The Forge Archives

By amazing and wonderful dumb luck I ran across Chris' (clehrich) thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10283/).  His ideas on Structure, Ritual, and most importantly "Risk" fill in some gaping holes in the ideas I have been wrestling with and mostly losing against!  There will be lots of heavy quoting from the posts in that thread so I will ask patience from all who make the effort to wade through this.  Chris – I will do everything in my power to understand your thesis and to not commit violence to your ideas.

For several months now I have been chasing after conflict as the primary diagnostic tool of CA as if it was the Holy Grail.  After reading Chris' aforementioned thread and doing some reading up on TROS and Ron's Sorcerer I see that I have been chasing after two goals.

The first is demonstrating that conflict is absolutely central and necessary for CA expression and hence exploration/roleplay – this includes Sim.  Conflict/Situation is not just an element of exploration – it has a vital non-interchangeable role that cannot be simply replaced with another element of exploration.  As was explained by Ron  here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=124681#124681/), one cannot/does not Explore Setting it's a nonsensical statement; one rather uses Setting or whatever element of Exploration to Explore.  This means that the elements of Exploration are used to another end beyond themselves.  Jumping off a cliff (http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=125324&highlight=jump+incredible+cliffs#125324/) to see if System will support that action is a deconstructive act (it is self-referential to system/mechanics), not one in keeping with Exploration which is a constructive process.  Yes the character was demonstrated to jump off a cliff and it was integrated to the SIS, but the role of that act had nothing to do with mindfully adding to the ritual event of Exploration but was in fact deconstructing it.  Nor does having a character just move endlessly around the fictional Setting qualify as Exploration because conflict was not involved – it is merely interaction description at best, nothing more.  Sim is not the emphasized Exploration of the element of Setting, nor System, nor Character, nor Situation, nor Color.  Sim play is the focused employment of Exploration via all the elements - Setting, System, Character, Situation, and Color.  All those are used to build towards and reward the act of engaging conflict (this goes for Gamism and Narrativism as well).  I will go into more detail on this later.

The second is how conflict can be employed as a tool of CA diagnosis.  I found that while conflict is at the heart of CA diagnosis, in and of itself any specific incidence of conflict is CA neutral.  Conflict without context is meaningless – it just means two antithetical forces have come into contact with each other.  Combat a direct form of conflict can be used to address Challenge, Premise or Sim X.  What makes a conflict an expression of Challenge or an expression of Premise or an Expression of Sim X is the context in which it takes place.  In my own thrashing around in the darkness way I think I was fighting Ron on his "just watching what the players groove to", react to as "cool" and such as the means of diagnosis because I thought it was too loose.  I wanted something more rigorous.  I wanted to know what in the SIS that the players were reacting to.  So I went digging and found conflict at the heart.  Ron was observing the right indicators, but what was really important were the cues that set off those observable player re/actions in the first place - conflict.  It is everything that the players do that surrounds and relates to conflict that demonstrates CA in action.  How do the players use system to address conflict?  Under what circumstances do players engage the conflicts?  What kinds of rewards are given for engaging in conflict?  How do players respond to the rewards that are generated as a result of engaging in conflict?  How do players employ those rewards?  It all boils down to how and why we engage in conflict and what Ron has gone on about for years - the rewards.  The two are closely linked and difficult to disentangle.  The why part is extremely difficult to discern and can only be inferred from patterns of behavior so nothing terribly definitive can be said about it.  Who's doing what in regards to conflict and how are they being rewarded.  Answer those two (linked) questions and you will have diagnosed your CA.

So how does this apply to Simulationism?

First and foremost is that Sim too is driven by conflict.  No conflict, no Exploration, no CA, no Sim.  However, Sim's employment of conflict is very different from that of Gam/Nar.  Let us then examine how conflict is "addressed" in Sim by first looking at some of the basic underpinnings of Sim.

Internal Causality is king.  The single greatest false assumption about Simulationism is that it is about creating an artificial reality and one that is especially consistent (causality is always clear and consistent).  This assumption does as much violence to the understanding of Sim as saying that Gamism is about rules lawyering or that Narrativism requires overt manipulation of the Premise question.  The role and purpose of Internal Causality in Sim was phenomenally demonstrated here –

Quote from: clehrichThe social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures.
...
(real people) have categorical notions sort of semi-embedded, and they encounter real things and think about them, but most of all and most importantly, they are told what to think by their cultures.
...
So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts* one therefore manipulates structures already in place. Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true. This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.
...
*I'm avoiding the hairy problem of thought/action, and calling it all action. It has been pointed out (by Bell and others) that this distinction is nonfunctional, so when I say "action" you should not think of it as distinct from thought – thought is a kind of action. If you prefer "behave" for "act", feel free to swap the terms.
...
In an RPG context, the application is I think obvious. Structures are handed to us, most obviously in everything from social agreements to rules systems to setting to whatever. We permit ourselves only a limited range of movement. At the same time, every manipulation of any structure within that system necessarily changes its meaning, however slightly;...

This is precisely why Internal Causality is so critically important to Sim.  Play is idealistically limited to the in-game space, and metagame activity typically is eschewed to a very large extent.  This arrangement puts considerable constraints on how the player communicates his intentions to the DM and by extension the SIS.  Thus if the player wishes to reveal a character quality it is paramount that the social structure of the world be consistent so that the newly revealed quality can be seen in clear noiseless contrast.  Its not that we groove on the world being accurately represented via system it's rather that we need consistent social cues so that the relationship to and thus the manipulation of the structures and symbols within the SIS is as unambiguous as possible.  Chris' article, as I understand it, says that our relationship and understanding of the world, both physical and social, is heavily colored by cultural background.  Historically Sim game designers missed that distinction and obsessed on the physics and missed the incredibly important human based culturally informed "structures".  It's not quite as important that a chasm is 38 feet wide and hundreds of feet deep, but rather that it's the "impassible maw of howling death."  Its not so important that the physics be accurate as that we have a personal/social framework point of reference from which to view and categorize the fictional the world and the events transpiring within.  These types of social cues and constraints are unbelievably vital to Sim play yet are almost universally underemployed and/or under rewarded.  Echoes of this can be seen in the horribly misapplied alignment system of D&D.  Chris gives a great example by demonstrating how of a style of dress has many social cues and ramifications at the end of his thread. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=113890#113890/)

However all this has led to the importance of the DM in Sim play.  Again I quote Chris –

Quote from: clehrichIn RPG's, this means that the player whose abduction is actually on the line, i.e. whose character is risking something, is the most likely to find a positive result rewarding and clarifying of the SIS. The other players do find valuable data in it, but are less convinced -- others' clarifications are less authoritative for them.

This has an interesting potential result for Illusionism and strong-GM play. By putting all real narrative control in the GM's hands, you make abductive action riskier. That is, there is a greater real chance of having a failure, of having the result you infer from your abducted SIS blocked by the GM. By raising the risk, you produce two results:

1. Players are less likely to go strongly against the obvious deductions
2. Players are more likely to find the SIS convincing as a total experience

Therefore strong-GM play tends to support Illusionism and Immersion. If you want those things, a strong GM control of narrative may be useful.

Its not that the DM is the god of the game that is important but that his "alienated" position from the SIS fosters an atmosphere of a convincing total experience.  Combined with the effects of risk on the players and you have the basic foundational elements of Simulationism.  Risk with an "alienated" DM promotes the Dream.  Conflict creates risk.  This is conflict's role in Sim.  This is why conflict is just as central to Sim as it is in the other CA's as well.  Conflict fosters the Dream in Sim, conflict drives Challenge, and conflict drives Premise.  Note that I said that conflict fosters the Dream, but it does not drive it.  This is why Sim "feels" so profoundly different from Gamism and Narrativism.

Let me quote Chris one more time regarding risk -

Quote from: clehrichIn the context of RPG's, the previous proposal was that we constantly make Abductions on the basis of various Result data, trying to infer what the SIS is as a Case. The difference from the sciences is that we don't really care about inferring Rules -- we don't do Induction, because it's not helpful to work out a new set of Rules, because we're not that interested in predicting the results of controlled experiments. Instead, we want to make sure that the Case (SIS) is as precisely accurate as possible, so that we can infer or insert new data and have it not clash.

Interestingly, this means that every time we do something within an RPG that affects the SIS (almost anything we do, certainly IC), we're accomplishing one of two things -- or both.

1. Confirm and strengthen the SIS
2. Challenge the SIS

Since we can never have any certainty about the SIS anyway, these two tend to collapse into each other from the perspective of an observer, i.e. another player. From my perspective, it matters which happens, because I want my character to succeed (or whatever) by playing on the structures of the SIS; I don't want to be smacked down for going against the SIS. From everyone else's perspective, either result provides data that clarifies the SIS.

That logical result would tend to suggest that SIS clarity is best supported by players who aren't doing anything. But this seems at odds with experience. So what's wrong?

Again, Peirce. He'd suggest, I think, that the difference is risk. In essence, the more one's hypotheses (abductions) are on the line, the more that is risked, the more convincing we tend to find a positive result. There's no logical difference, but logically no number of positive results can ever prove the abduction correct anyway. So it's a question of what we find convincing. And if we make the abduction, and we propose the test, and we put our necks on the block to do it, it is we who are most convinced.

Risk, which is found in conflict, convinces – i.e., it fosters the Dream.  The more conflict, the riskier the conflict, the more intense the Dream becomes.  Given the above several observations can be predicted which I think reflect real world Sim play.

Sim is difficult to understand intuitively because we don't know what we are doing as players.  We aren't trying to win, we aren't trying to create a story, so what the hell are we doing?  Here's why Sim is hard to get going.

Conflict cannot occur unless two antithetical forces collide.  In order to have a collision you need two forces.  One is a player created character goal and the other is Setting.  This is why Sim is difficult to get.  In order for Setting to feel "real" you need risk/conflict but in order for that risk/conflict to arise the Setting to feel "real."  You get the chicken or the egg problem.  Someone has to make the first move, player or DM.  Now for a player to move first he needs to have created at least one goal for his character, but in order for that goal to have meaning he needs the fictional "social structures".  Being fictional these "social structures" don't become firm until the Dream is strong which requires that risk be faced by the players.  But the risk isn't that strong until the structures are firm.  Again an endless cycle.

Why isn't the creation of the risk such a big problem for Gamism or Narrativism?  Because the risk exists on the player level.  For Gamists its social status with regards to performance –

Quote from:  Ron Edwards from the Gamism essayGamist play, socially speaking, demands performance with risk, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key...

In Narrativism its virtually the same as with Gamism -

Quote from:  Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essayNarrativist play is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for what that character does.

...Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents...

So how is the problem of risk and creating the Dream usually addressed in Sim?  The first and easiest way is to have the players already familiar with the fictional setting.  This is usually accomplished via lots of setting materials in the game set or from an existing book or movie.  In my case its the LOTR books which all the players are fanatical about.  This helps fill in some of the social structures needed for meaningful play.  In other cases its creating rich character backgrounds.  While this helps what is usually missing is the most important element, a motivating driving goal.  The richer the character the more opportunities for conflict (via more opportunities for goals to come into contact with opposing forces) the greater chance there is for a convincing total experience.  It also helps to have an overarching world conflict in which to place the characters so that even the absence of action carries consequences.  When starting with a new character it starts with character background that includes conflicts or the game itself can commence with conflict.  Usually our game ritual starts with the start of the music from an appropriate motion picture sound track and the phrase "roll a twenty sided."

So what does this mean regarding IIEE and DFK if the "point" of play is convincing total experience/the Dream?  As my DM says, Dice add spice.  There are no absolutes needed for DFK as long as they help keep the tension high.  Sometimes in the heat of combat we mime the actions as well as call them out, and if we do so convincingly enough, or events are happening extremely quickly we don't even bother to roll as it would slow down the unfolding drama.  At other times when things are critically important dice rolls cannot be avoided and the tension becomes extremely high.  Allot of times we are just told to roll without knowing what we are rolling for.  Virtually all IIEE rolls are done with a single D20 with the idea that 1's are virtually, but not quite always bad, and that 20's are always good.  Based on that alone much of the game proceeds forward.  If someone rolls a string of 20's the whole table can start cheering, conversely if someone starts rolling a string of 1's things get very quiet as fear starts to rise.  Intensity of play modifies these rolls – dice can be but are rarely final arbiters – they color the play.  DFK in the game I am in is a tool strongly employed to create dramatic tension and even the choosing of the times of its employment is strongly tied to the emotional power of the moment.  We have no written rules system for the players, the combat system is taught in about 15 minutes – the rest of it is play your character; don't worry about the numbers.  The question that is typically asked is - What character characteristic/quality do I (the player) wish to reveal/represent about the Character when I (the player) attempt to resolve conflict A while trying to maintaining cultural/structural element) B?  Sim is about peeling the onion of Character.

How do reward systems work?  Rewards are given for interesting and effective roleplay.  A player may kill many things and rack up mountains of EP, but unless he has roleplay tallys he can't go up levels.  This pretty much stifles most Gamist elements.  I suppose a Narrativist could function within the group, but the power of the DM and the huge diversity of Situations we face would make Premise addressing difficult but probably not impossible.  Other roleplay rewards come in the form of player ratings which are given out at the end of every night as well as a star handed out for the best roleplayer of the evening.  Special characters can be earned by effective roleplay over time.  There is much more to say on this topic but I've gone on waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long and broken into a ramble.

Which brings me to one last point.  There is this poisonous idea floating around about emotional and intellectual involvement and Creative Agenda.  ALL the Creative Agendas inspire emotional or intellectual involvement from the players or they wouldn't be playing at all.  I think the distinction is more a matter of historical accident than anything else.  Let me cite you an example in overview of what happened in our game over the 4th of July weekend.  The first was tragedy.  We play in a game that is set in Middle Earth about 30 years before the War of the Rings.  A PC, who has been played for over 20 years in real time accidentally, in the fog of war, killed two vitally important NPC's (Elladan and Elrohir – the two sons of Elrond who play a major part in the future war of the Rings and were deep friends of his Character and whom he as a player had grown extremely fond) whom he, via his Character, had spent much real world time with struggling under impossible odds.  This event was so shattering emotionally that all play virtually stopped right then and there and the player, who flew out from New Jersey for a week's worth of roleplay and despite substantial personal financial commitment flew home the following day.  This happened on the second day of play.  There was sniffling around the entire table.  It almost wrecked the entire week.  It did for him.  Second, on the last night of play a player who after struggling heroically for his Character's life and then subsequently laying his Character's life on the line for an NPC whom he dearly loved, nearly passed out.  I kid you not when I say he sat down hard on the floor, his face was beet red, he had to lie on his back and breath into a paper bag.  So intense was that last night of play that all of our voices were so blown out that none of us could talk effectively for the next few days.  Virtually all of our games are that intense.

Why this last part?  Because this essay is also about the fact that all the CA's have the potential to be equally involving.  It all depends on the players and how effectively conflict/risk is being handled, not the CA.

This is my essay - typos and all.  I've made several attempts to edit it and clean it up.  Have mercy; I'm doing the best that I can.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Nice! This falls very much into the category of "acceptable variant" in my view. If you can live with my bizarre & odd focus on internal causality, then I can live with your alternate view. (I'm kind of past the days when I needed to root hog or die with every little nuance of Creative Agenda.)

Your point about emotional involvement is interesting, and I see some concepts in there that I agree with a lot ... however, I also draw your attention to Ken Hite's review of Sex & Sorcery, in which he protested mightily that my points in that supplement only applied to "emotionally involved" play, and that left "intellectual-only" play out in the cold.

I suspect that "emotionally involved" is one of those tar-baby phrases in that most people want to be associated with it, but what "it" is varies widely.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron!

I'm not sure that I understand the implications of your, "bizarre & odd focus on internal causality."  Guessing at what you mean, I don't really see any real distinction between your focus and what I wrote.  Let me expand.

Internal Causality is as important to Sim as Premise is to Nar and Challenge is to Gam.  The main difference between IC and Premise/Challenge is that IC does not have the dynamic drive built into it that Premise or Challenge do.  That being said IC supports the internal "structures" that are inherent to Premise and Challenge.  Premise and Challenge provide the "structures" where the meanings of our play actions are measured against.  Does this manner of dealing with this conflict address Premise or Challenge?  Internal Causality provides the same "structures."  The difference is that Internal Causality by itself cannot be the focus of play because it doesn't in itself drive the conflict like Challenge and Premise do.  IC is absolutely foundational to Sim, but equating its role to be exactly the same as Challenge and Premise cannot work because there it is entirely conflict neutral.  Conflict in Sim has to come from somewhere else, and that is entirely in the interaction between player and DM.  

In a way the question becomes how do we justify in the engaging of risky conflict?  That question is clearly stated in the Premise and Challenge.  But in Sim that question must be answered via Character motivation which ultimately means the player must create that reason to engage.  In Gamism and Narrativism it is either assumed or openly negotiated.  It is much harder to do that in Sim because metagame discussions during player tend to be strongly discouraged.

In Sim the Dream is reflected and demonstrated by those "social structures."  Those "structures" absolutely must demonstrate internal causality.  In one sense Sim is all about challenging the SIS which is another way of saying making statements/employing symbols (like style of dress and all that it communicates) and those statements only make sense because of the internal causality/"social structures".  The making of those statements/employing symbols alters the "social structures", IOW we have added to the Dream.  The hard part is for us the players is the in coming up with internal reasons for the characters to "place themselves into conflict" without violating their character internal causality.  Most people, not all, by and large avoid conflict – especially dangerous conflict.  However a character can act against internal causality and because he has acted in a consistent manner in the past reveals something new about the character.  If the character were consistently breaking his internal causality it would be difficult to discern or make any definitive statement about said character.  This is one of the great sources of dramatic tension in Sim.  How do I grow while not completely abandoning the characters foundations?  The character who does not undergo growth (changes) is as bland as a character which has no internal consistency.

So to go back to internal causality I see no conflict between you and I regarding internal causality and a strong interest in it.  Unlike Premise or Challenge, it alone however is not enough for Sim play.  You need conflict as well.  Neither can function without the other, neither is more important to each.  Their relationship is a profoundly symbiotic one.  The creation of causal series of events that in the end reads something like a "story" happens because the DM provides the proper kinds of situations at the right times that allow for introduction, escalation, climax and resolution.  This does not have to be railroading if the situations the DM does provide do not negate (deprotagonize) the decisions the players made regarding previous Situations/conflict.  It is a very intricate dance between player and DM.  A dance that I don't think can be codified into a mechanics system.  I could be wrong, but it is so on the fly and so responsive to the SIS that I just don't know how it could be.

Regarding "emotionally or intellectually involved" I agree with you.  I just wanted to demonstrate –
[list=a]

• That no CA has a lock or a superior ability to engage emotional or intellectual involvement (which I believe you may have implied is locally defined).  IOW emotional or intellectual engagement is a red herring regarding CA.
  
  
• That Sim is not just an intellectual exercise of experimentation.  It is just as much about risk as G/N, which means it has just as much potential for the players to be emotionally and/or intellectually involved.[/list:o]Aure Entuluva,
  
  Silmenume

Perhaps not surprisingly, I object.

Jay, I must apologize; I have a terrible time reading your essays. Almost every time you begin one of these forays into "what is simulationism" you write something right at the beginning that I find so egregious that for the remainder of the essay I'm looking for how you fix it--and you never do.

Early on in this piece, you identify two types of play, which I will call:

• What happens if I do this? Play.
• What's over there? Play.[/list:u]You mention these in passing, and say outright that these aren't even really role playing, that "exploration" isn't happening.
  
  I have done and thoroughly enjoyed both of those types of play, and it sure seemed to me that I was role playing at the time. I have also seen both. The second I see All. The. Time.
  
  One fairly recent example was the girl who versed into a fantasy setting. Barely had she hit the dirt but she, like Sam Gamgee, was saying, "I want to see elves." She found any reason she could to travel out of the human lands to the elven lands, and spent months with them, talking with them, looking at their culture, finding out how they were different from humans. She recognized that there were conflicts in that world which were waiting to engage her, but she essentially ignored them in favor of just exploring the place.
  
  I've got another player wandering a modern earth-like world as an associate to a well-known stage magician. He visits museums, goes to the beach, flirts with girls, watches old movies, stays in expensive resort hotels, and generally just enjoys the world. He loves it.
  
  The problem with your essay, as I see it, is we've got these two forms of play that actually happen and are enjoyed by unnumerable roleplayers, and one of four things has to be true:[list=1]
• These are alternate expressions of the simulationist creative agendum which are outside your definition, because your definition is examining one subtype of that agendum.
• These are actually forms of gamist or narrativist play, despite not seeming to have anything to do with them on the surface.
• There is a fourth agendum that includes these sorts of gaming which has yet to be identified.
• Those of us who play this way aren't really playing, aren't having fun, and have deceived ourselves into thinking we're doing anything that would qualify as "role playing".[/list:o]I'm inclined to think that the first answer is correct. You seem in your essay to favor the fourth.
  
  --M. J. Young

Check it.

I think I agree with most of this essay, after some private conversations with Sil, but I think that he put some things it very... odd... ways, which may be what's giving you trouble, MJ.

Here's how I would classify the whole thing above.

Gamist and Narrativist play both have player esteem on the table.  So what's on the table for Sim?  What's on the table for Sim is, literally the Dream itself.  Essentially, anything that comes up in Sim play is a challenge (either great or small) to the integrity of the shared imagined space (and, by Integrity, we don't necessarily mean virtuality or realism) and, when it is explained and incorporated into the world, it makes the dream more real.  The bigger the situation/event, the harder it is to incorporate, and the greater sense of increased "realism" when it can be incorporated.

I disagree that this rules out "guy exploring world" play and I disagree that the GM necessarily has a priveleged role here.

I think there is another interesting aspect of this:  This type of play gets "better" (the imagined space gets more reified) the more you play, and that cycle never stops.  So it totally lends itself to 20-year long "campaign" play.

yrs--
--Ben

double post.

Hey M. J.,

That you find my posts egregious assumes several things.  That the GNS model has been proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt and/or that you have some handle of the ultimate truth that I do not.  I do not write my posts to aggravate you but to present ideas for commentary.  That you can condemn them to be in error/heresy outright is a power I don't believe you personally possess.  I am willing to debate my ideas but to state that I am wrong prima facie to an egregious degree and that I will somehow "correct myself" is hubris to an astounding degree.  Prove to me that my ideas wrong, don't just say they are wrong.  Let's debate!

Quote from: M. J. YoungEarly on in this piece, you identify two types of play, which I will call:

• What happens if I do this? Play.
• What's over there? Play.[/list:u]You mention these in passing, and say outright that these aren't even really role playing, that "exploration" isn't happening.
  
  I have done and thoroughly enjoyed both of those types of play, and it sure seemed to me that I was role playing at the time. I have also seen both. The second I see All. The. Time.

You have conflated two issues here, player enjoyment of play and CA diagnosis.  As you said later –

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe problem with your essay, as I see it, is we've got these two forms of play that actually happen and are enjoyed by unnumerable roleplayers, and one of four things has to be true:[list=1]

• These are alternate expressions of the simulationist creative agendum which are outside your definition, because your definition is examining one subtype of that agendum.
• These are actually forms of gamist or narrativist play, despite not seeming to have anything to do with them on the surface.
• There is a fourth agendum that includes these sorts of gaming which has yet to be identified.
• Those of us who play this way aren't really playing, aren't having fun, and have deceived ourselves into thinking we're doing anything that would qualify as "role playing".[/list:o]I'm inclined to think that the first answer is correct. You seem in your essay to favor the fourth.

I have never said or implied that having a CA means that players will have a good time or not.  As the model says, clashing CA's brings conflict, yet having a fully expressed CA does not automatically imply having a good time either.  Having a good time and expressing a CA are not one in the same.  Being able to express freely is likely to promote a good time, but is not necessarily causal.

Regarding your list, I am not proposing item four, but proposing three; which I have done on a number of occasions.  Whether or not this fourth agenda exists and whether or not it is considered roleplay is still up for discussion.  My inclination is that this 4th agenda is Walt's Zilchplay or the Social Agenda; or maybe something else.  I don't know for sure yet.  But I am fairly certain that those modes of play you described earlier are probably not Sim CA because they don't employ or engage Situation/conflict.  That they don't engage conflict/Situation probably does imply that they aren't Exploration.  But that can mean several things.  That the definition of Exploration needs to change to include styles of play don't include conflict/Situation in a meaningful way or that maybe those modes or play aren't Exploration.  That is still open to debate.  That you enjoy such play is not open to debate.  I am certain that you and your players did enjoy yourselves and I take your word for it.  Whether or not it was roleplay/exploration is subject to debate.  But whatever it was, you and the players enjoyed that style or mode of play, and for you and the players that is all that matters!

As a note I have an inkling that the role that Premise and Challenge played in directing Exploration which is lacking in Internal Causality can be found in Situation/conflict creation by the DM.  Conflict, in my mind, is a vector.  It leads to somewhere.  Clever use of it does make story – ask Narrativists.  I firmly believe that much of the direction of the game does lay in conflict creation, its just a matter of harnessing it effectively.  In Sim that means that task primarily falls on the DM during play (this should not in any way be construed to mean that the DM automatically precludes the actions of the players), but can/is frequently discussed outside of ritual play.

Also the idea of Internal Causality should be expanded beyond space-time to include character and narrative (or whatever is the appropriate term).

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Hmm, would you say that it would follow that if one player is frequently 'right' about the Dream and another is frequently 'wrong', that that would cause issues?  Both are risking, but the payoff of reification of the Dream is unequal?

Silmenume,

I worry that the use of conflict in your arguements is far to close to the existing idea of exploration. In particular you clearly denote conflict as something which occurs in exploration. This indicates that all conflict has exploration. Likewise all exploration has conflict, if only with the unknown. In fact conflict with the unknown is something that would explain M.J.'s type of play more than adequately.

But at that point the use of conflict becomes semantically equivalent to exploration. Ultimately that is how I see your arguement, rather than saying that Sim is not how it has been defined in the existing theory, you add that it also has situational conflict. But of course, all exploration has situation, to some extent, and all situation has conflict.

What matters is that the Sim CA does not require these conflicts to have an SIS external context, where Gamism has a step on up relevance, and Nar has its premise.

I think you are too quick to reject classical explorative Sim in favor of only more immersive Sim. They both meet your litmus test.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but this does seem to be the gist of things.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

Hiya,

Jay, you wrote,

QuoteI firmly believe that much of the direction of the game does lay in conflict creation, its just a matter of harnessing it effectively. In Sim that means that task primarily falls on the DM during play (this should not in any way be construed to mean that the DM automatically precludes the actions of the players), but can/is frequently discussed outside of ritual play.

Also the idea of Internal Causality should be expanded beyond space-time to include character and narrative (or whatever is the appropriate term).

The concepts in both of these paragraphs are already firmly embedded in the existing model, in Simulationism. So it's nice to see it laid out here, but in my view, you're not adding or modifying anything.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: SilmenumeInternal Causality is king. The single greatest false assumption about Simulationism is that it is about creating an artificial reality and one that is especially consistent (causality is always clear and consistent).

It's not that the system reflects history or reality but that the players' use of it and the GM's rendering of it be integrated and consistent.

Quote from: SilmenumeIts not that we groove on the world being accurately represented via system it's rather that we need consistent social cues so that the relationship to and thus the manipulation of the structures and symbols within the SIS is as unambiguous as possible.

So that the players know they're under the hood of say, a Toyota, vs. a Mazda. And these social cues: is this purely NPC inference, player behavior? Both, neither?

Quote from: SilmenumeIts not so important that the physics be accurate as that we have a personal/social framework point of reference from which to view and categorize the fictional the world and the events transpiring within. These types of social cues and constraints are unbelievably vital to Sim play yet are almost universally underemployed and/or under rewarded.

It sounds like you're saying NPC inference. e.g. The guys with red hats and belt chains comb the streets at night killing prostitutes. The switch in emphasis from physics to culture is very appealing.

Quote from: SilmenumeIts not that the DM is the god of the game that is important but that his "alienated" position from the SIS fosters an atmosphere of a convincing total experience. Combined with the effects of risk on the players and you have the basic foundational elements of Simulationism.

Because he is the sole representative. So, per character, without (1) motivation and (2) a goal, there's no risk. That and a centralized narrative authority compose Sim?

Quote from: SilmenumeRisk, which is found in conflict, convinces – i.e., it fosters the Dream. The more conflict, the riskier the conflict, the more intense the Dream becomes.

The outcome to any risks taken certify the Dream. The more this happens, the more intense the Dream becomes.

I was going to ask if there can be Sim without intensity, but I don't personally care. I think that's M.J.'s counter-argument, in a nutshell. Something that is more important to me: how are players with motivation and goals any different than Nar play?

Quote from: SilmenumeSo how is the problem of risk and creating the Dream usually addressed in Sim? The first and easiest way is to have the players already familiar with the fictional setting. .. In other cases its creating rich character backgrounds. While this helps what is usually missing is the most important element, a motivating driving goal. The richer the character the more opportunities for conflict (via more opportunities for goals to come into contact with opposing forces) the greater chance there is for a convincing total experience. It also helps to have an overarching world conflict in which to place the characters so that even the absence of action carries consequences. When starting with a new character it starts with character background that includes conflicts or the game itself can commence with conflict.

This just sounds so Nar to me. It kind of describes what I did in my recent Sorcerer campaign.

So what do you call play where all characters share one eyeball with which to experience the SIS, story progression is site-dependent, the onus is on the player to find or unlock the story, the story could be behind one of ten doors, and if you spend the whole session opening the wrong ones, the GM won't lift a finger because letting story arise is sacrosanct, character connections/abilities are fiercely concealed, players throw notes to the GM or (worse) leave the room for secret meetings and portions of the story are played out via e-mail with the GM between sessions? I call it a pain in the ass, but what would GNS say?

Quote from: SilmenumeThe question that is typically asked is - What character characteristic/quality do I (the player) wish to reveal/represent about the Character when I (the player) attempt to resolve conflict A while trying to maintaining cultural/structural element) B? Sim is about peeling the onion of Character.

So the player has goals to reveal character? Or has goals simply to achieve them?

Quote from: SilmenumeRewards are given for interesting and effective roleplay. A player may kill many things and rack up mountains of EP, but unless he has roleplay tallys he can't go up levels.

This is interesting to me. It sounds like your group uses a house reward system to encourage consistent social cues from the players. About advancement: it's something that's always left me cold, personally. You make the case for reward systems--which is Ron's big thing; and M.J. has been at pains to dilineate reward from advancement--so I wonder, is reward particularly supportive of Sim play?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe concepts in both of these paragraphs are already firmly embedded in the existing model, in Simulationism. So it's nice to see it laid out here, but in my view, you're not adding or modifying anything.

Jay, I feel you are clarifying, though, and I find that useful.

Jay, let me apologize for the harsh way my post came across. I have often found much of merit in your posts, and somewhere I recently identified you among those struggling to clarify simulationist play. I still think you have a strong tendency toward synecdoche in your understanding of it, but you make a good case.

The good case that you make is the possibility that all that we call Simulationism might actually be two distinct agenda. One of these is very character/situation/conflict related, thrives on immersion, internalization, and strong referee presence. The other is completely explorative, freely looking at the five elements in whatever relationship is desired, with no particular need to emphasize a particular one, characterized by the travelogue and the physics experimenter and the cultural anthropologist. I won't say that this distinction doesn't exist. However, I will challenge you with two questions.[list=1]

• What is it that genuinely distinguishes these two agenda?
• Why should one of these keep the identity of simulationism rather than the other?[/list:o]
  I'm still of the opinion that you've identified one variety of simulationist play--something like spotting Vanilla Narrativism or Player-vs-Referee Gamism--and in describing it effectively have lost sight of the fact that there are multiple approaches to play within each agendum--such as Front-loaded Narrativism and Player-vs-Player Gamism. To date, simulationism has been the most difficult to define and identify from positive features as opposed to merely elimination of the alternatives (the impetus for my suggestion not so long ago that Discovery was the driver of that agendum), and has also been the broadest of the three agenda in terms of the variety of expressions recognized within it (noting the recent post that attempted to categorize subtypes of simulationism, often cited by John Kim for its suggestion of Virtuality for the RGFA Threefold style of play which bears the same name).
  
  Again, I apologize for coming on too strong in the beginning of my post. You've made a lot of valid posts, and forced me to think about many aspects of simulationism since you arrived.
  
  --M. J. Young

Hello Claire (beingfrank),

I would think that your assertion about reification would tend to hold true over time.  It's a tricky question that functions on a number of levels, but in the aggregate I believe that would be true.  Have you been in a game where it felt that nothing you did mattered or seemed to effect things?  Have you ever noticed that in such circumstances how frustrated and "punched out" of the game you came to feel?

Hey Mendel (wormwood),

I'm a little confounded by your post.  You make some logical assertions that just don't work.

Quote from: WormwoodIn particular you clearly denote conflict as something which occurs in exploration. This indicates that all conflict has exploration.[/qutoe]
Your first sentence is valid as far as stating my assertions.  Conflict is a component of Situation.  Situation is a component of Exploration.  Exploration is composed of five elements, all of which must be present at one point or another to some degree or another or you're not roleplaying.  

Your second sentence does not follow at all.  To be quite honest I have no idea what it means at all.  Conflict is a subset of the Exploration process, at tool that is employed during Exploration.  Conflict cannot equal Exploration.  I'm not sure what else to say.  I apologize for my lack of understanding.  I'll quote Ron from the Narrativism essay and move on –

Quote from: Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essayBy definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Hey Ron,

Regarding conflict creation "leading" the direction of the game, yes it is deeply embedded in the model, but entirely missing from the Sim essay.  Given that there have been so many arguments on the boards that claim conflict isn't even particularly important to Sim, I wished to make clear that while in Premise and Challenge which have built in goals that help determine which conflicts to create thus shaping how the game will unfold, Sim without its clearly defined action of addressing as it stands currently defined, is still subject to "conflict creation steers play."  Hence my, apparently, not so profound statement.

Regarding Internal Causality – within the Sim essay the notion of Internal Causality is limited only to mechanics.  My argument is that IC relates to all the "structures", mechanics, setting, character, social mores, cultural elements, anything and everything that imparts meaning and is in return subject to meaning revision as they are affected when the players engage or are engaged by them.  This is not represented anywhere in the model.  The idea that mechanics was "internal causality" crushingly limited the scope of ideas regarding Sim play, design and theory.  Sim came to be equated with lots of modeling and little excitement.  That idea needs a public thrashing!!

Hello Bill,

I don't know if anyone has welcomed you to the forge not, but in either case allow me to say, "welcome!"

I beg you pardon, but you statements about NPC inferences have thrown me for a loop.  I'm not certain what you mean, but I'll take what I hope is an educated case.  If you mean inferring motives to unknown individuals with the game, such as the men with the red hats and chain belts, that is one example.  Let me give you another.  Three men come upon a knife on the ground with a rune on the blade and blood on the blade.  To a Ranger of Ithilien it might mean that there are orcs near by.  To a barbarian it might mean a great omen, good steel has been found and has already been blooded.  To a street urchin it might mean dinner if they can sell it or it might mean survival.  Each of their "cultural" or situational circumstances changes the meaning of the found item, and it is the meaning that is important to the player.  Since Sim is the Dream, this means that such differing meanings are important as they add to the individuality of the Dream itself for each individual player.

