The Forge Archives

On another thread entitled Retroactive Story (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13935) Ron Edwards make a post that caught my attention.  The particular post can be found here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=148697#148697).  In it he describes a CoC game whereby the Theme is pre-established and "celebrating" that pre-established Theme is the "point" of that game.  If I read the post accurately, I believe Ron implies that this "Theme celebration" can be described as Sim.  If I am mistaken and misunderstood Ron's claim about his example's CA as Sim (certainly he claimed such play to be non-Narrativist and by exclusion, I inferred that he was saying it was probably not Gamist either), then this post has no merit.  Ron let me know if I mistook you.

The point of all this rambling introduction is to lay the claim that such play – The celebration of "Pre-established Theme" via role-play is not Sim, but Narrativist.  Now before everyone rushes for their banana suits hear me out.

Ron has claimed, in the Narrativism Essay (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html%5B/url), that Nar and Gam are (or appear to be) "mirror images or twin siblings" of each other.  That being said, I would like to draw everyone's attention to The Crunch "style" of play or better yet "approach" to Challenge.

Let me start with the glossed version of The Crunch in the Provisional Glossary.

QuoteThe Crunch

An application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability relative to risk. A feature of Gamist play[/list:u]Emphasis mine

High predictability of what?  High predictability of success; or for the purposes of my argument – High predictability of Victory.  Given this particular understanding, that the outcome of Victory is highly likely, one might then ask why bother. IOW as Victory is more or less guaranteed, what are the players doing?
What are the players doing if the measure of player effectiveness is more or less rendered irrelevant?

I propose that in such play the players are engaged in the "Celebrating of Victory," without actually being instrumental in its creation.  Victory was preordained; to have deviated from that conclusion would have violated the whole point of being there.

Sure there was logistics, the manipulation of currency and strategizing but none of those highly enjoyable efforts is really supposed to effect the condition of Victory.  There is no issue with this style of play in Gamism and in fact it is a recognized, understood and celebrated aspect of that particular CA.

Does that phrasing sound familiar?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSo we do it! Rock on! We have celebrated Lovecraft as we understand it (or perhaps, which I didn't touch on, as we saw fit to modify it). To have deviated from that Theme would have violated the whole point of being there.

To borrow from Ron again –

Quote from: Ron Edwards... if everyone is on board with this, it's not railroading. It's (as I understand the term) perfect Participation. The story is not authored in play, but embellished and refined during play, as a given/fixed element of Exploration (shared imagined space).

Underlining mine.

Just by changing two words we get the Crunch –

"... if everyone is on board with this, it's not railroading. It's (as I understand the term) perfect Participation. The victory is not achieved in play, but embellished and refined during play, as a given/fixed element of Exploration (shared imagined space).

The Gamble is to addressing Premise as the Crunch is to "celebrating Theme."  The "celebration of Theme" is the Narrativist equivalent of the Gamist Crunch.

So the type of play that Ron had provided as an example of  Sim play in the Retroactive Story thread is really an example of Narrativist Participationism (celebration of pre-established Theme) and not Sim at all.

Hello,

Controversial, to be sure.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: SilmenumeHigh predictability of what?  High predictability of success; or for the purposes of my argument – High predictability of Victory.  Given this particular understanding, that the outcome of Victory is highly likely, one might then ask why bother. IOW as Victory is more or less guaranteed, what are the players doing?
What are the players doing if the measure of player effectiveness is more or less rendered irrelevant?

Jay,

I believe you are misunderstanding what is meant by "the Crunch". It is my understanding that "The Crunch" basically means tactics.  It's not that the Crunch guarrentees victory. It's just that (in a 'pure' sense) there's no random element. Like chess or checkers. It's all tactics. You never gamble anything, you try to out-smart your opponent (but your opponent may out-smart you). That's what meant by "high predictability relative to risk."

(If that's true, than you can't compare pre-set theme to 'the Crunch')

I thought the "addressing" part of addressing premise in actual play was definitional to narrativism.  If so, Jay's whole argument turns on whether premise can be said to be addressed in this situation.  I think it's a pretty long stretch to say just affirming or celebrating or following the form of a theme necessariliy involves addressing premise during play.  Are we going to say that the very act of celebration is addressment?  That seems pretty broad.

Hey Tim,

Just to make sure, I went back and re-read the section in the Gamist essay on the Crunch as well as the Glossed entry.  

Quote from: Gamism EssayThe distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example).

As we can see "randomness" is not the determinate factor, rather its the high degree of predictability [of success/desired outcome] relative to risk that is the issue of importance.  I don't want this thread to turn into argument over what the terms "really" mean.  However, what I am trying to establish is that the Gamble is at the low end of the sliding scale of predictability of outcome and the Crunch is at the high end of the same sliding scale of predictability of outcome.  This proposition is only half my argument and not an end unto itself.

Given that Nar and Gam are near mirrors of each other, I am arguing that the free addressing of Premise has a low predictability of what the final outcome will be (that is – what will the Theme finally be?) just like the Gamble, which also has a low predictability regarding final outcome.

The converse of this is the Crunch.  The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).  (Some may ask if Theme is pre-established how can it not be realized?  The players may do something to alter the Theme unintentionally or maybe not enough events transpire in the "celebration style" game to allow for the Theme to be fully realized.)

As predictability gets close to 1 in any case, we begin to feel that something uncomfortable is happening.  We either have to accept that predetermined outcome is demonstrative of effective CA expression or that it is not.  I know that sounded like a tautology, but that conundrum ALREADY exists within the discussions of the CA's within the model.

If we know we are going to win ahead of time, is it really Challenge(ing?) and thus expressive of Step on Up?  

IOW if the game outcome is (virtually/nearly) 100% predictable can it be said that any CA is being Expressed?  If we know where we are going to end up because we have chosen so before hand, then what is being added?  If the process cannot/does not/will not effect the product, then are we truly engaged in a process of creation with regards to that product?  By outcome I mean specifically with reference to CA metagame (Victory/Theme/Bricolage myth).

If not, then the celebration of "pre-established" Theme or "pre-established" Victory or "pre-established" plot or "pre-established" whatever you want to call it (provisionally Bricolage myth or Sim myth) is not indicative of any CA.

However, if it is said that (virtually/nearly) 100% predictability of game outcome (irrespective of agency) is indicative of effective CA expression then we must accept that the "celebration" of pre-established Theme must be part of the Narrativist CA as Premise and Theme are securely within the purview of Nar.

Hey Alan,

Quote from: AlanAre we going to say that the very act of celebration is addressment? That seems pretty broad.

It is pretty broad.  However such a claim has long been made about the Sim CA, so in an effort to keep the Model internally consistent, why should the other CA's be different?

Jay, Ron's description of simulationism has never used the word "address" as a definitional term.  That comparison is fallacious.

Hello,

QuoteThe Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).

Lost me on that one, for two reasons. The first reason is being discussed by others, in that your understanding of "Crunch" seems off to me. It would be very very valuable to present instances of play in Actual Play which illustrate the Crunch as you see it, and then we can all work from those.

The second reason is my intellectual rebellion at a certain form of argument. The text I quoted about relies on accepting that fixed-theme play is a subset of Narrativist play. Therefore your comparison to Crunch is ... over-hasty. You're trying to argue two points at once - hey, if X, then X is like Y!!

For my part, my interest and focus on Y is completely absent until X gets  a little more feedback and clarification.

Little Steps. One thing at a time.

Best,
Ron

I have two things to say about this--both of which are reasons why I am not clear on exactly what is being said.

1. Gamism is, to me, very murky on the guy who plays to "build up his character." I'm pretty sure this is a common and observable phenomena and I do not think it is related to social cred. It must be socially acceptable to be functional--but it is not "respect" the gamer gets but rather the internal joy of having a built-up character--even if that character never performs in "a fair fight."

I have a player (a very good RP'er, IMO) who also spends hours grinding on MMPORGS. Sometimes, under some conditons, he scratches that itch in tabletop-play.

Actual Play Experience: He found GURPS--which had fairly few upper-level development options worse than Fantasy Hero (where he could make new spells) or D&D (we think--un-verified to the extent I would like) where there are clear lines for upward development.

He finds (I would say) nerve-biting fights overly stressful and prefers a series of encounters where the battles are very well skewed in his favor. A good deal of the reward in this is, I think, the treasure: He would insist on clearing a level since there's treasure "at level" to be gotten rather than up the risk/reward by going one level deeper.

I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

2. I believe that it is correct to say that a player "authors" "story" in Sim play. This is because the Story-elements (thematic elements) will have come out of the player's mouth (and into the transcript) in an unpredictable fashion.

This is not saying that I dsagree with Ron on his quote.

In the context Ron was discussing (Address of Premise == Authoring Theme) he was correct and, IMO, fairly clear.

My point is that when you start saying that "author" reasonably means one and only one thing (the creation of story in a Narrativist context) you start getting into I-switch-this-word-out-here-and-in-there arguments like the one we see.

If we assume that "authoring story" in a Simulationist context means something entirely different then the substitution example doesn't work.

And, indeed, I don't think it does on that basis: If Ron had said "Premise is not addressed ... " rather than "Story is not authored" then the form this conjecture has taken (word substitution) wouldn't make sense.

-Marco

Hiya,

Marco's nailed it. Truth is, I really think that "author" as a verb, and (in other discussions) a few similar terms like "control," are causing us a lot of trouble. I'll shape up a little on the former (always avoided the latter for that reason).

Best,
Ron

Hey Jay,

Here's where your argument breaks down for me..

Quote from: SilmenumeThe converse of this is the Crunch. The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?). (Some may ask if Theme is pre-established how can it not be realized? The players may do something to alter the Theme unintentionally or maybe not enough events transpire in the "celebration style" game to allow for the Theme to be fully realized.)

There is nothing like a guarantee of Victory or successful Theme adherence inherent to to either of these situations. Possessing a large and accurate amount of information in the Crunch is likely to promote overall Victory but it's not a done deal.

"Celebrating Theme" seems like an even more slippery situation to me. You know what Theme or Themes that you want to promote and reinforce but, just as in the Crunch, that's no guarantee of successful outcomes. What makes "celebrating Theme" the more unruly beast in my mind is that the realization of a Theme is more difficult to achieve across multiple participants than the realization of a successful Crunch attempt.

The ease of all participants distinguishing the same tactical outcome as successful and that of distinguishing the same thematic outcome as successful seems greatly disparate. Regardless, there is still no guarantee of successful overall outcomes in either approach. They're certainly not, as you say, "(virtually/nearly) 100% predictable".

That's not to say that I don't think there's a possibility that "celebrating Theme" might actually be an act of Narrativism. I'm still pondering that possibility. The very fact that the outcome is not guaranteed might speak to it being Narrativism, just as if the Crunch didn't leave a decent chance of failure it would, I feel, cease to be Gamism.

-Chris

I find myself in an awkward position, because I tend to agree with Jay's conclusion, but not with the means by which he arrives at it.

The distinction between gamble and crunch lies in the predictability of outcomes.

If I'm playing bridge, I know the Ace of the trump suit will take the trick; that's predictable. If I control the Ace, I know that the King is also guaranteed to take a trick. I don't know from that whether or not I will win; only that these particular tactics will succeed.

If in Dungeons & Dragons, I cast a Magic Missile spell, according to the book rules there is no significant gamble--it hits the target and does a specific range of damage. If I cast a Spiritual Hammer spell, by contrast, the spell will work, but I still have to make die rolls to see whether I hit the target at all--I might miss every time. If I pick up a Wand of Wonder and aim it at an opponent and activate it, I don't know whether I'm going to get fireballs or butterflies. Magic Missile is high crunch; Wand of Wonder is high gamble; Spiritual Hammer is somewhere between the two. High crunch does not mean that the use of Magic Missile guarantees I will win the combat. It means that I can predict with high certainty that Magic Missile will have specific desired effects.

Yet I agree that the celebration of theme in role playing is probably a form of narrativism. I've thought so for a while.

The problem is that all forms of role playing require that the participants be permitted to make meaningful decisions which advance their personal agenda. Gamism is made functional because players can choose strategies and tactics which might lead to victory. Narrativism is made functional because players can choose character actions which explore issues. Simulationism is made functional because players can choose directions which open new discoveries. It is evident that illusionism is dysfunctional as play precisely because the only participant whose input matters is the referee, but the other players do not know this. Thus it is dysfunctional as gamism because nothing we do affects whether we succeed; as narrativism because nothing we do impacts the issues; as simulationism because nothing we do reveals what we would not have been told anyway.

Participationism is functional because the character players have agreed that the only person whose input matters is the referee. That means if the referee reveals his interesting world to us, we have participationist simulationism (the most functional of participationist forms). If he takes us on a rollercoaster ride in which we feel like we have saved the world through our character actions, that's participationist gamism (very like identifying with the hero of an action movie, only more so). If he weaves a tale of moral or thematic interest, it's participationist narrativism.

Some players are quite happy with participationism. I contend that most are not. This is especially so among narrativists, because a large part of their interest lies in being able to make statements about the issues themselves--the difference between attending a lecture and participating in a discussion group. It is also prominent among gamists, although not as much so--players who have low confidence in their ability to win welcome the opportunity to be made to feel like winners without actually having done anything, and are willing to ignore the fact that it was not possible for them to have lost. Confident gamists want the risk (whether from the gamble or the crunch, both of which entail risk) because they don't really feel the glory if the risk is absent. Since participationist simulationism is more functional than the other agenda, you don't see as much rejection of it--but there is some.

So I'd agree that a game which is about theme, in which the referee is the only person who provides any input to that theme, is still narrativist. Its appeal is different, just as the appeal of participationist gamism is different.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

The difference to me is that the gamist faces a challenge whereas the narrativist addresses premise.   In facing a challenge the gamist either wins or loses it's a binary result.  The address of premise is an act of creation with an infinite string of possible results of which you choose one.  If there is only one option available you are not making much of a choice.

This quote Ron used in the simutlationism essay explains fully to me why a theme laden situation can be simulationist.

QuoteFrom the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc Miller):


... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the character ...

A novel or a movie will likely have themes but not one that you get to choose.  The sim player vicariously experiences the situation and is impacted by any theme that is in the game just as the reader of a book is.  The author of the book can not do so, he has to choose what  theme he puts into the book (whether conciously or not), thats narrativism.

Sim is prioritizing the "vicarious experiencing of the situation with that character",  that's why it can happen within a theme laden situation while strapped to the railroads of the illusionist gm or in the more open discovery/bricolage form of sim.

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron Edwards

Quote from: SilmenumeThe Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the "celebrating Theme" (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).

Lost me on that one, for two reasons. The first reason is being discussed by others, in that your understanding of "Crunch" seems off to me. It would be very very valuable to present instances of play in Actual Play which illustrate the Crunch as you see it, and then we can all work from those.

As dumb luck would have it, Marco's first example provided a perfect example of the type of play that is virtually "pure Crunch", as I am proposing.  I am not saying that Marco agrees with me about my idea of pure Crunch, I am just saying that the following example typifies what I am trying to say about the Crunch.

Quote from: MarcoActual Play Experience: He found GURPS--which had fairly few upper-level development options worse than Fantasy Hero (where he could make new spells) or D&D (we think--un-verified to the extent I would like) where there are clear lines for upward development.

He finds (I would say) nerve-biting fights overly stressful and prefers a series of encounters where the battles are very well skewed in his favor. A good deal of the reward in this is, I think, the treasure: He would insist on clearing a level since there's treasure "at level" to be gotten rather than up the risk/reward by going one level deeper.

I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

In this example the condition of Victory is not what is up for grabs as he "expects" rewards (for victories) via that act of "earning" them.  He "expects" the environment will give him a steady stream (highly predictable victories).  There really is no room or desire for "if".

Let me back up a step and see if I can provide some additional context to my argument here.

As I currently understand the Model, a CA is defined by what paradigm the players use to classify and engage Situation.  Situation is the relationship between Character and Setting (all things in the SIS that are not that player's Character).  This relationship, Situation, is inherently CA neutral.  A Narrativist/Gamist will look at Situation and try and organize the elements within it to see if an opportunity to address Premise or Challenge can be found.  IOW addressing Premise/Challenge is a subset or a way or an approach to engaging Situation.  Thus if a Situation is described as Challenge or Premise it is only because a human being, a player, has mentally arranged the elements of Situation in such a way that Premise or Challenge may be meaningfully addressed.

The essays go on to explain that Nar and Gam are defined by this addressing of Premise or Challenge.  Addressing is said to an external, observable process as that anything internal is by nature unobservable.  Thus any discussion about what constitutes a CA is strictly based upon what the players are doing with regards to the SIS, NOT what they are "feeling" about the SIS or the process.  CA's are processural and not only this is fully supported by the model structure, but its very foundations are built on that assumption.

It is not unreasonable to state that any functioning process will reliably result in a desired outcome.  Frex – following the directions (process) of baking cooking effectively will result in a desired outcome (the product of baked cookies in this case). As CA's are processes they too will create products/outcomes.  The question is not whether they will create an outcome, but rather what form will that outcome be?  Thus in Nar we do not ask whether there will be a Theme, but rather what form will that Theme be in.  In Gamism we do not ask whether there will an outcome, but rather what form that outcome will be (victory/loss).  The form of outcome can only be changed via the engagement of Situation - the altering of one's relationship between Character and Setting.

The presumed interest in engaging these CA processes is that we don't know ahead of time in what forms the final outcomes will be.  Because we don't know what form the final outcome will be, yet the players are indeed playing for some reason, we presume there is an interest or desire to have a say in the form of the final outcomes and that desire was given a name – "Story Now" for Nar and "Step on Up" for Gam.  However, these presumed desires are internal interests, desires, or feelings are inherently internal.  We can only infer their presence by observation.  There seems to be a strong link between these labeled interests/desires, however as the labeled interests/desires can only be inferred we cannot establish a direct causal link between interest/desire and CA process, thus one cannot use these labeled interests/desires as being definitional of a CA.  We are left only with observable action with regards to the SIS.  While outpourings of expressed support for an action taken with regards to the SIS indicates the players are responding emotionally that outpouring alone is not sufficient to say that they were responding to some cool CA relevant action  (A player may make a good joke or riff a really good line that breaks the tension, etc.).  Nor is the lack of outpouring of support sufficient to declare that the players are not enjoying the CA at hand.  This is important and I will get back to this in a minute.

When I started this thread I was discussing a style of play had been forwarded that, I felt, violated this understanding.  How does this relate to my original post?

Having finally qualified my argument's starting place, I am re-proposing that Crunch play, the example listed far above, with its "pre-established" form of outcome and Celebration of Theme play with its "pre-established" form of outcome are essentially mirror images of each other.

RANT - not aimed at anyone in particular.
But that begs the deeper question of "Why did Jay squawk?"  Because Nar could not be sullied with this form of play so it was dumped into Sim.  Sim - the dumping ground of roleplay theory.  If we don't want something in my CA, lets push it off onto Sim.  Also, in order to make sure that Sim cannot reject anything that I don't want in my theoretical section of the Model, lets thwart any attempt to give Sim any process because goodness knows that might mean we might end up with a hot potato problem, Houston.  I mean, come on!  Doesn't anyone else see the (solvable) incongruities within the model that everyone keeps dancing around?  Its like the big elephant in the middle of the room that everyone is trying so desperately to ignore!  Either CA is defined by process or not.  Sim has only been recently been provisionally defined by process and there is much resistance to this.  Celebration is no more process than Step on Up or Story Now.  Participationism is a fine way to play, just don't dump its employment into something that identifies Sim play.  That's bullshit as well as the inconsistent application of the Model.

This part should not be discussed here, as Ron said, "Little Steps."  However, this is where I am coming from.  I wouldn't have had to propose the above if the model was applied consistently.
END RANT

Hey Chris,

Quote from: C. EdwardsThe ease of all participants distinguishing the same tactical outcome as successful and that of distinguishing the same thematic outcome as successful seems greatly disparate. Regardless, there is still no guarantee of successful overall outcomes in either approach. They're certainly not, as you say, "(virtually/nearly) 100% predictable".

Agreed, that is the nature of our physical world.  However, the players with such inclinations agree that they want this to happen and strive for that desired outcome.  IOW they would like it to be that way are working towards making that happen.  This can mean surrendering much input to someone else (by agreement!) who has more ability to bring this to fruition, such as the GM.

Hey Caldis,

You're arguing conclusions.  You haven't put forth anything other than Sim is noun.  Why is Sim defined this way?  Espeically since its not a definition with regards to the Model or CA process/verb.  Identification with Character is not an external process which deals with Situation; it is an inherently internal process – its what the player "feels".  That makes "identification with Character" as an identifier of Sim outside the scope of the model.

Quote from: JayIn this example the condition of Victory is not what is up for grabs as he "expects" rewards (for victories) via that act of "earning" them. He "expects" the environment will give him a steady stream (highly predictable victories). There really is no room or desire for "if".

Quote from: Marco1. Gamism is, to me, very murky on the guy who plays to "build up his character." I'm pretty sure this is a common and observable phenomena and I do not think it is related to social cred. It must be socially acceptable to be functional--but it is not "respect" the gamer gets but rather the internal joy of having a built-up character
*snip*
I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

It's simulationism. Anything that breaks or doesn't befit his prefered CA, he avoids or ignores. He avoids fortune and ignores social feedback, because he's exploring the growing character like some would explore the sprawl of an imaginary city. That's interupted by fortune, and back slapping social feedback doesn't add to exploration.

As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

From here the predictable outcome your refering to with crunch is more a matter of drifting crunchy gamist structure to simulationism, by sticking to the predictable parts of it (which isn't the whole of it). That doesn't support your position.

Quote from: SilmenumeHey Caldis,

You're arguing conclusions.  You haven't put forth anything other than Sim is noun.  Why is Sim defined this way?  Espeically since its not a definition with regards to the Model or CA process/verb.  Identification with Character is not an external process which deals with Situation; it is an inherently internal process – its what the player "feels".  That makes "identification with Character" as an identifier of Sim outside the scope of the model.

Good call Jay, you're right I have been arguing conclusion and I think it's because I see the evidence for the conclusions in abundance and didnt think it necessary to debate the points.  So I'll step back and do some of the dirty work I was trying to avoid (call me lazy if you wish ;) ).

You are looking for a verb or process for Sim.  I propose that the process of sim is one of maintaining verisimilitude and it's goal is the realization of the ideal that Walt and others discussed here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13136&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). The sim player engages the situation looking for a true to life outcome given the constraints of the ideal he is trying to explore.

The example of celebrating the theme of Call of Cthulu fits this description.  The theme is part of the 'ideal'  for the CoC game which guides a players reaction to situations that develop in the game, thus sim.  The theme is celebrated but not challenged or forced to prove itself during play. It also matches with Noon's take on Marco's example of the "build up his character" player, which I think he correctly identified as simulationist.   Without risk of failure or at least celebration of his victory the "build his character" player is choosing the options that best allow him to explore the growth of the character via system.  

The CoC example does not match with the definition of Narrativism because address of premise requires freedom of choice on the theme created, we make the theme during play by our decisions.  Narrativist play in Call of Cthulu would not be focused on celebrating the theme of a doomed mankind in the face of a bizarre and hostile universe, it would deal with how one deals with that knowledge.

Quote from: Noon
It's simulationism. Anything that breaks or doesn't befit his prefered CA, he avoids or ignores. He avoids fortune and ignores social feedback, because he's exploring the growing character like some would explore the sprawl of an imaginary city. That's interupted by fortune, and back slapping social feedback doesn't add to exploration.

I'm not sure its that cut and dried.  Certainly the description given could easily be gamist IMO.  It would just be of the 'purist for system' variety, in all propabability.  The avoidance of fortune does not disqualify the player from a Gamist mode, it merely renders it a preference for Crunch over Gamble.

Quote
As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

Kinda agreed, in that if your goal was just to go through the motions, yes that would be sim.  If you actually want to make the decisions, then no it probably has to be gamist.  

Quote
From here the predictable outcome your refering to with crunch is more a matter of drifting crunchy gamist structure to simulationism, by sticking to the predictable parts of it (which isn't the whole of it). That doesn't support your position.

I think that is a fair description of such drift, were it to occur.  But I do not accept that the example given should necessarily be interpreted in that way.  There are many management games in which the game-play is satisfying in this way, shuffling thiings from point to point with maximal efficiency and avoiding the risky and dangerous options.

Quote from: contracycleI'm not sure its that cut and dried.  Certainly the description given could easily be gamist IMO.  It would just be of the 'purist for system' variety, in all propabability.  The avoidance of fortune does not disqualify the player from a Gamist mode, it merely renders it a preference for Crunch over Gamble.

I'll agree that play in a manner which prefers crunch to gamble can still be gamist.  The reason Marco's example appears simulationist to me is the lack of interest in the victory.

Quote from: MarcoThere is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

A gamist who prefers crunch will still be looking to prove his ability, he'll just believe that his methodic approach of avoiding risk is the smart way to proceed.  "By searching every room on the level and clearing out the goblins still there we gained 800 more xp than we would have if we had went down to the next level as soon as we found the stairs.  Now we're that much tougher and have that much more gold to resupply and prepare for that next level, we are so going to beat it."

Quote from: Caldis

Quote from: MarcoThere is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

A gamist who prefers crunch will still be looking to prove his ability, he'll just believe that his methodic approach of avoiding risk is the smart way to proceed.  "By searching every room on the level and clearing out the goblins still there we gained 800 more xp than we would have if we had went down to the next level as soon as we found the stairs.  Now we're that much tougher and have that much more gold to resupply and prepare for that next level, we are so going to beat it."

I would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

-Marco

QuoteI would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

IMO the requirement for social reinfocement is overstated; many computer games operate that way.  The question, as alwaysd, is what the player is engaged with.

Hey Caldis,

Quote from: CaldisI'll agree that play in a manner which prefers crunch to gamble can still be gamist.  The reason Marco's example appears simulationist to me is the lack of interest in the victory.

You are very much mistaken.  The player does have a deep and abiding interest in Victory, he would not play the game if he didn't achieve Victory all the time.  Like Marco had said, he expects a steady stream of rewards.  Rewards can only be had from Victories.  What he doesn't want is (high) risk, and thus by extension he is not particularly interested in the social rewards for Stepping on Up in the face of (high) risk.  What the player is seeking is the regular and consistent internal and mechanical rewards for successfully addressing Challenge.  The thing that stands in the way of that stream of rewards is the high potential of non-victory outcome and the necessary risk of loss or rewards inherent in high risk of loss style of Challenge addressment.  IOW the player wants to feel the success of winning all the time; he's not that interested in the thrill of risk as a thing unto itself.

Hey Marco,

Quote from: MarcoI would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

Actually that is not correct.  CA's are defined by how the players approach Situation, not social reinforcement.  Social reinforcement is nothing more than a reflection of the interests of the players surrounding the player expressing his CA.  This social reinforcement is necessarily accurate.  How do I know?  Simply because when I write about what is interesting to me as a Simulationist, people here constantly misinterpret what is going based upon their own CA inclinations.  Posters here fail to identify the CA I play in all the time.  Social reinforcement means nothing more than the other players are jazzed about something they perceive.

Social reinforcement is nothing more than a "tell" as to what is interesting to the players' observing the player in engaging Situation.  As the players observing are all reacting to their own CA inclinations, their "reinforcement" begs the question as to just what is being reinforced.  Social reinforcement just means to someone trying to diagnose CA – "Look here.  The player who is expressing support is having his CA bone tickled by what is going on right now."  The question remains - what is it that we are looking at in the SIS?  Ideally one would want everyone to be socially rewarding the same CA, but that is by no means guaranteed.

However, let us not get bogged down lest we forget that this thread was spawned regarding the idea that "celebration of Theme" and the "Crunch" are mirror CA images of each other.  Even that is not sufficient to cover the idea I am groping for which is more accurately stated that both Gam and Nar have modes of play where the shaping of the outcome is not particularly important, so much as the indulgence or reveling in the pre-formed outcome itself.  This setting right of this asymmetry is very important, in my eyes at least, to eliminating one inconsistency in the structure of the Model as a whole.

Cross-posted with contracycle.

Well  I agree almost entirely with Sil's post above, but unfortunately I do think some further discussion of social reinforcement is necessary.

The issue of social reinforcement is operating at a level beyond that of the immediate game being played, and has to do with our intereactions with ewach other as people.  In order for us to feel satisfied with ourselves, we need to feel that we are valued and respected by others in our social context.

Now the argument that the purpose of the pursuit of victory and challenge is to display competence, fitness, garner respect and acclaim, is IMO sound.  But the idea of social reinforcement as used in discussions here has sometimes been dumbed down to mere verbal, or at least explicit, demonstrations of appreciation.  Nothing like that is required.

If you are a quiet, unassuming, managemental gamist, it may be that you never do a victory dance on the table, nor get accolladed as a strategic genius by the other players.  But they may also defer to your decisions when you are at the general store outfitting for the dungeon, and they may take your decision as carved in stone if you say its time to head to the surface.  And these things are also very valid forms of social acclaim that make the gamist player happy in their gamism; recognise their contribution to the group effort.

So we must not eliminate social approval and reduce it to being ONLY a tell.  It is more than that, receiving some form of recogition is a basic Purpose in engaging with this activity in the first place.  Marco is still wrong to say that the CA's are DEFINED by social reinforcement, becuase solo games can be played without any such social reinforcement.  But social reinforcement from others carries more credibility than your own assesment of your competence, and is very much more important.

While agreeing with some problems in the discussion of Sim, I do not think it is true that social reinforcement is necessarily the mistaken projection of my preferences onto another players actions.

Yeah, well, as I said, I'm a bit murky on the social reinforcement thing. I value the guy for role-play inspite of the 'gamist' tendency. I think he often makes poor judgments about the values of things in game play--so I'd do my own pickin' at the general store (he may be right--he's very smart--but we do disagree).

What I'm saying is that I think he gets the real enjoyment out of building the character up--not out of social reinforcement.

Yes: there's a certain degree of social acceptance necessary for him to sit at the table for functional roleplay--but I like higher stakes combat. I don't care about building characters up. Neither of us really enjoy "the grind" but he gets something out of it (a better character) which I don't (I get a better character too, but don't care).

When we play gamist together, we are socially incompatible: I like low level D&D games where death is a constant fear (I hate to die--I play very carefully). He likes the higher level ones where death won't interfere most likely unless things go really wrong.*

If it's me, him, and the GM (and it has been) I'm not real clear on how social reinforcement enters into his enjoyment of the game.

The issue of solo play is, IMO, a very good one: this guy gets out of MMPORGS exactly what he gets out of some types of role-playing. He's good with grouping (social) or going it alone (not-social).

I think that the going-it-alone is out of step with the GNS social-reinforcement aspects ... but I'm not really sure.

As I said, I'm murky on it.

-Marco
* I'm aware that two gamists can easily be incompatible--the reason I bring this up is: "In the situation where we are incompatible and we're both still enjoying aspects of the game--but to differing degrees" where does the social reinforcement come from.

Quote from: Marco
* I'm aware that two gamists can easily be incompatible--the reason I bring this up is: "In the situation where we are incompatible and we're both still enjoying aspects of the game--but to differing degrees" where does the social reinforcement come from.

That might produce a kind of intra-CA territorial dispute, conceivably.  The thing though is unless the two of you are the only players ever present, it may not be from you that this player gets their reinforcing feedback.

Or maybe they are complimentary.  I used to play X-wing with a friend: he would fly, and I would handle the keyboard, providing him with shield deployments and assigning power supply to various functions.  He got the thrill of being in there mixing it up, and I got a more tactical pleasure out of being his facilitator and guardian angel.

So perhaps the reinforcement occurs in recounts of play in which the (generic) players particular contributions are recognised as worthy of remark.  Or as I mentioned previously, incidents in play in which the players special competence is tacitly acknowledged.  But it is of course very hard to comment on a player I've never met in a game I didn;t attend; hopefully this will provide avenues in which you might find the kind of reinforcement this player is getting.

Again though, just becuase character building CAN be an expression of a gamist CA does not mean it necessarily is.  If the player is Sim after all, then the reinforcement may take a completely different form, such as treating them as an authority on the game world or similar.

Yeah, I totally get the X-wing thing. I had the same issues with that game (I wish I'd had someone to do shields and power stuff so I could just fly). I mean, I think it's possible he's getting some cred somewhere I'm not seeing right now--however, in the other thread on Sim I noted that Sim was (under canoncial GNS) sort of a sense of craftsmanship.

Thinking about that, I believe that the player gets satisfaction from building up a character (as with a sense of craftsmanship) which would, if that analogy is relevant, lead to this being Sim play (Exploration of System?)

I mean, I'm not sure. I get a sense of satisfaction when I win at Solitaire--I don't get any social cred for it from anywhere.

(What I'm saying is I can buy your hypothesis. I accept that there may be social cred coming from somewhere I'm not seeing. But in light of the fact that the player, by his own admission, gets the same thrill from soloing on-line on World of Warcraft, I think that it might be plausible to define Gamism in terms of an internal sense of reward and leave the social reinforcement to the realm of making the play functional with a group ... but that's just me thinking out loud).

-Marco

A (hopefully quick) note on social reinforcement.

The lone gamist in the group gets his social reinforcement reflexively: he respects what he did as something he thinks the other players should respect and admire, even if in his mind there's something wrong with them because they don't. This is where the gamist solo video gamer gets his glory, either from telling tales of his game successes to others who know the game or from comparing himself to real or imagined other players. This is where the glory arises in solitaire, as we pat ourselves on the back for doing so well.

You have probably noticed that many solo computer/console games encourage high scorers to enter their names or initials. This is glory. You played the game alone, but you played it extremely well, and others will hear about it. Even on your own computer, some of the games have this option to record who you are next to how well you did. In fact, the Tetris game in my cell phone has such a record. If you think too hard about it, you realize it's silly--who is going to know?--but you can get that reinforcement of "look how good I did" even if no one is ever going to look or care.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungA (hopefully quick) note on social reinforcement.

The lone gamist in the group gets his social reinforcement reflexively: he respects what he did as something he thinks the other players should respect and admire, even if in his mind there's something wrong with them because they don't. This is where the gamist solo video gamer gets his glory, either from telling tales of his game successes to others who know the game or from comparing himself to real or imagined other players. This is where the glory arises in solitaire, as we pat ourselves on the back for doing so well.

--M. J. Young

On the other hand, no one will ever know how many times I won at Solitare (there's no high-score list) and I'll never brag about it, and I play anyway. I think this is a reasonable suggestion--however I don't think it's a universal answer (i.e. we can postulate it but I don't think it really covers the problem).

If we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

-Marco

Quote from: Silmenume
You are very much mistaken.  The player does have a deep and abiding interest in Victory, he would not play the game if he didn't achieve Victory all the time.  Like Marco had said, he expects a steady stream of rewards.  Rewards can only be had from Victories.  What he doesn't want is (high) risk, and thus by extension he is not particularly interested in the social rewards for Stepping on Up in the face of (high) risk.  What the player is seeking is the regular and consistent internal and mechanical rewards for successfully addressing Challenge.  The thing that stands in the way of that stream of rewards is the high potential of non-victory outcome and the necessary risk of loss or rewards inherent in high risk of loss style of Challenge addressment.  IOW the player wants to feel the success of winning all the time; he's not that interested in the thrill of risk as a thing unto itself.

Then he's not interested in gamism.  The thrill and challenge is what it's about, not victory but in how victory is achieved and that has to be brought about by the actions of the player.

Quote from: Ron Edwards: Gamism: Step on UpThe players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).

The players need to perform in gamism, they have to use strategy to succeed.  If success is guaranteed then they have not displayed anything, neither guts in facing the Gamble or strategy in using the Crunch.  It's a test of the player to see if he can find a way to win.  The presence of challenge doesnt make a game gamist, it's stepping up to the challenge that makes the game gamist.  It's exactly the same as the presence of story(or premise) not making a game narrativist it's addressing premise that makes it so.

Let's look at call of Cthulu and Ron's example.  

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe Theme is pre-established and known: "Mankind's ideals are flickering little pinpoints in a horrific, insane void." All of us are utterly complicit in bringing that theme into "narrative life."

So we do it! Rock on! We have celebrated Lovecraft as we understand it (or perhaps, which I didn't touch on, as we saw fit to modify it). To have deviated from that Theme would have violated the whole point of being there.

How can this be in any way Narrativist?  Narrativism is about addressing premise and to do so you have to take a stand on the issue.  In the example above the stand has already been taken, it's already a certain thing, not something that can be addressed.  If you tried to offer a differing view the mechanics of the game hammer it back upon you.  You cant remain sane and understand the Cthulu universe.  Even if we had all agreed that we were to try and create a play experience that proved this to be true what action can the player possibly take to prove this when the system has already guaranteed it to be true.  It's no action on the players part creating the address of premise.  The game may have it but the player does not do it.

What is happening in play is a vicarious experience of a character in a Lovecraft novel.  The player works to ensure that experience is as true to the source as possible, he chooses to act and react as a character in that novel would act.  This is simulationism.

Hey contracycle,

I think that all of your points are valid.  I did not intend to imply that social reinforcement's only role was that of a "tell."  Social reinforcement does indeed play a very important part in the social dynamic of roleplay.  I, in my haste, did not clarify my thoughts enough regarding that issue.  I was only trying to say that social reinforcement is not definitional to a CA.

Just to be clear –

From a diagnostic point of view, social reinforcement is nothing more than a "tell" as to what is interesting to the players observing the player who is engaging Situation.

Everything else you said about its importance to play, I'm square with.

Hey Marco,

Quote from: Marco(...I think that it might be plausible to define Gamism in terms of an internal sense of reward and leave the social reinforcement to the realm of making the play functional with a group ... but that's just me thinking out loud).

All rewards, if they are felt, must ultimately be felt internally for where else can they be felt?  The problem with proposing a diagnostic definition of a mode of play based upon a "feeling" is that feelings are not directly observable.  There is no way to corroborate a person's feelings.  Many times in the essays and in several threads about the Model, internal states were rejected as a means of CA identification because they are inherently unobservable.  IOW, I may be happy, but unless I do something externally that sheds light upon (reflects) my internal state, no observer will ever know.

I'll draw from the essay GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/).

QuoteLabels
Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labeling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making."

Emphasis added.

This is not to say that player's don't have internal states, but rather these internal states are not employed by the Model as definitional or diagnostic.  Note that as this process is going on in the venue of role-play, its not enough that the player is making decisions (an internal process) but that he must share them with other players at the table (the act of Exploration). While perhaps one could claim that a player who is getting his Step on Up must be addressing Challenge, it does not follow that addressing Challenge must always mean that a player is "feeling" Step on Up.  IOW Step on Up is defined in light of addressing Challenge.  However addressing Challenge is not defined by the emotive or mental state of Step on Up, rather addressing Challenge is described and defined by the process of strategizing and the employment of tactics.

Finally I would like to add that a Nar player would also likely feel an interior sense of reward when they too made a decision regarding Premise that they felt good about.  The same holds for a Sim player as well.  Interior rewards cannot define CA.  All those expressing CA's, making appropriate decisions, effectively will feel rewarded, by definition.  No where in the Model does it claim that expressing CA = having fun.

Quote from: MarcoIf we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

Unless I am mistaken, I don't recall social reinforcement being absolutely required, though its presence is endemic as the persons are engaged in a social activity.  To whit – a single player can be playing Gamist in a Sim oriented Game.  He may not be enjoying himself as much as if he was sitting at table full of Gamists, but he's still expressing a Gamist CA even if he is receiving negative social pressure.  That the Gamist player is not receiving positive social reinforcement does not negate the diagnosis of his play as Gamist.

Hey Caldis,

Much of your logic is sound and I have traveled down those very same paths many times myself trying to figure out why the model is applied so hypocritically with regards to Sim.  However, I am going to play devils advocate here to try and high light that inconsistency.

Quote from: CaldisIf success is guaranteed then they have not displayed anything...It's a test of the player to see if he can find a way to win.

Let me parse this out.  By declaring that the player has not displayed anything, I am assuming you mean that the player has not "demonstrated" anything to indicate a Gamist Creative Agenda.  To continue this parsing further, what is meant by "demonstrated" is a decision making ability regarding Situation which has been classified as Challenge.  Thus if the outcome of his decision making is pre-ordained, that is to say that his decisions have no effect on the final outcome, then there is no merit to such empty decisions as regards Creative Agenda.  Yes?

If that is indeed the case let me again call up an earlier quote –

QuoteLabels
Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labeling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making."

If I understand your reasoning, because the player's decisions were empty of affect on the final outcome the player failed to demonstrate the Gamist Creative Agenda.  However, given the above quote, decisions that affect final outcome are the very things that define CA. IOW decisions must matter (effect the final outcome), if they do not then they are not CA related.  CA as a term only applies to the decisions the players are making that effect final outcome.  If those decisions don't affect final outcome then they aren't really decisions in the first place.  If "decisions that have no effect on outcome" means not-Gamist and not-Narrativist because they are not indicative any CA, then by following the established logic that also means such play is not-Simulationist either.  A GNS label, a Creative Agenda, if founded upon the decisions that the player is making which must impact final outcome or they are not CA valid.  Decisions that have no effect on outcome are no different that decisions made with the specific intent not to alter the pre-established outcome.  Marco's example, if not Gamist, cannot be Sim either because there are NO decisions of merit (effecting final outcome) being made at all.  By the logic you're arguing Caldis, Marco's example is an example of non-CA play or Zilchplay, much like Ron's example of "celebration of Theme."

Again we are faced with the following options –

• Celebration of X is a true and valid expression of the CA of which it reflects.  Celebration of Victory is Gamist and Celebration of Theme is Narrativist and in either case the examples are not Simulationist.
• Celebration of X is not a true and valid expression of the CA which it reflects.  Celebration of Victory is not Gamist, Celebration of Theme is not Narrativist, but neither can it be Simulationist for the same reasons it cannot be Gamist and Narrativist.  IOW any decisions which do not effect final outcome are not reflective of any CA because CA's are defined by decisions that must affect outcome.
• CA definition is NOT really based on player decisions that effect final outcomes.  IOW a player choosing the color of their character's eyes is indicative of some CA.  We need only come up with some excuse why the Model breaks with itself in this manner, since it does operate this way for two CA's, and explain why we are OK with that.
• We blithely ignore that the model is inconsistent with itself and be done with it.[/list:u]So how are we to fix this problem?  Do we ignore it?  Do we address it?  Do we accept the possibility of Zilchplay?  Or do was accept that there is a sliding scale of impact of player decisions on outcome that range from nil to hardcore within a CA?

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: MarcoIf we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

Unless I am mistaken, I don't recall social reinforcement being absolutely required, though its presence is endemic as the persons are engaged in a social activity.  To whit – a single player can be playing Gamist in a Sim oriented Game.  He may not be enjoying himself as much as if he was sitting at table full of Gamists, but he's still expressing a Gamist CA even if he is receiving negative social pressure.  That the Gamist player is not receiving positive social reinforcement does not negate the diagnosis of his play as Gamist.

Nar play is about "addressing premise"--so if that is observed, the play is Nar.

Sim play is about reinforcing a point? (creating myth? etc.) -- so if that is observed the play is Sim.

Gam play is about getting (or trying to get) cred from your fellow gamers -- so if that is observed the play is Gam.

If we say Gam play is about "winning" or Gam play is about "overcoming challenges" then that's cool--and maybe that's what it is. But so long as social cred is the measure of Gamist play then, IMO, it is absolutely required.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not real attached to that definition--I think it has some big holes in it (imaginary audiences, soloist in MMPORGS who are assumed to brag to their friends, etc.) But if we're going to say that social reinforcement isn't required then Gamist play is about something other than getting credit for clever play.

Put it another way: if we say Gamist play is about getting the satisfaction that comes from winning and/or the satisfaction that comes from sportsmanship in a social context (i.e. applies either to me playing cards by myself or me playing volleyball with a team) then why do we have people (me included) postulating imaginary audiences at all?

Why not just say "Well, in the case where the guy isn't bragging about his exploits or being acknowledged for them it's just a clear case of observing him trying to beat the game."

(Why not? I dunno--but we don't seem to be saying that.)

-Marco

Quote from: SilmenumeDecisions that have no effect on outcome are no different that decisions made with the specific intent not to alter the pre-established outcome.  Marco's example, if not Gamist, cannot be Sim either because there are NO decisions of merit (effecting final outcome) being made at all.  By the logic you're arguing Caldis, Marco's example is an example of non-CA play or Zilchplay, much like Ron's example of "celebration of Theme."

I believe Noon answered this dilemma.

Quote from: NoonAs a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

Or to put it differently the rising power level of the character is part of the 'ideal'  the player is trying to realize.  Level systems have been described as a tool for dramatic pacing, that's what he's looking for an appropriate challenge that doesnt involve risk just the appearance of risk.  He vicariously experiences the rise to power.

So when the character has the choice of going deeper in the dungeon or clearing out the level he is on, he stays where he's at knowing the risk will be less and the experience he seeks will be attained.  More gold more xp less of a chance of ruining that experience of the rise to power.

The hard part is realizing what is part of the ideal.  I think it relates somewhat to the idea of bricolage and myth, almost everything in the game and the source material can be given meaning within the Ideal.

Hello,

People always seem to miss the Gamist definition, or miss a piece of it. Marco, no one in this thread seems to have said what they needed to say, although nothing is terribly wrong with what's been said. Maybe this will help.

Social cred in Gamist play has exactly the same role that it does in any sort of play. It's the matrix in which play is embedded. So any questions about solo play, for example, apply to "role-playing in general." My thinking about that can wait for another thread.

It comes up all the time when people discuss Gamist play because of the long-standing misapprehension that Gamist play must be "selfish."

But to focus on it as a unique definitional feature is to get off track. The unique definitional feature of Gamist play is not the social cred, but the social cred about personal strategy and guts. If these can be observed to be the "creative motor" throughout a full cycle of the reward system,* then we're talking Gamist play.

The proportions of strategy vs. guts, by the way, are highly variable. I think that has a lot to do with Gamble vs. Crunch.

Side point: what about the ostensible Gamist who just likes winning, without strategy & guts? I'm not convinced that this actually describes the example player who's been brought up, but let's say it does. In my view, such a player is a dysfunctional disaster - a wimp who likes the feel of winning but who cannot stand to lose. He'll do fine as long as he's safely mingled with non-Gamist other players. Put him in with real Gamists and he'd get mutilated.

Before discussing any more about this fellow or any other hypothetical/real fellows, I suggest that this thread, more than any other I've seen in recent history, needs to be founded on discussions of actual play.

Best,
Ron

* This is my current phrasing that I used to call an "instance." Usually requires a session at the very least, often more.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

People always seem to miss the Gamist definition, or miss a piece of it. Marco, no one in this thread seems to have said what they needed to say, although nothing is terribly wrong with what's been said. Maybe this will help.

I'm not complain'. Here is the actual play experience that springs to mind.

NOTE: this is the player of Roland Thunder in the After The War write-up in Acutal Play. He's hardly a disaster (and I realize no one said he was) and he's not selfish. He's one of the finest guys I game with. He also not hypothetical (and I realize that wasn't said either--but, you know, I wanna be real clear).

We started a 1st level game. Neither of us wanted to lose a character so we played carefully. He was a fighter, I was a magic user. It was *sorta* set in the Elric universe after the fall of Melnibone (except it wasn't that specific reality--just similar).

So we do some very careful adventuring and when the GM is not around, the fighter-player suggests doing a random dungeon for some level-appropriate treasure and Xp (we're gonna do this for a few hours until the GM gets back).

The system we were using for encounters was one that we'd created some time ago to make sure that the fights were pretty easy--they were "at level" meaning that we felt we could beat them even with just a (good) fighter and a (whimpy) magic user.

I didn't really *want* to, in that I was not jazzed by it, but he did. I think that he wanted:
a) a higher level character --and--
b) he enjoyed the exercise.

I was okay with going to third level (or whatever it was? Fourth?) but I didn't really enjoy the exercise per se--especially because, if I died, I'd lose my character. I'd get to make another character at the same XP level (our own little bit of drift) but I'd lose the cool history I had.

So we did it. We got some XP and a little bit of treasure and the GM came back and we returned to the game (which was a good deal more story-like).

Through out that game, he carefully tracked experience (including Xp for treasure which I didn't think much of) and very much enjoyed the minor combats we ran into (and would seek more if he thought it wouldn't upset me). I remember that he was big on totally clearing a level that we were well able to handle.

