Note that this is, in no way, a response to the entireity of the remarkably in-depth essay that Ron just posted, which will probably take months to digest. Rather, it is a reponse to the final paragraph of the essay, entitled "The Hard Question."

I am deeply uncertain that Simulationist play is not "clear and automatic" in the way that Narrativist and Gamist play both are. I believe that much of childhood make-believe stems simply from a desire to explore an imagined space, no more and no less, and that Sim play represents an outgrowth of this fundamental.

Now, we could argue whether or not children's make-believe games are truly a form of role-playing until we were all blue in the face, and get nowhere. I think that what is most important for this discussion is that these games do rely upon the exploration/creation of a shared imagined space and, in that regard, are similar to a role-playing game, despite the lack of GM, players, hard-and-fast-rules, exploration goals, or roles to play that inform RPGs. (Interesting tangent: there are many creative endeavors that involve a shared imagined space that are not RPGs. Where are the lines?)

Most, if not all, people do this as children. This is a natural skill or, if it isn't, then it is learned at a very young age. While some forms of this play involve some degree of Step-on-Uppish competition, it is not necessary to gameplay nor is it, necessarily, the goal of the participants. Particularly when these games are played with adults (see below) there is little-to-no competition. So what are they doing? Actively exploring an imagined space, that's what!

Actual Play example to follow:

I spent the majority of today hanging out with a 3-year-old girl, which is why my mind is set in this direction. We did a lot of this sort of imagined play, largely I think because I was an adult that would participate willingly. Mostly what we did consisted of play-acting some of her favorite activities, or hiding from lions, on the veldt. (One of us would say, "There's a lion! (or two, or three)" and we would hide under the table and take turns checking if it had gone away yet. Later on, Simba of Disney fame entered the picture, and so the additional specificer of "bad lions" was necessary. Or one of us would say, "I have some (paint, water, juice) and then we would pantomime the actions associated with the object.)

This is not competitive play, in any sense, nor is it particularly premiseful. It seems to me that she was exploring an imaginary space simply because it was more fun than the real world for her at the time (waiting in line, or on a bus, or some such) and she was looking for a pass time activity.

I think that the roots of simulationist play can be found in this sort of activity, just as the roots of narrativism lie in story-telling activities and gamism lie in competition. I see no reason (other than cultural preconceptions about children and adults) that adult players to role-playing games cannot draw on this experience for Sim-play. In fact, most new role-players I have seen draw either on this experience or the experience of video-games, with some drawing on experience as an author/script-writer/etc.

Now, the distance between this play and the sort of dreck that is condemned in the last paragraph of the essay is very large, and much larger than the distance between Nar, Gam and their respective roots. Why this is true, and what caused it, would be interesting topics for discussion. I think that there are "pure-sim" games which tap directly into this human skill (say, Universalis) and there are "canon-sim" games which regurgitate someone else's creativity for you to explore.

Thoughts? Did I misconceive of something massive?

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. My life for the next few days is more hectic than normal, so apologies for any slow response.

Hi Ben,

One possible response to this point - and it's a familiar one to me, having been at the heart of Exploration as proposed by the Scarlet Jester, years ago - is as follows.

Yes, little kids play make-believe. They do so as an ontogenetic step in the processes of developing Step On Up and Story Now competency (if you'll spot me the abomination of applying these terms at a general level, rather than role-playing games alone).

The harshest and most insulting version of this response would be to say, "Dedicated Simulationist play is to role-playing as Let's Play Doctor would be to sex, if a certain minority of adults insisted on it as the primary activity."

I do not subscribe to this extremely harsh and insulting version of the point. But I do think that the "kids do it!" argument and especially the implicit Naturalism underlying it are highly questionable and are only convincing at an uncritical level.

Best,
Ron

My kid's unstructured play becomes more Premise-sophisticated as he gets older. Even when he was 3 or 4, family relationships figured prominently - sometimes we just hid from lions, yes, but as often we hid from a family of lions, or we were a family hiding from the lions, and that clearly meant something to him. Now he's all about loyalty and following The Code (whatever the code in play happens to be this week), and he gets irritated when his little brother can't keep up with the moral judgements.

He also gets irritated when his little brother makes the bad guys too easy. I overheard him the other day saying, "no! You can't just beat him like that. It has to be a fight!" It made me grin. The peril of unstructured drama, I know you well. I wanted to give them dice.

-Vincent

Ron Edwards wrote: Yes, little kids play make-believe. They do so as an ontogenetic step in the processes of developing Step On Up and Story Now competency (if you'll spot me the abomination of applying these terms at a general level, rather than role-playing games alone).

