By amazing and wonderful dumb luck I ran across Chris’ (clehrich) thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!]. His ideas on Structure, Ritual, and most importantly “Risk” fill in some gaping holes in the ideas I have been wrestling with and mostly losing against! There will be lots of heavy quoting from the posts in that thread so I will ask patience from all who make the effort to wade through this. Chris – I will do everything in my power to understand your thesis and to not commit violence to your ideas.

For several months now I have been chasing after conflict as the primary diagnostic tool of CA as if it was the Holy Grail. After reading Chris’ aforementioned thread and doing some reading up on TROS and Ron’s Sorcerer I see that I have been chasing after two goals.

The first is demonstrating that conflict is absolutely central and necessary for CA expression and hence exploration/roleplay – this includes Sim. Conflict/Situation is not just an element of exploration – it has a vital non-interchangeable role that cannot be simply replaced with another element of exploration. As was explained by Ron here, one cannot/does not Explore Setting it’s a nonsensical statement; one rather uses Setting or whatever element of Exploration to Explore. This means that the elements of Exploration are used to another end beyond themselves. Jumping off a cliff to see if System will support that action is a deconstructive act (it is self-referential to system/mechanics), not one in keeping with Exploration which is a constructive process. Yes the character was demonstrated to jump off a cliff and it was integrated to the SIS, but the role of that act had nothing to do with mindfully adding to the ritual event of Exploration but was in fact deconstructing it. Nor does having a character just move endlessly around the fictional Setting qualify as Exploration because conflict was not involved – it is merely interaction description at best, nothing more. Sim is not the emphasized Exploration of the element of Setting, nor System, nor Character, nor Situation, nor Color. Sim play is the focused employment of Exploration via all the elements - Setting, System, Character, Situation, and Color. All those are used to build towards and reward the act of engaging conflict (this goes for Gamism and Narrativism as well). I will go into more detail on this later.

The second is how conflict can be employed as a tool of CA diagnosis. I found that while conflict is at the heart of CA diagnosis, in and of itself any specific incidence of conflict is CA neutral. Conflict without context is meaningless – it just means two antithetical forces have come into contact with each other. Combat a direct form of conflict can be used to address Challenge, Premise or Sim X. What makes a conflict an expression of Challenge or an expression of Premise or an Expression of Sim X is the context in which it takes place. In my own thrashing around in the darkness way I think I was fighting Ron on his “just watching what the players groove to”, react to as “cool” and such as the means of diagnosis because I thought it was too loose. I wanted something more rigorous. I wanted to know what in the SIS that the players were reacting to. So I went digging and found conflict at the heart. Ron was observing the right indicators, but what was really important were the cues that set off those observable player re/actions in the first place - conflict. It is everything that the players do that surrounds and relates to conflict that demonstrates CA in action. How do the players use system to address conflict? Under what circumstances do players engage the conflicts? What kinds of rewards are given for engaging in conflict? How do players respond to the rewards that are generated as a result of engaging in conflict? How do players employ those rewards? It all boils down to how and why we engage in conflict and what Ron has gone on about for years - the rewards. The two are closely linked and difficult to disentangle. The why part is extremely difficult to discern and can only be inferred from patterns of behavior so nothing terribly definitive can be said about it. Who’s doing what in regards to conflict and how are they being rewarded. Answer those two (linked) questions and you will have diagnosed your CA.

So how does this apply to Simulationism?

First and foremost is that Sim too is driven by conflict. No conflict, no Exploration, no CA, no Sim. However, Sim’s employment of conflict is very different from that of Gam/Nar. Let us then examine how conflict is “addressed” in Sim by first looking at some of the basic underpinnings of Sim.

Internal Causality is king. The single greatest false assumption about Simulationism is that it is about creating an artificial reality and one that is especially consistent (causality is always clear and consistent). This assumption does as much violence to the understanding of Sim as saying that Gamism is about rules lawyering or that Narrativism requires overt manipulation of the Premise question. The role and purpose of Internal Causality in Sim was phenomenally demonstrated here –

clehrich wrote: The social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures.
…
(real people) have categorical notions sort of semi-embedded, and they encounter real things and think about them, but most of all and most importantly, they are told what to think by their cultures.
…
So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts* one therefore manipulates structures already in place. Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true. This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.
…
*I’m avoiding the hairy problem of thought/action, and calling it all action. It has been pointed out (by Bell and others) that this distinction is nonfunctional, so when I say “action” you should not think of it as distinct from thought – thought is a kind of action. If you prefer “behave” for “act”, feel free to swap the terms.
…
In an RPG context, the application is I think obvious. Structures are handed to us, most obviously in everything from social agreements to rules systems to setting to whatever. We permit ourselves only a limited range of movement. At the same time, every manipulation of any structure within that system necessarily changes its meaning, however slightly;…

clehrich wrote: In RPG's, this means that the player whose abduction is actually on the line, i.e. whose character is risking something, is the most likely to find a positive result rewarding and clarifying of the SIS. The other players do find valuable data in it, but are less convinced -- others' clarifications are less authoritative for them.

This has an interesting potential result for Illusionism and strong-GM play. By putting all real narrative control in the GM's hands, you make abductive action riskier. That is, there is a greater real chance of having a failure, of having the result you infer from your abducted SIS blocked by the GM. By raising the risk, you produce two results:

1. Players are less likely to go strongly against the obvious deductions
2. Players are more likely to find the SIS convincing as a total experience

Therefore strong-GM play tends to support Illusionism and Immersion. If you want those things, a strong GM control of narrative may be useful.

clehrich wrote: In the context of RPG's, the previous proposal was that we constantly make Abductions on the basis of various Result data, trying to infer what the SIS is as a Case. The difference from the sciences is that we don't really care about inferring Rules -- we don't do Induction, because it's not helpful to work out a new set of Rules, because we're not that interested in predicting the results of controlled experiments. Instead, we want to make sure that the Case (SIS) is as precisely accurate as possible, so that we can infer or insert new data and have it not clash.

Interestingly, this means that every time we do something within an RPG that affects the SIS (almost anything we do, certainly IC), we're accomplishing one of two things -- or both.

1. Confirm and strengthen the SIS
2. Challenge the SIS

Since we can never have any certainty about the SIS anyway, these two tend to collapse into each other from the perspective of an observer, i.e. another player. From my perspective, it matters which happens, because I want my character to succeed (or whatever) by playing on the structures of the SIS; I don't want to be smacked down for going against the SIS. From everyone else's perspective, either result provides data that clarifies the SIS.

That logical result would tend to suggest that SIS clarity is best supported by players who aren't doing anything. But this seems at odds with experience. So what's wrong?

Again, Peirce. He'd suggest, I think, that the difference is risk. In essence, the more one's hypotheses (abductions) are on the line, the more that is risked, the more convincing we tend to find a positive result. There's no logical difference, but logically no number of positive results can ever prove the abduction correct anyway. So it's a question of what we find convincing. And if we make the abduction, and we propose the test, and we put our necks on the block to do it, it is we who are most convinced.

Ron Edwards from the Gamism essay wrote: Gamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key…

Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essay wrote: Narrativist play is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for what that character does.

…Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents…

Nice! This falls very much into the category of "acceptable variant" in my view. If you can live with my bizarre & odd focus on internal causality, then I can live with your alternate view. (I'm kind of past the days when I needed to root hog or die with every little nuance of Creative Agenda.)

Your point about emotional involvement is interesting, and I see some concepts in there that I agree with a lot ... however, I also draw your attention to Ken Hite's review of Sex & Sorcery, in which he protested mightily that my points in that supplement only applied to "emotionally involved" play, and that left "intellectual-only" play out in the cold.

I suspect that "emotionally involved" is one of those tar-baby phrases in that most people want to be associated with it, but what "it" is varies widely.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron!

I’m not sure that I understand the implications of your, “bizarre & odd focus on internal causality.” Guessing at what you mean, I don’t really see any real distinction between your focus and what I wrote. Let me expand.

Internal Causality is as important to Sim as Premise is to Nar and Challenge is to Gam. The main difference between IC and Premise/Challenge is that IC does not have the dynamic drive built into it that Premise or Challenge do. That being said IC supports the internal “structures” that are inherent to Premise and Challenge. Premise and Challenge provide the “structures” where the meanings of our play actions are measured against. Does this manner of dealing with this conflict address Premise or Challenge? Internal Causality provides the same “structures.” The difference is that Internal Causality by itself cannot be the focus of play because it doesn’t in itself drive the conflict like Challenge and Premise do. IC is absolutely foundational to Sim, but equating its role to be exactly the same as Challenge and Premise cannot work because there it is entirely conflict neutral. Conflict in Sim has to come from somewhere else, and that is entirely in the interaction between player and DM.

In a way the question becomes how do we justify in the engaging of risky conflict? That question is clearly stated in the Premise and Challenge. But in Sim that question must be answered via Character motivation which ultimately means the player must create that reason to engage. In Gamism and Narrativism it is either assumed or openly negotiated. It is much harder to do that in Sim because metagame discussions during player tend to be strongly discouraged.

In Sim the Dream is reflected and demonstrated by those “social structures.” Those “structures” absolutely must demonstrate internal causality. In one sense Sim is all about challenging the SIS which is another way of saying making statements/employing symbols (like style of dress and all that it communicates) and those statements only make sense because of the internal causality/”social structures”. The making of those statements/employing symbols alters the “social structures”, IOW we have added to the Dream. The hard part is for us the players is the in coming up with internal reasons for the characters to “place themselves into conflict” without violating their character internal causality. Most people, not all, by and large avoid conflict – especially dangerous conflict. However a character can act against internal causality and because he has acted in a consistent manner in the past reveals something new about the character. If the character were consistently breaking his internal causality it would be difficult to discern or make any definitive statement about said character. This is one of the great sources of dramatic tension in Sim. How do I grow while not completely abandoning the characters foundations? The character who does not undergo growth (changes) is as bland as a character which has no internal consistency.

So to go back to internal causality I see no conflict between you and I regarding internal causality and a strong interest in it. Unlike Premise or Challenge, it alone however is not enough for Sim play. You need conflict as well. Neither can function without the other, neither is more important to each. Their relationship is a profoundly symbiotic one. The creation of causal series of events that in the end reads something like a “story” happens because the DM provides the proper kinds of situations at the right times that allow for introduction, escalation, climax and resolution. This does not have to be railroading if the situations the DM does provide do not negate (deprotagonize) the decisions the players made regarding previous Situations/conflict. It is a very intricate dance between player and DM. A dance that I don’t think can be codified into a mechanics system. I could be wrong, but it is so on the fly and so responsive to the SIS that I just don’t know how it could be.

Regarding “emotionally or intellectually involved” I agree with you. I just wanted to demonstrate –

• That no CA has a lock or a superior ability to engage emotional or intellectual involvement (which I believe you may have implied is locally defined). IOW emotional or intellectual engagement is a red herring regarding CA.

• That Sim is not just an intellectual exercise of experimentation. It is just as much about risk as G/N, which means it has just as much potential for the players to be emotionally and/or intellectually involved.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Perhaps not surprisingly, I object.

Jay, I must apologize; I have a terrible time reading your essays. Almost every time you begin one of these forays into "what is simulationism" you write something right at the beginning that I find so egregious that for the remainder of the essay I'm looking for how you fix it--and you never do.

Early on in this piece, you identify two types of play, which I will call:

• What happens if I do this? Play.• What's over there? Play.

You mention these in passing, and say outright that these aren't even really role playing, that "exploration" isn't happening.

I have done and thoroughly enjoyed both of those types of play, and it sure seemed to me that I was role playing at the time. I have also seen both. The second I see All. The. Time.

One fairly recent example was the girl who versed into a fantasy setting. Barely had she hit the dirt but she, like Sam Gamgee, was saying, "I want to see elves." She found any reason she could to travel out of the human lands to the elven lands, and spent months with them, talking with them, looking at their culture, finding out how they were different from humans. She recognized that there were conflicts in that world which were waiting to engage her, but she essentially ignored them in favor of just exploring the place.

I've got another player wandering a modern earth-like world as an associate to a well-known stage magician. He visits museums, goes to the beach, flirts with girls, watches old movies, stays in expensive resort hotels, and generally just enjoys the world. He loves it.

The problem with your essay, as I see it, is we've got these two forms of play that actually happen and are enjoyed by unnumerable roleplayers, and one of four things has to be true:

• These are alternate expressions of the simulationist creative agendum which are outside your definition, because your definition is examining one subtype of that agendum.• These are actually forms of gamist or narrativist play, despite not seeming to have anything to do with them on the surface.• There is a fourth agendum that includes these sorts of gaming which has yet to be identified.• Those of us who play this way aren't really playing, aren't having fun, and have deceived ourselves into thinking we're doing anything that would qualify as "role playing".

I'm inclined to think that the first answer is correct. You seem in your essay to favor the fourth.

--M. J. Young

Check it.

I think I agree with most of this essay, after some private conversations with Sil, but I think that he put some things it very... odd... ways, which may be what's giving you trouble, MJ.

Here's how I would classify the whole thing above.

Gamist and Narrativist play both have player esteem on the table. So what's on the table for Sim? What's on the table for Sim is, literally the Dream itself. Essentially, anything that comes up in Sim play is a challenge (either great or small) to the integrity of the shared imagined space (and, by Integrity, we don't necessarily mean virtuality or realism) and, when it is explained and incorporated into the world, it makes the dream more real. The bigger the situation/event, the harder it is to incorporate, and the greater sense of increased "realism" when it can be incorporated.

I disagree that this rules out "guy exploring world" play and I disagree that the GM necessarily has a priveleged role here.

I think there is another interesting aspect of this: This type of play gets "better" (the imagined space gets more reified) the more you play, and that cycle never stops. So it totally lends itself to 20-year long "campaign" play.

yrs--
--Ben

double post.

Hey M. J.,

That you find my posts egregious assumes several things. That the GNS model has been proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt and/or that you have some handle of the ultimate truth that I do not. I do not write my posts to aggravate you but to present ideas for commentary. That you can condemn them to be in error/heresy outright is a power I don’t believe you personally possess. I am willing to debate my ideas but to state that I am wrong prima facie to an egregious degree and that I will somehow “correct myself” is hubris to an astounding degree. Prove to me that my ideas wrong, don’t just say they are wrong. Let’s debate!

M. J. Young wrote: Early on in this piece, you identify two types of play, which I will call:

• What happens if I do this? Play.• What's over there? Play.

You mention these in passing, and say outright that these aren't even really role playing, that "exploration" isn't happening.

I have done and thoroughly enjoyed both of those types of play, and it sure seemed to me that I was role playing at the time. I have also seen both. The second I see All. The. Time.

M. J. Young wrote: The problem with your essay, as I see it, is we've got these two forms of play that actually happen and are enjoyed by unnumerable roleplayers, and one of four things has to be true:

• These are alternate expressions of the simulationist creative agendum which are outside your definition, because your definition is examining one subtype of that agendum.• These are actually forms of gamist or narrativist play, despite not seeming to have anything to do with them on the surface.• There is a fourth agendum that includes these sorts of gaming which has yet to be identified.• Those of us who play this way aren't really playing, aren't having fun, and have deceived ourselves into thinking we're doing anything that would qualify as "role playing".

I'm inclined to think that the first answer is correct. You seem in your essay to favor the fourth.

Hmm, would you say that it would follow that if one player is frequently 'right' about the Dream and another is frequently 'wrong', that that would cause issues? Both are risking, but the payoff of reification of the Dream is unequal?

Silmenume,

I worry that the use of conflict in your arguements is far to close to the existing idea of exploration. In particular you clearly denote conflict as something which occurs in exploration. This indicates that all conflict has exploration. Likewise all exploration has conflict, if only with the unknown. In fact conflict with the unknown is something that would explain M.J.'s type of play more than adequately.

But at that point the use of conflict becomes semantically equivalent to exploration. Ultimately that is how I see your arguement, rather than saying that Sim is not how it has been defined in the existing theory, you add that it also has situational conflict. But of course, all exploration has situation, to some extent, and all situation has conflict.

What matters is that the Sim CA does not require these conflicts to have an SIS external context, where Gamism has a step on up relevance, and Nar has its premise.

I think you are too quick to reject classical explorative Sim in favor of only more immersive Sim. They both meet your litmus test.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but this does seem to be the gist of things.

I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Hiya,

Jay, you wrote,

I firmly believe that much of the direction of the game does lay in conflict creation, its just a matter of harnessing it effectively. In Sim that means that task primarily falls on the DM during play (this should not in any way be construed to mean that the DM automatically precludes the actions of the players), but can/is frequently discussed outside of ritual play.

