Dramatism and Illusionism

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

That's an odd conclusion, John. I'll be interested in Mike's answer, but mine is a Scooby-like "Urh?"

I submit that Participationism is a very common, functional, and powerful approach that makes a great deal of Simulationist play possible, specifically that which relies on a steady GM hand on "the story."  High Concept Sim is practically defined by Participationism, or rather, that's the approach which works best as opposed to Illusionism masking potential railroading.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

That's an odd conclusion, John. I'll be interested in Mike's answer, but mine is a Scooby-like "Urh?"

I submit that Participationism is a very common, functional, and powerful approach that makes a great deal of Simulationist play possible, specifically that which relies on a steady GM hand on "the story."

Just to be clear with terms here, I was responding to Mike's most recent characterization of Simulationism -- which may be different than your (Ron's) internal vision of GNS Simulationism.  Both of these may be different from Ralph's recent characterization of Simulationism.  The key phrase from Mike's recent characterization was:

Simulationism wants to seem like players have the ability to autonomously move their characters about inside of the SIS.

If this is true and inherent to Mike-Holmes-Simulationism, then Participationism is not included in Mike-Holmes-Simulationism.  On the other hand, this phrase may not be inherently true of Mike-Holmes-Simulationism -- in which case it may include Participationism.  But one or the other has to give, as I see it.

[Marco]

That is, I think that Illusionism definitely falls under simulationism in GNS. And not dysfuncitonal simulationism, either. Because the area of conflict between these things is not in what's produces, but in how things are presented.

Mike

I agree: GNS Sim presently encompasses illusionism and participationism and GDS Sim--all in one. Essentially some of GDS Dramatism. Some flat-out story telling, some virtuality.

I think that's why stuff like 'Zilch-play' gets lumped in there too.

It seems to me that artfully done Illusionism would fool Narrativists as well  (until discovered when it would all break down) but it's not considered a functional style there.

I don't consider Illusionism a functional component of internally-consistent cause-and-effect "what-if" driven play either.

What it is a functional example of is play where story structure is valued and the GM is assigned the role of protector of that flame. Presently that's GNS Sim, yes, but looking at Ralph's take I have to say it's pretty at-odds with "what if" IMO.

Also: I see what John Kim is clearly saying. A player who has assented to participationism no longer has any sort of illusion of autonomy. The idea that the play "seems like there's autonomy" is only for observers outside the heads of the players who know better.

-Marco

[Valamir]

I can't say for certain where my redefined simulation falls with relation to GDS Simulation, but if John suggests its pretty close, then it must be.

But I have long been disatisfied at the way the "not G, not N" definition of GNS Simulation has resulted in Sim being the dumping ground for the most oddly eccelctic mix of completely uncompatable play styles in the model.

If the model is to be useful at identifying Inter GNS conflict than it should not give rise to situations where Intra GNS conflict is worse.  Illusionism and Participationism is every bit as much in hostile conflict with "what if" play as "what if" play is with Gamism.  Lumping Illusionism and "what if" play together in Simulation makes as little sense as putting Gamism and Simulationism together in the same category.  It renders the distinction of the label all but meaningless and has been a key contributor to the endless cycle of "what is sim" threads we've had over the years (hell my very first serious postings here were on that very subject 3+ years ago)

I think the current GNS understanding of Sim was the result of alot of ancient Forge history in the early days before we had developed the Big Model, defined "system" via the Lumpley principle, or had first sought to pin down Shared Imaginary Space.   I think the reason there is still the belief that Illusionism and "what if" Sim belong together in the same category is primarily one of institutional inertia.


When I wrote my essay my intention in the Simulationist part was to go back to the beginning on Sim and find a whole new avenue to go down.  To do this I needed to define the principle that, to me, was the essential core of Simulationism.  I believe my notions of simulation in the sense of a "what if" experiment is that essential core.

From there, I fully expect that ALOT of stuff that had previously been dumped into the Simulationist bucket over the years will fail to qualify as Simulationism under my definition.  Marco immediately hit on the notion that Illusionism in particular will not qualify.  This is unsurprising to me since Illusionism and "what if" sim have never played nice and IMO never should have been lumped together in the same category to begin with.


So if all of these perfectly valid forms of play can no longer be stuck in Simulationism where do they go?  Well I think that ideas of SiS, system, and the Big Model now give us the tools we need to identify what these things really have in common.

One possibility is to push Illusionism and Participationism down to the Exploration level.  For they represent the true desire to "Explore and nothing else"

A second possibility is to resurrect the idea of GDS Dramatism and see if there really is something there deserving of a seperate CA and where Illusionism and Participationism would find a home.


