The Forge Archives

I'm a bit miffed that Neil's thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10456">The Hard Question got closed so quickly after such a shocking and, in my view, wrong-headed turn. In essence, the thread began with Neil arguing that simulationism was as natural as gamism and narrativism, and it ended with him deciding that simulationism didn't exist at all. The thread was closed "without objection" a mere few hours after that was reached.

I unfortunately am not in such a situation that I can sit at my computer and monitor Forge posts 24/7; I do object to ending that thread on that note.

The Beeg Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense to me; Simulationism is a real agendum, quite natural (as exemplified again by the vast number of little girls who Play House, with neither narrativist nor gamist agenda anywhere in sight, and yet just enjoy experiencing imagining what it's like to be grown up).

Neil, I think that it might help you to look back at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10456">Discovery: The "It" of Simulationism. It takes the stance that there is something that simulationists are after in play which distinguishes simulationism from narrativism and gamism, and goes some distance toward identifying what it is.

I'm certainly not arguing that you have ever really played simulationist; I'm only saying that it is indeed a real agendum with its own objectives.

--M. J. Young

Quoteas exemplified again by the vast number of little girls who Play House, with neither narrativist nor gamist agenda anywhere in sight, and yet just enjoy experiencing imagining what it's like to be grown up).

I don't know that I disagree with the rest of your post, but I do disagree with these examples being put forth as examples of simulation.  No way do I buy that for a second.  Little girls playing house with absolutely no "step on up" going on at all.  Not any little girls I've ever seen.

First thing kids at play do is set up a social pecking order based on any number of factors including size, aggressiveness, charisma, manipulation, or just sheer force of personality.  All play from that point forward is either a challenge to, and acceptance of, or a reinforcement of that pecking order.  Its raw step on up at its finest; not any less so for occuring too subtly for observers to notice.

I think that the discussion is probably at the point where talking about theory it not very helpful.  The discussion could be moved forward significantly if there was some measure of N, S and G, like a simple list of  behaviour tells.  Then people can go out and check them off, and go 'oooh wow, something based on data.'

Because at the moment the discussion is going:
Statement X
You're wrong because that's the wrong definition of X/not an example of X/ a different case.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.

Tying it in to objective measures would at least get past that, because people can say 'my conclusion is Blah, about this situation measured in Blah particular way' and allow disagreement about how these things are measured (formally, or by informal gut reactions based on subjective interpretation of one's on memories of one's experiences) to be seperated from the discussion of the actual theoretical forms.  Because at the moment they're all mixed up, I don't think people realise exactly how their mixed up, and neither issue can be easily resolved.  Let's at least cut things down into more manageable chunks.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm a bit miffed that Neil's thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10456">The Hard Question got closed so quickly after such a shocking and, in my view, wrong-headed turn. In essence, the thread began with Neil arguing that simulationism was as natural as gamism and narrativism, and it ended with him deciding that simulationism didn't exist at all. The thread was closed "without objection" a mere few hours after that was reached.

I unfortunately am not in such a situation that I can sit at my computer and monitor Forge posts 24/7; I do object to ending that thread on that note.

The Beeg Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense to me; Simulationism is a real agendum, quite natural (as exemplified again by the vast number of little girls who Play House, with neither narrativist nor gamist agenda anywhere in sight, and yet just enjoy experiencing imagining what it's like to be grown up).

Neil, I think that it might help you to look back at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10456">Discovery: The "It" of Simulationism. It takes the stance that there is something that simulationists are after in play which distinguishes simulationism from narrativism and gamism, and goes some distance toward identifying what it is.

I'm certainly not arguing that you have ever really played simulationist; I'm only saying that it is indeed a real agendum with its own objectives.

--M. J. Young

I just offered to close the thread because I figured something like this would show up, and Ron seems to get testy when threads go on too long.  I do kind of like that here, on the Forge, threads stay relatively short so you don't have to plow through 70 posts just to comment on the initial question.

Now, to clarify a little bit...

I felt my intial questions were answered as best they could be... in that thread.  Not that I don't have questions still.

The first three posts here seem a bit divergent in what we are talking about.  What exactly is the "Hard Question" you are asking, M.J.?  My thread seemed to shift the Hard Question from "Are you Sim by habit?" to "Is Sim really a CA at all?"   (Is that still what we are talking about here?)