The harshest and most insulting version of this response would be to say, "Dedicated Simulationist play is to role-playing as Let's Play Doctor would be to sex, if a certain minority of adults insisted on it as the primary activity."

Hi John,

The whole "validity" thing needs to get tossed out of the discussion. It's a worthless exercise, and I think you're not perceiving anxiety, but rather imposing it.

My post criticizes the Naturalism inherent in Ben's suggestion. It does not criticize the desire to play in a Simulationist fashion.

In other words, make-believe is a sign of immature stage of development which people should grow out of. So really this seems like a long route to saying "Make-believe? That's kids stuff" -- just like the harsh response.

Ron Edwards wrote: I thought this tactic was pretty low back in school, and continue to think so now. I suggest not using it at the Forge again.

(Long, slow breath) OK, let me dive into this deep water for a bit . . .

I unquestionably agree with Ron to this extent - any claim that this earlier "source" for Sim play makes it better and/or MORE natural than Nar or Game is not credible. And I remember seeing that that claim made. But I personally don't see that Ben is making it in his post - I see him attempting to establish that Sim is no LESS "clear and automatic."

I think Ron's claim is that Ben is both right and wrong on this. In the relevant section of the essay, Ron focuses a bit more on the wrong part, but even there he acknowledges that the right part exists.

How do I figure the "both right and wrong" thing here? Let me try this - does the fact (and for now, I'll just accept it as a fact) that the somewhat analogous general human development moves through Sim to Nar and Game actually mean anything about Sim RPG play? I think Ron is saying "yes, that means something" (Ben is wrong) - but he is NOT saying "it means Sim is immature and pointless" (Ben is right). Ron is saying that it means Sim play often takes more "work" because you need to watch for and guard against two very automatic responses to Exploration - Step on Up and Story Now.

The Dream has its own rewards - there is value it can deliver entirely independant of the rejection of Nar and Game - but it's valuable to look at ALL the reasons why that rejection might take place. A very common (though by no means all-pervasive) one, it seems to me, would be the many disfunctions that can arise when you try to Step on Up or do Story Now - undesired Hard Core, "story" domination by the GM, and etc. Don't do Nar/Game, prioritize Sim, and that can't happen (other things can, but that's a seperate issue). This can "train" people to do Sim, not out of cannonical fandom-appreciation or desire for pastiche, but through simple negative reinforcement. Another option would be to fix the disfunction and successfully do Step on Up or Story Now - but that's only a good option if Step on Up or Story Now interest you more than the creation/discovery of an imagined environment in The Dream.

Many other possibilities for "why Sim happens" exist. When Ron says "based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche", I'm not sure I agree with the "mainly" (and would have said as much if my analysis of the draft had gotten that far - sorry, Ron), but . . . he does NOT say "exclusively", and I certainly have seen that as a "why" in a number of groups I've played with over the years.

What I read Ron's "hard question" sections as doing is asking each of us to look at those issues and find which answer fits for us as individuals. The reason to point out that Sim is less clear and automatic (though still no less powerful/rewarding/valid/insert-positive-word-here) is that it helps illuminate the nature of the priority. That Sim is less clear and automatic can be a STRENGTH rather than a weakness. Make sure you are using it as such in your Sim play, and your play will be more satisfying.

That's my read,

Gordon

[EDIT to clarify - "sorry, Ron" in my parenthetical comment means "sorry I wasn't able to comment on the draft in further depth before you published it", not "sorry to disagree with you, you bad-thinking weenie poo-poo man, but you're wrong Wrong WRONG." Or anything remotely like it.]

Hi Kirt,

I mean, if Simulationism is so unnatural, why is it such a dominant mode?

xiombarg wrote: With honestly no offense intended, Ron, I saw the same implicit assumption in your statement that John did, tho I didn't come up with any "obvious counter". I'm not sure he was using a rhetorical tactic at all, but honestly trying to understand and deconstruct your point.

Hi Joshua,

Welcome! Yes, you nailed the point. So did Gordon.

Best,
Ron

Let me take a stab at this - understanding that I was only at the U of C for one year, so can't necessarily run with the big boys.

I'm wondering a little bit about two things.

1) Is this whole thread confusing Sim with Exploration? Little kids explore imaginative space. Not only Freud in certain moods but some of the major figures of near-contemporary Continental (Hans-Georg Gadamer, RIP) and Analytic (Kendall Walton) aesthetics have put child's play front and center as part of their theories of art.

That is, what I'm wondering is whether what the little kids are actually doing is 'prioritized' in any sense at all. Whether what they're doing isn't rather working in imaginative space more generally, that is, Exploring.

