I'm a bit miffed that Neil's thread The Hard Question got closed so quickly after such a shocking and, in my view, wrong-headed turn. In essence, the thread began with Neil arguing that simulationism was as natural as gamism and narrativism, and it ended with him deciding that simulationism didn't exist at all. The thread was closed "without objection" a mere few hours after that was reached.

I unfortunately am not in such a situation that I can sit at my computer and monitor Forge posts 24/7; I do object to ending that thread on that note.

The Beeg Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense to me; Simulationism is a real agendum, quite natural (as exemplified again by the vast number of little girls who Play House, with neither narrativist nor gamist agenda anywhere in sight, and yet just enjoy experiencing imagining what it's like to be grown up).

Neil, I think that it might help you to look back at Discovery: The "It" of Simulationism. It takes the stance that there is something that simulationists are after in play which distinguishes simulationism from narrativism and gamism, and goes some distance toward identifying what it is.

I'm certainly not arguing that you have ever really played simulationist; I'm only saying that it is indeed a real agendum with its own objectives.

--M. J. Young

as exemplified again by the vast number of little girls who Play House, with neither narrativist nor gamist agenda anywhere in sight, and yet just enjoy experiencing imagining what it's like to be grown up).

I think that the discussion is probably at the point where talking about theory it not very helpful. The discussion could be moved forward significantly if there was some measure of N, S and G, like a simple list of behaviour tells. Then people can go out and check them off, and go 'oooh wow, something based on data.'

Because at the moment the discussion is going:
Statement X
You're wrong because that's the wrong definition of X/not an example of X/ a different case.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.

Tying it in to objective measures would at least get past that, because people can say 'my conclusion is Blah, about this situation measured in Blah particular way' and allow disagreement about how these things are measured (formally, or by informal gut reactions based on subjective interpretation of one's on memories of one's experiences) to be seperated from the discussion of the actual theoretical forms. Because at the moment they're all mixed up, I don't think people realise exactly how their mixed up, and neither issue can be easily resolved. Let's at least cut things down into more manageable chunks.

M. J. Young wrote: I'm a bit miffed that Neil's thread The Hard Question got closed so quickly after such a shocking and, in my view, wrong-headed turn. In essence, the thread began with Neil arguing that simulationism was as natural as gamism and narrativism, and it ended with him deciding that simulationism didn't exist at all. The thread was closed "without objection" a mere few hours after that was reached.

I unfortunately am not in such a situation that I can sit at my computer and monitor Forge posts 24/7; I do object to ending that thread on that note.

The Beeg Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense to me; Simulationism is a real agendum, quite natural (as exemplified again by the vast number of little girls who Play House, with neither narrativist nor gamist agenda anywhere in sight, and yet just enjoy experiencing imagining what it's like to be grown up).

Neil, I think that it might help you to look back at Discovery: The "It" of Simulationism. It takes the stance that there is something that simulationists are after in play which distinguishes simulationism from narrativism and gamism, and goes some distance toward identifying what it is.

I'm certainly not arguing that you have ever really played simulationist; I'm only saying that it is indeed a real agendum with its own objectives.

--M. J. Young

ohyeah... and this really clears up all the issues of confusing Exploration (as defined by GNS) and Sim.

If Sim becomes a Method... then it IS Exploration... call it Exploration if you like... and no more confusion. It has already been stated that exploration is part of every CA... but then gets hazy when you say Sim is "exploration for exploration's sake."

If Sim IS Exploration... that is my model. It helps bridge that gap between those who say Nar is most natural and Sim is most natural.

The point is that Exploration is most natural. Valamir, would you agree with that? What you do with that exploration, focus on premise, try to win, or just explore... that is where things get hinky.

Yes... that sums up what I'm trying to say, because Exploration already sits in a unique positon on the GNS paradigm, unless I'm mistaken.

Things start to break because we are trying to make Sim it's own CA... when it really is just various degrees of Exploration we are talking about. We don't need the Sim CA... or maybe you could say that Sim as a CA is merely a rejection of G or N as dominant. Sim is defined by what it isn't.

