quote from: Silmenume
   * Gamism: The process of addressing challenge -> Effective Strategy/Victory
   * Narrativism: The process of addressing premise -> Theme/Story
   * Simulationism: The process of Bricolage -> Myth

Which I think would mean that, in fact, Sim enjoys Bricolage and Myth is the byproduct the same way that Story is the byproduct of Nar, not the point of play. I think that's part of his formulation.

-Marco

... who very effectively represented my intentions.

As to the rest of your post, it is beyond the scope of this particular thread.  Feel free to start a new one if you wish, there are those would appreciate such a discussion, Marco certainly being one.

Hey Caldis,

Quote from: CaldisFirst as Clerich pointed out in his post on myth sim does not create myth it may attempt it but it fails.

I can't answer for Chris with any authority, but I will hazard that your summation of his point is a little of target.  Chris claimed Sim must ultimately fail at myth not because what Sim is making and myth do not match, but rather because myth must grow to consume everything (be unlimited in scope – explain everything!) while Sim is inherently limited in scope.

Quote from: CaldisSecond myth is an attempt to retell actual events in an artistic (if not dramatic) manner using objects that bring pre-existing meanings to the tale told.  It has a story as it's basis.

Actually this is incorrect. Myth is not an attempt to retell actual events aesthetically, myth is a process who purpose is so out and provide solutions to problems.  Look at the example of Bororo myth.  Its not a recounting of anything that happened at all, but is the working out of a problem.  Here is a link to that particular post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=144557#144557) which also has the added virtue of containing a brief explanation of what myth is and does.  One of the most telling points about myth is that it is typically utterly non-moral or ethical in character.  IOW myths don't ruminate on social morals issues but provide practical solutions to problems.  Also note the complete lack of narrative structure in the provided example.  Also here is a link (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=145243&highlight=euhemerism#145243) where Chris lists the various kinds of myth.

Quote from: CaldisMy conclusion would be that while sim may follow the form of myth, wandering seemingly meaningless storys that do have meaning for the participants, it fails to fulfill the function of myth.

"Wandering seemingly meaningless stories" is inherently incorrect in that myth is not story in either form or function.  As far as fulfilling the function of myth I think too that is in error, what Chris seems to be saying, at least to me, is that Sim must ultimately fails to reach the scope and pervasiveness that myth must attain.

Ulitmately, though, it will be up to Chris to defend his positions.

I think my problem with this still remains: I don't see a distinguishing case between your scenario and Narrativist play.

QuoteAn example from the previous Myth Thread
To demonstrate how social structures can overlap and collide, suppose the mugger was the police officer's friend. Let us also say that the victim was some punk kid who was the son of powerful and corrupt nobleman who was making life very hard for his brother. So here we have this police officer who is a member of that structure know as the police, who's relationship to that structure known as victim is both profession and antagonistic (which also means that police officer has a relationship to that structure known as lord of his brother), and who has a relationship to that structure known as criminal element that is called friend. All those relationships define the police officer's character.

If the player is engaged by this as though he were the police officer making a tortous choice based on factors like loyalty, kinship, and a sense of justice (even if the player didn't articulate all of them) I can't see this being anything but Narrativist.

The fact that the 'heat' of the Premise comes from social structures doesn't, to me, make any discernable difference.

I can see it being 'sim play' if the player is not connecting with these issues in any strong sense (since that's part of the Nar definition) but that's it.

I don't see an element to distinguish this from Narrativist play.

We might want to take this issue to another thread since I suspect it could get lengthy.

-Marco

Hey Marco,

Quote from: MarcoI think my problem with this still remains: I don't see a distinguishing case between your scenario and Narrativist play.

QuoteAn example from the previous Myth Thread
To demonstrate how social structures can overlap and collide, suppose the mugger was the police officer's friend. Let us also say that the victim was some punk kid who was the son of powerful and corrupt nobleman who was making life very hard for his brother. So here we have this police officer who is a member of that structure know as the police, who's relationship to that structure known as victim is both profession and antagonistic (which also means that police officer has a relationship to that structure known as lord of his brother), and who has a relationship to that structure known as criminal element that is called friend. All those relationships define the police officer's character.

If the player is engaged by this as though he were the police officer making a tortous choice based on factors like loyalty, kinship, and a sense of justice (even if the player didn't articulate all of them) I can't see this being anything but Narrativist.

I am rather confused about how you can determine what CA is in operation here.  Just as Ron had indicated in his Narrativism essay, just looking at a situation indicates NOTHING about what the players are doing.  It is ONLY by virtue of what the players are doing about those conflicts that conflicts can be sorted into CA categories.  Since all that I have given you is fabula, it is impossible to determine what CA is in operation.

Remember – Narrativism is not defined by Premise rather it is defined by the addressing of Premise.  It is categorically impossible to identify the CA of a conflict without the syuzhet – the player actions which demonstrate how they feel about or react to the conflict.

CA can only be found in the syuzhet.  I have only given you the fabula.  That you see Premise in there is because that is how YOU are perceiving the situation IOW Mapping your preferences upon the situation, not because there is something that is inherent to the situation.

Look at the following from the Narrativism essay –

QuoteLet's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.

Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home.[/list:u]The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is,

absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three...

There were conflicts and the conflicts were addressed.  However, because we don't know how the players responded to the conflicts we can't say whether the players played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist.  Since we don't know what CA's the player's were engaging, we cannot say how they were engaging the conflicts.  Thus we can't say from what CA perspective those conflicts were attended to.  Only players have CA's, not conflicts!

IOW without player feedback we cannot say what CA any conflict belongs to.  Actually, my phrasing here is misleading and I think this is the very trap everyone keeps falling into.  Conflicts don't have CA's nor can they be categorized by CA by some inherent trait, rather players approach conflicts and exhibit an observable/categorizable CA as they engage them.

Thus I can only offer the explanation that you see Premise because you want to see a Premise; especially because it cannot be inherently present.

Quote from: MarcoI can see it being 'sim play' if the player is not connecting with these issues in any strong sense (since that's part of the Nar definition) but that's it.

Will a Gamist defending player please step up and indicate (in another thread please) that they too connect with their CA process – that being the Challenge.  A Narrativist must connect with Premise or play will not function well.  A gamist must connect with Challenge or play will not function well.  I defy any player who has a favorite mode of CA expression to say they do not connect with their CA's conflict of preference.  Ron, I believe (I cannot say that I can assert this with any authority) is not saying that connection is definitional or identifiable of Narrativist play, but rather that enjoyable Narrativist games must have Premises that the player can connect with.  A Simulationist connects with the setting and the cultures within that setting and how they interact.

Quote from: MarcoThe fact that the 'heat' of the Premise comes from social structures doesn't, to me, make any discernable difference.

There is no premise here.  Two social structures are NOT problematic human issues.  Is a government a problematic human issue?  Is a marriage a problematic human issue?  Are courtship rituals a problematic human issue?  Is a family a problematic human issue?  No.  Social structures can become the source of a problematic human issue, but in and of themselves social structures are not problematic human issues.

Simulationism is concerned with the sorting of these social structures, it is not concerned with the human issues that may arise or surround them.

Quote from: Silmenume
I am rather confused about how you can determine what CA is in operation here.  Just as Ron had indicated in his Narrativism essay, just looking at a situation indicates NOTHING about what the players are doing.  It is ONLY by virtue of what the players are doing about those conflicts that conflicts can be sorted into CA categories.  Since all that I have given you is fabula, it is impossible to determine what CA is in operation.

Remember – Narrativism is not defined by Premise rather it is defined by the addressing of Premise.  It is categorically impossible to identify the CA of a conflict without the syuzhet – the player actions which demonstrate how they feel about or react to the conflict.

(Emphasis added)
Right, and I did specify this:

Quote
If the player is engaged by this as though he were the police officer making a tortous choice based on factors like loyalty, kinship, and a sense of justice (even if the player didn't articulate all of them) I can't see this being anything but Narrativist.

and

Quote
I can see it being 'sim play' if the player is not connecting with these issues in any strong sense (since that's part of the Nar definition) but that's it.

