Caring How it Resolves?

[John Kim]

The model maintains that players, in any instance of play, put one of the three agenda first, above the other two; that conflicts and dysfunction arise when they disagree through their actions as to which should be first; and that play is significantly facilitated by fostering agreement here. I would say it is a fundamental axiom of the model: only one can be first.  

I think this depends on how you view the distinction.  To put it in numeric terms, consider three cases:
1) 51% Simulationist, 49% Gamist
2) 50% Simulationist, 50% Gamist
3) 49% Simulationist, 51% Gamist

Now, if we agree that the percentage analogy works, then arguments about whether you can truly have #2 are missing the point.   These three are nearly the same as each other -- and they will resemble each other far more than a game which is 90% of anything.  In other words, if we have a game which is potentially one of these, it's best to lump all these as "hybrid Gamist/Simulationist".  Trying to draw a fine line to distinguish whether it is really one or the other doesn't particularly buy you anything.  On the other hand, maybe that fine line is more important than the percentages -- but then there needs to be some explanation of why.

[Marco]

Here's where I question the lifeguard model:

The idea that CA-modes of play will be contradictory can fail in exactly the case this thread is about: if the priority is on Actor Stance then both N and S will fail at the same time for the same reason (the situation mutates to the point where the statement the character makes is no longer vaild/viable).

Nathan and Chris have suggested that how you fix that tells your agenda (do I change statement or change character concept). While this sounds good in theory, in my experience this is precieved as dysfunctional: I fix whichever is most expedient or with a player, play stops and there's a discussion until the game is back on track.

I can't speak for Vincent but I expect that if he says (as he said) that playing out of character isn't necessary for Nar play then his perception is perhaps the same: if I take his premise loaded character and send him to places where his premises are no longer valid, he might very well consider the game a bust and have a talk with the GM.

I would.

In this case the method that one uses to address premise (immersed in character play) is indicative of Sim.

This looks to me like a case of both-at-once, however, I'm still thinking about it.

-Marco

[Walt Freitag]

Excellent post by M. J. developing the lifeguard example.

I believe that the "two top priorities at once" question is inherently ambiguous because priorities exist over time, but are expressed through individual decisions -- some of which can in turn create long-term subordinate priorities. What the observer sees as the "top priority" thus can depend on how long the activity is observed and/or how the observations are interpreted in a larger context. That's why the model insists on the "instance of play" as the only meaningful observation -- but I'm not certain that really solves the problem.

An example I've used before is writing a sonnet. Suppose Valentine's Day were a week away and I decide to express my love for the love of my life by writing her a sonnet expressing my feelings. As you observe me writing the sonnet, you would see many occasions when I write down a word or phrase or sentence that perfectly expresses my feelings -- but the word doesn't rhyme, the phrase doesn't have the correct meter, the sentence doesn't fit into the fourteen lines. So I end up not using it, replacing it with something else that does fit the form that may or may not be as clear or accurate an expression of my feelings. From this it would be tempting to conclude that "adhering to the sonnet form" is an obviously higher priority for me than "expressing my feelings."

Yet, that conclusion would be absolutely wrong. Expressing my feelings is the entire point of the exercise. It's the higher priority, it's the "what" I'm doing. Sonnet form is a decision I've made as a means to that purpose; it's the result of a decision that established "how" I'm doing it. That decision is entirely secondary to the main purpose. Yet part of that decision is to allow the consequences of that secondary "how" to take precedence over the primary "what" at the level of individual small-scale decisions about what words to put on the paper, unless and until I change my mind about the "how" decision itself.

The demonstration of my true overall priorities is what would happen if I were to fail to express my feelings in sonnet form to my satisfaction. If sonnet form were the higher priority, I could perhaps satisfy that priority by writing a well-crafted sonnet about something else -- the Red Sox, for instance. If expressing my feelings were the higher priority, I could perhaps satisfy that priority by writing my endearments out in prose instead of a sonnet. Clearly, I would do the latter.

But, you would probably never observe this failure case occurring. Because I'm really good at writing sonnets. I'm not going to fail, unless additional constraints arise (I forgot Valentine's Day was coming, and now I have to write it in half an hour...). So, what length of "instance of endearment-writing" and what observations within such an instance will convince the observer that expressing my feelings is more important than writing in sonnet form, when the observer can easily see that over and over again, I reject ideas that effectively express my feelings because they don't fit the form?

Is the analogy to Simulationist ideals (fidelity, adherence to system, internal causality) and Narrativist goals (expressing theme through addressing of Premise in play) clear, or should I spell it out?

The Big Model's distinction between Simulationist and Narrativist modes of play is real and observable, in the same sense that the meaning of a text is real and observable. Attempts to decide the issue through some kind of flowchart (does player X do Y or Z when confronted with situaton N?) are as doomed (to either outright failure or bottomless complexity) as attempts to create rules that determine the meaning of a sentence.

