Cross-cultural "data" on Gam vs. Sim

[montag]

Alright, I'd like to add to the debate on the "naturalness" of Sim play, by having a look at some cross-cultural "data" from Germany. Previous relevant threads include (from earliest to latest) The roots of Sim (response to Narr essay), The roots of Sim II,  the hard question, the Narr hard question, Factor 1,

The point behind this is that in Germany the predominant RPG is "The Dark Eye" (Das schwarze Auge; DSA) whose latest, 4th edition has been mocked as GURPS-DSA. The game's homepage is here, and here is an extensive review which should give you some impressions. The setting/world is very detailed, more than enough players can tell you the local temples, population and the names of major NPCs (baron, priests, etc.) for every settlement above village level.
The games design principle, repeated often, is "fantastic realism" and by my understanding of the game and GNS I'd say it's pretty coherent in furthering Simulationist play. [Apologies for offering this "on authority". I'd be happy to discuss my opinion in the matter in another thread, and would appreciate if people familiar with the game could state their take on the matter. Again, sorry.]
To give some quick data on the German RPG scene, all with the caveat that it only applies to people on the net. This poll/award on RPGs gives DSA as the game most people play with 758 votes, (A)DnD* with 306 votes. By the same poll, DSA is most popular with 635 votes to (A)DnD* with 209 votes.
I also did a quick search in a player database, though that data of course only captures people who are (i) online, (ii) looking for groups and (iii) most certainly will contain some "zombies", that is people no longer looking for a group and (iv) the number will interact with overall popularity, in that popular games may be underrepresented since it's easier to find a group. Anyway, 7470 people are looking for a DSA-group, 5152 for DnD*-groups and 3097 for WoD-groups.
A look at a popular and general RPG-forum shows 362 threads on DnD and 228 on DSA (WoD: 103) though that number is the least reliable, since there are several special boards for each game (If I knew well enough which these are, I'd have done a quick membership count of these other boards and fora.)
Overall (adding my personal impression to the data above ;), it seems about a little more than half of German gamers play fantasy RPGs, and of these 55-65% play DSA, with DnD* as the second most popular game at around 35% of fantasy RP-gamers.

What's all this got to do with whether a tendency to prioritise Sim is natural? Well, the average German gamer can readily play DnD*, which AFAIK is supposed to support Gamist tendencies better, yet the fact that only a little over a third of fantasy gamers choose to do so IMHO indicates that not too many of them want to.

There's of course a bunch of caveats here: DSA and DnD differ in other aspects besides the GNS aspect, most importantly in that DSA is low-fantasy. Second, entrenched habits certainly play a role and it's hard to tell how many people playing DSA would be happier with DnD, or generally a system that supports their gamist tendencies better. In the absence of a major game that supports Narrativist goals it's again hard to tell how many DSA players would favour that. Finally, it's very hard to tell what influence culture has in this. At a very, very basic level of analysis US-culture could be said to be more competitive and hence perhaps more Gamist overall.
Most importantly though, all this refers only to current roleplayers, and it's impossible (at least for me) to tell what influence market forces, advertising etc. had and how many people would "naturally" enjoy G, N, or S games if we could sort of set the clock back and "start over", without all the baggage.

Still, I believe the fact that so many people don't play DnD* in Germany is a data point in favour of Sim being as natural as Gam.
Any major errors in my reasoning, data or conclusions? Agreement, disagreement?**

* AFAIK the distinction between DnD, ADnD, DnD3e and d20 are rarely considered in Germany, possibly because it isn't the dominant system. I'm not very familiar with DnD though, so I may be quite wrong there.
** note to moderators: I've no idea where this is going to go. If possible I'd like to simply collect some ideas and address emerging topics in specific threads later.

[Valamir]

I find the comparison interesting, but I'm not sure whether you ultimate conclusion is supportable.  Meaning, I don't know that the shear numbers of more people playing a sim game indicate anything about whether sim is as easily picked up as gamist or nar.  Seems to me to boil down largely to what people get exposed to first, and if DSA is that popular...it would stand to reason that it gets the exposure.


I'd also point out that alot of the points being made in other threads about how easy Sim is to pick up (such as discussions of kids playing house) are not talking Sim at all.  They are talking about Exploration.  Exploration is quite easy to pick up.  It is the very foundation upon which roleplaying rests.  Kids playing house aren't playing sim, they're exploring.

