Understanding: the "it" of Simulationism

[Mike Holmes]

If Mike is arguing that there's a bit of simulationist-like conduct supporting narrativism and gamism, I'm ready to agree; I expect he will also concede that there is a bit of narrativist-like conduct supporting simulationism and gamism, and a bit of gamist-like conduct supporting simulationism and narrativism. The question is not whether we're involved in forms of play that look like each other. The question is whether our reason for playing is primarily one or another of the three big aspects.

As Ron says, only one of the three things can be most important to you over a period of play; the others are just things you do because they support what you want to do.

Totally agreed. It's just, as Ron says, that I'm very interested in the support. See, how can Sim be a retreat from, say, gamism, if you're using gamism as a "support" conduct? More importantly, I'd say that gamism and narrativism can't support anything per se. That is exploration does fine with or without them. The reverse isn't true. This is the main difference. Exploration underlies these other two, and they can't really exist without it. Therefore "sim" to me is promoting exploration. Such that it's maintained whether you want to do nothing but explore, or play in some other mode at some later date.

Basically, the idea of agenda is sidetracking people into thinking that playing in one mode is a rejection of the other modes such that the player doing so must have no desire ever to play that way - that "support" conduct like this is incidental. But it's not incidental, it's an important part of the overall agenda. I want all three modes at once. In practice, yes, I have to prioritize one. But that doesn't mean that I've retreated from the others. I've just made the sadly inevitable decision that has to be made. The lesser of two evils, the other being incoherence.

I think once we realize this, there'll be less people poo-poohing other people's play because we'll all realize that we're more similar than we think. Yes, there are crucial differences in modes, but none of the functional ones involve cowardice or prejudice against any mode. Preference against, maybe (though I think even there we're more similar than we admit), but not "retreat".


I'd definitely buy Casual Play, Sean, if it means that the prioritizations that you're making aren't done with such a dramatic nature as to make them stand out. That is, I think that Casual Play probably has an overall agenda, but it's just not likely to be identifiable. OTOH, I think for that very reason, if play ever does intensify, unless the players know the actual agenda, that this is potentially problematic.

Mike

[Silmenume]

Hey Sean,

People come to the table to explore; they make decisions which they at least like to pretend (even in Walt's example as he stated it) are influencing the shared imaginative space of the game.

The main tripping point that keeps coming up is what exactly does it mean to Explore.  Exploration could be thought of as the process of statement creation that fits within the strictures laid out in the social contract.  For example in the Social Contract we agree that we are going to play in Middle Earth and that I am going to play a Vanyarian Elf by the name of Silmenume and that we are going to play system X.  System X basically confines my efforts to that can only be accomplished through my character.  If I make statements (or ask questions) that have nothing to do with the setting, situation, or something that my character would not have knowledge of or power to affect then I am not exploring.  For example, if am talking about sports, the weather, a trip I took to Alaska, last weeks game, how much I think the system sucks then I am not exploring.  Sometimes this is called out of character or out of game.  Thus for exploration to be happening I must confine my topics or subject matter to those elements that have been sanctioned in the Social Contract.  This all happens before the Lumpley Principle even comes into play.  The Explored elements constrain the roleplay "dialogue," employing said elements is called Exploration.

Creative Agenda is the metagame goal that directs our use of the Exploration process.  Thus Gamist play employs the elements of Exploration to provide an arena where a contest is created and the goal of victory is sought.  Narrativist play employs the elements of Exploration to provide an arena where a premise is created and the goal of theme/story is sought.  Simulationist play employs the elements of Exploration to provide an arena where the Exploratory elements can be added to in a fashion that is challenging (confining itself to the medium – not the Step On Up variety) yet aesthetically pleasing.

Note – employing the Exploratory elements is not the same as adding to them.

There is also this idea that seems to be floating in the Zeit Geist that Exploration (as in the defining act of roleplay, the employment of system, character, situation, setting, and color) is equivalent to walking around in the SIS and looking at things, i.e., exploring (lower case 'e') the environment/setting.

