The Forge Archives

Hey Everyone,

Since everything is all gummed up right now on in the other thread, I thought I would pose this question from over here.  There are several underlying assumptions in your posts that interest me that I would like, with your help, to work out.

Quote from: CaldisI personally find that redefinition to be lacking. As initally formulated it was a functional style of play where the gm ran the story and the players were ok with that, likely because it didnt mess with their agenda. The way it stands now it can not be a functional form of play.

Just so that we're clear, I am not calling this new idea the P word.  However just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -

"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"[/list:u]For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism.  From what I understand you this is above formulation to non-functional form of play.  Fair enough.  My question is why.

I have pondered this for a little while and in combination with another idea that seems to be floating around the zeitgeist here I have come up with a little formulation that I wish to employ for illustrative purposes only.
Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect[/list:u]Where –
• effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and
• affect is what the player is "feeling" or "getting out of playing" – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.[/list:u]What has been argued on a number of occasions is that if the players have no effect on Situation, then that form of play is not functional.  Thus using the above formulation, if effect is zero then roleplay/CA expression is zero/null as well.  Conversely you have effectively argued that if affect is zero, if a player is not Stepping on Up, but he is addressing Challenge, then that form of play is also non-functional.
  "Gamism by definition requires strategy and guts ...If a game is recognized as gamist simply because it has combat but no Step on up then I think it has been mislabelled."[/list:u]Again using the above model, if affect is zero then roleplay/CA expression must be zero/null as well.
  
  To recap, if either effect is zero or affect is zero then, their product is zero and we do not have roleplay/CA expression.
  
  Given the above formulation, Zilchplay would be considered non-functional because while affect is high their (they are enjoying themselves - underline) effect (on Situation - italic) is zero leading to zero/null roleplay/CA expression.  Which agrees with your formulation.
  
  

  Quote from: CaldisThe players could be playing but not expressing a creative agenda, as Walt called it Zilchplay. They are there just to go with the flow and enjoy the experience.

  
  I don't think I have mis-characterized anyone at this point.  Let me know if I have.  At any rate, games where players have zero effect has been suggested to be what amounts to be a category error as it is non-functional and thus does not belong under the moniker "roleplay".  I am not suggesting this is the case, I am just re-stating some views that have been voiced.  Conversely zero affect play has also been described as non-functional as well because the players are not "enjoying" or expressing themselves as they ought – addressing Challenge without Step on Up is not Gamist.
  
  So the question becomes, if the one must have both effect and affect for functional roleplay/CA expression, why is Sim discussed as if it is Ok or understood that it functions quite fine when effect is zero?  Not only is Sim typically spoken about as if zero effect is tolerable, but Sim is often spoken about in such a way that effect MUST be zero.  IOW how many times it has been argued that if the players start having an effect on Situation or start having an interest in effecting Situation that they can no longer be considered to be playing Sim?  How can this be?
  
  By using the above logic Sim play must have effect as well to be considered a Creative Agenda/functional roleplay for the same way that Gam and Nar are considered CA's.  If Sim does not require non-zero effect to be considered either a CA or a functional form of roleplay why not other CA's?  What justifiable argument can be forwarded that says some CA's must have non-zero effect and affect, yet other functional CA's can have zero effect play?
  
  I don't buy the formulation that I have provided, but it does seem to be the unstated foundation for a number of inconsistent arguments that have been put forward.  I think games function in the following fashion where "->" means "drives".
  
  CA expression -> effect -> affect = Functional roleplay.
  
  I believe most players employ effect to derive affect.  I do not think the affect component should be definitional of a Creative Agenda nor do I think the affect component should be diagnostic of a CA.  However, I do believe the affect component is certainly be the frequently sought after "reward" for expressing a certain CA.  IOW we want to feel like we are Stepping on Up, getting Story Now, or experiencing the Dream.  However, these affect states are just that, states of being and cannot be "made."
  
  Therefore I think it much more fruitful to discuss CA's and roleplay with the following ideas is mind.  Effect (addressing Challenge/Premise, Bricolage) is not self same as Stepping on Up, Story Now, and the Dream (which are affect).  Effect is employed in the hopes of creating affect in the players.  That a player may not feel the desired affect does not mean effect (CA expression) is not taking place, rather it means the player is enjoying the benefits of his labors.
  
  This brings us to the question, "If the players are not interested in pursing effect themselves but are enjoying (affect) the labors of another (the GM) is that considered functional roleplay?"  (This would be that controversial P-word play) IOW if the part that immediately precedes "Functional Roleplay" is affect (the players are happily "feeling," real/earned or otherwise, Step on Up, Story Now or the Dream) does it really matter if the players themselves were involved in the effect portion – assuming that they were Exploring?  And if not, why?
  
  (Actually this grew away from me - what a shock.)

Good topic Jay, I was hoping to hear more from you or MJ on this because I think this is the heart of where our disagreement and misunderstanding lays.  I dont have much to add at this point but I have to ask for clarification on one point you made in the following section.  

Quote from: Silmenume

Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect[/list:u]Where –
• effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and
• affect is what the player is "feeling" or "getting out of playing" – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.[/list:u]

I have a problem making a distinction between the two or in seeing where to properly fit things within each.  To me the effect a "CA specific instance of decision making" has on situation is what the player is getting out of play, or to rephrase affect = effect.

So for instance lets have an example of play where an Orc is holding a princess hostage, threatening to kill her if the characters approach.

The gamist looks at the situation as a chance to display his skill and trys to come up with a plan to get the best result, kill or capture the orc and save the princess. The situation is a test of skill.

The narrativist looks at the situation as a chance to make a statement, that requires a little backstory to the situation let's make it simple and say that he seeks revenge on the orc and is in love with the princess.  The situation is a test of values.

The simulationist looks at the situation as a chance to reinforce the dream, to create a shared meaning among the participants.  So an orc hating Dwarf will say to hell with the princess and charge in with his axe swinging.  It's a question of staying true to the ideal.  (If you have a problem with this definition of sim a simple note will suffice and we'll take it to a seperate discussion)

The players are engaged in Step on up, Story Now, and the Dream their feelings are irrelevant but assumed to be positive with regard to the activity, i.e. they are enjoying doing it.   What they've got out of the game was that instance of decision making, how they reacted was CA specific.

Beyond that I'll say certain events in play will undercut the players ability to express their CA but what undercuts one will not necessarily be a problem for the others.  Something that undercuts all three will definitely be dysfunctional, such as a gm's pet npc showing up and resolving all situations.  If players have no input then they cant be enjoying the game, or at least not for very long.  

I'll also note that certain things will undercut a players enjoyment but not necessarily based on CA lines.  Illusionism is certainly one example.  It's a breach on the social contract level and not necessarily CA, though certain CA will find it unacceptable.

Hmm ... I think the "affect" vs. "effect" thing is actually a very, very good point. This is because I've noted that people's idea of what 'empowerment' as a PC is varies greatly.

Almost everyone agrees that at some point the GM can/should step in to prevent player actions in a traditional game (where the Player in a hard-boiled detective game declares he grows wings)--but where the actual line is drawn and under what circumstances is a very hazy boundary (being shanghaied at the start of a game doesn't, by itself, preclude any CA--but a lot of players might very much object to the GM's heavy-hand in direction of the game).

So what Joe considers X-ism and what Fred considers X-ism might be two very different things.

I didn't find Chris' example in the other thread to be X-ism. It might be something else though (the P-word).

-Marco

Jay, thanks for re-starting this on a new basis.  I think it will be clearer that way.

[Edited to add: long post!]

