Looong post on Sim definition

[Marco]

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.

I just wanted to say that I find Ralph's take on Sim to be a clear and useful one (I think--assuming I have it right. Some of this thread makes my head swim).

I too see internal causality (the commitment is to derrive a large degree and an important degree of action directly from situation) as a tool for what I'd call simulationist (or Virtualist) play rather than an end in-and-of-itself.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

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 have a slightly different perspective. That is, we really can't know if the end result is "good" meaning that it represents something that has some quality that "makes sense," or something like that. What I mean is, we can't really say, for instance, that the end result is "realistic" or anything like it. The best we can say is that it's somehow internally consistent. That is, internal causality is a tool, yes, but it's the quality of that tool that determines how good the result is. Because it's not that the result is 'right", it's that the result feels right. That is, it's the quality of the internal causality that causes us to trust the results. Not that we believe that the simulation in question actually says anything about the real world, no. But instead because the simulation feels like it has (again feels, not has) something approaching an objective existence. That there is another world out there that reacts to our actions with just as much absolute law as our real world does.

Mike

[Valamir]

I don't disagree with that, Mike.  Its not that different of a perspective.

What it basically boils down to is controlling variables.  In a good simulation there are certain variables you are "testing" (those related to the "what if" question).  The rest of the variables need to be controlled for.

Internal Causality is really nothing more than a technique for controlling variables by requiring all things to act consistantly in accordance with their nature.

[M. J. Young]

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?

I apologize; that was badly phrased on my part.

My intention is to ask whether passive play is still within the agendum. A gamist or narrativist referee plays passively in many versions of such play, so that the players can play actively. Simulationism may also have that model, with active players and a passive referee, but I'm suggesting that it can reverse the model such that the players are passive and the referee active. That they players are in the support mode for the referee's activity doesn't mean they aren't playing in a simulationist agendum--it only means that they are taking the support/passive position to his active play.

Jay (Silmenume), you've misunderstood my "say/do/learn" distinction. Let me see if I can rephrase it a bit better.

[*]The narrativist wants to make a statement about an issue; in that sense, all of his play is about saying something, even if he never uses a word.[*]The gamist wants to step up to some challenge and prove himself able to win; in that sense, all of his play is about the actions his character takes, and his own ability to do something, which delivers glory to him, even if all he does is stand there while the assault comes.[*]The simulationist wants to be in the strange world. I've never said that internal causality is king, and I think that's extreme--but I do think that for simulationism to work, you must have sufficient consistency that your actions will have repeatable results. It's an experimental medium, in which we hope to discover something, whether it's the experience of what it's like to be the character to the observation of what it would be like to play tennis in zero G.[/list:u]
You are, however, correct about the confusion between problems which impede the characters and those which impede player goals. I apologize (gee, twice in one post) for that confusion. It's easy to make, particularly since in gamist play the two are usually the same (the thing which impedes the player in proving himself is the challenge that faces the character, and if the character overcomes, he gets his glory--although he might get some glory for a grand effort even if the character fails).

My thinking is that conflict, as Ralph defines it, is not essential to simulationist play. I'll concur that it is easier to identify simulationism when conflict spotlights it, but maintain that simulationism can continue indefinitely without conflict--something neither narrativism nor gamism can do.

On internal causality,

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 don't know that I have to add anything to that.

I'd better stop here, or I'm going to take my crown for long posts back from Jay.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

My thinking is that conflict, as Ralph defines it, is not essential to simulationist play. I'll concur that it is easier to identify simulationism when conflict spotlights it, but maintain that simulationism can continue indefinitely without conflict--something neither narrativism nor gamism can do.

I contend that there is no simulation without conflict because without conflict there is nothing to simulate

If you have a situation with absolutely no conflict...what are you simulating?

Keeping in mind that a conflict by my definition requires 1) a player to be interested in changing the current situation, 2) adversity that must be overcome to accomplish that change, 3) consequences that impact the SiS from both failure and success.

[contracycle]

Keeping in mind that a conflict by my definition requires 1) a player to be interested in changing the current situation, 2) adversity that must be overcome to accomplish that change, 3) consequences that impact the SiS from both failure and success.

1) I would like to whittle this piece of wood into the shape of a bird
2) It doesn't look much like a bird at the moment
3) After I'm done, it will look like a bird, and the SIS will be changed accordingly

That meets all your criteria but is still utterly trivial and not a meaningful conflict.

