Looong post on Sim definition

[M. J. Young]

You make an excellent case, Jay. It appears that I may be attempting to describe play which falls outside the model.

Thus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore

is not conflict sufficient to drive exporation under the model, then I have indeed produced an example of play which appears to be and yet is not exploration as defined.

I would have classified that style of play as "pure vanilla simulationism", exploration for the sake of exploration, driven solely by the desire to know. Your assertion is to say that it's not exploration at all, and thus not really roleplaying as defined in the model.

To my mind, that makes the existence of such play a fundamental challenge to the model itself. I don't say that's a bad thing; it's just rather shocking to me that something I see and do so frequently which has all the marks of being exploration and role playing should be a problem for the model, and that it should never have been so noticed before.

I think that there are quite a few players here who have long identified themselves as simulationists (or as having played by that agendum in the past) to whom this exclusion of so much discovery- and exploration-driven play from the model would come as a complete surprise. If you're right, then a lot of what we assume is "roleplaying" is defined by the model as "not roleplaying"; and since the model has always been presented as descriptive, not prescriptive, it doesn't have the right to make that judgment. If there are modes of play which are understood to be role play gaming by many gamers, and the model says they are not role play gaming, then the model is broken.

I should underscore that this is not merely a matter of having identified a fourth agendum. Your argument appears to say not that this sort of exploration gaming isn't sim but something else, but that it actually is not exploration, and therefore outside the model's definition of roleplaying.

I will be interested to see where this goes.

--M. J. Young

[ErrathofKosh]

Well, I don't think the model is broken...  In fact, I don't think what MJ describes is outside the model at all.

Here be some "official" definitions:

Exploration
The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another. Exploration includes five Components: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. See also Shared Imagined Space (a near or total synonym).

No need for conflict, adversity here...  The events MJ describes are both fictional and established through communication.  In fact, the only sticking I see in this dicussion is whether MJ's situation contains Situation.

Situation
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, Bang, and Challenge.

Well...  What means "dynamic?"  Does this little word infer conflict, adversity, etc.?  Or does it mean that the character must make decisions based on the information he is receiving from his setting?  I would postulate the latter case.  MJ's sim is really sim, and it DOESN'T need conflict or adversity to provide Exploration.

Jonathan

[Silmenume]

Thanks M. J.,

I agree about the conundrum left in the wake.  I've kinda been flip-flopping on that issue, not sure how to address it.  I have proposed both that it might be a forth agenda or that it isn't Exploration.  I have no idea right now how to deal with this particular set of circumstances, partly because I myself have only just formalized what I have been trying to demonstrate.

If you're right, then a lot of what we assume is "roleplaying" is defined by the model as "not roleplaying"; and since the model has always been presented as descriptive, not prescriptive, it doesn't have the right to make that judgment. If there are modes of play which are understood to be role play gaming by many gamers, and the model says they are not role play gaming, then the model is broken.

I'll buy that the model might need revision.  It certainly does regarding Sim, so its no surprise that there are other issues that might need attending to.  The model however is still descriptive, it doesn't say anyone must do anything; it just labels certain activities as X.  That certain activities fall outside it could mean a number of things.  That the model is faulty.  That those activities are indeed outside the realm of what the model concerns itself with.  Both these possibilities are wide open to debate.  I too am curious to see where this might lead.  I am also curious what the implications for Sim are now that the two modes of play have been disentangled.

Hey Jonathan,

Situation
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, Bang, and Challenge.

Well...  What means "dynamic?"  Does this little word infer conflict, adversity, etc.?  Or does it mean that the character must make decisions based on the information he is receiving from his setting?  I would postulate the latter case.  MJ's sim is really sim, and it DOESN'T need conflict or adversity to provide Exploration.

I'll covered this already in my previous post, so I hope that no one gives me the gimlet eye for referencing back to it within the same thread!

By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Without adversity there is no Situation.  How to define adversity?  I offer – a state of being whereby a Character must make a choice/act due to some antithetical force (be it man, nature or himself) and do so successfully or some undesired condition will come to pass.  The undesired condition is the result of the antithetical force acting unopposed.  Undesired presumes that the Character does have a desire.  Conflict is the condition of Character goal contacting antithetical force.

Emphasis mine.

So we do indeed see that conflict, which is assumed into adversity, is absolutely required in Situation.

Now one could argue that the two definitions given for Situation differ and that they do need to be reconciled.  However, even in the definition of Situation that is offered in the Provisional Glossary, which does not touch directly on conflict, strongly supports the idea of conflict and adversity when it points to the entries of Bang and Challenge for further clarification.

I hope that helps.

