The Forge Archives

Here's an attempt to break apart and clarify this newfangled "fidelity" word.

Characters, Settings, Systems, and probably the other two have integrity.  Integrity is something you either uphold or compromise in play.  If you don't make your character do something she wouldn't, you've upheld her integrity as a character; if you have something happen in your game world that wouldn't happen in your game world, you've compromised its integrity; like that.

(Each has its own integrity because sometimes they're incompatible, as you can probably see.  Sometimes you have to choose whether to sacrifice character integrity to uphold system integrity, for instance; examples are easy to come up with.)

Anyhow taken together, they have fidelity to some referent, as Emily Care says (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=69823#69823).

You can compromise integrity to uphold fidelity, and vice versa.  Like in the proverbial Star Wars game: "Dude a Jedi wouldn't do that." "Yeah but my Jedi character would."  If the former prevails, you've compromised character integrity for the sake of fidelity to Star Wars, and if the latter does, you've compromised fidelity to Star Wars for the sake of character integrity.

Thus they're two different, sometimes compatible sometimes incompatible concerns.  I think they oughta be separated for discussion.

-Vincent

Hey Vincent,

So basically you're saying that Fidelity is made up of various levels of integrity among the elements of Exploration? The realm of integrity would be where compatibility issues amongst players arise on the Fidelity axis? Sounds good so far.

Quote from: lumpleyYou can compromise integrity to uphold fidelity, and vice versa. Like in the proverbial Star Wars game: "Dude a Jedi wouldn't do that." "Yeah but my Jedi character would." If the former prevails, you've compromised character integrity for the sake of fidelity to Star Wars, and if the latter does, you've compromised fidelity to Star Wars for the sake of character integrity.

Wouldn't that be compromising character integrity for the sake of setting integrity and vice versa? The heirarchy of the the elements, which element takes precedence in an integrity conflict, would form the overall Fidelity matrix. This is where Sim play incompatibilities stem from. One person may be assigning higher importance to character integrity instead of setting integrity, or whatever.

My problem with Emily's statement is that what the the referent should be is unclear to me. That is in this statement,

Quote from: Emily CareI'd say that fidelity in a system may be expressed through the 5 elements of exploration.

I have no idea what she means by 'system' with a little 's'. Is the referent similar to the 'genre' in the sense of a mixture of setting (that galaxy far, far, away) and the dramatic elements (the Star Wars movie feel) associated with that setting?

-Chris

Quote from: lumpleyCharacters, Settings, Systems, and probably the other two have integrity.  Integrity is something you either uphold or compromise in play.  If you don't make your character do something she wouldn't, you've upheld her integrity as a character; if you have something happen in your game world that wouldn't happen in your game world, you've compromised its integrity; like that.  

I would be wary of this, because I think that consciously being false to character is pretty rare.  More often, you have people who simply make a mental model of their character loose enough that it can encompass many possible results.  They then choose the result which works best with the story.  I don't think it is fair to say that this is "compromising integrity" per se, because you haven't violated anything that was previously defined.  

At the most extreme, this can be someone whose only handle on character is what has been demonstrated in play.  For example, when asked "What is your family like?"  The player hadn't previously decided what the PCs family is.  So she then decides to make up an answer which works well with the story.  Again, this is not being false to character.  Once established in-play, that is inviolable for continuity.  However, if the player comes up with a good reason why the PC might have lied about his family, then later on they might find out that the PCs real family is different.  

The opposite to this is someone who prioritizes making a very strong mental model of the character, such that asking "What would your character do?" always has a definite answer.  This is usually where I am as a player: I am strongly Design-At-Start, and tend to hold to character over meta-game concerns.

Quote from: lumpleyYou can compromise integrity to uphold fidelity, and vice versa.  Like in the proverbial Star Wars game: "Dude a Jedi wouldn't do that." "Yeah but my Jedi character would."  If the former prevails, you've compromised character integrity for the sake of fidelity to Star Wars, and if the latter does, you've compromised fidelity to Star Wars for the sake of character integrity.

Hmmm...I'm not seeing the distinction either.  Fidelity and Integrity seem like different words for the same concept.  Each obviously brings its own connotations into the idea, but as far as the square horseshoe model is concerned I think it's the same.  It seems the same (as Chris pointed out) to say:

Quote from: Iyou've compromised character integrity for the sake of color integrity, and if the latter does, you've compromised color integrity for the sake of character integrity.

If you mean something like:

Fidelity = Total Exploration Faithfulness
Integrity = Individual Exploration Element Faithfulnes

...I'm not sure we need that distinction.  Fidelity would be too wishy-washy  (that's a technical term, btw) because the integrity of the individual elements that comprise it would be undefined.  The Integrity of the individual elements seems like the important factor, because Fidelity could conflict with itself (as per your Star Wars example) - which would be defined by the Exploration priority.  If we say Hi-Fi|Theme|Char that pretty much conveys what the most relevant element is on the Fidelity axis.

...Or, maybe, I've entirely missed the point.

Quote from: Chris, youWouldn't that ["Dude a Jedi wouldn't do that." "Yeah but my Jedi character would."] be compromising character integrity for the sake of setting integrity and vice versa? The heirarchy of the the elements, which element takes precedence in an integrity conflict, would form the overall Fidelity matrix. This is where Sim play incompatibilities stem from. One person may be assigning higher importance to character integrity instead of setting integrity, or whatever.

That definitely happens.

