Sim has not be discussed as process yet it needs to be so -

[Silmenume]

In the year and a quarter that I have been at the Forge discussing Sim, I have found that there have been two basic, consistent errors in the process of this discussion.  These errors are made in direct opposition to the Big model and have not been adequately addressed.  Until these two errors in debate are dealt with, there can be no progress in this discussion.

The two major errors surrounding the discussion of Sim –[list=1][*]Discussions about Sim center around and identify it with the product and not the process[*]Conflation of Sim with Story. - Nar already makes story.[/list:o]The model clearly identifies CA's by the process that the players are engaging in.  IOW Narrativism is the process of addressing Premise.  Gamism is the process of addressing Challenge.  Thus, as the Model is behavior oriented, Sim needs to be identified as a process if the model is to be consistent.  I do not believe this be a controversial assertion.

If Sim is discussed as a process, and I cannot assert the importance of this change in the current debate paradigm strongly enough, then that means Sim cannot and should not be identified with or as story.  This brings me to my second point above.  As Nar already has a lock on story, it makes no sense to discuss Sim in terms of story.  This is made especially apparent since whenever Sim is discussed in terms of story, player deprotagonization is always hard on the heels.

In response to the two listed problems that have relentlessly dogged the discussions on Sim, I suggest the following solutions.[list=1][*]The Sim process be identified as Bricolage.[*]If the Sim process is bricolage and its objects of employment are character and setting, then I believe that identifying the product generated as result of process as myth will bear much fruit.[/list:o]The one thing that I don't wish to discuss in this thread is individual beefs with the model or the definitions therein.  In order for any discussion to proceed the ground work upon which it is based must be agreed upon.  So in this thread no arguments about what "Premise" means or that you don't believe that Gamism is the process of addressing Challenge.  That has ben hashed out long ago, so if there is some niggling problems about such matters take them to another thread.  Disagreement about my proposed solutions is obviously open for discussion.  Disagreement that a CA is described and made manifest by its process is open for discussion, but I believe that too was settled a while back – certainly with Gam and Nar.

Discussions about Gam/Nar and their processes have been extremely fruitful in describing play behavior and I believe that Sim has not been discussed in this same fashion.  The way Sim has been discussed has proven to be a sore lacking and it has crippled the discussion of Sim while defying the very foundation of the model.

In fact I would wish that those who wish to discuss my proposed solution to understanding and discussing Sim post in this thread Sim is Bricolage and makes myth - comments? and those who wish to debate whether CA's are defined by process and that Sim has not been defined by process please post here, in this thread.

[Vaxalon]

Do we really need to add MORE words to the already dense Forge vocabulary?

Gamism: The process of addressing challenge
Narrativism: The process of addressing premise
Simulationism: Bricolage

Huh?

Why not:

Gamism: The process of addressing challenge
Narrativism: The process of addressing premise
Simulationism: The process of addressing myth

[Silmenume]

Hey Valaxon!

Thanks for being open to the debate rather than just dismising it and shutting it down summarily.

Gamism: The process of addressing challenge
Narrativism: The process of addressing premise
Simulationism: The process of addressing myth

That's not exactly what I had posted.  Let me state the following to clear up this misunderstanding -

[*]Gamism: The process of addressing challenge -> Effective Strategy/Victory[*]Narrativism: The process of addressing premise -> Theme/Story[*]Simulationism: The process of Bricolage -> Myth[/list:u]The process is Bricolage, the created product is myth.

Myth is not story.
Bricolage is not an addressing process.

I do not believe this to just be a matter of semantics.  The differences of what is focused upon in these three processes are very real and do flow incompatibly i.e., they are distinct CA's.  This is why I brought this matter up.  With this formulation major problems such as deprotagonization of player input latent in Sim discussions and describing the player input process can at least be addressed.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jay,

My take? Your point is made, so now let's see how it plays out in actual usage, over time. As in, months of time.

Trust the quality of discourse and topics to demonstrate whether this construction works better than previous ones. I do think you're right on track in terms of content. I'm ... skeptical that some of the folks who seem to have made a career of trumpeting "Sim has problems" will be willing to give up their precious bone of contention.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

In the year and a quarter that I have been at the Forge discussing Sim, I have found that there have been two basic, consistent errors in the process of this discussion.  These errors are made in direct opposition to the Big model and have not been adequately addressed.  Until these two errors in debate are dealt with, there can be no progress in this discussion.

The two major errors surrounding the discussion of Sim –[list=1][*]Discussions about Sim center around and identify it with the product and not the process[*]Conflation of Sim with Story. - Nar already makes story.[/list:o]

From the glossary:

Story

   An imaginary series of events which includes at least one protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be construed as a resolution of the conflict. A Story is a subset of Transcript distinguished by its thematic content. Role-playing may produce a Story regardless of which Creative Agenda is employed.