Also the idea of Internal Causality should be expanded beyond space-time to include character and narrative (or whatever is the appropriate term).

Silmenume wrote: Internal Causality is king. The single greatest false assumption about Simulationism is that it is about creating an artificial reality and one that is especially consistent (causality is always clear and consistent).

Silmenume wrote: Its not that we groove on the world being accurately represented via system it’s rather that we need consistent social cues so that the relationship to and thus the manipulation of the structures and symbols within the SIS is as unambiguous as possible.

Silmenume wrote: Its not so important that the physics be accurate as that we have a personal/social framework point of reference from which to view and categorize the fictional the world and the events transpiring within. These types of social cues and constraints are unbelievably vital to Sim play yet are almost universally underemployed and/or under rewarded.

Silmenume wrote: Its not that the DM is the god of the game that is important but that his “alienated” position from the SIS fosters an atmosphere of a convincing total experience. Combined with the effects of risk on the players and you have the basic foundational elements of Simulationism.

Silmenume wrote: Risk, which is found in conflict, convinces – i.e., it fosters the Dream. The more conflict, the riskier the conflict, the more intense the Dream becomes.

Silmenume wrote: So how is the problem of risk and creating the Dream usually addressed in Sim? The first and easiest way is to have the players already familiar with the fictional setting. .. In other cases its creating rich character backgrounds. While this helps what is usually missing is the most important element, a motivating driving goal. The richer the character the more opportunities for conflict (via more opportunities for goals to come into contact with opposing forces) the greater chance there is for a convincing total experience. It also helps to have an overarching world conflict in which to place the characters so that even the absence of action carries consequences. When starting with a new character it starts with character background that includes conflicts or the game itself can commence with conflict.

Silmenume wrote: The question that is typically asked is - What character characteristic/quality do I (the player) wish to reveal/represent about the Character when I (the player) attempt to resolve conflict A while trying to maintaining cultural/structural element) B? Sim is about peeling the onion of Character.

Silmenume wrote: Rewards are given for interesting and effective roleplay. A player may kill many things and rack up mountains of EP, but unless he has roleplay tallys he can’t go up levels.

Ron Edwards wrote: The concepts in both of these paragraphs are already firmly embedded in the existing model, in Simulationism. So it's nice to see it laid out here, but in my view, you're not adding or modifying anything.

Jay, let me apologize for the harsh way my post came across. I have often found much of merit in your posts, and somewhere I recently identified you among those struggling to clarify simulationist play. I still think you have a strong tendency toward synecdoche in your understanding of it, but you make a good case.

The good case that you make is the possibility that all that we call Simulationism might actually be two distinct agenda. One of these is very character/situation/conflict related, thrives on immersion, internalization, and strong referee presence. The other is completely explorative, freely looking at the five elements in whatever relationship is desired, with no particular need to emphasize a particular one, characterized by the travelogue and the physics experimenter and the cultural anthropologist. I won't say that this distinction doesn't exist. However, I will challenge you with two questions.

• What is it that genuinely distinguishes these two agenda?• Why should one of these keep the identity of simulationism rather than the other?


I'm still of the opinion that you've identified one variety of simulationist play--something like spotting Vanilla Narrativism or Player-vs-Referee Gamism--and in describing it effectively have lost sight of the fact that there are multiple approaches to play within each agendum--such as Front-loaded Narrativism and Player-vs-Player Gamism. To date, simulationism has been the most difficult to define and identify from positive features as opposed to merely elimination of the alternatives (the impetus for my suggestion not so long ago that Discovery was the driver of that agendum), and has also been the broadest of the three agenda in terms of the variety of expressions recognized within it (noting the recent post that attempted to categorize subtypes of simulationism, often cited by John Kim for its suggestion of Virtuality for the RGFA Threefold style of play which bears the same name).

Again, I apologize for coming on too strong in the beginning of my post. You've made a lot of valid posts, and forced me to think about many aspects of simulationism since you arrived.

--M. J. Young

Hello Claire (beingfrank),

I would think that your assertion about reification would tend to hold true over time. It’s a tricky question that functions on a number of levels, but in the aggregate I believe that would be true. Have you been in a game where it felt that nothing you did mattered or seemed to effect things? Have you ever noticed that in such circumstances how frustrated and “punched out” of the game you came to feel?

Hey Mendel (wormwood),

I’m a little confounded by your post. You make some logical assertions that just don’t work.

Wormwood wrote: In particular you clearly denote conflict as something which occurs in exploration. This indicates that all conflict has exploration.[/qutoe]
Your first sentence is valid as far as stating my assertions. Conflict is a component of Situation. Situation is a component of Exploration. Exploration is composed of five elements, all of which must be present at one point or another to some degree or another or you’re not roleplaying.

Your second sentence does not follow at all. To be quite honest I have no idea what it means at all. Conflict is a subset of the Exploration process, at tool that is employed during Exploration. Conflict cannot equal Exploration. I’m not sure what else to say. I apologize for my lack of understanding. I’ll quote Ron from the Narrativism essay and move on –

Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essay wrote: By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Hey Ron,

Regarding conflict creation “leading” the direction of the game, yes it is deeply embedded in the model, but entirely missing from the Sim essay. Given that there have been so many arguments on the boards that claim conflict isn’t even particularly important to Sim, I wished to make clear that while in Premise and Challenge which have built in goals that help determine which conflicts to create thus shaping how the game will unfold, Sim without its clearly defined action of addressing as it stands currently defined, is still subject to “conflict creation steers play.” Hence my, apparently, not so profound statement.

Regarding Internal Causality – within the Sim essay the notion of Internal Causality is limited only to mechanics. My argument is that IC relates to all the “structures”, mechanics, setting, character, social mores, cultural elements, anything and everything that imparts meaning and is in return subject to meaning revision as they are affected when the players engage or are engaged by them. This is not represented anywhere in the model. The idea that mechanics was “internal causality” crushingly limited the scope of ideas regarding Sim play, design and theory. Sim came to be equated with lots of modeling and little excitement. That idea needs a public thrashing!!

Hello Bill,

I don’t know if anyone has welcomed you to the forge not, but in either case allow me to say, “welcome!”

I beg you pardon, but you statements about NPC inferences have thrown me for a loop. I’m not certain what you mean, but I’ll take what I hope is an educated case. If you mean inferring motives to unknown individuals with the game, such as the men with the red hats and chain belts, that is one example. Let me give you another. Three men come upon a knife on the ground with a rune on the blade and blood on the blade. To a Ranger of Ithilien it might mean that there are orcs near by. To a barbarian it might mean a great omen, good steel has been found and has already been blooded. To a street urchin it might mean dinner if they can sell it or it might mean survival. Each of their “cultural” or situational circumstances changes the meaning of the found item, and it is the meaning that is important to the player. Since Sim is the Dream, this means that such differing meanings are important as they add to the individuality of the Dream itself for each individual player.

Bill C. Cook wrote:

Silmenume wrote: So how is the problem of risk and creating the Dream usually addressed in Sim? The first and easiest way is to have the players already familiar with the fictional setting. .. In other cases its creating rich character backgrounds. While this helps what is usually missing is the most important element, a motivating driving goal. The richer the character the more opportunities for conflict (via more opportunities for goals to come into contact with opposing forces) the greater chance there is for a convincing total experience. It also helps to have an overarching world conflict in which to place the characters so that even the absence of action carries consequences. When starting with a new character it starts with character background that includes conflicts or the game itself can commence with conflict.

This just sounds so Nar to me. It kind of describes what I did in my recent Sorcerer campaign.

Without trying to sound glib, the difference is that the players aren’t addressing Premise. Having or designing a rich character is not something that is limited to or indicative of Narrativist play. Its how those characters are used, i.e., to address Challenge or Premise or expand upon the Dream. But what expanding upon the Dream means still begs the question of what are the players doing in game that is specifically Sim and not Gam/Nar. I’m not quite sure how to state it yet, but it does have something to do with the “choke point” of the game. Each CA has a “choke point” where certain conventions are more or less inviolate while other areas of said game are wide open to just about any action the play can come up with. In Nar that means coming back to premise again and again. That means the player assents to address Pemise and not drift off to other areas of play that have nothing to do with Premise. For example in TROS its about what are you willing to kill for. A player thus “agrees” that there will come times where he will have to kill or at least face the attempt. In all likelihood this situation will happen many times since logically we want to explore that Premise. But if the player isn’t particularly interested in the idea of killing, but instead pursues a character which interested in astronomy and politics he is avoiding the Premise. The question then becomes - what is the choke point in Sim? My assertion is Character. Why Character? Because Character is the eyes from which we view the Dream. He can pursue any conflict any interest any goal as long as it meets the conditions of internal causality. Premise addressing tends to be focused on - is the Character willing to do X? Sim is more - what would the Character do?

Bill C. Cook wrote: So the player has goals to reveal character? Or has goals simply to achieve them?

Both.

Bill C. Cook wrote: This is interesting to me. It sounds like your group uses a house reward system to encourage consistent social cues from the players. About advancement: it's something that's always left me cold, personally. You make the case for reward systems--which is Ron's big thing; and M.J. has been at pains to dilineate reward from advancement--so I wonder, is reward particularly supportive of Sim play?

M. J. Young is correct in delineating reward from advancement. All advancements in game are rewards, but not all rewards must aid in advancement. Is reward particularly supportive of Sim play? Absolutely. The question then becomes under what circumstances and which kinds of rewards? That depends on what jazzes the players. Rewards encourage behaviors, so if you are trying to encourage Sim play you should reward the players for engaging in Sim behavior in game. The key is trying to design a reward system that works for you. That is not easy.

M. J. Young wrote: Jay, let me apologize for the harsh way my post came across. I have often found much of merit in your posts, and somewhere I recently identified you among those struggling to clarify simulationist play. I still think you have a strong tendency toward synecdoche in your understanding of it, but you make a good case.
…
Again, I apologize for coming on too strong in the beginning of my post. You've made a lot of valid posts, and forced me to think about many aspects of simulationism since you arrived.

Hey M. J.,

I too find your posts to be very stimulating and have caused me to do much deep thinking myself. I very deeply appreciate your gracious comments. I may very well be engaging in synecdoche, but I think history will tell better than the present. I certainly make the best effort I can to avoid synecdoche. Right now I feel like I am hammering at a gem and right now I driving harder and harder blows to see if it will crack. Those ever more violent blows will either result in a break revealing something new or they will find me guilty of synecdoche. We’ll see, but I am not unmindful of that. Obviously I hope it’s the former and not the latter. Nevertheless, I am among those struggling trying to clarify Simulationist play, so that particular statement does confuse me.

M. J. Young wrote: The good case that you make is the possibility that all that we call Simulationism might actually be two distinct agenda. One of these is very character/situation/conflict related, thrives on immersion, internalization, and strong referee presence. The other is completely explorative, freely looking at the five elements in whatever relationship is desired, with no particular need to emphasize a particular one, characterized by the travelogue and the physics experimenter and the cultural anthropologist. I won't say that this distinction doesn't exist. However, I will challenge you with two questions.

• What is it that genuinely distinguishes these two agenda?• Why should one of these keep the identity of simulationism rather than the other?

The first question cut to the quick of the matter and is a brilliant question. I have been wrestling with that question for a while and I am still coming to terms with it.

For the present I’ll start with parsing your question, particularly this part – “The other is completely explorative, freely looking at the five elements in whatever relationship is desired, with no particular need to emphasize a particular one…” I think it is particularly ironic that you phrase your statement with “no particular need to emphasize a particular one.” My contention, in a way, has been fighting against the removal of conflict/situation. I have been arguing that all five elements of Exploration must be present. My second contention has been that each element of Exploration serves a vital non-reproducible purpose. In essence I have been arguing not for emphasis on conflict, but rather that it must be included (not be utterly de-emphasized) and that its role be clearly defined. IOW one cannot focus on Exploration via Setting to the exclusion of conflict because that is not Exploration. I’ll quote Ron again –

Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essay wrote: By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

The difference between the two agendas is that conflict is not present in one and it is employed in the other. To go beyond that difference then addresses that one is passive in regards to challenging the “structures” and one is not IOW, one only confirms but does not change anything because it does not challenge. While there might be more parts, no now meanings have been imparted, thus the Dream has not been added to in any meaningful/substantive way.

Regarding your second point – it really doesn’t matter. A label is a label. If pressed I would posit that the conflict absent or the conflict indifferent agenda would probably be more suited to the appellation Simulationism while the conflict integrated one would be assigned a new moniker/descriptor.

M. J. Young wrote: I'm still of the opinion that you've identified one variety of simulationist play--something like spotting Vanilla Narrativism or Player-vs-Referee Gamism--and in describing it effectively have lost sight of the fact that there are multiple approaches to play within each agendum--such as Front-loaded Narrativism and Player-vs-Player Gamism.

The difference between the examples you give and the case I am arguing lies in that prior all the five elements of Exploration are always present, while in the case that I am arguing is that that conflict indifferent and conflict integrated Sim are two different things thus two different Agendas.

I firmly believe that the reason Sim is so hard to define right now is because as it is currently defined it has no clearly defined relationship to conflict. As Ron stated earlier, no Situation (conflict) = no Exploration. Conflict does change things and it does drive events. I don’t think a lot of thought has been given to how conflict shapes Sim over all yet. I think as the role of conflict does unambiguously serve in Sim is debated that Sim will come into sharper focus. Reward implies conflict. Exploration demands it. For example I believe that conflict serves two roles in Sim which gives it a different purpose in Gam/Nar. In Sim conflict creates risk which helps to foster the Dream as well as shape game play, via which conflicts are presented. In Gam/Nar risk isn’t used needed to support the vividness of the SIS, that the players need to invest into it is assumed into addressing Challenge and Premise and the Social risks inherently involved at the Social Level. Conversely the direction of play is strongly guided by Challenge or Premise via conflict limitation/choice while in Sim it is more or less wide open; subject only to Internal Causality needs. In Gam/Nar conflict has been co-opted into the process of addressing. In Sim conflict has not been co-opted into anything, but is a free standing element of Exploration, but it is equally vital to play via the strictures of Exploration as well as the very nature of Dream reinforcement/support.

One you describe is constructive; the other contains elements that are deconstructive. The fact that Exploration demands conflict (via Situation) means that Exploration cannot remain objective. IOW the players, via their characters must impact the environment, make changes to it. A travelogue game, cultural anthropologist game, or the physicist (which really isn’t a physicist with relation to the SIS, but rather a mechanics tester on a player/social level) does not impact the environment/challenge the structures without the possibility of failure - risk. Roleplay is a subjective activity. We cannot remove our effects from nor have no motive to alter the SIS via our character actions and still be roleplaying.

Let me try it this way. Gamism is addressing Challenge. Narrativism is addressing Premise. Simulationism is the ritual process of addressing Chris’ meaning-generating “social structures” the process of which inherently supposes challenge to them as well as the limiting strictures of internal causality. This sounds very wordy and round about, but that is only because this is a new area of discussion with lots of ideas that need to be worked out.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Perhaps we have a terminology problem. You equate situation with conflict as synonymous. I can describe "situations" in which the notion of "conflict" would not occur to those within them (which I will pursue in a moment). If I am correct then either

• Situation can exist without conflict, and role playing can occur within it;

or

• Conflict in your usage means a lot less than most people would assume from the term.


Now for the example. I say that the situation is that you have just awakened in a completely unknown and unfamiliar place, what appears to be a lush natural garden beside a spring of fresh water, with no sign of any animal life larger than perhaps a bumblebee. What is the conflict?

• You are wondering how you got here, and you need to determine what has happened to you.

That's certainly a possibility; however, this has happened to you at least a dozen times before, that you have awakened in a new and unfamiliar place, and in that sense you're accustomed to it by now. That doesn't mean you know why it happened, or that you've given up trying to figure it out, but it probably means this is a relatively low priority for you. It is at least unlikely that the answer to that question lies in this particular place, as it wasn't found in any of the other places. You're here; what are you going to do now?

• Survival is a high priority; after all, you need to know how you're going to stay alive.

Yes, that could be the case. On the other hand, there is ample food and water, plenty of materials to create shelter, no sign of any identifiable threats, a comfortable ambient temperature--you're probably not more concerned about survival at this moment than you would be in your own home. That part seems to be covered.

• What is this place?

This seems to be the driver for exploration within this situation: you want to know where you are, you want to discover things about it. Maybe you're afraid that it's too good to be true, and you're wondering where the dark underbelly lies; but maybe you're not really a worrier and figure that you might as well enjoy it until you find something that suggests a problem.


