Validation of Input in Sim

[Sean]

Marco asked about this in another thread.

Marco, what did you think of Chris Kubasik's post here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12964&start=42

that seemed to me to be one fine example, if not of the only possible kind.

I also thought we got somewhere with that topic in my post here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12860&start=11

I take Chris' post to be an excellent example of what I was talking about, so I feel like I agree with him; and Ron seemed to agree with me in that thread, at least broadly speaking. What in these posts are you not getting as far as needing to understand validation of input in Sim? Or am I misreading you somehow?

[Marco]

I take Chris' post to be an excellent example of what I was talking about, so I feel like I agree with him; and Ron seemed to agree with me in that thread, at least broadly speaking. What in these posts are you not getting as far as needing to understand validation of input in Sim? Or am I misreading you somehow?

I think that Chris' excellent post squares with my observation. What his games lacked wasn't premise--it was empathic emotional engagment in the imaginary situation on the part of the players.

I think that if you lack that (empathic emotional engagement) then you don't need slavish attention to genre or anything else (the gating factor*).

If you have that, then even with the gating factor, I suspect you still get Narrativism.

Look at the games I've posted to actual play: there is no genre emulation (that I am aware of). If they are Sim (as several readers here think they are) then what are the limits on confirmation of input?

-Marco
* The gating factor is my term for the social convention to confirm only some input.

[John Kim]

I think this is a great topic, because I think this reformulation should be discussed more.  A question for Sean: presumably this is for comment by people other than Marco, right?  i.e. Open questions regarding this definition are OK?  

I'd like to add a little more context for others reading this thread.  This is discussing a fairly recent formulation of what Simulationist play is.  I'm making a list of references for context:

[*]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=133952#133952">What Simulationist play is (Aug 30, 2004)
This is Ron's attempt at an explanation of how he views Simulationist play, from a thread start by Ralph/Valamir, "Narrativism: Not a Creative Agenda".  
[*] http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=136131#136131">Have I been stuttering lately? (Sep 15, 2004)
In a discussion on "What are we talking about when we say 'Creative Agenda'?", Ron cites the first post, saying "That's it, people. That's what Simulationist play is."
[*] http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=137619#137619">I'm quoting this for the second time now (Sep 28, 2004)
In a discussion on "Splitting Simulationism", Ron again cites the first post followed by a little more commentary and discussion.  
[*] http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=137635#137635">Damn, that's slick (Sep 28, 2004)
Sean's commentary on Ron's second quoting of the definition.  
[*] http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=139701#139701">One True Way stopped my enjoyment of roleplaying (Oct 15, 2004)
In a thread on examples of "One True Way" affecting gaming, Christopher Kubasik describes a group which he played with who enjoyed emulating genre and pursued it as an exclusive goal, which convinced him to quit gaming for a while.  [/list:u]
OK, so with that as context, let me get on to questions concerning this.  

I take Chris' post to be an excellent example of what I was talking about, so I feel like I agree with him; and Ron seemed to agree with me in that thread, at least broadly speaking. What in these posts are you not getting as far as needing to understand validation of input in Sim?

OK, what I'm concerned about is what this means as a definition.  Let me get specific: I'm running a James Bond 007 game where I put a fair amount of emphasis on "nailing" the genre.  So, for example, I play the James Bond theme music at the start of a session, and there is a theme song for each mission/adventure.  I'm very deliberately keeping up things like NPCs with sexual-pun names, gadgets and cars, and so forth.  So it seems to me that confirmation of input is occuring.  But perhaps it is Simulationist if this confirmation is not the "focus" or "priority" of play. (?)  Would others agree with that?  

Whether this is true or not, how does this relate to prior definitions of GNS Simulationism?  In particular:  is it possible to put a priority on commitment to the imagined events of play, without putting priority on confirmation of input?  It seems to me that such would be possible.  i.e. You can be commited to the imagined events, but you allow that the output can vary from the input.

[Marco]

OK, what I'm concerned about is what this means as a definition.  Let me get specific: I'm running a James Bond 007 game where I put a fair amount of emphasis on "nailing" the genre.  So, for example, I play the James Bond theme music at the start of a session, and there is a theme song for each mission/adventure.  I'm very deliberately keeping up things like NPCs with sexual-pun names, gadgets and cars, and so forth.  So it seems to me that confirmation of input is occuring.  But perhaps it is Simulationist if this confirmation is not the "focus" or "priority" of play. (?)  Would others agree with that?  

