The Forge Archives

OK, I'm a newcomer to the forge, having stumbled onto the Lumply site and from there meandered over to here, and read up on a bunch of Ron Edwards' essays. From there I began corresponding with Ron, while also following a lot of threads on the forums. I had this written up to send to Ron directly, but then decided it might be a good topic to bring to the Forge Community directly, as an entry to the forums, and as a means of generating more varied feedback. So here we are:

I've been thinking over the three CAs and their relationship and I think I may have pegged what's been bugging me. See, I really grok the Big Model as a whole, but I'm not sure I agree with where all the parts are placed. In particular, I am really starting to feel that Simulationism is *not* equal to the other CAs, or more to the point, that it's not the same kind of thing (yes, I know that Ron and others have said as much, but I think the difference is more significant than it is commonly credited). Each CA has its own emphasis, Gamism's being accomplishment/competition and Narrativism's being premise/story. But Simulationism's emphasis, Exploration, is not like the others in that it mustbe present even when not emphasized. If we're not exploring anything, we're not roleplaying, even if the Exploration is only a platform for tactical feats of addressing moral problems.  Exploration IS the experience of the Shared Imagined Space. Without that SIS, we're just playing a boardgame (in the case of Gamism) or philosophically pontificating (in the case of Narrativism). Heck, even most boardgames involves some degree of Exploration; you're "simulating" the world of real estate speculation when you play Monopoly, or the thrill of military conquest when you play Risk, even if you don't put a whole lot of effort into vividly imagining it. But Achievement and Premise are optional: groups can (and do) roleplay for years without addressing any personal crisis or moral dilemma in any real or dynamic way, and it's possible (though by no means prevalent) to play without any sort of competitive factor or tactical element. PrimeTime Adventures strikes me as one example of a system geared toward the latter extreme. So Ron's statement that the three CAs float on a sea of Exploration really means that Simulationism is an emphasis on the foundation itself, rather than the things which you can build on that foundation, and as such is not the same kind of animal.

I know Ron mentions a similar claim by Scarlet Jester, and claims that Sim is equal because it can "over-ride either Gamist or Narrativist priorities." But while I agree that it's an important element, I don't think it's on the same *level* with the other two. It doesn't belong on the same tier. Rather the model should be something like: [Exploration (subset:Simulationism) [CA (Gamism or Narrativism)[all the other stuff]]] with the understanding that Simulationism can override the Agenda in the lower tier, just as a breakdown in the Social Contract in a higher tier will severely hinder any activities in the lower tier.

The primary ramification of this rearranging of concepts is the realization that Simulationism is, in effect, the "default" mode of roleplaying. It's simply what happens if people get together, create characters, and insert them into the SIS and play out their actions and circumstances, without trying to achieve spectacular feats or gain tactical advantage, or to inject meaning into the Explored events or wrestle with thorny problems. As Ron has said, when Gamism enters play, it tends to dominate Simulationism, either breaking down the causality of the "pocket world" or using that causality as an arena for competition. And when I was confused about how do differentiate Narr from Sim with pre-loaded issues, Ron basically said that any time you actively address premise, through dynamic character choice, you are playing Narr, and no longer Sim. In other words, until you take that step, you're playing Simulationist, but as soon as you add anything that's not mere Exploration, you're then playing Gamist or Narrativist. Simulationism is defined by the absence of other elements, more than the presence of Exploration.

A footnote: In light of the above observations, I think the suggestion that "both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic. . .whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained" is best understood as arising from most people's tendency to inject either Achievement or Meaning into leisure activities (even passive ones, vicariously: "That movie kicked ass!" Vs. "That movie was so touching."), and roleplaying being no exception. Exploration for its own sake I can definitely see as an ingrown mindset that has been fostered as the hobby evolved, and this can of course put off many newcomers who want to know, "why does one play?" it's almost like playing football without points or writing novels without plot. It's great if one wants to do that, but it's certainly not very clear or inviting to aspiring footballers or novelists to put forth that unique version as the whole of the activity.