I contend that there is no simulation without conflict because without conflict there is nothing to simulate

I cannot see how this can possibly be true without making "conflict" meaningless.  I fully agree that the world resists our desires, and this can be construed as the antithetical force, but this is so passive and universal I don't see it as worthy of the term.  Conflict as the necessary subject of DRAMA, yes, as a prompt for character expression, but I see no reason to extend this necessity to Sim.*

Again it seems to me that them most common non-Dramatic component of conventional media would be the nature documentary.  Such 'conflict' as there is is ususually the common or garden variety that is not meaningful to viewers as a personally experienced conflict issue.  Its just the way it is.

* and I say this as somsone who simultaneously argues that there is a minimum ncessary dramatic structure to maintain player interest even when the CA is sim.

[Silmenume]

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

Hey Ralph, and you too Marco!

This is an important issue.  If neither of you understands what I mean by "ritual discourse" or "social meaning structure" then it is impossible for us to have a meaningful conversation.  Both those ideas are absolutely foundational to my thesis.  I don't mind dissent on my ideas, but if you are disagreeing without understanding what we are disagreeing about then we are wasting each other's time.  If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so.  Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct.  Its more fundamental than that.  Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

Exploration is a type of ritual dialogue or discourse used to create meanings.  What this implies is that Exploration/roleplay is a meaning creation process.  Creative Agendas are the basic types of dialogues we are having.  This is what I meant by the basics.

Just as the idea of Exploration being the sea upon which all roleplay was floating backed us off far enough to give us the perspective to allow for the idea that there are Creative Agendas, so too does the idea of ritual discourse (and such ideas as social meaning structures) back us off far enough to give us perspective on Simulationism.  By discussing Sim in terms of ritual discourse we now have the tools necessary to dissect what Sim is without having to use circular or self-referential statements.  Foundational to this discussion, and this thread, is the idea of social meaning structures.  If anyone is uncertain as to the meaning of social meaning structures please read the first post in this thread and more importantly please read Chris' (clehrich) thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!].  I wish I could do a better job of explaining it, but there is an old adages saying that if you truly understand something explain it to your grandmother!  I have a very basic understanding, so me trying to make it clearer is a difficult task.  Alas...

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.

I'll fully agree with the above.  Internal Causality is NOT the point of Sim, but it is absolutely foundational.  It is what I call a negative definition.  Basically Internal Causality limits what can be done, it does not determine what the players are trying to do.  Both Challenge and Premise both limit and promote.  In Sim that which limits and that which promotes so far appear to be two different things.  That may change as we get a better handle on Sim.  However, breaking Internal Causality in Sim is just as egregious as changing the rules of engagement or victory conditions in Gamism or changing the Premise without authority or Typhoid Mary play in Narrativism.  Internal Causality is not the point of play, but breaking it, transgressing it limiting boundaries is taboo.

Internal Causality is important to Sim play NOT simply because its important to Sim play, but because it allows Simulation to proceed accurately.

I don't believe this to be an accurate assessment of the role of IC.  IC is not important because it allows a Simulation to proceed accurately, it is important to social meaning structures and challenges to the SIS.  In order for something to function as a social meaning structure it must be "structurally sound" – it must be consistent.  We can't generate new meanings without consistent social meaning structures as a reference point for those new meanings.  The social meaning structures inform the characters/players as to the meanings of certain acts, without them nothing we did would make any sense.  If the structures were in constant high flux, i.e., breaking causality, then it would be virtually impossible to discern the meaning of any act.

The social world is made up of an extraordinary number of intertwined structures, slowly shifting over time as people use them in different ways and for different purposes. Everything from language to basic orientations, social relations and personal goals, is made up of such structures...

This is the social theory of knowledge...

So given that, we see that there are a bunch of structures in place in our heads, arising primarily from social cues. Whenever one acts,[1] one therefore manipulates structures already in place. Such manipulation is generally strategic, in the sense that it aims to accomplish something not already true. This is dependent on such structures already being in place, because without them it is impossible to predict the outcome of behavior.

Emphasis mine - Jay

The question then becomes, "What is the promoter in Simulationism?"  What are we trying to do?  What are we addressing?  What are we building, what new meanings are we creating and how do we do that?  What are we engaging to create new meanings?

It is the desire to Simulate that I believe is the foundational aspect of Simulationism.