Sim requires not only exploring but also exploring without prioritizing Step on Up or Story Now.  I see a heck of alot of Step on Up going on in children's play.  In fact, I'd say that one of the primary things that go on when children play is the establishing of the social pecking order among the kids.  That very much involves Step on Up.  For the kids to be playing Sim they'd have to be exploring playing house without Step on Up or Story Now going on...that's what makes Sim something that has to be learned.


A final question, to what extent do you think DSA being a native German game gives it an advantage over imported d20...both in terms of any pride at playing a native game and also any relative cost factors (i.e. is d20 more expensive over there because its imported)?

[montag]

Seems to me to boil down largely to what people get exposed to first, and if DSA is that popular...it would stand to reason that it gets the exposure.

Absolutely, but .. switching to DnD isn't really an "exotic" choice. Both games seem to have a sizeable following, so while initial exposure and inertia certainly play a role, I believe that German gamers really have a rather free choice between Sim and Gam. ["free choice" must be qualified of course: I'm talking about more or less effortlessly changing games, as in "it's easy to find others at your school playing that game"] [AFAIK, in the US DnD is clearly dominant and GURPS fills the role of default-Sim-game. This impression may be quite wrong ;)]

A final question, to what extent do you think DSA being a native German game gives it an advantage over imported d20...both in terms of any pride at playing a native game and also any relative cost factors (i.e. is d20 more expensive over there because its imported)?

AFAIK they are more or less equally expensive, DSA is perhaps a bit more expensive since there's numerous extensions which detail specific areas. "pride at playing a native game" is not an issue AFAIK, apart from gut feeling and impressions picked up on various boards, I think the best actual evidence is that many gamers buy English game books, either to get them earlier or because they think the translation sucks (especially WoD-stuff). The major stuff is however available in German, so language probably is not a barrier either.

[Ian Charvill]

[Markus - I hope you don't mind a quick aside]

Ralph - I've seen your playing house = gamism before and I find it increasingly unpersuasive.  If we treat playing house as a freeform rpg, the social jockeying that goes on it seems to me happens at the social contract level, not on the CA level at all.  You don't get higher social status through something that occurs within the shared imagined space, you get rights over what happens in the shared imagined space through social status.

I'm not convinced that playing house is sim, because I'm not convinced that playing house is a freeform rpg.  But if it were, the claim for gamism is misplaced.

Back to the real topic: I find the free market argument - which is what I think Markus's argument boils down to - persuasive.  If people have a choice of what to play - and I think historically, we see games from all three modes from the 70s onwards - then what they play will reflect what they want to play.

[Valamir]

Ralph - I've seen your playing house = gamism before and I find it increasingly unpersuasive. If we treat playing house as a freeform rpg, the social jockeying that goes on it seems to me happens at the social contract level, not on the CA level at all. You don't get higher social status through something that occurs within the shared imagined space, you get rights over what happens in the shared imagined space through social status.

I'm sorry Ian.  That doesn't jive at all with anything I've ever witnessed about kids at play.  They derive tremendous social status from what happens during play, because many times the actual play is incidental to the fact that Suzy made a demand and little Davey caved, thereby establishing that Suzy is in charge and Davey is not.  Every time Suzy forces Davey to play dress up when Davey would rather be playing GI Joe is pure Step on Up.  And I don't believe for a second that Suzy isn't completely aware that she's in control and what she has to do to keep it.

When little Debbie wants to invite Mr. Bumbleshorts to the tea party and Suzy says no, the quasi "reason" behind why Mr. Bumbleshorts doesn't get an invite ("because last time he spilled his tea") is completely secondary to the fact that Suzy doesn't want him there, Debbie does, and now they're going to find out (through play) who gets their way and is in charge, and who doesn't and follows.  Its raw social gamism.

Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key - it's analogous to committing to the sincerity of The Dream for Simulationist play.

That's a feature of just about every childhood play I've ever witnessed or remember from my own.  When quiet Steve interjects something about thinking he shot Cowboy Bill when Bill came around the corner, and Cowboy Bill the bully puffs himself up, glares around and says "did not"; do you really think for a second that this is committing to the sincerity of the Dream.

No. Way.  This is Steve and Bill putting at risk on the social level recognition and esteem.  

The Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame: Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the mechanics become metagame mechanics. It's usually, although not always, the result of high competitive actions at the Step On Up level, which then "eats" the Challenge level such that it is literally and nakedly an extension of Step On Up and nothing else. Role-playing in the Hard Core is very much like playing competitive video games or, for that matter, like playing that old junior high school favorite, Smear the Queer, with egos rather than bones and blood on the line.

How many game texts open with discussions about the rules of the game being there to avoid arguements of who shot who "did not," "did to".  Sure there are explorative elements in these arguements "I did so, I shot you from between those bushes just when you came around the corner" vs. "no way, look how thick those bushes are, you couldn't have even seen me till I got past this rock, and besides I was ducking and running"

Yeah, that sounds like good old fashion "what should have happened" right?  But whose really going to win that arguement.  The one who can prove that his arguement is more realistic, or the one who can bring the most social pressure to bear in order to get his own way.  These arguements are game rules at the meta game level.


I mean the very term "Calvinballing" comes from the behavior of a child at play that we recognize as being typical child like behavior in these sorts of games.

No.  I'm not going to buy that true simulation goes on at any meaningful level very commonly with kids at play.

[pete_darby]

Back to the real topic: I find the free market argument - which is what I think Markus's argument boils down to - persuasive.  If people have a choice of what to play - and I think historically, we see games from all three modes from the 70s onwards - then what they play will reflect what they want to play.

The great problem is in assuming we have a classic perfect market: for the most part, players are plain not aware that games outside of the conventional model even exist. Extend that out to the general populace, who are only dimly aware that any role-playing outside of D&D in a pretty dysfunctional mode exists.

It's very hard to see, given those darn network externalities that are still dogging the creation of anything resembling a broad hobby, how the continued dominance of one quite narrow brand of sim can be seen to be illustrative of a genuine tendency in the general populace, rather than an atifact of the history of role-playing.

The surveys tell us nothing about the naturlness or otherwise of sim play, merely the popularity of a certain style of sim amongst those presently playing RPG's. Given that it confirms that "conventional" styled games are most popular amongst the crowd that presently buys games, I don't see how they tell us much at all. It's like asking self identified listeners to pop music whether they like pop.

[Ian Charvill]

Pete, the dominant market brand seems to be D+D 3rd, which is strikingly gamist.  Rifts is also very strongly up there.  There are some strong primarily sim brands like GURPS and the WoD stuff, but they're a minority of the market.

Ralph, you're pretty much proving my point.  In D+D 3rd when you see step on up it's all about the imaginary elements - creating the best spiked-chain wielding Barbarian, killing the dragon, grabbing the awesome magic item.  That's where the social props comes from - manipulation of the shared imaginary space.

The phrase "its raw social gamism" indicates precisely where the the conflict is happening - at the social level which sits above the creative agenda level.

To show step on up within Playing House you'd have to show similar behaviour w/r/t the shared imagined space.  Girls getting kudos, say, from their baby walking before any of the other girls babies.  Having a boy while all the other girls have girls and being the grandparents favourite and so on.

[Valamir]

Ian.  Reread the definition of Hard Core Gamism that I quoted above.

Especially:  

Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social Contract contact one another directly

The whole thing is exactly what you're describing...which is thus completely in the realm of Gamism.

So no, you don't need to have the step on up occuring in the shared imaginary space.  That would be Challenge based Gamism.

[Ian Charvill]

Ralph - you're literally saying a bunch of six year old girls playing house constitutes hardcore gamism?  Which by extension, and pace the essay, means saying six year old girls playing house can be likened to competitive video games and Smear the Queer.  Y'all must play differently on that side of the pond, because no, not remotely.  I mean, come off it.

But if you insist on the classification, which of the categories - turning on each other, calvinball, powergaming, breaking the game - do you see typical preschool girl type hardcore gamist playing house falling in to?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I am absolutely not going to tolerate posts which say, "I disagree with you, but just try to justify your argument, I dare you, just try." Which is what you've posted, Ian.

So stop. Bluntly, I agree with Ralph - yes, playing house in that fashion does look like Smear the Queer to me. You disagree.

But so what? No one is going to make any sense by repeating our interpretations over and over. I'm not "right because I'm Ron." You're not "right because you see it differently." Move on.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Ian, you have to allow for the fact that playing house may be described as form of free form roleplaying, but it is not table top roleplaying which the definitions in the gamist essay apply to.


