The Forge Archives

I am an incompetent Narrativist!  ...But what a fascinating examination of the differences between Nar and Sim through contrast!

Last night I met a couple of Forge-ites for the first time and sat down to play DitV.  I have never played a Nar facilitating game and was rather excited (and rather curious) about trying this new "way of playing" that has so many players gushing with such enthusiasm.

Due to traffic we were late arriving, but pretty much dove right in.  Other than what I had read about Dogs in the Actual Play threads and on the website for the game, I was going in blind.  We set about creating Characters and as we were doing so the rules were explained and many useful examples were given when I did have questions.  The other player played out her Accomplishment first so I could actually see how the system worked before it was my time.  We played through, but I just didn't get a good "feel" for the "significance" of the various components.

Traits felt very odd to me – and I think this was the Sim in me refusing to let go.  The same went with "assigning dice" to Attributes, traits, relationships and objects.  All this felt uncomfortably awkward in the same way it feels awkward when a hair cutter folds the top of your ear over when trimming one's hair.  It wasn't painful, but I found myself constantly wanting to maneuver my way out of the process.  I was aware of this behavior at the time, noted it and kept trying to reapply myself to the task at hand.  No matter how it was explained to me I just couldn't grok it, though I did finish with Character creation.

So play proper commenced and I felt myself continually slipping into Sim habits that I kept having to step out of.  I and the other Dog arrived at the outskirts of a town a little after nightfall when a man who was ringed by wolves was being run out of town.  I thought to myself, "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?"  So I jumped right in pulled my long rifle, identified myself and called for the fleeing man to halt.  My mind started racing considering all the possibilities – what has this man done to stir up this town so?  Who was this man?  Who was the man who seemed to be leading the town's people to pursue the man I had just apprehended?  How dangerous was the mob?  How much backbone did this mob have?  If the situation started to fall apart in a big bad way was what "tools" did I have at my disposal?  I started searching my mind for others who might also be instigators and who the weak links in the mob might be?  I "assigned" the other Dog to confront the mob leader and stop the mob while I interrogated my "prisoner."

Then it hit me.  As I was watching the other Dog play out the "conflict" that I wasn't thinking in terms of premise or story or anything at all along those lines.  I saw dice come out, raises made, countered by sees, fallout calculated.  I had already lost sight of the process of the game!  So I made an effort to make a mental readjustment.  I had been thinking like a Ranger of Ithilien, taking tactical stock of the situation and trying to quickly establish our authority over the mob.  What I hadn't thought about were the traits on my sheet or what happened during my Accomplishment section of play earlier.

Play came back to me and as play unfolded I started to get a feel for the Situation.  So I called, no, ordered that all concerned parties present themselves at the temple so we could sort this whole mess out.  Once there I fell right back into Sim habits as I started my interrogations.  A lead eventually had us call in the daughter of one of the men involved in the dispute.  So I start trying to figure out how am I going to get her to confess her culpability when the DM stopped me and said, "This is a good point for a 'conflict'."  I looked at him dazed and was mildly irritated for a split-second because I was getting on a roll and was suddenly pulled out of the Situation to deal with "mechanics."  I quickly realized, again, that I had totally missed the point of the game and the mechanics as I was pursuing my ends.  This only lasted but a moment and swiftly reoriented myself to the mechanics.

So we are going back and forth and I feel like a fish out of water.  Once into the mechanics of the conflict resolution I had totally emotionally disconnected from the scene.  I felt stymied and frustrated, but I didn't express that in anyway because it was my fault for not cluing in!

So that particular conflict resolved and fallout was assigned.  When another conflict started immediately as one of the townspeople, the person who was leading the mob, suddenly grew claws, snarled and leapt on my back!  A fight was on and I immediately started thinking tactically about the Situation, how my Character would respond, what his training would or would not allow him to do, who was the biggest threat, who could be counted on, what was in the room that could be turned into a weapon if need be, could I use an exorcism, etc.?  What I didn't consider were the traits on my sheet as my mind started whirring at a million miles a second – until everything stopped so we could start the conflict resolution process.  Dice were rolled, order of players determined and again I started to lose my connection to the Situation.  I didn't really notice this until it was my turn to state my action, present my raise, roll a trait, etc.  In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  ...and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

But that wasn't the point of the game or game design!  I was Simming – again!  Doh!  I wasn't thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like.  I was deep into the Situation wondering about my Character, what his duties and responsibilities were, what was available to me in the room, do I have the authority to kill under these circumstances, did the man who turned into a some sort of werewolf-like creature have the ability to infect others, etc.?

This is not to say that I am complaining about how the game was run or the game design itself.  I found it utterly fascinating at just how different the means and goals were in this game from my typical gaming and how badly I kept missing the mark!  I loved the Setting, the NPC's, the Situation, my partner was very cool – I kept surrendering myself to all of those elements.  I just kept missing the boat on the priority of play.  A couple of times I apologized to the GM for not staying on CA, though he never gave me any grief and was extremely supportive.  I enjoyed playing with the GM and the other player, but I just wasn't into the priority of play. 

I was not trying to subvert play at all.  I was overtly trying to play Nar and that was my goal for the night.  I tried to support the GM and the other Player in their gaming efforts as best as I could understand.  I really wanted to see how this unfamiliar CA worked.  I do not consider my time wasted at all.  I gleaned some valuable insight into the contrasts between Nar and Sim, was exposed to a completely new game and resolution system and met some wonderful creative intelligent new people. 

I'm just not cut out for Narrativist play!  Fascinating!!

Hi Jay,

QuoteThen it hit me.  As I was watching the other Dog play out the "conflict" that I wasn't thinking in terms of premise or story or anything at all along those lines.  I saw dice come out, raises made, countered by sees, fallout calculated.  I had already lost sight of the process of the game! 
(snip)
I wasn't thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like. 

I think you might be overprojecting what Nar play is about.  You don't have to have your mind on "the Premise" all the time- in fact, I don't think ANYONE plays like that. 

I just finished playing in an Unknown Armies game over the course of a few months where no one else playing has even heard of Narrativism, Premise, or any of that- but we were having Nar play happen.  The players established real issues with their characters- the GM provided some tough conflicts, and we had to make meaningful choices- and before you knew it, everyone had some fully developed premise going on.  I know for myself personally, most of play involved me "thinking from the character's perspective" and we still got an awesome conflict and premise going on.  It took awhile for it all to develop, but it did, and stayed on strong.

In the same sense, it's completely possible, and reasonable, to play Dogs without thinking about premise at all and at the end of play realize you've been addressing premise.  Fallout?  How you choose to have your character change based on the conflicts says something.  How you choose to have your character react says something.  All of these things are really sneaky ways to get you to say something thematically- to address Premise without having to consciously think about it.  That's the strength of Dogs.

Check out some of the other Actual Play threads- other folks aren't talking about thinking hard about premise during play.  If you missed the process of the game- I'd say it was in worrying about "finding premise" instead of just playing the game.

Chris

Glad you got the chance to play. And with Forge members! How cool, dat? I think it's beneficial to play varying styles. There's so much variety within a single CA. I happily lose sight of it while getting into how the next group does things.

Quote from: SilmenumeIn this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  ...and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

I have problems with this, too. Like, majorly. For some reason, it irks me more with TSOY than DitV. Go figure.

** ** **

What Chris said. I maybe have flashes of Premise awareness while playing. (e.g. When Cory's character in Jason's Traveller campaign was ordered to missile strike the building where my character, unbeknownst to him, was being held captive. Would he bring ten floors down on the man who had saved his life earlier in the session?) But I certainly don't try to be Nar or whatever; I just want my guy to go do that thing.

I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion. I had a player in my game who found the conflict system very jarring for the first two sessions, and said some exact same things to you - just as he was in getting in the zone of the scene, the conflict system reared his head and caused him to lose his train of thought.
That passed.

One thing you said:

Quote from: Silmenume on October 08, 2005, 06:16:25 AM
In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  …and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

You do actually get feedback, exactly the same way you do in other games.
Here's what happens - you throw a punch. In another game what will happen? One of several things.
1. The punch connects and your opponent is hurt. This is a DitV Take The Blow
2. The punch is blocked and has no effect, or your foe shrugs it off harmlessles. This is the Block or Dodge in DitV.
3. Some systems also allow a counterblow - where your punch attempt is blocked so effectively your opponent gets an immediate conter-attack. This is the DitV Reversal.

The fact that this system can also be used for non-combat type actions, and "damage" actually has an effect other than whittling away hit points, is an advantage over some systems.
It's very easy to play Dogs conflicts in a traditional way. You can even get bonuses for using the scenery to your advantage. Grab a shovel from the floor and hit your foe? That's a d6 Belonging you get to roll into your attack.

Even this business of not thinking about your character traits... If you play D&D, you think about what Feats or magic gear you'll bring to bear. If you play Champions, you'll be looking for opportunities to bring different powers and abilities to play. In a martial arts game, you'll be looking at the martial arts manoeuvres on your sheet and trying to work them in.
In Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in. It's not so different after all. Since you get to choose those traits, now that you're a bit more familiar with the game, you can pick traits that feel more natural for you - things that won't be too hard for you to think of ways to bring them in.

I'm curious about what you didn't understand in chargen.  I'm wondering if you're overthinking the process, or purpose of the process.  I've heard the creator of the game comment that chargen shouldn't consume that much time.  Just throw together your character.  It's going to be hard to do it "wrong."  In fact, you can make your character similarly to a Sim character.  Traits are like skills.  Belongings can be assigned as appropriate to what you think is logical for your character to have.  Relationships don't need to be assigned at all, or can be used as character hooks for the GM, if you want.  Assign your stats by looking at the conflicts the stats are used in, and emphasize the ones where you think your character will excel.

I'm not saying you can't get tricky with the chargen process ("I have trouble talking to women." 2d10!...?), but if you don't, it's not going to be a big deal.

The other thing I noticed is that it sounds like you might, maybe, not be the right fit for DitV's resolution mechanic.  It's rather prominent, and it can distract from immersion.  At least, I know people that find that to be the case.  There's nothing wrong with preferring Sim mechanics that just take care of all the physics.  If you get the hang of it, then that's great.  If you don't, then you don't.

I wonder if you were jarred less by the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism, and more by the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.

The way you needed feedback about that punch you threw -- that suggests to me that you were expecting the ultimate outcome to depend in part on that one task (e.g., Task Resolution) instead of merely expecting the outcome to take color from that task (e.g., Conflict Resolution).

I agree with Chris 122.4% on Nar, so I have nothing more to say on that because he's already done such a fine job.  I don't see Nar here though.  The agenda at work is difficult to tease out just because agenda is being talked about so much (that tends to heavily skew descriptions), but I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

For Gam, just watch for de-escalation as it's almost a sure sign.  Likewise with Nar, escalation is almost a sure sign.  Anyway, this may or may not be what your play was like.  Just something to think about.

Guys!

It's farily well established that Dogs is a game that strongly supports narrativist play.  Jay has been championing simulationist play here for years, has been described as the Sim Poster Child, and is conversant with the theory here.

