Looong post on Sim definition

[Tim C Koppang]

Mike,

I don't think anyone is trying to posit the sans-CA mode of play as a fourth agenda, but rather as a default.  In other words, it would be roleplaying without any CA at all.  Traditionally, this is a spot thrown under the heading of Sim play, that of pure exploration.

Thus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

The above seems to be exactly what this concept is a rejection of--a rejection of the notion that says, "if it's not Gamism and it's not Narrativism, then it must be Simulationism."  Or, put another way: "it doesn't conflict with Gam or Nar, so it must be Sim."  I see the concept of CA-less play not as the invention of a new mode, but rather as a re-definition of Simulationism.  Is it possible to play without any agenda at all?  Obviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.  (Conveniently, this would be the ideal spot to toss in phenomena like the social gamer modes.)

On the other hand, I tend to agree that on a conflict to conflict level, you're going to see one of the three CAs manifest.  If a player is forced to make decisions, then he's going to make them in either a Gam, Sim, or Nar way.  And for that reason, I have practical problems envisioning CA-less play.  Then again, if CA only manifests during conflicts, and no conflicts are ever engaged/created, then perhaps CA-less play is possible.

[Valamir]

Tim, that's exactly how I would respond to the issue, and what I was attempting to outline in my essay.  Sim is an active prioritization of <something>, not simply an active avoidance of <something else>.

Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now.  To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics.  That being the Simulation in Simulationism.  Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important.  Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them.  You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

As soon as you allow Simulationism to have its own legitimate actively prioritized agenda rather than saddling it with a negative definition or "exploration squared", which is just an attempt to disguise the fact that its a negative definition...then you really have something that can be thoughtfully analysed and understood on par with Narrativism and Gamism.  Its now a true peer in the triumverate rather than the odd man out, or the generic dumping ground.

Of course this means that alot of stuff that we've taken for granted over the past couple of years of "oh, that's Sim" will need to be reevaluated.  Marco already hit on Illusionism as one of those areas that need reevaluating in another thread.  For years we've said "Illusionism, oh that's sim".  But by my treatment of Simulation, its actually antithetical to Sim goals.


I think saying CA only manifests during conflicts is a bit too narrow and may be part of the trouble you're having with seeing it.  I tried to define "Instance of Play" in my essay as being the entire conflict cycle, not just the moment of resolution.  

It will manifest in the recognition of conflict...what a player will consider to be a conflict and what has to happen for them to recognize there is one.

It will manifest in the way a player frames a conflict...how they define what the problem is, how they evaluate what the adversity is, how they arrange the mental list of pros and cons regarding different approaches, how they perceive the ideal outcome from both a character and player perspective.

It will manifest in how much or how little the player is willing to invest or sacrifice to make that ideal outcome come about...the cost to benefit analysis.

It will manifest in how the actual resolution is handled.

And it will manifest in the denouement and wrap up after the fact in how the player interprets and evaluates the results.


All of those areas are potentially revealing in terms of what CA is at work, and they are all part of the over all cycle of the conflict.  This cycle of conflict is really just putting some meat on the bones of Instance of Play, trying to actually focus on what an Instance of Play really is and the sorts of key areas that make up decision points.

[Ron Edwards]

"exploration squared", which is just an attempt to disguise the fact that its a negative definition

Oh c'mon, man. The whole point of that phrase was to try to move beyond the "mere Exploration" tag. Which is what is happening now. Give me some credit here.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

You're correct.

Add the caveat "...which was originally an attempt to highlight the fact that there was some as yet undefined <something> more than just exploration going on there, but which in practical use came to just mean Exploration in the absence of the G or N Agendas"

How's that...

(this is why legal departments add 8 pages of caveats and disclaimers to a 1 page marketing letter...)   ;-)

[Mike Holmes]

That wasn't a definition of simulationism, it was proof by induction.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Sim is an active prioritization of <something>, not simply an active avoidance of <something else>....

Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important.  Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them.  You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ah, but now I think that as valuable as it is, it may just put us back where we were.

We have already recognized that in each agendum there are active and passive play styles. In gamism, you have those who step up to the challenge and those who make the challenge possible. In narrativism, you have analogous leading and supportive play styles. Would it not also be the case that in simulationism, you have some players who are actively running the simulation, and some who are passively running it?