2) That said, I sort of agree with Ben's original point as I understood it, in that the wonderful Narrativism essay seems to imply that Simulationism is somehow 'less natural' than other modes. (I got that out of it too.) I hate to see the first major debate over such an important contribution be over such a minor detail of the essay, but I'm just not sure it's true. I mean, first of all, it's a statistical question that none of us really know the answer to - once kids learn to explore, do most of them make a game out of exploring to compete for social status, or try to make stories, or just wonder more deeply about different elements of their exploration? Beats the fuck out of me, I'm not a social scientist and haven't done the research. But that said, I don't see the third option as especially 'unnatural' - I wouldn't be surprised if it came in third once the data is in, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a close third. I spent a lot of time just staring at maps I drew wondering what was in the empty spaces.

Calithena wrote: Is this whole thread confusing Sim with Exploration? Little kids explore imaginative space. Not only Freud in certain moods but some of the major figures of near-contemporary Continental (Hans-Georg Gadamer, RIP) and Analytic (Kendall Walton) aesthetics have put child's play front and center as part of their theories of art.

That is, what I'm wondering is whether what the little kids are actually doing is 'prioritized' in any sense at all. Whether what they're doing isn't rather working in imaginative space more generally, that is, Exploring.

Hello,

I should clarify that the word "natural" is a curse and a blight, and I never utilize it in any form - neither explicitly nor by implication. If you're reading "natural" into my discussion, you're bringin' it all by yourself.

I should also clarify the following.

1. Non-Narrativist play which produces a story does not necessarily produce pastiche. It often does, and there are some easy-to-understand reasons why it tends that way.

2. Narrativist play, which does tend to produce stories reliably, may well produce pastiche in doing so. However, it lacks some of the reasons that other forms of play tend to produce pastiche.

Finally, I have not said that Simulationist play is infantile. I have said that recognizing cognitive activity that looks related to it in infantile/juvenile behavior is not evidence for any conclusion whatsoever.

I see a real bog here, about a big, big issue. That bog is "validity." I'll say here, as I always have, that "validity" of modes of play is a crap issue. The word only means, "has value." As a legal leisure activity, role-playing of whatever sort therefore is "valid" if you and your friends like it. No possible doubt can be held as to this conclusion; it's axiomatic.

In the absence of that doubt, there can likewise be no fear that someone is coming along to remove "validity" from any given mode of play. Any observation about that mode can be judged on the basis of its rigor and correspondence with your own experiences.

Get rid of the doubt, get rid of the fear, and quit looking for hints of the removal in basic, observational points. Sim play can be "different," and that can be OK.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I should clarify that the word "natural" is a curse and a blight, and I never utilize it in any form - neither explicitly nor by implication. If you're reading "natural" into my discussion, you're bringin' it all by yourself.
...
I'll say here, as I always have, that "validity" of modes of play is a crap issue. The word only means, "has value." As a legal leisure activity, role-playing of whatever sort therefore is "valid" if you and your friends like it.

I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to.

An experience of mine which tends to support Ron's contention about peoples' -forgive the term- natural inclinations when it comes to this sort of game comes from a SOAP game I ran at a convention a couple of years back.

I wound up with, I believe, six players, all but one of them the wives/girlfriends or mothers, just keeping their 'gamer' kin company. So they were about as newbie as you can get.

First, I was universally told that they hadn't realized that THIS was what role-playing was - that it was a lot more fun than it had seemed when they'd eavesdropped on their kin.

Next, for the first game, while SOAP doesn't require a GM, I'd stayed out so that I could referee the rules; I wasn't sure that doing it entirely GMless would work. After the first game was over, everyone wanted to play again - and they, without any prompting on my part, insisted that I join in. It was immediately obvious to them that my role in the first game was superfluous. They also spontaneously came up with a few modifications to the game - making up secrets for other people, and getting points for providing clues to -those-, for instance.

My point here is that this is a group of people who previously had "known" that they didn't like role-playing, and had little experience with it. What this experience primarily says is that what they didn't like was traditional simulationist role-playing - and further, that they had a strong intuitive grasp of how things worked when presented with an alternative.

- James

Hello,

Quick side point: James, if you can present how you achieved getting the spousal/partner community into the action of really playing, during that con, that would be incredibly helpful. Actual Play would be the place, I think.

Best,
Ron

I think that Ben's initial suggestion does hold some merit, child like imagination could very well be the clear link to simulationism though maybe not exclusively. Ron disregards it as a step in developing towards gamism or narrativism but I dont think that is necessarily so, I believe imagination can be it's own end and not a step towards one of the other agendas.

For me at least Simulationism seems to be an attempt to answer the question "What would happen if ...?" It's much like the child pretending to be a lion, what would happen if we were lions in the desert? I think it carries on into adult behaviour and is evident in certain works of fiction most clearly the alternate history fiction, What would happen if the South won the Civil War? Most importantly for the development of RPG's it translated into miniature wargaming.