If the player, himself, is affected as though he were the police officer in the situation, I can't see how that isn't Premise. If the player is affected as a sociologist examining a report, that might be Sim--but I thought you'd told me differently in PM's. If the player is affected as a sportsman, trying to pick which choice will get him more cred, that's more Gamist.

I was basing this problem on the idea that you told me that the 'player suffers right along with the [police officer]' (a paraphrase from a PM discussion) in Sim play. I think if the player is suffering as the police officer and taking actions because of it, then the suffering is caused by a rich, primise-based problem.

If the player really is examining social structures, like a sociologist (the player maybe rates 'strength of loyalty' numerically and compares it to 'sense of justice' and then makes a decison), then, yes, I could see that being Sim.

-Marco

Jay:

QuoteTwo social structures are NOT problematic human issues. Is a government a problematic human issue? Is a marriage a problematic human issue? Are courtship rituals a problematic human issue? Is a family a problematic human issue? No. Social structures can become the source of a problematic human issue, but in and of themselves social structures are not problematic human issues.

Simulationism is concerned with the sorting of these social structures, it is not concerned with the human issues that may arise or surround them.

Sorting social structures - "how do family and government overlap and collide?" for instance - is absolutely a problematic human issue.

Have you read Sex and Sorcery?

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpleySorting social structures - "how do family and government overlap and collide?" for instance - is absolutely a problematic human issue.

When they collide continually and for many people, yes.  But the point I am making is the Sim player is not interested in "how do family and government overlap" as a representation or a generalizable human issue.  There is no intrinsic punch to that idea as a human issue.  Just like in myths the deal with such problems as procreation rules, i.e. incest, they are not taking a stand on the ethics of such a problem, but rather they are creating a system of behavior so that incest doesn't become a future problem.

Your phrasing "how do family and government overlap and collide" is a structure that you created that put all the elements into a Premise question.  You placed your structure on the elements of the situation which made it into a generalizable human (kind) issue, but I did not.

Doesn't anyone see that happening?  Every time someone sees the situation that I had presented, that everyone who claimed it was Premise had to add something (including the structure of a question) that isn't there?  Sim doesn't add that extra layer to conceptualize or organize the situation into Challenge or Premise.

I think before any one else claims that there is Premise present, they should look long and hard and see how they are adding a layer of perception to the situation to conform it to Premise or Challenge.  All I've given is naked situation. Not one bit more.  All I have listed was the elements of the Situation, it is up to the posters to organize it into a form that suits your CA approach to conflict.

Quote from: Silmenume
Doesn't anyone see that happening?  Every time someone sees the situation that I had presented, that everyone who claimed it was Premise had to add something (including the structure of a question) that isn't there?  Sim doesn't add that extra layer to conceptualize or organize the situation into Challenge or Premise.

I think before any one else claims that there is Premise present, they should look long and hard and see how they are adding a layer of perception to the situation to conform it to Premise or Challenge.  All I've given is naked situation. Not one bit more.  All I have listed was the elements of the Situation, it is up to the posters to organize it into a form that suits your CA approach to conflict.

What I'm not sure of is how to picture the Sim-player playing. Is he kind of pondering going:
"Hmm, I think the cop values the social connection of friends and a societal sense of justice in way that the victim isn't really all that innocent, and I rate that against how one measures the societal value of duty to his job ..."

Then, yes, I would call that an analysis of social structures outside of viewing the situation as a human issue.

As I said, I could buy that--I had thought the immersed Sim player was said to "suffer right along with" the character. That's what confused me. Do I have that right?

-Marco

Actually I got it from this:

QuoteAn example from the previous Myth Thread
To demonstrate how social structures can overlap and collide, suppose the mugger was the police officer's friend. Let us also say that the victim was some punk kid who was the son of powerful and corrupt nobleman who was making life very hard for his brother. So here we have this police officer who is a member of that structure know as the police, who's relationship to that structure known as victim is both profession and antagonistic (which also means that police officer has a relationship to that structure known as lord of his brother), and who has a relationship to that structure known as criminal element that is called friend. All those relationships define the police officer's character.

My emphasis.

This of yours:

Quote...they are not taking a stand on the ethics of such a problem, but rather they are creating a system of behavior so that incest doesn't become a future problem.

Makes no sense to me. How is creating a system of behavior so that incest doesn't become a future problem not taking a stand on the ethics of incest? How on earth else would you take a stand on the ethics of incest?

-Vincent

I'm mostly with Jay on this one, but you've got to read that line charitably, Vincent. What Jay seems to be trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) descriptive organization is not the same as prescriptive organization. I would have chosen the term "morals" where Jay chose the term "ethics," personally. Ethics, according to my profesor of ethics (gotta love seminary training...), is simply an organization of behavior. Morality is the motive behind the ethic.

How is not the same as why. How social structures overlap and collide is not nearly as problematic a human issue as why social structures overlap and collide.

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: CaldisSecond myth is an attempt to retell actual events in an artistic (if not dramatic) manner using objects that bring pre-existing meanings to the tale told.  It has a story as it's basis.

Actually this is incorrect. Myth is not an attempt to retell actual events aesthetically, myth is a process who purpose is so out and provide solutions to problems.  Look at the example of Bororo myth.  Its not a recounting of anything that happened at all, but is the working out of a problem.  Here is a link to that particular post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=144557#144557) which also has the added virtue of containing a brief explanation of what myth is and does.  One of the most telling points about myth is that it is typically utterly non-moral or ethical in character.  IOW myths don't ruminate on social morals issues but provide practical solutions to problems.  Also note the complete lack of narrative structure in the provided example.  Also here is a link (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=145243&highlight=euhemerism#145243) where Chris lists the various kinds of myth.

Note that Bororo myth is just a transcript, we have no idea of it's purpose or meaning.

I think a problem you will have in using the term myth is that the definition of the word is as muddy as that of story.  Looking at your second link and the different types of myth we continue down to the term myth used in conjunction with three different stories , so does myth mean recreating the grand system of myth or trying to recreate a play experience like one of the stories?  

If you continue reading down that thread you'll also notice that I ask Chris how these myths are created.  Specifically he mentioned the myth of Haniwele (also in that second post you linked to) where the Ceramese meet the dutch.  I questioned whether the Ceramese would create the myth to decide how to act towards the dutch or if it was an after the fact creation.  He replied that the second was correct, they were telling a story that retold the events in an artistic manner that brought meaning to the events.   It wasnt an attempt to decide how to act but a tale that told how they acted.

If it's trying to decide how to act then, as Mike Holmes was arguing in that thread, it's just another form of narrativism.

Quote from: CaldisMy conclusion would be that while sim may follow the form of myth, wandering seemingly meaningless storys that do have meaning for the participants, it fails to fulfill the function of myth.

Quote"Wandering seemingly meaningless stories" is inherently incorrect in that myth is not story in either form or function.  As far as fulfilling the function of myth I think too that is in error, what Chris seems to be saying, at least to me, is that Sim must ultimately fails to reach the scope and pervasiveness that myth must attain.

Ulitmately, though, it will be up to Chris to defend his positions.

Story is a broad term and myth requires them in at least the transcript of events form.  Sim fails at myth because the items brought into the game do not necessarily have meaning for the player whereas for the mythmaker everything they use is used to bring a meaning into the myth.  

On a different note. I personally believe the Sim essay as it stands does an excellent job of defining Sim.  One of it's strengths is that is has plenty of textual evidence from published games to support it's points.  I know that kind of evidence isn't something that one can pull out at a moments notice but it's something that will lend strength to your position.  If Myth and Bricolage are to become useful terms in the long run finding the evidence in gaming texts or in actual play will be necessary.  That may be the next step for the debate, find text and bring it here.

Hullo Marco,

Quote from: Marco

Quote from: Silmenume
Doesn't anyone see that happening?  Every time someone sees the situation that I had presented, that everyone who claimed it was Premise had to add something (including the structure of a question) that isn't there?  Sim doesn't add that extra layer to conceptualize or organize the situation into Challenge or Premise.

