So, lots of smart people have shaped some common bodies of thought that boil down to the following little factoid that will operate as a given for the remainder of this post:

Humans compete with one another.

A bit more detail: From a very early age, humans are in constant competition with one another for supremacy. The reasons people do anything can on a basic level be attributed to a desire to improve one's standing in one's surroundings. We could be talking about physical standings, social, creative, any arena you like. We are social animals, with a pack mentality, and there's gotta be an alpha wolf, and everybody wants to be the one with the job.

So what? Well, I'm talking about Social Contract in the GNS model. For reference, here's the model as it stands in the current theory:

[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques [Ephemera]]]]]

Social Contract, as can be clearly seen, is the alpha and the omega of the whole ball of wax that is role-playing gaming according to GNS Theory. It's the outermost layer of the onion. If that's the case, and given that humans compete with one another on a social level, then ALL role-playing at it's most basic level involves Step On Up (as defined in the Gamism article).

In effect, all role-playing is Gamist.

That's why role-playing texts rail against Gamism; they have to in order to establish their more subtle win conditions. That's why everyone seems to know what Gamism is; the concept is hardwired into the reptillian brain. That's why all role-playing can easily drift to Gamism; Gamism is the baseline behavior. And that's why Nar and Sim are difficult to explain without reference to Gamism; they can't exist without Gamism.

What happens when we try to explain Sim and Nar in terms of Gamism?

Simulationism: The goal of the players is to most effectively reflect, through actions in and out of play, the shared imagined space as perceived by the collective group.

Narrativism: The goal of the players is to make the most movingly thematic choices in reference to the agreed upon Premise.

Easy-peasy. Sim suddenly becomes clear as day to me when viewed through the lens of Gamism. Same with Nar.

Gamism is the crux. It's the reason we play. We want to be perceived as cool by our peers in the social arena of the game group. Not only do we like the social rewards (probably in most cases as simple as a reaction by others of, "oh cool!"), but we get the added incentive that stuff that happens in the shared imagined space is cool from the subjective viewpoint of the participants. Role-playing isn't about playing pretend. It's not about tactics or strategic prowess. It's not about telling a story. It's about being perceived as cool by people whose opinions you respect. The only thing that varies from group to group and game to game is how to go about being cool. It's those "how's" that make up the three Creative Agenda of G, N, and S.

Is anyone going to Step on Up and prove to Ethan where he's gone wrong?

Synecdoche again, I'm afraid.

It's correct to say all role-playing is potentially Gamist, which is no more nor less to say that all human activity is potentially Step On Up.

But all role-playing (just like all human activity) is potentially a lot of other things too. For role-playing, two of those things (the only two I know of) are Narrativism and Simulationism, each of which separately entails putting Step On Up on hold for a while. Can we do this? Sure.

Saying we can't put it on hold, for a given activity, is analogous to the similar synecdoche of saying "all character play must ultimately be thematic."

Best,
Ron

Sure. Two things come to mind:

First is about the use of the term "most"...styles aren't about "most moving" or "most correct" or "most interesting," that is, such are not the goal. The goal is simply to have moving, correct, or interesting decision-events in play. Whether good, bad, or ugly is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Second, GNS is about priority rather than goals...that is, what is your choice when something happens? Most of the time you can't tell, but when there is a conflict between styles and you have to give somewhere, what element(s) do you give up on? What do you end up favoring by your choice? This is a far cry from trying to "get the best" or "look cool by making the most X decision-event," and may even be problematic when "the best" interferes with Premise or the Dream (because "being the best anything" is a Gamist choice over the other two modes, and eventually there will be a conflict).

However, if looking at it like this helps Ethan grok Sim and Nar play, then, hey, sure.

My thesis is not that human behavior is potentially Step On Up, but that human behavior is Step On Up. Step On Up never gets put "on hold" in any human behavior. At least, I haven't been able to come up with a case where it does. Of course, I'm open to discussion on the topic.

Regarding synecdohe: Primal Gamism exists in parallel with any other motivation, rather than in lieu of.

ethan_greer wrote: Humans compete with one another.