First, for the benefit of future readers or late arrivals, some back-threads to which I think this is relevant:

Participationism with an Agendum (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14095)
Celebrating Theme is the Equivalent of Gamist Crunch (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14024)
Self-Deception as a Design Consideration (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14079)
Pattern Recognition, Metaphor, and Continuity (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13958)
And we could go backwards into various threads about Simulationism and its definition.[/list:u]Before I weigh in, I want to get clarification on something.  Ideally, I want to check what both Jay and Marco have to say about this:

Quote from: SilmenumeHowever just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -

"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"[/list:u]For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism.  From what I understand you this is above formulation to non-functional form of play.  Fair enough.  My question is why.

To put that more clearly to me at least:

Marco defines X-ism as:

a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]

Jay reads this:

Marco believes this is a necessarily dysfunctional form of play.  Jay is not convinced that it is so.[/list:u]Have I got that right?

Next part of the question -- the real question:
a game where

the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]Now this is going to sound like silly semantics, but it's not.

1. It is, presumably, the players giving over control.  Yes?
2. By "they like," do you mean "those choices they like to make" or "those choices they willingly give up"?
3. By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" do you mean all such choices, all important such choices (defining "important" by some means we haven't gotten to yet), or all such choices they willingly give up?

See, how we read this formulation (which I realize is off the cuff) matters a great deal for discussing this.[list=a]

• X-ism is a gameplay mode in which the players and GM agree, overtly or otherwise, on CA.
  
• Therefore they can agree on which choices are CA-meaningful.
  
• The players agree willingly to cede control over some range of such choices.
  
  This leaves us with options:
  
• If that range is constrained, i.e. does not include all such choices, then their CA-meaningful focus may be on that which they do not cede.
  
• If that range is constrained similarly, then their CA-meaningful focus may be on what the GM is doing rather than their own choices.
  
• If that range is total, i.e. includes all such choices, then their CA-meaningful focus must be redirected to what the GM is doing rather than their own choices.[/list:o]To my mind, this is crucial.  By one formulation, we're saying that the dysfunction of X-ism is entailed by the inability of the players to make CA-meaningful choices.  By another, we're saying that this dysfunction occurs elsewhere.
  
  So on this one I need a little clarification.
  
  ------------
  Now let's consider Jay's formulation:

  Quote from: SilmenumeFunctional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect
  Where –

  • effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and
  • affect is what the player is "feeling" or "getting out of playing" – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.[/list:u]

  I realize this isn't quite what Jay thinks himself.
  
  But I wonder whether the first part of the equation can or should be challenged.  The whole question of X-ism seems to me to come down to whether in fact "Functional roleplay" = "effective CA expression."
  
  For example, Dr. Xero has been pointing repeatedly to a form of gaming which, as I read it, is precisely not this.  The players enjoy themselves, and ask for more, so as I understand it this is functional play.  But they make no "effective CA expression" themselves -- this is handed over to the GM, and the players go around essentially trying to discover the story already constructed by the GM; through this process, they participate only in the revealing of the story, which as I see it has no CA relevance under current definitions.
  
  If on the other hand we agree that functional play must involve effective CA expression, then we do indeed have a distinction to make between what the players feel about play (what Jay calls "affect") and what the players do in play (what Jay calls "effect").  This takes us over to Mendel's thread on Self-Deception: if the players feel they are doing something, say telling a story, then Mendel argues they may be a functional group; their actual "effect" in play may be minimal, simply aiding the GM to do storytelling, for example.  At any rate, they may feel that they are doing storytelling when they are not, as in WoD.
  
  Further, and now I think I'm on the same page with Jay, there should presumably be a distinction between success and attempt.  So long as the players' "affect" is that they are addressing Challenge, it may make no difference that their actual "effect" is nil.  Whether the GM deceives them into thinking otherwise, or they deceive themselves, or they just don't really care about anything but trying, the "affect" is identical to functional gaming in which they actually do have "effect".
  
  And I think I'm where Jay is that far because

  Quote from: HeGiven the above formulation, Zilchplay would be considered non-functional because while affect is high their (they are enjoying themselves - underline) effect (on Situation - italic) is zero leading to zero/null roleplay/CA expression.  Which agrees with your formulation.

  -----------
  Now let me parse out the rest of Jay's argument.  Again, my point is primarily clarification.  This discussion draws in bits and pieces of a very wide range of threads spanning several months, and most of those have been derailed at some point by a confusion about initial positions.  So if I go wrong here, that needs to get cleared up.
  
  We have several criteria.
  • Proposition: Functional play requires effective CA expression
    
  • Effect: the play-effect of CA-meaningful choice or action by players
    
  • Affect: the emotional, intellectual, subjective impact of play upon players
    
  • There are currently three known Affects classified: Step on Up, Story Now, and Right to Dream.[/list:u]Unless there is an error in the initial proposition, functional play requires both Effect and Affect.  Thus deceptive play in which players experience Affect but have no Effect, is dysfunctional.
    
    Now in the specific case of Simulationism, we have the problem that Right to Dream does not appear to allow for Effect.  Thus it is not at all clear how functional Simulationism is possible.
    
    What Jay argues is that this is by definition incorrect.  Unless Simulationism be redefined as inherently dysfunctional and probably dishonest, it is necessary that Effect be normal in Sim.  This means that we need to understand what sort of Effect players have in Sim, and how they go about achieving it.  The only other way to make this work is to redefine functional play such that it does not require Effect, only Affect: so long as the players feel as though they have an impact, in whatever CA, their play is functional.
    
    Next, Jay suggests that it is really Effect and not Affect that ought to define a CA.  I think this does not quite make sense -- both are required for the definition.  But it is worth noting that the definitions of Gamism and Narrativism are in many respects active, founded on Effect, and at the same time make clear the Affect.  I think Jay's point (here and elsewhere) is that Simulationism lacks Effect in its definition, and this is confusing matters.
    
    What's behind this, I suspect, is the blunt fact that much discussion still holds to the principle that if the players are having a meaningful Effect with their choices, and doing so mindfully, they must not be playing Sim.  This entails that all Sim is necessarily dysfunctional.
    
    -----------
    So here's where I stand.
    
    I think the real problem is actually that Right to Dream is not defined all that precisely.  It appears that most thinking about CA around here does smoothly merge Effect and Affect.  Practically speaking, this makes good sense.  In analyzing actual play, the first question for CA-diagnosis is to consider Affect.  And if we find that the Affect matched Step on Up or Story Now, we are fairly confident that the play must have included the appropriate Effects, and we go look for them.  But the way Right to Dream, as an Affect, is defined, it is difficult to spot whether it has occurred.
    
    Jay proposes that Affect is a poor diagnostic tool, for this reason among others, but it does seem to be working fine for Nar and Gam.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it, I say.
    
    But in order to resolve the matter where Sim is concerned, we need to go back to actual play and not to the definitions, as there is reason to suspect that there are structural problems there.
    
    My suggestion would be that there are really two parts to resolving this question.
    
    On the one hand, we need to take a hard look at
    • Dr. Xero's actual play experiences
      
    • Actual play examples of what Mike calls Participationism
      
    • Jay's actual play experience
      
    • Mendel's self-deception theory and the actual play examples to which it refers
      
    • Any other examples of apparently functional Sim play[/list:u]We need to analyze these carefully, starting with the basic postulate: if Affect is positive and happy, i.e. the game was fun, we have functional play.  If at the same time it does not match Gamism or Narrativism, we begin with the hypothesis that we are looking at a mode of Sim.  Later on, this may turn out not to be true, but we start there.  
      
      In analyzing all this, we need to focus on Effect, not Affect, once the initial classification is made.  The fundamental question is: what is the Effect the players are having?  We know, from our definitions, that they are having an Effect.  So what is it?  I suspect this will require considerable rethinking of the concept of meaningful choice.
      