As for ambiguous cases, they're just ambiguous. The question, "have I successfully described play that's truly ambiguous between Sim and Nar, or can you succeed in pinning it down to one or the other?" is not very useful when the play being described is hypothetical. It's absurdly easy to describe ambiguous hypothetical play, just as it's absurdly easy to write a sentence whose meaning cannot be parsed or with two possible (and contradictory) meanings. Creating such cases in actual play, with real people, is more difficult. I believe it can be done. But I'm still not sure what, if anything, it proves.

- Walt

[Doctor Xero]

It's very popular to say that by multitasking we can have multiple first priorities; but it doesn't hold up in reality. Conflicting priorities must be heirarchical, or they ultimately prevent choice.

I disagree with you strongly : however, this is not a psychology forum but a gaming forum, and therefore such disagreements will have to be suspended until such time as you and I find ourselves in the same psychology forum instead of The Forge.

That said, I still have to disagree with you about holding and maintaining two simultaneous creative agenda.

What you fail to realize is that, obviously, the gaming group must have consciously or unconsciously designed a campaign such that it is indeed possible (perhaps even necessary!) to hold both simultaneously.

No, I am not claiming that simultaneous creative agenda occur in every single campaign.  Some campaigns are resolutely simulationist or narrativist or gamist.

What I am claiming is that, in games which have such simultaneity implicit within them either by way of game design or social contract or both, I can and indeed do maintain both, as do all the other players according to what they tell me.

To use your lifeguard example :

if I have both the goal of saving a drowning person and of staying dry while working at a public pool, I first design a pool such that there is no area within that pool where I can not easily reach any drowning figure from either the side or an overhanging bridge.  Designed properly, at all times I will be able to reach anyone who is drowning, and at all times I will be able to stay dry.

What is my number one priority here?  My number one priority is being able to fulfill simultaneously both number one priorities of rescuing drowning folk and staying dry.

Now, you can play semantics games and ask me what I do if the bridge falls down or if the person is somehow under a fairy's curse to be beyond rescuing by anyone who is dry.  That's akin to asking me how to spell a word with Chinese ideograms while using only the Oghamic alphabet -- in other words, it's a logical absurdity.

Believe it or not, some of us are capable of imagining God creating a rock so heavy He could not lift it while being all powerful.  We can also work with other koans, including those involving clapping, without cheap semantics tricks.  If other people can not do so, they can not do so, but that does not negate our own abilities.

As Ron and others have mentioned before, the GNS Model Discussion forum exists to challenge and expand the theory, not to sanctify it.  If G/N/S theory categorically denies the possibility of simultaneity, ex cathedra, well, unless the theory is writ in stone by the deific moving finger, perhaps this lapse indicates that the theory needs to be updated in this respect.  Hamburger patties, anyone?

Doctor Xero

[Matt Snyder]

Doc Xero,

I don't think you have not shown any substantive way related to gaming that Creative Agenda priorities might be simultaneously equal. Your arguments that we can know this because we can conceive of the holy trinity or an all-powerful god creating a heavy rock or African conceptions of binaries or drowning people and simultaneously dry lifeguards are completely irrelevant. They have less than nothing to do with gaming in general or the Creative Agenda model specifically. (Yes, M.J. created the lifeguard thingy; I'm not interested in it as an instructional analogy. It's really not holding water. Ahem.)

My humbly submitted recommendation to you and others participating here is to lose the analogies and especially the religious and mythical nonsense, which have no demonstrable basis in reality or practicality (whereas I think the model does). I think it's greatly clouding the discussion. Stick to actual gaming! Experience from actual play and actual, real-life examples would be fantastic (indeed, for me they'd be necessary) to show how someone or some group could prioritize more than one Creative Agenda in a given instance.

[ErrathofKosh]

From where I sit, simultaneous play is not possible, while hybrid play certaintly is.  M.J.'s lifeguard example is definitely applicable, as is Walt's sonnet.  Here is an actual played example:

Sol Kelstar, my Jedi character, finds himself between a rock and a hard place.  He has chosen to confront a Sith in order to allow his friends to escape.  In this, he has been successful.  However, his lightsabre has been destroyed and he is about to be killed.  He has one last card he may play, the power of the Dark Side.  He has an incredible ability with telekinesis and there are plenty of projectiles (stones and such) available.  The rules of the game (system) state that using telekinesis for an attack draws upon the Dark Side, killing with it is especially dangerous for character's.  Sol already has some Dark Side taint, so he's nearing the edge.  

The question: is it better to live and go over to the Dark Side (possibly) or to die doing what is right?  Definitely a good Premise, especially since Sol has been battling the temptation of going over to the Dark Side.  I have NOT predetermined Sol's reaction, inclination, or anything else.  But, in this situation, I ask myself, what would Sol do?  Notice, what the question is NOT: what would make a better story or an interesting statement about life and morality?  NO, I care about who my character really is.  

Sol survives the situation, but in the process goes over to the Dark Side.  As these events unfold (as my GM describes them), I watch with dread and fascination.  I do care about the story!  I want a good story, something that I'll remember for years after.  How to reconcile these desires then?  The Right to Dream first, Story Now second.

BUT if I had to sacrifice something, it would be the story.  Sol has to react as I imagine he would, even if I decided on the spot that he would react that way.

No man can serve two masters...

Jonathan