Sim is Bricolage and makes myth - comments?

[clehrich]

I do wonder whether"myth" is going to be an overall helpful term for many folks, partly because I think you're exerting an ownership over its meaning which may not get communicated or accepted. For instance, Chris Chinn (Bankuei) uses it very differently in his essay in Daedalus #1 as a near-synonym for Premise (as used here).

Oh.  See my immediately preceding post, down at the bottom.

In short, yes.  Myth is not likely to be all that useful here, because it carries too much baggage from Greco-Roman and Norse materials to be openable to the whole bricolage issue.  I'd suggest we stick to "mythic bricolage" or the like.

[Halzebier]

Chris wrote:

I dislike this term [celebrationism] a great deal, I'm afraid.  This isn't a swipe at you, or Ron, but I think the term misses a good deal.

First, it is only applicable when there is a set block of source material, which is not necessarily the case in Sim.

As the original post pointed out, one might celebrate realistic combat and revel in mechanics such as _Phoenix Command_'s. Or in the participants' vision of how an absurd intrigue might play out at their university. Etc.

Second, it suggests that the process in Sim desires primarily to enjoy (celebrate) that source material.  Even assuming there is such source material, the Sim group may well wish to play with and distort it for other creative reasons. In many cases, this distortion may be sufficient that fans of the source material see the game as destructive or hostile to the material -- which says nothing about whether it's Sim.

I agree that the term's use is problematic here. People will celebrate something in different ways, and one faction may see another's festivities as irreverent.

Regards,

Hal

[John Kim]

I'd like to make a suggestion.  Starting with Jay's proposition in this thread, "The Sim process is Bricolage and that the product created is Myth."  The problem is that the term "Simulationism" is being overloaded.  Essentially, people are arguing "Sim is X" vs "No, Sim is Y" -- where both X and Y are valid and interesting concepts, but they're trying to use the same word.  For example, it seems like this view of Sim (myth-Sim) emphasizes lack of metagame mechanics and immersion.  So, for example, myth-Sim probably does not include typical Theatrix play -- whereas Sim as shown in Ron's Sim essay (from Feb 2003) does.

Perhaps this could be formulated as an variant model and have a distinct name attached to it?  Perhaps the "Story/Myth" model?  

I personally like the idea - Ron's, I think - of calling it *celebrationism*.

I dislike this term a great deal, I'm afraid.  This isn't a swipe at you, or Ron, but I think the term misses a good deal.

First, it is only applicable when there is a set block of source material, which is not necessarily the case in Sim.

Second, it suggests that the process in Sim desires primarily to enjoy (celebrate) that source material.  Even assuming there is such source material, the Sim group may well wish to play with and distort it for other creative reasons.

It seems to me that this is begging the question.  By the celebration-based definition of Simulationism, then if they aren't celebrating source material, then they aren't engaged in Simulationism.  It's like saying, "Even if there is a Premise, maybe the Narrativists want to avoid it rather than address it."  Well, if they're avoiding it, then they aren't being Narrativist.  

In short: your concept of what the term "Simulationism" means may not be the same as what Ron thinks of for that term.  It also probably differs from what I conceived of when I first started using the term in 1995 on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Having a different definition isn't wrong, but it needs to be communicated.

[clehrich]

For example, it seems like this view of Sim (myth-Sim) emphasizes lack of metagame mechanics and immersion.  So, for example, myth-Sim probably does not include typical Theatrix play -- whereas Sim as shown in Ron's Sim essay (from Feb 2003) does.

For clarification, why does this view of Sim emphasize these points?  I don't know what Jay has in mind, but I don't see this as necessary to the bricolage conception.

It seems to me that this [about celebration] is begging the question.  By the celebration-based definition of Simulationism, then if they aren't celebrating source material, then they aren't engaged in Simulationism.  It's like saying, "Even if there is a Premise, maybe the Narrativists want to avoid it rather than address it."  Well, if they're avoiding it, then they aren't being Narrativist.  

In short: your concept of what the term "Simulationism" means may not be the same as what Ron thinks of for that term.  It also probably differs from what I conceived of when I first started using the term in 1995 on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Having a different definition isn't wrong, but it needs to be communicated.

True, but I think the onus rests on you to demonstrate that what Jay's talking about, the whole myth-bricolage thing, is a subset of -- or a different thing than -- what Ron defines as Simulationism.  To my mind, the argument here is that Ron's definition is solid as far as it goes, but that more precision is needed, and I think Jay is proposing bricolage as a way to gain that precision.

As to celebration, I'd argue that this is a subset.  The points I made about it are essentially matters of limitation: celebrationism fits within Sim, by either Ron's or Jay's definition, but is not an adequate description of the whole.  Some Sim is celebration, but some isn't.

Or am I missing your point?

[John Kim]

In short: your concept of what the term "Simulationism" means may not be the same as what Ron thinks of for that term.  It also probably differs from what I conceived of when I first started using the term in 1995 on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  Having a different definition isn't wrong, but it needs to be communicated.

True, but I think the onus rests on you to demonstrate that what Jay's talking about, the whole myth-bricolage thing, is a subset of -- or a different thing than -- what Ron defines as Simulationism.  To my mind, the argument here is that Ron's definition is solid as far as it goes, but that more precision is needed, and I think Jay is proposing bricolage as a way to gain that precision.

Well, if Jay is claiming that bricolage is a way to gain that precision, then the onus is on him to show how it fits the earlier definition.  Without showing that connection, I think his initial statement need to be changed from

The Sim process is Bricolage and the product created is Myth

to

The Mythic-Bricolage process is Bricolage and the product created is Myth

Really, I'm in favor of the latter statement.  I dislike the frequent redefinition and overloading of the word "Simulationism", which IMO contributes to confused discussion and sloppy thinking.  So I'll put in my two cents on how Mythic-Bricolage and GNS Simulationism are different.  

Bricolage is using only the elements "at hand", such as using a brick for a hammer because it is handy.  However, GNS Simulationism is simply commitment to the imagined events -- where the events can be wholly original (i.e. more than just what is "at hand").  In practical terms, it seems to me that bricolage characterizes play which is bounded within a limited set of pre-generated source material -- either borrowed (i.e. a James Bond game or Buffy the Vampire Slayer game) or created prior to the game (i.e. homebrew setting).  Meanings are then built within that limited set of materials which are "on hand".  However, I don't think this reasonably covers games like Multiverser or Theatrix, or more generally improvised campaigns with frequent new material.  Sure, you can try to say that the new material comes from somewhere and thus is "at hand" -- but then everything is bricolage.  

In terms of debate, if you take Mythic-Bricolage and try to substitute it into the existing GNS definition, then I think it just dilutes and confuses the concept.  It should be offered up as a separate concept with its own name.

[Lee Short]

Now, this is usually what people here seem to be talking about when they talk about CA. But, then again, they often seem to be talking about techniques or processes. I suspect that's just the occasional carelessness -- but I’m not really certain I’ve got this down yet.

Here I think you're a little off-base. Ron is very insistent that CA is not about product. For example, if we have a transcript (in his sense) of a game, which is to say we have a post facto product description, we know nothing whatever about CA. CA is about how we get there, that is, it's about process. Jay's argument is that Sim is unusual in that it really isn't defined in terms of process, where Nar and Gam are. This is causing problems, because it makes Sim seem fundamentally different from the other CAs.

But this tendency to seek out CA after the fact, in product and not in process, is very common and somewhat unfortunate.

Actually, I wasn't referring to Ron here.  There's just a general tendency to be sloppier about this sort of thing (eg, equating gamism with heavy combat) than I'm happy with.  Let's not dwell on this.  

In your example:

They don’t want myth.  They don’t care about myth.  What they want is feelings of empowerment; myth is simply a useful tool to give them this.  So they are not Simulationist as defined here.

Here I think Jay is being a tad sloppy.  "They don't want myth" only in the sense that they don't really know what that means or what it's about.  They may want empowerment, and they may achieve this through mythic processes a la bricolage.  But that does not mean that they desire myth, at least not consciously.

Furthermore, no CA needs to be deliberate or conscious.  It can be, but it needn't be.  Sim in particular often resists such mindfulness.  Thus it is certainly possible that the group "don't care about myth", yet nevertheless play hard-core Sim.

Let me clarify here.  The people I'm talking about, in my judgement, don't need or want myth on either a conscious or unconscious level.  If we're defining Sim in a way that such people don't belong (which is quite possibly a good thing), then they need a home elsewhere, or we need to show that they don't exist.  If I've interpreted things correctly, these people have previously been classified as operating in the Sim CA.  I was tentatively putting forward Immersionism as the CA they work under, because I've met several players for whom immersion seems to be a goal in and of itself.  But I'm not saying that it's The Right Answer (TM).  