You made the claim that because the step on up was occuring only at the social level and not at the Exploration level that it did not constitute gamism.  I pointed you towards that definition to show you that this claim is wrong.   Even if the step on up occurs only at the social level...its still Gamism, which is what that definition illustrates.


For purposes of table top play this is called "hard core" and may wind up being bad because it leaves the rules of the game behind and takes the step on up to purely the social level.  

In the playing house example, there is no agreed up structure of rules text that is being abandoned for the social level.  The whole game (like most of regular life) occurs at the social level.  

So this is a perfectly normal thing and not an example of dysfunctional play at all*

*although I can certainly think of occassions where the play does go dysfunctional and could be illustrated by any of those categories also.

[Ian Charvill]

Ron

I'm sorry you read that line that way.  It was a genuine enquiry.  I'm puzzled by the classification of the type of play behaviour observed in pre-schoolers being classified in this way and was seeking further clarification.  If we were talking about adolscent play behaviour, it wouldn't strike me as odd, but as a classification of younger kids, it does.

I don't doubt that my recent bad form in Jonathan Walton's aesthetics thread may influence your reading my post in that manner.

Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.

[M. J. Young]

I am completely with Ian on this.

When Anne Profumo wanted to play house, it was entirely about exploring what it would be like to be a family. My brother was usually "daddy" to her "mommy" (they were the same age), and I was either an uncle or a child, and all of it was about trying to see what it would be like to be that sort of family.

There was no challenge, no step-on-up, no vying for control of the situation, nothing that would suggest gamism. My brother and I found it dull; but we grew up with siblings, and accepted as given that sometimes everyone played what you wanted to play, and sometimes you played what they wanted to play, so this was just one of the games she liked that we didn't.

Had there been the least hint of step-on-up in those games, we'd have risen to it, and enjoyed ourselves. I don't think we much cared what it would be like to be grown up and married.

Now, maybe Ralph played house in a gamist context, and maybe when girls roped him into playing with them he made it interesting by drawing in gamist elements, but we played strictly simulationist.

--M. J. Young

[montag]

Back to the real topic: I find the free market argument - which is what I think Markus's argument boils down to - persuasive.  If people have a choice of what to play - and I think historically, we see games from all three modes from the 70s onwards - then what they play will reflect what they want to play.

The great problem is in assuming we have a classic perfect market: for the most part, players are plain not aware that games outside of the conventional model even exist. Extend that out to the general populace, who are only dimly aware that any role-playing outside of D&D in a pretty dysfunctional mode exists.
It's very hard to see, given those darn network externalities that are still dogging the creation of anything resembling a broad hobby, how the continued dominance of one quite narrow brand of sim can be seen to be illustrative of a genuine tendency in the general populace, rather than an atifact of the history of role-playing.

You are quite right in one aspect IMO: the dominance of one brand of Sim does tell us nothing. While I'm not familiar with the phrase "network externalities" I assume you are referring to variables we might not notice and variables we notice which prevent truly free choice. (From my dim memory on the matter, that would be a transparent market, right?)
Anyway, my argument does not rest on the dominance of that one brand of Sim, but rather on the dominance of Sim in the context of the coexistence of two major and similar games. Actually, the dominance of DSA isn't that relevant at all, the similarity of the games (DSA evolved from what might be called a fantasy heartbreaker) is more important. It is exactly the easy of transition which IMO is crucial, in that it permits us, in this context, to assume that halfway normal supply and demand are at work.
If DSA owned 90% of the market, I'd agree it would be impossible to distinguish whether that's a conscious choice by gamers or a reflection of the status quo. But exactly because the rival system is successful, in Germany (and is the most successful worldwide AFAIK; hey it's DnD ;) I think the assumption that this reflects player preference is more likely.

The surveys tell us nothing about the naturalness or otherwise of sim play, merely the popularity of a certain style of sim amongst those presently playing RPG's. Given that it confirms that "conventional" styled games are most popular amongst the crowd that presently buys games, I don't see how they tell us much at all. It's like asking self identified listeners to pop music whether they like pop.

Again, it's the popularity of a certain style of Sim versus the popularity of a certain style of Gam that I'm after.
In the latter part you seem to say the argument is circular, but I don't want to go into that without your confirmation that this is indeed what you wanted to say. As to pop music, I think the appropriate analogy would be, asking current buyers of CDs what kind of music they like, but I'd prefer avoiding analogies so as to avoid discussing the analogy instead of the real issue.