So, any thoughts? Agree, disagree? Have I hit on something significant, or just stated the obvious? I do fee it's a significant observation because
even if there's no contradiction between this and the Theory as it stands, I feel the actual text of the GNS essays does point one in another direction. But maybe it's just me.

Peace,

Alls I can say Joel, is old news.

I'm glad that your reading of the theory has progressed to the point that you can make as well articulated an evaluation of the above, however.  I mean that sincerely since the theory can at times be opaque and I welcome new folks who are dedicated enough to reach the point where you are now.

I suggest you do a search on the Beeg Horseshoe and on Sim1 Sim2 which will connect you about a bazillion pages of threads that look similar to your own.  


Things not GNS

and

Clarifying Simulation

are particularly productive threads to revisit.

Maybe some folks will pop in with some particularly solid links also.


Keep in mind the following two important points, however.
1) those threads are older and opinions represented there may have changed.
2) don't comment in those old threads, but if something in one particularly grabs you, link to it and start a new one.


Other than that, I don't think I have anything more to say at this point that I haven't already said previously.  For the record, my opinion on the Sim1/Sim2 split I espouse in the above links hasn't really changed.  I still think that alot of play that gets (mis)labeled Simulationism is really just Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

I'm inclined to think the agenda of simulationism, is learning. And since learning is very passive, rather than doing something (like with gamism or nar), it seems not to be doing anything at all. And thus not an agenda.

Just a personal observation:
With a sim supporting design, players will often slip into either gamist or narrativist mode for awhile, but seem to eventually bounce back to sim for a while before drifting again. I'm not sure that this is as readily true for designs specifically meant to support narr or gam.

Basically, self identified simmers ( like yers truly) are greedy devils that want a bit of everything...

And the attempt to provide a bit of everything is both the beauty and bane of sim supporting design.

We don't want to fall into mistaking the existance of Exploration for simulationist creative agenda.  Exploration exists in all role-play; the simulationist CA does not.  Remember, creative agenda is defined by what a group prioritizes.  The simulationist group will choose to abandon opportunities for player challenge or addressing a premise if doing so would violate the ideal they are trying to vivify.

Quote from: MelinglorA footnote: In light of the above observations, I think the suggestion that "both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and automatic. . .whereas I think Simulationist priorities must be trained" is best understood as arising from most people's tendency to inject either Achievement or Meaning into leisure activities (even passive ones, vicariously: "That movie kicked ass!" Vs. "That movie was so touching."), and roleplaying being no exception. Exploration for its own sake I can definitely see as an ingrown mindset that has been fostered as the hobby evolved, and this can of course put off many newcomers who want to know, "why does one play?" it's almost like playing football without points or writing novels without plot. It's great if one wants to do that, but it's certainly not very clear or inviting to aspiring footballers or novelists to put forth that unique version as the whole of the activity.

So, any thoughts? Agree, disagree? Have I hit on something significant, or just stated the obvious? I do fee it's a significant observation because
even if there's no contradiction between this and the Theory as it stands, I feel the actual text of the GNS essays does point one in another direction. But maybe it's just me.

Well, it's not just you.  It's just that these have been expressed before in reaction to Ron's essay, but the results of that discussion have never been put up into a Forge essay of their own.  In case you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend the Theory Topics section of RandomWiki.  Specifically, the Beeg Horseshoe theory entry which has links to earlier threads.  

http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/BeegHorseshoeTheory

This is a very nice restatement of the Beeg Horseshoe theory. Welcome to the Forge!

I don't agree with the idea that "Simulationism is negative", though. I think that the persistent recurrence of the belief that this is so is to some degree an artifact of our theoretical abstractions and the correct claim that Simulationism is a redoubled focus on explanation.