Can we assume he knows what he's talking about when he says "Wow, Nar and Sim are totally different things!  This was a learning experience!"

That being said - Jay, it sounds to me like you were working too hard to play Nar.  Trust Vincent.  He wrote a well targeted game.  Play the game, premise will happen.  :)    (which is what Chris said, I realize)

James

Quote from: Blankshield on October 08, 2005, 03:40:39 PM
Guys!

It's farily well established that Dogs is a game that strongly supports narrativist play.  Jay has been championing simulationist play here for years, has been described as the Sim Poster Child, and is conversant with the theory here.

Can we assume he knows what he's talking about when he says "Wow, Nar and Sim are totally different things!  This was a learning experience!"

James

You'd think so, yes. I don't agree. I see nothing in his play that is textually anti-Nar (he certainly had a disconnect with the mechanics). I think his being "the poster boy for Sim" is one of the more confusing things I've read here. What he's the posterboy for, IMO, is immersive play, and immersive play and Nar have always had an uneasy history.

You won't see me agreeing with Chris very often (we are certainly philosophically on opposite sides of the spectrum) but I think he's bang on here. Jay, to my read, you are an immersionist player who, from what I have seen, usually plays with a GM that exercises some strong but subtle control of situation to arrange conflicts and put significant input into their development.

I think that DitV doesn't support this style of GMing, nor deep immersion, as well as you're is used to is where the comfort-zone violation came from rather than any fuzzy CA conflicts. I have not run Dogs--but if thinking "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?" is wrong I can't imagine it'd be as well loved as it is.

-Marco

Hey everyone!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.  There are a lot of responses and that's really cool!  I hope to address the salient part of all your posts.

Chris,

Quote from: Bankuei on October 08, 2005, 06:35:30 AMIn the same sense, it's completely possible, and reasonable, to play Dogs without thinking about premise at all and at the end of play realize you've been addressing premise.  Fallout?  How you choose to have your character change based on the conflicts says something.  How you choose to have your character react says something.  All of these things are really sneaky ways to get you to say something thematically- to address Premise without having to consciously think about it.  That's the strength of Dogs.

I totally grok that one does not have to consciously think about addressing Premise in order to be mindfully Addressing Premise.  I'm with you on that.  I was trying to present several ideas.  Not the least of which is that I had gone into that game in an effort to see the differences between Nar and Sim in action.  I felt that in order to make sure I just didn't map Sim play onto a Nar facilitating system that I should be self aware of my approach to play and monitor what I did and did not enjoy and why.

For example I most certainly was not thrilled about choosing my own fallout.  In fact it just plain rubbed me the wrong way.  It's not the mechanic per say that troubled me, but rather it was something I just wasn't interested in.  Choosing fallout, especially one's own, is something that is entirely opposed to the Sim paradigm.  It just seems "wrong," however, as I understood that in this game it was part of Addressing Premise so I gave it the old college try.  (When I say "wrong" I do not mean in an absolute manner in any way – just a perception from a Sim perspective.)

Quote from: Bill Cook on October 08, 2005, 06:53:08 AM
Glad you got the chance to play. And with Forge members! How cool, dat? I think it's beneficial to play varying styles.

Thanks!  ...and I agree.  That was a significant part of the reason I gave it a go.

Hey Darren,

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 08, 2005, 12:08:46 PMI'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion.

There's a false assumption in your argument.  I was not concerned with "immersion," I was deep into a thought process that had to be interrupted because I had to deal with mechanics.  It would be akin to having to use task resolution as a part of Addressing Premise or using Conflict Resolution while addressing Challenge.  From my inappropriate to the game system Sim thinking, this "interruption" to deal with mechanics was a total t-bone to the process.  But not only was this a disruption to my "bricolage based thinking" it had a very long handling time.  IOW not only was prevented from engaging in bricolage thinking, I had to engage in another process that at the time I felt was inhibiting my ability to deal with the problem at hand.  Again I should note that I am not bagging on the mechanics – I am only attempting to report my (Sim based) reactions to the process of play at the moment of dealing with conflict.

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 08, 2005, 12:08:46 PMYou do actually get feedback, exactly the same way you do in other games.
Here's what happens - you throw a punch. In another game what will happen? One of several things.
1. The punch connects and your opponent is hurt. This is a DitV Take The Blow
2. The punch is blocked and has no effect, or your foe shrugs it off harmlessles. This is the Block or Dodge in DitV.
3. Some systems also allow a counterblow - where your punch attempt is blocked so effectively your opponent gets an immediate conter-attack. This is the DitV Reversal.

I'll agree with you that a form of feedback is provided, but it is essentially immaterial to the tactical needs of Sim.  If Sim is the dialectic between Person and Nature or self and nonself, then "takes the blow" is insufficient information.  How does the foe respond to the blow?  Does he shrug it off or does he stagger back in pain?  Does he go down to the floor?  Does he spin around exposing his back?  Did my hand get hurt mashing against his skin?  Does he appear to be shaken up or does he just look angrier?  All this is not Color but real conveyed information that is important feedback in the Sim dialectic process.  I don't need to know hit points, but what I do need to know is how is he responding to my actions.  Is the Dream operating in a consistent way?  Are my assumptions (abductions) being born out (deductions)? Yes?  Then I'll refine my actions.  No?  Then I start fishing around for what is different here (abduction, induction, deduction).  I am not saying Nar ought to work this way, but rather that the type of feedback is answering a very different type of question – which in my personal, as a player, struggles found fascinating.

It's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.  Discovering this first hand was very interesting!  This game was a wonderful opportunity to compare and contrast different approaches to conflict (CA).

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 08, 2005, 12:08:46 PMIn Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in.

Actually it is different.  First of all each "trait" is only usable once per "conflict."  A great part of the creative demand of the game lies in the Players' ability to somehow work in their traits (be they relationships, skills, traits, objects or what not) to aid in the prosecution of the conflict.  However, at the time of the conflict there is no real qualitative difference between the types of "traits," they all added various kinds and numbers of dice to the pool.  In Sim the differences in the qualities or types of the traits is profoundly important at the time of conflict and is used to demonstrate "how the world works" or "that the world is operating in a 'normal' manner."

Everyone else – Kintara (Adam), White Rat (Adam), Jason, James and Marco I want to answer your posts before you post again!

Speaking as the GM for this particular game, I want to say that Jay played well, for a first-timer, and I think that with a few more sessions (Selene has a copy, remember, Jay!  Hint!  Hint!) you'd be able to lose the "bump" from the unfamiliar mechanics.

Hi Jay,

I'd describe it that you were working from a fixed character base. From it you were using causality to determine what to do next (the character would think about the tactics of the situation). When the play is about defining that character base (determining how the character feels about the situation). Until that's sorted out, you can't figure out tactics at all (ie you can't causally figure out tactics that save the princess, if you haven't yet determined if you give a shit about her).

Quote from: Silmenume on October 09, 2005, 06:27:53 AM
How does the foe respond to the blow?  Does he shrug it off or does he stagger back in pain?  Does he go down to the floor?  Does he spin around exposing his back?  Did my hand get hurt mashing against his skin?  Does he appear to be shaken up or does he just look angrier?  All this is not Color but real conveyed information that is important feedback in the Sim dialectic process.  I don't need to know hit points, but what I do need to know is how is he responding to my actions. 

Hey Jay.

I have stuff to say about your GNS analysis, but not the time, so right now I'm going to limit myself to this one little practical concern.

Your expectations about taking the blow are dead on. If your opponent wasn't giving you exactly the information you needed - shrug it off or stagger back, go down with his nose fountaining or snarl and look pissed - he was letting you down.

Here's a by-the-book Dogs interaction:
You: I wham him one, right in the nose!
GM, taking the blow: I take the blow.
You: ... and? How does it land? How does he react? Is he on the ground? Did I break his nose? What?

-Vincent

I was going to say what Vincent just said. So I'll elaborate.

You need this detailed information to inform your Sees and Raises. No one gets to just say "I Raise" or "I Take The Blow." Not good enough. Because when you say, "I Take The Blow... He goes down, clutching his neck and trying not to pass out," and Raise with, "He desperately kicks at your legs, trying to drive you back a pace," then I have the ammo to say, "I Block. A good kick to the shins isn't enough to stop me. I step in close and finish him off with my knife."

Our specific narrations form the "sim dialectic" you were talking about. The more specific the better, in my experience. This is just like a Sim-supporting system. The game rarely works right if everyone just says, "I hit for 4 points."

The ongoing narration also has several mechanical effects, where the rules query the SIS details. If you drift the game so that you're not supplying description, the following established rules and techniques become impossible:
- Determining whether a trait use is valid.
- Finding improvised tools.
- Determining the fall-out die size.
- Determining who has to See a given Raise.
I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to play DiV conflicts properly without an ongoing, realistic back-and-forth about the details of the action. You'd have to make drastic changes in the rules to make it possible, because, as the above examples demonstrate, many details of the conflict rules are actually very dependent on the SIS.

Quote from: Silmenume on October 09, 2005, 06:27:53 AM
Hey Darren,

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 08, 2005, 12:08:46 PMI'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion.

There’s a false assumption in your argument.  I was not concerned with “immersion,” I was deep into a thought process that had to be interrupted because I had to deal with mechanics.

Minor point - notice that I presented two possibilities. My first proposition: you were unfamiliar with the drastically different mechanics, and this interrupted your chain of thought.  This is a lot like what you describe, and this does not require there to be a CA clash. Of course, it might be a CA clash - that's why I posed my suggestions as possibilities to consider rather than definite statements.

About Seeing a Raise: I was more definite here. Take note of what Vincent, John, and Eero have said. If the other participants in a conflict are playing properly, you get exactly the same information to interact with as you would in a pure simulationist system. That information is produced the exact same way, too. In a traditional simmy game, the GM will look at your dice, and interpret the roll to tell you what happens (in combination with other in-game feedback, such as hit points). In DitV, the same thing happens but instead of the GM interpreting the roll to tell you what happens, another player does it.

Quote

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 08, 2005, 12:08:46 PMIn Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in.

Actually it is different.  First of all each “trait” is only usable once per “conflict.” 

A pedantic nitpick which you may realise already. :) You only get the trait's dice once per conflict, but you can "use" the trait as often as you like after that. In one raise, you might say, "I fire my shotgun" and as a result get your 2d6 trait. In a later raise, you might describe "I fire my shotgun" - you don't get any more dice, but you DO inflict different fallout if you hit, than if you chose to talk. So there is a definite, qualitative difference between some types of traits.
Using the same trait over and over again doesn't net you any extra dice, but those you have in front of you may be enough - and it saves you the effort of coming up with ways to narrate less suitable traits into the conflict.

Hi Kintara (Adam),

Quote from: Kintara on October 08, 2005, 01:27:26 PM... Assign your stats by looking at the conflicts the stats are used in, and emphasize the ones where you think your character will excel. ...

