The hard question...

[Valamir]

I just think that Sim is more natural than was represented by Ron's essay

For whom?

Tendencies equally represented among the general populace?

Tendencies equally represented among the gamer populace at the instant they first became gamers?

or Tendencies among people who are already firmly entrenched sim players.

Who is it more natural for?

I mean Neil has already suggested that his immediate connection to sim desires is pretty unique among his group of players.


So who is more natural for?


Seems to me that what the article says is that far more people in the general population easily identify with gamist priorities or narrativist priorities than Sim priorities.  Given the relative popularity of Monopoly and Chess and that of reading of novels over non-fiction are you really going to argue against that?

Look in the general non gaming population.  Where do you really see entrenched Sim priorities reflected in leisure activities?  Seems to me the words "canonical fandom" come to mind.  Are you really going to try and suggest that that doesn't represent a fringe interest in the general populace?


Yet look at the traditional game text and even the number of gamers who would immediately (if non-reflectively) agree with Neil's description about what's important in an RPG.  Are you really going to argue with the idea that Sim gaming occupies an extremely prominent place in the RPG hobby?


So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?


If you're not going to argue against any of these points...which are taken right from Ron's essay...then what is really being discussed here?

[montag]

I just think that Sim is more natural than was represented by Ron's essay

For whom?
SNIP
Seems to me that what the article says is that far more people in the general population easily identify with gamist priorities or narrativist priorities than Sim priorities.  Given the relative popularity of Monopoly and Chess and that of reading of novels over non-fiction are you really going to argue against that?
Look in the general non gaming population.  Where do you really see entrenched Sim priorities reflected in leisure activities?  Seems to me the words "canonical fandom" come to mind. Are you really going to try and suggest that that doesn't represent a fringe interest in the general populace?
SNIP
So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?

I may not be understanding your point correctly, but it seems to me that the "general non gaming population" is not particularly relevant in this context. For by that measure, LARP, which involves actual physical activity would be far more "natural" than table-top RPGs. After all, how many people in the general non gaming population spend their spare time doing some form of physical exercise or other? A lot. And, again by that reasoning, railroading is also most "natural", given that passive consumption of stories others made up is widespread. So I'd say the general non gaming population is not an appropriate standard of comparison.
If we focus on people new to the hobby, I'd say the chance to re-experience the joy of "play-prehend" is actually the main draw, since it is pretty much the only CA only RPGs can provide. Gamist challenge: play monopoly or chess or a video game. Narrativist premises: write stuff, join a writing circle or a debating club. But Simulationist: play-pretend, find out what it might be like to be someone else or to be somewhere else. With that goal in mind I can only think of RPGs and theatre.
edit: ... and there's not many theatre groups that let you play a wizard or a barbarian or a super-intelligent shade of the colour blue

[beingfrank]

The point isn't that no one gets Simulationism intuitively, but that for the majority of people (ie: people as a demographic group), Gamism and Narrativism are more intuitive. What do most people do best? Act, or tell stories about something?

Really?  Cool.  How was it measured?  It sounds a really interesting question to answer.  Just my own personal brand of geekiness manifesting.

Claire Bickell

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I would argue that Grandpa's stories would rarely address any premise.

THat would depend on how natural a storyteller Grandpa is. Some people can spin gripping yarns about getting their kids on the bus. Others cannot engage interest with what should be a very emotional event, such as the death of a family member.

This comes back to my current thing about seeing story as an object d'art. Something that is constructed and requires a certain amount of craftmanship to build well.

[coxcomb]

Seems to me that what the article says is that far more people in the general population easily identify with gamist priorities or narrativist priorities than Sim priorities.  Given the relative popularity of Monopoly and Chess and that of reading of novels over non-fiction are you really going to argue against that?

I have already said that wide-spread Gamist tendencies are easy to see, and am disputing it.

I don't think the popularity of fiction has any correlation to Narrative agenda. Romance novels sell like hot-cakes, but few of them have anything to do with premise as Ron describes it. Most of them have to do with escapism, which is more like Sim than Nar. Yet, even then, I don't think that has anything to do with anything.

A far greater percentage of the population watches TV and movies than actually read books, fiction or otherwise. It doesn't take very much examination to see that premise is absent from most everything Hollywood cranks out these days.

Look in the general non gaming population.  Where do you really see entrenched Sim priorities reflected in leisure activities?  Seems to me the words "canonical fandom" come to mind.  Are you really going to try and suggest that that doesn't represent a fringe interest in the general populace?

Um...role-playing represents a fringe interest in the general populace. Do you really think that there is a 1:1 correlation between what is common in the general populace and what is common in the role-playing population?

Yet look at the traditional game text and even the number of gamers who would immediately (if non-reflectively) agree with Neil's description about what's important in an RPG.  Are you really going to argue with the idea that Sim gaming occupies an extremely prominent place in the RPG hobby?