Given that, is it then not reasonable to suggest that games in which the referee is creating and presenting the world and the character players are merely watching it happen could still be simulationist, in which the referee is running the simulation actively and the others are the passive supporting players? This is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

I would hesitate to say that all Illusionism is simulationism; I don't think that's been demonstrated. Some of it certainly is, though, even if (as I think all illusionism is) it is dysfunctional.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

This is backwards from the usual gamist and narrativist models, to be sure; but does that mean it's not genuine play?

Where does the dichotomy of "if its not simulationism its not genuine play" come from?

Is this still a hold over from the offical model position that Exploration by itself is not roleplaying?  If so I've already indicated that I don't hold with that interpretation and explicitly state that roleplaying begins with Exploration in my model posting.

If not please explain why there is this notion that we need to keep all of these things safe and sound under the Sim label as if they'll somehow be ghettoized if they are pushed back up stream to the Exploration level where I think they belong.

[Caldis]

I think saying CA only manifests during conflicts is a bit too narrow and may be part of the trouble you're having with seeing it.  I tried to define "Instance of Play" in my essay as being the entire conflict cycle, not just the moment of resolution.  

It will manifest in the recognition of conflict...what a player will consider to be a conflict and what has to happen for them to recognize there is one.

Ah excellent.  This really clears up the qualms I was having in the other thread.  The concept of the whole conflict cycle makes sense to me especially with regards to how conflicts are brought into play.  I can see how a simulationist may have more of a stomach for what I called hunting for the plot.

This may be a bit of a tangent but I guess it cant really be off topic in a thread titled "Loong post on Sim definition".  If Simulationism is trying to answer the what if questions in the manner of a simulation, then whats the ramification for such things as personality mechanics?

This had me hung up for awhile when I first came to the forge and started piecing together GNS.  If you are trying to determine the answer to a "what if" question than personality mechanics that limit a players choice in a situation would seem to be a valid variable.  Want to show mercy in Pendragon to your fallen foe even though you have a high vengeful trait, make a roll.  This is one of the things that I believe Mikes Atomic theory explains really well.

[Valamir]

I've always been a big believer in the idea that personality mechanics and their brethren were perfectly valid (and in some cases to be encouraged) in simulationist play.

There are really two reasons to use them

1) if we agree that it is vital for the various elements of the SiS to act/respond according their nature, then it seems perfectly reasonable to have mechanics that ensure fellow PCs do as well.  They aren't necessary if everyone is equally committed to doing so, but can be useful.  I find they are generally Simulationist defense against Gamist attitudes when used for this.

2) to educate players as to what behaviors are appropriate.  Pendragon is a perfect example of this.  Hospitality, Honor, Family, and Loyalty are not there so much to dictate behavior and prevent transgressions as they are to illustrate the core concepts of what makes for moral society of the time and indicate how others perceive your character at fulfilling those obligations.  I think this is much more broadly useful than #1 above, especially if the players in question are not already experts in the subject.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Ralph: totally! The king hell daddy of the personality mechanic in simulationist game is the Psychological Disadvantage in Champions,* later manifesting as Psychological Limitation in GURPS, and then embedded without conceptual modification into "balancing advantage/disadvantage" character creation systems across easily a hundred RPGs over the next decade.

Best,
Ron

* And no, that does not mean I think Champions was a Sim-facilitating game. Champions and its spawn, the Hero System, are a phenomenally challenging topic that I'll get around to essaying on one of these days.

[Caldis]

The aspect that intrigues me about personality mechanics however is their forceful application, such as when a roll is called upon to determine action.   The pendragon knight with the beaten foe begging for mercy but has a high vengeful trait, if the player decides he wants to grant mercy he has to make a roll to see whether the character actually would.  To me this seems like a perfect example of trying to answer the what if question, moreso than allowing the player to choose and then adjusting the traits to match the actions.  Of course I dont think all players who show a prefence for simulationism would agree that is an acceptable way to decide action, sometimes they want to make the choice.

I see two ways to explain this difference within simulationism, either it's a difference in preferred methodology or else there's a blend of priorities taking place.  I have a problem with it being just method however, since allowing the dice to determine outcomes of almost everything else is not a problem with sim.  This is why I brought up the Atomic model, where (if I'm not mistaken) a players preference can be mostly simulationist but partially narrativist a blend of preferences.  

This also means to me that little moments of narrativism or gamism may be going on inside an otherwise sim game.  That may not be too controversial however this might be, any moment where a player makes a meaningful choice in a game is a small moment of narrativism.  The game can otherwise be simulationist but that small instance is narrativist.

