"Let's play house" A Model For Simulationism

[Kat Miller]

I posted this Last week but it became carnage for the hacker:

I’ve been trying to better understand Simulationism.  I’ve read the Essay but while I understood the words the idea hasn’t “clicked” with me yet.

I think I understand it if Simulationism = Playing house.

I don’t know how many people played house at recess in 1st and 2nd grade.  A small pack of mostly girls would go to a certain spot, and play house.  One Mommy usually, a Daddy and a number of babies were the standard roles.  Mommy would clean the house and take care of the babbies who would cry a lot. Daddy would go to work and come back home.

This was part of my earliest role play experience and if I’m understanding Simulationism correctly a good model, there is no Narativism present nor is there any Gamism.  There is however Collaborative Play with Creative Agenda in an imaginary setting with a group of kids.

I think that most group pretend games at this age are Sim games.  There’s House, School, Hospital (NOT to be confused with Doctor), Construction Site (usually in a sandbox). Space (Astronaut or Alien)  I played a good deal of Superhero, and  Fairytale pretends.  Fairytale was anything with knights, princesses or Witches in both the modern world or a made up land.  
There is a unifying factor in these games.  The roles must be clearly defined and understood before play.  Roles can be further developed in play but that’s likely to jar the play till that developed role is clearly defined and universally understood.
When playing House if two girls both want to be the Mommy and there are not enough kids for there to be a second house, then the girls will negotiate and one of them will take a lesser role like “Big Sister” The girl who took “Big Sister” only took it if she could have a Car.  This is important because the Big Sister Role is NOT assumed to have a car.
If Big Sister declares during play “I’m not here.  I’m Driving to the store.” And it has not been previously established that Big Sister has a Car. PLAY will halt.  It can’t continue.  BS-Girl could be trying to develop her Role but the parameters of that role, what she can do and what she has MUST be Universally understood for any play to continue.  If BS-Girl insists she has a Car and Mommy-girl insists only Mommy’s and Daddy’s have a Car.  Then the two girls are playing two different games, they are not playing the same house in the same world.  In order for Sim play to exists all the players must be clear on all the elements.  If any one player insists on defining changing an element without Group consensus then that player is no longer playing the SAME game, she is playing a different game with similar elements.  
The game will stay halted until universal consensus is reached.  1. Baby and Daddy think Big Sister should have a Car.  Mommy Backs down and Agrees.  2. Baby and Daddy think Big Sister Shouldn’t have a Car, Big Sister backs down and agrees.  3. Big Sister insists on having a Car and is cast out of the house, Daddy, Baby and Mommy agree they won’t play with Big Sister anymore.  Daddy and Baby Side with Big Sister and Mommy quits. . .Big Sister takes on the coveted role of Mommy.  Once there is consensus in the group play can continue.  In the Case of Mommy quitting or Big Sister being  Cast Out, there may not even be any play to explain the change other than declaring so and so is dead. Play continues.
There is no ultimate goal in House and there is no competition other then possession of coveted roles.  Gameism is not present.  Any attempt at Narrativism is often rejected by the group.
If Daddy comes home from work and says “The Boss gave me a promotion, but if I take it we’ll have to move to that tree over there.” If my understanding of Narrativism is correct this is Daddy-boy way of offering up a bit of Narrativism into the collaborative Sim play.  The Question being do we stay with the familiar or go off to the unknown.  The other players could accept his elemet of the play and collaborate further on it.  Mommy doesn’t want to move, but knows that Daddy must take the new Job because they need the money. . .baby needs an operation.  [this moving from Sim play to Narrativism is rare but does happen with specific kids]  

If House is a good model for Simulationism than role-playing games that offer the same kind of things that house does are good vehicles for Simulationist style play.  

I don't know if quoting oneself is good form or not, my apologies if it is not.  My original question was whether "house" was Sim.   I intended to explore what goes one when kids pretend, because from my theory is most pretend is Sim.

So far “house” has given me a firmer understanding of why It's so important and to the player with a Sim Agenda to have all the other players maintain the same idea for the world and how everything works.  