No. I'm not even certain what your point here is. Is it that you are saying that game texts have traditionally pushed a Sim agenda? If so, I have made no arguments to the contrary, and am not sure how it even has bearing.

So given that Simulationist agendas are a minority in the general populace, but a majority (at least by habit) in the gaming populace, are you really then going to try and argue against the idea that there is some pretty dramatic indoctrination going on?

Is there indoctrination? Yes.
Does that mean that there aren't plenty of people who naturally have a Sim agenda? No.
I will say that I have met and played with far more happy gamers who wanted the dream than those who wanted to address premise.

If you think about little kids playing any sort of make-believe that isn't of the cops and robbers adversarial type, it is more Sim than Nar. Never once have I heard kids playing house address premise. But they do justify their actions as being "what a mommy would do" (or whatever).


So what I am saying is:
Gamism is wide-spread in the general population, and is a clear agenda for many new role-players.
I am not convinced that Narrative goals are any more common in new role-players than Simulationist goals.

[coxcomb]

I would argue that Grandpa's stories would rarely address any premise.

THat would depend on how natural a storyteller Grandpa is. Some people can spin gripping yarns about getting their kids on the bus. Others cannot engage interest with what should be a very emotional event, such as the death of a family member.

This comes back to my current thing about seeing story as an object d'art. Something that is constructed and requires a certain amount of craftmanship to build well.

Sure, Grandpa might be an awesome storyteller. He may have you in suspense, make you laugh, make you cry, and so on. But does his storytelling address premise? You can tell a story that is engaging and good without adressing a premise.

Premise (adapted from Egri)
A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe.

[Scourge108]

Okay, my follow up question is this;  I wouldn't want to be in Viet Nam firefight or be up to my waist in Zombie parts in some dungeon crawl... But I sure want to put my character there!

Very true.  But I do want to understand what it would be like to be there, if only from a safe distance.  But how can you ever really understand something you've never experienced?  The best you can do is some sort of simulation of the events.  Then you can relate to being in Vietnam or in a dungeon of zombies.  Unless it's not a very good simulation.  But this is in my mind the purpose of Sim.  To really understand what it would be like to be a (fill in character type here).  I think this is as natural an inclination as gamism and narrativism.

Greg Jensen

[greyorm]

Hezues almighty, people, I said not to dissect the metaphor because it was grossly simplistic...and what happens? We're discussing grandpa and  whether he's a good storyteller...

So, let me restate it without all the metaphor: most stories told to us have an ultimate point; experiencing that point is the reason for listening to the story (funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc). This is the crude Narrativist equivalent.

Rambling without a point, without some "end" to the events, without some building up towards an experience, without some highlighting of certain features and ignoring or de-emphasizing others in expectation of that point, is the crude Simulationist equivalent.

Listening to the story to experience the story is rarely the reason, nor is just telling the story the reason stories exist and occur. This isn't to say such stories don't exist, aren't or can't be enjoyed, etc. only that they are in the literary minority of texts produced.

As I said before, with stories, most people are about the destination (Narration -- issue) rather than the journey (Simulation -- experience).

Now, of course, there are vast differences between stories and role-playing games from a number of points (creation method, experience of, authorship, etc), so instead of trying to dissect or agree with the metaphor as it stands, just try to understand what I'm getting at with the metaphor.

Otherwise, we're arguing about how a turtle shell is not hard like a rock, because the densities of shell and rock are different.

[coxcomb]

Hezues almighty, people, I said not to dissect the metaphor because it was grossly simplistic...and what happens? We're discussing grandpa and  whether he's a good storyteller...

So, let me restate it without all the metaphor: most stories told to us have an ultimate point; experiencing that point is the reason for listening to the story (funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc). This is the crude Narrativist equivalent.

Sorry that the metaphor was seen as the object of the point I was trying to make. Please let me make it without the metaphor:

Most stories that folks tell, or read about, or see on TV or at the Movies, engage the audience by setting up a situation, applying dramatic tension, building to a climax, and resolving the situation. What a good many stories don't do is address any premise.

Maybe I'm going batty, but my fractured understanding of Narrativism is that it must address premise, as described by Ron in the essay. A story can be funny, sad, terrifying, cautionary, uplifting, etc. without addressing any premise--without asking any big questions.

Rambling without a point is bad storytelling. That does not equal Simulationism.

[Valamir]

I am not convinced that Narrative goals are any more common in new role-players than Simulationist goals

That's because you're confusing mediums.  The very concept of Narrativist Premise was specially adapted to role playing needs FROM analysis of fiction (specifically plays).

The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story.  We can identify good stories without even trying.  We may not be able to articulate what we like about them without exposure to the jargon of lit theory, but a lack of lit theory classes doesn't prevent people from enjoying stories.

Stories don't JUST HAPPEN.  The events in stories do not occur "simply because".  They occur because they were driven in a very specific way to a very specific reason for a very specific end.

