Why we (I?) roleplay - especially in the Simulationist mode.

[Mike Holmes]

I think it's important to mention quickly, and it may be obvious, but that the negotiation for events to happen in the SIS, is mostly just moving on and having tacit approval. That is, I say, "I go across the street" and nobody objects so that fact has been established. The GM says, "Three orcs appear" and by not complaining about it, it is so. As long as the participants in the game are creating in a manner that's supported by the rules and tradition of play, most things get established with no actual debate.

This is still part of whatever system is being employed, just a largely ignored part.

Mike

[Silmenume]

the negotiation for events to happen in the SIS, is mostly just moving on and having tacit approval. That is, I say, "I go across the street" and nobody objects so that fact has been established.

That is what I was referring to with the phrase "ratification by silent consent."

Tacit approval = ratification by silent consent

If the person or persons who have the authority to apportion credibility do nothing (withhold any overt Negotiation process) about a statement (one that is not governed by the "rules system") then they are giving tacit approval/ratifying by silent consent (Negotiation by covert process).

Vincent - I do plan on saying more about the quote you pulled.  I have been working on it since my previous post.  There are some very subtle issues that I am having some difficulty untangling, but I look forward to posting it as soon as I am done.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[lumpley]

And like Mike, I want to jump in with one teeny little thing that I hope everybody's already clear about...

The "person or persons who have the authority to apportion credibility" is always everybody at the table.  Any other apparent arrangement is the result of ongoing, unspoken negotiation.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, I missed the ratification clause. I think we're all in agreement.

Mike

[Silmenume]

AHA!!!  I am beginning to see a light at the end of this interminable (mea culpa) tunnel of semantics!  The Lumpley Principle is a gatekeeper; it is not concerned with content creation.  The LP is invoked only after a statement has been made, not before.  Thus the LP supports the statement process.  The LP has no governing power over the actual creative process, the process that drives the creation of statements.  Because the way the LP functions "statement -> negotiation -> consensus" there is nothing inherent to the process that prevents any statement from being made.  It has no built in censorship powers over the statement process.  However, as we ARE engaged in a consensus effort, it is reasonable to assume that all players involved wish to have their statements ratified as often as possible.  This desire to be ratified does then place pressure on the one making a statement to do so in a manner that is more likely to be received well by all involved so as to increase the likelihood of his statement being ratified (given credibility).

So far the guiding principle for reaching consensus is the desire to match our statements with the goal to roleplay.  All these acts of ratification (consensus apportioning) are worked out in the Negotiation segment of the process.  The procedures in which the Negotiations are worked out, however, are rarely (if ever) left to the Social Contract alone.  All roleplaying games have published (pre-created) rules sets, or to put it another way, a set of formalized Negotiation techniques that are employed to apportion credibility.  These formalized Negotiation techniques do not preclude non-formalized (non-published) techniques, i.e., those techniques that function or receive their mandate directly from the Social Contract realm.  The employment of these various Negotiation techniques does color/affect the consensus process.  This coloration effect is one of the reasons why we chose and employ (purchase and put into play) the games that we play.

The other main reason we purchase (or create for that matter) and employ game systems (D&D, Traveler, etc.) is the guidance to the statement process that the source materials provide; the narrative elements – character (as in kinds and generation), setting, situation  (at least on a large scale), and color.  These game systems, via the providing of the narrative elements, help frame/steer our gaming/consensus efforts.  It is in the creative Exploration of these narrative elements that we employ The System (the various Negotiation techniques that will be used) - both published system (extant – a subset of The System) and social contract stipulations (created – which can include alterations to the published system and social agreements like don't kill Bob's character – a subset of The System).

It is the Exploration of the Narrative Elements that drives the game (the engine).  This is not the same as saying the Exploration of the Narrative Elements is what necessarily drives the players.  This is where the problem that Ron had discussed where a disconnect can arise between something that a player's character might find interesting and the player himself does not.  A Hardcore Gamist may give only the most fleeting nod to the Exploration of the Narrative Elements and gain the highest degree of satisfaction from the employment/exploitation of system as prescribed/mechanics/Techniques whereas the fiercest Simulationist (Turku) may only give the most fleeting nod to system as prescribed/mechanics/Techniques while deriving the greatest pleasure from the Exploration of the Narrative Elements.  I give these extremes only as examples to help illustrate a point; they are not meant to be actual descriptions of real motivations or play.