That was the problem.  At the time of creation I didn't know what conflicts the stats were used in, and I certainly didn't have any idea what my character would excel in.  In the game I play in Stats don't "match up to conflicts".  In fact once the Character Creation process is done the sheet need only be referenced infrequently at best.  I am used to "just playing," as it were.  That is – it is pretty much up to me to portray my Character through action and not rely or refer to mechanics at all.  It's not so much what I can do is defined by what's on my sheet, rather it is up to me as a player to make that "sheet" come alive.  So this whole define what your Character is good/bad/interested in during creation by writing traits and assigning values/dice is a total 180-degree flip for me.  I am NOT saying that one way or the other is superior, just that the methodology of thinking/creating used in DitV is completely backward from what I have been doing for the last 8 years.

That being said I was having one heck of a time personally relating/connecting to what I think were some very central elements of the game.  I find this collision in "order of thought" to be very enlightening regarding the differences between Nar and Sim.

Hey White Rat (a different Adam!),

Quote from: WhiteRat on October 08, 2005, 01:51:27 PM
I wonder if you were jarred less by the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism, and more by the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.

The way you needed feedback about that punch you threw -- that suggests to me that you were expecting the ultimate outcome to depend in part on that one task (e.g., Task Resolution) instead of merely expecting the outcome to take color from that task (e.g., Conflict Resolution).

Absolutely!  What was interesting to me though, upon reflection, was just how subjectively "wrong" Conflict Resolution felt!  Remember I went into this game with the idea of being intentionally open to new CA process.  I'm not saying that I succeeded, but I did make an effort to monitor myself to see where I might be clashing CA's.  Thus when I was feeling stymied I would try to examine the why's, address the problem I was having and then try to move forward with a positive outlook.  What surprised me was how powerful my reaction was – not that I had some reaction.

Hey Jason,

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 08, 2005, 03:13:34 PM...I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

Other than the "de-escalation process" I don't think there is any technique listed above that is specific to any CA.  However, I do agree with you that discussions "about" CA tend to obscure what was "really going on," but the key element for Gamism was utterly lacking – There was no Step on Up on my part.  I did not find myself addressing Challenge at all.  There was no jockeying for (peer) recognition or seeking of means to display my skillz as a Player, etc.

I also want to note that all the taking stock you described in your list is also that of the bricoleur inventorying his shed for objects/structures when faced with a problem.

Hey there James,

Quote from: Blankshield on October 08, 2005, 03:40:39 PMThat being said - Jay, it sounds to me like you were working too hard to play Nar.  Trust Vincent.  He wrote a well targeted game.  Play the game, premise will happen.  :)    (which is what Chris said, I realize)

Indeed, perhaps I was!  That the game is brilliantly designed I have no doubt.  However, I may have mislabeled this thread as I did not lament my time spent; it was educational at the very least.  I had a number of motives for playing and many of them were more than adequately met.

Hello Marco!

Quote from: Marco on October 08, 2005, 07:34:31 PMWhat he's the posterboy for, IMO, is immersive play...

Me?  Posterboy?  Didn't know I had to the looks for it!  I will agree with you Marco, that when I first arrived and for a number of months following I was playing around with and to a certain degree arguing for "immersion."  However I changed my thinking on that back in August of last year.  I do think that one needs to adopt the structures of the fictional world, but I have stated that I do not believe that one needs to identify/empathize with the structures (immerse) in order to employ them.  Simply put I have not argued the "immersion" position in at least a year or longer.  That this confusion or conflation between adoption and immersion continues to pop up does shed an important light on some of the stubborn confusion regarding Sim play.  This is very interesting...

Quote from: Marco on October 08, 2005, 07:34:31 PMI have not run Dogs--but if thinking "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?" is wrong I can't imagine it'd be as well loved as it is.

Don't get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn't capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Again it grows late and I grow weary.  I will continue to respond as I can to Callan, Vincent, Jason, Eero and Darren!

Quote from: Silmenume on October 11, 2005, 05:44:02 AM
Me?  Posterboy?  Didn't know I had to the looks for it!  I will agree with you Marco, that when I first arrived and for a number of months following I was playing around with and to a certain degree arguing for "immersion."  However I changed my thinking on that back in August of last year.  I do think that one needs to adopt the structures of the fictional world, but I have stated that I do not believe that one needs to identify/empathize with the structures (immerse) in order to employ them.  Simply put I have not argued the "immersion" position in at least a year or longer.  That this confusion or conflation between adoption and immersion continues to pop up does shed an important light on some of the stubborn confusion regarding Sim play.  This is very interesting...

I'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion--from what I have read of your other play you clearly experience emotional interaction with the game (anger, sadness, fear, etc. when Elrond's sons are killed, forex) which, to me, clearly means empathy with the events. You don't convey that you experience the game simply as a cool intellectual exercise.

Your attempt to "make the sheet come alive" absent the rules is, I think, some of the most immersive language I've ever seen. When I play in what I would describe as an immersive manner, I am often excited about events in the game, feel an emotional attachment to them (and to NPCs), imagine the play vividly, and sometimes lose track of time (as when reading a good book).

All of that sounds like what you're trying to do and I don't see how you are distinguishing anything descriptive about the activity (there's a lot of terminology like bricolage and myth and such--but I'm not sure these aren't simply renaming elements of immersion like an empathic identification with the events in the game as my character would experience them).

Quote
Don't get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn't capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Yes--I understand that you want to draw the difference between Sim/Nar as the "means" by which SIS is explored. I think that's common but since there is no satisfactory method of doing that when the player is not in author stance the line is so blurry as to be effectively nonexistant (absent defintional elements such as railroading, complete absence of anything that could be called a human-experience choice, or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events).

-Marco

Quote from: Silmenume on October 09, 2005, 06:27:53 AM
For example I most certainly was not thrilled about choosing my own fallout.  In fact it just plain rubbed me the wrong way.  It's not the mechanic per say that troubled me, but rather it was something I just wasn't interested in.  Choosing fallout, especially one's own, is something that is entirely opposed to the Sim paradigm.  It just seems "wrong," however, as I understood that in this game it was part of Addressing Premise so I gave it the old college try.  (When I say "wrong" I do not mean in an absolute manner in any way – just a perception from a Sim perspective.)

Hello!

Yes, I'm new around here.  I have to say that this is a bit confusing to me -- stating "It didn't follow the Sim paradigm, therefore I didn't understand it".  That seems completely backwards.  It reminds me of something a taster once said on Iron Chef -- "Well, I'm only 19, so I'm not old enough to like this dish yet."

Quote from: Silmenume on October 09, 2005, 06:27:53 AMIt's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.  Discovering this first hand was very interesting!  This game was a wonderful opportunity to compare and contrast different approaches to conflict (CA).

The resolution mechanics require one to provide the information you were looking for when Seeing, Raising, Taking the Blow, etc.  So it wasn't the mechanics that failed.

Quote from: Silmenume on October 09, 2005, 06:27:53 AMActually it is different.  First of all each "trait" is only usable once per "conflict."  A great part of the creative demand of the game lies in the Players' ability to somehow work in their traits (be they relationships, skills, traits, objects or what not) to aid in the prosecution of the conflict.  However, at the time of the conflict there is no real qualitative difference between the types of "traits," they all added various kinds and numbers of dice to the pool.  In Sim the differences in the qualities or types of the traits is profoundly important at the time of conflict and is used to demonstrate "how the world works" or "that the world is operating in a 'normal' manner."

I guess my response here is... so what?  If you need the Traits separated conceptually, write up your own character sheet and place your Traits in conceptual sections -- Innate Mental, Innate Physical, Innate Spiritual, Trained Mental, Trained Physical, Trained Spiritual, External Physical (equipment), External Spiritual, External Relationship, External Social, etc.  It won't harm anything to break them up into whatever classifications make sense for you.

In fact, you can even do more than that.  If you want your character to be more focused on physical training, put higher dice in those Traits that reflect that.  Done.

I'm not so sure that allocating skill points to various skill categories is all that simulationist to begin with...

Hey Jay, you said:

Quote from: SilmenumeIt's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.

To help those who are confused (like me) can you give us an example of system-in-action that does give you the information you need? Something that "focuses on and provides normalizing information." Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can use a real game system as a reference point (GURPS maybe? I don't know what's hip for Sim these days) I think that would help. Thanks!

Quote from: Silmenume on October 11, 2005, 05:44:02 AMHey Jason,

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 08, 2005, 03:13:34 PM...I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

Other than the "de-escalation process" I don't think there is any technique listed above that is specific to any CA.

Yep. ;)  In fact, none of those map directly to a CA, as there is no 1:1 Technique:CA relationship.  De-escalation is just a very common mathematical way to approach puzzles, thus the anti-climax is very common in Gam.  I can point to an analogous game such as 8-Ball that is de-escalation, but a game such as 9-Ball or many gambling games are escalating to climax.  CA analysis is about patterns of behaviors.  Combinations of behaviors may indicate a strong likelyhood of an agenda, but they can never confirm one, as in any behavioral analysis.  It's all about the list as a whole - not individual elements.

QuoteHowever, I do agree with you that discussions "about" CA tend to obscure what was "really going on," but the key element for Gamism was utterly lacking – There was no Step on Up on my part.  I did not find myself addressing Challenge at all.  There was no jockeying for (peer) recognition or seeking of means to display my skillz as a Player, etc.

I also want to note that all the taking stock you described in your list is also that of the bricoleur inventorying his shed for objects/structures when faced with a problem.

Step on Up seems much like address of Premise in that it is one of those things that is absent from any concious thought in most of play.  You are left looking for the manifestations of the agenda, such as challenge and theme; left looking for that CA feedback cycle of:

challenge -> enjoyment -> challenge engaging behavior -> challenge -> and so on...
theme -> enjoyment -> theme creating behavior -> theme -> and so forth...

If you asked me why I engage in any challenge I wouldn't say "to prove I'm better than the people I'm playing with."   At best you'll get "to test myself".  Through various logical twists and turns (within the context of the model) we arrive at the conclusion that testing myself within a social activity is equilavent to vying for esteem within a group (within the context of the model).

Anyway, judging by other comments it's likely that engagement in challenge was lacking from your play, but I thought I should follow up as your initial post read very strongly like it was present.

Hey Vincent,

Quote from: lumpley on October 10, 2005, 11:56:29 AMI have stuff to say about your GNS analysis, but not the time, so right now I'm going to limit myself to this one little practical concern.

Your expectations about taking the blow are dead on. If your opponent wasn't giving you exactly the information you needed - shrug it off or stagger back, go down with his nose fountaining or snarl and look pissed - he was letting you down.

Just to make myself understood, this was not a bag on anyone thread – but I get ya.  When you do get the time I would be interested in what you have to say about my GNS analysis.  It doesn't have to be here if you feel it would better on another board.  Thanks for your time nonetheless!

Hey John,

Quote from: John Harper on October 10, 2005, 03:10:16 PMYou need this detailed information to inform your Sees and Raises. No one gets to just say "I Raise" or "I Take The Blow." Not good enough. Because when you say, "I Take The Blow... He goes down, clutching his neck and trying not to pass out," and Raise with, "He desperately kicks at your legs, trying to drive you back a pace," then I have the ammo to say, "I Block. A good kick to the shins isn't enough to stop me. I step in close and finish him off with my knife."