[Silmenume]

Some time back, I proposed that the three agenda could be distinguished thus:

[*]A narrativist wants to say something;[*]A gamist wants to do something;[*]A simulationist wants to learn something.[/list:u]Obviously, that's a simplification; but I think that it's a sufficient statement to challenge the idea that creative agendum is what you want to "say". I don't see gamists as so much "saying" as "doing", in that sense. Put from the other end, if you decree that all three agenda are about what players are trying to "say", you reduce "say" so that it is synonymous with "explore", and I don't think it's as useful a word for the process as "exploration" is.

Consider this!  All roleplay is saying and all roleplay is doing.  That distinction is not functional.  Making a Theme by addressing Premise is "doing" something – what the players are doing is creating a Theme.  Much in the same way a Gamist is still using words to engage in Challenge – this is what the Lumpley Principle addresses.  Despite what is typically associated with (but by no means definitional of) Gamism, lots of physical dice rolling, those physical actions do not mean a thing until they are validated into the SIS and then given meanings.  Actually I'm not sure which happens first, meaning then SIS validation or SIS validation then meaning, but the fact of the matter is that the whole process is about meaning creation – its all in our heads.  Because its all a meaning creation discourse then everything that is going on is about creating meanings – "saying" things.  Again, I do not mean "saying" in the way that one thinks of typical verbal discourse, but symbol/sign creation that carries with it a significance/meaning to those involved.

To do this, I'm going to introduce the concept of "obstacle" as something less than "conflict", so that we're not struggling over a terminological confusion. For purposes of this thread, let obstacle mean "that which impedes exploration". Thus when we climb the hill to find out why there's smoke coming from the other side, the hill is the obstacle. There might not be conflict, in the sense Ralph and Jay mean, but there is still something that must be overcome to continue exploration.

The problem with this definition is that conflates two different processes.  Exploration as used in the model refers to the process that the players engage in which employs the elements of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color.  So if you speaking of that which impedes the players you are using the incorrect term.  As long as the players continue to have input to the SIS they are Exploring.  If by exploring you refer to the Character who is presented with an obstacle, such as a hill, then you have Situation.  If the presence of the hill specifically hinders any Character goal, then you have a conflict.  "That which impedes exploration" is too vague.  You need to be more explicit with your definition.  Who is being impeded?  What goal is being impeded?  That something can be impeded implies at the very least impetus.  However, as sentient beings who are not just physical objects moving about driven by nothing more than the laws of nature and inertia, we can assume fairly reasonably that the driving force behind an individual actions, in this case walking towards someplace, is goal.  However, once we introduce goal we get conflict.  If the Character doesn't have a goal then the Character cannot be impeded.

The gamist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he takes action.
...
The narrativist is overcoming those obstacles and learning about the elements of exploration so that he will be able to use them effectively when he engages the premise.

The key here is when.  Not if, but when.  Conflict is assumed in both CA's.  Player actions that are not proximal to a conflict event are still being executed in anticipation of when expected/desired conflict finally occurs.  If conflict does not come the players will eventually get frustrated.  Players are not just happily exploring along, they are actively/mindfully prepping for the desired CA fulfilling conflicts to come into being.  Simulationism, by virtue of being a CA is no different.  Conflict is as necessary to fulfill the expectations of the players in Simulationism as it is in Gamism or Narrativism.

I'm not saying that simulationism will never come to conflict. However, I think that we run into the diagnosis problem when all that has been done so far is overcome obstacles. We have narrativists exploring the elements for the purpose of addressing premise at some point when conflict arises, and gamists exploring the elements for the purpose of grasping the gold ring when conflict arises. We have simulationists exploring the elements for the purpose of understanding the elements themselves. If no conflict ever arises that interests them, they continue to explore the elements. They might come to a conflict and reveal through it their simulationist agendum; but they might never come to a conflict at all.

Narrativist and Gamists are not indifferent to when conflict arrives; at the very least they are eagerly awaiting it, if not outright pursuing it.  Simulationists are no different.  If no conflict arrives and the players do not get a chance to address conflicts with social structures they will be disappointed.