[ErrathofKosh]

Jay,
Thanks for the clarification.  Sorry I missed that.

So, if we assume that what MJ is actually doing is Exploration, there are two possibilities:
Either there is some conflict unconsciously being dealt with;
Or the definition of Situation needs to be expanded to include situations that aren't conflict driven.

On the other hand, if what MJ is doing is not Exploration, it is outside the scope of our model.  Though, IMO, it would still be worth exploring.

I espoused earlier that Situation doesn't have to include conflict.  I now need to reexamine that point of view.  I still think that it could be viable, but perhaps what MJ is doing is being driven...

Bang
The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer. See also Kicker.

Even when exploring the most peaceful setting, the character has choice.  He could lay down beside a pool and eat the bread-fruit for the rest of his existence (which would be diddling, not roleplaying) or he can wander out to explore his world.  I submit that perhaps this is a character introduced Bang.  He is introducing events into the game that make choice neccessary.  He is his own motivation; his conflict is internal: to relax and chew the cud or to go out and quantify his world.  It is a fundamental motivation in science, why not in sim?

But, perhaps this isn't adverse enough to be a conflict.  Then, I submit that "relevant stress" needs to be changed to "relevant motivation" in the definition of Situation.  Most often this would be adversity, but sometimes it would be a character introduced drive.

I could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

Cheers,
Jonathan

[contracycle]

The fact that conflict is a necessary component of situation does not necessarily imply that each mode must address that conflict.  In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that when a Sim dominant player does engage with conflict they may well do so by dropping into a temporary gamist mode.  IMO, there is no relationship between conflict and sim bar the accidental.

[Silmenume]

Hey Jonathan,

On the other hand, if what MJ is doing is not Exploration, it is outside the scope of our model. Though, IMO, it would still be worth exploring.

That whatever he does play (Explores) is satisfying is plenty good enough.  I think perhaps it should be noted that I am not trying to prove what M. J. described is Exploration of not.  I am just trying to clarify what makes Simulationism Simulationism!

Regarding your use of Bang, the gloss does not do the term justice.  Read up on a few threads on the use of Bangs.  Also I think maybe you should look at the Sorcerer Apprentice download.  The word Kicker is in the company of the following words – "problem and threat." Both of which are problems and/or threats to life, health, property, status, and loved ones.  Bangs are methods of getting things moving, IOW dropping conflict right on top of the Character – Now.  Bangs are just saturated with conflict.

The example you offer does not make choice necessary, nor is it particularly evocative.  Look at the use of Kicker in the Sorcerer download and know that Bang is closely associated with it.

All conflicts involve character introduced drive or there would be no conflict.  The Character would either succeed at everything he tried without any effort (because there is no antithetical force to counter his goal) or he would accept the status quo in docility because he had no goals that could come into contact with any antithetical force.

I could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

At this point I'm not sure what to think, but I invite you to consider starting a new thread that might serve that purpose better.  Right now I am more interested in sorting out the implications of this new perspective of Sim here.

Hey contracycle,

The fact that conflict is a necessary component of situation does not necessarily imply that each mode must address that conflict.

Actually it does.  Do not mistake a lack of evidence for no evidence.  This idea has only recently been opened and as M. J. indicated above, he was quite shocked that no one else had brought it up before.  Since all I have to work with right now is gainsaying there really isn't anywhere for me to go.

[M. J. Young]

I could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

At this point I?m not sure what to think, but I invite you to consider starting a new thread that might serve that purpose better.  Right now I am more interested in sorting out the implications of this new perspective of Sim here.

I do appreciate the need to keep threads focused; but I think that whether the sort of play I describe is role playing is very much one of "the implications of this new perspective on Sim". I could probably come up with a rather impressive list of posters here who would say that they have simulationist backgrounds to some significant degree who would have identified that sort of play as simulationist (Gareth, Ralph, and Mike come to mind, although don't take this as speaking for them on the point).

Thus one of the implications of this new perspective on simulationism is that a lot of things we have always thought were simulationism would not be, and might not even be exploration and therefore not role playing as defined by the model. Since I think this is roleplaying, and I think the model is sound, I tend to conclude that the suggestion it is not exploration (because it doesn't involve conflict as here defined) must be a mistake. Yet that is the result to which you are pushing with this description of simulationism: much that we call simulationism isn't even roleplaying according to the model.

That would be a failure of the model.

What you say about the interaction with conflict being necessary to exploration fundamentally precludes it not only from being simulationism, but also from being an unrecognized fourth agendum. In essence, you've said that such play isn't simulationist because it isn't role playing at all.