When we think of war games now Warhammer quickly comes to mind with it's inherent game like structure but the initial appeal for many miniature gamers was in answering the "What would happen if..?" question. What would happen if Napoleon had tried x maneuver at Waterloo rather than y? Sure for many it was a game like experience and trying to win the battles was why they were there, but it was also answering the what if question and for many that was the important part.

I think this is a strong reason why simulationist mechanics became such a core element of RPG's. The linking of the game and sim background put those elements into rpgs whereas there wasnt a huge basis of dramatic writers initially drawn into the scene because there was no automatic hook for them. They weren't playing games to answer the what if question they were writing their stories influenced by that same child like imagination but towards a different end. They were shut out of the process initially but as is evident by this web site that is changing.

james_west wrote: My point here is that this is a group of people who previously had "known" that they didn't like role-playing, and had little experience with it. What this experience primarily says is that what they didn't like was traditional simulationist role-playing - and further, that they had a strong intuitive grasp of how things worked when presented with an alternative.

Cool thread. I think that my original point was lost at about post #2, though, so here's me trying to clarify.

Ron Edwards wrote: I do not subscribe to this extremely harsh and insulting version of the point. But I do think that the "kids do it!" argument and especially the implicit Naturalism underlying it are highly questionable and are only convincing at an uncritical level.

First, a bit of possibly redundant context:

Ben Lehman wrote: My point is, simply, that Sim play seems to me to be as "automatic" as Gamist or Narrativist play -- all people have a context for it, even if it isn't something that they do in their daily life, which is what I assume by your statement of those two forms being "automatic" means. That was the entireity of the point. The bugaboo about "naturalness" is, in fact, a bugaboo, and it's not what I'm talking about.

He referred to Ron, who, in the essay, wrote: I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities. Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group members.

Ben wrote: So I guess my question is -- is the term "automatic" used in that paragraph for that meaning? If not, what is your meaning?

Hi, Chris -

I think that passage in Ron's essay is precisely what's generating a lot of the reactions on the thread.

(By the way, just so there's no confusion: I'm the person who has been posting under 'Calithena'. I've decided to change my ID for a variety of reasons.)

I think part of what's happening here is as follows. If you take Ron's statement as an in-the-context-of-actual-gaming, rough empirical generalization about what happens to a lot of players, it's true. Lots of gamers do come to the table with desires and expectations that would be more straightforwardly satisfied by play that pushes more heavily in a Gamist or Narrativist direction. Then a painful process of socialization occurs where they learn that various types of play that best facilitate Simulationism are 'right'. Ouija board role playing is one particularly painful such process; ostracization of 'munchkins' who apply their experience from Monopoly and chess straightforwardly to RPGs, without even bothering to try to explain the group's Social Contract (disguised as the 'better way to play', etc.) is another; and so on. Most of us experienced such training at some point, I think. I certainly did, and I inflicted it on many in high school - creating the usual incaste/outcaste mix between those who got it and those who didn't, which in turn was used to reinforce my status as RPG club president, etc. Many potential gamers do leave during this period because heavy Sim is not for them and they connect that with RPGing more generally.

On the other hand, if you take it as a universal claim about what is and isn't normal behavior for people who come to the gaming table, it's probably false. Clearly some people must be simulationist by 'nature' rather than by 'habit' or we wouldn't have gotten any Sim play to begin with, or only in some very rarefied and obscure contexts. (Other posts have filled in the argument here in a variety of ways already, so I won't rehash.)

Ron's strong language here does push one in the direction of this stronger interpretation. But if you add 'for many gamers' after the first 'are' or 'automatic', and again after 'priorities' or 'trained' in the second sentence, Ron's paragraph becomes pretty straightforwardly true, I think, and the point it's making is an important one.

Best,

Sean
who's mildly amazed that there are now at least four former U of C students on this thread

Is there a difference between playing and gaming? Some sociologists see rule-bound games as a subset of play (Huizinga and Callois). The deciding factor is the presence or absence of "agon" or competition.

In Gamism I can win or loose. In Narrativism I don't necessarily beat out competitors but I do have a chance to win the recognition of my fellow players for being inventive or quick to respond.

How does Exploring an imaginative space become gaming, or gaming inside a Simulation. Where is the agon? To see who knows the most about the setting

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Ben,


I'm wondering a little bit about two things.

1) Is this whole thread confusing Sim with Exploration? Little kids explore imaginative space. Not only Freud in certain moods but some of the major figures of near-contemporary Continental (Hans-Georg Gadamer, RIP) and Analytic (Kendall Walton) aesthetics have put child's play front and center as part of their theories of art.