Our specific narrations form the "sim dialectic" you were talking about. The more specific the better, in my experience. This is just like a Sim-supporting system. The game rarely works right if everyone just says, "I hit for 4 points."

Colored emphasis added.

Indeed, I'm obviously with you that "more specific" is better than "less specific" – but with provisos.  (Ack!  There are always provisos!)  One proviso being the nature of the circumstances.  As I am no expert in Gamism, I do not know enough to be even reasonably sure how the "4 hit points" thing and that particular CA work, so I'll have to defer to Callan or contracycle.

The big assumption, above, which correlates to your next post -

Quote from: John Harper on October 11, 2005, 09:11:16 PMHey Jay, you said:

Quote from: SilmenumeIt's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.

To help those who are confused (like me) can you give us an example of system-in-action that does give you the information you need? Something that "focuses on and provides normalizing information." Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can use a real game system as a reference point (GURPS maybe? I don't know what's hip for Sim these days) I think that would help. Thanks!

- just what are Sim "supporting" mechanics?  I do not believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is to "resolve" tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to "normalize" i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn't happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the mechanics is Sim are not "just" normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a "roll" is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is "meaningful" even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution mechanics were "not" called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a "void" in the information/feedback stream.  Sure it could have been stated that I turned my opponent's nose into mush but is it possible that I could have killed him outright with the GM still having more than a fist full of dice remaining?  However, what is important to acknowledge is that the "real damage" – aka fallout – is not determined until after the conflict is resolved...and that is unsettling from a Sim perspective.  This – disconnect – sent confusing messages to me as a player trying to make sense of the situation.  The world does not withhold its message even if the response to my action is delayed!  (Be patient with me – this is stuff I am still trying to sort out in my own head as well!)

Now, to get to the meat of your question, I have not come across any common/real game system that is Sim supporting.  As my exposure has been rather limited I would not take my statement to be rigorously authoritative.  Yet I have not heard of any game system where the role of mechanics is to "normalize" the fictional game world – so that the unusual is unusual but can happen and be truly unusual (IOW – not always in a pre-generated table) should it happen!  Conversely such a system would typically not require a roll in truly "ordinary" circumstances as, well, the ordinary is quite expected and doesn't require "proving," (additional/external authority) you see!  Just like in Nar, not every contested statement headed for the SIS meets the "requirements" for the hauling out of the resolution system – that is some contested statements are basically "irrelevant" with regards to what is being prioritized in play.  The shape of the resolution system [dfk] is "fairly" irrelevant – what really gives it it's CA punch is under what circumstances/conditions the resolution system is called into action.

Have I said anything cogent?

Hullo Darren,

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 10, 2005, 06:53:02 PMMinor point - notice that I presented two possibilities. My first proposition: you were unfamiliar with the drastically different mechanics, and this interrupted your chain of thought.  This is a lot like what you describe, and this does not require there to be a CA clash. Of course, it might be a CA clash - that's why I posed my suggestions as possibilities to consider rather than definite statements.

Well said.  I am a little red faced, but as long as we understand each other's positions all's right in the world!

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 10, 2005, 06:53:02 PMTake note of what Vincent, John, and Eero have said. If the other participants in a conflict are playing properly, you get exactly the same information to interact with as you would in a pure simulationist system. That information is produced the exact same way, too.

I do see what you are getting at, and I think what I finally managed to put down in my reply to John does cover what "wasn't quite sittin' right in my chaw."  You see, I was not getting the "exact same information" as one would in a "Sim" supporting system.  That information is conveyed in the "when-of-the-application-of-the-resolution-system."  To the Simulationist that there two arenas-of-effects that are temporally and qualitatively distinct and that distinction is institutionally enshrined is confounding.  In a way it's like constantly ret-conning vital information that was already taken to be "fact."

Quote from: Darren Hill on October 10, 2005, 06:53:02 PMA pedantic nitpick which you may realise already. :) You only get the trait's dice once per conflict, but you can "use" the trait as often as you like after that. In one raise, you might say, "I fire my shotgun" and as a result get your 2d6 trait. In a later raise, you might describe "I fire my shotgun" - you don't get any more dice, but you DO inflict different fallout if you hit, than if you chose to talk. So there is a definite, qualitative difference between some types of traits.

Oh.  Be pedantic!  I hadn't thought it through that way!  However, using what you said, it is true after "firing my (weapon)" a second time or more in a given conflict does not get me any more dice but the fallout is certainly more than talking and thus "different".  However at this stage once "hit" there is no quantitative difference between firing a Derringer from across the room and unloading a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun pointblank into the brain pan – each gets a d10 fall out roll.  In a Sim game this would not hold true – a derringer and a double-barreled shotgun would do vastly different types of "damage/fallout."  Its not that the mechanics could be different – but rather the emphasis of the mechanics is vastly different.  In Sim it follows that a large gun have more of an effect than a small gun, and this is frequently supported by the mechanics – this helps "normalize" the fictional game world.  In DitV, the message sent by the mechanics is not so much that one worry about the "damage" of a weapon (normalizing the fictional game world), but rather that one went to a weapon (escalated the conflict) in the first place!  That "message" is not lost on those who are looking for it and I assume one intended by Vincent.  I think this is a fascinating and illuminating contrast!

Eero – I hope that some of the above has addressed your comments.

Marco, Brian and Jason I will respond to you soon!

Quote from: Silmenume on October 14, 2005, 06:05:05 AM
When you do get the time I would be interested in what you have to say about my GNS analysis.

The short form is: someone accustomed to simulationist play in a more genre-emulation or "cinematic" mode - say a long-term player of 7th Sea or Feng Shui - probably wouldn't have the same objections to Dogs' techniques that you do.

When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda. Your analysis of Dogs' construction of cause and effect is right on, but your ... dissatisfaction? discomfort? incompetence? whichever you prefer - your discomfort with it is all technical.

Quote from: Silmenume on October 14, 2005, 06:05:05 AM
I do not believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is to "resolve" tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to "normalize" i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn't happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the mechanics is Sim are not "just" normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a "roll" is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is "meaningful" even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution mechanics were "not" called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a "void" in the information/feedback stream...

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

-Vincent

Oh - Jay, and yes, I think that this reaches right into your bricoleur-vs-engineer analysis. You've identified a technical distinction, a distinction at the technique level, I think, not a distinction between creative agendas.

-Vincent

Thank you, Vincent, I've been saying this for ages now.

Jay, I don't think you have a problem with narrativism at all. I think you just have very specific sorts of mechanics you like (mostly ones that are ignored most of the time). Interestingly lots of players who identify with narrativism have the same urges.

Mike

Mike and Vincent,

Jay and I just went over this ground recently in Exploration does not equal Bricolage (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16520.0).  Though, your mileage may vary with that thread.  Jay and I came out of it with very different views.  I consider it fairly conclusive evidence that bricolage is a Technique, due to it being anything but a Technique being founded on assumption #3 from my second to last post and my two actual play examples from that thread falsifying assumption #3.  I haven't thought too much about it since then, but I think what allows #3 to be disproved is not a fault in the engineering/bricolage distinction, but incorrectly mapping that distinction onto the process of role-playing.  Assumption #3 is able to exist in the context of building something or myth because of manufacturing "materials" that are immutable.  A chair or a thunderstorm is a chair or a thunderstorm regardless of what I want it to be, and they have certain qualities regardless of what I perceive those qualities to be.  However, role-playing, being a purely mental process, has no immutable materials to build from.  A chair or a thunderstorm is exactly what I want and perceive it to be.  Hence, all elements are at some level engineered and assumption #3 becomes false.  It's not that the engineering/bricolage distinction isn't useful, just that it can't go from the tool-shed to Exploration unmodified.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain Jay's view on the thread was quite different.  I don't want to derail too much.  Just thought I'd mention it.

Hey Marco,

I finally get to respond to you!

Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2005, 07:40:57 AMI'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion...

Well as "immersion" has been so far undefined, any lengthy discussion about Sim in terms of "immersion" will ultimately be an exercise in futility.  However, despite the warning, I will boldly rush in where angels fear to tread and attempt to make a cogent response. 

• 1.  The difference between adoption and immersion is when one stops relating to the tools available to the Player as tools and starts reacting to them emotionally.
• 2.  As I have stated as recently as my last post – I am not saying nor am I even attempting to imply that one must "immerse" in order to get one's Sim on.
• 3.  I do enjoy play that is deeply emotional, but I am not saying nor am I implying that this "emotionalist preference" is in ANY WAY descriptive or definitional of any Creative Agenda.

All the above being established, I am confused buy your consistent return to the "emotional issue."

Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2005, 07:40:57 AMYou don't convey that you experience the game simply as a cool intellectual exercise.

And why should I?  "Sim is fun/engrossing," is not an oxymoronic statement.  I don't hear Narrativists relating their play "as a cool intellectual exercise," nor do I hear Gamists relating their play experiences "as a cool intellectual exercise."  I would go so far as to say that if anyone did described their game play in the AP threads, "as a cool intellectual exercise," would in all likelihood generate a whole stream of posts that would be sniffing all around the question of dysfunction.  From a common point of view, though certainly not definitional, role-play (the expression of CA) is supposed to be fun!  I fail to see the logic of your statement.  Sim is defined by cool and calculating play?  Bull-poop!  Engrossing Exploration automatically excludes the Sim agenda?  Bull-poop squared!

Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2005, 07:40:57 AMYour attempt to "make the sheet come alive" absent the rules is, I think, some of the most immersive language I've ever seen. When I play in what I would describe as an immersive manner, I am often excited about events in the game, feel an emotional attachment to them (and to NPCs), imagine the play vividly, and sometimes lose track of time (as when reading a good book).

Absolutely.  That is the manner in which I enjoy play.  That, however, is not how I am attempting to define the Sim Creative Agenda.  When I discuss Sim as Theory and not my functional play experiences, I am attempting to discuss and define the process of Sim (much like we discuss Nar as a process – address of Premise – and discuss Gamism as a process – address of Challenge) When discussing Theory I am not interested in defining interior states of players as the Big Model is predicated upon observable expressed behaviors.  Period.  If I didn't make myself clear about that in the past, I apologize.  However, from this point forward please disabuse yourself of any notions that I am claiming that Sim play must be emotionally entangling.  In fact I will make this statement as clear as I can possibly make it –

Sim is no more, nor no less, capable of generating an emotional response/experience among players than Narrativism or Gamism.[/list]

Sure one can approach Sim play from the point of view of a cool intellectual exercise just like an experimental psychologist could approach Nar play from the point of view of a cool intellectual exercise or a war planner could approach Gam play from the point of view of a cool intellectual exercise.  This whole cool intellectual exercise topic is utterly outside the bounds of the Model and not something that I find particularly helpful or insightful.  Of all the times this argument has come up not once has anyone indicated why an emotional state should belong in the same topic of Process.  I mean, that is how CA's are defined, are they not?  If you feel that such a topic is germane then I'll just have to say we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on from there or perhaps something more fruitful might be gained if start a thread indicating logically how "emotion = process."

Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2005, 07:40:57 AM

QuoteDon't get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn't capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Yes--I understand that you want to draw the difference between Sim/Nar as the "means" by which SIS is explored. I think that's common but since there is no satisfactory method of doing that when the player is not in author stance the line is so blurry as to be effectively nonexistant (absent defintional elements such as railroading, complete absence of anything that could be called a human-experience choice, or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events).

Not true – a lack of evidence does not indicate negative evidence.  If there are no tells then all we can say is that there are "no tells."  Conversely railroading, by definition, is a dysfunctional form of CA expression, not a tell of Sim play.  Regarding "or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events" I ask Callan or contracycle to tell me if they play Gamist regularly with "no emotional attachment to the imaginary events."  That these statements (which basically describe dysfunctional play) are even employed as "tells" strongly indicates that such an observer does not know what exhibited behaviors to look for.  Dysfunctional play and effective Creative Agenda expression are strongly opposed though not entirely exclusionary.

I apologize if I came off a little "ranty."

Hi Brain,

Welcome to the Forge and thanks for making the effort to contribute!

Quote from: Brian Newman on October 11, 2005, 08:21:11 PMI have to say that this is a bit confusing to me -- stating "It didn't follow the Sim paradigm, therefore I didn't understand it".  That seems completely backwards.  It reminds me of something a taster once said on Iron Chef -- "Well, I'm only 19, so I'm not old enough to like this dish yet."

Indeed, if I had claimed that I did not "understand" the process because I have a Sim priority background then your argument would be sound.  However, that was not my claim.  It was not that I did not "understand," but rather I found the events I described irksome and attempted to do more than just "complain."  Rather, noting my discomfiture, I tried to figure why this highly functional game would bother me in terms of the Big Model.  I read it as CA conflict – which I then seized as an awesome opportunity to plumb the differences between the two CA's from a less distant perspective – that is I have my own data set!

Quote from: Brian Newman on October 11, 2005, 08:21:11 PMThe resolution mechanics require one to provide the information you were looking for when Seeing, Raising, Taking the Blow, etc.  So it wasn't the mechanics that failed.

Oh, I wasn't making a value judgment about the mechanics.  I was noting how the Mechanics and I didn't mesh and the all important question – why?  Some have suggested the that I was having trouble with the Mechanics as technique, and while I do agree that I can't discount all of that hypothesis, I do believe that something more fundamental was at root.

Quote from: Brian Newman on October 11, 2005, 08:21:11 PMIf you need the Traits separated conceptually, write up your own character sheet and place your Traits in conceptual sections -- Innate Mental, Innate Physical, Innate Spiritual, Trained Mental, Trained Physical, Trained Spiritual, External Physical (equipment), External Spiritual, External Relationship, External Social, etc.  It won't harm anything to break them up into whatever classifications make sense for you.

In fact, you can even do more than that.  If you want your character to be more focused on physical training, put higher dice in those Traits that reflect that.  Done.

But those artificial differences have no real effect on the process of play nor would such an effort be rewarded by system.  This does not mean the mechanics in DitV are broken, but quite the opposite.  They are so exquisitely tuned to supporting Nar play that they really do confound Sim priorities!  Which is really cool!  When such a "collision" does happen it reveals something about the priorities and processes of Sim by the nature of the collision.  Something analogous to atom smashing – in a weird really convoluted sort of mind stretching way...

Hi Jason,

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 11, 2005, 09:59:40 PMStep on Up seems much like address of Premise in that it is one of those things that is absent from any concious thought in most of play.  You are left looking for the manifestations of the agenda, such as challenge and theme...

I agree about the absence of conscious self-aware address of Premise/Challenge, I had hoped to indicate that I was not pursuing Challenge via observable play either.  Obviously I didn't effectively communicate what I hoped to demonstrate.  However, even the de-escalation process you suggested was not in play nor  was it something that was "important" to me at the time.

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 11, 2005, 09:59:40 PMIt's all about the list as a whole - not individual elements.

I do agree that it is all about the aggregate, however other than the note on de-escalation that particular list (as a whole) really didn't point to any specific CA behavior that I could find echoed in the Big Model.

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 11, 2005, 09:59:40 PMAnyway, judging by other comments it's likely that engagement in challenge was lacking from your play, but I thought I should follow up as your initial post read very strongly like it was present.

Right on!  Don't let me wriggle away without trying to pin me down!

That last few posts (Vincent, Mike and Jason) run in a completely different direction so I will address them in a separate post soon.  Thanks one and all for your input.

QuoteI do agree that it is all about the aggregate, however other than the note on de-escalation that particular list (as a whole) really didn't point to any specific CA behavior that I could find echoed in the Big Model.

Ah.  The list basically boils down to characterization, power fantasy, resource micromanagement, quantifiable risk/consequence, and anti-climax.  That suggests a specific type of Gam to me, but if it doesn't to you then let's not sweat it.  There isn't really a way to argue for or against the relationship between specific behavior patterns and specific types of CAs, as it's only valid if based on observation and observation isn't defensible unless it can be shared.  If those aren't the patterns you see with this type of Gam we'll just end up spinning our wheels.

Silmenume,

I get where you're coming from.  Thanks for the explanation.  I just think it's a mistake to say "I'm not getting this/I'm in conflict with the rules because I'm a Simulationist."  I think I'd say just try it and have fun, and if it's the one non-Simulationist game that you like and play, good for you and it.

Hey Vincent,

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:21:16 AMThe short form is: someone accustomed to simulationist play in a more genre-emulation or "cinematic" mode - say a long-term player of 7th Sea or Feng Shui - probably wouldn't have the same objections to Dogs' techniques that you do.

...

When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda. Your analysis of Dogs' construction of cause and effect is right on, but your ... dissatisfaction? discomfort? incompetence? whichever you prefer - your discomfort with it is all technical.

What staggers me in this analysis is the denial of the very something that you have obviously mastered so well in your own game design – that System matters to CA expression.  Yes, I do agree with you that I did have issues with the Techniques, but the question is – why?  Nowhere in your analysis do you acknowledge that which you have accomplished so effectively yourself – that Mechanics can be formed in such a manner as to have a strong impact on the CA expression of the Players.  The logical extension of that argument is that if someone were to have a CA priority clash with a game design in play it would certainly show up with "problems" with the Mechanics.  I do not deny that the very form of the Mechanics design can be a contributing issue (that is a Nar leaning player could have problems with unfamiliar Nar facilitating Mechanics or Nar facilitating Mechanics that rub his aesthetic sensibilities the wrong way), but what I am astonished is the flat out denial that Mechanics design and implementation could clash with the CA priorities of a Player – especially when so much effort was put into said Mechanics to facilitate the expression of a given CA in the first place!

This is what gets frustrating about the discussion of Sim.  One set of Model structures are applied to Nar and Gam, yet they are denied when it comes to Sim.  You say system matters, I agree system matters.  But then I am denied that system does matter with regards to Sim.  It's not that I am having a CA clash but rather I'm having a "technical issue."  How does that work?

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:21:16 AM

Quote from: Silmenume on October 14, 2005, 06:05:05 AMI do not believe that the role of Mechanics in Sim is to "resolve" tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to "normalize" i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn't happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the Mechanics is Sim are not "just" normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a "roll" is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is "meaningful" even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of Mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution Mechanics were "not" called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a "void" in the information/feedback stream...

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

Again I am baffled here.  Are not Techniques employed to express CA?  Are they not an expression of CA?

Quote from: Narrativism: Story Now[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]. The panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. ...

...But if you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented by Creative Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.

Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

Underlining added.

Quote from: The Provisional GlossaryCreative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.

All I am doing is giving concrete evidence of Techniques failing to satisfy CA because of clash – just like the articles above claim can happen.  I find it somewhat disappointing that in theory discussion that my assertions are dismissed with outright credulousness, as I am not claiming anything that is not already expressed within the Big Model.

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:21:16 AMThis is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche.

Perhaps.  However, I speak of the role of Mechanics in Sim.  What I described is no more synecdoche than saying that Mechanics in Narrativism should positively reinforce the address of Premise.  Well of course they should!  But is that synecdoche?  Narrativism is the addressing of Premise and the addressing of Premise is definitional of Narrativism – yes?  I mean it's not controversial to say that Nar facilitating Mechanics should "give" the Players aid in addressing Premise?  Wouldn't it be silly to claim that Mechanics have no business supporting the address of Premise?

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:21:16 AMTo associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

So if it is not controversial to claim that Mechanics can and ought to support the Address of Premise in Nar play (the role of mechanics) then why is my claim that the "role" of mechanics in Sim is to "normalize" the fictional world and reflect the evolution of the SIS?  Maybe I am wrong about the "role," but I have yet see anything else offered that covers the vast panoply of Sim play while staying true to the creative/construction base of the Big Model.  Sure this proposal excludes some form of play.  So did the proposal that Narrativism is not about "Story," but about player's Addressing Premise.  This particular formulation completely excluded railroading where the GM creates and "tells" a pre-generated story.  Why?  Partially because such play excluded effective Player input into what was being added to the SIS.  Is that so controversial?  Then why does it become controversial when I claim that Sim too has a creative/construction process as well – that which is in keeping the with gist of the Big Model – because certain non-constructive modes of play find themselves outside that descriptor?

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:26:50 AMOh - Jay, and yes, I think that this reaches right into your bricoleur-vs-engineer analysis. You've identified a technical distinction, a distinction at the technique level, I think, not a distinction between creative agendas.

Again I disagree – obviously!  ;P  I think the bricoleur-vs-engineer distinction is the fundamental Chasm which separates Sim from Nar/Gam.  One cannot come to Nar/Gam with a bricoleur mentality/process and effectively address Premise/Challenge.  Conversely one cannot come to Sim with an engineering process/mentality and express Sim effectively.  The two processes are fundamentally at odds with one another.

Hey Mike,

Having reviewed what I have written above I think, I hope, that I have addressed your comment too.

Jason!

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 14, 2005, 07:44:23 PMI consider it fairly conclusive evidence that bricolage is a Technique...

While I don't wish to take this thread in this direction here, I am certainly open to discussing it on a theory thread, I just wanted to quickly note that bricolage cannot be a technique any more than engineering is a "technique."  Both are "points of view/paradigms" on how to approach and solve problems.  How Techniques are used by players in play will reflect (and be an expression of – much like how CA is not a Technique either but a process) the "problem solving paradigm", but Techniques are not in themselves engineering or bricolage anymore than they are "CA."  That is Techniques are employed to express CA, but are not CA itself.  Both engineering/bricolage and CA are emergent properties of play – not things in and of themselves.

Jay,

I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

My first thought was more along the line of trying other focused Nar facilitating games to map which elements are unique to one game. I don't see the point of trying to "prove" anything specific based on a single experience, except yes this game was a stretching experience. By the time I read your opening post there was already 4 or 5 responses second guessing everything. I'm disappointed by that.

John

Hmm, I find the excavation of what Jay means quite strange.

It all looks quite simple to me.  A non-Narr player went out of their way to experiment with a new style, didn't like it much, and is able to discuss what they didn't like.