That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:

[*]Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.[*]Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.[*]The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.[/list:u]My vote would be for the second, although I could accept the first. Your proposal seems to me to require the third.

--M. J. Young

[ErrathofKosh]

Jay,

Either there is some conflict unconsciously being dealt with;
Or the definition of Situation needs to be expanded to include situations that aren't conflict driven.

That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:
Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.
My vote would be for the second, although I could accept the first. Your proposal seems to me to require the third.

...to "emotionally involved" play, and that left "intellectual-only" play out in the cold.

As I stated before, I think that the first two options presented by MJ are viable.  However, I now am definitely leaning toward the second option.  The idea of "emotionally involved" play versus "intellectual-only" play has struck home with me.  

Conflict, in player terms, must have some emotional entanglement, otherwise it is not conflict.  If I have my character face a terrible dragon, and I don't give a hoot about my character, I'm just rolling dice (or whatever).  There are two main ways that I can care about the conflict:
    Did I win?  Put up a good fight?  Lose with honor?
Or
   What does this tell me about my character? Myself?  The world?
With obvious other variants...

On the otherhand there is curiousity (for lack of a better term), which is an intellectual drive.  It drives me to Explore whatever.  This whatever includes conflict, character, but it is not limited by such.  Whatever I can dream of I can explore.  The involvement here arises here as:
     How do those people over there live?  How would fighting with "X" weapon work?  etc.

This view is driving toward some of the Beeg variants, I know.  But, put plainly, Sim tends toward intellectual satisfaction (and doesn't therefore need conflict) while Gam and Nar tend toward emotionally charged play (and they require conflict).  This is perhaps the reason Sim is so difficult to understand...

Don't hurt me... please?
:)

Jonathan

[Silmenume]

Hey M. J.

I did not mean to sound dismissive of this situation; I have been fighting my way towards this point almost since my arrival here at the Forge.  I understand and agree that if my arguments hold up that there would be tremendous ramifications regarding the model in general and Sim in particular.  I also agree and understand that there are lots of people with a vested interest in this topic, though few seem to be taking an interest at the present.  Let us assume for now that the agenda of play that you identify as Sim continues to be labeled Sim; I was looking to work out the ramifications of agenda X – the conflict integrated/inclusive agenda.  I will move that to a new thread and we can continue to discuss Sim (conflict indifferent/exclusive) and the Model here.

That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:[list=1][*]Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.[*]Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.[*]The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.[/list:o]

I do not think #1 could hold up under any circumstances for conflict not to include an opposing/antithetical force would be to void the meaning of the word conflict.  So I don't think one is a viable option.

#3 I would think would create the greatest amount of debate, but doesn't seem to be catching anyone's attention.  I think it would be interesting, and possibly fruitful as a shake up of the model that some have been calling for not too long ago, but...

That leaves #2.  This is an interesting idea, but I suggest in a way different than you had put forward.  There is a possibility that Exploration could be broken into two halves – constructive and deconstructive.  By constructive I mean that something is synthesized that is not directly present in the components, i.e., a Victory, a Theme, a Dream.  The constructed item is synthesized from the interaction of all the elements of exploration and modified by the fires of conflict – like the way the two gasses of hydrogen and oxygen plus energy yields something that is entirely unlike the two gasses – water.  By deconstructive I would refer to play that actually focuses on an element of Exploration to the exclusion of the others or makes an effort at pulling an element of Exploration apart to get at its components – IOW something that is not synthesizing beyond the elements themselves.  This would include such styles of play as - modeling (mechanics), describing/investigating (setting), personal expression (character/color), or socializing (no particular interest in Exploring per say, only doing so because everyone else is).

I want to make VERY clear that I do not mean anything negative by the term deconstructive play.

I would vote for two as well, but as I had described.  No surprise there!  Food for thought.

Hey Jonathan,

I see that by your emoticon all is well!  Sorry if I came off a little – heavy handed, my apologies!

Regarding emotional/intellectual play Ron was very prescient describing the term as a "tar baby".  I had never intended to argue the two as separate terms or styles of play.  Conflict is conflict - it can engage the emotions or not.  It can force one to engage the intellect or not.  The term is entirely irrelevant to my thesis.  Whatever the specific conflict is the player must attend to it.  He may react emotionally or not.  He may just bend his intellect upon it or not.  One may lash out emotionally or coolly contemplate the situation and figure ways around it.  Or one may react in a manner that encompasses both ends or meets somewhere in the middle.  The key is that conflict requires the player to engage or some negative will come to pass.  The whole emotional intellectual divide is a complete Red Herring!  Mom, Dad – keep your kids away from it!  It is dangerous and divisive.  No good comes from it!  Don't touch it!  It is pure concentrated evil!

