The roots of Sim II

[Mike Holmes]

Risking having people miss the post directly above in order to post again....

Part of the problem is that I'm talking about the modes in two different ways. This has always been a problem. See, as an agenda, GNS means that Narrativist play (to pick on it), involves play that over time shows to be about creating theme. The theory does state that there are moments in any play where it won't stick to the agenda. A player momentarily changes to a mode of play that, if it were to be all of play, would consitiute a Sim or Gamism agenda. But as part of the overall agenda, it's still considered, overall, to be Narrativism.

But, see, the small moments are important. Little gns as someone proposed. Though the model is behavioral, behavioralism admits that motives are extant (though what they are is completely irrellevant). What I will say is that I think that motives to produce play in all three modes are probably present, if even only in tiny quantities for some motives, in just about every roleplayer.

Now, whether or not they act on these motives is the important part. But what happens is that the player shifts back and forth between play that indulges the motive to do gamism to the motive to do sim, etc. So, while overall there may be a particular aesthetic, it's composed of all of this "atomic" play as we used to call it.

The point is that a particular decision either shows that it is one of the modes, or it is congruent between two or all three modes. These congruent decisions can be indulgent of all three motives (or any two), regardless of the overall agenda. In that way, momentarily, a player can be playing Sim and Nar and Gamist, all at the same time for practical purposes. The general theory only says that the overall agenda becomes apparent when the revealing decisions come along which force one to pick an option that reveals. In the interim, it makes sense to say that the player is having any of their motives satisfied that matter to them.

This is important, because it clarifies some of the potentially contradictory statments that I've made above, if one assumes that I'm only talking about overall agendas when I use the terms I do.

BTW, this all implies something about a neat way to play, which I'll expound upon in another thread.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Jason, you'd have to expand that theory (dials on the parts of exploration) some for me to be able to comment on it. On your later point, Ron has changed from the "moral and ethical" definition. So much so towards "emotion" that I think that all play is co-opted to some extent (as you'll see below).

My take is that Narrativism is based on emotional engagement with a problematic human issue, which seems a little more limited than what you're talking about.

I'm going to wack this horse one more time with a 2x4.  The two quotes above are related.  The emotional engagement in Ron's quote is addressing/interest/prioritization.  It's the second part that I think is vital to understand Nar, and hence Sim.  It certainly was for me anyway.

'moral or ethical question'
'problematic human issue'
'how experience shapes ideals'
'how emotions effect human decisions'
'the beliefs of the character'

These are all equivalent statements.  They are all theme.  Though, an individual may feel one statement is more narrow or wide than another, and hence alter the scope of Nar and Sim for that person.

I don't know if I can add anything more in this particular vein than to point out me struggling through understanding Nar in this thread: Is this really Nar?.  I owe a debt of gratitude to everyone who participated in that thread, but Chris (Bankuei) and M.J. Young in particular.

[Mike Holmes]

That's my point again. Who knows when it's nar and when it's not? Hard to say, really. When the player is doing it, not just "because the character would" but "because it's interesting to me" is where I draw the line. Can you see how that would include everthing in RPG play? Again, like Sim is only shown when you fail to take an obvious nar hook, Nar only becomes apparent when you do something implausible, incongruous.

Again, it's not important to ask when nar begins. It's only important to know, for a specific group, what the minimum requirements are for each mode to be satisfied. Is it "narrativist enough" for them?

Mike

[Jason Lee]

That's my point again. Who knows when it's nar and when it's not? Hard to say, really. When the player is doing it, not just "because the character would" but "because it's interesting to me" is where I draw the line. Can you see how that would include everthing in RPG play? Again, like Sim is only shown when you fail to take an obvious nar hook, Nar only becomes apparent when you do something implausible, incongruous.

Oh yeah, I can see.  I question whether "because the character would" and "because it's interesting to me" can even be seperate things, but I am open to the possibility that they can (really dependent upon what specifically the character is doing).  I'm still working that distinction, if it exists, out in my head.

[Mike Holmes]

Again, it doesn't matter if they can be separated. You're looking for a line that isn't set in stone, but determined by each group. In fact, for one group "moral" might not pertain at all, but "relationship based" is everything. Narrativism is different for each group, just as what makes for exploration support is different for each group. Hence why we say that there are many different sorts of agendas under each of the three umbrellas.