I think these are all techniques (or all the same technique): setting the SiS in a specific imaginary world. That world has some conventions which may either be limits on the players (you don't teleport anti-matter into opponent's ships in Star Trek) or may be imposed by the game system (a blow to the back of the head is an automatic KO in detective fiction).

Either way, I don't think either of these have any real bearing on premise, engagement of premise, focus, etc.

In fact, I think focus is a red herring. You might spend more time researching old JB movies to get the supporting cast's characters right than thinking about the updated post-cold war ethics questions in the game (say James is against a soulless corporation this time out)--but that doesn't mean the majority of the enjoyment or energy of play will come from there.

-Marco

[Sean]

John - yes, definitely, we can open this up to 'general discussion of validation of input in Sim play'. I'll consider my own response to your and Marco's questions. I think I roughly agree with what Marco just said to you, though, and to Marco I might say: compare confirmation of genre/fictional world with confirmation of participants' shared sense of what is 'realistic' in combat. But that's just a start - I need to think more before I post more. Good conversation so far.

[contracycle]

I think Chris description would qualify as an example of C of I, albeit one carried out with poor grace IMO.  That is, I don't think they needed to express as much DISapproval as appears to have been the case.   That I suspect  is an example of subcultural elitism.

OK, what I'm concerned about is what this means as a definition. Let me get specific: I'm running a James Bond 007 game where I put a fair amount of emphasis on "nailing" the genre. So, for example, I play the James Bond theme music at the start of a session, and there is a theme song for each mission/adventure. I'm very deliberately keeping up things like NPCs with sexual-pun names, gadgets and cars, and so forth. So it seems to me that confirmation of input is occuring.

I do not think it is occurring YET - it will only occur when the players respond to those inputs and express their approval.

Take for example Bonds preference for small weapons.  As I see it, from the perspective of a GM who's gone to such lengths to establish the genre, if a player violates this expectation the GM may well experience them as not joining in with the spirit of the endeavour.  By contrast, say a player who makes a positive effort to replicate Bond's cavalier wit and constant flirtation with Miss Moneypenny, then the GM not only gets to see their own  model affirmed by this players acceptance, but is in fact also rewarded by this player voluntarily cooperating, contributing to the model.

IOW the GM's model of the genre has been offered and accepted.  The GM has thus had the validity and worth of their input confirmed by the other players.  A really basic "you're OK I'm OK" exchange has just taken place.
Similarly a player might find an opportunity to demand a given event occur by precedent from the genre - if accepted that input, although phrased in potential terms, has been confirmed.

Whether this is true or not, how does this relate to prior definitions of GNS Simulationism? In particular: is it possible to put a priority on commitment to the imagined events of play, without putting priority on confirmation of input? It seems to me that such would be possible. i.e. You can be commited to the imagined events, but you allow that the output can vary from the input.

IMO they are very similar.  But commitment is one of those words with too many contexts to be precisely clear, I fear.  Let me try another anology that uses the language of commitment.

If I engage in a romantic relationship, I face the constant fear of my feelings not being reciprocated.  There's not a great deal I can do about that myself, but what my partner can do is reassure me that they feel similarly.  Thus, we share a series of interactions in which our romantic commitment to one another is expressed - or to paraphrase, we confirm the others hope that these feelings are mutual, and that their actions/inputs on the basis of that hope are worthwhile.  The input "I love you" is confirmed by the response "I love you too".


Now to return to Chris' experience briefly, I think that there is quite a difference between "I'm Trekker than thou", which appears to be what he encountered, and "we are so Trek, baby", which I think is the healthy version.

Footnote: not a single reference to premise, you'll note.

[John Kim]

Let me get specific: I'm running a James Bond 007 game where I put a fair amount of emphasis on "nailing" the genre. So, for example, I play the James Bond theme music at the start of a session, and there is a theme song for each mission/adventure. I'm very deliberately keeping up things like NPCs with sexual-pun names, gadgets and cars, and so forth. So it seems to me that confirmation of input is occuring.

I do not think it is occurring YET - it will only occur when the players respond to those inputs and express their approval.

Take for example Bonds preference for small weapons.  As I see it, from the perspective of a GM who's gone to such lengths to establish the genre, if a player violates this expectation the GM may well experience them as not joining in with the spirit of the endeavour.  By contrast, say a player who makes a positive effort to replicate Bond's cavalier wit and constant flirtation with Miss Moneypenny, then the GM not only gets to see their own  model affirmed by this players acceptance, but is in fact also rewarded by this player voluntarily cooperating, contributing to the model.