      On the other hand, we need to examine all the many possible ways in which Effect may be occurring, setting aside all preconceptions about what is and is not functional.  Remember, we know in advance that the game is functional, because Affect was positive.  The only way that could happen without positive Effect is through extreme deception.  But that raises a vaguely philosophical question: if everyone in the game thinks the game is functional, and everyone is genuinely having a lot of fun, should we consider the possibility that this is actually dysfunctional and everyone is simply deluded?  Assuming otherwise, we need to know what sort of Effect is going on.
      
      I think this will take us into deep theoretical waters, because it slips well into Mendel's issue of deception and self-deception.  The question is not at all what the players think they are doing, or what Effect they do or do not think they are having.  The question is what Effect they are actually having, and the way in which this is structured.  
      
      I suspect that with Sim in particular, we're going to find that there is a lot of concealed Effect going on.  There are a lot of places where in essence the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing.  The players genuinely think they are "playing along," not having any impact on the game.  But in fact, that is not the case: they are having an important and meaningful Effect.  And once we pinpoint the "meaningful" nature of that Effect, we will be very close to understanding the Sim CA.
      
      For example, let's suppose that we end up classifying Dr. Xero's gaming as (a form of) functional Sim.  This means that Dr. Xero and his players are at some level not seeing something: they do not see that the players are not adhering to the GM-constructed baseline world and discovering the patterns and whatnot within it, but are actually doing something that has a meaningful constructive effect on that baseline.  Thus what he's been writing about discovery and fidelity and such becomes a rhetorical strategy of self-deception (let's all remember that Mendel is emphatic that self-deception is no bad thing), somewhat different from what is actually going on.  This seems to me emblematic of a great deal of Sim gaming, actually, and the fact that we're having so much trouble parsing it coherently (on all sides) indicates again the problem Jay is pointing to.
      
      Ultimately, I think we're going to have to accept that one of the following is true, like it or not:[list=1]
    • Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression
      
    • Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dysfunctional
      
    • Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire[/list:o]I think #3 is the most coherent solution, but any one of these would solve it logically.
      
      
      As with Jay, this sort of got away from me....

Hello,

Chris, #3 is what I've been saying all along. Talking about overt recognition, conscious desire, and so on, are red herrings, as far as I'm concerned. This arises from my general viewpoint that what we say we think or want or believe is basically just more behavior, and not to be taken as an automatic indicator of what we actually do. Such self-examination is difficult and requires certain touchpoints among the participants (e.g. the favored mode of presentation and response in the Actual Play forum).

#2 makes no sense because dysfunctional play is defined by dissatisfaction. "Incoherent" play (multiple-CA) may be fun and functional, however.

#1 makes no sense unless you can imagine everyone sitting around engaged in zilchplay and still call it role-playing at all. I cannot. I've seen groups hang out for many hours and mainly reminisce about old games or have long debates about whether Deckard is really a replicant, desultorily playing out their characters inspecting an alcove, but I don't consider them to have been role-playing.

Best,
Ron

For emphasis, please, everyone, read Ron's reply carefully.

Yes, Ron, I do know that this is implicit -- and in some respects explicit -- in the Big Model, right the way back to the origins of GNS.  But I also think that this has most certainly not been generally accepted.  That is, I think that a great deal of discussion continues to founder on the following statement:

"No, I was there, and what we were doing was...."[/list:u]Which usually is validated by:
"We felt about it like this."[/list:u]I've mentioned Dr. Xero's gaming style as one example of such an analytical misrecognition -- if it isn't such, there's something very wrong with the model itself.  But the most classic form of this is:
We were doing Sim, but telling stories anyway....[/list:u]I don't want to think about how many times we've all had this conversation, in which Ron et al. are saying, "No, you're doing Nar, you just don't realize it," and the poster is saying, "No, we don't like all that meta-mechanical cheating stuff, we're doing Sim."  Mendel's recent thread has pointed to a less-common but real version of the reverse: "I'm telling stories so I must be doing Nar," when in fact you're not telling stories nor doing Nar and are really quite happy doing Sim.

I hope that this thread can clear some of the air about this, because cracking open that weirdness called Sim is going to require people to bite the bullet and accept that they can be flat-out wrong not only about what they

want out of gaming but what in fact they are doing while they game.  And I think Jay's analysis gets this going in an interesting and fruitful direction.

I'm uncomfortable with a couple of ideas that are floating around here, but maybe I can focus some things.

First, players ceding control over all CA-relevant input and output is not dysfunctional play, if they choose to do so. It produces enjoyment, and therefore is functional. For what it's worth, Participationism is said to be functional precisely because it's what everyone at the table wants to do. (Illusionism is said to be non-functional because one participant is fooling the others into thinking they're doing something they aren't doing.)

Second, some time back it was recognized that every agendum has active and passive "modes". The easiest to observe is gamism. The referee (passively) creates the challenges, and the players (actively) overcome them. The players could not engage in gamism at all were it not for the referee providing something to which they can step up. Similarly, in gamist play there may be character players who are playing passively: their roles in the games revolve around making it possible for some other character player to step up and face the challenge, as they more passively facilitate this and encourage it through social reinforcement.

Such passive play is integral to all three agenda.

X-ism seems to raise the issue of whether you can have a game without active play occurring. That is, if the referee raises challenges no one faces, is it still role playing? I'm inclined to think that in X-ism, whatever it is, the roles have shifted such that the referee is the active participant and the character players are passive--they are there to support his play. This can in theory happen in any agendum; I object to the notion that we should assume play to be simulationist when it becomes X-ist.

Finally, Chris, your list missed #4: The effect in play does not need to come from the character players for genuine functional role playing to be occurring. It is clear in participationism (whatever else is known about it) that the players are having no impact on anything meaningful in play; yet a functional role playing session is occurring, because the referee has such meaningful impact on the shared imagined space, and the players are content to enjoy that.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungX-ism seems to raise the issue of whether you can have a game without active play occurring. That is, if the referee raises challenges no one faces, is it still role playing? I'm inclined to think that in X-ism, whatever it is, the roles have shifted such that the referee is the active participant and the character players are passive--they are there to support his play. This can in theory happen in any agendum; I object to the notion that we should assume play to be simulationist when it becomes X-ist.

I wouldn't call this simulationist, certainly, but rather zilchplay.  And I'm inclined to think that it is inherently dysfunctional -- or not roleplay.  To take it to extremes, what you describe is the GM telling a story and the "players" saying, "Uh huh, tell us more."  These "players", whatever else they are doing, aren't roleplaying.  So this isn't functional roleplay.

QuoteFinally, Chris, your list missed #4: The effect in play does not need to come from the character players for genuine functional role playing to be occurring. It is clear in participationism (whatever else is known about it) that the players are having no impact on anything meaningful in play; yet a functional role playing session is occurring, because the referee has such meaningful impact on the shared imagined space, and the players are content to enjoy that.

That's option #1, M.J.  As I understand it, if we're talking about roleplay, the claim is that the players involved must be having some impact on the game.  If that is not the case, then either the proposition is false (option #1) or it's not functional roleplay.

I must say that I am adamantly opposed to #1 (or your #4, if you like).  I cannot believe that functional roleplay includes not roleplaying but rather sitting back and listening to someone else roleplay.  I think that in your #4 situation, what is happening is that the players are having a meaningful impact, but would prefer not to think so, for any number of reasons.  This to me is self-deception -- a particularly successful form of it, apparently.

Fish or cut bait, as they say.  It seems to me that this proposal makes cutting bait into fishing.  Or, if you prefer, it makes turning on a CD player into performing music.

