1/3rd baked idea about Situation and Sim

[Mike Holmes]

Chris, I already said this above, but it seems you've missed it. Not to burst your bubble, but the way we see it, I think, you finally have come around to understanding the way that the majority of us here have always seen sim. So it's not surprising to me the agreement we're seeing here. The rejoicing seems a little premature.  

Most importantly, if I'd have to guess, I'd say that Jay will not agree with your assessment. You haven't reconciled his view with ours, I don't think, but just agreed with us. Meaning that we've gotten no further with the issue at the start of the thread. That is, I think Jay would say that what you're describing still includes as diagnostic of sim elements that he'd rather weren't in the description.

I may be way off, and would be overjoyed to find out that I'm wrong somehow. But let's not cry success in the thread until the original poster agrees that we've succeeded.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'm with Mike.

Also, however, "success" only means that we all, or most of us, merely understand what one another is saying, not that we all agree.

So if that happens, then we're good.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Chris, I already said this above, but it seems you've missed it. Not to burst your bubble, but the way we see it, I think, you finally have come around to understanding the way that the majority of us here have always seen sim. So it's not surprising to me the agreement we're seeing here. The rejoicing seems a little premature.

Not to start a fight or anything, but the fact that Ron has already indicated a genuine clarification to him of a problem he has had, where his experience of something is at odds with what Sim players experience, is not simply my coming around to what the Big Model has always said.  I'm not saying it's any big change or anything, but the progress made here is not solely my "getting" something that was always known to you and Ron and "the majority of us here."

Most importantly, if I'd have to guess, I'd say that Jay will not agree with your assessment. You haven't reconciled his view with ours, I don't think, but just agreed with us. Meaning that we've gotten no further with the issue at the start of the thread. That is, I think Jay would say that what you're describing still includes as diagnostic of sim elements that he'd rather weren't in the description.

Well, obviously we'll have to wait on Jay's assessment, but my conclusion is that there is a genuine disjuncture experientially within the formulation of Sim, where there is not in Nar or Gam.  I am surprised to hear that everyone has always known this, as it seems at odds with "The Right to Dream" and other discussion here of Sim.  It explains a great many oddities, including Ron's sense that pure Sim is a fringe interest (contrary to the perception by Sim players that Sim is normative), and Xero's perception that what he describes is read as anathema by the Nar core here at the Forge, and the mismatch between Jay's understanding of his play and the reading provided by Forge analysts, and so on.  What I've suggested is that this is to be expected because of the oddity of Sim as a CA structured reflexively; in a sense, you might say it's a CA that by its nature refuses to be classified as a CA.  If that's agreeing with what everyone has always said, it's certainly news to me, and it does suggest some significant (but not unacceptable) limits to the application of the Big Model in reference to certain kinds of Sim play.

I may be way off, and would be overjoyed to find out that I'm wrong somehow. But let's not cry success in the thread until the original poster agrees that we've succeeded.

Agreed.

MC:  Take it away, Jay!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Sorry to say, it is agreeing with what we've been saying ... but I think it's worth pointing out that the "we" isn't a unified bloc or single set of text. Perhaps it's best to describe the standing agreement as a series of very hard-to-identify communications, composed of posts, reflections on old threads, phone calls, face-to-face discussions (often with drinks), and emails. So it's no wonder that it's not obvious. And it contains its own diversity of favored "ways to say it" and minor disagreements.

So basically, you've joined the "core," if you will. I can't say I'm happy that such a barrier exists between (1) simply posting here and (2) getting into that core set of extracurricular communication, but I can't say that this phenomenon is unusual, either - it exists for every complex discourse community I've ever seen or heard of.

Note that my statement of what this thread has provided for me concerns not how I think of it but rather how I communicate about it.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Actually I think that there's a disjuncture with all modes, but it's not with how people experience them. That is, I think we all are always all talking about very much the same things when we say G or N or S. The problem is in coming up with text that describes these things.

And they're all tough this way.

Narrativism, for instance, as Ron points out in his essay is often opaque to people in terms of the textual description until the person states it in their own words. In the way, way, way back, there was this Gleichman guy who rather vehemently disagreed with the textual descriptions of Gamism. In fact, I'd say that likely many more of these arguments would happen here if more primarily gamism players frequented the site.

