The Forge Archives

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

Quote from: Ron EdwardsYes, 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."

Er, "ontogenetic"??  OK, I had to look that up.  (For those like me: it means "relating to the development of the individual organism from the earliest embryonic stage to maturity").  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.  

Of course, the harsh counter is "Dedicated Narrativist role-playing is like adults who act out imaginary characters as a primary part of sex, then claim 'No, no, we're not playing doctor -- that's kid's stuff.  We're making erotic stories.'"  

I don't think either of these is accurate, but they certainly reveal a lot of the subtext of the conflict.  I have often heard the claim that Narrativism accomplishes something, and that Simulationism (either GNS or Threefold) is "pointless".  I think there are a lot of struggles over what role-playing is, and anxiety over whether it is valid as a goal.  For example, I know my father still derides role-playing as a phase which he hopes I will get over in favor of some more "mature" pursuit.

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.

QuoteIn 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.

Classic University of Chicago tactic: parodize the speaker, starting with "in other words" or "so you think," especially by adding a recommendation to the speaker which wasn't there. Then take credit for identifying the speaker's hidden agenda.

"Which people should grow out of" is the egregious addition, completely absent from my point and post. Your "harsh counter" is taking an axe to a straw opponent.

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.

Best,
Ron

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

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.

I mean, if Simulationism is so unnatural, why is it such a dominant mode? Is this related to my earlier statement that Simulationism is often percieved, incorrectly, as a "compromise" between Gamism and Narrativism?

(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,

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

Popularity in numbers can never measure any other quality than popularity.  Sim has become dominant primarily because it has been the most supported form of play in texts and marketed games, not for any other identifiable reason.  

If I were a new roleplayer, and were to pick up a random book, or look on the web, most of what I would find would be Techniques for Sim play. I may not enjoy it, and look for more, and keep looking, but most of what I would find would be Sim information.  I'd likely be playing Sim, just because between most game texts and written info out there, Sim is seen as the default, if not the only way to play.  If I wrote anything, based on what I "knew", then I'd also be writing Sim techniques...which would add to the base of support for Sim.

Chris

Quote from: xiombargWith 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.

Just to give an opinion from the opposite side of the field, I think I understood the point that Ron was trying to make.  That 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.

Am I reading you right, Ron?


Joshua

(first post, though I've lurked a lot)

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.

Quote from: CalithenaIs 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.

I agree with this. I think Ron has a point that "Step On Up" and "Story Now" in their non-roleplaying forms develop later as an outgrowth of make-believe, but I think he's missing another point -- that make-believe isn't the childhood equivalent of "the Dream". kids do "Dream" outside of Simulationist role-playing, but it, too, is a later development of make-believe.

when I was a kid, I and my friends sometimes played "spy". we sometimes made up secret codes that we could use as spies. that's not just basic make-believe, that's make-believ plus something else. and I (and many other kids) have drawn fake maps, or drew pictures of spaceships.

then there's the whole pastiche thing. after going through the simple make-believe stage, most kids go through a stage where they pretend to be their favorite characters from a book, tv show, or movie, more or less telling the same stories but changing a few names or minor details. Pastiche, according to the essay, is straight Sim, not Narrativist in the slightest.

I think as much damage has been done by pretending that Sim is earlier/more natural than Gamist/Narrativist as has been done by pretending that Sim is the immature cousin of the other "true" modes.

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

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI 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.  

Sorry if I offended you in my first post, Ron.  It did seem to me that you had a negative judgement of GNS Simulationism both in the essay and recent threads.  The relevant bit from your essay is:

QuoteI 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.

You don't use the word "natural" -- but the comment about hardwiring and training strongly imply this, IMO, even if it wasn't your intent.  

And I think this is a fair point to talk about.  I don't want to devolve into wishy-washy statements of "any role-playing is as good as any other role-playing".  People will and should have their opinions.  However, GNS Simulationism is an enormously wide category and many people seem to play it -- so if you criticize it you should definitely expect some arguments.  

In my revisiting of Threefold Simulationism, one thing I did was to sidestep the questions of how it was different from other modes.  For example, I allow that it might overlap with GNS Narrativism.  I suggested viewing it as an artistic style, like Surrealism or Expressionism -- not as a category which 1/3 of all games can necessarily be lumped into.  An analytic model which applies only three labels to any possible RPG is necessarily broad and unspecific.  In contrast, a constructive category like Expressionism is more like a set of advice for design, which can be as specific as it need be.

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