Musings on mechanics and The Dream

[clehrich]

Jay,

I'm guessing a bit, but here's part of what I think you're saying.  Correct me where I go wrong.

In the imagined world that Sim projects, i.e. the Dream, there is assumed to be a consistent causality -- the world is deterministic.  If, let's say, gravity is active in that world, then every time my character drops something he can be quite sure that it will fall.

But the causality of that world is not identical to the mechanics.  The mechanics abstract certain elements of the world's causality, reducing them to formulae or whatever.  While some systems certainly try to do so, one cannot actually produce the total system of causality: to do so would require a physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth rather beyond that we have in the real world, first of all, and besides the point of mechanics is not to reconstruct, from the ground up, all the mechanical causality-structures of the Dream-world.

Therefore the question when looking at mechanics is choice: why these elements?  Since we cannot actually model everything, what we choose to model amounts to a mode of emphasis, putting certain kinds of negotiations with the Dream-world front-and-center.  This entails Mike's Rant about combat systems: by electing to model combat in detail, we automatically emphasize combat as important.

Now this is true in any type of system, but in Sim it's not clear what end such choices serve.  That is, in Gam and Nar, the purpose of such mechanics is to emphasize player/character actions of particular sorts, because those actions will produce or facilitate Step On Up or Story Now.  But in Sim, the claim is that such mechanics facilitate the Dream, which is not an activity as such.  So the question becomes how the selection of particular elements to model facilitates the Dream itself rather than actions.

You're suggesting, based I take it on my remarks here and there on Peircean semiotics, that the way this works is by providing opportunities for Abductive failure.  That is, the point is to get players to make wrong guesses about the Dream-world such that fixing those errors actually strengthens the Dream.  Thus the action-type facilitated by Sim design is Abduction, a specifically player activity, which is quite different from what is facilitated in Gam and Nar.

For example:

GM: You see a pretty classic saloon, with the clever sign, "Saloon."

Player: Doc Holliday walks through the swinging doors into the saloon.  He strides across the sawdust-strewn floor up to the bar, spurs jangling.  He looks at the bartender, a fat, sweaty guy balding on top, and says, "Gimme a shot of rye.  Make it a double."

GM: You look at the bartender and are surprised to see that it's a woman, a pretty young thing in a gingham dress.  "Get you something, stranger?" she asks.

Now the player has made an Abduction here: this is a classic western saloon, so it has peanut shells and sawdust on the floor, swinging doors, and a fat, sweaty guy as the bartender.  I will now test this Abduction by examining the Deduced Results directly, which is to say I will mention the doors, the sawdust, and the bartender.  His Abduction is largely validated, but one Deduced Result is incorrect: the bartender is not a fat, sweaty guy, but a young woman in a gingham dress.

His Abduction has not been a total failure -- the bar didn't suddenly turn out to be the Mos Eiseley cantina, complete with aliens, which would have broken the Dream.  Instead, he has been almost exactly correct, but there is an alteration to the standard picture.  As is expected with such Abduction-Deduction, this detail actually strengthens the Dream: this saloon has now come alive, no longer just a shadowy cardboard cutout but a real place, with real people.  (That's an exaggeration, but the principle is good.)

Furthermore, the player now knows that the woman in the gingham dress is worth talking to, i.e. could be interesting, because she represents a slight variation from the norm.  There isn't anything interesting about the sawdust on the floor or the swinging doors; they're stock elements, and they've been validated.

Note, in passing, that none of this is about the character: he never assumed that the saloon bartender was a fat, sweaty guy, because he saw the woman when he came in.  The Abduction is made by the player, and thus the failure of the ensuing Deduction strengthens the Dream by making the player see better what the character sees.

Therefore the whole point of the causality of the universe, which is what said, "A standard saloon has these basic elements," is that slight variations actually strengthen the whole.  The exceptions prove the rule, if you like.

Now let's consider something more clearly mechanical.

Doc Holliday has been sleeping with the pretty bartender, but her brother Clem, who works out at the Bar-T Corral, has found out about it and he confronts Doc in the street at high noon.  "Draw," he says.

The ensuing gunfight will work according to strict causality of the Dream-world.  This is not the same as saying that the gunfight will be based exactly on how such combats actually worked in history, with all the physics and whatnot precisely fixed as they must actually have been.  We must know what sort of Western we're in.  If this is a gritty, "Unforgiven" sort of thing, then precise simulation of real-world physics and history is probably at stake; if this is a Sergio Leone spaghetti Western, then the gunfight will play out according to the aesthetics of such a gunfight: less blood, less chance of a jam or a simply failed draw, more chance that the superior gunfighter will simply dispatch his opponent, etc.  And the mechanics must abstract -- from the total possible causal structures of such gunfights -- those elements that emphasize what is important to this type of gunfight.

But the trick is that if this causality is absolutely deterministic, it is only so for the character; the player knows that there are any number of options, and he cannot know which will manifest in this instance.  He also knows that the form of this gunfight must match the possible range of the Dream, and that because this universe is deterministic the GM will not make the decision arbitrarily.  Instead, the mechanics will tell us which issues are indeed at stake here.

What we hope, in fact, is that because this gunfight seems interesting -- which is the case because such fights are interesting in the source material and because (not coincidentally) they are intensively modeled in the mechanical system -- the player will fail ever so slightly in his Abduction about how this gunfight will run.  Otherwise we have once again a cardboard cutout, a completely tedious "blah blah here we go again" gunfight instead of something interesting.

Let's suppose that, contrary to expectations, Clem's gun jams and Doc is a little slow on the draw (or Clem cheats by drawing early).  Already we have a slight violation of the norm of the gunfight, but it is still within the range of possibility.  Doc must now act in a way that is consistent with the deterministic nature of the universe, and he can to some degree predict the outcome.

Doc could very slowly and carefully fire just to the left of Clem's head, making it clear that he could have killed Clem but chooses not to do so.  In some games, depending again on source material, he could shoot Clem's gunbelt buckle so as to drop his pants without hurting him.

Doc could simply kill Clem, or try to.

Doc could make a gentle remark about Clem needing a big boy's gun and then turn his back and walk away.

Depending on the nature of the Dream-world, all of these actions will have relatively predictable results.

If we had done this purely mechanically, for example if our mechanical system requires that Doc declare his action before any draws are made, then he shoots or doesn't shoot based simply on his Abduced expectation of the kind of gunfight we're in.

In any event, the slight violation of the absolute normative expectation for such a fight, as determined by the Dream and rendered through mechanics-emphasis, makes the gunfight meaningful and important instead of something that could be handwaved.  We might note the not-uncommon statement in Sim systems that no action -- really, we mean no mechanics-relevant action, i.e. no important action -- can be automatically successful.  

This suggests that the possibility of failure especially when the chances of success are high, or conversely the possibility of success when the chances of failure are high, functions to strengthen the Dream.  And an actual violation of this kind -- a critical success or failure, for example -- will tend to empower Dreaming.  Thus the love of things like "exploding" die rolls.  The violation of norms represented by such an explosion also strengthens the Dream because it happens with the range of possibility but at its extreme.  So people get very wound up when you start rolling repeated 20s or whatever.

The point being, I take it, that the mechanics here emphasize certain aspects of the Dream-world as places where Abductive failure will be particularly strengthening to the Dream.  Therefore we must choose our mechanics on the basis of what we wish to emphasize, not because a perfect model is desirable but because such mechanics will allow for Abductive failure.  Further, we must have the mechanical system sufficiently strong that such an Abductive failure will not simply break the dream: if the Dream-world is strongly causal in a simple sense, we cannot have a mechanical system whose odds (to take the obvious Fortune example) permit extremely common violations of expected norms of causality: if every roll 15 or higher on a d20 is an exploder upward, and every roll 5 or lower is an exploder down, we don't get excitement and interest because it seems that the causality of the universe is too unpredictable to be interesting.