I think before any one else claims that there is Premise present, they should look long and hard and see how they are adding a layer of perception to the situation to conform it to Premise or Challenge.  All I've given is naked situation. Not one bit more.  All I have listed was the elements of the Situation, it is up to the posters to organize it into a form that suits your CA approach to conflict.

What I'm not sure of is how to picture the Sim-player playing. Is he kind of pondering going:
"Hmm, I think the cop values the social connection of friends and a societal sense of justice in way that the victim isn't really all that innocent, and I rate that against how one measures the societal value of duty to his job ..."

Yes, that thinking process does represent (nail on the head!) the Sim process – at one extreme.  The above is a very detached and almost 3rd person method, but is still Sim.

Quote from: MarcoThen, yes, I would call that an analysis of social structures outside of viewing the situation as a human issue.

As I said, I could buy that--I had thought the immersed Sim player was said to "suffer right along with" the character. That's what confused me. Do I have that right?

I did say that an "immersed" Sim player does "suffer right along with" the Character.  I will borrow from your quote and shift it from 3rd person detached analytical to 1st person emotional analytical.

"Hmm, What the fuck is Hal doing mugging a prince on my watch and on my beat?!  After all he has done for me and all that I owe him, why didn't Hal come to me if he needed help?  I hate, I really fucking hate this petty little piece-of-shit prince and his father has been crapping all over my brother and his family for years.  If I remember right he invoked the right of prima nocte on my brother and sister in law.  I could put this prince down and make it look like a mugging gone bad, but I swore an oath to uphold the laws and will of my Steward and lord.  I was nothing but a helpless peasant farmer under the heavy boot of Lord Herumore when a Ranger came by and inspired me to try and join up.  How can I turn my back on the Steward and his Rangers who gave me a chance to prove myself despite my station and free my neck from the weight of the boot of that vile Lord Herumore? My Steward and especially the Rangers gave me hope when there was none.  They taught me to be strong and compassionate at the same time.  The taught me letters and how to add.  I am no oath breaker.  But, what about Hal?  He saved my sister-in-law's life and I love her as if she was blood...  How would a Ranger handle this?  What kind of authority do they have?  I've seen Joe play his Ranger X way and I have seen the DM play various Rangers in these different ways.  What do I think Rangers are about?  I (as a player) really despise Herumore.  But is this how my character would feel?  And I really like Hal, he's really cool and I would have probably died trying to save my sister-in-law if Hal hadn't risked his life first.  Man!  What friend he has been.  But I really love Gondor and all that she stands for, warts and all...  If I kill this worthless princeling what am I saying about my relationship to the Rangers, how I feel about my oath to the Steward, my relationship to my country, the nature of my relationship to my friends (especially Hal!) and my family and myself?  Am I willing to put blood above duty?  Do I put justice (killing the princeling) above the Law (arresting my friend whom I owe so much?)  Am I willing to besmirch the name of the Rangers who have given me so much and render such valuable service to their people and country?  I think the Rangers are really cool.  Man, for only 2 silvers a week, a pittance, they lay everything on the line every night in Ithilien.  What happens if I take in Hal?  What is my life or my sister-in-law's life worth?  I remember the scenario where my brother met his future wife!  I also remember the scenario where they were married – it was really cool!  (I actually got teary eyed but I won't tell anyone that!)  I also remember playing that scenario where Faramir was born and I can't wait until he comes of age and runs the Rangers!  I want to play my Ranger with all the wisdom he would exhibit as a Ranger.  He is what inspired me to want to play a Ranger in the first place... Ah shit.. this is really hard...What do I rate first?  Fidelity to oath, friendship, blood?  Can I play "blood and friendship is thicker than oath and duty" and still act what I think a Ranger should act like?  If I choose to save Hal while appearing to help the princeling would this be a choice that Tolkien would have made?  Would that solution fit in with the rest of the social institutions that are in Middle Earth?"

This is the type of "suffering along with the Character" that an immersed Sim player might go through that I was talking about.  While all this seems like a lot of different topics, it all really boils down to what you had indicated in your more stoic analysis.  Except I as a play have strong emotional attachments and hatreds to all the characters and social institutions involved.  Sometimes I would follow an emotional/gut response while other times I would "pull out" and be more detachedly analytical and make an overt effort to consider how I wish to "order my responsibilities" as well as to "shape my relationship" to the varied and many competing social structures my character is beholden to via my possible actions and choices (which includes the character itself!).

Hey Mark,

Quote from: Mark D. EddyI'm mostly with Jay on this one, but you've got to read that line charitably, Vincent. What Jay seems to be trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) descriptive organization is not the same as prescriptive organization.

What you are saying sounds tantalizingly close to what I have been struggling with.  You may have helped me crystallize some thoughts that I have been having trouble formalizing.  I want to say that I agree with you, but could you please expand, via example, of what you mean by descriptive organization and prescriptive organization.  If you can, please use the elements that I have used in my earlier examples in this thread so that we have a common reference.  I think you are spot on, but I wish to make sure before I sign off and say "YES!"

Quote from: Mark D. EddyI would have chosen the term "morals" where Jay chose the term "ethics," personally. Ethics, according to my profesor of ethics (gotta love seminary training...), is simply an organization of behavior. Morality is the motive behind the ethic.

Now that you have defined the terms, I see that had I known I too would have used "morals" instead of "ethics"!

Quote from: Mark D. EddyHow is not the same as why. How social structures overlap and collide is not nearly as problematic a human issue as why social structures overlap and collide.

Amen brother!

Quote from: CaldisNote that Bororo myth is just a transcript, we have no idea of it's purpose or meaning.

I'm not sure what you mean that the Bororo myth is just a transcript.  Though you and I may not understand the symbols contained within that is only because Chris didn't include the "translation" of the myth and you and I haven't read Lévi-Strauss' book, however –

Quote from: ClehrichAnd, says Lévi-Strauss, the natives can hear this work, because they live it.

...

What I'd argue, though, is that the Bororo myth does have a lot of meaning – just not narrative meaning, which is to say that it's a myth but it <>isn't a story<>. You can have both together, but they're independent.

...

... is there no difference between a story and a myth? Because I think there most definitely is. If you look at the Bororo myth, that's not much of a story. Same with Hainuwele. The meanings of those myths lie at a different level and are expressed in a different fashion. To lump all that together, call it meaning, and say, "Yes, that's Nar by definition because it has meaning" seems to me pointless; further, it denies the very real difference between myth and story.

Emphasis added.

At this point, I am baffled by your statement of non-meaning.  It's a myth.  If it was a narrative then we would have a better sense of understanding, but because it is myth and that that myth's meaning is only understood within the larger system of meaning that we don't have direct access to only supports the fact that the Bororo myth is a myth and not a narrative.  Thematic stories are generalizable to all humanity that can be understood to all, as it were, while myths are specific to the cultures where they were created.

Hey Caldis,

To your complaint here -

Quote from: CaldisI think a problem you will have in using the term myth is that the definition of the word is as muddy as that of story.

I offer the following -

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: CaldisIt may not be much as a story but it is an arguement for how the people should act.  So if at the point the Dutch showed up and offered the trade goods someone stood up and created this story to try and influence the other tribesmen, it would be like narrativism.  They are trying to give the story a moral meaning, teaching others on what is the correct action.

Yes, that makes sense to me, I guess.  My sense is that people don't do this, i.e. get up and create myths to make arguments quite that way, but it's a fine distinction that's probably not worth getting into here.

Emphasis added

Chris, at best gives a grudging agreement, but he then immediately follows with a statement that nullifies that tentative agreement by stating that "people don't do this (give the story a moral meaning)" when creating myths.  However, I will leave it up to Chris to clarify his position.

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: CaldisBut both would not be created at the same time is what I was getting at.  They both may tell the same story but they are kept as oral history, retellings of what happened without value judgement.  They were not both brought forward at some tribal meeting as arguements on how to treat the situation.  They are artistic endeavours to retell what happened in an interesting way unlike the greek myths that told stories designed to highlight cultural beliefs like valour and courage and show the dangers of pride and arrogance.  Those are more like narrativism.

Yes, and furthermore they link up one set of circumstances with a whole bunch of other cultural systems so that it all hangs together.  Unlike Greek myths, as you say.

Emphasis added.

Again Chris comes back to the idea that the "meaning of a myth" is found in its relationship with a "whole bunch" of other meaning structures (cultural systems) and that those meanings must "all hang together."  This process is "unlike?" the Greek moral myths which are more classified as narrative/stories (with the attendant moral "points") than "true" myths.

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: CaldisMy parallels may be off but the point I was trying to bring up and that I feel is still causing a lot of confusion here is that the stories themselves are not meant as tools to make a meaningful statement.  The elements within them have meaning and together they tell what happened but they aren't intrinsically designed to say whether this was good or bad.  They are artistic documentaries, oral histories.

If those phrases work for you, I'm cool with them.  I'd just call that myth and have done, but whatever.  But it does seem to me that the implication of your argument is that Nar, unlike Sim, really does try to construct stories that make meaningful statements.  In Sim, it's about making the elements have meaning and link up cohesively.  And I don't see that as the same thing.  I guess you might say that I see it as a distinction between meaningful statement (= story = Nar) and system of meaning (= myth = Sim).  It seems to me that a story in the Nar sense has to say something; a myth (or a Sim construct) has to be its own meaning and (part of) a system of meaning; in real myth, the two end up going together because we want to put the meaning we've discovered into practice, but this is largely denied in Sim because of Ethan's terrarium, or the consecration, or what have you: the wall between in-game and out-of-game is conceived as impermeable.

Emphasis added

Again we have a very clear distinction between Nar and myth.  Nar says something, myth is its own meaning and (part of) a system of meaning.

Again, before we go back and forth endlessly on this, I beg you to wait until Chris can come in and defend what he means before we interpret his intentions to death.

Quote from: CaldisStory is a broad term and myth requires them in at least the transcript of events form. Sim fails at myth because the items brought into the game do not necessarily have meaning for the player whereas for the mythmaker everything they use is used to bring a meaning into the myth.

That characterization is not true.  What is stated is that the "meaning structures" cannot or are not taken out of the game (or the ritual space), however the myths that are created can be very "meaningful" to the players – they just can't be instituted in the real world (the profane/non ritual space).  That is an EXTREMELY major point.

It is ONLY in this last step that Sim ultimately fails in the mythic process – the lack of transference to our daily lives.  Myth created in Sim play (ritual/sacred) has meaning to those who created it but cannot be applied to or put into operation in our daily (non-ritual/profane) lives.

The reason Sim is said to fail myth is not in lack of ability to create meaningful structures, but in the lack of application of the created myths to guide us in our lives.  IOW what's the point of finding/creating a "truth" if we don't apply it to our daily lives?  See – myth is not only thing but process as well.

Quote from: Caldis...I personally believe the Sim essay as it stands does an excellent job of defining Sim.

That's cool.  I too think the Sim essay is an interesting read as it describes its history, however I think it fails utterly in that it doesn't describe a coherent verb of play.  This is not meant to slight Ron in any way – I merely state what I feel is a fact about the essay.  Gamism is the process of "addressing Challenge."  The Gamist essay describes what the players are doing.  The same holds true for the Narrativism essay.  The Sim essay does not provide a coherent description of what the players are doing.  It is there, but it is exactly there, where there the Sim essay fall down.  IMO.  I offer Bricolage as a coherent answer to the question of what the players are doing in Sim play, and that is the very topic which I have offered up for debate.

Quote from: CaldisOne of it's strengths is that is has plenty of textual evidence from published games to support it's points.

You are correct in asserting that the Sim essay does have plenty of textual evidence from the published game to support its points, but I argue that those published games are incoherent with the Sim CA or more specifically with the Sim game action of Bricolage as proposed.

Quote from: CaldisIf Myth and Bricolage are to become useful terms in the long run finding the evidence in gaming texts or in actual play will be necessary. That may be the next step for the debate, find text and bring it here.

In this matter I agree with you completely.  I just want to make clear that I am not just arguing for the terms of myth and Bricolage for myth, rather I am arguing for the models of myth and Bricolage for myth.  I readily admit that I am not an expert on myth or Bricolage, so I would encourage you to also direct questions at Chris about the meanings of those terms.  I can only do so much as a lay person in this field, Chris is the trained expert.

Quote from: Silmenume
This is the type of "suffering along with the Character" that an immersed Sim player might go through that I was talking about.  While all this seems like a lot of different topics, it all really boils down to what you had indicated in your more stoic analysis.  Except I as a play have strong emotional attachments and hatreds to all the characters and social institutions involved.  Sometimes I would follow an emotional/gut response while other times I would "pull out" and be more detachedly analytical and make an overt effort to consider how I wish to "order my responsibilities" as well as to "shape my relationship" to the varied and many competing social structures my character is beholden to via my possible actions and choices (which includes the character itself!).

Well, I think hate and anger on the player's part indicate presence of premise (in the player's opinion) in the situation. If you take out all the references to the emotion and the exclamation points and leave in all the conjecture then I agree: that's Sim simply because it can't be Nar.

Making a decision onto how to "order" responsibilities (when one is feeling hatreds and anger as his character would based on the imaginary reality of the game) would be a textbook case of answering the premise question in Author Stance (i.e. Narrativism).

I think that Nar distinguishes itself from Sim in this case because:
1. The Nar player is making decisions because he (from an immersed standpoint) hates the prince.
2. The Sim player is making decisions because he realizes his character hates the prince, but he, himself, doesn't.*

-Marco
* I'm thinking there's probably a complex case here where the player feels an emotion but doesn't have the character act on it since he thinks the character wouldn't feel it (not the case here). I see the reverse (having the character do things the player finds revolting) all the time refered to as Nar play, so I'm inclined to think this still counts--but it could be argued.

Quote from: Silmenume

At this point, I am baffled by your statement of non-meaning.  It's a myth.  If it was a narrative then we would have a better sense of understanding, but because it is myth and that that myth's meaning is only understood within the larger system of meaning that we don't have direct access to only supports the fact that the Bororo myth is a myth and not a narrative.  Thematic stories are generalizable to all humanity that can be understood to all, as it were, while myths are specific to the cultures where they were created.

I think we're almost on the same wavelength here just going in different directions.  I'm saying that the Bororo myth has no meaning to us because we dont understand the meanings of the components that make up the myth.  To the Bororo it tells a meaningful story because they can pick out the meaning whereas if they were to be told a thematic story that we are familiar with and understand it would leave them shaking their heads.  Same job different medium of expression.

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: CaldisStory is a broad term and myth requires them in at least the transcript of events form. Sim fails at myth because the items brought into the game do not necessarily have meaning for the player whereas for the mythmaker everything they use is used to bring a meaning into the myth.

That characterization is not true.  What is stated is that the "meaning structures" cannot or are not taken out of the game (or the ritual space), however the myths that are created can be very "meaningful" to the players – they just can't be instituted in the real world (the profane/non ritual space).  That is an EXTREMELY major point.

It is ONLY in this last step that Sim ultimately fails in the mythic process – the lack of transference to our daily lives.  Myth created in Sim play (ritual/sacred) has meaning to those who created it but cannot be applied to or put into operation in our daily (non-ritual/profane) lives.

The reason Sim is said to fail myth is not in lack of ability to create meaningful structures, but in the lack of application of the created myths to guide us in our lives.  IOW what's the point of finding/creating a "truth" if we don't apply it to our daily lives?  See – myth is not only thing but process as well.