Since my question had changed by the end, I figure it is a good idea to continue this in a separate thread.

I would like to say that I never said Sim doesn't exist... just that it seemed to explain a lot to me if Sim ended up being the biggest Technique Red Herring of this paradigm.  

So many new comers to GNS, myself included, are often hit with "You aren't talking about a CA, you are talking about a technique/ephemera" when we first start posting on these boards.  

All the issues with "emersion" being a non-issue in defining a CA, but how so many people get stuck on it.  Director/Actor/Author stance issues, clouding understanding of the CAs.

To me, all of this becomes clearer, less contradictory, if Sim is looked at from a different position.  Sim is insanely important... I would never say otherwise... but as a method, not a mode.  It is a method with degrees, both of which the pure "G" and the pure "N" are theoretical extremes... Sim abstracted to a point where it doesn't appear Sim (as method) any longer.

Ok... hold on, I'm rambling, but I think I have something here.

Sim is seen as as odd man out compared with G & N in Ron's theory... right?  

The Beeg Horseshoe purports that you have to use Sim to "get to" G & N, though it considers S still a "mode" or "Creative Agenda" unto itself.

More of us than not seem to think Sim is more natural in tendency than Ron states... and with this I agree...  ('cause a technique can be so natural it is mistaken for a CA?)

Sim seems to dominate the RPG market with rants against Gamism, and a marginalizing of Nar  (again, just taking this anecdotally from posts here, as you guys are the industry experts.)

A corollary to this last is also the dominance of "Sim is THE way to play RPGs" concept that seems to run through much of the general unwashed RPG public, of which I am a member.  

A further corollary seems to be a very difficult time in really stating what Nar play is, conclusively, often couching it in terms of what it is not.

Ahh... this is elusive... my brain keeps going off on tangents and losing the point... bear with me...

So, to this end, I really think that the Hard Question should focus on Sim... Sim is extremely important... not because it is a CA... not because it doesn't exist... but that it exists, and actually is a unique (one and only) part of the paradigm.

By this I mean, I'd have to state that RPG play doesn't exist without SOME level of Simulation... some level of make believe... and is truly the defining element of what an RPG is, different from other games, or improv, or an ethics discussion.

All RPG play begins with Sim, and for some, it can exist where the method (as opposed to mode or technique) is ALL... but for most of us, tends to fork between Nar and Gam to varying degrees.  The road we travel is this big Y or the Beeg Horseshoe, and Sim IS this road.

G & N are not the road, but destinations (the farthest points likely being hypothetical Platonic ideals that don't actually exist in play).

The problem exists in that the farther down the road you go (on either fork) the more the road stops looking like a road.  What is originally an easy to drive, straight four lane road with clearly marked signs in a common language... becomes winding and indistinct out on the Nar fork, with signs replaced by obscure landmarks and runes carved in tree trunks... and on the Gam side, is also drastically different but in a different way, maybe it has become a set of steps and ladders, very structured, but now moving upward (competing).   (Ok, I'm abusing this road metaphor... enough.)

Anyway, my thought is that the further you go down either road, the more likely you are to run into folks who say "That is not role playing" because you are leaving the natural method of Sim behind, either to metagame "winning" or metagame" story".  Metagaming existing at the furthest reaches of "the Sim road" and so far away from where we got on the highway that it seems alien and other.  (ok... gotta let this road thing go... but I can't!)

To me, this really begins to address a lot of the difficulties I see with the GNS paradigm.  

It is really   G     N over S
                     
Sim IS natural... but is also NOT a CA itself, but the method on which the G & N sit.

Sim as method can is integral to G & N, though the extreme of G & N play abstract Sim so that it can be unrecognizable to those in the more concrete Sim play area.

Even in concrete Sim play there will be tendencies toward Nar or Gam, and diverging on this road is often the most reductionist issue for newbie gamers "role playing" Nar vs "roll playing" Gam.  The focus on Sim can be seen as a balm (unconsciously most likely) because if you stay in the clearly Sim area, you are at the point where G & N are most alike and can even support... but this is where the method can over take the agenda, and cause deeper issues... which are clarified as the Hard Question "Sim by habit" which I think was phrased in very demeaning terms because it dismisses Sim as the method to eventually reach the Nar CA.  If Sim is seen as method, not CA, then there is no reason to require it to be incompatible.  Nar just abstracts Sim method to one end, and Gam abstracts Sim method to another.