A third possibility, and currently my favorite, is to stop mistaking these things for sub-agendas and recognize them for what they are...Techniques.  I think that Illusionism is a Technique by Big Model meaning, or perhaps more broadly, the name given to a collection of like minded techniques such as Roads to Rome and Creative Continuity, etc.  As such Illusionism is not tied to a particular CA.  It is not automatically Sim play.

I think Marco is spot on when he suggests that Illusionism could be attempted in conjunction with Nar play also.  I suspect that Illusionism applied to Nar play would probably explain alot of World of Darkness play.  

I've long thought that Illusionism's best partner is that particular form of Gamism where the players are really only interested in being transported from challenging encounter to challenging encounter but yet want to have an entertaining story as a back drop to their escapades.


For me, I'm not starting with any assumptions about what still is and isn't part of Simulationism under this definition.  Is High Concept Sim even really Simulationism?  Don't know.  Haven't torn into it.  Haven't sat down and isolated what the core concepts of High Concept Sim are and compared them to my definition of simulation as "what if" experiment.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  

Point being I think its high past time we stopped making a big pile of everything that isn't G or N and then laboring to find a broadly vague definition of Sim to encompass them all.  Find a definition of Sim that is as focused and clear a priority as G and N (which I've attempted to do), and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Marco]

I agree with this almost completely. The idea that the S/D incompatibility is less deep or severe than the S/N incompatibility doesn't ring true to me on any level.

-Marco

[Caldis]

To me Illusionism and Participationism looks like incoherent play.  The gm is free to address premise through his play, by setting up conflicts and manipulating how they turn out, while the players can only react in what they feel their characters appropriate manner would be.  One is playing narrativist the rest are playing sim.

That only becomes disfunctional if the players want to be addressing premise and are restricted by the sim nature allowed to them or if they object to the premise addressing the gm is doing.

I always thought the model allowed for blends such as the above and decided the game was primarily sim or narrativist based on how much the players actions ended up addressing premise.

Saying that the model doesnt allow for this mix causes two problems in my mind, one is that sim can never attempt story or drama of any fashion because the gm will always be able to address premise, will have to in setting up a situation unless it is randomly and rigidly created beyond his control.  The other is that sim is of very limited appeal, a necessary adjunct of the first problem.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Ralph, I was under the impression that we had decided long ago that Illusionism was the effect of a family of techniques, and thus might be considered a technique-category - and not associated with a given CA at all at the definitional level.

Procedurally, however, illusionist techniques tend to be deal-breakers in Gamist or Narrativist play, at least over time when they nearly inevitably become exposed.

As I understand it, that's where the state-of-theory stands - that one does not say "Illusionist play is Sim play," but rather, "Historically, Illusionist techniques find successful applications within Sim contexts."

A) Isn't that the state-of-theory? I think the Glossary entries are consistent with it.

B) Is that essentially what you're saying? In which case you're clarifying what's already being said, which is apparently very necessary, but not pointing out a hole or historically flawed portion of the existing theory, after all.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

That's my understanding, Ron.

John, you bring up an interesting case. I made a very unclear statment - especially when taken out of context as you have done. Simulationism is making decisions such that the world seems objectively real to the participants - or, rather, that the other metagame agendas do not make it seem less so. One way to do this is Illusionism, in which case, the players demand the appearance of autonomy, as though they were active in the objective world. So I was just describing the one way that players get the feeling in question. Note that there are secondary aspects to all of these sub-CAs, so this isn't unusual. This is why we have sub-CAs.  


OTOH, if, indeed, players have no power to explore, then they can't be rightly said to be roleplaying at all, can they? That is, if they can't say the least little thing about what their character do, or anything at all, then they're just listening to something like a story from the GM, right? Nobody would mistake this for a RPG.

That said, it's a functional activity for one "player" to have all of the power. I tell stories to my son every night. It's not an RPG, because of the lack of interactivity, but it's a positive activity. Given this, I assume that every power split that occurs is viable and valid.

Anyhow, the point is that for Participationism to be roleplaying at all, means that the player does have some level of control - enough to explore in some way, basically. So, if they do have some control, if they are exploring, then there's potentially that objective universe to explore, even if the GM is doing most of it himself. Simulationism is about the universe seeming to be objective. One way to get this is to allow the players autonomy, to allow the perception of autonomy, or just for the GM to provide it himself. A player always controls every character, doesn't really matter if it's the GM or somebody else in terms of CA. What matters for simulationism is that for the players in question that it makes the world seem like it's objectively extant.