So we have a seemingly paradoxical balance: on the one hand the system has to be totally deterministic and predictable within its areas of emphasis, and at the same time must permit occasional strong violations of expected norms.  As a rule, such systems should be dependent not on GM or player whim, but on some kind of arbitrary exterior system, such as Fortune, because this ensures that such violations are not created for any reason except that they are within the limits of the possible Dream-world structures, and thus allow us to explore that which we could not simply have created.

Something like that, anyway.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I get what you're saying, Jay, I think. If Chris is on the right track, then your points are very similar to mine in the Sim essay in terms of choosing which of the five Components of Exploration are held as "starters."

Since the five are not independent but rather exist in a fairly straightforward structure, this choice becomes a complex and pregnant one - whatever you choose to emphasize among them as a foundation sets up questions, fun, potential, and room to play/imagine among the rest.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Hey Chris,

You pretty much hit a home run.  Just to cover my bases I want to expand on the examples you provided.

In the first example of abductive failure, you have a scene where the player lays out some basic setting elements and the DM makes a minor change or two.  The player's abduction was demonstrated to have failed in a small way.

In the second example you have a player's intended action fail, again demonstrating a small but important abductive failure.

I wish to demonstrate another type –

Two Rangers are patrolling in Ithilien.  One is a player is playing a veteran and another player is playing is a rookie.  It is early afternoon and they are in a clearing.  The rookie spies a knife on the ground; the blade is covered in wet blood.  The rookie starts to panic saying there's orc in the area.  The rookie points to the knife which has all sorts of hideously shaped heads with long wicked looking fangs carved into the pommel.  The rookie has abduced, via hilt design, that the knife was made by orcs.  Because the blood is wet he abduces that the knife was used recently and thus the owner must be nearby.

The veteran is nonplused as he points out to the rookie that because the blood is fresh, that the knife has indeed been used recently.  However, as it is early afternoon, that means the knife would have to have been used while the sun was up. (Abduction)  If indeed the knife was used while the sun was up, then no orc could have wielded it (Abduction), as no orc can abide by the sun. (rule).  The rookie is both relieved and intrigued by this turn of events (The rookie has now been shown to have made an abductive failure).  Who could or, much more importantly, what would use something as foul as an orc blade?

At this moment an orc stands up on the far side of the clearing and launches an arrow.

*Causality has been broken!*

The battle proceeds.  The veteran kills the orc and the rookie escapes with a minor arrow wound.

The player playing the veteran is befuddled not because his abduction wrong (there was an orc nearby), but because the rule was wrong (this orc could function in daylight).  Now the player could assert the GM made an error, but we'll assume the GM is an old pro and the player has lots of faith in the GM not to make mistakes like that.  The other main option is that causality has changed.  Some orcs, at least this one, can operate without trouble in daylight (Deduction – new rule!).  The world is now a little more complex; the Dream has become a little richer.

The player goes over to the orc body.  He sees the arrow shaft that he fired into the orc.  He also sees on the orc's chest a white hand.  This is new.  All the orcs he's ever seen or heard of bore the mark of the lidless eye.  This orc is different from other orcs.  The Ranger checks and finds an empty dagger sheath on the hip of the dead orc.  The Ranger checks the orc dagger that his partner found and under closer inspection notes the same symbol of a hand incised at the base of the blade.

The failing of the Veteran Ranger's abduction initiated the search that lead to the discovery of a new rule of causality.  This was a GM initiated change to causality.  

Let's look at a player initiated change to causality.  I'll use Chris' example of the gun fight between Clem and Doc.  Before the gun fight itself we'll declare, for this exercise, that the player playing Doc (this can include the GM if Doc is an NPC) has not only never lost a duel, but he has never left his opponent alive.

To borrow ruthlessly from Chris –

Let's suppose that, contrary to expectations, Clem's gun jams and Doc is a little slow on the draw (or Clem cheats by drawing early). Already we have a slight violation of the norm of the gunfight, but it is still within the range of possibility. Doc must now act in a way that is consistent with the deterministic nature of the universe, and he can to some degree predict the outcome.

Doc could very slowly and carefully fire just to the left of Clem's head, making it clear that he could have killed Clem but chooses not to do so.

Players at the table gasp that Doc didn't kill Clem.  They all just realized that they had just had abductive failure.

*Causality has been broken!*

Doc always kills his opponents! (rule)  But for some reason he has chosen to do otherwise under these circumstances.  The Dream is made richer, and something has been revealed about Doc.  His Character has become richer as the rules we have become accustomed that seem to govern his behavior are more complex than we had thought.  Doc isn't always a killer! (new rule)  What's going on?  What, until the present, undiscovered behavior is now present in Doc?  Whatever it is, the player playing Doc chose to break causality to introduce a new rule.

The importance of this new behavior is made manifest only because another normative behavior had been clearly established previously within the SIS.  That this new behavior is different can only happen because there was a history of another previous behavior that had been established that this new behavior can be different from.

It should be noted the change in behavior was minor, though significant.  Doc didn't fall apart in fear.  Doc didn't break out into song and dance or start casting spells.  The player made a small but important Character revealing change that was plausible, but heretofore unconsidered/unlikely.

I think this new "rule" creation action is incredibly vital to the action/understanding of Sim.  It is an incredibly important process by which the Dream grows.  Idea(l)s are demonstrated, not discussed - at least not during the game itself.  There can be, and frequently is, much discussion outside the game about the idea(l)s, and that is half the fun!  However, because the "rules" of causality will grow and change, and that the moments of their employment are more important than what is currently being resolved, I am struck by the notion that a fixed "rules set" is actually counter to Sim game expression.  The form of the rule/mechanic (e.g., gun draw speeds, etc.) isn't as important (not unimportant) as why we are choosing this moment to highlight.

The key to Sim is understanding that both the physical and the social world are subject to "causality", i.e., rules of behavior and that these rules are subject to negotiation/change/growth.  How many people in any culture, which presumes social ties, are going to risk their lives in incredibly dangerous tasks just to pursue wealth?  How many lords are going to ask strangers, who are non-nobles to boot, to save their kingdoms for cash?

However, the rules that are open to player negotiation via play are (typically) only the social ones.  This is important.  As discussed in another thread, it is here, in the social arena, that Idea(l)s are demonstrated and played out via Character/Player action in response to conflict.

It is incumbent upon the DM to make these moments of play where Idea(l)s are on the line important.  How is this done?  By choosing to employ mechanics at this particular point in time.  Not every gun fight needs be resolved by mechanics, just when an Idea(l) is being demonstrated/defended.  If no Idea(l) is on the line then just  narrate (Drama resolution) right on through.

Hey Ron,

Could you expand on your notion of "starters" please?  I think I may be suffering from blinders right now.  To me, any game of Sim is based on the Ideals that are being celebrated.  Because I am stuck on that right now, I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that any particular element of Exploration can be used as a "starter."  As you had indicated, all five of the elements of Exploration are interwoven and I can't imagine any one being given precedence over another.

I agree with you that the issue of game design is complex and rife with possibilities, but too me the Ideals are really what matters and those are found in Setting, Character, Situation, Color and the moments/timing (less the form – just so they don't interfere with the Ideals being celebrated) in which mechanics are called into play.

Thanks!

[Silmenume]

While driving a friend around, I realized that I had made some vocabulary usage errors in my previous post.

Players at the table gasp that Doc didn't kill Clem.  They all just realized that they had just had abductive failure.

Actually that's not correct - they had a deductive failure.  They failed in their prediction of a future event.  IOW they did not get the results they had predicted.  The general gist is the same, though.  The players had a logical failure which then lead to a strengthening of the Dream via a search for a new rule to explain the discrepancy.

I will comb through the rest of my post when I get the chance.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Great thread.

Jay, you asked me,

Could you expand on your notion of "starters" please? I think I may be suffering from blinders right now. To me, any game of Sim is based on the Ideals that are being celebrated. Because I am stuck on that right now, I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that any particular element of Exploration can be used as a "starter." As you had indicated, all five of the elements of Exploration are interwoven and I can't imagine any one being given precedence over another.