And then there are plenty of people like me, who find it unnecessary to strive for the abstraction, because the core Sim make believe is very satisfying.

Christ, I have no idea if I've made any sense... probably not... but it really makes sense to me.

(This paradigm shift would require a redefinition of some Nar and Gam staples.  Premise would have to be allowed as something that "just happens" at the base Sim level, but Nar strives to be a conscious focus at the far end, as an example.)

Ok... go on, blast me... but I think this works for me, at least.

ohyeah... and this really clears up all the issues of confusing Exploration (as defined by GNS) and Sim.

If Sim becomes a Method... then it IS Exploration... call it Exploration if you like... and no more confusion.  It has already been stated that exploration is part of every CA... but then gets hazy when you say Sim is "exploration for exploration's sake."

If Sim IS Exploration... that is my model.  It helps bridge that gap between those who say Nar is most natural and Sim is most natural.  

The point is that Exploration is most natural.  Valamir, would you agree with that?  What you do with that exploration, focus on premise, try to win, or just explore... that is where things get hinky.

Yes... that sums up what I'm trying to say, because Exploration already sits in a unique positon on the GNS paradigm, unless I'm mistaken.

Things start to break because we are trying to make Sim it's own CA... when it really is just various degrees of Exploration we are talking about.  We don't need the Sim CA... or maybe you could say that Sim as a CA is merely a rejection of G or N as dominant.  Sim is defined by what it isn't.

Ok... I've probably, again, stumbled across something already stated in some long buried article, but this REALLY clicks for me... and seems to answer so many of the current discussions I see going on.

I'm not a moderator around here -- thank god! -- but I think your handling of the thread-ending was excellent.  M.J. wants to continue the discussion, so he started a new thread, and from the title it's clear that he wants exactly that.  No problem, we're all gold.  The only worry is M.J.'s legitimate point that things don't need to happen quite so fast around here: I do think it would be nice for threads not to close (unless closed by the moderators for other reasons, which is different) in less than 48 hours or so, but that's irrelevant.  [Note: of course, in Alabama the Tuscaloosa, but that's entirely irrelephant.]

Quote from: RDU NeilAll the issues with "emersion" being a non-issue in defining a CA, but how so many people get stuck on it.  Director/Actor/Author stance issues, clouding understanding of the CAs.

Not to pick on your spelling or anything, but when I hit the word "emersion" I actually read it as the opposite of immersion, i.e. a deliberate focus on the coming-out-from process with respect to immersion.  Which I think should be discussed, but certainly isn't something people get stuck on.  Just throwing up a flag for future discussion.

QuoteTo me, all of this becomes clearer, less contradictory, if Sim is looked at from a different position.  Sim is insanely important... I would never say otherwise... but as a method, not a mode.  It is a method with degrees, both of which the pure "G" and the pure "N" are theoretical extremes... Sim abstracted to a point where it doesn't appear Sim (as method) any longer.

Cutting from here -- because mostly it all follows up this point -- I want to pick up the idea of the Beeg Horseshoe for a second.

The "traditional" (hey Mike, how do you like being a tradition?) conception here is that you start at the curve and move outward on the prongs of the horseshoe.  But note that you could read this backwards: you could say that we start with Nar or Gam, and then progress inwards towards Sim.  By this logic, the classic game texts that push people away from Gamism (especially) would be encouraging a motion, not a regression, and furthermore would actually be supporting Ron's idea that Sim is not natural.  That is, the idea is that you start on a prong, which is more natural, and then move toward Sim by means of indoctrination through game prose and practice.  I don't happen to think this is the case, but let me just point out here that this is a logical possibility of the model that would leave just about everything intact, on all sides.

Furthermore, I recently posted something over here in which I discuss structures of classification.  It suddenly occurred to me, reading your post, that you could read the Beeg Horseshoe as pushing for a monothetic classification in the Linnaean sense.  You have a number of discriminating criteria which discern that roleplaying and whatnot is in fact going on, leading you to a binary which produces the result: Sim.  Having done that, you go on to say, "Is it Nar or not?" with the "not" result being Gam.  That doesn't mean that Gamism doesn't have its own qualities; you could formulate the question: "Is it Gam or not?"