I think it goes beyond that.  In myth the elements brought in have observable behaviors that give meaning to them before they become part of the myth.  The mythmaker chooses them for those meanings and uses them to make a meaningful tale.  The mythmaker has a whole lexicon of things that have meaning to not only himself but his entire culture, the same does not hold true for the sim gamer.  I'm sure in the begininng the mythmaker faced the same problem however the mythmaker finding meanings is seperate from myth itself.  The myth uses the meanings to tell the tale, it is not the search for them.


I do see a relation between Sim and myth, but I also see connections between it and all of roleplaying.  My biggest concern is the one you didnt really address in the last post.  The term myth means many different things to different people, it is as convoluted as the word story.  If you try and connect the word myth to sim someone who is playing in a game based on norse myth then he believes he is playing sim even if he's actually engaged in narrativism.

Quote from: Silmenume
Doesn't anyone see that happening?  Every time someone sees the situation that I had presented, that everyone who claimed it was Premise had to add something (including the structure of a question) that isn't there?  Sim doesn't add that extra layer to conceptualize or organize the situation into Challenge or Premise.

Excellent observation.

Quote from: Caldis
Story is a broad term and myth requires them in at least the transcript of events form.  Sim fails at myth because the items brought into the game do not necessarily have meaning for the player whereas for the mythmaker everything they use is used to bring a meaning into the myth.  

Agreed, but then again at the moment approaches to Sim are hamstrung by a story-supportive perspective, IMO.  The mode of play in which players are confronted by things, rather than left to explore things, is legimised by normative claims of "we are creating story".  I think that Sim design may be revitalised by this approach and that this may open new avenues to explore.  I agree with your observation completely, but point out I have alrerady proposed some bricoleur-type approaches to sim - like having specific locations instead of a general one, of havoing objects in the game space represented as props in real space.  Lets asnwer the question "how do we make the objects used by the bricoleur meaningful".  I suggest that this is essentially a scene-framing question.

Quote from: Caldis
I do see a relation between Sim and myth, but I also see connections between it and all of roleplaying.  My biggest concern is the one you didnt really address in the last post.  The term myth means many different things to different people, it is as convoluted as the word story.  If you try and connect the word myth to sim someone who is playing in a game based on norse myth then he believes he is playing sim even if he's actually engaged in narrativism.

Granted again.  In the proposition that sim = myth we are not really explicating anything at this point becuase, as you rightly say, myth is neartly as dubious a term as story.  But like Sil I think we are grasping at the model, not the labels attached to the model.  But that said, IMO confusion over story is so prevalent and embedded that anything that relieves this is a step in the right direction.

Hi.  Just back from New Orleans, and look what's happened.  Just a few remarks as I go through this....

Quote from: Mark WoodhouseYah. Mostly "me too." As I commented to Chris Lehrich in one of the threads that spawned this, I feel like I really need to go back to the literature and study up a bit before having a lot that's really rigorous to say.

While I don't think it's entirely necessary to read a huge amount of this material, I would very strongly recommend a couple of bits of reading if we're going to carry this much forward:

• Claude Lévi-Strauss, Myth and Meaning.
  A quick and very useful overview, not at all technical or difficult to read.
  
• Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
  Read chapters 1 and 2, very slowly and carefully.  Chapter 1 includes the bricolage analogy in its original presentation.  Chapter 2 includes a couple of wonderful examples, explicated rapidly.[/list:u]Neither book is expensive or hard to come by.
  

  QuoteHowever, I think it's dangerously reductionist to say that Sim is bricolage. More that bricolage is the primary thing that's going on in Sim play (but it happens in all CAs!). Don't forget highly Illusionist Sim play, for example, where the GM is really the only bricoleur at the table. The typically lopsided distribution of credibility in Sim play means that not all participants are equally engaged in myth-making - some are recipients (critical ones, to be sure) of the myth-product.

  I agree with Mark here.  It seems to me that the form of meaning-construction and -manipulation that Lévi-Strauss analogizes to bricolage is at the heart of RPG Exploration, something I think is not terribly well understood as yet.  What is striking about Sim in particular is that it takes Exploration as its primary process, in service to itself and thus to what Ron calls the Dream.  This is unlike Nar or Gam, which employ the same procedures to achieve other ends, and thus necessarily prioritize types and methods of bricolage in that service.  But this is not the same as saying, with the various Horseshoe theories, that Sim is a kind of baseline from which other forms proceed; rather, Sim is in some sense about its own processes and is thus reflexive, which is not especially the case with Nar or Gam.
  

  QuoteI think this is what's intended by Chris' notion of Sim as being a rather "abashed" sort of myth-making - it tends to reify the symbols it uses so much that the "playful" and creative aspects of bricolage are difficult to sustain.

  Yes, that's a big part of what I had in mind.  The other is that I think Sim is, de facto (in actual historical practice) and not de jure (in principle), constrained not to use symbols and structures from outside the accepted game-world.  On both sides, this tends to make Sim internally inconsistent and even incoherent, and I think encourages Sim groups to tend toward drift.

Hello,

Those points seem to me to be cogent, necessary, and fruitful, Chris.

I do wonder whether"myth" is going to be an overall helpful term for many folks, partly because I think you're exerting an ownership over its meaning which may not get communicated or accepted. For instance, Chris Chinn (Bankuei) uses it very differently in his essay in Daedalus #1 as a near-synonym for Premise (as used here).

But as long as everyone is willing to see how that plays out over time, that's cool by me. No need to attack or defend a term, when it will necessarily defend itself via use and non-use in the long run.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI think you are in the position I was in back in 1999 or so. No matter how well (or badly, in my case) one articulates the process of creating stories in a mindful fashion, the argument will never convince anyone not to use the term "story creation" to describe their role-playing. The term simply has too much status associated with it, as Gareth has pointed out. Also, a focus on stories as product rather than process is nearly impossible to parse out through dialogue, especially if the person is ferociously defending his or her perceived status as an author of stories.

I agree at base, as you know, but I'd go a bit farther.  You also don't give yourself, or the Forge, enough credit on this.  

As you know, it was very fashionable not long ago to claim that RPGs are basically a form of improv theater.  You, with help from around here, mounted something of an assault on the non-commensurability of the two forms.  While I think that may have gone a little far at times, it is now not particularly common to draw the analogy, at least here on the Forge.

Now the question is really whether "story" is in any way useful as a term for RPGs.  I think it probably is, but the problem is that it has far too much value attached, in the sense that far too many players feel that they are somehow doing something wrong if they're not creating stories.  So they assert that what they have created is story, in order to validate their games.  

What needs to be shattered is the notion that story is necessary or valuable.  It isn't.  It's just story.  So what?  Any slob can tell a story, and they do so all the time.  Have you ever been approached by someone who wants change, who's got a whole sob story about why you should give him money?  Congratulations -- you can do what he can do!

Just let it loose, folks.  Story isn't a good thing.  A good story is a good thing, though not a necessary one, but story is not intrinsically good.

This is the #1 thing impeding progress on understanding Nar and Sim and their differences.  People are convinced that if Jay (for example) says that Sim doesn't tell stories, that means he's saying that Sim is bad.  Alternatively, if Jay describes an example of Sim play that in some way generates something resembling a story, some folks will jump in and say "but that's Nar!"  No, it isn't.  

CA is a matter of process, not product.  What's tricky is that the process generally has an end in mind -- which may or may not be successfully generated.  So Nar is an aesthetic agenda that guides play in order to attempt to generate a particular kind of story and effect.  If it fails, it can still be Nar.  If a different process, say Sim or Gam, happens to generate that kind of story, that does not make it Nar.  It's simply a matter of how you go about it, not what you get out of it.

To state it directly:

Story is value-neutral.  The idea that story is inherently desirable is at base part of Narrativism as an aesthetic agenda.  To understand Sim coherently, the idea that story is intrinsically valuable must be discarded from the start.[/list:u]

QuotePerhaps at this point, it is best merely to enjoy the conclusion you've arrived at, recognize that it's certainly compatible with the existing theory, and then later, see if the term "bricolage" and similar become slowly incorporated into the jargon as (and if) they prove themselves necessary and useful.