"Precedence" really isn't the right concept - it's a matter of examining how much depth and detail are bestowed on any/which of the five components prior to play itself.

Over time, the general result is to fill in depth and detail in the other parts via play. So yeah, during play, the five components are all there.

But prior to play, typically a group is using a given set of standards for character creation and pre-play understanding of setting (to pick the most obvious of the five). Most character creation rules are extremely explicit about this.

You'll find, therefore, lots of games in which character creation is a little sketchy, maybe not much more than a little "role definition" in terms of the character class levels I outlined a while back. Typically in such situations, the expectations for how much the players ought to know about the setting (for example) are fairly high.

Conversely, there are also lots of games in which character creation is quite demanding and the character, prior to play, is already a mighty detailed portrait, history, and/or set of conflicts. Expected knowledge of setting depth/detail in these games varies.

In practice, I've found and also observed that providing tons of depth and detail to all the five components, prior to play, tends not to work very well. Instead, people seem to prefer to leave some things to fill in, whether it's a matter of learning more about the setting through play (with their rich and intense characters) or developing the characters' values and outlooks and relationships through play (in a rich and high-feedback setting). Again, these are just the obvious/big examples.

Does that re-statement of the concept work better for you?

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Hey Ron,

Your re-statement made great sense.  Thanks!

I think it interesting to note that in the two examples you gave used Setting and Character as one of the two primary "starting" elements for play.  Idea(l)s cannot be found in System or Color and Situation is the dynamic interplay between Setting and Character.  IOW it's difficult (impossible?) to have a rich Situation without one or the other of Setting or Character being rich as well.

It is an observation that lends support to my idea that Purist for System is not a Sim priority play style.  (That may not have been your intention, but I am running with the idea as evidence)  The employment of mechanics (decision making processes) as an end unto itself without interest in celebrating/defending idea(l)s is no more Sim than it is Gam or Nar.  Creative Agenda, to me, is the grappling, putting forth and testing, defending, celebrating, etc., of idea(l)s.  Purist for System, as a priority, is indifferent to idea(l)s.  It is an agenda that is interested in the machinery of play, but not idea(l)s.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are various corrections to my usage of the logic terms: abduction, induction and deduction.  These are relatively new terms to me, so bear with me in my struggle to come to understand them fully.

Two Rangers are patrolling in Ithilien. One is a player is playing a veteran and another player is playing is a rookie. It is early afternoon and they are in a clearing. The rookie spies a knife on the ground; the blade is covered in wet blood. The rookie starts to panic saying there's orc in the area. The rookie points to the knife which has all sorts of hideously shaped heads with long wicked looking fangs carved into the pommel. The rookie has abduced, via hilt design, that the knife was made by orcs. Because the blood is wet he abduces that the knife was used recently and thus the owner must be nearby.

"...the owner must be nearby" is a deduction.  Based upon the earlier abduction that the knife was used recently/just a short time ago (case) and that orcs don't move that fast (rule) he deduced that the owner must be nearby (result).

The player playing the veteran is befuddled not because his abduction was wrong (there was an orc nearby), but because the rule was wrong (this orc could function in daylight). Now the player could assert the GM made an error, but we'll assume the GM is an old pro and the player has lots of faith in the GM not to make mistakes like that. The other main option is that causality has changed. Some orcs, at least this one, can operate without trouble in daylight (Deduction – new rule!). The world is now a little more complex; the Dream has become a little richer.

"Some orcs, at least this one, can operate without trouble in daylight (Deduction – new rule!)".  The creation of a new rule to explain events is an induction, not a deduction.  The correct statement would be – ""Some orcs, at least this one, can operate without trouble in daylight (Induction – new rule!)".

Doc always kills his opponents! (rule) But for some reason he has chosen to do otherwise under these circumstances. The Dream is made richer, and something has been revealed about Doc. His Character has become richer as the rules we have become accustomed that seem to govern his behavior are more complex than we had thought. Doc isn't always a killer! (new rule)

"Doc isn't always a killer! (new rule)" is also an induction.

