Usually a lot of discussion goes on about what you can do with an RPG, taking the Shared Imaginatiove Space involved for granted to do what your interested in.

But what about the joy of linking your imaginative space with others to make a shared space.

To be more precide, why not just imagine alone? What is the advantage of imagining with others? I had a little trouble coming up with answers, so I'm posting here to find some more.

What I've come up with so far is:
* It's having your imagination, but it animates on its own (by GM or other player interaction)
* It also expands the contents of your imagination beyond its usual focus/beyond what you'd usually imagine. It can even expand beyond expectation (in a positive way).

Problemoes with it:
* It can animate in a way that isn't congruent with your personal imaginative space. It can be so jarring you either have to give up your imagination (because it wont merge) and accept a new imaginative space from someone else, or skism off and not be part of SIS.

I think these points can lead to a ton of stuff by themselves, but is there anything else to add to them? Most likely, I think.

You get instant and ongoing validation of your imagination, maybe.

I have a feeling it goes back the the whole "humans are social beasts" thing.

I think we have a situation where imagining things is simply enjoyable. It's a survival trait, I'd bet. And as Tim suggested, being social is enjoyable (also a survival issue). So these SIS events are also fun. But when it's done right, it's not just a little more fun, it exposes a synergy that really allows things to take off.

If you're making up a story, you're not really ever surprised (which has been argued, of course, but isn't really the point now) because it is all coming from you. When others are inserting things into the narrative, you have to cope. It gives you a problem to solve -- how to keep the narrative good while incorporating this new element. Solving problems is fun, too. The novelty is fun.

It also sets you up as a novelty provider. Providing narrative elements that other people must then deal with also feels good. I think it feels good because you know that you're helping them feel good, but also because it feels powerful. You're injecting "problems" for them to solve -- things that they must deal with in the same way that you have to. And you have all that immediate feedback by watching them scurry around because of what you added.

Even the difficulty of having the participants struggle to keep the imagined space a mutually agreeable shared thing is rewarding. You step outside the SIS, deal with other humans to figure things out, and reenter the SIS for more narration. That kind of social and organizational exercise is rewarding (except when it's not, of course).

Chris

This is me, squinting. If I'm not mistaken, Callan, you're describing the essence of Simulationist play, by my definition of the term, anyway.

Just checkin' in - are we on the same page about that?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: This is me, squinting. If I'm not mistaken, Callan, you're describing the essence of Simulationist play, by my definition of the term, anyway.

Noon wrote: To be more precide, why not just imagine alone? What is the advantage of imagining with others?
---snip!--
Problemoes with it:
* It can animate in a way that isn't congruent with your personal imaginative space. It can be so jarring you either have to give up your imagination (because it wont merge) and accept a new imaginative space from someone else, or skism off and not be part of SIS.

What is clear...is that [Johann Huizinga (1872-1945)] intended the term 'agon' (originally a Greek word denoting a verbal contest between two characters in a play) to describe cultural situations in which contest cannot be distinguished from play -- which he defines as "a voluntary activity or occupation executed within certain fixed limits of time and place, according to rules freely accepted but absolutely binding, having its aim in itself and accompanied by a feeling of tension, joy and the consciousness that it is 'different' from 'ordinary life'." An agon is, therefore, a contest conducted in accordance with artistic rules, "freely accepted but absolutely binding." Any complex society can be described -- with some metaphorical latitude -- as containing imagined or actual arenas where conflicts are ritually decided, and where rites of passage are concluded, according to rules which reconfirm the nature of that society through being obeyed and which convey a kind of joy; thus Huizinga's description of humanity as Homo ludens, man the player. The beheading match in the anonymous 14th-century Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a form of agon. . . Modern high fantasies similarly tend to demonstrate the health of their worlds by depicting agons in working order.

Ron, before posting I was wondering if I'd just suddenly bumped into what people find to be fun about simulationism (I hadn't really gotten it before).

But as I think Doctor Xero also says, sharing imaginative space as a group is sort of like the pizza base you put your gamist or narra topings on to flavour it (though this analalogy makes it sound like sim is a plain base, which doesn't sound right). Whatever your topping, the base is still there, even if it doesn't influence the flavour at all like the toppings do.