I am leery of this definition in the same way that a Narrativist is leery of the definition of Narrativism being founded in the creation of stories.  Narrativist play is defined by the act of addressing Premise.  It just so happens that addressing Premise does lead very effectively to the creation of stories, but that does not have to be the point of play.  Also as much as you think Internal Causality is a problem as being defined as the point of Sim, I have problems with the simulation definition.  There is nothing in the idea of Internal Causality that should lead one to believe that Sim is about Simulating things.  Understanding ritual discourse and how IC relates and the limitiation it places on the players I would say that "what if's" are no more descriptive of Sim then "what if's" are of G/N.  Point of fact I would argue that Gamism and Narrativism are more driven by "what if's" than Simulationism.  In Gamism one could be trying new strategies or tactics – IOW running what if I did this or that in the pursuit of victory.  Same with Narrativism – what would happen if my character did this in response to premise instead of that?

To be fair I think there is as much "what if" in Sim as there is in Gam/Nar except it is not the players posing the "what if's", it's the DM.

I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.  Just as social meaning structures inform our real lives, exploring fictional social meaning structures creates an artificial reality because they inform us of that fictional life – the Dream.

Hey Tim!

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.

Not true – let me quote here –

There is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121630#121630

While the subject was slightly different, the idea still holds up.  If one is not in support of Creative Agenda then one is literally breaking contract.  IOW they are taking away from the CA.  That same holds for Sim as it too is a CA.

Because it's not that the result is 'right", it's that the result feels right. That is, it's the quality of the internal causality that causes us to trust the results. Not that we believe that the simulation in question actually says anything about the real world, no. But instead because the simulation feels like it has (again feels, not has) something approaching an objective existence.

I'm totally with you on that Mike!

Hey M.J.!

The simulationist wants to be in the strange world. I've never said that internal causality is king, and I think that's extreme--but I do think that for simulationism to work, you must have sufficient consistency that your actions will have repeatable results.

I do not believe that to be the case.  The Simulationist need Internal Causality so that the social meaning structures are sound so that the creation of new meaning is facilitated, not that experiments are repeatable.

I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.  By its very nature, where IC is so important it is difficult to justify characters taking risks via conflict just for the academic exercise to ask "what if".  I would go so far to say that Gamism and Narrativism are more overtly experimental than Simulationism.  Every address of Challenge/Premise is essentially a "what if" question.

You are, however, correct about the confusion between problems which impede the characters and those which impede player goals. I apologize (gee, twice in one post) for that confusion. It's easy to make, particularly since in gamist play the two are usually the same (the thing which impedes the player in proving himself is the challenge that faces the character, and if the character overcomes, he gets his glory--although he might get some glory for a grand effort even if the character fails).

You make a mistake here.  Challenge does not impede the player from proving himself, it is the VERY means by which he does prove himself.  A Gamist cannot prove himself without Challenge.  Unless faced with a Challenge that he must overcome, he cannot demonstrate skill, cunning, guts, or what not.  To not have Challenge would impede a Gamist is his search to prove himself.

Regarding the rest of your arguments I will have to defer to a later time – I'm pooped!

[Valamir]

1) I would like to whittle this piece of wood into the shape of a bird
2) It doesn't look much like a bird at the moment
3) After I'm done, it will look like a bird, and the SIS will be changed accordingly

That meets all your criteria but is still utterly trivial and not a meaningful conflict.

Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Situation before attempt = piece of wood that doesn't look like a bird.
Situation after attempt fails = piece of wood that doesn't look like a bird.

Unless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

[contracycle]

If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so.  Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

I do think it would be a good idea to have an explanation for what you mean specifically.

The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct.  Its more fundamental than that.  Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

I'll agree with that, but I don't think it challenges what I perceive to be the claim that Valamir was voicing.  It seems to me that you are applying the meaning creation to too many layers of the ritual discourse activity simultaneously.

Exploration is a type of ritual dialogue or discourse used to create meanings.  What this implies is that Exploration/roleplay is a meaning creation process.  Creative Agendas are the basic types of dialogues we are having.  This is what I meant by the basics.

Are they?  Or are they not rather methodologies?  But this is all confused by the vagueness inherent to "meaning" and "meaning creation".  what kind of meaning do we mean?

One primary form of meaning common in ritual structures is social validation; reinforcement of the group identity and a restatement of the groups self-percieved virtues.  Is Exploration a mechanism for the creation of this meaning?  I doubt it, but RPG certainly can serve that function for the geek clique.

I can accept that RPG as a whole is a ritual process, I'm not sure I can accept that every aspect of RPG must also inevitably be a meaning-creating ritual structure any more than I think a brick is a house.

The question then becomes, "What is the promoter in Simulationism?"  What are we trying to do?  What are we addressing?  What are we building, what new meanings are we creating and how do we do that?  What are we engaging to create new meanings?

What does meaning mean?  This is a serious question, as in, what kind of answer would be a suitable response to your question?  Can you give a clear example of such an act of "meaning creation" so I can grasp what you are describing?

Understanding ritual discourse and how IC relates and the limitiation it places on the players I would say that "what if's" are no more descriptive of Sim then "what if's" are of G/N.  Point of fact I would argue that Gamism and Narrativism are more driven by "what if's" than Simulationism.  In Gamism one could be trying new strategies or tactics – IOW running what if I did this or that in the pursuit of victory.  Same with Narrativism – what would happen if my character did this in response to premise instead of that?

Here is the difference it seems to me: in G we all know the rules objectively, and in N we have an instinctive grasp of emotional significance*.  But in S we are faced ny the same problem we have always been faced in regards the world: its so much bigger than we are and our understanding of it is necessarily limited.  Thus what is valuable to the Sim player, as I see it, is exposure to other peoples understanding of what is true and plausible and what is not.

This is where it is rather similar to other forms of drama, in that fundamental dialogue is between people and without the presence of those people would be a different experience.  Having other minds, other opinions, in the same imaginary space means my understanding of how the world works, as implemented in our game, is modified by, validated by, circumscribed by, the opinions of the other players.  My exploration is enhanced by the attendance of other players and the application of their intellects to the situation.

To be fair I think there is as much "what if" in Sim as there is in Gam/Nar except it is not the players posing the "what if's", it's the DM.

No I disagree; the players are asking "what if" through their actions, and the GM is answering "then this".  The player may or may not agree that this is plausible, and that as I see it is the the sum total of meaning they can extract from the game.

I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.

I sincerely wish that this were true, but IMO it simply isn't.  Lets take a look at one of my favourite, if perhaps real, social meaning structures: sumptuary laws.  Or another favourite, monumental architecture.  These are, without doubt, strong expressions of constructed social order that are highly meaningful to that societies members.  So where is the RPG that has made an issue of such things?  Conspicuous by its absence.

The military is a highly organised, formalised structure that has certain imperative messages to impart to its members.  Where is the RPG of the military experince? MIA; the best we have are things like Recon (the combat patrol experience) and Twilight 2000 (the post-apocalypse experience) and Traveller (the veteran as mercenary/trader experience).

Almost all of these inevitably genuflect to structural elements of RPG like needing to establish an independant group of troubleshooters who can find the trouble and then shoot it.  What they do not do is "explore fictional social meaning structures".

To the extnt that RPG is a ritual meaning structure, arguments about whether 5.56mm rounds should or shouldn't keyhole after passing through a leaf is exactly the kind of 'meaning' that an RPG like Recon is going to produce.  And having had that discussion, I contend, the participants will go away satisfied that they are better informed than they were before, or perhaps that one among them is a stumbling moron.

I also disagree that Sim is an experimental medium.  By its very nature, where IC is so important it is difficult to justify characters taking risks via conflict just for the academic exercise to ask "what if".

As one of my science teachers used to say, we don't know who first discovered chlorine gas - we only know who first discovered it and survived the discovery.

From my perspective there would be no need to proceed to resolution here; if a player said "I reckon I make that jump, what do you think guys" and a swift discussion revealed that no the other players didn't think they could, discovery will still have occurred.

* arguably thats not true, but we can come back to that some other time.

[contracycle]

Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

Unless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

Exactly; I allege your definition of conflict contains non-explicit assumptions.  That is why I said it met all the criteria but was not a MEANINGFUL conflict.  When conflict has become so diluted as to be "anything which frustrates my whim" I'm not sure that the term retains any utility.

[Valamir]

Hey Ralph, and you too Marco!

This is an important issue. If neither of you understands what I mean by "ritual discourse" or "social meaning structure" then it is impossible for us to have a meaningful conversation. Both those ideas are absolutely foundational to my thesis. I don't mind dissent on my ideas, but if you are disagreeing without understanding what we are disagreeing about then we are wasting each other's time. If you need me to clarify those two terms please ask and I will do my best to do so. Until then we might as well be speaking in two different languages!

Try explaining your ideas without using multi-word compound jargon from other disciplines.  Just put it in plain 'ole English

I'm a big supporter of Jargon to the extent that it provides a good shortcut for conveying complex ideas.  But if, at the end of the day, you can't break the jargon back open and present those complex ideas in plain old English to a lay person then the Jargon is no longer short hand.  Its become a black box allowing us to skip over parts where stuff is happening we don't understand while sounding like we understand them.  Its bascially the sophisticated sounding alternative to "and then magic happens" from the classic Farside cartoon.

My recent essay is my most recent attempt to boil the common Forge jargon down into something a non Forgeite can understand.  I did a similar one a couple of years back ("A GNS primer" I think I called it) because its important to me to periodically flush out the jargon boxes and make sure I still understand what the heck the short cut word actually means.

Mayhaps others don't have as much trouble with it as I, but my education is focused entirely on knowledge that has an immediate and clear practical application.  Science, Finance, Communication.  I don't have the background to parse most of Chris Lehrich's thread.  Its clearly a very specialized field that has reached a fairly sophisticated level of complexity.  

What I took out his threads on the subject was an affirmation that the sorts of things we were talking about and pieceing together here are actually hitting pretty close to the mark of how those disciplines view how social groups function.  That's great, but it doesn't suddenly open the floodgates to new jargon.  

Valamir wrote:
The ritual processes of roleplaying itself are found at the level of Exploration with the manipulation of the elements of the SiS through system.

Actually that is not entirely correct. Its more fundamental than that. Basically it says that roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place, that special conditions are needed to set off this particular type of dialogue from our regular lives, that unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created (symbols, challenges to the SIS, abductions etc.).

"roleplay is a specialized form of dialogue, that there are specific processes by which this dialogue takes place"  How is this not System?

"That unique or special meanings are created in that ritual space and how those meanings are created " How is this not Setting, Character, Situation, and Color being added to the Shared Imaginary Space through System.

See, I called it Exploration...you said no it was more basic than Exploration...but your description sounds pretty much like bog standard Exploration to me.


I also don't see any point in which anything you say about internal causality isn't equally true of both N and G as well.  That is to say, I don't disagree necessarily with your points on IC, but there is nothing there to suggest to me that those points apply exclusively to Simulation.  And if they don't apply exclusively to Simulation, then they cannot be a foundational part of the definiton of Simulation that distinguishes it as a CA.


Thus when you say:

I propose for reasons that I have already enumerated earlier in this thread, that Simulationism is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures. Just as social meaning structures inform our real lives, exploring fictional social meaning structures creates an artificial reality because they inform us of that fictional life – the Dream.

I say, no.

Replace Simulation with All Roleplaying in the above, and I'd say yes.

ALL Roleplaying is the exploration of fictional social meaning structures.

This is why I specifically said in my essay that "the Dream" as a term really should apply to the Exploration level.

What you are describing is not Simulationism.  Its Exploration.  Its what we all do in all of our roleplaying.

[Valamir]

Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Your concerns in this are fully agreed to by me, and also I believe already addressed and protected against.

Is there a consequence to your character being an incompentent whittler?  Is someone's life at stake if you can't whittle effectively?  Will you lose your job in the whittling factory and your family will lose their home?  Will the evil gang of cut throat wood carvers that you've secretly infiltrated recognize you as an imposter and blow your cover?

Are there consequences to your character succeeding and being a successful whittler?  Will the king recruit you to go on a quest and defeat the mighting wood giant with your whittling prowess?  Will your whittling lead to fame and fortune.  Will it be the small gift that wins the heart of the child?  Will a wealthy collector buy your work and put it on display where it will be recognized by your arch enemy who's been looking for you for years?  Will it make the members of the WoodCarvers Local 346 upset because you a non-union whittler and they'll come and rough you up?

What are the consequences to the SiS OUTSIDE of your own character and BEYOND simply you the player not getting the result you wanted (so it can't be anything that simply frustrates your whim)

Articulate the repurcussions and ripple effects of your whittling effort for both success and failure outcomes.

If there aren't any really...then its not a conflict.  But as I said in the essay, much of the time what is and isn't a conflict will come down to the perception of the player.  Since, by my definition, CAs are how the player responds to in game conflict, this is just fine.  It simply becomes how the player responds to perceived in game conflicts.  If the player perceives it as a conflict then the player will have a CA based response to it.


This seems pretty clear and straight forward to me and was presented such in my essay.  Yet you say its non-explicit.  How would you suggest I make it more explicit.

Unless there is some consequence to failing this attempt that effects the SiS* its not a Conflict by my definition.

Exactly; I allege your definition of conflict contains non-explicit assumptions.  That is why I said it met all the criteria but was not a MEANINGFUL conflict.  When conflict has become so diluted as to be "anything which frustrates my whim" I'm not sure that the term retains any utility.

[Tim C Koppang]

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.

Not true – let me quote here –

There is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=121630#121630

Jay,

Um... yes.  I think I said that in my last post, but I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been.  I won't belabor the point.  Suffice it to say that I agree: when a CA is part of a Social Contract, any player who isn't actively pursuing that CA is in violation of the Social Contract.  For clarity, change "he's not damaging the CA" to "he's not actively damaging the CA."

I'm simply trying to emphasize the difference between inter-CA problems and general Social Contract dysfunction.  If roleplaying is possible to accomplish without any CA at all, then I think we have to recognize that not all dysfunction related to CA is necessarily in the form of competing CAs.  Even Ron's example is premised on the concept of a Sim CA against a Gam or Nar CA.  I'm talking about the player who has no priority whatsoever.

This is, in the end, a minor point, but I'm trying to rearrange my understanding of the theory to see if it all holds up.  The concept of roleplaying without a CA is still somewhat foreign to my thinking.

[Valamir]

Ack, my last post is fully of wacky quote errors.

Let me repost it for clarity.  Sorry about that.

Actually it doesn't.  Where's the consequence for failure?

Its aesthetically displeasing and I am an incompetent whittler.

I already said:

*beyond simply effecting the desire of the player or the portrayed desire of the character (which I mentioned in the essay but neglected to include above)

Your concerns in this are fully agreed to by me, and also I believe already addressed and protected against.

Is there a consequence to your character being an incompentent whittler? Is someone's life at stake if you can't whittle effectively? Will you lose your job in the whittling factory and your family will lose their home? Will the evil gang of cut throat wood carvers that you've secretly infiltrated recognize you as an imposter and blow your cover?

Are there consequences to your character succeeding and being a successful whittler? Will the king recruit you to go on a quest and defeat the mighty wood giant with your whittling prowess? Will your whittling lead to fame and fortune. Will it be the small gift that wins the heart of the child? Will a wealthy collector buy your work and put it on display where it will be recognized by your arch enemy who's been looking for you for years? Will it make the members of the WoodCarvers Local 346 upset because you a non-union whittler and they'll come and rough you up?

What are the consequences to the SiS OUTSIDE of your own character and BEYOND simply you the player not getting the result you wanted (so it can't be anything that simply frustrates your whim)

Articulate the repurcussions and ripple effects of your whittling effort for both success and failure outcomes.

If there aren't any really...then its not a conflict. But as I said in the essay, much of the time what is and isn't a conflict will come down to the perception of the player. Since, by my definition, CAs are how the player responds to in game conflict, this is just fine. It simply becomes how the player responds to perceived in game conflicts. If the player perceives it as a conflict then the player will have a CA based response to it.


This seems pretty clear and straight forward to me and was presented such in my essay. Yet you say its non-explicit. How would you suggest I make it more explicit.

[contracycle]

Well, I still have difficulties with the argument that (capital C) Conflict is necessary for sim, as opposed to little-C Conflict.

Now, you support the thesis that without conflict no CA is exhibited.  Where I have difficulty is that surely this can't be little-C conflict and be meaningful, cos otherwise shopping would be valid sim after all.

But the big-C conflict looks too much like G and N big-C conflicts if it depends on the conflict being situationally significant to the character(s).  I would think that N and G agenda's would probably supercede the Sim CA under these conditions.  But I also have difficulty conceptualising the Simmers "pro-active engagement with conflict".

I don't see that sim requires conflict, or has a particular response to conflict, unlike G and N.  I consider the worlds default frustration of our whim to be sufficient for Sim conflict, but I'm still unconvinced theres much value to be had discussing Sim in the light of conflict in the first place.