The Roots of Sim (Response to Nar Essay)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Ben, what you wrote makes a lot of sense to me. I'm willing to split the difference between this construction and mine, with no reservations at all.

Chris, you're a source of major confusion for me today. I am perfectly OK with the four-point scheme you presented, until you then claim it relies on this idea:

The only significant or common form of socialization that produces S-like behavior is RPG's.

Mental "sput." I don't see how that relates to the four points at all. Who says it's only RPGs which demonstrate such a pattern? I didn't, nor do I see why it's necessary and integrated with your other four points.

In your second post, I'm equally at sea:

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.

Ah. Is that what to do? I think that's pretty simplistic, to say the least. I know that as a role-player, I found such advice to be extraordinarily patronizing and disempowering until I encountered the Threefold and understood more about why-to's. Your answer fails to explain why the local Creative Agenda should be authoritative over the one that the person thought would be satisfied by participating? My answer is, it shouldn't. Such things are resolved not by saying "This way was here first," but rather through means that can satisfy everyone involved as much as they can be (which may or may not be enough for the odd man out).

Then I come to this:

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.

This is an unanswerable passage. That's what you think? 'K. No point in attempting to refute what appears to be a fixed diagnosis, and which relies on your inference. I think you're wrong, but apparently you know my mind and have stated my delusion. Again, 'K, or perhaps, "Whatever."

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Chris, you're a source of major confusion for me today. I am perfectly OK with the four-point scheme you presented, until ....

The only significant or common form of socialization that produces S-like behavior is RPG's.

Okay, that comes off of half of the argument, which I was trying to put back together in the last post to Sean.  I'm going to cut to the chase, because this is obviously causing confusion and annoyance all around.

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.

I think that's pretty simplistic, to say the least. I know that as a role-player, I found such advice to be extraordinarily patronizing and disempowering....

Yes.  I agree entirely; that would be exceedingly obnoxious and unhelpful advice.  What I'm saying is that by the fourfold scheme (for clarificiation, I mean the one I just proposed a few posts back and you more or less seconded), Sim arises naturally in early childhood, and is then socialized into relative obscurity or background (incidentally producing something akin to Gam and Nar along the way).  You have said that newcomers come to the table with Gam and Nar assumptions, and find that the players already there have Sim assumptions.  Fine -- I'm happy to accept that empirical description.

So this is a question to you, not an actual positive suggestion: why, according to your scheme, can't the gamers at the table say, "Find your inner child"?  However patronizing the advice, wouldn't they be analytically accurate?

To put this all very directly and bluntly:

If
Gam and Nar are socialized priorities; and
They arise late-ish; and
Sim is a socialized priority; and
It arises early-ish

Then
If a newcomer arrives at the table with any set of assumptions from this list of three, and finds that those already there have any of the other assumptions,

Shouldn't it be a question of re-socializing the newcomer to new expectations?  Why is Sim singled out on this system?

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.

My point, on this, is not that I think you're deluded, nor that I can read your mind.  My point is that your argument is, I really think, logically incoherent.  I must stand upon some additional assumption or valuation.  Otherwise, you could not distinguishe Sim along these lines.

Some have suggested a naturalistic approach; you reject this, and while I admit to a suspicion that something akin to a naturalism may be at the root of the logical flaw in your argument, I grant this.
Some have suggested a "who's more mature?" sort of approach, but you rejected that in extremely strong terms.
What would you suggest?  What is it that permits the additional discrimination (in the logical, not ethical sense) of Sim over against the other two on these particular grounds?

I'm trying to reveal here that your logic is not logic; it has a hole.  I'm trying to discern what might be filling that hole as you conceive it; thus far I have apparently guessed wrong.  I invite you to formulate explicitly, or else demonstrate that there is no hole at all.

Chris Lehrich

[Silmenume]

I'm gonna jump in and make a few statements that will hopefully help.

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that as young imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Sim) develop into older imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Gamist or Narrativist) that said imaginists remember their earlier behaviors as a distinct phase of imagining efforts.  This assumption leads to the false belief that an individual made mindful decisions during their development that purposely demarked and shifted the nature of their imaginative enterprises, thus said individual could be implied to remember an earlier "Sim phase" imaginings as a distinct effort from their later "Gam/Nar phase" imaginings.

A child who has developed a Gam/Nar preference has done so without the least notion that different modes were progressed through.  In other words a person who "developed" as Gam/Nar preference did so in a direct line without mindful milestones, thus that they ended up with said preference is assumed by that individual to be THE way to roleplay.  As Gam/Nar-like imaginings are goal oriented, the raw creative behaviors of Sim-like imaginings are quickly assumed and FULLY INTEGRATED into the service of the other two.