Ok... I've probably, again, stumbled across something already stated in some long buried article, but this REALLY clicks for me... and seems to answer so many of the current discussions I see going on.

I'm not a moderator around here -- thank god! -- but I think your handling of the thread-ending was excellent. M.J. wants to continue the discussion, so he started a new thread, and from the title it's clear that he wants exactly that. No problem, we're all gold. The only worry is M.J.'s legitimate point that things don't need to happen quite so fast around here: I do think it would be nice for threads not to close (unless closed by the moderators for other reasons, which is different) in less than 48 hours or so, but that's irrelevant. [Note: of course, in Alabama the Tuscaloosa, but that's entirely irrelephant.]

RDU Neil wrote: All the issues with "emersion" being a non-issue in defining a CA, but how so many people get stuck on it. Director/Actor/Author stance issues, clouding understanding of the CAs.

To me, all of this becomes clearer, less contradictory, if Sim is looked at from a different position. Sim is insanely important... I would never say otherwise... but as a method, not a mode. It is a method with degrees, both of which the pure "G" and the pure "N" are theoretical extremes... Sim abstracted to a point where it doesn't appear Sim (as method) any longer.

It suddenly occurred to me, reading your post, that you could read the Beeg Horseshoe as pushing for a monothetic classification in the Linnaean sense.

But the interesting thing about viewing it this way would be where you place it on a hierarchical tree. Let's take walnuts (members of the Juglandaceae) for an example. The final discriminating criterion between walnuts and pecans is whether there is a four-toothed calyx or not. But both are Juglandaceae. The interesting thing is that there are no Juglandaceae in the pure sense in the real world: all such are actually walnuts or pecans. By that logic, you could eliminate Sim in the model by arguing that it's a class and not a specific thing. Alternatively, you could shift the whole down one notch, and discriminate between Walnut and its hybrids or cultivars, in which case all most certainly exist. Furthermore, this would neatly ground debate, because in a strong sense no Walnuts actually exist: there are only trees, classified as Walnuts.

Ralph, you seem the most vocal proponent of simulationism isn't natural, it needs to be learned.

Where did sim originate from, and by what mechanism did it gain such widespread popularity?

Now if sim is natural these things resolve themselves, but if sim is learned...

Let me start with my own theory about roleplay and the evolution of Sim play. I believe that RPG’s did start with a Sim “vision.”

The problem was that no one knew what that vision was or how to articulate it, much less make it work. So here we have this new form of “expression” – roleplay that is flailing about trying to do something that wasn’t done before. We were trying to “play” persons we weren’t doing things that were not common to us in our daily lives in strange and unknown lands. Other than that no one know how to proceed. I think in the beginning those “visionaries” who had no clear idea of where they were headed to, stumbling around in the darkness, saw the stampede of hobbyists from other challenge based games, be they board or military, and were dismayed at “stampeding to death” of their fledgling ideas by the cavalcade of traditional challenge based CA’s. Not only were these players Gamist, but probably many were virtually hardcore as the RPG hobby hadn’t matured to the point of more evolved styles of Gamist play. Nobody in the beginning really understood character or situation. So these designers saw their still clouded and fledgling ideas about “pretending” pillaged and violated, from their perspective, in the worst ways possible. They saw their ideas being crushed before they could figure out what they were and allowing them the time to take wing.

Hence the reactionary backlash in the texts. This also probably led to increased DM control/vigilance. This straight jacketing of the players in an attempt to “control” Gamist players, combined with a horrible lack of understanding about the nature of story, led to Illusionism and Railroading. Out of some players’ hunger for greater roleplay freedom and the eventual discovery of the elements of story led, I believe, to the growth and flowering of Narrativist play and game systems.

Now that Narrativism was allowed it great Renaissance, Gamism started to truly flower as it was no longer under the onus of having to conform to Sim social and game conventions. This is not say there weren’t Gamist published systems, but I believe that Gamism started to come into its own socially.