A bit more detail: From a very early age, humans are in constant competition with one another for supremacy. The reasons people do anything can on a basic level be attributed to a desire to improve one's standing in one's surroundings. We could be talking about physical standings, social, creative, any arena you like. We are social animals, with a pack mentality, and there's gotta be an alpha wolf, and everybody wants to be the one with the job.

greyorm wrote: First is about the use of the term "most"...styles aren't about "most moving" or "most correct" or "most interesting," that is, such are not the goal. The goal is simply to have moving, correct, or interesting decision-events in play. Whether good, bad, or ugly is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Second, GNS is about priority rather than goals...that is, what is your choice when something happens? Most of the time you can't tell, but when there is a conflict between styles and you have to give somewhere, what element(s) do you give up on? What do you end up favoring by your choice? This is a far cry from trying to "get the best" or "look cool by making the most X decision-event," and may even be problematic when "the best" interferes with Premise or the Dream (because "being the best anything" is a Gamist choice over the other two modes, and eventually there will be a conflict).

cruciel wrote: If you are talking about people generally always seeking social rewards, though not necessarily through competition, and GNS being criteria for those rewards, then I'm inclined to agree. With the proviso that the motivation may be primarily a creative one that is reinforced socially.

Actually I do see exactly what Ethan is getting act.

If our goal as a group is to produce a really powerful theme based on addressing premise in play, and I do a good job of helping the group achieve that goal...then I win the admiration of the group for a job well done. If I suck at it and spoil things for the group, then the group is disappointed in me...socially, I lose.

So ultimately it is the desire to be recognized as being a quality contributor to the group's enjoyment that motivates me to adhere to the group's Creative Agenda...so in a sense, I'm Stepping Up, and hense all role playing is Gamist.

I'd probably change "ultimately" to "potentially" in the above, but yeah, I buy it as being a fairly good characterization of social pressure at work.


I'm not sure how useful an observation it is to the model as a whole, except as Raven points out, if it helps congeal for you (Ethan) what Creative Agendas are about.

What saves Ethan from synecdoche, I think, is that he says not 'roleplaying is all gamism' but 'all roleplaying is gamism'. This just neatly rounds out the set:

Human beings compete for recognition all the time, so all roleplaying is gamism.

Any roleplaying must, by its very nature, involve exploring the shared imaginary space - so all roleplaying is simulationism.

Any roleplaying may lead to a thematically interesting story, so all roleplaying is narrativism.


Thus, the three creative agendas boil down to priorities among things that are always present to some degree. Which I think is what Ron said in the first place.

1) Just because you're "competing" socially does not mean you are "a Gamist" or "playing in a Gamist fashion" -- that's the synedoche. Second, I don't know that I agree that someone is always looking to advance or maintain their social status with the people at the table with every decision they make.

That is, I can clearly see situations where a decision is made which rejects advancing social concerns in favor of the concerns of other modes: this may even be what leads to standard dysfunction at the table, because you have someone who is pursuing a different CA than the rest of the group, particularly when their understanding of the CA "of an RPG" differs from that of others in the group (IE: "Munchkin," "Power-gamer," "Artsy-fartsy storyteller," "Actor," etc.) -- so, they pursue the "correct" CA of "gaming" despite the social implications it might have.

This is so wide-spread, in fact, that GNS developed because of it.

2) I don't know how my points don't relate to your point, Ethan. Both are pretty strong criticisms of it: one based on the wording you chose to use; the second relying on basic GNS principles to point out that it can't always be Gamism because of the exclusiveness of priorities in a critical decision-event (ignoring, for the moment, the different levels we're talking about here: Social and CA).

Mixing levels like this leads to arguments about how using a Simulationist emphera or technique means a game "must be" Simulationist.

Hi Balesir,
Sorry, but I disagree with extending the metaphor to all three modes. If that's how I came across, it wasn't my intention. Primal Gamism is not really related to GNS CA Gamism per se. It's a different thing altogether, and calling it Gamism was probably a poor choice of words on my part.

Ralph,
I figured this might resonate with you based on some comments you've made about children at play in another thread.

As to the uses, this idea came about as a result of me trying to figure out why Sim role-playing texts address anti-Gam but not anti-Nar, and I think it provides a compelling answer to the question.

Raven - I think at least part (probably most) of where we disagree boils down to word choice on my part.

cruciel wrote: If you are talking about people generally always seeking social rewards, though not necessarily through competition, and GNS being criteria for those rewards, then I'm inclined to agree. With the proviso that the motivation may be primarily a creative one that is reinforced socially.

Also, Raven, I'm sensing some frustration in your second post. I just want to assure you that I wasn't being flippant when I said I didn't see how your points related to mine. I think we may have been operating on a fundamental disconnect based on my use of the word Gamism. After reading your clarification, I can now see where your points came from. But I don't think my first post communicated my thoughts very well, and hence the disconnect. Sigh.

No frustration here, Ethan, so no worries! I was slightly concerned that you didn't "get" how the statements I'd made applied, but given Jason's statement we obviously were talking about two different things. I do see where you're coming from now, and, yeah, I agree about the social aspect of play reinforcing the mode through natural human desire.