That is, what I'm wondering is whether what the little kids are actually doing is 'prioritized' in any sense at all. Whether what they're doing isn't rather working in imaginative space more generally, that is, Exploring.

Hello,

Sean's nailed it, for me.

Ben, to answer your direct question, I'll put it this way.

People develop in such a way that culminates in X and Y. As they do so, they exhibit (um...) B along the way, quite necessarily.

Now, they get together to do something. They typically bring X and/or Y to it. Then, in some cases, the people they've joined say, "Oh, we're doing B."

That's going to be tricky for a lot of people. Do they recognize B? Probably, or maybe with a little squinting. Do they want to do B? Good question, and I suggest that a fair number's answer is, Probably not.

Does this mean B is bad, dumb, infantile, to be matured from? Nope. Does it mean B is probably the least recommended for entry-level to the activity? Yeah, it does. Does it mean that presenting B as the basic entry-level is excluding a lot of people from the activity? Yeah, I think so.

Does that cover it, Ben?

I've written extensively in the past about why and how Simulationist play is perceived as most common and hence most desirable or enjoyable across the hobby, and why I think that perception is mistaken.

Best,
Ron

Sean and Ron have stated the position pretty clearly, I think, but I maintain that it doesn't entirely answer the question.

• Socialization, human factors, etc. all produce N + G -like behaviors.
• People first encountering games therefore (implicitly) assume N + G.
• Often, further socialization tells them to do S.
• Therefore, S is less "clear and automatic."
• None of which should be taken to mean that S is better or worse.

Right?

In order for this to be true, the following also must be true:

• The only significant or common form of socialization that produces S-like behavior is RPG's.

Personally, I doubt this very much, but the issue here is clarification. Ron, is this what you mean?

Chris Lehrich

I'm trying to work somethings out in my own mind so pardon me if you've all been over this a million times but I think I'm starting to understand what's actually being said but have the need to put it into my own words.

The problem with Simulationism is that it seems to exist without purpose. The Gamist seeks challenge within an imaginary setting, he desires to win. The Narrativist seeks to address a premise within the imaginary setting, to create a meaningful story. The Simulationist has no goal beyond existing within the imaginary setting, the mode has become the goal.

So while the childs make-believe or daydreaming in adults may give a good idea of what a simulationist gets from gaming it still doesnt answer what does the simulationist hope to achieve within this imagined setting.

You just said what I have been spending too much mental energy to get my head around.

Caldis wrote:
So while the child's make-believe or daydreaming in adults may give a good idea of what a simulationist gets from gaming it still doesnt answer what does the simulationist hope to achieve within this imagined setting.

Chris -

I think that's just pushing the same 'absolutized' reading back a stage. (I was there myself earlier in the thread though, so the point's worth making, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not in the 'made' category at this point.) If you put words like 'many' and 'most' and 'some' in front of your various premises, I'd endorse them, but then the conclusion wouldn't follow any more, except maybe with a 'usually' or a 'more often than you might think', but then I don't see what the problem is any more.

All that understood, I do think that there are Sim-like behaviors that occur in focused children's play - maybe it's even just Sim, if what little kids are doing is actually just freeform LARP - that's another thread - and, again, that probably some people come to RPing looking for specifically super-tight focus on Exploration, without the training. This doesn't change the fact that lots of people don't - I'd guess that Ron's right that the majority don't - and that the trends Ron's describing are real ones. (Furthermore, they're ones that help perpetuate the continual misunderstandings of N play and the devaluation of Gamism as 'roll-playing' that we see side by side throughout the RP community.)

But again, I don't see how your conclusion follows without fully generalizing your premises, and I don't think anyone's wanting to defend those fully generalized premises here. (If they are, speak up, my bad for speaking for anyone other than myself.)

Best,

Sean

Sean,

You're being very tolerant and reasonable, and I suspect that I'm seeming rather like an absolutist maniac, so let me clarify a bit why I'm driving for an underlying point.

You wrote: If you take Ron's statement as an in-the-context-of-actual-gaming, rough empirical generalization about what happens to a lot of players, it's true. Lots of gamers do come to the table with desires and expectations that would be more straightforwardly satisfied by play that pushes more heavily in a Gamist or Narrativist direction. Then a painful process of socialization occurs where they learn that various types of play that best facilitate Simulationism are 'right'.

Uzzah wrote: within the subject of children growing up, Sim play is a lot more "basic" than Nar or Gam. for instance, it's a lot easier to....

Sim - make believe being a knight

than say...

Nar - make believe being a knight that is forced to pick between his honor or his lover (with this being a constant premise)

or

Gam - make believe being a knight that is all about killing the other knights for the sole reward of being a badass.