The long and the short of it is that I believe Sim was the original impulse behind the creation of RPG’s - the desire to be or live and do in another person and/or world. However, as Sim became ever more reactionary and entrenched it never has come into its own. Sim has spent much of its efforts defining what its not, i.e., not Gamism. What Sim hasn’t done is define it relationship to Situation. Gamism and Narrativism have clearly defined what their relationship to Situation is, but Sim has not. As a result I think Gamist and Narrativist theory have overstaked their boundaries, as Sim has not yet been fully realized.

The two main ideas that Sim stands strongest have been resoundly pooh-poohed by theorists here at the forge. That Sim is an experiential process aka Exploring for Exploration’s sake aka living the Dream. The other idea that robs Sim of its identity is that exploring Character via Situation is somehow automatically addressing Premise. Hog wash. I got my pee-pee stomped on pretty hard for suggesting that addressing Premise was identifiable by the limitations a player made in their reaction to Situation by adhering to the Premise possibilities. I was also told that Premise need not be the same for each character, which I buy, but that it can change from moment to moment. Huh? How can a person be addressing a given premise if they are addressing another premise? Addressing a premise must last for a certain period of time for how can you tell that a person is addressing a specific premise and not some other premise. Yet I have been told that premise is everywhere and if one isn’t addressing challenge one must be addressing premise. Bull. A player may address Situation with challenge or premise or character as the unselfaware but mindful guide. The problem with the way addressing premise is understood, any situation that has human beings and conflict can be reverse engineered to have a premise. Thus any situation that isn’t overtly Gamist becomes Narrativist by default. That is hooey! Just because a premise can be manufactured into a situation does not mean that one placed there mindfully by anyone other than the one who is looking for ghosts in the darkness.

What does this mean? Sim is about addressing Situation via Character and strictly (more or less) within the confines of said character as an end to experiencing i.e., living the Dream. The decisions that player makes regarding their character reflect not the desire to win or create a story, but rather to Explore Character and Situation within the confines of both. If I want to experience living in Middle Earth then I am going to have to play a character in Middle Earth. Playing a character in Middle Earth means facing situations that that type of person is likely to face in Middle Earth. That is not the same as addressing premise.

Sim games have failed to come into their own for a variety of reasons. The worst offenders were class systems and alignments. These, for all practical purposes, devolved to class-as-vocation and alignment-as-personality. No real character exploration at all. Typically the best you got was hoary old clichés. Speaking of hoary old clichés – remember the old adage that before you make a judgment on a person you had best walk a mile in their shoes? Sim is about walking a mile in some fictional characters life-shoes. What does it mean to play a king or a pauper? It means more than having certain weapon and nonweapon skills. It means facing situations that those individuals would likely face in their lives and making decisions that they would have to make. This is where Sim has failed badly in the past and is still whiffing badly today. There is no clear understanding that to explore a character means to experience/face that same types of difficulties that a “real” person of that type would face. A pauper isn’t likely to have to contend with political intrigue and poisonings and wars and unruly nobles, while a king isn’t likely to face grinding poverty and starvation and pillaging and oppression by others in power.

Sim has failed to flower into its own because no one has effectively addressed the interlocking nature of Situation and Character. The explosion of universal games has done tremendous harm to Sim as the games function without a hint of rhyme or reason. Worse yet is what has been done by TSR’s D&D3e. Now you can just mix and match character traits like a blender! Creativity isn’t about making anything work, rather is about setting limits and then exploring within prescribed certain limits. Whether that be a limiting the color palette for painters or writing in iambic pentameter and having 7 acts.

Gamism limits and focuses. Narrativism limits and focuses. Simulationism without its overt constraints as a whole has been terrified of placing limitations and thus has become nothing. Where Sim needs to limit is in Character. If everyone is equal there is no contrast. If everyone is tall then no one is tall. If everyone is rich then no one is rich. This isn’t the only area that Sim falls down in, because Sim needs to expand in Situation. Having read Georges Polti’s 36 dramatic situations most Sim games use about 2 or 3 and most of those have little to do with the players’ characters. Sim is so free form in its approach to Situation that players and DM’s alike have failed to self-regulate. So you get all these situations that don’t make any sense at all, like a Duke hiring strangers for some important task!, (like royalty would ever trust a non noble with any such task) or are just plain unengaging because they are dramatically flat.