Where is the problem?  Why all the questions?  We're getting valuable first person data from an informed observer.

I want to be EXTREMELY clear, right now, that I think that Jay's observations are right on, and I have no questions or second-guesses about them at all. He's nailed the way Dogs treats cause and effect. I don't doubt his discomfort. As far as I can tell, he's astutely and critically observed the whole process.

Has he located his observations correctly in the Big Model? Are they really observations about Creative Agenda? I don't think they are - but saying so isn't at ALL the same thing as saying that I think they're bad observations.

-Vincent

Sorry, John, contracycle; I had thought it on-topic for this thread since the poster brought it up in the first place.  I thought it germane to the concept -- I'm not any of those GNS things and yet I like Dogs; I don't see how labeling Dogs justifies the fact that you are or aren't having any fun.

Jay (and Fred),

I'm wondering how the others in the game reacted to your contributions. Were you able to support the game for them despite your awkwardness?

John

Quote from: John Burdick on October 18, 2005, 10:00:12 PM
I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

I'm sorry you see our arguments this way. Could you try to see them as simply discussion instead of...whatever it is you're implying? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I've done something out of line, please contact me by PM and let me know.


Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre. We just disagree with you on what that problem was. We think it's techniques, you think it's overall mode. Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA, sort of like a subset of CA (the whole "skewers" concept).

Your implication of a double standard here, and your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque attacks simply aren't helping your argument. And we're still going to have to agree to disagree about bricolage.

Mike

Quote from: Brian Newman on October 19, 2005, 01:22:29 PM
Sorry, John, contracycle; I had thought it on-topic for this thread since the poster brought it up in the first place.  I thought it germane to the concept -- I'm not any of those GNS things and yet I like Dogs; I don't see how labeling Dogs justifies the fact that you are or aren't having any fun.

Bah!  Don't apologize!   ;)  Sim is controversial, as are Jay's views on it.  We aren't pickin' on Jay, we're discussing with him, and that's a hell of a lot better than being ignored.  Dialogue is a good thing.

Anyway...

*****

Jay,

QuoteWhile I don't wish to take this thread in this direction here, I am certainly open to discussing it on a theory thread, I just wanted to quickly note that bricolage cannot be a technique any more than engineering is a "technique."  Both are "points of view/paradigms" on how to approach and solve problems.  How Techniques are used by players in play will reflect (and be an expression of – much like how CA is not a Technique either but a process) the "problem solving paradigm", but Techniques are not in themselves engineering or bricolage anymore than they are "CA."  That is Techniques are employed to express CA, but are not CA itself.  Both engineering/bricolage and CA are emergent properties of play – not things in and of themselves.

What you have above is basically a restatement of assumption #3 (exclusive intent+action), which is fine, because I know that's where you're coming from, though I still disagree with the assumption.  I'm fine leaving it alone in this thread.  We know where we disagree, and I think that's about as far as we can get at the moment. :)

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 19, 2005, 04:52:57 PM
Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre. We just disagree with you on what that problem was. We think it's techniques, you think it's overall mode. Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA, sort of like a subset of CA (the whole "skewers" concept).

Well sure.  But then, Surely Jay has done exactly the right thing: instead of transposing a CA clash on to the game itself, the people involved, or claiming the system is "bad", he has instead pointed out that he founf the techniques hard, and understands that this is so becuase they areb constructed in service of a different CA.  Thats what I don't understand.  Of course CA and techniques are not identical; of course techniques are an expression of CA.  And for precisely that reason, you will experience a GNS clash at the point of engagement with the actually implemented techniques.

Hey John,

Quote from: John Burdick on October 18, 2005, 10:00:12 PMI also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

I don't find it quite as strange as just plain disappointing.

Hullo Vincent,

Quote from: lumpley on October 19, 2005, 11:27:02 AMI want to be EXTREMELY clear, right now, that I think that Jay's observations are right on, and I have no questions or second-guesses about them at all. He's nailed the way Dogs treats cause and effect. I don't doubt his discomfort. As far as I can tell, he's astutely and critically observed the whole process.

Loud and clear!  I am heartened to hear that I have not done damage to your game by misrepresenting your game.  I also feel more surefooted discussing my perceptions hearing that I am not in gross error about your game, though my conclusions about my own play are still up for discussion.

Quote from: lumpley on October 19, 2005, 11:27:02 AMHas he located his observations correctly in the Big Model? Are they really observations about Creative Agenda? I don't think they are...

OK.  I understand that you feel that I have made some sort of logical error with my observations.  That you think way is fine – I accept that we have differing points of view.  But I ask you in all seriousness to consider, as one would in a debate, to consider why I might be right.  If you could, please, if only for an academic exercise, play devil's advocate with your point of view and present an argument or two why a player's problems with mechanics may indeed lie in CA clash?  IOW do you feel that such a condition is even possible – and if so, how?  I fully understand that this would not mean that you agree with or support my analysis.

Should you opt to do this I wish to thank you in advance.

Having reviewed my posts in response to your posts, I am unable to see where I made "straw man" arguments.  If I did indeed do so please kindly point them out to me so that I may in the future address the sloppiness of my posting habits.

Hey Brian,

What Jason Lee said (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17157.msg183268#msg183268).  I have no beef with what you have posted!

Hi John,

Quote from: John Burdick on October 19, 2005, 03:44:03 PMI'm wondering how the others in the game reacted to your contributions. Were you able to support the game for them despite your awkwardness?

I certainly tried, but the other two will have to answer for themselves.  I just don't know.

Hey Mike,

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 19, 2005, 04:52:57 PMJay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre.

I certainly cannot speak for what Vincent is thinking, but he most certainly posted that he thought my issues were not creative agenda related.  I quote -

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:21:16 AMWhen you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda.

Bolding added.

That being demonstrated I'm confused about the assertion that I did not address his "arguments."  I have argued that my issues are CA related – in direct response to his argument.

Regarding the synecdoche issue -

Quote from: lumpley on October 14, 2005, 09:21:16 AMThis is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

I directly addressed that issue as well.

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 19, 2005, 04:52:57 PMYes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA...

I fully agree that techniques are NOT equivalent to CA.  Not only do I agree I have posted as such in this very thread.  I thought that my quoting from the Narrativism essay would indicate that I shared the same position.  To whit –

Quote from: Silmenume on October 18, 2005, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: Narrativism: Story NowTechniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

Underlining added.

[/list]

What I am trying to argue is that my particular issues with the mechanics are CA related, not Technique issues.  What I have not argued is that Techniques = CA anywhere in this thread.  To claim I said otherwise is a straw man argument.

I fully agree that mechanics straddle both Techniques and CA expression – that's part of what makes them so important and so darn interesting!  The disconnect that has been going on in this thread is that no one is allowing for the "CA expression" conflict part – i.e., I must be having Techniques issues and not having CA issues.  Why?  Why must I be having such an obvious issue with Techniques that CA issues can be dismissed summarily?  No one has demonstrated why the CA issue is irrelevant or not germane – only dismissals have been offered, not logical arguments.

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 19, 2005, 04:52:57 PMAnd we're still going to have to agree to disagree about bricolage.

I had hoped to get a sound argument grounded in the Big Model why I am wrong, but I am not going push the issue here.  Fair enough.  Here we agree to disagree.

Hello Jason,

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 19, 2005, 08:08:50 PMWhat you have above is basically a restatement of assumption #3 (exclusive intent+action), which is fine, because I know that's where you're coming from, though I still disagree with the assumption.  I'm fine leaving it alone in this thread.  We know where we disagree, and I think that's about as far as we can get at the moment. :)

Right on!

Hey Jay.

It's easy - trivially easy - for me to imagine a narrativist game whose resolution rules exactly match the resolution rules you use all the time.*

It's also easy for me to imagine simulationism-accustomed players who wouldn't find Dogs' resolution rules any kind of stretch - if they were accustomed to "cinematic" resolution rules in their simulationist play. In fact, I hear from these kinds of players sometimes. They like Dogs' resolution rules a lot, they find Dogs' handling of pacing and escalation compelling.

As far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

In order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

Do you feel like Devil's-advocating your own position? What if the answer to your "every time" question is that you're mistaken about something fundamental?

* Egri & the "Lumpley Principle" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4704.0), with followup here: Backstory vs. Strong Character Creation (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4738.0). If you haven't read these two threads before, please do, especially my posts and Ron's.

-Vincent

Hi Jay!

Quote from: Silmenume on October 08, 2005, 06:16:25 AM
I am an incompetent Narrativist!  ...But what a fascinating examination of the differences between Nar and Sim through contrast!

Last night I met a couple of Forge-ites for the first time and sat down to play DitV.  I have never played a Nar facilitating game and was rather excited (and rather curious) about trying this new "way of playing" that has so many players gushing with such enthusiasm.

[HUGE snip]

But that wasn't the point of the game or game design!  I was Simming – again!  Doh!  I wasn't thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like.  I was deep into the Situation wondering about my Character, what his duties and responsibilities were, what was available to me in the room, do I have the authority to kill under these circumstances, did the man who turned into a some sort of werewolf-like creature have the ability to infect others, etc.?

[Snip of how neat the game really was]

I'm just not cut out for Narrativist play!  Fascinating!!

First, let me express my emerald green envy for your opportunity to play Dogs.

Second, thanks for stepping outside of your comfort zone to try this experiment.

Third, my main point, I think you're being too hard on yourself.  And I think you were trying a little too hard.  That middle part of the quote sure sounds like you thinking about hard decisions to me.  "What are my duties?  What are my resources?  What authority do I have?  What is the scale of the danger?"  Those sure look like factors that would need to be weighed in order to make a life-or-death (in-game) decision.  You seemed to be trying to think from your character's perspective, including what his training would prompt/allow him to do in certain circumstances, but I think you HAVE to do that to some extent, just to follow the Faith.

Your comments on character creation give me the impression that your normal playstyle is pretty much freeform.  I'd love a PM discussion about this.

You seemed to have an agreeable time.  Was it enough fun that you'd try Dogs again?

QuoteThe disconnect that has been going on in this thread is that no one is allowing for the "CA expression" conflict part – i.e., I must be having Techniques issues and not having CA issues.  Why?  Why must I be having such an obvious issue with Techniques that CA issues can be dismissed summarily?  No one has demonstrated why the CA issue is irrelevant or not germane – only dismissals have been offered, not logical arguments.

Nobody has said that it's impossible for a person to have a GNS problem in this case. You're making it seem as if we think that one cannot have a GNS problem between sim and nar priorities. That's not at all what we've said. We're saying that from what you've said that it seem like you, in this particular case, bring up objections that say you're opposed to certain techniques, techniques that are potentially abhorred by players who prefer multiple modes. So there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question. Or, more specifically, that you disliked the mode of play in this particular instance.

The problem largely extends from your defining of simulation by what we believe is a set of techniques. So, you say, "I prefer these techniques, so I must not prefer nar, since the techniques I prefer are sim." Now, you believe that what we call techniques are definitive of sim. So it's not surprising that you see the a rejection of narrativism, where we see a rejection of certain techniques that are not definitive of sim.