At the level of child play, right before group pretend we have two kids both playing together simply because they are playing side by side.  Two kids in a sand box, for example, are both playing in the sand, but one child is a “construction site” and the other child is a “highway.”  Their play is on two different world and levels even though they are playing with the same materials in the same area and playing "with each other"

This Non collaborative play using the same materials is still Sim Agenda, I believe.  Each kid is Emulating the experience of either a Highway or A Construction Site, and they are each doing it for the sheer enjoyment of the emulation.

When kids get into group pretend, if all the details of the game world are not unarguably the same then the pretenders could be back in the sandbox, playing with the same materials, but each playing a different game.   Before a Narrativist Agenda develops in Pretend (if it develops) There are unspoken, engrained rules to how “pretend” is supposed to happen, and breaking the rules breaks the play.  These rules are not formally addressed, and many learn them by breaking the rules, but all who pretend learn them.

I’m wondering if Gaming with A Sim Agenda might not be a carryover of Early Childhood pretend.  I myself was introduced to DnD Role-play as pretending with books and dice.  It seems understandable that we’d carry those same rules of play with us when older, and introduced to a new type of pretend.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

This is great stuff, Kat. I believe we've talked about it before, with a certain amount of acrimony ... some folks persist in bridling at an accusation that Sim play is infantile; others embrace the concept as a form of purity.

And yes, there's no problem with re-posting following the hack.

Best,
Ron

[Sydney Freedberg]

I'm very glad Kat had saved this one -- as I told her over PM, this may be the first time anyone's ever successfully gotten me to understand Simulationism as a positive ideal (as opposed to Simulationism-by-default because you're neither competing nor addressing premise).

Let me push this a little further:

If Simulationism is akin to"playing house" or to the other "let's pretend" games, then it's about the roleplayers exploring relatively fixed roles, correct? Which accounts for all the people saying "Sim is myth as opposed to Story" or "Sim is bricolage" (i.e., to the best of my understanding, piecing together of existing elements each coming with a set of associations). The exercise, and it's an essential one for childhood, adolescent, and arguably lifetime development, is about trying on roles and seeing how they feel.

Whereas when you move into Narrativism, the roleplayers are messing with the roles themselves.

Kat, Ron, anyone (Bueller?) am I flailing in the vicinity of an insight here?

[eGuru]

I'm very glad Kat had saved this one

Hear, hear!

Snippeting, sorry:

Simulationism ... about the roleplayers exploring relatively fixed roles, correct? Which accounts for all the people saying "Sim is myth as opposed to Story" or "Sim is bricolage"

This is a really, really good way of expressing something important -- there's both invariants and variants in that Exploration, so it's not just a retread of the sources/ideas, but it might be an investigation of the sources/ideas, altered for contrast, or to add depth to some aspect.

Whereas when you move into Narrativism, the roleplayers are messing with the roles themselves.

That sounds strange, but on the right track; "messing with" might be a form of loose Simulationist play, since it means there's roles still around to be messed with.  Perhaps Narrativism means creating roles to address the Premise?

[pete_darby]

Hiya,

This is great stuff, Kat. I believe we've talked about it before, with a certain amount of acrimony ... some folks persist in bridling at an accusation that Sim play is infantile; others embrace the concept as a form of purity.

And yes, there's no problem with re-posting following the hack.

Best,
Ron

The problem, I think, may come from the fact that while there are simple juvenille analogues to Sim & Gam as CA (Let's Pretend and I Win), I'm struggling to find one for Nar... fairy tales? Nah, not collaborative enough. Telling Tales?

But yeah, we got hung up with repeatedly stating that simply because a CA has a good juvenille analogue it doesn't mean that it is juvenille, any more than the existence of fairy tales makes the study of mythology "childish".

Whereas when you move into Narrativism, the roleplayers are messing with the roles themselves.

It's more that sim, like let's pretend, is about building meaning out of existing materials; so for children it's literal "role-play" of trying out adult roles form what they know of them.

Nar moves onto, not necessarily questioning, but testing, proving what you know about the existing materials. Is that what you mean by messing?