All I can say is that it's "something like" all those things you cite. It's what makes the player excited beyond competition.

Mike

[Sean]

Hey, Mike. I think I get what you're saying now. I don't know if I agree, but let me try to paraphrase first.

OK - instead of saying 'there are these three modes...', we should say: when you role-play, you Explore. Default role-playing is Exploration. which we now think of as Sim (it's Sim unless you do something else with it). On the other hand, you can also flavor your exploration with Nar or Gam, to taste. So instead of saying "Sim doesn't exist, because there's just Exploration", we say, "all role-playing is Sim, because we're always Exploring."

From there you want to use this new picture to shift the GNS rhetoric slightly. This would be useful in the sense that most of the smart people I know who reject GNS after (a) actually bothering to read a few threads or some of Ron's essays seriously and (b) being able to paraphrase some of the basic points of the theory for themselves, do so precisely because they think they enjoy 'multi-mode' play and that their players do too. Then we get into those nasty arguments about whether they're stick-in-the-muds who don't understand that it could be different, social geniuses who happen to have found a medium-large group who Drift together exceptionally well, or 'really deep down' players in a particular mode who don't realize that's what they are. Unproductive discussions ensue. So instead, you get all easy-breezy and say 'yeah, man, all games have all three, so, y'know, it's just a question of how much Gam or Nar you want, or whether you want to keep your beacon dead ahead on the Sim, but, y'know, it's not like you have to choose."

Actually, this might be a great way to package the theory to avoid that set of unproductive arguments. That's not my concern, but maybe it's of interest to some.

But anyway on to what does interest me, whether your picture adequately represents the facts. Certainly Sim/Exploration confusion is a recurrent cognitive problem with GNS and one which your model would help to subtly eliminate. On the other hand, let's consider the difference between Exploration and Creative Agenda, which is what's at stake here.

In some sense, if you're sitting down to role-play, you're trying to Explore, wanting to engage in exploration of shared imaginative space. Point to Mike. On the other hand, if you take role-playing activity as a given, then there's the question - where do you want to take this activity? Where do you want it to go? What do you want to do with it? What gives you the most joy when you're doing it? This I think is the question that Ron seems to be asking more often.

In other words I guess I think the issue is where the Creative Agenda box goes in the arrow diagram. It's inside Exploration in Ron's current articles. On the other hand, if you take the 'decision to role-play' as a decision to explore, and the Creative Agenda as how you're exploring, then there might be some sense to putting the Creative Agenda down as the very highest level. Not: "Let's explore; how do you want to do it? What do you want to focus on?", with the latter understood as secondary questions, but rather all three of those questions being answered together at the very top of a modified diagram.

I'm tempted right now to think there's some plausibility to this idea, actually, if I'm reading you right. Sim/Exploration confusion is still a confusion, in that you might think that because all role-playing is about exploration it's all Sim, and so should focus on exploratory detail (or at least be able to) in certain ways. But that would be wrong. But on the other hand it might explain how you could be, say, a really, really smart game designer in the seventies, eighties, or nineties and feel compelled to put all this Simmy stuff in your game because, well, that's what role-playing is, or whatever, because you were mistaking exploration for focus on exploration itself rather than focus on the flava of exploration you want.

I'll mull this over and see how you respond in the meantime.

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, to an extent, what I'm doing here is packaging. Thus, if you buy GNS, you ought to buy my theory as well - there's no real contradiction (Ron just shakes his head and says something like, "But that's just restating what I've been saying all along.") The point is that some people detect a bias in Ron's presentation whether it's there or not, and this causes misinterpretations, IME. I'm trying to present things in such a way as to have everybody creating games that respect the sim aspect once again.

Mike

[Silmenume]

The tools of creation that I make reference to both constrain the scope of the imaginative efforts and aid in its employment.  
...
The fact that RPG's have certain tools of creation, system is the tool, the story elements the clay, makes it a creative process unique from other creative process.

Maybe. I'd be more OK with the idea if we said it was a different medium, indicating that the tools even interact in different ways. That is, you can call people in a book or in an RPG characters - and in some ways they're similar. But it's the medium of the shared space that makes these things different in application.