There are many elements of the Roleplay gaming experience that take place outside the jurisdiction of the LP, e.g. character creation, kibitzing at the table, deciding who sits where, etc.  The implication here is that the LP is in operation for only a portion of the game event.  I think I can readily assert that the LP is in operation only when in the SIS.  It is because the space is imagined, not concrete, that we must all be in accord as to what is and isn't in this imagined space or the process will fall apart.  I believe it is also axiomatic that one can only enter the SIS through the avatar/character.  Everything that is said to be observed is filtered through the senses of the avatar.  Everything physical that is said to happen to the character is said to happen to the avatar.  Conversely everything that a player does to interact with the imagined world happens through the avatar.  These avatars can be robust, actor's stance, or transparent, pawn stance – but either way the operative sphere is the SIS and the means of engaging it is through the avatar.  The avatar is the lens through which we espy the SIS.  Why and to what ends (player motives for play – not character motivations) one operates in the SIS is another matter entirely, but it can be said that we are not "roleplaying" until we have entered the SIS.  If that is indeed the definition of the sphere of Roleplay – it can be said that anything that takes us out of the avatar mode (doffed the avatar {no longer in a role} and thus losing the lens to the SIS) is said to take us out of the SIS and thus out of "roleplay" – we are no longer playing the imagined role.  This out of "roleplay" milieu is what I call the meta-game.  The Exploration of the Narrative Elements can only happen in the SIS for they (the Narrative Elements) are all imagined, not concrete (with the exception of color which functions in the "real world" to facilitate the players in their imagining of the SIS).  This does not mean that the meta-game elements are not of the game process, but "roleplay" has not begun until one dons the avatar (slips into the role) and starts to interact with the SIS via the avatar.  Thus one could spend all night laying out the Social contract, rolling up character, etc., but until the character is employed as a window into the SIS the night was all meta-game and thus no "roleplay" had occurred.  Again, this stepping into the SIS may not be the reason that one plays, but play is not said to have begun until one has done so.  Roleplay is a consensus process and that process is not begun until one has entered the consensus zone – the SIS.

OK – what's the fuss?  Simply that anything that takes us out of the SIS (because the player must operate out of character/avater) is a metagame process.  All Techniques fall into this category.  Now here's the rub.  One may argue that because the LP operates within the SIS, and that Negotiations are employed by the LP, and that a subset of those Negotiation tools are Techniques (the rules set as provided by the published works as employed), that it follows that Techniques operates within the SIS.  I disagree.  Simply put, the employment of Techniques pulls us out of the Avatar and by extension the SIS.  The operation of the ratification-by-silent-consent Negotiation tool does not pull us out of the SIS because it does not require us to speak or operate out of character, or to even be aware that the Negotiations are taking place.

Yes, it is still common to refer to a "game system" and mean something published; but for clarity, we have attempted at least for the last year or so to delineate "system" by the Lumpley principle.

I agree that all systems employed in a game, including the "game system" (as something published) and those systems that do not arise out of "game system" fall under the Lumpley Principle.  That assertion, however true, does not say much about roleplay.  Like a system observed, it tells us that something is going on, that there is a system but not much more.  As theorists, it does lay nice a framework by which we can poke around and see how system works (it is an apportionment process), but it does not explain why we roleplay, or how to roleplay.  All it says is that roleplay is a consensus process.  Nor does the Lumpley Principle, as invaluable a tool it is, explain or even touch upon the Narrative Process – that which governs the statement end of the equation.  The fact that we can't even get into the SIS without an avatar (a Narrative Element) tells us how vital the Narrative Process is.  There is nothing to Negotiate over until Character, Setting, or Situation is brought into utterance (or color employed to aid in the imagining of Character, Setting, or Situation).  The LP is not a causal agent.  The LP is not employed per say; the LP is a description, not a prescription.  Therefore LP cannot be called The System; rather The System can be described as operating in a fashion that qualifies it to be described as a LP event.

Ron has said that when he writes "Exploration of System" he means "time and attention paid to the process of determining what happens in the game,"...

There are many problems with the above statement, but aside from those problems there exists a phrase in it that is profoundly important yet slips by virtually unnoticed.

"...what happens in the game..."

What an all-encompassing fragment.  Wow.  By acting on, or making operational that fragment; does that not describe all that we do when we play? The questions then become what does HAPPEN and what constitutes THE GAME?  If for now we were to focus on what does "happen" we need to define in what "sphere" that these happenings take place in.  I am purposely vague about the meaning on "happenings" at this moment, but it is the purpose of this next section to delve into that very meaning.