Basically I see Jay as in the same boat. I think he probably is talking about the same thing we are, but his verbiage so far has just not seemed to match our perceptions, just as he feels that our verbiage doesn't match his. But I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point he puts out a statement to which everyone goes, "Ah, sure, I get it. That's sim yeah. Not how I'd have put it, but it's not incorrect."

No, this does not represent some brainwashing process or anything, these definitions are all accomplished independently. Heck, I've got a couple three alternate models that represent my statements about what I think the modes are all about. Largely I've presented them in hopes that people would "get" them better than Ron's, but I've found that that's been pretty hit and miss. Because people still have to put it in their own words.

To delve into your area, Chris, I think that perhaps what's going on here is that it's like certain rituals that you see in twelve step groups. Pretty much every alcoholic has had very similar experiences to other alcoholics. But each individual is required to put their own experiences into their own words to introduce them to the group. What this does is to give them ownership of their experiences in that social context.

Why can't RPG definitions be more clinical, and agreed to without this sort of process? Well, I'm guessing that it has to do with the ritual nature of RPGs as a whole. It's this ritual nature that makes Ron's observation about people and their playstyles being like religions in terms of how vehement people can get when defending how they play, or even in trying to explain it's superiority. I think it's this deep personal investment that requires yet another ritual of statement to get to the point where you own your modes of play in the social context in question.

That might sound kinda out there, but I think it has some validity. I'd really like to see someday how an unbiased ethnographer or somesuch would catagorize these processes. I think we might all be startled at how easily they could come up with descriptions for modes - descriptions that we'd all immediately reject as being an outsider position on the issues. Because we all feel that we've "lived" through the roleplaying, and have a personal knowledge of what it's about that's somehow inviolate.

Crazy talk?

Mike

[apparition13]

clerich said:

with reference to Sim, Situation becomes its own category, of which the other elements (Setting, Color, etc.) are properly sub-classes. Furthermore, Situation becomes a near-synonym of Dream.

In walking on limbs I said:

Tentative (very) hypothesis:
Walking a little further out onto the branch, it seems to me that each of the CAs (or major sub-CAs in sim's case) is primarily (though not exclusively) focused on one of the components of exploration. It is also simultaneously constrained by that same component; seamless play happens inside those constraints. The other components then become the tools that are used to explore the primary component. So, restating my earlier post, in sim.obj, setting is the focus of, and constraint on, exploration; with character, mechanics, situation and colour taking on a secondary role as tools used to carry out that exploration. In sim.subj, character would be primary, with the others in the secondary role. Nar would be characterized by situation (addressing premise) as primary; and in gamist play mechanics (the rules of the game) serve as the focus and constraint.

(Replace "mechanics" with "system", my brain crossed circuits there.)

These statements are clearly contradictory.  To clarity my position, I will once again turn to examples.  

I'll start with Nar.  As I see it, situation is primary and the other components secondary.  In other words, the Nar is defined by situation, everything else is variable.  As an example situation, consider the relationship map in Sorcerer (and soul?).  As long as it's a nar friendly system, whether you  use Sorcerer or HQ or TROS or PTA or whatever won't fundamentally change the game.  Who the PC characters are, won't fundamentally change the game.  The setting could be 30's pulp, ancient Rome, a Traveller-like science fiction setting, Harn etc. without fundamentaly changing the game.  Change the situation and the game hasbeen changed fundamentally.

With Gam, it's system.  Character (another nameless dwarf), setting and situation can vary without fundamentally changing the game.  But change from D&D 3.5 to D&D modern to TROS to Elfs to WOD and you have fundamentally changed the game.

With regards to Sim.obj it's setting.  You can play Star Wars with many systems, address varying situations with different characters and it's still Star Wars.  Change the setting to Star Trek, or 40k, or Fulminata, or Jorune, or Talislantat or Glorantha etc. and you have fundamentally changed the game.

With regard to Sim.subj, it's character.  If you are exploring an "tortured artist" character, you can do that with Vampire, Sorcerer, D&D etc.  You can do it in Star Trek, Buffy, Forgotten Realms, or any other setting;  you can vary the situation.  All without fundamentally changing the game.  But change the character to "hard-boiled merc" and you have fundamentally changed the game.

If I have grossly misinterpreted "situation" my entire argument may well implode.   I see it as simply "what happens".   Whether it is the central node or not, I don't know;  as the above implies I suspect it doesn't have to be the primary node.  The 800 pound gorilla in Nar, you bet.  In the other CAs, not so much, you can change what happens without altering  the experience.

