The Hard Question extended

[RDU Neil]

Hi Neil,

You may be interested to know that when I first introduced this idea, I specifically stated that it has nothing to do, at all, with "natural" vs. "not natural." It only has to do with "easily learned, common" and "not easily learned, not common."

From the very beginning of this and related threads, you have walked straight into the tar pit that I told everyone to avoid. So all I can do is spread my hands and say, "Sticky in there, ain't it?"

Best,
Ron

I've got no problem getting dirty.  It's the most interesting kind of issue, IMO.  I'd rather come to a "Agree to disagree" situation after being covered in tar, than feel like we are just talking around the issue and avoiding it because it is sticky.  That just undermines my sense of value in a paradigm... I'd rather have the GNS paradigm say "This is part of it, and has no clear answer" rather than "It's not part of the model."  The latter seems like intellectual fudging, IMO.

Just me, though.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Neil,

By sticky and tar, I'm not talking about uncomfortable or dangerous topics. I'm talking about intellectually worthless, non-defined, and logically-invalid pseudo-topics.

The word "natural" has no definition. It is often employed as an effective value-judgment masquerading as a justification (this has a name: the "naturalistic fallacy").

I am saying there is no naturalness issue. First, no one said that "Sim is less natural!" Second, and more relevant, a discussion of natural or unnatural anything is absolutely without rhetorical and logical value.

So the stickiness I'm referring to is not controversy (which is a fine thing). It is the stickiness of confusion, vagueness, and circular argument. I am recommending that you simply step out of that zone, clean up, and return to a meaningful topic.

I also suggest that you take some time to process these points rather than fire back a reply that defends your sense of justification.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

For something that's kind of my pet topic, I don't have much to say that I haven't already said in the linked threads.  However, I do have a little to say.

M.J. mentioned the Discovery: The "It" of Simulationism thread at the beginning, and I'd like to talk about that a little.

If Sim exists, then I believe M.J.'s "It"/Discover definition holds the most value.  It's logically sound, and doesn't fall into defining Sim in reference to Exploration or causality.  The short version of the story is that the Exploration and causality definitions lead us to discussions like this, and the Beeg Horseshoe Theory to resolve them.  The Beeg Horseshoe Theory has it's own helping of 'good idea', and I'm presently leaning towards something similar.  

However, M.J. seems to have a very firm grasp on Nar|Char (the primarily sticking point in these discussions), and he's seeing something else at work with Discovery.  I'm presently uncertain it is a unique priority, but I can't think of a reason to doubt his definition other than I don't think I've seen it; which really isn't much of a reason.  It might be worth considering trying to define the Discovery agenda separate from Sim, considering all the confusion surrounding Sim.

On that topic, I'd like to point to:

The Social Mode
Started by Sean, discussing a creative agenda focused on learning about the other players; a social agenda.

Exploration of Self
Started by Emily, discussing a creative agenda focused on learning about oneself; a therapeutic agenda.

Both seemed like creative agendas to me, and maybe what they are is sub-styles of a Discovery agenda.  I think if those agendas exist they are rare, but I feel the same about a Discovery agenda.

*****

This does help me explain a question I was dealing with on another forum. In this case it was about "Why do people play RPGs?" and the extra question was "Why do most people give up make believe, and we don't?" We being RPgamers.

I just have to quibble over this.  People who aren't role-players haven't given up on make believe.  They just happen to express it differently, maybe by daydreaming or playing fantasy football.

*****

You may be interested to know that when I first introduced this idea, I specifically stated that it has nothing to do, at all, with "natural" vs. "not natural." It only has to do with "easily learned, common" and "not easily learned, not common."

I think you and Neil (or whoever) are just having a semantics problem.  In context of 'natural ability' or 'natural talent', 'easily learned' and 'natural' are synonymous (from my perspective).

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jason, I don't think it's a matter of semantics at all. But I also think that discussions of naturalness are best reserved for a far more formal and far more restricted venue than an internet forum. So perhaps it's best (as I did in the original threads about this stuff) to let people say as they will and regard it as necessary fuzz in the system.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Before I get to Neil's points, I want to touch on a couple of the other posts that have appeared. One of them is Jay's (Silmenume), and the other is Ralph's.

The second big source of Simulationism in roleplaying comes from genre emulators. These are people that may never have been exposed to the wargame mind set, but come to the table to play Star Trek (for example) as close to the way "it should be" as they can. In Ron's essay, he refers to this group as the Canonical Fandom. For these gamers the experience of emulation is the primary attraction to play. This attitude gets more broadly distilled away from specific licensed property and towards broader ideas of "genre" but its still the same basic mind set.