I'll start off with a dictionary definition of happen.

To come to pass.
To come into being.

({The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved}.  I apologize if it seems a bit pedantic to cite in these boards – but I thought it just and appropriate to give credit where credit is due, especially concerning copy written material.)

The distinction between the two is important.  The first definition – come to pass – describes everything that happened in the SIS under the aegis of the LP.  Again, the LP can only respond by apportioning credibility (allows things to come to pass in the SIS – whether they be formalized (printed system) or non-formalized Negotiation (social contract items) techniques), but it does not have anything to say about the process of "coming into being" on the player level.  This sphere of "happening" (coming to pass) is the one where the game events/Avatar actions are happening/coming to pass (the SIS).

However, there is another sphere of "happening", I call it the Personal Imagined Space and it is here that "come into being" occurs.  The Personal Imagined Space is the sphere where drives and desires come into being for the player, meaning is injected into "game mechanics", and meaning/satisfaction (or frustration!) that is derived from the game is experienced.  The PIS is fully operational, transcends The System, and is equally as much or more a part of the game as operating in and on the SIS.

SIS – what we do (The sandbox where our ideas play out – the consensus zone – the agreed upon place where those ideas that came into being are determined as to whether or not they come to pass.) This is an external factual process.

PIS – why we do (All the reasons/motives/desires that drive us to sit down to play – the generative zone – the place where ideas and feelings come into being.)  This is an internal perceptual process.

This distinction is important because there are times when the DM may wish to direct internal states or noisy, perceptual information to a specific player via their avatar.  This is a PIS event as the information is internal or not subject to consensus.  For example the DM could say that, "you have a gnawing feeling that something isn't right," (internal state) or "you think you see some movement in the trees, but you aren't sure" (noisy perceptual information – something by its very nature that everyone can NOT agree upon!)   The player has the option in either case to apportion no credibility to the DM's statements, but the need to come to a consensus is not present.  The game does not stop functioning if there is no consensus; the player disregards the information at their own risk.  (By the way, this is a GREAT DMing tool!)  In either case nothing factual is happening so it does not belong in the SIS.  This too is part of the game experience, of what happened at the game and is relevant.

There can be sidebar player-to-player communications that do not enter the SIS but do affect the SIS by virtue of the effect of the communications has on the actions of the players via their avatars.  Their conversation could be subject to the LP if they are attempting to do something that directly affects the physical imagined world.  But if the players are dealing with internal matters, i.e., they are not doing anything that affects or interacts with the physical imagined world beyond their control (they do control their own bodies – at least under normal circumstances), then the LP has no dominion.  For example they could agree to a treaty without invoking the LP because they are trading information about internal states, what they plan to do or not to do, over which the LP has no sway.  However if they wished to write this treaty down then the LP would come into play.  This too is part of the game experience, of what happened at the game and is relevant.

There can be times when a player chooses to say and/or do nothing which results is something happening in the SIS.  One could argue that such an action could be equivalent to making the statement – "I do nothing of my own volition in response to events" thereby starting the negotiation process because a statement, "I do nothing of my own volition in response to events," has been assumed to have be made, however there is nothing to negotiate.  The LP can only operate on actions, not inactions.  The LP can only control (stop or allow) the entrance of a statement into the SIS, it cannot Negotiate on an action (statement) when no actionable statement is given.  Any player, including the DM may respond directly to the nonaction of the nonaction-player, however that response must go through the LP if it is to have an effect/credibility.  For example the character in question states, in response to the situation of a house burning down around said character, "I do nothing (of my own volition in response to events), and no one can nullify his statement.  Other players may operate in the SIS to do something, but the apportionment process cannot be challenged, said character statement is 100% credible because no one can deny it.  What happens to the character as a result must work its way through the LP, but the statement does not.  This part of the game experience, though outside of the LP.  It happened as is relevant.

There are times when a player may wish to make a statement about an internal process, such as, "I (my character) am angry," or an intention such as, "I (my character) will kill (insert name of BBEG) if it's the last thing I (my character) do," neither of which is subject to the LP.  The LP cannot deny or invalidate a person's or a character's emotional state.  The player may choose not to express his character's thoughts to anyone, but still act on those internal states bringing them into play via actions taken in accordance to those internal states into the SIS.  This too is part of the game experience, of what happened at the game and is relevant.