Now if you did this, you would end up saying that Sim was in a sense required for all CA's, and that further subdivisions were possible and even likely.  But the interesting thing about viewing it this way would be where you place it on a hierarchical tree.  Let's take walnuts (members of the Juglandaceae) for an example.  The final discriminating criterion between walnuts and pecans is whether there is a four-toothed calyx or not.  But both are Juglandaceae.  The interesting thing is that there are no Juglandaceae in the pure sense in the real world: all such are actually walnuts or pecans.  By that logic, you could eliminate Sim in the model by arguing that it's a class and not a specific thing.  Alternatively, you could shift the whole down one notch, and discriminate between Walnut and its hybrids or cultivars, in which case all most certainly exist.  Furthermore, this would neatly ground debate, because in a strong sense no Walnuts actually exist: there are only trees, classified as Walnuts.

I don't know; for some reason this makes really good sense to me.  Am I on quaaludes again?

QuoteIt suddenly occurred to me, reading your post, that you could read the Beeg Horseshoe as pushing for a monothetic classification in the Linnaean sense.

I have to laugh, as you totally lost me here.  To this, I can only say "Huh?"

QuoteBut the interesting thing about viewing it this way would be where you place it on a hierarchical tree. Let's take walnuts (members of the Juglandaceae) for an example. The final discriminating criterion between walnuts and pecans is whether there is a four-toothed calyx or not. But both are Juglandaceae. The interesting thing is that there are no Juglandaceae in the pure sense in the real world: all such are actually walnuts or pecans. By that logic, you could eliminate Sim in the model by arguing that it's a class and not a specific thing. Alternatively, you could shift the whole down one notch, and discriminate between Walnut and its hybrids or cultivars, in which case all most certainly exist. Furthermore, this would neatly ground debate, because in a strong sense no Walnuts actually exist: there are only trees, classified as Walnuts.

This has to be the strangest analogy I ever read... but if I'm reading it correctly... damn straight.  Sim is Exploration IS the Walnut Tree... and Gam, Nar (and your theoretical others) are the end result nuts.

Heh... nuts... that about describes how I'm feeling right now.  To bed with me.

Oh... and sorry... yes... Immersion, not emersion.  Late night... no spell check.

Ralph, you seem the most vocal proponent of simulationism isn't natural, it needs to be learned.

Where did sim originate from, and by what mechanism did it gain such widespread popularity?

Now if sim is natural these things resolve themselves, but if sim is learned...

Let me start with my own theory about roleplay and the evolution of Sim play.  I believe that RPG's did start with a Sim "vision."

The problem was that no one knew what that vision was or how to articulate it, much less make it work.  So here we have this new form of "expression" – roleplay that is flailing about trying to do something that wasn't done before.  We were trying to "play" persons we weren't doing things that were not common to us in our daily lives in strange and unknown lands.  Other than that no one know how to proceed.  I think in the beginning those "visionaries" who had no clear idea of where they were headed to, stumbling around in the darkness, saw the stampede of hobbyists from other challenge based games, be they board or military, and were dismayed at "stampeding to death" of their fledgling ideas by the cavalcade of traditional challenge based CA's.  Not only were these players Gamist, but probably many were virtually hardcore as the RPG hobby hadn't matured to the point of more evolved styles of Gamist play.  Nobody in the beginning really understood character or situation.  So these designers saw their still clouded and fledgling ideas about "pretending" pillaged and violated, from their perspective, in the worst ways possible.  They saw their ideas being crushed before they could figure out what they were and allowing them the time to take wing.  

Hence the reactionary backlash in the texts.  This also probably led to increased DM control/vigilance.  This straight jacketing of the players in an attempt to "control" Gamist players, combined with a horrible lack of understanding about the nature of story, led to Illusionism and Railroading.  Out of some players' hunger for greater roleplay freedom and the eventual discovery of the elements of story led, I believe, to the growth and flowering of Narrativist play and game systems.

Now that Narrativism was allowed it great Renaissance, Gamism started to truly flower as it was no longer under the onus of having to conform to Sim social and game conventions.  This is not say there weren't Gamist published systems, but I believe that Gamism started to come into its own socially.