Now, is it possible to be in that situation and have no motivation to explore? Sure, it is. There is no apparent threat, no interesting premise, no looming challenge--you've found paradise. So why bother to explore it? There is no particular reason to explore it, in the sense that the situation does not demand exploration. There is no conflict presented to the player that requires action. The entire act of exploration at this point relies upon the player having some desire to explore and creating within his character the motivation to explore for the sheer pleasure of knowing.

Thus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore.

If that's all you mean by conflict, I'm not sure what it adds to our understanding of simulationism. That certainly is a "situation" within the meaning of the five elements, and in terms of play drivers that would be a conflict--neither the character nor the player knows, so both are driven by their own curiosity to explore, and to overcome any obstacles that arise (to a certain ill-defined threshold) which block that exploration. (Arguably, these obstacles could be viewed as the "conflict"; but if they don't amount to more than persuading yourself that it's worth walking a couple miles to take a look around, how serious are they?)

--M. J. Young

Perhaps I have been a little loose with the interchangeability of Situation and Conflict. Let me cite some sources here at the forge and go from there.

Ron Edwards in the Narrativism essay wrote: By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Silmenume wrote: Conflict – any element of Setting which negatively impacts/impedes Character goal(s).

Ron Edwards in the Provisional Glossary wrote: Bang - The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player.

Challenge - The Situation, i.e., adversity or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind, in the context of Gamist play.

M. J. Young wrote: Now, is it possible to be in that situation and have no motivation to explore? Sure, it is. There is no apparent threat, no interesting premise, no looming challenge--you've found paradise. So why bother to explore it? There is no particular reason to explore it, in the sense that the situation does not demand exploration. There is no conflict presented to the player that requires action.

Ron Edwards in the Narrativism essay wrote: By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

M. J. Young wrote: Thus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore.

You make an excellent case, Jay. It appears that I may be attempting to describe play which falls outside the model.

If what I wrote: Thus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore

Well, I don't think the model is broken... In fact, I don't think what MJ describes is outside the model at all.

Here be some "official" definitions:

Exploration
The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another. Exploration includes five Components: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. See also Shared Imagined Space (a near or total synonym).

Situation
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, Bang, and Challenge.

Thanks M. J.,

I agree about the conundrum left in the wake. I’ve kinda been flip-flopping on that issue, not sure how to address it. I have proposed both that it might be a forth agenda or that it isn’t Exploration. I have no idea right now how to deal with this particular set of circumstances, partly because I myself have only just formalized what I have been trying to demonstrate.

M. J. Young wrote: If you're right, then a lot of what we assume is "roleplaying" is defined by the model as "not roleplaying"; and since the model has always been presented as descriptive, not prescriptive, it doesn't have the right to make that judgment. If there are modes of play which are understood to be role play gaming by many gamers, and the model says they are not role play gaming, then the model is broken.

ErrathofKosh wrote:

Situation
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, Bang, and Challenge.

Well... What means "dynamic?" Does this little word infer conflict, adversity, etc.? Or does it mean that the character must make decisions based on the information he is receiving from his setting? I would postulate the latter case. MJ's sim is really sim, and it DOESN'T need conflict or adversity to provide Exploration.

Silmenume wrote:

Ron Edwards in the Narrativism essay wrote: By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Without adversity there is no Situation. How to define adversity? I offer – a state of being whereby a Character must make a choice/act due to some antithetical force (be it man, nature or himself) and do so successfully or some undesired condition will come to pass. The undesired condition is the result of the antithetical force acting unopposed. Undesired presumes that the Character does have a desire. Conflict is the condition of Character goal contacting antithetical force.

Emphasis mine.

Jay,
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I missed that.

So, if we assume that what MJ is actually doing is Exploration, there are two possibilities:
Either there is some conflict unconsciously being dealt with;
Or the definition of Situation needs to be expanded to include situations that aren't conflict driven.

On the other hand, if what MJ is doing is not Exploration, it is outside the scope of our model. Though, IMO, it would still be worth exploring.

I espoused earlier that Situation doesn't have to include conflict. I now need to reexamine that point of view. I still think that it could be viable, but perhaps what MJ is doing is being driven...

Bang
The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer. See also Kicker.

The fact that conflict is a necessary component of situation does not necessarily imply that each mode must address that conflict. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that when a Sim dominant player does engage with conflict they may well do so by dropping into a temporary gamist mode. IMO, there is no relationship between conflict and sim bar the accidental.

Hey Jonathan,

ErrathofKosh wrote: On the other hand, if what MJ is doing is not Exploration, it is outside the scope of our model. Though, IMO, it would still be worth exploring.

ErrathofKosh wrote: I could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

contracycle wrote: The fact that conflict is a necessary component of situation does not necessarily imply that each mode must address that conflict.

Jay a.k.a. Silmenume wrote:

Jonathan a.k.a. ErrathofKosh wrote: I could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

At this point I?m not sure what to think, but I invite you to consider starting a new thread that might serve that purpose better. Right now I am more interested in sorting out the implications of this new perspective of Sim here.

ErrathofKosh wrote: Jay,

Either there is some conflict unconsciously being dealt with;
Or the definition of Situation needs to be expanded to include situations that aren't conflict driven.

M.J. Young wrote: That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:
Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.
My vote would be for the second, although I could accept the first. Your proposal seems to me to require the third.

Ron Edwards wrote: ...to "emotionally involved" play, and that left "intellectual-only" play out in the cold.

Hey M. J.

I did not mean to sound dismissive of this situation; I have been fighting my way towards this point almost since my arrival here at the Forge. I understand and agree that if my arguments hold up that there would be tremendous ramifications regarding the model in general and Sim in particular. I also agree and understand that there are lots of people with a vested interest in this topic, though few seem to be taking an interest at the present. Let us assume for now that the agenda of play that you identify as Sim continues to be labeled Sim; I was looking to work out the ramifications of agenda X – the conflict integrated/inclusive agenda. I will move that to a new thread and we can continue to discuss Sim (conflict indifferent/exclusive) and the Model here.

M. J. Young wrote: That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:

• Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.• Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.• The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.

Baloney. One can explore setting, and this is roleplaying. Further as part of Simulationism it's not at all problematic. Dividing Simulaitonism up into two parts, OTOH, is problematic, because it's creating two types of play that aren't mutually exclusive, which the others are assumed to be.

Why can't these just be two forms of Simulationism?

Mike

Hey Mike,

I see your baloney and raise you a salami!

You make several assertions that are based on assumptions that have yet to be proven true.

We don't yet know if dividing Sim into the two parts that I had proposed will be problematic because no one has yet to examine the possibilities.

Mike Holmes wrote: One can explore setting, and this is roleplaying.

Mike Holmes wrote: Dividing Simulaitonism up into two parts, OTOH, is problematic, because it's creating two types of play that aren't mutually exclusive, which the others are assumed to be.

The mutual exclusivity pertains player preference. That is, one cannot have two GNS agenda at the same time. More importantly, they have to be something that could cause a conflict of ideals in terms of how to play between players.

Silmenume wrote: We don't yet know if dividing Sim into the two parts that I had proposed will be problematic because no one has yet to examine the possibilities.

That being said - if you meant one can use Setting to Explore without employing Situation then that is not Exploration. As the Model currently stands, Exploration demands that all five elements be employed for that activity to be called role-play. If there is no Situation then there is no Exploration.

Hmmm. I'm rather late to this party, because I've been having some difficulty getting my head around the concepts here. In some ways this thread has alot in common with earlier threads about Sim1 and Sim2 and Discovery, and in other ways its rather different.

IMO, conflict is essential to a creative agenda. If you have no conflict you have no creative agenda. Simulationism is very much about conflict because you have to have something to simulate. If you don't have a conflict you don't have anything to simulate you don't have simualtionism.

What you do have is, IMO, nothing but pure Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

If alls you are doing is wandering around the world gazing at the scenery like some sort of tourist then IMO you aren't playing Simulationist. Simulationists aren't tourists. They want something every bit as badly as gamists and narrativists and simply "seeing what's around the next bend" ain't it. That's just Exploration.

Simulationism is absolutely about conflict, but for different reasons than Gamism or Narrativism. A gamist wants conflict because its a measuring stick against which to compare relative effectiveness. A Narrativist wants conflict because what it says about premise.

A simulationist wants conflict for the same reason a chemistry student wants to mix stuff together in a beaker...to see what happens.

Without conflict, nothing happens. Without situation, nothing happens.

A travelogue is not Simulationism. At best you can say its raw Exploration with no Creative Agenda enjoyed for its own sake, perhaps by those who are taking a break from actively pursuing an Agenda in order to kick back a bit and enjoy the ride for a time. A roleplaying vacation, if you will.

At worst you can say it represents a retreat from the pressure of having to fulfill a creative agenda; and as such is practiced primarily by players who are more or less socially just along for the ride and unwilling to assert themselves against more charismatic players or GMs.

I imagine that this sort of travelogue play is closely related to the idea of zilch play.

This distinction to me is an important one. I see the failure to make this distinction to lie at the root of much of the vehement arguement we've had on the nature of Simulationism over the years. I see the failure to make this distinction as the reason why some can say "Simulationism is based in fear" while others stand horrified and aghast at the very idea. Most of these issues go away as soon as we acknowledge that much of what has gotten lumped in to Simulationism...isn't.

Far from it being problematic to split Sim, I see it as ridiculous not to.

Some actual play never gets past the 5 components of Exploration. I don't see that as problematic. I don't see it as a violation of the Big Model.

I hope that wasn't too far off the mark for this thread.

It's precisely the "Simulationism is fear" argument that you're making. If you can't see "tourism" as a bold and viable form of play, then you're not really seeing all of sim for what it is. Again, it's my point that simulationism accepts conflict if it comes and that nobody plays without it. You're the one arguing that there's some mode in which conflict is not wanted.

Mike

Valamir wrote:

IMO, conflict is essential to a creative agenda. If you have no conflict you have no creative agenda. Simulationism is very much about conflict because you have to have something to simulate. If you don't have a conflict you don't have anything to simulate you don't have simualtionism.

What you do have is, IMO, nothing but pure Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

M. J. Young wrote:
That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:
Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.

Ron Edwards wrote:
The system is not the means by which the contents of the SIS are negotiated into place, but by which the events of the SIS are negotiated into place.

It's a very important distinction.

System establishes time in the Shared Imaginary Space. Hence: change, events, perceptions by the characters, and similar (highlights mine)

Mike Holmes wrote: It's precisely the "Simulationism is fear" argument that you're making. If you can't see "tourism" as a bold and viable form of play, then you're not really seeing all of sim for what it is. Again, it's my point that simulationism accepts conflict if it comes and that nobody plays without it. You're the one arguing that there's some mode in which conflict is not wanted.

Mike

Valamir wrote:
It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

Lets us distinguish I think between the person who seeks out challenge for its own sake, and the person who resigns themself to challenge in the pursuit of something else. I don't see the latter as necessarily less bold, because they are still recognising the challenge and its problems.

I agree that "tourism" can be dangerous--or even exciting--but it seems an incredibly poor way to describe the motivations of a player who shows up to "destroy the evil empire because they wiped out his parents."

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

I can't agree with that I'm afraid. Sure package tourism may be rather unexciting, but having spent some years in the backpacker community, such as it is, I can assure you that some forms of tourism are very bold indeed. Like the couple I know who did Latin America last year, including talking their way through a FARC roadblock.

I think it's most accurate to say the player is in the game for experiential reasons that are best described as the in-game motivations of the character (i.e. experiencing the character's motivations).

Valamir wrote:

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
If this is how you'd describe play, then no, I don't think this is very compelling Simulationism. This is just raw exploration with emphasis on character. For me to be simulationism you have to put this character into a conflict laden situation and THEN want to experience the character's motivations and find out what happens. Without the conflict laden situation for the character to bounce off of...to me it is just tourism...whether the pretty scenery is setting or character.

I don't know if we're on the same wavelength or not--but my example was the character who wants to bring down the empire because it executed his parents. That sounds conflict-laden to me.

So to is the difference between Simulationism and Tourism in my mind.

The missing 4th CA is discovered!
-Marco

That's not tourism Marco, that's the other form of Sim being talked about here.

Ralph, just because you see some difference between seeing the game world, and seeing it through a lens of conflict doesn't make it a different mode. First your rhetoric is judgement-laden, as if you know that the form that you obviously prefer is better. How is this any different than early anti-gamism? How many times did we hear, "That's not real roleplaying!" Now you're saying that it's something else, not Simulationism.

As to the boldness, I've said many times before that Narrativism could be stated to be the retreat of those too fearful to face immersion. There are probably bad reasons for every mode, real or theoretical, but that doesn't make the mode in question a lesser form of play for those who enjoy it legitimately.

Even if you apply a judgement to this theoretical form of play, and are correct, however, that doesn't make it something worthy of it's own GNS classification. Again, it doesn't stand the test of mutual exclusivity. Again, my proposal is that this mode does not exist at all, as such. That is, can you give me one example of this so called mode being played? Or are we talking about something comepletely theoretical here? Yes, MJ will tell you that at times in games he's played, that players go off "just exploring" and doing nothing else. How is this not just more simulationism? MJ, in those games was there never any conflict ever? Eventually there were conflicts, right? When they seemed sensible? As such, this is just an example of a Simulationism CA that involved more exploration than conflict. Big deal, that doesn't make this a mode.

In fact, all play consists of exploration punctuated by conflicts. All play by everyone. There is no RPG where you just have conflict, conflict, conflict, without ever having the world described at all in between. Even the name of the monster that you're killing is exploration as it establishes some vision inside of the player's head. Given that exploration is an inescapable part of play, then the only question is what portion of play is "only exploration," and how long it takes to get to the next conflict. This is a spec trum where no line can be drawn in terms of defining a CA over an "instance of play." Yes, you can say that this one decision was "exploratory" and the next "conflict based," but we all know that this is true of every mode of play.

When the CA is done "to see what's out there, and how my character reacts during conflicts," that's Simulationism, no matter how spread out the conflicts are.

To do another analogy, it's like you've said that elephants are divided up into two sorts, Elephants and Pink Elephants, and Pink Elephants are not elephants because they're pink. Well, I'd say that they don't exist, so there's no use in saying this. What possible good does separating these two "forms" of play do? How are they like the difference between other GNS modes? How do they conflict?

Mike

Mike, any judgement you're seeing...you put there.

Put a lid on your frothing egalatarianism for a minute.

Nothing in your last post applies to anything I said in mine. You might as well be responding to someone else entirely.


Alls I have said is this:

Conflict is essential to Simulationism just as its essential to Narrativism and Gamism.

A Creative Agenda is quite simply nothing more than how a player responds and interacts with the conflict of the character.

Without a conflict, there is no Creative Agenda. You have only Exploration.

Of course all play consists of exploration punctuated by conflict. There is no "in fact" about it. This has been bog standard part of the model since Exploration was first introduced.

But it had been suggested that conflict was not essential to Simulationism. That you could be playing simulationist without needing any conflict. Which is the idea I have endeavored to refute. Simulationism without any conflict is not simulationism. It is just exploration. Exploration all by itself without any Creative Agenda at all.

A Creative Agenda is quite simply nothing more than how a player responds and interacts with the conflict of the character.

Since when?

In any case, the point is that exploration, per the model, is part of every CA, not ancillary to it.

Your argument is a tautology. You keep saying over and over, CA requires conflict, because CA requires conflict. Make an actual argument. Based on what, does CA require conflict?

You seem to believe that Instances can't occur without conflict? That is, if one goes for X amount of play without a conflict, then that must mean what? That there was no instance there? Doesn't the instance include this play?

How can you in one breath say that exploration is part of a CA, but that only conflict defines a CA? Are you saying that all exploration is unidentifiable in terms of CA? If, for instance, a player goes looking to see if there's a monster to fight, isn't it possible to define this looking as Gamist exploration? Even if he never finds a monster to fight?

I think it's actually quite easy to identify play in any of the three modes without conflict ever occuring.

Mike

There's so much happening in this thread that my reply may be a bit disjointed. To reduce that, I've started a spin-off thread of sorts, Simulationism: Reflexive Play?, in which I want to challenge Jay's repeated assertion that we don't explore the elements of exploration but use them to explore something else. I'll refer that part of the discussion there.

Ralph, you've surprised me. You're suggesting that it's possible to roleplay without a creative agendum; yet exploration is by definition (under the model) creative. How would you reconcile this with the model, without declaring that it's not roleplaying?