I must stop now before I rant about primary school education in the UK trying to enforce nar style testing of roles before kids have sufficiently explored them... Nar without sufficient exploration leading to the downfall of Western society I say!

[Kat Miller]

Hi,

I can't really comment on Sim as Myth or bricolage because I don't really understand those ideas yet.  I wasn't trying to make a judgement over Simulationism  as juvenile or not.   It's hard for me to analyze gamers in the groups I play with because my own Creative and Social Agendas get in the way.   It's easier to me to look at kids at play because there is enough distance for me to actually see cause and effect.

Let me push this a little further:

If Simulationism is akin to"playing house" or to the other "let's pretend" games, then it's about the roleplayers exploring relatively fixed roles, correct? Which accounts for all the people saying "Sim is myth as opposed to Story" or "Sim is bricolage" (i.e., to the best of my understanding, piecing together of existing elements each coming with a set of associations). The exercise, and it's an essential one for childhood, adolescent, and arguably lifetime development, is about trying on roles and seeing how they feel.

Whereas when you move into Narrativism, the roleplayers are messing with the roles themselves.

I agree, and I think that Sim Play as children do it involves more than trying on the roles.  Kids are trying to understand the world through play, and they repeat what they know because that reaffirms the world is as they know it.

I think that Games who play with a Sim Agenda are likewise trying on roles, and working out skills to better understand the game world and to show off how well they understand it.  Sometimes its good to be a King defending his throne from an ambitious brother, struggling with the conflict between family love and leadership. . . .and sometimes its just good to be King.

I’m not certain what you mean by “fixed roles”  Are they fixed because there are assumptions that can be made immediately when taking on the role?  Can a fixed role be developed?


I know that if my understanding of the Sim agenda is correct, then games that use predesigned game worlds either because the game worlds are heavily detailed and supported, or because the game world is taken from sources that are easy to become familiar with should be good vehicles for Gamers with Sim Agenda.

You can easily persue a Sim Agenda in a White Wolf game because of all the Setting and Characacter support.  You can Sim in StarWars, Star Trek, Buffy, and Herc & Xena games because the world and characters are understood.  

This is a really, really good way of expressing something important -- there's both invariants and variants in that Exploration, so it's not just a retread of the sources/ideas, but it might be an investigation of the sources/ideas, altered for contrast, or to add depth to some aspect.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

The problem, I think, may come from the fact that while there are simple juvenille analogues to Sim & Gam as CA (Let's Pretend and I Win), I'm struggling to find one for Nar... fairy tales? Nah, not collaborative enough. Telling Tales?

I almost want to say “truth or dare” for narrativism.  The game imediately puts something up for stakes and you know you going to be asked something dreadful.

Whereas when you move into Narrativism, the roleplayers are messing with the roles themselves.

It's more that sim, like let's pretend, is about building meaning out of existing materials; so for children it's literal "role-play" of trying out adult roles form what they know of them.

Nar moves onto, not necessarily questioning, but testing, proving what you know about the existing materials. Is that what you mean by messing?

I like this idea, that Narrativism is more about testing, sometimes it feels that way when we play certain games.    The sim agenda seems to be about defining a role while a Narrative Agenda seems to be about breaking assumptions about the same role.

Sim: I’m a mommy because I have a child
Narrative: I have a child, does that make me a mommy?

[Bankuei]

Hi John,

The problem, I think, may come from the fact that while there are simple juvenille analogues to Sim & Gam as CA (Let's Pretend and I Win), I'm struggling to find one for Nar... fairy tales? Nah, not collaborative enough. Telling Tales?

You have the term right there for Nar- "I Think...".  I think (value statement on Premise).

Of course, these catchphrases, while useful in keeping an idea of the focus, usually confuse new folks more than help, as they latch onto it outside of context.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Bang on target again, Kat. As it happens, earlier this very day, I sent off a fairly detailed discussion of "safe zones," Truth or Dare, and Narrativist play to a fellow I'm having a private email discussion with.