[Silmenume]

Hey Chris,

I have been reading and re-reading your post since it first went up just to make sure I understood all the nuances and implications within.  I didn't want to run off about some issue half-cocked.  I apologize for the tardiness of my reply.

If fully agree and support the ideas and terminology of "Situation-Focus" and "CA-relevant action."

I want to make sure I understand you regarding the role of "fine-tuning details."  If I am reading you correctly you're saying that the "attention" to detail in Sim is the rough Nar equivalent of determining and fixing Premise (but does not include the "making the important decision" part), yes?  It is a vital, necessary, and to some a highly enjoyable process that supports and facilitates the "ideal baseline" (which does include making those "important decisions") of play?  "Ideal" not being prescriptive, bur rather theoretical.  Such attention to details is CA-relevant in Sim because it is necessarily a part of Bricolage (Sit-Focus) itself?  IOW one can't Bricolage without having "things" to work with and this "adding or fining of details" is a process of "refining" or adding "things" or to the stockpile of "objects" that the bricoleur can work with?

Thus to say the players are "focusing on details" is a "tell" of Sim in the same way that players discussing Premise or creating Kickers or designing Spiritual Attributes is a "tell" of Nar?

The ideal goal is seamlessness. If the Dream were seamless, there would never be any need to break from Situation-Focused play, because the answer to every potential question of fact, however picayune, would already be known to all the players as it is in fact known to the characters...

This lines up well with my experiences where there is a very high premium on the players to be thoroughly knowledgeable in the source materials.  Point in fact we require any player who is with us longer than 6 months to have read the Lord of the Rings.  I understand that is a matter of preference - I am not trying to be prescriptive.

I've said elsewhere (I forget where; Jay might remember [http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=140281#140281]) that it is when the Dream can potentially break that the Dream is most strongly bolstered, because abductive failure leads to deductive success and all that.  I think I'm sticking to that in Sim.  Basically what I mean here is that when there is a slippage, i.e. a break in the seamlessness of the Dream, it is the resolution of that slippage that enforces the claim of the Dream's being seamless.

That sounds paradoxical, I know, so let me be clear.

This is what's called the logic of the "supplement".  Suppose we assert, because we are Sim players, that the Dream itself is seamless and perfect.  In a perfect world, we, the players, would interact with it as a real world.  The claim is not that we are constructing the Dream through play, but that we are interacting with an already perfect Dream.  To my mind, this is a crucial part of the ideology of Simulationism.  I'm pretty sure that this is part of what Dr. Xero describes in his games: the aesthetic of the game is that the players do not construct the Dream, but discover a story or pattern or whatever within it, already present and waiting for them.

Now because we have accepted this in advance (which you notice is not typical of Nar or Gam aesthetics), any construction is undesirable.  When we do what appears by other criteria to be construction, we read it differently: we read it as discovering what was already true.  For example, we the players may not know whether phazer-fire induces current sufficient to wipe a memory disk, but the world already does know this.  It's built-in, a fact of nature.  When we debate the point, we're not inventing something new but figuring out how it always already worked.  The players did not know the answer, but it was already determined.

Bolding added.

So if I am reading you correctly, there is this "belief" that we as players aren't doing any construction, while in fact we are constructing the Dream.  And that this construction process is not self-same as fine-tuning details, rather that fine-tuning details is a process that aids in the construction process?  Thus it follows that fine-tuning details and the construction of the Dream are not the same thing?  That the baseline of Sim is the "addition" to the pre-existing Dream via Sit-Focus with as much or as little help as needed with the addition of details?  The key here is understanding that while Sit-Focus is the baseline of Sim play (the defining process), it does not necessarily have to be the driving motive behind play.

As an additional note I should add that in the game I play in there are frequent conversations outside of the game about the nature of the "world" and how uncharted areas socially might function.  IOW we discuss how the elves might react to X or what the Dwarfs things about Y.

I also agree that CA-relevant actions can occur outside Situation.  I have long thought, as was implied in my musings in the RPG theory forum, that CA sort of drove the whole game process, but that is a matter for a different thread.

In a strange way I kinda see Sim as a fractal pattern where at any moment we could "stop/focus" at any spot and magnifiy as much of the Dream as we see aesthetically fit via Bricolage with the support of specific details.