Sim is natural in the desire; it just takes skill to execute. Many people are turned onto roleplay by the idea of “pretending” (entering into the SIS), it’s just that Sim as it is understood, expounded in packed game systems, and played mostly sucks. Running Sim is a skill that hasn’t been widely taught. Given a good Sim game it would be amazing to see how natural it is for players to fall naturally into Sim as well.

Anyhow I have ranted for much too long. Long live Sim!!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

I think we should have a marker, some sort of icon, to indicate "self referentiality" to be attached to all the threads which largely consist of hobby-introspection, discussions of prior publications, the who-said-what-to-whom-when of RPG history, and sundry navel-lint examination. It would be interesting to compare the proportion of such threads to those threads discussing stuff that is at least potentially new.

Why start with little girls playing house? Why do mammals play games at all?

The origins of sim or nar or gam may well lie in historical circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with the history of RPG as such. RPG IMO is just the expression of a particular synthesis, and I see no reason it needs a sequential, evolutionary path toward appearance. By anology, the sequential model is like that of mixing paint, in which each temporally distinct layer changes the overall colour, whereas I suggest it is more like mixing light, and the modes are simultaneous and in their co-existance the particular colour appears.

If nothing else, I think it is more interesting, and likely more fruitful, to consider RPG as the necessary synthesis of 3 components rather than a development or distortion of initial conditions.

So, to this end, I really think that the Hard Question should focus on Sim... Sim is extremely important... not because it is a CA... not because it doesn't exist... but that it exists, and actually is a unique (one and only) part of the paradigm.

By this I mean, I'd have to state that RPG play doesn't exist without SOME level of Simulation... some level of make believe... and is truly the defining element of what an RPG is, different from other games, or improv, or an ethics discussion.

All RPG play begins with Sim, and for some, it can exist where the method (as opposed to mode or technique) is ALL... but for most of us, tends to fork between Nar and Gam to varying degrees. The road we travel is this big Y or the Beeg Horseshoe, and Sim IS this road.

G & N are not the road, but destinations (the farthest points likely being hypothetical Platonic ideals that don't actually exist in play).

Simulationism without its overt constraints as a whole has been terrified of placing limitations and thus has become nothing. Where Sim needs to limit is in Character

It would be interesting to compare the proportion of such threads to those threads discussing stuff that is at least potentially new.

Ralph, you seem the most vocal proponent of simulationism isn't natural, it needs to be learned.

Where did sim originate from, and by what mechanism did it gain such widespread popularity?

Now if sim is natural these things resolve themselves, but if sim is learned...

by what mechanism did it gain such widespread popularity?

To Valamir I would simply say... "Doing Sim well takes training" but the desire and initial attempt is quite natural.

Your Group A and Group B could be explained not just by Want SIm vs. Don't Want Sim

It could be explained as "We all want Sim, but most are discouraged early in life in our attempts. So the majority of RPgamers are simply those who stuck with it and continued on this very difficult route."

This does help me explain a question I was dealing with on another forum. In this case it was about "Why do people play RPGs?" and the extra question was "Why do most people give up make believe, and we don't?" We being RPgamers.

This kind of explains it... because Make Believe is friggin' hard to do. Doesn't make the initial desire and attempt any less natural.

Hi Neil,

You may be interested to know that when I first introduced this idea, I specifically stated that it has nothing to do, at all, with "natural" vs. "not natural." It only has to do with "easily learned, common" and "not easily learned, not common."

From the very beginning of this and related threads, you have walked straight into the tar pit that I told everyone to avoid. So all I can do is spread my hands and say, "Sticky in there, ain't it?"

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Neil,

You may be interested to know that when I first introduced this idea, I specifically stated that it has nothing to do, at all, with "natural" vs. "not natural." It only has to do with "easily learned, common" and "not easily learned, not common."

From the very beginning of this and related threads, you have walked straight into the tar pit that I told everyone to avoid. So all I can do is spread my hands and say, "Sticky in there, ain't it?"

