One of these things is REALLY not like the others. . .

[Joel P. Shempert]

OK, How's this for a positive spin: Defining something by an absence can be a Good Thing if the thing absent is berlieved to be bad or undesirable.

Take an extreme example: My social interactions are defined by (among other things) an absence of rape and murder. We can probably all get behind the idea that this is good. Some things are more subjective, such as my aforementioned absence of country music in my social gatherings. But for me, subjectively, that absence is very desirable. I think the "pure" Sim player can fairly be characterized as considering the absence "extra" ambitions over and above the Dream to be at best unnecessary and at worst ruinous and destructive to play. Thus in this instance absence is, for them, good. Consider an analogy: I grew up in a country church where the only poetry I was exposed to was "poetry with a point:" little ditties read before the congregation to provide some moral via object lesson or clever metaphor or mere blatant rhyming sermonizing. But for many people, having a "moral" for that mode of expression spoils the artistry of the poem--poetry is about the outpouring of raw emotion or the expression of pure aesthetic beauty. Such folk would probably say the rhymed atrocities read at my church weren't even "poems" at all, and would be quick to extol the vierues of pieces in which this sermonizing quality is absent.

I think where this differs from the "positive absences" of other CAs (e.g. Pure Narrativists certainly consider an absence of Step On Up to be good) is that the Simulationist stops earlier, at a different level. In a way (if you view the Model's spacial metaphor as heirarchical) you could almost say it's Gam and Narr that are secondary to Sim. In fact. that's just what you would expect a "Pure" Simulationist to say.

Put another way, I think perhaps Simulationists are content with the Dream as is. . .it's enough for them. They reach the point where things are entering the Shared Imagined Space "just so", so as to affirm and strenghten the particular quality that they value. It's like a person who lookas up at the stars on a clear night. . .and just keeps looking at them. While the person on his left is planning in his head how he might one day construct a rocket to reach those stars and exploit them, or battle aliens. . .he just stares. WHile the person on his right is pondering What It All Means, and wondering how man can ever cope when faced with the sheer magnitude of the heavens. . .our center man just stares. He smiles a slow smile, perhaps lays himself down on the grass, and stares for hours.

It many not be everyone's cup of tea (it's certainly not always mine, but it certainly seems positive to me. :)

Peace,

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry, Joel, I don't think it's going to work. That's basically a restatement of the same idea without changing the content hardly at all. We all understand that the idea of the definition in question is that the people playing this mode are rejecting something they see as bad. But that doesn't make it a non-negative statement. You're still defining sim by what it is not.

A true positive definition includes some unique reason for why sim players play sim. It can't be just "to avoid x" or to "just do exploration." Sim means more than that by anybody's definition. But some people want it to be about it's own goal. This is why people propose things like "discovery." Discovery, per MJ Young, would be to simulaitonism what step on up is to gamism, or story now is to narrativism.

Mike

[Joel P. Shempert]

Hmm. Seems to me that if someone's that touchy about what Sim should be, they're probably not entirely comfortable with their play style, or with applying the Sim label, or both. if a person is truly content with where they're at, in gaming or anything else, I wouldn't think a person would be terribly bothered by what direction the definition is approached from. In my (admittedly tentative) definition of Sim, it's the "enough-ness" of non-G or -N play that makes it good.

I'm aware that it was a mere restatement; that's because my view of what Sim is hasn't appreciatively changed. Just trying to bring out what I believe to be Positive (in a value-judgment sense) about my Negative (in a technical sense) definition. I thought that was what was implied in the suggestion to "put a positive spin on it the next time you make the statement."

But hey, I'm much more interested in working out the real, substantive questions of what Sim is, how it works, how it interacts with other elements, than with crafting the most ultra-diplomatic phrasing of my views, which are still in flux anyway. Maybe we can just take my "Gazing at the Stars" parable as a picture of what I find appealing in Sim, and leave it at that.

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, I do like M.J.'s suggesting of Discovery as Sim's "thing." My only reservation is that the term "discovery" can be applied legitimately to any number of phenomena: "discovering' that my guy really can beat that dragon for instance, or "discovering" what choice my character makes in a tough situation. but that difficulty could be eliminated by specially defining Discovery for our needs. After all, we already have a slew of words ("Addressing," "Exploration," etc.) ith specialized Forge definitions. the definition would have to be fairly exact, though.