This is also something that has to be learned.

Ah, and perhaps that is where all of those simulationists come from. Before there were chatrooms, I wondered what it would be like to be in a world like Middle Earth, or Star Trek, or a fairy tale or Arabian Nights world. Gee, I was in fourth grade when I wondered what it would be like to be the king in a chess world, just for the sake of wondering. I often wondered what it would be like to be in the world that was in a book, or a movie; to live at a different time in history, past or future; to be someone other than who I was. This always interested me.

Maybe it's fringe. It always interested my wife, too, from what I can tell--we discovered D&D together, precisely because we were very interested in finding something like Lord of the Rings, Narnia, The Princess and the Goblin, that would create the feeling of being inside the fairy tale--not the game played in that world (we had already been disappointed by the SPI Middle Earth game, the name of which I don't recall, because it was a game, not an experience of being in Middle Earth). I think a lot of people wonder what it would be like to be in another world. Some of them wind up in role playing games, some in fan play (I know a guy who plays no RPGs but has a Borg designation and goes to Star Trek conventions in costume with the rest of his unit), some immersed in reading, some in writing, some in acting. I think there is a universal desire to "be someone else" and to "go somewhere else" that everyone experiences at some point in their life, and that this is the foundation of simulationist imaginative play. Whether it's imagining what it would be like to be grown up, or what it would be like to be a wizard, or what it would be like to be a star, it is that what if? that defines the dream and makes simulationism something to which everyone can relate, at least briefly.

The whole aspect thereafter is, "Now that we are this person/in this place, what do we do next?" For some, it leads to gamism or narrativism; for others, it leads to, "find out more about this person/this place", and that's simulationism.

Jay, you keep coming back to that one synecdoche, seeing all simulationism as character experience. I have agreed with you before that "being this other person" is a major simulationist experience; but I think that "being me, somewhere else" is also a major simulationist experience. What if we were Over the Rainbow, not being Dorothy, but being us, in Dorothy's place? Simulationism is not as narrow as "character in situation"; sometimes it's "situation in setting", with character being a very minor part of it (pawn-driven sim).

Your suggested recreation of the origins of roleplaying is interesting, but doesn't seem to fit the facts. The creators were hobby gamers, which at the time meant primarily miniatures wargames. The original supplements were Chainmail books designed to incorporate fantasy creatures and characters into warfare. It was only later that they discovered what they had created.

What exactly is the "Hard Question" you are asking, M.J.?  My thread seemed to shift the Hard Question from "Are you Sim by habit?" to "Is Sim really a CA at all?"   (Is that still what we are talking about here?)

That's where I am. I was rather upset that it seemed to have moved so decisively from "Sim is as natural (whatever that means) as any other agendum" to "Sim doesn't actually seem to exist". I was agreeing with you on the first point, and then seemed unable to respond when the thread took such an abrupt turn.

I'm objecting to the conclusion you reached in that thread, that Sim is not equally a creative agendum.

To me, all of this becomes clearer, less contradictory, if Sim is looked at from a different position.  Sim is insanely important... I would never say otherwise... but as a method, not a mode.  It is a method with degrees, both of which the pure "G" and the pure "N" are theoretical extremes... Sim abstracted to a point where it doesn't appear Sim (as method) any longer.

Much of what follows talks about how you have to use sim to get to gam and nar; that's both right and wrong.

To prioritize simulationism is to prioritize The Dream for its own sake; or, as I put it in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10456">the referenced thread, to Pursue Discovery or Knowledge or Understanding, rather than to Pursue Story through Address of Premise, or Glory through Stepping Up to Challenge.

You say that you can't do narrativism or gamism without a hefty dose of simulationism, but that is wrong probably in three ways.

First, you really can do narrativism and gamism in very abstract games, in which those concepts normally associated with simulationism aren't present to any significant degree. Such surreal games are uncommon, but not impossible.

Second, you're confusing a creative agendum with its trappings. You have no simulationism at all unless you are prioritizing discovery for its own sake--just as you have no narrativism at all unless you are prioritizing the address of premise, and no gamism at all unless you are actively seeking glory. How real the world is, how much character immersion you have, how well the mechanics emulate real-world physics--none of that makes it simulationism at all. It isn't simulationism unless play is about understanding/experiencing those things in preference over the others. Exploration squared, prioritizing the dream, seeking discovery--these are all ways of trying to say that in simulationism, play is about learning for its own sake.