Best,
Ron

Hi Neil,

By sticky and tar, I'm not talking about uncomfortable or dangerous topics. I'm talking about intellectually worthless, non-defined, and logically-invalid pseudo-topics.

The word "natural" has no definition. It is often employed as an effective value-judgment masquerading as a justification (this has a name: the "naturalistic fallacy").

I am saying there is no naturalness issue. First, no one said that "Sim is less natural!" Second, and more relevant, a discussion of natural or unnatural anything is absolutely without rhetorical and logical value.

So the stickiness I'm referring to is not controversy (which is a fine thing). It is the stickiness of confusion, vagueness, and circular argument. I am recommending that you simply step out of that zone, clean up, and return to a meaningful topic.

I also suggest that you take some time to process these points rather than fire back a reply that defends your sense of justification.

Best,
Ron

For something that's kind of my pet topic, I don't have much to say that I haven't already said in the linked threads. However, I do have a little to say.

M.J. mentioned the Discovery: The "It" of Simulationism thread at the beginning, and I'd like to talk about that a little.

If Sim exists, then I believe M.J.'s "It"/Discover definition holds the most value. It's logically sound, and doesn't fall into defining Sim in reference to Exploration or causality. The short version of the story is that the Exploration and causality definitions lead us to discussions like this, and the Beeg Horseshoe Theory to resolve them. The Beeg Horseshoe Theory has it's own helping of 'good idea', and I'm presently leaning towards something similar.

However, M.J. seems to have a very firm grasp on Nar|Char (the primarily sticking point in these discussions), and he's seeing something else at work with Discovery. I'm presently uncertain it is a unique priority, but I can't think of a reason to doubt his definition other than I don't think I've seen it; which really isn't much of a reason. It might be worth considering trying to define the Discovery agenda separate from Sim, considering all the confusion surrounding Sim.

On that topic, I'd like to point to:

The Social Mode
Started by Sean, discussing a creative agenda focused on learning about the other players; a social agenda.

Exploration of Self
Started by Emily, discussing a creative agenda focused on learning about oneself; a therapeutic agenda.

Both seemed like creative agendas to me, and maybe what they are is sub-styles of a Discovery agenda. I think if those agendas exist they are rare, but I feel the same about a Discovery agenda.

*****

Neil wrote: This does help me explain a question I was dealing with on another forum. In this case it was about "Why do people play RPGs?" and the extra question was "Why do most people give up make believe, and we don't?" We being RPgamers.

Ron wrote: You may be interested to know that when I first introduced this idea, I specifically stated that it has nothing to do, at all, with "natural" vs. "not natural." It only has to do with "easily learned, common" and "not easily learned, not common."

Hello,

Jason, I don't think it's a matter of semantics at all. But I also think that discussions of naturalness are best reserved for a far more formal and far more restricted venue than an internet forum. So perhaps it's best (as I did in the original threads about this stuff) to let people say as they will and regard it as necessary fuzz in the system.

Best,
Ron

Before I get to Neil's points, I want to touch on a couple of the other posts that have appeared. One of them is Jay's (Silmenume), and the other is Ralph's.

Ralph wrote: The second big source of Simulationism in roleplaying comes from genre emulators. These are people that may never have been exposed to the wargame mind set, but come to the table to play Star Trek (for example) as close to the way "it should be" as they can. In Ron's essay, he refers to this group as the Canonical Fandom. For these gamers the experience of emulation is the primary attraction to play. This attitude gets more broadly distilled away from specific licensed property and towards broader ideas of "genre" but its still the same basic mind set.

This is also something that has to be learned.

Now let me turn to some of the things Neil wrote:

What exactly is the "Hard Question" you are asking, M.J.? My thread seemed to shift the Hard Question from "Are you Sim by habit?" to "Is Sim really a CA at all?" (Is that still what we are talking about here?)

He further wrote: To me, all of this becomes clearer, less contradictory, if Sim is looked at from a different position. Sim is insanely important... I would never say otherwise... but as a method, not a mode. It is a method with degrees, both of which the pure "G" and the pure "N" are theoretical extremes... Sim abstracted to a point where it doesn't appear Sim (as method) any longer.