Let's set aside the tourism concept for a moment (although I think that's the clearest example of non-conflict roleplaying). You've mentioned before playing games in which you would "explore system" by having characters jump off cliffs knowing full well that they would survive the fall, because the mechanics of the game world were such that the damage could not possibly be fatal. I got the impression that sometimes you just did that because you were exploring the fact that you could do that--you weren't running from a monster (who presumably could have jumped down on top of you, since if you could survive the fall but it was too dangerous for you to fight, it would probably know in such a world that it could survive such a fall as well). That sounds to me like non-conflict exploration of system. Am I missing something?

Mike asked if there were games in which there was never any conflict. There's a part of me that wants to say obviously not; but then, Jay seems to have limited what can be called conflict. Is it conflict to have to change your money because you crossed the border, and need to deal with someone in a language in which you don't have great facility who is likely to attempt to cheat you in the exchange? Is it conflict to haggle prices with an innkeeper or a guide? Is it conflict if your horse loses a shoe and you need to visit a blacksmith, or if you have to create shelter and fire in the wilderness to spend the night?

In addressing the problem of evil, one of the points I make is that we assess "the worst thing that could happen" based on things that actually do happen. If we lived in a world in which the worst thing that ever happened to anyone was the occasional hangnail, someone would be asking how a good God could permit hangnails. The point then is that we have no idea what God does not permit, because we have no experience of that which is prevented. So, too, in this context the notion of "conflict", a very relative term in general, seems to have been given a minimum threshold below which it doesn't count, but that threshold is unclear to me. I've run and played in games in which the worst conflicts for a very long time would not have reached what I perceive as Jay's threshold.

Of course, eventually something will usually occur which is conflict of a higher sense. Then again, my games drift a lot, and sometimes a player who has been going for months of real time and years of game time will decide he wants to do something else, and make radical changes in what he's after (like going dragon hunting). So it's not necessarily easy to answer that.

I've got one player who just successfully resolved The Prisoner of Zenda, and for his efforts has been given a competency and the castle at Zenda. He knows it's about 1897, and he knows (because he plays himself) that inside fifteen years World War One is going to break out in Europe, and he's sandwiched in there in the Germanic state of Ruritania. So he knows "conflict" is coming in a big way, and he's already started creating the finest fighting force the world will know for at least half a century. On the other hand, it's over a decade, and he's also building gardens, starting social service programs for the poor, investing in local industry, redecorating his castle, and otherwise just enjoying being a turn of the century nobleman and close friend of the King. I sometimes wonder, even worry, that it can't be much fun with nothing happening, but he assures me that he's having a grand time of it. The biggest "conflict" he's faced in the past several weeks has been difficulties in finding a competent household manager to work alongside his steward in keeping up the details of the property. He is enjoying it immensely. Of course, we "drifted" here. A few months ago he was up to his eye teeth in trying to maneuver around Black Michael and keep the King alive until he could get him to the throne. Before that he was training with Ninjas in a feudal Japanese setting, trying to bring down the oppressive government. Prior to that, he was a medic on a spaceship on a routine cargo run. So not all play has been this calm exploration. At the same time, he's in no hurry to get to the next conflict. He's enjoying this.

Looking back to Ralph, I'm wondering if this is the distinction you're drawing. Early in this thread I attempted to suggest that the movement from not knowing to knowing would be meeting the conflict. However, I have a great deal of trouble with your suggestion that there would then be "exploration" but not "creative agendum". It's my understanding of the model that exploration only exists through its expression through an agendum. If you don't have an agendum, you don't have exploration at all. I am aware that CA is nested within Exploration; but that doesn't mean E can exist without CA, any more than CA can exist without Techniques. Once you are "role playing" you are exploring with an agendum using techniques. If you don't have techniques, you aren't exploring; if you don't have an agendum, you're not exploring.

That's why I've argued that for the requirement of "conflict" to be definitional of any agendum (inclusively) is to fundamentally undermine the model. Exploration without an agendum cannot exist.

Now, if you'll see me that such matters as deciding which way to go, solving problems of where to stay, and other minor matters that might arise in the process of "exploring" are in fact minor conflicts; that conflict can be as little as "I don't know and I wish to know"; then I'll agree that how you handle conflict (and indeed what you recognize as being conflict at all) is revelatory of your agendum, and even (which I think may be an important insight, within my caveat) that "point of conflict" and "instance of play" may be equivalent.

However, saying that "I want to know what I don't know" is not conflict and that conflict is essential for creative agendum of any type comes to saying that pure exploration for its own sake is not role playing, and I think that would be fatal to the model.

--M. J. Young

Valamir wrote:
A Creative Agenda has no meaning whatsoever outside of conflict. It is essentially, how the player responds out of game to conflicts presented in game.

Rats, too late to edit my previous post.

I just wanted to add that I'm not particularly against the idea. It may be that some relationship to conflict is implied or required. I just don't see that, but I'd be open to discussing the argument that it should be, if one can be advanced.

M. J. Young wrote:
Ralph, you've surprised me. You're suggesting that it's possible to roleplay without a creative agendum;

Mike asked if there were games in which there was never any conflict. There's a part of me that wants to say obviously not; but then, Jay seems to have limited what can be called conflict.

I've got one player who just successfully resolved The Prisoner of Zenda, and for his efforts has been given a competency and the castle at Zenda.....SNIP.... I sometimes wonder, even worry, that it can't be much fun with nothing happening, but he assures me that he's having a grand time of it.

That's why I've argued that for the requirement of "conflict" to be definitional of any agendum (inclusively) is to fundamentally undermine the model. Exploration without an agendum cannot exist.

Now, if you'll see me that such matters as deciding which way to go, solving problems of where to stay, and other minor matters that might arise in the process of "exploring" are in fact minor conflicts; that conflict can be as little as "I don't know and I wish to know"; then I'll agree that how you handle conflict (and indeed what you recognize as being conflict at all) is revelatory of your agendum, and even (which I think may be an important insight, within my caveat) that "point of conflict" and "instance of play" may be equivalent.

Hey everyone – thanks for taking the time to explore these ideas!

Though this thread has scattered into a number of different directions, I will make an attempt to narrow the focus by clarifying my positions.

There seems to be a number of objections that stem from the use of and the role of conflict in Simulationism.

To Mike who has stated the following –

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, you must have situation. But, as Ron points out, Situation is merely Characters engaged with Setting in some way. Somewhere along the line, that engagement was said to require conflict, but I'd go to the mat to defend the idea that it doesn't require that at all.

Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essay wrote: By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

emphasis mine.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think it's actually quite easy to identify play in any of the three modes without conflict ever occuring.

Mike Holmes wrote: If, for instance, a player goes looking to see if there's a monster to fight, isn't it possible to define this looking as Gamist exploration?

clehrich wrote: The social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures…
…They have categorical notions sort of semi-embedded, and they encounter real things and think about them, but most of all and most importantly, they are told what to think by their cultures…
…So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place. Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true. This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.

clehrich wrote: …in order to employ a symbol effectively, you have to conform to existing structures…
…When we employ structures, to sum up simply, we both produce and reproduce structures…
…In an RPG context, the application is I think obvious. Structures are handed to us, most obviously in everything from social agreements to rules systems to setting to whatever…
…At the same time, every manipulation of any structure within that system necessarily changes its meaning, however slightly; over time…

Hiya,

Jay, while I agree with you (and by extension with Ralph) regarding your quotes of my essay and how they relate to Mike's point, that doesn't necessarily make the two of us right.

Regarding your points about dysfunctional Simulationist play, you're right on target as I see it.

Best,
Ron

To follow what Ron's saying, Jay, it's precisely my point that I disagree with Ron's attribution of adversity and conflict to these things. Ron is wrong here, IMO.

I think it's sad that people think that I always agree with Ron on things. We disagree a lot.

Anyhow, you point out that my Gamism example can't be infered without context, but you don't question that it could be gamism, do you? That is, CA exists whether or not you can determine it. It could be that the decision in question could be seen as evidentiary of gamism. That's all I have to prove. You have to prove that somehow such play can never be evidentiary of CA for your point to be true.

Neither of us is likely to be able to prove our side, in any case, so we'll probably have to disagree. But my point has been that there's no use in saying that this play, these actual choices made by individuals, are not part of an overall CA. If your point is true, what's the implication? What does it mean? What good has saying it meant? I can't see any point to it at all, other than, possibly, to marginalize this sort of play.

Again, again, again, "decisions" as they pertain to CA are not neccessarily "major" in the sense that everything is a decision. We've been over this before, and Ron has agreed - everything that a player does in terms of creating action (whether via character or otherwise) is a "decision" for this intent and purpose. Yes, that doesn't make all of them "tells" but it does mean that any moment of the instance in question could be a "tell." And, yes, I'd agree even that when conflict occurs, it's more likely that "tells" will occur. But they are not the only place that tells occur. I can give many, many examples from actual play if you'd like. Of course, you'll have to trust me, but, again, all I have to do is have a possible place where something could be a tell, that at some points in some games that this sort of thing is a tell. You have to prove that it couldn't be a tell. Burden of proof.

Social reinforcement comes in many, many forms, and I'm surprised that you'd suggest that the only place that rewards are given out is for conflict. For instance, we know that some games don't have mechanical rewards, other than "attendance" rewards. Some have none at all. So you can't be talking about mechanical. If you're talking about socal rewards, I can, and have said, "Coool," when a player said, "I want my character to go to the city of Noragastira because they've got pyramids there." Rewards can be given for anything.

Mike

Hey folks,

Can everyone see the other's viewpoints? Based on paraphrasing so far ...

Jay: check
Mike: check
me: check

If I'm right about this, then it is perfectly OK to say, "Viewpoints about conflict relative to Situation differ."

Sometimes knowing where the questions and diversity of viewpoints are is the best we can get to.

Best,
Ron

Like I said, I'm willing to just disagree. But I'm also still willing to listen to any argument that shows how the distinction being made here is useful.

Again, however, it's precisely the atomic viewpoint that allows us to bypass this sort of dicsussion (just to plug my favorite theory).

Mike

Jay,

I follow along with the bulk of your argument but I reach a conclusion 180 degrees from yours. Where I start to disagree is here:

Basically Nar asks the question, “Is the Character willing to do X?” Sim asks, “What would the Character do?” These are wholly different questions. The player who answers the latter question is deciding, “What do I wish to reveal about the Character and or his culture?” The player who answers the former is deciding, “What do I wish to reveal about the Premise?”

I'm coming to this late having been away for awhile however on reading through the whole thread I have to point out one big problem I see with the definition of conflict put forward by Ralph and Jay.

I agree entirely that conflict is a huge pointer towards creative agenda; deciding what is a conflict, what factors to consider when deciding on how it's resolved, and the affects of the outcome are all going to vary based on what creative agenda is being followed. However I dont see how the tight definition of conflict that has been proposed, the antithetical force that Jay speaks of or where Ralph say that something more has to be on the line than simple failure, is true.

Take MJ's example earlier of the character who doesnt know where he is, all his needs are met, he simply has the goal of exploring his surroundings. He decides to head in a direction to see what he can find out, after awhile he sees smoke coming from over some hills and tries to climb them. We have a conflict, one without any antithetical forces at work and with nothing more on the line than failure, but in resolving the conflict a creative agenda will make itself known, heck it's probably already been shown by choosing to have the hills a conflict itself but I digress. When deciding if the character will make it over the hills the dm checks all the relevant factors, weather, character skill, time of day. All the factors that make the world internally consistent are checked to determine if that character should realistically be able to make it over the hills.

That's all that is required of conflict, that it impedes the characters goals,
If on the other hand the character wants to learn about where he is and he suddenly finds an "encylcopedia thisplacica" sitting next to him then there is no conflict and thus no roleplaying, just diddling as the quote says.

Take MJ's example earlier of the character who doesnt know where he is, all his needs are met, he simply has the goal of exploring his surroundings. He decides to head in a direction to see what he can find out, after awhile he sees smoke coming from over some hills and tries to climb them. We have a conflict, one without any antithetical forces at work and with nothing more on the line than failure,

Valamir wrote:

I disagree that your example has nothing more on the line than failure.

The character has seen smoke coming over the hills. The ability or inability of the character to climb those hills in a timely fashion very well may have consequences greater than mere failure. It very well may involve whether the character makes it to the smoke in time to prevent some fell deed or not.

How the character gets across the hills, or deciding if he can get across the hills, definitely shows a creative agenda and that means even if you dont consider it a conflict then it is roleplaying. It's not just empty exploration of the situation and the setting it's full blown roleplaying with creative agenda.

One thing that I continue to disagree with Ron on is the notion that Roleplaying doesn't start until you add Creative Agenda to Exploration and that Exploration by itself is not roleplaying.

I think raw Exploration is roleplaying...at least by the most fundamental notion of "playing a role". It is essentially agenda-less play and the enjoyment from it is akin to the enjoyment one gets from watching a movie or reading a book with an added layer of interactivity.

Obviously, the concept of simulationism is a long way from fully agreed. I'm closest to Mike on the subject, from what I can see, and that means I, too, disagree somewhat with Ron.

Let me suggest the possibility that part of the problem is that Big Model Simulationism has not adequately escaped the influence of its parent, Threefold Simulationism. We verbally agree that the goals of Threefold Simulationism are different, in Big Model terms varied (you can be G, N, or S and still be 3F Sim). Yet when we talk about Simulationism as a Creative Agendum there's still this undercurrent that it is supposed to be immersive--that we have simulationism so that we can feel like we're really there.

Ron has freely admitted in the past that Simulationism is the most difficult agendum for him; I think his experience with it is incomplete, and that perhaps he is committing synechdoche here, failing to see the non-immersive and objective forms of simulationism as just as much part of the agendum as the immersive and subjective forms. That is, history aside (and I don't know whether history is as pure in this regard as he appears at times to suggest), looking at the world from the outside, playing in pawn stance, experimenting from an observer perspective, is just as much part of simulationism as trying to experience what it would be like to be there.

It's fairly obvious and accepted that Narrativism and Dramatism, despite the parental relationship between the two, are completely disconnected. They are not at all about the same thing. I think that the Step On Up aspect of CA Gamism has revealed that this is something different from what 3F Gamists would have thought (although less so). I think CA Simulationism has to escape its Threefold roots. The agendum of exploration squared, or exploration driven by curiosity to reach discovery, doesn't have to use a lot of the techniques people assume are within it. It doesn't have to have rich characters if it's about setting. It doesn't have to have detailed physics if it's reproducing genre (Toon, Feng Shui). It doesn't have to have particularly detailed setting if it's focused on character. It can have very light situation with meager "conflict" as long as it's player-driven.

A lot of the effort I've seen lately to define sim has been focused in ways that are exclusive--they decree that a lot of the role play gaming I've seen and done over the years is not really play, has no creative agendum, doesn't fit within the model. Yet it all does fit within the model, as long as we don't decide that the model is narrower. Every form of simulationism I can identify shares in common the desire by the player to know something he does not know. That includes pawn stance travelogues, heavy character exploration, genre emulation, experimenter play, immersive experience, what if play, and quite a few others. If we can accept that "I don't know this and must do something to find out" is sufficient conflict for situation, then the model works. If we're going to say otherwise--well, how many options are there?

• Some genuine role playing is not exploration under the model because it has no creative agendum, and therefore the model doesn't cover some kinds of role playing. (Jay's position, I think. Would it be better to say that the model doesn't cover everything, or to say that there's a mistake within the model concerning the importance of conflict?)• Genuine role playing does not require a creative agendum, as pure exploration can be role playing without an agendum. (Ralph's position, I think. If play has no agendum, why do people do it? CA seems to be the motivation behind play, so play without CA would be play for no reason at all.)• Conflict is whatever is in the way of the player goals, and doesn't have to be anything particularly noticeable. (This is my position, and I think I count Mike and Contra and Caldis on that side, but it's not a vote.)

Are there other possibilities?

--M. J. Young

'Scuse me - I should like to point out that my position on these issues of Simulationist play is not fixed, and indeed is predicated on needing to work it out more fully.

My original goals were to establish that the identifiable and procedural features/diversity of Gamist and Narrativist play were highly similar, if divergent. I've done that - it used to be a horrendously controversial point and now, I think, it is pretty much settled.

Now that that is done, and we are now longer (or at least not many of us are) thrashing about in paroxysms over "story" or confounding various forms of anti-Gamism into the picture, now we can start talking about Simulationist stuff.

Will we discover a necessary layer within or supportive of Creative Agenda? Does Exploration need to be more nuanced? Or is there some kind of "thing" existing at the exact same level of Creative Agenda, only orthogonal to it?

None of these ideas disagree with what I'm saying. What I'm saying (or have been saying) is done with. That's important. We are all in the soup in regard to all of the current issues, and we've moved forward. This is no longer about trying to understand what I'm saying about Creative Agendas, or according with it vs. defying it. It's about what we can now do in the light of our agreements so far, and that light may expose the need for change to the ideas in my essays.

So let's not have any more talk about what "I must mean" or any of that. What I mean in the essays is on record, and if that needs clarifying I'll do it. But I'll be the first one to say that it's only groundwork for further questions and discussions.

Best,
Ron

Hey Mike,

Unless you feel otherwise I feel it would continue to be profitable (to me at least) to discuss the role of conflict in Sim. I have not yet come to a firm understanding on this and your questions and counterpoints are helping me wrestle with the topic. Who knows, you may end up showing me that I talk too much!

Mike Holmes wrote: Social reinforcement comes in many, many forms, and I'm surprised that you'd suggest that the only place that rewards are given out is for conflict.

Interesting thoughts.

Some time back, I proposed that the three agenda could be distinguished thus:

• A narrativist wants to say something;• A gamist wants to do something;• A simulationist wants to learn something.

Obviously, that's a simplification; but I think that it's a sufficient statement to challenge the idea that creative agendum is what you want to "say". I don't see gamists as so much "saying" as "doing", in that sense. Put from the other end, if you decree that all three agenda are about what players are trying to "say", you reduce "say" so that it is synonymous with "explore", and I don't think it's as useful a word for the process as "exploration" is.

But let me suggest that I think this cycle of conflict is a very useful notion, and from one perspective it may explain the difficulty in diagnosing or at least distinguishing some forms of simulationism from other agenda.

To do this, I'm going to introduce the concept of "obstacle" as something less than "conflict", so that we're not struggling over a terminological confusion. For purposes of this thread, let obstacle mean "that which impedes exploration". Thus when we climb the hill to find out why there's smoke coming from the other side, the hill is the obstacle. There might not be conflict, in the sense Ralph and Jay mean, but there is still something that must be overcome to continue exploration.

What we see in exploration is the continuous effort to overcome obstacles so as to learn about the shared imaginary space (and of course learning about it and expanding it are much the same process--even if we're working from a book, what is revealed in play is established as part of the shared understanding). An agendum is an intended outcome; it's what we want to have happen. This exploration contributes to the agendum, but it's not normally the agendum directly.

The gamist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he takes action. He might explore what happens if you put oil in a clay jar, seal it but for a cloth wick through a wax-sealed hole, light the wick, and run; he then expects to use whatever the outcome is in meeting the challenges which lie ahead. (Note that it doesn't matter whether this creates an explosion or a firebomb or a lamp; what matters is that he learns what it will do so that he can use it later when he needs it.)

The narrativist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he engages the premise. He might explore the relationship between the governor and the governor's lady in the expectation that understanding that relationship will let him use them later, knowing something of how they will respond to his actions.

Thus we see that in narrativism and gamism, all of this overcoming obstacles ultimately proves to be support in the conflict which later reveals the specific agendum being pursued.

I'm not saying that simulationism will never come to conflict. However, I think that we run into the diagnosis problem when all that has been done so far is overcome obstacles. We have narrativists exploring the elements for the purpose of addressing premise at some point when conflict arises, and gamists exploring the elements for the purpose of grasping the gold ring when conflict arises. We have simulationists exploring the elements for the purpose of understanding the elements themselves. If no conflict ever arises that interests them, they continue to explore the elements. They might come to a conflict and reveal through it their simulationist agendum; but they might never come to a conflict at all.

That's where the diagnostic problem arises. Eventually the continual failure to come to conflict forces us to conclude that this player is not interested in premise or step-on-up, and so is playing simulationist. It leads to the error that simulationism is the "default mode", what you're doing if you're not doing something else, because of the diagnostic process: we didn't see you come to conflict, but you're enjoying play over the long term, so we think you're playing simulationist.

Did that make sense? I'm a bit fuzzy tonight, and pressed for time (I'll probably post this and come back later to do the rest of the forum threads), but I wanted to get this to paper while it was in my mind.

--M. J. Young

This is not to be construed in any way to mean that such play is without value, rather it is just saying that such play in not harnessing Exploration to any end other than its own pure enjoyment.

Mike,

I don't think anyone is trying to posit the sans-CA mode of play as a fourth agenda, but rather as a default. In other words, it would be roleplaying without any CA at all. Traditionally, this is a spot thrown under the heading of Sim play, that of pure exploration.

Mike Holmes wrote: Thus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

Tim, that's exactly how I would respond to the issue, and what I was attempting to outline in my essay. Sim is an active prioritization of <something>, not simply an active avoidance of <something else>.

Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now. To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics. That being the Simulation in Simulationism. Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important. Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them. You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

As soon as you allow Simulationism to have its own legitimate actively prioritized agenda rather than saddling it with a negative definition or "exploration squared", which is just an attempt to disguise the fact that its a negative definition...then you really have something that can be thoughtfully analysed and understood on par with Narrativism and Gamism. Its now a true peer in the triumverate rather than the odd man out, or the generic dumping ground.

Of course this means that alot of stuff that we've taken for granted over the past couple of years of "oh, that's Sim" will need to be reevaluated. Marco already hit on Illusionism as one of those areas that need reevaluating in another thread. For years we've said "Illusionism, oh that's sim". But by my treatment of Simulation, its actually antithetical to Sim goals.


I think saying CA only manifests during conflicts is a bit too narrow and may be part of the trouble you're having with seeing it. I tried to define "Instance of Play" in my essay as being the entire conflict cycle, not just the moment of resolution.

It will manifest in the recognition of conflict...what a player will consider to be a conflict and what has to happen for them to recognize there is one.

It will manifest in the way a player frames a conflict...how they define what the problem is, how they evaluate what the adversity is, how they arrange the mental list of pros and cons regarding different approaches, how they perceive the ideal outcome from both a character and player perspective.

It will manifest in how much or how little the player is willing to invest or sacrifice to make that ideal outcome come about...the cost to benefit analysis.

It will manifest in how the actual resolution is handled.

And it will manifest in the denouement and wrap up after the fact in how the player interprets and evaluates the results.


All of those areas are potentially revealing in terms of what CA is at work, and they are all part of the over all cycle of the conflict. This cycle of conflict is really just putting some meat on the bones of Instance of Play, trying to actually focus on what an Instance of Play really is and the sorts of key areas that make up decision points.

"exploration squared", which is just an attempt to disguise the fact that its a negative definition

You're correct.

Add the caveat "...which was originally an attempt to highlight the fact that there was some as yet undefined <something> more than just exploration going on there, but which in practical use came to just mean Exploration in the absence of the G or N Agendas"

How's that...

(this is why legal departments add 8 pages of caveats and disclaimers to a 1 page marketing letter...) ;-)

That wasn't a definition of simulationism, it was proof by induction.

Mike

Valamir wrote: Sim is an active prioritization of <something>, not simply an active avoidance of <something else>....

Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important. Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them. You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

This is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

Valamir wrote: I think saying CA only manifests during conflicts is a bit too narrow and may be part of the trouble you're having with seeing it. I tried to define "Instance of Play" in my essay as being the entire conflict cycle, not just the moment of resolution.

It will manifest in the recognition of conflict...what a player will consider to be a conflict and what has to happen for them to recognize there is one.

I've always been a big believer in the idea that personality mechanics and their brethren were perfectly valid (and in some cases to be encouraged) in simulationist play.

There are really two reasons to use them

1) if we agree that it is vital for the various elements of the SiS to act/respond according their nature, then it seems perfectly reasonable to have mechanics that ensure fellow PCs do as well. They aren't necessary if everyone is equally committed to doing so, but can be useful. I find they are generally Simulationist defense against Gamist attitudes when used for this.

2) to educate players as to what behaviors are appropriate. Pendragon is a perfect example of this. Hospitality, Honor, Family, and Loyalty are not there so much to dictate behavior and prevent transgressions as they are to illustrate the core concepts of what makes for moral society of the time and indicate how others perceive your character at fulfilling those obligations. I think this is much more broadly useful than #1 above, especially if the players in question are not already experts in the subject.

Hey,

Ralph: totally! The king hell daddy of the personality mechanic in simulationist game is the Psychological Disadvantage in Champions,* later manifesting as Psychological Limitation in GURPS, and then embedded without conceptual modification into "balancing advantage/disadvantage" character creation systems across easily a hundred RPGs over the next decade.

Best,
Ron

* And no, that does not mean I think Champions was a Sim-facilitating game. Champions and its spawn, the Hero System, are a phenomenally challenging topic that I'll get around to essaying on one of these days.

The aspect that intrigues me about personality mechanics however is their forceful application, such as when a roll is called upon to determine action. The pendragon knight with the beaten foe begging for mercy but has a high vengeful trait, if the player decides he wants to grant mercy he has to make a roll to see whether the character actually would. To me this seems like a perfect example of trying to answer the what if question, moreso than allowing the player to choose and then adjusting the traits to match the actions. Of course I dont think all players who show a prefence for simulationism would agree that is an acceptable way to decide action, sometimes they want to make the choice.

I see two ways to explain this difference within simulationism, either it's a difference in preferred methodology or else there's a blend of priorities taking place. I have a problem with it being just method however, since allowing the dice to determine outcomes of almost everything else is not a problem with sim. This is why I brought up the Atomic model, where (if I'm not mistaken) a players preference can be mostly simulationist but partially narrativist a blend of preferences.

This also means to me that little moments of narrativism or gamism may be going on inside an otherwise sim game. That may not be too controversial however this might be, any moment where a player makes a meaningful choice in a game is a small moment of narrativism. The game can otherwise be simulationist but that small instance is narrativist.

M. J. Young wrote: Some time back, I proposed that the three agenda could be distinguished thus:

• A narrativist wants to say something;• A gamist wants to do something;• A simulationist wants to learn something.

Obviously, that's a simplification; but I think that it's a sufficient statement to challenge the idea that creative agendum is what you want to "say". I don't see gamists as so much "saying" as "doing", in that sense. Put from the other end, if you decree that all three agenda are about what players are trying to "say", you reduce "say" so that it is synonymous with "explore", and I don't think it's as useful a word for the process as "exploration" is.

M. J. Young wrote: To do this, I'm going to introduce the concept of "obstacle" as something less than "conflict", so that we're not struggling over a terminological confusion. For purposes of this thread, let obstacle mean "that which impedes exploration". Thus when we climb the hill to find out why there's smoke coming from the other side, the hill is the obstacle. There might not be conflict, in the sense Ralph and Jay mean, but there is still something that must be overcome to continue exploration.

M. J. Young wrote: The gamist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he takes action.
…
The narrativist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he engages the premise.

M. J. Young wrote: I'm not saying that simulationism will never come to conflict. However, I think that we run into the diagnosis problem when all that has been done so far is overcome obstacles. We have narrativists exploring the elements for the purpose of addressing premise at some point when conflict arises, and gamists exploring the elements for the purpose of grasping the gold ring when conflict arises. We have simulationists exploring the elements for the purpose of understanding the elements themselves. If no conflict ever arises that interests them, they continue to explore the elements. They might come to a conflict and reveal through it their simulationist agendum; but they might never come to a conflict at all.

M. J. Young wrote: That's where the diagnostic problem arises. Eventually the continual failure to come to conflict forces us to conclude that this player is not interested in premise or step-on-up, and so is playing simulationist. It leads to the error that simulationism is the "default mode", what you're doing if you're not doing something else, because of the diagnostic process: we didn't see you come to conflict, but you're enjoying play over the long term, so we think you're playing simulationist.

Tim C Koppang wrote: Obviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.

Valamir wrote: Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now. To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics. That being the Simulation in Simulationism. Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important. Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them. You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Caldis wrote: …any moment where a player makes a meaningful choice in a game is a small moment of narrativism.

Mike Holmes wrote:

This is not to be construed in any way to mean that such play is without value, rather it is just saying that such play in not harnessing Exploration to any end other than its own pure enjoyment.

I still don't see why this is anything other than simulationism. I understand the mechanisms that tend to cause disagreements, but I don't see how this form conflicts with other simulationism
…
Thus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

Mike Holmes wrote: Or, if you say that it does conflict, I'd want to know how? Play of both simulationism and tourism* would look identical in terms of that which define them. In both cases, the player would make decisions based on "what the character would do", meaning simply not displaying one of the other metagame agenda (making it "what the player wants" to the extent that it conflicts).

Mike Holmes wrote: In Sim, all is treated equally - that is, without the appearance of a metagame agenda.

Valamir wrote:
Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now. To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics. That being the Simulation in Simulationism. Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important. Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them. You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ralph you are da man, however I am going to pull a yellow card here! You are correct in that we have to go back to basics, but I think you have to go all the back to the ultimate basics - the ritual process of roleplay itself. Don’t get hung up on the idea that something is being simulated. What you are seeing in the idea of “simulation” is really the effects of Internal Causality. Exploration is a meaning creating ritual discourse. Internal Causality is the social meaning structure that lends meaning to the players actions. Just as all actions in a Gamist oriented game are measured against addressing Challenge and all actions in a Narrativist oriented game are measured against addressing Premise all actions in a Simulationist game are measured against Internal Causality. Now since players only have control over their characters, that limits what can be Explored by the players to the elements within the SIS. Remember now that Exploration as a meaning creation process only creates new meaning via challenges to the SIS. Take all these elements and what do you get? With the Sim defining clause of Internal Causality player input is limited to Character actions and they are measured against the social meaning structures.

Hello,

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism. Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

Silmenume wrote:

Tim C Koppang wrote: Obviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.

Actually that’s not true. Roleplay is a group activity. If one is not supporting the group activity you are taking time away from those who are trying to pursue that activity. Thus in terms of those pursing a CA, if an agenda-less player is at the table not only is he taking time away from the other players who are trying to pursue an agenda he is delegitimizing the liminal/ritual stage of the discourse because he is not actively supporting the social meaning structures. IOW he will drive the other players bat shit crazy because he is not on the same page they are on. Not only is he consuming limited time, but he isn’t even endorsing what they are doing by participating in the same activity.

Valamir wrote:
Internal Causality *is* considered highly desireable for Simulationist play. It is much more openly and vocally stressed and its importance more keenly felt in Simulationist play. But thats just a symptom of the agenda...not definitional. Part of the problem with the Sim definition has been mistaking Internal Causality for the point...that it was what was being prioritized. The glossary definition of Sim still does this.

But as I said in my essay, I think this is wrong. its backwards. Internal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately. Its a tool that is used, a parameter that is set, for the purpose of enabling the Simulation.

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism. Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism. Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

I don't disagree with that, Mike. Its not that different of a perspective.

What it basically boils down to is controlling variables. In a good simulation there are certain variables you are "testing" (those related to the "what if" question). The rest of the variables need to be controlled for.

Internal Causality is really nothing more than a technique for controlling variables by requiring all things to act consistantly in accordance with their nature.

Quoting me, Ralph 'Valamir' Mazza wrote:

This is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

Where does the dichotomy of "if its not simulationism its not genuine play" come from?

Ralph had it right when he wrote: Internal Causality can be important (and usually is) in all roleplaying and all CAs. Its primary function is to provide credibility to player's statements for system purposes. A player's statements are more credible and thus, more likely to be accepted, when and if they maintain Internal Causality.

My thinking is that conflict, as Ralph defines it, is not essential to simulationist play. I'll concur that it is easier to identify simulationism when conflict spotlights it, but maintain that simulationism can continue indefinitely without conflict--something neither narrativism nor gamism can do.

Keeping in mind that a conflict by my definition requires 1) a player to be interested in changing the current situation, 2) adversity that must be overcome to accomplish that change, 3) consequences that impact the SiS from both failure and success.

I contend that there is no simulation without conflict because without conflict there is nothing to simulate

Valamir wrote: While I will readily admitt that phrases such as "ritual discourse" make my head swim, I actually disagree with you here.

Valamir wrote: The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Valamir wrote: Part of the problem with the Sim definition has been mistaking Internal Causality for the point...that it was what was being prioritized. The glossary definition of Sim still does this.

Valamir wrote: Internal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately.

clehrich in his - Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] thread wrote: The social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures…

This is the social theory of knowledge…

So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place. Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true. This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.

Emphasis mine - Jay

Valamir wrote: It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism.

Tim C Koppang wrote: It's not that the neutral player is at odds with your CA, but rather that he just doesn't seem to have any motivation beyond wondering around and looking at flowers. In other words, he's wasting time, but he's not damaging the CA.

Ron Edwards wrote: There is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121630#121630

Mike Holmes wrote: Because it's not that the result is 'right", it's that the result feels right. That is, it's the quality of the internal causality that causes us to trust the results. Not that we believe that the simulation in question actually says anything about the real world, no. But instead because the simulation feels like it has (again feels, not has) something approaching an objective existence.