Third, even if you could point to these things and say that this means simulationism "is present", you can also point to things that suggest gamism, and things that suggest narrativism. There are always "simulationist trappings" in a role playing game--the verisimilitude of setting, some degree of internal causality, some level of character and world immersion. There are also always "gamist trappings" in every role playing game--task or event resolution, character effectiveness definitions, concepts of time and space limitations. "Narrativist trappings" are also found all the time--sequential story flow, the presence of moral and ethical concepts, the limitations of character personality. The trappings do not equal the prioritization. All three agenda involve trappings from the other two in facilitating themselves. The question isn't whether there are aspects of the game that could support one or another agendum, but whether in play the players are prioritizing it.

Sim is seen as as odd man out compared with G & N in Ron's theory... right?

It frequently is; that's precisely the impetus for my post which initiated the referenced thread. It is not the odd man out. As Jason (Cruciel) points out, that thread is about establishing that there really is something above exploration in simulationism. Gamism is focusing on exploration to pursue glory through challenge. Narrativism is focusing on exploration to pursue story through premise. Simulationism is focusing on exploration to pursue knowledge through exploration.

It has been considered the "odd man out" in the past because people couldn't grasp this notion of exploration in support of exploration, and thus read it as "exploration plus nothing", instead of "exploration plus exploration", the two uses here being extremely close, but the first having more to do with the creation of that shared imaginary space and the second with the knowledge that comes from it.

Even in concrete Sim play there will be tendencies toward Nar or Gam....

I'm glad you wrote that, because I read it a lot, but you know what? People fail to see the opposite: even in concrete nar and gam play there will be tendencies toward sim. It's the same thing, really; people just think of sim as the baseline against which the other two are compared, but really each is a baseline of its own against which the other two are compared.

I think that's very important. Again, the trappings of all three agenda are present in all three agenda. Agendum isn't about the trappings, but about the prioritization of one of these.

I'm sure Ron is about to come along and say that's what he's been saying all along. I know, Ron; I got it.

I hope this clarifies things, Neil. I think that the renunciation of Simulationism as a co-equal agendum within the model would be a devastating blow to the entire theory. People really do play to be there, to discover what if, to learn from the experience, without interest in glory or story except as they happen to pop up now and then as part of the experience. This isn't "exploration plus nothing"; it's an agendum in which the players have very specific objectives, but the language is too vague.

I'll bet I'm about to cross-post with a slew of posts; well, we'll see in a moment.

--M. J. Young

[Rob Carriere]

I can't imagine anyone going into one of those Star Trek, or Charmed Ones Sims without ever having seen the show.  You have to learn this stuff, you have to absorb it and beable to create pastiche from it at a moments notice.

I wonder, aren't we using `learned' in two different meanings here?

1. Sim, the mode of play, has to be learned.
2. The subject of whatever you are simming has to be learned.

If I understand the argument correctly, those could be independently true or false.

SR
--

[pete_darby]

Just a quicky:

To my mind, the present dominant form of exploration in published game texts, exploration of situation through a mechanically simulating system, is one that is by no means representative of the total possible forms of simulationist tendencies.

Which is to say... freeform sim is very easy to learn, and do. The dominant emotion of simulationism, curiosity, whether it be curiosity about real or imagined worlds, is as easily widespread as the emotions of pride and empathy, the dominant emotions of Gamism and Narrativism.

The techniques of freeform sim are easily understood: jointly building castles in the air.

What is less easily grasped by a newbie is simulation by mechanics, which are inherited from the gaming roots of the mainstream of the hobby.

[contracycle]

Contra, I feel that this is slightly unfair.  Many of us are new to these forums and ideas.  Of course we are going to tread on the same ground as those before us.  You are just further along the process than I... give me a chance to work thru some of this stuff... and after me?  There will be add'l "newbies" to this whole thing.  Doesn't mean that their opinions are any less valid than yours or mine.

Hmm, thats almost entirely the oppisite of what I mean to say.  I'm suggesting that the old fogeys are contributing to the problem by directing conversation down well-trodden paths, when in fact I'd like to see more input from a total outsiders perspective.

We discuss concepts related to and derived from LitCrit quite frequently; and yet have almost non discussion of drama theory.  I think that area would be worth exploring, but if all queries are directed down the path specifically of RPG developement, rather than the much broader path of 'the arts', then we end up in this pernicious (IMO) cycle.

[RDU Neil]

M.J.

I don't disagree with anything you say, really.  I'm actually pretty damn sure that I am a Sim prioritization player, and to a lesser extent Sim & Nar as GM.

