The Roots of Sim (Response to Nar Essay)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Quick side point: James, if you can present how you achieved getting the spousal/partner community into the action of really playing, during that con, that would be incredibly helpful. Actual Play would be the place, I think.

Best,
Ron

[Caldis]

I think that Ben's initial suggestion does hold some merit, child like imagination could very well be the clear link to simulationism though maybe not exclusively.  Ron disregards it as a step in developing towards gamism or narrativism but I dont think that is necessarily so, I believe imagination can be it's own end and not a step towards one of the other agendas.

For me at least Simulationism seems to be an attempt to answer the question "What would happen if ...?"  It's much like the child pretending to be a lion,  what would happen if we were lions in the desert?  I think it carries on into adult behaviour and is evident in certain works of fiction most clearly the alternate history fiction, What would happen if the South won the Civil War?  Most importantly for the development of RPG's it translated into miniature wargaming.  

When we think of war games now Warhammer quickly comes to mind with it's inherent game like structure but the initial appeal for many miniature gamers was in answering the "What would happen if..?" question.  What would happen if Napoleon had tried x maneuver at Waterloo rather than y?  Sure for many it was a game like experience and trying to win the battles was why they were there, but it was also answering the what if question and for many that was the important part.

I think this is a strong reason why simulationist mechanics became such a core element of RPG's.  The linking of the game and sim background put those elements into rpgs whereas there wasnt a huge basis of dramatic writers initially drawn into the scene because there was no automatic hook for them.  They weren't playing games to answer the what if question they were writing their stories influenced by that same child like imagination but towards a different end.  They were shut out of the process initially but as is evident by this web site that is changing.

[John Kim]

My point here is that this is a group of people who previously had "known" that they didn't like role-playing, and had little experience with it. What this experience primarily says is that what they didn't like was traditional simulationist role-playing - and further, that they had a strong intuitive grasp of how things worked when presented with an alternative.

I'm not sure how much one can extrapolate from the single example.  In this case, it seems to me that the subject-matter is pretty important.  For example, do you think that the same people would also like a Tunnels and Trolls dungeon crawl because its Gamism was more intuitively understandable?  Also, what do you think Soap is in GNS terms?  I own it but haven't played it yet.  It seems to me to be strongly Gamist -- but also encourages pastiche in a GNS Simulationist fashion.  

In other words, I agree that traditional D&D-derived tabletop RPGs as designed have limited appeal.  However, I'm not convinced that this is inherent to GNS mode.  For example, my experience with LARPs is that they are very popular with a crowd who also aren't interested in tabletop role-playing.  It was pretty easy for them to adjust to the social masquerade-like play, and found the costumes, background, and characters interesting even in the absence of addressing of a moral Premise.

[Ben Lehman]

Cool thread.  I think that my original point was lost at about post #2, though, so here's me trying to clarify.

I do not subscribe to this extremely harsh and insulting version of the point. But I do think that the "kids do it!" argument and especially the implicit Naturalism underlying it are highly questionable and are only convincing at an uncritical level.

My point is not "kids do it so it's okay" or "kids do it so it must be the right way."  My point is, simply, that Sim play seems to me to be as "automatic" as Gamist or Narrativist play -- all people have a context for it, even if it isn't something that they do in their daily life, which is what I assume by your statement of those two forms being "automatic" means.  That was the entireity of the point.  The bugaboo about "naturalness" is, in fact, a bugaboo, and it's not what I'm talking about.

So I guess my question is -- is the term "automatic" used in that paragraph for that meaning?  If not, what is your meaning?

yrs--
--Ben

[clehrich]

First, a bit of possibly redundant context:

My point is, simply, that Sim play seems to me to be as "automatic" as Gamist or Narrativist play -- all people have a context for it, even if it isn't something that they do in their daily life, which is what I assume by your statement of those two forms being "automatic" means.  That was the entireity of the point.  The bugaboo about "naturalness" is, in fact, a bugaboo, and it's not what I'm talking about.

I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities. Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group members.

So I guess my question is -- is the term "automatic" used in that paragraph for that meaning?  If not, what is your meaning?

So first of all, while I accept that Ron doesn't intend any of his remarks to be taken in a normative sense, i.e. that he doesn't mean to say that Sim is or is not better than any other Agenda, I do think that claiming Sim is trained through "quite harsh" methods suggests this.  Possibly toning it down a tad might help?

But as I say, I accept this.  What I don't accept is that one can make this distinction this way.  Gamism and Narrativism do indeed have their parallels, possibly with reference to some sort of neural harwiring, but regardless their application within human behavior requires a social context; this should be apparent in the RPG context, which is always social.  