M. J. Young wrote: The simulationist wants to be in the strange world. I've never said that internal causality is king, and I think that's extreme--but I do think that for simulationism to work, you must have sufficient consistency that your actions will have repeatable results.

M. J. Young wrote: You are, however, correct about the confusion between problems which impede the characters and those which impede player goals. I apologize (gee, twice in one post) for that confusion. It's easy to make, particularly since in gamist play the two are usually the same (the thing which impedes the player in proving himself is the challenge that faces the character, and if the character overcomes, he gets his glory--although he might get some glory for a grand effort even if the character fails).

1) I would like to whittle this piece of wood into the shape of a bird
2) It doesn't look much like a bird at the moment
3) After I'm done, it will look like a bird, and the SIS will be changed accordingly

That meets all your criteria but is still utterly trivial and not a meaningful conflict.

Silmenume wrote: If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so. Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

Valamir wrote: The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct. Its more fundamental than that. Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

Exploration is a type of ritual dialogue or discourse used to create meanings. What this implies is that Exploration/roleplay is a meaning creation process. Creative Agendas are the basic types of dialogues we are having. This is what I meant by the basics.

The question then becomes, “What is the promoter in Simulationism?” What are we trying to do? What are we addressing? What are we building, what new meanings are we creating and how do we do that? What are we engaging to create new meanings?

Understanding ritual discourse and how IC relates and the limitiation it places on the players I would say that “what if’s” are no more descriptive of Sim then “what if’s” are of G/N. Point of fact I would argue that Gamism and Narrativism are more driven by “what if’s” than Simulationism. In Gamism one could be trying new strategies or tactics – IOW running what if I did this or that in the pursuit of victory. Same with Narrativism – what would happen if my character did this in response to premise instead of that?

To be fair I think there is as much “what if” in Sim as there is in Gam/Nar except it is not the players posing the “what if’s”, it’s the DM.

I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.

I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium. By its very nature, where IC is so important it is difficult to justify characters taking risks via conflict just for the academic exercise to ask “what if”.

Valamir wrote:
Actually it doesn't. Where's the consequence for failure?

Unless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

Hey Ralph, and you too Marco!

This is an important issue. If neither of you understands what I mean by “ritual discourse” or “social meaning structure” then it is impossible for us to have a meaningful conversation. Both those ideas are absolutely foundational to my thesis. I don’t mind dissent on my ideas, but if you are disagreeing without understanding what we are disagreeing about then we are wasting each other’s time. If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so. Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

Valamir wrote:
The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct. Its more fundamental than that. Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures. Just as social meaning structures inform our real lives, exploring fictional social meaning structures creates an artificial reality because they inform us of that fictional life – the Dream.

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
Actually it doesn't. Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Your concerns in this are fully agreed to by me, and also I believe already addressed and protected against.

Is there a consequence to your character being an incompentent whittler? Is someone's life at stake if you can't whittle effectively? Will you lose your job in the whittling factory and your family will lose their home? Will the evil gang of cut throat wood carvers that you've secretly infiltrated recognize you as an imposter and blow your cover?

Are there consequences to your character succeeding and being a successful whittler? Will the king recruit you to go on a quest and defeat the mighting wood giant with your whittling prowess? Will your whittling lead to fame and fortune. Will it be the small gift that wins the heart of the child? Will a wealthy collector buy your work and put it on display where it will be recognized by your arch enemy who's been looking for you for years? Will it make the members of the WoodCarvers Local 346 upset because you a non-union whittler and they'll come and rough you up?

What are the consequences to the SiS OUTSIDE of your own character and BEYOND simply you the player not getting the result you wanted (so it can't be anything that simply frustrates your whim)

Articulate the repurcussions and ripple effects of your whittling effort for both success and failure outcomes.

If there aren't any really...then its not a conflict. But as I said in the essay, much of the time what is and isn't a conflict will come down to the perception of the player. Since, by my definition, CAs are how the player responds to in game conflict, this is just fine. It simply becomes how the player responds to perceived in game conflicts. If the player perceives it as a conflict then the player will have a CA based response to it.


This seems pretty clear and straight forward to me and was presented such in my essay. Yet you say its non-explicit. How would you suggest I make it more explicit.

Unless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

Exactly; I allege your definition of conflict contains non-explicit assumptions. That is why I said it met all the criteria but was not a MEANINGFUL conflict. When conflict has become so diluted as to be "anything which frustrates my whim" I'm not sure that the term retains any utility.

Silmenume wrote:

Tim C Koppang wrote: It's not that the neutral player is at odds with your CA, but rather that he just doesn't seem to have any motivation beyond wondering around and looking at flowers. In other words, he's wasting time, but he's not damaging the CA.

Not true – let me quote here –

Ron Edwards wrote: There is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121630#121630

Ack, my last post is fully of wacky quote errors.

Let me repost it for clarity. Sorry about that.

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote:
Actually it doesn't. Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Well, I still have difficulties with the argument that (capital C) Conflict is necessary for sim, as opposed to little-C Conflict.

Now, you support the thesis that without conflict no CA is exhibited. Where I have difficulty is that surely this can't be little-C conflict and be meaningful, cos otherwise shopping would be valid sim after all.

But the big-C conflict looks too much like G and N big-C conflicts if it depends on the conflict being situationally significant to the character(s). I would think that N and G agenda's would probably supercede the Sim CA under these conditions. But I also have difficulty conceptualising the Simmers "pro-active engagement with conflict".

I don't see that sim requires conflict, or has a particular response to conflict, unlike G and N. I consider the worlds default frustration of our whim to be sufficient for Sim conflict, but I'm still unconvinced theres much value to be had discussing Sim in the light of conflict in the first place.

Hey contracycle!

I am going to do my best to clarify the terms “ritual discourse” and “social meaning structure.” The problem is that the terms are so specific the fields from which they sprang and are so intertwined with each other that a simple definition will in all likelihood not suffice. Or at least I am not certain that I can create a simple definition.

Ritual Discourse

Discourse, being the easy part to illumine, is dialogue. It means that the process, whatever it is, is one that involves a verbal (or written) exchange among its practitioners.

Ritual is much more difficult to define – I will do lots of lifting from Chris’ article and thread as a starting point.

First of all ritual is not a thing but a process.

clehrich wrote: …we can read ritual as a mode of theorizing, a way of thinking and analyzing in relatively abstract terms.

In ritual, participants manipulate a range of signs within a constrained structure. That structure can change through such manipulations, but only within narrow limits.

clehrich wrote: The question, in short, is not how players read a text produced for them by a game-master, but rather how the whole group in combination produces signs and texts that they themselves read. The structural model of signification fits well here, as the primary issue is to understand ritual or mythic activity as a mode of discourse production.

To put this differently, and more specifically, RPG play enacts theory, in the sense that standing behind and prior to play is a series of theoretical constructs: system design, GM notes, pre-play agreements and social contract, genre expectations, and other theoretical tools. From this perspective, RPG play acts out this prior structure; this is equivalent to the old reading of ritual as acting out a liturgical text. At the same time, the prior structure is to a degree open to challenge within game play, and furthermore does not fully constrain particular game actions, determining a range and a set of priorities rather than laying out a script.

Broadly, the question in practice theory is how people choose, from a limited range of culturally-available options, which techniques to apply at a given moment. This depends on strategy: we want to maximize rewards in a specific situation. But in order for strategy to work, we have to play the game; that is, one cannot go outside the structure of the system to manipulate signs as one likes, because to do so annuls the power of the strategy in the first place. Thus every strategic use of signs is at once a free, liberated exercise of power by a situated person, and at the same time a contribution to keeping the system stable and intact without significant change. The possibility of real change is thus undermined by the very strategies which seek to change the system, because they depend for their efficacy upon the structures in question.

clehrich wrote: Technically speaking, every sign is thus constrained and yet free. On the one hand, it is not constrained to the degree of a percept, a particular contingent mental encounter with an actual object; this percept is what is called a "perception" in the formalist model to which Kim refers. A percept is entirely constrained, because when a person looks at a given object on two successive occasions, his or her mental equipment has altered -- to use a cliché, one cannot enter the same river twice. At the same time, a sign is not fully liberated, as is a concept, an idea arising in reaction to a particular person's connections to a percept: when I look at the lamp on the table, I may think of my grandmother (who perhaps owned a similar lamp), and thus "grandmother" is a legitimate conceptual link, but no such connection may arise for you, and even if it did, it would be a different grandmother. So a sign (Lévi-Strauss means the Saussurean version of the sign) is both constrained (the iron cannot be a refrigerator) and free (it can do a whole range of things involving local intense heat). In Lévi-Strauss's linguistic analogy, this iron is a sign in the same way as a word is: the word "iron" can mean a range of things (the metal, the instrument) but it cannot mean anything at all. Furthermore, this word only acquires meaning by its relations to other words: if I say "iron," you do not know until I go on with "a pair of pants" what sort of meaning I intend, even whether it is a verb or a noun.

All the Creative Agendas are committed to concept creation.

Creative Agenda is a sign (a type that I refer to as a social meaning structure).

contracycle wrote: I'm noty sure whther a CA should be construed as a sign, or a manipulation of existing signs. I would lean toward the latter - especially as CA is only a sign here, to us, who have coined and defined the term. A player unfamiliar weith the forge will not be aware of CA as a sign.

Tim C Koppang wrote: Um... yes. I think I said that in my last post, but I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been. I won't belabor the point. Suffice it to say that I agree: when a CA is part of a Social Contract, any player who isn't actively pursuing that CA is in violation of the Social Contract. For clarity, change "he's not damaging the CA" to "he's not actively damaging the CA."

clehrich from his essay - Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games wrote: An obvious first step in proposing this model is the formulation of a definition of ritual. Unfortunately, perhaps, such definitions have been the focus of extensive debate for more than a century now, with no clear end in sight. More models have been proposed of what ritual "is" than many readers might believe. I have no intention of summarizing this whole history; I will instead simply propose a starting-point.
The above-mentioned disjuncture between "Collaborative Storytelling" and "Virtual Experience" parallels, in a number of respects, two recent emphases in ritual theory.
Virtual Experience correlates well with Ronald Grimes's and Victor Turner's focus on "performance," which ultimately amounts to a notion of total involvement in ritual activity.[7] In ritual, according to this perspective, humans engage the totality of hearts, minds, and bodies, setting them to work creatively and dynamically to produce effects within the social and mental worlds of the participants. Thus in zazen (Sitting Zen), one does nothing but sit, generally in an approved posture; one's mind and heart should be similarly focused on nothing but sitting, not in the sense that one should think continuously, "I'm sitting," but rather that one's mind should be in a state parallel to the body's state, thinking nothing, resting, yet remaining alert and awake, receptive to outside contact. In the Catholic Eucharist (Mass), to take a quite different sort of example, liturgical tradition emphasizes that the communicant should be fully involved in the process, such that when the miraculous transformation of the substance of wafer and wine (Transubstantiation) occurs, and when in fact the communicant receives these into the mouth, it is not only one's body that receives the body and blood of Christ, but the totality of body, mind, and soul. Thus this understanding of ritual emphasizes what in RPG terms is called "immersion," a total involvement in the activity. Failure on this score would be seen as ineffective (zazen), impious (Eucharist), or shallow (RPG).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html

Sil, I still think you are butchering the jargon here I'm afraid.

It is the yardstick by which we measure the events in game to see if they “mean” anything. Conversely that same meaning structure can be employed to give events “meaning/significance”. Whether players are aware of this or not is irrelevant.

What is not part of those meaning structures is essentially “off radar.”

The Dream exists because all the tools we use to make sense of life (social meaning structures) are now re-presented in a new and different fictional form.

We test these new meaning structures and respond in ways that are different from our ordinary lives. Conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures. We also get the added bonus because conflict adds to the intensity of the Dream. By responding to these conflicts in ways that are different from our ordinary lives not only do we get to think like a different person, but because of the intensifying effects of risk, we get to feel an experience that is different from our norm.

In Sim it is the integrity of the fictional social meaning structures which are partially rooted in the fictional world itself which are what must be maintained.

The Adoption a new meaning structure is only truly made manifest by the decision making process. Decision making implies conflict – that one must choose implies at least two options that are in contention.

Sim as a CA must have conflicts or the players cannot implement or exhibit the adopted meaning structures.

So to Ralph’s “what if’s…” I would modify that to “what would my character do if…?” Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character. It’s the DM posing the “what if” questions, not the players.

So to Ralph’s “what if’s…” I would modify that to “what would my character do if…?” Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character. It’s the DM posing the “what if” questions, not the players.

Hey contracycle,

I may be guilty of butchering jargon. Let’s go through your points and see what can be cleared up.

contracycle wrote: Chris's text describes meaning structures as external to the user. However, you seem to be arguing that a CA is inherent to the user, especially if you agree that anyone unfamiliar with the forge or similar is also unfamiliar with the sign "CA" or the sign "Sim".

This CA cannot be a social meaning structure on the terms given.
CA is a motive for engaging with existing meaning structures. Those meaning structures are essentially System, and they are social because they are formulated out of the social contract.

contracycle wrote:

What is not part of those meaning structures is essentially “off radar.”

Correct. System does matter.

The Dream exists because all the tools we use to make sense of life (social meaning structures) are now re-presented in a new and different fictional form.

Right. System does matter again.

contracycle wrote:

We test these new meaning structures and respond in ways that are different from our ordinary lives. Conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures. We also get the added bonus because conflict adds to the intensity of the Dream. By responding to these conflicts in ways that are different from our ordinary lives not only do we get to think like a different person, but because of the intensifying effects of risk, we get to feel an experience that is different from our norm.

Yes, agreed. But I have always had the position that conflict is useful; your position is that it is necessary and definitive. That still does not appear sufficiently demonstrated to me.

contracycle wrote:

In Sim it is the integrity of the fictional social meaning structures which are partially rooted in the fictional world itself which are what must be maintained.

This is where your argument appears to use "social meaning structure" erroneously to my eyes, applying to to multiple levels of the model. Above you say "I think, however, that CA is better regarded as a concept that has the role of serving as a meaning structure." And here you say that the SIS contains social meaning structures.

I don't think it can be meaningful that the SIS contains a CA.

contracycle wrote:

The Adoption a new meaning structure is only truly made manifest by the decision making process. Decision making implies conflict – that one must choose implies at least two options that are in contention.

But not meaningful conflict.

contracycle wrote:

Sim as a CA must have conflicts or the players cannot implement or exhibit the adopted meaning structures.

In as much as it is true that if I adopt the sign "knight" and seek to exhibit an interpretation of the meaning system "chivalry", yes its true that I cannot do so without some degree of adversity. But what bugs me about this is I can't put a fork in my mouth either without overcoming the adversity of gravity, so this does not appear to be saying much other than "shit happens".

contracycle wrote:

So to Ralph’s “what if’s…” I would modify that to “what would my character do if…?” Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character. It’s the DM posing the “what if” questions, not the players.

That woud relegate player activity vis a vis Sim to reactions, rather than actions. And that negates the ostensible starting point, which was to establish a diagnostic feature of Sim that was not the absence of other CA's. All players respond to a GM's what if by this formulation, it seems to me, and so once again the Sim player would be identified only negatively; they would be the individual who only responded to what ifs instead of actively posing questions and enacting a CA.

Valamir wrote:

So to Ralph’s “what if’s…” I would modify that to “what would my character do if…?” Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character. It’s the DM posing the “what if” questions, not the players.

True, if you have the Character Exploration dial cranked.

But you could ask that same question with a focus on Setting also: What would the Kingdom of Karmon do if a horde of Orks decended on it and its allies abandon it.

In other words "how would the Character respond to a given Situation", or "how would the Setting respond to a given Situation". To which the answer would be "Lets find out using System as Constrained by Color".

Valamir wrote: Traditionally, Character has been the only way that the player can interact with the world; but I happen to be a believer that Director Stance is quite useable in Simulationist play. So, using Director Stance, the player's ability to pose the "what if" question is increased substantially.

Chris’ text describes meaning structures as being taught. Meaning structures are an entirely memetic in nature. They don’t exist as things outside of minds. They cannot be external to persons. A person may generate their own meaning structures and they can also be unfamiliar with a meaning structure and thus can be acculturated with a different one, but they have them nonetheless.

A person does not need to be self-aware of the behavior in order to express said behavior. A Creative Agenda is an expression of behavior. Contained within that expression of behavior is a drive. That drive is attempting to accomplish something. In order to determine if the drive’s desires are being met, a person must monitor their surroundings to see if their actions are creating a meaningful response. In order for something to be determined as being meaningful it must be measured against a meaning structure. .... Basically for any event to have meaning it is because an individual has been acculturated with meaning structures.