That end has been called drama, and human beings have been intuitively responding to the components of drama since the dawn of communication.  The rules of modern drama are not significantly different from what the ancient Greeks would recognize as drama.  People get drama...without training, without indoctrination...it touches something deep within us.

Drama is not just a random stream of events that in the end just "happened" to prove to be dramatic.  That's why story tellers have to take "dramatic license" with history.  Because history almost NEVER produces the elements that make for a good drama just because (and that's from a person who loves history).

Compare period historical texts with modern text book histories.  Modern Text Book histories are so obsessed with getting the facts right and presenting them right (or at least presenting them with the desired spin) that they are horribly boring, put even lovers of history to sleep and cause students to hate history class.

Period history books...much different.  Read Herodotus or Caesar's histories of Gaul.  Drama, Drama, Drama.  Those authors aren't reporting history "as it happened", their dramatizing it.


What's the point of this rambling...simply this.  People understand intuitively what makes for a good story.  That's why playing Nar is said to be natural.  Because people telling a story will try...on purpose...to instill that story with drama, they'll do it without even realizing they're doing it because they just know it feels like the right thing. Its automatic.

Sim play requires excising this natural instinct out of your play habits.  You are simply not aloud to manipulate story that way in Sim play.  It goes against the very purity of simulationism.

And THAT is why Sim play is not natural...must be learned...and requires most people to be indoctrinated in it before they can do it.  And THAT is one key reason why this hobby is a fringe hobby.  Cause there aren't many people in the general populace who find this fun.

And that includes many people who do it by habit because they've been told that's how its 'supposed' to be.

[Caldis]

Sorry that the metaphor was seen as the object of the point I was trying to make. Please let me make it without the metaphor:

Most stories that folks tell, or read about, or see on TV or at the Movies, engage the audience by setting up a situation, applying dramatic tension, building to a climax, and resolving the situation. What a good many stories don't do is address any premise.

I think most people get that part wrong, all stories try to have a point.  It may not be a deep point or it may not be valid but all stories try to have one.  That point sharpened and brought into focus is a premise.  Every bad sitcom has one, usually something about the strength of family.

The point of narrativism is that the players have the ability to make that statement.  They can decide that Father doesnt know best.  Simulationism can still have that point or premise it just doesnt allow the players to address it.

[beingfrank]

Ralph:

I think a distinction needs to be made between what people naturally enjoy/understand/find entertaining and what they naturally do.  I'm not getting into the whole question of 'naturally' which is a sticky mess all of it's own.

The point being is that we humans are intrinsically hard wired to understand the nature and format of a story.  We can identify good stories without even trying.  We may not be able to articulate what we like about them without exposure to the jargon of lit theory, but a lack of lit theory classes doesn't prevent people from enjoying stories.

What's the point of this rambling...simply this.  People understand intuitively what makes for a good story.  That's why playing Nar is said to be natural.  Because people telling a story will try...on purpose...to instill that story with drama, they'll do it without even realizing they're doing it because they just know it feels like the right thing. Its automatic.

People may enjoy stories, be hardwired to understand their nature and format, identify good stories with their eyes shut, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have any ability to tell stories.

I think that all you can assume from the points that you made, and assuming your premises to be true, is that people naturally enjoy Nar play more.  Not that they are more naturally inclided to actually do it.

People tend to start of rather crap at telling stories.  They have trouble identifying the drama in their own stories until they've told them a few times.  Good storytelling is a skill that is learnt.

Maybe people would be better off if they naturally did Nar play straight out of the egg, given your hypothesis that people are naturally hardwired to enjoy it more?  But I can't see any reason in your argument to suggest that is has to be so, other than 'wouldn't it be nice?'

I don't know what the truth is.  It would be interesting to look at studies of storytelling styles and play styles in young children, to get some idea of what people naturally do, but I can't see a huge amount of utility in saying 'Nar is more natural' or that sort of statement.  Perhaps I'm missing the point?  What would one do with that fact if one could establish it?

Claire Bickell

[Jack Spencer Jr]

You can tell a story that is engaging and good without adressing a premise.

Here, I'm afraid, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it is impossible to have a well-crafted story without there being some kind of point to it. Point coinciding with the definition of premise. The point may not be conciously chosen, but it is impoosible to have a well-crafted story without it.

We're going to get nowhere discussing a hypethetical grandfather's hypethetical story. We'd be discussing smoke.

[greyorm]

Interjection: Claire, ability has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't. You can create a completely crappy, shallow, awful, horrid story that you're ashamed to talk about ever again, and it would still be Narrativist -- because whether good or bad, the attempt is all that matters, not the ability or the success. Ron's Narrativism essay does make note of this point (and way more clearly than I have).

[Valamir]

Hey Claire, I agree, its certainly not a given that people tell stories well.  I know lots of people who bore me to tears telling stories.  

But the issue at hand wasn't one of talent, it was responding to posts which questioned why gamist and narrativist tendencies were put forward as being natural while Sim tendencies generally required being learned.

Nar play comes naturally.  Good Nar play...like good anything, takes practice.