What makes Gamism and Narrativism "clear and automatic" is precisely that they have parallels in other human behaviors.  But human behavior is deeply socialized, based on various forms of training that are "often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments" of a social nature.  In other words, the characteristics that make Gamism and Narrativism "clear and automatic" are (1) that they have human behavioral parallels, and (2) are based upon trained social behaviors.

All of which suggests that a distinction between Simulationism and the other two modes on this basis is logically nonfunctional.  The only way I can see to make it logical is to accept that "automatic" here is radically opposed to "trained," strongly suggesting a naturalist view -- which now you oppose.

Consequently, I reiterate and underscore Ben's question: if "clear and automatic" does not refer to natural and untrained, then how is it in any way opposed to Sim (as a "derived" and "trained" mode)?

This may just be University of Chicago debating tactics, but after all some of us think positively about the institution and don't love being trashed on the basis of stereotypes.

Chris Lehrich

[Sean]

Hi, Chris -

I think that passage in Ron's essay is precisely what's generating a lot of the reactions on the thread.

(By the way, just so there's no confusion: I'm the person who has been posting under 'Calithena'. I've decided to change my ID for a variety of reasons.)

I think part of what's happening here is as follows. If you take Ron's statement as an in-the-context-of-actual-gaming, rough empirical generalization about what happens to a lot of players, it's true. Lots of gamers do come to the table with desires and expectations that would be more straightforwardly satisfied by play that pushes more heavily in a Gamist or Narrativist direction. Then a painful process of socialization occurs where they learn that various types of play that best facilitate Simulationism are 'right'. Ouija board role playing is one particularly painful such process; ostracization of 'munchkins' who apply their experience from Monopoly and chess straightforwardly to RPGs, without even bothering to try to explain the group's Social Contract (disguised as the 'better way to play', etc.) is another; and so on. Most of us experienced such training at some point, I think. I certainly did, and I inflicted it on many in high school - creating the usual incaste/outcaste mix between those who got it and those who didn't, which in turn was used to reinforce my status as RPG club president, etc.  Many potential gamers do leave during this period because heavy Sim is not for them and they connect that with RPGing more generally.

On the other hand, if you take it as a universal claim about what is and isn't normal behavior for people who come to the gaming table, it's probably false. Clearly some people must be simulationist by 'nature' rather than by 'habit' or we wouldn't have gotten any Sim play to begin with, or only in some very rarefied and obscure contexts. (Other posts have filled in the argument here in a variety of ways already, so I won't rehash.)

Ron's strong language here does push one in the direction of this stronger interpretation. But if you add 'for many gamers' after the first 'are' or 'automatic', and again after 'priorities' or 'trained' in the second sentence, Ron's paragraph becomes pretty straightforwardly true, I think, and the point it's making is an important one.

Best,

Sean
who's mildly amazed that there are now at least four former U of C students on this thread

[epweissengruber]

Is there a difference between playing and gaming?  Some sociologists see rule-bound games as a subset of play (Huizinga and Callois).  The deciding factor is the presence or absence of "agon" or competition.

In Gamism I can win or loose.  In Narrativism I don't necessarily beat out competitors but I do have a chance to win the recognition of my fellow players for being inventive or quick to respond.

How does Exploring an imaginative space become gaming, or gaming inside a Simulation.  Where is the agon?  To see who knows the most about the setting

Hi Ben,


I'm wondering a little bit about two things.

1) Is this whole thread confusing Sim with Exploration? Little kids explore imaginative space. Not only Freud in certain moods but some of the major figures of near-contemporary Continental (Hans-Georg Gadamer, RIP) and Analytic (Kendall Walton) aesthetics have put child's play front and center as part of their theories of art.

That is, what I'm wondering is whether what the little kids are actually doing is 'prioritized' in any sense at all. Whether what they're doing isn't rather working in imaginative space more generally, that is, Exploring.  

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Sean's nailed it, for me.

Ben, to answer your direct question, I'll put it this way.

People develop in such a way that culminates in X and Y. As they do so, they exhibit (um...) B along the way, quite necessarily.

Now, they get together to do something. They typically bring X and/or Y to it. Then, in some cases, the people they've joined say, "Oh, we're doing B."

That's going to be tricky for a lot of people. Do they recognize B? Probably, or maybe with a little squinting. Do they want to do B? Good question, and I suggest that a fair number's answer is, Probably not.

Does this mean B is bad, dumb, infantile, to be matured from? Nope. Does it mean B is probably the least recommended for entry-level to the activity? Yeah, it does. Does it mean that presenting B as the basic entry-level is excluding a lot of people from the activity? Yeah, I think so.

Does that cover it, Ben?

I've written extensively in the past about why and how Simulationist play is perceived as most common and hence most desirable or enjoyable across the hobby, and why I think that perception is mistaken.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Sean and Ron have stated the position pretty clearly, I think, but I maintain that it doesn't entirely answer the question.