In practice, though, the difference is between using exploration as a tool to get to something else, and exploration for its own sake, in terms of the social rewards and interest that get expressed by the various gamers at the table. This is a fuzzy line in some games, but not in many. The easiest examples are games with a Sim CA based on some existing and well-fleshed out secondary worlds: Call of Cthulhu, Middle Earth RP, Star Trek can all be played this way. You see at the table that the majority of the social rewards for playing come, essentially, from being able to celebrate and constantly reconfirm one's knowledge of the world in question. Recognizing a shoggoth from snippets of description, knowing which sub-species of elves someone is from from the kind of clothes he wears, getting minor engineering trivia from the episodes right: group laughter, knowing smiles, status in the group apportioned by knowledge of the setting and its conventions, etc. This activity may be the same thing that we all do, 'squared', but the social reward system that supports it, and the social dynamics of play, are pretty darn different.

This is why it's a CA: because exploration is getting socially rewarded, dominantly, even when it's not being used for anything else.

Some, though by no means all, people who love Glorantha, Harn, and Tekumel love them because like literary worlds they support this kind of play through the mass of loving detail accumulated for them over time.

Does this make sense?

Quote from: komradebobJust a personal observation:
With a sim supporting design, players will often slip into either gamist or narrativist mode for awhile, but seem to eventually bounce back to sim for a while before drifting again. I'm not sure that this is as readily true for designs specifically meant to support narr or gam.

As the Horseshoe suggest, it's not really slippage from sim, it's movement between challenge and theme (or colour and character maybe).

Heya,

Welcome to the Forge!  I'd just like to pose as a question, "Why did you expect all three to be alike?"  I personally don't see any need for any creative agenda to look, feel, or act similar to any other.  They are completely different preferences of play.  It works out that Gamism and Narrativism happen to be similar in certain ways, but it wasn't always thought to be so.  Go back (if you can, not sure anymore) to ealier threads here and especially at Gaming Outpost.  In the begining, Gamism wasn't given much thought at all and certainly wasn't seen as the twin brother of Narrativism.  In my view, non-alike-ness doesn't mean non-existance. :)

Peace,

-Troy

Hello, and welcome.

As others have suggested, what you're proposing looks a lot like Beeg Horseshoe. And very well articulated, I might add. In general, I think Beeg Horseshoe is a useful way of looking at Sim, but I don't think it's the whole story.

Below is a link to a thread which espouses the take on Simulationism that I tend to favor.

If you include the linked threads, which you should, it's a lot - and I mean a lot - of heavy reading. You may or may not consider it worth your time. I found it fascinating and insightful.

Sim is Bricolage and makes myth - comments?

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

Quote from: ValamirAlls I can say Joel, is old news.

Yeah, I had a feeling that was the case. I frankly just don't have all the time in the wold to catch up on five million pages of archive threads, so I just weighed in knowing my thoughts were probably not original. Thanks for confirming it.

Quote from: ValamirI'm glad that your reading of the theory has progressed to the point that you can make as well articulated an evaluation of the above, however.  I mean that sincerely since the theory can at times be opaque and I welcome new folks who are dedicated enough to reach the point where you are now.

Thanks, I'm happy with it myself. It took a lot of pondering (and back-and-forth with Ron) to get over the false dichotomy of "I must buy every word of this system exactly as expressed" vs. "This is all crap, forget this." It was about being able to find a position that I'm personally comfortable with but which still understands and can make use of Big Model cocepts. So. . .score! :)

Quote from: ValamirI suggest you do a search on the Beeg Horseshoe and on Sim1 Sim2 which will connect you about a bazillion pages of threads that look similar to your own.

I've seen the Beeg Horseshoe referenced, but didn't know what it was. I'll look forward to checking it out, as well as the other links everyone has provided.

Quote from: SeanI don't agree with the idea that "Simulationism is negative", though. I think that the persistent recurrence of the belief that this is so is to some degree an artifact of our theoretical abstractions and the correct claim that Simulationism is a redoubled focus on explanation.