This leads to two conditions –
Gam/Nar-like imagining behaviors consume Sim-like imaging behaviors.
This developmental process would show lots of synecdoche, and in fact it does.

Therefore the statement "find your inner child" as an attempt to point to a time in the player's earlier life where imagining behaviors that were Sim-like were being employed as a reference would not help.  All the imagining behaviors happened and developed in childhood.  Just because imagining behaviors that resemble Sim are exhibited first does not translate into Sim game priorities as being less "mature".

Thus I think another false assumption being made is that the order of development of these imagining behaviors implies different maturity/sophistication levels of the modes of roleplay or their adherents.  This is quickly followed by the error that just because an author proposed that Sim-like imagining behavior developed earlier than Gam/Nar that the author of said statement must be making a value judgment about Sim roleplay overall.  Such conclusions do not follow.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[M. J. Young]

I was going to post on Friday night, and I thought, naw, this can wait. Shame on me; it's really exploded all over the place.

I played make believe with a lot of kids.

The boys almost always played gamist games, that I recall--cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, astronauts and aliens. The sides were easily determined: if you were one of the cool kids, you were on the good guys side that was going to win, and if you weren't one of the cool kids you were going to see your character killed to let the cool kids feel superior. I didn't much care for those games, but if I wanted to play with the boys, that's what we had to play.

The girls, on the other hand, invariably played house when they had the opportunity, and invariably dragged in any boys who were available. I can remember telling the girl next door that I'd rather play something else, couldn't we play something else, there must be something else we could play, but she insisted on playing house. In house there were no winners or losers. There was no story being created. House was ultimately let's imagine what it would be like if we were all grown up and running our own home the way our parents run theirs. It was a simulationist exploration, a way of discovering what it would be like to be somewhere/something/someone other than who we were. O.K., I didn't like it either, but for an entirely different reason: it was boring; nothing was happening.

Yet the girls all enjoyed it. They seemed to think something was happening, something that mattered to them. It seemed so static, but they were discovering something about themselves and their world by roleplaying being different.

I never, ever, saw anything remotely like narrativist make-believe, until I saw it on Mr. Rogers. We didn't play that way. Now, maybe someone does remember make-believe that dealt with issues and addressed premise, but I don't.

And I do think that make-believe is elementary role playing. Saying that it isn't the same thing at all rings like Harlan Ellison trying to say that sci fi is not science fiction and shouldn't be in the same category. You can't make the distinction based on whether you think the quality or level of sophistication comes up to your standards; you have to do it based on whether it contains the same core concepts. Children engaged in make-believe are creating a shared imaginary space in which they create events and characters by means of an undefined but mutually understood system built on a social contract. That it's a far more elementary approach in some ways does not negate what they are doing.

Simulationism is neither more nor less basic than gamism. You don't have to learn either of these at some point in your adulthood; you just have to discover whether this is something you enjoy.

I couldn't say about narrativism; thus far it seems a fairly sophisticated concept requiring at least nine or ten year old cognitive and moral development, but maybe I'm missing something.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Chris, since I'm not making the negative judgment you say I'm making, I can't be called upon to defend that judgment. I really think you're ascribing a position to me, then claiming that position is false, and I'm really pretty much out of the picture from the word go. For example, you still ascribe naturalism to my position, which is grossly mistaken, except that you "know" that it's there. [blinks] 'K.

This is a good question to ask:

why, according to your scheme, can't the gamers at the table say, "Find your inner child"? However patronizing the advice, wouldn't they be analytically accurate?

They would indeed. Whether they are successful in doing so is, in my view, utterly and completely a matter of the social negotiation that is going to have to happen among this group of people.

To put this all very directly and bluntly:

If
Gam and Nar are socialized priorities; and
They arise late-ish; and
Sim is a socialized priority; and
It arises early-ish

Then
If a newcomer arrives at the table with any set of assumptions from this list of three, and finds that those already there have any of the other assumptions,

Shouldn't it be a question of re-socializing the newcomer to new expectations? Why is Sim singled out on this system?

I'm afraid I consider your "then" to be no "then" at all. I don't see the connection to the "if's," not one smidgeon. You could reverse all the earlys and lates in the "if" section, and it wouldn't mean a thing to the "then," for instance.

Now to answer your question, although I don't think anyone is going to like the answer. It is: None of this seems to me to be resolvable, especially since my position is that what-group-does is not amenable to 'should' thinking, in this case. We know nothing about these hypothetical people's actual goals, socially: to stay friends no matter what? to play this game no matter what? to include this person in the group no matter what? All unknown, hence, all "should" talk is meaningless. I think any such talk belongs in actual play regarding (surprise) actual play.

Finally, Sim play is singled out because I think it qualifies as the minority priority among the general populace, and hence will face the situation more often.