Like Jay, I am not convinced that bricolage and reflexive meaning-construction and myth and so forth are entirely compatible with existing theory on Sim.  Nor have I seen a convincing argument to that effect.  What Jay is suggesting is that Sim is defined in terms of product -- the Dream -- where the other CAs are defined in terms of process.  He's proposing bricolage as the Sim process.  I think he's on to something, but I think put that baldly it's simplistic and reductionist, as Mark pointed out.  But currently the definitions do have a structural inconsistency, which is why they lend themselves to Horseshoes: Sim is the weird one that doesn't fit.

Quote from: HalzebierI find the term [bricolage] unfortunate because I've never come across it and I had to look it up in a dictionary.

The word is French, and not uncommon in that language.  It is not translated, because there is no adequate translation into English.  As you are not a native speaker, you might look it up in a French dictionary from your own native tongue and see what happens.

The term has become quite common and well-known throughout the humanities and social sciences as a result of Lévi-Strauss's book La pensée sauvage (The Savage Mind), written some 40 years back.

QuoteI personally like the idea - Ron's, I think - of calling it *celebrationism*.

I dislike this term a great deal, I'm afraid.  This isn't a swipe at you, or Ron, but I think the term misses a good deal.

First, it is only applicable when there is a set block of source material, which is not necessarily the case in Sim.

Second, it suggests that the process in Sim desires primarily to enjoy (celebrate) that source material.  Even assuming there is such source material, the Sim group may well wish to play with and distort it for other creative reasons.  In many cases, this distortion may be sufficient that fans of the source material see the game as destructive or hostile to the material -- which says nothing about whether it's Sim.

Third, it says nothing whatever about process, nor about intent except inaccurately or in a limited fashion as noted above.  Jay's contention is that Sim is not generally defined in terms of process, unlike the other CAs, and that this is causing problems.  Shifting to a new term that continues to avoid process does nothing but deflect and defer the issue.

Just a few notes on Lee's long post:

Quote from: Lee ShortThe different Creative Agendas, are all, at base, attempts to answer the question What is fun about gaming?  More precisely, the question that CAs answer is What is fun, in and of itself?.  For an immersive Narrativist, his use of immersion is just a technique he uses to address Premise.  So while his use of immersion is fun, it is not fun in and of itself; hence Narrativism's defining features do not include immersion.  To the extent that our player finds immersion fun in and of itself, she is playing in the mode of a Creative Agenda other than Narrativism.

I think Jay is suggesting, and I would tend to agree, that Simulationism is a bit peculiar in this regard, as it is precisely the process that is the point.  The process is not merely a means to achieve some other end; it is the end in itself.

QuoteNow, this is usually what people here seem to be talking about when they talk about CA.  But, then again, they often seem to be talking about techniques or processes.  I suspect that's just the occasional carelessness -- but I'm not really certain I've got this down yet.

Here I think you're a little off-base.  Ron is very insistent that CA is not about product.  For example, if we have a transcript (in his sense) of a game, which is to say we have a post facto product description, we know nothing whatever about CA.  CA is about how we get there, that is, it's about process.  Jay's argument is that Sim is unusual in that it really isn't defined in terms of process, where Nar and Gam are.  This is causing problems, because it makes Sim seem fundamentally different from the other CAs.

But this tendency to seek out CA after the fact, in product and not in process, is very common and somewhat unfortunate.

In your example:

QuoteThey don't want myth.  They don't care about myth.  What they want is feelings of empowerment; myth is simply a useful tool to give them this.  So they are not Simulationist as defined here.

Here I think Jay is being a tad sloppy.  "They don't want myth" only in the sense that they don't really know what that means or what it's about.  They may want empowerment, and they may achieve this through mythic processes a la bricolage.  But that does not mean that they desire myth, at least not consciously.

Furthermore, no CA needs to be deliberate or conscious.  It can be, but it needn't be.  Sim in particular often resists such mindfulness.  Thus it is certainly possible that the group "don't care about myth", yet nevertheless play hard-core Sim.

QuoteIf we define the Simulation CA as simply "the process of bricolage", then I think we lose the difference between someone who thinks that bricolage is fun in and of itself, and the immersives that I have described above – and I think that's an important distinction, especially as regards game design.  The objective, presumably, is to design games that are fun.  The best way to do this is to have a good idea of what is fun, for the game's target audience.  .... A better definition would be to define the Simulationist agenda as 'finding fun in the process of Bricolage itself rather than in any results that it brings.'

Simulationism cannot be defined as "the process of bricolage" full stop.  No question there.  What can be defined that way is bricolage, and that's a tautology.

But immersion is a Technique, a tool by which to achieve a gaming goal.  And it is not at odds with the kind of constrained bricolage that I, like Jay, think is at the core of Sim.  I agree with you fully that taking this sort of bricolage as the primary end unto itself is critical to what we're talking about as Sim, but I do not see why this cannot be achieved immersively.  Bricolage is by no means a necessarily conscious or self-aware process, though it may be so.

Hmm.  This gets complicated.

Quote from: Caldis

Quote from: SilmenumeAt this point, I am baffled by your statement of non-meaning.  It's a myth.  If it was a narrative then we would have a better sense of understanding, but because it is myth and that that myth's meaning is only understood within the larger system of meaning that we don't have direct access to only supports the fact that the Bororo myth is a myth and not a narrative.  Thematic stories are generalizable to all humanity that can be understood to all, as it were, while myths are specific to the cultures where they were created.

I think we're almost on the same wavelength here just going in different directions.  I'm saying that the Bororo myth has no meaning to us because we dont understand the meanings of the components that make up the myth.  To the Bororo it tells a meaningful story because they can pick out the meaning whereas if they were to be told a thematic story that we are familiar with and understand it would leave them shaking their heads.  Same job different medium of expression.

As ever, this gets back to what we mean by "story."  Consider the clause I've underlined here.  If we take "story" very generally indeed, what you've said is, "To the Bororo, it carries and constructs meaning."  I'd agree with that.  If we take "story" to mean anything even remotely specific -- if, for example, we take it as meaning something that most non-sung music doesn't have -- then you're saying, "To the Bororo, it tells a story that also happens to have meaning."  This I disagree with strongly.  Some myths do indeed tell stories, and some don't.  From my point of view, the important issue is that story and myth are not the same thing, and thus the two can be simultaneously present or not without this in any way affecting which we're looking at.

For example, the Hainuwele myth is not much as a story, but when we understand its context it does tell something of a story.  Smith's point about that myth was that it has an historical context, which is by no means necessary.  Conversely, the Bororo myth of Baitogogo is, as a story, ill-constructed, rambling, and not coherent.  When we understand a lot of its contextual meanings, the images and structures embedded, it is about central issues for the Bororo, but it's still not a story.

Quote from: CaldisStory is a broad term and myth requires them in at least the transcript of events form. Sim fails at myth because the items brought into the game do not necessarily have meaning for the player whereas for the mythmaker everything they use is used to bring a meaning into the myth.

Story is indeed a very broad term.  Given current Forge usage, I'd tend to reserve it to those narratives that we can describe in terms of Premise.  By this definition, certainly, myth does not require story at all; I can only see myth requiring story if we take story to mean any sort of narrative.

As to the more important issue of meaning for the player, I think one of the effects of Sim, because of its deep similarity to myth, is precisely to make those elements meaningful through usage.

The elements of myth are, at base, the elements of the natural world.  These have no meaning intrinsically; the meaning is imputed to them through human creative interpretation -- which is a part of what bricolage is about.  Once such meanings have been imputed, they can be further manipulated by connection to other mythic elements, and so on and so forth forever.  My contention, at least, is that Sim is intensely involved in this sort of meaning-construction because part of the goal is to have the Dream be a complete and meaningful world.

