The Forge Archives

For the last couple of months the GM in the game I play in and I have been, for lack of a better term, flirting with me getting some sort of a Dwarf Character.  I had one for that I did not play but once or twice that I lost during the July 4 week of gaming in 2004 that I posted about earlier trying to keep an Elf maiden alive.  She did not know she was an Elf as she was orphaned when she was very young.  My Dwarf came across her and was smitten by the absolute beauty of unsullied innocence that I forswore my family and followed her around wherever she went as companion and protector.  As I was on the tall end for a Dwarf I played myself off as a misshapen boy (I was beardless) who lived in the streets with the other homeless misfits and youths – and this is where she ran.  We were in the south in Harrandor so no one knew what an Elf or a Dwarf was plus providence always managed to keep her identity a secret, as is the way providence seems to work for Elves.  Through a long confluence of events she was sold to some Black Commandos for the fee of killing me by one of the other street urchins.  I could not be found, and the Commandos were not going to bother with someone as insignificant as me anyway – so when the dust settled I pursued.  The Black Commando's seemed to treat her as a prize so I feared that they knew or at least had some idea of what she was.  Against them I had NO hope – so I followed them all the way back to Aria where I took up residence with the only friend I had found in that whole hostile journey – the encircling mountains.  I dug in and waited.  Finally I "felt" that if I did not go in, I would never get the chance.  As it turned out the portent I "felt" was the oncoming of the sack of Aria initiated by the Dunedain in revenge for Tharbad.  Thousands of Vikings were brought in and turned loose and into this unforeseen maelstrom I entered to try and retrieve my beautiful unspoiled little gem.  In the end I died but did manage to see her (barely) rescued by one of her kin.  As the Elf carried the maiden off and I was dying upon my knees I called out, "Elda!  Know this – it was I, Jahal, who died trying to save your kin..."

...and that ended my interest in Dwarves for a while.

Cut to –

...about two months ago.  The GM is starting to assemble the "evil dungeon party" that one of the player's has been agitating for a couple of years.  A number of the players are getting their Characters and the GM and I are fumbling around trying to figure something out that is workable for the scenario and palatable for me as a player.  One idea that he tossed out was that of a "dark Dwarf."  He was all hot and bothered about the idea of me playing an actively evil Dwarf from the Withered Heath – I was less sanguine.  However, I would eventually need a Character for the "evil dungeon drop party" that was slowly forming and the idea of coming up with a story of a Dwarf from a line that no longer existed and had no love or truck with other Dwarves at all fascinated me.  Dwarves as, we play them, are incredibly insular.  They are not physically fast in a world where speed kills.  Typically he who lands the first blow wins.  The lingering effects of the seven Dwarven rings forged by Sauron in the second age are still felt in that race as they are all still tainted by the inflamed lust for gold and such – thus they are suspicious of all non-Dwarves.  They have also been "peeled" a couple of times in their history and have long memories of other races NOT coming to their aid.  Finally shall we forget the events surrounding the Nauglamir in the 1st Age and what happened in the Battle of Five Armies in the 3rd?

So I came up with a tale of a Dwarf being the sole survivor of his people who had ultimately perished in a great battle with dragons in the Withered Heath.  I proposed that this Character still possessed the ancient knowledge of his line of how to enchant blades and such.  He would be in the south forging whatever items he was contracted for to the wealthiest patron.  Long ago his line moved into the Withered Heath in the far north for the unbelievably rich ores in the mountains and to put the wood to the dragons there.  This line of Dwarves had much discourse with the Noldo and a strong and productive relationship grew between the two peoples.  I claimed that my line basically liked how the Noldo "walked tall" in the world and were not cowed and did not live in abject fear of The Shadow and that they brought the fight to their enemies.  In the end were wiped out in a last desperate push by the Dragons while our kin, under the influence of the 7 rings, would not come unless compensation was involved.  We were so wrothful that our brothers would dicker over our survival that we told the other Dwarven Kings what they could do with their lusting after our wealth - and in the end we were overcome in our pride and avarice.

Since I was in to be in the extreme south I had decided that I would not let the world utterly forget the knowledge we had for so long nurtured by making magical items on a commission basis.  While I was mortal and would in time pass from this world and all my knowledge with me, I vowed then to leave a legacy unto the world that would not forget who I was and that my people had mastered a mighty craft and that we had been abandoned to die.  These items would, however, be full of my anger and malice so would not long bring weal to those who in their arrogance and ignorance think that one could merely employ a Dwarf of my heritage and lineage as a mere artisan.  The idea I had was that I would have been contracted by one of the three, what could be called "guilds," to create some item that would then somehow upset the balance of power/terror.  Word got out and my patron was killed and I had to escape the city for my life and this would put in a position whereby I would need to travel and with others.  Given my disposition I would not have been too particular that the group was composed of extremely evil personages.  --- and this is one idea that I had written up and proposed to my GM.

However, before the actual group formed and I would have a chance to play this out, we played another scenario in this city and picked up a Character known as a Skin Walker.  This is a type of lycanthrope.  A PC in the city in question belonged to the most powerful of the 3 guilds and I thought it would be reeeeealy cool to play an "urban campaign" with a "below the radar of society" thief's guilds wars.  Actually there are only two established guildes in the city and the one I was in was an upstart literally clawing its way to the top, however it was still covert and while operating the other two guilds did not know that we existed as an entity, but they did know there was a new problem in their section of town with roving packs of "dogs and wolves."  So I wrote up a one-page description of me coming to in the rain in an alley at night, naked and covered in blood and gore with dead bodies all around.  Basically a person from behind said that I had done all this and if I wished not to live in constant fear that I should follow him – and this was how I was inducted.  So it appears now that this Character would be destined for the Evil Dungeon Drop™ group and that was cool by me.  We played a short for that night and it ROCKED!  With only a blank sheet we started in a dilapidated building with a man in dark robes and withered countenance commanding us to go out and take control of the night – and so we did.  And in the next hour or so of play I created and discovered some of what this Character is made of and can do!  Shape change to a wolf on the fly!  Super human strength as watched one of my people smash down a door with his bare hands!  I could communicate and command with "lesser hounds" (real dogs).  I had heightened senses.  It was awesome as we hunted down some of the members of the other guilds.

Cut the Dwarf scenario I had written about several weeks ago with Gralin.  My Dwarf was supposed to be introduced in this scenario.  In fact the night literally started off in the extreme east at Cuiviénen with a PC Elf (already existing scenario several years old) who had gone to find the birth place of the Elves to see if any remained and to bring them back to utmost West in Arda.  Then the GM did a bird's eye travelling West across other scenarios with various PC's along the way – and as we were approaching the Lonely Mountain he cut to a lone Dwarf hammering away at his forge who was utterly unconcerned with the world.  At this I, as a player, immediately stood up and mimed myself at a forge with extreme intensity uttering to the flames – "obey me!" ... and the camera moved on.  As I had posted in my previous AP thread, as per the events of that game, we never ended up getting my Dwarf as the scenario veered so far away from what the GM had thought it would go.

Cut to:
Last Saturday.  The game was called together only late Thursday evening so only 3 players in addition to the GM were available to play – myself, Chuck and Montana.  This would be interesting as these two are very, very good players.  I do not exactly recall how the session began, but it did so with so "work" on one of the other two players' Characters.  Not much that I can remember happened for about half an hour when the GM turned to me and started talking about a Dwarf.  Long – Long have I forged ... alone.  My people came to the Withered Heath for the ores and the dragons and we had much discourse with the Noldo.  There was much love (read - respect, sharing of intellectual gifts and knowledge) between us as peoples.  We were proud – mighty and the masters of our own fate.  Even the dragons feared us... for a while.  Then they gathered and attacked again and again and we sent word out to our kin for aid – and they demanded recompense for their axes.  We would not trade gold for blood and so we fell.  All but one.  I too would have fallen if I had not been buried under my own dead and thought to be the same.  However I was left with the curse of remaining alive – so in my stubbornness and defiance of any remaining dragons I set about to bury all my kin and woe betide any who would hinder my works.  The GM said I carved out 100 tombs in the mountainside and that in them I forged and placed 100 suits of armor, 100 helms, 100 shields and 99 swords.  In the center of tombs was a Throne room where our king would have sat.

...and so I forged.  The last sword.  I added that I forged in a pit in the center of all the tombs as if they had been arranged in an amphitheater and I was the center stage.  The GM made some comment to the effect that I shaped the whole construction as if it were a crown which I thought was pretty cool!  He told me that the Noldo had taught me the langue of fire.  That with this knowledge I could bend fires to my will.  He had me roll a d20 and I rolled well.  I had a "near mastery" of the language at 8th level and 8 checks – one more would put me at 9th!  Then the Elves taught me Fire Songs/Chants and in this I rolled extremely well and had a 10th level skill.  (At this point Chuck handed a note forward to the GM which he then read aloud – "How can one expect to forge is one cannot control the fire?" – right on!)  He also started to say that, "Fire is your friend..." when I interrupted by saying, "No!  Fire is never your friend... at best it is an untrustworthy servant."  The GM went on to say that the Noldo taught me three secrets of fire.  First is that it is a thief and steals air.  Second it is always hungry and is ever covetous of more fuel.  Third – fire has no loyalty, it is a betrayer never to be trusted.  The GM said with this knowledge that I was extraordinarily "resistant" to fire – but not immune.  Nothing is immune to fire.  Then he said I was forging a great helm – and I knew immediately this was to be a "dragon helm."  I had mentioned to him very early that I thought it would be cool to have some armor or a shield made from dragon scales or hide and to have a sword or weapon that had a special purpose against dragons.  This would be mostly symbolic as since the death of Smaug was pretty much the end of Dragons in the world – besides I would not want to actually battle a dragon.  That would be a short scenario!

Back to the helm.  Immediately I interrupted him saying that this was to be my greatest work and that I started by creating a pit lined with gems as only they were sturdy enough to withstand the heat I would need.  I did not make coal as was the norm but mined it from the very earth itsElf.  This coal would be a gift from Mahal (Aule) and would not come from Yavanna.  Then I forged a new set of tools for the sole task of making this helm.  I said that I created tools to hold the mask in place so I could hammer with two-handed strokes.  The GM altered this by saying that I hammered with two forge hammers and that the fire itsElf leapt under the hammers as they crashed upon the helm while I stood in the pit surround by flames!

And during this he said that in such matters there is a "madness" that sets in.  Perhaps in my stubbornness I had halted the flow of time around me and this was how I was able to do so much – maybe.  He also said that I could not remember if my father told me about Eol (the forger of the most powerful 2 weapons in the history of Middle Earth {Anglachel/Gurthang and Anguriel} – a "dark" Elf and one who lived and died in the 1st age) or that I had met him personally!  Wow!  What a fascinating thought!  What an open ended source of speculation!!  Did I tamper with time or am I just a little mad?

So I hammered on this enormous helm in the midst of mighty fires with two hammers that streaked like falling meteors wreathed in flame naked from the waist up when I heard something that I had not hear in ages – a voice.  "We have come out of history.  Will you array us?"  The fires, the GM said, immediately banked and "seemed" to bow before the two.  Two Noldorian Elves of the first age – PC's.  I said, "You have tarried overlong, but - yes."

OK!  This is way super cool for a number of reasons.  First of all I'm going to be running with 2 first age Noldorian Elves – that says a huge amount about the nature of my Character.  That Noldorian Elves of the first age would ask me to array them says much about my own smithing/enchanting skills!  These two PC's, Celemegil and Celemir, were run briefly several years ago and are accomplished magic item craftsmen so that they would be pleased with what I had to offer is a huge indication of the magnitude of what I can do.  I have not "rolled any numbers" for this Character other than the two fire skills.  I can't wait to get to actually filling out a Character sheet, but this is already shaping up to be extreme coolness!  Speaking of shape the GM also indicated that my shape was more mannish than is typical for Dwarves – I said that it was simply due to effects of moving my body like an Elf during the forging processes they taught me for so many years.  Then the GM said that it was now time to put such thoughts away and that we were to start on the scenario he planned – Doh!!!!

I was not disappointed about what happened during the rest of the night and I hope to relate about that in another post in the future as that scenario captured my imagination so much that I had trouble sleeping that night – and that hasn't happened in years.  Though lots of fun I am uncertain why the rest of the night got under my skin so – but it was very interesting to me!

So here we have one example of our Character creation process.  It can be complex and involved.  The creation process can be woven into play or it much can happen in direct GM and player direct talk outside gaming sessions.  This whole give and take, this peeling of the onion, this adding of parts (dare I say – Bricoling?) upon parts while being mindful of their history was exhilarating in a way that is hard to describe.  I should note that there are "no" more "magic" crafters in the world – especially among the Dwarves.  The echoes of the first age...  I don't know.  I hope I haven't bored too many people.  Just posting more about how things work in our game.  I hope it has been informative in some way.  Thank you all for your time.

3132 Words

You know, I like to kid myself that I know a bit about Middle Earth. What's likely, at least, is that few people know as much as I do about it.

Still I couldn't follow that post.

Part of it is the mixing of player and character. Jay, you're not a dwarf. Too much description of the events of the game, not enough about the people playing. We weren't there and playing so...we just don't care what happened in-game. That's true of all RPGs and all people reading about them.

Mike

Mike, is everything OK? This is not the first snappish post I've seen from you in the last couple of days. I guess that's really an off-thread question, or a rhetorical one.

Jay, I always enjoy reading these posts about your game, because the whole thing is so crazily involved and intense. I dig that. However, I also very rarely know what to say, because I'm not seeing where you're trying to go in your analysis, or if you are analyzing, or what questions you have, etc. Not to mention the always-important stuff about the real world things going on. What are the relationships like between you and the players of the Noldor, for instance? Is any real-world stuff being negotiated in the new setup with your dwarf? What's going on here in terms of the social dynamics of the game?

Hey Sean,

Thank you for your gracious words.

Quote from: SeanHowever, I also very rarely know what to say, because I'm not seeing where you're trying to go in your analysis, or if you are analyzing, or what questions you have, etc.

To be honest, I don't know either.  I have been strongly advised to post in the AP threads about my games to try and establish some sort of common ground as well as to provide some background to my posts.  Being that I am so new to this process in a way I'm just "vomiting up" my experiences in the (vain?) hope that someone smarter than I will ask the meaningful and insightful questions to get the ball rolling.  I guess this is more of a raw data dump as I don't have any "issues" that I am trying to solve in this thread nor do I have anything to expound upon theory wise, per say, here.  Yes I fully understand that the meat is in the player interactions, and I will deal with that topic in a moment.

However, I do think it is instructional Mike reacted so negatively to my post form.  Sim is, as Ron so aptly puts it, not like the others.  Sim is very difficult to parse and quantify because in Sim the players are not manipulating or mindfully engaging "concepts" (Premise/Challenge and everything attendant to "addressing" those "concepts".)  It is easy to talk about "concepts."  There are very few "meta-game mechanics" (which in my opinion are used to overtly/directly aid in the discussion of the "concepts") to go over and we tend to try and work everything out from within the SIS.

Regarding the interactions of the players at the table – what you've read is that interaction.  For example, my previous post does contain a lot of the interactions between me and the GM as well as many of the important surrounding and influential events.  I'm not saying that I can't post more effectively – far from it.  I do really wish to learn to post in a manner that is more transparent to everyone.  An enormous amount of effort and time went into my post and I would like to reap some reward for my efforts – IOW I'm not posting just to see my own words staring back at me.  There really is a lot of important data in my posts but there are two major issues that stem from the same basic root.  Sim is a signification process and not a concept manipulation/discussion process and neither myself (problem 1) nor the readers (problem 2) (with, to best of my understanding, the exception of Chris L) know how to effectively discuss or cull out or highlight the salient elements for analysis.

Let's refer back to the creation of the Dwarf in my first post.  What I was getting at, I think, was the incredible complexity of all the concerns in that process.  As long as my post was I can see that I did leave out some very important elements – that of my relationships to the other players regarding this particular Character.

Actually let's stop here for a moment.  I had a thought that might help.  I claimed that Sim is a signification process.  I realize here that much of what I had written is opaque precisely because no one understands the significance of the actions that were taking place.  This is no one's fault but mine, however it is central to the whole understanding of my posts.  THAT the GM and I were discussing an EVIL Dwarf is significant.  THAT the GM and I were discussing me having a new Dwarf is significant – both personally and to the game world at large.  THAT I could bend fire to the Character's will is significant to the world at large and to me as a player and my relationship with the GM and the group dynamics.  THAT the GM was considering giving ME a Dwarf and not another player at this time is significant.  THAT my Dwarf MAY have known Eol is significant both to my standing at the table as well as to the world at large.  THAT I could convince the GM of certain elements of my Character's back story is significant.  THAT the GM said that my Character had FORGED 100 suits of mail, had FORGED 100 helms, had FORGED 99 swords, and had unwittingly CARVED the mountain side into the shape of a crown is significant.  Etc. – ad nauseam.

There are also the Social Contract level issues that center around the celebrated themes in the game.  We all love playing epic heroic Characters and we all love celebrating that ideal.  So to play with the idea of potentially bringing in what could have been, in the early stages, a powerful evil Character into the world would have put stress on that Contract with regards to the rest of the players.  I'm not even particularly interested in playing "true evil."  So this give and take and the evolution of this Character idea is an  "important" element/process.  What Mike read as, I'm gathering, a giant screaming pile of useless details is highly relevant to the Sim agenda.  However its not the "details" as ontological units, but rather the significance of their mere presence and the nature of their relationships to one another is fundamental.  What is seen as useless junk/color to a Narrativist is the very symbols/objects that the Simulationist bricoles and signifies with.

So the whole process of how I got to the fairly finalized form of the Dwarf is a type of recounting of the interactions between the GM and myself.  Its not only "what" was said (the concepts) but THAT these objects/symbols were chosen and allowed to enter significantly into the SIS that was important/central.  Three quarter's of the fun was that I got these objects to store in my bricoleur's shed for future use!  Can't wait!  Woo Hoo!

Quote from: SeanWhat are the relationships like between you and the players of the Noldor, for instance? Is any real-world stuff being negotiated in the new setup with your dwarf? What's going on here in terms of the social dynamics of the game?

The player's of the Noldor are Chuck and Montana.  My relationship with Montana is very solid and pretty easy going.  We sync fairly well and he frequently goes to great "personal risk" (read – jeopardizing the existence of his Characters) to aid player's/Character's that he is paired with.  He is a creative and interesting player.  Chuck is another matter as I have indicated in previous threads.  He is paranoid and typically has little faith in the player's around him though he himself is frequently brilliant, though not without his faults.  As far as I am concerned I am excited to run my Dwarf with the two of them as players.

Is any real-world stuff being negotiated in the new set up with my dwarf?  I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  No one has directly approached about how I should or ought to create or run the Character – in fact that is more or less verboten.  The players all exchange ideas on some level or another, but the buck stops with the individual player and the GM.  IOW while players may suggest they may not, as per the social contract, apply any more pressure than suggest.  That is actually a huge no-no to step beyond mere suggestion.  So there is the is strange nebulous, for lack of a better term, tension between freedom to choose on one hand while supporting and maintaining the ideal of what is being celebrated by the group as whole on the other.  I should also note that once in game no player may suggest how another player is to play his Character on any level – outside the SIS.  In side the SIS everyone's Character is allowed to act and react as they see fit.  So if one Character does not like what another Character is doing/saying then they have free reign to do what they think is appropriate – up to and including killing (or at least attempting to kill) the offending Character.

Out of game, and I mean after or between session and not OOC or metagame, there is more latitude.  However, after or between games there is more of an objective analysis and not a judgmental evaluation – or at least that is the ideal that the GM sets.  This "analysis" or debrief after games is actually a critical part of our play process.  It is informal to be sure, but important nonetheless and just plain fun.

I know that I have rambled and I apologize profusely, but I hope that I have in some way enlightened this discourse in some fashion.  Please – please ask any questions that you see fit.  Or make suggestions as to how I can post more effectively so that more or all may be part of this discourse.

Thank you all for your time.

PS – Mike I am sorry you find my post so repulsive.  I am not unmindful of the interests or concerns of the readers.  However, I do think that part of the problem is that Sim does not lend itself well to the type of reporting and analysis that functions exceedingly well for Gamism and Narrativism.  I accept that I may not be terribly effective in my writings, yet I think we should consider the possibility that what I am talking about does require a very different frame of mind to understand/process.  I am doing the best that I know how and am fully open to any helpful suggestions, but consider – are you really being charitable and making an effort to meet me half way?  If you are, then great – I need to work that much harder!

Quote from: Mike HolmesPart of it is the mixing of player and character. Jay, you're not a dwarf. Too much description of the events of the game, not enough about the people playing.

I know that I am not a Dwarf and you know that I am not a Dwarf – so if I am drifting "voices" as it were, I think that too is significant – and a common outgrowth of the mythic bricolage Sim process.  I think it is profoundly telling that I made that error.  It is very indicative of what naturally happens during mythic bricolage – so my drifting "identities" is an important "tell" of the Sim CA.  This is a prime example of how just how deeply different Sim is from Gam/Nar.

What would you have me saying of the people playing in the game in my primary post here?  Other than the GM they were not involved in any direct level.  Indirectly we all have histories of what we signify as important and we do have between game discussions typically in more general terms – i.e., this is how I think the Dwarven culture works, or I was reading the other day in the Silmarillion about the Elves and it doesn't seem to much of a stretch to me that they (as a race) could do this? Etc.

We aren't creating a story with Theme, nor are we marching on to Victory.  So what metric would you have me use?  By bricoling we agree to give up most if not nearly all meta-game discussions and mechanics.  What OOC does occur among the players is usually supportive or "pass me a drink" kind of stuff or commentary about what is currently transpiring that our Characters are NOT involved in.  The remainder of the discussions, which are "relevant" but outside the SIS, are almost always issues of clarification of what is going on in the SIS and transpire between player and GM.  What remains to discuss are the decisions that the players made – which tends to end up being, more or less, a recounting of the game's events.  What I can do is spend more time explaining the significance of such decisions – for that is what is at heart in the Sim CA.  I have also spoken with Ron about finding my voice here – so I am fully aware that I can improve and that I am "thrashing around in the dark."  Nar is about how we go about addressing the Premise.  Sim is about how we go about the Signification process and that is found in the details – they are inseperable.  You can no more discuss Nar without discussing all the various ways and means that the address of Premise was pursued then one can discuss Sim without discussing all the various ways and means that the (note - plural) objects of play were manipulated and signified.  I don't know how to sum up that process yet – or even if its possible.  As Chris indicated and as I have read in Strauss these kinds of behaviors mean very little to those outside the (signification) process.  I feel like I am trying to describe what its like to play a soccer game and I am being told to only talk about the successful goals kicked.

Quote from: Mike HolmesWe weren't there and playing so...we just don't care what happened in-game

But that is what is important to Sim.  Just as myths only cared about by those who create and use them, so it is with Sim.  There is nothing of importance outside the act of creating, manipulating and the signifiying of the employed objects/symbols.  The signification process happens after the lumpley principle; that is after credibility is assigned not before.

So there we have it.  Are we inching towards common ground?  I hope so – but do let me know!

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: Mike HolmesWe weren't there and playing so...we just don't care what happened in-game

But that is what is important to Sim.  Just as myths only cared about by those who create and use them, so it is with Sim.  There is nothing of importance outside the act of creating, manipulating and the signifiying of the employed objects/symbols.  The signification process happens after the lumpley principle; that is after credibility is assigned not before.