Hopefully I understood that Ron's opinion is along the "road" of make believe...one encounters Sim first, before the other two.

Ben wrote: I am deeply uncertain that Simulationist play is not "clear and automatic" in the way that Narrativist and Gamist play both are. I believe that much of childhood make-believe stems simply from a desire to explore an imagined space, no more and no less, and that Sim play represents an outgrowth of this fundamental.

Ron Edwards wrote: Sean's nailed it, for me.

Ben, to answer your direct question, I'll put it this way.

People develop in such a way that culminates in X and Y. As they do so, they exhibit (um...) B along the way, quite necessarily.

Now, they get together to do something. They typically bring X and/or Y to it. Then, in some cases, the people they've joined say, "Oh, we're doing B."

That's going to be tricky for a lot of people. Do they recognize B? Probably, or maybe with a little squinting. Do they want to do B? Good question, and I suggest that a fair number's answer is, Probably not.

Does this mean B is bad, dumb, infantile, to be matured from? Nope. Does it mean B is probably the least recommended for entry-level to the activity? Yeah, it does. Does it mean that presenting B as the basic entry-level is excluding a lot of people from the activity? Yeah, I think so.

Does that cover it, Ben?

I've written extensively in the past about why and how Simulationist play is perceived as most common and hence most desirable or enjoyable across the hobby, and why I think that perception is mistaken.

Sean wrote:
I think part of what's happening here is as follows. If you take Ron's statement as an in-the-context-of-actual-gaming, rough empirical generalization about what happens to a lot of players, it's true. Lots of gamers do come to the table with desires and expectations that would be more straightforwardly satisfied by play that pushes more heavily in a Gamist or Narrativist direction. Then a painful process of socialization occurs where they learn that various types of play that best facilitate Simulationism are 'right'. Ouija board role playing is one particularly painful such process; ostracization of 'munchkins' who apply their experience from Monopoly and chess straightforwardly to RPGs, without even bothering to try to explain the group's Social Contract (disguised as the 'better way to play', etc.) is another; and so on. Most of us experienced such training at some point, I think. I certainly did, and I inflicted it on many in high school - creating the usual incaste/outcaste mix between those who got it and those who didn't, which in turn was used to reinforce my status as RPG club president, etc. Many potential gamers do leave during this period because heavy Sim is not for them and they connect that with RPGing more generally.

On the other hand, if you take it as a universal claim about what is and isn't normal behavior for people who come to the gaming table, it's probably false. Clearly some people must be simulationist by 'nature' rather than by 'habit' or we wouldn't have gotten any Sim play to begin with, or only in some very rarefied and obscure contexts. (Other posts have filled in the argument here in a variety of ways already, so I won't rehash.)

Hi there,

Ben, what you wrote makes a lot of sense to me. I'm willing to split the difference between this construction and mine, with no reservations at all.

Chris, you're a source of major confusion for me today. I am perfectly OK with the four-point scheme you presented, until you then claim it relies on this idea:

The only significant or common form of socialization that produces S-like behavior is RPG's.

But if there is no judgment whatever implied, then there should be no difficulty in socializing new players to the Sim mentality: you just tell them to follow their inner child.

Ron feels, however, that Sim is the least-accessible mentality for newcomers, and I maintain that this implies a negative judgment of Sim. Further, although I know he doesn't think he's doing this, I maintain that Ron is defending this judgment as not a judgment by referring to a supposedly natural sequence of behavior developments.

Ron Edwards wrote: Chris, you're a source of major confusion for me today. I am perfectly OK with the four-point scheme you presented, until ....

The only significant or common form of socialization that produces S-like behavior is RPG's.

When I wrote: But if there is no judgment whatever implied, then there should be no difficulty in socializing new players to the Sim mentality: you just tell them to follow their inner child.

Ron wrote: I think that's pretty simplistic, to say the least. I know that as a role-player, I found such advice to be extraordinarily patronizing and disempowering....

I wrote: Ron feels, however, that Sim is the least-accessible mentality for newcomers, and I maintain that this implies a negative judgment of Sim. Further, although I know he doesn't think he's doing this, I maintain that Ron is defending this judgment as not a judgment by referring to a supposedly natural sequence of behavior developments.

I’m gonna jump in and make a few statements that will hopefully help.

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that as young imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Sim) develop into older imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Gamist or Narrativist) that said imaginists remember their earlier behaviors as a distinct phase of imagining efforts. This assumption leads to the false belief that an individual made mindful decisions during their development that purposely demarked and shifted the nature of their imaginative enterprises, thus said individual could be implied to remember an earlier “Sim phase” imaginings as a distinct effort from their later “Gam/Nar phase” imaginings.