And in no way did I want to diminish Sim as being less that Nar or Gam.

You wrote...

I'm glad you wrote that, because I read it a lot, but you know what? People fail to see the opposite: even in concrete nar and gam play there will be tendencies toward sim. It's the same thing, really; people just think of sim as the baseline against which the other two are compared, but really each is a baseline of its own against which the other two are compared.

This was exactly my point, that none of these CAs can exist without Simulation, because Sim IS Exploration... which leads to what you wrote later...

I think that the renunciation of Simulationism as a co-equal agendum within the model would be a devastating blow to the entire theory. People really do play to be there, to discover what if, to learn from the experience, without interest in glory or story except as they happen to pop up now and then as part of the experience.

To this I say... YES... I am one of those who explore just to explore.  That is me, hands down, my main priority.  I don't mean to denigrate Sim... but to elevate it ABOVE Nar and Gam.  Nar only exists if you prioritize Premise in your simulation... Gam only exists if you prioritize winning in your simulation.

Sim just exists.  It just is.   It exists just by doing it, without a need to have a conscious or unconscious agenda... but is not reduced if you DO have an priority... Sim doesn't care.

Ok... that is half ass zen speech, and I'm tired from 16 hours of actual gaming rather than just theorizing about it, so I'm not communicating well at this point.  I guess I'm just saying that I think Gam & Nar can't exist without Sim... but Sim can exist with Gam & Nar.  Exploration plus Exploration is just an unnecessary complication that desires to make Sim equal to Gam & Nar... when it is actually GREATER than both.  (If Sim is taken AS Exploration, which is already agreed upon as the basis for all Creative Agendas.)

I think taking Sim as a CA itself is an attempt to keep it from being ignored or taken for granted.  All the talk of Nar and Gam are focusing on the interior decoration and appliances, and never commenting on the house itself.  

In the end, I think we both agree on the importance of Sim (whether we use that term or not) and we likely get our enjoyment from the mode in priority.  I'm just coming from the the position that the GNS paradigm was created to talk about Gam and Nar... and was based on the idea that "yeah, Sim (read Exploration) is critical to the RPG experience, but we aren't interested in talking about that.  We aren interested in talking about what you do with Sim... either Gam or Nar."

To me that is a the flaw... and trying to force Sim to the level of Gam & Nar is actually detrimental to Sim... not helpful.  It confuses the issue, making it hard to define what it is, because it is adding on superficial layers, trying to become a CA, when it is really more than that... it IS RPGaming (here comes the flames!) and Nar and Gam are just subsets of it.  Instead of being the odd stepbrother... one of three.   It is "the one" (maybe we should call it Neo) and the other two are prioritization driven aspects of "the one."

Exploration for exploration's sake.   Unneccessary.

Sim just is.

(I could say this same thing, over and over again... and maybe get better at it over time... and I'm certainly willing to hear other's comments on this... but I'm not really arguing the point... I'm just making a point to see what others think.  The Beeg Horsehoe just happened to correspond somewhat to where my brain was at that time.)

[M. J. Young]

This was exactly my point, that none of these CAs can exist without Simulation, because Sim IS Exploration...

See, I agree with that; but I also think that to some degree the way you are using Simulationism in this context can be equally applied to gamism and narrativism.

That is, simulationism isn't exploration; it is the prioritization of exploration for the purpose of discovery/understanding/experience. In the same way, narrativism is the prioritization of exploration for the purpose of creating theme from premise and gamism is the prioritization of exploration for the purpose of gaining glory from meeting challenge.

Thus the fact that you have exploration doesn't mean you have simulationism; it means you have exploration. Further, the fact that you have discovery as part of play doesn't mean you have simulationism, unless discovery is the point of play.

In the same way, play will always have premise and create theme, incidentally in small ways, at some level; and it will always involve meeting challenge in play. There will always be gamist and narrativist elements in any role playing game. That doesn't make them gamist or narrativist; it makes them role playing games. There will always be simulationist elements in any role playing game which do not make it simulationist.

I don't mean to denigrate Sim... but to elevate it ABOVE Nar and Gam.  Nar only exists if you prioritize Premise in your simulation... Gam only exists if you prioritize winning in your simulation.

Ah, but Sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your simulation. Further, sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your game and in your story, and nar only exists if you prioritize premise in your game, and gam only exists if you prioritize challenge in your story. Sim doesn't just exist; it exists when it is prioritized.

So I think simulationism has to be viewed as co-equal with the other two--neither something greater nor something less.