[*]Socialization, human factors, etc. all produce N + G -like behaviors.
[*]People first encountering games therefore (implicitly) assume N + G.
[*]Often, further socialization tells them to do S.
[*]Therefore, S is less "clear and automatic."
[*]None of which should be taken to mean that S is better or worse.[/list:u]Right?

In order for this to be true, the following also must be true:

[*]The only significant or common form of socialization that produces S-like behavior is RPG's.[/list:u]Personally, I doubt this very much, but the issue here is clarification.  Ron, is this what you mean?

Chris Lehrich

[Caldis]

I'm trying to work somethings out in my own mind so pardon me if you've all been over this a million times but I think I'm starting to understand what's actually being said but have the need to put it into my own words.

The problem with Simulationism is that it seems to exist without purpose.  The Gamist seeks challenge within an imaginary setting, he desires to win.  The Narrativist seeks to address a premise within the imaginary setting, to create a meaningful story.  The Simulationist has no goal beyond existing within the imaginary setting, the mode has become the goal.

So while the childs make-believe or daydreaming in adults may give a good idea of what a simulationist gets from gaming it still doesnt answer what does the simulationist hope to achieve within this imagined setting.

[epweissengruber]

You just said what I have been spending too much mental energy to get my head around.

So while the child's make-believe or daydreaming in adults may give a good idea of what a simulationist gets from gaming it still doesnt answer what does the simulationist hope to achieve within this imagined setting.

[Sean]

Chris -

I think that's just pushing the same 'absolutized' reading back a stage. (I was there myself earlier in the thread though, so the point's worth making, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not in the 'made' category at this point.)  If you put words like 'many' and 'most' and 'some' in front of your various premises, I'd endorse them, but then the conclusion wouldn't follow any more, except maybe with a 'usually' or a 'more often than you might think', but then I don't see what the problem is any more.

All that understood, I do think that there are Sim-like behaviors that occur in focused children's play - maybe it's even just Sim, if what little kids are doing is actually just freeform LARP - that's another thread - and, again, that probably some people come to RPing looking for specifically super-tight focus on Exploration, without the training. This doesn't change the fact that lots of people don't - I'd guess that Ron's right that the majority don't - and that the trends Ron's describing are real ones. (Furthermore, they're ones that help perpetuate the continual misunderstandings of N play and the devaluation of Gamism as 'roll-playing' that we see side by side throughout the RP community.)

But again, I don't see how your conclusion follows without fully generalizing your premises, and I don't think anyone's wanting to defend those fully generalized premises here. (If they are, speak up, my bad for speaking for anyone other than myself.)

Best,

Sean

[clehrich]

Sean,

You're being very tolerant and reasonable, and I suspect that I'm seeming rather like an absolutist maniac, so let me clarify a bit why I'm driving for an underlying point.

If you take Ron's statement as an in-the-context-of-actual-gaming, rough empirical generalization about what happens to a lot of players, it's true. Lots of gamers do come to the table with desires and expectations that would be more straightforwardly satisfied by play that pushes more heavily in a Gamist or Narrativist direction. Then a painful process of socialization occurs where they learn that various types of play that best facilitate Simulationism are 'right'.

Ron replied, "Sean's nailed it, for me."

If I understand correctly, the point is that without "traditional" RPG socialization, Sim priorities are fairly unusual.  Therefore newcomers to the hobby tend to "think" Gamist or Narrativist, and have to be "broken" of this.  Ron thinks, I believe, that such "breaking" behavior needs to stop, because it's happening simply out of habit.

Okay, now back up a few posts.

within the subject of children growing up, Sim play is a lot more "basic" than Nar or Gam. for instance, it's a lot easier to....

Sim - make believe being a knight

than say...

Nar - make believe being a knight that is forced to pick between his honor or his lover (with this being a constant premise)

or

Gam - make believe being a knight that is all about killing the other knights for the sole reward of being a badass.

Hopefully I understood that Ron's opinion is along the "road" of make believe...one encounters Sim first, before the other two.

Ron replied, "Yes, you nailed the point."

Here it seems that Sim arises from early childhood games and whatnot, while Nar and Gam arise from considerably later socialization and maturation.

Now we get to the sticking-point:

If Sim-like stuff arises early in childhood, and Nar- and Gam-like stuff arises as a result of (non-RPG) socialization, why do newcomers to the hobby come to the table with non-Sim assumptions?  If "traditional" RPG's keep writing, "Role-playing games are just like childhood 'let's pretend'," which of course they do keep writing, doesn't Ron's formulation mean that they are literally accurate?

This is why John and xiombarg and I originally misread Ron's point, and why I continue to believe that this formulation says something other than what Ron actually thinks.