Quote from: Bill C. Cook

Quote from: SilmenumeSo how is the problem of risk and creating the Dream usually addressed in Sim? The first and easiest way is to have the players already familiar with the fictional setting. .. In other cases its creating rich character backgrounds. While this helps what is usually missing is the most important element, a motivating driving goal. The richer the character the more opportunities for conflict (via more opportunities for goals to come into contact with opposing forces) the greater chance there is for a convincing total experience. It also helps to have an overarching world conflict in which to place the characters so that even the absence of action carries consequences. When starting with a new character it starts with character background that includes conflicts or the game itself can commence with conflict.

This just sounds so Nar to me. It kind of describes what I did in my recent Sorcerer campaign.

Without trying to sound glib, the difference is that the players aren't addressing Premise.  Having or designing a rich character is not something that is limited to or indicative of Narrativist play.  Its how those characters are used, i.e.,  to address Challenge or Premise or expand upon the Dream.  But what expanding upon the Dream means still begs the question of what are the players doing in game that is specifically Sim and not Gam/Nar.  I'm not quite sure how to state it yet, but it does have something to do with the "choke point" of the game.  Each CA has a "choke point" where certain conventions are more or less inviolate while other areas of said game are wide open to just about any action the play can come up with.  In Nar that means coming back to premise again and again.  That means the player assents to address Pemise and not drift off to other areas of play that have nothing to do with Premise.  For example in TROS its about what are you willing to kill for.  A player thus "agrees" that there will come times where he will have to kill or at least face the attempt.  In all likelihood this situation will happen many times since logically we want to explore that Premise.  But if the player isn't particularly interested in the idea of killing, but instead pursues a character which interested in astronomy and politics he is avoiding the Premise.  The question then becomes - what is the choke point in Sim?  My assertion is Character.  Why Character?  Because Character is the eyes from which we view the Dream.  He can pursue any conflict any interest any goal as long as it meets the conditions of internal causality.  Premise addressing tends to be focused on - is the Character willing to do X?  Sim is more - what would the Character do?

Quote from: Bill C. CookSo the player has goals to reveal character? Or has goals simply to achieve them?

Both.

Quote from: Bill C. CookThis is interesting to me. It sounds like your group uses a house reward system to encourage consistent social cues from the players. About advancement: it's something that's always left me cold, personally. You make the case for reward systems--which is Ron's big thing; and M.J. has been at pains to dilineate reward from advancement--so I wonder, is reward particularly supportive of Sim play?

M. J. Young is correct in delineating reward from advancement.  All advancements in game are rewards, but not all rewards must aid in advancement.  Is reward particularly supportive of Sim play?  Absolutely.  The question then becomes under what circumstances and which kinds of rewards?  That depends on what jazzes the players.  Rewards encourage behaviors, so if you are trying to encourage Sim play you should reward the players for engaging in Sim behavior in game.  The key is trying to design a reward system that works for you.  That is not easy.

Quote from: M. J. YoungJay, let me apologize for the harsh way my post came across. I have often found much of merit in your posts, and somewhere I recently identified you among those struggling to clarify simulationist play. I still think you have a strong tendency toward synecdoche in your understanding of it, but you make a good case.
...
Again, I apologize for coming on too strong in the beginning of my post. You've made a lot of valid posts, and forced me to think about many aspects of simulationism since you arrived.

Hey M. J.,

I too find your posts to be very stimulating and have caused me to do much deep thinking myself.  I very deeply appreciate your gracious comments.  I may very well be engaging in synecdoche, but I think history will tell better than the present.  I certainly make the best effort I can to avoid synecdoche.  Right now I feel like I am hammering at a gem and right now I driving harder and harder blows to see if it will crack.  Those ever more violent blows will either result in a break revealing something new or they will find me guilty of synecdoche.  We'll see, but I am not unmindful of that.  Obviously I hope it's the former and not the latter.  Nevertheless, I am among those struggling trying to clarify Simulationist play, so that particular statement does confuse me.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe good case that you make is the possibility that all that we call Simulationism might actually be two distinct agenda. One of these is very character/situation/conflict related, thrives on immersion, internalization, and strong referee presence. The other is completely explorative, freely looking at the five elements in whatever relationship is desired, with no particular need to emphasize a particular one, characterized by the travelogue and the physics experimenter and the cultural anthropologist. I won't say that this distinction doesn't exist. However, I will challenge you with two questions.[list=1]

• What is it that genuinely distinguishes these two agenda?
• Why should one of these keep the identity of simulationism rather than the other?[/list:o]The first question cut to the quick of the matter and is a brilliant question.  I have been wrestling with that question for a while and I am still coming to terms with it.

For the present I'll start with parsing your question, particularly this part – "The other is completely explorative, freely looking at the five elements in whatever relationship is desired, with no particular need to emphasize a particular one..."  I think it is particularly ironic that you phrase your statement with "no particular need to emphasize a particular one."  My contention, in a way, has been fighting against the removal of conflict/situation.  I have been arguing that all five elements of Exploration must be present.  My second contention has been that each element of Exploration serves a vital non-reproducible purpose.  In essence I have been arguing not for emphasis on conflict, but rather that it must be included (not be utterly de-emphasized) and that its role be clearly defined.  IOW one cannot focus on Exploration via Setting to the exclusion of conflict because that is not Exploration.  I'll quote Ron again –

Quote from: Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essayBy definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

The difference between the two agendas is that conflict is not present in one and it is employed in the other.  To go beyond that difference then addresses that one is passive in regards to challenging the "structures" and one is not IOW, one only confirms but does not change anything because it does not challenge.  While there might be more parts, no now meanings have been imparted, thus the Dream has not been added to in any meaningful/substantive way.

Regarding your second point – it really doesn't matter.  A label is a label.  If pressed I would posit that the conflict absent or the conflict indifferent agenda would probably be more suited to the appellation Simulationism while the conflict integrated one would be assigned a new moniker/descriptor.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm still of the opinion that you've identified one variety of simulationist play--something like spotting Vanilla Narrativism or Player-vs-Referee Gamism--and in describing it effectively have lost sight of the fact that there are multiple approaches to play within each agendum--such as Front-loaded Narrativism and Player-vs-Player Gamism.

The difference between the examples you give and the case I am arguing lies in that prior all the five elements of Exploration are always present, while in the case that I am arguing is that that conflict indifferent and conflict integrated Sim are two different things thus two different Agendas.

I firmly believe that the reason Sim is so hard to define right now is because as it is currently defined it has no clearly defined relationship to conflict.  As Ron stated earlier, no Situation (conflict) = no Exploration.  Conflict does change things and it does drive events.  I don't think a lot of thought has been given to how conflict shapes Sim over all yet.  I think as the role of conflict does unambiguously serve in Sim is debated that Sim will come into sharper focus.  Reward implies conflict.  Exploration demands it.  For example I believe that conflict serves two roles in Sim which gives it a different purpose in Gam/Nar.  In Sim conflict creates risk which helps to foster the Dream as well as shape game play, via which conflicts are presented.  In Gam/Nar risk isn't used needed to support the vividness of the SIS, that the players need to invest into it is assumed into addressing Challenge and Premise and the Social risks inherently involved at the Social Level.  Conversely the direction of play is strongly guided by Challenge or Premise via conflict limitation/choice while in Sim it is more or less wide open; subject only to Internal Causality needs.  In Gam/Nar conflict has been co-opted into the process of addressing.  In Sim conflict has not been co-opted into anything, but is a free standing element of Exploration, but it is equally vital to play via the strictures of Exploration as well as the very nature of Dream reinforcement/support.

One you describe is constructive; the other contains elements that are deconstructive.  The fact that Exploration demands conflict (via Situation) means that Exploration cannot remain objective.  IOW the players, via their characters must impact the environment, make changes to it.  A travelogue game, cultural anthropologist game, or the physicist (which really isn't a physicist with relation to the SIS, but rather a mechanics tester on a player/social level) does not impact the environment/challenge the structures without the possibility of failure - risk.  Roleplay is a subjective activity.  We cannot remove our effects from nor have no motive to alter the SIS via our character actions and still be roleplaying.

Let me try it this way.  Gamism is addressing Challenge.  Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Simulationism is the ritual process of addressing Chris' meaning-generating "social structures" the process of which inherently supposes challenge to them as well as the limiting strictures of internal causality.  This sounds very wordy and round about, but that is only because this is a new area of discussion with lots of ideas that need to be worked out.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Perhaps we have a terminology problem. You equate situation with conflict as synonymous. I can describe "situations" in which the notion of "conflict" would not occur to those within them (which I will pursue in a moment). If I am correct then either

• Situation can exist without conflict, and role playing can occur within it;
  
  or
  
  
• Conflict in your usage means a lot less than most people would assume from the term.[/list:u]
  Now for the example. I say that the situation is that you have just awakened in a completely unknown and unfamiliar place, what appears to be a lush natural garden beside a spring of fresh water, with no sign of any animal life larger than perhaps a bumblebee. What is the conflict?
  • You are wondering how you got here, and you need to determine what has happened to you.
    
    That's certainly a possibility; however, this has happened to you at least a dozen times before, that you have awakened in a new and unfamiliar place, and in that sense you're accustomed to it by now. That doesn't mean you know why it happened, or that you've given up trying to figure it out, but it probably means this is a relatively low priority for you. It is at least unlikely that the answer to that question lies in this particular place, as it wasn't found in any of the other places. You're here; what are you going to do now?
    
    
  • Survival is a high priority; after all, you need to know how you're going to stay alive.
    
    Yes, that could be the case. On the other hand, there is ample food and water, plenty of materials to create shelter, no sign of any identifiable threats, a comfortable ambient temperature--you're probably not more concerned about survival at this moment than you would be in your own home. That part seems to be covered.
    
    
  • What is this place?
    
    This seems to be the driver for exploration within this situation: you want to know where you are, you want to discover things about it. Maybe you're afraid that it's too good to be true, and you're wondering where the dark underbelly lies; but maybe you're not really a worrier and figure that you might as well enjoy it until you find something that suggests a problem.[/list:u]
    Now, is it possible to be in that situation and have no motivation to explore? Sure, it is. There is no apparent threat, no interesting premise, no looming challenge--you've found paradise. So why bother to explore it? There is no particular reason to explore it, in the sense that the situation does not demand exploration. There is no conflict presented to the player that requires action. The entire act of exploration at this point relies upon the player having some desire to explore and creating within his character the motivation to explore for the sheer pleasure of knowing.
    
    Thus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore.
    
    If that's all you mean by conflict, I'm not sure what it adds to our understanding of simulationism. That certainly is a "situation" within the meaning of the five elements, and in terms of play drivers that would be a conflict--neither the character nor the player knows, so both are driven by their own curiosity to explore, and to overcome any obstacles that arise (to a certain ill-defined threshold) which block that exploration. (Arguably, these obstacles could be viewed as the "conflict"; but if they don't amount to more than persuading yourself that it's worth walking a couple miles to take a look around, how serious are they?)
    
    --M. J. Young

Perhaps I have been a little loose with the interchangeability of Situation and Conflict.  Let me cite some sources here at the forge and go from there.

Quote from: Ron Edwards in the Narrativism essayBy definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Without adversity there is no Situation.  How to define adversity?  I offer – a state of being whereby a Character must make a choice/act due to some antithetical force (be it man, nature or himself) and do so successfully or some undesired condition will come to pass.  The undesired condition is the result of the antithetical force acting unopposed.  Undesired presumes that the Character does have a desire.  Conflict is the condition of Character goal contacting antithetical force.

This definition of conflict I have offered before here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=124313#124313/).

Quote from: SilmenumeConflict – any element of Setting which negatively impacts/impedes Character goal(s).

In the definition of Situation in the Provisional Glossary (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html/) we are pointed to Bang and Challenge.

Quote from: Ron Edwards in the Provisional GlossaryBang - The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player.

Challenge - The Situation, i.e., adversity or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind, in the context of Gamist play.

That Situation assumes conflict is no stretch.  It is co-opted definitionally in several essays.

Quote from: M. J. YoungNow, is it possible to be in that situation and have no motivation to explore? Sure, it is. There is no apparent threat, no interesting premise, no looming challenge--you've found paradise. So why bother to explore it? There is no particular reason to explore it, in the sense that the situation does not demand exploration. There is no conflict presented to the player that requires action.

The condition you described is clearly one that is stress free.  Without stress there is no adversity.  Without adversity there is no Situation as defined currently at the Forge.  Without Situation, which is defined by adversity, there is no Exploration.

Quote from: Ron Edwards in the Narrativism essayBy definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

You asked earlier why I was trying to emphasize conflict.  I'm not.  I'm saying that it is a necessary and indispensable part of Exploration or one is not Exploring.  My question is why are you de-emphasizing/eliminating it?  I am not giving conflict any more importance to Sim than in any of the other Creative Agendas.  Exploration demands it.  So I am saying that Sim, being a directed activity of Exploration, also demands it.  I am also arguing that since risk, as per Chris' essay, fosters the Dream, that risky conflict serves a vital role.  

Quote from: M. J. YoungThus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore.

That is not a conflict.  That is only a state of being.  For the sake of argument let assume that the Character's desire to understand can be counted as goal or desire.  Cool!  However, there is no antithetical force listed.    Before the condition of conflict can be declared, an antithetical force must be in operation such that the desire to understand is prevented from coming into fruition.  You have not indicated the antithetical/blocking force that the player must overcome before understanding is achieved.  This is a riskless set of circumstances.  No risk, no adversity, no Situation, no Exploration.

Sure someone or a group of player can play a game without adversity or stress or risk.  But that does not meet the definition of Exploration as it currently stands.  Simulationism is a Creative Agenda and all Creative Agendas can only be realized by Exploration.  That which does not include all the elements of Exploration is not Exploration and thus cannot be described defined as a Creative Agenda.  Unless the model were to change.

I'm not saying anything particularly radical.  I am just upholding the model when I say that conflict/adversity, which is found in Situation, is as vital to Sim as it is in Gam/Nar because they are all nodes of Exploration.

The radical part of my theory is the role of conflict in Sim, not that it is central or vital.  That conflict is vital to Sim has been assumed into the model for a long time.  Ron gave me a big ho-hum when I clearly mapped out how conflict is as critical/necessary to Sim as all the other elements of Exploration Sim.

I hope that I have made of good showing of addressing the issues you raised and haven't wasted your time.

You make an excellent case, Jay. It appears that I may be attempting to describe play which falls outside the model.

Quote from: If what IThus the "conflict" is I am ignorant of the world around me; in order to understand it, I must explore

is not conflict sufficient to drive exporation under the model, then I have indeed produced an example of play which appears to be and yet is not exploration as defined.

I would have classified that style of play as "pure vanilla simulationism", exploration for the sake of exploration, driven solely by the desire to know. Your assertion is to say that it's not exploration at all, and thus not really roleplaying as defined in the model.

To my mind, that makes the existence of such play a fundamental challenge to the model itself. I don't say that's a bad thing; it's just rather shocking to me that something I see and do so frequently which has all the marks of being exploration and role playing should be a problem for the model, and that it should never have been so noticed before.

I think that there are quite a few players here who have long identified themselves as simulationists (or as having played by that agendum in the past) to whom this exclusion of so much discovery- and exploration-driven play from the model would come as a complete surprise. If you're right, then a lot of what we assume is "roleplaying" is defined by the model as "not roleplaying"; and since the model has always been presented as descriptive, not prescriptive, it doesn't have the right to make that judgment. If there are modes of play which are understood to be role play gaming by many gamers, and the model says they are not role play gaming, then the model is broken.

I should underscore that this is not merely a matter of having identified a fourth agendum. Your argument appears to say not that this sort of exploration gaming isn't sim but something else, but that it actually is not exploration, and therefore outside the model's definition of roleplaying.

I will be interested to see where this goes.

--M. J. Young

Well, I don't think the model is broken...  In fact, I don't think what MJ describes is outside the model at all.

Here be some "official" definitions:

QuoteExploration
The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another. Exploration includes five Components: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. See also Shared Imagined Space (a near or total synonym).

No need for conflict, adversity here...  The events MJ describes are both fictional and established through communication.  In fact, the only sticking I see in this dicussion is whether MJ's situation contains Situation.

QuoteSituation
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, Bang, and Challenge.

Well...  What means "dynamic?"  Does this little word infer conflict, adversity, etc.?  Or does it mean that the character must make decisions based on the information he is receiving from his setting?  I would postulate the latter case.  MJ's sim is really sim, and it DOESN'T need conflict or adversity to provide Exploration.

Jonathan

Thanks M. J.,

I agree about the conundrum left in the wake.  I've kinda been flip-flopping on that issue, not sure how to address it.  I have proposed both that it might be a forth agenda or that it isn't Exploration.  I have no idea right now how to deal with this particular set of circumstances, partly because I myself have only just formalized what I have been trying to demonstrate.

Quote from: M. J. YoungIf you're right, then a lot of what we assume is "roleplaying" is defined by the model as "not roleplaying"; and since the model has always been presented as descriptive, not prescriptive, it doesn't have the right to make that judgment. If there are modes of play which are understood to be role play gaming by many gamers, and the model says they are not role play gaming, then the model is broken.

I'll buy that the model might need revision.  It certainly does regarding Sim, so its no surprise that there are other issues that might need attending to.  The model however is still descriptive, it doesn't say anyone must do anything; it just labels certain activities as X.  That certain activities fall outside it could mean a number of things.  That the model is faulty.  That those activities are indeed outside the realm of what the model concerns itself with.  Both these possibilities are wide open to debate.  I too am curious to see where this might lead.  I am also curious what the implications for Sim are now that the two modes of play have been disentangled.

Hey Jonathan,

Quote from: ErrathofKosh

QuoteSituation
Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting elements; Situations are divided into scenes. A component of Exploration, considered to be the "central node" linking Character and Setting, and which changes according to System. See also Kicker, Bang, and Challenge.

Well...  What means "dynamic?"  Does this little word infer conflict, adversity, etc.?  Or does it mean that the character must make decisions based on the information he is receiving from his setting?  I would postulate the latter case.  MJ's sim is really sim, and it DOESN'T need conflict or adversity to provide Exploration.

I'll covered this already in my previous post, so I hope that no one gives me the gimlet eye for referencing back to it within the same thread!

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: Ron Edwards in the Narrativism essayBy definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

Without adversity there is no Situation.  How to define adversity?  I offer – a state of being whereby a Character must make a choice/act due to some antithetical force (be it man, nature or himself) and do so successfully or some undesired condition will come to pass.  The undesired condition is the result of the antithetical force acting unopposed.  Undesired presumes that the Character does have a desire.  Conflict is the condition of Character goal contacting antithetical force.

Emphasis mine.

So we do indeed see that conflict, which is assumed into adversity, is absolutely required in Situation.

Now one could argue that the two definitions given for Situation differ and that they do need to be reconciled.  However, even in the definition of Situation that is offered in the Provisional Glossary, which does not touch directly on conflict, strongly supports the idea of conflict and adversity when it points to the entries of Bang and Challenge for further clarification.

I hope that helps.

Jay,
Thanks for the clarification.  Sorry I missed that.

So, if we assume that what MJ is actually doing is Exploration, there are two possibilities:
Either there is some conflict unconsciously being dealt with;
Or the definition of Situation needs to be expanded to include situations that aren't conflict driven.

On the other hand, if what MJ is doing is not Exploration, it is outside the scope of our model.  Though, IMO, it would still be worth exploring.

I espoused earlier that Situation doesn't have to include conflict.  I now need to reexamine that point of view.  I still think that it could be viable, but perhaps what MJ is doing is being driven...

Quote
Bang
The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer. See also Kicker.

Even when exploring the most peaceful setting, the character has choice.  He could lay down beside a pool and eat the bread-fruit for the rest of his existence (which would be diddling, not roleplaying) or he can wander out to explore his world.  I submit that perhaps this is a character introduced Bang.  He is introducing events into the game that make choice neccessary.  He is his own motivation; his conflict is internal: to relax and chew the cud or to go out and quantify his world.  It is a fundamental motivation in science, why not in sim?

But, perhaps this isn't adverse enough to be a conflict.  Then, I submit that "relevant stress" needs to be changed to "relevant motivation" in the definition of Situation.  Most often this would be adversity, but sometimes it would be a character introduced drive.

I could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

Cheers,
Jonathan

The fact that conflict is a necessary component of situation does not necessarily imply that each mode must address that conflict.  In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that when a Sim dominant player does engage with conflict they may well do so by dropping into a temporary gamist mode.  IMO, there is no relationship between conflict and sim bar the accidental.

Hey Jonathan,

Quote from: ErrathofKoshOn the other hand, if what MJ is doing is not Exploration, it is outside the scope of our model. Though, IMO, it would still be worth exploring.

That whatever he does play (Explores) is satisfying is plenty good enough.  I think perhaps it should be noted that I am not trying to prove what M. J. described is Exploration of not.  I am just trying to clarify what makes Simulationism Simulationism!

Regarding your use of Bang, the gloss does not do the term justice.  Read up on a few threads on the use of Bangs.  Also I think maybe you should look at the Sorcerer Apprentice download (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/apprent.pdf/).  The word Kicker is in the company of the following words – "problem and threat." Both of which are problems and/or threats to life, health, property, status, and loved ones.  Bangs are methods of getting things moving, IOW dropping conflict right on top of the Character – Now.  Bangs are just saturated with conflict.

The example you offer does not make choice necessary, nor is it particularly evocative.  Look at the use of Kicker in the Sorcerer download and know that Bang is closely associated with it.

All conflicts involve character introduced drive or there would be no conflict.  The Character would either succeed at everything he tried without any effort (because there is no antithetical force to counter his goal) or he would accept the status quo in docility because he had no goals that could come into contact with any antithetical force.

Quote from: ErrathofKoshI could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

At this point I'm not sure what to think, but I invite you to consider starting a new thread that might serve that purpose better.  Right now I am more interested in sorting out the implications of this new perspective of Sim here.

Hey contracycle,

Quote from: contracycle The fact that conflict is a necessary component of situation does not necessarily imply that each mode must address that conflict.

Actually it does.  Do not mistake a lack of evidence for no evidence.  This idea has only recently been opened and as M. J. indicated above, he was quite shocked that no one else had brought it up before.  Since all I have to work with right now is gainsaying there really isn't anywhere for me to go.

Quote from: Jay a.k.a. Silmenume

Quote from: Jonathan a.k.a. ErrathofKoshI could go either way, but I think what MJ has described is Exploration, not something "outside."

At this point I?m not sure what to think, but I invite you to consider starting a new thread that might serve that purpose better.  Right now I am more interested in sorting out the implications of this new perspective of Sim here.

I do appreciate the need to keep threads focused; but I think that whether the sort of play I describe is role playing is very much one of "the implications of this new perspective on Sim". I could probably come up with a rather impressive list of posters here who would say that they have simulationist backgrounds to some significant degree who would have identified that sort of play as simulationist (Gareth, Ralph, and Mike come to mind, although don't take this as speaking for them on the point).

Thus one of the implications of this new perspective on simulationism is that a lot of things we have always thought were simulationism would not be, and might not even be exploration and therefore not role playing as defined by the model. Since I think this is roleplaying, and I think the model is sound, I tend to conclude that the suggestion it is not exploration (because it doesn't involve conflict as here defined) must be a mistake. Yet that is the result to which you are pushing with this description of simulationism: much that we call simulationism isn't even roleplaying according to the model.

That would be a failure of the model.

What you say about the interaction with conflict being necessary to exploration fundamentally precludes it not only from being simulationism, but also from being an unrecognized fourth agendum. In essence, you've said that such play isn't simulationist because it isn't role playing at all.

That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:

• Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
• Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
• The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.[/list:u]My vote would be for the second, although I could accept the first. Your proposal seems to me to require the third.
  
  --M. J. Young

Quote from: ErrathofKoshJay,

Either there is some conflict unconsciously being dealt with;
Or the definition of Situation needs to be expanded to include situations that aren't conflict driven.

Quote from: M.J. YoungThat's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:
Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.
My vote would be for the second, although I could accept the first. Your proposal seems to me to require the third.

Quote from: Ron Edwards...to "emotionally involved" play, and that left "intellectual-only" play out in the cold.

As I stated before, I think that the first two options presented by MJ are viable.  However, I now am definitely leaning toward the second option.  The idea of "emotionally involved" play versus "intellectual-only" play has struck home with me.  

Conflict, in player terms, must have some emotional entanglement, otherwise it is not conflict.  If I have my character face a terrible dragon, and I don't give a hoot about my character, I'm just rolling dice (or whatever).  There are two main ways that I can care about the conflict:
    Did I win?  Put up a good fight?  Lose with honor?
Or
   What does this tell me about my character? Myself?  The world?
With obvious other variants...

On the otherhand there is curiousity (for lack of a better term), which is an intellectual drive.  It drives me to Explore whatever.  This whatever includes conflict, character, but it is not limited by such.  Whatever I can dream of I can explore.  The involvement here arises here as:
     How do those people over there live?  How would fighting with "X" weapon work?  etc.

This view is driving toward some of the Beeg variants, I know.  But, put plainly, Sim tends toward intellectual satisfaction (and doesn't therefore need conflict) while Gam and Nar tend toward emotionally charged play (and they require conflict).  This is perhaps the reason Sim is so difficult to understand...

Don't hurt me... please?
:)

Jonathan

Hey M. J.

I did not mean to sound dismissive of this situation; I have been fighting my way towards this point almost since my arrival here at the Forge.  I understand and agree that if my arguments hold up that there would be tremendous ramifications regarding the model in general and Sim in particular.  I also agree and understand that there are lots of people with a vested interest in this topic, though few seem to be taking an interest at the present.  Let us assume for now that the agenda of play that you identify as Sim continues to be labeled Sim; I was looking to work out the ramifications of agenda X – the conflict integrated/inclusive agenda.  I will move that to a new thread and we can continue to discuss Sim (conflict indifferent/exclusive) and the Model here.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThat's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:[list=1]

• Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
• Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
• The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.[/list:o]

I do not think #1 could hold up under any circumstances for conflict not to include an opposing/antithetical force would be to void the meaning of the word conflict.  So I don't think one is a viable option.

#3 I would think would create the greatest amount of debate, but doesn't seem to be catching anyone's attention.  I think it would be interesting, and possibly fruitful as a shake up of the model that some have been calling for not too long ago, but...

That leaves #2.  This is an interesting idea, but I suggest in a way different than you had put forward.  There is a possibility that Exploration could be broken into two halves – constructive and deconstructive.  By constructive I mean that something is synthesized that is not directly present in the components, i.e., a Victory, a Theme, a Dream.  The constructed item is synthesized from the interaction of all the elements of exploration and modified by the fires of conflict – like the way the two gasses of hydrogen and oxygen plus energy yields something that is entirely unlike the two gasses – water.  By deconstructive I would refer to play that actually focuses on an element of Exploration to the exclusion of the others or makes an effort at pulling an element of Exploration apart to get at its components – IOW something that is not synthesizing beyond the elements themselves.  This would include such styles of play as - modeling (mechanics), describing/investigating (setting), personal expression (character/color), or socializing (no particular interest in Exploring per say, only doing so because everyone else is).

I want to make VERY clear that I do not mean anything negative by the term deconstructive play.

I would vote for two as well, but as I had described.  No surprise there!  Food for thought.

Hey Jonathan,

I see that by your emoticon all is well!  Sorry if I came off a little – heavy handed, my apologies!

Regarding emotional/intellectual play Ron was very prescient describing the term as a "tar baby".  I had never intended to argue the two as separate terms or styles of play.  Conflict is conflict - it can engage the emotions or not.  It can force one to engage the intellect or not.  The term is entirely irrelevant to my thesis.  Whatever the specific conflict is the player must attend to it.  He may react emotionally or not.  He may just bend his intellect upon it or not.  One may lash out emotionally or coolly contemplate the situation and figure ways around it.  Or one may react in a manner that encompasses both ends or meets somewhere in the middle.  The key is that conflict requires the player to engage or some negative will come to pass.  The whole emotional intellectual divide is a complete Red Herring!  Mom, Dad – keep your kids away from it!  It is dangerous and divisive.  No good comes from it!  Don't touch it!  It is pure concentrated evil!

Also, just to make sure everyone is on the same page, one does not Explore Setting, rather one uses Setting to Explore.

Baloney. One can explore setting, and this is roleplaying. Further as part of Simulationism it's not at all problematic. Dividing Simulaitonism up into two parts, OTOH, is problematic, because it's creating two types of play that aren't mutually exclusive, which the others are assumed to be.

Why can't these just be two forms of Simulationism?

Mike

Hey Mike,

I see your baloney and raise you a salami!

You make several assertions that are based on assumptions that have yet to be proven true.

We don't yet know if dividing Sim into the two parts that I had proposed will be problematic because no one has yet to examine the possibilities.

Quote from: Mike HolmesOne can explore setting, and this is roleplaying.

This is an ambiguous statement that is difficult to resolve, but I will make an attempt.  Let me know if I was on the right meaning or not.

I'll start with the statement that one uses the elements of Exploration to Explore – one does not Explore the Elements of Exploration.  This is a vital distinction to make.  It means the elements of Exploration are used to some end – to create something beyond them.

That being said - if you meant one can use Setting to Explore without employing Situation then that is not Exploration.  As the Model currently stands, Exploration demands that all five elements be employed for that activity to be called role-play.  If there is no Situation then there is no Exploration.

Quote from: Mike HolmesDividing Simulaitonism up into two parts, OTOH, is problematic, because it's creating two types of play that aren't mutually exclusive, which the others are assumed to be.

For the sake of this discussion I will call one part of the split Agenda X and the other part Simulation.  Agenda X will be conflict/Situation integrated/inclusive and Simulationism will be conflict/Situation indifferent/exclusive.  By the definitions I have offered they are mutually exclusive in that one does meet the definition of Exploration (Agenda X) while one does not (Sim).

The mutual exclusivity pertains player preference. That is, one cannot have two GNS agenda at the same time. More importantly, they have to be something that could cause a conflict of ideals in terms of how to play between players.

Quote from: SilmenumeWe don't yet know if dividing Sim into the two parts that I had proposed will be problematic because no one has yet to examine the possibilities.

Well, we can only speculate on this, but give me an example of some sort of action taken by a player who  is engaging in one of these activities that would, because of the fact of it's categorization, cause a player playing in the one mode to think that the player playing in the other mode was playing "incorrectly." I think that one player might think that the other was spending too much time on a particular subject, but that's exactly the sort of distinction that creates "sub-modes" and not the mutually exclusive modes of GNS. That is, I can't see a player thinking that a game had too little conflict, unless they were actually gamist or narrativist. To a simulationist, the game should have precisely as much conflict as is most plausible.

Again, a player might "angle" for more conflict, or less, and this might cause some player concern, but this would be more in the realm of simple aesthetics. You might as well say that Gamism where one is looking to do combat, and Gamism revolving around commerce represent two GNS modes. Where does it end?

Put another way, GNS modes are not about what "could" be problematic between adenda, but what always is problematic when a player insists on playing in his mode. That is, in the sub-modes that you describe, most of the time a player noting the play of another player as not precisely like his own will not see it as being inherently different from his mode of play. Simulationism is about reducing the appearance of the other two mode's metagame motives (the characters and world must appear to be objectively real, and less the product of the players). Both of these modes do that, and there can be no automatic objection between them, therefore.

Further, again, I can't see any player in either of these modes objecting to "switching" to the other mode. That is, if the GM threw a conflict at a character in the "explore only mode," then what player would say, "Oh, no! Not a plausible conflict!" As long as the conflict was not Gamist, and therefore plausible within the definitions of Sim, then he'd have to accept that this was a ramification of the character's exploration.  And if a player looking for conflict found none, because "there was none there to be found where he was looking" then he can hardly complain, can he?

To say that all players want conflict, it to agree with my Beeg Horseshoe theory. That is, it's a Gamism or Narrativism urge to want conflict in addition to what comes up as a simple extension of what's plausible, what "should" happen.

QuoteThat being said - if you meant one can use Setting to Explore without employing Situation then that is not Exploration.  As the Model currently stands, Exploration demands that all five elements be employed for that activity to be called role-play.  If there is no Situation then there is no Exploration.

Yes, you must have situation. But, as Ron points out, Situation is merely Characters engaged with Setting in some way. Somewhere along the line, that engagement was said to require conflict, but I'd go to the mat to defend the idea that it doesn't require that at all. Unless you can define Conflict as wanting to see what's beyond the next ridge. In which case you're back to all play being the same. Nobody is saying that what you describe are the same thing. Just that they aren't separate GNS modes.

Mike

Hmmm.  I'm rather late to this party, because I've been having some difficulty getting my head around the concepts here.  In some ways this thread has alot in common with earlier threads about Sim1 and Sim2 and Discovery, and in other ways its rather different.

IMO, conflict is essential to a creative agenda.  If you have no conflict you have no creative agenda.  Simulationism is very much about conflict because you have to have something to simulate.  If you don't have a conflict you don't have anything to simulate you don't have simualtionism.

What you do have is, IMO, nothing but pure Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

If alls you are doing is wandering around the world gazing at the scenery like some sort of tourist then IMO you aren't playing Simulationist.  Simulationists aren't tourists.  They want something every bit as badly as gamists and narrativists and simply "seeing what's around the next bend" ain't it.  That's just Exploration.  

Simulationism is absolutely about conflict, but for different reasons than Gamism or Narrativism.  A gamist wants conflict because its a measuring stick against which to compare relative effectiveness.  A Narrativist wants conflict because what it says about premise.  

A simulationist wants conflict for the same reason a chemistry student wants to mix stuff together in a beaker...to see what happens.

Without conflict, nothing happens.  Without situation, nothing happens.

A travelogue is not Simulationism.  At best you can say its raw Exploration with no Creative Agenda enjoyed for its own sake, perhaps by those who are taking a break from actively pursuing an Agenda in order to kick back a bit and enjoy the ride for a time.  A roleplaying vacation, if you will.

At worst you can say it represents a retreat from the pressure of having to fulfill a creative agenda; and as such is practiced primarily by players who are more or less socially just along for the ride and unwilling to assert themselves against more charismatic players or GMs.

I imagine that this sort of travelogue play is closely related to the idea of zilch play.

This distinction to me is an important one.  I see the failure to make this distinction to lie at the root of much of the vehement arguement we've had on the nature of Simulationism over the years.  I see the failure to make this distinction as the reason why some can say "Simulationism is based in fear" while others stand horrified and aghast at the very idea.  Most of these issues go away as soon as we acknowledge that much of what has gotten lumped in to Simulationism...isn't.

Far from it being problematic to split Sim, I see it as ridiculous not to.

Some actual play never gets past the 5 components of Exploration.  I don't see that as problematic.  I don't see it as a violation of the Big Model.

I hope that wasn't too far off the mark for this thread.

It's precisely the "Simulationism is fear" argument that you're making. If you can't see "tourism" as a bold and viable form of play, then you're not really seeing all of sim for what it is. Again, it's my point that simulationism accepts conflict if it comes and that nobody plays without it. You're the one arguing that there's some mode in which conflict is not wanted.

