Trying to define S, like G/N, by its relationsip to conflict

[tiago.rodrigues]

Perhaps my vision is skewed.

I am not really trying to make Simulationism "like the others".  However, it is my impression that, all things being equal, the analysis of Simulationism through G/N/S doesn't yield as much information as the analysis of Narrativism or Gamism.  Since I initially reject the notion that Simulationism is somehow more "unknowable" than either Narrativism or Gamism, I have to infer it is a limitation of the theory.

The second part, which you have probably taken as the main part of my post, was merely an attempt of mine to come up with an alternative so as not to expend the post in empty rhetoric.  Naturally, given my Math/Engineering/CS background, I wound up trying to generate an analogy between the three modes in order to study them, because that's the standard fashion in Engineering theories.  I do recognize, however, that it certainly need not be so; Social theories, of which G/N/S is one by virtue of modelling a social endeavor, certainly don't need to abide by the strictures of Engineering or mathematical theorems.  I just don't have enough knowledge of those to propose one that doesn't look like an Engineering theorem.  Well, minus the mathematical model, anyway.

However, MJ, your post has me thinking that maybe I'm figuratively barking up the wrong tree.  I'd read your essay before, but did it again anyway, and I really have to consider if what I perceive as an inability of the theory to draw (as many) useful conclusions about S isn't my inability to draw useful conclusions about S using the theory.  The jury's still out on that one, so make of it what you will.

         -T

[Alan]

The relationship of conflict to simulationism is a different kind of relationship from the one it has to the other agendas.

In simulationist play, conflict exists, not as a tool to drive exploration or agenda, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality. Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

[Silmenume]

Hey Tiago!

Welcome to the never ending round about of "What is Simulationism"!

From my perspective - your position is not skewed.  You're doing the exact thing that I asked those who posted to this thread to do - find a way to set up the Agendas in such as way as they can be studied.

The problem and the confusion you are having about Discovery and what not is the very problem with the description and understanding of Simulationism as it stands now and exactly what I am trying to cut through.  Your attempt to make the model work is the very same thing that I am trying to do.

The problem with the prevailing idea of Discovery as the driving force behind Sim is that it fails on two accounts.  As Discover does not harness conflict towards an end like Challenge or Premise, and two it doesn't limit player activities like Challenge addressing or Premise addressing IOW it is neither prescriptive nor descriptive.  Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.  Discovery does neither.  The basic defense of Discovery is player intention, but the model does not support player intention, but player action.  If a player wishes to see which tactics to employ in order to gain a victory the success of that act is an act of Discovery - a new piece of information has been Discovered.  But the proponents say that the discovery of information does not include Step on Up.  But that this an artificial distinction based upon intention rather than observing player actions.  So Discovery is too broad, it defines nothing because it covers all of Exploration.  This is where much confusion still reigns.  The other problem with Discovery is that by not being defined as a goal oriented action it does not limit or focus what the players are doing so once again the definition of Sim is left vague and non predictive - Discovery as an Agenda is passive.

The reason I focus on conflict is that over the years every other distinction between the CA, as viewed via the elements of Exploration has been debunked.  Lots of mechanics or few mechanics is not indicative of CA.  Published mechanics cannot enforce a CA, its what the players do that determines CA in action.  Verisimilitude is not a definer of CA.  Color is not.  Setting is not.  Character stance is not.  Whether you get into Character or not is not indicative of CA.  There is nothing left but conflict/situation.  The only thing that can definitively distinguish between CA's in operation is how conflict is employed.

If conflict is employed just to employ mechanics or not employed at all, then that is Zilchplay.  If conflict is employed towards a goal then that is a Creative Agenda in operation.  The question I have posed is what is that conflict employment that is uniquely Sim.  How do Simulationists constructively employ the use of conflict to further their CA goals?  Discover this and you will have successfully defined Sim.

Hey Alan,

I say that conflict is a tool that drives Exploration in Sim, its just that unlike G/N, conflict creation is typically not in the control of the players.  Also I would say that while conflict is a direct tool employed by Gamists and Narrativists, conflict is used in conjunction with Character to create/Explore Events as an end unto themselves more than G/N which use Events to address Challenge or Premise.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[M. J. Young]

Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.

This sounds to me like saying that gasoline engines and stir fry both rely on oil to make them work, and then pretending that it's the same kind of oil in both cases. I assure you that if I used the same oil I put in my crankcase to make my stir fry, you would not like it, and it would not like you.

That which we call "conflict" in narrativist play and that which we call "conflict" in gamist play are completely different things, and they are approached in completely different ways.

There is a lion in the road ahead, and the only way to continue the journey is to defeat the lion or find a way around him. That is conflict in gamist play; it is not conflict in narrativist play--it is merely an event.

The villain is shielding himself behind an innocent bystander. It would be easy to kill the villain by shooting the bystander first, but your character is pledged to protect civilians, and this would be a clear violation of that pledge. That is conflict in narrativist play; it is not conflict in gamist play--it might or might not be a limitation, a factor in the conflict, but it is not the conflict itself.

In gamist play, players respond to conflict by demonstrating their skills at the game, proving their abilities as players. In narrativist play, players respond to conflict by making moral, ethical, or personal decisions and expressing them as answers to the questions raised by play. In simulationist play, players respond to conflict by using the tools available to them to uncover new areas of information or experience within the game world.

Note that the gamist approach to conflict, because of the type of thing that is conflict to the gamist and the way players respond, must involve game mechanics or techniques; the players must "win" or overcome the conflict by using the game rules to defeat the conflict, determining whether the character can do what the player decided. In narrativist play, that's entirely different. Players approach conflict by making decisions. If mechanics apply at all, they generally apply by determining the consequences of those decisions, and not by determining whether the character can do what the player decided.

We should then expect that conflict for the simulationist would be something different again, and that the response to conflict would be something different again. In this case, it is perfectly reasonable to say that conflict to the simulationist is that which impedes discovery, and that the response is to actively seek to uncover new information.

Discovery is not passive. Ask any research scientist.

Creative agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play, and thus what it is that the player wants from play, and thus what motivates the player during play. It is recognized by observing conduct (not by asking players what they want), because this is the most accurate means of identifying such. We perceive that Bob enjoys showing his skill during play, and conclude that he plays because he enjoys step on up, and thus is gamist. Bob might say that he enjoys creating stories or exploring other worlds, but his actual play belies this. He really enjoys showing off his skill and getting praise from his peers for a well-played strategy.

This is why it's not defined by any of the elements of exploration, not even situation. We distinguish Creative Agenda by what the players enjoy. That can be found in any or all of the elements; it is not necessarily in any one of them in a particular game.

--M. J. Young

[Caldis]

In gamist play, players respond to conflict by demonstrating their skills at the game, proving their abilities as players. In narrativist play, players respond to conflict by making moral, ethical, or personal decisions and expressing them as answers to the questions raised by play. In simulationist play, players respond to conflict by using the tools available to them to uncover new areas of information or experience within the game world.
--M. J. Young

I dont think that is at all what most simulationist players are attempting to do when they respond to conflict.  They are not seeking to gain new information about the conflict or to get past it so they can get on to the next experience, they are attempting to resolve the conflict based on the parameters of the situation in a realistic fashion.  They want the experience to feel real so it doesn't break their suspension of disbelief, so that they can experience something they themselves never would.  This is why I think Ron has simulationism pegged when he calls it "the Dream".  

Dreams (or at least memorable ones) are never about boring situations they always involve interesting events, so it's no surprise that the rpg equivalent of dreams will involve conflict.  The player will use his character to face the conflicts in order to get a vicarious thrill of living in danger.

[Balbinus]

The relationship of conflict to simulationism is a different kind of relationship from the one it has to the other agendas.

In simulationist play, conflict exists, not as a tool to drive exploration or agenda, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality. Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

Exactly.

I think Ron's essay on sim is very good actually, and I say that as someone who prior to the essay was never convinced that he really understood what sim was about.

Conflict is part of the dream, conflict is part of reality or the underlying genre being emulated and as such must be present if verisimilitude is to be maintained.  It is not necessarily a tool for further exploration, it is a necessary element of the dream itself.

The only caveat I'd make is that sim does not equal realism, which I think those present realise but a couple of posts seem to me to be tending toward that line of thinking.

Edit:  So as to avoid an "I agree" post, Caldis is also I think precisely on the money.  The Dream, to be interesting, generally involves conflict as interesting situations/settings are what make the Dream worth exploring in part.  Few simulationists, even hard core historical gamers like me, choose to play Accountant:  The Tabulating.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Max (Balbinus) and Caldis, I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing? Not controversial, I don't think.

Max, thanks for the kind words about the essay (did you just read it for the first time recently?) and also, have you seen the first draft of the Glossary?

Best,
Ron

[Balbinus]

Hello,

Max (Balbinus) and Caldis, I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing? Not controversial, I don't think.

Max, thanks for the kind words about the essay (did you just read it for the first time recently?) and also, have you seen the first draft of the Glossary?

Best,
Ron

Possibly MJ is saying the same thing, if so then I guess it's for the original poster to say if they think we're missing his point in considering the essay adequate or if more is needed.

Anyway, I read it ages back.  Presumably I didn't think to say at the time that I was impressed by it, sorry about that.  From my perspective as someone with a strong preference for sim play I thought you nailed it pretty well and were largely on the right track.

No, I had not seen the glossary.  I hadn't realised it was so well developed as my post on the Site Discussion forum indicates, I think it will greatly assist the Forge as a community in communicating externally and if you are happy that it is already in fair shape (I realise it will be a moving target by definition) I shall print it off to get myself up to speed with current thinking.

[M. J. Young]

I dont think that is at all what most simulationist players are attempting to do when they respond to conflict.  They are not seeking to gain new information about the conflict or to get past it so they can get on to the next experience, they are attempting to resolve the conflict based on the parameters of the situation in a realistic fashion.  They want the experience to feel real so it doesn't break their suspension of disbelief, so that they can experience something they themselves never would.

That experience of something vicariously through their characters is the knowledge they seek. It is subjectively attained, but it is still discovery.

Conflict is part of the dream, conflict is part of reality or the underlying genre being emulated and as such must be present if verisimilitude is to be maintained. It is not necessarily a tool for further exploration, it is a necessary element of the dream itself.

I think we've got two different kinds of conflict happening here.

There are conflicts within the game that are very much like gamist conflicts or narrativist conflicts, and they are approached with a view to experiencing them as the character. Jay started this thread in an effort to define simulationism by what the player does with conflict. My assertion was that from the perspective of the player, the conflicts in the game world are not conflicts he addresses--they are conflicts his character addresses. There is a separate conception of "conflict" in all three agenda that defines what the player addresses. It may be reflected by the character's actions, but it need not necessarily be.

As a theoretical example, a player with a narrativist agendum could have his character make choices exactly opposite to what he (the player) believes, hoping to show the consequences of the wrong path. It seems that both Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde take this approach, becoming cautionary tales by suggesting that a certain path leads to very unhappy consequences. The player is using his character to make a statement; the conflict for the player is how best to make the statement, while that for the character is how to respond to the situations in his life. The player makes the statement through the character's choices (and through other means as well).

Similarly, in gamist play a player might choose to sacrifice the life of his character to enable the team to win. He could easily do this in a manner which does not say that the character chose to make that sacrifice. To the character, the conflict might very well be a question of how to get out of this alive; to the player, it is how to assure that the team will win.

So, too, in simulationist play there will be in-game conflicts, and the players will be seeking to experience these as a means of discovery. To the player, the conflict is that which impedes discovery; to the character, the conflict is that which happens in the game. The player might well choose to play the character as desperately trying to avoid the impending doom which the character hopes to experience, for example if the player wishes to vicariously experience the descent into madness coming from learning the mythos of the Cthulu world. The player is pushing the character into the very things the character wishes to avoid. The conflict to the character in that case is how to deal with these dark secrets; the conflict to the player is how to keep the character digging deeper into them despite the character's realization that this is going to destroy him.

Merely asking how the player approaches conflict in the three agenda misses the point. The player approaches metagame conflict in an agendum-based manner; the character approaches in-game conflict as addressed by the player, in a manner which supports the player's metagame agendum.

I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing?

I've touched this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again. There is in all three modes objective and subjective play. Simulationism traditionally has been dominated by the subjective side, the desire to experience. In part, that's because the objective form of simulationism has been largely relegated to wargames. I think that there have always been some roleplayers for whom the "experience" is very objectified, as they watch "their guy" go through things. The relationship between the player and the character more resembles that of researcher and subject than something more intimate--even as intimate as author and character.

Yes, immersive play has been very much part of the simulationist tradition; but I think when Ralph talks about those games in which they leapt off cliffs because the game mechanics said their characters could survive and they wanted to see it happen, he was not talking about an immersive experience but a detached observer experience.

I think that the detached observer approach to simulationist play gets short shrift in much of the thinking to date, and it severely hurts understanding of the model and of simulationism in particular. The character who says he wants to experience what it would be like to be a hobbit in Middle Earth is certainly a simulationist; but he is not more a simulationist than the one who says he wants to see what would have happened had Galadriel decided to accept the One Ring and attempt to overthrow Sauron's power with it.

In short, the emphasis on immersive subjective experiential play as characteristic of simulationism is true from a perspective of historical dominance (at least in terms of that which was recognized as such), but it's misrepresentative of simulationism as a creative agendum.

Either that, or the act of role playing to learn objectively about the elements of exploration is an unrecognized independent agendum.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

Hey M. J.,

Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.

This sounds to me like saying that gasoline engines and stir fry both rely on oil to make them work, and then pretending that it's the same kind of oil in both cases. I assure you that if I used the same oil I put in my crankcase to make my stir fry, you would not like it, and it would not like you.

I think I am beginning to see where the confusion lies.  You analogy, while allowing me a well needed chuckle, is incorrect for it does not reflect what I am saying or intending to say.  But for the hope of simplicity I will use a similar one to illustrate my point.

I am saying that a gasoline engine and a coal fired steam locomotive both rely on fuel to make them work.  Try and put gasoline into the steam locomotive and you will have problems.  Putting coal into a gasoline engine will also generate problems.  However both gasoline and coal are fuels however different their forms, used in different ways, that have different properties, requiring different types of engines to make us of, both serving the same purpose – providing the energy to make the engines work.

Metaphorically I am saying that conflict is fuel.  The fact that it comes in radically different forms doesn't change the fact that it is fuel.  In fact, that it comes in radically different forms necessitating different "engines" to harness its energy is reflected in the radically different game designs.

That which we call "conflict" in narrativist play and that which we call "conflict" in gamist play are completely different things, and they are approached in completely different ways.

There is a lion in the road ahead, and the only way to continue the journey is to defeat the lion or find a way around him. That is conflict in gamist play; it is not conflict in narrativist play--it is merely an event.

You're not saying anything different than what I have already accounted for.  Conflict only exists if Player driven/created Character goal comes into contact with an antithetical force.  Thus if a Narrativist player has not imbued his Character with a goal that has anything to do with a lion in the road then indeed it is not a conflict.  I agree with you completely.

Here's the deal though.  Any person would typically have lots of problems with a lion in the road, and this is where the Narrativist departs from Simulationist.  A Narrativist puts more stake (prioritizes) in addressing Premise than reacting to Situation in a fashion that highlights Character mediated response.  IOW the Narrativist in this case is willing to ignore what is normally an issue for a person, acting in a fashion that appears to be illogical (ignoring a potential threat to one's life) in order to prioritize addressing premise rather than address the conflict in a manner that a player who is prioritizing exploring Character would be.

While I say Character, I fully understand and do not represent any other position than it is the player who is making the decisions.  In my posts here and here I emphatically point out that it is the player who is making the decisions and acting upon conflict.

Why do I say Character conflict?  Because these conflicts are fictional; and by the definition of conflict that I have repeatedly offered they are the conflicts of fictional characters.  We as players are not facing a lion in the road.  Our player agency, the Character (a fictional construct) is facing a (fictional) lion in the (fictional) road leading possibly to a (fictional) conflict.  Thus we as players don't have a conflict unless we as players assume the circumstances of the Character.  Does this imply that the players are at the mercy and direction of their Characters?  No.  But in Sim limiting our actions and responses to the circumstances of our created characters is a priority.  Not so in Gamism where Character is a tool whereby Challenge is addressed and the players are rewarded for successfully addressing the fictional conflict.  Not so in Narrativism where character integrity can be sacrificed in order to address Premise.  Premise addressing has priority or Character integrity.  This is not to imply that character is not important to either agenda, but rather character integrity is not the prioritized element.  By prioritized I am speaking of that element of play which is the choke point of player action.  A Gamist is bound by player integrity – no cheating is allowed via breaking or bypassing the agreed upon parameters of the Challenge.  A Narrativist is bound by player integrity – a player must address the agreed upon Premise and do so without impinging upon the protagonism (I think that is right word) of the other players.  A Simulationist is bound by Character integrity.  If a Simulationist player breaks character integrity then he is sometimes accused of cheating but is actually starting to pursue other Creative Agendas.

What happens is that we decide as players whether or not we will make the effort to address this event that our character faces or not.  A conflict only arises if a player makes it so – ala the Lumpley Principle.  But lets face it, the player, via his Character, is constantly scanning the Setting to see if anything squares with his idea of a conflict that would be interesting to investigate/address.

What helps the player to determine which Setting elements to elevate to the status of conflict – rewards.  Its not enough for the Gamist to face any conflict, it must be one that he will be rewarded for doing so.  The Narrativist is not so much rewarded as empowered to address Premise, which is the reward – they get to do more of which they wish to do.  A Simulationist is rewarded, in and out of game, for their ability to defuse difficult conflicts while maintaining Character integrity.  In all three Agendas the players are rewarded at the Social level for their ability to deal with Conflicts in a way that lines up with the parameters of the Creative Agenda.

Creative agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play, and thus what it is that the player wants from play, and thus what motivates the player during play. It is recognized by observing conduct (not by asking players what they want), because this is the most accurate means of identifying such.

...

Creative Agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play...

Actually that is not the case, you have the cart before the horse.  Ron has gone on again and again that we cannot accurately determine player motives, so we can only observe player actions and from those data points can we diagnose play and thus infer which Creative Agenda is in operation.  Creative Agenda is defined by what the players are doing in play.  In terms of the model a Creative Agenda can only be defined based on observable behaviors of the player not their intentions/motives.  Thus a player playing to test some ideas regarding tactics is still Gamist because he is still addressing Challenge even if he isn't motivated by glorious victory.  There might be a correlation between player motivation to play and Creative Agenda but that there is a causal relationship has not been established.  The model not only does not allow for player motivation to be taken into account when diagnosing play, Ron has vigorously defended that position.  The CA's are defined by and are descriptive of player behaviors with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors thrown in.  The only thing that we can positively assert when diagnosing a CA in operation is exactly that, that the players are doing certain things in play – anything about what is going on with the players internally/motivationally is educated guess work.

Discovery is not passive.  Ask any research scientist.

If research is to roleplay then Discovery is to Exploration as the Scientific method is to Science.  To say that a scientist is interested in Discovery is to say nothing about what field of research he is interested in and what tools are best suited to that task.  Creative Agendas are the equivalent to that interest in a specific field of research.  All roleplayers Discover things; and by extension of analogy in use that is the equivalent to saying scientists Discover things.  Yes they do, they all do.  What distinguishes CA's is what the players are focusing on, or in the case of the scientist analogy what field of research he is focusing his efforts on.

Hey Ron,

You're on both sides of the Discovery coin.

M. J. states that Discovery driven by the Query (and thus to my understanding that means Discovery is identified by the Query process) – to wit:

Query is that which identifies what is investigated. So curiosity focuses in a query, and investigation springs from the query driven by curiosity toward discovery.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120923#120923

Later in the same thread you agree to but feel the point is already covered in your essays.

Later in another thread Rob proposes -

...the players ask questions about the SIS and use the answers to create new questions?

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120952#120952

To which Ron responded

Rob, that works pretty well, except that it's more suited to Exploration in general rather than to the Right to Dream specifically.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120975#120975

Substitute Query for questions and Investigation for "use the answers to create new questions" and you have the same process.

On top you agree that Discovery can be/is representative of Sim but then above you state that a certain process, which is the Discovery process, describes Exploration in general.  Which is EXACTLY my point regarding Discovery.  So you are agreeing the Discovery is and isn't descriptive of Sim (because it is descriptive of Exploration in general).

Discovery as defined describes Exploration in general, not Simulationism.  It does not define what the players are doing nor does it suggest what it is that the players are focusing on.  Another problem with Discovery is that it is being used both as a definer of the process of play, i.e., addressing Challenge or Premise, while it is also being used as a definer of the Social or Personal Rewards level – Step on Up/Story Now.  At the Social level in both Agendas what is important is what is revealed and held in esteem about the players.  Discovery says nothing about that whole social phenomenon which is a very strong driving force behind the players playing in the first place.  On the Social level of the Agendas, player-to-player, they are all about HOW the players deal with conflict.  Simulationism is also about how players deal with conflict.  Discovery is not about conflict – in fact Discovery, as defined, is conflict avoidant.

Ok - things have moved along alot since I started my post so I will stop here for the mercy of others and start another to address further developments.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[M. J. Young]

A Narrativist puts more stake (prioritizes) in addressing Premise than reacting to Situation in a fashion that highlights Character mediated response.  IOW the Narrativist in this case is willing to ignore what is normally an issue for a person, acting in a fashion that appears to be illogical (ignoring a potential threat to one?s life) in order to prioritize addressing premise rather than address the conflict in a manner that a player who is prioritizing exploring Character would be.

...But in Sim limiting our actions and responses to the circumstances of our created characters is a priority.  Not so in Gamism where Character is a tool whereby Challenge is addressed and the players are rewarded for successfully addressing the fictional conflict.  Not so in Narrativism where character integrity can be sacrificed in order to address Premise.  Premise addressing has priority or Character integrity.  This is not to imply that character is not important to either agenda, but rather character integrity is not the prioritized element.  By prioritized I am speaking of that element of play which is the choke point of player action.  A Gamist is bound by player integrity ? no cheating is allowed via breaking or bypassing the agreed upon parameters of the Challenge.  A Narrativist is bound by player integrity ? a player must address the agreed upon Premise and do so without impinging upon the protagonism (I think that is right word) of the other players.  A Simulationist is bound by Character integrity.  If a Simulationist player breaks character integrity then he is sometimes accused of cheating but is actually starting to pursue other Creative Agendas.

I disagree; however, I see that there is an extensive rant entitled http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11822">Sacrificing "Character Integrity" - A Rant which appears to be new despite its length, so I'm going to defer my answer until I've had a chance to read that, and will address the matter there if it is appropriate.

Ron has gone on again and again that we cannot accurately determine player motives, so we can only observe player actions and from those data points can we diagnose play and thus infer which Creative Agenda is in operation.  Creative Agenda is defined by what the players are doing in play.  In terms of the model a Creative Agenda can only be defined based on observable behaviors of the player not their intentions/motives.  Thus a player playing to test some ideas regarding tactics is still Gamist because he is still addressing Challenge even if he isn?t motivated by glorious victory.  There might be a correlation between player motivation to play and Creative Agenda but that there is a causal relationship has not been established.  The model not only does not allow for player motivation to be taken into account when diagnosing play, Ron has vigorously defended that position.  The CA?s are defined by and are descriptive of player behaviors with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors thrown in.  The only thing that we can positively assert when diagnosing a CA in operation is exactly that, that the players are doing certain things in play ? anything about what is going on with the players internally/motivationally is educated guess work.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

A Creative Agendum is a definition of what a player wants to get from play. It is inherently about intent, motive, drive, whatever you wish to call it. It is not about stated motive, intent, or drive, but about actual motive, intent, or drive. It is what the player actually wants, as reflected in what he does.

As you say, we define agenda by behavior "with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors". That is, looking at what the players do, when they do it, how they do it, how they react to it, all of that tells us their agendum only because we think we know why they're doing it. The very concept of an agendum is "this is why they act that way". This is why narrativists, gamists, and simulationists clash, because they are trying to get something different out of the game. What they do is a reflection of what they want. We use what they do to determine what they want, but the agendum is a definition of what they want.

The alternative would appear to be that the three "agenda" are nothing more than collections of learned behaviors that mean nothing other than that they tend to occur together, any or all of which could be changed by conditioning with no impact on the enjoyment of play.

Perhaps more precisely, an agendum is what it is that the player wants to enjoy doing. That makes it an intent.

--M. J. Young

[Caldis]

That experience of something vicariously through their characters is the knowledge they seek. It is subjectively attained, but it is still discovery.

I think we're arguing semantics here so I'll keep my comments brief.  
I think labelling the exploration that happens in simulationism as discovery is obfuscatory, it's muddying the waters without any real gain.
It's adding jargon to an already jargon rich environment.  

In short, the emphasis on immersive subjective experiential play as characteristic of simulationism is true from a perspective of historical dominance (at least in terms of that which was recognized as such), but it's misrepresentative of simulationism as a creative agendum.

Either that, or the act of role playing to learn objectively about the elements of exploration is an unrecognized independent agendum.

I'll agree with you that role playing to learn is not a seperate creative agenda however I think you've taken the opposite approach and blown it up to be the whole of Simulationism.  The majority of simulationists, the subjective side as you've labelled them are not playing to learn.  They are not trying to discover something, they dont have that detached "let's see what happens" angle, they are playing out 'the Dream' with no goal other than to live out the experience with all the risks and dangers that make it feel real.

[Balbinus]

I'll agree with you that role playing to learn is not a seperate creative agenda however I think you've taken the opposite approach and blown it up to be the whole of Simulationism.  The majority of simulationists, the subjective side as you've labelled them are not playing to learn.  They are not trying to discover something, they dont have that detached "let's see what happens" angle, they are playing out 'the Dream' with no goal other than to live out the experience with all the risks and dangers that make it feel real.

Quite so, I would also say the same is true for sim wargamers actually, it's about experiencing the dream rather than seeing what happens.  What happens is important, but the verisimilitude is the key.

Is this more than a semantic distinction though?  Not wholly sure it is.

[Mike Holmes]

Is this more than a semantic distinction though?  Not wholly sure it is.

I think very much so. Some would say that the only reason they experience something is what they learn from it.

I'd say that it is, at it's base, purely experiential. What the player does with the experiences, or why he wants them is additional, and probably covers all manner of things. Again, we're trying to get into motives here. GNS doesn't deny motive, it just doesn't pretend to know what they are. All we can say is that a player prioritizing simulationism is out for the experience more than addressing premise or confronting personal challenge for some reason. And that's sufficient.

Mike

[Silmenume]

Thanks everyone!

So to get back onto topic about defining a Creative Agenda I have a few ideas that came to me that I would like to open up for discussion.

In regards to conflict and using it as a diagnostic to determine player CA in operation –

The Narrativist CA gives the player the most control over conflict.  Players are empowered to directly create, govern and alter the outcome of conflicts.  No other CA allows the players such power.  The rewards for doing so effectively are typically more power to continue doing the same, but much of the player reward is in the addressing of conflict directly.  This level of authorship is indicative of Story Now!  Narrativist don't need that many in game rewards to engage conflict, it's what it is all about.  They just want to make sure it the right conflicts.  This is why a Narrativist would think a Gamist is annoy because the Gamist is all over the map hunting for that Easter egg reward without regard to the Premise (story).

The Gamist CA does not really give the players any control over conflict, that role is typically left in the hands of a DM.  The players are willing to engage in conflict only if there are rewards to be had.  The rewards allow the Gamist to address Challenge more effectively as well as push him on towards victory.  If there were no rewards to be earned then I would venture that the Gamist would not engage – IOW what's the point?  This is why a Gamist would look at a Narrativist and wonder what the hell they are doing with all that wonderful conflict but wasting all those opportunities to dish out or earn rewards!  To a Gamist conflict is a means by which rewards are earned that push that tote board ever closer towards victory.

The Simulationist CA does not give the players any control over conflict creation/management either.  The DM must provide it as well.  Here's the deal though, the player enjoys the conflict for its own sake as well – its just plain exciting or invigorating, etc.  The difference between Narrativism enjoyment of conflict and Sim enjoyment of conflict is how conflict is defined.  For the Narrativist its defined by Premise, for the Simulationist its defined by the Character.  Typically though most Sim designed games offer character rewards for successful interaction with conflict.  This is why most Sim games can be easily hijacked by Gamists.  To a Narrativist this passivity towards conflict drives them crazy and they start bumping heads with the DM over conflict management.

In all three CA's the players all give social rewards for how well the other players managed conflict.  Did the Narrativist create a great Premise (conflict) or did he address the Premise question (conflict) in a way that was exciting to the other players?  Did the Gamist win a great victory (conflict defeat) and reap much in game reward or did he come up with a great and masterful strategy (mastery over conflict) that the players recognized as superlative?  In Simulationism the rewards for dealing with conflict are handed out for how the player dealt with the conflict within the confines of the Character.  The object is not to "break" the character, but rather to see if/how the player can create a response given the local parameters.  Thus to a Simulationist conflict is a test that builds the story of the character while demonstrating the creativity and problem solving and stress handling skills of the player.  The key is how well the player does it from "within" the character.  The big difference between Sim and G/N is that conflict is not supposed to be an overt part of the player's actions; it's the experience of working through the conflict as if it is ours that counts.

The Narrativist employs, creates, manipulates conflict to meld it to their interests and needs.  The Gamist rushes towards conflict in that quest for in game rewards that push that tote board up higher and higher.  The Simulationist needs the DM to create relevant circumstances so that the player could justify their character addressing the conflict.  The big mistake that Simulationist theory, design and history has made is that because the player must wait on the DM that conflict isn't important.  Bah!  You can't explore character or press the players without it!

Let's face it, conflict is exciting and revealing.  The difference between the CA's is who's in control of it, what kinds are interesting, and what are the rewards.

As Ron keeps asking for real play examples I offer up example for rewards offered in the Sim game I play in.  Players are rewarded with "experience checks" for good character roleplay.  This could be anything from good performance, color, brilliant defusing of conflict, excellent acting, good use of character limitation or gift, etc.  How important are these "checks"?  A player needs 10x the level he is going to in checks as well as straight EP's to gain a level.  A Gamist who kills much will not go up levels if he doesn't play his character.  At the end of the night players are given player ratings for their overall performance that night.  Also at the end of the night a "star" is given for the best roleplayer that night – again based upon character-delimited actions, not how much stuff was killed.

The other night a I was playing a Ranger of Ithilian.  Rangers in the game have tremendous powers of law, they can act in the name of the Steward of Gondor, and as warriors they are the best humans can be.  Rare character's very hard to come by.  So here I am in a situation where I was assisting another Ranger bring a man by the name of Pebble.  Pebble was a Banderon Scout who went bad.  Due to a story 10 real years in the making, they were accused of false crimes and were being hunted while they were trying to continue to do the right thing, the Scouts finally folded.  Some of them turned to banditry, though Pebble and his uncle, Stone, turned to drinking.  Well things went bad and they started rolling drunks and not too long later Stone was killed by a bounty hunter and Pebble was on the gallows set to be hanged.  Only by the player's roleplay was he able to convince the Ranger to arrest him when Pebble indicated he was from Banderon and that he had fought side by side with another Ranger by the name of Cobb.  Remember the Banderon Scouts were good guys who swore oaths to protect and to serve, so this character, Pebble, has fallen a long way.  The Ranger had to throw his weight around and threaten the local magistrate to take custody of Pebble.  Apparently the Ranger knew of the Scouts and had a soft spot for them, though the Ranger made if very clear if that Pebble was lying or tried anything to escape he would kill Pebble on the Spot.

This is where I came in.  I was on patrol.  By the way the philosophy of the Rangers is one riot one Ranger, so we are always facing impossible situations.  I came across Pebble and the Ranger so I go with them for a few days as they were in my area of patrol.  I recognized Pebble from long ago but I didn't say anything biding my time to see what was up.  We were accosted about 2 days later by about 30 bandits on horseback led by one of the captains of the now defunct Banderon Scouts.  Wade, the captain, calls Pebble back to his gang who eventually goes and now it is just 2 Rangers vs 30 men horseback.

The other Ranger is incensed by this betrayal by Pebble but suggests we try and flee in two different directions as we are near some woods.  I agree, but we are both ridden down and the Ranger managed to kill about 2 bandits before going down earning him no love from them.  We are captured, but he Captain being no fool is no hurry to kill Rangers because the Rangers would sooner forgive the killer of a lord than the killer of Ranger.  They would hunt this man down for the rest of his life and he knows it.  They know if we return we will call for more men and we will hunt them down.  Wade's men however will mutiny if he doesn't do something with us 2 Rangers.  He's got agitators and the Ranger on my side has got a real hard on for Pebble.

So I think how can I get out of this alive.  What does Wade want?  I know I can't fight my way out and I know that he is reluctant to kill Rangers, but that doesn't mean he won't.  I figure out that I will offer him a letter of Marque as an irregular mercenary company to operation in the disputed lands south of Gondor.  He gets to continue raiding to his hearts content, he doesn't have to fear the Rangers hunting him forever, I get the problem taken care of by removing the bandits as opposed to having to die trying to "arrest" them out numbered as I am.  They no longer can be threatened by us as they now how a legitimate Marque with amnesty and safe passage through Gondor.  Plus they may do the country some good by sewing seeds of confusing down south.  Great plan except an agitator in the bandits says I don't want to leave here, another says let's get the letter and then kill the Rangers, the Ranger I am with is hardnosed and says he refuses to treat with bandits.  I expend much effort trying to convince the Ranger the usefulness of the plan, as death is the only other possibility.  Eventually it goes to shit, there is infighting with the bandits, the other Ranger got himself killed because he tried to arrest all the bandits to which they responded by killing him instantly (we had no weapons as they had been taken from us).

Wade keeps me from being killed.  At knife point he commands me to write the letter.  I hope that he is just playing the role of brutal man to the hilt and doesn't really want to kill a "cop" as he used to be one to though of a different ilk.  Sure enough later that night he comes to me and says best not to be too quick writing that letter.  He asks he quietly what would happen if I would "happen to escape".  I told him that I would keep my word, that letter of Marque would be left behind and that I would not trouble him despite what I felt as the other Ranger suiciding himself.  I told him that it would be easier for me if I had a body to take back to explain the death of the other Ranger.  Later Wade had a card game set where one of the gamblers was someone he didn't like.  When Wade finally joined he started playing for real money and losing bad.  When the man he didn't like finally won a hand Wade accused him of cheating and in a few moments there was my dead man that I needed for my cover story.  Come 2 or 3 in the morning one of Wade's men, a former Scout as well came by with a knife, gave it to me, I cut my bonds and I was let go.  I kept my word and did not bother them.  I waited for a day, went back, got the body of the killed bandit, buried the dead Ranger and set out for a Ranger window.

For the plan and the roleplay of the parlay and the interaction with the Ranger I received much reward at the end of the night.  I played my character in a really dangerous and shitty position, as I was the "law" but felt that dying uselessly was not a good use of "government property".  I can't hunt orc and things that roam in the night near the borders of Mordor when I am dead, especially if it would have been a death that would not have bought anything for Gondor.  By the way death is real and permanent, so once a character is gone, that is it.  My whole night was spent juggling responsibility to letter of the lay with staying alive to trying to find a workable solution.

My goals were to stay alive and do so in a fashion that would be representative of Ranger of Ithilian.  My character's story grew, some heretofore unknown things about his character were revealed, I received accolades for fast thinking.  I experienced the simulation of what it was like to be a Ranger in a situation they can encounter.  It was stressful and in the end extremely cool!  During this whole time I was trying to defuse conflict so that I attain my character and ultimately my goals.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume