What does the Right to Dream require? (split)

[Valamir]

Just to throw a stone in and make some ripples.

Walt...everything you just said I'm 100% in agreement with.  Except I don't really see where this Ideal and the pursuit there to is "Simulationist".

To me everything in this thread is clearly talking about basic Exploration present in all roleplaying to greater or lesser degree...which is why the answer to:

But in Narrativism, does any objection to any input (such as, say, Spongebob showing up in a Trollbabe adventure) imply some underlying Sim something-or-other somewhere?

is "of course not".

Because to me the issue hasn't even begun to be about Sim.  Its all still employing Social Contract to adjust the dials on Exploration.  The 5 elements of Exploration are the filters by which information gets added to or rejected from the SiS.  

Choosing to pursue setting (i.e. Source Material) or color (i.e. Qualities) of an Ideal is just the process by which the dials of Exploration are set in preparation for prequalifying SiS elements.

One only has to look as far as the Sorceror One Pager and the effort Ron makes to find suitable imagery to inspire peoples shared understanding of the particular setting incarnation to see how important this sort of "Ideal Filter" can be to any Creative Agenda.

This is why the Sim as Exploration intensified definition has never flown very far with me.

I don't want to derail this thread which is actually quite fascinating.  But before too many people start getting comfortable with the idea that the long awaited means of effectively framing Sim has been arrived at, I wanted to point out that, so far, I'm not convinced this thread (or its relatives) is even about Sim.

[Marco]

I don't want to derail this thread which is actually quite fascinating.  But before too many people start getting comfortable with the idea that the long awaited means of effectively framing Sim has been arrived at, I wanted to point out that, so far, I'm not convinced this thread (or its relatives) is even about Sim.

I got some sympathy for that. As Walt said: a whole, whole lot of roleplaying will have "an ideal" somewhere in it's core. Now, I've been thinking about Ron's post.

Ron said

3) aesthetically speaking, the group is confirmed in its appreciation of the baseline knowledge/fandom

It's totally neither N or G. There is no thematic judgment constructed via play on the issues raised by the input material, if any - the judgment was already made in our choice to use it in the first place. Nor is there any distraction from the confirmation going on due to injections of affirming one's personal strategy and guts.

Looking at the first part of the quote: if you have a group and they played and all they got off on--the only part of the game you think they liked--was that affirmation of appreciation of the fandom then, yes, I think you have whatever we're calling GNS Sim (and I say this because it can't be Gamist and isn't Narrativist).

However: I think that the case where you have a strong Ideal that is striven for throughout every element of play in order to create the context for emotional involvement in the imaginary space you have Narrativism.

And I think the key element isn't the Ideal, per-se but the exclusivity of the Ideal.

Furthermore: I think that one can put as much work or effort into making the Ideal happen as with any Sim game and still, at the same time, have the Narrativist interaction.

That may be contraversial, I don't know. I don't think that John playing James Bond music, having players make characters that riff on the JB themes, etc. is antithetical to premise or address of premise.

[ if we think that JB is usually devoid of good premise situations, we can pretend I'm talking about an Authurian game and I play O Fortuna before each session and the players are encouraged to bring diagrams of their knightly coat of arms to the table ]

The Sim Authurian game and the Nar Authurian game can, I submit, put the same amount of work (defined here as observable effort, not necessiarily mind-share or mental effort) put into their production with no effect on the CA.

In fact, the amount of effort may actually enhance the Narrativist CA by solidifying the context that helps make the imaginary circumstance relevant (I can get object to slavery in the abstract, sure--but give me some oppressed people to deal with and I can really get indignant).

Looking at the second part of Ron's quote, I'd expect this: in the Sim game there was no judgement. That's what made is Sim. But if you add judgement to the themes raised by play then you're talking Nar.

But the Nar game still has an Ideal. And the players may still be absolutely committed to it (i.e. they would stop playing rather than bring in a dimensional traveler from Dragonlance).

-Marco

[Silmenume]

Hey Walt,

I don't have a coherent thesis, so I will respond to a number of your points piecemeal.

The Ideal is a standard for evaluating input, but it itself is subject to being pressured, made to grow or change, by the input. And it's not "some input conforms to the Ideal, and some input pressures it." The very same input can do both.

Actually, every input will have some effect on the Ideal.  Many times it is trivial and not noticed, sometimes the input will have a larger, noticeable effect on the Ideal, and rarely the input will have a staggering effect on the Ideal.  Having an effect on the Ideal is part of the game action of Sim.  IOW – in considering a possible Character action, the effect of the considered Character action on the/an Ideal is one of the meta-game filters the player employs.

Just like Premise need not be consciously acknowledged by a player to be a driving force, neither does a player need to consciously acknowledge the Ideal that is driving his play in Sim.

OK – before everyone goes bananas I wish to propose a provisional idea of "what" an Ideal might be and how the Ideal could be "celebrated" in play.

Since I don't have a solid handle yet, I'll start by way of contrast.

In Nar, an idea is turned into a question and then challenged aggressively from many angles.  In this case the idea is about human nature or a human issue.

In Sim, the idea, too, is about human nature or a human quality, but instead of challenging that "idea", it is treated as an "Ideal" which then the players are challenged to find ways to express and support that Ideal via, but not limited to, Situational conflict.  This is probably why Sim has suffered from One-true-wayism more than any other CA.  However, a player who does not support or "get" the general Ideals will be in direct conflict with the players.

You like the idea of a suave spy?  Then you create a spy who must remain suave especially in situations where abandoning the Ideal of suave would make the life of the character and thus the player easier.  You like the idea of bravery?  The you create a character who must act brave (or perhaps better stated – continue to choose to act bravely) in situations where abandoning the Ideal of bravery would make the life of the character and thus the player easier.  By holding onto these Ideals in the face of adversity, and personal cost, we are saying they are important – IOW we are celebrating the Ideals by bringing them into question frequently and choosing to hold onto them!

The key is that these ideals demand context, and this is why Setting and causality are so vitally important to Sim.  Setting provides context while solid causality helps in the projection of the likely outcomes, thus helping make manifest the risks involved.

Part of the risk in Sim play is then seeing if the player can successfully uphold the Ideal.  The key difference between Nar and Sim at this point is that Sim isn't interested in why the player fail the ideal, but rather how he will go about defending/celebrating it.  Part of the aesthetic of a particular Sim game is seeing how the defense is worked out and what the players will bring to the table in the defense of the Ideal.

Now, to address Ralph's concerns and Walt's statement about Exploration.

There seems to me 2 ideas about Exploration that appear to be conflated.  There is the notion of Exploration as synonym for the entire act of Roleplay (which includes CA expression) and there is the Exploration level of the model.

I wish to focus on the latter meaning.  Exploration as a process is "soulless machine" that converts ideas, wants, desires, etc. in the players' heads into facts/objects/things.  The idea the system, which mediates the introduction of facts into the SIS, is actually a process of introducing time connotes that the SIS represents objects/things that change states over time (not because of time, but rather time is only noted by changes in physical states).  The Idea(l) part of the game, (CA – the experience of which can only happen inside a persons head – this is alluded to by the phrase "shared imaginings"), governs what gets into the SIS and what the players get out of this fact creation process (Exploration).

Thus to Ralph I say, Qualities/Ideals are not color, but are the very things which are operated on in CA's.  CA is the "idea" level of the model.  Exploration is the sharing level.

End of proposal.

Edit - I see that I didn't engage, too much, in piecemeal response.