Goals expressed and emergent Goals.

[Silmenume]

Wow!  Things sure got interesting in a New York second.  All these threads and posts on Meaning, which has been something that has been near and dear to my heart since I got here is really exciting.  Everyone, and I mean everyone who has contributed to these threads, thank you for expending so much gray matter creating so many thought provoking and deliberate posts.  I love these boards!

On to the topic – I had a flash of what I hoped was insight and I couldn't figure out which thread to attach to, as they were all growing and morphing so quickly I kinda fell behind.  So I started this thread.

In each of the 3 creative agendas there is a salient idea or quality that runs through all iterations of games that belong to that category.  That unifying idea is difficult to conceive because, as Ron had mentioned earlier, there are differences within each mode of play that cause fiercer amounts of rancor amongst adherents within a mode than among those of different modes.  How can that be if they are in the same mode of play?  What is the main defining idea being operated on, and what is happening to that idea that causes players who are devoted to that defining idea to bump heads so hard?

It dawned on while reading Ian's post on the various reference points for meanings in the 3 modes, the thoughtful postings by M.J. Young and the way Narrativism seems, to me, to be laid out.

There "seems" to be 2 general approaches to Narrativism.  Direct story creation and the creation of situations, premises, which lead directly to story creation.

This led me to believe that all 3 modes of play have this dichotomy.  This would explain to me why there can be such bitter disputes within a mode that is essentially pursing the same "idea."  The game reflects either the pursuit of the defining "idea" directly or pursues an emergent quality that expresses the "idea".  Each of these two different approaches could drive adherents of the opposite absolutely batty.

I'll posit the following – this is just an idea in the rough, I don't know if it has merit or not. The defining "idea" for each mode is as follows -

Gamism – Victory
Narrativism – Story
Simulationism - Feeling

Thus it could be said that Gamism covers styles play that directly reflect the idea of victory by creating direct competitions of all sorts and intensities OR Gamist games could explore situations where victory is an emergent quality but not directly sought.  This would cover M.J. Young's various military experiments that all ultimately ask the same question, "Is victory (still) possible under these conditions?"  One does not need to seek victory but the idea of victory is still being expressed on one level or another.

Narrativism I indicated above, but simply you are either pursing story directly as goal, or you create situations (premises) that lead to story emerging.

Finally, that old bugaboo, Simulationism.  There is controversy still swirling about the "idea" of this mode, experiencing seems not to be finding any purchase.  Aesthetic was interesting but I think a little off the mark, though it does reflect the notion of humans responding to something, specifically art.  Most people respond to art immediately on an emotional level; they "feel" or "experience" something.  For the lack of a better term I will say, "feel" for this definition.  Perhaps a more definitive term could come from the ensuing debate.  At any rate I propose that Simulationists either act directly on the goal to feel something, "I want to kick ass" which means, "I want to feel what its like to kick ass," so they create a character that (hopefully – DM willing) goes about kicking ass.  OR I want to explore situations that give rise to feelings (or experiences), "I want to experience what its like to be Knight," so you create a character that (hopefully – DM willing) goes through a series of situations that a Knight might be faced with thus experiencing/feeling what its like to be a Knight.  In this case good situation/conflict creations skills by the DM go along way in aiding the player in their pursuit of their goals – feeling "X".  In either case the player is either operating directly on their goal of feeling "X" or submits himself to a series of events that (hopefully – DM willing) leads to the emergence of feeling that something.  It could also be that one does not need to pursue a specific feeling, that any and all feelings are acceptable, as long as one is feeling.

I don't know.  Just some thoughts.  But it seems to me that it does cover some problems that do seem to be cropping up.  Perhaps something good might come of this, like a stronger feeling for what constitutes Simulationism.

Just one additional note – if feeling something, pursued as an emergent quality, is the reason a person plays Sim, then it makes sense why internal causality is so important.  In order to feel something we have to convince ourselves on some level that what is happening is real – we suspend our disbelief long enough to generate real feelings to a fictional situation.  If a person is operating directly on what they want to feel - strong, empowered, reckless, etc., then there is no "immersion", there is no need to get into character (empathize) at all.  The character is merely a tool, a convention required by this past time in order to participate.

I'm off...

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[The GM]

Silmenume said the following:

>>There "seems" to be 2 general approaches to Narrativism. Direct story creation and the creation of situations, premises, which lead directly to story creation. <<

I would posit that there are additional approaches, not only for Narrativism, but the other categories as well. Kinda like taking different roads to arrive at the same destination. In this way, I see G-N- & S as being the destination, not the road traveled. Maybe I'm off my rocker here. Let me explain, though. If between SC and CA, we agree to play a game w/ heavy N emphasis, N is the ultimate goal. How we reach that goal would seem to rely on the Techniques level, which crafts for us the System we're going to use to ultimately make the kind of game we agreed to play in the first place.  Since, as I see it, Narrativism is about the moral question, there's any different number of paths we can take to address that specific moral question.