I get the strong feeling that sharing imaginative space has to be enjoyable in itself. You can't just skip to gamist or narra enjoyment...the foundation SIS has to be enjoyable all by itself. If it isn't fun, you begin to detach from the other users because of core disatisfaction...you might be in a group, but may as well be alone (participation wise).

That's why I was focusing this post on what makes it fun. To help think about how to maintain that fun, because perhaps its all too easy to prioritise the gamist or nar design over the essential foundation. I'm guessing its possible to go wrong that way, perhaps there can't be any prob there.


Christopher Weeks: I know the basic enjoyment of it is hard to pin down, but to systematically support it moreso, it needs some more pinning. On surprise, I read you, but I think it folds neatly into the 'your imagination animates on its own' and 'may be beyond expectations' bit.

It also sets you up as a novelty provider. Providing narrative elements that other people must then deal with also feels good. I think it feels good because you know that you're helping them feel good, but also because it feels powerful. You're injecting "problems" for them to solve -- things that they must deal with in the same way that you have to. And you have all that immediate feedback by watching them scurry around because of what you added.

Even the difficulty of having the participants struggle to keep the imagined space a mutually agreeable shared thing is rewarding. You step outside the SIS, deal with other humans to figure things out, and reenter the SIS for more narration. That kind of social and organizational exercise is rewarding (except when it's not, of course).

Noon wrote:

It also sets you up as a novelty provider. Providing narrative elements that other people must then deal with also feels good. I think it feels good because you know that you're helping them feel good, but also because it feels powerful. You're injecting "problems" for them to solve -- things that they must deal with in the same way that you have to. And you have all that immediate feedback by watching them scurry around because of what you added.

I think this may be a gamist add on (I think of gamism as sparring rather than just people win or loosing), which is cool and comes intuitively, but isn't the core of enjoying SIS just for itself.

Hiya,

Doc and Callan, that's right - Exploration as a necessary foundation, delight in Exploration per se (as a priority) as Simulationism.

So I guess I'm saying "Yes."

Best,
Ron

OK - this is where I throw a wrench into the whole process.

Enjoyment or delight in Exploration as a priority in NOT Simulationism - its Zilchplay. When Exploration is harnessed/employed towards some metagame goal Exploration is then under the controlling influence of a Creative Agenda. Conversely when there is no metagame process and/or goal then there is no CA in operation.

It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball and calling it a game (In the sense of a 9 inning process etc.). Its to what end that those tools are employ that demonstrates (analogously) what CA is in operation. To just enjoy Exploration for its own sake without employing conflict towards a goal is akin to just enjoying shagging flies without trying to score runs. (I know baseball is gamist per say, but the analogy holds for Nar and Sim as well.)

One can do so, and that enjoyment can be its own reward, but I would call such a prioritization of the employment of elements over process or product Zilchplay, not Sim. Sim does have a process and goals; Sim is not just being but struggling towards.

Aure Entaluve,

Silmenume

Silmenume wrote: It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball ..

Alan wrote:

Silmenume wrote: It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball ..

Why is it illogical? Exploration is a tool of role-playing just as a bat is a tool of baseball.

Hi Sil,

I think you've just stated that exploration is the both the act of roleplaying and at the same time inadequate to be called roleplaying. Maybe you could clarify?

Hi again,

In the thread How do I define this? Walt Freitag defined zilchplay as

Walt Freitag wrote:
This is technically a type of Simulationism by default, because in the absence of a desire to actively pursue a Gamist or Narrativist agenda the only focus is on exploration. It's also precisely what I've termed zilchplay. I once described a typical zilchplayer's behavior this way: "imagine the elements the GM is describing and trigger my standard character behaviors at the expected times." With a possible quibble on the word "expected," that's exactly the aspect of his play style that you find most striking.

Noon wrote: Usually a lot of discussion goes on about what you can do with an RPG, taking the Shared Imaginatiove Space involved for granted to do what your interested in.

But what about the joy of linking your imaginative space with others to make a shared space.