I scanned through my post and I don't think I ever caslled Sim "negative." What I did say was "Simulationism is defined by the absence of other elements, more than the presence of Exploration." But even if I had used the "N" word, I would stand by that as it's not a pejorative in this sense, and not Sim itself that's "negative"; rather, its focus is defined negatively by whaT it doesn't include. In a way, Sim is "Exploration plus nothing." in contrast to Narr and Gam's "Exploration plus this." And I'm not necessarily coming down on that, so pardon me if my descrition sounded that way.

Quote from: Troy_CostisickI'd just like to pose as a question, "Why did you expect all three to be alike?"  I personally don't see any need for any creative agenda to look, feel, or act similar to any other.

Aside from a basic (and often misleading) human tendency to order randomness, I don't necessarily expect them to look alike--except that the Forge Essays seem to imply that they should, by placing them in the same tier within the Big Model. If they go in the same "place" and fulfil the same function, it seems reasonable that they'd behave in somewhat the same way. SO all this is my way of saying, "hey, waitaminute, they aren't alike, and we don't have to pretend they are." Of course, I'm a bit late ion observing that, but hey, what can ya do? It does seem worth belaboring a bit, because far from a mere semantic or mental exercise, deciding where an element fits in the larger system can cary vital implications for how that element behaves and interacts with other elements.

Quote from: Troy_CostisickIn my view, non-alike-ness doesn't mean non-existance. :)

Agreed. I'm just jimmying with it's position and by implication it's relationship to other concepts.

Anyway, thanks again everyone for the nice, helpful feedback. I think on one level I just needed a hearty "No, you're not full of crap" from other thinkers to affirm my thought processes and allow for adjustment/correction. That, and something to break the ice as a Forge poster. :)

Also, it's wonderful to have some folks point the way to some reccommended reading, since this informational landscape is vast and overwhelming without an appropriate compass. So much obliged.

Peace,

Quote from: MelinglorIn a way, Sim is "Exploration plus nothing." in contrast to Narr and Gam's "Exploration plus this." And I'm not necessarily coming down on that, so pardon me if my descrition sounded that way.

Actually I think of Sim as exploration of colour and/or character. Either of these can happen at the same time as N or G. It's the second impossible thing before breakfast.

Pure N or pure G on the other hand, seem to me, to imply an absence of interest in the character as an individual. In pure G, it's the player's interests that are uppermost.

So Powergaming, for me, seems to me to be a confusion between player and character in which the desires of the former are expressed in the SIS as the desires of the latter, that explores colour or character in a way that is wholly subservient to the Gamist drive. So that acquiring some piece of in game knowledge is really about increasing the power of the character in a metagaming sense rather than anything about exploration of the SIS. Powergamers in mixed groups often claim that their desires and those of the character utterly coincide but this leads to conflicts as it is obvious to others that a certain amount of forcing is taking place.

For example, in a game of RQ, a healer, barred from violence through cult strictures but also protected from violence by the same code, would carry around a spear with a cork on the end in case she ran into trouble.

In pure N, I'm not sure you'd even have a character.

What about Exploration of setting? of Situation? Aren't these canditates for Sim focus as well?

I do think you raise a couple of good points--one, that "pure" Narr or Gam implies a lack of connection with (and fleshing out of) the character. I think that's one thing that turns people off to, for instance, Narr , because it starts to sound like your character is just a Puppet for Prfemise, exactly analagous to Hard Core Gam with extensive Pawn Stance.