Quote from: Silmenume.... What is stated is that the "meaning structures" cannot or are not taken out of the game (or the ritual space), however the myths that are created can be very "meaningful" to the players – they just can't be instituted in the real world (the profane/non ritual space).  That is an EXTREMELY major point. .... The reason Sim is said to fail myth is not in lack of ability to create meaningful structures, but in the lack of application of the created myths to guide us in our lives.  IOW what's the point of finding/creating a "truth" if we don't apply it to our daily lives?  See – myth is not only thing but process as well.

I'd emphasize that this is a matter of practice and not principle.  There is no particular reason that Sim cannot apply its meaning-structures outside the game-world, nor that it cannot draw from outside the game-world to generate meanings -- indeed, the latter is necessarily at work in any event.  What is peculiar is this desire to have an absolute division, which I've stated elsewhere is a form of ritualization.  This puts one structure -- mythic construction -- at odds with another -- ritualization.  To my mind, this is why hard-core Sim is a fringe interest: it's almost impossible to do consistently.  I also think this is an extremely important part of why Sim gaming tends to generate subculture behavior and identification.

Quote from: Caldis.... In myth the elements brought in have observable behaviors that give meaning to them before they become part of the myth.  The mythmaker chooses them for those meanings and uses them to make a meaningful tale.  The mythmaker has a whole lexicon of things that have meaning to not only himself but his entire culture, the same does not hold true for the sim gamer.  I'm sure in the begininng the mythmaker faced the same problem however the mythmaker finding meanings is seperate from myth itself.  The myth uses the meanings to tell the tale, it is not the search for them.

I'd mostly agree with this, up until the last sentence.  Myth is very much about the search for meaning, just as it is also the manipulation of existent meanings.  Where this breaks down in Sim gaming is that there is commonly a desire not to alter the meanings of elements and thus to search for new congruencies; this I think is a historical effect of the decline of myth in Western culture over a couple thousand years.

QuoteI do see a relation between Sim and myth, but I also see connections between it and all of roleplaying.  My biggest concern is the one you didnt really address in the last post.  The term myth means many different things to different people, it is as convoluted as the word story.  If you try and connect the word myth to sim someone who is playing in a game based on norse myth then he believes he is playing sim even if he's actually engaged in narrativism.

Yes, this is a serious problem.  I think the difficulty is probably insoluble, because our tendency these days is to to think of Norse and Greek myths as a kind of baseline of what myth is, when in fact those are very peculiar and historically-bounded forms.  

I do see value in being precise about this, however.  If we cannot be precise about either "myth" or "story", then there's little hope of being precise about gaming as a narrative form.

Jay's wish to use "bricolage" as the basic processual element in Sim strikes me as a good start, since that term's meaning is indeed extremely close to the mythic process at work in Sim.  I think "story" should then be reserved to narratives founded upon Premise in the Egri-Edwards formulation.  "Myth" probably carries too much identity-politics to be of much long-term value here.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI do wonder whether"myth" is going to be an overall helpful term for many folks, partly because I think you're exerting an ownership over its meaning which may not get communicated or accepted. For instance, Chris Chinn (Bankuei) uses it very differently in his essay in Daedalus #1 as a near-synonym for Premise (as used here).

Oh.  See my immediately preceding post, down at the bottom.

In short, yes.  Myth is not likely to be all that useful here, because it carries too much baggage from Greco-Roman and Norse materials to be openable to the whole bricolage issue.  I'd suggest we stick to "mythic bricolage" or the like.

Chris wrote:

QuoteI dislike this term [celebrationism] a great deal, I'm afraid.  This isn't a swipe at you, or Ron, but I think the term misses a good deal.

First, it is only applicable when there is a set block of source material, which is not necessarily the case in Sim.

As the original post pointed out, one might celebrate realistic combat and revel in mechanics such as _Phoenix Command_'s. Or in the participants' vision of how an absurd intrigue might play out at their university. Etc.

QuoteSecond, it suggests that the process in Sim desires primarily to enjoy (celebrate) that source material.  Even assuming there is such source material, the Sim group may well wish to play with and distort it for other creative reasons. In many cases, this distortion may be sufficient that fans of the source material see the game as destructive or hostile to the material -- which says nothing about whether it's Sim.

I agree that the term's use is problematic here. People will celebrate something in different ways, and one faction may see another's festivities as irreverent.

Regards,

Hal

I'd like to make a suggestion.  Starting with Jay's proposition in this thread, "The Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth."  The problem is that the term "Simulationism" is being overloaded.  Essentially, people are arguing "Sim is X" vs "No, Sim is Y" -- where both X and Y are valid and interesting concepts, but they're trying to use the same word.  For example, it seems like this view of Sim (myth-Sim) emphasizes lack of metagame mechanics and immersion.  So, for example, myth-Sim probably does not include typical Theatrix play -- whereas Sim as shown in Ron's Sim essay (from Feb 2003) does.

Perhaps this could be formulated as an variant model and have a distinct name attached to it?  Perhaps the "Story/Myth" model?  

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: HalzebierI personally like the idea - Ron's, I think - of calling it *celebrationism*.

I dislike this term a great deal, I'm afraid.  This isn't a swipe at you, or Ron, but I think the term misses a good deal.

First, it is only applicable when there is a set block of source material, which is not necessarily the case in Sim.

Second, it suggests that the process in Sim desires primarily to enjoy (celebrate) that source material.  Even assuming there is such source material, the Sim group may well wish to play with and distort it for other creative reasons.

It seems to me that this is begging the question.  By the celebration-based definition of Simulationism, then if they aren't celebrating source material, then they aren't engaged in Simulationism.  It's like saying, "Even if there is a Premise, maybe the Narrativists want to avoid it rather than address it."  Well, if they're avoiding it, then they aren't being Narrativist.  

In short: your concept of what the term "Simulationism" means may not be the same as what Ron thinks of for that term.  It also probably differs from what I conceived of when I first started using the term in 1995 on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Having a different definition isn't wrong, but it needs to be communicated.

Quote from: John KimFor example, it seems like this view of Sim (myth-Sim) emphasizes lack of metagame mechanics and immersion.  So, for example, myth-Sim probably does not include typical Theatrix play -- whereas Sim as shown in Ron's Sim essay (from Feb 2003) does.

For clarification, why does this view of Sim emphasize these points?  I don't know what Jay has in mind, but I don't see this as necessary to the bricolage conception.

QuoteIt seems to me that this [about celebration] is begging the question.  By the celebration-based definition of Simulationism, then if they aren't celebrating source material, then they aren't engaged in Simulationism.  It's like saying, "Even if there is a Premise, maybe the Narrativists want to avoid it rather than address it."  Well, if they're avoiding it, then they aren't being Narrativist.  

In short: your concept of what the term "Simulationism" means may not be the same as what Ron thinks of for that term.  It also probably differs from what I conceived of when I first started using the term in 1995 on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Having a different definition isn't wrong, but it needs to be communicated.

True, but I think the onus rests on you to demonstrate that what Jay's talking about, the whole myth-bricolage thing, is a subset of -- or a different thing than -- what Ron defines as Simulationism.  To my mind, the argument here is that Ron's definition is solid as far as it goes, but that more precision is needed, and I think Jay is proposing bricolage as a way to gain that precision.

As to celebration, I'd argue that this is a subset.  The points I made about it are essentially matters of limitation: celebrationism fits within Sim, by either Ron's or Jay's definition, but is not an adequate description of the whole.  Some Sim is celebration, but some isn't.

Or am I missing your point?

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: John KimIn short: your concept of what the term "Simulationism" means may not be the same as what Ron thinks of for that term.  It also probably differs from what I conceived of when I first started using the term in 1995 on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Having a different definition isn't wrong, but it needs to be communicated.

True, but I think the onus rests on you to demonstrate that what Jay's talking about, the whole myth-bricolage thing, is a subset of -- or a different thing than -- what Ron defines as Simulationism.  To my mind, the argument here is that Ron's definition is solid as far as it goes, but that more precision is needed, and I think Jay is proposing bricolage as a way to gain that precision.