Best,
Ron

[Sydney Freedberg]

If Simulationism is akin to"playing house" or to the other "let's pretend" games, then it's about the roleplayers exploring relatively fixed roles....

...I'm not certain what you mean by "fixed roles"

Yeah, I'm not certain what I mean either, hence the weasel-word "relatively." And clearly, as people have pointed out, there is plenty of room for exploring the ramifications of the role -- but, as in your "Big Sister has a car" example, the Simulationist approach seems to be to start from at least a basic concept of a role and try to stay faithful to that basic concept, rather like a mathmatician starting with an axiom and then trying to prove more detailed theorems from it.

Then we have Narrativism as truth-or-dare. [Expletive deleted], that's cool. And you know what, I think "Playing House" vs. "Truth or Dare" gives us a critical distinction:

If you're playing house (Sim), your negotiations back and forth with the other players are about the imaginary role they're playing, with their deep personal concerns only expressed indirectly through the shared imaginary space. If you're playing truth or dare (Nar), your negotiations with the other players are directly, even aggressively, aimed at what they care about as people.

[M. J. Young]

I have cited House as simulationist role play before. In fact, before System Does Matter was published I had mentioned it as an example of role playing in What Is an RPG?, the introduction to role playing games included as an appendix in Multiverser and posted on the web late in 1997.

I mention it because in that context it states that House is an example of role playing, but not as good an example of why we started to use rules when compared with cops and robbers or similar games: that rules resolved disagreements between players. I find that interesting in the present discussion, because despite the emphasis simulationists place on realistic resolution mechanics, I think simulationism is inherently less reliant on such mechanics than gamism. In simulationism, the point of having the mechanics is to generate the most accurate outcome that can be achieved within the limitations of gameplay. The players don't really have much stake in the outcome, in the same sense they do in gamism. Gamist play makes much of the importance of every player being treated fairly by the system, and so having a chance to win. Simulationist play isn't interested in whether players are treated fairly or have a chance to win. It's interested in whether the outcome produced is reliable, that is, whether this is indeed what we believe would have happened in this circumstance.

Thus I think much more freeform play proves to be simulationist than gamist, because there's considerably more openness to the notion that the referee can make the right judgment. In gamist play, such a judgment requires that the referee be totally unbiased and fully informed of the probabilities of various outcomes. In simulationist, what matters is that the referee can make a reasonable guess concerning what would happen.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

Yeah, I'm not certain what I mean either, hence the weasel-word "relatively." And clearly, as people have pointed out, there is plenty of room for exploring the ramifications of the role -- but, as in your "Big Sister has a car" example, the Simulationist approach seems to be to start from at least a basic concept of a role and try to stay faithful to that basic concept, rather like a mathmatician starting with an axiom and then trying to prove more detailed theorems from it.

I would suggets they are "observably extant" roles.  That is, people do fill the Big Sister role; it is quite plausible for Big Sister to have a car, where it would not be plausible for The Baby to have a car.

So, negotiation of whether or not it is "right" or acceptable for Big Sister to have a car depends on multiple assesments of all the things we know about Big Sisters.  Big Sister is a de facto social archetype, at least from the point of view of small children.

I think it is precisely this process, at least in part, that results  in the normative socialisation of children.  That is, propositions that Big Brother wears heels and mini-skirts are likely to be shot down.  And even if YOUR big brother wears heels and minis, the very fact this is shot down by your peers is an informative experience.

I agree with Pete Darby though that IMO Narr probably requires a maturity  and confidence that young children do not have.   In order to make a statement on a human issue, you must first have an opinion on the matter, and also the confidence that your statement carries weight.  I think thats hard for kids who are often treated as incompetent in this regard.

[pete_darby]

I almost want to say "truth or dare" for narrativism. The game imediately puts something up for stakes and you know you going to be asked something dreadful.

That sound you hear is me slapping my forehead. OF COURSE!

And, wrt Gareth (contracycle), the prevalence of Truth or Dare being generally a more adolecscent than juvenille game kind of points to this kind of questioning or testing of values as being reliant on a familiarity with the values being tested.