Hey M. J.,

Jay, it occurs to me to question whether there can ever be any game-related discussion that is not relevant to situation. It just depends on how the players identify situation.

After all, "You are crewmen aboard a Federation starship" is a situation...

...Thus I'm not sure how you can have discussion that is not relevant to situation, unless you're talking about Monty Python gags or pizza toppings or crooked dice, all of which are generally agreed to be disconnected from actual game events.

What I had taken issue with was based in my misunderstanding of Ron's phrasing "drop investment in the current imagined situation."  I understand what he means now, but just to clarify what I was going on about is that I had mis-read his "dropping investment" to mean that the activity of "defining details" was as "irrelevant" to Situation as "talking about Monty Python gags or pizza toppings, etc."

Thus regarding you position that all those topics potentially having relevance to Situation - absolutely.  The key is that "addressing" Situation, the baseline of Sim, is the mindful alteration of the relationship ("playing on purpose") between Character and Setting.  Addressing Situation is not the same as clarifying Situation (defining or refining details or discussing mechanical modifiers).  Clarifying Situation is a Sim meta-game activity that is very important, and for many players enjoyable, but it is not identical with addressing Situation.

Overall I agree with your assertion that just about anything that relates to the Setting has the potential to become the focus of Situation thus making all such conversations potentially important.

...in simulationism "situation" is much simpler than that, being entirely about having the opportunity to explore the world and so expand our understanding of it.

Actually its just the reverse.  (Caldis you were right!)  Addressing Situation is a very complex internal process in Sim.  It is, as I had indicated at the beginning of this thread, the cauldron where the meaningful relationships are created and modified.  And like the bricolage examples that Chris has provided, this is a "messy" and necessarily complex process that involves a lot of baggage (other meanings that are necessarily attached to the items being employed – which sometimes requires clarification or refinement of those items!) that must be taken into account during and regarded as part of the process.

What is interesting to note is that the expansion of "our understanding" is the result of our creations of players, we just don't read it as such.

When we do what appears by other criteria to be construction, we read it differently: we read it as discovering what was already true.

Underlining and bolding mine.

Isn't that interesting.  We construct the additional material, but we treat it as if the information was pre-existing.  It is a fascinating bit of paradox and I do think it is worthy of discussion, but not here, as per Ron's sticky in the RPG theory thread.

Point #3: the "possible" part means that we often have to say, hey, maybe we don't know enough. We've exposed a crucial or fruitful zone of ignorance, assumption, or need to investigate further. That's good!

Bolding added

I think this paradox regarding that which we as players create as discovering that which already is needs to be further plumbed because it is both an interesting assumption and it frequently gums up the debate on Sim.  However, this is not to be discussed in this thread.

Hey Caldis,

"]On a side note I'd like to say your short synopsis on Bricolage above did a better job of relating it to roleplaying than any of the previous discussion. That's what I believe is needed before the term receives wide spread acceptance or the possibility of using it in debates as a meaningful term to all participants. A discussion for a different thread I believe.

You're correct and I have to take full responsibility for employing the term as the foundation of so many of my recent threads without providing an adequate definition which lead to so much pointless confusion.  The problem is that while I understand it generally I am not sufficiently learned to be capable of explaining it effectively.  I see now that Chris has picked up the ball and provided an explanation in the thread entitled Bricolage APPLIED (finally!) in the RPG forum.

Hey Mike,

Most importantly, if I'd have to guess, I'd say that Jay will not agree with your assessment. You haven't reconciled his view with ours, I don't think, but just agreed with us. Meaning that we've gotten no further with the issue at the start of the thread. That is, I think Jay would say that what you're describing still includes as diagnostic of sim elements that he'd rather weren't in the description.

Actually I agree with Chris' assessment whole-heartedly.  What I have been "rebelling against" is the idea that Sim can or does focus or operates on its constituent elements as discrete quanta.  IOW that one can focus on "refining details" or can focus on "exploring Setting" is not possible in Sim.  This is what I was, upon reflection, arguing against.  Chris' summation here really hits the ten ring on what I have been fumbling towards for over a year.

The suggestion then is that the Sim CA is reflexive. It's about itself, and it is, in committed players, potentially self-enforcing. And that entails also that Situation is entirely embedded within the Dream, and in effect the core of the CA. The CA itself being impossible to dislodge from other factors, again from the perspective of the actual Sim player, which means that everything is invested in Situation. It's quite impossible to play Sim without being so invested, in fact.