Sorry if I come across bitter or sarcastic about the subject of conversation but I absolutely hate pop psychology pap:

All social interactions can and have shown to include competetion + Roleplaying is a social interaction = All forms of roleplaying can include competetion.

Is just as meaningfull as:

All social interactions can and have shown to include dick jokes + Roleplaying is a social interaction = All forms of roleplaying can include dick jokes.

What I mean is, the fact that competition is a constant part of the social human expiereince doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean that all social interaction is viewed as a game by all people, or that looking at life in the context of "who wins" is the only possible functional outlook. It just means that social interaction contains a whole lot of different things, one of those just happening to be competition

You're confusing trying to do something well with attempting to out-do the people around you as an objective.

I think an important issue here is that GNS is not about clasifying bahavior but rather motivation. To say that all human social interaction includes some measure of competition is one thing, yet to say that all social interaction is motivated by competition is something else all together.

ethan_greer wrote: My thesis is not that human behavior is potentially Step On Up, but that human behavior is Step On Up. Step On Up never gets put "on hold" in any human behavior. At least, I haven't been able to come up with a case where it does. Of course, I'm open to discussion on the topic.

He then wrote: Regarding synecdo[c]he: Primal Gamism exists in parallel with any other motivation, rather than in lieu of.

I say again: if we reworded the central claim of Gamism to 'challenge' instead of 'competition' these problems would arise less frequently. Challenge is much more focussed, 'competition' has a huge quantity of ideological baggage.

ethan_greer wrote:

cruciel wrote: If you are talking about people generally always seeking social rewards, though not necessarily through competition, and GNS being criteria for those rewards, then I'm inclined to agree. With the proviso that the motivation may be primarily a creative one that is reinforced socially.

I like that. If I'm reading you right, that is what I'm talking about. Only worded better. The only question, and it's a minor one, is about "not necessarily through competition." An argument could be made that people compete for social rewards, but I think it's mainly a semantic argument and therefore eminently ignorable.

I highly suggest a read of Robert Wright's Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. It's a look at human culture and history through a lense of Game Theory. It seems highly relevant to the topic at hand, and it's a good read regardless.

-Chris

When I read the first post, something clicked for me. Definitions for Sim play have always been pretty hazy to me (I should re-read Ron's essay), but the provided definition is clear and concise. I like it. The basic structure of the argument seems really solid.

But.

The proposition seems to assume a coherent group of players all sharing the same basic CA. If everyone is a Sim player to a great degree, then natural competitive urges could encourage you to Sim more/better. But what if you are the odd one out in your group?

(Broad generalizations ahead, please be gentle with me)
I've seen a lot of posts here from people who realize that they prefer Narr play but have a Gam/Sim group. For a long time, they've been trying to do Narr things or try techniques out of synch with a Gamist CA, which is what they're surrounded with. They don't riff off of what the rest of the group does. Generally, their pursuit of their goals leave them at a huge disadvantage in meeting the goals of the rest of the group. (I have a touch of this. I've tried to make interesting characters in D&D to accompany the party of raving killers. I die a lot. This is not conducive to acquiring social prestige, except along the lines of 'Hey, remember the time Aaron's character didn't even survive their introduction to the party?')

Does behavior like this, where the player puts their own CA ahead of the group CA and therefore loses prestige in the group, trump the theory that all play is Gamist?

Jaik wrote: The proposition seems to assume a coherent group of players all sharing the same basic CA. If everyone is a Sim player to a great degree, then natural competitive urges could encourage you to Sim more/better.

But what if you are the odd one out in your group?

(Broad generalizations ahead, please be gentle with me)
I've seen a lot of posts here from people who realize that they prefer Narr play but have a Gam/Sim group. For a long time, they've been trying to do Narr things or try techniques out of synch with a Gamist CA, which is what they're surrounded with. They don't riff off of what the rest of the group does. Generally, their pursuit of their goals leave them at a huge disadvantage in meeting the goals of the rest of the group. (I have a touch of this. I've tried to make interesting characters in D&D to accompany the party of raving killers. I die a lot. This is not conducive to acquiring social prestige, except along the lines of 'Hey, remember the time Aaron's character didn't even survive their introduction to the party?')

Does behavior like this, where the player puts their own CA ahead of the group CA and therefore loses prestige in the group, trump the theory that all play is Gamist?

M. J. Young wrote: So consider that an argument that "step on up" is not always a significant motivating factor in human interaction.

I will agree that everyone plays for social rewards. This isn't the same thing as gamism, though.