It's this assumption that Vincent is talking about above. While we disagree on the definition of sim, our viewpoints on this matter will neccessarily differ.

Gareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA. You can have two narrativism demanding players, one who likes a technique, and one who does not. So the question when somebody likes or dislikes a technique is whether or not what they dislike about it is how it supports a CA, or something else.

Mike

Quote from: Silmenume on October 15, 2005, 05:21:41 AM
Hey Marco,

I finally get to respond to you!

Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2005, 07:40:57 AMI'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion...

Well as "immersion" has been so far undefined, any lengthy discussion about Sim in terms of "immersion" will ultimately be an exercise in futility.  However, despite the warning, I will boldly rush in where angels fear to tread and attempt to make a cogent response. 

• 1.  The difference between adoption and immersion is when one stops relating to the tools available to the Player as tools and starts reacting to them emotionally.
• 2.  As I have stated as recently as my last post – I am not saying nor am I even attempting to imply that one must "immerse" in order to get one's Sim on.
• 3.  I do enjoy play that is deeply emotional, but I am not saying nor am I implying that this "emotionalist preference" is in ANY WAY descriptive or definitional of any Creative Agenda.

All the above being established, I am confused buy your consistent return to the "emotional issue."

Simply put, the reason I'm coming back to the the "emotional issue" is because, as written, if you are emotionally engaged in the play, no matter what you say about addressing social-structures vs. premise, I think you are meeting the textual requirements for Nar play. Even if you don't like Dog's mechanics.

You show Premise, address of premise, and player-connection to premise in your write-ups. It is my take that your disconnect with Dogs was at the level of immersive technique (i.e. that the mechanics made it difficult for you to immerse yourself in the play), not the exploration-as-a-goal vs. address-of-premise-as-a-goal level. The situation you were exploring was loaded with premise and you were ready and willing to take action on it, as far as I can tell.

What it seems to me you had trouble with was your ability to relate to the imaginary world because of how the mechanics were being run (no feedback) and the actor-vs-author-stance issue of having to choose your own fallout. These are, IMO, immersive issues--not Sim/Nar ones.

-Marco

Hi, Vincent,

Regarding your last post, a Nar game may see the use of Jay-approved mechanics but does that mean a Sim game can use "Nar-supporting" mechanics? And just because players who are accustomed to Sim can enjoy the DitV mechanics, that doesn't show that those mechanics are "Sim-supporting". After all, those people are enjoying Nar when they play DitV (presumably).

In other words, Jay's claims are consistent with the proposition that "Some CA-modes of play don't work well with some mechanics".

Hello, Marco,

Even though Jay was "doing Nar", does that mean he couldn't have felt a clash with his Sim-preferring sensibilities?

All,

I'm surprised I'm going to argue this given my general dislike of the Sim-Nar distinction, but take a look at Ron's description of Sim as "confirmation of input via output" (as here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12860.msg137619#msg137619)) and the exchange with Jay in Goals and G/N and S (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15081.0) and I think we can see exactly what Jay is talking about. The argument is that Sim does not work (well) with mechanics that operate on an overt metagame level, as "meaning" on the metagame level (extradiegetic or Affect Space) must derive from "fact" in the SIS(*), not the other way around.

Now, I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this but I think Jay's position is worthy of serious consideration, if for no other reason than to examine how it interacts with the "input/output" concept of Sim.

(* acknowledging that this term, as well as diegesis, is subject to different interpretations among theorists)

Quote from: ewilen on October 20, 2005, 06:20:54 PM
Even though Jay was "doing Nar", does that mean he couldn't have felt a clash with his Sim-preferring sensibilities?

This fits my reading of what Jay said. He was trying to play the game as he understood it, and that was hard to do.

It has been agreed before that trying to change a persons habitual mode of play through minor tweaks or coaxing is unproductive. See Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=9812.0). I think that the mechanics of Dogs were pushy enough that he could avoid reverting to play in his habitual manner, particularly given his intent in playing the game.

If you have an agenda neutral game and try to manage an unfamiliar agenda using it, we consider that sneaking up and unproductive. In the case of the biased rule set of Dogs, the rules caused the player to be pushed out of his comfort level. Can we have a game that pushes a player out of his habitual creative agenda without the mechanics also feeling strange? If the rules stop him from sliding into familiar habits, I'd think that in itself makes it feel awkward.

John

Hey Vincent,

Thanks for taking the time to hunt down and post links those threads.  I read them, and color me stooopid if you will, but I was rather confused reading them, as I was not sure how they related to what I am trying to discuss.  Perhaps your reply below might shed some light on where we are mis-communicating -

Quote from: lumpley on October 20, 2005, 10:36:40 AMIt's easy - trivially easy - for me to imagine a narrativist game whose resolution rules exactly match the resolution rules you use all the time.*

While that may be easy, that was not my question.  My question was - can you imagine a situation where a player's CA sensibilities do clash with the CA being supported by mechanics specifically due to the mechanics being designed to support a different CA?  IOW is it possible that a Gamist player might find DitV mechanics off putting not just because of their form, but because they aren't designed to support the address of Challenge?  That was my intended "Devil's advocate" question.

Quote from: lumpley on October 20, 2005, 10:36:40 AMIt's also easy for me to imagine simulationism-accustomed players who wouldn't find Dogs' resolution rules any kind of stretch - if they were accustomed to "cinematic" resolution rules in their simulationist play.

This should probably be taken to another thread, but I have no idea what is meant by "cinematic" resolution rules.  I'm not sure what a "cinematic" type of conflict is.  My feeling is that is a red herring, thus I think I might break this out to another thread.

Quote from: lumpley on October 20, 2005, 10:36:40 AMAs far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

I'm not sure how a game design could be called "Nar facilitating" if the resolution mechanics facilitate Sim priorities.  Sure, in play the players may drift said mechanics to support Nar, but until then, right out of the box, there will be some degree of incoherence.  By definition Sim facilitating mechanics would not facilitate the address of Premise, yet if said mechanics did support address of Premise then they should be called what they are - Nar facilitating.  I know it sounds like a tautology, but isn't that how mechanics are diagnosed, by what CA they functionally support in play, not what the designer had intended to promote?

Regarding "b)" I think you are probably correct.  I think there are very few Sim gaming group, and even fewer coherent published Sim facilitating game designs out there.

Quote from: lumpley on October 20, 2005, 10:36:40 AMIn order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

Now this is a fascinating conclusion!  I don't follow this at all.  Wow!  Clarifying this just may clear the path to a better mutual understanding.  I don't how see anything that I have said that would lead to your conclusion thus I am very interested in how you came to this point.  It follows that my denial must be equally baffling to you, so if you are willing let us see where the difference lay.

Quote from: lumpley on October 20, 2005, 10:36:40 AMDo you feel like Devil's-advocating your own position? What if the answer to your "every time" question is that you're mistaken about something fundamental?

I don't mind if it will help the discourse.  I agree that if my "every time" is incorrect then it would most certainly be something fundamental.  Actually it is this very "fundamental thing" that I am trying to get at.  Hey, if someone can conclusively prove that I am wrong at a fundamental level I'd be all for it!  My "gripe" was that I feel that no one is willing to discuss things at this fundamental level.  To me, someone taking the time to logically demonstrate why I am in error at this fundamental level would be a wonderful breath of fresh air!  At least its engagement in the topic I am trying to get to the bottom of!  That was the whole point of my original "devil's advocate" proposal in the first place!  If I have to take a position by drawing a line in the sand so that someone will take a poke at my position – then so be it!  Let it be done!  (I should note that I am not trying to be provocative – its just that in order for me to learn more about what I am "studying" I need to stake out positions and try and defend them.)

Hey Aaron,

I appreciate your support!  It was cool meeting other Forge-ites.  It was doubly cool playing a very slick and sophisticated game of a different CA with those who not only were already open to other CA's than myself, but were already familiar with the game!  Overall I did have a good time.  I don't know that I would go out of my way to play DitV again, but if the opportunity came up again I would not turn it down.

Hi Mike,

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMNobody has said that it's impossible for a person to have a GNS problem in this case. You're making it seem as if we think that one cannot have a GNS problem between sim and nar priorities. That's not at all what we've said.

I agree that that is not what has been "said."  But certainly the notion that it is possible for a person to have GNS problems vis-à-vis mechanics has not been addressed or looked into at all.  While no one has said it is strictly impossible to have GNS problems vis-à-vis mechanics, no one has been willing to entertain that subject either.  And THAT is precisely what I do wish to discuss.

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMWe're saying that from what you've said that it seem like you, in this particular case, bring up objections that say you're opposed to certain techniques, techniques that are potentially abhorred by players who prefer multiple modes. So there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question. Or, more specifically, that you disliked the mode of play in this particular instance.

Indeed – as Techniques are an expression of CA and conversely CA expression can be supported or thwarted by Techniques – my position is that my issues lay not with Techniques in and of themselves but rather by the when of the Techniques.  If the game is said to proceed in a serial fashion, and mechanics are the means by which time is introduced into the SIS, then "when" (that is - under what circumstances) the mechanics are hauled out is indicative of what is important and by extension what CA is being investigated/supported.  So I was saying that from a subjective point of view too little time was spent on the things that were interesting/important to my CA and too much time was spent on those things that were not interesting/important to my CA.  Yet I was interested in the Setting, Situation, and my Character.

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMSo there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question.

Obviously we disagree on this point, which is understandable.  However, let me ask you – what evidence would you consider sufficiently solid to demonstrate that it was indeed not the Techniques themselves but the CA they were supporting that was at issue?

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMThe problem largely extends from your defining of simulation by what we believe is a set of techniques.

...and that is the fundamental core of our disagreement.  Bricolage is not a "technique."  There is no "bricolage" mechanic anymore than there is a "Narrativist" or "Gamist" mechanic.  Bricolage is a CA level process/aesthetic that is expressed using Techniques – but is in itself not a Technique level object.

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMSo, you say, "I prefer these techniques...

I refer to the CA said Techniques are supporting or hindering the expression thereof.

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMSo it's not surprising that you see the a rejection of narrativism, where we see a rejection of certain techniques that are not definitive of sim.

Again I fully agree with you that our contention does lie right here – all warty and ugly looking!

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMGareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA.

Conversely a person can dislike a technique in a way that has everything to do with whether or not it supports CA.

Hey Marco,

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PMSimply put, the reason I'm coming back to the the "emotional issue" is because, as written, if you are emotionally engaged in the play, no matter what you say about addressing social-structures vs. premise, I think you are meeting the textual requirements for Nar play.

Actually – no.  You are basically arguing that if the conflict is emotionally engaging then its Premise, which is total BS.  A Premise Question is a compelling question about the human condition that "demands" an address through play.  To Gamist player fighting for his "life" I promise you that he is very emotionally involved in the Challenge at hand.  This is a topic that we have gone round and round and round on many times.  I respectfully request that it not be a part of this thread please.  If you think the topic important please take it to another thread.

Contracycle – you have summed up my position and efforts very succinctly.  Right on!

Elliot – spot on, mate!

John – well spoken.

Thank you everyone for your time!