To be more precide, why not just imagine alone? What is the advantage of imagining with others? I had a little trouble coming up with answers, so I'm posting here to find some more.

What I've come up with so far is:
* It's having your imagination, but it animates on its own (by GM or other player interaction)
* It also expands the contents of your imagination beyond its usual focus/beyond what you'd usually imagine. It can even expand beyond expectation (in a positive way).

Problemoes with it:
* It can animate in a way that isn't congruent with your personal imaginative space. It can be so jarring you either have to give up your imagination (because it wont merge) and accept a new imaginative space from someone else, or skism off and not be part of SIS.

I think these points can lead to a ton of stuff by themselves, but is there anything else to add to them? Most likely, I think.

Hey Alan,

Alan wrote: I think you've just stated that exploration is the both the act of roleplaying and at the same time inadequate to be called roleplaying. Maybe you could clarify?

Going back to my responce to Doctor Xero, I'll look at some of the things he brought up.

...bonding process...Sharing cultural material...Self expression...Belonging to something...

These are all very much about the participants and not the game itself. I'd say these are very powerful elements.

But traditional play and even a lot of game design I see here or elsewhere focuses on the elements in the SIS. Like rewarding characters for killing orcs or addressing premise or what have you.

But is there much support for those elements listed above, among games? A reward for the player for sharing cultural material or self expressing? I would say there are lots of indirect rewards for such, but when it comes to designing games we don't talk about indirectly awarding gamist or narr play. We talk about nailing them with clear and present rewards.

So what about the foundation, the SIS. Where are the rewards for supporting that, really? Do we just expect it, its something people should just do? I think that idea has been applied to roleplay, that people should just do it, you don't need to reward it. And its been debunked.

The most important thing here is that you would be rewarding users for what they are contributing themselves in real life, in terms of sharing culture and self expression, instead of the round about 'as a player you are rewarded for what you do with your avatar'. Instead it'd be a straight reward for what the player does himself.

Possibly suuch an approach isn't intuitive, as the focus on everyone getting into the SIS would then make it odd for the system to concentrate on the people in RL. And counter to traditional gaming culture, it would be about rewarding that person for what they are doing in RL, instead of rewarding pretend character actions.

I think a prime difficulty in that is "how do you judge what is to be rewarded"? I mean, most of that stuff is very subjective, and so very hard to predict or control the delivery of rewards. In addition, it is also relative, in that what one player may think is them being very expressive, might seem to others to be shying away. The relativity and subjectivity of these things would be hard to disentangle, but they are seperate.

But I think the biggest issue is "what do you reward them with"? I mean, if you reward RL behaviour with in-game bonuses, then there is a mismatch between what you are rewarding and what the reward does, which M. J. points out in his Applied Theory essay as problematic. But worse, what sort of RL rewards could exist?

I think that games are often viewed (falsely) as a fair playing field for players, because they aren't percieved as competing against each other, so much as moving pieces which compete against other pieces. Kind of like psychologically taking a step back. Rewarding RL behaviour with RL rewards would destroy that illusion, and might scare away players who don't want their personal ability to be challenged or judged directly.

-Ben

Ravien wrote: I think a prime difficulty in that is "how do you judge what is to be rewarded"? I mean, most of that stuff is very subjective, and so very hard to predict or control the delivery of rewards. In addition, it is also relative, in that what one player may think is them being very expressive, might seem to others to be shying away. The relativity and subjectivity of these things would be hard to disentangle, but they are seperate.

But I think the biggest issue is "what do you reward them with"? I mean, if you reward RL behaviour with in-game bonuses, then there is a mismatch between what you are rewarding and what the reward does, which M. J. points out in his Applied Theory essay as problematic. But worse, what sort of RL rewards could exist?

I think that games are often viewed (falsely) as a fair playing field for players, because they aren't percieved as competing against each other, so much as moving pieces which compete against other pieces. Kind of like psychologically taking a step back. Rewarding RL behaviour with RL rewards would destroy that illusion, and might scare away players who don't want their personal ability to be challenged or judged directly.

-Ben