Actually, reading back through the posts, I see Young already states such a definition: "Simulationism is the exploration of all things with emphasis on the discovery/creation of new facets and unexplored aspects of the shared imagined space, new ways to combine information that yields new information."

Anyway, I think I'm just repeating statements from earlier posts, so that's enough for now.

Peace,

[M. J. Young]

I'm glad I could help. Let me tackle this point:

I guess the trick would be defining Dsicovery as a specific jargon term such that it excludes those two emphases. YOu almost seem to have that in your "unexplored aspects of the shared imagined space" phrase, except that a character's ass-kickery or personal moral fiber ARE part of the SIS.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to note that the character's "ass-kickery" or personal moral fiber are both perfectly acceptable areas of simulationist exploration. It is the player's "ass-kickery" that makes it gamist, and the player's moral instincts that make it narrativist.

I'm going to take exception to Mike saying that simulationist players get all defensive. I do play simulationist, and enjoy it; and I play gamist and narrativist as well, and probably always have.

The objection to putting simulationism on a different axis, or defining it negatively, is not so much that it relegates it to second class status as that it overly emphasizes how different it is.

A creative agendum is the motivating desire behind play, the thing the player wants to get from play. Beeg Horseshoe implies that people don't play for pure discovery, or that if they do this somehow means that this motivation is different in kind from either gamist or narrativist motivation, which are in some sense the same in kind.

There are some things that I do to win. I don't often play volleyball and don't last long when I do anymore, but I play to beat the other team and attempt to show off at least some skill in the area.

I also enjoy debating moral, ethical, and theological issues. I like to do this, and participate in a couple of lists and boards where this happens all the time. That's fun for me--it's a kind of narrativist fun.

I watch the history channel. I read non-fiction books. There is a desire to know. It is just as much a drive as the desire to win and the desire to grasp moral concepts. It is that desire that drives simulationist play: I want to know, I want to observe or experience this other world, this other person, this situation, because I will learn from it, benefit from it, be changed by it.

What the Beeg Horseshoe does is invalidate that desire to know as a valid drive equal to the other two. That's the objection.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

I'm going to take exception to Mike saying that simulationist players get all defensive. I do play simulationist, and enjoy it; and I play gamist and narrativist as well, and probably always have.

In case it wasn't clear, I was talking not so much about players in general, but you MJ, and some other posters here on The Forge. It's precisely your objections to which I was refering.

The objection to putting simulationism on a different axis, or defining it negatively, is not so much that it relegates it to second class status as that it overly emphasizes how different it is.

This is the objection to which I refered. Forgive me if I misstated it.

Mike

[Joel P. Shempert]

The objection to putting simulationism on a different axis, or defining it negatively, is not so much that it relegates it to second class status as that it overly emphasizes how different it is.

The reason I was emphasizing the difference was that I was thinking Sim is a very different kind of animal, so different that it really didn't belong in the same "slot" in the model. Now, with the consideration of your "discovery" concept, I'm revising that opinion.

I think the biggest hangup was the lack of a clear CA Goal to hang Simulationism on, equiv. to Step on Up or Story Now. Your Discovery obviously takes care of that problem. I'm liking it the more every time I think of it.

By the way, I appreciate your examples of other activities in your life. I, too, enjoy all three of the CA properties in various eavenues. Of course,  the question is not what you enjoy in general, but what you enjoy in RPGs, and why. When I was corresponding with Ron, and I said something like, "why don't all the Gamists go play Diablo?" he shot back, well, they'd probably ask you "why don't you just read a book." Touche. In my case, I think I enjoy all three "ingredients" in my gaming, in different amounts, and more or less at different times. My big lament is that while I've been comprimising in the direction of (mostly) Gamism over the years, it seems unlikely that I'll ever see much reciprocation in the other direction.

In case it wasn't clear, I was talking not so much about players in general, but you MJ, and some other posters here on The Forge. It's precisely your objections to which I was refering.

I dunno what that's about, but I personally didn't find your posts to be defensive, M.J. It was other comments to which I was referring.

Peace,

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think this thread is starting to hit a second-order level of explaining and refining answers to questions, so it's time to call it a day.

Very constructive, though.

Best,
Ron

[Joel P. Shempert]

Agreed. And thanks. :)

(Edited to add: PS, Sorry 'bout the name thing, Eero. I never meant to mistake you for currency.)

Peace,