But in any event, my parsing still suggests three options:[list=1]

• Functional roleplay can happen without meaningful CA expression
  
• Fun gaming can be dysfunctional
  
• Meaningful CA expression can happen even when the players do not realize or accept that it is happening[/list:o]I confess that at this stage of the game it's largely an aesthetic guess: I simply prefer to think that players in happy games are doing something than that they are sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything meaningful.  I prefer to think that roleplay is a process of collaborative meaning-construction, rather than novel-writing with an audience.
  
  Probably ultimately the only way to decide that is to follow through on the analysis of functional play that appears non-Effective, which usually (though not always) manifests as some mode of Sim play.
  
  Incidentally, this ultimately may get us somewhere toward a definition of roleplay.  If that definition includes a major mode that has no active component whatever, in which one can stand at the side without having any meaningful impact, then I for one think that's an unfortunate mode of play.  I just can't understand why anyone would rather do this than read a book, in which at least the author has had the time and medium to construct something really good.  If gaming has one significant strength to balance against its various weaknesses, it's collaborative effort -- and to play by eliminating that strikes me as basically a waste of time.

I'm right with Ron and Chris on the unconcious part of CA expression.  The way I view CA is that it is the the manner in which the player is approaching the situation, what they feel is the right way to view the situation.  Is it a test of my skills, an opportunity to address premise, or a chance to live the dream?  The way these differing approaches may effect the situation can vary wildly or be quite similar so I dont think the effect necessarily tells us much about CA.  

Effect can set off tells however.  If the effect does not match with the input the player has given he may show signs of discord, the play doesnt match his standards and so something is wrong, we're not playing right.  The matching of input to output serves as social reinforcement for the players play style.

An offshoot of this is the fact that play without CA is impossible.  You cant approach situation without an idea of how to do so.  You must approach the situation in some manner, that approach is CA.

So the matching of input to output is important.  It shows that we are in agreement over what our play is about.  What's really important though is the input is what the player is bringing to the game, it's what's driving him on.   Anything that prevents him from bringing that input to the game makes his play irrelevant.  Predetermined theme prevents the players input from mattering to the narrativist, strategic irrelevance makes the gamists input meaningless,  but what causes problems in Sim?  I believe it would have to be something that supplies a result that does not match with the players understanding of the ideal.  

If something that seems out of place comes up that can cause problems unless the discrepancy can logically be solved.   Since the ideal is rarely a fully formed thing problems can usually be worked out by refining the ideal, finding something within it to make sense of the new situation.  If that doesnt resolve the incidence than the most typical result is an instance where the character would leave play rather than continue.  Face with such an instance one of three things can happen, the gm refines the situation to follow the pc, the player refines their understanding of the ideal to remain with the game, or the pc leaves the game.

I think I agree with you, but we've got this annoying problem with Jay's terms, which is that they are very spelling-inflexible.  And lots of people confuse "effect" and "affect" anyway, as verbs and as nouns.  Let me just check my understanding -- and I'm going to propose new terms, at least for the duration of this thread.

Quote from: CaldisI'm right with Ron and Chris on the unconcious part of CA expression.  The way I view CA is that it is the the manner in which the player is approaching the situation, what they feel is the right way to view the situation.  Is it a test of my skills, an opportunity to address premise, or a chance to live the dream?  The way these differing approaches may effect the situation can vary wildly or be quite similar so I dont think the effect necessarily tells us much about CA.  

Effect can set off tells however.  If the effect does not match with the input the player has given he may show signs of discord, the play doesnt match his standards and so something is wrong, we're not playing right.  The matching of input to output serves as social reinforcement for the players play style.

Okay, here's how I read this.  There are three elements to CA-meaningful play:

How I

approach play
What impact I have on play
What result I get from play[/list:u]You're saying, I think, that the different approaches lead to wildly different impacts, and thus to even more varying results.  Examining result or impact in isolation isn't very helpful, diagnostically, for this reason.  However, a mismatch between the actual perceived impact I had on play and the result I expected to get from it may "set off tells"; that is, if the mismatch is strong, I may react negatively.

Have I got that right?

Therefore:

QuoteSo the matching of input to output is important.  It shows that we are in agreement over what our play is about.  What's really important though is the input is what the player is bringing to the game, it's what's driving him on.   Anything that prevents him from bringing that input to the game makes his play irrelevant.  Predetermined theme prevents the players input from mattering to the narrativist, strategic irrelevance makes the gamists input meaningless,  but what causes problems in Sim?  I believe it would have to be something that supplies a result that does not match with the players understanding of the ideal.

If my approach leads to impact and result that I expect, more or less, then I know we're all on the same page here -- we all have compatible approaches and seek similar results.  If I am unable to have any impact, my approach is irrelevant.

For Nar, if you tell me that the Premise is already X, and that there is a right answer to it, then my approach is irrelevant, I cannot have a meaningful impact, and I will not get my desired result.

For Gam, if my actions are strategically irrelevant, my approach is irrelevant, I cannot have a meaningful impact, and I will not get my desired result.

For Sim, this suddenly becomes tricky.  We have some sort of mismatch about my "understanding of the ideal".

Assuming we're now on the same page, I'm going to propose that we stick to these terms for the duration of the thread.  Effect/Affect is clearly going to cause problems.  But please, let's not use "impact" verbally, ok?  Your teeth and bowels can be impacted if you want.

Anyway, I agree with Caldis (assuming correct reading).  I think that the crux here is that an approach implies that one intends to do something, and that means one has to have some sort of impact.  If I can't have that, my approach is meaningless and irrelevant.  That's not CA-meaningful, and thus is zilchplay or flat-out dysfunction (or not roleplaying to begin with).  This then means that if I have an approach and I get a valid result for it, I must have an impact, whether I realize or admit it or not.

Jay, you out there?  Any comments?  Sorry I hijacked your terms, but those two were going to cause perpetual friction.

I'd like to toss one thing out on the difference between reading a book, and "playing" with someone who is telling a story. In the latter case, the "players" could have the ability to aim the camera. Sure, in the end, the villain will be defeated and the world saved, but perhaps we will follow the grocery store clerk's struggle rather than the hero's.

How many times have you read a book or watched a movie, and wish more focus was applied to a particular character?

An analogue is music. Live performances are often way better than a recording even though a recording can have technically better music. The best live performances benefit from a feedback loop between the performers and the audience.

Frank

Good point, Frank.  Fair enough.  I maintain, though, that aiming the camera isn't roleplaying, nor is generating a good energy for the band at the concert.  But you're dead right: they are important.

I think maybe that was what M.J. was referring to with passive play.  I guess I just think that purely passive play, in which we only aim the camera and never get to go out and make the film, is zilchplay or something of the kind.

I'm inclined to agree that just aiming the camera is not role-play, though it can influence the actual story (perhaps the story teller changes who the real hero is because of where the camera is aimed).

I'd also propose that good role-play is similar to a good jam session, but I'm not sure that all role-play must reach the level of a jam session.

I'm not sure what it's role-play analogue is, but something interesting happened at one live performance I attended. Mary Jane Lammond had been scheduled to play at Borders but missed the date because their van broke down. They were able to make a later date and a last minute notice went out. A good sized crowd showed up and the performance was awesome and garnered a thunderous standing ovation. They were not at all prepared to do an encore, but we kept applauding. The musicians conferred amongst themselves and finally announced that they could do one more song. They were able to play a childrens song that  they felt comfortable doing, and it rocked. They remembered this reaction and on their next tour gave Borders a call and said, "You know what, we weren't scheduled to come through Raleigh on this tour, but we want to do another gig, do you think you could get an audience in two days?"

I think somewhere in there lies the heart of what role-playing is, why it is different that sitting on the floor in the library and listening to a story teller, and why it is different than Monopoly.

Frank

Chris I think we're in 100% agreement.  

The only thing I'd add is where you say impact and results can vary wildly depending on approach they can also appear to be eerily similar, doubly so for impact.  Judging by impact doesnt tell what approach was taken, different roads lead to the same place kind of thing.