This leads into the other point of yours that I like, which is that Sim exploration can happen "at the same time as N or G." (I'm a bit confused at your "impossible thing" reference though: isn't the "Impossible thing" Forgespeak for undesirable cognitive dissonance? Thank you, though, for the opportunity to use the phrase "cognitive dissonance." :) )This is an integral component to the misgivings I've stated in this thread, and one of the logical problems that confronts me when I consider the "all or nothing" style claims made aboiut which CA exists in a given play instance is the simple question "how often must you (e.g.) address premise to qualify as playing (e.g.) Narr?" Presumably not every round of every session. So how much? Once per session? Once per half-dozen? Whole dozen? Once a year? Obviously the any answer will be rather subjective, though extreme infrequency should pretty obviously be a "disqualifier." But within reason, shouldn't frequency be keyed to the pacing of a particular group? I mean, unless a given character's life is JUST CRAMMED CHOCK FULL of moral dilemmas, angsty conundrums, and immediate threats to his way of life, there just won't be room to "address premise" at every turn. Consider:

"You walk into the bar. There's a greasy bartender who nods at you, and some guys playing pool, ignoring you."
"Um, well, gee, I just order a drink I guess."
"Aww, man! You TOTALLY blew the chance to address premise for your judgmentalism issues with personal hygiene, or your secret pleasure at humiliating overconfident pricks at pool."
"Well, gee, sorry, I think right now my guy just wants a drink."
"Tch! Simulationist! Get away from my table!"

An absurd conversation, yes, but while I would trust most mature adults to handle it more tactfully, that's the logical end of the idea that you have to Story Now or Step On Up at all times to qualify for N or G. But is there anything wrong with our hypothetical barfly NOt addressing premise at that particular moment, yet still claiming a Narrativist goal overall? We'll asume for the sake of argument that he does address Premise when fe feels it appropriate. Is there any reason we can't just call that Narr instead of some kind of SiiiiiiiiiiiimNARRsiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimNARRsiiiiiiiim hybrid?

Wow,  sure went off, eh? I just meant to post a couple short quips. I guess it's late and the internal censors aren't firing. But hey, that's a pretty good representation of my raw feelings on this component of the Theory, and the core reason I'm looking at moving Sim over to another box entirely.

Must sleep Catch ya later.

Peace,

Joel: remember that creative agenda is defined by the instance of play. The agenda labels are also used for players, gaming groups, sessions or game designs, but in all these instances what is really meant is not that this particular thing is narrativist or whatever, but that this particular thing favors this particular creative agenda given a single instance of play. This is, however, an abstraction.

So, in practice you usually get a mix of the creative agendas. Most games, for example, support all three to some extent, giving rise to different drifts of the game to different agendas. As an example, Call of Cthulhu supports a kind of simulationism in keeping up a very historical feel of society, equipment, adventure content and such, not to speak of the whole "celebration of Lovecraft" thing. However, the same game also has pretty strong gamist elements in pitting the player strike team against a codified array of monster challenges, with explicit in-game mission of winning at all costs. Thus one could say that CoC is a "simulationist game" or that it is a "gamist game", but what you'd really mean is that "it's possible to drift CoC into focusing on only one of these at a time."

It's the same with a given play session or player: you might pick one agenda in one instance and another in a second instance, because of any multitude of reasons (usually because the situation doesn't connect you to your preferred agenda). Agendas are only singular in a single instance of play, because (we assume) you can't want two of them at once.

Did that clarify it at all?

Quote from: Eero TuovinenAgendas are only singular in a single instance of play, because (we assume) you can't want two of them at once.

That was my second impossible thing. (I'm not really aware of the Forgespeak in this instance, it was a reference to The Restaurant at the End of the Universe - I've just seen H2G2).

I think the horseshoe idea shows that you can have two agendas at the same time. This is common in the real world. I think Bill Clinton called it compartmentalisation, and what about the kids, career, having it all debate? So why not in roleplaying.

I think G is particularly enlightening in this respect. If your character is involved in a contest in the game, regardless of the overall GNS angle, you can be trying to win and explore the premise of how far you'd go to win (and in a manner that explores character if you want to chuck in Sim).

I'm sure there are instances of pure G, N or S but I see much less of them than I do some entangled mess of them together. An entangled mess that chops and changes as the game progresses. And as Joel points out, sometimes it's almost none of them (although I might put in a bid for 'light sim' for the bartender experience).