Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct.
Contents
A New Rhetorical Theory
The term “procedural rhetoric” was developed by Ian Bogost in his book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Bogost defines procedural rhetoric as “the art of persuasion through rule-based representations and interactions, rather than the spoken word, writing, images, or moving pictures” and “the art of using processes persuasively.” Though Gonzalo Frasca’s preferred term of “simulation rhetoric” uses different language, the concept is the same: he envisions the authors of games as crafting laws and that these authors convey ideology “by adding or leaving out manipulation rules.” Frasca defines simulations as “to model a (source) system through a different system which maintains (for somebody) some of the behaviors of the original system,” a definition that shows the importance of systemic procedures.
In coining this term, Bogost borrows Janet Murray’s definition of procedural from her book Hamlet on the Holodeck—“a defining ability to execute a series of rules”—to theorize that a different system of learning and persuasion could be found in computerized media. As Bogost suggests, “This ability to execute computationally a series of rules fundamentally separates computers from other media.” Frasca likewise sees the need for new rhetorical theory because “simulations can express messages in ways that narrative simply cannot.” In procedural rhetoric, these rules of behavior then create “possibility spaces, which can be explored through play.”
Procedural rhetoric also views games as strongly rhetorical—we “read games as deliberate expressions of particular perspectives.” The exploration of possibility spaces becomes rhetorical and instructive as soon as games make claims about aspects of human experience, whether they do so intentionally or inadvertently. Frasca concurs that “video games are capable of conveying the ideas and feelings of an author” and “offer distinct rhetorical possibilities.” Game laws represent “the designer's agenda.” As Bogost traces the history of rhetoric back to classical Greece, he argues that, as theories of rhetoric have expanded from examining only verbal to including written and visual media, an expansion of rhetoric is now necessary to include the properties of procedural expression: “A theory of procedural rhetoric is needed to make commensurate judgments about the software systems we encounter everyday and to allow a more sophisticated procedural authorship with both persuasion and expression as its goal […] Procedural rhetoric affords a new and promising way to make claims about how things work.” As Matt King summarizes the procedural and rhetorical sides of this theory, “By embodying certain processes and not others, by structuring a playing experience around particular rules and logics, videogames make claims about the world and how it works–or how it does not work, or how it should work.”
Bogost overwhelmingly uses video games as the medium to clarify this concept because “they embody processes and rely upon players to enact them.” However, he does suggest that this theory could apply to other types of “play” and their possibility spaces: “For example, consider a game of hide-and-seek in which an older player must count for a longer time to allow younger players a better chance to hide more cleverly. This rule is not merely instrumental; it suggests a value of equity in the game and its players.” Similarly, procedural rhetoric would apply to board games such as Elizabeth Magie’s The Landlord Game, a forerunner of Monopoly (game), that was designed to educate players on the negative outcomes of capitalism. Frasca is much more explicit about the historical use of procedural rhetoric: “Simulation is not a new tool. It has always been present through such common things as toys and games but also through scientific models or cybertexts like the I-Ching.”
Procedural v. Simulation Rhetoric
Although Bogost and Frasca use different terms, their descriptions of this new type of rhetoric should be considered synonymous. Bogost sees procedural rhetoric in contrast to theories of verbal, written, and visual rhetoric, while Frasca coins the term “simulation rhetoric” to compare with narrative and drama as a form of representational storytelling. As he explains, “It is common to contrast narrative and drama because the former is the form of the past, of what cannot be changed, while the latter unfolds in present time. To take the analogy further, simulation is the form of the future. It does not deal with what happened or is happening, but with what may happen. Unlike narrative and drama, its essence lays on a basic assumption: change is possible.” The ways in which they discuss their concepts are nevertheless almost identical.
Examples of Procedural Rhetoric
Bogost describes three prominent categories through which procedural rhetoric manifests itself in video games: politics, advertising, and education. Frasca also suggests examples of rhetoric in each of these categories.
Politics
Although perhaps not overwhelmingly common, a number of games have made political arguments. Bogost shows the potential effect of procedural rhetoric on political values through The Howard Dean for Iowa Game. He discusses how this game represents the “procedural rhetoric of politics,” claiming that “one amasses supporters in support of nothing more than support.” Bogost also sees political content in the government-funded first-person shooter America’s Army, arguing that the game “serves as a convincing procedural rhetoric for the chain of command, the principle structure new recruits must understand immediately.” America’s Army therefore privileges government values and authority, suggesting to players that they should uncritically accept the missions they are provided. Frasca cites a 2002 CBS report that Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura considered using video games for propaganda and mentions the wave of anti-Osama video games that erupted online after September 11, 2001.
Advertising
Rhetoric focuses on persuasion, so it is no surprise that advertising would be present in some examples of procedural rhetoric. Bogost describes a possible effect of advertising procedural rhetoric in the game Animal Crossing. Although the game is targeted to children, there are certain rare things in the game that can only be found during the late hours of the night, meaning that the child would have to ask permission to acquire this rare item or enlist the help of parent(s) to acquire it. Bogost argues that this could be incentivized by the parents—for example, “do your chores and I will let you stay up to get it”—which shows the persuasive effect video games could have on both the parent and the child. Frasca sees advertising as especially prevalent in procedural rhetoric, arguing that advertisers “see in games a tool for persuasion” and noting the prevalence of product-based “advergames.” Advergames make it especially clear that games in general contain ideological content because players understand that advergames have an explicit agenda.
Education
Education and instruction is an inherent theme of procedural rhetoric; players learn from seeing their behaviors rewarded or punished. Bogost uses the SeaWorld Adventure Parks Tycoon game (one of a number of simulation games about managing business franchises) as an example of the educational value of procedural rhetoric. In these games the player is tasked with creating a theme park, zoo, or other business and making it profitable. Although such games allow players to develop their businesses as they see fit, they ultimately require a successful business to progress and keep playing. This feedback process forces the player to learn how to manage a business and grow in knowledge as they play. Frasca mentions the simulation games SimCity and The Sims as examples of procedural rhetoric and uses the handling of same-sex relationships as an example: “[T]he way that The Sims's designers dealt with gay couples was not just through representation (for example, by allowing players to put gay banners on their yards), they also decided to build a rule about it. In this game, same-gender relationships are possible. […] By incorporating this rule, the designers are showing tolerance towards this sexual option.”