Chris – if you are motivated, and feel the effort would be helpful to others, please feel free to point out and correct any other errors I may have made with regard to the usage of the terms abduction, induction, and deduction.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think that System can be the core factor of the starting depth/detail without any trouble at all. I picked Setting and Character because they are the most obvious and common "starters," not because they are the only or key ones. I also think the same is true for Color.

System-first prep is widespread as an ideal, as a quick look at the hundreds of free RPGS on the net attests; most of them are watered-down GURPS. Color-first prep is, I suggest, the usual approach in the role-playing one finds embedded in the larger-scale activity of LARPing.

All of this is bordering on thread-drift, however, and I'd like to take it to another thread if anyone wants to continue.

For purposes of this thread, I'm seeing 100% agreement among us - Chris, Jay, me. Jay, do you think it's a good time to say "Got it" and close it? I do. We can take smaller-scale or secondary topics to new threads.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Just a small point before the thread gets closed, depending on how Jay feels about that.  In response to Jay's request for clarification:

The veteran is nonplused as he points out to the rookie that because the blood is fresh, that the knife has indeed been used recently. However, as it is early afternoon, that means the knife would have to have been used while the sun was up. (Abduction) If indeed the knife was used while the sun was up, then no orc could have wielded it (Abduction), as no orc can abide by the sun. (rule). The rookie is both relieved and intrigued by this turn of events (The rookie has now been shown to have made an abductive failure). Who could or, much more importantly, what would use something as foul as an orc blade?

You've got the basic point, but we should be a little more precise.  The propositions really need to be split up.  What happens is something like this:

Result: Blood on knife
Result: Blood is wet
Result: Knife is skull-marked
Rule: Blood dries in a few hours
Rule: Orcs mark knives with skulls

Rookie
Case: An orc used the knife for violence

Veteran adds
Result: Sun is at late-afternoon
Rule: Blood gets on knives through violence
Rule: Orcs hate the sun

Case: Someone other than an orc used the knife for violence

What is noteworthy here is that the veteran adds a Result to the data-set.  In effect, he is saying that by his more complex Abduction, an apparently trivial fact of the Result-set is predictable.  See Sherlock Holmes for example after example of this process.

Now you mention the violation of Rule used to generate stronger Dream.  I would tend, if we're going to keep to this limited framework, to say that you're not actually violating the Rule, but rather proposing exceptions; this creates more Rules, and makes them more complex and more accurate, assisting the players to make predictions about the Dream-world.  The more fluidly they can make complex predictions, i.e. the more times they can feel they have made extremely complicated Abductions wihtout error (as we do in real life), the more we feel as though we understand the world and that it operates logically.

Does that help?  Interesting....

[Silmenume]

Hey Chris,

Thanks for the clarifications!  

Before I sign off this thread, I wish to raise one point.  Regarding –

...I would tend, if we're going to keep to this limited framework, to say that you're not actually violating the Rule, but rather proposing exceptions; this creates more Rules, and makes them more complex and more accurate, assisting the players to make predictions about the Dream-world....

You are correct in stating that the violation is really an exception.  However, to those who are not actually proposing the exception (the rest of the players at the table), from their point of view, what has happened is that the rule has been violated.  And that is where the power lies in such an act.  No one really knows what the new rule is, just that the old one no longer functions (as is).  Tests must be run (deductions made testing/employing new inductions) in order to plumb the nature of this new exception.  Until that process is completed to satisfaction all that the rest of us have is a violated rule.

From the point of view of the all but one of the players, something terribly significant has just happened to the nature of the Dream.  The black cat has just been seen twice!  As human beings, who struggle mightily to make sense of our own world, the creation, testing and tweaking of rules is staggeringly important.  Rules=causality=understanding of our Universe.  So while a player may be prosing an exception, to the rest of the players, they are having their worlds' turned upside down.  It is phenomenally difficult to pull this off because the players must have a very deep faith in a GM to put credence into the idea that the inductive failure is not a failure of the GM to keep causality straight, but rather a specific, controlled and desired effect.

Ron, I bow to your moderating authority.

Chris, if you wish to continue this line of conversation, we can do so via PM or on another thread.