A child who has developed a Gam/Nar preference has done so without the least notion that different modes were progressed through. In other words a person who “developed” as Gam/Nar preference did so in a direct line without mindful milestones, thus that they ended up with said preference is assumed by that individual to be THE way to roleplay. As Gam/Nar-like imaginings are goal oriented, the raw creative behaviors of Sim-like imaginings are quickly assumed and FULLY INTEGRATED into the service of the other two.

This leads to two conditions –
Gam/Nar-like imagining behaviors consume Sim-like imaging behaviors.
This developmental process would show lots of synecdoche, and in fact it does.

Therefore the statement “find your inner child” as an attempt to point to a time in the player’s earlier life where imagining behaviors that were Sim-like were being employed as a reference would not help. All the imagining behaviors happened and developed in childhood. Just because imagining behaviors that resemble Sim are exhibited first does not translate into Sim game priorities as being less “mature”.

Thus I think another false assumption being made is that the order of development of these imagining behaviors implies different maturity/sophistication levels of the modes of roleplay or their adherents. This is quickly followed by the error that just because an author proposed that Sim-like imagining behavior developed earlier than Gam/Nar that the author of said statement must be making a value judgment about Sim roleplay overall. Such conclusions do not follow.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

I was going to post on Friday night, and I thought, naw, this can wait. Shame on me; it's really exploded all over the place.

I played make believe with a lot of kids.

The boys almost always played gamist games, that I recall--cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, astronauts and aliens. The sides were easily determined: if you were one of the cool kids, you were on the good guys side that was going to win, and if you weren't one of the cool kids you were going to see your character killed to let the cool kids feel superior. I didn't much care for those games, but if I wanted to play with the boys, that's what we had to play.

The girls, on the other hand, invariably played house when they had the opportunity, and invariably dragged in any boys who were available. I can remember telling the girl next door that I'd rather play something else, couldn't we play something else, there must be something else we could play, but she insisted on playing house. In house there were no winners or losers. There was no story being created. House was ultimately let's imagine what it would be like if we were all grown up and running our own home the way our parents run theirs. It was a simulationist exploration, a way of discovering what it would be like to be somewhere/something/someone other than who we were. O.K., I didn't like it either, but for an entirely different reason: it was boring; nothing was happening.

Yet the girls all enjoyed it. They seemed to think something was happening, something that mattered to them. It seemed so static, but they were discovering something about themselves and their world by roleplaying being different.

I never, ever, saw anything remotely like narrativist make-believe, until I saw it on Mr. Rogers. We didn't play that way. Now, maybe someone does remember make-believe that dealt with issues and addressed premise, but I don't.

And I do think that make-believe is elementary role playing. Saying that it isn't the same thing at all rings like Harlan Ellison trying to say that sci fi is not science fiction and shouldn't be in the same category. You can't make the distinction based on whether you think the quality or level of sophistication comes up to your standards; you have to do it based on whether it contains the same core concepts. Children engaged in make-believe are creating a shared imaginary space in which they create events and characters by means of an undefined but mutually understood system built on a social contract. That it's a far more elementary approach in some ways does not negate what they are doing.

Simulationism is neither more nor less basic than gamism. You don't have to learn either of these at some point in your adulthood; you just have to discover whether this is something you enjoy.

I couldn't say about narrativism; thus far it seems a fairly sophisticated concept requiring at least nine or ten year old cognitive and moral development, but maybe I'm missing something.

--M. J. Young

Hi there,

Chris, since I'm not making the negative judgment you say I'm making, I can't be called upon to defend that judgment. I really think you're ascribing a position to me, then claiming that position is false, and I'm really pretty much out of the picture from the word go. For example, you still ascribe naturalism to my position, which is grossly mistaken, except that you "know" that it's there. [blinks] 'K.

This is a good question to ask:

why, according to your scheme, can't the gamers at the table say, "Find your inner child"? However patronizing the advice, wouldn't they be analytically accurate?

To put this all very directly and bluntly:

If
Gam and Nar are socialized priorities; and
They arise late-ish; and
Sim is a socialized priority; and
It arises early-ish

Then
If a newcomer arrives at the table with any set of assumptions from this list of three, and finds that those already there have any of the other assumptions,

Shouldn't it be a question of re-socializing the newcomer to new expectations? Why is Sim singled out on this system?

Well, I suspect we're going to come back to this periodically, Ron, but if you're done with the thread you're done. I will make one last stab at clarifying.

First, a minor procedural point:

Ron Edwards wrote: ...since I'm not making the negative judgment you say I'm making....