But I do actually mean something different by fidelity.  Your setting might keep its integrity even as it moves away from fidelity to its referent.

I'll see if I can come up with an example.  Say, um.  Say we're playing A New Hope.  The PCs are rebel spies who've infiltrated the Death Star.  They're there at the same time as Luke and the rest, there's this cool scene where they divert a bunch of stormtroopers so Luke and the rest can make it back to the Millenium Falcon, they watch the Millenium Falcon fly away, and then they go back to their mission which is to plant an experimental homing device in the Death Star's exhaust system.  It turns out later that several x- and y-wings are equipped with experimental-homing-device-seeking photon torpedos, most notably Luke's, and that's why Luke's torpedos went in, nothing to do with the Force at all.

The setting's fine, as far as its integrity goes: nowhere did we violate its cause and effect, nobody ever did anything that couldn't have happened.  But by the end, it's not really Star Wars, is it?  Star Wars has this integral Force trumps technology thing, and if our game reverses it we're not being faithful.

Make sense?  GURPS superheroes is another example: what would happen if there really were superpowers? has its own integrity, but its fidelity is split between the reality source material and the superhero comic source material.  (It's a bigamist!  Haw!)

Quote from: John, youI would be wary of this, because I think that consciously being false to character is pretty rare. More often, you have people who simply make a mental model of their character loose enough that it can encompass many possible results. They then choose the result which works best with the story. I don't think it is fair to say that this is "compromising integrity" per se, because you haven't violated anything that was previously defined.

I agree.  Compromising character integrity is hard, and it sucks, and nobody likes to do it, that's my experience.  When character integrity comes into conflict with another concern, character integrity usually wins.

Most conflicts over character integrity are your character integrity vs. my setting or system integrity or whatever concern.  But that's another topic, I think.  What's your take on integrity vs. fidelity as separate concerns?

-Vincent

This should help. Fidelity is not adhering to anything, so much as the attempt to adhere. This is really important. Both of the examples are Fidelity based because they both have that attempt.

Now, they'll fall low on some player's plots, true. But that indicates that the players are miscommunicating about the Exploration, the "what is this game about". This is where incoherence in Fidelity slips in from design. The players either agree that the game is about making individuals, or about making "Jedi" by some canon, or they aren't going to agree when something has Fidelity or not.

So for the player making the deccision, there is almost always some rationale of Fidelity (It's what my character would do, is an example). But it's precisely that other players percieve the character's action as being lower because of a misunderstanding of what is to be explored, that the problem occurs.

Mike

Hey Mike,

Just to make sure I understand, a player attempting to adhere to his own personal vision of Fidelity (some arrangement of importance for the 5 elements of Exploration, I like calling it the Fidelity matrix because it sounds cool) at a decision point is most likely registering on the upper end of the Fidelity axis regardless of if the other players perceive his attempt as incompatible with their own vision of Fidelity?

-Chris

Quote from: lumpley

Quote from: John, youI think that consciously being false to character is pretty rare. More often, you have people who simply make a mental model of their character loose enough that it can encompass many possible results. They then choose the result which works best with the story. I don't think it is fair to say that this is "compromising integrity" per se, because you haven't violated anything that was previously defined.  

I agree.  Compromising character integrity is hard, and it sucks, and nobody likes to do it, that's my experience.  When character integrity comes into conflict with another concern, character integrity usually wins.

Most conflicts over character integrity are your character integrity vs. my setting or system integrity or whatever concern.  But that's another topic, I think.  What's your take on integrity vs. fidelity as separate concerns?  

I agree that there is a distinction you seem to be making -- but I think the labels are a bit obscure.  I would describe (1) as "integrity to world" or perhaps "integrity to simulation".  That is, the player or GM has a pre-existing mental model for what an in-game element should be.  They then want to remain true to that.  I would describe (2) as "fidelity to source material" or "fidelity to genre".  The latter are what I would call genre story conventions ( from my Genre in RPGs essay at http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/theory/genre/definition.html )

The problem of clashing integrity seems like what I call "assumption clash".  i.e. A player has a character who is a Teutonic knight, while the GM has other Teutonic knights as NPCs.  They are likely to have subtlely different (or even not-so-subtlely) pictures of what the background is -- i.e. history, vows, codes of behavior, social structure, etc.  If one of these differences becomes important to the game, you have "assumption clash".

First, just as a commentary on the words, "integrity" to me seems passive and "fidelity" active. Integrity is something that is had, a quality possessed; fidelity something gained, a quality sought or acquired.

In Multiverser's design, we put a lot of thought into something we called "integrity". The entire bias system is, at its foundation, a balancing act between the priorities of integrity between different elements. If you drop a character who is a wizard into a setting which is science fiction, you've got a conflict of integrity--the wizard "expects" quite reasonably that he can use his magic to his advantage here; the indigs in that world similarly quite reasonably "expect" that there's no such thing as magic. Bias says that both sets of expectations are limited by each other, such that the wizard can do some magic in this world, but is severely limited by the world itself and can't really overrun the world with his power.

Now, is that what Vincent is after with Integrity, this idea that character must have internal consistency with itself that is expressed within the context of the game, and the world must also have internal consistency with itself so expressed?

Then what is fidelity? From Mike's description, it sounds like it's the effort on the part of those involved in the game to maintain the integrity of each element, to in essence do the balancing act Multiverser gives to bias, only in more subtle methods and situations.

I'll wait for response.

--M. J. Young

That makes sense MJ.