Mike

Quote from: Valamir

IMO, conflict is essential to a creative agenda. If you have no conflict you have no creative agenda. Simulationism is very much about conflict because you have to have something to simulate. If you don't have a conflict you don't have anything to simulate you don't have simualtionism.

What you do have is, IMO, nothing but pure Exploration sans Creative Agenda.

This was very illuminating to me!

I've been struggling with the issues raised by the Beeg Horseshoe Theory and it's variants, as well as the ideas presented in this thread.  MJ proposes three options for the activity he has discribed engaging in.

Quote from: M. J. Young
That's a serious ramification of your presentation. One of these must be true, I think:
Conflict does not mean what you suggest, but can be limited to merely wanting to know more and having to take action to learn; and that this can be entirely player-motivated without any necessity inherent to the situation or the setting.
Conflict is not necessary for exploration, and a situation devoid of conflict is sufficient for some forms of role play gaming.
The model fails to include an existing form of role playing by denying that it can be roleplay at all if it does not have conflict.

I still have to go with the second option, but now with a different emphasis.  I read it as:
    Conflict is not necessary for Exploration, and a setting devoid of   obstacles for characters is sufficient to be defined as role play gaming.
I add to it:
   However, it is not sufficient to drive a creative agenda as defined in GNS because it lacks system.  

How do I support this?  In this other  thread  (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12098) Ron states:

Quote from: Ron Edwards
The system is not the means by which the contents of the SIS are negotiated into place, but by which the events of the SIS are negotiated into place.

It's a very important distinction.

System establishes time in the Shared Imaginary Space. Hence: change, events, perceptions by the characters, and similar (highlights mine)

I submit that what MJ has described is an Exploration of the contents of the SIS without an need for any causality save that of position.  The "events" could happen in any order without regard for theme, strategy, or "what happens if."  Introducing time into this context has little meaning because as a player, I am outside "time."  

To summarize:  System is about "time", but "time" is dependent on in-play conflict, without conflict time is not driven in any particular order, and system becomes irrelevant.  

Thus, in my mind Exploration without conflict is just vanilla Exploration.  Exploration that includes conflict belongs to one of the three Creative Agendas.  



As another point aside:
What MJ does could be made into a form of Nar just as easily.  If I wake up in the Garden of Eden and begin exploring, I could have my character react with joy and wonder to address the premise, "what is perfection?"

I hope I haven't wandered too far with this post.   I know it's not as clear as I would like it to be.  

Cheers,
Jonathan

Quote from: Mike HolmesIt's precisely the "Simulationism is fear" argument that you're making. If you can't see "tourism" as a bold and viable form of play, then you're not really seeing all of sim for what it is. Again, it's my point that simulationism accepts conflict if it comes and that nobody plays without it. You're the one arguing that there's some mode in which conflict is not wanted.

Mike

I beg to differ.  I very clearly said "At best you can say its raw Exploration with no Creative Agenda enjoyed for its own sake"  

So I'm clearly leaving room for people who (all or some of the time) enjoy this play not out of fear, but because they legitimately enjoy it.

But no.  Tourism is not, and cannot be "bold".

Boldness requires taking decisive action in the face of adversity.  If a player is "bold" they have to be doing something.  They will have a Creative Agenda.

It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

No matter how much fun it is.  No matter how much the player is rightfully enjoying themselves, tourism is not bold.  It is, almost by definition, the least bold form of roleplaying there can be...which is why it often winds up being the place that non bold players retreat to (the fear factor).

A fearful player can retreat to Tourism precisely because it requries no boldness on their part at all.  That's not to say that a bold player can't enjoy Tourism also.

But without a conflict to be simulated I firmly believe that Tourism is not simulationism but just Exploration without any commitment to anything more than just Exploration.

Quote from: Valamir
It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

I can't agree with that I'm afraid.  Sure package tourism may be rather unexciting, but having spent some years in the backpacker community, such as it is, I can assure you that some forms of tourism are very bold indeed.  Like the couple I know who did Latin America last year, including talking their way through a FARC roadblock.

I know many people who have headed off to to other countries with minimal currency, unable to speak the language, and equipped primarily with a railway timetable and a decent pair of walking shoes.  One might argue that the RPG equivalent of this sort of activity is gamist, and is in some sense interested in the challenge of overcoming these problems, but in my experience it really is the desire to see whats there, over the next hill, that drives this exploratory behaviour.

Lets us distinguish I think between the person who seeks out challenge for its own sake, and the person who resigns themself to challenge in the pursuit of something else.  I don't see the latter as necessarily less bold, because they are still recognising the challenge and its problems.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Valamir
It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

Lets us distinguish I think between the person who seeks out challenge for its own sake, and the person who resigns themself to challenge in the pursuit of something else.  I don't see the latter as necessarily less bold, because they are still recognising the challenge and its problems.

I agree that "tourism" can be dangerous--or even exciting--but it seems an incredibly poor way to describe the motivations of a player who shows up to "destroy the evil empire because they wiped out his parents."

(It's true that the player might be there for the challenge--or for the moral statement--but if neither is the case then saying the player is there for something like tourism seems decidely off the mark no matter how many imperial roadblocks the character has to talk their way past.

I think it's most accurate to say the player is in the game for experiential reasons that are best described as the in-game motivations of the character (i.e. experiencing the character's motivations).

-Marco

QuoteI agree that "tourism" can be dangerous--or even exciting--but it seems an incredibly poor way to describe the motivations of a player who shows up to "destroy the evil empire because they wiped out his parents."

I would agreer, but I'm not sure why you expect that tourism would be used to describe such a player.  That player clearly has some sort of purposeful agenda and is thus not just going over the hill to see whats there, which was the point at issue.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Valamir
It requires exactly zero boldness to go along for the ride and admire the view.

I can't agree with that I'm afraid.  Sure package tourism may be rather unexciting, but having spent some years in the backpacker community, such as it is, I can assure you that some forms of tourism are very bold indeed.  Like the couple I know who did Latin America last year, including talking their way through a FARC roadblock.

Well, we're stretching the analogy a little thin here, but at no time would I say a backpacker is "along for the ride to admire the view".  There's a whole nother level of motivation there.

Whether its a desire to see what the country is "really" like outside of traditional tourist destinations, a desire to see if their up to the physical challenge of the hike, or some Waldon Pond philosophical adventure there's something else there (besides financial cheapness I expect) that makes a person willing to take this on.  That something else would be the equivelent of a CA.

I'd say we're in perfect agreement there.

QuoteI think it's most accurate to say the player is in the game for experiential reasons that are best described as the in-game motivations of the character (i.e. experiencing the character's motivations).

I'm not sure if we're on the same wavelength or not.

If this is how you'd describe play, then no, I don't think this is very compelling Simulationism.  This is just raw exploration with emphasis on character.  For me to be simulationism you have to put this character into a conflict laden situation and THEN want to experience the character's motivations and find out what happens.  Without the conflict laden situation for the character to bounce off of...to me it is just tourism...whether the pretty scenery is setting or character.


With exploration you have setting, character, and situation and through system stuff happens to change these elements.  Those changes have effects that ripple back out and (through system) provide the basis for yet more changes which cause more ripples and so on.

The ripples are part of Exploration itself.  Its what happens as soon as you turn System on and start to play.  The enjoyment of seeing the ripples and watching their effect on the world is fundamental to every creative agenda.  Its just basic Exploration to want to "see what happens".

Simulationism IMO requires more than just wanting to "see what happens" (just like Nar and Gamism do).  That something more is a commitment from the player to use his character to cause ripples and place his character into situations where those ripples effect him.  That's conflict.  The simulationist needs conflict to act as a catalyst to simulation just as much as Narrative gamers need conflict to act as a catalyst for premise or Gamists to act as a catalyst for challenge.


Its like a chemistry student performing an experiment.  He's got the beakers and test tubes and bunsen burners and he's mixing and heating and distilling and whatever else.  He's performing the experiment.  His lab partner whose just watching him do all this to see what happens...he's just along for the ride.  He may hand him the occassional test tube or stir the occassional mixture when asked...but you can't really say that the partner is performing the experiment.  He's just observing it.

So to is the difference between Simulationism and Tourism in my mind.

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Valamir
If this is how you'd describe play, then no, I don't think this is very compelling Simulationism.  This is just raw exploration with emphasis on character.  For me to be simulationism you have to put this character into a conflict laden situation and THEN want to experience the character's motivations and find out what happens.  Without the conflict laden situation for the character to bounce off of...to me it is just tourism...whether the pretty scenery is setting or character.

I don't know if we're on the same wavelength or not--but my example was the character who wants to bring down the empire because it executed his parents. That sounds conflict-laden to me.

Quote
So to is the difference between Simulationism and Tourism in my mind.

The missing 4th CA is discovered!
-Marco

That's not tourism Marco, that's the other form of Sim being talked about here.

Ralph, just because you see some difference between seeing the game world, and seeing it through a lens of conflict doesn't make it a different mode. First your rhetoric is judgement-laden, as if you know that the form that you obviously prefer is better. How is this any different than early anti-gamism? How many times did we hear, "That's not real roleplaying!" Now you're saying that it's something else, not Simulationism.

As to the boldness, I've said many times before that Narrativism could be stated to be the retreat of those too fearful to face immersion. There are probably bad reasons for every mode, real or theoretical, but that doesn't make the mode in question a lesser form of play for those who enjoy it legitimately.

Even if you apply a judgement to this theoretical form of play, and are correct, however, that doesn't make it something worthy of it's own GNS classification. Again, it doesn't stand the test of mutual exclusivity. Again, my proposal is that this mode does not exist at all, as such. That is, can you give me one example of this so called mode being played? Or are we talking about something comepletely theoretical here? Yes, MJ will tell you that at times in games he's played, that players go off "just exploring" and doing nothing else. How is this not just more simulationism? MJ, in those games was there never any conflict ever? Eventually there were conflicts, right? When they seemed sensible? As such, this is just an example of a Simulationism CA that involved more exploration than conflict. Big deal, that doesn't make this a mode.

In fact, all play consists of exploration punctuated by conflicts. All play by everyone. There is no RPG where you just have conflict, conflict, conflict, without ever having the world described at all in between. Even the name of the monster that you're killing is exploration as it establishes some vision inside of the player's head. Given that exploration is an inescapable part of play, then the only question is what portion of play is "only exploration," and how long it takes to get to the next conflict. This is a spec trum where no line can be drawn in terms of defining a CA over an "instance of play." Yes, you can say that this one decision was "exploratory" and the next "conflict based," but we all know that this is true of every mode of play.

When the CA is done "to see what's out there, and how my character reacts during conflicts," that's Simulationism, no matter how spread out the conflicts are.

To do another analogy, it's like you've said that elephants are divided up into two sorts, Elephants and Pink Elephants, and Pink Elephants are not elephants because they're pink. Well, I'd say that they don't exist, so there's no use in saying this. What possible good does separating these two "forms" of play do? How are they like the difference between other GNS modes? How do they conflict?

Mike

Mike, any judgement you're seeing...you put there.

Put a lid on your frothing egalatarianism for a minute.

Nothing in your last post applies to anything I said in mine.  You might as well be responding to someone else entirely.


Alls I have said is this:

Conflict is essential to Simulationism just as its essential to Narrativism and Gamism.

A Creative Agenda is quite simply nothing more than how a player responds and interacts with the conflict of the character.

Without a conflict, there is no Creative Agenda.  You have only Exploration.  

Of course all play consists of exploration punctuated by conflict.  There is no "in fact" about it.  This has been bog standard part of the model since Exploration was first introduced.

But it had been suggested that conflict was not essential to Simulationism.  That you could be playing simulationist without needing any conflict.  Which is the idea I have endeavored to refute.  Simulationism without any conflict is not simulationism.  It is just exploration.  Exploration all by itself without any Creative Agenda at all.

QuoteA Creative Agenda is quite simply nothing more than how a player responds and interacts with the conflict of the character.

Since when? A Creative Agenda is the general method for decision making over an instance of play. If the GM decides that no conflicts are iminent, because it wouldn't be plausible for any to be so, then that's Simulationism at work. Creative Agenda refer to "instances of play" not to atomic decisions. So, while exploration often doesn't show up on the CA radar, it certainly can.

In any case, the point is that exploration, per the model, is part of every CA, not ancillary to it.

Mike

QuoteSince when?

Since ever.  Although I don't think its until recently that we've begun to really dissect it enough to understand that.

A Creative Agenda has no meaning whatsoever outside of conflict.  It is essentially, how the player responds out of game to conflicts presented in game.

A Gamist views a conflict as an opportunity for challenge and Step on Up
A Narrativist views a conflict as an opportunity to address premise and achieve Story Now.
A Simulationist views a conflict as an opportunity for Discovery and to examine "What if" (Discovery being my preferred term for "Right to Dream".)

Without the back drop of conflict, none of this happens.

An Instance of Play can best be thought of as the cycle of conflict (from recognition, through response, to resolution) over the course of which a Creative Agenda manifests.  I've come to be convinced that the reason defining Instance of Play in the past was alot like trying to pin down a cloud is because the crucial element of the relationship to conflict was missing.  Its possible to have conflicts nestled within and overlapping with other conflicts throughout the game which makes each "instance of play" a rather tangled thread, which is why its so hard to identify concretely and evaluation and observation is so often based on a gut feel for what's going on...why there is no clear and plain litmus test for actual play.

QuoteIn any case, the point is that exploration, per the model, is part of every CA, not ancillary to it.

A point which I've been repeating myself several times now.  And as long as there is no conflict that is all you ever have, which is a large part of why folks of differing agendas can actually play together.  Because they can all engage in and enjoy the exploration of play.  It's the player's approach to Conflict (through the entire cycle of conflict) that defines a Creative Agenda.

If there is never any conflict, then there is never any Creative Agenda, just Exploration.

If there is a conflict but the player refuses to engage in it, then the player has no Creative Agenda and is just engaging in Exploration alone.

Exploration alone with no attempt at or desire to engage with Conflict is what has been called Tourism in this thread.


I'm pretty convinced that Conflict is the missing link in solidifying the relationship between these things.

Your argument is a tautology. You keep saying over and over, CA requires conflict, because CA requires conflict. Make an actual argument. Based on what, does CA require conflict?

You seem to believe that Instances can't occur without conflict? That is, if one goes for X amount of play without a conflict, then that must mean what? That there was no instance there? Doesn't the instance include this play?

How can you in one breath say that exploration is part of a CA, but that only conflict defines a CA? Are you saying that all exploration is unidentifiable in terms of CA? If, for instance, a player goes looking to see if there's a monster to fight, isn't it possible to define this looking as Gamist exploration? Even if he never finds a monster to fight?

I think it's actually quite easy to identify play in any of the three modes without conflict ever occuring.

Mike

There's so much happening in this thread that my reply may be a bit disjointed. To reduce that, I've started a spin-off thread of sorts, Simulationism: Reflexive Play?, in which I want to challenge Jay's repeated assertion that we don't explore the elements of exploration but use them to explore something else. I'll refer that part of the discussion there.

Ralph, you've surprised me. You're suggesting that it's possible to roleplay without a creative agendum; yet exploration is by definition (under the model) creative. How would you reconcile this with the model, without declaring that it's not roleplaying?

Let's set aside the tourism concept for a moment (although I think that's the clearest example of non-conflict roleplaying). You've mentioned before playing games in which you would "explore system" by having characters jump off cliffs knowing full well that they would survive the fall, because the mechanics of the game world were such that the damage could not possibly be fatal. I got the impression that sometimes you just did that because you were exploring the fact that you could do that--you weren't running from a monster (who presumably could have jumped down on top of you, since if you could survive the fall but it was too dangerous for you to fight, it would probably know in such a world that it could survive such a fall as well). That sounds to me like non-conflict exploration of system. Am I missing something?

Mike asked if there were games in which there was never any conflict. There's a part of me that wants to say obviously not; but then, Jay seems to have limited what can be called conflict. Is it conflict to have to change your money because you crossed the border, and need to deal with someone in a language in which you don't have great facility who is likely to attempt to cheat you in the exchange? Is it conflict to haggle prices with an innkeeper or a guide? Is it conflict if your horse loses a shoe and you need to visit a blacksmith, or if you have to create shelter and fire in the wilderness to spend the night?

In addressing the problem of evil, one of the points I make is that we assess "the worst thing that could happen" based on things that actually do happen. If we lived in a world in which the worst thing that ever happened to anyone was the occasional hangnail, someone would be asking how a good God could permit hangnails. The point then is that we have no idea what God does not permit, because we have no experience of that which is prevented. So, too, in this context the notion of "conflict", a very relative term in general, seems to have been given a minimum threshold below which it doesn't count, but that threshold is unclear to me. I've run and played in games in which the worst conflicts for a very long time would not have reached what I perceive as Jay's threshold.

Of course, eventually something will usually occur which is conflict of a higher sense. Then again, my games drift a lot, and sometimes a player who has been going for months of real time and years of game time will decide he wants to do something else, and make radical changes in what he's after (like going dragon hunting). So it's not necessarily easy to answer that.

I've got one player who just successfully resolved The Prisoner of Zenda, and for his efforts has been given a competency and the castle at Zenda. He knows it's about 1897, and he knows (because he plays himself) that inside fifteen years World War One is going to break out in Europe, and he's sandwiched in there in the Germanic state of Ruritania. So he knows "conflict" is coming in a big way, and he's already started creating the finest fighting force the world will know for at least half a century. On the other hand, it's over a decade, and he's also building gardens, starting social service programs for the poor, investing in local industry, redecorating his castle, and otherwise just enjoying being a turn of the century nobleman and close friend of the King. I sometimes wonder, even worry, that it can't be much fun with nothing happening, but he assures me that he's having a grand time of it. The biggest "conflict" he's faced in the past several weeks has been difficulties in finding a competent household manager to work alongside his steward in keeping up the details of the property. He is enjoying it immensely. Of course, we "drifted" here. A few months ago he was up to his eye teeth in trying to maneuver around Black Michael and keep the King alive until he could get him to the throne. Before that he was training with Ninjas in a feudal Japanese setting, trying to bring down the oppressive government. Prior to that, he was a medic on a spaceship on a routine cargo run. So not all play has been this calm exploration. At the same time, he's in no hurry to get to the next conflict. He's enjoying this.

Looking back to Ralph, I'm wondering if this is the distinction you're drawing. Early in this thread I attempted to suggest that the movement from not knowing to knowing would be meeting the conflict. However, I have a great deal of trouble with your suggestion that there would then be "exploration" but not "creative agendum". It's my understanding of the model that exploration only exists through its expression through an agendum. If you don't have an agendum, you don't have exploration at all. I am aware that CA is nested within Exploration; but that doesn't mean E can exist without CA, any more than CA can exist without Techniques. Once you are "role playing" you are exploring with an agendum using techniques. If you don't have techniques, you aren't exploring; if you don't have an agendum, you're not exploring.

That's why I've argued that for the requirement of "conflict" to be definitional of any agendum (inclusively) is to fundamentally undermine the model. Exploration without an agendum cannot exist.

Now, if you'll see me that such matters as deciding which way to go, solving problems of where to stay, and other minor matters that might arise in the process of "exploring" are in fact minor conflicts; that conflict can be as little as "I don't know and I wish to know"; then I'll agree that how you handle conflict (and indeed what you recognize as being conflict at all) is revelatory of your agendum, and even (which I think may be an important insight, within my caveat) that "point of conflict" and "instance of play" may be equivalent.

However, saying that "I want to know what I don't know" is not conflict and that conflict is essential for creative agendum of any type comes to saying that pure exploration for its own sake is not role playing, and I think that would be fatal to the model.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: Valamir
A Creative Agenda has no meaning whatsoever outside of conflict.  It is essentially, how the player responds out of game to conflicts presented in game.

I cannot see why this should be the case at all.

It seems to me bleed-over from the convention that character is nothing without conflict, drama is conflict etc.  Those may be true but I do not see that it is a universal necessity for creation, or the interest in creation.

Rats, too late to edit my previous post.

I just wanted to add that I'm not particularly against the idea.  It may be that some relationship to conflict is implied or required.  I just don't see that, but I'd be open to discussing the argument that it should be, if one can be advanced.

Quote from: M. J. Young
Ralph, you've surprised me. You're suggesting that it's possible to roleplay without a creative agendum;

Don't know why you'd be surprised this is essentially the same position I took back almost a year ago in the Clarifying Simulation (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8114&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30) thread.

In that thread there was alot of stumbling around what was going on in what I'd labeled Sim2.  A lot of references to Creative Invention and the like trying to come to grips with what the actual feature of Simulationism is, but knowing only that it must be something more than the absence of G or N.

Subsequent discussions on the role of Conflict and their relationship to Creative Agenda have clarified for me, I think, where that actual feature lies.  So my posts in this thread are really only an updated addendum to my posts in that one.

One thing that I continue to disagree with Ron on is the notion that Roleplaying doesn't start until you add Creative Agenda to Exploration.  And that Exploration by itself is not roleplaying.  I think there in lies some of the resistance to my declaration of "tourism" play (as a temporary place holder for lack of a better word for it) as being raw Exploration with no Creative Agenda.  People associate that with me saying then that its "not roleplaying".  I think raw Exploration is roleplaying...at least by the most fundamental notion of "playing a role".  It is essentially agenda-less play and the enjoyment from it is akin to the enjoyment one gets from watching a movie or reading a book with an added layer of interactivity.  In its purest form I think you get computer games like Myst where the puzzles are really secondary excuses to advancing to the next stage of exploration.

QuoteMike asked if there were games in which there was never any conflict. There's a part of me that wants to say obviously not; but then, Jay seems to have limited what can be called conflict.

Well, I have to admit to not being completely sure what Jay's definition of Conflict is, and the word itself is a pretty nebulous thing to pin down.

But to me, my proto thoughts on the subject is that a Conflict is anything that has the potential to alter the world.  Where failure has consequences beyond simply failure.

So merely changing money at the border...no that doesn't strike me as a conflict because there are no consequences besides failure.  But if failing to change the money in a timely fashion resulted in being unable to meet the ransom demands of the kidnappers who require the ransom in Guilders rather than Florins...then that seems to me to have consequences beyond mere failure and thus is a conflict.  It is in the player's attitude and approach to such conflicts that IMO is where Creative Agenda is witnessed.

A potentially nebulous distinction to be sure, but at least you can see the direction of my thinking.

Quote
I've got one player who just successfully resolved The Prisoner of Zenda, and for his efforts has been given a competency and the castle at Zenda.....SNIP....  I sometimes wonder, even worry, that it can't be much fun with nothing happening, but he assures me that he's having a grand time of it.

I think this ties to the idea I noted about an Instance of Play being tied to the cycle of conflict, and notions that Mike and others have discussed in the various atomic threads about Instances of Play being nested within others.

The overall conflict that I see is that failure to prepare fully for the coming war will have consequences beyond mere failure.  That's a long term secular Conflict.  Within that Conflict there may be numerous other ones that arise and wrap up quickly.  The king's marshall jealous at the PCs growing military influence seeks to thwart his efforts to train and must be circumvented.  A lady's undesired advances are distracting the PC from important activity yet she must be kept happy because her family's support is vital.  Whatever you might have going within.  Conflict doesn't necessarily have to be life and death every moment of the game.

And yes there will be long periods of play in most games which are essentially just Raw Exploration themselves, but they are part of a larger conflict cycle (Instance of Play) for which there is a Creative Agenda for.

QuoteThat's why I've argued that for the requirement of "conflict" to be definitional of any agendum (inclusively) is to fundamentally undermine the model. Exploration without an agendum cannot exist.

See above.  

I see no reason for that to be so.  I know that is Ron's assumption, but its not one I disagree with and freely admitt that my ideas expressed above violate it.

But since I don't see where the violation does any great damage, I'm not currently inclined to be concerned by it.

QuoteNow, if you'll see me that such matters as deciding which way to go, solving problems of where to stay, and other minor matters that might arise in the process of "exploring" are in fact minor conflicts; that conflict can be as little as "I don't know and I wish to know"; then I'll agree that how you handle conflict (and indeed what you recognize as being conflict at all) is revelatory of your agendum, and even (which I think may be an important insight, within my caveat) that "point of conflict" and "instance of play" may be equivalent.

I think I may have given you an idea of my thoughts on this above but to clarify.

"I don't know what's beyond the next hill, and I wish to know" by my current thinking is a conflict only in so far as failure to find out has repurcussion to the SiS beyond the player's disappointment at not finding out.  If failure to know has repurcussions to the world (scale is unimportant here, the repucussion could be simply a peasant women loses her dowry and can't get married, or as great as the end of the world) then I'm thinking its a conflict.  If the only consequence to failure is simply not knowing...then I'm currently not seeing that as a conflict.

Edit to note that one of the reasons I make this distinction is because without it, literally every single action ever taken becomes a conflict and the world loses all distinction.  Without such a limit than "I want to know if my character will sprain his ankle when he takes the next step...No?...how about the next one..." becomes a conflict* and thus renders the idea of conflict pretty pointless.

*clearly there are times when such a question may well be a conflict (say Sam and Frodo treking across Mordor) but here the distinction is that failure to take the next step has consequences beyond simply not taking the step.

Hey everyone – thanks for taking the time to explore these ideas!  

Though this thread has scattered into a number of different directions, I will make an attempt to narrow the focus by clarifying my positions.

There seems to be a number of objections that stem from the use of and the role of conflict in Simulationism.

To Mike who has stated the following –

Quote from: Mike HolmesYes, you must have situation. But, as Ron points out, Situation is merely Characters engaged with Setting in some way. Somewhere along the line, that engagement was said to require conflict, but I'd go to the mat to defend the idea that it doesn't require that at all.

I quote you the following –

Quote from: Ron Edwards from the Narrativism essayBy definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and diddling.

emphasis mine.

Adversity cannot exist without conflict.  There is no adversity without conflict.

Quote from: Mike HolmesI think it's actually quite easy to identify play in any of the three modes without conflict ever occuring.

Actually it is quite difficult.  We don't know to what ends a player has a character do something until conflict occurs and rewards are meted out.  I argued this in the Player action/reaction to Situation key to CA (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=108276#108276/) thread.  I have diagrammed this process in the I have a question (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=124313#124313/) thread.  It all boils down to how are the players prepping, engaging, and rewarded for engaging in conflict that demonstrates which CA is in operation.

Gamism is expressed when the player addresses Challenge.  Challenge is based in conflict.  Having a player build a Character to face conflict and to not present him with a relevant conflict would be dysfunctional play.  The same applies to Narrativism – a premise is conflict laden.  Conflict is the heartbeat of CA expression.  Note that does not in anyway imply player motive or why a player has chosen to roleplay.  Nevertheless, one cannot play Gamist or Narrativist without conflict.  Conversely, it is impossible to diagnose play without at least one instance of addressing conflict.  It's the how players address conflict that demonstrates which CA is in operation.  Not only that, it is conflict that literally drives play in both those CA's.  You can't have Challenge or Premise addressing without conflict.  It is definitional.  A character may be out buying lots of gear for war but we don't know what that means in isolation.  For what purpose is he doing this act?  Until we get to conflict, we don't know.  Is he doing this to address an upcoming Challenge?  Is he doing this to address Premise?  We don't know until we get to Challenge or Premise (conflict in either case) to see how he employs the weapons of war.  The same holds for Sim.

Why so?  For several reasons.  First Exploration demands that all five elements of Exploration be used for that activity to be labeled Exploration.  A CA is the employment of Exploration to some directed end.  How is CA identified?  By the addressing of Challenge, Premise, or Sim X – IOW conflict. (I'll address what Sim X is later).  What does that mean to observers?  We watch to see how the players approach conflicts.  This too means that Sim must employ conflict to some end.  Because Exploration demands the employment of all five elements of Exploration, and because CA's are the directed employment of Exploration, then all CA's are forms of Exploration.  This means that Sim too must employ conflict.  The requirement for conflict in Sim is no mystery.  What is the mystery is to what end conflict serves in Sim.

Quote from: Mike HolmesIf, for instance, a player goes looking to see if there's a monster to fight, isn't it possible to define this looking as Gamist exploration?

Your example is the equivalent of a sentence fragment.  Like a sentence fragment we don't have all the pieces in place.  Whereas we can't determine the meaning of a sentence fragment, we can't deduce the meaning (CA) of play until we have a full instance.  Thus if a player goes looking to see if there's a monster to fight could mean anything until the whole instance of play, which includes the conflict itself and the rewards that are eventually meted out, are accounted for.  Until the cycle has been completed we don't know what is going on.  Is the player attempting to demonstrate effectiveness?  Is the player attempting to fight the monster so as to be able to address Premise?  Is the player attempting to fight the monster because he swore an oath to destroy that which killed his wife and family?  We don't know just because the player is searching for the monster.  As I stated earlier, raw conflict is CA neutral.  It is everything (the players actions) that surrounds conflict that determines which CA is in operation.  However, one does need conflict in order to express CA.

There is also this notion that seems to be implying that the elements of Exploration are homogeneous – that they can be swapped or excluded as needed and it is not important which ones go or which ones are employed.  That is not the case.  All must be employed and all serve different roles.  So the question becomes,  "What is the role of conflict?"  In Gamism and Narrativism the role of conflict is readily apparent.  Conflict drives play.  Without it there is no Challenge or Premise.  So what role does conflict serve in Simulationism?

In Simulationism conflict serves a variety of roles, the most important of which is providing risk so that the vividness of the Dream can be enhanced.  However, like the two other CA's, not any conflict will do.  To support the CA the conflict must be relevant and the engagement of which must be rewarded in a relevant fashion.  OK, certain conflicts support Gamism and Narrativism.  IOW players set up and engage certain conflicts because the results will hopefully further some metagame goal – addressing Challenge/victory or addressing Premise/theme.  

So what is being addressed and what is being created in Simulationism?  Internal Causality and The Dream, respectively.  Internal Causality does not mean just physics, but everything within the SIS – including Character.  Not just character but social structures (cultures) as well.  Why character and social structures and not just physics?

Lets go back to the very act of statement making and validation – the very act of adding to the SIS.  In Chris' essay this process is one of Abduction and Deduction which employs Signs (statements) as the means of communication.  IOW we are using Abduction when trying to make sense of the SIS (intuition) and Deduction when we are attempting to make statements (employ Signs) based upon our Abduction, the validity of which is then tested against the validation method (the Lumpley Principle in action!)  It is important to note that Signs refer both to Objects and to Interpretant ("signs say things to someone").  All in all the process is one where the attempt to validate Abduction is a process of creating Signs and treating them like Objects, from which one can then make Deductions.  (Much of what I said above is a direct paraphrase from Chris' (clehrich) thread.

To continue a little further I'll do some direct quoting –

Quote from: clehrichThe social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes.  Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures...
...They have categorical notions sort of semi-embedded, and they encounter real things and think about them, but most of all and most importantly, they are told what to think by their cultures...
...So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues.  Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place.  Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true.  This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.

The Objects spoken about above are the social structures discussed here.  Finally –

Quote from: clehrich...in order to employ a symbol effectively, you have to conform to existing structures...
...When we employ structures, to sum up simply, we both produce and reproduce structures...
...In an RPG context, the application is I think obvious.  Structures are handed to us, most obviously in everything from social agreements to rules systems to setting to whatever...
...At the same time, every manipulation of any structure within that system necessarily changes its meaning, however slightly; over time...

So what does all this boil down to?  Exploration is a meaning creation and manipulation process.  New meanings are created when the prevailing structures are challenged.  This is why Situation/conflict is at the heart of each CA.  It is here that new meanings are created, meanings that are made relevant to each CA by the framing process and the rewards system that surrounds the conflict.  So the question becomes what is guiding and to what end are we engaging the meaning creation process in Sim?

I propose that in Sim the guiding force behind the meaning creation process is Internal Causality.  This may sound vague but upon further investigation I believe that it is possible to narrow down what that means.  In any Event (a conflict instance) something is revealed about both forces.  For the sake of argument I define a conflict as any moment when Character goal contacts an antithetical force.  If this antithetical force happens to be nature this process will reveal something about the Character as well as the physics of the world.  However, as the world is typically under the control of the DM in Sim games, this limits player contribution to meaning creation to the Character side of the equation.  IOW the player may wish to establish some fact about the physics of the world by conflicting with Setting, however as Internal Causality is the governor in Sim how the world "responds" should be fairly consistent.  After a few times there should be little new information to reveal about the physics of the world.  Because players have creative control over their Character that leaves Character as the primary topic of new meaning creation.

How is this different from Nar?  Simply put Nar is about creating meaning regarding Premise.  Or stated another way, the structure by which conflict finds meaning is based in the Premise question. In Sim the structure by which conflict finds meaning is based in Character and culture.  While much may be revealed about Character in the Premise addressing process, if the Internal Causality of a Character would indicate that a Character would break off from addressing the Premise conflict, this means that Internal Causality (this is not the same as Character Integrity) can be sacrificed if necessary so as to be able to prioritize the addressing of the Premise Conflict.  Basically Nar asks the question, "Is the Character willing to do X?"  Sim asks, "What would the Character do?"  These are wholly different questions.  The player who answers the latter question is deciding, "What do I wish to reveal about the Character and or his culture?"   The player who answers the former is deciding, "What do I wish to reveal about the Premise?"

Thus the main tension in Sim is how and what do I wish to reveal about Character and what are the internal (within the SIS) social ramifications of this action?  The Dream then is the human and social act of making decisions from the perspective of another (fictional) person.  What is at risk is the Dream itself.  As we understand our waking world via our own culturally informed structures; make the wrong decision and you either break the Dream by going too far outside the social meaning structures of the fictional the world, or the Dream itself suffers as the consequences of the decision cause much calamity within the social structures within the SIS.  That is the risk of Sim on the Social Level.

Just a quick note, Ron had noted that John Kim had complained about the essay not listing dysfunctional forms of play.  I would postulate that one form of dysfunctional form of Sim play is one where the consequences of any act are not taken into account.  I can't tell you how many times I've read the plaintive wail of DM's about players who go about killing NPC's without much fore or after thought.  I don't know about anyone else, but murders are not thought of lightly and the reactions of lords and/or others in power would not be gentle.  I would do the level best of the NPC's involved to put an end to the murders.  Let the consequences of their actions bear down upon the PC's.  I would say that one form of dysfunctional play in Sim is one where the actions of the PC's do not carry plausible consequences.

Hiya,

Jay, while I agree with you (and by extension with Ralph) regarding your quotes of my essay and how they relate to Mike's point, that doesn't necessarily make the two of us right.

Regarding your points about dysfunctional Simulationist play, you're right on target as I see it.

Best,
Ron

To follow what Ron's saying, Jay, it's precisely my point that I disagree with Ron's attribution of adversity and conflict to these things. Ron is wrong here, IMO.

I think it's sad that people think that I always agree with Ron on things. We disagree a lot.

Anyhow, you point out that my Gamism example can't be infered without context, but you don't question that it could be gamism, do you? That is, CA exists whether or not you can determine it. It could be that the decision in question could be seen as evidentiary of gamism. That's all I have to prove. You have to prove that somehow such play can never be evidentiary of CA for your point to be true.

Neither of us is likely to be able to prove our side, in any case, so we'll probably have to disagree. But my point has been that there's no use in saying that this play, these actual choices made by individuals, are not part of an overall CA. If your point is true, what's the implication? What does it mean? What good has saying it meant? I can't see any point to it at all, other than, possibly, to marginalize this sort of play.