My failed process of argumentation was to try to show that the non "holistic" ideas proposed for Sim actually were non-functional within the framework of the Model.  IOW by showing that "piecemeal" Sim cannot work when examined with the Model, what must be left is that Sim must be "whole."  However until Chris articulated it I didn't realize that is what I was doing.  Assuming that he is, and by extension myself, are correct in this formulation of Sim, then it becomes "illogical", devastating to discussions and just plain misleading (not intentionally!) to make statements or arguments like players are "Exploring System" or "Exploring Setting" or "focusing on details."  IOW no one thing, no single element of Exploration can be described as the Sim process.

This is where I had my original bone to pick about details and dropping investment in Situation to do so.  I tried to demonstrate that if one really dropped investment in Situation to discuss details that such play fell outside the Model – thus one was not really dropping investment in Situation because such details were relevant (on a large general scale) to Situation.  Now this is was an ineffective form of argumentation, but I didn't really understand the "whole" until just now.

Actually I think that there's a disjuncture with all modes, but it's not with how people experience them. That is, I think we all are always all talking about very much the same things when we say G or N or S. The problem is in coming up with text that describes these things.  ...

Basically I see Jay as in the same boat. I think he probably is talking about the same thing we are, but his verbiage so far has just not seemed to match our perceptions, just as he feels that our verbiage doesn't match his. But I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point he puts out a statement to which everyone goes, "Ah, sure, I get it. That's sim yeah. Not how I'd have put it, but it's not incorrect."

I agree with you to a certain extent, which is why I have been reluctant to post in Actual Play.  The problem is that everyone's verbiage does carry connotative baggage and until we can come to an agreement everyone's wording will mean different things that are partially or even completely incompatible.  The cool part about AP is that everyone can look at the material and bring to bear their (culturally based) intellectual tools to see what is going on.  Challenge (competition {very roughly}, strategizing, etc...) and Premise (Story, Theme and the like) are ideas that are very common and are fairly easily understood in our culture so it makes sense that looking long and hard enough someone will begin to put it all together.  Bricolage is not something that is common or understood anymore by literate cultures.  That means that until some cross-disciplinarian theorist came in with some essentially arcane and at first blush useless ideas no amount of hard staring at the AP material was going to get us anywhere.  The conceptual framework just wasn't in our cultural bag of tricks to make sense of what the hell was going on in Sim.  I guess I was attempting to do what Ron did when he created the conceptual framework called Exploration which then allowed for a huge flowering of understanding, discussion of theory and then eventually game design.  But until that happened everyone was chasing their tails and beating their heads against the wall.  I just don't understand why the same effort here met with such bitter and bilious resistance.

I know this probably doesn't belong here, but I think we are coming to a conclusion in this thread.  I apologize for the tardiness and disjointed nature of my reply.  After reading the thread in the Site thread I felt as if I was punched in the stomach.  This whole process has been a labor of love for me.  I am sorry if my pushing Sim so has revolted people or fucked up the Forge.  

I am not posting in the GNS forum just to navel gaze.  I am posting here so that a conceptual framework for discussing Sim can be erected so that fruitful dialogues can occur.  I would love to discuss my Sim game experiences and start thinking about how to design Sim facilitating games, but until the framework was up it was useless to do anything else.  While I play Sim, I certainly didn't understand the how's and why's of what we were doing.  The Model, while helpful was not adequate to the task as I found it 16 months ago.

So if I am slow in posting you'll have to excuse for me having lost some heart.  I can understand being written off as somewhat peripheral, but I just can't understand the rancor and venom.  I really am trying to be helpful while pursuing a deep love of mine, but that has mostly been seen not only as generally useless but poisonous.  My apologies.

[clehrich]

Jay,

Thanks for beginning what I think is probably going to be the denouement of this thread.  Good thread, incidentally, when all is said and done!

If fully agree and support the ideas and terminology of "Situation-Focus" and "CA-relevant action."

I have a nasty feeling that these terms refer to things for which we already have terms.  I also suspect they don't have a hugely wide value outside these narrow issues, and I hate to add more jargon to an already crowded field.  But the concepts are perhaps useful.