So, to you assertion that players come to the table to explore (and I'll assume that you mean all players), I answer a qualified yes.  If you mean explore as in effecting the SIS, i.e., doing something that allows for, at the very least, some input I would say yes.  If you mean by explore that all players are interested in adding to the narrative elements (Explorative elements less formalized system) as a goal, then I would say no.  The goal of purposefully/mindfully adding to the narrative elements is the Sim Creative Agenda.

So: decisions in play are always understandable as little-g, little-s, or little-n, at least barring finding some new form of focus.

I don't believe that decisions in player are always understandable as little-g, little-s, or little-n.  I believe there are decisions that are not understandable and these instances are what are currently being referred to as little z.  This may not be the best term, but it is the working term for the moment until something better should come up.

Now, little z instances do not mean that the acting player has no creative agenda, it just means that the instances in question cannot be diagnosed.  It doesn't say anything necessarily about the motive of the player.  This can happen for four reasons that I can think of.  The first is that said instance of play is a congruent instance between 2 or more agenda and thus making it impossible to determine which agenda was in operation so it looks like no CA was in operation at all.  The second is that the instance in question was specifically instituted in the service of a CA by said player, but the action itself yields no signature as to its (CA) source.  Third the said little z instance could be the result of lack of CA.  Finally the little z instance could be the result of the player purposefully suppressing CA for whatever reasons.  To reduce even further a little z instance could either basically represent a failure of the model to diagnose CA, or the actual absence of CA motive.

On the other hand, there's also an overall creative agenda which is explicitly aimed against heavy focus, which we're calling "Zilchplay", but since that's negative and implies to me an absence of player desires, which is incoherent, I'd prefer C, "Casual Play", as the title, if this exists.

A big Z game does not necessarily mean that the players have willingly chosen such a style of play.  It could be a dysfunctional game whereby the players have purposefully squelched the free expression of their CA in order to "get along" or "keep the game going."  IOW though they may have chosen a big Z style game, it does not mean that it is their preferred mode of play or that they are enjoying themselves.  Or it could be that the game is more socially oriented than self-expression oriented.

I just had another epiphany that demonstrates that Sim is not self-same with exploration.  Sim does not allow for the dynamic addressing of formalized systems, which can be allowed for in Nar.  Both CA's employ the Exploration elements, but each prioritizes which elements are most important and which are not to be messed with.  Exploration as a whole says nothing about which elements are allowed or not allowed to be added to, while Sim has very clear strictures about what portions of the Exploration elements are subject to dynamic addressing and in what manner they are to be addressed.

I can't speak for Walt, but this is what I feel.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jay,

Your final epiphany nails it, as far as I'm concerned.

There's a section in GNS and Related Matters of Role-playing Theory called "Does it exist" (or something like that), and then there's the big ol' Simulationism essay itself ... both of those express my thinking on the topic, and I think they're consistent with your point.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

I just had another epiphany that demonstrates that Sim is not self-same with exploration.  Sim does not allow for the dynamic addressing of formalized systems, which can be allowed for in Nar.  Both CA's employ the Exploration elements, but each prioritizes which elements are most important and which are not to be messed with.  Exploration as a whole says nothing about which elements are allowed or not allowed to be added to, while Sim has very clear strictures about what portions of the Exploration elements are subject to dynamic addressing and in what manner they are to be addressed.

So those strictures we could call a Creative Agenda (the 'shape' of Exploration), which is why defining Sim in reference to Exploration isn't going to cut it (assuming Sim exists).  Gam and Nar are Exploration 'molds' as well, no more or less about Exploration than Sim.  Those strictures are where M.J.'s "it" (Discovery) comes into play.

[Silmenume]

Pretty much right on the nose.

I am not sure that I buy the Discovery idea per say, but it does vigorously address the idea of 'a' goal in Sim that is distinct from the act of Exploration as a process that is occuring in all three CA's.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume