Zilchplay [split from "Understanding: the "it"

[Walt Freitag]

Ron,

My previous post addressing Jason above crossed your post, but coincidentally its last paragraph (not counting the asterisked postscript) sums up how I believe we differ on this.

Since we have no consensual community definition of role playing here, I can't argue your conclusion that zlichplay is not role playing. Within the structure of the Big Model, it's a logical and internally consistent conclusion.

But I've seen lots of zilchplay, functional and otherwise, and I doubt any single one of those players would have the slightest inking that they weren't actually role playing, or would agree with that judgment if it were suggested to them.

If you observe a player in play and cannot perceive that player's Creative Agenda, how do you distinguish between "that player is role playing, I just haven't observed enough play yet to perceive his Creative Agenda," and "that player is not role playing?" The problem for Sim comes from the assumption, "if I can't perceive a player's Creative Agenda after looking for a good long while, it's Sim by default." That may not be how you intend the theory to work, but that's how it's been understood by many. Should it instead be "if I can't perceive a player's Creative Agenda after looking for a good long while then that player is not role playing?" I'd rarely if ever be willing to make such a judgment. That's why I prefer "if I can't perceive a player's Creative Agenda after looking for a good long while, then that player's play is zilchplay." I simply can't tell what he's expressing himself about because I haven't seen him express himself at all. (I might have to revise my assessment if more evidence of a CA occurs over time, but that's always true.) That "out" removes the temptation to overload the evidence and e.g. declare play Gamist because the player smiles at a favorable die roll.

- Walt

[Jason Lee]

Jay,

I'm going to leave the fact that your Sim|Char examples reek of Vanilla Nar to me to the other threads that have sprung up about Exploration of Character and Nar.

I think it would help to distinguish between the act/process of Exploration from the collective noun referring to the Exploratory Elements.

To rephrase your question, if I may be so bold –

"Are zilchplayers interested in adding to the Exploratory Elements?"

The answer is, it depends. If the players are squelching the expression of their CA's so that their game may continue and not be torn apart, then the answer is yes. If zilchplayers are truly happy, just floating along, consuming and not adding much of anything to the Exploratory Elements, then the answer is no.

Be bold!  I don't mind.  However, I don't see any functional difference between 'adding to Exploration' and 'adding to Exploration Elements'.  The Exploration Elements are the lump of stuff floating around in the SIS that the people are talking about.  If you're adding to the conversation (SIS) you're adding to what the conversation is about.  

The yes answer, though a perfectly valid motive, seems like a Social Contract motive (outside of CA) - meaning they aren't zilchplaying because they really want to be.

The GNS/Agenda model describes Exploration as "shared imaginings." The "shared" part means that the imaginings are being shaped by communication about those things between the participants. (This is a pretty close paraphrase from the "The foundation: Exploration and more" section of Ron's Narrativism: Story Now article.)

So, the way I see it, experiencing alone isn't sufficient to meet the definition of Exploration, but introducing anything new or unexpected into the communication (one possible definition of "creating"*) isn't required to meet the definition of Exploration. That's not to say "creating" is not a strong expectation in some, even most, social contracts for actual play, just that without "creating" it can still be Exploration and still be role playing.

Picking up a die and rolling it when cued to do so by the system or the other participants (which even the otherwise silent players in the AD&D DMG play example are apparently doing) is communicating about the shared imagined space and is therefore Exploration, and it can even be said to be adding to the shared imagined space, but I wouldn't call it creating. Others will disagree; that's why "creating" is such a tricky verb to try to pin a definition on, leading me to try out the perhaps marginally less tricky "introducing the unexpected" as an alternative. Another description of the same "it" (which is the missing "it" in Sim but is not unique to Sim) is that "it" is the use of Exploration as bandwidth for self-expression.

Walt,

I believe I take your point about the unexpected.  Your talking about re-enforcing the Exploration that has already been stated, or to put it harshly, not saying anything new.  I think I'm one of those that will disagree, if the players are actually doing anything then they are adding to Exploration.  If you are not contributing, I really hesitate to call it functional role-playing (expect for maybe the GM, who is contributing).  

Since we have no consensual community definition of role playing here, I can't argue your conclusion that zilchplay is not role playing. Within the structure of the Big Model, it's a logical and internally consistent conclusion.

But, I take your point above about how that's up for debate.  If I continue my response to Jay from this point of view, I'd say that there isn't a functional difference in play between 'Exploration', 'adding to Exploration', and 'adding to the Exploration Elements'.

*****

I stress, I'm trying to stay true to the Big Model's meaning of Exploration, but the implications I'm reading into it contradict GNS/Agenda theory. To wit: I'm proposing it's the "it" rather than Exploration itself that requires a Creative Agenda; that Exploration can still occur without the "it," and that therefore Exploration (and role playing) can occur without a Creative Agenda. A different interpretation that would not lead to contradiction of the current model would be: Exploration cannot exist at all without "it," so that whether it's the Exploration or the "it" that requires a Creative Agenda is a meaningless question, and all Exploration has a Creative Agenda.

Emphasis mine.

Actually, I fully agree with the above, expect the bolded portion.  Sorta.  I definitely agree, based on the 'unexpected' angle above, that these moments of null-CA exist in play, but because we are looking at an instance of play I'm inclined to disagree with the bolded statement overall.  I would like to add a third option.  That zilchplay does not exist in a functional form except as an intermission between observable Creative Agenda moments.  Giving you a couple different kinds of zilchplay:

1) Dysfunction - Creative Agenda has been blocked somehow.
2) Congruent or little z moments, that are ultimately irrelevant because Creative Agenda is determined over an instance of play.  The little z's are just zeros that are factored out when observing an agenda.

If you accept the above options, than this puts zilchplay outside the scope of the model.  Assuming one agrees, the question then becomes whether or not we like that zilchplay is pushed out of the model.

Ok, where are we now?