Again, again, again, "decisions" as they pertain to CA are not neccessarily "major" in the sense that everything is a decision. We've been over this before, and Ron has agreed - everything that a player does in terms of creating action (whether via character or otherwise) is a "decision" for this intent and purpose. Yes, that doesn't make all of them "tells" but it does mean that any moment of the instance in question could be a "tell." And, yes, I'd agree even that when conflict occurs, it's more likely that "tells" will occur. But they are not the only place that tells occur. I can give many, many examples from actual play if you'd like. Of course, you'll have to trust me, but, again, all I have to do is have a possible place where something could be a tell, that at some points in some games that this sort of thing is a tell. You have to prove that it couldn't be a tell. Burden of proof.

Social reinforcement comes in many, many forms, and I'm surprised that you'd suggest that the only place that rewards are given out is for conflict. For instance, we know that some games don't have mechanical rewards, other than "attendance" rewards. Some have none at all. So you can't be talking about mechanical. If you're talking about socal rewards, I can, and have said, "Coool," when a player said, "I want my character to go to the city of Noragastira because they've got pyramids there." Rewards can be given for anything.

Mike

Hey folks,

Can everyone see the other's viewpoints? Based on paraphrasing so far ...

Jay: check
Mike: check
me: check

If I'm right about this, then it is perfectly OK to say, "Viewpoints about conflict relative to Situation differ."

Sometimes knowing where the questions and diversity of viewpoints are is the best we can get to.

Best,
Ron

Like I said, I'm willing to just disagree. But I'm also still willing to listen to any argument that shows how the distinction being made here is useful.

Again, however, it's precisely the atomic viewpoint that allows us to bypass this sort of dicsussion (just to plug my favorite theory).

Mike

Jay,

I follow along with the bulk of your argument but I reach a conclusion 180 degrees from yours.  Where I start to disagree is here:

QuoteBasically Nar asks the question, "Is the Character willing to do X?" Sim asks, "What would the Character do?" These are wholly different questions. The player who answers the latter question is deciding, "What do I wish to reveal about the Character and or his culture?" The player who answers the former is deciding, "What do I wish to reveal about the Premise?"

What is the basis for expecting that the player wants to reveal anything at all?  In fact, what is the basis for thinking the the player has anything to reveal?  I would think that if a player exhibited an interest in, say, a period or setting then mostly they will be asking questions rather than giving answers.  The above sort of suggests the sim player is interested in engaging with ther SIS in order to reveal what they know about the local context, but this seems to me the reverse of the sim interest.  It would be legitimate/inevitable for a Nar player to give their own answer to premise, because moral issues are universal, but it is not true that that a Sim player is entitled or equipped to interpret the game world.  If they were so equipped and entitled, the SIS would not pose an antithetical force to their desires or expectations.  Thus, I see this in the exact reverse light that you do; I think the Sim player is there to listen, not to speak.

I don't think such relationship as there is between Sim and conflict has anything to do with the players self expression, but rather what the conflict says about the local setting context.  I think to the abstract Simmer conflict, like shit, just happens.  I do not see a reason that Sim should necessarily have a relationship to conflict analogous to the relationships that Narr and Gam have to conflict.  Rather, I see the particular synthesis of S and G and N as being mutually supporting; they do not need to be alike.  I think that Sim benefits from the presence of the N and G components of RPG because Narratavists wallow in the shit, and thus stir it up so you can take a closer look, and Gamists throw a cloak over it so you can step daintily across.

I'm coming to this late having been away for awhile however on reading through the whole thread I have to point out one big problem I see with the definition of conflict put forward by Ralph and Jay.  

I agree entirely that conflict is a huge pointer towards creative agenda; deciding what is a conflict, what factors to consider when deciding on how it's resolved, and the affects of the outcome are all going to vary based on what creative agenda is being followed.  However I dont see how the tight definition of conflict that has been proposed, the antithetical force that Jay speaks of or where Ralph say that something more has to be on the line than simple failure, is true.

Take MJ's example earlier of the character who doesnt know where he is, all his needs are met, he simply has the goal of exploring his surroundings.  He decides to head in a direction to see what he can find out, after awhile he sees smoke coming from over some hills and tries to climb them.   We have a conflict, one without any antithetical forces at work and with nothing more on the line than failure, but in resolving the conflict a creative agenda will make itself known, heck it's probably already been shown by choosing to have the hills a conflict itself but I digress.  When deciding if the character will make it over the hills the dm checks all the relevant factors, weather, character skill, time of day.  All the factors that make the world internally consistent are checked to determine if that character should realistically be able to make it over the hills.

That's all that is required of conflict, that it impedes the characters goals,
If on the other hand the character wants to learn about where he is and he suddenly finds an "encylcopedia thisplacica" sitting next to him then there is no conflict and thus no roleplaying, just diddling as the quote says.

QuoteTake MJ's example earlier of the character who doesnt know where he is, all his needs are met, he simply has the goal of exploring his surroundings. He decides to head in a direction to see what he can find out, after awhile he sees smoke coming from over some hills and tries to climb them. We have a conflict, one without any antithetical forces at work and with nothing more on the line than failure,

I disagree that your example has nothing more on the line than failure.

The character has seen smoke coming over the hills.  The ability or inability of the character to climb those hills in a timely fashion very well may have consequences greater than mere failure.  It very well may involve whether the character makes it to the smoke in time to prevent some fell deed or not.  

If such is the case than yes you have a conflict.

If such is not the case.  If the smoke is just random color and the description the GM offers when the character finally arrives is no different whether the character successfully climbed the hills quickly, or took all day to get across due to failure, then I definitely contend that you have no conflict.

You have situation:  There is smoke in the distance, and there are hills between you and the smoke.

You have adversity: The hills cannot be crossed automatically but must be rolled for.

But you have no conflict because the situation and the adversity were essentially empty.  Nothing changed in the SiS as a result of crossing those hills or not crossing those hills other then the character's relative location.

Quote from: Valamir

I disagree that your example has nothing more on the line than failure.

The character has seen smoke coming over the hills.  The ability or inability of the character to climb those hills in a timely fashion very well may have consequences greater than mere failure.  It very well may involve whether the character makes it to the smoke in time to prevent some fell deed or not.  

Say that it's a sign of an inhabited village, no danger to the village just an opportunity to find out where the character is.  It doesnt matter, just that the hills are an impediment to the characters goal, learning about where he is.  How the character gets across the hills, or deciding if he can get across the hills, definitely shows a creative agenda and that means even if you dont consider it a conflict then it is roleplaying.  It's not just empty exploration of the situation and the setting it's full blown roleplaying with creative agenda.

A simualtionist approach decides whether it's realistically feasible for the character to cross the hills.  A gamist approach leaves clues on how to chop down a tree to enable the crossing of a gorge that would otherwise prevent the character from making it to the village.  A narrativist probably wouldnt have made the hills into a conflict unless it somehow dealt with the premise.

QuoteHow the character gets across the hills, or deciding if he can get across the hills, definitely shows a creative agenda and that means even if you dont consider it a conflict then it is roleplaying. It's not just empty exploration of the situation and the setting it's full blown roleplaying with creative agenda.

Caldis, your concern is misplaced.  I'm not relagating your example to "empty exploration" or implying its not roleplaying.  In fact, I addressed this very issue earlier in the thread where I said (edited for really poor grammar that may have made my point unclear):

QuoteOne thing that I continue to disagree with Ron on is the notion that Roleplaying doesn't start until you add Creative Agenda to Exploration and that Exploration by itself is not roleplaying.

I DON'T believe that Exploration is not roleplaying.  I think that idea is mistaken and the source for alot of projected judgement about "just exploration".

QuoteI think raw Exploration is roleplaying...at least by the most fundamental notion of "playing a role". It is essentially agenda-less play and the enjoyment from it is akin to the enjoyment one gets from watching a movie or reading a book with an added layer of interactivity.

So when I say that climbing the hill to find nothing more than directions (when those directions do not really have any impact on events beyond filling in the edges of the story) is not a Conflict, and if its not a Conflict then it doesn't involve a Creative Agenda and is plain old everyday Exploration, I am not saying that it is not Roleplaying.


I also disagree with your summary of approaches.  I don't think your described approaches indicate any kind of CA at all  The gymnastics you had to do to describe them seems to me to demonstrate that there is no Creative Agenda at work.  All of those approaches are just avenues of exploration.  

A gamist or a simulationist could easily have made the decision to not have the hills provide adversity (again, don't mistake adversity for conflict) precisely because it just isn't important...to any agenda.

And it isn't important to any agenda...it doesn't "matter"...because there is no conflict.  There is nothing at stake.

Put something at stake.  Make the situation into a conflict, and the various approaches the different Creative Agendas would have to it become much more visible and understandable.

Obviously, the concept of simulationism is a long way from fully agreed. I'm closest to Mike on the subject, from what I can see, and that means I, too, disagree somewhat with Ron.

Let me suggest the possibility that part of the problem is that Big Model Simulationism has not adequately escaped the influence of its parent, Threefold Simulationism. We verbally agree that the goals of Threefold Simulationism are different, in Big Model terms varied (you can be G, N, or S and still be 3F Sim). Yet when we talk about Simulationism as a Creative Agendum there's still this undercurrent that it is supposed to be immersive--that we have simulationism so that we can feel like we're really there.

Ron has freely admitted in the past that Simulationism is the most difficult agendum for him; I think his experience with it is incomplete, and that perhaps he is committing synechdoche here, failing to see the non-immersive and objective forms of simulationism as just as much part of the agendum as the immersive and subjective forms. That is, history aside (and I don't know whether history is as pure in this regard as he appears at times to suggest), looking at the world from the outside, playing in pawn stance, experimenting from an observer perspective, is just as much part of simulationism as trying to experience what it would be like to be there.

It's fairly obvious and accepted that Narrativism and Dramatism, despite the parental relationship between the two, are completely disconnected. They are not at all about the same thing. I think that the Step On Up aspect of CA Gamism has revealed that this is something different from what 3F Gamists would have thought (although less so). I think CA Simulationism has to escape its Threefold roots. The agendum of exploration squared, or exploration driven by curiosity to reach discovery, doesn't have to use a lot of the techniques people assume are within it. It doesn't have to have rich characters if it's about setting. It doesn't have to have detailed physics if it's reproducing genre (Toon, Feng Shui). It doesn't have to have particularly detailed setting if it's focused on character. It can have very light situation with meager "conflict" as long as it's player-driven.

A lot of the effort I've seen lately to define sim has been focused in ways that are exclusive--they decree that a lot of the role play gaming I've seen and done over the years is not really play, has no creative agendum, doesn't fit within the model. Yet it all does fit within the model, as long as we don't decide that the model is narrower. Every form of simulationism I can identify shares in common the desire by the player to know something he does not know. That includes pawn stance travelogues, heavy character exploration, genre emulation, experimenter play, immersive experience, what if play, and quite a few others. If we can accept that "I don't know this and must do something to find out" is sufficient conflict for situation, then the model works. If we're going to say otherwise--well, how many options are there?

• Some genuine role playing is not exploration under the model because it has no creative agendum, and therefore the model doesn't cover some kinds of role playing. (Jay's position, I think. Would it be better to say that the model doesn't cover everything, or to say that there's a mistake within the model concerning the importance of conflict?)
• Genuine role playing does not require a creative agendum, as pure exploration can be role playing without an agendum. (Ralph's position, I think. If play has no agendum, why do people do it? CA seems to be the motivation behind play, so play without CA would be play for no reason at all.)
• Conflict is whatever is in the way of the player goals, and doesn't have to be anything particularly noticeable. (This is my position, and I think I count Mike and Contra and Caldis on that side, but it's not a vote.)[/list:u]Are there other possibilities?
  
  --M. J. Young

'Scuse me - I should like to point out that my position on these issues of Simulationist play is not fixed, and indeed is predicated on needing to work it out more fully.

My original goals were to establish that the identifiable and procedural features/diversity of Gamist and Narrativist play were highly similar, if divergent. I've done that - it used to be a horrendously controversial point and now, I think, it is pretty much settled.

Now that that is done, and we are now longer (or at least not many of us are) thrashing about in paroxysms over "story" or confounding various forms of anti-Gamism into the picture, now we can start talking about Simulationist stuff.

Will we discover a necessary layer within or supportive of Creative Agenda? Does Exploration need to be more nuanced? Or is there some kind of "thing" existing at the exact same level of Creative Agenda, only orthogonal to it?

None of these ideas disagree with what I'm saying. What I'm saying (or have been saying) is done with. That's important. We are all in the soup in regard to all of the current issues, and we've moved forward. This is no longer about trying to understand what I'm saying about Creative Agendas, or according with it vs. defying it. It's about what we can now do in the light of our agreements so far, and that light may expose the need for change to the ideas in my essays.

So let's not have any more talk about what "I must mean" or any of that. What I mean in the essays is on record, and if that needs clarifying I'll do it. But I'll be the first one to say that it's only groundwork for further questions and discussions.

Best,
Ron

Hey Mike,

Unless you feel otherwise I feel it would continue to be profitable (to me at least) to discuss the role of conflict in Sim.  I have not yet come to a firm understanding on this and your questions and counterpoints are helping me wrestle with the topic.  Who knows, you may end up showing me that I talk too much!

Quote from: Mike HolmesSocial reinforcement comes in many, many forms, and I'm surprised that you'd suggest that the only place that rewards are given out is for conflict.

I'm not sure that I did suggest that, but if I did that was then sloppy writing on my part.  I fully agree that rewards can be given out in many placed and come in many forms.  My point was that one needs to watch which rewards (social, in-game which is a subset of social) were given as a result of conflict handling in order for the monitoring of those rewards to be useful for CA diagnosis.

Regarding your example I agree that it could be evidentiary of Gamist play.  I also agree with you that CA exists whether or not one can diagnose it.  I also agree that many decisions are not necessarily major and that they (non major decisions) can all be made in support of a Creative Agenda.  The problem is that such actions are not CA specific as far as diagnosis is concerned until a "cycle of conflict" has been completed and meaning has been created/generated.  Does that mean such actions were not in the employ of a CA?  No.  It just means we can't or rather it would be extremely difficult to use such decisions as diagnostic.

Challenges to the SIS create meaning due to and given the social structures in place e.g., Exploration as a social activity uses social structures to lend meaning to the player discourse.  Each CA provides its own structures that it uses to lend meaning to the player challenges to the SIS – Challenge, Premise, Internal Causality/Fictional Social Structures.  Situational Conflict is the one commonality between all the meaning creation actions that reflect CA priorities.  IOW situational conflict is the one place where we can find unambiguous "tells".  This does not mean we will always find unambiguous "tells" in situational conflict, but I believe it is the only place where we can find them.  Every CA can have challenges to the SIS, but it is only in situational conflict that we have a common referent.  Situational conflict, because it inherently challenges the SIS, will be measured against the social framework that is in operation to give the act meaning.

Situational conflict drags the players kicking and screaming to challenge the SIS.  Social structures will be produced (new meaning) and reproduced (SIS support/reinforcement).  New meanings will be created, thus the player must make a choice as to what he is trying to "say" – i.e., is he addressing Challenge, Premise or the fictional social structures?  Is Situational conflict the only way that a player may express his CA via challenging the SIS?  No.  The player may find lots of places to challenge the SIS without resort to Situational conflict.  However, Situational conflict as a form of challenge to the SIS has qualities that allow it to serve a specific purpose.

Perhaps some rephrasing on my part might be illuminating.

Roleplay is a ritualized discourse - it is a meaning creation process.

All statements to do something (this includes thoughts expressed aloud) within the SIS by players are challenges to the SIS.  This process creates some sort of new meaning, how ever slight.  Situational conflict is a type of challenge to the SIS.  What makes a Situational conflict challenge to the SIS different from a "regular" challenge to the SIS?  Because the player is choosing to engage the Situation, thus turning it into a conflict, he is ritually assuming the risk/price of failure – risk.   IOW he is not just running the potential of not having a routine statement fail to enter into the SIS, he is ritually declaring that he is making a statement and is willing to assume the potential public loss of social esteem for the failure as the price to give his statement weight.  Facing a Situational conflict becomes important because the player makes it important.

Situational conflict operates on two levels.  First is that it automatically creates a challenge to the SIS thus it is a meaning creation act.  Second it creates a loss/negative result possibility for the player creating a personal risk that means what he is about to do is important to the player.  Roughly speaking –

• The Gamist could be saying, "I am taking risks - and that says something about me."
  
• The Narrativist could be saying, "I am taking risks because doing so allows me to make statements regarding the premise."
  
• The Simulationist could be saying, "Because I am in a state of risk under these social meaning structures, everything I do is a statement about those structures."[/list:u]While both Gamism and Narrativism may be more akin to prose in that they are trying to make a statement, Simulationism is more like poetry in the way it is more about enjoying the process of creating meaning.  IOW we aren't necessarily trying to make statements as much as we are enjoying the meanings themselves.
  
  This is why nonconflict play is not Sim.  Sim too, as a Creative Agenda, is about meaning creation/saying things.  Nonconflict tourism doesn't "say" anything.  I would go as far as to say that one nature/quality of a Creative Agenda is that the player wants or is trying use these meanings to "say things".
  
  Mike, you asked how other players could view such nonconflict play as "incorrect" and thus be mutually exclusive?  Because everything one does in the SIS changes the meaning creating social structures, a player who does not engage in situational conflict will water down or dilute those very same meaning structures that the Sim players actively trying to create and maintain.  The players at that point are at cross purposes with respect to one another regarding their agendas the table.
  
  Plain vanilla Exploration means that the players just enjoys playing, they don't have anything they want to "say".  Either they don't have a particular need for conflict and are ok not having to "say" anything, or they don't have a particular approach to conflict resulting in a nonsensical "meaning salad" – thus effectively "saying" nothing.  This is not to be construed in any way to mean that such play is without value, rather it is just saying that such play in not harnessing Exploration to any end other than its own pure enjoyment.
  
  Hey Ron,
  
  Your point about agreeing but not necessarily being in the right is understood and taken to heart.
  
  Hey contracycle,
  
  Though I did not address your post directly, I hope I did address the points you raised in a useful fashion.

Interesting thoughts.

Some time back, I proposed that the three agenda could be distinguished thus:

• A narrativist wants to say something;
• A gamist wants to do something;
• A simulationist wants to learn something.[/list:u]Obviously, that's a simplification; but I think that it's a sufficient statement to challenge the idea that creative agendum is what you want to "say". I don't see gamists as so much "saying" as "doing", in that sense. Put from the other end, if you decree that all three agenda are about what players are trying to "say", you reduce "say" so that it is synonymous with "explore", and I don't think it's as useful a word for the process as "exploration" is.
  
  But let me suggest that I think this cycle of conflict is a very useful notion, and from one perspective it may explain the difficulty in diagnosing or at least distinguishing some forms of simulationism from other agenda.
  
  To do this, I'm going to introduce the concept of "obstacle" as something less than "conflict", so that we're not struggling over a terminological confusion. For purposes of this thread, let obstacle mean "that which impedes exploration". Thus when we climb the hill to find out why there's smoke coming from the other side, the hill is the obstacle. There might not be conflict, in the sense Ralph and Jay mean, but there is still something that must be overcome to continue exploration.
  
  What we see in exploration is the continuous effort to overcome obstacles so as to learn about the shared imaginary space (and of course learning about it and expanding it are much the same process--even if we're working from a book, what is revealed in play is established as part of the shared understanding). An agendum is an intended outcome; it's what we want to have happen. This exploration contributes to the agendum, but it's not normally the agendum directly.
  
  The gamist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he takes action. He might explore what happens if you put oil in a clay jar, seal it but for a cloth wick through a wax-sealed hole, light the wick, and run; he then expects to use whatever the outcome is in meeting the challenges which lie ahead. (Note that it doesn't matter whether this creates an explosion or a firebomb or a lamp; what matters is that he learns what it will do so that he can use it later when he needs it.)
  
  The narrativist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he engages the premise. He might explore the relationship between the governor and the governor's lady in the expectation that understanding that relationship will let him use them later, knowing something of how they will respond to his actions.
  
  Thus we see that in narrativism and gamism, all of this overcoming obstacles ultimately proves to be support in the conflict which later reveals the specific agendum being pursued.
  
  I'm not saying that simulationism will never come to conflict. However, I think that we run into the diagnosis problem when all that has been done so far is overcome obstacles. We have narrativists exploring the elements for the purpose of addressing premise at some point when conflict arises, and gamists exploring the elements for the purpose of grasping the gold ring when conflict arises. We have simulationists exploring the elements for the purpose of understanding the elements themselves. If no conflict ever arises that interests them, they continue to explore the elements. They might come to a conflict and reveal through it their simulationist agendum; but they might never come to a conflict at all.
  
  That's where the diagnostic problem arises. Eventually the continual failure to come to conflict forces us to conclude that this player is not interested in premise or step-on-up, and so is playing simulationist. It leads to the error that simulationism is the "default mode", what you're doing if you're not doing something else, because of the diagnostic process: we didn't see you come to conflict, but you're enjoying play over the long term, so we think you're playing simulationist.
  
  Did that make sense? I'm a bit fuzzy tonight, and pressed for time (I'll probably post this and come back later to do the rest of the forum threads), but I wanted to get this to paper while it was in my mind.
  
  --M. J. Young

QuoteThis is not to be construed in any way to mean that such play is without value, rather it is just saying that such play in not harnessing Exploration to any end other than its own pure enjoyment.

I still don't see why this is anything other than simulationism. I understand the mechanisms that tend to cause disagreements, but I don't see how this form conflicts with other simulationism. If you're saying that it doesn't conflict with other simulationism because there's no Creative Agenda (and hence no source of conflict between two agenda), I'd point out that this form of play will be seen by players seeking narrativism and gamism as problematic.

Thus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

Or, if you say that it does conflict, I'd want to know how? Play of both simulationism and tourism* would look identical in terms of that which define them. In both cases, the player would make decisions based on "what the character would do", meaning simply not displaying one of the other metagame agenda (making it "what the player wants" to the extent that it conflicts).

So, absent of something to differentiate this from simulationism, it's simulationism. Or, looking at it from Ralph's perspective, since it would be "metagame" for a player to shrink before conflict in a way that's not sensible for the character, conflict always happens, and this is a mythical mode of play. Just what happens between the conflicts which are part and parcel of the overall agenda (as opposed to definitive in my view).

In Sim, all is treated equally - that is, without the appearance of a metagame agenda. Given this lack of appearance (or appearing only as trying to prevent the appearance of player goals), how can one discriminate between the two?

Again, if you go with the atomic model, this is all covered. That model talks about some decisions being "just exploration." Making for a fourth sort of play, moment to moment. But when looking at overall agenda, I'm not seeing a fourth agenda.

Mike

Mike,

I don't think anyone is trying to posit the sans-CA mode of play as a fourth agenda, but rather as a default.  In other words, it would be roleplaying without any CA at all.  Traditionally, this is a spot thrown under the heading of Sim play, that of pure exploration.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

The above seems to be exactly what this concept is a rejection of--a rejection of the notion that says, "if it's not Gamism and it's not Narrativism, then it must be Simulationism."  Or, put another way: "it doesn't conflict with Gam or Nar, so it must be Sim."  I see the concept of CA-less play not as the invention of a new mode, but rather as a re-definition of Simulationism.  Is it possible to play without any agenda at all?  Obviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.  (Conveniently, this would be the ideal spot to toss in phenomena like the social gamer modes.)

On the other hand, I tend to agree that on a conflict to conflict level, you're going to see one of the three CAs manifest.  If a player is forced to make decisions, then he's going to make them in either a Gam, Sim, or Nar way.  And for that reason, I have practical problems envisioning CA-less play.  Then again, if CA only manifests during conflicts, and no conflicts are ever engaged/created, then perhaps CA-less play is possible.

Tim, that's exactly how I would respond to the issue, and what I was attempting to outline in my essay.  Sim is an active prioritization of <something>, not simply an active avoidance of <something else>.

Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now.  To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics.  That being the Simulation in Simulationism.  Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important.  Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them.  You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

As soon as you allow Simulationism to have its own legitimate actively prioritized agenda rather than saddling it with a negative definition or "exploration squared", which is just an attempt to disguise the fact that its a negative definition...then you really have something that can be thoughtfully analysed and understood on par with Narrativism and Gamism.  Its now a true peer in the triumverate rather than the odd man out, or the generic dumping ground.

Of course this means that alot of stuff that we've taken for granted over the past couple of years of "oh, that's Sim" will need to be reevaluated.  Marco already hit on Illusionism as one of those areas that need reevaluating in another thread.  For years we've said "Illusionism, oh that's sim".  But by my treatment of Simulation, its actually antithetical to Sim goals.


I think saying CA only manifests during conflicts is a bit too narrow and may be part of the trouble you're having with seeing it.  I tried to define "Instance of Play" in my essay as being the entire conflict cycle, not just the moment of resolution.  

It will manifest in the recognition of conflict...what a player will consider to be a conflict and what has to happen for them to recognize there is one.

It will manifest in the way a player frames a conflict...how they define what the problem is, how they evaluate what the adversity is, how they arrange the mental list of pros and cons regarding different approaches, how they perceive the ideal outcome from both a character and player perspective.

It will manifest in how much or how little the player is willing to invest or sacrifice to make that ideal outcome come about...the cost to benefit analysis.

It will manifest in how the actual resolution is handled.

And it will manifest in the denouement and wrap up after the fact in how the player interprets and evaluates the results.


All of those areas are potentially revealing in terms of what CA is at work, and they are all part of the over all cycle of the conflict.  This cycle of conflict is really just putting some meat on the bones of Instance of Play, trying to actually focus on what an Instance of Play really is and the sorts of key areas that make up decision points.

Quote"exploration squared", which is just an attempt to disguise the fact that its a negative definition

Oh c'mon, man. The whole point of that phrase was to try to move beyond the "mere Exploration" tag. Which is what is happening now. Give me some credit here.

Best,
Ron

You're correct.

Add the caveat "...which was originally an attempt to highlight the fact that there was some as yet undefined <something> more than just exploration going on there, but which in practical use came to just mean Exploration in the absence of the G or N Agendas"

How's that...

(this is why legal departments add 8 pages of caveats and disclaimers to a 1 page marketing letter...)   ;-)

That wasn't a definition of simulationism, it was proof by induction.

Mike

Quote from: ValamirSim is an active prioritization of <something>, not simply an active avoidance of <something else>....

Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important.  Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them.  You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ah, but now I think that as valuable as it is, it may just put us back where we were.

We have already recognized that in each agendum there are active and passive play styles. In gamism, you have those who step up to the challenge and those who make the challenge possible. In narrativism, you have analogous leading and supportive play styles. Would it not also be the case that in simulationism, you have some players who are actively running the simulation, and some who are passively running it?

Given that, is it then not reasonable to suggest that games in which the referee is creating and presenting the world and the character players are merely watching it happen could still be simulationist, in which the referee is running the simulation actively and the others are the passive supporting players? This is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

I would hesitate to say that all Illusionism is simulationism; I don't think that's been demonstrated. Some of it certainly is, though, even if (as I think all illusionism is) it is dysfunctional.

--M. J. Young

QuoteThis is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

Where does the dichotomy of "if its not simulationism its not genuine play" come from?

Is this still a hold over from the offical model position that Exploration by itself is not roleplaying?  If so I've already indicated that I don't hold with that interpretation and explicitly state that roleplaying begins with Exploration in my model posting.

If not please explain why there is this notion that we need to keep all of these things safe and sound under the Sim label as if they'll somehow be ghettoized if they are pushed back up stream to the Exploration level where I think they belong.

Quote from: ValamirI think saying CA only manifests during conflicts is a bit too narrow and may be part of the trouble you're having with seeing it.  I tried to define "Instance of Play" in my essay as being the entire conflict cycle, not just the moment of resolution.  

It will manifest in the recognition of conflict...what a player will consider to be a conflict and what has to happen for them to recognize there is one.

Ah excellent.  This really clears up the qualms I was having in the other thread.  The concept of the whole conflict cycle makes sense to me especially with regards to how conflicts are brought into play.  I can see how a simulationist may have more of a stomach for what I called hunting for the plot.

This may be a bit of a tangent but I guess it cant really be off topic in a thread titled "Loong post on Sim definition".  If Simulationism is trying to answer the what if questions in the manner of a simulation, then whats the ramification for such things as personality mechanics?

This had me hung up for awhile when I first came to the forge and started piecing together GNS.  If you are trying to determine the answer to a "what if" question than personality mechanics that limit a players choice in a situation would seem to be a valid variable.  Want to show mercy in Pendragon to your fallen foe even though you have a high vengeful trait, make a roll.  This is one of the things that I believe Mikes Atomic theory explains really well.

I've always been a big believer in the idea that personality mechanics and their brethren were perfectly valid (and in some cases to be encouraged) in simulationist play.

There are really two reasons to use them

1) if we agree that it is vital for the various elements of the SiS to act/respond according their nature, then it seems perfectly reasonable to have mechanics that ensure fellow PCs do as well.  They aren't necessary if everyone is equally committed to doing so, but can be useful.  I find they are generally Simulationist defense against Gamist attitudes when used for this.

2) to educate players as to what behaviors are appropriate.  Pendragon is a perfect example of this.  Hospitality, Honor, Family, and Loyalty are not there so much to dictate behavior and prevent transgressions as they are to illustrate the core concepts of what makes for moral society of the time and indicate how others perceive your character at fulfilling those obligations.  I think this is much more broadly useful than #1 above, especially if the players in question are not already experts in the subject.

Hey,

Ralph: totally! The king hell daddy of the personality mechanic in simulationist game is the Psychological Disadvantage in Champions,* later manifesting as Psychological Limitation in GURPS, and then embedded without conceptual modification into "balancing advantage/disadvantage" character creation systems across easily a hundred RPGs over the next decade.

Best,
Ron

* And no, that does not mean I think Champions was a Sim-facilitating game. Champions and its spawn, the Hero System, are a phenomenally challenging topic that I'll get around to essaying on one of these days.

The aspect that intrigues me about personality mechanics however is their forceful application, such as when a roll is called upon to determine action.   The pendragon knight with the beaten foe begging for mercy but has a high vengeful trait, if the player decides he wants to grant mercy he has to make a roll to see whether the character actually would.  To me this seems like a perfect example of trying to answer the what if question, moreso than allowing the player to choose and then adjusting the traits to match the actions.  Of course I dont think all players who show a prefence for simulationism would agree that is an acceptable way to decide action, sometimes they want to make the choice.

I see two ways to explain this difference within simulationism, either it's a difference in preferred methodology or else there's a blend of priorities taking place.  I have a problem with it being just method however, since allowing the dice to determine outcomes of almost everything else is not a problem with sim.  This is why I brought up the Atomic model, where (if I'm not mistaken) a players preference can be mostly simulationist but partially narrativist a blend of preferences.  

This also means to me that little moments of narrativism or gamism may be going on inside an otherwise sim game.  That may not be too controversial however this might be, any moment where a player makes a meaningful choice in a game is a small moment of narrativism.  The game can otherwise be simulationist but that small instance is narrativist.

Quote from: M. J. YoungSome time back, I proposed that the three agenda could be distinguished thus:

• A narrativist wants to say something;
• A gamist wants to do something;
• A simulationist wants to learn something.[/list:u]Obviously, that's a simplification; but I think that it's a sufficient statement to challenge the idea that creative agendum is what you want to "say". I don't see gamists as so much "saying" as "doing", in that sense. Put from the other end, if you decree that all three agenda are about what players are trying to "say", you reduce "say" so that it is synonymous with "explore", and I don't think it's as useful a word for the process as "exploration" is.

Consider this!  All roleplay is saying and all roleplay is doing.  That distinction is not functional.  Making a Theme by addressing Premise is "doing" something – what the players are doing is creating a Theme.  Much in the same way a Gamist is still using words to engage in Challenge – this is what the Lumpley Principle addresses.  Despite what is typically associated with (but by no means definitional of) Gamism, lots of physical dice rolling, those physical actions do not mean a thing until they are validated into the SIS and then given meanings.  Actually I'm not sure which happens first, meaning then SIS validation or SIS validation then meaning, but the fact of the matter is that the whole process is about meaning creation – its all in our heads.  Because its all a meaning creation discourse then everything that is going on is about creating meanings – "saying" things.  Again, I do not mean "saying" in the way that one thinks of typical verbal discourse, but symbol/sign creation that carries with it a significance/meaning to those involved.

Quote from: M. J. YoungTo do this, I'm going to introduce the concept of "obstacle" as something less than "conflict", so that we're not struggling over a terminological confusion. For purposes of this thread, let obstacle mean "that which impedes exploration". Thus when we climb the hill to find out why there's smoke coming from the other side, the hill is the obstacle. There might not be conflict, in the sense Ralph and Jay mean, but there is still something that must be overcome to continue exploration.

The problem with this definition is that conflates two different processes.  Exploration as used in the model refers to the process that the players engage in which employs the elements of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color.  So if you speaking of that which impedes the players you are using the incorrect term.  As long as the players continue to have input to the SIS they are Exploring.  If by exploring you refer to the Character who is presented with an obstacle, such as a hill, then you have Situation.  If the presence of the hill specifically hinders any Character goal, then you have a conflict.  "That which impedes exploration" is too vague.  You need to be more explicit with your definition.  Who is being impeded?  What goal is being impeded?  That something can be impeded implies at the very least impetus.  However, as sentient beings who are not just physical objects moving about driven by nothing more than the laws of nature and inertia, we can assume fairly reasonably that the driving force behind an individual actions, in this case walking towards someplace, is goal.  However, once we introduce goal we get conflict.  If the Character doesn't have a goal then the Character cannot be impeded.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe gamist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he takes action.
...
The narrativist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he engages the premise.

The key here is when.  Not if, but when.  Conflict is assumed in both CA's.  Player actions that are not proximal to a conflict event are still being executed in anticipation of when expected/desired conflict finally occurs.  If conflict does not come the players will eventually get frustrated.  Players are not just happily exploring along, they are actively/mindfully prepping for the desired CA fulfilling conflicts to come into being.  Simulationism, by virtue of being a CA is no different.  Conflict is as necessary to fulfill the expectations of the players in Simulationism as it is in Gamism or Narrativism.

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm not saying that simulationism will never come to conflict. However, I think that we run into the diagnosis problem when all that has been done so far is overcome obstacles. We have narrativists exploring the elements for the purpose of addressing premise at some point when conflict arises, and gamists exploring the elements for the purpose of grasping the gold ring when conflict arises. We have simulationists exploring the elements for the purpose of understanding the elements themselves. If no conflict ever arises that interests them, they continue to explore the elements. They might come to a conflict and reveal through it their simulationist agendum; but they might never come to a conflict at all.

Narrativist and Gamists are not indifferent to when conflict arrives; at the very least they are eagerly awaiting it, if not outright pursuing it.  Simulationists are no different.  If no conflict arrives and the players do not get a chance to address conflicts with social structures they will be disappointed.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThat's where the diagnostic problem arises. Eventually the continual failure to come to conflict forces us to conclude that this player is not interested in premise or step-on-up, and so is playing simulationist. It leads to the error that simulationism is the "default mode", what you're doing if you're not doing something else, because of the diagnostic process: we didn't see you come to conflict, but you're enjoying play over the long term, so we think you're playing simulationist.