--M. J. Young

[Ian Charvill]

Ah, but Sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your simulation. Further, sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your game and in your story, and nar only exists if you prioritize premise in your game, and gam only exists if you prioritize challenge in your story. Sim doesn't just exist; it exists when it is prioritized.

M.J.

Actually, I think you can round that out further:

sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your game and in your story[/list:u]

nar only exists if you prioritize premise in your game and in your exploration[/list:u]

gam only exists if you prioritize challenge in your story and in your exploration[/list:u]

[RDU Neil]

I guess my question then... since the vague "Only if you prioritize..." is always the rote answer around here... is "What if you aren't prioritizing ANYTHING?"  

By that I mean, prioritizing one over the other.  Each moment of a game, the priority is probably on one thing or another, as the moment "feels right" but for 20 plus years, I've played and been successful at it in many different environments, without every really prioritizing one over the other.

You may say, "Yes you have, unconsciously, and likely not aware of it," and I say, fine... but that makes prioritization so mushy as to be worthless in any predictive way.

Now I'm back to my comment that GNS is wonderful for analyzing, after the fact, a player clash that hurt the game...

... At that moment, Player A was clearly Sim character, and the actions he took upset Player B who felt his play detracted from the Premise...

But it just becomes speculative thought games that is more confusing than useful, since the model bends over backward to avoid every defining anything in clear, definitive terms.

Since prioritize can't be locked into "Do X over Y" then it is only helpful when looking back at a situation and saying, "Ok... I was likely in Nar mode, and that's where the break happened."

[Bankuei]

Hi Neil,

Prioritizing is judged on actions, not motivations, that's why when we're talking hypotheticals, or when someone wants to know, "How am I playing?", its very hard to say without enough information, and most likely, unless you're there watching it, you have to deal with selective memory.

As far as GNS being useful for defusing trouble during play, its about as useful as knowing how the folks in your group are, being aware enough to detect what's going on, and dealing with it.  

Consider:

"Oh, Jim's being too flirty with Susan again, and she's getting uncomfortable, I'd better keep things moving to tone him down."

And:

"Tom and Bill are arguing rules vs. reality again...ugh.  Here goes the G vs. S debate again..."

Either situation requires that you pay attention to the people at the table, and what's happening, more than simply what is said.  You can't really diffuse a situation if you don't even know what's going on, regardless of whether you are using theory or simple social agility.

With enough awareness, it becomes easy to recognize the issues during play itself, although diffusing them is a matter the theory was never designed to do, so it depends on the people involved.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

Thanks, Ian--that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Neil, people always prioritize. We don't usually think about what we're prioritizing--we just do it.

If we're playing the same game, we're probably playing it the way we've always played it. That means that if I usually play it sim, I'm probably going to play it sim now. (I'm a bad example, because I drift a lot, but the idea is still solid.)

If we look back at what went wrong in that game session we had, and discover it's because my sim is conflicting with your nar, we've learned something useful--because probably that's a conflict that will recur in future games unless we address it.

Addressing it in this case may mean trying to work out between us what we really want from play--one of us agreeing to try the other's agendum. It may mean learning to drift better, or transition on some structured basis. It may mean tossing out the game we've always played and picking up two new ones, one which really supports your nar and so creates disincentives for my sim so I'll play your way, another that really pushes sim so that you'll play sim instead of nar. Or maybe we need to find a game where you can play nar and I can play sim without really interfering with each other. Or maybe we need to play pinochle when we get together, and look for someone else with which to roleplay.

GNS becomes predictive because people have play habits. What you have prioritized in the past you will probably prioritize in the future, unless you consciously address it and look to do something different.

One of the biggest things GNS does for people is make them aware that others are not playing "wrong", but that there are several distinct major approaches to play each of which is regarded as "right" by some people, and that they probably belong to one of these. As Mike is fond of saying, everyone really can enjoy all three agenda (one at a time) if they can open themselves up to trying them. As long as you're locked into thinking, "this is how these things are done" you can't really get beyond that to learning why "those other players" are having fun doing things all "wrong". Once you can see what it is you're doing and how it could be done differently, suddenly it's possible to have fun playing in all those "wrong" games you never understood before.

--M. J. Young

[RDU Neil]

Wouldn't argue with any of that... and it's exactly how I use GNS in my own game.  Had a very clear need to do just that this past weekend, and things worked out.

I'll leave it at that... no need to try and convince me of something I already agree with.  The rest is just theoretical play, and not meant to cause argument... just questions.