As you said a CA is motive. It is also provides a meaning structure. How else can a person determine if their motives are being satisfied?

The idea I am working on is that Setting, especially for Sim, should not be construed be just the physical elements. Setting should include such things as social mores and values, cultures, the culture’s relationship with the physical world, etc. To the Western world nature was something to be subdued and exploited. To (some/all?) Native American Indians nature was something to be treated with honor and respect. How individuals related to nature was informed by meaning structures.

You are right in that System does matter. But I was not speaking about System. System is the means by which credibility is assigned to statements. It is a process. Meaning structures are for the sake of this argument objects. They are reference points by which we can function within and understand our world. You missed the point entirely.

If you agree where is the contention? If you agree that conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures and that Sim is basically the process of adopting fictional meaning structures, how can one demonstrate this adoption if there is no conflict by which they can be demonstrated?

I never said or implied that the SIS contains a CA. Nor did I ever say or imply that CA equals meaning structure. Finally I never said or implied that CA was the ONLY meaning structure – the players do not lose track of the fact that they are “playing” and they retain the capacity to make reference to mechanics. I asserted that CA provides the meaning structure which we as players use to gauge the effectiveness of the discourse – IOW is my/our actions meaningful regarding the addressing of Challenge/Premise/the internal social structures?

The Sim CA basically says adopt all the social meaning structures contained (explicit or otherwise) within the SIS and any additional source material that is relevant (reading the LOTR if one is playing a game set in Middle Earth). That is to be the primary source and delimiter of the character’s meaning structures – he will be tested on them.

As the players never really lose their ordinary time (non-ritual) meaning structures (conscience frex.) this leads to some interesting dynamics. Is the player really ready to have his character (which is an extension of himself or at least his will) commit murder or lay his life down for another or commit treason or scam an old lady out of her house or forgive a bitter enemy?

You’re correct in the process I listed didn’t demonstrate anything about a meaningful conflict. But you disputation actually serves my ends. When a decision must be made because of conflict – as Ralph has defined it – not only is it meaningful, but the new meaning structure (concept) created is meaningful as well. You’re right, its not just any decision, but an important one (again I refer you to Ralph’s definition of conflict.) And that is precisely why Sim must have conflict. Without it there would be no meaningful conflicts and thus no meaning-ful changes to the meaning structures (concepts).

Which is EXACTLY what it means; because overcoming the adversity of gravity is soooo trivial in this case as to make the act of putting the fork in the mouth equally trivial – it effectively says nothing

Not so. A valid question could be, “What would my character do if I decided that he wanted to kill the king?” By your formulation if players playing Gamist did nothing but wait until the DM presented a suitable conflict for them to address Challenge then they wouldn’t have a CA either.

Reactivity or proactivity does not qualify or disqualify play as a CA. You are operating under the old thinking style that players must pursue conflict for a CA to be defined or in evidence. There is nothing in CA that mandates conflict must be pursued, it need only be present.

Yes but - we cannot detect it if it is not behaviourally exhibited. I fully agree that within the context of your argument about conflict, it is consistent that a sim player may encounter conflict passivley, and without exhibiting much berhaviour. Separate from my disagreement with your argument about conflict, I also point out that even if your argument were true, then we would end up back where we started. Despite having defined sim as a relationship to significant conflict, we still have no diagnostic feature. In the face of a significant conflict, the gamist will engage, the Narratavist will emote and address premise, and the Simmer will go "oh, I see"; Sim will once again be identified by the absence of another CA.

This thread has gotten away from me during some time away forced upon me by a computer crash. It does not appear to have closed, though, so I'm giong to extend it a bit.

I do agree with Ralph in that simulationism requires consistency in the controls for the impact of the variables to be properly assessed. That is, the point of internal causality seems to be that it allows us to examine the effects of specific changes, comfortable in the knowledge that the things we did not intentionally change were maintained consistently.

I also want to agree that director stance is compatible with simulationist play, even though it is uncommon; and that it's not necessary for simulationism (or any other agendum) to focus on character specifically. These are artifacts of history, not limitations on the form.

Mike, your point that what matters is whether the outcome feels right, not is right, is well taken, but with one caveat. Would you agree that play sometimes requires that the outcome is right? That is, obviously when we're playing to see what would happen in Middle Earth or Star Wars or James Bond, there are "rules" in force in the world which would create outcomes that seem right for that world but would be silly to expect out here where we live. Yet at least sometimes the point of play is to learn something about what would happen or would have happened in the real world. Neither of the two examples that leap to mind are exactly role playing games, but both are, I think, relevant to simulationism as an agendum.

The first is the real battle wargame simulation. In the hands of hobbyists, this is usually played as a "what if" situation, in which we see whether cancelling Pickett's Charge would have significantly altered the outcome at Gettysburg (sorry--my favorite example of such things), and we're interested in how the battle would have ended with that change, not whether it "feels" like it would have ended that way. In professional use, such games are applied to determine the outcomes of various strategies for battles that have not been fought, from tabletop infantry miniatures to computer simulations of nuclear war. In such cases, we don't want to know whether we get the outcome that feels right; we want the outcome to be reliable enough that we can stake the lives of soldiers on it.

The second is economic modeling, in which we create a rules set (usually in a computer) by which we can input economic events to predict economic trends. Economists do this with hundreds of variables as part of long term business and government planning, but it's reproduced in such games as Sim City--on a less reliable scale, certainly, but with each generation of such a game more reliability is incorporated.

As I say, those aren't role playing games; but they are games that focus on play that sometimes are aspects of role playing games. I would agree that in the majority of play what matters is that the outcome feels right; but as long as you're not excluding those forms of play in which "is right" is the objective, I'm good.

I don't want to overlook Contracycle, whose posts here are excellent. "What he said."

Jay a.k.a. Silmenume wrote: I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.

In response to my assertion that in gamist play that which impedes the player is the challenge that faces the character, Jay wrote: You make a mistake here. Challenge does not impede the player from proving himself, it is the VERY means by which he does prove himself. A Gamist cannot prove himself without Challenge. Unless faced with a Challenge that he must overcome, he cannot demonstrate skill, cunning, guts, or what not. To not have Challenge would impede a Gamist is his search to prove himself.

Hey Gareth,

I will have to respond to your post quote by quote, I hope you don’t mind.

contracycle wrote: Yes... and no. Necessarily, these meaning systems occur in human minds. But equally necessarily, they are externalised in material objects, symbols, structures, signs et al. National flags are an excellent example of an externalised symbol; and we are familiar with the way people can be offended by the abuse of a flag as representative of the abuse of the state.

contracycle wrote: It is important to realise the externality and pseudo-objectivity of these symbols. To the individual, mostly they appear as tangibly real and un-subjective as material objects, becuase thye individual wields no power over the consent granted to those symbols by other individuals.

contracycle wrote: Yes but: inasmuch as my desire are mediated through system, that system is the meaning structure to which we are acculturated. It is because all the players share an understanding of what "strength 6" means that a given player can pursue having strength 6 and that it can be meaning-full. That is why it seems to me that your formulation above is only really a restatement of "system does matter".

from the Provisional Glossary wrote: System -
The means by which imaginary events are established during play, including character creation, resolution of imaginary events, reward procedures, and more. It may be considered to introduce fictional time into the Shared Imagined Space. See also the Lumpley Principle.

Lumpley Principle, the -
"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

Emphasis mine.

from the Provisional Glossary wrote:

As you said a CA is motive. It is also provides a meaning structure. How else can a person determine if their motives are being satisfied?

The desire for food motivates some of my actions; but the desire for food is nnot a meaning structure. To procure food, I engage with and interact with others using a meaning system including such signs as "money" and "supermarket" to obtain from others what I need.

contracycle wrote: It seems to me the value in recognising the similarity between RPG and ritual space lies in the fact that this gives us an opportunity to explore elements of meaning in our own social structures.

contracycle wrote: Given that a system is entirely a meaning structure, it can represent other meaning structures for exploration.

contracycle wrote: In your first paragraph I quoted above, you say that meaning systems are necessarily personal and reside in the human mind; and here you say they are externally objective, impinging symbols. Both are true simultaneously at different levels, and it seems to me you are not clear which level is operational where. Once I have entered into a social contract to adhere to a meaning system it takes on an objectivity and externality because it can be enforced by others, but in our selection of meaning systems we can be entirely subjective and preferential.

contracycle wrote: Where I disagree with you is that demonstration is the point, and that therefore this conflict is significant. And if this conflict is not significant, then it must be operational any time the slightest whim is even mildly furstrated. Thus the diagnostic feature of Sim we would so identify is that "the player shows up and plays". And this seems to be wholly useless.

Valamir wrote: What does it take to realize the potential Conflict in a situation?

1) At least one player must be interested in the situation and committed to seeing the situation change. The engine for that change in most role-playing games is the player’s character.

2) The situation must involve adversity. The change that the player desires to see occur cannot happen without effort or sacrifice. Typically it is the player’s character that experiences the effort or sacrifice.

3) For a Conflict to be relevant there must be consequences that alter the SiS for both success and failure. Whatever the outcome, once a Character gets involved, the SiS will be changed. There must be something at stake.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=130146#130146

contracycle wrote: I can't see how that can be true. Above we have been discussing the way in which socially expressed meaning systems can be - in a sense must be, to meaningful to this discourse as it happens - external to the individual and able to impose themselves on that individual.

contracycle wrote: Yes certainly, the player will be obliged to acknowledge "the Dunedainn view of family" or whatever, as a sample of a fictional social meaning system. But what is the basis for thinking the player will be tested on them?

contracycle wrote: Therre seem to me to be very few that have addressed social meaning structures as the subject of play, and therefore no reason to think that fictional social meaning structures are significant to Sim.

contracycle wrote: One of my Sim interests, as seen in the Wilderness threads, is actually representation of physical tasks and techniques.

contracycle wrote: Your argument would make ALL of sim exploration of character, and I don't think this can be true.

contracycle wrote: But unfrotunately, that falls afoul of my criticism of Ralph's definition of conflict - it looks too much like G and N conflict for me to accept.

contracycle wrote: Firstly, why do you think anyone wants to say anything at all?

contracycle wrote: And secondly, why preference "significant" conflicts and fictional SOCIAL meaning systems?

contracycle wrote: Despite having defined sim as a relationship to significant conflict, we still have no diagnostic feature. In the face of a significant conflict, the gamist will engage, the Narratavist will emote and address premise, and the Simmer will go "oh, I see"; Sim will once again be identified by the absence of another CA.

Hey M. J.,

Sorry to hear about your computer problems. They always suck big time. Welcome back.

M. J. Young wrote:

Jay a.k.a. Silmenume wrote: I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.

Perhaps, though, that's what this thread is addressing. I do think that simulationism is fundamentally an experimental medium, in which we are attempting to learn something from play. Sure, gamism and narrativism ask "what if" questions, but they do so to obtain an answer that is used to achieve something else. Simulationism is seeking the answer for the sake of knowing the answer.

M. J. Young wrote: Ah, but in order to get the glory he must overcome the challenge. Thus although the challenge is the necessary foundation for the glory, it is not the sufficient condition. A player would not prove himself if he said, "Look at that giant. I think I'll go back to the inn and have another pint." A player would not prove himself if seeing the giant he charged full bore at him with a handful of darts and was promptly flattened to the ground by the adversary's foot. The challenge is necessary to the glory of the player, but overcoming the challenge through the character is also necessary to the glory of the player. Thus the challenge which faces the character also impedes the player--he must overcome it to get his desired reward.

• Defeat of an enemy or opponent.• Success in a struggle against difficulties or an obstacle.• The state of having triumphed.

The defeat of an enemy in battle, or of an antagonist in any contest; a gaining of the superiority in any struggle or competition; conquest; triumph; -- the opposite of defeat.

clehrich aka Chris in his essay on Ritual Discourse in RPGs wrote: …RPG play enacts theory, in the sense that standing behind and prior to play is a series of theoretical constructs: system design, GM notes, pre-play agreements and social contract, genre expectations, and other theoretical tools. From this perspective, RPG play acts out this prior structure…
At the same time, the prior structure is to a degree open to challenge within game play, and furthermore does not fully constrain particular game actions, determining a range and a set of priorities rather than laying out a script.

Nevertheless, these two views are always in dynamic, creative tension: the available range of manipulations of ritual signs stands within a structural context only slightly accessible to interior challenge. For example, radical transformation of Catholic liturgy cannot proceed from within ritual performance itself, while small-scale local transformation and contestation are fully expected.

For example, a particular wedding ritual may be used, at a given moment and in a particular contingent historical situation, to enable deep consideration within the congregation about the traditions of marriage, divorce, and childbirth; these same issues can be discussed by the College of Cardinals, as indeed they are, but not at the level of particular people in particular time, since they can only formulate principles and cannot apply them individually.

Precisely the same dynamic obtains in RPG discourse. While a given structural situation of notes, game system, theoretical models, and so forth formulates a contextual model within which play occurs, such structures do not extend to the level of individual particularity that is central to play experience…

Here’s your first error. You are conflating meaning structures which can only exist in the mind (concepts), and signs which are always external, (we are referring to a type of dialogue here - roleplay) employed to evoke a certain concept in a recipient – which is by no means guaranteed.

The externality of the symbols was always part of the argument. Your argument that the material objects inherently contain no objective meaning is what I have been arguing and that is why I have proposed that CA’s do help provide some of that subject meaning.

You being a little disingenuous with your assertion. System with regards to roleplay and The Forge is a means of distributing credibility.

System, via mechanics only (a physical process)

I am not arguing that that “system does matter”, I am arguing that in Sim the meaning structures within the SIS matter – allot. Furthermore I am arguing that that in Sim those fictional social meaning structures are the ones we are supposed to be employing, not the ones provided by Gamism via Challenge addressing or Narrativism via Premise addressing.

The process of granting a player credibility is not the same as generating a sign which is then associated with a concept. These are such completely different things that I am baffled by your arguments.

You’ve done nothing here but create a straw man. I do not know if you did this out of misunderstanding of everything that I have written or that you did this on purpose. We are discussing ROLEPLAYING (a communications process) not the physical needs of a body. They are so staggeringly different as to make me wonder why you bothered to compare the two.

We voluntarily engage in roleplay, we don’t voluntarily create a desire for food. Thus it follows that we engage in roleplay for a reason.

The value in recognizing that roleplay as a ritual process is manifold. Not least of which is giving us the tools do deconstruct what is going when these human beings get together for this particular repast. Much in the same way the Lumpley principle highlighted the fact that in all actuality mechanics was really a process whereby human beings decide what enters into the SIS, so does the recognition that RPGs are a ritual process highlight that roleplay is a communication process where the intent is to create and manipulate a delimited set of symbols for the purpose of creating new concepts – Victory, Theme, the Dream.

You are committing synecdoche here. Not all systems are meaning structures. With regards to the Model, system as defined, is not a meaning structure per say, rather it is a process used for distributing credibility, not creating or manipulating meaning. The Lumpley Principle, aka system, is meaning blind.

I never said that meaning structures were symbols or that meaning structures were externally objective. I have said that meaning structures are necessarily personal and reside in the human mind, and that symbols were external and could only be interpreted because we had internal meaning structures.

Yes we agree to the meaning structures in roleplay. Once one has entered the social contract they can become codified and other players can attempt to enforce them, as meaning structures are in ordinary life, but that does not make them external to an individual.

You make the assertion that the slightest whim qualifies as a conflict. I do not. For the N’th time please refer to Ralph’s description of conflict. In all your counter arguments you have not used any definition of conflict. I have. You have not. “Slightest whim frustrated” does not meet the definition of conflict – thus “the player shows up and plays” is your second straw man argument.

Firstly, you cannot use an argument I disagree with as support for another argument I disagree with. Secondly, I have already pointed out the inadequacies of both your and Ralph’s argument about conflict as I see it. Of course I have not proposed a definition of conflict, because I am not the one claiming that conflict is central and necessary. I fully agree that slightest whim frustrated does NOT make for a meaningful use of the term, and that is exactly why to my mind the argument to conflict fails.

It misses the point of Chris’ essays and my essays. You offer up a counter argument that doesn’t employ all the elements that I am using. Of course slightest whim will poke holes in my argument because slightest whim does not meet the standards of conflict that I am employing. Slightest whim frustrated is not a conflict. Straw man argument. Pointless.

Not at all pointless, because if it then obliges you to move on to “significant conflict”, whereupon you fall afoul of my second criticism: significant conflict looks too much like gamism or narratavism for me to accept. Neither you nor Ralph have successfully dealt with these criticisms; waving the term “conflict” about by itself demonstrates nothing.