There is a logical error to your argument.  You are employing an (arguably) faulty diagnostic method to support your definition of CA.  Because people historically have diagnosed no conflict/conflict indifferent play with Simulationism it appears that you are arguing that such play is definitional of Simulationism.  It's a circular argument.  People have done it in the past so it must be correct in the present.  The problem is that until this point we weren't even sure what Sim was (even now it is in debate but getting closing to home), so how could we have diagnosed it accurately in the past?

Quote from: Tim C KoppangObviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.

Actually that's not true.  Roleplay is a group activity.  If one is not supporting the group activity you are taking time away from those who are trying to pursue that activity.  Thus in terms of those pursing a CA, if an agenda-less player is at the table not only is he taking time away from the other players who are trying to pursue an agenda he is delegitimizing the liminal/ritual stage of the discourse because he is not actively supporting the social meaning structures.  IOW he will drive the other players bat shit crazy because he is not on the same page they are on.  Not only is he consuming limited time, but he isn't even endorsing what they are doing by participating in the same activity.

Quote from: ValamirAssuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now.  To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics.  That being the Simulation in Simulationism.  Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important.  Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them.  You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ralph you are da man, however I am going to pull a yellow card here!  You are correct in that we have to go back to basics, but I think you have to go all the back to the ultimate basics - the ritual process of roleplay itself.  Don't get hung up on the idea that something is being simulated.  What you are seeing in the idea of "simulation" is really the effects of Internal Causality.  Exploration is a meaning creating ritual discourse.  Internal Causality is the social meaning structure that lends meaning to the players actions.  Just as all actions in a Gamist oriented game are measured against addressing Challenge and all actions in a Narrativist oriented game are measured against addressing Premise all actions in a Simulationist game are measured against Internal Causality.  Now since players only have control over their characters, that limits what can be Explored by the players to the elements within the SIS.  Remember now that Exploration as a meaning creation process only creates new meaning via challenges to the SIS.  Take all these elements and what do you get?  With the Sim defining clause of Internal Causality player input is limited to Character actions and they are measured against the social meaning structures.  

What are the social meaning structures?   The first is the Character itself.  Next come the social structures/institution within the game world.  Much of this if found in Setting, but the social side of this has been virtually completely missed in the history of Sim game design.  As meaning can only be created via challenge to the SIS, Character meaning creation can only come about via challenges to that Character.  IOW character can only be revealed through conflict.  How the character reacts to conflict reveals not only the character but also those social institutions that shaped him.  If said character is a Ranger of Ithilien then his actions regarding a conflict not only reveal something about the character but it also says something about the Rangers of Ithilien, his parents, the culture he was raised in, etc.  Why?  Because one of the things Internal Causality says is that which happens now is a result of that which happened before.  Something caused this to happen.  I suppose one could say that we are simulating the life of another individual, but it is not a series of "what if's" – at least not from a player's point of view.

If meaning is created by challenges to the SIS, and Creative Agendas – Gamism and Narrativism, impart meaning to the players actions because the players are constantly measuring those actions against the social meaning structures the players impart to the game via Challenge and Premise (conflict) – then that implies that all actions are measured against how players deal (the whole addressing process/conflict cycle) with conflicts in game.  This implies a couple of things.

Simulationism assumes that the players are accepting conflict at all times.  This is a little bizarre but let me continue.  Conflict assumes that the player is stepping up as one of the opposing forces.  In vanilla Gamism or vanilla Narrativism the players are picking and choosing which situations to escalate to conflict.  Their choices are indicative of those things that are important to the players.  In hardcore Gamism just about anything is game as long as there are appropriate rewards.  In hardcore Narrativism the players have direct control over Premise.  Where is the choice being made in the hardcore?  In that the players agree to play such games in the first place.  How does that relate to Sim?  By assuming that the character is always in a state of conflict, everything he does creates meaning – even avoiding a specific conflict.

That the player is willing to accept the state of conflict at all times means that the DM is obligated to provide ample opportunities for conflict to escalate.  (This is why world in peril from a single source makes such a good starting point for Sim games – Sauron, the Empire, etc.) Which conflicts the players ritually accept to face is as important as those he chooses to avoid.  Resolve too many the same way or resolve too many in a completely random way and the character looses form as he becomes one dimensional or too conflicted to be representative of any qualities at all.  At this point the Character ceases to be a useful social structure.

Regarding Caldis'

Quote from: Caldis...any moment where a player makes a meaningful choice in a game is a small moment of narrativism.

in light of Exploration (roleplay) being a meaning creation process, any decision that a player makes that is labeled as meaningful is because that choice was measured against the social meaning structures currently being referenced in play and found to be of merit.  A player who makes a choice that is described as kewl (meaningful) by a Gamist is actually having his actions measured against the social meaning structures provided by Challenge.  This is why measuring social reaction to a player's actions may not be diagnostic of what said player is really attempting.  Said player may be actually operating under another set of social meaning structures and his actions could be misinterpreted by the others.

This also carries another implication.  As social meaning structures are so vast and so subtle I don't really think that hybrids are possible.  Its not a matter of system, it's a matter of where and how meaning is found and created.  Shifting from one set of social meaning structures to another would be phenomenally difficult given the sheer number of social meaning structures that would have to be renegotiated.  As I indicated earlier, all actions are measured against the social meaning structures, its how those actions are given meaning.  By definition each CA is exclusive to the others, so each switch from one CA to another would require a radical realignment of the social meaning structures on the quick.  Conversely this would also explain why drift from one CA to another, if it does happen, tends to be very ponderous and slow.

I'm running out of steam here, but Ralph your counter arguments are basically boiling down to "If man were meant to fly, he'd sprout wings.  I don't see no man growing no wings, so he will never fly."  We're just barely nailing down what Sim is and all you're doing is saying it can't be done.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteThis is not to be construed in any way to mean that such play is without value, rather it is just saying that such play in not harnessing Exploration to any end other than its own pure enjoyment.

I still don't see why this is anything other than simulationism. I understand the mechanisms that tend to cause disagreements, but I don't see how this form conflicts with other simulationism
...
Thus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

Non Agenda play, straight Exploration, does conflict with all Creative Agendas because it does not create new meanings.  Such a player would be seen as wasting the time of the players of any CA, as well as deconstructing the validity of the social meaning structure in the first place because he is not engaging in the conflict cycle thus refusing to endorse the CA.

Quote from: Mike HolmesOr, if you say that it does conflict, I'd want to know how? Play of both simulationism and tourism* would look identical in terms of that which define them. In both cases, the player would make decisions based on "what the character would do", meaning simply not displaying one of the other metagame agenda (making it "what the player wants" to the extent that it conflicts).

Included into the "what would character would do" play are certain forms of Narrativism as Vincent argued for so loudly in his "Sacrificing Character Integrity" - a Rant (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11822&start=0/).  The difference between the two modes of play is simply that the Sim CA uses Internal Causality/in-game social meaning structures to give meaning to the conflict process while tourism does not.  Sim, like the other CA'a is about creating new meanings, meanings which can only be created by conflict and are measured against the constraints of in-game internal causality (primarily social structures).  Tourism is not concerned with meaning creation.  Neither is purist for system play – thus it too does not fall into the Simulationist camp.

Quote from: Mike HolmesIn Sim, all is treated equally - that is, without the appearance of a metagame agenda.

You make assertions here that don't follow.  Sim does not treat all things equally.  Sim does have a metagame agenda.  You're not seeing it for the same reasons people have problems with the Lumpley Principle.  It is so fundamental that you are conflating the two at a very deep level.  Sim is about people assuming the roles of fictional people.  But we can only learn about people when they face stresses.  Thus its not just Character, its everything that influences said Character as well which is revealed in the process.  Everything that influences that Character, including the character, constitutes The Dream.  This is why it is the Dream, because everything is reflected off Character.  The setting, the cultures, the political and social institutions – everything.  Because we have created it, not because we had it read to us.

Quote

QuoteValamir wrote:
Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now. To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics. That being the Simulation in Simulationism. Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important. Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them. You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ralph you are da man, however I am going to pull a yellow card here! You are correct in that we have to go back to basics, but I think you have to go all the back to the ultimate basics - the ritual process of roleplay itself. Don't get hung up on the idea that something is being simulated. What you are seeing in the idea of "simulation" is really the effects of Internal Causality. Exploration is a meaning creating ritual discourse. Internal Causality is the social meaning structure that lends meaning to the players actions. Just as all actions in a Gamist oriented game are measured against addressing Challenge and all actions in a Narrativist oriented game are measured against addressing Premise all actions in a Simulationist game are measured against Internal Causality. Now since players only have control over their characters, that limits what can be Explored by the players to the elements within the SIS. Remember now that Exploration as a meaning creation process only creates new meaning via challenges to the SIS. Take all these elements and what do you get? With the Sim defining clause of Internal Causality player input is limited to Character actions and they are measured against the social meaning structures.

While I will readily admitt that phrases such as "ritual discourse" make my head swim, I actually disagree with you here.

The basics is not Internal Causality.  Internal Causality is a tool not an end.  The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.  The Creative Agendas are a layer on top of this that provide purpose.  They represent what the player expects to accomplish through exploration.  

Internal Causality can be important (and usually is) in all roleplaying and all CAs.  Its primary function is to provide credibility to player's statements for system purposes.  A player's statements are more credible and thus, more likely to be accepted, when and if they maintain Internal Causality.  I'm not sure what "social meaning structure" means...there goes my head swimming again...but if it means something other than this, I doubt I'd agree with it.


Internal Causality *is* considered highly desireable for Simulationist play.  It is much more openly and vocally stressed and its importance more keenly felt in Simulationist play.  But thats just a symptom of the agenda...not definitional.  Part of the problem with the Sim definition has been mistaking Internal Causality for the point...that it was what was being prioritized.  The glossary definition of Sim still does this.

But as I said in my essay, I think this is wrong.  its backwards.  Internal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately.  Its a tool that is used, a parameter that is set, for the purpose of enabling the Simulation.

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism.  Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

Hello,

QuoteIt is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism. Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

I buy that for a dollar. I think that my emphasis on "internal causality is king," in the Simulationism essay, is focusing on what it's like rather than on definitional principles.

That was the first of the three essays and is the weakest in terms of structure; it actually precedes the Big Model (but helped get it into shape). For instance, a "dysfunctional Sim" section could easily have been included but I hadn't even imagined that it would have been helpful at the time.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: Tim C KoppangObviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.

Actually that's not true.  Roleplay is a group activity.  If one is not supporting the group activity you are taking time away from those who are trying to pursue that activity.  Thus in terms of those pursing a CA, if an agenda-less player is at the table not only is he taking time away from the other players who are trying to pursue an agenda he is delegitimizing the liminal/ritual stage of the discourse because he is not actively supporting the social meaning structures.  IOW he will drive the other players bat shit crazy because he is not on the same page they are on.  Not only is he consuming limited time, but he isn't even endorsing what they are doing by participating in the same activity.

Jay,

That's one hell of a post you got there!

For sure, there's something to be said for the attitude, "if you're not with us, you're against us."  I agree that when you have a player sitting there like a lump it's going to cramp your style, especially when you're actively pursuing a certain group cohesion as expressed through a common CA.  However, this is more of a general social contract issue then a specific CA problem.  It's not that the neutral player is at odds with your CA, but rather that he just doesn't seem to have any motivation beyond wondering around and looking at flowers.  In other words, he's wasting time, but he's not damaging the CA.

Compare that with the inter-player Gamist for example, stuck in a generally Nar group.  When he starts trying to "earn points" or gain a leg up on his fellow players, he's actively working against Nar goals by heading off in a completely different creative direction.  Like a tug of war, two players with different CAs are both fighting against each other for the focus of the game.  It seems though, that the neutral player is happy to "just be," or even possibly to make minor "atomic level" CA choices from time to time.  But he doesn't have any common focus to get in the way of anybody else and so at worst he's guilty of ignoring the part of the social contract that says "we're all playing Nar tonight."

To be clear, I'm not saying that a neutral player in a focused group won't cause dysfunction.  I just don't think it'd be accurate to call it the same sort of dysfunction that occurs when different CAs compete.  Also, I think it's easier for a neutral player to join a group and not cause dysfunction, whereas active CA problems almost necessarily cause dysfunction.

Quote from: Valamir
Internal Causality *is* considered highly desireable for Simulationist play.  It is much more openly and vocally stressed and its importance more keenly felt in Simulationist play.  But thats just a symptom of the agenda...not definitional.  Part of the problem with the Sim definition has been mistaking Internal Causality for the point...that it was what was being prioritized.  The glossary definition of Sim still does this.

But as I said in my essay, I think this is wrong.  its backwards.  Internal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately.  Its a tool that is used, a parameter that is set, for the purpose of enabling the Simulation.

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism.  Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

I just wanted to say that I find Ralph's take on Sim to be a clear and useful one (I think--assuming I have it right. Some of this thread makes my head swim).

I too see internal causality (the commitment is to derrive a large degree and an important degree of action directly from situation) as a tool for what I'd call simulationist (or Virtualist) play rather than an end in-and-of-itself.

-Marco

QuoteIt is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism. Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

I have a slightly different perspective. That is, we really can't know if the end result is "good" meaning that it represents something that has some quality that "makes sense," or something like that. What I mean is, we can't really say, for instance, that the end result is "realistic" or anything like it. The best we can say is that it's somehow internally consistent. That is, internal causality is a tool, yes, but it's the quality of that tool that determines how good the result is. Because it's not that the result is 'right", it's that the result feels right. That is, it's the quality of the internal causality that causes us to trust the results. Not that we believe that the simulation in question actually says anything about the real world, no. But instead because the simulation feels like it has (again feels, not has) something approaching an objective existence. That there is another world out there that reacts to our actions with just as much absolute law as our real world does.

Mike

I don't disagree with that, Mike.  Its not that different of a perspective.

What it basically boils down to is controlling variables.  In a good simulation there are certain variables you are "testing" (those related to the "what if" question).  The rest of the variables need to be controlled for.

Internal Causality is really nothing more than a technique for controlling variables by requiring all things to act consistantly in accordance with their nature.

Quote from: Quoting me, Ralph 'Valamir' Mazza

QuoteThis is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

Where does the dichotomy of "if its not simulationism its not genuine play" come from?

I apologize; that was badly phrased on my part.

My intention is to ask whether passive play is still within the agendum. A gamist or narrativist referee plays passively in many versions of such play, so that the players can play actively. Simulationism may also have that model, with active players and a passive referee, but I'm suggesting that it can reverse the model such that the players are passive and the referee active. That they players are in the support mode for the referee's activity doesn't mean they aren't playing in a simulationist agendum--it only means that they are taking the support/passive position to his active play.

Jay (Silmenume), you've misunderstood my "say/do/learn" distinction. Let me see if I can rephrase it a bit better.

• The narrativist wants to make a statement about an issue; in that sense, all of his play is about saying something, even if he never uses a word.
• The gamist wants to step up to some challenge and prove himself able to win; in that sense, all of his play is about the actions his character takes, and his own ability to do something, which delivers glory to him, even if all he does is stand there while the assault comes.
• The simulationist wants to be in the strange world. I've never said that internal causality is king, and I think that's extreme--but I do think that for simulationism to work, you must have sufficient consistency that your actions will have repeatable results. It's an experimental medium, in which we hope to discover something, whether it's the experience of what it's like to be the character to the observation of what it would be like to play tennis in zero G.[/list:u]
  You are, however, correct about the confusion between problems which impede the characters and those which impede player goals. I apologize (gee, twice in one post) for that confusion. It's easy to make, particularly since in gamist play the two are usually the same (the thing which impedes the player in proving himself is the challenge that faces the character, and if the character overcomes, he gets his glory--although he might get some glory for a grand effort even if the character fails).
  
  My thinking is that conflict, as Ralph defines it, is not essential to simulationist play. I'll concur that it is easier to identify simulationism when conflict spotlights it, but maintain that simulationism can continue indefinitely without conflict--something neither narrativism nor gamism can do.
  
  On internal causality,

  Quote from: Ralph had it right when heInternal Causality can be important (and usually is) in all roleplaying and all CAs. Its primary function is to provide credibility to player's statements for system purposes. A player's statements are more credible and thus, more likely to be accepted, when and if they maintain Internal Causality.

  I don't know that I have to add anything to that.
  
  I'd better stop here, or I'm going to take my crown for long posts back from Jay.
  
  --M. J. Young

QuoteMy thinking is that conflict, as Ralph defines it, is not essential to simulationist play. I'll concur that it is easier to identify simulationism when conflict spotlights it, but maintain that simulationism can continue indefinitely without conflict--something neither narrativism nor gamism can do.

I contend that there is no simulation without conflict because without conflict there is nothing to simulate

If you have a situation with absolutely no conflict...what are you simulating?

Keeping in mind that a conflict by my definition requires 1) a player to be interested in changing the current situation, 2) adversity that must be overcome to accomplish that change, 3) consequences that impact the SiS from both failure and success.

QuoteKeeping in mind that a conflict by my definition requires 1) a player to be interested in changing the current situation, 2) adversity that must be overcome to accomplish that change, 3) consequences that impact the SiS from both failure and success.

1) I would like to whittle this piece of wood into the shape of a bird
2) It doesn't look much like a bird at the moment
3) After I'm done, it will look like a bird, and the SIS will be changed accordingly

That meets all your criteria but is still utterly trivial and not a meaningful conflict.

QuoteI contend that there is no simulation without conflict because without conflict there is nothing to simulate

I cannot see how this can possibly be true without making "conflict" meaningless.  I fully agree that the world resists our desires, and this can be construed as the antithetical force, but this is so passive and universal I don't see it as worthy of the term.  Conflict as the necessary subject of DRAMA, yes, as a prompt for character expression, but I see no reason to extend this necessity to Sim.*

Again it seems to me that them most common non-Dramatic component of conventional media would be the nature documentary.  Such 'conflict' as there is is ususually the common or garden variety that is not meaningful to viewers as a personally experienced conflict issue.  Its just the way it is.

* and I say this as somsone who simultaneously argues that there is a minimum ncessary dramatic structure to maintain player interest even when the CA is sim.

Quote from: ValamirWhile I will readily admitt that phrases such as "ritual discourse" make my head swim, I actually disagree with you here.

Hey Ralph, and you too Marco!

This is an important issue.  If neither of you understands what I mean by "ritual discourse" or "social meaning structure" then it is impossible for us to have a meaningful conversation.  Both those ideas are absolutely foundational to my thesis.  I don't mind dissent on my ideas, but if you are disagreeing without understanding what we are disagreeing about then we are wasting each other's time.  If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so.  Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

Quote from: ValamirThe ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct.  Its more fundamental than that.  Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

Exploration is a type of ritual dialogue or discourse used to create meanings.  What this implies is that Exploration/roleplay is a meaning creation process.  Creative Agendas are the basic types of dialogues we are having.  This is what I meant by the basics.

Just as the idea of Exploration being the sea upon which all roleplay was floating backed us off far enough to give us the perspective to allow for the idea that there are Creative Agendas, so too does the idea of ritual discourse (and such ideas as social meaning structures) back us off far enough to give us perspective on Simulationism.  By discussing Sim in terms of ritual discourse we now have the tools necessary to dissect what Sim is without having to use circular or self-referential statements.  Foundational to this discussion, and this thread, is the idea of social meaning structures.  If anyone is uncertain as to the meaning of social meaning structures please read the first post in this thread and more importantly please read Chris' (clehrich) thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10283/).  I wish I could do a better job of explaining it, but there is an old adages saying that if you truly understand something explain it to your grandmother!  I have a very basic understanding, so me trying to make it clearer is a difficult task.  Alas...

Quote from: ValamirPart of the problem with the Sim definition has been mistaking Internal Causality for the point...that it was what was being prioritized.  The glossary definition of Sim still does this.

I'll fully agree with the above.  Internal Causality is NOT the point of Sim, but it is absolutely foundational.  It is what I call a negative definition.  Basically Internal Causality limits what can be done, it does not determine what the players are trying to do.  Both Challenge and Premise both limit and promote.  In Sim that which limits and that which promotes so far appear to be two different things.  That may change as we get a better handle on Sim.  However, breaking Internal Causality in Sim is just as egregious as changing the rules of engagement or victory conditions in Gamism or changing the Premise without authority or Typhoid Mary play in Narrativism.  Internal Causality is not the point of play, but breaking it, transgressing it limiting boundaries is taboo.

Quote from: ValamirInternal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately.

I don't believe this to be an accurate assessment of the role of IC.  IC is not important because it allows a Simulation to proceed accurately, it is important to social meaning structures and challenges to the SIS.  In order for something to function as a social meaning structure it must be "structurally sound" – it must be consistent.  We can't generate new meanings without consistent social meaning structures as a reference point for those new meanings.  The social meaning structures inform the characters/players as to the meanings of certain acts, without them nothing we did would make any sense.  If the structures were in constant high flux, i.e., breaking causality, then it would be virtually impossible to discern the meaning of any act.

Quote from: clehrich in his - Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] threadThe social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures...

This is the social theory of knowledge...

So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place. Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true. This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.

Emphasis mine - Jay

The question then becomes, "What is the promoter in Simulationism?"  What are we trying to do?  What are we addressing?  What are we building, what new meanings are we creating and how do we do that?  What are we engaging to create new meanings?

Quote from: ValamirIt is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism.

I am leery of this definition in the same way that a Narrativist is leery of the definition of Narrativism being founded in the creation of stories.  Narrativist play is defined by the act of addressing Premise.  It just so happens that addressing Premise does lead very effectively to the creation of stories, but that does not have to be the point of play.  Also as much as you think Internal Causality is a problem as being defined as the point of Sim, I have problems with the simulation definition.  There is nothing in the idea of Internal Causality that should lead one to believe that Sim is about Simulating things.  Understanding ritual discourse and how IC relates and the limitiation it places on the players I would say that "what if's" are no more descriptive of Sim then "what if's" are of G/N.  Point of fact I would argue that Gamism and Narrativism are more driven by "what if's" than Simulationism.  In Gamism one could be trying new strategies or tactics – IOW running what if I did this or that in the pursuit of victory.  Same with Narrativism – what would happen if my character did this in response to premise instead of that?

To be fair I think there is as much "what if" in Sim as there is in Gam/Nar except it is not the players posing the "what if's", it's the DM.

I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.  Just as social meaning structures inform our real lives, exploring fictional social meaning structures creates an artificial reality because they inform us of that fictional life – the Dream.

Hey Tim!

Quote from: Tim C KoppangIt's not that the neutral player is at odds with your CA, but rather that he just doesn't seem to have any motivation beyond wondering around and looking at flowers.  In other words, he's wasting time, but he's not damaging the CA.

Not true – let me quote here –

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121630#121630

While the subject was slightly different, the idea still holds up.  If one is not in support of Creative Agenda then one is literally breaking contract.  IOW they are taking away from the CA.  That same holds for Sim as it too is a CA.

Quote from: Mike HolmesBecause it's not that the result is 'right", it's that the result feels right. That is, it's the quality of the internal causality that causes us to trust the results. Not that we believe that the simulation in question actually says anything about the real world, no. But instead because the simulation feels like it has (again feels, not has) something approaching an objective existence.

I'm totally with you on that Mike!

Hey M.J.!

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe simulationist wants to be in the strange world. I've never said that internal causality is king, and I think that's extreme--but I do think that for simulationism to work, you must have sufficient consistency that your actions will have repeatable results.

I do not believe that to be the case.  The Simulationist need Internal Causality so that the social meaning structures are sound so that the creation of new meaning is facilitated, not that experiments are repeatable.

I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.  By its very nature, where IC is so important it is difficult to justify characters taking risks via conflict just for the academic exercise to ask "what if".  I would go so far to say that Gamism and Narrativism are more overtly experimental than Simulationism.  Every address of Challenge/Premise is essentially a "what if" question.

Quote from: M. J. YoungYou are, however, correct about the confusion between problems which impede the characters and those which impede player goals. I apologize (gee, twice in one post) for that confusion. It's easy to make, particularly since in gamist play the two are usually the same (the thing which impedes the player in proving himself is the challenge that faces the character, and if the character overcomes, he gets his glory--although he might get some glory for a grand effort even if the character fails).

You make a mistake here.  Challenge does not impede the player from proving himself, it is the VERY means by which he does prove himself.  A Gamist cannot prove himself without Challenge.  Unless faced with a Challenge that he must overcome, he cannot demonstrate skill, cunning, guts, or what not.  To not have Challenge would impede a Gamist is his search to prove himself.

Regarding the rest of your arguments I will have to defer to a later time – I'm pooped!

Quote1) I would like to whittle this piece of wood into the shape of a bird
2) It doesn't look much like a bird at the moment
3) After I'm done, it will look like a bird, and the SIS will be changed accordingly

That meets all your criteria but is still utterly trivial and not a meaningful conflict.

Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Situation before attempt = piece of wood that doesn't look like a bird.
Situation after attempt fails = piece of wood that doesn't look like a bird.

Unless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Quote from: SilmenumeIf you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so.  Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

I do think it would be a good idea to have an explanation for what you mean specifically.

Quote

Quote from: ValamirThe ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct.  Its more fundamental than that.  Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

I'll agree with that, but I don't think it challenges what I perceive to be the claim that Valamir was voicing.  It seems to me that you are applying the meaning creation to too many layers of the ritual discourse activity simultaneously.

Quote
Exploration is a type of ritual dialogue or discourse used to create meanings.  What this implies is that Exploration/roleplay is a meaning creation process.  Creative Agendas are the basic types of dialogues we are having.  This is what I meant by the basics.

Are they?  Or are they not rather methodologies?  But this is all confused by the vagueness inherent to "meaning" and "meaning creation".  what kind of meaning do we mean?

One primary form of meaning common in ritual structures is social validation; reinforcement of the group identity and a restatement of the groups self-percieved virtues.  Is Exploration a mechanism for the creation of this meaning?  I doubt it, but RPG certainly can serve that function for the geek clique.

I can accept that RPG as a whole is a ritual process, I'm not sure I can accept that every aspect of RPG must also inevitably be a meaning-creating ritual structure any more than I think a brick is a house.

Quote
The question then becomes, "What is the promoter in Simulationism?"  What are we trying to do?  What are we addressing?  What are we building, what new meanings are we creating and how do we do that?  What are we engaging to create new meanings?

What does meaning mean?  This is a serious question, as in, what kind of answer would be a suitable response to your question?  Can you give a clear example of such an act of "meaning creation" so I can grasp what you are describing?

QuoteUnderstanding ritual discourse and how IC relates and the limitiation it places on the players I would say that "what if's" are no more descriptive of Sim then "what if's" are of G/N.  Point of fact I would argue that Gamism and Narrativism are more driven by "what if's" than Simulationism.  In Gamism one could be trying new strategies or tactics – IOW running what if I did this or that in the pursuit of victory.  Same with Narrativism – what would happen if my character did this in response to premise instead of that?

Here is the difference it seems to me: in G we all know the rules objectively, and in N we have an instinctive grasp of emotional significance*.  But in S we are faced ny the same problem we have always been faced in regards the world: its so much bigger than we are and our understanding of it is necessarily limited.  Thus what is valuable to the Sim player, as I see it, is exposure to other peoples understanding of what is true and plausible and what is not.

This is where it is rather similar to other forms of drama, in that fundamental dialogue is between people and without the presence of those people would be a different experience.  Having other minds, other opinions, in the same imaginary space means my understanding of how the world works, as implemented in our game, is modified by, validated by, circumscribed by, the opinions of the other players.  My exploration is enhanced by the attendance of other players and the application of their intellects to the situation.

Quote
To be fair I think there is as much "what if" in Sim as there is in Gam/Nar except it is not the players posing the "what if's", it's the DM.

No I disagree; the players are asking "what if" through their actions, and the GM is answering "then this".  The player may or may not agree that this is plausible, and that as I see it is the the sum total of meaning they can extract from the game.

Quote
I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.

I sincerely wish that this were true, but IMO it simply isn't.  Lets take a look at one of my favourite, if perhaps real, social meaning structures: sumptuary laws.  Or another favourite, monumental architecture.  These are, without doubt, strong expressions of constructed social order that are highly meaningful to that societies members.  So where is the RPG that has made an issue of such things?  Conspicuous by its absence.

The military is a highly organised, formalised structure that has certain imperative messages to impart to its members.  Where is the RPG of the military experince? MIA; the best we have are things like Recon (the combat patrol experience) and Twilight 2000 (the post-apocalypse experience) and Traveller (the veteran as mercenary/trader experience).

Almost all of these inevitably genuflect to structural elements of RPG like needing to establish an independant group of troubleshooters who can find the trouble and then shoot it.  What they do not do is "explore fictional social meaning structures".

To the extnt that RPG is a ritual meaning structure, arguments about whether 5.56mm rounds should or shouldn't keyhole after passing through a leaf is exactly the kind of 'meaning' that an RPG like Recon is going to produce.  And having had that discussion, I contend, the participants will go away satisfied that they are better informed than they were before, or perhaps that one among them is a stumbling moron.

Quote
I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.  By its very nature, where IC is so important it is difficult to justify characters taking risks via conflict just for the academic exercise to ask "what if".

As one of my science teachers used to say, we don't know who first discovered chlorine gas - we only know who first discovered it and survived the discovery.

From my perspective there would be no need to proceed to resolution here; if a player said "I reckon I make that jump, what do you think guys" and a swift discussion revealed that no the other players didn't think they could, discovery will still have occurred.

* arguably thats not true, but we can come back to that some other time.

Quote from: Valamir
Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

QuoteUnless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

Exactly; I allege your definition of conflict contains non-explicit assumptions.  That is why I said it met all the criteria but was not a MEANINGFUL conflict.  When conflict has become so diluted as to be "anything which frustrates my whim" I'm not sure that the term retains any utility.

QuoteHey Ralph, and you too Marco!

This is an important issue. If neither of you understands what I mean by "ritual discourse" or "social meaning structure" then it is impossible for us to have a meaningful conversation. Both those ideas are absolutely foundational to my thesis. I don't mind dissent on my ideas, but if you are disagreeing without understanding what we are disagreeing about then we are wasting each other's time. If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so. Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

Try explaining your ideas without using multi-word compound jargon from other disciplines.  Just put it in plain 'ole English

I'm a big supporter of Jargon to the extent that it provides a good shortcut for conveying complex ideas.  But if, at the end of the day, you can't break the jargon back open and present those complex ideas in plain old English to a lay person then the Jargon is no longer short hand.  Its become a black box allowing us to skip over parts where stuff is happening we don't understand while sounding like we understand them.  Its bascially the sophisticated sounding alternative to "and then magic happens" from the classic Farside cartoon.

My recent essay is my most recent attempt to boil the common Forge jargon down into something a non Forgeite can understand.  I did a similar one a couple of years back ("A GNS primer" I think I called it) because its important to me to periodically flush out the jargon boxes and make sure I still understand what the heck the short cut word actually means.

Mayhaps others don't have as much trouble with it as I, but my education is focused entirely on knowledge that has an immediate and clear practical application.  Science, Finance, Communication.  I don't have the background to parse most of Chris Lehrich's thread.  Its clearly a very specialized field that has reached a fairly sophisticated level of complexity.  

What I took out his threads on the subject was an affirmation that the sorts of things we were talking about and pieceing together here are actually hitting pretty close to the mark of how those disciplines view how social groups function.  That's great, but it doesn't suddenly open the floodgates to new jargon.  

Quote

QuoteValamir wrote:
The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct. Its more fundamental than that. Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

"roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place"  How is this not System?

"That unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created " How is this not Setting, Character, Situation, and Color being added to the Shared Imaginary Space through System.

See, I called it Exploration...you said no it was more basic than Exploration...but your description sounds pretty much like bog standard Exploration to me.


I also don't see any point in which anything you say about internal causality isn't equally true of both N and G as well.  That is to say, I don't disagree necessarily with your points on IC, but there is nothing there to suggest to me that those points apply exclusively to Simulation.  And if they don't apply exclusively to Simulation, then they cannot be a foundational part of the definiton of Simulation that distinguishes it as a CA.


Thus when you say:

Quote
I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures. Just as social meaning structures inform our real lives, exploring fictional social meaning structures creates an artificial reality because they inform us of that fictional life – the Dream.

I say, no.

Replace Simulation with All Roleplaying in the above, and I'd say yes.

ALL Roleplaying is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.

This is why I specifically said in my essay that "the Dream" as a term really should apply to the Exploration level.

What you are describing is not Simulationism.  Its Exploration.  Its what we all do in all of our roleplaying.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Valamir
Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

Quote


*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Your concerns in this are fully agreed to by me, and also I believe already addressed and protected against.

Is there a consequence to your character being an incompentent whittler?  Is someone's life at stake if you can't whittle effectively?  Will you lose your job in the whittling factory and your family will lose their home?  Will the evil gang of cut throat wood carvers that you've secretly infiltrated recognize you as an imposter and blow your cover?

Are there consequences to your character succeeding and being a successful whittler?  Will the king recruit you to go on a quest and defeat the mighting wood giant with your whittling prowess?  Will your whittling lead to fame and fortune.  Will it be the small gift that wins the heart of the child?  Will a wealthy collector buy your work and put it on display where it will be recognized by your arch enemy who's been looking for you for years?  Will it make the members of the WoodCarvers Local 346 upset because you a non-union whittler and they'll come and rough you up?

What are the consequences to the SiS OUTSIDE of your own character and BEYOND simply you the player not getting the result you wanted (so it can't be anything that simply frustrates your whim)

Articulate the repurcussions and ripple effects of your whittling effort for both success and failure outcomes.

If there aren't any really...then its not a conflict.  But as I said in the essay, much of the time what is and isn't a conflict will come down to the perception of the player.  Since, by my definition, CAs are how the player responds to in game conflict, this is just fine.  It simply becomes how the player responds to perceived in game conflicts.  If the player perceives it as a conflict then the player will have a CA based response to it.


This seems pretty clear and straight forward to me and was presented such in my essay.  Yet you say its non-explicit.  How would you suggest I make it more explicit.

QuoteUnless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

Exactly; I allege your definition of conflict contains non-explicit assumptions.  That is why I said it met all the criteria but was not a MEANINGFUL conflict.  When conflict has become so diluted as to be "anything which frustrates my whim" I'm not sure that the term retains any utility.

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: Tim C KoppangIt's not that the neutral player is at odds with your CA, but rather that he just doesn't seem to have any motivation beyond wondering around and looking at flowers.  In other words, he's wasting time, but he's not damaging the CA.

Not true – let me quote here –

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121630#121630

Jay,

Um... yes.  I think I said that in my last post, but I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.  I won't belabor the point.  Suffice it to say that I agree: when a CA is part of a Social Contract, any player who isn't actively pursuing that CA is in violation of the Social Contract.  For clarity, change "he's not damaging the CA" to "he's not actively damaging the CA."

I'm simply trying to emphasize the difference between inter-CA problems and general Social Contract dysfunction.  If roleplaying is possible to accomplish without any CA at all, then I think we have to recognize that not all dysfunction related to CA is necessarily in the form of competing CAs.  Even Ron's example is premised on the concept of a Sim CA against a Gam or Nar CA.  I'm talking about the player who has no priority whatsoever.

This is, in the end, a minor point, but I'm trying to rearrange my understanding of the theory to see if it all holds up.  The concept of roleplaying without a CA is still somewhat foreign to my thinking.

Ack, my last post is fully of wacky quote errors.

Let me repost it for clarity.  Sorry about that.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Valamir
Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

I already said:

Quote
*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Your concerns in this are fully agreed to by me, and also I believe already addressed and protected against.

Is there a consequence to your character being an incompentent whittler? Is someone's life at stake if you can't whittle effectively? Will you lose your job in the whittling factory and your family will lose their home? Will the evil gang of cut throat wood carvers that you've secretly infiltrated recognize you as an imposter and blow your cover?

Are there consequences to your character succeeding and being a successful whittler? Will the king recruit you to go on a quest and defeat the mighty wood giant with your whittling prowess? Will your whittling lead to fame and fortune. Will it be the small gift that wins the heart of the child? Will a wealthy collector buy your work and put it on display where it will be recognized by your arch enemy who's been looking for you for years? Will it make the members of the WoodCarvers Local 346 upset because you a non-union whittler and they'll come and rough you up?

What are the consequences to the SiS OUTSIDE of your own character and BEYOND simply you the player not getting the result you wanted (so it can't be anything that simply frustrates your whim)

Articulate the repurcussions and ripple effects of your whittling effort for both success and failure outcomes.

If there aren't any really...then its not a conflict. But as I said in the essay, much of the time what is and isn't a conflict will come down to the perception of the player. Since, by my definition, CAs are how the player responds to in game conflict, this is just fine. It simply becomes how the player responds to perceived in game conflicts. If the player perceives it as a conflict then the player will have a CA based response to it.


This seems pretty clear and straight forward to me and was presented such in my essay. Yet you say its non-explicit. How would you suggest I make it more explicit.

Well, I still have difficulties with the argument that (capital C) Conflict is necessary for sim, as opposed to little-C Conflict.

Now, you support the thesis that without conflict no CA is exhibited.  Where I have difficulty is that surely this can't be little-C conflict and be meaningful, cos otherwise shopping would be valid sim after all.

But the big-C conflict looks too much like G and N big-C conflicts if it depends on the conflict being situationally significant to the character(s).  I would think that N and G agenda's would probably supercede the Sim CA under these conditions.  But I also have difficulty conceptualising the Simmers "pro-active engagement with conflict".

I don't see that sim requires conflict, or has a particular response to conflict, unlike G and N.  I consider the worlds default frustration of our whim to be sufficient for Sim conflict, but I'm still unconvinced theres much value to be had discussing Sim in the light of conflict in the first place.

Hey contracycle!

I am going to do my best to clarify the terms "ritual discourse" and "social meaning structure."  The problem is that the terms are so specific the fields from which they sprang and are so intertwined with each other that a simple definition will in all likelihood not suffice.  Or at least I am not certain that I can create a simple definition.

Ritual Discourse

Discourse, being the easy part to illumine, is dialogue.  It means that the process, whatever it is, is one that involves a verbal (or written) exchange among its practitioners.

Ritual is much more difficult to define – I will do lots of lifting from Chris' article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html/) and thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=108729#108729/) as a starting point.

First of all ritual is not a thing but a process.

Quote from: clehrich...we can read ritual as a mode of theorizing, a way of thinking and analyzing in relatively abstract terms.  

In ritual, participants manipulate a range of signs within a constrained structure. That structure can change through such manipulations, but only within narrow limits.

Social meaning structures.  I use the word social because the meanings of the structures are determined by the individuals present.  To help elucidate what I mean by meaning structures I quote the following again from Chris (clehrich) -

Quote from: clehrichThe question, in short, is not how players read a text produced for them by a game-master, but rather how the whole group in combination produces signs and texts that they themselves read. The structural model of signification fits well here, as the primary issue is to understand ritual or mythic activity as a mode of discourse production.

To put this differently, and more specifically, RPG play enacts theory, in the sense that standing behind and prior to play is a series of theoretical constructs: system design, GM notes, pre-play agreements and social contract, genre expectations, and other theoretical tools. From this perspective, RPG play acts out this prior structure; this is equivalent to the old reading of ritual as acting out a liturgical text. At the same time, the prior structure is to a degree open to challenge within game play, and furthermore does not fully constrain particular game actions, determining a range and a set of priorities rather than laying out a script.

Broadly, the question in practice theory is how people choose, from a limited range of culturally-available options, which techniques to apply at a given moment. This depends on strategy: we want to maximize rewards in a specific situation. But in order for strategy to work, we have to play the game; that is, one cannot go outside the structure of the system to manipulate signs as one likes, because to do so annuls the power of the strategy in the first place. Thus every strategic use of signs is at once a free, liberated exercise of power by a situated person, and at the same time a contribution to keeping the system stable and intact without significant change. The possibility of real change is thus undermined by the very strategies which seek to change the system, because they depend for their efficacy upon the structures in question.

These aforementioned structures are what I am referring to as the "social meaning structures."  Again they are social because it is the players who legitimize them when they agree to be subject to them at the social contract level.  They are all theoretical constructs until the players agree to regard them as objects for the sake of Exploration.  This is all social contract stuff, but it central to my thesis that these things that are agreed to in the social contract level are "social meaning structures."  IOW we all agree to accept the elements of Exploration, goals (CA) and what ever else that directly relates to Exploration as legitimate and worth supporting.  It is important to note that just as these "social meaning structures" exist outside the SIS (CA) they also exist within (political structures/governments, social mores, cultures, worldviews, etc.).

I would like to come back and spend someone time on the subject of signs.

Quote from: clehrichTechnically speaking, every sign is thus constrained and yet free. On the one hand, it is not constrained to the degree of a percept, a particular contingent mental encounter with an actual object; this percept is what is called a "perception" in the formalist model to which Kim refers. A percept is entirely constrained, because when a person looks at a given object on two successive occasions, his or her mental equipment has altered -- to use a cliché, one cannot enter the same river twice. At the same time, a sign is not fully liberated, as is a concept, an idea arising in reaction to a particular person's connections to a percept: when I look at the lamp on the table, I may think of my grandmother (who perhaps owned a similar lamp), and thus "grandmother" is a legitimate conceptual link, but no such connection may arise for you, and even if it did, it would be a different grandmother. So a sign (Lévi-Strauss means the Saussurean version of the sign) is both constrained (the iron cannot be a refrigerator) and free (it can do a whole range of things involving local intense heat). In Lévi-Strauss's linguistic analogy, this iron is a sign in the same way as a word is: the word "iron" can mean a range of things (the metal, the instrument) but it cannot mean anything at all. Furthermore, this word only acquires meaning by its relations to other words: if I say "iron," you do not know until I go on with "a pair of pants" what sort of meaning I intend, even whether it is a verb or a noun.

This percept/concept duality of a sign is a profoundly important concept that provides one such tool that I have been badly needing.  Gamism and Narrativism are deeply committed to concept.  Tourism is not concerned about creating concepts; it is primarily concerned with percepts – what do I find here, what happens if I do this without a particular interest in assigning or creating concepts.  Simulationism is committed to concept creation.  

All the Creative Agendas are committed to concept creation.

As the above quote indicated, a sign only acquires meaning by its relations to other signs.  Creative Agenda is a sign (a type that I refer to as a social meaning structure).  It gives meaning to the actions (sign manipulations) the players make.  The key here is that a new concept can only come into play when it displaces an old concept.  This implies challenge to the SIS.  A concept cannot just be declared, it must be inferred from percept and measured or matched against the social meaning structures in effect to see if the percept creates that desired concept.  So in order for a new concept to be created a new percept must be created.

"I swing at the orc."

"Roll a 20 sided."

"19!"

"You Hit.  Roll damage."

"6 points!"

"You kill the orc."

"Woohoo!  I win!"

That the player can say he won is a concept/meaning (victory) that he generated because he created a new percept (a dead orc) that was measured against the social meaning structure provided by, among other structures, Challenge (the first player to kill 10 orcs wins).  In order to create a new percept the player had to challenge the SIS.  That the player wished to create a new concept meant that he had to challenge the SIS via Situation.  Given Ralph's definition of conflict, that a player chooses to face a situation and escalate it to a conflict means he is hoping to create a new concept/meaning by creating a new percept.  As long as his signs (statements) make it into the SIS he will always create a new percept, its just that that percept must reflect something important in the CA (given the current state of the SIS) in order for a meaningful concept to be created.  A player can always attempt to create percepts, but until he faces conflict he cannot create new meaningful concepts.  The key here is that the player, by choosing to escalate to conflict under a given set of social meaning structures (elements of Exploration as related to CA) is risking social esteem to earn the right to make his statement/concept which is reflected in the same social meaning structures (elements of Exploration as related to CA) should he succeed.

This last part is still new territory for me, and I am seeking a more robust link between conflict and concept creation.  Once that is established I can more definitive demonstrate why Sim (which also is about concept/meaning creation that is measured against some yet to be defined social meaning structure) too is solidly rooted in conflict as well.

Some thoughts.  I hope that I have made some headway in clearing up some of the phrases I have been employing.  To those I have not addressed directly, I apologize and will do so as soon as I can.

QuoteAll the Creative Agendas are committed to concept creation.

Why, and how do we know this?

QuoteCreative Agenda is a sign (a type that I refer to as a social meaning structure).

I'm noty sure whther a CA should be construed as a sign, or a manipulation of existing signs.  I would lean toward the latter - especially as CA is only a sign here, to us, who have coined and defined the term.  A player unfamiliar weith the forge will not be aware of CA as a sign.

[quoet] That the player can say he won is a concept/meaning (victory) that he generated because he created a new percept (a dead orc) that was measured against the social meaning structure provided by, among other structures, Challenge (the first player to kill 10 orcs wins).[/quote]

OK; but then your "creation of meaning" is identical to "exhibited a CA".  This seems to render the terminology less than useful, as it is obfuscating something we have already expressed more elegantly.

Quote from: contracycleI'm noty sure whther a CA should be construed as a sign, or a manipulation of existing signs.  I would lean toward the latter - especially as CA is only a sign here, to us, who have coined and defined the term.  A player unfamiliar weith the forge will not be aware of CA as a sign.

I think you are correct.  Until the player understands that he has a CA he cannot employ it as a sign.  I think, however, that CA is better regarded as a concept that has the role of serving as a meaning structure.  It is the yardstick by which we measure the events in game to see if they "mean" anything.  Conversely that same meaning structure can be employed to give events "meaning/significance".   Whether players are aware of this or not is irrelevant.

Addressing Challenge at the conflict level means that the player is going to challenge the SIS by employing signs in such a way as to create a new sign (percept) that can be, hopefully, assigned or associated with a concept (the CA meaning structure) that furthers his CA.  These concepts, Challenge and Premise, exist outside the SIS and thus can sometimes conflict with causality within and thus can be diagnosed.  IOW the players do things in the SIS that sometimes contradict our baseline understanding of human behavior.  Why is this not a problem for Gamists or Narrativists?  Because they are using a different set of social meaning structures during ritual time than from ordinary time.  As meaning structures inform our daily lives (they ground us and give us a point of reference and a point of view), these different meaning structures inform the players actions within the SIS (grounding us and giving us a different point of reference and a different point of view).  What is not part of those meaning structures is essentially "off radar."  Thus that a character would go about risking his life killing one monster after another for money would seem insane by our ordinary (non-ritual) meaning structures is perfectly acceptable under the ritual meaning structures.  In this particular example why someone would choose to such things is not part of the meaning structures so falls off the radar screen as irrelevant.  (This is not meant to imply that Gamists don't care about such things, I just used this as an overt example).

IOW the expression of each CA requires the adoption of certain social meaning structures.  Simulationism is the adoption of the social meaning structures that are limited to the element of Exploration.

Simply put Simulationism is the donning of a fictional set of social meaning structures (as delimited by the elements of Exploration) that can only be made manifest through conflict.

Player actions shall be constrained to the INTERNAL SOCIAL STRUCTURES!  Because we adopt these new meaning structures in toto – we have a completely different view of life – we have The Dream.  The Dream exists because all the tools we use to make sense of life (social meaning structures) are now re-presented in a new and different fictional form.

We test these new meaning structures and respond in ways that are different from our ordinary lives.  Conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures.  We also get the added bonus because conflict adds to the intensity of the Dream.  By responding to these conflicts in ways that are different from our ordinary lives not only do we get to think like a different person, but because of the intensifying effects of risk, we get to feel an experience that is different from our norm.

Internal Causality is important, but I wish to generalize the idea more; thus I would say that the integrity of the social meaning structures of each CA is what must be maintained.  In Sim it is the integrity of the fictional social meaning structures which are partially rooted in the fictional world itself which are what must be maintained.  This is why Setting is so important in Sim.  Note that Eskimos have 15 different words for snow. (Lots of caveats here, but you get the general gist.)   In Gamism it means that the goals and the means by which the players will achieve the goals are fixed.  In Narrativism it means that the players will address premise is fixed and for whatever allotted period of time the actual premise will be fixed.  What is not fixed is open to negotiation and in some cases not important at all.

The Adoption a new meaning structure is only truly made manifest by the decision making process.  Decision making implies conflict – that one must choose implies at least two options that are in contention.  Conflict facilitates the exhibition of the new meaning structures, either by challenging our old ones or by exhibiting the new ones (or both!  Are we willing to commit murder if our character has no qualms with that?)  Sim as a CA must have conflicts or the players cannot implement or exhibit the adopted meaning structures.  The hang up most people have about Sim is that they think that the players are wondering through with their own point of view.  That is simply not the case.  We are moving through the fictional world with a fictional point of view.

Concepts created without conflict are nothing more than free associations.

We still need conflict just as much as Gamists and Narrativist do and for the same basic reason – the creation of new concepts.  The difference however stems from where the meaning structures lie.  In G/N there are outside the SIS.  In Simulationism they lie in  Setting and Character which are influenced by Color.  Given that Internal Causality is in force in Simulationism it is important that the conflicts arise from the internal circumstances and reflect concerns that are relevant to the Character.

So to Ralph's "what if's..." I would modify that to "what would my character do if...?"  Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character.  It's the DM posing the "what if" questions, not the players.

Hey Tim!

Quote from: Tim C KoppangUm... yes.  I think I said that in my last post, but I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.  I won't belabor the point.  Suffice it to say that I agree: when a CA is part of a Social Contract, any player who isn't actively pursuing that CA is in violation of the Social Contract.  For clarity, change "he's not damaging the CA" to "he's not actively damaging the CA."

The best response to that is the following quote; again from Chris (clehrich)

Quote from: clehrich from his essay - Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing GamesAn obvious first step in proposing this model is the formulation of a definition of ritual. Unfortunately, perhaps, such definitions have been the focus of extensive debate for more than a century now, with no clear end in sight. More models have been proposed of what ritual "is" than many readers might believe. I have no intention of summarizing this whole history; I will instead simply propose a starting-point.
The above-mentioned disjuncture between "Collaborative Storytelling" and "Virtual Experience" parallels, in a number of respects, two recent emphases in ritual theory.
Virtual Experience correlates well with Ronald Grimes's and Victor Turner's focus on "performance," which ultimately amounts to a notion of total involvement in ritual activity.[7] In ritual, according to this perspective, humans engage the totality of hearts, minds, and bodies, setting them to work creatively and dynamically to produce effects within the social and mental worlds of the participants. Thus in zazen (Sitting Zen), one does nothing but sit, generally in an approved posture; one's mind and heart should be similarly focused on nothing but sitting, not in the sense that one should think continuously, "I'm sitting," but rather that one's mind should be in a state parallel to the body's state, thinking nothing, resting, yet remaining alert and awake, receptive to outside contact. In the Catholic Eucharist (Mass), to take a quite different sort of example, liturgical tradition emphasizes that the communicant should be fully involved in the process, such that when the miraculous transformation of the substance of wafer and wine (Transubstantiation) occurs, and when in fact the communicant receives these into the mouth, it is not only one's body that receives the body and blood of Christ, but the totality of body, mind, and soul. Thus this understanding of ritual emphasizes what in RPG terms is called "immersion," a total involvement in the activity. Failure on this score would be seen as ineffective (zazen), impious (Eucharist), or shallow (RPG).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html

This also explains why CA conflict is soooo annoying.  If you aren't supporting the ritual you are taking away from it.  If you are actively conflicting with ritual then that is even more of a problem.  But suffice it to say that if your not supporting the ritual then it is a problem.

The Hardcore Gamist and the Intense Premise Addresser are the equivalents of the Immersionist Simulationist.

edit - a quick adendum - This is where the confusion about lots of details became identified with Sim.  The more meaning structures we have the richer, the fuller the process.  Its not more things that is important as more structures.

Sil, I still think you are butchering the jargon here I'm afraid.

Quote
It is the yardstick by which we measure the events in game to see if they "mean" anything.  Conversely that same meaning structure can be employed to give events "meaning/significance".   Whether players are aware of this or not is irrelevant.

Chris's text describes meaning structures as external to the user.  However, you seem to be arguing that a CA is inherent to the user, especially if you agree that anyone unfamiliar with the forge or similar is also unfamiliar with the sign "CA" or the sign "Sim".

This CA cannot be a social meaning structure on the terms given.
CA is a motive for engaging with existing meaning structures.  Those meaning structures are essentially System, and they are social because they are formulated out of the social contract.

Quote
What is not part of those meaning structures is essentially "off radar."  

Correct.  System does matter.

Quote
The Dream exists because all the tools we use to make sense of life (social meaning structures) are now re-presented in a new and different fictional form.

Right.  System does matter again.

QuoteWe test these new meaning structures and respond in ways that are different from our ordinary lives.  Conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures.  We also get the added bonus because conflict adds to the intensity of the Dream.  By responding to these conflicts in ways that are different from our ordinary lives not only do we get to think like a different person, but because of the intensifying effects of risk, we get to feel an experience that is different from our norm.

Yes, agreed.  But I have always had the position that conflict is useful; your position is that it is necessary and definitive.  That still does not appear sufficiently demonstrated to me.

QuoteIn Sim it is the integrity of the fictional social meaning structures which are partially rooted in the fictional world itself which are what must be maintained.

This is where your argument appears to use "social meaning structure" erroneously to my eyes, applying to to multiple levels of the model.  Above you say "I think, however, that CA is better regarded as a concept that has the role of serving as a meaning structure." And here you say that the SIS contains social meaning structures.

I don't think it can be meaningful that the SIS contains a CA.  I do think it can be meaningful that the SIS contains fictional social meaning structures, but as I have observed, they almost never actively explore them, but merely utilise them in the same way we would in real life.

Quote
The Adoption a new meaning structure is only truly made manifest by the decision making process.  Decision making implies conflict – that one must choose implies at least two options that are in contention.

But not meaningful conflict.  Let me try to illustrate my difference in perspective.  In Star Wars, the uniformity of the Storm Troopers allows an allusion to the real life signs we are familiar with, specifically those of Fascism and autocracy.  So this fictional (narrative) space contains "fictional meaning systems" that relate to our real social meaning systems and thus informs the audience.  But Star Wars does not particularly explore Fascism; it explores a rather orthodox morality.  And this does in turn manipulate and feed back to the standing meaning system as we saw when Bush was recently drawn as Vader by cartoonists

Yes its true that this was brought about by a "decision making process", and that it used and interacted with existig signs, but there is no meaningful conflict here.

QuoteSim as a CA must have conflicts or the players cannot implement or exhibit the adopted meaning structures.

In as much as it is true that if I adopt the sign "knight" and seek to exhibit an interpretation of the meaning system "chivalry", yes its true that I cannot do so without some degree of adversity.  But what bugs me about this is I can't put a fork in my mouth either without overcoming the adversity of gravity, so this does not appear to be saying much other than "shit happens".

I agree that it is implicit in every CA that there be "relevant stress"; I'm not sure your formulation shows that for sim, relevant stress is capital-C Conflict in the dramatic sense.

Quote
So to Ralph's "what if's..." I would modify that to "what would my character do if...?"  Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character.  It's the DM posing the "what if" questions, not the players.

That woud relegate player activity vis a vis Sim to reactions, rather than actions.  And that negates the ostensible starting point, which was to establish a diagnostic feature of Sim that was not the absence of other CA's.  All players respond to a GM's what if by this formulation, it seems to me, and so once again the Sim player would be identified only negatively; they would be the individual who only responded to what ifs instead of actively posing questions and enacting a CA.

QuoteSo to Ralph's "what if's..." I would modify that to "what would my character do if...?" Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character. It's the DM posing the "what if" questions, not the players.

True, if you have the Character Exploration dial cranked.

But you could ask that same question with a focus on Setting also:  What would the Kingdom of Karmon do if a horde of Orks decended on it and its allies abandon it.

In other words "how would the Character respond to a given Situation", or "how would the Setting respond to a given Situation".  To which the answer would be "Lets find out using System as Constrained by Color".


And it can be either the GM or the players posing the question because the players, through their characters, can act as catalysts to trigger or establish Conflicts just as much as they can use them to respond.

Traditionally, Character has been the only way that the player can interact with the world; but I happen to be a believer that Director Stance is quite useable in Simulationist play.  So, using Director Stance, the player's ability to pose the "what if" question is increased substantially.

Hey contracycle,

I may be guilty of butchering jargon.  Let's go through your points and see what can be cleared up.

Quote from: contracycleChris's text describes meaning structures as external to the user. However, you seem to be arguing that a CA is inherent to the user, especially if you agree that anyone unfamiliar with the forge or similar is also unfamiliar with the sign "CA" or the sign "Sim".

This CA cannot be a social meaning structure on the terms given.
CA is a motive for engaging with existing meaning structures. Those meaning structures are essentially System, and they are social because they are formulated out of the social contract.

Chris' text describes meaning structures as being taught.  Meaning structures are an entirely memetic in nature.  They don't exist as things outside of minds.  They cannot be external to persons.  A person may generate their own meaning structures and they can also be unfamiliar with a meaning structure and thus can be acculturated with a different one, but they have them nonetheless.

A person does not need to be self-aware of the behavior in order to express said behavior.  A Creative Agenda is an expression of behavior.  Contained within that expression of behavior is a drive.  That drive is attempting to accomplish something.  In order to determine if the drive's desires are being met, a person must monitor their surroundings to see if their actions are creating a meaningful response.  In order for something to be determined as being meaningful it must be measured against a meaning structure.  This can all happen on a level that person is not self-consciously aware of.  The Forge has maintained that CA's are exhibited all the time without the players being aware of the behavior.  As far as the players are concerned, it's just what they do – "what other way is there?"  Basically for any event to have meaning it is because an individual has been acculturated with meaning structures.  Language is a profound one.  Social mores are another.  People have been using both for millennia without being aware that what they were doing would later be described as a process that uses things called symbols and that these symbols are informed by meaning structures.  People have been using ritual long before they understood what constituted a ritual process, doesn't mean people weren't using ritual.

As you said a CA is motive.  It is also provides a meaning structure.  How else can a person determine if their motives are being satisfied?  There is nothing ontological about meaning structures that they must only come from some special place, the can be derived, created and taught/learned by the bucket load and many are employed at the same time.

Maybe you're misconstruing my saying CA carries a meaning structure to mean that it only functions as a meaning structure or that it is the only meaning structure.  I am asserting neither.  Mechanics does serve as a meaning structure, as do all the elements of Exploration.  The idea I am working on is that Setting, especially for Sim, should not be construed be just the physical elements.  Setting should include such things as social mores and values, cultures, the culture's relationship with the physical world, etc.  To the Western world nature was something to be subdued and exploited.  To (some/all?) Native American Indians nature was something to be treated with honor and respect.  How individuals related to nature was informed by meaning structures.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote
What is not part of those meaning structures is essentially "off radar."

Correct.  System does matter.

Quote
The Dream exists because all the tools we use to make sense of life (social meaning structures) are now re-presented in a new and different fictional form.

Right.  System does matter again.

You are right in that System does matter.  But I was not speaking about System.  System is the means by which credibility is assigned to statements.  It is a process.  Meaning structures are for the sake of this argument objects.  They are reference points by which we can function within and understand our world.  You missed the point entirely.

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteWe test these new meaning structures and respond in ways that are different from our ordinary lives.  Conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures.  We also get the added bonus because conflict adds to the intensity of the Dream.  By responding to these conflicts in ways that are different from our ordinary lives not only do we get to think like a different person, but because of the intensifying effects of risk, we get to feel an experience that is different from our norm.

Yes, agreed.  But I have always had the position that conflict is useful; your position is that it is necessary and definitive.  That still does not appear sufficiently demonstrated to me.

If you agree where is the contention?  If you agree that conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures and that Sim is basically the process of adopting fictional meaning structures, how can one demonstrate this adoption if there is no conflict by which they can be demonstrated?

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteIn Sim it is the integrity of the fictional social meaning structures which are partially rooted in the fictional world itself which are what must be maintained.

This is where your argument appears to use "social meaning structure" erroneously to my eyes, applying to to multiple levels of the model.  Above you say "I think, however, that CA is better regarded as a concept that has the role of serving as a meaning structure." And here you say that the SIS contains social meaning structures.

I don't think it can be meaningful that the SIS contains a CA.

I never said or implied that the SIS contains a CA.  Nor did I ever say or imply that CA equals meaning structure.  Finally I never said or implied that CA was the ONLY meaning structure – the players do not lose track of the fact that they are "playing" and they retain the capacity to make reference to mechanics.  I asserted that CA provides the meaning structure which we as players use to gauge the effectiveness of the discourse – IOW is my/our actions meaningful regarding the addressing of Challenge/Premise/the internal social structures?  The Sim CA basically says adopt all the social meaning structures contained (explicit or otherwise) within the SIS and any additional source material that is relevant (reading the LOTR if one is playing a game set in Middle Earth).  That is to be the primary source and delimiter of the character's meaning structures – he will be tested on them.  In this CA, as in Gamism and Narrativism, some of the structures are up for negotiation within the SIS and others are not.  In Sim the physical elements and physics as implied in internal causality are pretty much closed to alteration.  On the other hand, character actions are fairly open to discourse and challenge.  As the players never really lose their ordinary time (non-ritual) meaning structures (conscience frex.) this leads to some interesting dynamics.  Is the player really ready to have his character (which is an extension of himself or at least his will) commit murder or lay his life down for another or commit treason or scam an old lady out of her house or forgive a bitter enemy?

(Is this where stakes comes in?)

(This is another thought aside – not sure what to make of it, but here it is - In a certain way I would almost say that Sim is about the relationships of all the parts but mostly settling upon character as that is the primary instrument of player input and conflict address.)

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteThe Adoption a new meaning structure is only truly made manifest by the decision making process.  Decision making implies conflict – that one must choose implies at least two options that are in contention.

But not meaningful conflict.

You're correct in the process I listed didn't demonstrate anything about a meaningful conflict.  But you disputation actually serves my ends.  When a decision must be made because of conflict – as Ralph has defined it – not only is it meaningful, but the new meaning structure (concept) created is meaningful as well.  You're right, its not just any decision, but an important one (again I refer you to Ralph's definition of conflict.)  And that is precisely why Sim must have conflict.  Without it there would be no meaningful conflicts and thus no meaning-ful changes to the meaning structures (concepts).

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteSim as a CA must have conflicts or the players cannot implement or exhibit the adopted meaning structures.

In as much as it is true that if I adopt the sign "knight" and seek to exhibit an interpretation of the meaning system "chivalry", yes its true that I cannot do so without some degree of adversity.  But what bugs me about this is I can't put a fork in my mouth either without overcoming the adversity of gravity, so this does not appear to be saying much other than "shit happens".

Which is EXACTLY what it means; because overcoming the adversity of gravity is soooo trivial in this case as to make the act of putting the fork in the mouth equally trivial – it effectively says nothing

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteSo to Ralph's "what if's..." I would modify that to "what would my character do if...?"  Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character.  It's the DM posing the "what if" questions, not the players.

That woud relegate player activity vis a vis Sim to reactions, rather than actions.  And that negates the ostensible starting point, which was to establish a diagnostic feature of Sim that was not the absence of other CA's.  All players respond to a GM's what if by this formulation, it seems to me, and so once again the Sim player would be identified only negatively; they would be the individual who only responded to what ifs instead of actively posing questions and enacting a CA.

.

Not so.  A valid question could be, "What would my character do if I decided that he wanted to kill the king?"  By your formulation if players playing Gamist did nothing but wait until the DM presented a suitable conflict for them to address Challenge then they wouldn't have a CA either.  Reactivity or proactivity does not qualify or disqualify play as a CA.  You are operating under the old thinking style that players must pursue conflict for a CA to be defined or in evidence.  There is nothing in CA that mandates conflict must be pursued, it need only be present.  That it is directly employed in some CA's and indirectly in another is irrelevant.  All that matters is that conflict is present and used to create meaningful changes to the SIS so that new meaningful concepts may be born.

Hey Ralph,

Quote from: Valamir

QuoteSo to Ralph's "what if's..." I would modify that to "what would my character do if...?" Its not so much a series of random experiments, but tests of character. It's the DM posing the "what if" questions, not the players.

True, if you have the Character Exploration dial cranked.

But you could ask that same question with a focus on Setting also:  What would the Kingdom of Karmon do if a horde of Orks decended on it and its allies abandon it.

In other words "how would the Character respond to a given Situation", or "how would the Setting respond to a given Situation".  To which the answer would be "Lets find out using System as Constrained by Color".

There are several things I would like to touch on here.

First, I don't know why, but that Situation just rocks!

Second, in Sim I believe both questions are always on the table.

Third, implicit in the "how would the Kingdom of Karmon respond" is how would the inhabitants respond.

If this situation was actually to be played out, and not just a matter of setting (something that does not involve the players directly) then it would require Characters who are in someway vested in the Kingdom to respond.  Once again we are back to how Character responds to a given Situation.

This does not have to mean that the players are interested in playing out all the inner intricacies of a tough decision, they can be much more interested in the effects such decisions have on situation.  IOW they can be more interested in solving the problem than delving deeply into their character's decision making process.  However, whatever interests the player more, the inside or the outside, both are changed and something is revealed about both.

Quote from: ValamirTraditionally, Character has been the only way that the player can interact with the world; but I happen to be a believer that Director Stance is quite useable in Simulationist play.  So, using Director Stance, the player's ability to pose the "what if" question is increased substantially.

Given the example I offered to contracycle it is possible for a player to pose a "what if", its just limited to what the character is capable of having influence over.

However, I am not dismissing your assertions about Director's Stance out of hand.  I think a discussion on that might be fruitful, I just have never really thought about it and I am kinda burnt out at the moment.  My apologies.  As a final note I did argue that Universalis could be employed as a Sim facilitating game system, which is one where I do believe the players are given overt Director's powers.  Maybe on another thread, eh?

I'm gonna take a few days off, so if anyone posts and wishes a response from me, I won't be posting back right away.  (I still owe M. J. Young a response too!)

Quote
Chris' text describes meaning structures as being taught.  Meaning structures are an entirely memetic in nature.  They don't exist as things outside of minds.  They cannot be external to persons.  A person may generate their own meaning structures and they can also be unfamiliar with a meaning structure and thus can be acculturated with a different one, but they have them nonetheless.

Yes... and no.  Necessarily, these meaning systems occur in human minds.  But equally necessarily, they are externalised in material objects, symbols, structures, signs et al.  National flags are an excellent example of an externalised symbol; and we are familiar with the way people can be offended by the abuse of a flag as representative of the abuse of the state.

It is important to realise the externality and pseudo-objectivity of these symbols.  To the individual, mostly they appear as tangibly real and un-subjective as material objects, becuase thye individual wields no power over the consent granted to those symbols by other individuals.

Quote
A person does not need to be self-aware of the behavior in order to express said behavior.  A Creative Agenda is an expression of behavior.  Contained within that expression of behavior is a drive.  That drive is attempting to accomplish something.  In order to determine if the drive's desires are being met, a person must monitor their surroundings to see if their actions are creating a meaningful response.  In order for something to be determined as being meaningful it must be measured against a meaning structure.  .... Basically for any event to have meaning it is because an individual has been acculturated with meaning structures.  

Yes but: inasmuch as my desire are mediated through system, that system is the meaning structure to which we are acculturated.  It is because all the players share an understanding of what "strength 6" means that a given player can pursue having strength 6 and that it can be meaning-full.  That is why it seems to me that your formulation above is only really a restatement of "system does matter".

Quote
As you said a CA is motive.  It is also provides a meaning structure.  How else can a person determine if their motives are being satisfied?

The desire for food motivates some of my actions; but the desire for food is nnot a meaning structure.  To procure food, I engage with and interact with others using a meaning system including such signs as "money" and "supermarket" to obtain from others what I need.

This is where it appears to me that you are applying "meaning system" on two levels.  CA is not a meaning system; CA is a motive that must engage with meaning systems (in this context, social game systems) in order to fulfill its aims.

Quote
The idea I am working on is that Setting, especially for Sim, should not be construed be just the physical elements.  Setting should include such things as social mores and values, cultures, the culture's relationship with the physical world, etc.  To the Western world nature was something to be subdued and exploited.  To (some/all?) Native American Indians nature was something to be treated with honor and respect.  How individuals related to nature was informed by meaning structures.

Absolutely true.  Honourable mentions in this regard go to HeroWars/Quest and Aria, for its social priorities or whatever they were callked... flick flick... Philosophical Orientations.  Thus the Just Tyrant governmerntal archetype is usually motivated by the Tradition, Conviction and Prevention philosophcal orientations.

It seems to me the value in recognising the similarity between RPG and ritual space lies in the fact that this gives us an opportunity to explore elements of meaning in our own social structures.  Given that a system is entirely a meaning structure, it can represent other meaning structures for exploration.  Aria could facilitate the exploration of those philosophical orientations, and HW/Q could explore the meaning of "we are all us".  Coinversely, because RPG system is a kinda meaning system, we cannot in fact be "realistic", we can merely represent our own take; this is what makes RPG necessarily polemical, as Jonathan Walton recently remarked.    Seeing as RPG system contains only what the designer included, it must necessarily reflect the designers  understanding of the meaning systems they themselves inhabit.

Quote
You are right in that System does matter.  But I was not speaking about System.  System is the means by which credibility is assigned to statements.  It is a process.  Meaning structures are for the sake of this argument objects.  They are reference points by which we can function within and understand our world.  You missed the point entirely.

No, I didn't.  The System which is "democratic elections" apportions to the president the credibility to say "we will go to the moon" or whatever.  Not the same kind of credibility?  But it is, because society does not exist except inasmuch as we adhere to a social contract.  Yes its true that to the individual, meaning systems appear objective because of the consent given by, and consequent behaviour of, other people (primarily in their capacity for violent enforcement), but people can attempt to change these systems through public dialogue, debate and propaganda.

In your first paragraph I quoted above, you say that meaning systems are necessarily personal and reside in the human mind; and here you say they are externally objective, impinging symbols.  Both are true simultaneously at different levels, and it seems to me you are not clear which level is operational where.  Once I have entered into a social contract to adhere to a meaning system it takes on an objectivity and externality because it can be enforced by others, but in our selection of meaning systems we can be entirely subjective and preferential.

Quote
If you agree where is the contention?  If you agree that conflict is the means by which we get to test and add to those meaning structures and that Sim is basically the process of adopting fictional meaning structures, how can one demonstrate this adoption if there is no conflict by which they can be demonstrated?

Where I disagree with you is that demonstration is the point, and that therefore this conflict is significant.  And if this conflict is not significant, then it must be operational any time the slightest whim is even mildly furstrated.  Thus the diagnostic feature of Sim we would so identify is that "the player shows up and plays".  And this seems to be wholly useless.

Quote
I never said or implied that the SIS contains a CA.  Nor did I ever say or imply that CA equals meaning structure.  Finally I never said or implied that CA was the ONLY meaning structure – the players do not lose track of the fact that they are "playing" and they retain the capacity to make reference to mechanics.  I asserted that CA provides the meaning structure which we as players use to gauge the effectiveness of the discourse – IOW is my/our actions meaningful regarding the addressing of Challenge/Premise/the internal social structures?

I can't see how that can be true.  Above we have been discussing the way in which socially expressed meaning systems can be - in a sense must be, to meaningful to this discourse as it happens - external to the individual and able to impose themselves on that individual.  Where is the external representation of Gamism or Simulationsim or Narratavism that exists elsewhere in society and is able to impose itself on me; which I encounter as an externality?  In written system.  CA is not a meaning system; Game system is a meaning system that can be used to achieve a CA.  We engage with such a meaning system motivated by our CA.

Quote
The Sim CA basically says adopt all the social meaning structures contained (explicit or otherwise) within the SIS and any additional source material that is relevant (reading the LOTR if one is playing a game set in Middle Earth).  That is to be the primary source and delimiter of the character's meaning structures – he will be tested on them.

More specifics would help; what particular representations of middle earth do you mean?  Yes certainly, the player will be obliged to acknowledge "the Dunedainn view of family" or whatever, as a sample of a fictional social meaning system.  But what is the basis for thinking the player will be tested on them?  Many games totally ignore social meaning systems and instead explore systematic causality.  Therre seem to me to be very few that have addressed social meaning structures as the subject of play, and therefore no reason to think that fictional social meaning structures are significant to Sim.  One of my Sim interests, as seen in the Wilderness threads, is actually representation of physical tasks and techniques.

QuoteAs the players never really lose their ordinary time (non-ritual) meaning structures (conscience frex.) this leads to some interesting dynamics.  Is the player really ready to have his character (which is an extension of himself or at least his will) commit murder or lay his life down for another or commit treason or scam an old lady out of her house or forgive a bitter enemy?

In fact I think this paragraph demonstrates the problem I see with your analysis; it seems to me that audiences do frequently adopt different mores depending on the context depicted.  If I watch a movie set in the medieavl period, I will understand the use of violence in relation to the characters motives in the context of the medieval appreciation of violence, not my own.  Similarly, if I set up a game explictly dealing with Aria's philosophical archetypes, I will be doing so with the intent of constructing for myself an alternate meaning system which priviliges those concepts, in order to explore them.  This is why your emphasis on FICTIONAL SOCIAL meaning systems that occur within the real social meaning system of rules applies only to the subset of sim that is exploration of character.  Your argument would make ALL of sim exploration of character, and I don't think this can be true.

Quote
You're correct in the process I listed didn't demonstrate anything about a meaningful conflict.  But you disputation actually serves my ends.  When a decision must be made because of conflict – as Ralph has defined it – not only is it meaningful, but the new meaning structure (concept) created is meaningful as well.  You're right, its not just any decision, but an important one (again I refer you to Ralph's definition of conflict.)  And that is precisely why Sim must have conflict.  Without it there would be no meaningful conflicts and thus no meaning-ful changes to the meaning structures (concepts).

But unfrotunately, that falls afoul of my criticism of Ralph's definition of conflict - it looks too much like G and N conflict for me to accept.  If the only forms of conflict which would exhibit a sim CA are the same kinds of conflict that would trigger N and G activity, then we still cannot identify sim.  This would be true, IMO, for a character directly engaged with exploration of character; the kind of situation that might trigger a character re-examining the feudal obligation to their liege, for example, is also the kind of situation that would facilitate a narratavists address of premise.  In this case it might well be that Char-Ex sim and Narr react to very similar conflicts.  But a gamist might encounter this situation only as an opportunity to switch to a liege with better resources, and sim Ex-System might only be interested in regards some new reaction modifiers or whatever.

Is that Meaningful to a sim player?  This is essentially why I find the emphasis on Conflict valueless - it must either be so universal that all actions constitute conflict, and thus devalue the term, or they must be the same type of capital-C Conflicts that are primary in N and G - but why a sim player who is NOT engaged primarily with Sim ex-char, which may coincide with Narr Conflict, or perhaps Sim Ex-Sys, which might coincide with Gam Conflict, would care about these capital-C Conflicts is not clear.   While I can see what both G and N have to gain from seizing on the opportunity presented by such situations to fulfill their CA's, I can't see trhe equivalent for Sim.

Quote
Which is EXACTLY what it means; because overcoming the adversity of gravity is soooo trivial in this case as to make the act of putting the fork in the mouth equally trivial – it effectively says nothing

Exactly.  Firstly, why do you think anyone wants to say anything at all?  And secondly, why preference "significant" conflicts and fictional SOCIAL meaning systems?  Perhaps, if I wanted to say anything, it was about the care and feeding of horses, or the design of castles.  All of these are resisted by little-C conflict, not significant Situations.   It seems to me that the bulk of sim players would have little interest in the kind of Situation you think sim requires.

Quote
Not so.  A valid question could be, "What would my character do if I decided that he wanted to kill the king?"  By your formulation if players playing Gamist did nothing but wait until the DM presented a suitable conflict for them to address Challenge then they wouldn't have a CA either.

No, you are confusing what I think is happening with whether or not there is a diagnostic feature.  I agree the question above is suitable as a significant conflict for sim Ex-Char (in terms of your argument), I don't think its suitable as a significant conflict for Sim ex-colour, and therefore I think as a diagnostic characteristic it fails.

QuoteReactivity or proactivity does not qualify or disqualify play as a CA.  You are operating under the old thinking style that players must pursue conflict for a CA to be defined or in evidence.  There is nothing in CA that mandates conflict must be pursued, it need only be present.

Quote

Yes but - we cannot detect it if it is not behaviourally exhibited.  I fully agree that  within the context of your argument about conflict, it is consistent that a sim player may encounter conflict passivley, and without exhibiting much berhaviour.  Separate from my disagreement with your argument about conflict, I also point out that even if your argument were true, then we would end up back where we started.  Despite having defined sim as a relationship to significant conflict, we still have no diagnostic feature.  In the face of a significant conflict, the gamist will engage, the Narratavist will emote and address premise, and the Simmer will go "oh, I see"; Sim will once again be identified by the absence of another CA.

This thread has gotten away from me during some time away forced upon me by a computer crash. It does not appear to have closed, though, so I'm giong to extend it a bit.

I do agree with Ralph in that simulationism requires consistency in the controls for the impact of the variables to be properly assessed. That is, the point of internal causality seems to be that it allows us to examine the effects of specific changes, comfortable in the knowledge that the things we did not intentionally change were maintained consistently.

I also want to agree that director stance is compatible with simulationist play, even though it is uncommon; and that it's not necessary for simulationism (or any other agendum) to focus on character specifically. These are artifacts of history, not limitations on the form.

Mike, your point that what matters is whether the outcome feels right, not is right, is well taken, but with one caveat. Would you agree that play sometimes requires that the outcome is right? That is, obviously when we're playing to see what would happen in Middle Earth or Star Wars or James Bond, there are "rules" in force in the world which would create outcomes that seem right for that world but would be silly to expect out here where we live. Yet at least sometimes the point of play is to learn something about what would happen or would have happened in the real world. Neither of the two examples that leap to mind are exactly role playing games, but both are, I think, relevant to simulationism as an agendum.

The first is the real battle wargame simulation. In the hands of hobbyists, this is usually played as a "what if" situation, in which we see whether cancelling Pickett's Charge would have significantly altered the outcome at Gettysburg (sorry--my favorite example of such things), and we're interested in how the battle would have ended with that change, not whether it "feels" like it would have ended that way. In professional use, such games are applied to determine the outcomes of various strategies for battles that have not been fought, from tabletop infantry miniatures to computer simulations of nuclear war. In such cases, we don't want to know whether we get the outcome that feels right; we want the outcome to be reliable enough that we can stake the lives of soldiers on it.

The second is economic modeling, in which we create a rules set (usually in a computer) by which we can input economic events to predict economic trends. Economists do this with hundreds of variables as part of long term business and government planning, but it's reproduced in such games as Sim City--on a less reliable scale, certainly, but with each generation of such a game more reliability is incorporated.

As I say, those aren't role playing games; but they are games that focus on play that sometimes are aspects of role playing games. I would agree that in the majority of play what matters is that the outcome feels right; but as long as you're not excluding those forms of play in which "is right" is the objective, I'm good.

I don't want to overlook Contracycle, whose posts here are excellent. "What he said."

Quote from: Jay a.k.a. SilmenumeI also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.

Perhaps, though, that's what this thread is addressing. I do think that simulationism is fundamentally an experimental medium, in which we are attempting to learn something from play. Sure, gamism and narrativism ask "what if" questions, but they do so to obtain an answer that is used to achieve something else. Simulationism is seeking the answer for the sake of knowing the answer.

Quote from: In response to my assertion that in gamist play that which impedes the player is the challenge that faces the character, JayYou make a mistake here.  Challenge does not impede the player from proving himself, it is the VERY means by which he does prove himself.  A Gamist cannot prove himself without Challenge.  Unless faced with a Challenge that he must overcome, he cannot demonstrate skill, cunning, guts, or what not.  To not have Challenge would impede a Gamist is his search to prove himself.

Ah, but in order to get the glory he must overcome the challenge. Thus although the challenge is the necessary foundation for the glory, it is not the sufficient condition. A player would not prove himself if he said, "Look at that giant. I think I'll go back to the inn and have another pint." A player would not prove himself if seeing the giant he charged full bore at him with a handful of darts and was promptly flattened to the ground by the adversary's foot. The challenge is necessary to the glory of the player, but overcoming the challenge through the character is also necessary to the glory of the player. Thus the challenge which faces the character also impedes the player--he must overcome it to get his desired reward.

I've got a lot of catching up to do, so I hope this makes sense, and I'm moving to more threads.

--M. J. Young

Hey Gareth,

I will have to respond to your post quote by quote, I hope you don't mind.

Quote from: contracycleYes... and no.  Necessarily, these meaning systems occur in human minds.  But equally necessarily, they are externalised in material objects, symbols, structures, signs et al.  National flags are an excellent example of an externalised symbol; and we are familiar with the way people can be offended by the abuse of a flag as representative of the abuse of the state.

Here's your first error.  You are conflating meaning structures which can only exist in the mind (concepts), and signs which are always external, (we are referring to a type of dialogue here - roleplay) employed to evoke a certain concept in a recipient – which is by no means guaranteed.

Quote from: contracycleIt is important to realise the externality and pseudo-objectivity of these symbols. To the individual, mostly they appear as tangibly real and un-subjective as material objects, becuase thye individual wields no power over the consent granted to those symbols by other individuals.

The externality of the symbols was always part of the argument.  Your argument that the material objects inherently contain no objective meaning is what I have been arguing and that is why I have proposed that CA's do help provide some of that subject meaning.  Chris' article is all about the fact that roleplay is a ritual process, which states that all those involved in the ritual do give consent to the power as well as the meaning of the symbols.  The process of ritual, among other things, is one of reification - To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.  With regards to roleplay that means taking the spoken words of the players (the signs) and treating them as if they were real.  IOW "I swing my sword," is regarded as "real" even if the player does not have a sword in his hand or does not physically move his arm in a swinging fashion.

Quote from: contracycleYes but: inasmuch as my desire are mediated through system, that system is the meaning structure to which we are acculturated. It is because all the players share an understanding of what "strength 6" means that a given player can pursue having strength 6 and that it can be meaning-full. That is why it seems to me that your formulation above is only really a restatement of "system does matter".

You being a little disingenuous with your assertion.  System with regards to roleplay and The Forge is a means of distributing credibility.  To whit -

Quote from: from the Provisional GlossarySystem -
The means by which imaginary events are established during play, including character creation, resolution of imaginary events, reward procedures, and more. It may be considered to introduce fictional time into the Shared Imagined Space. See also the Lumpley Principle.

Lumpley Principle, the -
"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

Emphasis mine.

System, via mechanics only (a physical process) may in and of itself impart some meaning (frex - 192 pages of rules that focus solely on combat without a paragraph about premise could be construed to indicate that combat is more important that addressing Premise), but that is not the role of system as defined here at The Forge.  I am not arguing that that "system does matter", I am arguing that in Sim the meaning structures within the SIS matter – allot.  Furthermore I am arguing that that in Sim those fictional social meaning structures are the ones we are supposed to be employing, not the ones provided by Gamism via Challenge addressing or Narrativism via Premise addressing.

The process of granting a player credibility is not the same as generating a sign which is then associated with a concept.  These are such completely different things that I am baffled by your arguments.

Quote from: from the Provisional Glossary

Quote
As you said a CA is motive.  It is also provides a meaning structure.  How else can a person determine if their motives are being satisfied?

The desire for food motivates some of my actions; but the desire for food is nnot a meaning structure.  To procure food, I engage with and interact with others using a meaning system including such signs as "money" and "supermarket" to obtain from others what I need.

You've done nothing here but create a straw man.  I do not know if you did this out of misunderstanding of everything that I have written or that you did this on purpose.  We are discussing ROLEPLAYING (a communications process) not the physical needs of a body.  They are so staggeringly different as to make me wonder why you bothered to compare the two.  In all your arguments you seem to leave out the fact that I am speaking about ROLEPLAYING.  We voluntarily engage in roleplay, we don't voluntarily create a desire for food.  Thus it follows that we engage in roleplay for a reason.  That we voluntarily engage in roleplay implies that we are trying to do something – that we are trying implies desire – we desire to accomplish something.  The model says that reason is expressed at the CA level and can be categorized in three broadly defined general areas.  The model also says that the players seek satisfaction.  Thus it follows that in the process of this specialized ritual communication (roleplay) we are seeking to find meaning in the actions that are transpiring.  How do we know that what we are doing is satisfying?  Because we assign meanings (concepts) to the signs that are being employed.  How do we assign meanings?  By comparing the signs with our internal meaning structures to see what concepts can be assigned and to see if those concepts match with our goals - our goals being the satisfaction of our desires via the employment of signs.  Signs can only be decoded or assigned concepts by existing meaning structures.  CA in the model covers both the goals and the meaning structures.  Narrativism – Story Now – player engagement; process – addressing Premise; meaning structure - Theme.  Gamism – Step on Up – player engagement; process – addressing Challenge, meaning structure - Victory.

Quote from: contracycleIt seems to me the value in recognising the similarity between RPG and ritual space lies in the fact that this gives us an opportunity to explore elements of meaning in our own social structures.

The value in recognizing that roleplay as a ritual process is manifold.  Not least of which is giving us the tools do deconstruct what is going when these human beings get together for this particular repast.  Much in the same way the Lumpley principle highlighted the fact that in all actuality mechanics was really a process whereby human beings decide what enters into the SIS, so does the recognition that RPGs are a ritual process highlight that roleplay is a communication process where the intent is to create and manipulate a delimited set of symbols for the purpose of creating new concepts – Victory, Theme, the Dream.

Quote from: contracycleGiven that a system is entirely a meaning structure, it can represent other meaning structures for exploration.

You are committing synecdoche here.  Not all systems are meaning structures.  With regards to the Model, system as defined, is not a meaning structure per say, rather it is a process used for distributing credibility, not creating or manipulating meaning.  The Lumpley Principle, aka system, is meaning blind.

Quote from: contracycleIn your first paragraph I quoted above, you say that meaning systems are necessarily personal and reside in the human mind; and here you say they are externally objective, impinging symbols. Both are true simultaneously at different levels, and it seems to me you are not clear which level is operational where. Once I have entered into a social contract to adhere to a meaning system it takes on an objectivity and externality because it can be enforced by others, but in our selection of meaning systems we can be entirely subjective and preferential.

I never said that meaning structures were symbols or that meaning structures were externally objective.  I have said that meaning structures are necessarily personal and reside in the human mind, and that symbols were external and could only be interpreted because we had internal meaning structures.  Yes we agree to the meaning structures in roleplay.  Once one has entered the social contract they can become codified and other players can attempt to enforce them, as meaning structures are in ordinary life, but that does not make them external to an individual.  They can never become external.  Meaning structures are memes/concepts.  Signs (language) are the means by which they are attempted to be conveyed.  Nevertheless meaning structures are heavily influenced by the physical parameters that an individual contends with.  This is why Internal Causality soooooo important.  Change IC and you change the meaning structures.

Quote from: contracycleWhere I disagree with you is that demonstration is the point, and that therefore this conflict is significant. And if this conflict is not significant, then it must be operational any time the slightest whim is even mildly furstrated. Thus the diagnostic feature of Sim we would so identify is that "the player shows up and plays". And this seems to be wholly useless.

You make the assertion that the slightest whim qualifies as a conflict.  I do not.  For the N'th time please refer to Ralph's description of conflict.  In all your counter arguments you have not used any definition of conflict.  I have.  You have not.  "Slightest whim frustrated" does not meet the definition of conflict – thus "the player shows up and plays" is your second straw man argument.  It misses the point of Chris' essays and my essays.  You offer up a counter argument that doesn't employ all the elements that I am using.  Of course slightest whim will poke holes in my argument because slightest whim does not meet the standards of conflict that I am employing.  Slightest whim frustrated is not a conflict.  Straw man argument.  Pointless.

Quote from: ValamirWhat does it take to realize the potential Conflict in a situation?

1)   At least one player must be interested in the situation and committed to seeing the situation change.  The engine for that change in most role-playing games is the player's character.

2)   The situation must involve adversity.  The change that the player desires to see occur cannot happen without effort or sacrifice. Typically it is the player's character that experiences the effort or sacrifice.

3)   For a Conflict to be relevant there must be consequences that alter the SiS for both success and failure.  Whatever the outcome, once a Character gets involved, the SiS will be changed.  There must be something at stake.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=130146#130146

Quote from: contracycleI can't see how that can be true. Above we have been discussing the way in which socially expressed meaning systems can be - in a sense must be, to meaningful to this discourse as it happens - external to the individual and able to impose themselves on that individual.

As I have indicated several times, social meaning structures are not external to an individual; they are memes and can only reside within a mind.  Signs are external, they are not social meaning structures.  Nor can social meaning structures impose themselves upon an individual.  Just like the LP, one can attempt to convince/coerce an individual to believe something, but it is entirely up to said individual to accept such a belief despite all attempts both other individuals to force/impose meanings.  The LP says that rules cannot enforce themselves, only the players can attempt that process.  Well the same goes with meaning structures.  Individuals can attempt to inculcate them in others, but it always up to the one being inculcated to accept the new structures or not – especially regarding RPG's – which is the only referent that this thread is dealing with.

The rest of your analysis falls apart because it is based on the erroneous assumption that meaning structures exist outside of minds.  That simply cannot be.  Period.  Signs exist outside of individuals, but not meaning structures.  Also your employment of the word system does not meet the common usage here at the Forge.  Until both are understood it will be impossible for any meaningful dialogue to continue.  There is nothing left to go over.  We have no common referent.

Quote from: contracycleYes certainly, the player will be obliged to acknowledge "the Dunedainn view of family" or whatever, as a sample of a fictional social meaning system. But what is the basis for thinking the player will be tested on them?

Because he is playing Sim.  Why should he think that he would never be tested?

Quote from: contracycleTherre seem to me to be very few that have addressed social meaning structures as the subject of play, and therefore no reason to think that fictional social meaning structures are significant to Sim.

Just like there were no Narrativist supporting game designs at the time when D&D was published does not mean that Narrativist game interests were not real or significant.  All that means is that no one has yet published a game set which fully promotes Sim priorities, it is not evidence that Sim has been fully understood and exploited.

Quote from: contracycleOne of my Sim interests, as seen in the Wilderness threads, is actually representation of physical tasks and techniques.

That particular phrase as presented here says absolutely nothing about CA.  It merely mentions mechanics.

Quote from: contracycleYour argument would make ALL of sim exploration of character, and I don't think this can be true.

That would certainly be one of the logical conclusions.  I am arguing that Sim is the Exploration of Character via/AND his relationship to the rest of the world.  I don't have any problems making that assertion.

Quote from: contracycleBut unfrotunately, that falls afoul of my criticism of Ralph's definition of conflict - it looks too much like G and N conflict for me to accept.

Then we cannot come to a consensus.

Quote from: contracycleFirstly, why do you think anyone wants to say anything at all?

Because we are engaged in a ritual dialogue.  Since it is a voluntary ritual dialogue one can only assume that a player is doing so for a reason.  That reason is what informs his dialogue – we call that Creative Agenda.  If you don't subscribe to the idea that roleplay is a ritual discourse then we cannot come to a consensus.

Quote from: contracycleAnd secondly, why preference "significant" conflicts and fictional SOCIAL meaning systems?

Because those conflicts which are "significant" to a Gamist are Challenge and those conflicts that are "significant" to a Narrativist are Premise and those conflicts which are not "significant" are not engaged and are not recognized as even being conflicts and are thus not "significant".  I say social because meaning systems can only exist in minds.  In roleplay the only other minds are the fictional ones in the Characters.  Definitionally, there can be no meaning structures outside of minds.  Social meaning structures refers to that most meaning structures are socially acculturated.  Refer to Chris' articles again.

Quote from: contracycleDespite having defined sim as a relationship to significant conflict, we still have no diagnostic feature. In the face of a significant conflict, the gamist will engage, the Narratavist will emote and address premise, and the Simmer will go "oh, I see"; Sim will once again be identified by the absence of another CA.

Not so.  A Sim player, as opposed to a tourist player, will engage in conflict.  So that distinguishes that style of play from the non-CA Explorationist.  Regarding diagnosis between G/N and Sim, the Sim play can be diagnoses by Character internal plausibility.  Just like a Gamist/Narrativist instance of play can only be diagnosed when not congruent with other creative agendas, the same is true of Sim.  This is not to say that Sim is the absence of G/N rather that Sim can only be diagnosed, like Gam/Nar, when there is not confusion about what is being addressed.  In Sim that is character plausibility and the plausibility of his actions with regard to his relationship to the rest of the world.  IOW is he playing true (plausible) to his character and his culture and his circumstances?  Remember one of the tells of Gam or Nar is the breaking of that plausibility.  IOW causality is foundational to Sim, but plausibility with regards to the social meaning structures is the metric of the actions.  If the actions break plausibility then the alarms start going off that another CA is being expressed.

Hey M. J.,

Sorry to hear about your computer problems.  They always suck big time.  Welcome back.

Quote from: M. J. Young

Quote from: Jay a.k.a. SilmenumeI also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.

Perhaps, though, that's what this thread is addressing. I do think that simulationism is fundamentally an experimental medium, in which we are attempting to learn something from play. Sure, gamism and narrativism ask "what if" questions, but they do so to obtain an answer that is used to achieve something else. Simulationism is seeking the answer for the sake of knowing the answer.

Let's take a close look at this statement.  No one has yet established that Sim is devoid of goal.  No one has established that the question asking in Sim is not used to achieve "something else."  That there might be a "something else" in Sim is the one of the very things that is being investigated.  You haven't provided any cogent arguments that demonstrate that given the starting point of ritual discourse (in our specific case Exploration) that a Creative Agenda can function without conflict.

Also the example you give that scientists seek answers for the sake of finding answers denies certain realities about the scientific process.  First of all real human beings are involved who always have motives.  One could argue that "to find the answer" is a motive.  Fine.  However "to find the answer" presupposes a question that we are seeking an answer to.  The person who is asking the question is not indifferent to whether the question is answered or not.  So what is such an individual doing?  Collecting data points or attempting to create a model (rules - inductive logic) to explain some phenomena?   If someone is attempting to create a model it must be tested to determine whether it will hold or fail (conflict).  Such a person at this point is not indifferent to the success of his own model - he is trying to prove something.  Even the Mars or Saturn researchers who appear to just be collecting data points are not doing so just to collect data points for their own sake, that data will be used to prove or debunk existing theories as well as provide data that hopefully will lead to new insights that will be the fodder for new, more accurate and encompassing theories.  Seeking answers is linked to models and goals.  Even collecting raw data about the inorganic physical world requires that those things that are being observed are subject to stresses (tests).  Conversely Darwin didn't sail out on the Beagle just to collect raw data on animals for its own sake; he had something that he was trying to prove.  Even conservationists who collect data on indigenous wildlife populations are doing so with a goal in mind, they are not indifferent to what they find.  If someone is going to great troubles to find something out (seek answers posed by questions) they have a goal which is directing their efforts.  There is always "something else" when seeking the answer of questions.  Note – this does not preclude such goals as discrediting an "enemy" researcher, seeking a government grant, trying to discover something that can be later exploited for private or public gain, etc.

The question then becomes what is that "something else".  That "something else" is deeply rooted in the arena in which the answers are sought.  That arena in which I am referring to is ritual discourse, specifically Roleplay.  The main difference between scientific reductionism and roleplay is that there is no objective world in roleplay there is a shared imaginary space which is mediated by human beings employing a process that at the Forge is called System.  There are no objects.  It is an entirely subjective process (shared imaginary space and an agreement process {note – not a scientific process}) that functions by treating symbols as objects (reification).  The process is no more effective in determining objective truths (seeking answers without proving them in the real world) than the Socratic method.  The only objects that roleplay can be said to make truths available are the only objects that are tested in the process – the players themselves.

So what does that make ritual discourse/roleplay?  A creation process, not a reductionist process.  There is nothing to reduce to – its all imaginary.  We are creating imaginary things leading to the creation of new concepts.  Let me argue by analogy – a disastrous process to be sure, but the only one I have the faculty for at the moment.

Let us treat Exploration akin to the process of baking a cake.  We have several categories of ingredients that we have decided are mandatory and that we are baking cakes.  One class of ingredients could be sweeteners, another could be flour, another shortening, etc.  We have not indicated what exact sweeter to use and in what proportion that sweetener is to be employed other than it need be present.  Even the baking process is open to variety.  Each different set of ingredients, proportions and baking procedure will produce a different style of cake.  The cake is more than the sum of its ingredients due to the baking process.  Roleplay is a similar process – we are making something which is more than the ingredients/elements that are employed.  As such there is no effective way, using the instruments we have available, the elements of Exploration, to determine the effect of a specific element of exploration.  The best we can hope for is to note the difference but that difference is known only by its effect on the cake as whole.  The problem with that process with regards to Exploration is that we can never reset the conditions exactly (or make the differences as close to zero as possible) and thus eliminate the effects of other variables.  Exploration (an entirely subjective process – a product of the imagination) is a lousy place to learn objective (real world) truths.  Again the only thing we can say that we have learned objectively about (possibly) is the other players for they are the only real world things that have been subjected to tests.  Unless some other tool was introduced that was outside the objects being investigated it is impossible to come to some objective understanding.  Exploration cannot be effectively reductionist.

Does that mean "what if" questions cannot be asked?  No.  I stand corrected.  What it means is that those "what if" questions cannot be effectively used to ask questions about the ingredients themselves (the elements of Exploration), but only with reference to the created product itself.  IOW "What will happen to the cake if I do this?"  Conversely one could ask, "Will doing X (changing this ingredient – in quality or quantity) get me what I hope to achieve (Frex - make the cake richer)?" However, unlike cake baking, there is no effective way to go back and ask the same question again objectively in roleplay – it's a one shot every time.  It is thus impossible to determine the exact qualities or the exact effect of an ingredient or the employment of an ingredient (element of exploration).

Yet, one does not pose such questions without looking for something of the players, via their characters, in roleplay.  Do you have what it takes to Step on Up effectively?  Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this conversation about the peccadilloes and foibles of mankind?  By what means can you effectively function and deal with the problems that exist within this artificial reality (setting – social and physical), while limiting yourself to this artificial point of view (character – psychological and physical)?  As these questions are ultimately pointed to the players these questions are really a test of the players' resourcefulness and character (lower case "c" - as in the qualities of the individual).  Thus if one is playing Tourism (collecting data points) without interest in conflict (no theory creating {induction} and no subsequent testing {deduction}) there is nothing that plain Exploration can provide that just reading about the same setting can provide the player that is qualitatively different.  This is NOT to disparage such play in any way shape or form, but rather to make an observation.

Quote from: M. J. YoungAh, but in order to get the glory he must overcome the challenge. Thus although the challenge is the necessary foundation for the glory, it is not the sufficient condition. A player would not prove himself if he said, "Look at that giant. I think I'll go back to the inn and have another pint." A player would not prove himself if seeing the giant he charged full bore at him with a handful of darts and was promptly flattened to the ground by the adversary's foot. The challenge is necessary to the glory of the player, but overcoming the challenge through the character is also necessary to the glory of the player. Thus the challenge which faces the character also impedes the player--he must overcome it to get his desired reward.

That a player may fail does not negate the centrality of Challenge to Victory.  Actually it is precisely because a player might fail that glory is awarded should one be Victorious.  The greater the risk, the greater the glory.  No risk = no glory.  A player must face the risk of losing something in a conflict in order for glory to be awarded.  That a player turns away from a risk could imply that he is either prudent or a coward, only the circumstance of the whole situation including player standing at the table (social meaning structures) can answer that question.

A player cannot claim Victory until he has gone through at least one conflict cycle.  Your argument (as I understand it) avers that that conflict keeps the player from Victory.  Definitionally impossible.  If you remove conflict, all conflict, from the process there can NEVER be a Victory because there is no contest (one form of conflict).  In fact, the very definition of Victory is defined by contest.  One cannot use the term Victory without invoking contest.

Quote[list=1]

• Defeat of an enemy or opponent.
• Success in a struggle against difficulties or an obstacle.
• The state of having triumphed.[/list:o]The defeat of an enemy in battle, or of an antagonist in any contest; a gaining of the superiority in any struggle or competition; conquest; triumph; -- the opposite of defeat.

Something that is part of the definition of a state of being cannot be removed.  One cannot be in a state of Victory without having grappled through at least one conflict.  Conflict is integral – definitional - to Victory, it simply cannot be oppositional to it.  Thus a player cannot view conflict as being in opposition to his goal of Victory.  It would be a logical conundrum.

Let us bring this back to ritual discourse/Exploration.  As there is no objective reality, we employ signs with an intent to impact the Shared Imaginary Space (with the hope that those signs would eventually be reified – treated as if they were real objects), Victory can only be a concept that we are trying to create.  How are new concepts brought into play?  First one must provide a set of meaning structures prior to Exploration that the player can use as a reference point for the creation of new concepts.  These particular structures are not open to direct alteration/negotiation once Exploration has begun, are made manifest as Creative Agenda and are seen in operation in Techniques and Ephemera.  (They can be renegotiated outside the SIS, but not from within.)  Failings to respect these particular structures from a Gamist priority are seen as CA conflict, Calvin Ball, "Cheating," Wheedling, Wimpiness, etc.  Second by challenging the existing meaning structures employed within the SIS.  Why existing?  Because if no meaning structures were previously extant, the obvious problem would be that it would be impossible to understand any of the signs being employed.  But just as important, the meaning structures provide a degree of predictability regarding actions that are being attempted – internal causality.  Even if nothing has even been entered into the SIS, the person who has the role of DM has a certain amount of authority/credibility to place the initial pieces into place.  This process is made especially overt in games like Universalis, but is more is more or less assumed when the DM just starts with recap of a previous session or begins with description.

Quote from: clehrich aka Chris in his essay on Ritual Discourse in RPGs...RPG play enacts theory, in the sense that standing behind and prior to play is a series of theoretical constructs: system design, GM notes, pre-play agreements and social contract, genre expectations, and other theoretical tools. From this perspective, RPG play acts out this prior structure...
At the same time, the prior structure is to a degree open to challenge within game play, and furthermore does not fully constrain particular game actions, determining a range and a set of priorities rather than laying out a script.

Nevertheless, these two views are always in dynamic, creative tension: the available range of manipulations of ritual signs stands within a structural context only slightly accessible to interior challenge. For example, radical transformation of Catholic liturgy cannot proceed from within ritual performance itself, while small-scale local transformation and contestation are fully expected.

For example, a particular wedding ritual may be used, at a given moment and in a particular contingent historical situation, to enable deep consideration within the congregation about the traditions of marriage, divorce, and childbirth; these same issues can be discussed by the College of Cardinals, as indeed they are, but not at the level of particular people in particular time, since they can only formulate principles and cannot apply them individually.

Precisely the same dynamic obtains in RPG discourse. While a given structural situation of notes, game system, theoretical models, and so forth formulates a contextual model within which play occurs, such structures do not extend to the level of individual particularity that is central to play experience...

How does this relate to Victory – a theoretical construct that is being employed by the players outside the SIS?  Because a CA provides the contextual model, the meaning structures, that the players employ to make sense of the signs employed with regard to events transpiring within the SIS.  While other elements do contribute to the theoretical constructs (system design, GM notes, pre-play agreements and social contract, genre expectations, and other theoretical tools.) they are all employed by the players to support CA expression.

To get back to how meaning structures promote a degree of predictability consider the following.  If an act was to result in something totally unbounded by the existing meaning structures then we would have no idea how to relate to that result.  It would be meaningless.  We would not be able to relate to it or describe it any meaningful way.  It is precisely because the meaning structures provide some predictability (internal causality within the CA), which implies a certain expectation, that a slightly different result from the expected creates a new concept/meaning.  Thus the only way to generate valid/meaningful new concepts is through challenge of the existing structures.  If one was to introduce or generate concepts without the process of challenge to the existing structure, you would get non-sense statements – one would essentially be free associating.  Given Gamism this could be made manifest by a player just declaring Victory and being done with it without having faced a Challenge and satisfying the theoretical structures - CA.

Where does that leave us regarding Sim?  It would appear that the Sim CA does not have a CA based theoretical construct/meaning structures.  That is not so.  Sim tells us to adopt (not necessarily identify with) the meaning structures of the fictional world - which are informed by the physical setting but are made manifest as the fictional cultures, mores and other social structures.  This is precisely why Sim is both creating the Dream and conflated with Exploration.  Exploration, like the Lumpley Principle, is concept/meaning blind.  It is merely the process by which elements (percepts/objects) are introduced into the SIS.  Whereas the LP mediates how that happens, Exploration encompasses the elements that are employed.  Creative Agendas are concerned with concepts.  CA's are the expressions of the goals that the players are trying to accomplish as well as providing structure and meaning (including the point) to the Exploration process.  Concepts require conflict in order to be created.  Thus the Sim CA, in order to create new concepts, must include conflict or it is not a Creative Agenda.  This is the absolute difference between Exploration and Simulationism.

The question then becomes, what concepts are created in the Sim CA?  While in Gamism one addresses many Challenges and their effectiveness is measured in terms of Victory, and while in Narrativism one addresses a couple or one premise and their effectiveness in commenting on the human social condition is put to the test, in Simulationism one address conflict not for any specific goal, but to create more concepts which define, expand and support the Dream which is itself a meaning structure.  Do not be fooled into thinking that meaning structures are objects, rather they are the very means by which reality is understood – the are points of view.  As more structures are created via the address of conflict, the more of The Dream that is manufactured during play.  Thus Sim is the creation of more Dream (meaning structures/concepts), not the understanding of its constituent components.  The Dream and fictional meaning structures are identical.  The Dream is not just something it is a different point of view – it a different way of looking at reality.