The long and the short of it is that I believe Sim was the original impulse behind the creation of RPG's - the desire to be or live and do in another person and/or world.  However, as Sim became ever more reactionary and entrenched it never has come into its own.  Sim has spent much of its efforts defining what its not, i.e., not Gamism.  What Sim hasn't done is define it relationship to Situation.  Gamism and Narrativism have clearly defined what their relationship to Situation is, but Sim has not.  As a result I think Gamist and Narrativist theory have overstaked their boundaries, as Sim has not yet been fully realized.

The two main ideas that Sim stands strongest have been resoundly pooh-poohed by theorists here at the forge.  That Sim is an experiential process aka Exploring for Exploration's sake aka living the Dream.  The other idea that robs Sim of its identity is that exploring Character via Situation is somehow automatically addressing Premise.  Hog wash.  I got my pee-pee stomped on pretty hard for suggesting that addressing Premise was identifiable by the limitations a player made in their reaction to Situation by adhering to the Premise possibilities.  I was also told that Premise need not be the same for each character, which I buy, but that it can change from moment to moment.  Huh?  How can a person be addressing a given premise if they are addressing another premise?  Addressing a premise must last for a certain period of time for how can you tell that a person is addressing a specific premise and not some other premise.  Yet I have been told that premise is everywhere and if one isn't addressing challenge one must be addressing premise.  Bull.  A player may address Situation with challenge or premise or character as the unselfaware but mindful guide.  The problem with the way addressing premise is understood, any situation that has human beings and conflict can be reverse engineered to have a premise.  Thus any situation that isn't overtly Gamist becomes Narrativist by default.  That is hooey!  Just because a premise can be manufactured into a situation does not mean that one placed there mindfully by anyone other than the one who is looking for ghosts in the darkness.

What does this mean?  Sim is about addressing Situation via Character and strictly (more or less) within the confines of said character as an end to experiencing i.e., living the Dream.  The decisions that player makes regarding their character reflect not the desire to win or create a story, but rather to Explore Character and Situation within the confines of both.  If I want to experience living in Middle Earth then I am going to have to play a character in Middle Earth.  Playing a character in Middle Earth means facing situations that that type of person is likely to face in Middle Earth.  That is not the same as addressing premise.

Sim games have failed to come into their own for a variety of reasons.  The worst offenders were class systems and alignments.  These, for all practical purposes, devolved to class-as-vocation and alignment-as-personality.  No real character exploration at all.  Typically the best you got was hoary old clichés.  Speaking of hoary old clichés – remember the old adage that before you make a judgment on a person you had best walk a mile in their shoes?  Sim is about walking a mile in some fictional characters life-shoes.  What does it mean to play a king or a pauper?  It means more than having certain weapon and nonweapon skills.  It means facing situations that those individuals would likely face in their lives and making decisions that they would have to make.  This is where Sim has failed badly in the past and is still whiffing badly today.  There is no clear understanding that to explore a character means to experience/face that same types of difficulties that a "real" person of that type would face.  A pauper isn't likely to have to contend with political intrigue and poisonings and wars and unruly nobles, while a king isn't likely to face grinding poverty and starvation and pillaging and oppression by others in power.

Sim has failed to flower into its own because no one has effectively addressed the interlocking nature of Situation and Character.  The explosion of universal games has done tremendous harm to Sim as the games function without a hint of rhyme or reason.  Worse yet is what has been done by TSR's D&D3e.  Now you can just mix and match character traits like a blender!  Creativity isn't about making anything work, rather is about setting limits and then exploring within prescribed certain limits.  Whether that be a limiting the color palette for painters or writing in iambic pentameter and having 7 acts.

Gamism limits and focuses.  Narrativism limits and focuses.  Simulationism without its overt constraints as a whole has been terrified of placing limitations and thus has become nothing.  Where Sim needs to limit is in Character.  If everyone is equal there is no contrast.  If everyone is tall then no one is tall.  If everyone is rich then no one is rich.  This isn't the only area that Sim falls down in, because Sim needs to expand in Situation.  Having read Georges Polti's 36 dramatic situations most Sim games use about 2 or 3 and most of those have little to do with the players' characters.  Sim is so free form in its approach to Situation that players and DM's alike have failed to self-regulate.  So you get all these situations that don't make any sense at all, like a Duke hiring strangers for some important task!, (like royalty would ever trust a non noble with any such task) or are just plain unengaging because they are dramatically flat.