Finally there is the internal state of the player.  This space encompasses the personal, not character, reasons for playing.  This is where the itch to play originates.  This is the "why a social contract" was invoked in the first place.  This is where CA lives and drives efforts to seek its own satisfaction.  This is the "I want" space.  I want to play.  I want to play an exciting game.  I want to "win."  I want to explore "the question".  I want to experience what its like to be a hero.  I want to experience what its like to play a lout.  I want to experience what its like to build or destroy an empire.  I want to experience what its like to sacrifice oneself for a greater good.  I want to experience what its like to betray one's people.  I want to experience what its like to live in a world different from our own.  Each desire leads to a story, and there as many stories as there possibilities.

The internal state of the player is also the space where one's reactions to the game process are felt.  This is where one feels the results of scratching that itch.  This is the space where one feels the satisfaction or dissatisfaction as a result of engaging in Roleplay.  This is where we feel the contentment or frustration from being able to or not being able to enact our CA.  This is the place where social interactions at the table transpire, the social pressures or rewards, as Ron puts it.  Ron gave an example, where (to my shame) I cannot remember, that he was running a game, something happened (again I do not remember) and all the players nodded their heads.  Something happened that all the players were emoting their agreement to, and did so without be consciously aware.  In all likelihood had Ron not stopped the game to bring it to the players' attention they would not have remembered nodding their heads but the emotion memory colored their experience for that evenings activities.  That unselfconscious nodding of their heads was part of the reason they play, to feel something, in this case something positive – it made them feel good enough that they expressed their delight.  One could be asked, "what happened to you?" to which the roleplayer could reply, "I had a great time."  These emotive states are a vital part of the game experience, of what happened at the game and is relevant.  It is also here that story is experienced as it unfolds.

The DM can also use color to create a direct emotive effect on his players.  This can be either pictures or by music (or any other emotion effecting process which may include costumes, lighting, incense, etc.), which has a profound impact on emotions, all of which can have tremendous effect on the game, without having to go through the LP.  This too is part of the game experience, of what happened at the game and is relevant.

The basic game play process might thus be diagramed as such –

Desire->Statement->Negotiation->Consensus->Experience->Desire etc.

As can be seen the human emotive element bookends the LP.  Desire drives the game; the experience is what we get out of it.  However, as I demonstrated above, not all "events" in the game go through the above process completely.  Nor should they.

The PIS is a central and vital part of what happens during a game.  No system has domain over it in any way.  Thus it can be said that – "time and attention paid to the process of determining what happens in the game," is an incoherent statement.  Much "happens in the game" that system has no part of.  System is a vital part to roleplay, there is no roleplay without system.  However there is much to roleplay that transcends The System.  In other words roleplay is more than system, it also includes us (the players), our desires, and our emotive experiences.

I am going to make a statement that is, I believe, axiomatic –

Any oral or written activity that operates on both (a minimum of) one character, and conflict (both must be present) results in story; thus the process of the operation is story telling/creation.  

Fictional story telling/creation, as what we are engaged in, is an emotional process.  How much story telling goes on, and how "emotional" the story is, is up to the players.  One could go very minimal to almost no story in hardcore Gamism, to extreme emotional and physical verisimilitude in Simulationism.  Narrativism, from what I can gather, having no guide to it yet, is more interested in (or puts a higher premium on) the Important Question than verisimilitude because there are built in mechanics that can overrides one's innate actions dictating a response which may not be inline with the established persona.  The process is story creation whether or not one wishes to attend to the process.  Much like the Lumpley Principle always being in operation whenever there is a consensus event, story creation simply just happens if you have character and conflict.  My whole point is that Roleplay is a story creation process, most games don't overtly recognize that, and thus many games close many narrative avenues, tools and processes that could expand the game experience.  Not all games have to, or even wish to make the story creation process central, but few actively pursue it, or are aware of it, with all its attendant emotive rewards.  As a note, just because all games are story creation events does not discount Gamist or Narrativist agendas or marginalize them in any way.  Gamist and Narrativist agendas just place other goals higher than story verisimilitude.  Story is still created; it's just that breaking internal causality is not verboten.

Exploration used in conjunction with the narrative elements is a creation process – story creation to be exact.  During Exploration of character, the character is fleshed out, there is more to the character after than before.  The same could be said with setting and situation.  One cannot use the same definition of Exploration in conjunction with system for nothing new about system is created when Exploring The System.  The System must be fixed, at least during actual play, or you could end up with dysfunction in the terms of Calvinball.  One could fix/repair System, but that is not the self-generating process like the Exploration of Narrative Elements is.  The act of Exploring the Narrative elements is an act of creation.  "Exploring System" is not, by definition, an act of creation.  System is supposed to be static; it is a reference point that we can all look to in times of need.  This isn't to say System can't be changed, but its essential role is to be consistent, not dynamic.  One could exploit System, one could employ System, one could learn about The System, but that is not the same as the creation process of Exploration of the Narrative Elements.

