Hi!

I'm new here, so first a brief introduction. My name is Andy Gibson, I live in the Northeast of England and my background encompasses engineering, IT and commercial planning. Which just shows you how terminally confused I am... ;-) I have been roleplaying since somewhere around 1976, and was very peripherally involved in the old 'threefold' threads on r.g.f.a some years ago - which brings me to my second point...

Kudos to Ron and all others who have developed those seminal ideas into a rather more coherent framework - I think something decidedly worthwhile is being developed here!

Finally, to the point of my post. I have been lurking for a while and have nearly posted several times, but this is an intimidating place to publish, so be gentle with me... ;-)

Having read the various essays and an unavoidably small selection of the threads about the GNS model I think I grok it and, for what it's worth, here are some of my thoughts on the 'controversy of Sim':

Others have commented that GNS concerns motivation/agenda. So, I thought, what would a person with one of these 'agendas' be anticipating doing during play?

For Gamism, it's easy:

_Compete_


Such competition might come in any one of a myriad forms, but the reason they 'Step On Up' is to 'have a go' - to compete.

Turning, then, to Sim and Nar things get more tricky. The first thing that came to mind for both was 'to learn', but this really didn't cut it on deeper consideration. In this thought perhaps lies the confusion of Sim and Nar, however.

Perhaps, then, it might help to think of 'learning' as a two stage process - (i) figuring out what question to ask and then (ii) answering the question. This feels closer to the mark, but is not fully satisfactory - Nar could never fully answer good Nar questions, and Sim does (IMO) generate answers. OK, next iteration places Nar as 'exploring the question' and Sim as 'exploring the subject (through asking, and perhaps answering, questions, plural)'.

Looked at from this angle, Sim seems to be a bit like science to Nar's arts. Both are searches for knowledge - but the approach and subject explored are totally different. In this view, Nar might be described as 'exploring question' (where the question is 'big' in the sense of deep, complex, multi-faceted and with no simple, single answer), while Sim is 'exploring subject'. Note that science also commonly constructs models - a common manifestation of the 'dream', I think.

This, I thought, may help explain why the 'no such thing as Sim' view is apparently common. Indeed, in medieval times science was not really thought of as a seperate subject worthy of study (being part of neither the trivium nor the quadrivium) - and Sim looks to me like the GNS analogue of science.

So, for those in search of flame bait, there you have it - saying 'Sim isn't real' is positively medieval... ;-)

Balesir... welcome to the Forge. Your psychic scarring begins now! :)

Actually, folks seem pretty tolerant of even non-intellectuals like myself around here, so you should be fine. (I only have a few whip marks that haven't healed yet.)

Not being scientifically trained, but often said to have a scientific mind... I like what you are saying here. If nothing else it reflects my disjuncture with the GNS claim that Nar and Sim are miles apart and incompatible... where I see them being very similar in practice, except at the extremes, and highly compatible. But that's just me...

Coming from a strong Sim background, I think your "Exploring the subject" vs "Exploring the question" has merit. That both CAs are about the search for knowledge fits my "gut reaction" that Sim and Nar are more similar than the GNS paradigm suggests.

I'll be interested to see what Ron says.

Hi Balesir,

Welcome to the Forge and good for you for reading and thinking before posting an opinion.

I agree that in some sense narrativism explores a question and simulationism explores a subject. However, I think the subject of the narrativist question (Premise) isn't the same as the subject simulationism explores.

All GNS modes are about prioritization. We normally talk about what a player will maintain above all other elements of the shared fantasy. We could turn that around and look at what they're willing to set aside to get their prefered play elements.

A gamist will allow thematic concerns and in-game causality to falter as long as there's a good challenge involved.

A narrativist may eschew challenge and may over-look flaws of internal causation, as long as they get to answer a thematic question.

A simulationist may eschew both challenge and expression of thematically powerfull choice, if either of those violate his understanding of internal causation.

Maybe this helps make clear what I mean by "the subjects aren't the same."

(Incidentally, explaining in the inverse just helped me understand why Ron says simulationism must be trained into a player. Both the tendency to look for challenges and look for thematic meaning are natural processes in human psychology. They normally pop up any time someone has to interpret something. However, simulationist play values the creation of consistent, internally-supported imaginary content above these tendencies, so they must be suppressed.)

Hello,

With the exception that I would say "cognitively quickly-developed" rather than "natural," you've nailed it, Alan.

Hi Balesir, and welcome.

Best,
Ron

Incidentally, explaining in the inverse just helped me understand why Ron says simulationism must be trained into a player. Both the tendency to look for challenges and look for thematic meaning are natural processes in human psychology. They normally pop up any time someone has to interpret something. However, simulationist play values the creation of consistent, internally-supported imaginary content above these tendencies, so they must be suppressed.

internal consistency and causation

rafial wrote: So the "intutitive Simulationist" may well have been trained into his love of internal consistency and causation, but that training may have occured outside the context of RPGs. So when he or she does arrive at the RPG table, the simulationist mode feels natural, based on prior habits of thought.

I know the question is directed at Rafial, but allow me to point out Ron is a frighteningly well-trained scientist in his day job, and he's all about Narrativism. So, I'd say the analogy stretches not at all before breaking.

You'll note the Simulationism essay goes into how S is not about "realism" or "logic," though it is commonly confused as being about such.

rafial wrote:
As a person, one of my big bugaboos is making the connection between cause and effect, and making sure I have a consistent model of whatever process that I'm currently working with. I have a hard time ignoring internal inconsistency.

greyorm wrote: I know the question is directed at Rafial, but allow me to point out Ron is a frighteningly well-trained scientist in his day job, and he's all about Narrativism. So, I'd say the analogy stretches not at all before breaking.

greyorm wrote: You'll note the Simulationism essay goes into how S is not about "realism" or "logic," though it is commonly confused as being about such.

Balesir wrote: Yes, I realise Ron is a scientist at work, but (a) being trained at something doesn't mean you don't like doing something else in your spare time, and (b) Ron has said that people generally need training to do Sim, but has not, as far as I know, said that he finds/found Sim difficult to get into himself.

M. J. Young wrote: If I may presume to do so, let me add (c) that the concept of being trained to science is analogous to the concept of being trained to sim, but not necessarily correlated--one can be trained to either but not the other. It is the notion that these kinds of training are similar that was suggested, as I perceived it.

I'm hesitant on that, Balesir. I'm definitely arts-educated--degrees in theology and law with broad liberal arts support focusing on literature and philosophy. I tended to shy away from sciences (didn't want to dissect a frog--so shoot me); I've got a lot of informal background in them, but little in terms of advanced coursework. I've also always hated sports--I really was perpetually annoyed by the fact that being in the band meant you were forced to attend football games, and when I was there I didn't watch them. However, I'm strongly simulationist and do a lot of gamism. I do narrativism, too, and like it, but it's my weakest suit.

I'm only anecdotal evidence. My father was an engineer who considered being a lawyer instead. I'm a theologian who shied away from engineering because I didn't like the hands-on stuff. So I'm not a very good example--but to the degree that I am, I'm sort of opposite your expectations.

Ron, on the other hand (as has been mentioned), is a very keen scientist who has always been of a narrativist bent, and has only recently learned to really appreciate the value of gamism, and still looks askance at simulationism.

Maybe it's the writers who really enjoy the simulationist approach.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: I'm hesitant on that, Balesir.