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 20, 2005, 01:58:49 PM
Gareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA. You can have two narrativism demanding players, one who likes a technique, and one who does not. So the question when somebody likes or dislikes a technique is whether or not what they dislike about it is how it supports a CA, or something else.

I'm afraid thats irrelevant to this point.  I feel you guys are hugely, massively, over-reading what Jay is saying and imposing meanings upon his words that are no there.

No given single technique, in isolation, can be construed as having or being facilitative of a CA.  But a game as a collection of inter-related techniques,, mutually supporting and feeding into one another,  So if you encounter a game, in which the designer has specifically selected techniques to support a certain CA, one that you do not share, surely you would be aware of this?  You would look at the game and say "I don't like it".  What GNS allows you to do is then say something constructive: "I don't like it BECAUSE it supports a different CA".

Quote from: lumpley on October 20, 2005, 10:36:40 AM
As far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

In order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

I can't see how either of these make any sense at all.  It seems to me that your argument is that the CA of the player, and the CA which the game sets out to support, don't matter at all.  That is to say, that system doesn't matter, and any player can play with any system at all regardless of concerns about CA.  I don't see anything to suggest that Egri or Ron might be wrong, or that their positions clash with Jay's.

Gareth, are you reading the posts between me and Jay? We've discovered the bone of contention here. Yes a person can say that they don't like a technique because it supports a particular CA, but to be correct, the technique does have to support that CA. Basically we're arguing that what he cites as distasteful as a result of CA is some sub-modal thing. Actually he is correct to say that it's a problem with CA, just not that it's a problem between narrativism and simulationism. Which are not the only identifiers of a CA.

I wish I could create a Venn diagram. But essentially Vincent and I see the objected to techniques as straddling the sim nar line, and Jay sees them as distinctly unsupportive of sim. The problem is where we draw the line as to what sim is, essentially. Until we have agreement on that, the disagreement here is insoluble. Everyone is right about everything else but that one point.

Mike

Quote from: Silmenume on October 21, 2005, 04:05:04 AM
I'm not sure how a game design could be called "Nar facilitating" if the resolution mechanics facilitate Sim priorities.

That's exactly the problem: you think that resolution mechanics can facilitate Sim priorities.

Resolution mechanics, yet!

Take any mechanical component of a game's ruleset - its resolution, its reward, its character creation, its situation creation, its scene framing, its narration, its world building, any component. All by itself, that component cannot - cannot possibly - facilitate any CA. Of the ones I listed, reward and situation creation mechanics have the most CA-relevant power - resolution among the least - but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

This is really, really obvious if you understand what it means to address a premise.

-Vincent

Jay, please consider this old post of mine too, with an open mind: Re: Subtyping Sim (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=11317.msg120823#msg120823).

-Vincent

QuoteThis should probably be taken to another thread, but I have no idea what is meant by "cinematic" resolution rules.  I'm not sure what a "cinematic" type of conflict is.  My feeling is that is a red herring, thus I think I might break this out to another thread.

It's a small enough definition that it doesn't need its own thread.  Cinematic resolution generally refers to rules that favor pacing over accuracy.  Usually, cinematic and realistic rules are considered opposites.  That's a major simplification though, because cinematic and realistic are fuzzy terms.  For example:  Feng Shui is a cinematic game and GURPS is not; ammunition rules that ask you to roll every fews rounds to see if you run out of ammo are cinematic, and rules that make you count bullets are not.

*****

Jay,

In your original post most problems with the system seem to be either causality related or issues with meta-game interference (pulling out of character to resolve a conflict, etc).  I can't speak for Vincent, Mike, or anyone else, but why I wouldn't label such play Sim is because neither causality nor avoidance of meta-game indicate Sim to me (assuming for the moment I believe in Sim).  These are Techniques found equally often in both Nar and Gam and don't in and of themselves indicate Sim.  A combination of Techniques that expose more behavior is needed.  I did notice some tactical thinking that indicated Gam to me, but we've rejected that categorization, which is perfectly fine.  That doesn't quite resolve the issue of Nar versus Sim though.  I wouldn't reject Marco's position outright, because he's basically asking if you were addressing Premise.  He's just wording theme in terms of identification with character and revealing character, instead of wording theme in terms of a moral or ethical question.

I don't know if that clears anything up or just muddies the waters more, but that's what I see as the heart of the disagreement.

Hey Mike,

Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 21, 2005, 12:43:35 PMBut essentially Vincent and I see the objected to techniques as straddling the sim nar line, and Jay sees them as distinctly unsupportive of sim. The problem is where we draw the line as to what sim is, essentially. Until we have agreement on that, the disagreement here is insoluble.

Nice summary.

I should note that while you and I have (finally!!) identified where we disagree, contracycle's response to Vincent is still valid –

Quote from: contracycle on October 21, 2005, 04:33:11 AMI don't see anything to suggest that Egri or Ron might be wrong, or that their positions clash with Jay's.

However, as we (Mike and I) have come to an understanding about our mutual positions, I am too exhausted to refute Vincent's assertion.  Vincent, suffice it to say, on my behalf, that I was not making an effort to discuss the "nature of a Premise" nor Ron's "definition of Narrativism."  I'm sure we'll come across this again in the future...

Quote from: lumpley on October 21, 2005, 02:33:52 PMThat's exactly the problem: you think that resolution Mechanics can facilitate Sim priorities.

Resolution Mechanics, yet!

Absolutely.  Very much so.  Or I should say that Nar and Gam facilitating resolution Mechanics can thwart Sim expression while Sim facilitating resolution Mechanics should by their nature mostly stay out of the way of the decision making of the players.  Sort of, "seen but not felt."

Quote from: lumpley on October 21, 2005, 02:33:52 PMTake any mechanical component of a game's ruleset - its resolution, its reward, its Character creation, its Situation creation, its scene framing, its narration, its world building, any component. All by itself, that component cannot - cannot possibly - facilitate any CA. Of the ones I listed, reward and Situation creation Mechanics have the most CA-relevant power - resolution among the least - but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

This is a discussion I will take up in another thread.  As a quick example –

"Of the ones I listed, reward and Situation creation Mechanics have the most CA-relevant power..."

Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

Quote from: lumpley on October 21, 2005, 02:33:52 PM...but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

Again, as there is no ontological reason for the validity of this assumption, this is another assumption that I will deal with in a future thread.

Quote from: lumpley on October 21, 2005, 03:00:17 PMJay, please consider this old post of mine too, with an open mind: Re: Subtyping Sim (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=11317.msg120823#msg120823).

I did go back and read it, and found nothing in there that contradicted my contention.

Quote from: lumpley on May 22, 2004, 10:56:42 AMLike say I want a Narrativist game that's like anime: I have to choose rules that both support collaborative Premise-addressal and are like anime.

My beef was that the "rules" did not support the Sim bricolage process not that they didn't support "western religious culture" or weren't "realistic."

Jason!

You again!!  You're everywhere!!!  ;oP

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 21, 2005, 11:11:08 PMI can't speak for Vincent, Mike, or anyone else, but why I wouldn't label such play Sim is because neither causality nor avoidance of meta-game indicate Sim to me (assuming for the moment I believe in Sim).

Meta-game Mechanics do interfere with or at least contradict the bricolage process – as it were.

Quote from: Jason Lee on October 21, 2005, 11:11:08 PMThat doesn't quite resolve the issue of Nar versus Sim though.  I wouldn't reject Marco's position outright, because he's basically asking if you were addressing Premise.  He's just wording theme in terms of identification with Character and revealing Character, instead of wording theme in terms of a moral or ethical question.

I disagree.  As I have read him over the years, he's basically claiming if the Player is invested in Situation – then it's Premise(y) – which I reject categorically.  That he is not wording theme (or Premise) in terms of a moral or ethical question is a major problem.  All modes of play can result in Players being deeply, emotionally committed to the Situation at hand – he consistently argues otherwise.  He wasn't asking me if I was addressing Premise as per the Narrativist essay, rather he was just asking whether I, as Player, had emotional stakes in the Situation – with the implication that such an investments means that I am addressing Premise.  I don't buy that.

PS - thanks for the "definition" of cinematic.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.

Quote from: Silmenume on October 22, 2005, 12:37:39 AMJason!

You again!!  You're everywhere!!!  ;oP

Hehe.  I do that.  Like a ninja.  I can even turn into a log... or so my wife says.

QuoteMeta-game Mechanics do interfere with or at least contradict the bricolage process – as it were.

Okiee.  If you don't mind I think I'll leave this alone, as I don't agree with that or Sim as bricolage, so that's kind of a big topic.

QuoteI disagree.  As I have read him over the years, he's basically claiming if the Player is invested in Situation – then it's Premise(y) – which I reject categorically.  That he is not wording theme (or Premise) in terms of a moral or ethical question is a major problem.  All modes of play can result in Players being deeply, emotionally committed to the Situation at hand – he consistently argues otherwise.  He wasn't asking me if I was addressing Premise as per the Narrativist essay, rather he was just asking whether I, as Player, had emotional stakes in the Situation – with the implication that such an investments means that I am addressing Premise.  I don't buy that.

I'm not speaking for Marco, but seeing as I agree with him I might as well toss out my views.  This way of describing Nar harkens back to The Beeg Horseshoe II swarm of threads, possibly earlier, but that's my big memory of it being "formalized".  Basically, yes, any Creative Agenda can involve emotional engagement with the Situation.  The key detail is that when that engagement is with the emotions expressed in the Situation (as opposed to the resources or other tactical elements) you have engagement in theme, and engagement in theme means address of Premise occurred.  This line of logic calls the possibility of immersive Sim play into question, hence the talk of emotional detachment in Sim play, which leads right into MJ's discovery definition of Sim and why it's so logically stable.  In a way (possibly not directly), Marco is working from the discovery definition of Sim while you are working from a different definition, so you have a clash.

Quote from: Silmenume on October 22, 2005, 12:37:39 AM
Absolutely.  Very much so.  Or I should say that Nar and Gam facilitating resolution Mechanics can thwart Sim expression while Sim facilitating resolution Mechanics should by their nature mostly stay out of the way of the decision making of the players.  Sort of, "seen but not felt."

[snip]
Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

I think this is the Immersive-Play = Simulationism argument again. If you define simulation to be only actor-stance play on the part of the players (a moderate simplification of what I think you are suggesting--but still) then you have huge swaths of play not covered by GNS.

For example, a person playing a game that makes players mechanically creates situations wherein the player is not using this rule to step-on-up/compete or to address premise (but, perhaps, to introduce genre elements into the story of the game) is, definitionally playing Sim.

Those mechanics can be all kinds of "in the way" too (of the experential aspect on the part of the player). It doesn't change the definitonal description of their play under the model.

-Marco

Jay, rather than raising issues with me in future threads, please consider asking me honest questions. I'll respond better to that.

I'm pretty much out of patience for this discussion, and it's left your Dogs in the Vineyard play pretty far behind, so this is going to be my closing point here:

Quote from: Silmenume on October 22, 2005, 12:37:39 AM
Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

Dude, you create situation somehow. Even in simulationist play.

-Vincent

Hello,

Thread's closed now, folks.

Best,
Ron