Hey Chris,

Thanks for fleshing out and making my original post more cogent and accessible!  At this point I don't have any overarching comments, changes or additions to make, so I will address piecemeal what has come up.

Quote from: clehrich

Quote from: SilmenumeHowever just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -

"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"[/list:u]For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism.  From what I understand you [think] this [is] above formulation to [be a] non-functional form of play.  Fair enough.  My question is why.

To put that more clearly to me at least:

Marco defines X-ism as:

a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]

Jay reads this:

Marco believes this is a necessarily dysfunctional form of play.  Jay is not convinced that it is so.[/list:u]Have I got that right?

I cannot answer for Marco, but in my case you are correct.  

Quote from: clehrichNext part of the question -- the real question:

a game where

the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]Now this is going to sound like silly semantics, but it's not.

1. It is, presumably, the players giving over control.  Yes?
2. By "they like," do you mean "those choices they like to make" or "those choices they willingly give up"?
3. By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" do you mean all such choices, all important such choices (defining "important" by some means we haven't gotten to yet), or all such choices they willingly give up?

My answers to your quest for clarification are the following.[list=1]

• Yes.
• "Those choices they like to make"
• By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" I mean all such choices.[/list:o]By using a definition instead of a label I was trying to avoid all the baggage that has been associated with current labels.  Hence my employment of the term X-ism.  However, one might look to Zilchplay or the P-play word and see startlingly uncanny similarities.  Do so at your own (gumming up) peril!
  
  There is one point I would like to bring up that I think is proving to be something of a stumbling block.
  
  The usage of the words "dysfunction" and "non-function."  I was using them in two separate ways with being fully aware of that until just now.  I think there is an important difference between the two and I would like to propose the following.
  • Dysfunction – a "failure" of the affect portion of the game.[Non-function] – a failure of the effect portion of the game.[/list:u]This difference, which appears to be subtle, represents a huge assumed bias in the Model.  I do not mean bias in a negative on any level.  Dysfunction basically means that players aren't having fun or some such similar thing roleplaying (Exploring).  Non-function basically means that role-playing (Exploring) isn't happening – AT ALL.  What ever is happening is not Exploration.  To call such play Exploration/role-play is essentially a category error.  Big difference between what the players are feeling and the process itself failing to match the definitional criteria.
    
    This brings me to this part of this thread –
    
    

    Quote from: clehrichUltimately, I think we're going to have to accept that one of the following is true, like it or not:[list=1]

    • Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression
    • Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dysfunctional
    • Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire[/list:o]Underlining added.

    I would rephrase as such –[list=1]
  • Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression
  • Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be non-functional
  • Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire[/list:o]
    
    I think dysfunctional is inappropriately used and that non-functional is the better choice.  This is what, I think, led to Ron's apparent confusion about #2.
    
    

    Quote from: Ron Edwards#2 makes no sense because dysfunctional play is defined by dissatisfaction. "Incoherent" play (multiple-CA) may be fun and functional, however.

    
    #2 as previously stated says or implies something like – "Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dissatisfying (i.e. dysfunctional)."  However there is still a disjunction going on.  Both Ron and you see something that isn't quite right.  I think it is because if we use the word "non-functional" instead of "dysfunctional" at least we self-contradictory nature of the statement goes away.  That does leave with a new problem.  By my formulation, using non-functional instead of dysfunctional, #2 takes on a whole new meaning.
    
    Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be non-functional (i.e. zero effect play).  So we end up with a contradiction again, but of a different sort – and one that demonstrates the bias of the Model.  Both you and Ron implicitly or explicitly reject zero effect play as non-functional and thus not roleplay at all.  
    
    That's fine.  I know that M. J. Young has a different opinion.  My question is can either Ron or you (Chris) argue why effect must be present for the activity to qualify as roleplay?  Can we are argue that one must be effecting Situation in order for that activity to qualify as Exploration/roleplay are do we simply consign that position to "First Principle" or axiom?
    
    I have to hop – Caldis and Chris I do wish to comment on both the ideas of "approach to play" and Chris' alternatives to "effect and affect."

Quote from: Chris LehrichI cannot believe that functional roleplay includes not roleplaying but rather sitting back and listening to someone else roleplay.  I think that in your #4 situation, what is happening is that the players are having a meaningful impact, but would prefer not to think so, for any number of reasons.

Let's suppose we have a gamist game in progress. We've got a mid-sized group, eight or nine character players and a referee. The referee sets up the challenges, of course, and the players as a group face them. In this particular group, three of the players always step up to the challenges and overcome them. The rest of them encourage them to do so and cheer their successes, riding the coattails of the really capable players toward ultimate team victory.

It's a bit like you an me being on a basketball team with three NBA stars. We're not going to contribute anything but fill out the roster, while they're going to run up and down the court and score a lot of baskets--but in the end, we're going to feel like winners when our team wins.

That tells me that you don't have to step up to the challenge to be playing gamist. You don't have to do anything at all, except facilitate and encourage the play of whoever is the active player.

What we may have here in an X-ist game is a batch of players all of whom have gone into "cheering" mode.

The question then becomes, are you legitimately playing in a particular agendum if you, personally, are not ever significantly contributing to the contents of the shared imagined space but you are accepting and endorsing the contributions made by those who are? I think it's clearly the case that you are a participant in the game by virtue of your positive social reinforcement of the development of the shared imagined space. Thus it is fair to suggest that it might be possible for a dozen character players to be doing nothing more than encouraging the referee to continue to tell his story, and this be a functional role playing session.

How is this different from storytelling? I don't know. Does it have to be? Obviously, listening to books on tape is an extreme--the storyteller gets no feedback from the audience. The teacher reading to the class gets some feedback, but does not alter any of the content of the story, nor even the phrasing, but only possibly the delivery. A scoutmaster telling a story by a campfire is probably somewhat more responsive to his audience, phrasing his story to enhance their response. A referee creating a story around the imagined personae of his players' characters is as much telling a story as Charleton Heston is when he records a novel, but he's interacting with his audience a great deal more, because they are encouraging him. I don't think it has to be more different than that. I don't think you always have to be able to say, "this is storytelling" versus "this is roleplaying" in any particular instance. It's role playing if the players feel like they're part of it, and storytelling if they feel like they're listening. It's at that point entirely subjective: what do the participants believe they are doing? That's what they are doing.

Quote from: Later ChrisI think that the crux here is that an approach implies that one intends to do something, and that means one has to have some sort of impact.

When we speak of the creative agendum of a game, we are speaking of the unified creative agendum of a gaming group. If we don't have a unified agendum, we have dysfunction.

However, because we are talking about the agendum of the group, your concern here evaporates. A gamist creative agendum does not mean that every player at the table expects to step up to the challenge--the referee clearly does not, but is playing just as gamist as everyone else. What the group agendum means is that as a group we intend to do some specific thing. It does not matter to the sense of their being an agendum which members of the group actually are doing it. It only matters that at least one member is doing it and the rest are "on the same page", reinforcing and encouraging that choice.

--M. J. Young

OK – here's part two of my response.

Quote from: CaldisAn offshoot of this is the fact that play without CA is impossible.  You cant approach situation without an idea of how to do so.  You must approach the situation in some manner, that approach is CA.

Caldis, I do agree with you that the "approach" to Situation is CA (or at least central to or definitional), but I am not certain that players always do have an idea of how to approach Situation.  "Tourism" is a perfect example of this "style" of play.  Now "Tourism" may ultimately be consigned to the umbrella of Zilchplay, but there are players who do Explore (share imagining using the elements of Exploration – sans conflict) who do not have an "approach to Situation."  Or perhaps they do have an approach and it is simply, "I don't want to have to deal with Situation," or "I'm not interested in Situation."  Zilchplay itself may ultimately find itself outside the model, but there are people who Explore without an "approach" to Situation (conflict).