Ben and I have reached a great deal of agreement, I think, pending your confirmation, Ben. That's as far as I need to get in this thread.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Well, I suspect we're going to come back to this periodically, Ron, but if you're done with the thread you're done.  I will make one last stab at clarifying.

First, a minor procedural point:

...since I'm not making the negative judgment you say I'm making....

I do not think that you mean a negative judgment.  I do think that your distinction between Sim and Gam/Nar is logically problematic.  Period.

Sim play is singled out because I think it qualifies as the minority priority among the general populace, and hence will face the situation more often.

My question was, and remains, the following:
Why is Sim the minority priority among the general populace, if (1) it arises earlier ontogenetically, and (2) it is [as Joshua put it] easier to pretend to be a knight?

I think that there is an assumption you are making about the way mental development works and affects developments of what can become gaming priorities.  I am trying to nail down what that assumption is, so that then in another thread we can debate whether it is valid.

Jay proposed the first new solution in a while:

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that as young imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Sim) develop into older imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Gamist or Narrativist) that said imaginists remember their earlier behaviors as a distinct phase of imagining efforts.

If I understand correctly, the Sim-like imagining behavior to a significant degree becomes submerged over time, with increasing sociallization and whatnot.  Therefore adults come to the table with 3 not-terribly-consciously known modes, but one is greatly more submerged than the others.  Consequently they generally come to the table with one of the other two, or both, prioritized.

Jay, am I getting you right?

If so, Ron, is that your contention?

If so, then my question is (at last) answered.

I personally doubt this contention, but that's a subject for a quite different thread.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Chris, I don't think it's a matter of submergence. I think it's a matter of development, in terms of "what I want to get out of doing X."

X = exploration, in this case, as defined in my essays by the five components, in the medium of social communication.

By "development," I mean change. The imagining-only activity changes into (as I see it) an applied-imagination skill or skills that people use all the time in various ways. Typically, those developed versions are oriented toward theme-construction (stories) and unequivocal performance (assessment), in all sorts of activities.

One of those ways is a leisure activity called role-playing. Unsurprisingly, to me, people who encounter it are usually inclined to use their developed (in the sense of "has undergone change") skills or applications of the imagining-process: Narrativist or Gamist play. To their surprise, in many cases, they discover that the "right way to do it" means stripping those developments off and using, instead, the "raw" version of imagining as the primary effort. I also think that it does not remain raw, but rather gets developed along a relatively unusual path.

This "third development" might be seen as finding a non-infantile* use for the imaginging-process. You've played with Ken Hite, right? He refers to his preferred mode as "idea-based play," meaning that emotional investment in the outcomes/characters is less important than whatever thought-experiment is going on ("What if the Templars ...?"). Hardly infantile - rather, a refined version of the imaginative-only priority which isn't how most people have developed these skills.

* In this post, this term specifically refers to the age-stage and not to a pejorative use.

Theoretical engineering, speculative-future-setting or alternative-history science fiction, deep character-acting, and thoughtful pastiche all seem to be versions of this "refinement" of the raw/starting imagining phase.

Does that seem reasonable? I especially plead with you to discount all distinctions between "natural" and "socialized," which mean literally nothing to me in theory or practice.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that as young imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Sim) develop into older imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Gamist or Narrativist) that said imaginists remember their earlier behaviors as a distinct phase of imagining efforts.

If I understand correctly, the Sim-like imagining behavior to a significant degree becomes submerged over time, with increasing sociallization and whatnot.  Therefore adults come to the table with 3 not-terribly-consciously known modes, but one is greatly more submerged than the others.  Consequently they generally come to the table with one of the other two, or both, prioritized.

Jay, am I getting you right?

Not exactly.  My point was that the Sim-like imagining behaviors become fully and indistinguishably integrated into the later imagining behaviors.  Such a person who seamlessly glides from Sim-like behavior to Gam/Nar-like behavior is unaware that such a transformation has taken place.  In other words, said imaginist does not recognize that there was a change in their imagining behaviors at all.  Therefore, looking back, they believe that they have only had one type of imagining behavior.  The imagining behavior was not submerged but rather co-opted and blended seamlessly into, or as Ron simply said, changed.  Changed without mindful thought.  Changed without knowing change had happened.

Looking back on one's own experiences it would be impossible to distinguish the two behaviors without some outside reference point.  Thus if a player came to a RPG their imagining behaviors (Gam/Nar) would most likely be unexamined but ready for full employment.  If the game were Sim in approach, said player would have to be made away of their behavioral assumptions, and then they would have to learn to deconstruct their (Gam/Nar) added behaviors to get back to Sim (assuming that said player was willing and interested to make the effort to do so).  The problem is that as the players imagining preferences are typically rooted in behaviors and not conscious choices, such change will most likely happen only through behavior modification efforts.  This is usually best effected through carrot and stick.  