I'll buy that.  My sloppy thought processes for not including the medium.  I made a very poor and oblique stab at this idea with the reference in my post about the temporal nature of roleplay.

you can experience a play, I think...one can participate in creating a play.

The difference is that in Roleplay you are doing both at the same time.  The thing is that not only can you do both, but you must do both, or should I say, both must be happening congruently as it is one of the defining elements of roleplay.

I don't even think that the sort of creation, experiencing, and participation that you'd get from Improv Theatre conveys this extra thing. In that case, you're creating for an audience, in no way are you associating yourself directly with the character.

The Improv Theater example is missing an important Exploration element, system.  Therefore it will not have the same "look and feel" even if all the other exploratory elements are being employed.  You are correct in stating that the Improv Theater is creating for an audience, but it is important to note that the Improv Theater audience is non-participatory.  This is very different dynamic from Roleplay in which the audience members are also part of the Improv troop.  In Roleplay we are not only creating for ourselves, we are also creating for others in two ways.  The first is that we create to "wow" the participatory audience (the other players) to gain social rewards; second we create to aid the other creators.

To an extent, it's creating the illusion that the virtual is real.

Again we are in agreement.  "Creating" as the act of creation.  "The illusion" is the experienced effect of the creative effort.

As far a arguing what acts can be described as Narrativist play, its impossible to do so while the very definition of what Narrativist play is, is in debate, so I will steer clear of that.  I can't argue my point if the ground rules are changing!  Just as a personal note I vote for the conflicts confronted by the protagonist that reflect some issue of what it means to be "human."  Merely walking around does not have the inherent potential to cause a protagonist to consider humanity in some way, either his or someone else's.

Ok – now I have a curve ball for you.

I propose that playing Sim in NOT identical with plain old Exploration.  Playing Sim, or making a choice to play Sim is not the same a merely idling along.  By idling along I refer to those game times that Gamists and Narrativists mark until they can resume their "true interests."  The same can be said for Sim.  When a player chooses to play Sim, he is actively addressing the exploration elements and amplifying some aspect of them.  A Sim player who is addressing Sim interests is overtly/mindfully adding to one or more of the body of story elements.  Thus Sim isn't just a matter of not Gam and not Nar, but also not idling.  Like Gam and Nar, Sim is active, and it is a creative choice.

How do I come up with this?  There is no inherent structure to the explored elements, they merely are.  Sim play does demand certain strictures be followed and does set priorities on the explored elements.  Sim demands that internal causality be met.  Sim demands that a character always be present for a player to contribute to the SIS.  Sim demands that all player interactions with the SIS be filtered through a character.  The internal causality clause severely constrains how much control the players have over the other exploratory elements.  Going from highest amount of control to least I would start with character, situation, setting, color can be used to taste and formal system is more or less fixed.

To use an example that was offered in another thread –

The GM says, there's a street. You say your character crosses it. No gamism there, no narrativism, just exploration. You didn't say "I jump to the moon", because that wouldn't be plausible. You have the character perform a plausible action because you're prioritizing exploration. Note, you could take that moment to play gamist or narrativist, say, asking for a contest to dodge some oncoming traffic, or narrating how your character thought about his current moral dilemma and came to a decision about it as part of crossing the street. But you don't usually do that, you just cross the street. It's the majority of everyone's play.

Now here's what I am talking about.  The player did not take a moment to further explore any of the exploration elements either.  The player in the example above did not choose to address exploration, but rather just floated along.  While the act of walking across the street did create a new "fact", the player did not creatively enlarge upon any of the explored elements.  IOW the player did not choose to amplify, engage or in anyway attempt to create a new explorative element.  The player did not default to Sim, but rather defaulted to the DM's exploration.

The above example thus is not indicative of Sim play, but rather the example of play that has no determinate meaning regarding CA.  We cannot determine a behavior from the above act and we certainly cannot determine internal motive thus we simply have no evidence, not negative evidence i.e. not Gamist behavior and not Narrativist behavior therefore it must default to Simulationist behavior.

I'm not exactly sure where I am going with this, but I wanted to get it out there as food for thought.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Asrogoth]

Mike,

Thanks for clarifying your position and what you're trying to do.  I thought that was in fact what you were attempting -- to provide Sim a greater piece of the GNS pie from what it was getting.  It does seem to be the "Red-Headed Step-Child" among the GNS family.