As a quick not I believe there are three types of Situation from a Character's point of view – [list=1]

• Negative = conflict – there is something in the Setting that is impeding a character goal.
• Positive = success - there is something in the Setting that is aiding or fulfilling a character goal.
• Neutral – that portion of the Setting which does not have a noticeable impact on a Character goal either positive or negative.[/list:o]Why go through this trouble?  Because I believe that Situation has been assumed to be of the "negative impact on Character goal" variety, i.e. conflict.  I don't believe the Model ever explicitly states that "conflict" is the only type of Situation that is being referred to when speaking of CA.  Thus some are arguing, M. J. Young for example, that Situation neutral play (Tourism) is an acceptable form of roleplay.  If this is to be clarified some notation about the necessity of conflict or "negative Situation" needs to be made thus making the assumption overt.
  
  Now on to Chris' rephrasing of Caldis.
  
  

  Quote from: clehrichOkay, here's how I read this.  There are three elements to CA-meaningful play:

  How I

  approach play
  What impact I have on play
  What result I get from play[/list:u]

  
  This formulation is eerily close to the formulation that I had provided in my original post.
  
  

  QuoteCA expression -> effect -> affect = Functional roleplay

  
  Now let me provide a Rosetta stone to translate –
  • effect = impact on play.
  • affect = result I get from play.
  • "CA expression" was a very poor phrasing of an idea I've been fussing over basically since I arrived here and became familiar with the model.  What I meant by CA expression was something like this.  When a player decides to roleplay he is trying to fulfill a desire.  This "desire" is the desire for the affect of "Step on Up, Story Now or the Dream."  However, in order to fulfill his desire (attain his desired affect) he must engage Situation in a certain fashion in order to try and create the circumstances whereby he then "feels" the desired affect.  That certain fashion is "approach to play" or more specifically approach to Situation/conflict.  Thus one's desire for a specific type of affect guides how one "approaches play" i.e. how one drives effect.[/list:u]The irony of this cycle is that we start off in with this real but admittedly subjective affect with a desire, we then operate on (have an effect on) a fictional non-tangible objective reality in the hopes of creating a real but non-tangible subjective affect.  This leads me to this formulation –
    Desire for specific affect (Step on Up, Story Now, the Dream) -> effect -> affect.[/list:u]One problem in the model lies in how CA's are delimited.  Ostensibly they are defined by process of effect.  That is extremely workable and works perfectly within one of the base notions of the Model that one can only use "observable" behavior to make diagnosis about CA.  IOW CA is defined by the observable behavior of the participants.  That which is observable is the players communicating about the objective but fictional SIS.  We know the players are there ultimately to satisfy affect, but the problem is that affect is not objective and directly observable but interior and subjective.  CA is not coequal to affect, but defined as the process of trying to create circumstances favorable for the specific desired affect state via (observable) effect.  Yes, I agree that it is silly to "divorce" CA discussions from affect, but how can we argue affect is (can be?) definitional on the one hand and say the model is solely objective on the other?  There is this transformative black box that sits between effect (objective) and affect (subjective) and things can go wrong there.  If this translation process is not perfect can we then define CA by something that may not arise (affect) even if the process (effect) was fully operational?  We are not guaranteed that following process (effect) will lead to affect; conversely just because we conclude (for example) Theme (affect) is present it does not guarantee that addressing Premise (effect) was going on.  Affect is the why of CA, but it is not the observable process of CA which is defined by effect.
    
    Affect is critical, but it is not definitional of a CA.  Heck, we have already argued that affect is not enough to say a CA is being expressed.  IOW its not enough for the players to "say" they are getting their "Step on Up" when they aren't effecting the Situation.
    
    My logic may be faulty, but have I at least shed any light on my position?
    
    Chris,
    
    I'm OK with "impact" replacing "effect," but I think "result" is just as potentially confusing a term as "affect" because "result" easily brings to mind the SIS.  "Impression" or "Impress" maybe?

Quote from: M. J. Young
How is this different from storytelling? I don't know. Does it have to be? Obviously, listening to books on tape is an extreme--the storyteller gets no feedback from the audience. The teacher reading to the class gets some feedback, but does not alter any of the content of the story, nor even the phrasing, but only possibly the delivery. A scoutmaster telling a story by a campfire is probably somewhat more responsive to his audience, phrasing his story to enhance their response. A referee creating a story around the imagined personae of his players' characters is as much telling a story as Charleton Heston is when he records a novel, but he's interacting with his audience a great deal more, because they are encouraging him. I don't think it has to be more different than that. I don't think you always have to be able to say, "this is storytelling" versus "this is roleplaying" in any particular instance. It's role playing if the players feel like they're part of it, and storytelling if they feel like they're listening. It's at that point entirely subjective: what do the participants believe they are doing? That's what they are doing.

--M. J. Young

(Emphasis added)
I think defining what 'storytelling' means is absolutely crucial to using it. I posted on this here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14118).

-Marco

Quote from: M. J. YoungWhen we speak of the creative agendum of a game, we are speaking of the unified creative agendum of a gaming group. If we don't have a unified agendum, we have dysfunction.

My impression was that we weren't talking about groups as a whole but as a collection of individuals.  That different focus can make us both right while stating opposing viewpoints. I can see how your view is logical but it's on a different level then what I am talking about.

The reason why looking at it as collection of individuals is valuable is in seeing where dysfunction arises.  You are assuming the group is functional, I want to know what it takes individually to make the group functional.  I agree that it's a unified agendum but still feel that the individual members will have their own agenda and if it's not the same as the rest of the group disfunction will occur.

When situation arises in the game the player has to decide how to react, how to treat the situation.  If one player is treating it as an opportunity to step on up and another is looking for address of premise possibilties it's likely that disfunction will occur.

Using your basketball example when we get on the court we know we are playing a game and trying to sink baskets.  A player doenst come on the court grab the ball and try and use it as a pillow while he takes a nap.


Jay,

I think I see where you're coming from.  I think where we disagree is in the ability to observe effect or impact.  You seem to think it's clear and present when it shows up, I think it's a little murkier than that. A recent thread at rpg.net had the perfect example, sorry I cant find it again or I'd link to it.

A player was building powerhouse characters and whenever combat came up would quickly decimate the opposition.  When the game ended and the group talked about their next game the player voiced the opinion that she would prefer less combat.  Everyone was stunned, they felt that the way she acted showed her preference for combat.  She replied that she made powerhouse characters so she wouldnt have to deal with combat for long.  Get it done and over with so she could get back to what she really enjoyed. Now she could have been deceiving herself and really getting a thrill out of combat however I believe their likely were signs of her disaffection in play.  Those signs or tells are what we use to diagnose CA,

Hey Caldis,

Quote from: CaldisI think where we disagree is in the ability to observe effect or impact.  You seem to think it's clear and present when it shows up, I think it's a little murkier than that.

Actually, I never tried to promote the idea that "it's clear and present" when it shows up.  It is murky and difficult to determine.  What I am saying is that observing and looking at "effect/impact" is the only place where the determination of CA can be made.  Player social reinforcements just point to the effect/impact that is CA relevant to the reinforcing player; we as observers must then tease out the pattern in the socially reinforced effects/impacts (which requites time and many effects/impacts) to make our CA diagnosis on the socially reinforcing player.  Determining the CA of the player engaging Situation is more difficult because usually they aren't expressing their support for a given action but are actually engaged in action.  IOW the tells are harder to see in the engaged player, yet we must still look to effect/impact to make the CA diagnosis.  Is the player addressing Premise, Challenge or engaged in Bricolage.

