The hard question...

[Valamir]

Ok... I'm going to get flamed for this. But I really think this is crucial.

All this "Sim with heavy illusionist technique" or "Nar with a heay emersive technique" and all that anal parsing might just be the result of a major flaw in GNS.

It isn't GNS... it is simply GN... with N coming in two very distinct camps... conscious/directed premise... and unconscious/undirected premise.

Yes, I know I'm taking a wild stab at the heart of something very dear to folks here... but this really begins to make sense to me, this way.

Flamed?

Hardly.  Do a search on Beeg Horseshoe.  You aren't the first person to suggest something similiar to this.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

And furthermore, the "GN" only model was actually my first choice following my decision that Exploration is the foundational act of role-playing. Only massive outcries and multiple examples of play which overtly rejected both G and N led me to include Simulationism as a Creative Agenda at all. You can all thank Mike Holmes in particular for that.

Both the section Controversy: is that third box really there? in "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" and the whole essay "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" were written with this issue in mind.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Hardly.  Do a search on Beeg Horseshoe.  You aren't the first person to suggest something similiar to this.

From Mike Holmes on the Beeg Horshoe thread...

First, I am only an advocate of Beeg Horseshoe as a visual model of what's going on. That is, that in describing gamism and narrativism as linked to simulationism inextricably by the horseshoe shape itself (but notably not to each other), it says that you can't have one without the other. You can have gamism without narrativism (the "prongs" of the horseshoe don't touch), but you can't have gamism or narrativism without first coming from the base of the horseshoe, which is exploration.

Where I differ with Beeg Horseshoe is that I don't see failure to reach the prongs as a failure, or retreat from the "fun" part of play: that's what Jared, and other supporters claimed. Simulationism, should it exist in the model would be staying nearer to the base of the model if/when opportunities come around to go out on a prong. But it's my supposition, essentially, that this is because, for some players, if you go out on those prongs in certain situations, the horseshoe breaks, the gamism or narrativism no longer is connected to exploration, and the game ceases to be an RPG for that individual. It loses that essential exploration quality that RPGs have for that player.

So, staying near the base to an extent, is something we all do when playing RPGs unavoidably. The only question is the level to which we feel that we can come out to the prongs without the horseshoe breaking. That's the "sim" part of every agenda. And it's a positive thing, because I think all players are looking for either narrativism and/or gamism (or play "like" these, if you consider these to be "beyond the base level of support), and can only get them in the context of the appropriate level of support. That is, even if you want to move to something beyond exploring, you can't do it without maintaining that appropriate level of support first. Which means, occasionally not going out on that limb at all when the moment isn't right.

Doing this in most cases is what I think gets labeled simulationism. That is, satisfied with the product of exploration, why threaten to break the exploratory feel at that particular point. There will be other points at which congruence will allow for both urges to be satisfied, so there's no reason to have to go out on that prong at that particular moment.

The "gamist" or "narrativist" can still see this as a conflict, yes, because they expect that people will travel down that prong at the slightest opportunity. But even these sorts will not often do so when it drops the exploratory feel. Those who would, I'd label "hardcore" in that they really don't want the full RPG experience, they simply want a more expansive framework in which to Step on Up, or create Story Now.

Does that help?

Yup!  Abso-friggin lutely... though I think I take this farther, in suggesting that Sim is not a "mode" of play as much as a technique used to either Gam or Nar.  Mike is saying it is an essential "first mode" through which you move to Gam or Nar.  

close enough... we are 99% saying the same thing... but I may be more extreme in saying that S is not a mode at all, but a mutant technique so big it is perceived as mode.

Thanks for the link... interesting that I came up with this without any clue as to this Beeg Horseshoe thing at all.

[pete_darby]

Neil, it's all in how it plays, what people are focussing on.

Take the zombie game as concrete: are folk concentrating on playing to address the issue "What can a person do when faced with insurmountable opposition?" or something along those lines, or are they concentrating on "what would someone like this really do in this situation?" They sound very similar, but are very different questions. The first prizes the creation of a meaningful story, the second prizes the creation of a "deep", authentic shared imaginary space. Each can support the other in hybrid play, but they're aiming at different ends.

That definition of premise you quoted doesn't mean "the characters have a reason for doing what they do", it means "the players are invested in the address of these issues through these characters"

I'll trot out my personal definition of an Egri style premise here:  

A premise is a question that can only be properly formed in general terms, but only adequately addressed in specific terms.

So premises form in the terms of "What would you risk... is it right... can X be justified... Can you X when Y" And the way the players form the game around their answers to those questions forms the theme for the game.

Going back to zombies... a possible premise could be "should you struggle to survive in hopeless situations?", and every action could be seen as addressing premise in retrospect. But, to my mind, unless the folks are grooving on that in play, pushing the characters to test the limits of that premise, they aren't adressing that premise. If they're focussed on the authenticity of the events in the SiS over the premise, it sounds like Sim to me.

