Procedural rhetoric - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Procedural_rhetoric

Procedural rhetoric
Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric[1] 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.[2]

Contents
A New Rhetorical Theory
Procedural v. Simulation Rhetoric
Examples of Procedural Rhetoric
See also
References

A New Rhetorical Theory

The term “procedural rhetoric” was developed by Ian Bogost in his book Persuasive Games: The Expressive
Power of Videogames.[3] 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” [4] and “the
art of using processes persuasively.” [5] 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[6] and that these
authors convey ideology “by adding or leaving out manipulation rules.”[7] 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,”[8] 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”[9]—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.”[10] Frasca likewise sees the need for
new rhetorical theory because “simulations can express messages in ways that narrative simply cannot.”[11] In
procedural rhetoric, these rules of behavior then create “possibility spaces, which can be explored through
play.”[10]

Procedural rhetoric also views games as strongly rhetorical—we “read games as deliberate expressions of
particular perspectives.”[12] 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.[13]
Frasca concurs that “video games are capable of conveying the ideas and feelings of an author”[14] and “offer
distinct rhetorical possibilities.”[15] Game laws represent “the designer's agenda.”[16] 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

1 de 4 19/02/2018 20:03
Procedural rhetoric - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_rhetoric

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.”[17] 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.”[18]

Bogost overwhelmingly uses video games as the medium to clarify this concept because “they embody
processes and rely upon players to enact them.”[19] 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.”[20] 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.[21] 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.”[8]

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,[17] 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.”[16] 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.”[22] 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.”[23] 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.[24]

Advertising

2 de 4 19/02/2018 20:03
Procedural rhetoric - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_rhetoric

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.[25] 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.”[11] Advergames make it especially clear that games in general contain ideological
content because players understand that advergames have an explicit agenda.[11]

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.[26] 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.” [11]

See also
Cybertext
Digital media
Digital rhetoric
Simulated reality
Video game theory

References
1. Frasca, Gonzalo (2003). “Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology.” In The Video Game
Theory Reader. Ed. by Mark J. P. Wolf and Bernard Perron. New York: Routledge. 221–37
ISBN 9780415965798
2. Bogost, Ian (2008). "The Rhetoric of Video Games." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games,
and Learning (https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/ecology-games). Ed. by Katie Salen. The John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press. 117–40. ISBN 9780262693646
3. Bogost, Ian (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press. ISBN 978-0262514880
4. ‘Persuasive Games’ p ix
5. ‘Persuasive Games’ p 3
6. Simulation versus Narrative p 229

3 de 4 19/02/2018 20:03
Procedural rhetoric - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_rhetoric

7. Simulation versus Narrative p 231

8. Simulation versus Narrative p 223
9. Murray, Janet (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The Free Press,
New York, NY.
10. The Rhetoric of Video Games p 122
11. Simulation versus Narrative p 225
12. The Rhetoric of Video Games p 119
13. The Rhetoric of Video Games p 123
14. Simulation versus Narrative p 224
15. Simulation versus Narrative p 222
16. Simulation versus Narrative p 233
17. The Rhetoric of Video Games p 125
18. King, Matt (2010). “Procedural Rhetorics - Rhetoric's Procedures: Rhetorical Peaks and What It Means to
Win the Game.” Currents in Electronic Literacy: Gaming across the Curriculum.
http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2010/king_procedural_rhetorics_rhetorics_procedures
19. Persuasive Games p 44, 45
20. The Rhetoric of Video Games p 121
21. Pilon, Mary (February 13, 2015). "Monopoly’s Inventor: The Progressive Who Didn’t Pass 'Go.'" New York
Times. Retrieved February 27, 2015
22. Persuasive Games p 328
23. The Rhetoric of Video Games p 130
24. Simulation versus Narrative p 226
25. Persuasive Games p 334-335
26. Persuasive Games p 335

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procedural_rhetoric&oldid=787540086"

This page was last edited on 25 June 2017, at 23:52.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

4 de 4 19/02/2018 20:03