Just to dot my "i's" and cross my "t's", "time and attention paid to the process..." also falls apart.  A non-participant can merely watch a game in progress (time paid) and could be very attentive (attention paid) to the process of determining what happens in a game, but never Explore System.  It's a vague definition of the process (time and attention paid) that doesn't necessarily mean, it does not clearly denote employing or in anyway interacting with System.

Whew!  That took a lot of effort and brain cells.  I hope this post makes sense.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

[lumpley]

I think your jargon is tripping you up.  Particularly I recommend that you stop thinking of the group's consensus and your own imagination as "spaces" of any sort.  

You imagine stuff.  The only way for what you imagine to become part of what happens in the game is for you to communicate it.  The Lumpididdly Principiddly governs communication about what happens in the game.  Nothing to it.

Your stuff about "avatars" is just nonsense.  You don't need an "avatar" to "enter" the in-game.  There is, as they say, no there there.  What mediates between you and the in-game is the words and numbers and pictures and things you use to communicate with your fellow players.  The in-game is made of words and numbers and pictures and communication, not imagination.  Your personal imagination leads and follows the group's communicated consensus, and the bridge between them is precisely negotiation.

I'll leave Ron to defend (or not) "explore" as the word for what you do with System, it's his deal.  But try this: "Exploration of System" = "Time and attention paid to participating in the process of determining what happens in the fictional in-game."  Do any of your objections still stand?

-Vincent

[M. J. Young]

I wanted to take issue with a couple of points in Jay's post. Overall, Jay keeps trying to put "system" in a smaller box, and I keep trying to put it in a bigger box; but let me address these points individually:

[*]Whether character creation is excluded from the Lumpley Principle;[*]Whether the control of a character is the essential for roleplaying.[*]

This distinction is important because there are times when the DM may wish to direct internal states or noisy, perceptual information to a specific player via their avatar. This is a PIS event as the information is internal or not subject to consensus.

I disagree.[*]

The LP can only operate on actions, not inactions. The LP can only control (stop or allow) the entrance of a statement into the SIS, it cannot Negotiate on an action (statement) when no actionable statement is given.

Again I disagree.[*]

The LP cannot deny or invalidate a person's or a character's emotional state.

I would say that it can.[/list:u]
In order then?

Character Creation?
Jay maintains that character creation and certain other of what might be considered preparatory steps to play are not governed by "system" under the Lumpley principle because they are not making a statement within the shared imaginary space. However, what exactly is a character sheet, if not a major written statement intended for inclusion in the shared imaginary space? System in this case states that the group has agreed that whatever is written on that character sheet, to the degree that it has followed the "rules" for character creation, is the description of that character within the shared imaginary space. It might be that we don't all know all the details thereof, but we are agreed that it is the description of the character, and therefore wherever the character appears in the shared imaginary space, that piece of paper describes him. It is a statement made about that shared imaginary space, and perhaps one of the statements which provide the initial definition thereof. In that sense, the creation of setting detail is also a contribution to the shared imaginary space, to the degree that the group has agreed to include it, known or unknown. As an example, if we have agreed to play The Keep on the Borderlands, we have agreed that the cleric who lives in the Keep is a bad guy who will betray us if we give him the opportunity; we have also agreed that this information may be kept secret from us as players until such time as it becomes relevant. That is a detail that exists in the shared imaginary space to which we have implicitly agreed without being aware of it, at the moment we agreed that the module defines the shape of the setting. In the same way, at the moment we agree to play a game, the creation of characters for that game is a process of making statements into that shared imaginary space which are implicitly agreed even if not fully known by all participants.

The Need for an Avatar

Vincent has nicely addressed this, but I'll add something to it. Jay suggests that you can't contribute to the shared imaginary space other than through your character. However, director stance is in large part about making contributions to the shared imaginary space through changes to setting or situation outside the control of the character. Jay could argue that he is addressing simulationist play, in which director stance is rare, and I would agree in one sense that director stance is rare in simulationist play (as I wrote in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory). It is not impossible nor non-existent. More to the point, the referee in a simulationist game is very much involved in contributing to and participating in the shared imaginary space through director stance control, whether or not he is currently running any characters. Either the referee is not playing, or the avatar is not a prerequisite to being involved in the game. Since the referee is clearly contributing a great deal to the shared imaginary space, he must be playing, and therefore the character is unnecessary.