It seems perfectly plausible that Sim is the default arena of play -- not as the focus of play, as some are wisely adressing -- but as the essential background and mock-up of the story.

The "Exploration" that is going on in RPGs is the Exploration of a Story, not Story Now, necessarily, but the "Story" that is being written by the GM and Players (or simply Players) through the specified approach of the Creative Agenda.  Story is present in all three types of play.

What you seem to be saying is that in order for the Story to remain coherent or usable it must apply some form of Simulationism to the preferred form of play, be it G, N or S.

I think the biggest concern is that it seems as though you're elevating Simulationism (as some have already said) to the role of Exploration in Ron's model.

Would you address this idea of Hyper-Simulationism/Exploration?  Is there no difference between Exploration and the Creative Agenda form of Simulationism?

[Caldis]

I propose that playing Sim in NOT identical with plain old Exploration.  Playing Sim, or making a choice to play Sim is not the same a merely idling along.  By idling along I refer to those game times that Gamists and Narrativists mark until they can resume their "true interests."  The same can be said for Sim.  When a player chooses to play Sim, he is actively addressing the exploration elements and amplifying some aspect of them.  A Sim player who is addressing Sim interests is overtly/mindfully adding to one or more of the body of story elements.  Thus Sim isn't just a matter of not Gam and not Nar, but also not idling.  Like Gam and Nar, Sim is active, and it is a creative choice.

But how does the amplification of any element preclude the goal of addressing premise or seeking challenge?  Isn't what you are talking about just depth of exploration?  

Certainly there will be conflicts between two players who have different preferences for the depth of the exploration but is that really any more different than a conflict between a gamist who likes hack and slash and a gamist who likes solving mysteries?  Can't two simulationists differ over how much time they want to expend over crossing the street?

[Sean]

Hi Mike,

The later paragraphs of my post aren't just about packaging, though. I see three options here, at most one of which can be true:

1) Current GNS: creative agenda within exploration as a whole, three different creative agendas. MJ is defending this position forcefully in that other thread right now.

2) What I took you to be proposing: creative agenda at the top level, coequal with or just inside social contract, always including exploration along with it, GNS modes as flavors of exploration rather than directions within the overall agreement to explore.

3) The 'Freitag theory', also discussed in the other thread: GNSZ, where people just play without any particular agenda in addition to the other three modes. This seems like implausible psychology to me, since surely you're trying to get something out of your play, no matter how incoherent, attenuated, or just plain weak your desires are, but who knows, Walt strikes me as an off-the-scale smart guy from his posts and may be on to something here.

1 and 2 (and 3, obviously) are not equivalent positions. 1 says: the agreement to explore within a social contract is one layer, and then creative agenda (the arrow) 'launches' that exploration towards particular goals (understanding that one's choice of creative agenda need not be conscious, etc.). 2 says: the choice to explore is already de facto a choice to focus that exploration in some particular way, and the layer of exploration outside of creative agenda is otiose.

Which is right?

Best,

Sean

[Mike Holmes]

Whew, swimming upstream to keep up.

Jay, I refer you to my response to MJ's post on the subject. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9715
I think that covers what you're asking. In all other ways, I think we're in agreement on what RPGs are, and what the basis for play is.

Goth, I'm saying the one of two things is true. Either there is no sim, and we're just talking about crucial protection of something that's essential to RPGs when we say sim - the protection of the exploration. Or, Sim must be some priority to protect something else that's not covered by exploration alone. What that thing may be, I can't see, so I'm saying that they're one and the same. From that perspective, sim could be said to be protecting that which is essentially the base of RPG play. But that entials that gamism and narrativism be a retreat from sim play then as well.

Caldis, right on, man.

Sean, "otiose." Had to look that up. :-)
Ron's model doesn't change at all with what I've said. You can still look at an overall agenda of support for exploration, as Simulationist. And should in terms of that model.

The Beeg Horseshoe is all about how the three modes relate to each other inside the GNS layer. It says, essentially that sim is protecting that exploration arrow as it passes through. Gamism and narrativism are diversions of that arrow as it passes through the box. Such that on the other end are different techniques and such.

Does that help, schematically? See too the link above for my response there.

Mike