Quote from: CaldisA player was building powerhouse characters and whenever combat came up would quickly decimate the opposition. When the game ended and the group talked about their next game the player voiced the opinion that she would prefer less combat. Everyone was stunned, they felt that the way she acted showed her preference for combat. She replied that she made powerhouse characters so she wouldnt have to deal with combat for long. Get it done and over with so she could get back to what she really enjoyed. Now she could have been deceiving herself and really getting a thrill out of combat however I believe their likely were signs of her disaffection in play. Those signs or tells are what we use to diagnose CA.

If I was living in a cartoon my wig (if I wore one) would have somersaulted over on itself!  OK.  I thought on this for a while before I realized several things.  You never gave a final diagnosis of her CA.  You saw here handle combat extremely effectively and assumed her effectiveness for interest.  What you didn't say was what effect/impact she was interested in lavishing time and attention upon.

You say that there were likely signs of disaffection.  Fair enough.  But that would only support my position that one would have to look at what effects/impacts that she was disaffected by.  That she was disaffected (showed affect) would not say anything more than she was disaffected until they were matched to effects/impacts.  I think is important to note that in your analysis you did not say what she was positively affected by.  She may have lavished great time and energy on those few moments when she could find opportunity to express the CA she wished, but as it appears that the players present were looking to get their Step on Up on, that no one was really paying attention to those moments which were not Gamist conducive and where she could have shown brightly is possible.  IOW that you were surprised by her end of game revelation may be due to that you didn't notice her expressing another CA simply due to inattention to/during non Gamist Situations where another CA could/would be expressed.  When there was a Situation that did not support Gamism effect/impact it was off radar and just not noticed.  I'm not saying this necessarily happened, but looking for another CA is not easy especially in the thick of things and when you're not sure what it is exactly that you are looking for.  You were there and obviously you know much more than I, but that is my take given what I have to work with.

[edited to add]
If the game was indeed Gamist facilitating, and the player in question was not Gamist in orientation there arises two issues that should be accounted for in what appears to be a single game diagnosis.  First she would not have had many non-Gamist Situations to (cross CA) Socially reinforce and thus show her CA colors.  Conversely because there would have been few opportunities for her to engage the type of Situations that would be conducive to her CA expression, there could have been a general paucity of data due to lack of opportunity to out weigh her seeming interest in combat (and thus the assumed interest in Challenge).

A clarification for you Jay, I wasnt present at the play example I listed it was discussed on rpg.net recently.  That's why I didnt make a CA diagnosis I couldnt be sure what it was, the important point is that it is clear her decisions and actions in play didnt not match up with her preference.  As social animals we tend to reach a group understanding of what we're doing and individually do what it takes to make that possible.   For the group activity to be appealing in the long term we have to be engaged by the activity not just following along for the sake of the group.


I'm a little confused on the rest of your post though Jay.  I may just be misunderstanding you affect/effect split yet or I may be just looking at this from the opposite end.  But if the affect shows the players reaction to the effect  then dont we need both to make a diagnosis?  We cant just say this person was affected by the situation so lets see what effect they had on it, we need to know how they were affected to see if their effect was a positive or negative experience.  I dont know if that makes sense, came out like a tongue twister to me.  If it sounds better to anyone replace effect with impact and result for affect.

Quote from: CaldisI'm a little confused on the rest of your post though Jay.  I may just be misunderstanding you affect/effect split yet or I may be just looking at this from the opposite end.  But if the affect shows the players reaction to the effect  then dont we need both to make a diagnosis?  We cant just say this person was affected by the situation so lets see what effect they had on it, we need to know how they were affected to see if their effect was a positive or negative experience.  I dont know if that makes sense, came out like a tongue twister to me.  If it sounds better to anyone replace effect with impact and result for affect.

I'd agree with Caldis here.  The problem seems to me primarily methodological:

Chronologically,
Approach leads to making specific choices, which then have
Impact upon the actual game, producing
Affective Result for the player.

Methodologically,
Affective Result is the first data-point, telling us how to assess
Impact upon the game, manifesting in actual in-game activities, which leads us to infer what must have been the
Approach, which was what we wanted to know.[/list:u]I think Jay's point is that it's relatively common to speak loosely about this, going straight from affective result to approach, bypassing what's really important.  But to be fair, this is exactly why Ron keeps ranting and raving about Actual Play: in order to analyze, we need not only how you responded to the game but what you actually did in it, which is to say not only affective result but also impact.

Sorry to come along late to this particular discussion, but I have some input which I cannot stand to keep from the thread.

I think that the term "Simulationism" actually already describes well how someone's character can have little impact on the setting and yet the play could be fullfilling. I lurk here quite a bit without posting, so I think I have an idea about the CAs, but someone please point out where I'm breaking from accepted usage.

A Gamist is interested in the advantages, the tests of skill, and the best end result. So if there's a chance given an extreme ultimatum such as the hostage test such that both sides can end positively, that becomes the goal. That seems easily agreeable.

A Narrativist is interested in the story, in the morals and ethics of the character, and sometimes even desires to roleplay toward the experience of an interactive fable. If there's a point to be made or a better story to be told by what choice is taken, then the choice with the better point or the better story will be chosen. This seems agreeable, too.

I see (at least)  two types of Sim play being tossed around, so I'm going to address those two types below.

Let me say first, though, that my idea of Sim as I understand it doesn't limit PC impact. I've always just thought of Sim as play without Gam or Nar leanings. The player isn't trying to make a better story, and isn't trying to make use of advantages for the PC like a Gamist would. The player still makes choices, and the system determines whether or not the tasks resolve successfully just like in Gam. The player just isn't tweaking, taking extra joy in outdoing the other players, trying to take extra time to come up with a best solution to a problem, or any of that. It consists of a story of intertwined fate, chance, and free will if you like. As tasks come up, the Sim player takes them on at face value using the skills, equipment, and methods that are obvious. As the Beatles might say, the Sim player is happy to "Let it be". If the decisions are amazingly brilliant, good. If they are disasterous and another option would have saved the day, so what? Real people don't get extra time between clock ticks, and they don't always think things through to the right conclusion before acting. I think a Sim player does just that -- acts without OOC regard to reward, because that's what the character would do. The player thinks IC of how to do things, about motivations, and about results. The character's decision is what is presented because that's what some people feel the hobby of role-playing is about. The decisions could still have great impact if the player understands his or her character differently than the GM does. However, if the GM is good enough at predicting people's actions, you get what I call Sim type 1 below, where the PC's actions are already calculated into the GM's storytelling desires.

Now, the Sim types I keep hearing about as I am reading them are the player being free to make choices, but always choosing what they think the character would be predisposed to do. That's pointed to as limiting impact because the scenario is written to deal with those actions. I'll call that Sim type 1 here, but I don't think the GM always knows what a character will do, even if a player shows trends in how the character is played. The other is the character being played as the player sees fit, but the outcome of the scenario being preordained by the GM and no choices the player/PC makes will change the end result. I'll call that Sim type 2.

Sim type 1:
A Simulationist is interested in determining how things work, including the character he or she is playing, and playing within those set parameters. The fact that there's no real choice to be made, and that the player will have the character choose as he or she expects the character would choose may diminish the impact of the player on the setting. It does not, though, diminish the impact the player has on the player's own PC. Making decisions in the role of the character that the character would make, but expressing the character's thoughts and feelings, their mannerisms, and the angst or joy with which those actions are taken may very well be the end goal of the Simulationist player. Some may not call it "role-playing", but in the classic sense it is definitely "playing a role". The "game" part is often called a misnomer on the Forge. Perhaps for this type of situation it is completely non game-like. The point isn't to win, nor to tell the best overall story. It's to get into the setting, into the character, and do things as realistically as possible, down to the level the character. Making a believable character, complete with attitudes, character flaws, judgment flaws, overriding passions, and dedication to ideals all the character's own  is not a simple feat, especially if one feels Gamist or Narrative pulls towards coming out on top or making the good guys win. Sometimes, in real life, the good guys lose -- sometimes even if they did everything well.  Maybe being an integral part of a good story with an ending either happy or sad is enough.