(and if you've looked up the Beeg Horseshoe, I'm a BH skeptic. There's definitely a pro-active sim agenda happening in games that's not just RPG without the G or N).

{edited to note: cross posted with the above three posts, at least.}

[RDU Neil]

Hello,

And furthermore, the "GN" only model was actually my first choice following my decision that Exploration is the foundational act of role-playing. Only massive outcries and multiple examples of play which overtly rejected both G and N led me to include Simulationism as a Creative Agenda at all. You can all thank Mike Holmes in particular for that.

Both the section Controversy: is that third box really there? in "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" and the whole essay "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" were written with this issue in mind.

Best,
Ron

Cross posted with you, Ron.  Sorry.   My main theory in life being KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) I'm very sympathetic to going back and cutting off confusion at the source, rather than creating vast, intricate models that try to cover paradoxes.

Losing S in the model works for me, big time.  (The Sim article has only confused me more, as the whole "dream" concept just loses me.  It is not a word I'd have ever used to describe Sim play.)

[RDU Neil]

Neil, it's all in how it plays, what people are focussing on.

Take the zombie game as concrete: are folk concentrating on playing to address the issue "What can a person do when faced with insurmountable opposition?" or something along those lines, or are they concentrating on "what would someone like this really do in this situation?" They sound very similar, but are very different questions. The first prizes the creation of a meaningful story, the second prizes the creation of a "deep", authentic shared imaginary space. Each can support the other in hybrid play, but they're aiming at different ends.

So, to this extent, what if it really is a "horse before cart" or "cart before horse" situation.

Both questions actually get to the same place, but the focus during play is different.

Explore meaningful story created by authentic shared space

vs.

Explore an authentic shared space to create a meaningful story.


Again, to what I wrote above, the point really comes (in my mind) about where "reflection" comes in.

In the first, players are reflecting on the meaning as it happens.  In the latter, they reflect on the meaning by looking back on what happened.

Both create a meaningful story... and that is the end destination of both... just the play technique differs.  To say that looking back and examining meaning in retrospect is "less Nar" than doing it during play (and my experience is that both happen in all games) seems like a complication.

Again, I'd propose (or basically second those that have proposed this before) that Sim and Nar are not at odds... and sim should be seen for what it is, a large, dominant technique that is mistaken for an actual mode of play.  Instead, Nar is either conscious/continuous Nar... or retrospective/unconscious Nar.

The end result could be different at the extremes of these variations on Nar... but most often would be very similar in most actual RPG experiences.

[RDU Neil]

Oh... and we can end this thread now, unless anyone objects.  I think I have my initial questions answered.

Just a nod to Claire~beingfrank...

I'm a Girl Guide leader in my spare time, and we use a little bit of roleplaying as an instruction tool with girls who can range from 6-18 in age. In trying to teach them teamwork and such we often ask them to roleplay out situations. Most of this is very Nar is design. "Make up a skit about what makes a good team leader. Make up a skit about why it's important to look after the environment. Make up a skit where your best friend announces she hates you." That seems pretty Nar to me and my limited understanding of GNS. And yet what the girls almost invariably produce is Sim. They get into what they're doing and just noodle about rather than dealing with drama or anything like that. These are not roleplayers. They haven't been exposed to any roleplaying at all. They're probably as good a sample I can think of of people unbiased by the culture of roleplaying (as in 'learning Sim') and yet that's what I've observed. It's just one set of data points. But it does make me reconsider the logic that Nar is more natural.

I think this is a major point.  This is basic "modeling" behavior.  It is how children learn.  They simply "do" what they have seen done in a similar situation.  They know the situation had meaning (to Valamir's point, they recognize story) but when asked to skit or to just talk about it, they will reflect "behavior" without really having any recognition of how the behavior creates the meaning.  Monkey see, monkey do.   THAT is our natural tendency.

It is only after our simple Sim behavior is found wanting, do we begin to self reflect and analyze behavior for meaning.  We begin to learn that simple copying of behavior does not make for meaningful action.  When we begin to grasp the nuances and subtleties of how our actions reflect on us and affect others (Nar)... we are considered to be maturing.

Even adults do this.  I teach management training, and I often see adults, when faced with new situations, simply "act" like someone else they have seen.  Now, they realize quickly that it doesn't work very well in actually addressing the situation... but it was their first instinct.

Nar appeal/recognition may be instinctual... but Sim BEHAVIOR is the natural action to take, IMO.  To ACT Nar... that takes training.  As adults, especially those of us who have studied or simply self reflected a long time... we may forget what we've learned to do, and think of it as innate and natural.

I say, remember what it was like to be a kid.  To me, Sim is the natural technique (or mode of play if we keep it at that level) we all start with.

[Ron Edwards]

All closed now.

Best,
Ron