He also wrote wrote: Sim is seen as as odd man out compared with G & N in Ron's theory... right?

He again wrote: Even in concrete Sim play there will be tendencies toward Nar or Gam....

Valamir wrote: I can't imagine anyone going into one of those Star Trek, or Charmed Ones Sims without ever having seen the show. You have to learn this stuff, you have to absorb it and beable to create pastiche from it at a moments notice.

Just a quicky:

To my mind, the present dominant form of exploration in published game texts, exploration of situation through a mechanically simulating system, is one that is by no means representative of the total possible forms of simulationist tendencies.

Which is to say... freeform sim is very easy to learn, and do. The dominant emotion of simulationism, curiosity, whether it be curiosity about real or imagined worlds, is as easily widespread as the emotions of pride and empathy, the dominant emotions of Gamism and Narrativism.

The techniques of freeform sim are easily understood: jointly building castles in the air.

What is less easily grasped by a newbie is simulation by mechanics, which are inherited from the gaming roots of the mainstream of the hobby.

Storn wrote:

Contra, I feel that this is slightly unfair. Many of us are new to these forums and ideas. Of course we are going to tread on the same ground as those before us. You are just further along the process than I... give me a chance to work thru some of this stuff... and after me? There will be add'l "newbies" to this whole thing. Doesn't mean that their opinions are any less valid than yours or mine.

Hmm, thats almost entirely the oppisite of what I mean to say. I'm suggesting that the old fogeys are contributing to the problem by directing conversation down well-trodden paths, when in fact I'd like to see more input from a total outsiders perspective.

We discuss concepts related to and derived from LitCrit quite frequently; and yet have almost non discussion of drama theory. I think that area would be worth exploring, but if all queries are directed down the path specifically of RPG developement, rather than the much broader path of 'the arts', then we end up in this pernicious (IMO) cycle.

M.J.

I don't disagree with anything you say, really. I'm actually pretty damn sure that I am a Sim prioritization player, and to a lesser extent Sim & Nar as GM.

And in no way did I want to diminish Sim as being less that Nar or Gam.

You wrote...

I'm glad you wrote that, because I read it a lot, but you know what? People fail to see the opposite: even in concrete nar and gam play there will be tendencies toward sim. It's the same thing, really; people just think of sim as the baseline against which the other two are compared, but really each is a baseline of its own against which the other two are compared.

I think that the renunciation of Simulationism as a co-equal agendum within the model would be a devastating blow to the entire theory. People really do play to be there, to discover what if, to learn from the experience, without interest in glory or story except as they happen to pop up now and then as part of the experience.

Neil wrote: This was exactly my point, that none of these CAs can exist without Simulation, because Sim IS Exploration...

He subsequently wrote: I don't mean to denigrate Sim... but to elevate it ABOVE Nar and Gam. Nar only exists if you prioritize Premise in your simulation... Gam only exists if you prioritize winning in your simulation.

Ah, but Sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your simulation. Further, sim only exists if you prioritize discovery in your game and in your story, and nar only exists if you prioritize premise in your game, and gam only exists if you prioritize challenge in your story. Sim doesn't just exist; it exists when it is prioritized.

I guess my question then... since the vague "Only if you prioritize..." is always the rote answer around here... is "What if you aren't prioritizing ANYTHING?"

By that I mean, prioritizing one over the other. Each moment of a game, the priority is probably on one thing or another, as the moment "feels right" but for 20 plus years, I've played and been successful at it in many different environments, without every really prioritizing one over the other.

You may say, "Yes you have, unconsciously, and likely not aware of it," and I say, fine... but that makes prioritization so mushy as to be worthless in any predictive way.

Now I'm back to my comment that GNS is wonderful for analyzing, after the fact, a player clash that hurt the game...

... At that moment, Player A was clearly Sim character, and the actions he took upset Player B who felt his play detracted from the Premise...

But it just becomes speculative thought games that is more confusing than useful, since the model bends over backward to avoid every defining anything in clear, definitive terms.