>>I'll posit the following – this is just an idea in the rough, I don't know if it has merit or not. The defining "idea" for each mode is as follows -

Gamism – Victory
Narrativism – Story
Simulationism – Feeling<<

I dunno how I feel about this specifically, since all modes can have these traits emerge in game play.

[Marhault]

2 cents worth.

I don't know how valid the "central idea" concept is, but in so far as you can try to boil down each of the modes to a single word focus, here are my interpretations:

Gamism -- Competition
Narritivism -- Theme
Simulationism -- Consistency

[Silmenume]

>>I'll posit the following – this is just an idea in the rough, I don't know if it has merit or not. The defining "idea" for each mode is as follows -

Gamism – Victory
Narrativism – Story
Simulationism – Feeling<<

I dunno how I feel about this specifically, since all modes can have these traits emerge in game play.

I agree that these traits CAN emerge in all modes of play, (that could either be the specific action of playing a hybrid or like you said it can also JUST arrise) my points is that we are prioritiaing play (creating specific fictional elements) in each mode so that these specific traits can be brought/nurtured into emergence.  For emergent quality style of games it also explains why they fail even though ALL the mode requirements were met - they just were not able to employ the correct narrative/fictional elements that would foster the desired "traits".  Its akin to planting an apple seed in the ground either having nothing happen or getting an orange tree instead.

[Silmenume]

2 cents worth.

I don't know how valid the "central idea" concept is, but in so far as you can try to boil down each of the modes to a single word focus, here are my interpretations:

Gamism -- Competition
Narrativism -- Theme
Simulationism -- Consistency

I don't know either how valid the idea is, I hope its sound.  But part of the reason for posting is to get feedback and engage in debate!

To address your interpretations let me make the following comments and see if that helps clarify things.

Competition is the most common expression of the engagement of the "central idea" of victory in that mode of play described as Gamism.  Competition isn't the only possible expression of the engagement of the "central idea" of victory, another possible expression is exploring under what conditions can victory be brought into being.  The testing of tactics, changes in initial conditions, pairings of foes and the knowledge that one gains from these experiments all still ask, whether tacit or overt, "is victory possible under these circumstances?"  The usefulness of a particular set of explored circumstances is measured against the metric of whether or not victory is achievable.

Regarding Narrativism and theme, I am not fully up to speed, but I will hazard a guess with full acknowledgment that I may be wide of the mark.  Theme is what the story is about.  It is what the author is trying to say by dramatizing the manifestations of that theme through carefully controlled character actions and carefully chosen conflicts.  From a narrative point of view you can't have a theme until you have a story, and yet not all stories have a coherent theme.  In a sense theme is what the author means.  So whether Narrativism more about story creation or theme creation, I don't know.  Story creation is wider in scope because it can contain narratives with or without theme.  

If Narrativism is about theme creation then the most common expression of the engagement of the "central idea" of theme is in story creation.  Conversely one could seek the emergence of theme by creating specially prescribed circumstances (premises) that in their exploration create a story that gives rise to theme.  Most themes, however deal with the human condition and the nature of being (a flawed) mortal.

As far as Simulationism goes, consistency is a "necessary condition," but I do not believe that it is the "central idea" driving the various incarnations of the engagement.  There is still much debate about the "central idea" of Simulation at present, so it is difficult to pin down what to talk about exactly.

I don't know if all I did was restate my original post or if I shed any additional light on the subject.

I should also note, that like the idea of the various denoted creative agendas, this is more a matter of classification process than a direct cognitive process that the players engage in.

Aure Entaluve,

Silmenume

[M. J. Young]

Ah, Jay, I'm afraid feeling has got to be one of the worst terms ever put forward--well, really, what does it mean? Gamists play for the feeling, expressed through step on up, that they've done well; narrativists play because they get a feeling from the story they've created. Sure, simulationists play for feeling--but what feeling?

You keep telling me that you're not talking about anything immersive; but what does immersive mean to you, if it doesn't mean "I want to know what it feels like to be X or live through Y"? That would seem to me to be the definition of immersion; yet you keep putting it forward as the definition of simulationism. I can't understand what you mean.

O.K., I can see that my examples, being combat oriented, are easily taken to be gamist; it would be very easy to play those as gamist. Let me try different examples.

I'm going to play the engineer on a starship. I'm going to attempt to realign the dilithium crystals using a simple lithium radiation source as a reference mark. I've thought of this idea myself, and want to see whether, given the physics of the world, this works. Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with victory; nor has it anything to do with feeling or experience. It is entirely about discovering whether under the physics of the game universe I can make the warp drives more efficient by this technique.