Hopefully I'm not butting in where I shouldn't be...

It seems to me that all of the details are not required to get at the Sim-ness of what happened.  For example, in a summary of a Gamist session, you don't have to go into every little tactical decision.  You can say "We saw a big challenge, but we carefully manipulated the rules and managed our resources and had a lot of fun kicking butt.  Joe slapped me on the back after a string of good rolls took out their right flank without a single injury to me!"

Likewise, you could do something very similar with your Sim play experiences because it really isn't the details that matter when other people are analyzing it.  You could be immersing in Wild West detail, faithfully adventuring in a Star Wars universe or just about anything else - the important part is not whether you use a horse or a starship, but what happened among the people and why it worked or didn't.

For example, in skimming through your post, the only part that jumps out as being interesting (in an analysis sense) is when you somehow get stuck with a character other than the one you put all the effort into.  Here's where I think Mike is really criticizing.  We don't know how that happened... there must have been some discussion among the group and you must have had some opinion about this event.  I know players who would have all but left the group if they didn't get to use a character as detailed and interesting as the one you designed - you obviously put a lot more work into that than most people would.  

But you don't mention any of that; instead you launch into a discussion of guilds and Skin Walkers which are, unfortunately, irrelevant to what happened.  You might have designed a cool wookiee sith lord in Star Wars and been handed a Twi'lek pilot.  The social/GNS/play issues are going to be identical between the two.  We just don't need to know anything about the characters or the setting that doesn't directly relate to what happened between the people.

In fact, here's the whole of your post boiled down into its essentials, as I can see:
- you played a character that didn't really appeal to you once
- later, you came up with an idea for a similar character that did appeal to you
- but you got assigned a different one
- and when you tried to bring in the one you liked, the GM didn't find an appropriate place to do it
- the GM made up for it by giving you a cool cut scene and interesting powers, items and companions
- you enjoyed this a lot (apparently, enough make up for not having actually played the character)

If I had to pick some analysis out of that, I'd say that perhaps you're playing RPGs for entirely the wrong reason.  You might be better off simply writing fiction.  Your group might be better off too, because there's never any mention of them really contributing to what's going on.  In fact, the group appears to be trying to stifle it and you appear unaware of this (and unaware of them in general from the post).

Hiya,

All points of preference aside, what I'm seeing in this account is mainly how much emotional investment and narration of fictional events are present ... prior to play. Even as you described it, your whole tone shifted from "me and I and how it was" to "Ye Olde Story of Yon Dwarfe." Even character creation is play, for you, in this case (consistent with some of my Sim points).

It reminds me a little bit of how much time and fun were involved for some Champions players back in the 1980s, who would say that everything after building the basic portrait of the character was downhill. Not that I'm implying that to be the case here - just the fun & effort, is the parallel.

Jay, what I'm interested in is how typical this degree of negotiation and investment is, for the folks in your group. As I recall, everyone has at least a couple of characters running at any one time, right? Do all the characters get this whole vetting and emotional buildup, for all the players?

Best,
Ron

What Justin said.

It's not at all about preference - I'm pretty simmy in some ways. I can show lots of posts about very simmy games that did not rely on recapitulating in-game events. In fact, your section with the capital THAT's was actually pretty good in some ways, except that it didn't say why these things were important.

My point about the output story being uninteresting is that, if I played a sim game, and put the output out, you'd snore just as much. Because RPGs aren't meant to be consumed post-play. They're fun only in play. Actual Play posts aren't about entertaining the reader at all, they're about trying to get the reader to understand your processes, and how the real people involved created what they created and why.

For example, I know this is problematic for you, since you've said that you don't have the mechanisms fully available to you, but it's hard for us to understand how the system interacts in play since there's nowhere for us to see what the system is like. Instead we have a very vauge impression of it. Heck, and this should concern you, from what I've heard, the systems nearest relative is Rolemaster, from what I can tell. I'm probably very wrong, but I can only work with the information I have.

In another way, I think that we are forced to assume that the system is actually, effectively, freeform for certain purposes.

In any case, other things are very much not clear. Like who has what sort of credibility. Can you as a player create a village? Or suggest to the GM that they do so? Do the GMs keep final say on everything? Is agreement given tacitly or verbally? How does the record-keeping play into it? Does it matter how much something has been written down?

Yadda, yadda. I mean, this is hard, but, try to step outside of your experiences, and imagine that you're explaining to somebody who had never played a RPG before just how the decisions are made and why. Because, given the far out methods that your group uses, we are, for all practical purposes, all completely new to this form of play. Oh, we might identify with this part or that. But the totality of it is so far from any other group that I've even heard of that it's very much like a new form entire.

Or, perhaps my perceptions are all wrong. But I'm just, again, working with what I have.

Mike

Hello,

Wait a minute. I think that's all backwards.

Mike and others, bear in mind that this thread is not a favor to us. It's for us to reach where Jay's coming from, not the other way 'round, or at least not yet.

Could I see some indication that people are interested in what's being said? I think I provided an example. Let's have this discussion be by and for people who can do the same.

Mike, you just might not be the right person to participate in this thread, unless you want to turn around your perspective and quit saying "no no you didn't post right."

Best,
Ron

Communication is always a two-way street. Before we can do anything for Jay, or reach some higher understanding of any of this, we all have to understand each other. Basically I'm saying that I can't participate because I'm getting all noise and no signal. Jay doesn't owe me or anyone a damn thing. But if he wants any sort of reasonable feedback, we have to be getting information from him.

If it's only me for whom this is problematic, then Jay should probably just ignore me and hope that he can work with others who are interested.

Mike

Right. Mike, your proper role at this time is to stop explaining yourself and wait silently. Thank you.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Silmenume
So here we have one example of our Character creation process.  It can be complex and involved.  The creation process can be woven into play or it much can happen in direct GM and player direct talk outside gaming sessions.  

Ron commented that you are treating character creation here very much as an instance of play, and since the goal of play seems to be "to associate with the romance of this particular vision of middle-earth" that makes a lot of sense.

This sounds very much like what Andrew Rilstone was talking about when he said "focus + acceptance = role-playing." Synecdoche, for certain, but I think applicable to this style of Sim, in that it is these things that are the point for you guys.  

I've read all of your posts about this game and I always find myself scratching my head about a game that's obviously so exciting and compelling for you but which to me sounds really unenjoyable. But these posts are definitely helping me understand it.

We used to play a lot like this, down to the between-play meetings for discussion among the upper echelon (we called them 'bull sessions'). Two-hour breaks to discuss social ramifications of a particular spell. Etc.

It's about the Ideal, or the Dream or whatever. You want to get the experience right. So yeah, character creation in itself needs to be woven in if the Dream is to maintain internal consistency. Every detail needs to be thought through. The arcane knowledge that builds up among the group is immense. Dissenters either fall into line or leave.

It's like doing history or archaeology rather than literature. I get the appeal--I've done years of it with RQ and Pendragon. But, with some others, I'm not so interested in the specific details of your research. I only read somebody's Master's thesis if I have to, and that goes for the Silmarillion as well.

I'd like to hear some general points about your techniques. How do you make Sim fun? Obviously the game has a great hold on you: is it as simple as your all being Tolkien fans or is it the game itself? Do you have any conscious techniques?

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAll points of preference aside, what I'm seeing in this account is mainly how much emotional investment and narration of fictional events are present ... prior to play. Even as you described it, your whole tone shifted from "me and I and how it was" to "Ye Olde Story of Yon Dwarfe." Even character creation is play, for you, in this case (consistent with some of my Sim points).

Yeah, funny how that happened.  It certainly was neither my intent nor goal!  In trying to recall and relate the creative thought process and the interactions between the GM and myself I unintentionally fell back into Character.  I don't know if I managed to convey this idea, but I wished to get across just how ad hoc our Character Creation is and how "organic" it is or can be to the game process.  Certainly the most important idea I wanted to get across is just how peripheral mechanics are involved with Character creation.  This is not to say we don't have mechanics for Character creation, we do, but the process always begins with some sort of fleshing out of a concept before dice rolling begins.  This concept is very fluid and dynamic until such time as it becomes "official" when the Character actually interacts with Setting.  That is we can have a rather fully fleshed out Character and still play with a blank Character sheet and this Character would be more "solid" than one with a Character sheet but little background/personality etc.

I think what is important here is that Characters are mostly "inspired" by Setting (Which includes both canon – the books – and created – via the game process) or at least must be consistent with its "principles" even if not in pre-established fact.  My Dwarf, for example, was from one of the other lines of Dwarves.  That there were other lines was clearly indicated in the books, but the names of them and where they lived and what happened to them is basically unsaid.  So building upon the basic "principles" of Dwarfdom and then extrapolating a bit I got to create/contribute something "new" to the world i.e., I got to extend the Dream.

To do delve a little deeper into navel gazing I would say that for us there are two "aspects" of Character creation.  One is the creation of the concepts of the Character and all related matters – personality, culture, situation/circumstances, back-story, relationships, skills, drives, physicality, etc.  This part is looked upon as "a part of play" in that we are engaging in a dialectic between culture (Character) and nature (Setting) even if we aren't sitting at table and rolling dice etc.  The other phase is the mechanical process of rolling dice and filling out the Character sheet.  This process is not looked upon as play – and given the choice of whether to "roll up" new Characters or discuss or "play them into existence" the majority of the time we choose the latter.  It's not much different than actually play – truth be told.  Its still bricoling and we are thus still engaging in Dream building.  "Exploring" the Character into "form" is still Exploration.  The introduction of new Facts into the Fact space is Exploration, be those facts events or qualities about one's Character.  Mechanics for us, on the other hand, are constructs external to the SIS that while necessary are not bricolage.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsJay, what I'm interested in is how typical this degree of negotiation and investment is, for the folks in your group. As I recall, everyone has at least a couple of characters running at any one time, right? Do all the characters get this whole vetting and emotional buildup, for all the players?

If I recall correctly the number of Characters that each player has varies from about 15 to 40+.

The degree of negotiation regarding Character creation is totally dynamic.  There are no fixed parameters or even rough guidelines (nor real expectations) regarding how much time or effort is expended in this process.  We spend a lot of time out of game session just "talking [about] D&D."  And these conversations range from what the implications of what happened in game, to inquiring about the motives of the PC's or NPC's, to hashing out player issues, to discussing some change in mechanics, to something we've recently uncovered in the books, or a movie we saw that gave us an idea for a Character, to trying to get more extract information about something from the GM, to talking about what we liked about the game or didn't, to the GM asking us what kind of Character we would like to play in such and such a scenario, to us bringing up an idea to the GM about a new Character idea or scenario or culture or magic item, etc.  There is this constant low level D&D related dialogue going on all the time.  So how much effort a player wants to "invest" in the creation of a Character is frequently up to the player himself.  These dialogues can and do happen just about anywhere at any time – during movies, over coffee, email, a note during a game, a phone call, etc.  This can also be nothing more than just a nod of appreciation between a player and the GM while watching a really cool scene in a movie.

Sometimes we'll sit down to play and the GM will tell a number of players to roll some numbers as we are getting some new Characters.  Once done the GM goes into the back-stories and interrelationships of the various PC's as the lead-in to the situation/scenario.  Once or twice we've had "dungeon drops" where we start off with nothing but blank sheets in a really dangerous place/situation.  As we play we "build" our Characters through actions, not petitions, and we are given a considerable amount of latitude in this process so one can end up with a very powerful or rare Character – the kicker is you have to survive the night.

So this vetting process is totally dynamic and extremely unstructured.  The key is to create an idea that is interesting to one's self and the GM.  Why the GM?  Because as a member bricoleur the more hyped up you can get him on the idea the more interesting play will become.  Its not that we must cater to him, rather its just a matter of simple human behavior in that the more intrigued one is by something the more inspired they become.  On a certain level everything in the game is shared/negotiated between the GM and the Character's owner.  The Setting is not the sole province of the GM – though strongly his while conversely the Character is not the sole province of the Player – through strongly his.  Each has a direct and unintended effect on each other.  That is how a player plays his Character will have an effect on the Setting and Setting will have an effect on how one plays their Character.  And this can be direct in that the GM has an orc attack a PC Dwarf to indirect in that how a player play's his "Dwarf" effects the total body of understanding/knowledge of Dwarves indigenous to the Setting.

In a way, the more we bring to the table the more we as players get back in return.  Thus the more we invest in Character creation to more fun/interesting/complex the play of said Character will be.  Usually because of the number of people involved and the time constraints during an actual play session one is usually better off talking to the GM about Character ideas outside of the game because time isn't such a pressing issue.

I hope that I have in some way answered you questions.

Everyone else who took the time to post I will address in following posts.  This one was already getting to long!

Quote from: SilmenumeEveryone else who took the time to post I will address in following posts.  This one was already getting too long!

As long as you're going to, I'll clarify my question a bit.

I did a lot of maps when doing RQ, Lovingly hand-drawn maps, multiple maps to a region, economic maps, political maps, linguistic maps, tactical maps, social maps. I also drew many of the characters, multiple times and in various situations. It was all part of making that solid in our minds; understanding what the characters were going through.

What sort of things do you use? Is this always part of Sim? Are the bull sessions, too?

You use the multiple characters technique (if I can think of it that way). I found that the same thing evolved in my Pendragon game (though I think about a dozen chrs would be the maximum in that case). Is this a useful technique for Sim? More characters=broader view thus deeper Dreaming?

Our group also gave overwhelming support to the GM in questions concerning Setting. Is this something that must occur in Sim?

Wow, now that's an informative post.

Quote from: SilmenumeThis process is not looked upon as play – and given the choice of whether to "roll up" new Characters or discuss or "play them into existence" the majority of the time we choose the latter.  It's not much different than actually play – truth be told.

At one point you make this sound like a two step process, and at others you make it sound like you can forgo one for another. Are there two chargen methods going on here? That is, do you sometimes get a concept and then "roll it up," and at other times, just make up the stats? Or is there always a point at which you have to roll for stats (or otherwise use mechanics to build them)? Does it vary, or is the same method used each time?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIf I recall correctly the number of Characters that each player has varies from about 15 to 40+.

This is the total that a player will have developed over time, correct? As opposed to the number that they'll play in one session? Or is it the latter? If the former, how often are older characters revisited? Or are they basically retired (with the understanding that they still exist, and could be brought back into play should events make it sensible)?

QuoteWe spend a lot of time out of game session just "talking [about] D&D."

You refer to the game as D&D? Is it close to D&D then? Or is that just traditional?

QuoteSometimes we'll sit down to play and the GM will tell a number of players to roll some numbers as we are getting some new Characters.  Once done the GM goes into the back-stories and interrelationships of the various PC's as the lead-in to the situation/scenario.

I'm not parsing this. What do you mean by "roll some numbers?" Generating stats for characters? Pools of stats like some chargen systems use? What's being done here? Why is it done?

QuoteAs we play we "build" our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Mike

Hey Justin,

You're not butting in at all!

Quote from: jdagna...the important part is not whether you use a horse or a starship, but what happened among the people and why it worked or didn't.

I'll buy that.  However, a large portion of my post was very much about what "happened" between the GM and myself.  This particular thread was not "about" what happened in a game.  The whole process spanned a number of games and included many between game communications as well.  The idea was to demonstrate how Character creation unfolded between the GM and I for this particular instance.  However, the process I related was neither a "standardized procedure" nor unique.  Characters are created in any (or virtually unlimited) number of ways and in fact the procedure/process itself is just as fluid as game play itself.

Quote from: jdagnaFor example, in skimming through your post, the only part that jumps out as being interesting (in an analysis sense) is when you somehow get stuck with a character other than the one you put all the effort into.

I find it fascinating that you would describe what happened to me as being "stuck."  What you saw as stuck I saw as a highly successful conclusion to a negotiation/bricoling process.  We, the GM and I, created something new that was the result of both of our efforts which was not only fun as a process, but created something that I thought was pretty darn cool.  What I am guess I am not effectively communicating is that the manner of negotiation was not really at the "concept" level, but at the "concrete" level – that is I did not just say "I want X", but I "concretely demonstrated" various aspects of some Character ideas (via creating a back story) I was toying with through a play-like process of intention and resolution.  I intend (of IIEE fame) to do X (create this Character), what is the result/resolution of my effort/intention?

I think it is also interesting that your take on the situation was that I got a different Character than what I had presumably wanted because I had put so much effort into it.  At core the Character wasn't all that different from what I had been proposing.  His location and thus the specifics of his current circumstances were different, but his personality, history and skills were pretty much the same.  He was a still a Dwarf of a dead line, he is bitter at his own people for having abandoned his line in their time of need, he is a forger of magic items, my whole back story of his and his people's interaction and love for the Noldor was not only used but actually made richer, my idea of Chanting to control the flames at the forge as reason/source of my ability to make the items magical was taken and greatly expanded upon.

Our game is never "about" getting one's statements into the SIS unaltered.  To do so would almost be a violation of the Sim process.  Let's look at it this way.  In bricolage both the object added and the whole in which the object is being added to are both altered by the act.  Thus it follows that if my statement as the object being added to the whole is not altered in some fashion then we are failing to bricole.  It would be just as much a failing as if a successfully introduced statement had no effect on the SIS.

Just because I spent a large amount of effort on my part does not give me the right to have narration rights during Character creation.  What it does do is give me lots of objects to play with during the creation process, making it a lot more interesting, richer and fun!  See, even non-mechanics based Character creation is a form of Sim Exploration with changes occurring to the Dream.

Quote from: jdagnaHere's where I think Mike is really criticizing. We don't know how that happened... there must have been some discussion among the group and you must have had some opinion about this event.

Actually I did relate what happened; what I didn't relate was the significance of the decisions which is the all important metric in Sim.  Actually there was no discussion among the group regarding this Character prior to the actual playing.  I did mention that a player handed up a pretty cool note to the GM, which he then read aloud during the "scene."  When the GM disclosed the levels of my fire skills Montana, one of the two other players present, basically chuckled, shook his head and said something like, "Wow!"  When the GM took my idea for hammering my "greatest work" with a two handed hammer and changed it to me hammering with two hammers with the fire leaping under the heads as I swung, both of the other players were very impressed both with the description itself and that the Character had such skills.

Regarding my discussions with the GM, it was pretty much as I had indicated them.  He presented the idea to me of an "evil" dwarf.  I thought about it for a while and some time later made a counter proposal that he said was interesting.  What we did not do was negotiate over the Character at the "concept" level thus we did not really talk "about" the Character.  What he and I did was make statements of the concrete which were then either accepted or counter concrete proposals were made.  For example – I made the "concrete proposal" of my Dwarf using a two handed hammer by describing the Character at the forge using it.  He immediately followed by giving another image with the Character using two hammers and introducing the bit with the flames leaping under the hammerheads.  We did not talk "about" the Character we described physical/concrete elements that signified ideas – such as that this Character was exceptionally skilled because he wielded two forge hammers at once.  I did not say, "Cary, my Character is exceptionally skillful and I think it would be cool if he used a two handed hammer during the forging of the Dragon Helm."  What I did say was something like, "No... I swing with a two handed hammer," and he responded with something like, "...the fire leaps all about you a stand in this pit of flame naked to the waist wielding two hammers as the flames leap under the heads before the fall upon the helm."

Now this may seem like trivial detail when one is "looking" for the negotiations between the GM and player – but that was an example of that very negotiation process.  He saw what I was trying to signify and immediately added to it – he did not deny me idea at all.  And that is super kewl!  That he got what I was trying to signify about the Character, and not only agreed to it but improved upon it via the same signification process seriously rocked!  The same could be said for the whole creation process.  What you saw as "unfair" tampering with my ideas I see as the negotiation process in "concrete" form.

Post game, the other players thought what happened was pretty cool and I agree with them whole-heartedly.  I hope that I have provided some information about my take on the whole matter.  Let me know if there is some specific element or event that you have a particular question about that I have left unanswered.

Quote from: jdagnaThe social/GNS/play issues are going to be identical between the two. We just don't need to know anything about the characters or the setting that doesn't directly relate to what happened between the people.

For G and N that is very true.  But Sim is a very different beast.  Whereas in G and N a discussion of what is going on in the SIS actually can and does aid in the expression of those CA's, Sim expression is not aided by these dialogues and is actually hampered by such discussions during play.  What players have their Characters do in game is pretty much "what happened between the people."  The key to understanding all of this is understanding what those actions signified between the players – and that would require a huge amount of context.  The back-story I had offered in the beginning of the original post was intended to provide context to my tale to aid in signifying the events that I then later related.  This does not mean I can't do better in tightening up my posts but it must also be understood that all that "irrelevant" information isn't quite as irrelevant is it first seems.

Now to give an example of much misunderstanding there is let's look at the summation –

Quote from: jdagnaIn fact, here's the whole of your post boiled down into its essentials, as I can see:
- you played a character that didn't really appeal to you once
- later, you came up with an idea for a similar character that did appeal to you
- but you got assigned a different one
- and when you tried to bring in the one you liked, the GM didn't find an appropriate place to do it
- the GM made up for it by giving you a cool cut scene and interesting powers, items and companions
- you enjoyed this a lot (apparently, enough make up for not having actually played the character)

The first summation point is not accurate.  I did enjoy my first Dwarf – Jahal.  I did not imply otherwise.  I was dismayed by the loss of the Character, but that happens.  Actually I quite liked "how and why" he died – taking out about 6 Vikings while trying to save a little piece of perfection.  If they're going to take you out – make 'em pay their pound of flesh!  However the point of including all that text was missed for I attempted show my mindset and why I felt the way I did when the new Dwarf Character was proposed by the GM.  IOW I was attempting to establish the significance of the GM's first offer to me as a player.

The second point again misses in that the GM proffered the idea of a Dwarf and that it be evil as a way to fit me into an unfolding scenario.  This specific incarnation did not appeal to me because of the "evil" aspect.  So what I did do over a number of weeks was to consider how I could design the Character to justify staying with such a group without being "evil" (allied in some way with Sauron or Melkor).  This is where we get to gist of the post – how that process of Character design unfolded between the GM and myself.  What I didn't do was explain why the specific things we did back and forth were significant to the Sim CA expression.  But if you think my original post was long-winded and unfocused explaining even the major significant bricoling events would be sure torment.  Even just one event could fill a paragraph or more.

Quote from: jdagnaIf I had to pick some analysis out of that, I'd say that perhaps you're playing RPGs for entirely the wrong reason. You might be better off simply writing fiction. Your group might be better off too, because there's never any mention of them really contributing to what's going on. In fact, the group appears to be trying to stifle it and you appear unaware of this (and unaware of them in general from the post).

I am actually quite flat-backed that one could come up with such a conclusion.  None of this would be interesting or fun unless there were other players at the table.  I think is a probably a very excellent example of just how poorly Sim is understood.  What you appear to be unaware of is the that everything we say or do at the table has a significance with respect to each other and the Dream as a whole.  Everything that I do does effect and shape everyone else's game and the converse is true.  We are all adding to the common game experience which we all deeply love.  My bricoling efforts are deeply dependent upon the other bricoleurs and the enjoyment of this requires that others be involved.  In order for Sim to function, more so than Gam and even Nar, everyone must be supporting each other through actions at the table or no one can appreciate the bricoling efforts.  Just as the Nar player is appreciated for his choices regarding the Premise (contributions to Theme) and the Gam player is appreciated for his strategy and guts, so the Sim player is appreciated for the deftness of his ability to manipulate and signify symbols effectively – all the above require other players to support this process in their own ways.  In Sim it is by effectively contributing to the pool of symbols and celebrating the ideals of the group.  I have indicated in previous threads just how important the after game debriefs where much deconstruction and "concepts" are discussed and players congratulated or questioned.