It is my contention that any time one of your “significant conflicts” appears, the response to it will be either gam or narr not sim. Can you propose a significant conflict that is definitely sim and can only be responded to by sim, or to which a gam or narr response would be inappropriate?

As I have indicated several times, social meaning structures are not external to an individual; they are memes and can only reside within a mind.

That abstraction’s too fluffy – to me, a mind is an entirely physical entity, and so to say it “resides in the mind” is only to say it is an alien physical entity.

Signs are external, they are not social meaning structures.

I say nonsense, as I have indicated with the traffic code, with currency: signs are inherently only meaningful as a communication process between individuals. They are necessarily social and cannot be anything else. As I often remark, if this were not the case, the fact that most people share the religion of their parents would be inexplicable. The fact that you speak the same language as the people you grow up with would also be inexplicable. The fact that you and the grocer both share an understanding of the dollar note would be inexplicable. Meaning systems are social or nothing at all.

The rest of your analysis falls apart because it is based on the erroneous assumption that meaning structures exist outside of minds. That simply cannot be. Period. Signs exist outside of individuals, but not meaning structures.

Yes we have a fundamental disagreement there. It also seems to me this contradicts your own argument at multiple points – at the very least, there cannot be communication if meaning is not shared, and yet you claim that RPG is a communication process. The same applies to all aspects of the ritual theory as I see it; it must proceed on the presumption that the participants do all share the same set of signs and conventions and referrants for the ritual to be meaning-full. It seems to me that you are confusing meaning SYSTEMS with private ethics and morals. But all societies do educate their children in ethics and morals, and these cultural meaning systems are definitely external to the individual.

Because he is playing Sim. Why should he think that he would never be tested?

This in response to the proposition of a character held to the nominal “fictional meaning structure” that is “the dunedain view of family”.

What is it about Sim that elads you to expect that “the dunedain view of family” will ever arise in play? Or indeed, ANY fictional meaning structure?

The reason I think it is quite plausible that such a player will never be tested is because in my experience RPG as a hobby is singularly uninterested in such things. That is why we ended up with the absurdity of the corner magicke shoppe or the ridiculously postmodern multicultural polyglot of Waterdeep. By default, most sim appears to me to have been simulation of the world, of cause and effect, of physical things, that presents little in the way of ethical or moral problems. It very seldom even addresses simulation of social problems. So I see no basis for thinking this is a prominent, inherent quality of sim play; in my experience, it simply does not happen.

WHEN that happens, I would expect it’s likely to be Narr. Therefore I ask again: what is the reason you have for thinking that in actual sim play, play will be purposefully directed to explore “the dunedain view of family” or any other meaning system that nominally exists in the game world?

That particular phrase as presented here says absolutely nothing about CA. It merely mentions mechanics.

Right. You’ll note a gamist sub-CA is Purist for System, so mechanics are not beyond exploration nor beyond CA. But you are mistaken I think to see this interest as an interest primarily in mechanics – I want to learn about the things in the game THROUGH the mechanics. Why is that not a suitable expression of a CA?

Because we are engaged in a ritual dialogue. Since it is a voluntary ritual dialogue one can only assume that a player is doing so for a reason. That reason is what informs his dialogue – we call that Creative Agenda. If you don’t subscribe to the idea that roleplay is a ritual discourse then we cannot come to a consensus.

But Sil, you are conceding my point here: all your verbiage about meaning is reduced to the expression of a CA, which we already know. That’s why I don’t understand what point this is supposed to achieve. And I do agree that RPG is a ritualised discourse but think you misunderstand much of what this indicates.

But you still have not answered the question I asked, to whit, why do we think the player has something to say? There are many rituals in the majority of participants are essentially observers or functionaries; why do you insist that participating is indicative of a desire to make a statement? That seems to have no basis. You are ruling out the participationary role peremptorily and not explaining why this should occur.

And secondly, why preference "significant" conflicts and fictional SOCIAL meaning systems?

Because those conflicts which are “significant” to a Gamist are Challenge and those conflicts that are “significant” to a Narrativist are Premise and those conflicts which are not “significant” are not engaged and are not recognized as even being conflicts and are thus not “significant”.[qupte]

I’m afraid this is totally circular. I’m aware that non-significant conflicts are non-significant, that’s why I asked the question. Why does your construction place special emphasis on significant conflicts? That appears to have no basis either, at least none that I can see without calling on Narr or Gam to explain “significant”.

I say social because meaning systems can only exist in minds. In roleplay the only other minds are the fictional ones in the Characters. Definitionally, there can be no meaning structures outside of minds. Social meaning structures refers to that most meaning structures are socially acculturated.

There I believe is your multiple level error. There are no character minds – characters do not exist. There are only player minds. Any meaning systems must exist in those player minds, not in the notional character minds. It seems to me that you are imagining a ritual within a ritual.

And, above you once again explicitly denied that meaning systems can be imposed on individuals, and here you acknowledge again that you can indeed be acculturated to social meaning systems – like the meaning systems of currency of traffic.

Not so. A Sim player, as opposed to a tourist player, will engage in conflict.

You are arguing your conclusion again. This has not been demonstrated at all; in fact I don’t even think the argument for it is coherent or sensible. Certainly as a simple assertion, it’s unacceptable; it reduces the dialogue to “T’is/T’isn’t”.

In regard to Darwin, it is my understanding that the trip on the Beagle was for other purposes. Much like Paul Bettany's doctor in Master and Commander, Darwin was a functional member of the crew who took notes and created drawings of fauna and flora on the islands; it was from these data points that he subsequently derived the theory which explained them. He didn't start with the question and look for the answer. He started with a questioning attitude, gathered as much information as possible, and then realized he had an answer amidst what he had gathered.

That I think says something to understanding simulationism. Perhaps we are attempting to create and test theories. But what is that other than achieving a greater understanding of the data? We seek to discover for discovery's sake.

I found the more recent version of The Time Machine disappointing for a lot of reasons (detailed elsewhere). High among these (and cause of many of them) was the restructuring of the character of Alexander Hartdegen. In the film, he is a shy romantically involved but distracted professor who devotes himself to time travel specifically to find a way to change the past and save his fiancee. In the book, he is another of the wealthy tinkerers, the independent scientist-inventors that captivated the imagination of the nineteenth century audience. In the book he needs no better reason for his adventure in time than the pursuit of knowledge. He travels to the future (and never to the past, save only to return to his own starting point before again venturing into the future near the end of the story), solely to learn what the future will reveal. He is driven into his adventures by the desire to know. He theorizes about the causes of that which he discovers, but the theories are rather a way of organizing the information so that he understands it better than the objective of the investigation.

It is clear from spot interviews that the filmmakers made this change intentionally. They believed that the modern audience would be unable to relate to the story of a man who acted solely for the sake of gaining knowledge. That's not the twentieth century mind. We had to be given a reason for him to care about time travel; doing it in the pursuit of knowledge was not sufficient or believable for the modern audience.

I feel like you're representing the modern audience here, Jay. You can't accept that Hartdegen built the time machine solely so that he could learn what was going to happen in the future, or that Frankenstein created his monster to see whether he could, or any of the other heroes of science and invention of that age. Nor can you believe that anyone would play a role playing game solely to learn about the elements of exploration--to cross the road to get to the other side, to go over the mountain to see what he could see, to play solely for the joy of discovery. Certainly discovering and creating theories to explain what is discovered adds to that; but in the end those are just that which is discovered, taken to a greater level. I'm reminded that when I was exploring NagaWorld, I determined that the yellow nagas were yellow because at some point in their development they had been exposed to sulfur, a mineral element I had not yet found. I began searching for the sulfur. I never found it; I didn't learn where it was until much later, when I helped E. R. Jones put the world to paper. I found many other things in the process of searching, and developed additional theories to explain the world in which I was stranded. It would have been satisfying to find the source of the sulfur, but it was equally satisfying to find what I did find, and understand secrets of that universe that no one before me had learned. Discovery may lead to theories and models, but these only illustrate what is meant by such phrases as "exploration squared"--exploring for the purpose of understanding.

Silmenume wrote: The problem with that process with regards to Exploration is that we can never reset the conditions exactly (or make the differences as close to zero as possible) and thus eliminate the effects of other variables.

Jay wrote:

Quoting what I wrote: ...Thus the challenge which faces the character also impedes the player--he must overcome it to get his desired reward.

That a player may fail does not negate the centrality of Challenge to Victory....

Your argument (as I understand it) avers that that conflict keeps the player from Victory. Definitionally impossible.

contracycle wrote:

We voluntarily engage in roleplay, we don’t voluntarily create a desire for food. Thus it follows that we engage in roleplay for a reason.

That seems to me main issue I have with your argument – your apparent elevation of RPG to higher plane of “meaning” when none such seems required to me. This is why I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean by meaning in this context, and why I have given examples in which ritualised structures are used for essentially mundane purposes.

• A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.• Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.

Synonyms: idea, thought, notion, concept, conception
These nouns refer to what is formed or represented in the mind as the product of mental activity. Idea has the widest range: “Human history is in essence a history of ideas” (H.G. Wells). Thought is distinctively intellectual and stresses contemplation and reasoning: “Language is the dress of thought” (Samuel Johnson). Notion often refers to a vague, general, or even fanciful idea: “She certainly has some notion of drawing” (Rudyard Kipling). Concept and conception are applied to mental formulations on a broad scale…

Underlining by me.

clehrich from his thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] wrote: If you recall, in the ritual article I talked about the old initiation-rite model, made most famous by Victor W. Turner: Separation, Liminality (or Margin), Aggregation. This is really a specific version of an older division: the Sacred and the Profane (on which see Durkheim especially, but also Eliade’s book of the same title).² The idea is that “ritual space” and “ritual time” are in some sense different, distinct from other kinds of space and time. Now that notion of “sacred” shouldn’t be taken to mean “holy” — as A. R. Radcliffe-Brown pointed out, it really just means “marked” by special interest; Lévi-Strauss drew an analogy to terms that are “stressed” in language.³…

So back to RPG’s, what does this mean? Well, it means that from an exterior standpoint, there isn’t any absolute way to define “play” as something inherently different from other modes of behavior. This is why, for example, nobody has yet come up with a workable and fully accepted definition of RPG’s or “play”: there’s nothing there to define! …This is because “play” isn’t a thing: it’s just practice, like all other practice. Why do we think of it as different? Ritualization. That’s precisely what makes RPG gaming fundamentally ritual action: we are quite deeply invested in the idea that such practice is distinctive and different, and are even willing to go to considerable lengths to prove this.

…Given that there is no inherent ontological status to ritual or gaming (or text, quite importantly, or to take another example, law), that is, there is no absolute difference between these things and other modes of practice, why do we see them as so different? Furthermore, how do we keep them distinct and discrete, to such a degree that in fact we will stake identities and other things on this dubious basis? …

A couple posts back in this thread, I talked about semiotic logic, and a circularity that arises when you move from Aabduction to Induction. Let me recap for a sec:

Abduction: Given a Rule (x -> y) and a Result (y), we Abduce a Case (x)
Induction: Given a Case (x) and a Result (y), we Induce a Rule (x -> y)

Now this becomes circular if done in this order, because:

Abduction: Given a -> b and b, therefore a
Induction: Given a and c (some other present factor), therefore a -> c
But we’ve never actually established certainly that a is actually true. We now have a rule that associates an uncertain Case with a potentially random, unrelated fact about the current example.

The thing is, we’re not stupid. We recognize, not exactly consciously perhaps, that this logic is dubious. So what we do is go look for d, e, f, and g – further factors that occur in the present instance. If we get lots of these, we feel justified about our logic, although it’s totally invalid.

contracycle wrote: Yes we have a fundamental disagreement there. It also seems to me this contradicts your own argument at multiple points – at the very least, there cannot be communication if meaning is not shared, and yet you claim that RPG is a communication process. The same applies to all aspects of the ritual theory as I see it; it must proceed on the presumption that the participants do all share the same set of signs and conventions and referrants for the ritual to be meaning-full.

contracycle wrote: It seems to me that you are confusing meaning SYSTEMS with private ethics and morals.

clehrich wrote: Now when a young woman gets up in the morning, she can opt to dress like this. Why would she do so?

To look sexy
To piss off more conservative people
To fit in with a desired crowd
To show off her body
To show that she feels sexy
To show that she feels free about her body

And all of these might be true, simultaneously, or only some, or possibly others.

Now in a loose, simple sense, showing off your underpants has something to do with sex. If a rather conservative person were to characterize the style, he or she might call it “slutty,” meaning that in some sense it implies the young woman’s sexual availability.

clehrich wrote: The social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures.

This is the social theory of knowledge, which really begins with Durkheim. The old fight was between the a priorists, e.g. Kant and his followers, and the empiricists, e.g. Hume and his various types of followers-up. Durkheim proposed the encounter with "savage" tribes as a way to challenge both views and propose a social theory.

Very simplistically, the a priorists argued that most major categories of human knowledge arose from inherent, hard-wired, a priori structures of the mind. The problem posed by "savages" is this: if it's hard-wired, how come there are so many radically different views of things like time, space, and so forth?

Similarly simplistically, the empiricists argued that major categories arose from contact with empirical reality; that is, you encounter real things and you come up with your ideas in reaction. The problem posed by "savages" is this: if it's all empirical reaction, how come people agree about so much?

In short, Durkheim argued that the a priorists and the empiricists had proposed radical alternatives, but that real people live in between. They have categorical notions sort of semi-embedded, and they encounter real things and think about them, but most of all and most importantly, they are told what to think by their cultures. If this seems obvious, that's because Durkheim was so devastatingly important: he was pretty much the first to argue this perspective effectively, and one of the engineers of the "culture" concept.

So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place.

contracycle wrote: I’m afraid this is totally circular. I’m aware that non-significant conflicts are non-significant, that’s why I asked the question. Why does your construction place special emphasis on significant conflicts?

contracycle wrote:

I say social because meaning systems can only exist in minds. In roleplay the only other minds are the fictional ones in the Characters. Definitionally, there can be no meaning structures outside of minds. Social meaning structures refers to that most meaning structures are socially acculturated.

There I believe is your multiple level error. There are no character minds – characters do not exist. There are only player minds. Any meaning systems must exist in those player minds, not in the notional character minds. It seems to me that you are imagining a ritual within a ritual.

contracycle wrote: And, above you once again explicitly denied that meaning systems can be imposed on individuals, and here you acknowledge again that you can indeed be acculturated to social meaning systems – like the meaning systems of currency of traffic.

contracycle wrote: Firstly, you cannot use an argument I disagree with as support for another argument I disagree with. Secondly, I have already pointed out the inadequacies of both your and Ralph’s argument about conflict as I see it. Of course I have not proposed a definition of conflict, because I am not the one claiming that conflict is central and necessary.

contracycle wrote:

Not so. A Sim player, as opposed to a tourist player, will engage in conflict.

You are arguing your conclusion again. This has not been demonstrated at all; in fact I don’t even think the argument for it is coherent or sensible. Certainly as a simple assertion, it’s unacceptable; it reduces the dialogue to “T’is/T’isn’t”.

Silmenume wrote:
These posts have grown monstrously long as every little detail is picked apart and the main point is lost. There is too much focus on the trees and not any effort to look at the forest. I can only blame myself for my verbosity, but as this conversation has degraded into a deconstructive effort than one of constructive engagement, I’m not sure how to continue. There has been little or no attempt seeing if any common ground on ideas can be had or where we might go from here in the wild mad dash to shoot every sentence full of holes. Maybe I'm a terrible poster. Maybe you're not making an effort to the ideas behind the words. Maybe its both. However, it is precisely because this has degenerated into a deconstruction fest, not one constructive notion about Sim or roleplay was brought to bear. What a collosal waste of bandwidth.

Jeepers.

I realize that this thread is probably pretty much dead for the moment, and I'm not going to try get in any "digs" or anything here. In a few days, when I've had time to read through the whole thread a couple more times -- once is definitely not enough -- I'll either start a new thread or join in on whatever has become of this one.

Just so you know, I think Jay is on to something really important, but I'm not quite sure what it is. I'm not saying I think he's completely right. But I do think that this discussion is very important, and some of the most sophisticated thinking I've seen on the Big Model. I'm flattered to have been indirectly involved in that discussion, but it's most definitely not something I can sort of step in on and say, "No, you got this or that idea of mine wrong, and the answer is X." This is really hairy.

Which is very cool and exciting! I'm looking forward to where this all goes from here, and will be participating in it now that I'm back from my summertime coffin. :>