Simulationism: Reflexive Play?

[M. J. Young]

It seems to me that Jay (Silmenume) has several times said words to the effect that we don't explore the elements of exploration, but rather use the elements of exploration to explore something else.

In narrativist play we use the elements of exploration to explore moral issues, address premise, and create theme.

In gamist play we use the elements of exploration to explore complications, face challenges, and prove our abilities.

Part of the recent discussions of Simulationism (such as in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11993">Looong post on Sim definition) have attempted to define what it is that we are exploring in Simulationism.

I don't think this at all radical, really; but it seems to have been missed there and elsewhere, and I'd like to put it forward to see whether there's general agreement or disagreement on this point.

In Simulationism, we use the elements of exploration to explore the elements of exploration themselves, and so to discover. That discovery may be objective or subjective, it may focus on any of the elements in any combination, but it is specifically about those elements.

--M. J. Young

[ErrathofKosh]

Edit: Double-posted.

[ErrathofKosh]

That's exactly where I wanted to head next over in my thread (or in a new one)!  I glad this one came up.  

My goal, at the moment, is to understand better the elements as they apply to Sim.  This was inspired by MJ's example of what has been labeled "Tourism" over in Looong post on Sim definition.  I, for one, would like to delve a little deeper.  

In Gam or Nar, a particular element is used to explore the challenge or premise.  This means that there is, ultimately, a more unified motivation in these CAs than in Sim.  (I understand that using character to explore the premise is different than exploring it using setting, but I'm emphasizing that what is explored is itself not as diverse.)  This is because Sim allows for the Exploration of five different elements.  These elements are interrelated; true, but I think they are different enough to cause many of the disagreements about Sim.

Over in my thread  MJ comments on exploring situation.

It is difficult to explore situation without moving toward gamism or narrativism, and because of that it is the more difficult to describe without sounding like one of those. That is, it is exploration of situation to fight the dragon, and it is exploration of situation to decide whether to destroy the village in which the terrorists are hidden or attempt to save the innocent villagers at the risk of the terrorists escaping--but in simulationism you're not interested in the glory of beating the dragon or the answer to the moral question, but only the possibilities and the outcomes. Perhaps the best illustration I can find for exploration of situation is having the opportunity to play Lee at Gettysburg, to see whether a different strategy might have resulted in a different outcome in that critical battle--not because you want to prove you could have won with your knowledge and his resources, but because you're genuinely interested in whether he had a "playable hand" from which he could have won with different choices.

Understanding that is quite possible to play Nar and Gam using any element as my primary mode of exploration, I would like to point out that situation is more important for addressing human issues or taking on challenges than it is for exploration of the elements.  This causes synecdoche, i.e. situation is neccessary for all roleplaying.  (I actually used a term I learned from Ron in a sentence!  Hopefully I used it right.) :) Thus, when situation becomes secondary in Sim, people begin to say "aha, not roleplaying!" or at very least, "hmm, maybe that's a new type of roleplaying."

Exploring character or setting or situation in Sim is well recognized by most.  But, these elements are either situation or important to situation.  When system or color becomes the dominant element to be explored, then questions arise.  

Exploration of System: This is often the play of the "physicist" or "scientist" sort, asking "what happens if I do this?"

If my character spends all his time fiddling around in his lab and never gets involved in a "real" adventure, there are those who would view this as not Sim or not roleplaying or something else.  In fact, I'm exploring the the possibilities of the system without needing situation to explore with.  The same goes for color.  

MJ introduces his travelogue as exploration of setting, and granted, it well could be.  However, I think that it could also be exploration of color.  The difference would be determined by how much "conflict" the setting provides.  A whole bundle of recent posts are involved in this issue, IMO.  

If I walk into a old west town in Arizona and I focus on the dusty streets, the tumble weeds, the peeling paint, the bright blue sky, etc. (this could include using props and such as well), then I'm exploring color.  If, however, I need to make sure I have a room for the night, get my horse fed and watered, and engage in a game of poker (without the need to win, just the need to play an old west game of poker), then I'm exploring setting.  This is a very blurry line and the subject of some debate, but, IMO they are both valid forms of Sim.

None of this is intended to be an attack, so please excuse any accusatory language such as "people."  If you happen to be a person that thinks that way, I mean no disrespect.  

Cheers
Jonathan

[Silmenume]

I would posit that in Simulationism we use the Elements of Exploration to Explore human social structures - Character, his relationship to his environment (both social and physical), and the player's relationship to the game itself.

IOW Simulationism is simulating what its like to be another person.

Using the Elements of Exploration to Explore the Elements of Exploration would be straight (vanilla?) Exploration.

At least that's my understanding at the moment.

[ErrathofKosh]

However, when you are exploring "human social structures" you are exploring either the character, the setting, or the character and the setting (which usually involves situation.)

It's interesting that I can use character to explore setting or I can use setting to explore character.  If I create a basic "adventurer" (who maybe keeps a game "diary") and roam all of Middle Earth experiencing it's customs, peoples, and politics, then I am exploring setting via character.  If I create a character who loves his home in Hobbiton and I attempt to rolelay his emotions and reactions to that setting, I am using setting to explore my character.  If my character is forced to leave the Shire to protect it, and I roleplay his feelings and actions in that scenario, I'm exploring my character via situation.  If, however, this same situation occurs and my character is more interested in exploring the new locales and contrasting them with his home, perhaps I'm exploring setting with situation.

I think this other post applies here as well.

This thread has been quite profitable to me in determining some of my goals in game design.  Now, I ask myself: what do I want to explore in this game and with what?
 (And, of course, this has spurred me onward toward the thinking that there are two sets of elements: those used to Explore and those that are Explored.  Those that are "used to Explore" are fairly well defined and those "to be Explored", include Premise, Challenge, and these Elements; but are less easily grasped.  Probably good fodder for a new thread, however...)

Cheers,
Jonathan