If we define the Simulation CA as simply “the process of bricolage”, then I think we lose the difference between someone who thinks that bricolage is fun in and of itself, and the immersives that I have described above – and I think that’s an important distinction, especially as regards game design.  The objective, presumably, is to design games that are fun.  The best way to do this is to have a good idea of what is fun, for the game’s target audience.  .... A better definition would be to define the Simulationist agenda as ‘finding fun in the process of Bricolage itself rather than in any results that it brings.’

Simulationism cannot be defined as "the process of bricolage" full stop.  No question there.  What can be defined that way is bricolage, and that's a tautology.

But immersion is a Technique, a tool by which to achieve a gaming goal.  And it is not at odds with the kind of constrained bricolage that I, like Jay, think is at the core of Sim.  I agree with you fully that taking this sort of bricolage as the primary end unto itself is critical to what we're talking about as Sim, but I do not see why this cannot be achieved immersively.  

Partially agreed.  Immersion can be a technique for attaining other goals, and can certainly be used toward bricolage.  I was just pointing out that, IME, there are some gamers who do not use immersion as a Technique (for attaining bricolage or anything else), for them it is an end-in-itself.

Since this has wandered a bit, if we pursue this topic we should take it to a new thread.

[contracycle]

Bricolage is using only the elements "at hand", such as using a brick for a hammer because it is handy.  However, GNS Simulationism is simply commitment to the imagined events -- where the events can be wholly original (i.e. more than just what is "at hand").

... which is different to the descriptions of other agendas because it does not describe the process by which this is executed.  As Sil has pointed out on multiple occassions.

  In practical terms, it seems to me that bricolage characterizes play which is bounded within a limited set of pre-generated source material -- either borrowed (i.e. a James Bond game or Buffy the Vampire Slayer game) or created prior to the game (i.e. homebrew setting).  Meanings are then built within that limited set of materials which are "on hand".  However, I don't think this reasonably covers games like Multiverser or Theatrix, or more generally improvised campaigns with frequent new material.  Sure, you can try to say that the new material comes from somewhere and thus is "at hand" -- but then everything is bricolage.  

A few outliers does not invalidate the general case IMO.  Theatrix is sim by virtue of "simulating story".  All this means for the bricolage model is that elements of story be available for manipulation to the participants.  Fortunately, Theatrix does exactly this by providing us with flowcharts containing entities descriptive of the story process.  thus, the story prcoess has been objectified, and it is those objects that the bricoleur manipulates and juxtaposes in play.

I can't speak to Multiverser effectively.  Neverthless I disagree with your conclusion that this needs to be articulated under a label other than Sim.  That would just leave Sim in its odd-one-out position and add a new element to the model somewhere which we would have to then accommodate.

You see, I think you are missing a trick when you mentioned home-brew campaigns with frequent new material.  One of the (many) problems I have encountered running on-going sim games revolves around the introduction of new material - when to do it, how to do it, how to do it without a big signpost saying "adventure this way" simply because I took the trouble to mention it.  I think such games would benefit from some device that controlled and determined which elements are in the foreground and which the background at any given moment and I believe the bricolage process gives us an angle of entry into that problem.

the mode of play in which new elements, people, places et al are introduced and yet conmvey no meaning to the players, which I have often experienced, is counter-productive especially innthe long run.

[Mark D. Eddy]

Well, when Multiverser has, as one of its gameworld/scenario settings, "The Prisoner of Zenda," I'd say that you can perform plenty of bricolage with its elements.

The interesting thing about Sim as bricolage to me is that it does well for the contrast with Nar, but it doesn't do so well contrasting with Gam. This is apparently an artifact of Chris Lehrich's lack of experience with Gamist play, but it does need to be addressed.

Now, to answer Jay's question from a while back...

If we accept the assertion that Step on Up is about adressing Challenge, Story is about adressing Premise and Myth is about Bricolage, we need to be explicit about where the real difference lies. The difference actually lies in worldviews.

Gamism is a Darwinian worldview. "That which does not destroy us makes us stronger." The right tool for the right job used in the right way will reap us the rewards we want, and we need to compete to find these right things.

Narrativism is a moral worldview. "The play's the thing / to trap the conscience of a king." The why is more important than the how, and emotionally charged issues of human nature must be resolved.

Simulationism is a mythic worldview. "Let me tell you, O Best Beloved, of the times long ago.." The how and what are much more important than the why, and structures of meaning are created without resolution.

I don't know if this helps, and I think that my choice of quotes may be evocative of what I'm saying. But I can see how Creative Agenda is closely tied in to worldview, which explains why conflicting CA's lead to such bad dysfunction.

What do you think?