I believe that Universalis counters any idea that you need to have your own character to be involved in the shared imaginary space. You don't.

Communication of Character Internal States

Jay suggests that when the referee tells the player that he feels or suspects something, that this is not part of the shared imaginary space. I'm a bit unclear as to why he thinks this, but suspect it is all or part of these two ideas:

--The other players are or may not be involved in that piece of information, and therefore it is not shared;
--The player to whom it is given need not act upon it and therefore it has not entered the space.

Both of these reasons are flawed.

The fact that both the referee and one of the players are aware of this bit of information means that it is shared; it is not fully and universally shared, but it is part of that shared imaginary space. What Jay seems to miss here (as above with character creation) is that it is quite possible for us to agree that there is information within the shared imaginary space which we do not all know and yet is true within it.

In this regard, I am reminded that in one of my OAD&D games a new player joined the group, playing a female drow cavalier. She (the character) never removed her helmet in public or within view of her companions. I knew he was playing a female drow, and obviously he knew it; but the rest of the players at the table were unaware of this. Yet the fact that this was a female drow was part of the shared imaginary space despite the fact that only two out of twenty of us knew it. It impacted what she did, and what I did, and thus influenced other events in the shared imaginary space. It in effect caused other events.

If there is a cause within the shared imaginary space that is unknown, but the effects of which are perceived, this cause is also part of that shared space despite being unknown to the majority of the participants. It is perfectly reasonable to assert that we have agreed to a shared reality of which some of the details are not yet known to all of the participants. They're still in there, as "unknown details to which we have implicitly agreed".

As to whether the player ignoring it makes it not part of the shared imaginary space, I don't see how that follows. I might have said, "Jim, your character Dimitri has this feeling someone is following you." I might have passed it to him on a note. If I passed it to him on a note, and he decided, you know, I've had this hunch six times today, and always been wrong, I'm going to ignore it, that does not alter the fact that that hunch was part of the shared imaginary space. If either of us were writing up the history of this adventure, we might include it--particularly if a moment later something attacked from behind, and Jim said, "I should have listened to that hunch this time."

And obviously if I told Jim of this hunch aloud in front of the others, and he decided to ignore it, it is part of everyone's shared imaginary space that Dimitri had a feeling someone was following and ignored it.

The character only exists within the shared imaginary space; therefore the internal state of the character also only exists within the shared imaginary space, even if that state is not known to all the participants.

The Lumpley Principle Can Act on Inactions

This happens all the time.

You're falling. What are you going to do?

Nothing.

You hit the ground, roll four dice of damage.

That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point: system determines what happens when the characters act; it also determines by default what happens when they do not act. Some rules sets, and therefore in application some systems, are very detailed regarding what happens if the players don't do something about what is happening. Others are a lot less specific. However, the group has in general agreed to how events within the shared imaginary space will be resolved, and that includes default consequences for inaction.

System Can Deny a Character's Stated Emotional State

I'll agree that this is unusual; but it is not really uncommon.

Jay includes in this that system cannot dictate character action when the player has dictated inaction, or has failed to dictate action and thus defaulted to inaction. He gives the example of a house burning down, and the character refusing to do anything about it. Sure, that could happen; and the character is sort of inactive--not really, the character is actively standing there, actively aware of the fire, and actively ignoring it. Further, his example provides another:

The house is burning down; what are you going to do?

Nothing; I'm just going to sit here and watch.

I'm sorry, you're in the house, the heat is getting unbearable--I want you to roll a will power check to keep yourself from trying to save your life by running out of the house.

There are times in some games in which system takes control of the character away from the player whose avatar it would seem to be, and requires that the character take actions to which the player might object. I've seen it as far back as an early D&D module, where the good wine was dripping, and anyone who tasted it had to make a wisdom check to avoid having another taste, and another, with increasing penalties until the character was drunk and useless and boisterous. It is not at all that uncommon.

All of this is system at work. All of this is Lumpley Principle: we have agreed to the content of the shared imaginary space. Things will sometimes happen in it of which some of us are unaware, or over which none of us have complete individual control, or which appear to be occuring outside of the game world yet inform it tremendously.

Jay, why do you want system to be smaller than this?

--M. J. Young