Chris, different people may register a particular decision differently. If a player makes a character decision that adheres to his view of the character, to him it has Fidelity. But if that character decision seems to be problematic with, say, certain setting requirments, then others might see that same decision as having less Fidelity, assuming that they feel that this was supposed to be prioritized.

These are always subjective calls. The problem occurs when there's no clear agreement on what play is "about" (five elements). This causes players to disagree on whether a particular decision has Fidelity. It's precisely this dichotomy that causes a large part of Fidelity Incoherency in play. That is, when players all agree that a certain level of Fidelity is sought, then problems occur when a player isn't seen to be adhering to what the other individuals see as the Explorative priority of the game.

Let's call that Fidelity Incoherence B. Fidelity Incoherence A simply being the case where decisions diverge because there has been no agreement before play on what the minimum level of Fidelity is.

Recap:
Fidelity Incoherence A: player makes a decision that's seen by another player as impropper because it does not have the level of Fidelty that he feels was agreed to.
Fidelity Incoherence B: player makes a decision that's seen by another as impropper because of an unforseen disagreement about what the game intends to explore.


Note that I want to get back to a very important concept that seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle. To some extent, Fidelity has to do with making decisions seem like they're not "out of game". That's why No Myth has limited support for some people. Fidelity is not just that Internal Consistency that provides a common minimum for most play. It has to go beyond that. I haven't decided if there are other methods to go higher fidelity, but the one that seems to be important is to stay in-game. That is, higher fidelity requires that a player make decisions as though the character were a real entity in a real world, and based on that world's logic. He can put his own metagame agendas into it (and indeed must), but the decision has to at least seem to be one that's internal to the world.

This is the hardest part of Fidelity to describe, but the most important. There must be something happening beyond that least common denominator. Without it, all play could be described as striving for High Fidelity (and since that sounds right, that's why I've said that Fidelity could be a misleading term). All play has Fidelity, only certain play is High Fidelity for purposes of the discussion.

Do people get the point I'm making?

Mike

Hi Mike,

Is there any merit in distinguishing between "active" and "passive" fidelity? A player in a standard dungeon crawl, for instance, doesn't have any choice about fidelity to setting. It's not as if he can decide that a wall isn't there. Whereas a Donjon player with narration rights might be expected to decide whether or not a wall exists, but can exhibit fidelity by introducing a scurrying rat instead of a pink Energizer bunny into the scene. Both are exploring setting, both are exhibiting fidelity to setting, but in the latter case it's an active decision while in the former it's the passive (and mandatory) acceptance of externally imposed information. In the classic dunegon crawl case, can we really say that fidelity to setting is a metagame player priority, when the player isn't empowered to make any decisions about it (beyond the initial choice of what game to play in)?

This appears to be a case (and point to many many analogous cases) where exploration of an element as a metagame player priority does not translate into fidelity of that element as an (active right-now) metagame player priority.

Let me toss one more tear gas grenade into this Tora Bora of a topic: Fidelity and interactivity (real decision-making power, or in GNS terms, authorship) are fundamentally incompatible. That's because meaningful decision-making power must include the power to make decisions that break Fidelity. (If someone else can overrule the decision on Fidelity grounds, or even if your own commitment to Fidelity is so complete that you would never decide otherwise, then you didn't really have real decision-making power to begin with.) This is the crux of the Interactive Storytelling Problem. In fact, it's a problem whose mythic roots belong to a certain fruit tree in the Garden of Eden.

- Walt

Let's skip the words for a minute.  I want it to be clear that I see two utterly separate, independent concerns.

I own, I'll confess, the Chaosium Elfquest RPG.

If you'd never read Elfquest, you might look at the game and think it's just fine.  You can make characters and they aren't like broken or anything, it's set in the land of two moons with flora and fauna intact, you can have your characters run around and do things and there isn't anything really wrong with the mechanics.  You could successfully play the game, and if you were a Chaosium-friendly Simulationist you might even dig it.

But it ain't Elfquest.  It's Chaosium RPG in Elfquest-land.  If you were a different kind of Simulationist -- the genre sim kind, trying to recreate Elfquest -- you'd hate it with a fearsome hate.

It's the first question you ask about the Buffy game.  "Sure it may be a perfectly good game, but is it Buffy?"

So, two concerns. They're both Exploratory concerns.  First is, does the cause and effect of character, setting, situation, color, system break down internally?  As M. J. said: "character must have internal consistency with itself that is expressed within the context of the game, and the world must also have internal consistency with itself so expressed."  Second is, internal consistency aside, does the game match its source material?

Both internal consistency and fidelity to source material are desirable, but you can trade them off independently with other metagame priorities.

"Here's a chance to make a Nar decision!  I'll take it even though it messes up the game's Elfquest-ness, because it doesn't mess up my guy's internal character consistency!"

or

"Dude!  I know you like to make Gamist decisions, and I don't care if it's what your character woulda done or not, but try not to screw up the Star Wars-ness like that!"

So names aside, are we agreed that there are two separate concerns?

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpleyLet's skip the words for a minute.  I want it to be clear that I see two utterly separate, independent concerns.
...
So, two concerns. They're both Exploratory concerns.  First is, does the cause and effect of character, setting, situation, color, system break down internally?  As M. J. said: "character must have internal consistency with itself that is expressed within the context of the game, and the world must also have internal consistency with itself so expressed."  Second is, internal consistency aside, does the game match its source material?

Both internal consistency and fidelity to source material are desirable, but you can trade them off independently with other metagame priorities.