I want to make sure I understand you regarding the role of "fine-tuning details."  If I am reading you correctly you're saying that the "attention" to detail in Sim is the rough Nar equivalent of determining and fixing Premise (but does not include the "making the important decision" part), yes?  It is a vital, necessary, and to some a highly enjoyable process that supports and facilitates the "ideal baseline" (which does include making those "important decisions") of play?  "Ideal" not being prescriptive, bur rather theoretical.  Such attention to details is CA-relevant in Sim because it is necessarily a part of Bricolage (Sit-Focus) itself?  IOW one can't Bricolage without having "things" to work with and this "adding or fining of details" is a process of "refining" or adding "things" or to the stockpile of "objects" that the bricoleur can work with?

I'm not confident about the Nar parallel, but it sounds okay as a rough approximation.  The theoretical/prescriptive distinction in "ideal" is exactly 100% dead-on, and what's more a very unusually precise usage of this term (which is usually used very mushily).  As to bricolage, well, close enough for jazz.  There's a lot more to it than that, but I see what you're getting at and I can live with it for the purpose here.

Incidentally, in French, the verbal form would be bricoler, "to bricole," which is so ugly in English nobody ever uses it, and I gather very rarely in French either.  It's also not exactly clear what it would mean, given the formal analogy.  But this is a side issue, obviously.

Thus to say the players are "focusing on details" is a "tell" of Sim in the same way that players discussing Premise or creating Kickers or designing Spiritual Attributes is a "tell" of Nar?

Errmmm, these comparisons are making me nervous.  I think that's right, but I'm honestly not sure.  As far as the Sim end, which is what's important here, I think what you're saying squares with what I'm saying, yes.

The ideal goal is seamlessness. If the Dream were seamless, there would never be any need to break from Situation-Focused play, because the answer to every potential question of fact, however picayune, would already be known to all the players as it is in fact known to the characters...

This lines up well with my experiences where there is a very high premium on the players to be thoroughly knowledgeable in the source materials.  Point in fact we require any player who is with us longer than 6 months to have read the Lord of the Rings.  I understand that is a matter of preference - I am not trying to be prescriptive.

Nice example.  As you say, not in itself an exact description of the range of this, but an example of one narrow sort of such thing.  Yes.

Now because we have accepted this in advance (which you notice is not typical of Nar or Gam aesthetics), any construction is undesirable.  When we do what appears by other criteria to be construction, we read it differently: we read it as discovering what was already true.  For example, we the players may not know whether phazer-fire induces current sufficient to wipe a memory disk, but the world already does know this.  It's built-in, a fact of nature.  When we debate the point, we're not inventing something new but figuring out how it always already worked.  The players did not know the answer, but it was already determined.  [Bolding added]

So if I am reading you correctly, there is this "belief" that we as players aren't doing any construction, while in fact we are constructing the Dream.  And that this construction process is not self-same as fine-tuning details, rather that fine-tuning details is a process that aids in the construction process?  Thus it follows that fine-tuning details and the construction of the Dream are not the same thing?  That the baseline of Sim is the "addition" to the pre-existing Dream via Sit-Focus with as much or as little help as needed with the addition of details?  The key here is understanding that while Sit-Focus is the baseline of Sim play (the defining process), it does not necessarily have to be the driving motive behind play.

As a formal or analytical distinction, I think it is necessary to separate "fine-tuning" (refining the structures) from "construction" (using them to build structures), yes.  But the "belief" issue is going to lead you into a very dark tunnel.  The thing is that these things are not distinguished in the doing; in fact, to distinguish them in the doing may possibly screw up the whole process.  Therefore we annul or suppress the distinction in the act in order to achieve the end.  So it's not that we believe that there is no construction, but rather that in order to effect construction we must focus on what isn't construction, in other words supplement perfection rather than build on a foundation.  I'm not sure about the issue of "driving motive," but I'll think about it.  Does it matter here, for you?

As an additional note I should add that in the game I play in there are frequent conversations outside of the game about the nature of the "world" and how uncharted areas socially might function.  IOW we discuss how the elves might react to X or what the Dwarfs things about Y.

Fascinating!  If you want to play with the bricolage analogy in tribal cultures, what you're doing is basically picking flowers you don't know well and sitting down with your clan brothers to discuss their characteristics.  That looks like idle speculation, or random curiosity, but what you are really doing is picking up the crap your neighbor left on his lawn, or mucking about in the basement with the bits you've already got to see what they might possibly do in order, when the "real project" comes along, to be able to build your project better.