Well, if Jay is claiming that bricolage is a way to gain that precision, then the onus is on him to show how it fits the earlier definition.  Without showing that connection, I think his initial statement need to be changed from

QuoteThe Sim process is Bricolage and the product created is Myth

to

QuoteThe Mythic-Bricolage process is Bricolage and the product created is Myth

Really, I'm in favor of the latter statement.  I dislike the frequent redefinition and overloading of the word "Simulationism", which IMO contributes to confused discussion and sloppy thinking.  So I'll put in my two cents on how Mythic-Bricolage and GNS Simulationism are different.  

Bricolage is using only the elements "at hand", such as using a brick for a hammer because it is handy.  However, GNS Simulationism is simply commitment to the imagined events -- where the events can be wholly original (i.e. more than just what is "at hand").  In practical terms, it seems to me that bricolage characterizes play which is bounded within a limited set of pre-generated source material -- either borrowed (i.e. a James Bond game or Buffy the Vampire Slayer game) or created prior to the game (i.e. homebrew setting).  Meanings are then built within that limited set of materials which are "on hand".  However, I don't think this reasonably covers games like Multiverser or Theatrix, or more generally improvised campaigns with frequent new material.  Sure, you can try to say that the new material comes from somewhere and thus is "at hand" -- but then everything is bricolage.  

In terms of debate, if you take Mythic-Bricolage and try to substitute it into the existing GNS definition, then I think it just dilutes and confuses the concept.  It should be offered up as a separate concept with its own name.

Quote from: clehrich

Quote
Now, this is usually what people here seem to be talking about when they talk about CA. But, then again, they often seem to be talking about techniques or processes. I suspect that's just the occasional carelessness -- but I'm not really certain I've got this down yet.

Here I think you're a little off-base. Ron is very insistent that CA is not about product. For example, if we have a transcript (in his sense) of a game, which is to say we have a post facto product description, we know nothing whatever about CA. CA is about how we get there, that is, it's about process. Jay's argument is that Sim is unusual in that it really isn't defined in terms of process, where Nar and Gam are. This is causing problems, because it makes Sim seem fundamentally different from the other CAs.

But this tendency to seek out CA after the fact, in product and not in process, is very common and somewhat unfortunate.

Actually, I wasn't referring to Ron here.  There's just a general tendency to be sloppier about this sort of thing (eg, equating gamism with heavy combat) than I'm happy with.  Let's not dwell on this.  

Quote
In your example:

QuoteThey don't want myth.  They don't care about myth.  What they want is feelings of empowerment; myth is simply a useful tool to give them this.  So they are not Simulationist as defined here.

Here I think Jay is being a tad sloppy.  "They don't want myth" only in the sense that they don't really know what that means or what it's about.  They may want empowerment, and they may achieve this through mythic processes a la bricolage.  But that does not mean that they desire myth, at least not consciously.

Furthermore, no CA needs to be deliberate or conscious.  It can be, but it needn't be.  Sim in particular often resists such mindfulness.  Thus it is certainly possible that the group "don't care about myth", yet nevertheless play hard-core Sim.

Let me clarify here.  The people I'm talking about, in my judgement, don't need or want myth on either a conscious or unconscious level.  If we're defining Sim in a way that such people don't belong (which is quite possibly a good thing), then they need a home elsewhere, or we need to show that they don't exist.  If I've interpreted things correctly, these people have previously been classified as operating in the Sim CA.  I was tentatively putting forward Immersionism as the CA they work under, because I've met several players for whom immersion seems to be a goal in and of itself.  But I'm not saying that it's The Right Answer (TM).  

Quote

QuoteIf we define the Simulation CA as simply "the process of bricolage", then I think we lose the difference between someone who thinks that bricolage is fun in and of itself, and the immersives that I have described above – and I think that's an important distinction, especially as regards game design.  The objective, presumably, is to design games that are fun.  The best way to do this is to have a good idea of what is fun, for the game's target audience.  .... A better definition would be to define the Simulationist agenda as 'finding fun in the process of Bricolage itself rather than in any results that it brings.'

Simulationism cannot be defined as "the process of bricolage" full stop.  No question there.  What can be defined that way is bricolage, and that's a tautology.

But immersion is a Technique, a tool by which to achieve a gaming goal.  And it is not at odds with the kind of constrained bricolage that I, like Jay, think is at the core of Sim.  I agree with you fully that taking this sort of bricolage as the primary end unto itself is critical to what we're talking about as Sim, but I do not see why this cannot be achieved immersively.  

Partially agreed.  Immersion can be a technique for attaining other goals, and can certainly be used toward bricolage.  I was just pointing out that, IME, there are some gamers who do not use immersion as a Technique (for attaining bricolage or anything else), for them it is an end-in-itself.

Since this has wandered a bit, if we pursue this topic we should take it to a new thread.

Quote from: John Kim
Bricolage is using only the elements "at hand", such as using a brick for a hammer because it is handy.  However, GNS Simulationism is simply commitment to the imagined events -- where the events can be wholly original (i.e. more than just what is "at hand").

... which is different to the descriptions of other agendas because it does not describe the process by which this is executed.  As Sil has pointed out on multiple occassions.

Quote
 In practical terms, it seems to me that bricolage characterizes play which is bounded within a limited set of pre-generated source material -- either borrowed (i.e. a James Bond game or Buffy the Vampire Slayer game) or created prior to the game (i.e. homebrew setting).  Meanings are then built within that limited set of materials which are "on hand".  However, I don't think this reasonably covers games like Multiverser or Theatrix, or more generally improvised campaigns with frequent new material.  Sure, you can try to say that the new material comes from somewhere and thus is "at hand" -- but then everything is bricolage.  

A few outliers does not invalidate the general case IMO.  Theatrix is sim by virtue of "simulating story".  All this means for the bricolage model is that elements of story be available for manipulation to the participants.  Fortunately, Theatrix does exactly this by providing us with flowcharts containing entities descriptive of the story process.  thus, the story prcoess has been objectified, and it is those objects that the bricoleur manipulates and juxtaposes in play.

I can't speak to Multiverser effectively.  Neverthless I disagree with your conclusion that this needs to be articulated under a label other than Sim.  That would just leave Sim in its odd-one-out position and add a new element to the model somewhere which we would have to then accommodate.

You see, I think you are missing a trick when you mentioned home-brew campaigns with frequent new material.  One of the (many) problems I have encountered running on-going sim games revolves around the introduction of new material - when to do it, how to do it, how to do it without a big signpost saying "adventure this way" simply because I took the trouble to mention it.  I think such games would benefit from some device that controlled and determined which elements are in the foreground and which the background at any given moment and I believe the bricolage process gives us an angle of entry into that problem.

the mode of play in which new elements, people, places et al are introduced and yet conmvey no meaning to the players, which I have often experienced, is counter-productive especially innthe long run.

Well, when Multiverser has, as one of its gameworld/scenario settings, "The Prisoner of Zenda," I'd say that you can perform plenty of bricolage with its elements.

The interesting thing about Sim as bricolage to me is that it does well for the contrast with Nar, but it doesn't do so well contrasting with Gam. This is apparently an artifact of Chris Lehrich's lack of experience with Gamist play, but it does need to be addressed.

Now, to answer Jay's question from a while back...

If we accept the assertion that Step on Up is about adressing Challenge, Story is about adressing Premise and Myth is about Bricolage, we need to be explicit about where the real difference lies. The difference actually lies in worldviews.

Gamism is a Darwinian worldview. "That which does not destroy us makes us stronger." The right tool for the right job used in the right way will reap us the rewards we want, and we need to compete to find these right things.

Narrativism is a moral worldview. "The play's the thing / to trap the conscience of a king." The why is more important than the how, and emotionally charged issues of human nature must be resolved.

Simulationism is a mythic worldview. "Let me tell you, O Best Beloved, of the times long ago.." The how and what are much more important than the why, and structures of meaning are created without resolution.

I don't know if this helps, and I think that my choice of quotes may be evocative of what I'm saying. But I can see how Creative Agenda is closely tied in to worldview, which explains why conflicting CA's lead to such bad dysfunction.

What do you think?