I'd certainly agree with the distinction.  I think a more precise way of phrasing the latter is: "Does the game produce play which is similar to the source material (i.e. in theme, story conventions, pacing, etc.)?"  The former ("internal consistency") is matching the source material in one sense, while the latter ("fidelity to genre/story") is matching the source material in another sense.  

However, I don't agree that they are always desireable.  I think original series Star Trek provides some hopefully-familiar example.  There are a lot of ways one can approach this as a game.
1) A certain type of Star Trek fan would approach this by compiling notes on all of the episodes.  He then carefully constructs a detailed background which matches up with this.  This is not necessarily desireable, though.  Some people would throw up their hands at this and say "Oh, who cares what the rank structure of Star Fleet is for god's sake?!?"  This is high on internal consistency.

2) Another type of fan would try to emulate the campiness of the original.  He runs a game where almost any details are up for grabs.  For example, a player might whip out a technobabble solution ("Let's reverse the polarity of the tractor beams") at any time.  As long as there are sexy alien women, rousing fist-fights, and pompous speeches -- he figures he is doing well.  However, someone who wants to play a detailed character might find this offputting (i.e. "What's my rank?").  This is high on fidelity to genre/story.  

3) Yet someone else might decide to try an interesting reversal on #2.  He decides to run a cinematic TV show about the adventures of a Klingon battlecruiser ("Battlecruiser Vengeance!").  He approaches this much as in #2: there are regularly sexy slave girls, and violent-but-epic fights, and so forth.  This is low on internal-consistency, and also low on fidelity to source material.  However, it also could be a cool campaign IMO.

My Star Trek campaigns had a little of all three of these.  I was pretty obsessive about the details, and I certainly violated trueness to the spirit of the stories in some cases.  For example, I had explicit internal Federation politics -- and had that the Prime Directive was a political expedient first, and not universally agreed on as a moral imperative.  This often clashed with the spirit of the stories.

Walt, I see your point, but I don't buy it. To reduce your comments to their essence (I trust this does not misrepresent them),

Quote from: Walt FreitagA player in a standard dungeon crawl, for instance, doesn't have any choice about fidelity to setting. It's not as if he can decide that a wall isn't there....Fidelity and interactivity (real decision-making power, or in GNS terms, authorship) are fundamentally incompatible. That's because meaningful decision-making power must include the power to make decisions that break Fidelity.

I don't see it.

Tackling the second thing first, I might decide to go to the store this afternoon. There is a story close enough to walk--about a mile or so, I wouldn't want to carry groceries, but I could walk there. We've got a couple bicycles, so I could go by bike. There are two working vehicles in the drive, and I've got keys and a valid license, so I could drive. Dick Rutan has designed personal aircraft that can take off and land in parking lots, so I could fly one of those, or if I were Superman I could fly there without such assistance. The fact is that I can't fly there; I don't have a Dick Rutan homemade aircraft or any other flying machine, and I've never actually seen anyone levitate (thus find myself doubting the possibility in reality as I've experienced it). That doesn't mean I don't have meaningful decision-making power in my life. It only means that I can't break the integrity of this world by flying to the store.

As to your dungeon crawlers, Joe could suddenly say, "My character Jim is so pleased and excited that he turns and gives Bob's character Bill a big sloppy wet kiss right on the lips," at which point Bob, if he's anything like the Bob with whom we played, is likely to get up and leave the building. To Bob, that would be breaking the integrity of the characters--they're not like that, in his mind, and he neither expects nor wishes to go there. Joe has, from Bob's viewpoint, failed to maintain fidelity to the dungeon crawl they've agreed to play. He didn't have to make walls vanish to do that; he just had to make a decision which the other players thought was outside the parameters of the game.

Now, in some games someone other than Joe might have the power to say, "Jim didn't do that" (probably the referee, possibly the group); in other games they'd have to persuade Joe to withdraw the move, and in still other games it would stand as having been done despite the violation of the expectations of the other players. But if the move is withdrawn, it's because of a challenge to its fidelity, and if it isn't it's still a violation of the integrity of the world, or at least of the other characters (unless of course Bob counters by saying Bill immediately runs Jim through with his sword).

Vincent, I agree that there is a distinction between fidelity to the integrity of the world itself and fidelity to the source materials; in a sense, this is perhaps more a game design matter (not a bad thing). Does the game try to achieve fidelity to any source material, and if it does how successful is it in doing so? That's not the same thing as conflicts between players, although it can inspire such concepts if one thinks the group should be playing the game as written and another thinks they should be emulating the source material.

Since I have never played a game based on a licensed product, I'm not sure how that usually works; I have created Multiverser worlds based on books and movies, but generally I'm trying to achieve the feel and flavor of the original in the conversion, and as it's my work I'm the last person to be able to say how well I do that.

--M. J. Young

Hi M. J.,

You might have perceived more connection between the different points of my last post than I intended to convey. (Not that I'm saying your perceptions are wrong.)

The dungeon crawlers example was supposed to be a specific example of a special case. It applies only to players (not the GM, though I wasn't clear on that) and only to fidelity to setting. I certainly didn't mean that the players had no choice about fidelity to character or other elements, nor did I mean that the GM had no choice about fidelity to setting. The question is, the players (specifically, not the GM) are exploring both character and setting, and for the first they have the opportunity to break fidelity (as in your Joe and Bob example) and for the second they don't. Does this mean there's a difference in how we evaluate their metagame priorities with regard to fidelity of setting vs. fidelity of character? I think there is, which might relate to the last paragraph below.

Regarding your example of fidelity in real-world choices, in one of my first discussions here (about the Impossible Thing), I asked whether giving players decision-making authority over their characters equivalent to the decision-making powers of a free-willed real person in the real world was sufficient to establish player authorship of character. I was assured, by many voices and with great certainty, that it was not. Having been persuaded to that view, I have to argue that your real-world example demonstrates that real world free will falls short of authorship of one's own self. On the flip side, authorship can't have the expressive power it does without also having the transgressive power to break expectations, whether those are expectations of who does and doesn't own a Rutan prototype or expectations of "that's not like Jim."

However, you're correct that decision-making power to break expectations doesn't have to be absolute and unbounded to be meaningful. Only that it's not meaningful decision-making power if it can never break expectations.

I believe that a creative agenda is only fully in play when it is in jeopardy. If you can't lose (or at least perform poorly against) a challenge, then it's not really a challenge. If you don't have the authorial power to totally screw up a Premise, you don't have the authorial power to address that Premise. If you don't have the ability to break Fidelity, then how can play be "all about" Fidelity as we expect Simulationist play to be?

- Walt

Hi Walt,

Quote from: Walt FreitagFidelity and interactivity (real decision-making power, or in GNS terms, authorship) are fundamentally incompatible.

Ah, but then so to is game design in general.  No mechanic or system is necessarily going to enforce or encourage fidelity or consistency with anything else.  Putting the decision into the players hands simply makes more opportunities for play to run counter to--or support--fidelity. So the degree of verisimilitude may arise out of individually negotiated enactments of the social contract, instead of one blanket agreement made at the start of play.  Perhaps the increased likelihood of inconsistency you are looking at may be the result of the anarchy of the situation: if everyone can choose, there is less certainty that all efforts will mesh.  However, going back to the band metaphor, what is needed at all times is for all parties to be commited to the central vision.  Allowing more individual input puts the responsibility and the power in all hands to find options that harmonize.

Quote from: And, Mike, youAll play has Fidelity, only certain play is High Fidelity for purposes of the discussion.

Mike, in your discussion of High Fidelity in this thread, you focus on the internal consistency of the characters to game world etc. Are you also implying that high fidelity refers to a commonly understood source material (ie reality, pulp detective fiction, star wars)?  What it sounds like you are describing as the highest level of consistency is:
fidelity to referent + integrity with in-game elements.

The point Vincent originally made was that internal consistency of any given element (it's integrity) is independent to emulating, simulating, mimicking, re-enacting, re-creating, imitating or any other way of being faithful to one's impression of another story or real world period or some other aspect of the world.  You may start off with fidelity to star wars being the primary goal, then move off in a different direction.  Think of Cerebus: sure it started out as a Conan rip-off, and look where it went.  

So, in these cases, the referent for the fidelity stops being something external--there may be vestiges left, or even whole areas where simulation is very important (physics, technology, etc)--but the Vision and goal of the creative agenda become something else that is the outcome of play.

So, if I'm reading your posts right, Mike, the epitome of simulationism is when the attempt to be faithful to some text  is expressed through the system and play in such a way that the campaign itself becomes the referent, as a successful enactment of the genre (or whatever) in question.

--EC

Quote from: Walt FreitagI asked whether giving players decision-making authority over their characters equivalent to the decision-making powers of a free-willed real person in the real world was sufficient to establish player authorship of character. I was assured, by many voices and with great certainty, that it was not.
...
I believe that a creative agenda is only fully in play when it is in jeopardy. If you can't lose (or at least perform poorly against) a challenge, then it's not really a challenge. If you don't have the authorial power to totally screw up a Premise, you don't have the authorial power to address that Premise. If you don't have the ability to break Fidelity, then how can play be "all about" Fidelity as we expect Simulationist play to be?  

OK, but doesn't the player assuredly have the ability to screw up a Premise?  Almost regardless of what system you use, if I and a bunch of drunk friends come to play in a game you GM -- it seems to me a sure thing that by actively trying, we can screw up any Premise you try to address.  (Not that I would really do that, mind you. :-) ) Just for starters, we can for an hour always reply with "My character closes his eyes and does nothing."  After that, we can start to creatively take actions to actively screw up the Premise.  

This seems inherent in Ron's "Impossible Thing" idea?  That is, if the players truly control their characters, then the GM cannot be author of the story.  It seems to me that people sometimes view authorship as a binary: i.e. either the GM is author, or the player is author.  But there is a wide range in between.  If the players only control their character, then authorship is split.  The GM has the power to screw up the Premise, but the players also have the power to screw up the Premise.

John, your Star Trek setups are excellent examples of precisely what I mean.

(By "desirable" I didn't mean that I wouldn't trade them away in a second for something more desirable, like for instance commenting critically on the source material or creating satisfying stories now or whatever other interest I have in the game.)

Walt, do you see different authorship issues with internal consistency than with fidelity to source material?  I could have my guy act out of character, but I don't ever -- does that mean I'm not his author?  (The wall in the dungeon is pretty clearly an internal consistency of world concern, not a fidelity to source material concern anyway.)

Mike, how do my two concerns fit into your fidelity?  M. J. said "fidelity to the integrity of the world itself and fidelity to the source materials"; does that encompassing usage of "fidelity" fit your take?  

(I think me and Emily are asking the same thing.)

-Vincent

Holy cats I'm behind.

First, Vincent, I totally agree with John Kim that this is different thing. How a game is designed has nothing to with what a player intends with his decisions or how they are percieved. It's a totally different idea, not Fidelity at all for purposes of this discussion (and another example of Fidelity being less than optimum for the name).

Let me be clear again on that point that people seem to be missing. Fidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real". That's actually poorly stated, but intentionally so to make people get away from where I think they're sliding. We're not talking fandom here, we're talking a very specific way of making decisions in RPGs that has a very specific effect on perception by other players. No, keeping with source material has nothing to do particularly with fidelity (it would have to be an express part of the game).

Further, I'd agree with John in all particulars that there's no imprative on what makes a good game based off of source material. That is, if you want to make Elfquest Monopoly, that might be a good game from somebody's POV. Even if it's not yours. Sim games that emulate source material do some things well, and other things not so well. It's totally preference as to what's the "best" thing to deliver.


Walt, I see no difference functionally between players and GMs. They all have power, and can accept or ignore each other's narrations at will. That is, if you say as GM, "There's a wall there" I can say, "no there's not, there's a door". This is no different than a player saying, "I walk into the room," and the GM saying, "no you don't there's a wall there." For purposes of Fidelity. The difference is that in most games the GM has the authority to say the latter thing while the player usually doesn't in the former case. Making the first one a contradiction of agreed to fact (and thus Lowest Fidelity) and the other a representation of what's in-game (and thus very Hi-Fi). This is why the pervy narrativists on Indie Netgaming could be described as LowFi. They all create on the spot and accept what everyone else says without any external validation or support.  

Consider Universalis for an instance where anyone can claim anything at any time, and anyone else can say, "no you don't". Very low Fidelity. Doesn't matter that the players are all sticking to genre conventions or whatever. They're still not doing anything to enhance the decision beyond the point of Internal Consistency which is the basline. And in fact, Universalis provides no tools to do that. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, just means you have to have a really low Fidelity tolerance to play.


Can we Inductively reason from those two "is nots" what Fidelity is?

Mike

Quote from: Walt FreitagI believe that a creative agenda is only fully in play when it is in jeopardy. If you can't lose (or at least perform poorly against) a challenge, then it's not really a challenge. If you don't have the authorial power to totally screw up a Premise, you don't have the authorial power to address that Premise. If you don't have the ability to break Fidelity, then how can play be "all about" Fidelity as we expect Simulationist play to be?

That's profound, Walt.

As I've said, limiting player power limits the ability to go off on some axis. The Impossible thing is the idea that a player and GM can both be empolying the power to make a Narrativist decision simultaneously. Which nobody has a problem with understanding conceptually.

This is another advantage of the model in that it says that power is not part of what qualifies a decision as G or N or S (or Conflict/Fidelity), it's what allows that decision at all. I mean, obviously if a player doesn't have the power to make a decsion, then he can only either A), not make that decision, or, B), make it anyhow, which drops Fidelity through the floor (almost another issue at the social contract level at that point; the player might be thought of as "cheating").

Mike

QuoteFidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real"....
Consider Universalis for an instance where anyone can claim anything at any time, and anyone else can say, "no you don't". Very low Fidelity. Doesn't matter that the players are all sticking to genre conventions or whatever. They're still not doing anything to enhance the decision beyond the point of Internal Consistency which is the basline. And in fact, Universalis provides no tools to do that. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, just means you have to have a really low Fidelity tolerance to play.

If I read you correctly, fidelity is consistency.  Is your emphasis on the elements of play "seeming real" related to what you were saying about fidelity always being an attempt to reach verisimilitude?

--Emily Care

Quote from: Mike HolmesCan we Inductively reason from those two "is nots" what Fidelity is?

Sorry Mike, I'm failing to make some cognitive leap here.

Between this:

QuoteFidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real".

and this:

QuoteThis is why the pervy narrativists on Indie Netgaming could be described as LowFi. They all create on the spot and accept what everyone else says without any external validation or support.

I'm just a little confused. I don't see what is inherently LowFi in the Indie-Netgaming example compared to the first statement. Unless you're infering that the System doesn't provide for in-game causality except in the smallest degree, that job being handed over to the players.

What exactly is "doing anything to enhance the decision beyond the point of Internal Consistency"? I think the answer to that question will shed the great light of Grok upon Fidelity for me.

-Chris

Gah!  Game design shmame design!  I'm talking about actual play too.  I agree with John Kim too.

But

Quote from: Mike, youLet me be clear again on that point that people seem to be missing. Fidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real".

and earlier

Quote from: you alsoFidelity has to do with making decisions seem like they're not "out of game". That's why No Myth has limited support for some people. Fidelity is not just that Internal Consistency that provides a common minimum for most play. ...That is, higher fidelity requires that a player make decisions as though the character were a real entity in a real world, and based on that world's logic.

So!  You're talking about fidelity to the myth!  What the myth is, precisely, doesn't matter -- that's what I've been talking about, the contents of the myth -- what matters is that we uphold the myth as real!

I get it!  Or I'm wrong-o again!  Tell me which!

That does indeed mean that my two concerns aren't really related to your fidelity.  Okie-dokie.  I still maintain that they're concerns of Exploration, but, um, in a non-petty way without any whining.  They're not concerns at the same level, 'scool.

-Vincent

EDITED to note that due to cross-posting, this post is a response to three posts that begin seven posts back.

Quote from: Emily Care

Quote from: Walt FreitagFidelity and interactivity (real decision-making power, or in GNS terms, authorship) are fundamentally incompatible.

Ah, but then so to is game design in general.  No mechanic or system is necessarily going to enforce or encourage fidelity or consistency with anything else.  Putting the decision into the players hands simply makes more opportunities for play to run counter to--or support--fidelity. So the degree of verisimilitude may arise out of individually negotiated enactments of the social contract, instead of one blanket agreement made at the start of play.  Perhaps the increased likelihood of inconsistency you are looking at may be the result of the anarchy of the situation: if everyone can choose, there is less certainty that all efforts will mesh.  However, going back to the band metaphor, what is needed at all times is for all parties to be commited to the central vision.  Allowing more individual input puts the responsibility and the power in all hands to find options that harmonize.

Yes indeed. And very nicely stated. That I regard creative agenda as being by nature "in jeopardy" doesn't mean I regard it as "doomed to failure." Far from it.

System can confer or withhold power, but it cannot specifically confer "the power to do only good." Fortunately, most participants, given power and coherent creative agendas, will "do good" with it anyway.

Fidelity ensured by the players' lack of power to break it cannot, in my mind, be a part of a creative agenda. The guaranteed existence of such fidelity, though, can support a creative agenda that lies elsewhere (as in, "I want to experience what it's like to be a midshipman in a rendered-in-high-fidelity Star Fleet Academy.")

John, if a group of players is actively trying to screw up an understood Premise, then there is no social contract in effect and all bets are off. Certainly that can happen, but I'm talking specifically about power granted or not granted within a functioning social contract.

If a group of players wants to be Star Fleet midshipmen, and they want me to portray the setting with high fidelity within a social contract that gives them no authorial power over the setting, does this make the fidelity of the setting part of their creative agenda? Does the fact that it's something they want from me and if I don't provide it they'll be angry make it one of their priorities in play? I'm suggesting the answer is no. I can and do play this way, and when I do so the fidelity of the setting is part of my creative agenda, but not theirs. It's compatible with theirs (in the sense of not conflicting), if theirs is exploration; they might very much want to explore the setting I create. It would still be compatible with theirs if their creative agenda were Gamist, which I think is the sort of "high-fidelity/Gamism" congruence that Mike is trying to model.

Contrast this with having fidelity of the setting be part of a shared creative agenda. If this is what I (as GM) want, it's because I want creative contribution toward the setting from the players. We all want fidelity all the more, but shared creation means that others will be doing things that I don't specifically expect. (Otherwise, why bother to share?) I hope that the good surprises will outweigh the bad surprises, but I can't be certain of that. Fidelity is now a goal to cooperatively strive for, rather than a promised feature.

Both cases involve exploration of (imagining) a setting and both involve the desire for high fidelity of that element. But the two cases seem very different to me. Like you said, it's a question of sharing of authorial power.

Vincent, I don't really see any big technical difference between internal consistency and fidelity to source material. It's the same issue, it's just that the reference points come from different sources. As a thought experiment, imagine a generic space opera game that just happened to play out the exact plot of Star Wars (A New Hope) in a world where the movie didn't exist. And now the players want to continue play in that same setting. Compare that to a Star Wars game played after the movie (but not any of its sequels/prequels) was released, in which the players want to play what happens next. Is there any difference? In either case, would the participants' decision to introduce new characters named Yoda and Boba Fett and Londo Calrissian (sp?) compromise Fidelity, enhance Fidelity, or represent a Fidelity non-issue? (Remember, in both hypotheticals The Empire Strikes Back doesn't exist as a movie.) What about Ewoks?

See, there it is. Whenever you share responsibility for fidelity with anyone else, you could get "No, I am your father," but you could also get Ewoks.

- Walt

Quote from: C. Edwards

QuoteThis is why the pervy narrativists on Indie Netgaming could be described as LowFi. They all create on the spot and accept what everyone else says without any external validation or support.

I'm just a little confused. I don't see what is inherently LowFi in the Indie-Netgaming example compared to the first statement. Unless you're infering that the System doesn't provide for in-game causality except in the smallest degree, that job being handed over to the players.

I can't speak for what Mike really meant, but this seems like an important distinction that I make.  I agree with you that "Fidelity" is a poor term for what I think Mike means.  "Low Fidelity" implies unfaithfulness, falseness, or inconsistency.  However, improvising an in-game fact doesn't mean any of those.  It doesn't falsify anything, and it isn't inconsistent.  

At one extreme, you have a gamer with a strong, detailed model for the in-game reality outside of what happens in play (which could be in notes, maps, system, or just in her head).  She considers this model to be what is real.  At the other extreme, you have a gamer who considers only what happens in play to be real.  Anything written down (GM's notes, character sheets, etc.) but not demonstrated in play is not yet real, and may come out differently in play.  Quite possibly, very little is written down at all.  Everything shown in play is completely consistent, but there are no inviolable facts except what has been shown.  

For example, suppose the PCs come to a door.  They open it.  At this point, GM #1 consults her model.  Whatever is defined as being behind that door, well, that's what they find.  On the other hand, GM #2 doesn't have an inviolable model.  He may simply decide on the spot what is there, as long as he is confident that he can make it consistent.

[Editted to add that my "external model" is I think what Vincent calls the "myth" -- i.e. the "myth of reality"]

Vincent, Chris, a classic example of Fidelity in action would be to use a task resolution system. Let's say GURPS, that's about as High Fidelity as you can get. Not because it emulates anything well, but because the system intends to provide a framework where the players participating will feel that the results are more "realistic".

Now this is only one example of how to provide Fidelity (I need a new term). But in general, Internal Consistency of the decision is the lowest common denominator building block for such a decision. The decision has to be made in such a way as it goes beyond just the players agreeing that it makes sense. It has to somehow be supported by something that the game provides. Is there an essay on how Bards act in court in the setting notes? Did the player follow it? Is there systematic cues in resolution that inform the player what makes sense to do? Did the player follow them?

Basically, Chris, HighFidelity is what you don't like in play because you see it as interfering with the ability to create the sort of thematic action that you like. I thibk you're the same, Vincent. Does that help guys?

Remember, when I say I like HiFi play, I play GURPS regularly, and that's the game that delivers that kick best.

Mike

Quote from: John KimI agree with you that "Fidelity" is a poor term for what I think Mike means.  "Low Fidelity" implies unfaithfulness, falseness, or inconsistency.  However, improvising an in-game fact doesn't mean any of those.  It doesn't falsify anything, and it isn't inconsistent.  

I mean Fidelity in terms of a loyalty to making the in-game feel real. That's disrupted by things like gross use of Director stance on the spot. Even by a GM. Timing is everything.

That said, Fidelity has caused enough problems already that I'm ready for a new term.

QuoteAt one extreme, you have a gamer with a strong, detailed model for the in-game reality outside of what happens in play (which could be in notes, maps, system, or just in her head).  She considers this model to be what is real.  At the other extreme, you have a gamer who considers only what happens in play to be real.  Anything written down (GM's notes, character sheets, etc.) but not demonstrated in play is not yet real, and may come out differently in play.  Quite possibly, very little is written down at all.  Everything shown in play is completely consistent, but there are no inviolable facts except what has been shown.  

As long as it's presented right, even stuff made up on the spot can seem to have Fidelity. Rememeber perception. This is why back end Illusionism works (when it does). If the player isn't aware that the thing was just made up, then Fidelity in this context is maintained.

Quote
[Editted to add that my "external model" is I think what Vincent calls the "myth" -- i.e. the "myth of reality"]

Yes, it's sticking with the Myth, or the external model that exemplifies Fidelity. So, anyone want to take a shot at a new term? Integrity? Nah, it's gotta be something where Low "X" is a good thing.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesBasically, Chris, HighFidelity is what you don't like in play because you see it as interfering with the ability to create the sort of thematic action that you like. I thibk you're the same, Vincent. Does that help guys?

Ahh, crystal. I feel better now. :)

Quote from: John KimI agree with you that "Fidelity" is a poor term for what I think Mike means. "Low Fidelity" implies unfaithfulness, falseness, or inconsistency. However, improvising an in-game fact doesn't mean any of those. It doesn't falsify anything, and it isn't inconsistent.

Just for the record, I don't think 'Fidelity' is a poor term to encompass Mike's meaning. That may be because I naturally think of it in electronics terms, 'signal strength' or 'accuracy of signal reproduction'. Perhaps there's something there in that, using Mike's GURPS example, the more framework for Fidelity that is provided beyond Internal Consistency the more likely that all the players will be producing very similar signals. Or something like that.

-Chris

Quote from: C. Edwards
Just for the record, I don't think 'Fidelity' is a poor term to encompass Mike's meaning. That may be because I naturally think of it in electronics terms, 'signal strength' or 'accuracy of signal reproduction'. Perhaps there's something there in that, using Mike's GURPS example, the more framework for Fidelity that is provided beyond Internal Consistency the more likely that all the players will be producing very similar signals. Or something like that.

Not similar signals, but ones that each player feels are solidly the product of some as-near-as-possible "actual" agents in a as-near-as-possible "actual" environment. Or the like.

The problem so far has been that I'm trying to allow for as much lattitude here as possible. And people are taking that lattitude to mean just the lattitude. I may just have to be more rigorous.

Mike

Well, I'm a little behind here, but...

There seems to be a concessus that fidelity(2) to source material and how Mike was using Fidelity(1) are seperate beasts.

I'd just like to add, based upon the discussion in the Is this really Nar? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6702) thread, that fidelity(2) to source material is most often going to be Nar play, not Sim play.  In order to truely emulate the Buffy source material your play will have to end up being about moral questions, like Buffy is (though it needn't be intentional); if it wasn't it wouldn't be truely emulating the source material (feel and all).  So, Sim as a priority in emulation of source material, unless that source material does not itself address a theme, is a paradox.

Meaning, Yes I agree fidelity(2) to source material could be a factor in all forms of play.

I'm all for fidelity(2) as a concept in Baseline/Vision and how that effects the distribution of Exploration priorities.

I'm inclined to think of Fidelity as being adherence to the agreed nature of the elements to be explored, namely Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color.

Lo-Fi/Hi-Fi are a black and white measure of how strictly players are expected or required to observe the Fidelity of any given element. Opposite ends of a Fidelity spectrum.

Lo-Fi suggests that adherence to the agreed nature of a particular element is not strictly enforced and may be overridden by other player priorities. Likewise, a Hi-Fi element would be one where Fidelity is very strictly enforced even at the expense of other player priorities.

I think of Integrity as being how true the agreed upon nature of each element is to the source(s) on which it is based. This is the subjective opinion of each player based on how closely the agreed upon nature of each element matches their own expectations.

In practice the closest our group gets to establishing Fidelity/Integrity is when we have our pre first session get together to discuss the forthcoming game, what we want it to be about and what everyones expectations are.