In a strange way I kinda see Sim as a fractal pattern where at any moment we could "stop/focus" at any spot and magnifiy as much of the Dream as we see aesthetically fit via Bricolage with the support of specific details.

Nice analogy.  Yes, I think even Levi-Strauss might buy that one.  That the closer you look, the more detail is found, in part because everything has vast entailments, and in part because the process of looking creates the structure itself.  What Levi-Strauss didn't see, incidentally, is that this applies to the external analyst (like him) as much as to the natives.
------------

When we do what appears by other criteria to be construction, we read it differently: we read it as discovering what was already true.  [Underlining and bolding Jay's]

Isn't that interesting.  We construct the additional material, but we treat it as if the information was pre-existing.  It is a fascinating bit of paradox and I do think it is worthy of discussion, but not here, as per Ron's sticky in the RPG theory thread.

Point #3: the "possible" part means that we often have to say, hey, maybe we don't know enough. We've exposed a crucial or fruitful zone of ignorance, assumption, or need to investigate further. That's good!

Bolding added

I think this paradox regarding that which we as players create as discovering that which already is needs to be further plumbed because it is both an interesting assumption and it frequently gums up the debate on Sim.  However, this is not to be discussed in this thread.

You're right.  That does deserve musing.  I hadn't thought of it in quite this context; thanks for bringing it up.

Hmmmmm.....
------------

You're correct and I have to take full responsibility for employing the term as the foundation of so many of my recent threads without providing an adequate definition which lead to so much pointless confusion.  The problem is that while I understand it generally I am not sufficiently learned to be capable of explaining it effectively.  I see now that Chris has picked up the ball and provided an explanation in the thread entitled Bricolage APPLIED (finally!) in the RPG forum.

Side note.  I read The Savage Mind in college, then in grad school, then it was on my qualifying exams, then I read it again while writing my dissertation, and then I have since taught it every semester, 2 classes a semester, for 4 years.  I still don't understand the last two chapters (which I don't teach, thank god).  In my current research, I continue to grapple with parts of it, as well as other works by Levi-Strauss.  I know top professionals who simply refuse to deal with the man because he's too damn hard.  So, I wrote that thread in part to start providing some application, and in part because it's insane to think that Forge readers are going to get the hang of all of it from my musing sketches in a couple of months.  Totally impossible; can't be done.  If your uses were inadequate, they were justifiably so.  I tell my students, "This will probably be the hardest book you ever read in your entire lives," and I am not kidding.  They doubt me, but you, dear Forge readers---DO NOT.  It really is the masterpiece it's cracked up to be.  I expect to be thinking about bits and pieces of it 50 years from now, if I haven't succumbed to total dementia by then.

My failed process of argumentation was to try to show that the non "holistic" ideas proposed for Sim actually were non-functional within the framework of the Model.  IOW by showing that "piecemeal" Sim cannot work when examined with the Model, what must be left is that Sim must be "whole."  ....

There are some comments about this in the Bricolage thread, where we might follow it up if you like.

[M. J. Young]

I was going to post this yesterday, but decided that it didn't particularly add anything to the discussion; now reading Apparition's comments, I'm inclined to think perhaps I should have.

I think that indeed Apparition has misunderstood situation; it is always the 800 pound gorilla in every game. It's just that understanding situation ties back into understand agendum.

[*]In gamism, situation is about opportunity to prove one's ability against the challenges afforded by the interaction between character and setting.[*]In narrativism, situation is about the opportunity to make and challenge statements about serious issues through the interaction of character with setting.[*]In simulationism, situation is about the possibilities afforded for exploration of setting and character through their interaction.[/list:u]Thus in all cases situation is central to exploration, and central to exploration of a sort which fulfills creative agendum. Creative agendum and situation reflexively define each other.

Jay, there's one thing I didn't understand from your post. Was that a yes or a no?

--M. J. Young

[Maarzan]

I think is the trick of sim is that it answers the question what goes on less egcentric than the other two CAs. It is not about "how do I feel about this" or about "how can I win here" but about what "happens to the dream we have created at this point of unrest". The char is not the prime star.
Now this version is rather hard to manage so most groups focus on a certain window of the world.
It is also a) more interesting to put the system under stress to look how far someone can go until it breaks and b) it is also more interesting to see it in first view instead of a more theoretical abstracted view from above.
That for chars get generated to testpilot and explore the system from within.
If some fault is found back to the construction desk and repair the problem before continuing.