As I read Ron's analysis, there's no way out of the following sequence:

[*]Sim arises from early childhood pretending
[*]Gam & Nar arise from later socialization
[*]Newcomers to the hobby assume more adult behaviors will be normal
[*]Traditional gamers push for less-mature behaviors[/list:u]
I realize that "mature" here does not have to be read as a judgemental category, that we could replace "less-mature" with both "immature and childish" and with "recovering childlike wonder."  

But if there is no judgment whatever implied, then there should be no difficulty in socializing new players to the Sim mentality: you just tell them to follow their inner child.  Ron feels, however, that Sim is the least-accessible mentality for newcomers, and I maintain that this implies a negative judgment of Sim.  Further, although I know he doesn't think he's doing this, I maintain that Ron is defending this judgment as not a judgment by referring to a supposedly natural sequence of behavior developments.

All of which takes us back to Ben's first post:

I am deeply uncertain that Simulationist play is not "clear and automatic" in the way that Narrativist and Gamist play both are. I believe that much of childhood make-believe stems simply from a desire to explore an imagined space, no more and no less, and that Sim play represents an outgrowth of this fundamental.

I hope that clarifies why I continue to beat at this.  I will now stop and wait, and see what Ron has to say.

Chris Lehrich

[Ben Lehman]

Sean's nailed it, for me.

Ben, to answer your direct question, I'll put it this way.

People develop in such a way that culminates in X and Y. As they do so, they exhibit (um...) B along the way, quite necessarily.

Now, they get together to do something. They typically bring X and/or Y to it. Then, in some cases, the people they've joined say, "Oh, we're doing B."

That's going to be tricky for a lot of people. Do they recognize B? Probably, or maybe with a little squinting. Do they want to do B? Good question, and I suggest that a fair number's answer is, Probably not.

Does this mean B is bad, dumb, infantile, to be matured from? Nope. Does it mean B is probably the least recommended for entry-level to the activity? Yeah, it does. Does it mean that presenting B as the basic entry-level is excluding a lot of people from the activity? Yeah, I think so.

Does that cover it, Ben?

BL>  In that it makes me clear on your position, yes.  At a gut level, I disagree with the sentiment that raw imagination is any less important or less frequent than premise-like classification of events, or significantly less important than peer-level friendly competition, but that is a matter of developmental psychology, something which I have little-to-no experience in.

This issue is, of course, clouded for me because of personal experience.  I am a daydreamer.  Fantasy, just for fantasy itself, is a part of my daily life as much as stories.

I've written extensively in the past about why and how Simulationist play is perceived as most common and hence most desirable or enjoyable across the hobby, and why I think that perception is mistaken.

BL>  Just for reference, I agree with this completely.  I just don't think that Sim play is, in most circumstances, as highly trained as you put forth.

yrs--
--Ben

[Ben Lehman]

I think part of what's happening here is as follows. If you take Ron's statement as an in-the-context-of-actual-gaming, rough empirical generalization about what happens to a lot of players, it's true. Lots of gamers do come to the table with desires and expectations that would be more straightforwardly satisfied by play that pushes more heavily in a Gamist or Narrativist direction. Then a painful process of socialization occurs where they learn that various types of play that best facilitate Simulationism are 'right'. Ouija board role playing is one particularly painful such process; ostracization of 'munchkins' who apply their experience from Monopoly and chess straightforwardly to RPGs, without even bothering to try to explain the group's Social Contract (disguised as the 'better way to play', etc.) is another; and so on. Most of us experienced such training at some point, I think. I certainly did, and I inflicted it on many in high school - creating the usual incaste/outcaste mix between those who got it and those who didn't, which in turn was used to reinforce my status as RPG club president, etc.  Many potential gamers do leave during this period because heavy Sim is not for them and they connect that with RPGing more generally.

On the other hand, if you take it as a universal claim about what is and isn't normal behavior for people who come to the gaming table, it's probably false. Clearly some people must be simulationist by 'nature' rather than by 'habit' or we wouldn't have gotten any Sim play to begin with, or only in some very rarefied and obscure contexts. (Other posts have filled in the argument here in a variety of ways already, so I won't rehash.)

BL>  Yo.  Bang on.  Yup.  Directly parallel to my experience.

But let me put it this way.  Given that all three modes are "natural" and can be expected from incoming players depending on the context that they have been given and their personal preferences, it doesn't matter what their frequency is.  Since most play prioritizes one form, and derides the others, there are going to be unhappy people.  Ron's claim that this group of people is large seems, to me, beside the point?  Does it matter if the number of confused, insulted people who are new to gaming is %10 or %90?  No.  It matters that they are confused, and that they exist.

It is my belief that there are a large number of "automatically Sim" players.  Further, this doesn't change the fact that such dysfunction with new players is a problem.

It is not, I think, that Sim play "needs to be taught."  It is that "it is forcibly taught to some people who do not enjoy it."

yrs--
--Ben