Please note that I am not saying this because I am "offended" for Sim, rather the magnitude of miscommunication and understanding of Sim is staggering.  I see that I certainly do have to do my part at explaining myself better!

So that I may understand where you are coming from – why do you say we would be better of not playing?  We have traveled two 4th's of July in a row to spend 6 straight days gaming in some secluded country house.  We have award ceremonies and give trophies for best role-play.  It is a constant source of conversational topic – that is we are constantly bricoling...Players are deeply emotionally affected by nearly every game.

At any rate this has grown too long as well...Let me know!

Jay, thanks for your response... I do understand what was going on a lot better and I'm definitely glad to see that it's a much more functional process than what I'd gotten out of the first post.

Some of my assumptions are just based on what I didn't see in that post.  For example, using the term "stuck" for the new character, where I really had no idea of how you felt about it or really how you'd gotten to that point.  It seems like where we're having the most misunderstandings is probably when you describe the in-game effects of the out of character discussions that you and the other players are having.  In this case, "stuck" was the word I used because the majority of players I know would have been unhappy even with a similar character.  I just come from a background where the biggest dysfunction centers around total player control of PC creation (which I think they learned while playing with GMs who gave them absolutely no control over anything else for the rest of the game).

In any event, I really do think this example shows why the color details are not that important, even for Sim.  I knew a lot about the new and old characters and how they fit into the world.  What I did not know was how you felt about it, how you arrived at that character, and how the rest of the group felt about it.  What kind of negotiation was going on there?

So, in talking specifically about the negotiation process, is it basically a point where everyone has authority to add and change things, and it just goes back and forth until everyone stops adding and changing things?  Does anyone have final authority in this?  Is there a point at which the player says "No, I really wanted a two-handed hammer," or the GM says "Look, that's really not going to work in this campaign"?  Do the games' character creation rules figure into this?  I didn't see any real mention of things like rolling or assigning attributes and picking/buying classes, skills, equipment and the like.  Most systems (as used by most players) have a lot to say about these things.  Are you guys ignoring the system's rules, working with a system that permits this, or coming up with a concept that you later fit into the rules?  

I know that you say there's no one fixed process for handling this, but ultimately it's going to come down to a set of rules, procedures or expectations.  You guys might not notice them, perhaps because everyone adheres to an unspoken code.  But, for example, if someone joined your group for a night, saw you making character and decided to try his hand at it with "My character is, um, God.  He knows everything, so you guys can't keep any secrets, and he's all powerful, so he can do anything he wants to and no one can stop him.  And since he's perfect, it all always turns out OK."  Are you going to let him do that?  If not, what do you say or do?  What part of it would bother you most?  That will probably reveal a lot about the rules for the process.

Oh, and I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of Sim play.  It's pretty much my preferred play style.  I just feel like I'm looking at the results of the process more than the process itself, if you know what I mean.

Hey James!

Can you explain to me why this particular mode of Sim sounds or seems unenjoyable to you.  I am hoping that by you providing a foil to my understanding that I might then get a reference point by which to self-examine my game experiences more effectively.  Are you a Sim player or are you, say, a Nar player who has never had much use for or played in a coherent and functional Sim game so as to have never experienced what the brouhaha is all about?

Hey Droog!

You're right; I did wander a bit far and wide.  I do think though it is indicative of the CA as well.  There are no real "concepts" governing play that help provide boundaries, as it were.  But I shall do my best!  However, on the whole, it appears that our game experiences are very similar.

While it is true that I need not repeat the Silmarillion, but if someone asks why this seemingly insignificant detail was included, then I must place it into context – and in this case the Silmarillion provided the context for the significance of the event I was describing.  Nothing in Sim can or does stand on its own – everything only has importance in relationship to everything else.  Thus it becomes extremely difficult to decide what to include and what to exclude when those very cuts do remove the necessary context.  IOW the more one excludes the less meaningful any particular action becomes.  So it is a very tough line to walk.  Anyway...

Quote from: droogI'd like to hear some general points about your techniques. How do you make Sim fun? ... Do you have any conscious techniques?

Its funny you should ask how we make Sim fun!  I came here to these boards about a year and a half ago to plumb that very same question.  I think if I could answer that succinctly I could trim my AP posts way down as well!  I've been talking to my GM about this for about 5 years give or take.  He gives me lots of specific pointers, but as to a generalized theory or process – he just has a natural gift that is very effectively expressed without a deep understanding of why.

I'll give you a sample listing of some of the "techniques" he has offered to me – they all work but there is no easily explained principle as to when or how to use them.

• We use music, mostly motion picture soundtracks because they are designed to illicit emotions and do not have complex melodies or themes to compete for the players attention.
• If a scene gets slow – "Throw Orcs."  To borrow from Daschel Hammet, if the story is getting slow have guys rush into the room with guns.  (I am not sure if I have attributed this idea correctly or not)
• Make the players fall in love with their Characters – So I have asked many times how do you do that?  He gives three basic answers – give them a unique item, skill/power/attribute or give them an interesting drive.  But that begs the question what does he mean by unique/interesting and how do you know the player will appreciate it?  He just has an innate understanding of how to "hook" players.
• The players must invest in the world – good advise, but how do one go about "making" the players invest and what does "invest" mean?  Yet he always seems to pull players in emotionally.
• Create lots of social bonds between the PC and his surrounding community – and then put it in jeopardy.
• Have lots of NPC's pulling from different directions at the PC.
• Have the NPC's act like "real people with real motives" independent of the PC's interests.
• Keep mechanics to an absolute minimum so as to keep focus on play and decisions.
• Make death real and permanent.
• Run the game and especially combats in "real time".  IOW no turns, rounds or segments.
• Have the players' decision have a real effect on important matters in the world, but not like D&D where 1st level strangers are hired by a king to save his kingdom.  Frex – I was playing a brand new Character who was in the tower guard assigned to a unit that was detailed to protect Finduilas, the future mother of Boromir and Faramir.  Then the GM cut to a group of PC Black Commandos who were detailed to the Dol Amroth to kill the Prince, his son and any other important targets of opportunity.  So these guys sneak in and just cut through the officer on watch and the other guards like a hot knife through butter and suddenly I am the only one around for the time being who can do anything to keep this extremely important and pregnant NPC alive.  My first level Character's decisions are now exceedingly important.
• Keep the pacing up – which I have unraveled to mean - keep the conflicts coming fast and furious.
• Make the conflicts important to the Characters and the players.
• Make other PC's lives depend on the decisions the player makes.
• Play a game of perceptions and not objective reality.  Make the players figure out what is going on instead of telling them what is going on.  Give them their perceptions and filter them through the Character.
• Have different players be the "star" on different nights.
• Give players the freedom to leave the scenario if their Character would do so.
• Not all Characters are "equal" on a given night.
• Make a unique skill that a Character has important at some point in the night.  Don't do that every time that that Character is played because it will get old.
• Try to have a "gap reversal" where the certain assumptions are proven to be false somewhere near the end of the evening.  This is kind of like a plot point where the events suddenly change direction because something is uncovered to be different than what was understood or assumed earlier.  The betrayer is really trustworthy, the honorable is really a betrayer.  The victim is really the perpetrator, the strong is really weak, etc.
• Reward clever thinking.
• Reward play that stays in Character especially if it results in losses to the player. (This is a big one!)
• Reward interesting or clever play.
• Give role-play rewards at the end of the night.  That too begs the question of, "what is good role-play?"
• Use an immediate reward system – that is if a player does something particularly "interesting/clever" either give a check in the pertinent skill or in the experience point column to reward and encourage such behavior.  Again this a subjective call.[/list:u]I know this wasn't exactly what you were looking for, but if you can find some common line in all of this let me know!
  
  

  Quote from: droogObviously the game has a great hold on you: is it as simple as your all being Tolkien fans or is it the game itself?

  
  I think it is a matter of both.  However, the GM has run some one shots of cyberpunk, "space" and a green berets scenario that were immensely popular.
  
  

  Quote from: droogI did a lot of maps when doing RQ, Lovingly hand-drawn maps, multiple maps to a region, economic maps, political maps, linguistic maps, tactical maps, social maps. I also drew many of the characters, multiple times and in various situations. It was all part of making that solid in our minds; understanding what the characters were going through.
  
  What sort of things do you use? Is this always part of Sim? Are the bull sessions, too?

  
  We use anything that inspires us, yet we don't use just anything because it says "LOTR" on it.  For example we do not use ICE or Iron Crown ME RPG's.  However, anything that is inspirational and does fit the general ideas/themes/structures that we consider to be representative of ME is open to employment.  Having said that I have redrawn and expanded upon some of the maps contained in Karen Wynn Fostad's The Atlas of Middle Earth.  The GM uses some of the cards of the ME CCG as visuals.  The movies we consider out and out crap on a stick.  Almost always we find existing game systems, modules, source books and anything not written by Tolkien to be utter crap that totally contradicts the themes that Tolkien labored so hard for in his works.  Usually what we do find interesting is an image or two that can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with our interpretations.  Music is a huge part of our game – so much so that we would sooner play without dice or our character sheets than without music.
  
  The GM has mentioned that if he could afford it that he would hire artists to create renditions of all our Characters.  I have created a "treasure map" or two.  I have also researched and then hand written in calligraphy and hand drawn diagrams of middle ages bloom hearths and chaferys as well as blast furnaces as part of a Character concept.  One of the players who is decent cartoonist has drawn images of some of his Characters.  I have searched the net and compiled a fairly extensive elvish/quenya dictionary.  There are several foldout pre-printed maps of ME that we do use.  We use grey dice for our Dunedain Characters.  We use the Ruth S. Noel's Languages of Middle-Earth fairly extensively.  Actually every player who has received 10 best of the night role-play awards receives that dictionary as an award.  The GM has requested that we research a cost list of common items, though we have argued that ME, like Middle Ages Europe would have functioned more on a barter based economy than a currency based economy.  We have designed wax seals for certain Characters – we found a site online that will use lasers to cut any .bmp from granite blanks which then can be used to inlay wax seals.  We have done preliminary designs for a Ranger "badge" which would be embroidered on leather strips and given to players who had Rangers of Ithilien.
  
  Do I think this is common to Sim?  Yes.  I also think the "bull sessions" are also common to Sim.  Chris Lehrich's essays on myth and role-play actually provide reasons why this is so.
  
  

  Quote from: droogIs this a useful technique for Sim? More characters=broader view thus deeper Dreaming?

  
  Absolutely!  I believe so for the very reason you provided.  However, this is subject to the interests and tastes of the individual groups.
  
  

  Quote from: droogOur group also gave overwhelming support to the GM in questions concerning Setting. Is this something that must occur in Sim?

  
  I'm not sure.  My group is very similar in this aspect to your group, but I don't know if it is a "must" thing or not.  I'd have to think on that for a while.  However, I do believe that Setting is not just the background or milieu in Sim in which play transpire, but is the vital and necessary other half of the dialectic which the players and the GM are engaged in.  Where as in Nar players address Premise and in Gam players address Challenge, in Sim the players are engaged in a dialectic process between Character/culture and Setting/nature.
  
  I hope that I have addressed some of you questions in a satisfactory manner.  Let me know if you have any additional questions of I have failed to answer you questions to your satisfaction.  
  
  Mike I will address your post as soon as I am able.

Quote from: SilmenumeHey James!

Can you explain to me why this particular mode of Sim sounds or seems unenjoyable to you.  I am hoping that by you providing a foil to my understanding that I might then get a reference point by which to self-examine my game experiences more effectively.  Are you a Sim player or are you, say, a Nar player who has never had much use for or played in a coherent and functional Sim game so as to have never experienced what the brouhaha is all about?

No, I'm a traditional Sim-player with maybe a bit of Vanilla Nar here and there. I play and love games like Unknown Armies and so on. It's technique-specific and vision-specific stuff that sounds weird to me, which is probably not worth getting into since it really just amounts to "the vision the GM and players have of the setting and characters does not particularly butter my bread." But I'm very fascinated to understand your style of gaming.

Now, you talk about the ancillary processes of engaging in the dream -- designing seals, character portraits, music, and so on. I do get into this to some extent, although given my druthers I usually run historical games rather than out-and-out fantasy, which makes this kind of process a lot easier. One of the big things these little props and activities do is contribute to what I think is called Color -- the, er, "look and feel" of the game, the "vibe" if you like. This is hugely important to me in LARPs.

I really liked your previous post about negotiation between player and GM happening as a serious of game-play statements. It clarified a lot for me.

Quote from: Silmenume

I'll give you a sample listing of some of the "techniques" he has offered to me – they all work but there is no easily explained principle as to when or how to use them.

• The players must invest in the world – good advise, but how do one go about "making" the players invest and what does "invest" mean?  Yet he always seems to pull players in emotionally.
• Create lots of social bonds between the PC and his surrounding community – and then put it in jeopardy.
• Have lots of NPC's pulling from different directions at the PC.
• Have the NPC's act like "real people with real motives" independent of the PC's interests.
• Make death real and permanent.
• Have the players' decision have a real effect on important matters in the world, but not like D&D where 1st level strangers are hired by a king to save his kingdom.  Frex –
• Make other PC's lives depend on the decisions the player makes.
• Play a game of perceptions and not objective reality.  Make the players figure out what is going on instead of telling them what is going on.  Give them their perceptions and filter them through the Character.
• Give players the freedom to leave the scenario if their Character would do so.
• Reward play that stays in Character especially if it results in losses to the player. (This is a big one!).
• [/list:u]

Okay, these are the ones I would identify as primarily Sim. I'm pretty sure we've done analogous things. Just  some thoughts:

1. Players have to invest in the world. Can you make someone do that? In your experience, do unbelievers just leave the group?
2. Social bonds could just as well be for narrative purposes, but in any serious Sim play of eg pre-industrial times it should be important, therefore it is. You might even say it's Nar causality reversed.
3. That logic leads to playing NPCs as far as possible with your Hood of Justice on, and striving for the impression of a fully-populated, really-functioning world. Because the world is populated with real people.
4. Therefore, all actions by players must have plausible consequences, be it danger or death. The world must function consistently.
5. Insistence on in-character knowledge, I think, is not absolutely necessary, but we did it. I often took players aside for private talks, presented the situation as they saw it etc. Blurring that distinction between player and character; often rewarded somehow as well.
6. I think that committed Sim players are just as likely to split the party as Nar players, if the game gives incentive for the behaviour. Pendragon was the game that really got me thinking about what a game could do to heighten the Dream: in that players went wandering everywhere without any regard to party. In-genre play, effortlessly achieved.
7. Choice has a different value in Sim play. You are free to make the choice, but your actions must make sense. You are free to play the character but the character must confirm the Dream (in the group's own style). Somehow this has got to be fun. In my experience that was always more fun in Pendragon, which supported that agenda, than in RQ, where it was left to social contract.


(Man, you guys are full on with your props. We just had pictures and endless discussions.)

Quote
I do believe that Setting is not just the background or milieu in Sim in which play transpire, but is the vital and necessary other half of the dialectic which the players and the GM are engaged in.  Where as in Nar players address Premise and in Gam players address Challenge, in Sim the players are engaged in a dialectic process between Character/culture and Setting/nature.

It's you and me against the world, babe. Are we gonna make it?

Hey Mike,

Thanks for your questions.  They will help me explain to you what is important or not understood by or you or fill in what I neglected to include.

Quote from: Mike HolmesAt one point you make this sound like a two step process, and at others you make it sound like you can forgo one for another. Are there two chargen methods going on here? That is, do you sometimes get a concept and then "roll it up," and at other times, just make up the stats? Or is there always a point at which you have to roll for stats (or otherwise use mechanics to build them)? Does it vary, or is the same method used each time?

Actually there is no hard or fixed time that one "must" roll for stats.  I have seen several Characters that are years old and have been played numerous times that have never been "rolled up."  The "direction" of creation is always concept first then roll up second.  

However I should clarify the mechanical portion of Character creation.  The GM always initiates the mechanical process of Character creation.  This a player just does not start rolling dice and then shove the numbers under the DM's nose.  If the GM has a Character concept that he thinks the player will enjoy then he will initiate the process by having the player roll up stats.  Usually we roll about 2-3 full sets of "raw" attribute numbers which are then handed "over the screen."  Depending on the "race" that the GM has in mind the players are told roll so many d20's in an effort to raise certain attributes or in the case of non-human races straight pluses are added by the GM.  If the Character is human and one of the attributes exceeds human maximum via this rolling process then the "negotiations" begin!  When this starts we know the GM cannot allow the excessive attribute be, so we usually has something of an advantage so we usually push fairly hard on our end for more than fair compensation for the necessary attribute drop!  This can be in the form or raising other attributes, raising or negotiating for unusual secondary skills, increased weapon skills, increased social class or background or items; though this last option is not typically pursued at items can be lost.  Pushing for too much though can lose the player credibility so one must be careful – this makes this particular event very interesting!  As the player in this particular arrangement does not know what kind of Character he is getting usually he does not have much input into such items as weapons, armor or secondary skills.  During this process weapons skills, defense percentage, stamina and personal body points are calculated and secondary skills are assigned.  When the sheet is returned to the player he is then usually given between 2-4 times his intelligence in "checks" to distribute among his secondary skills, no more than wisdom in any particular skill.  Once play actually begins the GM will then lay out some of the background of the Character (but by no means all), his social connections and the current Situation.  (This last part is part of the Scene Framing process).

When a player has a concept that they would like to play then the process starts off in a somewhat similar process that I had indicated at the beginning of this thread.  When the mechanical portion of Character creation begins again the player is directed to roll several sets of "raw" attribute scores.  Again the sheet goes over "over the screen."  However, depending on the nature of the conversations regarding the Character concept prior those ideas are worked in at this time.  While the players don't just dictate/choose/narrate outright what the skill levels they wish; the more convincing, interesting or effective the reasoning or story, the higher the assigned skill level will be or the greater the chance that the unusual or powerful skill (secondary or weapon) will be given.  Finally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more "checks" to add to his secondaries than is typical.

It also not unheard of for a player to trade down a high attribute for consideration regarding secondary or weapons skills.  Not too long ago I was rolling up a Character that I had discussed with GM prior that ended up with an unmodified 18 in Look.  The problem with that was, as I had discussed earlier with the GM, I had envisioned the Character to be in his mid-thirties and extremely weather beaten as had spent his whole life "in the field."  So he dropped the score and raised a number of outdoor secondary skills which supported the Character concept nicely.  Actually I got some pretty rockin' numbers!

Player's have also "picked up" NPC's.  Sometimes were given generic "walkons" so we'll have something to do but because the player manages to make the Character really come alive, we end up keeping the Character thus we'll "pick up" or "design" Character's that way  (This "play to design" was the process that I occurred when I "played" the Dwarf that was being introduced into play – in conjunction with conversations regarding "backstory").  I had also mentioned in an earlier post about "dungeon drops" whereby we are given a blank sheet and what we do during the game itself determines the nature of the Character so if we survive the night those elements of the Character which were made manifest during player are worked into the mechanical creation process.

However, in all of this, we never start rolling numbers and then come up with a concept.

I should also note that in all this there is no "Player's Handbook" or anything that is pre-printed for the players.  There are no classes or kits per say and there is no mechanical alignment system.  There are no skill trees or point buys or anything along those lines.  Yes, we do have mages and clerics, but they aren't considered classes (mages are "awoken" and clerics are "called" and there is no inherent reason why it cannot happen to any human.) and there are no restrictions regarding armor for the mages and weapons for clerics.

Now for all the information that is on the Character sheet, one can actually play quite effectively without it being on the table (or even having one!).  I had indicated something like this earlier when I said that some people have Characters that they have had for years that have yet to be "rolled up."  In such cases it actually works in the players' favor as the GM, so desirous to be fair, will err on the side of said player and give fairly generous "benefits of the doubt" where important adjudications do have to be made.  Actually, for all this new players are told not to worry about their Character sheets and to "just play the Character."

The GM, on the other hand, does have a number of tables to facilitate this process.  Race sheets that indicate bonus dice (or straight plusses, depending) for attributes and the type of dice used for stamina and per rates (which I won't explain now unless you really wish to read more of my writing!).  There are tables for calculating weapon skills (to hit and damage bonuses), defense percentages and personal body points.  For mages there is a formula for determining basic spell points and level multipliers.  All these values are strongly determined by the attributes of the Character in question.  What isn't listed in tables are the secondary skills sets for the different cultures and races.  20 some years ago there was an effort to codify this information, but it was never really put into use and now its all done based on judgment calls and interpretation as exactness is not an issue – norms are what is important.  What's important is when something is outside of the norm – then that skill and by extension the owning Character will stand out.  Yet, for all the math and the tables, in the end it pretty much all boils down to subjective judgments as the numbers usually end up being "massaged" to one extent or another by the GM...

...then we don't spend too much using them as they don't really figure into system outside of combat.  One player coined a phrase that I thought accurately summed up the place of the Character sheets in our game – "They provide the means by which we purchase our fantasies."  What's on the sheets may lend authority, remind or inspire us, but they really don't have that important of a place in the functioning of the game.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: SilmenumeIf I recall correctly the number of Characters that each player has varies from about 15 to 40+.

This is the total that a player will have developed over time, correct? As opposed to the number that they'll play in one session? Or is it the latter? If the former, how often are older characters revisited? Or are they basically retired (with the understanding that they still exist, and could be brought back into play should events make it sensible)?

Yes.  The numbers I had indicated represent the amount the players have developed over time.  Just because a Character is older does not imply that it is "retired."  If the Character is in your folder it is considered "active."  "Retirement" is an overt act which entails handing the Character sheet in and an understanding that that Character is forever removed from the Player's control (that is he is NPC'd unless the player says that said Character is retiring within the game world).  There is no fixed rotation for which Characters are played, so how often "older" Character is played pretty much boils down to how "accessible" the Character is to bringing into events.  Typically our higher level Characters are also the older ones and we do like playing with established Characters.  The more "history" a Character has to more interesting he becomes to play; plus higher level Characters not only are more "effective" they tend to have a broader understanding of the issues facing the world.  I have a Character in my folder that I haven't played in 6 years that I would like to get back to some time.  However, last year some time, there were a couple of Characters that I did officially retire as their stories and lives had become so cold and dim that there was nothing left of them in me.  Another player at the table absolutely refuses to hand in any Character until said Character is declared dead, even if he hasn't played the Character in 15 years.  Go figure...

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteWe spend a lot of time out of game session just "talking [about] D&D."

You refer to the game as D&D? Is it close to D&D then? Or is that just traditional?

Its mostly tradition.  In many, many ways our system is almost the exact opposite of the D&D mechanics, though there are a number of superficial similarities.  The GM and one of the players (Chuck) designed their system because they had found the D&D system to be sorely lacking.  In forge terms TSR's D&D system did not facilitate the style of play they were seeking at the time.  The referring to role-play as D&D is just an old habit.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteSometimes we'll sit down to play and the GM will tell a number of players to roll some numbers as we are getting some new Characters.  Once done the GM goes into the back-stories and interrelationships of the various PC's as the lead-in to the situation/scenario.

I'm not parsing this. What do you mean by "roll some numbers?" Generating stats for characters? Pools of stats like some chargen systems use? What's being done here? Why is it done?

By "roll some numbers" I did mean "Generating stats for Characters."  I think I answered this above and in the somewhat specious name of brevity I won't go over this again unless you feel that I have not answered you question to your satisfaction.  In that case, upon your request, I would be more than happy do so!

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteAs we play we "build" our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Just to make sure were in the context, the above made reference to a style of game whereby we would "generate" a Character through concrete actions within the SIS as opposed to discussing the Character using "concepts."  For example if I wanted the (unformed) Character to be strong then I would look to find an opportunity whereby I could demonstrate a great feat of strength – however, this occasion must arise logically out of the events that are unfolding.  Even then a good roll of a die is typically necessary to demonstrate the successful completion of said act.  IOW just because I say that I bend the bars of the jail to save my life does not mean I will automatically succeed.  This I contrast with just saying, "I want my Character to be strong – say, a 17 strength."  This style of Character creation is very rare and I included to demonstrate the variety of ways in which we do create Characters.

I hope that I have answered at least some of your very useful (to me!) questions.  Please ask more if needed!

Quote from: SilmenumeIf the Character is human and one of the attributes exceeds human maximum via this rolling process then the "negotiations" begin!

...

Pushing for too much though can lose the player credibility so one must be careful – this makes this particular event very interesting!

This is fascinating. It speaks to a strong dose of gamism. I mean, if the player doesn't have a need for a more effective character (and I'm betting that the comparison here is with other PCs), then why negotiate at all? Why not accept the dice rolling as a simulation of the effect of the character being born and having developed as they have?

Further, it seems that there's then a proscription against said gamism. Very standard anti-incoherence measure that says that if a player is discovered to be prioritizing gamism over sim that they're no longer, as you put it, credible. I sense a strong hybridizing going on here, with the typical resultant layer of contract that has to exist to keep play functional.

QuoteAs the player in this particular arrangement does not know what kind of Character he is getting usually he does not have much input into such items as weapons, armor or secondary skills.

You say something like this more than once, and it's very confusing. You talk about how the concepts are negotiated between player and character, but then on a couple of occasions, you make it sound like the player doesn't know what their character will be like. What's going on here? What's the "particular arrangement" that you refer to that makes this true? How is the normal situation different? Are you talking about when the GM throws a concept the player's way? How often does this happen percentage-wise? Why is this done sometimes, and other times the player comes up with a concept? Can the player refuse to play a GM concept?

QuoteFinally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more "checks" to add to his secondaries than is typical.

Why is this? A reward for the player taking the initiative to come up with concepts on their own?

QuoteIt also not unheard of for a player to trade down a high attribute for consideration regarding secondary or weapons skills.  

Seems pretty unremarkable, simply the trading of abilities using the barter system instead of, say, points or something.

QuoteHowever, in all of this, we never start rolling numbers and then come up with a concept.

I may be reading in, but from the emphasis, I'm guessing that there is some stigma attached to something about playing this way. What's being avoided by not rolling up stats first? Rather, what's accomplished by putting the concept out first? How is this more satisfactory for this sort of play?

QuoteYes, we do have mages and clerics, but they aren't considered classes (mages are "awoken" and clerics are "called" and there is no inherent reason why it cannot happen to any human.) and there are no restrictions regarding armor for the mages and weapons for clerics.

I find this interesting. It's certainly vestigal from the D&D origin. I mean, you guys balk at the LOTR movies (which I think are great), yet you allow the system to have clerics in it? What from the canon would support this? Even mages seem mostly unsupported - from my reading basically you have to be touched in some way by the West to have any magic (Elves, Maiar, or humans using their artifacts). Even the idea of spells and spell points and such seem to me to be pretty alien to Tolkien's work. Given that the mechanics tend to get ignored, are these abilities handled without much regard for the system? Just what can a cleric do?

QuoteActually, for all this new players are told not to worry about their Character sheets and to "just play the Character."

You realize that this speaks strongly of the "System Doesn't Matter" attitude. I mean it very much sounds like your GMs played D&D, found it lacking, made modifications that were like D&D, found that lacking, and basically decided to pitch it all for freeform. Keeping the rules in case they need justification for certain things, and to make players understand that they can't "get away" with just anything. Like they're afraid that if they just go completely freeform that the players will run amok.

That probably sounds judgemental, but it's meant to be analytical, and to provoke corrections. Do correct it where it's not accurate.

QuoteWhat's important is when something is outside of the norm – then that skill and by extension the owning Character will stand out.  

It seems like this is allowed for players who show that they can be trusted not to be "abusive" meaning to play gamism.

Quote"Retirement" is an overt act which entails handing the Character sheet in and an understanding that that Character is forever removed from the Player's control (that is he is NPC'd unless the player says that said Character is retiring within the game world).

Do characters ever become "unretired"? I mean, if a player can start playing another NPC, what's the problem with going back and playing a character that had been, as you put it, "NPC'd"? Especially if events seem to bring the character back into prominence? Does it relate to closure?

QuoteAnother player at the table absolutely refuses to hand in any Character until said Character is declared dead, even if he hasn't played the Character in 15 years.  Go figure...

Well, if he sees the possibility that the character might come back into play...well why retire the character indeed? Same question as above, basically: what's the purpose of retirement as it exists?

Quote

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteAs we play we "build" our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Just to make sure were in the context, the above made reference to a style of game whereby we would "generate" a Character through concrete actions within the SIS as opposed to discussing the Character using "concepts."  For example if I wanted the (unformed) Character to be strong then I would look to find an opportunity whereby I could demonstrate a great feat of strength – however, this occasion must arise logically out of the events that are unfolding.  Even then a good roll of a die is typically necessary to demonstrate the successful completion of said act.  IOW just because I say that I bend the bars of the jail to save my life does not mean I will automatically succeed.  This I contrast with just saying, "I want my Character to be strong – say, a 17 strength."  This style of Character creation is very rare and I included to demonstrate the variety of ways in which we do create Characters.

So by "petition" you mean by anything that's not creating the ability using the in-game method? Do these methods tend to be mutually exclusive? Or do they get mixed? That is, let's say you start a character by using the in-game method. Do you ever then later switch to the other method to flesh the character out?

Mike

Hey Justin,

Regarding the whole issue of "stuck," I'm totally cool and in turn cry, "Mea culpa," for not being more explicit!  I am interested by this statement here –

Quote from: jdagnaIt seems like where we're having the most misunderstandings is probably when you describe the in-game effects of the out of character discussions that you and the other players are having.

Can you quote me an example of this so I can see where I am creating this problem as well as to try and clear up the misunderstandings?  Thanks!

Quote from: jdagnaIn any event, I really do think this example shows why the color details are not that important, even for Sim.  I knew a lot about the new and old characters and how they fit into the world.  What I did not know was how you felt about it, how you arrived at that character, and how the rest of the group felt about it.  What kind of negotiation was going on there?

Emphasis added

Whereas I can understand not knowing how I felt about the process, but I am a bit baffled by the underlined question.  To me, and maybe I failed to communicate it effectively, the point of the post was intended to address that very question.  Yes, I did include a lot for side information, but the bulk of the post was the context, the internal thought processes and the external discussions (which can mean negotiations) I had with the GM regarding the creation of a Character.  At any rate have a addressed any of this issues to your satisfaction in any of my subsequent posts or would you like more information.  Let me know!

As a quick aside, I am not certain that Sim actually has color – at least as far as what is within the SIS.  Even the music we use can and frequently does convey relevant information if the players are astute enough to pick up on it.  Everything, including which is commonly referred to as color, is subject to being pressed into service as an object for bricolage.  But I digress...

Quote from: jdagnaSo, in talking specifically about the negotiation process, is it basically a point where everyone has authority to add and change things, and it just goes back and forth until everyone stops adding and changing things?  Does anyone have final authority in this?

These questions here are some of the most difficult posted.  I'll start with the simple question.  The GM does have final authority, however... During play that is essentially a Character creation process, like the one described in my opening post, there is more latitude given the players to change "things" (by which I am going to refer to as "objects" as distinguished from "events").  Typically things/objects are the purview of the GM as this is Setting/world stuff.  However, in this case, we have the circumstance being that of a player's Character creation so said player is given more freedom to add/change physical things/objects than in normal.  Now, the important thing here, which was what I was really trying to get at as a player, was what a two handed hammer signified.  By altering the GM's original statement I am first of all communicating to him that this moment, what is going on right here and now, is important (I am signifying some idea at this moment – I can only hope that he picks up on it – he did!  Which was really cool!) to me as a player.  In this case I wanted to flag as important what I was forging and my forging skills.  Second, my choice of object, a two handed hammer was intended to signify a myriad number of qualities (concepts/ideas) about my Character.  The counter offer of forging with two hammers was an acceptance of the core idea being advanced about my forging skills, yet modified in such a way that was more elegant and sat better with the existing themes and ideas of the created world and source material.  The helm that was being created was then establish as being mighty, for what other reason would a forger wield two hammers?  And if a forger can wield two hammers then his skills as a forger ought to be mighty as well.  Etc.

A little bit more and I will get back to you questions directly.  I said that objects/things tend to be the purview of the GM and contrast those forms of statements from those that I categorized as "events."  Events are much more negotiable, but almost always only in the effects stage.  The heart of bricoling is dealing with problems that arise from actions.  Thus we do not try to negate the statements of action of another player, but instead we negotiate about the effect(s) of the other person's action.  FREX –

GM – The Orc swings his scimitar at your head.
Player – I duck out of the way.

The player is not "changing" the "fact" that the Orc is swinging a scimitar at his Character's head, but actually extends forward from that established "fact" and further gives it credibility because he did not challenge it but worked forward from it.   What the player does do is try to influence what the plausible/logical outcome of such an act might be.

In this case if the player successfully negotiates his "duck out of the way" in then what most logically/plausibly follows is that the result of the Orc's swing (the GM's established action) results or has the outcome of "missing the Character's head."  All this <bi>is a negotiation process, but instead of overtly employing/discussing concepts, the negotiation took the form of proposed concrete actions intended to mediate/alter the result/effect of the aforementioned statement of action.[/list:u]I hope that I have not digressed to far.  I am trying to demonstrate the manner and the "nature" of the constraints of our negotiation process.

In general I would say that the GM nearly always has final authority on matters of Setting/physical things.  However, even he is constrained by the inherent limits of bricolage.  The focus of our negotiations thus center on either mediating effects to our Character or trying to create our own effects via our Character.  During a time that is more or less identified as Character creation during Exploration players have more latitude over Setting "things" and the GM has more latitude to have input on the Character.

To get back to your question "...in talking specifically about the negotiation process, is it basically a point where everyone has authority to add and change things, and it just goes back and forth until everyone stops adding and changing things?"  During play or Character creation only the GM and the player are involved.  Occasionally someone might chime with something cool but that is the rare exception.  Consider this, even Character creation never truly ends as the Character is always growing and evolving both in the present during Exploration and what is revealed in back story during Exploration.  

Quote from: jdagnaIs there a point at which the player says "No, I really wanted a two-handed hammer," or the GM says "Look, that's really not going to work in this campaign"?

Again, these are very difficult questions.  On the player side the answer is usually no.  If a Character is not given a "thing" then he is totally open to then go pursue gaining a "thing" through play – in this case a "two-handed hammer."  In my case I was less interested in having the "thing" than expressing and putting into play the idea/concept that came from employing a "two-handed hammer."  Supposing that the "thing" that the player is seeking is not contrary to the logic of the world (like a light saber in Middle Earth) the GM typically does not say, "this is not going to work in this campaign," but rather answers by introducing or not introducing a statement into the SIS or modifying something before it is accepted into the Fact Space.  To be more explicit, if a player does insist on something that obviously does not logically/plausibly belong in the fictional world then that is a major violation of the Social Contract.

Given all that I written so far, let me know if I have addressed this question to your satisfaction.  I know there is more to say, but I will let you guide the process for your understanding.

Quote from: jdagnaDo the games' character creation rules figure into this? I didn't see any real mention of things like rolling or assigning attributes and picking/buying classes, skills, equipment and the like. Most systems (as used by most players) have a lot to say about these things. Are you guys ignoring the system's rules, working with a system that permits this, or coming up with a concept that you later fit into the rules?

From a player's perspective there are no printed Character creation rules, there are no classes so there is no picking or buying classes.  There is no buying at all.  Simply put there is no mechanical process for Character from the player side – its all concept stuff.  The more compelling, the more interesting, the greater the impact the player has on the Creation process.  I should indicate that primarily we have a skills based system.  There are some 60 or so stock secondary skills listed on the Character sheet.  Going back to what I meant by "impact" during the creation of one's own Character, the more concepts, the more interesting the ideas the player brings to the process the more they will be reflected on the sheet.  If a player is vague or non descript about his Character concept then that will be reflected on the sheet.  Conversely if a player brings a lot to the table then the Character sheet will reflect that input.  However this process is a partnership between player and GM where the GM has final authority.  Many times he will give many, but not all that the player wants simply because want breeds need and need is motivation.  By not giving everything then the Character (the player actually!) has some built in motivations right off the bat.

During the mechanical process of generating numbers we roll 9 sets of 5d6 pick the best three and start recording the numbers either from top or bottom.  Included in these 9 sets is one re-roll which can be assigned anywhere the player wishes.  Another process available is to roll 4d6 and the player assigns the numbers where he sees fit.  On extremely rare occasions where a Character has been played for years without numbers a player will negotiate the attribute numbers with the GM so that they reflect what the Character has exhibited over the course of play.

I guess you could say that are working within a system that permits "this."

Quote from: jdagnaI know that you say there's no one fixed process for handling this, but ultimately it's going to come down to a set of rules, procedures or expectations.

The process is mostly governed by expectations and conventions.  There are mechanics for determining combat related skills that are based upon the attributes of the Character (this includes the race of the Character) yet even these numbers, specifically the weapons skills, are "massaged" by the GM.  In all of this there are expectations that we are to adhere, and this includes the GM, to the basic structures/tenets of the fictional world.  This does not mean there cannot be change or growth, but it should be evolutionary and not a sharp break.

Quote from: jdagna... if someone joined your group for a night, saw you making character and decided to try his hand at it with "My character is, um, God. He knows everything, so you guys can't keep any secrets, and he's all powerful, so he can do anything he wants to and no one can stop him. And since he's perfect, it all always turns out OK."Are you going to let him do that? If not, what do you say or do? What part of it would bother you most?

The answer is no.  First of all such a player, if it was known they preferred that sort of play, would not be invited to the table.  Typically before a new player actually sits at the table the player who has invited the new player explains to him our style of play.  If it someone who has answered an ad, then I usually talk with the player telling him how we play and find out if he/she is still interested in joining.  When a player sits at the table for the first time the GM gives a speech as to our style of play.  So, after all that, if a player were to seriously make such a statement not in jest there would be some serious issues.  If a player just ambled up to the table at a public gaming place and made such a request/statement we would explain to him how we play so that he could then choose whether to join us or not.  If a player were adamant about his demands then we would just politely but firmly ask him to leave as it was obvious he would not enjoy our style of play.

Assuming we get a new player to the table who does not present such a statement, typically before the game day the inviting player will ask the new player what types of characters he normally likes to play or would like to play.  If they start off talking classes and such we say that we don't have classes so don't think in game terms.  Instead we suggest tying to think in terms of Characters in movies of books.

If the new player in question had just walked up to the table asked to join and did not know anything about the game I wouldn't be too worried because we would explain our style to him.  Either he would understand and there wouldn't be a problem or he would reject what we were doing and we would ask him to leave.  Under either circumstance I would not be overly troubled.  If however the new player was insistent then the part that would bother me most would be the blatant disregard of the social contract.  If we explained how we played and then gave the player the freedom to choose to play according to our social contract or go and he opted to stay in defiance of what we had spelled out that would really bother me most.

Regarding your understanding of Sim, I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

By the way – All of you; these are really cool questions!  I am having a blast answering them.  I hope my answers are useful or otherwise successfully address whatever it is that you're wondering about!

Hey there Mike,

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: SilmenumeIf the Character is human and one of the attributes exceeds human maximum via this rolling process then the "negotiations" begin!

...

Pushing for too much though can lose the player credibility so one must be careful – this makes this particular event very interesting!

This is fascinating. It speaks to a strong dose of gamism. I mean, if the player doesn't have a need for a more effective character (and I'm betting that the comparison here is with other PCs), then why negotiate at all?

As the world is very deadly, Character survivability (effectiveness) is exceedingly important!  This is not a matter of besting or defeating Challenge, it's a matter of retaining the ability to remain in the game and accomplish whatever one has set out to do.  In concrete ways our game literally tries to recreate what Tolkien referred to as the "Northern Heroic ethos" that suffused his works.  A player must have a strong will and courage to survive, or they simply will not.  However because of that there is always a hunger to be better prepared to face the constant and real threat – that of being over matched.  It is a game of privation where the "good guys" never have enough material, time or manpower to be reasonably assured of survival much less success.  We are always short on arrows, armor is almost impossible to come by, we don't have enough horses and time is of the essence, "if you drop your sword/friend/etc., you will probably make it, "if you wait much longer for more help to arrive they will have already killed her," etc.  So when we are in a situation where we get to pry something from the evil grasping hands of the GM – of course we get to revel in it!  We get to stick it to him for a change!  Of course this is all light hearted but he does like this negotiation process, as he is curious to see where it will lead.

In reading your question again I want to make sure that you understood that the negotiation I am talking about only happens when an attribute exceeds human maximum.  That is why the negotiation begins.  That attribute must be dropped back to within the human maximums but rather than doing it unilaterally he involves the player in the process.  Thus how much the attribute is dropped (the minimum being to the human maximum value) and what kinds of considerations are to be made are open to negotiation.  Go too far and it starts to become obvious that one is mongering for naked power and that is a definite no-no.

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhy not accept the dice rolling as a simulation of the effect of the character being born and having developed as they have?

Normally we do.  But when the system leads to illogical or impossible conclusions instead of just "erasing" the error we get to do a little bricoling.  Finally it is a nod to fate that is an important element of the game.  Rather than discard the impossible outcome the player is allowed to "redirect" that "gift," as it were, so that it can find another outlet of fulfillment.

Quote from: Mike HolmesYou say something like this more than once, and it's very confusing. You talk about how the concepts are negotiated between player and character, but then on a couple of occasions, you make it sound like the player doesn't know what their character will be like. What's going on here? What's the "particular arrangement" that you refer to that makes this true? How is the normal situation different? Are you talking about when the GM throws a concept the player's way? How often does this happen percentage-wise?

The "particular arrangement" was indicated at the beginning of the paragraph –

If the GM has a Character concept that he thinks the player will enjoy then he will initiate the process by having the player roll up stats.[/list:u]In this "particular arrangement" the player does not know anything about the Character he is rolling dice for.  Another "arrangement" is where the player does have plenty of ideas about the Character he is rolling up.  This could have happened either through out of game discussions (a type of arrangement – Character creation based on discussed concepts) or the playing/creating the player from nothing via demonstrative actions (another type of arrangement – Character creation based on history of play).

The norm for regular players is to come up with a Character concept 1st and talk about it with the GM before mechanical creation.  A close second is one where the GM has an idea that he'd like the player to play so the player does not know much or anything about the Characters during mechanical creation.  (this is always exciting because of the idea of  new beginnings means so many new possibilities!) Character creation based upon "history of play" with said Character is much less frequent.  New players, once their interests are determined and their play ability sussed out are much more likely to GM concepts.  I know you asked for percentages, but I'd have to go through my folder to jog my memory, but if I would hazard a guess that GM concept is somewhere around 30%-50% of new Characters.

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhy is this done sometimes, and other times the player comes up with a concept? Can the player refuse to play a GM concept?

That's like asking why a player chose a particular moment to spend a coin in Universalis.  We spend lots of time talking "D&D" outside game sessions.  We talk about old scenarios, scenarios that we'd like to play, new Character concepts, a Character we saw/read in a movie, TV show, book, picture, etc. that was cool or inspiring, what we would have done in a certain situation if we a character under similar circumstance.  More or less we are "always" talking about Characters or social institutions that would then spawn ideas for Characters.  These social institutions could be tribes, to nations, to military units, to special/unusual organizations, etc.  FREX – many players at the table bag on Boromir because he was ensnared by the one ring.  So I started talking with the GM about how cool it would be to serve in his unit when he came of age.  The books indicated that he was a mighty captain who was aggressive and always in the thick taking huge risks and was beloved by his people – and I thought it would be really cool to be right there.  So the GM, in time, took the idea and spun it and had me roll up a Character that he described as a Tower Guard assigned to Finduilas, Boromir's mother when she was heavy with child.  As was indicated in a previous thread I ended up saving her life and am now permanently assigned to her – and her son.  Other times I'll come to a game and the GM will just point to a couple of players (but rarely all) and say, "Roll some numbers..." and off we go.  Basically it boils down to the scenario that is being planned, if someone has a really cool concept or the GM has a really cool concept for a Player.  Sometimes he'll rattle off some options as to which Characters would likely fit the scenario or the opportunity to get a new one.  If you're looking for some sort of mechanical rhyme or reason, or some regular overt methodology that determines when and who has input on new Characters I don't know what to say.  So much of it is based on the ephemeral dynamics of mood, player desires, GM needs as far as the scenario goes, etc. that it is difficult at least for me because I am so deeply involved to be more objective.

Can a player refuse a GM concept?  Yes, but that too depends on the prevailing circumstances.  Outright refusal is very rare and is skirting precariously close to missing the core of Sim.  In a way it's like a player saying, "I don't want to bind a demon in Sorcerer.  That's stooopid."  Characters are not static, they grow and change and there may be a great arc in store for the Character.  Also, by having a folio of Characters you get some kick ass Characters and some fairly down home Characters.  That there are contrasts is vital because if everyone is strong, no one is strong.  If everyone is fast, no one is fast.  If everyone is powerful, no one is powerful.  In fact the Characters in a given night tend to be very heterogeneous as well as within a given player's folder.

The better way to deal with a Character concept that you don't like is to try and talk it out and find a way to make it more interesting/palatable.  This thread contains an example of that very process.  The GM told me that long ago he gave a Character to a player that was very foul and dark who was a pretty bad guy.  The player did not care for the Character that much and faced situations where he had to do some pretty wretched things.  After a couple of years the GM played out the Character walking around a small hill where he came across a burning bush.  The long and the short of it was that the Character became a paladin and become that Player's favorite Character.  He loooooooved that Character and much of that was due to him playing a Character he was not particularly happy with in the beginning.  It is nearly always better to work though than outright refuse.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteFinally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more "checks" to add to his secondaries than is typical.

Why is this? A reward for the player taking the initiative to come up with concepts on their own?

In the main, yes.  But also to allow the player addition room to customize the Character.  Ultimately though, it is not just because the player took the initiative, but that he expanded the game and thus the Dream in general by creating something new.  I think I should clarify here that just creating a new Fighter that uses two fighting knives instead of a sword does not really qualify as something "new" to the world as it does not really expand the Dream by opening up new possibilities.  Such a "Character" would be more of a caricature than an effort to add to the Dream or cover new territory.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteHowever, in all of this, we never start rolling numbers and then come up with a concept.

I may be reading in, but from the emphasis, I'm guessing that there is some stigma attached to something about playing this way. What's being avoided by not rolling up stats first? Rather, what's accomplished by putting the concept out first? How is this more satisfactory for this sort of play?

Procedurally it is impossible to handle the attributes unless we know what race the Character is.  Non-human PC's get straight pluses to their raw attribute numbers and frequently do go beyond human maximums.  Human PC's get to rolls dice against their raw stats depending on their race/culture.  The attributes are the foundation of all the mechanical portions of the Character sheet.  What and how many dice that are rolled for Stamina are based on race/culture and damage bonuses to weapons are influenced by race/culture as well.  Defense percentage, weapons skills, body points are all calculated based upon attributes values.  What weapons are available to the Character are tied into what cultures they are from.  The secondary skills also reflect the various cultures.

But most important of all we are prioritizing Characters as individual and persons and not some set of numbers or kits or any other abstraction or mechanical construct..  By taking the concrete step of placing mechanical Character creation after some concept of the Character is discussed/established as an individual rather than before we are establishing and reinforcing the Sim CA priorities via practice.  It is how the Character interacts with the world that is important and his relationship to the world is vastly more central to play and CA expression than numbers.  The numbers support the Character (not the other way around) and the Character is defined by his personality and his bonds to the world around him.  What a Character (player) does is far more important that anything on the sheet.  To roll up first would belie that emphasis and priority.  Rolling numbers first changes the frame of mind.  This is so ingrained into our game that numbers frequently are massaged or altered to fit the Character concept.  We set out to establish and reinforce the idea it is the interaction between the players at the table – bricoling is not directly aided by mechanics because there are no "concepts" being discussed.  It is the signification process that is important.  Sim is players dealing with X circumstances utterly from within the SIS.  Mechanics are necessarily outside the SIS, and thus direct player employment of them empowers (by facilitation) the players to alter the SIS ad extra; which is contrary to the Sim process.  In Nar the mechanics formalize the means by which players can directly effect the elements of the SIS organized under such concepts of scene framing, conflict, stakes, etc.  In Gam the players are empowered to effect outcomes of events in the SIS through the judicious exploitation (in the good meaning) of the model of the physics of the world (as it were).  Again by employing the mechanics shaped/guided by concepts such as tactics, resources, strategic goals, etc. one can attempt to influence the results of the unfolding of events favorably ad extra.  This is the meta empowerment of the players.  Sim on the other hand is the dealing with the SIS ad intra.  So by not having mechanics/rules lead off Character creation available two things are accomplished.  First it establishes the precedent of immediately prioritizing the practice of Sim CA process.  Second it removes the tools and discourages the practice of ad extra techniques.

In Sim the role of mechanics is to make sure the norms of the physical world are consistent – that is the likely will frequently come to pass and the unlikely will infrequently come to pass.  I am coming to the conclusion that Sim is the creation of social "rules" (culture, personality, mores, etc.) in response to unfolding events as constrained by the physical "laws" of the world.  Thus the Character sheet in Sim is more of a representational construct than a functioning tool.  To mechanically create Character before considering any concepts concerning said Character is akin to using fortune tools to design Kickers.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteYes, we do have mages and clerics, but they aren't considered classes (mages are "awoken" and clerics are "called" and there is no inherent reason why it cannot happen to any human.) and there are no restrictions regarding armor for the mages and weapons for clerics.

I find this interesting. It's certainly vestigal from the D&D origin. I mean, you guys balk at the LOTR movies (which I think are great), yet you allow the system to have clerics in it? What from the canon would support this? Even mages seem mostly unsupported - from my reading basically you have to be touched in some way by the West to have any magic (Elves, Maiar, or humans using their artifacts).

Well, actually 2 of the "mages" are PC Istari.  But I do have a "mage" who is not Istari, Elf, or otherwise uses artifacts.  As for support of the possibility of mannish dwimmer crafters I offer that the Lord of the Nazgul was a "witch" before he was turned.  It is also said that the evil men who occupied the Rhudaur after its fall practiced sorcery.  Finally from the LOTR book regarding the walking sticks given to Frodo and Sam by Faramir – "...The men of the White Mountains use them...They are made of the fair tree lebethron, beloved of the woodwrights of Gondor, and a virtue has been laid upon them of finding and returning."  So, all the above laid the groundwork for the plausible/justifiable workings of magic by men.  What is even more important is the false notion that Setting is or must be static in Sim.  Sim is not the mindless regurgitation or mimicry of a fixed canon.  It cannot be because if the players are to have impact then Setting is subject to evolution and change.  Bricolage clearly stipulates that both the object added and that which is being added to change each other in this process.  The Themes are more or less what is fixed and celebrated in Sim, not the objects in the fictional world.  This is exactly why bricolage cannot be limit to what is covered by mechanics as bricolage necessarily effects, changes and adds to both Setting and Character.  I think this is an incredibly important and central idea of Sim that is either frequently glossed over or more often completely misunderstood.

Concerning clerics many of the Númenórean's who fell with the destruction of the island were in effect engaging in clerical type sacrifices.

Quote from: Mike HolmesEven the idea of spells and spell points and such seem to me to be pretty alien to Tolkien's work. Given that the mechanics tend to get ignored, are these abilities handled without much regard for the system? Just what can a cleric do?

In a sense, yes, the mechanics do tend to get ignored in the thick of play.  The idea of "spell points" was derived from Gandalf being "nearly spent" when he had to face the Balrog in Moria.  What the mages don't have are "spell books" or the need to "memorize spells."  Even still the process is clunky and thus the mechanics do get brushed aside for speed and to minimize their intrusiveness.

I am uncertain as to what a cleric can do.  There is only three in the whole game.  One is about 20 years in real years old and is run as an NPC because the owning player is back in New Jersey.  Of the other two, I have one and Chuck of the Dwarf fame has the other.  Chuck's cleric was not manifest until the end of the first and only night he has been played.  In back-story and in game he was just a "holy man."  My cleric is a full-blown cleric and I have only played him 3 minutes!  So what they can do is yet to be determined and that is exactly the kind of stuff Sim is amenable to doing.  Yet in discussions about clerics and mages, mages cannot cast anything that heals.  Only the servants of Eru (clerics) and the true Kings (the heirs of Elendil) can do that.  Clerics have "true sight" whereby they can "see" the condition of the soul of any individual.  Whereas powerful creatures such as a vampire or wraiths or wights are extremely resistant to magic, they are exceedingly susceptible to clerical "magics."  Also, as "magical spells" are manipulations of reality their effects can be mediated, i.e., saving throws can be made.  Clerical spells are "real" – real fire, real lightning, etc. so magical resistance does absolutely nothing.  Other than that who knows.  I have seen "miraculous" things worked by clerics that would seem to be "beyond" the Character's "capability."  IOW – its not the (mechanically delimited) "power" of the cleric, but the "holiness" or the circumstances or the nature of miracle being proposed.  (How effectively the player plays this out is also a strong determining factor.)

As this response is growing wildly out of control and I know you have little patience for long posts, I will post here and finish answering your questions in a follow up post.

Hi Jay,

Are you familiar with The Window (http://www.mimgames.com/window/welcome/)?

I think you guys' system, in play (and including PC creation) is effectively the same thing as The Window.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: SilmenumeThis is not a matter of besting or defeating Challenge, it's a matter of retaining the ability to remain in the game and accomplish whatever one has set out to do.

Sounds like gamism to me.

QuoteA player must have a strong will and courage to survive, or they simply will not.

Not to be pedantic, you mean, "A player must have a strong will and courage for his character to survive, or the character simply will not. No players actually are killed in play, right? (I have to ask, there's a recent story of a LARP in Brazil that ended with the death of some of the players - and not accidentally, either). ;-)

My point is that this sort of struggle by the player, keeping your character alive against the odds, is precisely gamism. If you were simulating heroism, then character death would not be seen as a negative outcome. Character death is being used as the ultimate guage of player competence (or, rather, lack of it). This is very D&D.

QuoteSo when we are in a situation where we get to pry something from the evil grasping hands of the GM – of course we get to revel in it!  We get to stick it to him for a change!  Of course this is all light hearted but he does like this negotiation process, as he is curious to see where it will lead.

Light-hearted or not, it's gamism. You simply do not compete with a sim or nar GM. Because competition is gamism (not the sum total, but a subset).

QuoteIn reading your question again I want to make sure that you understood that the negotiation I am talking about only happens when an attribute exceeds human maximum.  That is why the negotiation begins.  That attribute must be dropped back to within the human maximums but rather than doing it unilaterally he involves the player in the process.  Thus how much the attribute is dropped (the minimum being to the human maximum value) and what kinds of considerations are to be made are open to negotiation.

Again, a purely sim player would simply drop the stat down to it's max, and ask for nothing in return. And then play the character that the simulation had provided (and no, simulationism and simulation are not equivalent - it's just pertinent in this case).

QuoteGo too far and it starts to become obvious that one is mongering for naked power and that is a definite no-no.

Right. Classic sim/gam mix.

QuoteBut when the system leads to illogical or impossible conclusions instead of just "erasing" the error we get to do a little bricoling.  Finally it is a nod to fate that is an important element of the game.  Rather than discard the impossible outcome the player is allowed to "redirect" that "gift," as it were, so that it can find another outlet of fulfillment.

I think that it's odd that the system can produce impossible characters that lead to this situation in the first place. But you didn't say above that the negotiation was to gain something for the character. You point out the player interest in it, survival of the character. The character can't care, he's not even extant yet, and doesn't know about the chargen system. It's not his concern. It's a player concern. No matter how much you couch it in "pseudo-in-game" karmic terms. That's just more typical sim/gam stuff.

QuoteIn this "particular arrangement" the player does not know anything about the Character he is rolling dice for.  

Ah, I see. I read you as meaning that the GM states the character concept, and then has the player roll it up.

When does the player learn what the concept is? Does he hand the stats back over the screen, and then the GM arranges them, and then he hands it back complete? Or does the player learn at some point what the concept is, and then do the arranging himself?

I assume that the die rolling conventions you use prevent "unfit" characters somehow? Weakling warriors, for instance?

QuoteThat's like asking why a player chose a particular moment to spend a coin in Universalis.

No, you miss my point. I can't tell you why it is that a player spends a particular coin to create a fact. But I can tell you the different functions of the different uses for Coins. You have two chargen methods (more, actually). What's the purpose of both of these? For example, you mention that you get excited about playing a GM concept - is that method included for the surprise factor? Is that why it exists? Why not just use the other method all the time?

You give a partial answer here...

QuoteSo much of it is based on the ephemeral dynamics of mood, player desires, GM needs as far as the scenario goes, etc. that it is difficult at least for me because I am so deeply involved to be more objective.

Sounds to me simply that it's a case of needing new characters and whether or not the players have an idea? Put it another way, does the GM ever make you take on a concept when you have one already? Is that because of scenario needs, again?

QuoteCan a player refuse a GM concept?  Yes, but that too depends on the prevailing circumstances.  Outright refusal is very rare and is skirting precariously close to missing the core of Sim.

I don't see how. If you give me the option of exploring a slime-mold, or a hero, I can tell you which I'm more interested in playing.

It sounds like your CA is simply that the player is an agent of fate in directing certain personalities, and, as such, there's no choice in that? If so, this is a very specific subset of sim, and not at all endemic to all sim play.

QuoteIn a way it's like a player saying, "I don't want to bind a demon in Sorcerer.  That's stooopid."  

No, the parallel in that case would be to say, "I don't want to roll up a character with Strength, that's stooopid." I can name dozens of sim games in which the player gets to make up his character based on points - in fact it's the standard for sim play. So it might not be your game, but it's not non-sim.  

QuoteCharacters are not static, they grow and change and there may be a great arc in store for the Character.

Sure, but there might not be. Or it may simply be that I'm simply disinterested in that particular arc. I mean, let's say your GM is perfect, and never makes a clinker character. Well, that's not system, that's your perfect GM. If your system is to say, "All characters are perfect for play" well, that's pretty darn local.

QuoteAlso, by having a folio of Characters you get some kick ass Characters and some fairly down home Characters.  That there are contrasts is vital because if everyone is strong, no one is strong.  If everyone is fast, no one is fast.  If everyone is powerful, no one is powerful.  In fact the Characters in a given night tend to be very heterogeneous as well as within a given player's folder.

You don't mean to imply that allowing players to select characters will always end up with the same characters, do you? Because I've seen amazing variation in characters based solely on player input.

QuoteThe better way to deal with a Character concept that you don't like is to try and talk it out and find a way to make it more interesting/palatable.

OK, so it's a negotiation process. That's all I was looking for.

QuoteThis thread contains an example of that very process.

The example seemed very much to be a hybrid of methods. I mean, above you say that the player doesn't know anything about the concept. Here you're saying that it's a negotiation. Sounds like something in between. Or, rather, that the actual process of chargen varies with each iteration depending on a wide array of variables, and across several spectra. Would that be accurate? Not just three methods, but more like several axes of controls?

Quote

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteFinally when the sheet comes back over the screen the player is usually given even more "checks" to add to his secondaries than is typical.

Why is this? A reward for the player taking the initiative to come up with concepts on their own?

In the main, yes.  But also to allow the player addition room to customize the Character.  Ultimately though, it is not just because the player took the initiative, but that he expanded the game and thus the Dream in general by creating something new.  

That's what I was getting at.

QuoteI think I should clarify here that just creating a new Fighter that uses two fighting knives instead of a sword does not really qualify as something "new" to the world as it does not really expand the Dream by opening up new possibilities.  Such a "Character" would be more of a caricature than an effort to add to the Dream or cover new territory.

I'm getting this very weird vibe here. Like you're feeling a need to distance yourself from D&D dungeon-crawling play. I can only read this one of two ways, both odd:
1. You think that I think that your game is like that. I don't.
2. You think that all play outside your game is like that. It's not.

The above basically sounds to me like you've said, "Let me be clear, I'm talking about adding fuel injection, not just seatbelts, to the car." To which I can only respond, "Most cars have fuel injection these days, I would think it odd if your game did not."

QuoteProcedurally it is impossible to handle the attributes unless we know what race the Character is.  

OK, so you need to know these things mechanically before you start to roll. But this isn't what you mean by "concept." It's more than just that, as you say...

QuoteBut most important of all we are prioritizing Characters as individual and persons and not some set of numbers or kits or any other abstraction or mechanical construct..  By taking the concrete step of placing mechanical Character creation after some concept of the Character is discussed/established as an individual rather than before we are establishing and reinforcing the Sim CA priorities via practice.  It is how the Character interacts with the world that is important and his relationship to the world is vastly more central to play and CA expression than numbers.

So it's the "who they are" that's important. Makes sense.

But that's not at all linked to sim. I mean, having a concept of how your character is going to be effective can be critical to gamism. And having an idea of what sort of premises your character can address means that making a character without a concept is antithetical to narrativism. In fact, all of what you state sounds more like narrativism to me than sim.

I'm not saying it's not sim, I'm saying that it's no more automatically sim than anything else. Moreover, there are plenty of people who would say that rolling first, and accepting the fate in question is "more" sim. I mean, if you get to select the concepts, then you're less of that karmic force leading a being that is the product of the setting and forces like childrearing etc, as defined by the dice. There are some games that make you roll up things like your characters's name, because the player as controller only of the character, has no control over that. We don't choose our own names.

But, more importantly, it's interesting that concept is placed so highly here in esteem, and yet the player is expected to accept the GM's concepts largely as offered. These things seem to be at cross purposes. Again, it very much seems to me that there are sliders here that are being adjusted on the fly for different situations.

QuoteRolling numbers first changes the frame of mind.  This is so ingrained into our game that numbers frequently are massaged or altered to fit the Character concept.  

Which, again, begs the question, why have random rolling at all? Why not simply allow the player and GM to come up with precisely the character that should exist mechanically? Why the extra work of massaging the numbers? Especially if they don't really matter?

QuoteMechanics are necessarily outside the SIS, and thus direct player employment of them empowers (by facilitation) the players to alter the SIS ad extra; which is contrary to the Sim process.

So why have the mechanics at all? The Finnish LARPers would tell you to abandon them if this is what you want.

I mean, some would say that the mechanics for sim players are simply a shorthand for the physics of the universe that allow it to be more understandable to players who are not actually there. From this perspective, adherence to mechanics is key, because without it, it means that there is no objective universe model that everyone is adhering to. To not use the model would, in this case, be akin to ignoring gravity. Which would be a very metagame thing to do, very not sim. You admit that such is a use:

QuoteIn Sim the role of mechanics is to make sure the norms of the physical world are consistent – that is the likely will frequently come to pass and the unlikely will infrequently come to pass.  I am coming to the conclusion that Sim is the creation of social "rules" (culture, personality, mores, etc.) in response to unfolding events as constrained by the physical "laws" of the world.  

But then you subsequently ignore the products of this system for fear of that it will appear metagamey.

Exploration, as part of Sim, includes the exploration of system as an in-game construct. Yes, imperfect, but then so are players. The choice of whether or not to use mechanics has nothing to do with whether or not the game is sim.

QuoteThus the Character sheet in Sim is more of a representational construct than a functioning tool.  To mechanically create Character before considering any concepts concerning said Character is akin to using fortune tools to design Kickers.

No, it would be like having mechanisms that enabled you to come up with a good kicker - things like humanity ratings.

QuoteWell, actually 2 of the "mages" are PC Istari.  

Two of the five (which)? Or do you non-canonically include more?

QuoteBut I do have a "mage" who is not Istari, Elf, or otherwise uses artifacts.  As for support of the possibility of mannish dwimmer crafters I offer that the Lord of the Nazgul was a "witch" before he was turned.  It is also said that the evil men who occupied the Rhudaur after its fall practiced sorcery.

Both seem like cases of getting magic by "worshipping" (for lack of a better word) Morgoth.

QuoteFinally from the LOTR book regarding the walking sticks given to Frodo and Sam by Faramir – "...The men of the White Mountains use them...They are made of the fair tree lebethron, beloved of the woodwrights of Gondor, and a virtue has been laid upon them of finding and returning."  

Sounds, again, like the wood is where the magic comes from.

QuoteSo, all the above laid the groundwork for the plausible/justifiable workings of magic by men.  

I'm not saying that it's not plausible. I'm saying that it's interesting that you choose to deem certain things plausible because they fit the system that your game comes from, and condemn other things that are not based on the system. When, in fact, you also tend to otherwise ignore the system when it's problematic.

QuoteWhat is even more important is the false notion that Setting is or must be static in Sim.  Sim is not the mindless regurgitation or mimicry of a fixed canon.

Who said that? Are you telling me that in your version of Middle Earth play has produced clerics? That's why they exist, because of some in-game events? No, it's because you feel that the Numenoreans let this in, acccording to what you wrote. So how is this point pertinent?

QuoteThis is exactly why bricolage cannot be limit to what is covered by mechanics as bricolage necessarily effects, changes and adds to both Setting and Character.  I think this is an incredibly important and central idea of Sim that is either frequently glossed over or more often completely misunderstood.

I'm not sure what you're saying about bricolage, but I know that many mechanical systems can adapt to any in-game changes that can occur. Take Hero Quest, in which the players make up the names of the abilities. So there's no way to make a character that is out of range of the system.

QuoteMy cleric is a full-blown cleric and I have only played him 3 minutes!  So what they can do is yet to be determined and that is exactly the kind of stuff Sim is amenable to doing.

So why not call them "holy men" or something? Cleric has a very specific real world meaning. It seems that it's being used here strictly because of the D&D heritage. What else do you call a holy guy?

QuoteClerics have "true sight" whereby they can "see" the condition of the soul of any individual.  Whereas powerful creatures such as a vampire or wraiths or wights are extremely resistant to magic, they are exceedingly susceptible to clerical "magics."

Classic D&D cleric ability. Where are the passages in the canon about the vampires being more susceptible to "clerics?" Been a long time since I read the Silmarillion, but I'm not remembering that at all.

I'm becoming very "line-by-line" here, so I'll try to address that in the next response.

Mike

So the system is kind of a highly-drifted, frequently-ignored post-D&D legacy, kept going because the GM and the players who have been in the game forever all have a very similar understanding of how they want things to proceed? That sounds about par for the course in these very long-running fantasy games. It's how sim-inclined groups played and continue to play AD&D and its inheritors, surely.

As for Middle-Earth canon, surely whether things are strictly canonical is (as Mike has pointed out) neither here nor there. But it's certainly true that elements of the setting that indicate a certain play style are being emphasized, specifically one of very tense, uncertain "tactical" conflict, expected to develop naturally from the Situation. It reminds me a wee bit of.

Quote from: Gamism: Step On Up
This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge Situation.

It's not a perfect map, but I think it's an interesting comparison.

Hey Mike,

Quote from: Mike HolmesYou realize that this speaks strongly of the "System Doesn't Matter" attitude. I mean it very much sounds like your GMs played D&D, found it lacking, made modifications that were like D&D, found that lacking, and basically decided to pitch it all for freeform. Keeping the rules in case they need justification for certain things, and to make players understand that they can't "get away" with just anything. Like they're afraid that if they just go completely freeform that the players will run amok.

That probably sounds judgemental, but it's meant to be analytical, and to provoke corrections. Do correct it where it's not accurate.

I appreciate you including the qualifier!

First of all let me address something that I am unclear about.  By "System Doesn't Matter" should I interpret that are picking up the feeling from my postings you that I am presenting a POV that implies "Mechanics Doesn't Matter"?  Of the latter, and given the nature this medium, I can understand how someone might draw that conclusion (one I disagree with!), but the former doesn't make sense to me as the Lumpley Principle falls under System.  Most of the following post will be based on the Mechanics interpretation, but please do let me know if I am incorrect.  I most certainly am not trying to put words in your mouth!

As a matter of historical interest, you are correct in that my GM did start with the D&D game and in time did find it lacking.  From there the analysis starts to fall apart.  Whereas I've never asked him if he set about to just drift D&D or design a new system whole cloth, I can tell you this much – he and Chuck spent about 4 years "designing" the mechanics without any play testing.  IOW the system was not drifted and patched a little at a time until they were happy, rather they waited until they felt it was more or less "done" and introduced the new system whole cloth.  In philosophy and function, the new game system was and is about 180 degrees apart from D&D, though there are a number of superficial similarities in form.

The single greatest philosophical change, and this did evolve over time, was the realization that the players did not need to know the mechanics outside the combat system.  What mattered was that the world worked consistently enough that the players could induce the rules by which it worked.  The mechanics of the combat system were retained for what turns out to be for the reason of speed of communication.  Even here many times mechanics are not fully employed – again what matters is that causality be preserved, not how that happens.

The guiding thread of thought through this whole design process was simply – "For every action there is a reaction."  The importance of this cannot be overstated as this stands in direct opposition to the modalities of Nar and Gam play.  Both Nar and Gam facilitating systems seek to empower the players via mechanics to have input on the SIS from the meta-game level.  The manner of play is constrained by the mechanics.  In Sim, just the opposite is in effect.  As we are looking for the reactions in the SIS of our Character's actions it implies that we don't know a priori what is going to happen in the SIS as a result the player's intentions.  It is the reaction of the world that we are seeking.  We don't need to how that reaction is created all we need to know is what happens.  The Nar mode of mechanics employment gives players control over causality and thus negating the "reaction of the world" process.  Just as task resolution does not aid the players to address Premise and can actually hinder that process so the reverse is true in Simulationism.  Conflict resolution does not aid in the maintaining of the "norms" of the fictional world and they can actually hinder that process.

The abstractions of Gamism obviate the role of the inductive process – the heart and sole of the Sim process.  We need not inquire or be observant of the rules of how the fictional world will respond; those "rules" are already made bare.  Why is this important?  Because the "rules of how the world works" are how we construct our own real life mental maps of reality.  Thus the necessary abstraction of the "rules of the world" and the process of employing the pre-created abstractions by the players in gamism stands in opposition to the process of the internal, personal creation of an alternate reality - the vivid Dream.

Another paradigm employed during the (re)design process was the notion of removing everything that added a layer of abstraction between the players and the fictional world (SIS) so that they could more "directly experience" the results of their actions and start building their own systems of meanings and significations – that is, their own alternate realities: the Dream.  Finally anything that externally constrained personality was dumped – no deprotagonizing alignments, no mechanically deprotagonizing personality behaviors, etc.  If a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.

Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.  We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.  All that matters is that the world responds consistently within recognizable norms.  In Sim, the purpose the role of mechanics in the process task resolution is to model the physics of the world in a plausible/reasonable manner.  Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."  Thus it is not always necessary and it actually works better for the inductive process if the player does not always know what he is rolling for.  The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"

I have pondered this specific question of yours for a while, and I don't know if it shows.  But it has forced to dig deep and give form to ideas that have been floating around in the back of mind for a while.  For that I thank you.  I hope, in return, that I have shed some light on you question.

I will answer the rest of your questions in your posts as soon as I can!

Ron,

Thanks for the link!  As soon as I finish giving my seminar at the upcoming Strategicon I plan on reading that system.  I ask for a little patience on this thread yet, as I do have further questions to answer that I think are relevant to my initial post.

Quote from: SilmenumeFirst of all let me address something that I am unclear about.  By "System Doesn't Matter" should I interpret that are picking up the feeling from my postings you that I am presenting a POV that implies "Mechanics Doesn't Matter"?  Of the latter, and given the nature this medium, I can understand how someone might draw that conclusion (one I disagree with!), but the former doesn't make sense to me as the Lumpley Principle falls under System.  Most of the following post will be based on the Mechanics interpretation, but please do let me know if I am incorrect.  I most certainly am not trying to put words in your mouth!

No, I'm guessing that the people who designed this system haven't heard of Lumpley.

The "System Doesn't Matter" POV is that mechanics are system, and that no mechanics can ever work well across all of play to deliver what's needed. So we should just chuck the pretense that one system is better than another, and just use whatever is at hand, altering it as/when needed to make it produce what we want. This is the very common attitude that Ron's essay is against.

It is, in fact, a failure to understand Lumpley that leads to this idea. That we can be making stuff up and not have a system. Lumply points out that everyone has a system, and hence why it must automatically matter.

Your designers, not seeing Lumpley have created a system where the mechanics are to some extent ignored for an actual system that's largely freeform. Again, they get there by, instead of finding a system with mechanics that work for them, by deciding that no mechanics ever will.

What seems to have emerged I call freeform in one of it's standard meanings, that being that the method for creating the SIS, is constantly negotiated. Mostly it's whatever the GM wants at the time. This is a system. But it's one that seems to have been arrived at by assuming that System Doesn't Matter - only the GM's judgment can make things right. Basically we'll sorta have rules, but they'll only pertain when the GM rules that they should.

Quote...I can tell you this much – he and Chuck spent about 4 years "designing" the mechanics without any play testing.  IOW the system was not drifted and patched a little at a time until they were happy, rather they waited until they felt it was more or less "done" and introduced the new system whole cloth.  In philosophy and function, the new game system was and is about 180 degrees apart from D&D, though there are a number of superficial similarities in form.

Well, this is all just a matter of your POV. I don't dispute the timeframes or how it was presented, but none of that is counter to what I indicated. In fact a mechanical system in which it's a rule that the GM can choose to ignore the system at any time simply has drift encoded into the system.

Put another way, when we give examples of drift and System Doesn't Matter, we're thinking precisely of people like Chuck. We've all known, or even have been Chuck. I've been Chuck.

QuoteThe single greatest philosophical change, and this did evolve over time, was the realization that the players did not need to know the mechanics outside the combat system.  

This happened after the presentation of the otherwise "complete" system? Well, that's drift, too. Whether or not the players know the mechanics is an important part of the system. In any case, again, it's a statement that the players should be only subject to the GM's interpretations, and not to what's generally thought of as system.

QuoteThe mechanics of the combat system were retained for what turns out to be for the reason of speed of communication.  Even here many times mechanics are not fully employed – again what matters is that causality be preserved, not how that happens.

I'm going to sound judgemental again, and say that the mechanics of combat were retained for gamism, to give a level playing field. And drifting to the players not knowing the mechanisms (not using them) doesn't change this, as long as the players feel that the GM is as fair as the mechanics were; or "Fairer" given that if the assumption is that if you do something in X way that a "realistic" or "internally plausible" result will occur. Basically system can screw you if you expect the level playing field to be that which emulates reality. So given a directive to move to this more "realistic" mode, it makes sense to do what he did.

All of which ignores that there could be mechanics which could cover everything realistically anyhow, but that's another discussion.

>The abstractions of Gamism obviate the role of the inductive process – the heart and sole of the Sim process.  We need not inquire or be observant of the rules of how the fictional world will respond; those "rules" are already made bare.  

I disagree. Saying this is like saying that Gamism implies no exploration. That we can't have gamism about things like who gets the girl. That it has to be about the mechanics. That's simply not true, and relegates gamism to being non-RPG play.

Again, by your observations, games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc, etc, are all gamism games. In fact, the only sim supportive games by your analysis are freeform games, and your game. That's not how GNS is constructed.

QuoteAnother paradigm employed during the (re)design process was the notion of removing everything that added a layer of abstraction between the players and the fictional world (SIS) so that they could more "directly experience" the results of their actions and start building their own systems of meanings and significations – that is, their own alternate realities: the Dream.

Again, why not play completely freeform then? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? If they can be ignored and replaced by GM judgment, then why not just always do that? Either it's the sumum bonum of this sort of play to not percieve mechanisms, and therefor they should not be used, or mechanisms are OK on any level, and it's just a personal preference.

QuoteFinally anything that externally constrained personality was dumped – no deprotagonizing alignments, no mechanically deprotagonizing personality behaviors, etc.  

That seems like an odd statement. I mean, is it "deprotagonizing" in a sim game to have your strenght constrain you to only be able to lift X pounds? If not, then why would it be "deprotagonizing" to have the character affected by a predetermined personality. In fact, this seems to be a feature of many sim games, and is often pointed to as the dividing line between sim and nar - the abilty to make statements based on the character's personality. So it very much sounds like you're arguing that the game is nar supportive here.

QuoteIf a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.

Right, System Doesn't Matter. We'll leave it to the players to make right by social contract. System would only mess this stuff up, so we'll ignore the mechanics related to it.

This is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.

QuoteThus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.

Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.

QuoteWe make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.

Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?

I played this way for about a year. What I found was that the more and more that I hid the mechanics, the more and more I was "faking" it. Basically, if the mechanical results are unimportant, and I can make up results that everyone believes might be a result of a good system, then why not just make the results up? In the end I was faking everything.

As you say:

QuoteOnce the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?

QuoteThe mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"

Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.

Reading your first actual play posts (not just this one, but previous ones to it as well), I found your play to be very hard to understand, because of the lack of discussion of the underlying principles. But now that we're talking about it, it's actually very, very familiar, and corresponds pretty precisely to how I ran my games, circa 1986-1989.

I played D&D until about 81, found it lacking, then developed my own system until I started playing it in 85 or so (playing other games like V&V, Top Secret, and Traveller, etc) in the interim. I introduced my game, played it, discovered that it was also imperfect in creating a simulation of events, and then started to hide the flawed mechanics so that I could simply use my developing GM skills to fill in the gaps. Pointing to how it coincidentally should be more of an immersive experience since there was no visible system being used.

Heck, for a while I made all of the player's rolls too. I mean, if they trusted that I was using a mechanical system for my rolls and interpreting theirs, well, then why would they need to see their own? I mean, look at the situation where you have a player who is rolling to detect a secret door. He doesn't know that, but he rolls pretty high, but not high enough, so I don't tell him anything? Well, isn't there a disjunct now between player and character knowledge? Can't that be ameliorated by me rolling and the players not knowing if I'm rolling for their character, or for something else, or rolling just at random to keep them from guessing when it was important?

Yeah, I was rolling dice just so that people wouldn't search for a secret door just because they heard me roll.

Wait - did I just admit that I was playing protection against pawn stance gamism? Yep.

In fact, I was just making everything up at that point, as I've mentioned, and the die rolls were just to give the illusion that there was some set of physics to which I was refering. Because my players, unlike yours, would have felt that if there were no rules being used, that there was no "objectivity" to the universe at hand. So I had to always maintain the illusion that there was an objectivity.

Ah, but wait, was it really an objective universe that they were after? Or a level playing field? The world may never know. But I'll admit to the fact that the whole thing was likely incoherent in more than one way. Not particularly dysfunctional, but mixed up, certainly.

Anyhow, pretending to use a system, like I was doing, is very much a System Doesn't Matter attitude. It was, we want to be playing a "game" (it's Role Playing Game, after all!), but no rules work to produce an interesting story, so I'm just going to make it up anyway.

Your experiences are sounding very similar to this, now, just taken to the next step. You make the sessions very long, play lound music, LARP quite a bit - I never did much of this stuff. But systemwise, I've very much been there, and I think that the experience is actually pretty common. Given freeform's similarities, very common.

Mike

Hey Mike,

I apologize for the tardiness of my reply, but I was really tied up prepping and then giving a seminar on role-play theory at a local con – my first.  Any way ---

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteWhat's important is when something is outside of the norm – then that skill and by extension the owning Character will stand out.  

It seems like this is allowed for players who show that they can be trusted not to be "abusive" meaning to play gamism.

Actually swing and a miss on two levels!  (I meant that lightly so if I offended you, it was not intentional and please accept my apologies. =o) )  For my sake, I'll start with the easiest answer.  Without actually sitting at the table there would be no way for you to know this (unless I mentioned this prior) but the GM virtually always gives more to new players during Character creation than established players in what the GM calls the "honeymoon period."  Why?  To make them feel special (usually because we players are ooohing and aaahing at what is given out!), welcome and to make the Character a bit more survivable.  For the more difficult answer I am asserting that Sim functions around the establishment of norms so that aberrations from that norm can be abduced as being meaningful, important or perhaps to beat the drum – significant.  Thus, during Character creation, when a player gets a Character with some starting skills that are out of the norm either high or low then that is significant and helps create some building blocks for further bricoling creation.  It helps in the beginning to define the Character when he/she really doesn't have much of a background within the SIS to build from and upon.  It's not a gamist suppressing effort; that effect is made manifest in the lack of reward for such behavior, Character death if combat is the chosen means of Step On Up (the world is very lethal), and the near total absence of overt mechanics (we have no printed rules book) and currency (if I understand the term properly).

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote"Retirement" is an overt act which entails handing the Character sheet in and an understanding that that Character is forever removed from the Player's control (that is he is NPC'd unless the player says that said Character is retiring within the game world).

Do characters ever become "unretired"? I mean, if a player can start playing another NPC, what's the problem with going back and playing a character that had been, as you put it, "NPC'd"? Especially if events seem to bring the character back into prominence? Does it relate to closure?

I am not aware of any Character ever being brought back out of "retirement."  That a NPC'd Character comes back into prominence would doubly reinforce the permanence of the retirement simply because it prevents the players from sloughing Characters that are in what appears to be hopeless Situations only to pick them back up when things ease up.  There are no "take backs" in the principle of bricolage.  One must simply deal with the consequences of their actions – that is part of the critical foundations of Sim bricolage.  One must consider all or as many relevant (read significant) events in the game as possible in order to try and predict (induce – try and formulate a rule then deduce – predict likely results) the most likely potential outcome of the considered course of action.  Thus the non-unretirement clause is merely in keeping with the strictures of the bricoling process.  All players are forewarned that everything has consequences and what is said at the table is said in the game so one had best choose very wisely as there is no going back.

As far as why players retire Characters or why there is retirement in general I can only speak for myself.  Usually it boils down to Character that has not been played in a very long time and never really become "solid" as a Character in the first place.  Essentially the Character's essence is already dead.  So, to me, it is a matter of closure.  There is a huge amount of information that must be maintained and I have only so many mental resources, so if I don't have to worry about a Character that I've already mostly forgotten about then that relieves me of a certain responsibility.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteAnother player at the table absolutely refuses to hand in any Character until said Character is declared dead, even if he hasn't played the Character in 15 years.  Go figure...

Well, if he sees the possibility that the character might come back into play...well why retire the character indeed? Same question as above, basically: what's the purpose of retirement as it exists?

No one has to retire any Character.  Its just an option if one is looking to be relieved of a Character a Player is no longer vested in.  It's not just the possibility of bringing a Character back into play, but rather why hold onto a Character when most or almost all of said Character has been forgotten or no longer means anything to the player.  The player mentioned in the quote above has a memory that is nearing photographic so he remembers much of Characters that he has not played in 10 or more years.  He is also tenacious.  I have retired several Characters that were pretty much very little more than numbers on a sheet.  The point being is that it is a one way trip in keeping with the process of bricolage – no "take backs."  Considering real or potential consequences is central to the process of our play and this is, as I have said above, a continuation of that basic tenet.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteAs we play we "build" our Characters through actions, not petitions, ...

Petitions? You mean instead of asking for a certain kind of character from the GM?

Just to make sure were in the context, the above made reference to a style of game whereby we would "generate" a Character through concrete actions within the SIS as opposed to discussing the Character using "concepts."  For example if I wanted the (unformed) Character to be strong then I would look to find an opportunity whereby I could demonstrate a great feat of strength – however, this occasion must arise logically out of the events that are unfolding.  Even then a good roll of a die is typically necessary to demonstrate the successful completion of said act.  IOW just because I say that I bend the bars of the jail to save my life does not mean I will automatically succeed.  This I contrast with just saying, "I want my Character to be strong – say, a 17 strength."  This style of Character creation is very rare and I included to demonstrate the variety of ways in which we do create Characters.

So by "petition" you mean by anything that's not creating the ability using the in-game method? Do these methods tend to be mutually exclusive? Or do they get mixed? That is, let's say you start a character by using the in-game method. Do you ever then later switch to the other method to flesh the character out?

In that particular and very rare mode of game play, yes, I mean we don't petition as in anything that's not creating the ability the using in-game method.

The answer to you second question is a qualified yes.  Yes in that if we do create a Character using the in-game method we do at some later time switch to the "regular" method to fill out the rest of the Character sheet.  The few times I have played an in-game Character creation scenario that process has never "overtly" extended past that night's game.  IOW we don't continue past that particular night's game process to purposefully lay the foundations of the Character via this particular method.  Typically you have a few scattered numbers and lots of checks scattered about the secondary skills and if you are clever you've gotten to create one or more secondary skills that are non-standard – and that is always a prized event.  So this style of Character creation tends to be in broad strokes, but it is lots of fun.  Since it is only broad strokes at one point or another the Character creation process is completed in the usual manner.  I should note that Characters are not static during play and they do pick up addition skills as play unfolds and player actions warrant.  Our game is very much about the continual growth and expansion of the Character and not the creating and then playing a fixed or mechanically orchestrated Character.  That growth is merely reflected on the Character sheet as opposed to play that is dictated or highly structured around only that which is delineated on the Character sheet – alignments, fixed skills slots, fixed or structured or exclusionary skill sets, class or most especially class as vocation, etc.

This concludes my response to your May 19th post.  I will now tackle your May 26th post right away.  Thank you for your patience.

Jay -

I think from your descriptions it probably makes more overall sense to talk about your group as having a Simulationist CA, as you think, but Mike's point about how some of your group's 'System', rules, and norms of play support a Gamist CA seem accurate as well.

Just a question about that - it seems clear that there are substantial social rewards in your game for exploring imaginary material. But you also talk a lot about climactic scenes, low level characters holding off Black Commandos, the dwarf who's smithy skills are paid this incredible compliment by having two elves solicit him, and so forth. Are these moments rewarded too? Does the player feel like it's a personal achievement, something good that he did, when his character does something heroic or stands out as an exceptional individual, and is that supported by the approval and/or envy of other members of the group?

This sort of feeling is I believe (maybe this tells something about me?) present in every game in every CA. But there's a big difference between it being what people are playing for and it being something that happens on the road to something else, a sort of 'pat on the back' for discovering or 'bricoling' (have to find a better word, that's a barbarism) something or for taking the story in a new and unexpected direction.

Though it is incoherent in Big Model terms, the kind of Sim/Gam mix which Mike is talking about and which was my dominant form of play in groups from 1979-1983 is extremely psychologically powerful for some people. The Gamism produces a deeply personal psychological investement in an ever-growing and -expanding fantasy life addressed by the Sim focus on exploration. The disruptions that the incoherent CA sometimes produce in play are partly compensated for, in such players, by the incredibly rich discovery of the possibility of deeply identifying with a shared fantasy life.

The way you describe the intensity of some sessions, with large groups of shouting men, also suggests a gamist-type personal investment. Pure Simulationist intensity on a similar level would I suspect look more like a shared trance.

I think Chris Lehrich and you have made a huge contribution to my understanding of Simulationism, and I suspect to that of some other people as well. I have no doubt that there's a lot of that going on too and that it's supported by what you're doing together as a group.

I know that I am late with this post and I apologize, but I felt that I should respond to those who have taken their own precious time to post in response to me.  So –

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe "System Doesn't Matter" POV is that mechanics are system, and that no mechanics can ever work well across all of play to deliver what's needed. So we should just chuck the pretense that one system is better than another, and just use whatever is at hand, altering it as/when needed to make it produce what we want. This is the very common attitude that Ron's essay is against.

It is, in fact, a failure to understand Lumpley that leads to this idea. That we can be making stuff up and not have a system. Lumply points out that everyone has a system, and hence why it must automatically matter.

Your designers, not seeing Lumpley have created a system where the mechanics are to some extent ignored for an actual system that's largely freeform. Again, they get there by, instead of finding a system with mechanics that work for them, by deciding that no mechanics ever will.

What seems to have emerged I call freeform in one of it's standard meanings, that being that the method for creating the SIS, is constantly negotiated. Mostly it's whatever the GM wants at the time. This is a system. But it's one that seems to have been arrived at by assuming that System Doesn't Matter - only the GM's judgment can make things right. Basically we'll sorta have rules, but they'll only pertain when the GM rules that they should.

This is actually a very complex issue and the one that fouls almost all discussions that aim to discuss how the Sim action of play is functions (i.e. discussing how the Narrativist play action of addressing Premise and Gamism etc. works)  However I should note that there have been two very interesting threads that are agonizing all over this issue without really recognizing that what they are wrestling with is the central focus (priority) of Sim.  Beyond Credibility (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15616) and Setting as Rules (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15632).

What appears to confound to most people is that a lack of overt mechanics – points of contact – means that system isn't important to the players of said game.  However, Sim is all about proposing, creating and testing systems.  What baffles most people is that because someone (such as myself) says that mechanics aren't strictly necessary means that we have rejected the notion of a system at all.  A while back I posted a thread about the role of mechanics in the various CA's.  I have now come to the idea that the role of mechanics in Sim is to lay the initial ground work but then must drift into the background as the fixed nature of mechanics interferes with the free operation of Bricolage.  That is - system, just like the other four elements of Exploration, is up for negotiation as part of the Sim game process.  Part and parcel of Sim play is like M.J. Young says, "discovery."  But here is where I diverge from M.J. and agree with Chris Lehrich, that while one feels that one is discovering something new they are actually creating that discovery.  To whit – we "discover" when are statements are help up by the group (given consensual approval) that we have discovered something new, when in actuality what has "been discovered" was never established anywhere prior.  The group feels this "new assertion" makes sense as a logical extension of the pre-established or more importantly previously establish "rules of the world."  Just as Setting is really a starting place for the players to use for their bricoling efforts – so is System.  A fixed rules system, mechanics, precludes this "discovery" process if the "rule" is already known, via explicit mechanics, to the player.

So to get back to your assertion that the authors of the game system above felt that "no mechanics can ever work across all play to deliver what is needed," is false.  Rather they placed mechanics in its proper role in Sim.  If systems are to be "discovered" then the players need the necessary conditions to discover them.  IOW overt mechanics, which are the modern conceptual process of thinking/knowing are in direct opposition to the bricoling process of "thinking/knowing" via the mythic process.  Strong mechanics in Sim is to play as "ouija play" is to Narrativism.  But to understand this one needs to realize that Sim and Nar are conjugates of one another in process of play.

To go back a little bit, one might ask the question, "If players 'approve' of 'new' or more precisely 'modified' system elements, where or what are they using as a guide?"  Simple.  Setting.  More explicitly, there are many implicit "rules" in the source material Setting.  In time as play progress everything that transpires changes both Character and Setting, thus the "rules" are constantly building on each other.  So as Mechanics are to the players (not the GM) of Gamism, Setting is to the players of Sim.  That is Setting is really where the players start with their "rules" of play.  For even if the players themselves did not "create" the opening mechanics system, that system of mechanics is (or ought to be) drawn from the Setting element in the first place.

Thus it is not that "system doesn't matter," but rather "system is the focus of play," but not in the form or process that we are used to employing (or even familiar with) in modern literate cultures.

Quote from: Mike HolmesWell, this is all just a matter of your POV. I don't dispute the timeframes or how it was presented, but none of that is counter to what I indicated. In fact a mechanical system in which it's a rule that the GM can choose to ignore the system at any time simply has drift encoded into the system.

Put another way, when we give examples of drift and System Doesn't Matter, we're thinking precisely of people like Chuck. We've all known, or even have been Chuck. I've been Chuck.

Again, this is where the fundamental understanding of Sim is absolutely amiss.  The GM IS subject to system, but that system is the bricoled system generated during play, not the fixed overt mechanics.  Players in Sim don't need to see what the GM is doing, all they need is the data represented in the form of the results of their efforts.  WE, all the players at the table, make/modify System during play through the actions of the Characters.  Actually our game has a very high number of Points-of-Contact if you consider rolling dice an overt form of negotiation.  What does not matter is that we do not have to state "conceptually" what is being negotiated, but rather we do so through the bricoling process of "concrete actions."  IOW system is inferred.

Quote from: Narrativism: Story Now essay][list]Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.[/list:u]underling added[/quote]

In the first sentence change Simulationist conflicts focus on producing System ('s of meaning)
Substitute System ('s of meaning) for Theme and change "a value-judgment" to "the basis of knowing" in the second sentence above and you have Sim.

Change the above to –

[list]Simulationist conflicts focus on producing System via events during play. The created System (of meaning) is defined as "the basis of knowing" or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.[/list:u] – and you have Sim.

The big misunderstanding about "systems of meaning" is that people don't understand that "systems of meaning" are used to project into the future and describe how the world works, as it were, (in this instance) just like mechanics can do.  The difference is that we the players get to say how the world works and thus "celebrate what is important by our choices of play," rather than being beholden to a third parties fixed system of mechanics and thus crippled or severely handicapped in our ability to engage in the building/additive process of the dialectic between Character and Setting.

So if you wish to call making the negotiation of system the focus of play mere drift from mechanics exploitation, then that's fine by me.  But I personally think that the former is a radical change of philosophy from D&D where by having so many "rules" that the players are deprived of many opportunities of creating those "rules" in play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]I'm going to sound judgemental again, and say that the mechanics of combat were retained for gamism, to give a level playing field. And drifting to the players not knowing the mechanisms (not using them) doesn't change this, as long as the players feel that the GM is as fair as the mechanics were; or "Fairer" given that if the assumption is that if you do something in X way that a "realistic" or "internally plausible" result will occur. Basically system can screw you if you expect the level playing field to be that which emulates reality. So given a directive to move to this more "realistic" mode, it makes sense to do what he did.[/quote]

Feel free to be judgmental!  However, I too will be judgment and say that you are wrong! =oP.  Actually I am rather confused with the automatic conflation of Mechanics and Gamism.  There are combat mechanics in Narrativist games, but that does not mean the players are Gamist.  Gamism is not defined by mechanics, as you are well aware of and have expressed many times, but rather the priorities and goals of the players.  In our case the Mechanics of combat do exactly as Vincent has said they do – they function to help speed up the negotiation process.  Now if one uses the Mechanics of our combat system to express Step-on-Up, then I would agree with you that they were kept for "Gamist" intentions.  But in play and in discussions with the GM there have been discussions where the question has been raised about the value of the mechanics in combat.  IOW because we are miming so much of the combat so quickly that the players mimed actions are taken as their statements of intent and sometime the move is so good that or so out of place that mechanics become superfluous to the negotiation process.  That is the player mime of intent is accepted into the SIS as is.

[quote="Mike HolmesAll of which ignores that there could be mechanics which could cover everything realistically anyhow, but that's another discussion.

Again, Sim functions by the player creation of system.  The above process would totally remove or render impotent player input in Sim games.  It is precisely because of that paradigm that many Sim games do founder and players start drifting play to "turning" Gamist or the Narrativist struggle for player input in supposed Sim facilitating or prioritizing play."  I am not saying that Gamist or Narrativist players are all scalded Sim players, but rather those forms of drift in Sim play arise primarily because the preponderance of pre-created "rules" severely limits the player's input into what is actually being created.

I would like to clarify that I am not saying "system = mechanics" or that "system excluded mechanic," but rather in Sim "System includes all systems of meaning/knowing of which Mechanics is but a part."  Thus the above quote is absolutely contrary to the Sim focus and process and represents the primary reason for the misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Sim.

Quote from: Mike Holmes"]>The abstractions of Gamism obviate the role of the inductive process – the heart and sole of the Sim process.  We need not inquire or be observant of the rules of how the fictional world will respond; those "rules" are already made bare.  

I disagree. Saying this is like saying that Gamism implies no exploration. That we can't have gamism about things like who gets the girl. That it has to be about the mechanics. That's simply not true, and relegates gamism to being non-RPG play.[/quote]

Again, incorrect.  One cannot express Step-on-Up outside of Exploration.  That is a logical impossibility with regards to the Model.  Again you are conflating mechanics with CA.  I am saying that in Sim and only Sim that the abstractions that are so useful for the Gamist facilitating game design obviate the Simulationist prioritization of the inductive process – the rules making process.  Sim isn't about using Mechanics (that Gam and Nar facilitating games do), its about making Systems – which includes Mechanics.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]Again, by your observations, games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc, etc, are all gamism games. In fact, the only sim supportive games by your analysis are freeform games, and your game. That's not how GNS is constructed.[/quote]

I am not saying that games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc., are all Gamist games as only player actions demonstrate which CA is in operation despite game design.  I would advance two propositions though.  I would say that GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc., are incoherent with regards to the Sim CA.  Second, because of the preponderance of rules that are ready tools for Gamist employment that those games systems tend to drift towards Gamist employment and are not terribly successful at creating "functional" Sim play without drift.  By drift I mean drifting the role of the rules, not just changing the rules themselves.

As far as how GNS is constructed, I disagree.  The Model does state that properly designed mechanics can strongly facilitate the functional expression of CA.  I agree.  In the case of Sim the role of functionally designed mechanics is to function as a starting place, just like Setting and Character.  This is not in contradiction with the Model.  The Model does not say there must be Mechanics, as indicated by the acknowledgment of "rules-lite" and vanilla style game but rather they the mechanics are formulated in such a way as to aid CA expression.  So if the portion of system called mechanics is used in the role of a template or model and then fade into the background as the whole of system is modified and enlarged during play, then we are not in opposition to the tenets of the Model.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]Again, why not play completely freeform then? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? If they can be ignored and replaced by GM judgment, then why not just always do that? Either it's the sumum bonum of this sort of play to not percieve mechanisms, and therefor they should not be used, or mechanisms are OK on any level, and it's just a personal preference. [/quote]

We don't have a "need to know" that there are mechanics underlying what's going on.  They role is to primarily help to speed up the negotiation process in the heat and thick of battle – thus making it more intense.  Many times in combat we don't use fortune mechanics but use drama as per my descriptions above.

Regarding the summum bonum of this sort of play I am not proposing that points of contact are bad in and of themselves, bur rather the role and form of mechanics is very different from those of Gam and Nar.  Its not that mechanics should not be perceived, but rather there is no ontological reason in Sim for the players to "know" the mechanics a priori.  This does not mean they are verboten or "should not be used," but that their place in play needs to be understood and utilized - and that is of template and starting place.  As far as the players go, "discovering" the systems of the fictional world is really a matter of creating them via play.  How many overt mechanics the players are comfortable with is as much a matter of personal choice as the level of Step-on-Up or how much input the players' have in Setting in Gam and Nar respectively.  That is, how involved to they players wish to have in the game process.  In Sim the more the mechanics the less the player input and that is a matter of local taste.

Fixed Mechanics in Sim cannot be "employed" by the players without deprotagonizing them with regards to CA expression any more than having a Mechanically fixed Premise in Narrativism.  By mechanically fixed Premise, I mean one where the mechanics choose for the player and "enforce" what their Character's Premise question is.  I am not saying this is how Narrativist mechanics word, but rather having Fixed mechanics in Sim is roughly the Narrativist equivalent of having Mechanics choose the Premise for the players thus undercutting their input to the game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]That seems like an odd statement. I mean, is it "deprotagonizing" in a sim game to have your strenght constrain you to only be able to lift X pounds? If not, then why would it be "deprotagonizing" to have the character affected by a predetermined personality.[/quote]

Because a predetermined personality precludes or at least hampers the dialectic between Character and Setting.  That dialect must necessarily alter or affect both the Character and the Setting.  If the player has a Character with a mechanically predetermined and fixed personality one is once again stifled in their ability to bricole.  In fact the bricoling process cannot be effective if one of the two objects being used cannot change or be affected by the process.  As our bodies are more or less artifacts of our existence and that our intellects and personalities are the means by which we decide how to interact with "Setting," to fix that personality or mechanically choose that personality is to deprotagonize Sim play action.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]In fact, this seems to be a feature of many sim games, and is often pointed to as the dividing line between sim and nar - the abilty to make statements based on the character's personality. So it very much sounds like you're arguing that the game is nar supportive here.[/quote]

I am confused about your statement here.  Are you saying that "commenting" on personality is the dividing line between Sim are Nar?  Then you are wrong.  Nar is the commenting on Premise and Sim is the abduction, induction and deduction of System.  Thus both styles play can "comment" of personality.  This is also true of Gamism.  However, while a fixed or mechanically prescriptive personality can certainly be a nifty tool for Nar play it is neither a "tell" of Nar play nor facilitative of Sim play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]If a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.[/quote]Right, System Doesn't Matter. We'll leave it to the players to make right by social contract. System would only mess this stuff up, so we'll ignore the mechanics related to it.[/quote]

Again you make the error of conflating System and Mechanics.  Mechanics are selfsame as System, but rather one form of system.  In our system of play it is the bricoled system of "meanings and rules" which informs the negotiation process.  System is central to Sim play, not peripheral.  In fact I will go so far as to say quote, again I believe it was Vincent, as roughly saying that, "Mechanics are refinements/implementations of the Social Contract."  I mean Mechanics are just a much a functioning of the Social contract as the mode of play I am speaking of – that is mechanics have no actual authority unless the players have given the results credibility, and that is an expression of the Social Contract.  Functional/effective System drift occurs specifically because the "rules" are a negotiable part of the Social Contract.  In Sim System is what is being negotiated via play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]This is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.[/quote]

In a way you are correct, but you have it backwards.  To whit – "Because mechanics interfere with the Expression of the Sim CA, we use the entirety and plentitude of the concept of system (the means by which statements are negotiated into the SIS) as derived from the source material and that which has been negotiated in play."  Because the entirety of system (not limited to mechanics nor excluding mechanics) is itself up for negotiation, then a fixed mechanic confounds that process and contradicts the goal.

Again, if you mean "Free form" as meaning no or an extremely limited role of mechanics as a means of resolution, but that there is still a highly complex, subtle and rich "system" that encompasses resolution then I agree with you.  If however, you mean "Free form" to basically mean the "whim" of the GM, then you are profoundly off the mark.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.[/quote]Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.[/quote]

By extension of this logic, all RPG's that came out after D&D are just drifted versions to lesser or greater degrees of the original game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.[/quote]Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]As you say:[quote]Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."[/quote]

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?[/quote]

What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren'tI'm going to sound judgemental again, and say that the mechanics of combat were retained for gamism, to give a level playing field. And drifting to the players not knowing the mechanisms (not using them) doesn't change this, as long as the players feel that the GM is as fair as the mechanics were; or "Fairer" given that if the assumption is that if you do something in X way that a "realistic" or "internally plausible" result will occur. Basically system can screw you if you expect the level playing field to be that which emulates reality. So given a directive to move to this more "realistic" mode, it makes sense to do what he did.

Feel free to be judgmental!  However, I too will be judgment and say that you are wrong! =oP.  Actually I am rather confused with the automatic conflation of Mechanics and Gamism.  There are combat mechanics in Narrativist games, but that does not mean the players are Gamist.  Gamism is not defined by mechanics, as you are well aware of and have expressed many times, but rather the priorities and goals of the players.  In our case the Mechanics of combat do exactly as Vincent has said they do – they function to help speed up the negotiation process.  Now if one uses the Mechanics of our combat system to express Step-on-Up, then I would agree with you that they were kept for "Gamist" intentions.  But in play and in discussions with the GM there have been discussions where the question has been raised about the value of the mechanics in combat.  IOW because we are miming so much of the combat so quickly that the players mimed actions are taken as their statements of intent and sometime the move is so good that or so out of place that mechanics become superfluous to the negotiation process.  That is the player mime of intent is accepted into the SIS as is.

Quote from: Mike Holmes
All of which ignores that there could be mechanics which could cover everything realistically anyhow, but that's another discussion.

Again, Sim functions by the player creation of system.  The above process would totally remove or render impotent player input in Sim games.  It is precisely because of that paradigm that many Sim games do founder and players start drifting play to "turning" Gamist or the Narrativist struggle for player input in supposed Sim facilitating or prioritizing play."  I am not saying that Gamist or Narrativist players are all scalded Sim players, but rather those forms of drift in Sim play arise primarily because the preponderance of pre-created "rules" severely limits the player's input into what is actually being created.

I would like to clarify that I am not saying "system = mechanics" or that "system excluded mechanic," but rather in Sim "System includes all systems of meaning/knowing of which Mechanics is but a part."  Thus the above quote is absolutely contrary to the Sim focus and process and represents the primary reason for the misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Sim.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]>The abstractions of Gamism obviate the role of the inductive process – the heart and sole of the Sim process.  We need not inquire or be observant of the rules of how the fictional world will respond; those "rules" are already made bare.  

I disagree. Saying this is like saying that Gamism implies no exploration. That we can't have gamism about things like who gets the girl. That it has to be about the mechanics. That's simply not true, and relegates gamism to being non-RPG play.[/quote]

Again, incorrect.  One cannot express Step-on-Up outside of Exploration.  That is a logical impossibility with regards to the Model.  Again you are conflating mechanics with CA.  I am saying that in Sim and only Sim that the abstractions that are so useful for the Gamist facilitating game design obviate the Simulationist prioritization of the inductive process – the rules making process.  Sim isn't about using Mechanics (that Gam and Nar facilitating games do), its about making Systems – which includes Mechanics.

[quote="Mike HolmesAgain, by your observations, games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc, etc, are all gamism games. In fact, the only sim supportive games by your analysis are freeform games, and your game. That's not how GNS is constructed.
I am not saying that games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc., are all Gamist games as only player actions demonstrate which CA is in operation despite game design.  I would advance two propositions though.  I would say that GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc., are incoherent with regards to the Sim CA.  Second, because of the preponderance of rules that are ready tools for Gamist employment that those games systems tend to drift towards Gamist employment and are not terribly successful at creating "functional" Sim play without drift.  By drift I mean drifting the role of the rules, not just changing the rules themselves.

As far as how GNS is constructed, I disagree.  The Model does state that properly designed mechanics can strongly facilitate the functional expression of CA.  I agree.  In the case of Sim the role of functionally designed mechanics is to function as a starting place, just like Setting and Character.  This is not in contradiction with the Model.  The Model does not say there must be Mechanics, as indicated by the acknowledgment of "rules-lite" and vanilla style game but rather they the mechanics are formulated in such a way as to aid CA expression.  So if the portion of system called mechanics is used in the role of a template or model and then fade into the background as the whole of system is modified and enlarged during play, then we are not in opposition to the tenets of the Model.

Quote from: Mike Holmes"]Again, why not play completely freeform then? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? If they can be ignored and replaced by GM judgment, then why not just always do that? Either it's the sumum bonum of this sort of play to not percieve mechanisms, and therefor they should not be used, or mechanisms are OK on any level, and it's just a personal preference. [/quote]

We don't have a "need to know" that there are mechanics underlying what's going on.  They role is to primarily help to speed up the negotiation process in the heat and thick of battle – thus making it more intense.  Many times in combat we don't use fortune mechanics but use drama as per my descriptions above.

Regarding the summum bonum of this sort of play I am not proposing that points of contact are bad in and of themselves, bur rather the role and form of mechanics is very different from those of Gam and Nar.  Its not that mechanics should not be perceived, but rather there is no ontological reason in Sim for the players to "know" the mechanics a priori.  This does not mean they are verboten or "should not be used," but that their place in play needs to be understood and utilized - and that is of template and starting place.  As far as the players go, "discovering" the systems of the fictional world is really a matter of creating them via play.  How many overt mechanics the players are comfortable with is as much a matter of personal choice as the level of Step-on-Up or how much input the players' have in Setting in Gam and Nar respectively.  That is, how involved to they players wish to have in the game process.  In Sim the more the mechanics the less the player input and that is a matter of local taste.

Fixed Mechanics in Sim cannot be "employed" by the players without deprotagonizing them with regards to CA expression any more than having a Mechanically fixed Premise in Narrativism.  By mechanically fixed Premise, I mean one where the mechanics choose for the player and "enforce" what their Character's Premise question is.  I am not saying this is how Narrativist mechanics word, but rather having Fixed mechanics in Sim is roughly the Narrativist equivalent of having Mechanics choose the Premise for the players thus undercutting their input to the game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]That seems like an odd statement. I mean, is it "deprotagonizing" in a sim game to have your strenght constrain you to only be able to lift X pounds? If not, then why would it be "deprotagonizing" to have the character affected by a predetermined personality.[/quote]

Because a predetermined personality precludes or at least hampers the dialectic between Character and Setting.  That dialect must necessarily alter or affect both the Character and the Setting.  If the player has a Character with a mechanically predetermined and fixed personality one is once again stifled in their ability to bricole.  In fact the bricoling process cannot be effective if one of the two objects being used cannot change or be affected by the process.  As our bodies are more or less artifacts of our existence and that our intellects and personalities are the means by which we decide how to interact with "Setting," to fix that personality or mechanically choose that personality is to deprotagonize Sim play action.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]In fact, this seems to be a feature of many sim games, and is often pointed to as the dividing line between sim and nar - the abilty to make statements based on the character's personality. So it very much sounds like you're arguing that the game is nar supportive here.[/quote]

I am confused about your statement here.  Are you saying that "commenting" on personality is the dividing line between Sim are Nar?  Then you are wrong.  Nar is the commenting on Premise and Sim is the abduction, induction and deduction of System.  Thus both styles play can "comment" of personality.  This is also true of Gamism.  However, while a fixed or mechanically prescriptive personality can certainly be a nifty tool for Nar play it is neither a "tell" of Nar play nor facilitative of Sim play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]If a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.[/quote]Right, System Doesn't Matter. We'll leave it to the players to make right by social contract. System would only mess this stuff up, so we'll ignore the mechanics related to it.[/quote]

Again you make the error of conflating System and Mechanics.  Mechanics are selfsame as System, but rather one form of system.  In our system of play it is the bricoled system of "meanings and rules" which informs the negotiation process.  System is central to Sim play, not peripheral.  In fact I will go so far as to say quote, again I believe it was Vincent, as roughly saying that, "Mechanics are refinements/implementations of the Social Contract."  I mean Mechanics are just a much a functioning of the Social contract as the mode of play I am speaking of – that is mechanics have no actual authority unless the players have given the results credibility, and that is an expression of the Social Contract.  Functional/effective System drift occurs specifically because the "rules" are a negotiable part of the Social Contract.  In Sim System is what is being negotiated via play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]This is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.[/quote]

In a way you are correct, but you have it backwards.  To whit – "Because mechanics interfere with the Expression of the Sim CA, we use the entirety and plentitude of the concept of system (the means by which statements are negotiated into the SIS) as derived from the source material and that which has been negotiated in play."  Because the entirety of system (not limited to mechanics nor excluding mechanics) is itself up for negotiation, then a fixed mechanic confounds that process and contradicts the goal.

Again, if you mean "Free form" as meaning no or an extremely limited role of mechanics as a means of resolution, but that there is still a highly complex, subtle and rich "system" that encompasses resolution then I agree with you.  If however, you mean "Free form" to basically mean the "whim" of the GM, then you are profoundly off the mark.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.[/quote]Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.[/quote]

By extension of this logic, all RPG's that came out after D&D are just drifted versions to lesser or greater degrees of the original game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.[/quote]Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]As you say:[quote]Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."[/quote]

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?[/quote]

What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren't.  The converse is also true.

The notion of impartiality is, I think, a tar baby.  Since all Mechanics employment is subject to player consensus, then all Mechanics employment while have some bias to some extent or another.  The only way to make the Mechanics truly arbitrary is to remove the human element all together –>The abstractions of Gamism obviate the role of the inductive process – the heart and sole of the Sim process.  We need not inquire or be observant of the rules of how the fictional world will respond; those "rules" are already made bare.  

I disagree. Saying this is like saying that Gamism implies no exploration. That we can't have gamism about things like who gets the girl. That it has to be about the mechanics. That's simply not true, and relegates gamism to being non-RPG play.

Again, incorrect.  One cannot express Step-on-Up outside of Exploration.  That is a logical impossibility with regards to the Model.  Again you are conflating mechanics with CA.  I am saying that in Sim and only Sim that the abstractions that are so useful for the Gamist facilitating game design obviate the Simulationist prioritization of the inductive process – the rules making process.  Sim isn't about using Mechanics (that Gam and Nar facilitating games do), its about making Systems – which includes Mechanics.

Quote from: Mike Holmes
Again, by your observations, games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc, etc, are all gamism games. In fact, the only sim supportive games by your analysis are freeform games, and your game. That's not how GNS is constructed.

I am not saying that games like GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc., are all Gamist games as only player actions demonstrate which CA is in operation despite game design.  I would advance two propositions though.  I would say that GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, etc., are incoherent with regards to the Sim CA.  Second, because of the preponderance of rules that are ready tools for Gamist employment that those games systems tend to drift towards Gamist employment and are not terribly successful at creating "functional" Sim play without drift.  By drift I mean drifting the role of the rules, not just changing the rules themselves.

As far as how GNS is constructed, I disagree.  The Model does state that properly designed mechanics can strongly facilitate the functional expression of CA.  I agree.  In the case of Sim the role of functionally designed mechanics is to function as a starting place, just like Setting and Character.  This is not in contradiction with the Model.  The Model does not say there must be Mechanics, as indicated by the acknowledgment of "rules-lite" and vanilla style game but rather they the mechanics are formulated in such a way as to aid CA expression.  So if the portion of system called mechanics is used in the role of a template or model and then fade into the background as the whole of system is modified and enlarged during play, then we are not in opposition to the tenets of the Model.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]Again, why not play completely freeform then? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? If they can be ignored and replaced by GM judgment, then why not just always do that? Either it's the sumum bonum of this sort of play to not percieve mechanisms, and therefor they should not be used, or mechanisms are OK on any level, and it's just a personal preference. [/quote]

We don't have a "need to know" that there are mechanics underlying what's going on.  They role is to primarily help to speed up the negotiation process in the heat and thick of battle – thus making it more intense.  Many times in combat we don't use fortune mechanics but use drama as per my descriptions above.

Regarding the summum bonum of this sort of play I am not proposing that points of contact are bad in and of themselves, bur rather the role and form of mechanics is very different from those of Gam and Nar.  Its not that mechanics should not be perceived, but rather there is no ontological reason in Sim for the players to "know" the mechanics a priori.  This does not mean they are verboten or "should not be used," but that their place in play needs to be understood and utilized - and that is of template and starting place.  As far as the players go, "discovering" the systems of the fictional world is really a matter of creating them via play.  How many overt mechanics the players are comfortable with is as much a matter of personal choice as the level of Step-on-Up or how much input the players' have in Setting in Gam and Nar respectively.  That is, how involved to they players wish to have in the game process.  In Sim the more the mechanics the less the player input and that is a matter of local taste.

Fixed Mechanics in Sim cannot be "employed" by the players without deprotagonizing them with regards to CA expression any more than having a Mechanically fixed Premise in Narrativism.  By mechanically fixed Premise, I mean one where the mechanics choose for the player and "enforce" what their Character's Premise question is.  I am not saying this is how Narrativist mechanics word, but rather having Fixed mechanics in Sim is roughly the Narrativist equivalent of having Mechanics choose the Premise for the players thus undercutting their input to the game.

[quote="Mike HolmesThat seems like an odd statement. I mean, is it "deprotagonizing" in a sim game to have your strenght constrain you to only be able to lift X pounds? If not, then why would it be "deprotagonizing" to have the character affected by a predetermined personality.
Because a predetermined personality precludes or at least hampers the dialectic between Character and Setting.  That dialect must necessarily alter or affect both the Character and the Setting.  If the player has a Character with a mechanically predetermined and fixed personality one is once again stifled in their ability to bricole.  In fact the bricoling process cannot be effective if one of the two objects being used cannot change or be affected by the process.  As our bodies are more or less artifacts of our existence and that our intellects and personalities are the means by which we decide how to interact with "Setting," to fix that personality or mechanically choose that personality is to deprotagonize Sim play action.

Quote from: Mike Holmes"]In fact, this seems to be a feature of many sim games, and is often pointed to as the dividing line between sim and nar - the abilty to make statements based on the character's personality. So it very much sounds like you're arguing that the game is nar supportive here.[/quote]

I am confused about your statement here.  Are you saying that "commenting" on personality is the dividing line between Sim are Nar?  Then you are wrong.  Nar is the commenting on Premise and Sim is the abduction, induction and deduction of System.  Thus both styles play can "comment" of personality.  This is also true of Gamism.  However, while a fixed or mechanically prescriptive personality can certainly be a nifty tool for Nar play it is neither a "tell" of Nar play nor facilitative of Sim play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]If a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.[/quote]Right, System Doesn't Matter. We'll leave it to the players to make right by social contract. System would only mess this stuff up, so we'll ignore the mechanics related to it.[/quote]

Again you make the error of conflating System and Mechanics.  Mechanics are selfsame as System, but rather one form of system.  In our system of play it is the bricoled system of "meanings and rules" which informs the negotiation process.  System is central to Sim play, not peripheral.  In fact I will go so far as to say quote, again I believe it was Vincent, as roughly saying that, "Mechanics are refinements/implementations of the Social Contract."  I mean Mechanics are just a much a functioning of the Social contract as the mode of play I am speaking of – that is mechanics have no actual authority unless the players have given the results credibility, and that is an expression of the Social Contract.  Functional/effective System drift occurs specifically because the "rules" are a negotiable part of the Social Contract.  In Sim System is what is being negotiated via play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]This is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.[/quote]

In a way you are correct, but you have it backwards.  To whit – "Because mechanics interfere with the Expression of the Sim CA, we use the entirety and plentitude of the concept of system (the means by which statements are negotiated into the SIS) as derived from the source material and that which has been negotiated in play."  Because the entirety of system (not limited to mechanics nor excluding mechanics) is itself up for negotiation, then a fixed mechanic confounds that process and contradicts the goal.

Again, if you mean "Free form" as meaning no or an extremely limited role of mechanics as a means of resolution, but that there is still a highly complex, subtle and rich "system" that encompasses resolution then I agree with you.  If however, you mean "Free form" to basically mean the "whim" of the GM, then you are profoundly off the mark.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.[/quote]Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.[/quote]

By extension of this logic, all RPG's that came out after D&D are just drifted versions to lesser or greater degrees of the original game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.[/quote]Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]As you say:[quote]Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."[/quote]

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?[/quote]

What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed bAgain, why not play completely freeform then? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? Why even know that there are mechanics underlying what's going on? If they can be ignored and replaced by GM judgment, then why not just always do that? Either it's the sumum bonum of this sort of play to not percieve mechanisms, and therefor they should not be used, or mechanisms are OK on any level, and it's just a personal preference.

We don't have a "need to know" that there are mechanics underlying what's going on.  They role is to primarily help to speed up the negotiation process in the heat and thick of battle – thus making it more intense.  Many times in combat we don't use fortune mechanics but use drama as per my descriptions above.

Regarding the summum bonum of this sort of play I am not proposing that points of contact are bad in and of themselves, bur rather the role and form of mechanics is very different from those of Gam and Nar.  Its not that mechanics should not be perceived, but rather there is no ontological reason in Sim for the players to "know" the mechanics a priori.  This does not mean they are verboten or "should not be used," but that their place in play needs to be understood and utilized - and that is of template and starting place.  As far as the players go, "discovering" the systems of the fictional world is really a matter of creating them via play.  How many overt mechanics the players are comfortable with is as much a matter of personal choice as the level of Step-on-Up or how much input the players' have in Setting in Gam and Nar respectively.  That is, how involved to they players wish to have in the game process.  In Sim the more the mechanics the less the player input and that is a matter of local taste.

Fixed Mechanics in Sim cannot be "employed" by the players without deprotagonizing them with regards to CA expression any more than having a Mechanically fixed Premise in Narrativism.  By mechanically fixed Premise, I mean one where the mechanics choose for the player and "enforce" what their Character's Premise question is.  I am not saying this is how Narrativist mechanics word, but rather having Fixed mechanics in Sim is roughly the Narrativist equivalent of having Mechanics choose the Premise for the players thus undercutting their input to the game.

Quote from: Mike Holmes
That seems like an odd statement. I mean, is it "deprotagonizing" in a sim game to have your strenght constrain you to only be able to lift X pounds? If not, then why would it be "deprotagonizing" to have the character affected by a predetermined personality.

Because a predetermined personality precludes or at least hampers the dialectic between Character and Setting.  That dialect must necessarily alter or affect both the Character and the Setting.  If the player has a Character with a mechanically predetermined and fixed personality one is once again stifled in their ability to bricole.  In fact the bricoling process cannot be effective if one of the two objects being used cannot change or be affected by the process.  As our bodies are more or less artifacts of our existence and that our intellects and personalities are the means by which we decide how to interact with "Setting," to fix that personality or mechanically choose that personality is to deprotagonize Sim play action.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]In fact, this seems to be a feature of many sim games, and is often pointed to as the dividing line between sim and nar - the abilty to make statements based on the character's personality. So it very much sounds like you're arguing that the game is nar supportive here.[/quote]

I am confused about your statement here.  Are you saying that "commenting" on personality is the dividing line between Sim are Nar?  Then you are wrong.  Nar is the commenting on Premise and Sim is the abduction, induction and deduction of System.  Thus both styles play can "comment" of personality.  This is also true of Gamism.  However, while a fixed or mechanically prescriptive personality can certainly be a nifty tool for Nar play it is neither a "tell" of Nar play nor facilitative of Sim play.

[quote="Mike Holmes

QuoteIf a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.

Right, System Doesn't Matter. We'll leave it to the players to make right by social contract. System would only mess this stuff up, so we'll ignore the mechanics related to it.
Again you make the error of conflating System and Mechanics.  Mechanics are selfsame as System, but rather one form of system.  In our system of play it is the bricoled system of "meanings and rules" which informs the negotiation process.  System is central to Sim play, not peripheral.  In fact I will go so far as to say quote, again I believe it was Vincent, as roughly saying that, "Mechanics are refinements/implementations of the Social Contract."  I mean Mechanics are just a much a functioning of the Social contract as the mode of play I am speaking of – that is mechanics have no actual authority unless the players have given the results credibility, and that is an expression of the Social Contract.  Functional/effective System drift occurs specifically because the "rules" are a negotiable part of the Social Contract.  In Sim System is what is being negotiated via play.

Quote from: Mike Holmes"]This is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.[/quote]

In a way you are correct, but you have it backwards.  To whit – "Because mechanics interfere with the Expression of the Sim CA, we use the entirety and plentitude of the concept of system (the means by which statements are negotiated into the SIS) as derived from the source material and that which has been negotiated in play."  Because the entirety of system (not limited to mechanics nor excluding mechanics) is itself up for negotiation, then a fixed mechanic confounds that process and contradicts the goal.

Again, if you mean "Free form" as meaning no or an extremely limited role of mechanics as a means of resolution, but that there is still a highly complex, subtle and rich "system" that encompasses resolution then I agree with you.  If however, you mean "Free form" to basically mean the "whim" of the GM, then you are profoundly off the mark.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.[/quote]Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.[/quote]

By extension of this logic, all RPG's that came out after D&D are just drifted versions to lesser or greater degrees of the original game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.[/quote]Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]As you say:[quote]Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."[/quote]

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?[/quote]

What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren't.  The converse is also true.

The notion of impartiality is, I think, a tar baby.  Since all Mechanics employment is subject to player consensus, then all Mechanics employment while have some bias to some extent or another.  The only way to make the Mechanics truly arbitrary is to remove the human element all toIn fact, this seems to be a feature of many sim games, and is often pointed to as the dividing line between sim and nar - the abilty to make statements based on the character's personality. So it very much sounds like you're arguing that the game is nar supportive here.

I am confused about your statement here.  Are you saying that "commenting" on personality is the dividing line between Sim are Nar?  Then you are wrong.  Nar is the commenting on Premise and Sim is the abduction, induction and deduction of System.  Thus both styles play can "comment" of personality.  This is also true of Gamism.  However, while a fixed or mechanically prescriptive personality can certainly be a nifty tool for Nar play it is neither a "tell" of Nar play nor facilitative of Sim play.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote
If a player acted to erratically then they would be damaging the Dream for all the other players because everyone needs to be on the same page regarding how the world works.  If someone is acting without rhyme or reason and there is no explainable cause then that player is damaging the induction and signification process for all the rest of the players.  Thus while it may seem that no one cares what the other players are doing, we are actually deeply invested in how everyone else at the table operates because everyone's actions have the potential to tweak or alter everyone else's inductive process.  Break the rules too much and the whole internal model (which is the foundation for the system of signification) collapses and the Dream comes to an abrupt end.

Right, System Doesn't Matter. We'll leave it to the players to make right by social contract. System would only mess this stuff up, so we'll ignore the mechanics related to it.

Again you make the error of conflating System and Mechanics.  Mechanics are selfsame as System, but rather one form of system.  In our system of play it is the bricoled system of "meanings and rules" which informs the negotiation process.  System is central to Sim play, not peripheral.  In fact I will go so far as to say quote, again I believe it was Vincent, as roughly saying that, "Mechanics are refinements/implementations of the Social Contract."  I mean Mechanics are just a much a functioning of the Social contract as the mode of play I am speaking of – that is mechanics have no actual authority unless the players have given the results credibility, and that is an expression of the Social Contract.  Functional/effective System drift occurs specifically because the "rules" are a negotiable part of the Social Contract.  In Sim System is what is being negotiated via play.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]This is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.[/quote]

In a way you are correct, but you have it backwards.  To whit – "Because mechanics interfere with the Expression of the Sim CA, we use the entirety and plentitude of the concept of system (the means by which statements are negotiated into the SIS) as derived from the source material and that which has been negotiated in play."  Because the entirety of system (not limited to mechanics nor excluding mechanics) is itself up for negotiation, then a fixed mechanic confounds that process and contradicts the goal.

Again, if you mean "Free form" as meaning no or an extremely limited role of mechanics as a means of resolution, but that there is still a highly complex, subtle and rich "system" that encompasses resolution then I agree with you.  If however, you mean "Free form" to basically mean the "whim" of the GM, then you are profoundly off the mark.

[quote="Mike Holmes

QuoteThus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.

Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.
By extension of this logic, all RPG's that came out after D&D are just drifted versions to lesser or greater degrees of the original game.

Quote from: Mike Holmes"][quote]We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.[/quote]Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]As you say:[quote]Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."[/quote]

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?[/quote]

What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren't.  The converse is also true.

The notion of impartiality is, I think, a tar baby.  Since all Mechanics employment is subject to player consensus, then all Mechanics employment while have some bias to some extent or another.  The only way to make the Mechanics truly arbitrary is to remove the human element all together – that is have something like a computer resolve all events and all the players must accept them a prori.  What matters instead is that the GM and all the players stay within the confines of the Social Contract.  Sometimes the GM does "hose" us, as it were.  However, that could only happen if the totality of the player generated/negotiated system would support that resolution as plausible in the first place.

Because the phrase "hosing the player's" implies a certain implicit unfairness, I ask how does one define what is fair or unfair in the first place?  Where is it even written that the GM must be "fair?"  What does "fair" mean?  I say that "fair" is locally defined and is part of the Social Contract.  Isn't the role of "GM" to facilitate play, which in implies the facilitation of the expression of CA?  In our game, with the source materialThis is very much the "get out of the way" attitude. Where system interfers, instead of using mechanics that support what we want, we'll assume that no system can do so, drop all mechanics, and leave it on the participants to arrange. Shifting the system to freeform here again. What makes sense is constantly negotiated instead of having algorithms to figure it out.

In a way you are correct, but you have it backwards.  To whit – "Because mechanics interfere with the Expression of the Sim CA, we use the entirety and plentitude of the concept of system (the means by which statements are negotiated into the SIS) as derived from the source material and that which has been negotiated in play."  Because the entirety of system (not limited to mechanics nor excluding mechanics) is itself up for negotiation, then a fixed mechanic confounds that process and contradicts the goal.

Again, if you mean "Free form" as meaning no or an extremely limited role of mechanics as a means of resolution, but that there is still a highly complex, subtle and rich "system" that encompasses resolution then I agree with you.  If however, you mean "Free form" to basically mean the "whim" of the GM, then you are profoundly off the mark.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote
Thus, its not that they found their own system of mechanics lacking, but that it was discovered that the role of mechanics was decidedly different than the conventional wisdom had up till that point held.

Well, held by the non-freeformers. You realize that people got this idea after the first few sessions of D&D in 1974. And have been playing this way ever since.

By extension of this logic, all RPG's that came out after D&D are just drifted versions to lesser or greater degrees of the original game.

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]We make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.[/quote]Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

[quote="Mike HolmesAs you say:

QuoteOnce the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?
What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

Quote from: Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren't.  The converse is also true.

The notion of impartiality is, I think, a tar baby.  Since all Mechanics employment is subject to player consensus, then all Mechanics employment while have some bias to some extent or another.  The only way to make the Mechanics truly arbitrary is to remove the human element all together – that is have something like a computer resolve all events and all the players must accept them a prori.  What matters instead is that the GM and all the players stay within the confines of the Social Contract.  Sometimes the GM does "hose" us, as it were.  However, that could only happen if the totality of the player generated/negotiated system would support that resolution as plausible in the first place.

Because the phrase "hosing the player's" implies a certain implicit unfairness, I ask how does one define what is fair or unfair in the first place?  Where is it even written that the GM must be "fair?"  What does "fair" mean?  I say that "fair" is locally defined and is part of the Social Contract.  Isn't the role of "GM" to facilitate play, which in implies the facilitation of the expression of CA?  In our game, with the source material having a strong thematic element of "fate," it is acceptable and part of our Sim CA expression and what is one of the many idea being celebrated, such turns of events are not needed to be perceived as

QuoteWe make frequent use of Fortune mechanics but we don't need to know the mechanical process by which the content of the narration is decided upon.

Or, whether or not it's being used at all, right? I mean, even if the GM rolls a die, you don't actually know that he's using the mechanics, do you?

Absolutely.  Nor is that relevant.  What does matter is that the outcome is reasonably plausible within the player generated System.  Again System is not the same as mechanics.  His input, whether informed by Fortune Mechanics or Drama Mechanics as informed from the totality of player generated System up to that point in time, is irrelevant.

Quote from: Mike Holmes
As you say:

Quote
Once the GM gets the "feel" of them, that is get a feel for the norms of the world, then the "calling" or the overt labeling of the employed task resolution mechanics are no longer strictly "necessary."

I'm not saying that your GM's are faking. But I would suggest that it's likely. This is just a long-running sort of illusionism.

But what's interesting is that the modeling still resembles D&D reality. I mean, I think I remember you saying that combat was still in "rounds"?

What is there to "fake?"  Mechanics don't make the game, the player negotiations make the game.  How can one "fake" negotiating?  We players either agree to give his input credibility or not.  Mechanics only facilitate that process; Mechanics are not selfsame as that process.

Actually I said that we don't use "rounds, turns, segments or the like."

[quote="Mike Holmes"][quote]The mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"[/quote]Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.[/quote]

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren't.  The converse is also true.

The notion of impartiality is, I think, a tar baby.  Since all Mechanics employment is subject to player consensus, then all Mechanics employment while have some bias to some extent or another.  The only way to make the Mechanics truly arbitrary is to remove the human element all together – that is have something like a computer resolve all events and all the players must accept them a prori.  What matters instead is that the GM and all the players stay within the confines of the Social Contract.  Sometimes the GM does "hose" us, as it were.  However, that could only happen if the totality of the player generated/negotiated system would support that resolution as plausible in the first place.

Because the phrase "hosing the player's" implies a certain implicit unfairness, I ask how does one define what is fair or unfair in the first place?  Where is it even written that the GM must be "fair?"  What does "fair" mean?  I say that "fair" is locally defined and is part of the Social Contract.  Isn't the role of "GM" to facilitate play, which in implies the facilitation of the expression of CA?  In our game, with the source material having a strong thematic element of "fate," it is acceptable and part of our Sim CA expression and what is one of the many idea being celebrated, such turns of events are not needed to be perceived as arbitrary.  In fact the point of the mythic bricoling process is to remove the arbitrariness of "the world."  Ultimately, the concept of complete arbitrariness flies in the face of the Sim system creation process.  We are trying to make sense of the world, not model the world.  We want event resolutions where we have fodder in our struggle to create meaning (induction) not just the manufacture of arbitrary results.

[quote="Mike Holmes...Wait - did I just admit that I was playing protection against pawn stance gamism? Yep. ...
Excellent!  That is how you used system.  In our mode of play such an employment of mechanics is not to protect against Gamism, in fact sometimes the GM having us roll a die is in itself a "meaningful" clue/cue for us to chew on.

Quote from:

QuoteThe mere act of calling for a roll then becomes significant in and of itself.  "What is going on that is significant enough that the GM needs to show impartiality?"

Or the appearance of impartiality - they might still be faking. In any case, if it's obvious that GM fiat is being used at times, then why is impartiality ever neccessary? Gotta be level playing field. The GM saying that he's not hosing the players, but letting the system show "what really would have happened" arbitrarily.

Because the dice add drama!  If their employment increases tension then they are employed.  If a die roll would not serve to heighten tension, then they aren't employed by the GM.  Sometimes he's just fishing when having us roll dice.  In this mode of play the totality and plentitude of system is employed for resolutions, meaning Mechanics not only doesn't hold the exalted ground of being supreme arbiter, but rather fortune Mechanics are in the service of moment (which is determined by the GM).  Thus if the moment would not be aided by their employment they aren't.  The converse is also true.

The notion of impartiality is, I think, a tar baby.  Since all Mechanics employment is subject to player consensus, then all Mechanics employment while have some bias to some extent or another.  The only way to make the Mechanics truly arbitrary is to remove the human element all together – that is have something like a computer resolve all events and all the players must accept them a prori.  What matters instead is that the GM and all the players stay within the confines of the Social Contract.  Sometimes the GM does "hose" us, as it were.  However, that could only happen if the totality of the player generated/negotiated system would support that resolution as plausible in the first place.

Because the phrase "hosing the player's" implies a certain implicit unfairness, I ask how does one define what is fair or unfair in the first place?  Where is it even written that the GM must be "fair?"  What does "fair" mean?  I say that "fair" is locally defined and is part of the Social Contract.  Isn't the role of "GM" to facilitate play, which in implies the facilitation of the expression of CA?  In our game, with the source material having a strong thematic element of "fate," it is acceptable and part of our Sim CA expression and what is one of the many idea being celebrated, such turns of events are not needed to be perceived as arbitrary.  In fact the point of the mythic bricoling process is to remove the arbitrariness of "the world."  Ultimately, the concept of complete arbitrariness flies in the face of the Sim system creation process.  We are trying to make sense of the world, not model the world.  We want event resolutions where we have fodder in our struggle to create meaning (induction) not just the manufacture of arbitrary results.

[quote="Mike Holmes...Wait - did I just admit that I was playing protection against pawn stance gamism? Yep. ...
Excellent!  That is how you used system.  In our mode of play such an employment of mechanics is not to protect against Gamism, in fact sometimes the GM having us roll a die is in itself a "meaningful" clue/cue for us to chew on.

[quote="Mike Holmes"]Anyhow, pretending to use a system, like I was doing, is very much a System Doesn't Matter attitude. It was, we want to be playing a "game" (it's Role Playing Game, after all!), but no rules work to produce an interesting story, so I'm just going to make it up anyway.[/quote]

Again, you conflate System with Mechanics or rather you are committing synecdoche.  While System does encompass Mechanics, Mechanics is not equal to System.  Sim play is deeply concerned with and steeped in System as a whole, not limited to Mechanics.  That's the mistaken thinking that goes on all the time.  The lack of Mechanics does not connote arbitrary or uniformed decision making.  Sim is just rotten with "rules," they are created and acted upon via the play process, they just aren't formalized as Mechanics or handled as "concept."

Whew – I'm done.  Sean you're next up!

You guys might be surprised at this, but I am bored to death by this thread.

Can we get back to talking about making and playing the dwarf? Jay, have you played this character yet, with others? If so, what's happened?

And also, I'm very curious as to how your group typically inserts a new character into play. I have my suspicions about how this is done, but I'd rather hear about it from you.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsYou guys might be surprised at this, but I am bored to death by this thread.

Can we get back to talking about making and playing the dwarf? Jay, have you played this character yet, with others? If so, what's happened?

Actually not surprised in the least.  I was beginning to fret that I had wondered far from the foundation of this thread and my worries were borne out.

I have not played the new dwarf Character yet, nor have I played at all since I originally got the Character.  We will probably not be playing for several months, and my intuition tells me is that it is fairly unlikely that I will see him in play any time soon not including the hiatus.  Powerful Characters tend to get played less often than more mundane, down to (Middle) Earth Characters.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAnd also, I'm very curious as to how your group typically inserts a new character into play. I have my suspicions about how this is done, but I'd rather hear about it from you.

Frequently new Characters are introduced through new "scenarios" and are typically the focus of that night's set up.  Of that process often several newly minted Characters are "introduced" all at once with their intra- and inter- relationships providing the foundation and the direction of the impetus (think vector) for start of that particular game.  What this means is the new Characters are introduced via actual play, but not as background or an isolated Setting piece.  IOW a new Character is usually introduced to the other players as Situation intermixed with the GM introducing certain elements of the Character to the owning Player.  Extremely rare is the new Character who is introduced to play as a complete unknown to the other players without any bonds of any sort – like an inert gas.

To go back a bit to what I mean by Situation is that each Character is going to have a different relationship to the new Character, and that relationship is going to have some conflicts to a greater or lesser degree – explicit or implicit mixed with some bonds and ties.

Sometimes a new Character is introduced near the end of a scenario as the "object" of play.  Other times the Character is introduced during events, such as was how my Dwarf was originally intended to be introduced.  Again the new Character usually represents the ability to fill a need or the creation of a obligation to one or more of the already established Characters.  Of the latter just one example might be an established Character being rescued in some fashion by the new Character after which the new Character is then handed off to the owning Player.

Overall the GM tries to vary the manner and circumstances of the introduction of the new Character, but I don't think I can really remember a new Character being introduced that did not have bonds/relations (positive and negative) to Setting as well as at least some bonds to the "established" player Characters.  I should note that these "bonds" could be anything from sibling, to filial, to racial, to those of duty/obligation, to co-membership to some sort of organization (which can be anything from political to military), to oaths or promises, etc.  The new Character can either fulfill that bond for the player Characters or evoke that bond in one or more of the established player Characters for his needs.

I haven't spent a huge amount of time in the past putting this process under the microscope so I don't have a lot material to present as yet.  But as a result of this writing I now see how important the forging of bonds and the introduction of conflict both in the new Character's relationship with Setting and the other player Characters is.  If you have further questions that would help unlock the investigation of this process please fire away!

Hey Sean,

As per Ron's correct suggestion I am going to defer answering your post on this board.  If you wish feel free to either PM and indicate your interest or bring it to one of the Theory boards if you wish.  I am more than willing to continue our discussion.

Before I sign off I want to very briefly post this very quick reply in public –

Quote from: SeanThe way you describe the intensity of some sessions, with large groups of shouting men, also suggests a gamist-type personal investment. Pure Simulationist intensity on a similar level would I suspect look more like a shared trance.

All CA's can have games where the players exhibit a powerful personal investment, "Pure Simulationist" intensity not withstanding.  Simulationist players can be just as pro-active and have as many powerful and personal stakes riding on play as the other two CA's.  Remember the players are creating here as well and that places a strong onus on all the Players to be as effective in their Sim creative acts as Gamists are in addressing Challenge or Narrativist are in addressing Premise.  In Sim we too have much vested in the game via the sharing of the same Dream-Fact space.

... 'til the next post!

Hey Ron,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAnd also, I'm very curious as to how your group typically inserts a new character into play. I have my suspicions about how this is done, but I'd rather hear about it from you.

Unless you're still looking to wait, I am curious as to what your suspicions are.  They might help me get some perspective and thus gain a better understanding of what is going in the game I am playing in.

Thanks!