I don't remember if we did the random dungeon thing again in that game--but that's the part that really stands out to me as him saying 'I enjoy this.' (He enjoyed the rest of it too--but I, specifically, did not enjoy that).

Oh, and one other thing: he doesn't much care for resource management which, in AD&D is the big tactic. He'd even go so far as to declare limited use items to be 'junk' (he really didn't like AD&D magic users). But he did enjoy combat and leveling up.

Finally: his wish 'not to lose' is the same as mine. Neither of use 'enjoyed' taking major gambles with our characters. He was quite philosophical about a dead character (if he felt the kill was fair) but he didn't play bumpercars with his PC. He did like combat--but not high-risk combat. He didn't like combat for the guts and tactical aspect of it any more, I think, than I like Solitare for the 'guts and tactics' (no guts, no real tactics IMO).

Is that gamist play? There wasn't much guts involved. The GM coulda run us through that (in some cases we did run through that with a GM). But this was a functional bit of hack-and-slash in an otherwise story-like game.

-Marco

H'm, seems like low-stress Gamism to me.

To use the Solitaire analogy (a game I like too, so it's a good touchpoint), it's not like I stress about winning ... but there's some tactics there. Sometimes two possible moves are available, and I have to pick one. For example, if I can pull a card off a higher stack, I choose it rather than the card over the lower stack. Or decide whether to play a king from the draw rather than from a stack. That sort of thing. It's still tactics, even if one's whole ego isn't at stake. I certainly don't make such decisions randomly, and I suspect no one who enjoys Solitaire does.

In fact, the willingness to recognize that one has lost this time, for whatever reason (bad draw, early decision that turned out not to fly, whatever) is part of enjoying the tactics. That, in my mind, is part of "guts" - which I think is pretty important. Sometimes the guy who's less stressed about losing is the guy with the most guts.

You're right, though, that it's very different from the Wimp who cannot bear to lose, that I was describing.

Jay, I really think that your ability to communicate and debate your points in this thread will be made possible (not just enhanced) through discussions of actual play events and decisions. Marco has modeled the value of this approach perfectly, in one brief post.

Best,
Ron

There seems to be a lot happening here; it's one of those threads I have to start answering before I finish reading, or I'll never get it all clear in my brain.

Marco: all social reinforcement can be internalized or externalized. That is, I can be proud of what I did because people saw it and were impressed, or I can be proud of what I did because had they seen it they would have been impressed. In Solitaire, it's almost always the latter--I feel like I did well, that I played well and I won, and that's something to respect. Maybe no one will ever know, but I know, and I respect myself a bit more for that success.

Caldis: the very point that is at issue here is the nature of play in which the character players are not contributing significantly. Traditionally this gets shoved into simulationism, as if illusionism is not dysfunctional if it is simulationist illusionism. What is being said here is that illusionism is always dysfunctional, and participationism does not automatically mean simulationism--it could mean gamism in which everyone is pretending that there is something at risk even though deep down they know there isn't, so they respect each other for the decisions that they're only pretending made a difference; it could mean narrativism in which only the referee addressed premise in any way.

Look at it from another angle. We all agree that gamism, narrativism, and simulationism can all be played with what might be called full open credibility: everyone has the right to make any statement about any object or event within the shared imaginary space which fits central agreements about that space. This is what GM-full play is all about. Most people are more comfortable if you dial that back such that the referee has more credibility, usually more credibility than the character players. On a thousand point scale, we can reduce the dial to 999 to 1 in favor of the referee and still have any one of the three agenda in play. Now, some people think that if you get rid of that last one increment of credibility in the hands of the players, you have simulationism. I say no. Either you have nothing at all as an agendum, or we have participationist gamism, narrativism, or simulationism, depending on whatever the only player who still has credibility is pursuing.

The essays are written with the idea that participationist narrativism can't exist and participationist gamism probably can't exist, so participationism must be simulationist. I'm saying that participationism is no less problematic for simulationism than it is for the other two agenda, and that it is entirely possible to have participationist play which is about glory or premise.

Back on the first page of this thread I made a post that I thought got to the heart of the matter. Participationism is possible in all three agenda; as long as one participant (the referee) is contributing to the shared imagined space and the others are approving what is contributed, we have an agendum functioning.

Ron: your hypothetical wimp is exactly the sort of player who wants gamist participationism. He wants to be made to feel like a winner without any real risk of losing. In the same way, a participationist narrativist wants to feel like he was part of this great meaningful story without having to make the decisions that matter.

On Solitaire: I learned a great deal about strategy in relation to randomized systems from playing that game. When I was a teenager, I would play it in my room (with real cards--personal computers didn't exist then), and if I lost, I would face all the hidden cards to work out exactly why I lost and whether I could have won had I played differently. I have a pretty good handle at this point on how to maximize my chance of winning that game, because, as Ron observes, there are better and worse moves. Most people never give this a thought--they'll tell you that you should make a certain move merely because you can make it, and that's often incorrect strategically.

--M. J. Young

MJ, I'm with you--I think it was an internalized reward. Who knows, maybe he was imagining an audience that would applaud his mad level-getting skillz. I don't know--I guess it doesn't matter. If we're going to allow imaginary audiences, I think I'll ignore the 'social' descriptor since, to me, that doesn't work with imaginary friends--but it's not a big deal.

Also: I agree with you all on the Solitaire thing.

-Marco

Quote from: M. J. Young
Caldis: the very point that is at issue here is the nature of play in which the character players are not contributing significantly. Traditionally this gets shoved into simulationism, as if illusionism is not dysfunctional if it is simulationist illusionism. What is being said here is that illusionism is always dysfunctional, and participationism does not automatically mean simulationism--it could mean gamism in which everyone is pretending that there is something at risk even though deep down they know there isn't, so they respect each other for the decisions that they're only pretending made a difference; it could mean narrativism in which only the referee addressed premise in any way.

That's what I dispute.  Narrativism can not exist  with only the gm addressing premise.  The narrativist player is looking to express his take on the premise, he's there to create that address of premise by his actions in game.  He is not there to experience a game that has premise or addresses premise if he is not part of creating that experience, just as the gamist has to be involved in creating victory.  

Participationism involves giving up all thematic control to the gm.  That's acceptable to a gamist since he doesnt care about creating theme and to the simulationist since his goal isnt to create theme but to celebrate the existing theme.  Participationism is to the narrativist as a game where the gm made all the strategic decisions would be to a gamist, totally undermining the point of the game.

The simulationist is able to contribute in a game even if he is not contributing thematically.  In the current simulationist game that I'm invloved in there is very little in the way of theme being developed.  What I'm able to contribute to the game is mostly color and that's where I get my kicks.  My character is a merchant roguish scoundrel who is greedy and overconfident (gurps disadvantages) I enjoy acting foppish, tricking people out of their money and barging into situations where I dont belong.  Another player has a character who is a clean freak wizard with an intricate web of allies and rivals, he freaks out if he falls in the mud spends a lot of time in bath houses and if his rivals show up he revels in showing them up.  We each contribute to the game without contributing thematically.  When and if theme comes into the game it's controlled by the gm, we accept it and use it to showcase our characters foibles.

I find M. J.'s proposition very interesting.

I've tried to come to grips with the phenomena you're talking about here, or very similar ones, with the concept of zilchplay. The difference is whether we're focusing on individual participants (zilchplay is something an individual participant can do, but, probably, a whole group cannot and still be doing anything resembling role playing) or still trying to identify an agenda for the whole group (for which M. J.'s CA-specific flavors of participationism make better descriptors).

There's also this to consider: some individual internal motivations and rewards for play, though they probably exist, cannot be comprehended within the Big Model. The largest box in the Big Model is the Social Contract, which is entirely, um, social. Nothing in the Big Model is not within that social box. Hence, anything that is not in that social box is not part of, and not accessible to, the Big Model. This includes hypothetical "purely internalized" rewards.

This basic issue bites us in the ass every time we try to compare or apply non-social solitaire play to the Big Model.

Yes, there is plausible reason to believe that a solitaire (card) player finds the activity rewarding, and we can easily describe plausible reasons why such a player might find it so, even if the player never brags, compares scores, or communicates anything whatsoever with anyone whatsoever about that play.

Yes, it's quite plausible that some role players might also find some role playing rewarding for some or all of those same reasons.