Some players may be highly sensitive or self aware of their imagining behaviors and assumptions, but they would be a very rare breed.  The huge prevalence of synecdoche is evidence of that situation.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[clehrich]

Assuming that Jay and Ron are in agreement, and I think they are, I'm pretty sure I actually do get what you're saying.  My question is thus answered, and as far as I'm concerned unless Ron doesn't agree with Jay here, I'm satisfied that my question is answered.

By "development," I mean change. The imagining-only activity changes into (as I see it) an applied-imagination skill or skills that people use all the time in various ways. Typically, those developed versions are oriented toward theme-construction (stories) and unequivocal performance (assessment), in all sorts of activities.

Or, as Jay put it,

...the Sim-like imagining behaviors become fully and indistinguishably integrated into the later imagining behaviors.

Thus we have a developmental tree in which one behavior (Sim-like) develops and transforms into what in a gaming context is two others (Gam and Nar); to move to Sim in play thus demands the extra work of in effect back-tracking and undoing a certain amount of developmental work.  Ron's use of the word "infantile" in a technical, non-judgmental sense seems to me precise: we are in Sim asked to back up developmentally, literally speaking to get in touch with our inner child or whatever, which is in fact quite strange to those not already well familiar with the Sim end of the hobby.

Where I actually disagree, but which is in fact a subject for a future thread (since this one, for me anyway, was all about clarifying what Ron is up to), is this:

I especially plead with you to discount all distinctions between "natural" and "socialized," which mean literally nothing to me in theory or practice.

I think it is precisely the issue of socialization, and indeed the sociology of gaming, that makes this set of plausible distinctions problematic.

However, as I think I'm now clear on the distinction itself, and what underlies it, I think my disagreement can wait for a future thread.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Cool!

As for your final point, no, I don't think it needs to go to another thread, or to be discussed at all, because it's out of the scope of debate for the Forge. That is a Big Ultimate Question of Existence, and role-playing as a hobby has to cope with it just like anything else does.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

Huh...

I just read this whole thread and I know I'm coming in late, but what I don't get about this whole thread is where the assumption that children's make believe is Sim comes from.

I don't get the assumption that the child's priorities have changed at all.  I bet they've been defaulting off to Nar or Gam all the while (probably neurological, left brain/right brain, but I really don't know as I'm not a child psychologist), and they have just gotten better at it with time.  Just like kids getting better at drawing or playing chess as they develop as people.

Vincent tagged this way back on page one with Nar, M.J. just hit Gam.  Good lion versus bad lion (good versus evil) and playing house (family structure) both seem pretty Nar to me.  Sure, Nar kids might make up trite/flat/crappy themes, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested.

I don't think Sim transmogrifies into anything - if the kid starts Sim they probably end up that way;   likewise with Nar and Gam.  For the sake of simplicity I'm excluding the effects of neurological/psychological changes/traumas that accompany the various stages of development, which I'm sure could alter priorities.  The whole "Sim -> Puberty -> Nar/Gam" (or whatever development stage you fancy) seems real busted to me.

[charles ferguson]

Hi all

I don't think Sim transmogrifies into anything - if the kid starts Sim they probably end up that way

That certainly fits in my own case. It's not that I'm never competitive--I certainly can be--or that I'm not, often, intensely interested in story as a driving force in art. Its what I really notice in books & movies--& RPG's--the thing that leaps out at me, the GNS-big-P Premise that fires me up, is Sim.

Wow! How cool is that! Imagine being there, exploring that, being able to do this, meeting those guys... Wow!

And AFAIR it's always been like that.

Although to be honest, while that's fascinating I don't actually see it as having anything real to do with GNS as a model.

To explain it from another tanget: as a Sim-RPer, do I find that GNS-Sim accurately describe my gaming the way I would describe it myself?

No. It doesn't even mostly do that.

But when I focus on the similarities rather than the differences I can comfortably say, Yes, within the GNS model as presented, thats pretty much where I sit. And for me, that's enough. That allows me to use GNS as a tool to better understand my own assumptions--& potential--as both a gamer & a game designer. Not the only tool I'll ever use or need. But one that can be useful and powerful, in the right situation.

As long as I remind myself that GNS is a particular way of looking at a thing--& not the reality of that thing--I can choose to use it, or not, depending on the benefit it will bring to the situation. I'm freed of the need to have it perfectly descibe all aspects of all gamers, in all gaming situations.

Hmmm, I just had a scary thought... <tongue-firmly-in-cheek>

Do you think the length & insistence of all these Sim posts is directly related to us being Sims... A kind of "GNS-kitchen-sinkism"?

<recoils in horror>

I spose I could attempt to check this by following the Nar-Gam GMS posts--but hell, who cares about reading them, anyway?

</tongue-out-of-cheek>