Also, just to make sure everyone is on the same page, one does not Explore Setting, rather one uses Setting to Explore.

[Mike Holmes]

Baloney. One can explore setting, and this is roleplaying. Further as part of Simulationism it's not at all problematic. Dividing Simulaitonism up into two parts, OTOH, is problematic, because it's creating two types of play that aren't mutually exclusive, which the others are assumed to be.

Why can't these just be two forms of Simulationism?

Mike

[Silmenume]

Hey Mike,

I see your baloney and raise you a salami!

You make several assertions that are based on assumptions that have yet to be proven true.

We don't yet know if dividing Sim into the two parts that I had proposed will be problematic because no one has yet to examine the possibilities.

One can explore setting, and this is roleplaying.

This is an ambiguous statement that is difficult to resolve, but I will make an attempt.  Let me know if I was on the right meaning or not.

I'll start with the statement that one uses the elements of Exploration to Explore – one does not Explore the Elements of Exploration.  This is a vital distinction to make.  It means the elements of Exploration are used to some end – to create something beyond them.

That being said - if you meant one can use Setting to Explore without employing Situation then that is not Exploration.  As the Model currently stands, Exploration demands that all five elements be employed for that activity to be called role-play.  If there is no Situation then there is no Exploration.

Dividing Simulaitonism up into two parts, OTOH, is problematic, because it's creating two types of play that aren't mutually exclusive, which the others are assumed to be.

For the sake of this discussion I will call one part of the split Agenda X and the other part Simulation.  Agenda X will be conflict/Situation integrated/inclusive and Simulationism will be conflict/Situation indifferent/exclusive.  By the definitions I have offered they are mutually exclusive in that one does meet the definition of Exploration (Agenda X) while one does not (Sim).

[Mike Holmes]

The mutual exclusivity pertains player preference. That is, one cannot have two GNS agenda at the same time. More importantly, they have to be something that could cause a conflict of ideals in terms of how to play between players.

We don't yet know if dividing Sim into the two parts that I had proposed will be problematic because no one has yet to examine the possibilities.

Well, we can only speculate on this, but give me an example of some sort of action taken by a player who  is engaging in one of these activities that would, because of the fact of it's categorization, cause a player playing in the one mode to think that the player playing in the other mode was playing "incorrectly." I think that one player might think that the other was spending too much time on a particular subject, but that's exactly the sort of distinction that creates "sub-modes" and not the mutually exclusive modes of GNS. That is, I can't see a player thinking that a game had too little conflict, unless they were actually gamist or narrativist. To a simulationist, the game should have precisely as much conflict as is most plausible.

Again, a player might "angle" for more conflict, or less, and this might cause some player concern, but this would be more in the realm of simple aesthetics. You might as well say that Gamism where one is looking to do combat, and Gamism revolving around commerce represent two GNS modes. Where does it end?

Put another way, GNS modes are not about what "could" be problematic between adenda, but what always is problematic when a player insists on playing in his mode. That is, in the sub-modes that you describe, most of the time a player noting the play of another player as not precisely like his own will not see it as being inherently different from his mode of play. Simulationism is about reducing the appearance of the other two mode's metagame motives (the characters and world must appear to be objectively real, and less the product of the players). Both of these modes do that, and there can be no automatic objection between them, therefore.

Further, again, I can't see any player in either of these modes objecting to "switching" to the other mode. That is, if the GM threw a conflict at a character in the "explore only mode," then what player would say, "Oh, no! Not a plausible conflict!" As long as the conflict was not Gamist, and therefore plausible within the definitions of Sim, then he'd have to accept that this was a ramification of the character's exploration.  And if a player looking for conflict found none, because "there was none there to be found where he was looking" then he can hardly complain, can he?

To say that all players want conflict, it to agree with my Beeg Horseshoe theory. That is, it's a Gamism or Narrativism urge to want conflict in addition to what comes up as a simple extension of what's plausible, what "should" happen.

That being said - if you meant one can use Setting to Explore without employing Situation then that is not Exploration.  As the Model currently stands, Exploration demands that all five elements be employed for that activity to be called role-play.  If there is no Situation then there is no Exploration.

Yes, you must have situation. But, as Ron points out, Situation is merely Characters engaged with Setting in some way. Somewhere along the line, that engagement was said to require conflict, but I'd go to the mat to defend the idea that it doesn't require that at all. Unless you can define Conflict as wanting to see what's beyond the next ridge. In which case you're back to all play being the same. Nobody is saying that what you describe are the same thing. Just that they aren't separate GNS modes.