But we can't recognize the existence of, categorize, or analyze the consequences of, those reasons in terms of the Big Model. Because they're nowhere in the Social box that is the Big Model's entire domain.

The way I prefer to think of it is this: to say that Creative Agenda characterizes or illuminates "how we have fun" in role playing is a slight overstatement. It actually characterizes "how we have fun socially" or, you might put it, "how we contribute to one another's fun." There might be all kinds of solo-fun going on too -- and promoting such solo-fun might very well be a worthwhile objective for a role playing game designer -- but solo-fun neither illuminates, nor is illuminated by, the understanding or identifying of Creative Agenda.

- Walt

Hey M. J.,

Quote from: M. J. Young... Either you have nothing at all as an agendum, or we have participationist gamism, narrativism, or simulationism, depending on whatever the only player who still has credibility is pursuing.

The essays are written with the idea that participationist narrativism can't exist and participationist gamism probably can't exist, so participationism must be simulationist. I'm saying that participationism is no less problematic for simulationism than it is for the other two agenda, and that it is entirely possible to have participationist play which is about glory or premise.

Thank you for stating so succinctly what I have failed so miserably to do!  I'm not sure what side of the coin I am on regarding the above stated duality, however I want to make absolutely crystal clear that there must be uniformity in the way we apply the Model.  We can either recognize Zilchplay as the home of participationist play or we recognize participationist play as legitimate in all the CA's, but we can't simply shunt off participationist play off to a single CA.  What we currently have in the Model is the equivalent of Ptolomy's epicycles.

Caldis, I not championing for or against your position on the validity of pre-established form of outcome (the Theme in the case of Nar) as a CA, but what I am arguing against is the inconsistent application of that base principle of the Model.  Either "decisions that affect the form of outcome" are or are not the basis for CA definition, but you can't have "decisions that affect the form of outcome" be definitional for some CA's and not others.

Quote from: Caldis... Participationism involves giving up all thematic control to the gm.

Actually that is synecdoche.  You have mistaken the whole for the one.  Participationism is the giving up all CA relevant input to the GM – not just Thematic input.

Quote from: CaldisThe simulationist is able to contribute in a game even if he is not contributing thematically.

Here we have a category error.  A Sim player is not going to be (mindfully – using Ron's usage) contributing to Theme by definition.  If he was then he would be playing Nar and not Sim.  The statement is just as illogical as saying, "A Gamist is able to contribute in a game even if he is not contributing thematically, or "A Narrativist is able to contribute in a game even if he is not contributing to the goal of Victory."  A Simulationist is not contributing to a Sim game if he is addressing Premise (contributing Thematically) or Challenge (contributing Strategically).  A Sim player is engaging in Bricolage, employing the elements of Exploration – but that only provisional at this moment (at best!) and certainly is not the point of this thread.

Hey Walt,

Just a few thoughts to consider.

First of all, unlike solitaire, there are always at least two players involved in roleplay as far as the model goes.  Exploration, by current definition, is the sharing of imaginings so that pegs the lower limit at two players, GM and player.  Thus even if there is only one player he is still interacting with another person – the GM.  His successes are still known to another.  This formulation still makes the situation/conditions of play social in nature.

Another way to look at the idea of rewards for effective play is that all rewards can only be "felt" internally.  So whether the impetus for the "feeling" of reward comes externally (from someone else) or internally (the "feeling" of a job well done) might one might (not should!) consider that where the impetus came from irrelevant as the "feeling" itself can only be experienced from within.

This may sound a little goofy but consider the Shared Imaginary Space.  All the players are not sharing a common thing (an imaginary space), but rather strive mightily, via the Lumpley Principle, to make sure they are all imagining the same elements which are construed to be in the "same space."  In both cases what is being imagined or felt can only reside within the individual.  Take away that individual and there is no imagining or feeling.

This last part has digressed far from this thread's original intention, and lest we awaken the ire of the gods of moderation let us either drop this particular topic or move it to another thread!

Quote from: Caldis
That's what I dispute.  Narrativism can not exist  with only the gm addressing premise.  The narrativist player is looking to express his take on the premise, he's there to create that address of premise by his actions in game.  He is not there to experience a game that has premise or addresses premise if he is not part of creating that experience, just as the gamist has to be involved in creating victory.  

Mmm ... here's what I'm thinking: remember my example with the Nazi turn-coat the players are sent to rescue? There's a reason I set that up. I think it's fair to call the GM a Narrativist if he or she is really interested in the ethical questions posed by the situation.

If, at the end of play, the two Sim players have not really engaged with the moral/ethical/human experience aspects of the situation (but did really love the game and had fun) I think it's fair to say the GM has played "Narrativist" andthe players played "Sim."

What it sounds to me like you're saying is that the title can only apply to players and not the GM. I dunno if that's true or not from the essays--but conceptually, that seems incomplete to me.

-Marco

Quote from: SilmenumeActually that is synecdoche. You have mistaken the whole for the one. Participationism is the giving up all CA relevant input to the GM – not just Thematic input. ]

Not according to the glossary.

Participationism is "The Technique of using Force without the Black Curtain".  Force is "The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player."

Now I know the glossary is provisional but this is exactly how I've always understood the term and how I've seen it used here.  I believe you are conflating the term to describe something it's not intended for which will cause all kinds of problems if we try and have a discussion using the term.

The problem I see with your definition is that if I am conciously giving up all CA related input to the GM then how can I possibly be expressing that agenda?  It seems disfunctional to me, you cant express an agenda if your input is irrelevant.

Quote from: MarcoIf, at the end of play, the two Sim players have not really engaged with the moral/ethical/human experience aspects of the situation (but did really love the game and had fun) I think it's fair to say the GM has played "Narrativist" andthe players played "Sim." ]

What your example shows is a gm who has set the game up for a narrativist situation but it doesnt show how he plays.  Has he expressed narrativism by trying to make the choice of what to do with the officer the central focus of play or has he drifted towards what seems to have been of interest to the others.  Maybe just tactical WWII combat.

Quote from: Caldis
The problem I see with your definition is that if I am conciously giving up all CA related input to the GM then how can I possibly be expressing that agenda?  It seems disfunctional to me, you cant express an agenda if your input is irrelevant.

You cannot.  You are just participating, going along for the ride.

Participationism is the deferral of all CA-relevant of input to the GM consensually.

Illusionism is more like the GM arrogating control of all CA-relevant decision non-consensually.

Quote from: Caldis
What your example shows is a gm who has set the game up for a narrativist situation but it doesnt show how he plays.  Has he expressed narrativism by trying to make the choice of what to do with the officer the central focus of play or has he drifted towards what seems to have been of interest to the others.  Maybe just tactical WWII combat.

I agree that it's just a scenario set up (I said that in the post)--my question is: if the GM is providing the adventure because he or she is interested in the premise element of the situation, is it correct to say that the GM is exhibiting Narrativism?

If yes, then it's a case (in a one-on-one) that one person is Nar and one player is Sim (assuming the player is sim).

If no, then okay--I'm alright with that. But do the CA's really only apply to players and not to GM's?

-Marco

The GM is a player.  So you have mixed game with one Narr player and two Sim players.  They may be exhibiting their individual CA's, or not, depending on how much support they get in so doing.  If they can play succesfully, they have likely negotiated some sort of drift.

Quote from: contracycleThe GM is a player.  So you have mixed game with one Narr player and two Sim players.  They may be exhibiting their individual CA's, or not, depending on how much support they get in so doing.  If they can play succesfully, they have likely negotiated some sort of drift.

So then MJ is right and Narrativism can exist with "only the GM addressing premise?" (which was what sparked this question)

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
So then MJ is right and Narrativism can exist with "only the GM addressing premise?" (which was what sparked this question)

Shrug.  Maybe.  Answering your question does not imply I have a developed view on MJ's proposition.  MJ was proposing participationist Narr specifically, btw.  It seems reasonable at first glance to me.

You guys are getting into the "is it a CA if only one person is doing it?" question. Which is totally separate from the topic of the debate ...

... Hey! The current debate is off the topic of the thread!

Dammit. Humpback thread alert. Close it down.

Time for new threads. Jay, a re-phrasing of the basic topic of this one also needs its new thread.

Best,
Ron