I'd agree with that.  To my mind, that's just saying that multiple people have to be actively engaged in the confirmation.  i.e. The players have to be doing much the same as I do as GM, which they do in my case.  

On the other hand, there are agreed differences.  For one, the PCs are not all identical to Bond.  (cf my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/jamesbond007/campaign.html"> Campaign Page for more details)  For example, 008 is English aristocracy and has a penchant for hunting rifles, and his signature drink is Old Oldbury Sheep Dip.  003 is a career spy who has a wife and family, and uses a Heckler & Koch (or sword-cane), and drinks Bombay Sapphire gin and tonic.  On the other hand, 009 is a former cat-burglar and uses more "criminal" weapons like submachineguns, and tends to drink beer.  

However, they also accept and support the genre in many other ways.  Even if they aren't the same as Bond, they have their signature drinks and guns.  008 and 009 philander freely, and all three live the high life as they chase down the villians.  All this is consistent with the idea of validation of input.  

The issue is then about priority.  i.e. Is this prioritized such that it is Simulationist, or is something else prioritized more?  I'm not sure.  This seems to me to be very much the same sticking point as in earlier Sim/Nar discussions for me like Water-Uphill-World or Shadows-in-the-Fog.  There is no doubt for me that there is celebration of James Bond here.  However, like most celebrations, this is also transformative.  Similarly, a wedding feast is celebrating a relationship, but it also transforms it.  Birthday parties are similarly a ritual celebration of growth and maturity.

By re-casting new PCs into the myth, this is transforming the meaning.  This is especially blatant in 008, who is gay.  Thus, I've had him meet up with good-looking NPCs like Phil McRevis and other male bimbo types.  From one perspective, this is in-genre for James Bond -- but from another it is totally subversive of the original.  I'm not sure that comes across clearly, but basically my point here is that I see the confirmation and celebration as being inherently a part of the narrative meaning of this game.

[contracycle]

Well thats an interesting case to raise I'll agree.  I'd guess the way I see it is that this is an opportunity for your own groups self-expression: that is, the validity of your input is not of course being measured by a world council of fandom but just by the people present in your game.  If you all agree that gay agents are Bond, then for all intents and purposes it seems to me that gay agents can be Bond.

At any rate I find it quite an easy argument to make myself; if we see Bond as just being rakish and very sexual, his trail of conquests plays just as well regardless of gender.  Equally, I think that if a movie producer created a gay Bond today, it would probably fly rather better than it would have in the 70's.

Even so, even if it didn't fly, I think we could still see this as valid in the terms of the claim, that sim constitutes confirmation of input.  That is because even if the specific response you receive to your proposal, in this case of the gay Bond or agent, is DISconfirmation of your input - taking the form "thats not realistic/not in genre" - we are still seeing the grup-level agreement on "what we agree to simulate" being established.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

It seems very clear to me that the "gay 008" is posed as a potential challenge/threat to the integrity of the input, with a fair and enthusiastic willingness to see whether the output can still confirm the input.

"If our 007-fu is strong, then introducing what looks like a contradictory factor will only show 007's strength!"

By "threat," I do not mean anything that breaks (invalidates) the input, but might do so if we, the practitioners, do not demonstrate our full and deep understanding of the input and its hidden strengths.

Imagine the moment when 008 shows himself to share some basic value or point that 007 has been demonstrating all along, even though it looked as if the two characters were going to be absolutely contradictory. It's easy to imagine, for me, for instance, when 008 goes ahead and seduces someone in a very Bond-like fashion for a very Bond-like purpose, and 007 has to admit, appreciatively or grudgingly or whatever, that this Queer Guy is, indeed, our kind of guy.

This basic approach strikes me as a common, well-understood, and enthusiastic feature of a lot of Sim play. It is probably why people keep reaching for experimental analogies in our discussions.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

John,

I have a question for you. I've been thinking about confirmation of input and I think it's most clear not in the positive case but rather in the negative: the case where someone's input is not confirmed.

Where, thus far, in your game or prep have you (if anywhere) not confirmed someone's input?

And do you have any actual-play situations you can think of where, doing something similar, you have not-confirmed.

The case I can think of most recently is Raven's denial of a dimensional traveler in an authurian mythos game--but there we can clearly see that the play is certainly not limited to a given CA.

When does the confirmation of input cease to be a technique and start being GNS Sim?

Edited: Ron has a post on this (or at least almost exactly this) in another thread just now. The one on What Does The Dream Require.
-Marco