Ron Edwards wrote: Sim play is singled out because I think it qualifies as the minority priority among the general populace, and hence will face the situation more often.

Jay wrote: There seems to be an underlying assumption here that as young imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Sim) develop into older imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Gamist or Narrativist) that said imaginists remember their earlier behaviors as a distinct phase of imagining efforts.

Hello,

Chris, I don't think it's a matter of submergence. I think it's a matter of development, in terms of "what I want to get out of doing X."

X = exploration, in this case, as defined in my essays by the five components, in the medium of social communication.

By "development," I mean change. The imagining-only activity changes into (as I see it) an applied-imagination skill or skills that people use all the time in various ways. Typically, those developed versions are oriented toward theme-construction (stories) and unequivocal performance (assessment), in all sorts of activities.

One of those ways is a leisure activity called role-playing. Unsurprisingly, to me, people who encounter it are usually inclined to use their developed (in the sense of "has undergone change") skills or applications of the imagining-process: Narrativist or Gamist play. To their surprise, in many cases, they discover that the "right way to do it" means stripping those developments off and using, instead, the "raw" version of imagining as the primary effort. I also think that it does not remain raw, but rather gets developed along a relatively unusual path.

This "third development" might be seen as finding a non-infantile* use for the imaginging-process. You've played with Ken Hite, right? He refers to his preferred mode as "idea-based play," meaning that emotional investment in the outcomes/characters is less important than whatever thought-experiment is going on ("What if the Templars ...?"). Hardly infantile - rather, a refined version of the imaginative-only priority which isn't how most people have developed these skills.

* In this post, this term specifically refers to the age-stage and not to a pejorative use.

Theoretical engineering, speculative-future-setting or alternative-history science fiction, deep character-acting, and thoughtful pastiche all seem to be versions of this "refinement" of the raw/starting imagining phase.

Does that seem reasonable? I especially plead with you to discount all distinctions between "natural" and "socialized," which mean literally nothing to me in theory or practice.

Best,
Ron

clehrich wrote:

Jay wrote: There seems to be an underlying assumption here that as young imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Sim) develop into older imaginists (exhibiting behaviors that could be labeled Gamist or Narrativist) that said imaginists remember their earlier behaviors as a distinct phase of imagining efforts.

If I understand correctly, the Sim-like imagining behavior to a significant degree becomes submerged over time, with increasing sociallization and whatnot. Therefore adults come to the table with 3 not-terribly-consciously known modes, but one is greatly more submerged than the others. Consequently they generally come to the table with one of the other two, or both, prioritized.

Jay, am I getting you right?

Assuming that Jay and Ron are in agreement, and I think they are, I'm pretty sure I actually do get what you're saying. My question is thus answered, and as far as I'm concerned unless Ron doesn't agree with Jay here, I'm satisfied that my question is answered.

Ron Edwards wrote: By "development," I mean change. The imagining-only activity changes into (as I see it) an applied-imagination skill or skills that people use all the time in various ways. Typically, those developed versions are oriented toward theme-construction (stories) and unequivocal performance (assessment), in all sorts of activities.

...the Sim-like imagining behaviors become fully and indistinguishably integrated into the later imagining behaviors.

I especially plead with you to discount all distinctions between "natural" and "socialized," which mean literally nothing to me in theory or practice.

Hi Chris,

Cool!

As for your final point, no, I don't think it needs to go to another thread, or to be discussed at all, because it's out of the scope of debate for the Forge. That is a Big Ultimate Question of Existence, and role-playing as a hobby has to cope with it just like anything else does.

Best,
Ron

Huh...

I just read this whole thread and I know I'm coming in late, but what I don't get about this whole thread is where the assumption that children's make believe is Sim comes from.

I don't get the assumption that the child's priorities have changed at all. I bet they've been defaulting off to Nar or Gam all the while (probably neurological, left brain/right brain, but I really don't know as I'm not a child psychologist), and they have just gotten better at it with time. Just like kids getting better at drawing or playing chess as they develop as people.

Vincent tagged this way back on page one with Nar, M.J. just hit Gam. Good lion versus bad lion (good versus evil) and playing house (family structure) both seem pretty Nar to me. Sure, Nar kids might make up trite/flat/crappy themes, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested.

I don't think Sim transmogrifies into anything - if the kid starts Sim they probably end up that way; likewise with Nar and Gam. For the sake of simplicity I'm excluding the effects of neurological/psychological changes/traumas that accompany the various stages of development, which I'm sure could alter priorities. The whole "Sim -> Puberty -> Nar/Gam" (or whatever development stage you fancy) seems real busted to me.

Hi all

cruciel wrote: I don't think Sim transmogrifies into anything - if the kid starts Sim they probably end up that way