Mike

[Valamir]

Hmmm.  I'm rather late to this party, because I've been having some difficulty getting my head around the concepts here.  In some ways this thread has alot in common with earlier threads about Sim1 and Sim2 and Discovery, and in other ways its rather different.

IMO, conflict is essential to a creative agenda.  If you have no conflict you have no creative agenda.  Simulationism is very much about conflict because you have to have something to simulate.  If you don't have a conflict you don't have anything to simulate you don't have simualtionism.

What you do have is, IMO, nothing but pure Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

If alls you are doing is wandering around the world gazing at the scenery like some sort of tourist then IMO you aren't playing Simulationist.  Simulationists aren't tourists.  They want something every bit as badly as gamists and narrativists and simply "seeing what's around the next bend" ain't it.  That's just Exploration.  

Simulationism is absolutely about conflict, but for different reasons than Gamism or Narrativism.  A gamist wants conflict because its a measuring stick against which to compare relative effectiveness.  A Narrativist wants conflict because what it says about premise.  

A simulationist wants conflict for the same reason a chemistry student wants to mix stuff together in a beaker...to see what happens.

Without conflict, nothing happens.  Without situation, nothing happens.

A travelogue is not Simulationism.  At best you can say its raw Exploration with no Creative Agenda enjoyed for its own sake, perhaps by those who are taking a break from actively pursuing an Agenda in order to kick back a bit and enjoy the ride for a time.  A roleplaying vacation, if you will.

At worst you can say it represents a retreat from the pressure of having to fulfill a creative agenda; and as such is practiced primarily by players who are more or less socially just along for the ride and unwilling to assert themselves against more charismatic players or GMs.

I imagine that this sort of travelogue play is closely related to the idea of zilch play.

This distinction to me is an important one.  I see the failure to make this distinction to lie at the root of much of the vehement arguement we've had on the nature of Simulationism over the years.  I see the failure to make this distinction as the reason why some can say "Simulationism is based in fear" while others stand horrified and aghast at the very idea.  Most of these issues go away as soon as we acknowledge that much of what has gotten lumped in to Simulationism...isn't.

Far from it being problematic to split Sim, I see it as ridiculous not to.

Some actual play never gets past the 5 components of Exploration.  I don't see that as problematic.  I don't see it as a violation of the Big Model.

I hope that wasn't too far off the mark for this thread.

[Mike Holmes]

It's precisely the "Simulationism is fear" argument that you're making. If you can't see "tourism" as a bold and viable form of play, then you're not really seeing all of sim for what it is. Again, it's my point that simulationism accepts conflict if it comes and that nobody plays without it. You're the one arguing that there's some mode in which conflict is not wanted.

Mike

[ErrathofKosh]

IMO, conflict is essential to a creative agenda. If you have no conflict you have no creative agenda. Simulationism is very much about conflict because you have to have something to simulate. If you don't have a conflict you don't have anything to simulate you don't have simualtionism.

What you do have is, IMO, nothing but pure Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

This was very illuminating to me!

I've been struggling with the issues raised by the Beeg Horseshoe Theory and it's variants, as well as the ideas presented in this thread.  MJ proposes three options for the activity he has discribed engaging in.

That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:
Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.

I still have to go with the second option, but now with a different emphasis.  I read it as:
    Conflict is not necessary for Exploration, and a setting devoid of   obstacles for characters is sufficient to be defined as role play gaming.
I add to it:
   However, it is not sufficient to drive a creative agenda as defined in GNS because it lacks system.  

How do I support this?  In this other thread Ron states:

The system is not the means by which the contents of the SIS are negotiated into place, but by which the events of the SIS are negotiated into place.

It's a very important distinction.

System establishes time in the Shared Imaginary Space. Hence: change, events, perceptions by the characters, and similar (highlights mine)

I submit that what MJ has described is an Exploration of the contents of the SIS without an need for any causality save that of position.  The "events" could happen in any order without regard for theme, strategy, or "what happens if."  Introducing time into this context has little meaning because as a player, I am outside "time."  

To summarize:  System is about "time", but "time" is dependent on in-play conflict, without conflict time is not driven in any particular order, and system becomes irrelevant.  

Thus, in my mind Exploration without conflict is just vanilla Exploration.  Exploration that includes conflict belongs to one of the three Creative Agendas.  



As another point aside:
What MJ does could be made into a form of Nar just as easily.  If I wake up in the Garden of Eden and begin exploring, I could have my character react with joy and wonder to address the premise, "what is perfection?"

I hope I haven't wandered too far with this post.   I know it's not as clear as I would like it to be.  

Cheers,
Jonathan