Sim is natural in the desire; it just takes skill to execute.  Many people are turned onto roleplay by the idea of "pretending" (entering into the SIS), it's just that Sim as it is understood, expounded in packed game systems, and played mostly sucks.  Running Sim is a skill that hasn't been widely taught.  Given a good Sim game it would be amazing to see how natural it is for players to fall naturally into Sim as well.

Anyhow I have ranted for much too long.  Long live Sim!!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

I think we should have a marker, some sort of icon, to indicate "self referentiality" to be attached to all the threads which largely consist of hobby-introspection, discussions of prior publications, the who-said-what-to-whom-when of RPG history, and sundry navel-lint examination.  It would be interesting to compare the proportion of such threads to those threads discussing stuff that is at least potentially new.

Why start with little girls playing house?  Why do mammals play games at all?

The origins of sim or nar or gam may well lie in historical circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with the history of RPG as such.  RPG IMO is just the expression of a particular synthesis, and I see no reason it needs a sequential, evolutionary path toward appearance.  By anology, the sequential model is like that of mixing paint, in which each temporally distinct layer changes the overall colour, whereas I suggest it is more like mixing light, and the modes are simultaneous and in their co-existance the particular colour appears.

If nothing else, I think it is more interesting, and likely more fruitful,  to consider RPG as the necessary synthesis of 3 components rather than a development or distortion of initial conditions.

QuoteSo, to this end, I really think that the Hard Question should focus on Sim... Sim is extremely important... not because it is a CA... not because it doesn't exist... but that it exists, and actually is a unique (one and only) part of the paradigm.

By this I mean, I'd have to state that RPG play doesn't exist without SOME level of Simulation... some level of make believe... and is truly the defining element of what an RPG is, different from other games, or improv, or an ethics discussion.

All RPG play begins with Sim, and for some, it can exist where the method (as opposed to mode or technique) is ALL... but for most of us, tends to fork between Nar and Gam to varying degrees. The road we travel is this big Y or the Beeg Horseshoe, and Sim IS this road.

G & N are not the road, but destinations (the farthest points likely being hypothetical Platonic ideals that don't actually exist in play).

Neil:  Check out Clarifying Simulation

Especially starting with the second page

And, Things not G N S

These are from back in Sept/Oct 2003 and largely cover the topic you're heading towards above.

Unless I'm reading you wrong, I think what you're saying about Simulation above is very very similiar to what I (at the time) labeled Sim 1 and Sim 2 in the above threads.

Lots of good discussion pro and con there to the idea;  I'd suggest everyone take some time to reread those so we don't cover the same ground on this topic.

QuoteSimulationism without its overt constraints as a whole has been terrified of placing limitations and thus has become nothing. Where Sim needs to limit is in Character

boy howdy do I understand the power of limitations.. can ya say Split Analagous Triad... knew that ya could!  One of my best painting teachers says that art is a series of thousands and thousands of small judgement calls.  Sound familiar?  Isn't that what a GM is?  As is being a player in a RPG?

But to say Sims have no overt constraints... that strikes me as a very inaccurate statement.

Simulations ARE ALL ABOUT LIMITATIONS and not about "in character".   Although, character have limits too.   To me, the very definition of Simulation means that "within THESE PARAMETERS, we are going to play with X".

My Campaign has limitations.  It is a fantasy world, where magic works.  Technology is Reinneissance level.  That doesn't mean I can drop in "Bugs" & Space Marines  from Starship Troopers and not have a great deal of head shaking from the players.  That breaks the versimilitude.

If NPC X acts a certain way in Episode 1, then that can be built upon... but if NPC X acts in a radically different way in Ep 2... there better be a damn good reason.... that is a constraint.  That is simulation.

QuoteIt would be interesting to compare the proportion of such threads to those threads discussing stuff that is at least potentially new.

Contra, I feel that this is slightly unfair.  Many of us are new to these forums and ideas.  Of course we are going to tread on the same ground as those before us.  You are just further along the process than I... give me a chance to work thru some of this stuff... and after me?  There will be add'l "newbies" to this whole thing.  Doesn't mean that their opinions are any less valid than yours or mine.

QuoteRalph, you seem the most vocal proponent of simulationism isn't natural, it needs to be learned.

Where did sim originate from, and by what mechanism did it gain such widespread popularity?

Now if sim is natural these things resolve themselves, but if sim is learned...