That for it is also rather easy to train gamists to be test drive monkeys. You just have to drill them that keeping in character is one goal of the game and way to win and seemingly únfair situations are just another increase of difficulty to master.
Story oriented player are more of a problem because they often try to mess with the system parameters instead to keep in the system itself and test it from within.  
Detailed discussing of a different part of the world isn´t leaving situation just refocusing on another part of the greater whole.

[Silmenume]

Hey M. J.,

Your summation on the role and place of Situation certainly squares with my current understanding.

Jay, there's one thing I didn't understand from your post. Was that a yes or a no?

I must ask you pardon M. J.  I am uncertain which question you are referring to.  Could you please indicate the question so that I may then give you an unambiguous answer?

Hullo Maarzan,

I think is the trick of sim is that it answers the question what goes on less egcentric than the other two CAs. It is not about "how do I feel about this" or about "how can I win here" but about what "happens to the dream we have created at this point of unrest". The char is not the prime star.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that.  Let me take you last quotation and demonstrate.

...what "happens to the dream we have created at this point of unrest". – is a fair question.  However it can be equally applied to Narrativism and Gamism respectively.

...what "happens to the theme we have created at this point of unrest".

...what "happens to the status of victory we have created at this point of unrest".

The big difference between G/N and S regarding Situation is that in Sim Situation and the Dream are virtually synonymous where as in Gam/Nar certain concepts (Challenge and Premise) can be abstracted and discussed independent of Situation.

Thus in all three cases (CA's) its not necessarily the Character that need be the "star" as much as the interest in the process in general - making decisions about the interaction between Character and Setting.

[M. J. Young]

Jay, there's one thing I didn't understand from your post. Was that a yes or a no?

I must ask you pardon M. J.  I am uncertain which question you are referring to.  Could you please indicate the question so that I may then give you an unambiguous answer?

Sorry. Top of the previous page, I think it was, there was this whole string of posts in which Ron, Mike, Chris (Lerich), and I (and maybe someone else I've forgotten) all said isn't it amazing that everyone here agrees about what Sim is, maybe clearly for the first time? and then everyone said, yeah, but does Jay agree?, and that's kind of what we were waiting on when you returned.

--M. J. Young

[Maarzan]

Hey M. J.,

…what "happens to the theme we have created at this point of unrest".

…what "happens to the status of victory we have created at this point of unrest".

The first version I can understand if all of them are pursuing the same moral question collectively. Theoretical possible.
Probably my view got colored by seeing a tendency of people saying they pay Nar to try to enforce their prefered answer through metagaming.
But ifthis is not part of Nar I am at a loss where NAR differs from SIM with focus on character psycho or probably added exploration of the players mind and motives.

A situation like "where do we stand with the theme" would be rather common in shared story telling but that was not what Nar is about if I got it right. On the other hand people telling stories do already know what they want so it is not a question they would ask, or just for rhetorical purposes.

The second one sounds silly for me. It is still the victory of the char and thus the player, be it alone or as a group that is the point. Imagine a gamist group finding delight in moving the focus away from their group to explore the this time really inevitable death force that the big guy they have pissed off is building out of their reach.
In nar it could be the question about "is a clean subconscious really worth risking inavoidable extinction" (collaboration or fruitless resistance).
In sim it answers the question about the possible outcome of such a setting and any fitting answer is OK.
Gamist would get the fits I think.

[Silmenume]

Hey M. J.,

I apologize for the extreme tardiness of my response.  I have been taking some time away from the Forge so I have not been particularly diligent in responding.  As regards to your question, "Do I agree that we all agree?"  I think we do, but I am not certain.  To the best of my recollection it Mike seemed to be operating under the understanding that I would not agree with Chris.  As I indicated above I did agree with Chris very strongly.  If Mike is in general agreement with Chris, and that his understanding of my position was based upon me ineffectively stating my arguments, then yes I think we are all in general agreement.

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, apparently I was incorrect in my assumption.

That said, I can't help wondering if we're only all agreeing because we don't fully understand each other. Which would be odd, usually misunderstanding causes disagreement. But it might be the case.

But I'm certainly not going to persue it. As I've said, perception of agreement here might be the best that we can hope for.

Mike