I'm just sayin'

-Marco

[contracycle]

I'm just sayin'

Yes Marco, but I think its that nuance that we can now lay to rest.  I fully agree that retrospectively the prodct of sim oplay is something that can rightly be termed "a story" even if one in need of significant editing.  I think however that this casual term is sometimes misleading in the apparent attribution of a story-based CA to sim.  I like Silmemune's construction because it does not exhibit the same conflation.

[Silmenume]

Hi Ron,

... Your point is made, so now let's see how it plays out in actual usage, over time. As in, months of time.

Trust the quality of discourse and topics to demonstrate whether this construction works better than previous ones.

I'm OK with that time frame.  My purpose was to draw this topic out to front and center for the explicit purpose that it would be discussed overtly and directly by one and all!

Hey Marco,

In the year and a quarter that I have been at the Forge discussing Sim, I have found that there have been two basic, consistent errors in the process of this discussion.  These errors are made in direct opposition to the Big model and have not been adequately addressed.  Until these two errors in debate are dealt with, there can be no progress in this discussion.

The two major errors surrounding the discussion of Sim –[list=1][*]Discussions about Sim center around and identify it with the product and not the process[*]Conflation of Sim with Story. - Nar already makes story.[/list:o]

From the glossary:

Story

   An imaginary series of events which includes at least one protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be construed as a resolution of the conflict. A Story is a subset of Transcript distinguished by its thematic content. Role-playing may produce a Story regardless of which Creative Agenda is employed.

I'm just sayin'

Ok.  I'm actually glad you brought this up.

First of all I did not say that Sim cannot produce a Story, I said that Sim produces myth.  I see that perhaps I should have adopted the phrasing used in the Narrativism essay, Sim produces myth – reliably.  Heck, one could also make a Story from addressing Challenge, but its not likely that they will do so – reliably.  Using the same definition quoted above allow me to emphasize those parts which I believe are important to clearing up the implied question.

Story

   An imaginary series of events which includes at least one protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be construed as a resolution of the conflict. A Story is a subset of Transcript distinguished by its thematic content. Role-playing may produce a Story regardless of which Creative Agenda is employed.

So we see here that Story is defined as type of Transcript which is noted for its thematic content.  All CA's can create a Story (a transcript which has thematic content), but only one CA does so reliably.

I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms to Egri's principles...

I said earlier that any role-playing can produce a Story, and that's so. But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme.

Emphasis mine.

So we have the formula - addressing Premise is a reliable method for creating a transcript which, in this case, contains theme and thus is labeled Story.  This formula for play defines Narrativism.

Simulationism is not defined by this reliable formula.  I have proposed that Sim uses the formula of - Bricolage, using the elements of exploration, creates myth – reliably.

What I was referring to when I said that "Sim has been conflated with Story," is that Sim has been discussed almost exclusively using the Story paradigm.  The problem is that Sim does not produce Story reliably when there is no deprotagonism of the players.  IOW when the players have freedom to pursue their creative inclinations free from DM employment of force, stories (transcripts/texts containing theme) are not reliably produced.  Story is produced reliably when one addresses Premise.  Since Sim does not address Premise (which means it does not produce theme reliably) it should not be discussed using the Story paradigm.  If a game, as played, did address Premise it could not be Sim because addressing Premise is what defines Nar.

Finally, just because I propose that Sim produces myth reliably, I do not (nor did I) claim that a Sim game cannot create Story, rather I claim that it won't do so reliably.  Let us be charitable in our readings!

Hopefully we can put the issue of that a CA reliably creates something (Theme, effective Strategy/Victory, myth) does not mean that pursuing a given CA absolutely forbids the creation of the products of other CA's to bed.  IOW it is unlikely that addressing Challenge will produce a theme, but it can.  It is unlikely that addressing Premise will produce myth or effective strategy/Victory, but it is possible.  It is unlikely that Bricolage will create theme or effective Strategy, but it is possible.  Thus when one says that Nar produces Theme it should not create controversy about that it could possibly produce effective strategy/Victory or myth.  Conversely when I propose that Sim produces myth (reliably) a controversy that it could possibly create Story really should have no impetus to arise.

Is this a less controversial presentation of my proposal?

Sim = Bricolage (using the elements of exploration) -> myth (reliably), but still has the ability to create Theme and effective strategy/Victory as well.

I will take full responsibility for not using the term <>reliably<> in my first formulation.  My question is do we need to continue to employ the term, "reliably," in the future or are we OK understanding that it is being employed implicitly.  I ask so this type of problem need not arise again in the future.  I don't think it is strictly necessary to use the term, "reliably," explicitly in the future, however I'm OK with either choice.  I just need to make sure we are all on the same page.

Cross posted with contracycle.

[pete_darby]

Just a quick pop to say, while I prefer the phrasing "the process of celebration" rather than bricolage or myth-building, this discssion serves the very useful purpose of bringing the spotlight onto the fact that all CA in action are processes not products, which is a dsitinction I know I've failed to make in the past.