I missed this earlier.

Simulation comes from 2 sources in our hobby.

First and most obvious the wargame roots of the hobby where a sizeable reason for playing the game is to answer questions like "what might have happened at Gettysburg if the south had been more aggressive taking the round top before the Union dug in"

That's an area that most certainly is learned.  It is actually taught and trained in military academies around the world and, self taught by amateur military historians.

The kind of mind set required to suppress your natural desire to win by taking advantage of knowledge that you have, in favor of "doing what's right" in terms of the simulation value is definitely something that has to be learned.  And it has to be valued.  

Contrast this to the gamer playing the same game who thinks this guy is just insane "Dude, I'm here to play a game and kick your ass, I don't give a rip about what Pickett would or wouldn't have done, Pickett ain't here"

That sort of mind set I'd say is certainly the main attitude of most folks who sit down to play a game.  It has to be conciously over ridden in order to play Sim.

This then gets translated of course from wargaming to RPGs in different forms but the same basic competing mind sets.


The second big source of Simulationism in roleplaying comes from genre emulators.  These are people that may never have been exposed to the wargame mind set, but come to the table to play Star Trek (for example) as close to the way "it should be" as they can.  In Ron's essay, he refers to this group as the Canonical Fandom.  For these gamers the experience of emulation is the primary attraction to play.  This attitude gets more broadly distilled away from specific licensed property and towards broader ideas of "genre" but its still the same basic mind set.

This is also something that has to be learned.  Having recently become aware of the various Chatroom based "Simming" going on (see this thread) I can't imagine anyone going into one of those Star Trek, or Charmed Ones Sims without ever having seen the show.  You have to learn this stuff, you have to absorb it and beable to create pastiche from it at a moments notice.  In order to accurately portray "how your character would act" you have to have learned not only about the character but about the character's context.  And you have to value the accurate portrayal of that context more than anything else.

Quoteby what mechanism did it gain such widespread popularity?

Very simply, the above 2 sources pretty much represent the lions share of RPG practitioners.  Especially early in the hobby.  These are the sources where most of the early gamers came from.  Wargames especially early in the hobby's roots and Genre Emulation especially in the 80s and early 90s.

I would argue that it DOESN'T have widespread popularity out side of our hobby.  Our hobby represents a self selection from what are essentially fringe groups.

The readiness with which the broader movie going audience can swallow "Historical" films like Braveheart or Gladiator without a care in the world as to their authenticity, to me demonstrates that the kind of mind set required for a "simulationist" bent isn't all that common in the general populace.

Look at the people who have problems with Braveheart and Gladiator and can quote you chapter and verse where the movies strayed from history and why that's bad...call them group A.  Or, to not draw completely on historical examples take all of the people who rip apart the episode I and II of Star Wars and can quote you why those movies suck and where they don't follow established Star Wars canon.  Put them in group A too.

Then take the people who hear all of group As arguments and shrug and say "so what, its just a damn movie".  Call them group B.

I'd bet money that there's a higher ratio of gamers in Group A than Group B.  I'd also bet money that Group B is a HELL of alot bigger and represents a much greater portion of the general populace that Group A.


So to all of those who argue that Sim seems natural...my answer is...Yeah...to you...cuz you're a fringer.  

(and yes that includes me, because I'm firmly in Group A myself)

To Valamir I would simply say... "Doing Sim well takes training" but the desire and initial attempt is quite natural.

Your Group A and Group B could be explained not just by Want SIm vs. Don't Want Sim

It could be  explained as "We all want Sim, but most are discouraged early in life in our attempts.  So the majority of RPgamers are simply those who stuck with it and continued on this very difficult route."

This does help me explain a question I was dealing with on another forum.  In this case it was about "Why do people play RPGs?" and the extra question was "Why do most people give up make believe, and we don't?"  We being RPgamers.

This kind of explains it... because Make Believe is friggin' hard to do.  Doesn't make the initial desire and attempt any less natural.

Hi Neil,

You may be interested to know that when I first introduced this idea, I specifically stated that it has nothing to do, at all, with "natural" vs. "not natural." It only has to do with "easily learned, common" and "not easily learned, not common."

From the very beginning of this and related threads, you have walked straight into the tar pit that I told everyone to avoid. So all I can do is spread my hands and say, "Sticky in there, ain't it?"

Best,
Ron