That's where the diagnostic problem arises. Eventually the continual failure to come to conflict forces us to conclude that this player is not interested in premise or step-on-up, and so is playing simulationist. It leads to the error that simulationism is the "default mode", what you're doing if you're not doing something else, because of the diagnostic process: we didn't see you come to conflict, but you're enjoying play over the long term, so we think you're playing simulationist.

There is a logical error to your argument.  You are employing an (arguably) faulty diagnostic method to support your definition of CA.  Because people historically have diagnosed no conflict/conflict indifferent play with Simulationism it appears that you are arguing that such play is definitional of Simulationism.  It's a circular argument.  People have done it in the past so it must be correct in the present.  The problem is that until this point we weren't even sure what Sim was (even now it is in debate but getting closing to home), so how could we have diagnosed it accurately in the past?

Obviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.

Actually that's not true.  Roleplay is a group activity.  If one is not supporting the group activity you are taking time away from those who are trying to pursue that activity.  Thus in terms of those pursing a CA, if an agenda-less player is at the table not only is he taking time away from the other players who are trying to pursue an agenda he is delegitimizing the liminal/ritual stage of the discourse because he is not actively supporting the social meaning structures.  IOW he will drive the other players bat shit crazy because he is not on the same page they are on.  Not only is he consuming limited time, but he isn't even endorsing what they are doing by participating in the same activity.

Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now.  To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics.  That being the Simulation in Simulationism.  Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important.  Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them.  You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ralph you are da man, however I am going to pull a yellow card here!  You are correct in that we have to go back to basics, but I think you have to go all the back to the ultimate basics - the ritual process of roleplay itself.  Don't get hung up on the idea that something is being simulated.  What you are seeing in the idea of "simulation" is really the effects of Internal Causality.  Exploration is a meaning creating ritual discourse.  Internal Causality is the social meaning structure that lends meaning to the players actions.  Just as all actions in a Gamist oriented game are measured against addressing Challenge and all actions in a Narrativist oriented game are measured against addressing Premise all actions in a Simulationist game are measured against Internal Causality.  Now since players only have control over their characters, that limits what can be Explored by the players to the elements within the SIS.  Remember now that Exploration as a meaning creation process only creates new meaning via challenges to the SIS.  Take all these elements and what do you get?  With the Sim defining clause of Internal Causality player input is limited to Character actions and they are measured against the social meaning structures.  

What are the social meaning structures?   The first is the Character itself.  Next come the social structures/institution within the game world.  Much of this if found in Setting, but the social side of this has been virtually completely missed in the history of Sim game design.  As meaning can only be created via challenge to the SIS, Character meaning creation can only come about via challenges to that Character.  IOW character can only be revealed through conflict.  How the character reacts to conflict reveals not only the character but also those social institutions that shaped him.  If said character is a Ranger of Ithilien then his actions regarding a conflict not only reveal something about the character but it also says something about the Rangers of Ithilien, his parents, the culture he was raised in, etc.  Why?  Because one of the things Internal Causality says is that which happens now is a result of that which happened before.  Something caused this to happen.  I suppose one could say that we are simulating the life of another individual, but it is not a series of "what if's" – at least not from a player's point of view.

If meaning is created by challenges to the SIS, and Creative Agendas – Gamism and Narrativism, impart meaning to the players actions because the players are constantly measuring those actions against the social meaning structures the players impart to the game via Challenge and Premise (conflict) – then that implies that all actions are measured against how players deal (the whole addressing process/conflict cycle) with conflicts in game.  This implies a couple of things.

Simulationism assumes that the players are accepting conflict at all times.  This is a little bizarre but let me continue.  Conflict assumes that the player is stepping up as one of the opposing forces.  In vanilla Gamism or vanilla Narrativism the players are picking and choosing which situations to escalate to conflict.  Their choices are indicative of those things that are important to the players.  In hardcore Gamism just about anything is game as long as there are appropriate rewards.  In hardcore Narrativism the players have direct control over Premise.  Where is the choice being made in the hardcore?  In that the players agree to play such games in the first place.  How does that relate to Sim?  By assuming that the character is always in a state of conflict, everything he does creates meaning – even avoiding a specific conflict.

That the player is willing to accept the state of conflict at all times means that the DM is obligated to provide ample opportunities for conflict to escalate.  (This is why world in peril from a single source makes such a good starting point for Sim games – Sauron, the Empire, etc.) Which conflicts the players ritually accept to face is as important as those he chooses to avoid.  Resolve too many the same way or resolve too many in a completely random way and the character looses form as he becomes one dimensional or too conflicted to be representative of any qualities at all.  At this point the Character ceases to be a useful social structure.

Regarding Caldis'

...any moment where a player makes a meaningful choice in a game is a small moment of narrativism.

in light of Exploration (roleplay) being a meaning creation process, any decision that a player makes that is labeled as meaningful is because that choice was measured against the social meaning structures currently being referenced in play and found to be of merit.  A player who makes a choice that is described as kewl (meaningful) by a Gamist is actually having his actions measured against the social meaning structures provided by Challenge.  This is why measuring social reaction to a player's actions may not be diagnostic of what said player is really attempting.  Said player may be actually operating under another set of social meaning structures and his actions could be misinterpreted by the others.

This also carries another implication.  As social meaning structures are so vast and so subtle I don't really think that hybrids are possible.  Its not a matter of system, it's a matter of where and how meaning is found and created.  Shifting from one set of social meaning structures to another would be phenomenally difficult given the sheer number of social meaning structures that would have to be renegotiated.  As I indicated earlier, all actions are measured against the social meaning structures, its how those actions are given meaning.  By definition each CA is exclusive to the others, so each switch from one CA to another would require a radical realignment of the social meaning structures on the quick.  Conversely this would also explain why drift from one CA to another, if it does happen, tends to be very ponderous and slow.

I'm running out of steam here, but Ralph your counter arguments are basically boiling down to "If man were meant to fly, he'd sprout wings.  I don't see no man growing no wings, so he will never fly."  We're just barely nailing down what Sim is and all you're doing is saying it can't be done.

This is not to be construed in any way to mean that such play is without value, rather it is just saying that such play in not harnessing Exploration to any end other than its own pure enjoyment.

I still don't see why this is anything other than simulationism. I understand the mechanisms that tend to cause disagreements, but I don't see how this form conflicts with other simulationism
...
Thus it's in that "not gamism, or narrativism" category, but it doesn't conflict with simulationsism. Making it simulationism.

Non Agenda play, straight Exploration, does conflict with all Creative Agendas because it does not create new meanings.  Such a player would be seen as wasting the time of the players of any CA, as well as deconstructing the validity of the social meaning structure in the first place because he is not engaging in the conflict cycle thus refusing to endorse the CA.

Or, if you say that it does conflict, I'd want to know how? Play of both simulationism and tourism* would look identical in terms of that which define them. In both cases, the player would make decisions based on "what the character would do", meaning simply not displaying one of the other metagame agenda (making it "what the player wants" to the extent that it conflicts).

Included into the "what would character would do" play are certain forms of Narrativism as Vincent argued for so loudly in his "Sacrificing Character Integrity" - a Rant.  The difference between the two modes of play is simply that the Sim CA uses Internal Causality/in-game social meaning structures to give meaning to the conflict process while tourism does not.  Sim, like the other CA'a is about creating new meanings, meanings which can only be created by conflict and are measured against the constraints of in-game internal causality (primarily social structures).  Tourism is not concerned with meaning creation.  Neither is purist for system play – thus it too does not fall into the Simulationist camp.

In Sim, all is treated equally - that is, without the appearance of a metagame agenda.

You make assertions here that don't follow.  Sim does not treat all things equally.  Sim does have a metagame agenda.  You're not seeing it for the same reasons people have problems with the Lumpley Principle.  It is so fundamental that you are conflating the two at a very deep level.  Sim is about people assuming the roles of fictional people.  But we can only learn about people when they face stresses.  Thus its not just Character, its everything that influences said Character as well which is revealed in the process.  Everything that influences that Character, including the character, constitutes The Dream.  This is why it is the Dream, because everything is reflected off Character.  The setting, the cultures, the political and social institutions – everything.  Because we have created it, not because we had it read to us.

[Valamir]

Valamir wrote:
Assuming the latter has caused all kinds of squirrelly stuff with Sim for many years now. To find the "something" that Sim is a prioritization of I think we have to actually go back to basics. That being the Simulation in Simulationism. Simulation is an active effort to run "what if" scenarios...that active part is important. Its not just to witness "what if" scenarios, but to be a catalyst for them. You don't observe a simulation...you run a simulation.

Ralph you are da man, however I am going to pull a yellow card here! You are correct in that we have to go back to basics, but I think you have to go all the back to the ultimate basics - the ritual process of roleplay itself. Don't get hung up on the idea that something is being simulated. What you are seeing in the idea of "simulation" is really the effects of Internal Causality. Exploration is a meaning creating ritual discourse. Internal Causality is the social meaning structure that lends meaning to the players actions. Just as all actions in a Gamist oriented game are measured against addressing Challenge and all actions in a Narrativist oriented game are measured against addressing Premise all actions in a Simulationist game are measured against Internal Causality. Now since players only have control over their characters, that limits what can be Explored by the players to the elements within the SIS. Remember now that Exploration as a meaning creation process only creates new meaning via challenges to the SIS. Take all these elements and what do you get? With the Sim defining clause of Internal Causality player input is limited to Character actions and they are measured against the social meaning structures.

While I will readily admitt that phrases such as "ritual discourse" make my head swim, I actually disagree with you here.

The basics is not Internal Causality.  Internal Causality is a tool not an end.  The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.  The Creative Agendas are a layer on top of this that provide purpose.  They represent what the player expects to accomplish through exploration.  

Internal Causality can be important (and usually is) in all roleplaying and all CAs.  Its primary function is to provide credibility to player's statements for system purposes.  A player's statements are more credible and thus, more likely to be accepted, when and if they maintain Internal Causality.  I'm not sure what "social meaning structure" means...there goes my head swimming again...but if it means something other than this, I doubt I'd agree with it.


Internal Causality *is* considered highly desireable for Simulationist play.  It is much more openly and vocally stressed and its importance more keenly felt in Simulationist play.  But thats just a symptom of the agenda...not definitional.  Part of the problem with the Sim definition has been mistaking Internal Causality for the point...that it was what was being prioritized.  The glossary definition of Sim still does this.

But as I said in my essay, I think this is wrong.  its backwards.  Internal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately.  Its a tool that is used, a parameter that is set, for the purpose of enabling the Simulation.

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism.  Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism. Internal Causality is important only because (and only to the extant that) it is necessary to achieve good results for the simulation.

I buy that for a dollar. I think that my emphasis on "internal causality is king," in the Simulationism essay, is focusing on what it's like rather than on definitional principles.

That was the first of the three essays and is the weakest in terms of structure; it actually precedes the Big Model (but helped get it into shape). For instance, a "dysfunctional Sim" section could easily have been included but I hadn't even imagined that it would have been helpful at the time.

Best,
Ron

[Tim C Koppang]

Obviously, if you don't have an agenda, it's hard to conflict with anybody else's agenda.

Actually that's not true.  Roleplay is a group activity.  If one is not supporting the group activity you are taking time away from those who are trying to pursue that activity.  Thus in terms of those pursing a CA, if an agenda-less player is at the table not only is he taking time away from the other players who are trying to pursue an agenda he is delegitimizing the liminal/ritual stage of the discourse because he is not actively supporting the social meaning structures.  IOW he will drive the other players bat shit crazy because he is not on the same page they are on.  Not only is he consuming limited time, but he isn't even endorsing what they are doing by participating in the same activity.

Jay,

That's one hell of a post you got there!

For sure, there's something to be said for the attitude, "if you're not with us, you're against us."  I agree that when you have a player sitting there like a lump it's going to cramp your style, especially when you're actively pursuing a certain group cohesion as expressed through a common CA.  However, this is more of a general social contract issue then a specific CA problem.  It's not that the neutral player is at odds with your CA, but rather that he just doesn't seem to have any motivation beyond wondering around and looking at flowers.  In other words, he's wasting time, but he's not damaging the CA.

Compare that with the inter-player Gamist for example, stuck in a generally Nar group.  When he starts trying to "earn points" or gain a leg up on his fellow players, he's actively working against Nar goals by heading off in a completely different creative direction.  Like a tug of war, two players with different CAs are both fighting against each other for the focus of the game.  It seems though, that the neutral player is happy to "just be," or even possibly to make minor "atomic level" CA choices from time to time.  But he doesn't have any common focus to get in the way of anybody else and so at worst he's guilty of ignoring the part of the social contract that says "we're all playing Nar tonight."

To be clear, I'm not saying that a neutral player in a focused group won't cause dysfunction.  I just don't think it'd be accurate to call it the same sort of dysfunction that occurs when different CAs compete.  Also, I think it's easier for a neutral player to join a group and not cause dysfunction, whereas active CA problems almost necessarily cause dysfunction.