Player action/reaction to Situation key to CA

[Silmenume]

I've been doing some musing lately (hears various groans) and I am not sure how to focus them all into coherent whole.  Thus this post will be more of a series of musings that I hope can be focused into something useful.  Obviously these are up for discussion to be supported or discounted.

The first musing is that addressing situation (of the 5 elements of exploration) is the heartbeat of roleplay. Until a player addresses situation play has not begun.  Addressing situation is that action where things happen.  This is not to imply that this is where or what a given player necessarily grooves on, but until situation is engaged/addressed there has been no play.  Color is texture/patina, Setting is a necessary foundational element, System is a tool, Character is revealed through addressing Situation, but addressing Situation is what moves events forward.  Addressing situation is the dynamic where things changes and grow.  Addressing Situation is where and when things happen.  Until that happens, nothing has happened.  I would posit it is here that we find the zilchplay phenomenon.  Though the idea of it is still controversial I would say that z-play is play that does not address situation.  Now it is entirely and highly likely that in most instances of what could be called z-play are really instances of play that are in the employ of a CA yet there are many games where either the players either don't address any Situation or the DM has not effectively constructed a Situation that requires addressing.  These would be z-play games.  That a game play moment may not be diagnosable is not the same as saying that a play is not addressing Situation.

Another musing.  It is in the addressing of situation that we see creative agenda in operation.  When we are observing or diagnosing CA in action it is process of observing how a player responds to his situation or how a player responds out of SIS to the situation of the other player, i.e., social rewards, etc.  This is what is at the heart of the need to observe for a long time before determining CA.  It is not enough that a system be designed to support or encourage a CA, but rather how the players actually act.  That act is in reference to how said player addresses a situation.  Players may groove on all sorts of things that do not directly impact the situation, however, diagnosis of play, as I understand it, is squarely pegged to how players react to situation.  It does not matter what system is being employed and how much it empowers the players to do certain things, it is what the players actually do regarding situation that matters.  From what I understand it is possible, for example, to have a fully coherent Narrativist game system and still have players exhibit gamist priorities.

So the question I pose is thus –

How does an observer watching a player's actions or reactions to situation determine what CA is actually being prioritized?

For this particular exercise I posit that said player is not "consciously" or "mindfully" addressing premise, challenge, or situation – as far as the player is concerned they are "just playing".  In order for this thought experiment to work the player must be at odds with the overt or "designed" creative agenda of the game as pushed forward by the DM and the other players.  The reason I go this route is that if the play were coherent it becomes even harder to untangle the pieces.  Contrast highlights.

What happens during addressing situation that one can say, "Hey!  This player is not playing CA X, but is instead playing CA Y or Z?"  For example a Gamist game is in full swing but one player turns out to be expressing a Sim CA.  What elements of situation are the player acting/reacting to that would make an observer say, "Hey this guy is Sim, not Gamist."  I have a feeling that this will be answered – "This should be in the Actual Play section of the board with actual examples given."  But I don't think that is an effective answer.  The reason is that the model clearly states that CA can be determined by watching player behavior.  So – what are we looking for?

I have read, and my memory may be faulty, highly possible, that a player is considered Narrativist if they are addressing premise, even if they are doing so and aren't mindful of the process.  I buy that a player can be acting on internal priorities that are not conscious to said player.  The problem is that nearly all situations can be addressed by all three CA priorities.  How do we know that a player who enjoys and "exhibits" the CA Sim priority of exploration of character is different from Narrativism which inherently explores character?  For example, all three creative agendas <>can explore character, so how is it that exploring character via situation comes to be identified with a specific CA?

Some thoughts.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Rob Carriere]

Let me put up a specific example (otherwise the swamp I keep in my head starts sloshing)

The game is genre-pastiche, let's say of samurai-movies.

Alice is into playing this sort of thing, her identical twin Carol wants to address premise instead. She'll play the samurai according to stereotype to build up the weight of the premise, and then, at a crucial point, make a choice: ``do I do the honorable thing, or do I choose a dishonorable move that furthers my goal?''

Now, if we observe play and all decisions are according to genre, we don't know whether this is Alice happily playing pastiche or Carol happening to address the premise in same way the stereotype does.

If we see a break from stereotype with happy-signals (rather than `Oops!') we know we're seeing Carol. If we keep watching and _never_ see a break from stereotype, then the probability that this is Alice starts rising.

Anybody know a more efficient method? (Please, pretty please?)

[Aside: I'm getting visions of a detective-game where one twin has been killed and you are called in as a GNS-expert to determine which twin this is.]

SR
--

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jay, I think you've nailed it.

One quibble: I do think the term "mindful" is involved, which is only to say that I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

I like "mindful" as a term because it connotes, to me, that some part of the person's mind is involved in the Creative Agenda, and it avoids to some extent (although apparently not for you) the baggage-heavy, openly-verbalized connotations of "conscious" or "aware."

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I do think the term "mindful" is involved, which is only to say that I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

Hey, I like that.  

I used "On purpose" a few times in some threads to try and capture that same sentiment, specifically because I wanted to stress that it wasn't something that happened "by accident", and "on purpose" seemed a good opposite.  People, however, thought it implied "conciously" and "aware".

Mindful, might be a better phrase for it.

[M. J. Young]

Jay, you've got a lot of good stuff there; forgive me if I quibble just a bit.

You seem to confuse system in its sense under the theory (Lumpley principle) with system in its looser use, what is usually called rules in discussing the theory. That is, we don't choose to use D&D as the system; we choose to use D&D as the rules, and inject it into our social contract and so develop a system. Thus the system is not what's in the book, but what we actually use. If as a group we're playing narrativist, we probably are not playing with a gamist system, although we may have started with gamist rules which we have drifted and molded to form the system we're actually using to support our narrativist play.

The other thing is that the five elements of exploration are so tightly connected that you can't really single out one as "the" critical element. It would be better to say that roleplaying doesn't happen until some bit of each of the five elements is present; it usually happens that situation is the last of these, because usually we start by picking some rules, assigning a certain amount of credibility to each participant (system), building a setting and coloring it, and creating characters for it, and finally when the rest is there we create a situation--thus when the situation is created, play begins, because it's the last piece to fall into place. On the other hand, it's possible to start with a situation--to say, "Let's play a game in which this is the conflict" (establishing situation)--and then create characters around that situation. That we don't do it that way most of the time doesn't mean that's not plausible. I have designed game scenarios starting with the situation and working backwards toward the characters and setting.

Similarly, it may be easiest to recognize CA through how players address situation, but CA will infect all of the elements to some degree. It is more difficult to make those judgments from the other elements, but not impossible. There is such a thing as a character designed for narrativist play; there is similarly such a thing as playing exploring character in a narrativist fashion. It's harder to distinguish, but it is there.

So yes, situation can be a key that unlocks CA in all the ways you've suggested; but it is part of the interconnected web of elements, and inseparably so.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

...I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

I agree completely.  The issue that I was trying to address was that CA's, which are expressed via the employment of mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings are expressed behaviors that individuals may not be aware that they are expressing.  All the human faculties might be involved except self-awareness, i.e., a player may exhibit highly evolved and extremely competent Gamist CA behaviors but could, as far as said player was concerned, in all honestly deny that they were Gamists.  It is highly possible to have highly coherent behavior yet not be aware that one is expressing a certain behavior.  The problem lies in that most behaviors are not recognized by the expresser of said behaviors, as the whole "Unnamed Theoryã" addresses itself to.

To me expressed behaviors, by definition, fully employ mental, emotional, and communicative faculties.  However, if we are minting a new meaning for the word mindful here at the Forge, that's fine by me.  Perhaps we should put it in the vocabulary list with the other common usage word that has a very Forge specific meaning - "credibility!"

You seem to confuse system in its sense under the theory (Lumpley principle) with system in its looser use, what is usually called rules in discussing the theory. That is, we don't choose to use D&D as the system; we choose to use D&D as the rules, and inject it into our social contract and so develop a system. Thus the system is not what's in the book, but what we actually use. If as a group we're playing narrativist, we probably are not playing with a gamist system, although we may have started with gamist rules which we have drifted and molded to form the system we're actually using to support our narrativist play.

You have caught me in a vocabulary misusage.  Guilty as charged!  However you did miss the point I was driving at.  It is possible, according to the "Unnamed Theoryã" for a completely CA coherent rules system to be in the employ of another CA by the players without a single incidence of rules drift.  The point is that player expressed CA can override any rules system promoted CA, even if that rules system is employed fully intact.  It may not be likely, it may not be an effective way to play, but it is possible.  In time it is likely that the players will either drift or move to a different system, but that does not obviate my point.  Player expressed CA is not locked into rules systems, though rules systems can strongly hamper or aide in the free expression of certain CA's.

The other thing is that the five elements of exploration are so tightly connected that you can't really single out one as "the" critical element. It would be better to say that roleplaying doesn't happen until some bit of each of the five elements is present; ...

With the possible exception of Color, it is impossible for a player to address Situation until some bits of all the other elements of Exploration have already been attended to and laid into place.  Attending to could mean that subconscious creative act that occurs an instant before the mouth opens.  If the GM only lays out a Situation and a player without any previous thoughts about any character says, "I do X," he has already made some decisions about their character before the words leave their mouth.

The mere presence of all 5 Exploration Elements does not mean roleplay has begun; a player must address a Situation.  If a player does not address any Situation, but attends to all the other Elements of Exploration, then all you have is description.  There is nothing that is expressed in the other 4 Elements of Exploration that cannot be just as easily read until one comes to Situation.  The very nature of Situation is dynamic.  A decision must be made and this decision, or non-decision, reveals Character and affects Situation.  We employ system to address Situation, how we address Situation can add color, we need Setting to have bearings, but addressing Situation is the meat and potatoes of roleplay.  Addressing Situation is not more important than the other elements of Exploration, it cannot exist without them, but it is where things occur.

...it's possible to start with a Situation--to say, "Let's play a game in which this is the conflict" (establishing Situation)--and then create characters around that Situation. That we don't do it that way most of the time doesn't mean that's not plausible.

I agree that the order in which the various elements of Exploration are brought online can vary, however until the characters are employed to address Situation, you are still in the preparatory stages of play.  One could spend an entire night creating characters to fit an establishing Situation, but until they are employed to address Situation, roleplay has not occurred.  This assumes that characters are needed to address Situation – in some cases in Narrativism a character need not be "present" to address a specific Situation, however the power to affect Situation isn't "granted" until a character creation process has been completed, as far as I understand.

Similarly, it may be easiest to recognize CA through how players address Situation, but CA will infect all of the elements to some degree. It is more difficult to make those judgments from the other elements, but not impossible. There is such a thing as a character designed for narrativist play; there is similarly such a thing as playing exploring character in a narrativist fashion.

A character can be designed for Narrativist play, however if the player of said character addresses Situation in a way that expresses a Gamist priority behavior, it doesn't matter that the character was designed for Narrativist play.  Gamist addressing of Situation is a Gamist game irrespective of how character was designed.  It doesn't matter what a player meant to do, what matters is what the player does do.  In roleplay, doing is addressing Situation.

Again, Situation cannot be addressed without the other elements of Exploration, or it would not be Exploration – it would not be roleplay.  That is not the same as saying that all the elements serve the same purpose.  A CA merely indicates that a player has an interest in exploring a certain broad type of conflict (Situation).  If a player enjoys the type of conflict known as challenge then he is expressing a Gamist CA behavior.  If a player enjoys the type of conflict known as premise then he is expressing a Narrativist CA behavior.  If a player enjoys any type of conflict that engages/reflects their character found in Situation then he is expressing a Simulationist CA behavior.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jay, with respect, I think you are undergoing another one of those "say it for myself" moments.

A CA merely indicates that a player has an interest in exploring a certain broad type of conflict (Situation). If a player enjoys the type of conflict known as challenge then he is expressing a Gamist CA behavior. If a player enjoys the type of conflict known as premise then he is expressing a Narrativist CA behavior. If a player enjoys any type of conflict that engages/reflects their character found in Situation then he is expressing a Simulationist CA behavior.

This quote, it seems to me, is a direct paraphrase of a point I've made multiple times. If you look across all three specific GNS essays, in the early section of each which discusses Exploration, I think you'll see how much attention I've paid to Situation as the "central node" of Exploration - and how, in the Big Model discussion in the Narrativism essay, Situation anchors the Creative Agenda "arrow" into the Techniques of play.

Best,
Ron