What is at risk personally when a player faces conflict?  The loss of that which is important to the player regarding the SIS – whatever that might be.  An NPC.  The player's Character.  Shame from his tribe.  Treachery to his government.  Loyalty to his friend.  His own self-respect.  What is being measured socially?  His ability to steward the Dream.

Quote
Here's your first error. You are conflating meaning structures which can only exist in the mind (concepts), and signs which are always external, (we are referring to a type of dialogue here - roleplay) employed to evoke a certain concept in a recipient – which is by no means guaranteed.

And I assert your error is to see them as distinct; signs do not emerge from a vacuum or ex machina, but necessarily from human action in an objective world, that is, they are expressions of concepts.

QuoteThe externality of the symbols was always part of the argument. Your argument that the material objects inherently contain no objective meaning is what I have been arguing and that is why I have proposed that CA's do help provide some of that subject meaning.

I don't dispute that – but I have asked repeatedly for you to explain what you mean by meaning in this context, and why the CA's are not already sufficient to explain this meaning and thus why this argument needs to be introduced.

QuoteYou being a little disingenuous with your assertion. System with regards to roleplay and The Forge is a means of distributing credibility.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.  Would you care to offer a counter argument or are you simply going to rely on repeititive assertion to carry the point?

Quote
System, via mechanics only (a physical process)

How can mechanics possibly be a physical process ONLY when it and its meanings exist primarily in the minds of the players?

QuoteI am not arguing that that "system does matter", I am arguing that in Sim the meaning structures within the SIS matter – allot. Furthermore I am arguing that that in Sim those fictional social meaning structures are the ones we are supposed to be employing, not the ones provided by Gamism via Challenge addressing or Narrativism via Premise addressing.

I'm well aware of what you are arguing and I'm trying not to simply repeat myself as to why I think you are mistaken.  I can only tell you: this does not accord with my experience.  Can you please give examples, from your experience or from that of others, that show what leads you to this conclusion?

At the moment it seems to me that you have erroneously derived this conclusion from a mis-application of the ritual theory argument; do you have reason to believe that this is an actually existing phenomenon in the real world, and can you point to instances or products that reflect this actually happening?

Quote
The process of granting a player credibility is not the same as generating a sign which is then associated with a concept. These are such completely different things that I am baffled by your arguments.

So you assert – again.  Can you please provide a reason for this?  I have already suggested that the system of character creation explicitly creates externalised signs (numbers on a sheet) that are  associated with concepts (an understanding of this ability).  

QuoteYou've done nothing here but create a straw man. I do not know if you did this out of misunderstanding of everything that I have written or that you did this on purpose. We are discussing ROLEPLAYING (a communications process) not the physical needs of a body. They are so staggeringly different as to make me wonder why you bothered to compare the two.

To demonstrate that motive is not method.  I may have had a physical need, but I can resolve that need through resort to a communications process.  The identification of RPG as a ritual process does not make it distinct from other ritualised processes with which we routinely engage, and does not imply that it should be directed to different ends.

QuoteWe voluntarily engage in roleplay, we don't voluntarily create a desire for food. Thus it follows that we engage in roleplay for a reason.

That seems to me main issue I have with your argument – your apparent elevation of RPG to higher plane of "meaning" when none such seems required to me.  This is why I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean by meaning in this context, and why I have given examples in which ritualised structures are used for essentially mundane purposes.

QuoteThe value in recognizing that roleplay as a ritual process is manifold. Not least of which is giving us the tools do deconstruct what is going when these human beings get together for this particular repast. Much in the same way the Lumpley principle highlighted the fact that in all actuality mechanics was really a process whereby human beings decide what enters into the SIS, so does the recognition that RPGs are a ritual process highlight that roleplay is a communication process where the intent is to create and manipulate a delimited set of symbols for the purpose of creating new concepts – Victory, Theme, the Dream.

But, my argument is that you are essentially restating the principle, except in much more specific and less accessible jargon.  When you say "a delimited set of symbols" I hear "use system", and when you say "create new concepts" I hear "exhibit CA".  Thus, I see no value in this analaysis, and I believe it misconstrues the ritual nature of RPG in the first place by wrongly assuming that because it is ritualised it must be about something more fundamental than CA.

QuoteYou are committing synecdoche here. Not all systems are meaning structures. With regards to the Model, system as defined, is not a meaning structure per say, rather it is a process used for distributing credibility, not creating or manipulating meaning. The Lumpley Principle, aka system, is meaning blind.

No, system must be a meaning structure; it represents signs that have meanings.  It seems to me you are making the error of using meaning to indicate "ethically or emotionally significant", which is NOT implied by the ritual theory argument.  This would be much clarified if you could give specific examples of the kind of "meanings" you think ritual RPG discourse" is used to produce or address.

QuoteI never said that meaning structures were symbols or that meaning structures were externally objective. I have said that meaning structures are necessarily personal and reside in the human mind, and that symbols were external and could only be interpreted because we had internal meaning structures.

Does the traffic code qualify?  A green light indicates something specific; it is an external symbol that is only comprehensible to someone familiar with the social convention of the meaning of a green light.  If you were not appropriately enculturated, this sign would be meaningless to you.

The fact that it occurs only within the human mind does not alleviate the fact that BECAUSE it occurs in the minds of others, and those others are capable of acting upon us, they can and do confront us as externalities.

QuoteYes we agree to the meaning structures in roleplay. Once one has entered the social contract they can become codified and other players can attempt to enforce them, as meaning structures are in ordinary life, but that does not make them external to an individual.

And in real life, I may not have endangered anyone by exceeding a 30mph speed limit, but my violation of that element of our social contract can make me susceptible to another's enforcement of that contract through a fine.  In RPG, they are enforced through the distribution of credibility through system.

QuoteYou make the assertion that the slightest whim qualifies as a conflict. I do not. For the N'th time please refer to Ralph's description of conflict. In all your counter arguments you have not used any definition of conflict. I have. You have not. "Slightest whim frustrated" does not meet the definition of conflict – thus "the player shows up and plays" is your second straw man argument.

Quote

Firstly, you cannot use an argument I disagree with as support for another argument I disagree with.  Secondly, I have already pointed out the inadequacies of both your and Ralph's argument about conflict as I see it.  Of course I have not proposed a definition of conflict, because I am not the one claiming that conflict is central and necessary.  I fully agree that slightest whim frustrated does NOT make for a meaningful use of the term, and that is exactly why to my mind the argument to conflict fails.

Quote
It misses the point of Chris' essays and my essays. You offer up a counter argument that doesn't employ all the elements that I am using. Of course slightest whim will poke holes in my argument because slightest whim does not meet the standards of conflict that I am employing. Slightest whim frustrated is not a conflict. Straw man argument. Pointless.

Not at all pointless, because if it then obliges you to move on to "significant conflict", whereupon you fall afoul of my second criticism: significant conflict looks too much like gamism or narratavism for me to accept.  Neither you nor Ralph have successfully dealt with these criticisms; waving the term "conflict" about by itself demonstrates nothing.

It is my contention that any time one of your "significant conflicts" appears, the response to it will be either gam or narr not sim.  Can you propose a significant conflict that is definitely sim and can only be responded to by sim, or to which a gam or narr response would be inappropriate?

QuoteAs I have indicated several times, social meaning structures are not external to an individual; they are memes and can only reside within a mind.

Quote

That abstraction's too fluffy – to me, a mind is an entirely physical entity, and so to say it "resides in the mind" is only to say it is an alien physical entity.

QuoteSigns are external, they are not social meaning structures.

I say nonsense, as I have indicated with the traffic code, with currency: signs are inherently only meaningful as a communication process between individuals.  They are necessarily social and cannot be anything else.  As I often remark, if this were not the case, the fact that most people share the religion of their parents would be inexplicable.  The fact that you speak the same language as the people you grow up with would also be inexplicable.  The fact that you and the grocer both share an understanding of the dollar note would be inexplicable.  Meaning systems are social or nothing at all.

QuoteThe rest of your analysis falls apart because it is based on the erroneous assumption that meaning structures exist outside of minds. That simply cannot be. Period. Signs exist outside of individuals, but not meaning structures.

Yes we have a fundamental disagreement there.  It also seems to me this contradicts your own argument at multiple points – at the very least, there cannot be communication if meaning is not shared, and yet you claim that RPG is a communication process.  The same applies to all aspects of the ritual theory as I see it; it must proceed on the presumption that the participants do all share the same set of signs and conventions and referrants for the ritual to be meaning-full.  It seems to me that you are confusing meaning SYSTEMS with private ethics and morals.  But all societies do educate their children in ethics and morals, and these cultural meaning systems are definitely external to the individual.

QuoteBecause he is playing Sim. Why should he think that he would never be tested?

This in response to the proposition of a character held to the nominal "fictional meaning structure" that is "the dunedain view of family".

What is it about Sim that elads you to expect that "the dunedain view of family" will ever arise in play?  Or indeed, ANY fictional meaning structure?

The reason I think it is quite plausible that such a player will never be tested is because in my experience RPG as a hobby is singularly uninterested in such things.  That is why we ended up with the absurdity of the corner magicke shoppe or the ridiculously postmodern multicultural polyglot of Waterdeep.  By default, most sim appears to me to have been simulation of the world, of cause and effect, of physical things, that presents little in the way of ethical or moral problems.  It very seldom even addresses simulation of social problems.  So I see no basis for thinking this is a prominent, inherent quality of sim play; in my experience, it simply does not happen.

WHEN that happens, I would expect it's likely to be Narr.  Therefore I ask again: what is the reason you have for thinking that in actual sim play, play will be purposefully directed to explore "the dunedain view of family" or any other meaning system that nominally exists in the game world?

QuoteThat particular phrase as presented here says absolutely nothing about CA. It merely mentions mechanics.

Quote

Right. You'll note a gamist sub-CA is Purist for System, so mechanics are not beyond exploration nor beyond CA.  But you are mistaken I think to see this interest as an interest primarily in mechanics – I want to learn about the things in the game THROUGH the mechanics.  Why is that not a suitable expression of a CA?

QuoteBecause we are engaged in a ritual dialogue. Since it is a voluntary ritual dialogue one can only assume that a player is doing so for a reason. That reason is what informs his dialogue – we call that Creative Agenda. If you don't subscribe to the idea that roleplay is a ritual discourse then we cannot come to a consensus.

But Sil, you are conceding my point here: all your verbiage about meaning is reduced to the expression of a CA, which we already know.  That's why I don't understand what point this is supposed to achieve.  And I do agree that RPG is a ritualised discourse but think you misunderstand much of what this indicates.

But you still have not answered the question I asked, to whit, why do we think the player has something to say?  There are many rituals in the majority of participants are essentially observers or functionaries; why do you insist that participating is indicative of a desire to make a statement?  That seems to have no basis.  You are ruling out the participationary role peremptorily and not explaining why this should occur.

Quote

Quote
And secondly, why preference "significant" conflicts and fictional SOCIAL meaning systems?

Because those conflicts which are "significant" to a Gamist are Challenge and those conflicts that are "significant" to a Narrativist are Premise and those conflicts which are not "significant" are not engaged and are not recognized as even being conflicts and are thus not "significant".[qupte]

I'm afraid this is totally circular.  I'm aware that non-significant conflicts are non-significant, that's why I asked the question.  Why does your construction place special emphasis on significant conflicts?  That appears to have no basis either, at least none that I can see without calling on Narr or Gam to explain "significant".

QuoteI say social because meaning systems can only exist in minds.  In roleplay the only other minds are the fictional ones in the Characters. Definitionally, there can be no meaning structures outside of minds. Social meaning structures refers to that most meaning structures are socially acculturated.

There I believe is your multiple level error.  There are no character minds – characters do not exist.  There are only player minds.  Any meaning systems must exist in those player minds, not in the notional character minds.  It seems to me that you are imagining a ritual within a ritual.

And, above you once again explicitly denied that meaning systems can be imposed on individuals, and here you acknowledge again that you can indeed be acculturated to social meaning systems – like the meaning systems of currency of traffic.

QuoteNot so. A Sim player, as opposed to a tourist player, will engage in conflict.

You are arguing your conclusion again.  This has not been demonstrated at all; in fact I don't even think the argument for it is coherent or sensible.  Certainly as a simple assertion, it's unacceptable; it reduces the dialogue to "T'is/T'isn't".

In regard to Darwin, it is my understanding that the trip on the Beagle was for other purposes. Much like Paul Bettany's doctor in Master and Commander, Darwin was a functional member of the crew who took notes and created drawings of fauna and flora on the islands; it was from these data points that he subsequently derived the theory which explained them. He didn't start with the question and look for the answer. He started with a questioning attitude, gathered as much information as possible, and then realized he had an answer amidst what he had gathered.

That I think says something to understanding simulationism. Perhaps we are attempting to create and test theories. But what is that other than achieving a greater understanding of the data? We seek to discover for discovery's sake.

I found the more recent version of The Time Machine disappointing for a lot of reasons (detailed elsewhere). High among these (and cause of many of them) was the restructuring of the character of Alexander Hartdegen. In the film, he is a shy romantically involved but distracted professor who devotes himself to time travel specifically to find a way to change the past and save his fiancee. In the book, he is another of the wealthy tinkerers, the independent scientist-inventors that captivated the imagination of the nineteenth century audience. In the book he needs no better reason for his adventure in time than the pursuit of knowledge. He travels to the future (and never to the past, save only to return to his own starting point before again venturing into the future near the end of the story), solely to learn what the future will reveal. He is driven into his adventures by the desire to know. He theorizes about the causes of that which he discovers, but the theories are rather a way of organizing the information so that he understands it better than the objective of the investigation.

It is clear from spot interviews that the filmmakers made this change intentionally. They believed that the modern audience would be unable to relate to the story of a man who acted solely for the sake of gaining knowledge. That's not the twentieth century mind. We had to be given a reason for him to care about time travel; doing it in the pursuit of knowledge was not sufficient or believable for the modern audience.

I feel like you're representing the modern audience here, Jay. You can't accept that Hartdegen built the time machine solely so that he could learn what was going to happen in the future, or that Frankenstein created his monster to see whether he could, or any of the other heroes of science and invention of that age. Nor can you believe that anyone would play a role playing game solely to learn about the elements of exploration--to cross the road to get to the other side, to go over the mountain to see what he could see, to play solely for the joy of discovery. Certainly discovering and creating theories to explain what is discovered adds to that; but in the end those are just that which is discovered, taken to a greater level. I'm reminded that when I was exploring NagaWorld, I determined that the yellow nagas were yellow because at some point in their development they had been exposed to sulfur, a mineral element I had not yet found. I began searching for the sulfur. I never found it; I didn't learn where it was until much later, when I helped E. R. Jones put the world to paper. I found many other things in the process of searching, and developed additional theories to explain the world in which I was stranded. It would have been satisfying to find the source of the sulfur, but it was equally satisfying to find what I did find, and understand secrets of that universe that no one before me had learned. Discovery may lead to theories and models, but these only illustrate what is meant by such phrases as "exploration squared"--exploring for the purpose of understanding.

Quote from: SilmenumeThe problem with that process with regards to Exploration is that we can never reset the conditions exactly (or make the differences as close to zero as possible) and thus eliminate the effects of other variables.

I'm surprised that you've never run the same scenario twice, unaltered. I've done it. I've even done it with overlapping player groups introducing new characters (that is, some of the players were the same, but none of the characters), and observed the impact that different characters and some new players had on how the game ran.

I'd say that my experience falsifies this. We got very close to reset, even with many of the same people involved.

Quote from: Jay

Quote from: Quoting what I...Thus the challenge which faces the character also impedes the player--he must overcome it to get his desired reward.

That a player may fail does not negate the centrality of Challenge to Victory....

Your argument (as I understand it) avers that that conflict keeps the player from Victory.  Definitionally impossible.

I'm sorry; I used the word "impedes". That's something less, in my understanding, than "prevents". I think we're in a terminological misunderstanding. It may well be that the challenge facing the character and that facing the player are not identical (the character must defeat the giant with his sword, while the player must do so with his brain), but glory is dependent on the player overcoming the challenge. If the challenge is not an impediment to the player, then the player has nothing to overcome, and overcomes nothing, and wins no glory for doing so. It's a bit like betting on those electric horse race games--the winner is completely random, so there's no reason to congratulate you if you bet on the winning horse because you didn't really do anything. In the case of gamist play, the player did something to overcome some obstacle. That was an obstacle, an impediment, to the player. If it wasn't, he didn't do anything impressive, and he gets no glory for it.

If you thought I meant that the impediment prevented success, you misread me. The impediment gives the player, in your words, something to "struggle against". Without that, you don't have victory.

Like Gareth, I don't see what this is getting us.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteWe voluntarily engage in roleplay, we don't voluntarily create a desire for food. Thus it follows that we engage in roleplay for a reason.

That seems to me main issue I have with your argument – your apparent elevation of RPG to higher plane of "meaning" when none such seems required to me.  This is why I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean by meaning in this context, and why I have given examples in which ritualised structures are used for essentially mundane purposes.

OK – I am glad you phrased your comment this way, as I can now see where at least one of our miscommunications lie.  I thought it felt that we were talking past each other, now I see that we were.  Let me try and see if explain myself more effectively now.  Thank you for sticking to your guns and trying to get at an understanding.

By "meaning" I am neither attempting to denote nor connote a higher plane of "meaning."  I do not mean profound or epiphanic or the like.  Rather, because the whole process of roleplay is one big communication/dialogue process, what we are attempting to do is create meanings aka concepts.  I see where my usage could be confusing so let me set up a usage paradigm that may help clarify matters.  We reference common (to the players engaging in play) meaning structures (hopefully ironed out in the social contract) and employ signs (explore) to attempt to create the desired (creative agenda driven and referenced) concepts.  The product of roleplay is concepts.

This begs the question of what a concept is.  I will quote the following since this source is common and states matters better than I can ever hope.  Beyond that we get into epistemological arguments which I have neither skill nor desire to delve into.

Quote[list=1]

• A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
• Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idea/).[/list:o]Synonyms: idea, thought, notion, concept, conception
  These nouns refer to what is formed or represented in the mind as the product of mental activity. Idea has the widest range: "Human history is in essence a history of ideas" (H.G. Wells). Thought is distinctively intellectual and stresses contemplation and reasoning: "Language is the dress of thought" (Samuel Johnson). Notion often refers to a vague, general, or even fanciful idea: "She certainly has some notion of drawing" (Rudyard Kipling). Concept and conception are applied to mental formulations on a broad scale...
  
  Underlining by me.

Let me know if that helps regarding concept and my poor usage of the word "meaning".  I have a feeling you will balk even at this level wishing a concrete example of this concept creation process in rich detail.  I cannot offer that in rich detail yet as I am still working out the process even until this moment.  But generally speaking I refer to the ritual conversation that produces concepts such as victory or success or loss or premise or theme or in the case of Sim, treachery, selflessness, or more externally "this is definitive of Elf behavior", or "this is definitive of Dunedain behavior", etc.

Regarding your examples of mundane usage of ritualized structures for mundane purposes I don't believe your examples were indicative of the ritualization process.  The term ritualized structures is confusing.  Strictly speaking there are no ritualized structures as things that are self-evidentially ritualistic.  IOW just asking for an orange is not self-evidentially ritualistic.  Ritual is a process demarked by the process of separation and aggregation.  Your examples never discussed that process so I missed them entirely as examples of ritual.  The key about ritual is that the ritual structures are not inherently different from ordinary structures – that is why we need the process of separation and aggregation.  This process of separation/aggregation informs us that we are going to be employing new meaning structures that attach new concepts to symbols which will then be manipulated.  This can only happen if we have been through the ritualizing process of separation.

Quote from: clehrich from his thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!]If you recall, in the ritual article I talked about the old initiation-rite model, made most famous by Victor W. Turner: Separation, Liminality (or Margin), Aggregation. This is really a specific version of an older division: the Sacred and the Profane (on which see Durkheim especially, but also Eliade's book of the same title).² The idea is that "ritual space" and "ritual time" are in some sense different, distinct from other kinds of space and time. Now that notion of "sacred" shouldn't be taken to mean "holy" — as A. R. Radcliffe-Brown pointed out, it really just means "marked" by special interest; Lévi-Strauss drew an analogy to terms that are "stressed" in language.³...

So back to RPG's, what does this mean? Well, it means that from an exterior standpoint, there isn't any absolute way to define "play" as something inherently different from other modes of behavior. This is why, for example, nobody has yet come up with a workable and fully accepted definition of RPG's or "play": there's nothing there to define! ...This is because "play" isn't a thing: it's just practice, like all other practice. Why do we think of it as different? Ritualization. That's precisely what makes RPG gaming fundamentally ritual action: we are quite deeply invested in the idea that such practice is distinctive and different, and are even willing to go to considerable lengths to prove this.

...Given that there is no inherent ontological status to ritual or gaming (or text, quite importantly, or to take another example, law), that is, there is no absolute difference between these things and other modes of practice, why do we see them as so different? Furthermore, how do we keep them distinct and discrete, to such a degree that in fact we will stake identities and other things on this dubious basis? ...

A couple posts back in this thread, I talked about semiotic logic, and a circularity that arises when you move from Aabduction to Induction.  Let me recap for a sec:

Abduction: Given a Rule (x -> y) and a Result (y), we Abduce a Case (x)
Induction: Given a Case (x) and a Result (y), we Induce a Rule (x -> y)[/list:u]Now this becomes circular if done in this order, because:

Abduction: Given a -> b and b, therefore

a
Induction: Given a and c (some other present factor), therefore a -> c
But we've never actually established certainly that a is actually true.  We now have a rule that associates an uncertain Case with a potentially random, unrelated fact about the current example.[/list:u]The thing is, we're not stupid.  We recognize, not exactly consciously perhaps, that this logic is dubious.  So what we do is go look for d, e, f, and g – further factors that occur in the present instance.  If we get lots of these, we feel justified about our logic, although it's totally invalid.

Ritual is a specialized process of sign manipulation for the process of transmitting/communicating concepts.  It is inherently not mundane in the sense that the ritualization process of separation/aggregation is invoked for the specific purpose of marking the time as not mundane but special.  To an outside observer it doesn't appear to be special yet to those who do accept the process, it is special.  Again, it is only because the participants voluntarily agree to participate.  What this means is that there are no ontological ritualized structures that can be identified as such unless one has been through or witnessed the actual process of separation.  IOW asking for an orange because one is hungry is not a ritualized structure because one has not gone through the process of ritualization.  I did not respond to you examples because they are not examples of ritual and thus I did not recognize them as such – at least not as indicated in your posts.

Quote from: contracycleYes we have a fundamental disagreement there.  It also seems to me this contradicts your own argument at multiple points – at the very least, there cannot be communication if meaning is not shared, and yet you claim that RPG is a communication process.  The same applies to all aspects of the ritual theory as I see it; it must proceed on the presumption that the participants do all share the same set of signs and conventions and referrants for the ritual to be meaning-full.

I am not sure where the problem lies.  I have been arguing that very point.  As Chris points out, a sign (symbol) means something to somebody.  Unless you have a somebody involved in the process you cannot have signs or symbols.  A sign is only a sign because a sentient being recognizes that object as sign – i.e., assigns a meaning to that object.  Signs are the physical representation (percepts) of concepts/meaning structures but they are not meaning structures in and of themselves.  They are only effective if others share a similar meaning/concept assignment to the percept.  This is why I have argued that Creative Agenda provides a meaning structure because certain actions that might me meaningful to a Gamist player could be meaningless (or present an entirely different meaning) to a Simulationist or a Narrativist despite the fact that all the players are employing the same mechanics, setting, etc.  Meaning structures are not mutually exclusive and can overlap or even aid each other.  For example, language is a meaning structure in the employ of Creative Agenda.

To go back to an earlier notion, when I said a player is trying to say something, what I meant was that said player was attempting to create a meaning-full concept which is accomplished via dialogue.  That meaning-full concept is what the player is "saying" in our ritualized discourse/roleplay.  We are in agreement here.

Quote from: contracycleIt seems to me that you are confusing meaning SYSTEMS with private ethics and morals.

I am saying that ethics and morals are types of meaning systems.  They are employed to try and make sense of signs.  Look at Chris' example regarding a woman wearing a certain type of dress (which is external and physical).

Quote from: clehrichNow when a young woman gets up in the morning, she can opt to dress like this.  Why would she do so?

To look sexy
To piss off more conservative people
To fit in with a desired crowd
To show off her body
To show that she feels sexy
To show that she feels free about her body[/list:u]And all of these might be true, simultaneously, or only some, or possibly others.

Now in a loose, simple sense, showing off your underpants has something to do with sex.  If a rather conservative person were to characterize the style, he or she might call it "slutty," meaning that in some sense it implies the young woman's sexual availability.

The conservative person employing a different meaning structure than the girl employed, in this case conservative morals, could possibly read the sign (the style of dress) as effort to communicate a message/meaning/concept that the interpretant characterized as "slutty".  This conflict of meanings/concepts is similar to CA conflict.  Though both parties referring to the same sign (percept), two different meanings/concepts are interpreted.  Signs can be employed, among other efforts, to try and communicate meaning structures – written and spoken language for example, but they are not inherently a meaning structure though the two are intimately bound together.

Quote from: clehrichThe social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures.

This is the social theory of knowledge, which really begins with Durkheim. The old fight was between the a priorists, e.g. Kant and his followers, and the empiricists, e.g. Hume and his various types of followers-up. Durkheim proposed the encounter with "savage" tribes as a way to challenge both views and propose a social theory.

Very simplistically, the a priorists argued that most major categories of human knowledge arose from inherent, hard-wired, a priori structures of the mind. The problem posed by "savages" is this: if it's hard-wired, how come there are so many radically different views of things like time, space, and so forth?

Similarly simplistically, the empiricists argued that major categories arose from contact with empirical reality; that is, you encounter real things and you come up with your ideas in reaction. The problem posed by "savages" is this: if it's all empirical reaction, how come people agree about so much?

In short, Durkheim argued that the a priorists and the empiricists had proposed radical alternatives, but that real people live in between. They have categorical notions sort of semi-embedded, and they encounter real things and think about them, but most of all and most importantly, they are told what to think by their cultures. If this seems obvious, that's because Durkheim was so devastatingly important: he was pretty much the first to argue this perspective effectively, and one of the engineers of the "culture" concept.

So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place.

Hence my assertions that meaning structures exist only in our heads and that meaning structures are selfsame as signs.  For an object to be categorized as a sign requires the object, an interpretant – a person, and meaning structures that exist in the head of the interpretant to make sense of the object thus indeed validating the object as a sign.  To answer another question of yours, the above quote is why I use the term social meaning structures.  Perhaps you find it redundant?  Maybe.  I did want to emphasize that which Chris emphasized, that it is because of the socially cued meaning structures that we make sense of the world and can communicate effectively.  Meaning structures are a construct of a mind, not some inherent quality of a thing that exists outside of a mind.

Quote from: contracycleI'm afraid this is totally circular.  I'm aware that non-significant conflicts are non-significant, that's why I asked the question.  Why does your construction place special emphasis on significant conflicts?

OK – again there is a vocabulary issue here.  Perhaps a more effective phrasing would be such – "Because those situations which are "significant" to a Gamist are identified as an opportunity to address Challenge (an opportunity to engage in conflict) and those situations that are "significant" to a Narrativist are identified as an opportunity to address Premise (an opportunity to engage in conflict) while those situations which are not identified as "significant" are not recognized at all as opportunities to engage in conflict.

So I should use the phrase "significant" situations instead.  A situation that allows for a conflict that supports a player's expression of his CA is a situation that is "significant".  The point here, that seems to have been missed, is that in all CA's players seek "significant" situations so that they can engage in a relevant conflict cycle.

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteI say social because meaning systems can only exist in minds.  In roleplay the only other minds are the fictional ones in the Characters. Definitionally, there can be no meaning structures outside of minds. Social meaning structures refers to that most meaning structures are socially acculturated.

There I believe is your multiple level error.  There are no character minds – characters do not exist.  There are only player minds.  Any meaning systems must exist in those player minds, not in the notional character minds.  It seems to me that you are imagining a ritual within a ritual.

You are correct in that there are no real character minds.  However as roleplay/ritual is a reification process where statements are treated as if they were real and that players are assumed to be running sentient beings as if they were real its not unreasonable to consider (not necessarily identify with) the fictional thought processes (the mind and the fictional meaning structures it has in place) of the fictional character.  The question what would my character do, in Sim, is to attempt to step into the fictional meaning structures that fictionally exist in that fictional mind.  Note the liberal sprinkling of fictional.  Yes, they aren't objectively "real", but they are treated if they were "real" (as if they were objectively real – which is what ritual does – treats statements as if they were objects.)

Quote from: contracycleAnd, above you once again explicitly denied that meaning systems can be imposed on individuals, and here you acknowledge again that you can indeed be acculturated to social meaning systems – like the meaning systems of currency of traffic.

There is no contradiction in what I have said.  Analogously I refer to the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."  I maintain my position that a person cannot be forced to adopt new meaning systems if they so choose to not cooperate.  The person being acculturated must cooperate in the process or it will not take.  A person may be coerced thus possibly increasing the likelihood of cooperating in the acculturation efforts, but it cannot be a one-sided effort.  I do not deny that a person may employ coercion (impose) upon an individual in an attempt to forcibly acculturate another, but that does not mean that said social meanings systems can made to be accepted by the victim's mind against the will of said mind.  Said will can be worn down or broken over time, but all that means is that the victim stops opposing and starts to cooperate in the acculturation efforts.  Again as was demonstrated in the quote from Chris' essay above, currency and traffic lights are signs employed in an attempt to convey concepts/meanings, but they are not meaning structures, as meaning structures can only exist within a mind.  We can attempt to enforce adherence (alteration of behavior in others) to those structures, but that process will employ signs and other physical methods, but the meaning structures themselves cannot exist outside of minds as things/objects.

I don't know how else to say it.  If you have issues with those notions then I would suggest bringing it up with Chris.  The best I can hope to do is demonstrate that I am using his thesis in a manner which is consistent with his intentions, but if you disagree with the thesis itself then you'll have to take it up with Chris.

Quote from: contracycleFirstly, you cannot use an argument I disagree with as support for another argument I disagree with.  Secondly, I have already pointed out the inadequacies of both your and Ralph's argument about conflict as I see it.  Of course I have not proposed a definition of conflict, because I am not the one claiming that conflict is central and necessary.

I can, I did, and I will.  It may be ineffective in this case, but like the example of dragging a horse to water, there is no way I can force you to accept Ralph's and by extension my definition of conflict no matter how effective one might be created.  Conversely just because you say you don't agree with something means that you can sit back and demand that I have to jump through my own asshole trying to convince you of the merit of my arguments.  We are trying to hash ideas out here; not just firing holes at theories. I was hoping to engage in a dialogue and have ideas offered and challenged.

Quote from: contracycle

QuoteNot so. A Sim player, as opposed to a tourist player, will engage in conflict.

You are arguing your conclusion again.  This has not been demonstrated at all; in fact I don't even think the argument for it is coherent or sensible.  Certainly as a simple assertion, it's unacceptable; it reduces the dialogue to "T'is/T'isn't".

Perhaps I am arguing my conclusion.  To be honest I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it sounds vaguely legal.  I'll have to ask.  

Regarding tourism, that it has not yet been characterized, how can you argue that any qualities have been demonstrated?  We have to make some assertions and test them to see if they hold up.  The very notion of defining what something is does rest in saying what something is or isn't.  (Narrativism is the process of addressing Premise.)  It does not reduce dialogue as much as offer a starting point for dialogue.  Your complaint that making an attempt to define Tourism as not coherent or sensible does violence to the process of discussing new ideas.  Again you engage in gainsaying and offer nothing constructive in return.  All you have done is stifle any attempt at debate.

Finally I refuse your notion of acceptable behavior as overstepping your authority and will defer that decision to the board's moderator.  You are not protecting the free flow of ideas; you are attempting to protect your ideas under the implied color of authority which you have not been granted.  Under what authority do you declare such an assertion unacceptable?  You have the right to prove it untenable, but to declare it unacceptable is an exercise of power which is not yours to make.

These posts have grown monstrously long as every little detail is picked apart and the main point is lost.  There is too much focus on the trees and not any effort to look at the forest.  I can only blame myself for my verbosity, but as this conversation has degraded into a deconstructive effort than one of constructive engagement, I'm not sure how to continue.  There has been little or no attempt seeing if any common ground on ideas can be had or where we might go from here in the wild mad dash to shoot every sentence full of holes.  Maybe I'm a terrible poster.  Maybe you're not making an effort to the ideas behind the words.  Maybe its both.  However, it is precisely because this has degenerated into a deconstruction fest, not one constructive notion about Sim or roleplay was brought to bear.  What a collosal waste of bandwidth.

Mr. Young, as this is wildly too long as it currently is, I'll answer your post later.  My apologies.

Quote from: Silmenume
These posts have grown monstrously long as every little detail is picked apart and the main point is lost.  There is too much focus on the trees and not any effort to look at the forest.  I can only blame myself for my verbosity, but as this conversation has degraded into a deconstructive effort than one of constructive engagement, I'm not sure how to continue.  There has been little or no attempt seeing if any common ground on ideas can be had or where we might go from here in the wild mad dash to shoot every sentence full of holes.  Maybe I'm a terrible poster.  Maybe you're not making an effort to the ideas behind the words.  Maybe its both.  However, it is precisely because this has degenerated into a deconstruction fest, not one constructive notion about Sim or roleplay was brought to bear.  What a collosal waste of bandwidth.

Sil, you've still spent the whole post re-describing ritual process to me.  I find this patronising, not because I assert mastery of the topic of ritual, but becuase you keep citing an article we have both read and feel we comprehend.  Why don;t you give us instead a short scenario decsripotipon of an RPG and discuss what you mean.  Surely you must have some idea how this idea is to be actually applicable.  Then if there is a difference in our perceptions hoepfully it will be clarified and discussion will be able to procede to something more productive.

Asking for an orange because you are hungry is not engagement with a meaning system, no.  Engaging in an exchange with someone in which you part with a number of tokens that are inherently worthless to obtain an orange, however, is.

Jeepers.

I realize that this thread is probably pretty much dead for the moment, and I'm not going to try get in any "digs" or anything here.  In a few days, when I've had time to read through the whole thread a couple more times -- once is definitely not enough -- I'll either start a new thread or join in on whatever has become of this one.

Just so you know, I think Jay is on to something really important, but I'm not quite sure what it is.  I'm not saying I think he's completely right.  But I do think that this discussion is very important, and some of the most sophisticated thinking I've seen on the Big Model.  I'm flattered to have been indirectly involved in that discussion, but it's most definitely not something I can sort of step in on and say, "No, you got this or that idea of mine wrong, and the answer is X."  This is really hairy.

Which is very cool and exciting!  I'm looking forward to where this all goes from here, and will be participating in it now that I'm back from my summertime coffin.  :>