Since prioritize can't be locked into "Do X over Y" then it is only helpful when looking back at a situation and saying, "Ok... I was likely in Nar mode, and that's where the break happened."

Hi Neil,

Prioritizing is judged on actions, not motivations, that's why when we're talking hypotheticals, or when someone wants to know, "How am I playing?", its very hard to say without enough information, and most likely, unless you're there watching it, you have to deal with selective memory.

As far as GNS being useful for defusing trouble during play, its about as useful as knowing how the folks in your group are, being aware enough to detect what's going on, and dealing with it.

Consider:

"Oh, Jim's being too flirty with Susan again, and she's getting uncomfortable, I'd better keep things moving to tone him down."

And:

"Tom and Bill are arguing rules vs. reality again...ugh. Here goes the G vs. S debate again..."

Either situation requires that you pay attention to the people at the table, and what's happening, more than simply what is said. You can't really diffuse a situation if you don't even know what's going on, regardless of whether you are using theory or simple social agility.

With enough awareness, it becomes easy to recognize the issues during play itself, although diffusing them is a matter the theory was never designed to do, so it depends on the people involved.

Chris

Thanks, Ian--that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Neil, people always prioritize. We don't usually think about what we're prioritizing--we just do it.

If we're playing the same game, we're probably playing it the way we've always played it. That means that if I usually play it sim, I'm probably going to play it sim now. (I'm a bad example, because I drift a lot, but the idea is still solid.)

If we look back at what went wrong in that game session we had, and discover it's because my sim is conflicting with your nar, we've learned something useful--because probably that's a conflict that will recur in future games unless we address it.

Addressing it in this case may mean trying to work out between us what we really want from play--one of us agreeing to try the other's agendum. It may mean learning to drift better, or transition on some structured basis. It may mean tossing out the game we've always played and picking up two new ones, one which really supports your nar and so creates disincentives for my sim so I'll play your way, another that really pushes sim so that you'll play sim instead of nar. Or maybe we need to find a game where you can play nar and I can play sim without really interfering with each other. Or maybe we need to play pinochle when we get together, and look for someone else with which to roleplay.

GNS becomes predictive because people have play habits. What you have prioritized in the past you will probably prioritize in the future, unless you consciously address it and look to do something different.

One of the biggest things GNS does for people is make them aware that others are not playing "wrong", but that there are several distinct major approaches to play each of which is regarded as "right" by some people, and that they probably belong to one of these. As Mike is fond of saying, everyone really can enjoy all three agenda (one at a time) if they can open themselves up to trying them. As long as you're locked into thinking, "this is how these things are done" you can't really get beyond that to learning why "those other players" are having fun doing things all "wrong". Once you can see what it is you're doing and how it could be done differently, suddenly it's possible to have fun playing in all those "wrong" games you never understood before.

--M. J. Young

Wouldn't argue with any of that... and it's exactly how I use GNS in my own game. Had a very clear need to do just that this past weekend, and things worked out.

I'll leave it at that... no need to try and convince me of something I already agree with. The rest is just theoretical play, and not meant to cause argument... just questions.

I have been very busy lately so I apologize for not responding promptly. I will quickly state before I go into my post that I was excited about this thread as I too was upset by the vanishingly quick conclusion of The Hard Question thread. I had grown dismayed for a while for I was wondering where the defenders of Sim had gone!

M. J. Young wrote: Jay, you keep coming back to that one synecdoche, seeing all simulationism as character experience. I have agreed with you before that "being this other person" is a major simulationist experience; but I think that "being me, somewhere else" is also a major simulationist experience. What if we were Over the Rainbow, not being Dorothy, but being us, in Dorothy's place? Simulationism is not as narrow as "character in situation"; sometimes it's "situation in setting", with character being a very minor part of it (pawn-driven sim).

The Hard Question extended

Silmenume wrote: "'situation in setting', with character being a very minor part of it (pawn-driven sim)" is a problematic statement. It is impossible to address Situation without addressing Character as well. Situation and Character are inextricably intertwined. Unless the player was minimizing the addressing of Situation they would be addressing Character as often as they were addressing Situation.