I'm in Sherwood Forest; it's eleven ninety something, Norman King Richard (who will in about two hundred years become known as The Lionhearted) left for the crusades, and on the way home was shipwrecked and captured, and is now being held hostage somewhere in Germany. His younger brother Prince John is heavily overtaxing the Saxon people while insisting he doesn't have the money to pay the ransom. I as player know several things that my character probably doesn't know; I know that John is telling the truth about the money, because his popular father and brother have run the country into serious debt trying to pay for the wars that they enjoy so much; I know that when Richard is finally released, he'll go right back to fighting and get himself killed in Normandy; I know that Prince John is going to become King John in a very few years, and will be so unpopular because of his taxation and centralization efforts (begun by his popular father, but John just doesn't have the charisma to keep it going) that he'll be forced to sign the Magna Carta. I decide I want to see what would happen if John was taken out; so I organize a raid and try to kill Prince John. I'm not interested in whether I can kill Prince John; I'm interested in what happens if I do. Who will succeed Richard? What will become of Magna Carta and the rights of Englishmen (and, ultimately, all Europeans and Americans)? I'm not looking for a feeling; I'm looking for knowledge.

Let me take a stab at your essentials:

[*]Gamism is about proving your ability against the challenge.[*]Narrativism is about exploring facets of difficult moral and personal questions.[*]Simulationism is about learning and discovering.[/list:u]

Yes, you can learn and discover "what it feels like"; but you're limiting simulationism to immersive play if that's your standard. I've played completely detached simulationism. I've played the emotionally involved sort as well. Immersive play may be more common and more broadly appealing, but if you exclude the other you need a new category, because figuring out what happens "if" is not gamist or narrativist in many cases.

--M. J. Young

[Tiki Joe]

I love it when you use big words Silmenume, it's so sexy
LOL
But enough Silliness. You not going to find a bigger fan of this man theories then I. he is one of my dearest friends and biggest supporters and has helped me through many a fallen game.

......Just one additional note – if feeling something, pursued as an emergent quality, is the reason a person plays Sim, then it makes sense why internal causality is so important. In order to feel something we have to convince ourselves on some level that what is happening is real – we suspend our disbelief long enough to generate real feelings to a fictional situation. If a person is operating directly on what they want to feel - strong, empowered, reckless, etc., then there is no "immersion", there is no need to get into character (empathize) at all. The character is merely a tool, a convention required by this past time in order to participate......

What they want to feel as opposed to what they ARE feeling. That could be the nail on the head Sir.
I want to be a kick ass fighter and do 3d10 every swing, I don't want to lose that fight with the shadow because ill lose 1d6 points of STR and that will make me angry. I have become attached to this piece of paper because it allows me to feel things and do things I can't do in the real world and that's exciting. The thought of losing that investment is scary so I hide behind the façade of what I WANT to feel.

Letting go of those feelings is scary, that's why Sim is so damn hard. You have to open your self up- you give the GM permission to toy with your emotions and in some cases that can be very strange and disruptive. Any time you allow you're self to suspend disbelief and give another the power to make you feel something-anything-you risk being hurt.
And no one wants that. You don't go to a game to feel like crap at the end of the game, you go to a game to PLAY-yet you must risk the hurt to know the joy and triumph of when character you have allowed yourself to feel for succeeds.

I have just watched a game I invested ½ a year into go up in to flames thanks to a typical power gamer. When it came to combat it was text book. Power attacks every round and he became a crying baby when ever anything bad happened to him. When placed in to a situation when he had to think, to role-play, to experience the world. He failed miserably and resorted to violence to solve his problems. In game terms he made enemies out of every NPC and in real life none of the other players want to play with him any more and the game crashed.
Because this person was afraid to let go of his Crutch and allow him self to feel what was happening rather then what he wanted to happen. He lost out; the game was lessened by his actions. His character was nothing more then a sad stereotype that got left behind and ignored and eventually he was ostracized by his fellow players.
When the game restarts tomorrow-his spot will be empty.

.

If a person is operating directly on what they want to feel - strong, empowered, reckless, etc

...RATHER THE WHAT THEY ARE FELLING.....,

then there is no "immersion", there is no need to get into character (empathize) at all. The character is merely a tool, a convention required by this past time in order to participate

.

But then again, what do I know. I still think color TV is a keen idea and lord knows that will never catch on.

Glub

[M. J. Young]

Welcome to the Forge, Joe.

I still have the same problems with Jay's idea of feeling as central to simulationism, for the same reasons:[list=1][*]You can play simulationism without any connection to the feelings of the character at all;[*]You can play gamist and narrativist with very strong connections to those feelings.[/list:o]
Your distinction between what you want to feel and what you do feel don't help much, either, I'm afraid. After all, if I'm playing gamist, I want to feel I'm winning--but if I feel I'm losing, that's still gamist play, and part of what I risked when I entered the game. Further, you can argue that playing simulationist is opening yourself up to unanticipated feelings--but then, the response is clearly you're playing because you want to feel unanticipated feelings.

I'm not saying that playing for the feeling/experience is never simulationist; I'm saying that it is not always simulationist, and there are other forms of simulationism that have nothing to do with what you feel. Simulationism is about discovery. That can be discovering feelings, but it can as easily be discovering information. I can watch the biography of George Washington with a flush of patriotic fervor and excitement, putting myself in his shoes as he struggles to bring forth a nation; I can as easily watch it with detached disinterest, learning about the details of life at Valley Forge and the struggles to get the Continental Congress to commit funds to support the army and so on. Both would be analogous to simulationist play, because I'm here to learn something--neither precludes the other as part of the category.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young