In the movies, the writers, directors, editors, producers, costumers, cinamatographers, and even the studio execs often make more decisions than the actors. It's the actors, though, who make the story pop. Maybe the ultimate Sim goal is to make the character the best version of himself or herself, without changing who that is. It'd be real "simulation" -- recreating what it would actually be like if the characters were playing themselves instead of being puppets for the human players. Pride in playing a predestined part well is a rewardign experience in its own right.

Think of where RPGs came from -- from wargames. Some wargamers are also reenactors. Now, if you're playing a game, changing the outcome is fine, but that's Gamist. If you're reenacting, you win if you're on the side that historically won and lose if you're on the side that historically lost. However, many reenactors bring color to their characters that aren't recorded in the history books. Sure, their army lost such and such a battle, and some characters in the reenactment are named for the actual historical figures. But reenactors -- especially US Civil War reenactors, will take on a name, a hometown, a family story, and a personal history of previous battles in which the character fought which are indicative of how things were around the time of a battle, but represent no actual individual who was known to be involved. Their contributions are predestined to lead to a particular outcome, because the real battle was already fought. They can make the soldiers realistic, valiant men no matter which color they wear.


Sim type 2:
Sometimes the goal isn't in being true to the character. Sometimes maybe the goal is being true to the setting itself and making no changes to it. Maybe letting the character sway to the irregular beat of the player's whims is okay, so long as it doesn't impact the game world. It's not railroading, because the choice can be made freely. It just doesn't make any difference. So, your character is supposed to lose.  So what? We all die sometime. Make it a good death, one to be proud of. So what if the character makes no impact? The character can do what needs to be done on an ethical, moral, spiritual, and/or karmic level, even if it will accomplish nothing. Some people believe you must do what is absolutely right, even if it costs you everything and does noone else any good in the realm of mortals. It could be viewed as nihilism. It could be viewed as religion. It could be that the PC wins everything no matter what, too, and that's okay as well. The point is, in Nar, the better act gets rewarded or the story goes on because the tension was built and released. In Sim, the story either goes on because it is supposed to go on, or it stops because it's at the end. The story doesn't change because of the PC's actions, but the PC does. I would consider that Sim. Some might kick me and shout, "No, that's Nar! There are five lights!" To them, I would say, "No, it's Sim, because the character developing over time and telling a better one-person story doesn't make for a different overall story. It may become a more interesting story, but the outcome is the same. There are four lights."

The whole battle reenacting thing applies some here, too. Just because we don't know the name and personal story of everyone who lived, died, was wounded, retreated, advanced, or missed a battle due to illness, we know the outcome. Putting a personalized story to it surrounding the battle just makes it more human. We know certain units flanked, some were outflanked, some advanced up the middle, some temporarily retreated, and certain ones pulled all the way away. The reenactors show us individuals, not battle maps. They take a part, and some are valiant while others flee in terror. Which ones do which makes little difference, as long as the proportions are correct. They aren't trying to tell a better story. They're trying to tell the story. Maybe Sim is about that -- even though there's not necessarily an exact event in real life to amtch, perhaps the important thing is that the right story, as conceived, is told correctly. The PCs are part of somethign bigger than themselves, and they are there to add color. The PCs are played by people other than the main creator of the story so that there's additional variations of that color and so that the players are immersed in the story.

Think of where besides recreation role-play is used. Therapy, conflict resolution, marriage counseling (part therapy and part conflict resolution, to be sure), education, crime reporting, children's group pretending (which  on some level amount to freeform RP) and ...um... let's just say intimate fantasy role-playing. The idea in most of these examples is to let everyone see everything from different points of view. From these different points of view, with people taking on roles other than themselves, they are meant to have emotional and/or intellectual breakthroughs by picking up on how it feels to be in someone else's shoes or to see how someone else pictures them. In one example, it's pure escapism.  If we forget about the odd possibility that someone is doing recreational roleplay with their character based on another real person in the group, then we still have POV change and escapism in play. It's not the same to listen to a story as to be the character in an interactive story, even if your interactions make no difference. There's still an emotional tie on some level to your character. There are motivation other than yours. There are goals other than yours. There are feelings other than yours. Realizing that not everyone thinks, feels, and reacts like you in the very same situation is powerful stuff. It's part of growing up to be a good adult member of society, and it's something many people sadly never fully grasp.

So for Sim, maybe it's a growth experience. It's definitely not a "game" per se. Its existence is debated because unlike Nar and Gam, it's not to see who can make the best of a task, or the best of the story, or even cooperatively to make the best story. Maybe the conflict in the SIS isn't resolved so much as the issues the participants bring with them to the session. It's each person involved putting himself or herself into the place of the character and just seeing what that is like. It's a group escape or a group POV therapy. Maybe it's both. Maybe it's one for some in the group and the other for the rest. Maybe it's neither, and something we're all still missing. Maybe I've really gone off the deep end and offended a bunch of you with my insane ramblings... If you think about it as personal growth, what's been called dysfunctional play may not be play, and probably isn't dysfunctional either.

Conclusion:
So, that gives me 3 -- count them, 3 -- types of Sim. The focus is on getting the details right. Which details may change. I think the important thing to remember here is that the name "Simulationism" almost begs to tell us that the reward is in the attention to detail (character, setting, or both) in the imagined world. Let me state that again. The attention to detail is itself the reward. Other rewards, like self growth, enjoying the story as it flows (without thought to making it a better story), enjoying controlling the character (without thought as to making the character be the best character), are similar and grow out of the attention to detail. Model builders often build exact replicas of planes, boats, trains, and cars, then only sometimes customize them at all. Sim players just do the very same thing, only with smaller copies of people instead of smaller copies of vehicles. You don't have to change things to enjoy them. Sometimes being part of what they are is enough, especially when you've chosen what it is with which you're going to commune.

I could handle Gamist or Narrativist play with a character that's a serial killer. I may even enjoy it, because I'd just be playing a game or telling a story. I could have a detachment from the character as a means to a Gamist end or as just a character in a Narrative story who needs an actor.  I don't think I'd ever want to play such a villain in Sim, because in what I consider Sim, one can start to build an empathy with the imagined character. I'll leave that to criminal profilers and not do it for fun. There's less detachment when you try to think just like the character instead of with ulterior motives.

Now that I've said that, I think it's easier for me to give an in-the-short idea of what I think makes Sim: it's playing a character (in the theatrical sense of "play", not necessarily a gaming sense) with no ulterior motives. Thought of winning or losing and thought of telling a better story are ulterior motives for roleplaying. That's where Gam and Nar come from.

It's not that Sim is hard to find because it's not roleplaying. It's hard to find because once you use the word "game", you introduce a motive for character actions. Once you mention "authoring" a story, you introduce the motive of "Authoring" with a big "A" -- writing it, revising it, making it a better story. Once these motives are present, just playing a character ad-lib because it's fun to pretend is gone.

Sure, Sim tends to have tight systems to explain things about the world. Is that the rule, though, or just a tendency? If you're doing Sim the most "realistically" in every way possible, yeah, it's probably important. Sim with exploration of character rather than setting, though, could just as easily be freeform, with no other thing making it Sim than being true to the character rather than looking for outside influences. That's "simulating" a character to me.

Personally, I need to read all that very carefully.  Ron, can we split this?  I think it's moving toward a new debate.

My actual comments will come tomorrow....