Interestingly, this relates back to Ralph's claims about conflict. It's precisely the conflicts that the players are not allowed to address in Participtionism - if they could, then they could determine plot, which is exactly what GM authority is being used to provide instead. It's precisely play like this (and other sub-modes) that say to me that simulationism isn't at all defined by conflict. That, or Participationism is play without a CA. Which seems to be a contradictory statement.  Or you could say that Participationism isn't Role-playing - but then you get into the same sticky areas that we're in with regards to CRPGS and solo RPGs. Is the ability to explore the SIS, even if in only limited form, role-playing?

As always my response to the question is to ask what good it does if you say no? Why not just call it participationism with all that entails in terms of "exceptions?"  

Mike

[Valamir]

Procedurally, however, illusionist techniques tend to be deal-breakers in Gamist or Narrativist play, at least over time when they nearly inevitably become exposed.

Actually, I think Illusionist techniques fit most comfortably with Gamist play when they are used to steer play from one Gamist challenge to the next.  I have a feeling that alot of very tactically oriented gamist play is quite functional playing full bore tactical durring periods of combat or other challenges and full bore illusionist to get to the next challenge point.

As I understand it, that's where the state-of-theory stands - that one does not say "Illusionist play is Sim play," but rather, "Historically, Illusionist techniques find successful applications within Sim contexts."

A) Isn't that the state-of-theory? I think the Glossary entries are consistent with it.

B) Is that essentially what you're saying? In which case you're clarifying what's already being said, which is apparently very necessary, but not pointing out a hole or historically flawed portion of the existing theory, after all.

I'm saying quite the opposite.  That Illusionist play is diametrically opposed to Simulation as I defined it.  I think the core essence of Simulationism is, in fact, Simulation.  Simulation can best be seen as an experiment where the PCs act as a catalyst to set elements of the SiS in motion with the player's goal to follow the cascade of ripple effects to their logical conclusion.  

If the GM is engageing in Illusionism, then, as Marco's pointed out, this invalidates the simulation.  I don't see Illusionism as being any more functional in Sim play than it is in Nar play.  In fact, to the 100% degree that you would be abhored to discover the GM using Illusionist techniques in a game you believed to be Narrativist, so would a Simulationist player feel the same.

I think the following: "Historically, Illusionist techniques find successful applications within Sim contexts." is completely incorrect and exists only as the result of the fundamental misdefinition of Simulation that I'm endeavoring to address.

I'm not sure how to make that any more clear than I have.  I thought my effort to define Simulationism in my essay was pretty clearly a dramatic break from the current state-of-the-theory.  In case its not.  I'm convinced that the current state-of-the-theory in regards to the definition of Sim is so deeply wrong and so convolutedly tangled that only by scrapping it in its entirety and going back to basic principles can it be untangled.

The definition of Sim that I've put forth may not be the right one...but it is my attempt to go back to those basic principles and start over.

If it winds up that my definition winds up very close to GDS Sim, I think that's probably not coincidental.  Surely the GDS efforts explored and debated Sim play as deeply as we've explored and debated Nar play.  Its not unreasonable to assume that they actually were on to something.

Anyhow, the point is that for Participationism to be roleplaying at all, means that the player does have some level of control - enough to explore in some way, basically. So, if they do have some control, if they are exploring, then there's potentially that objective universe to explore, even if the GM is doing most of it himself. Simulationism is about the universe seeming to be objective. One way to get this is to allow the players autonomy, to allow the perception of autonomy, or just for the GM to provide it himself. A player always controls every character, doesn't really matter if it's the GM or somebody else in terms of CA. What matters for simulationism is that for the players in question that it makes the world seem like it's objectively extant.

I think your use of the word "seems" is where I have trouble.  I'm not sure why you think its only necessary for the universe to seem objective.  I don't think that's at all accurate for the sort of play that I'm identifying as being Simulationist.

Interestingly, this relates back to Ralph's claims about conflict. It's precisely the conflicts that the players are not allowed to address in Participtionism - if they could, then they could determine plot, which is exactly what GM authority is being used to provide instead. It's precisely play like this (and other sub-modes) that say to me that simulationism isn't at all defined by conflict.

Its precisely play like this (and other sub-modes) that says to me that these aren't Simulationism.

This is why we keep going back and forth.

You are starting with a pile of stuff that you want to call Sim (which includes Participationism).  You are rightly recognizing that my definition doesn't allow these things to be called Sim and so you are rejecting my definition.

I am saying that that is a backwards way of defining Sim and derives from the erroneous foundation of "If (not G) and (not N) then S"

Only under this fatally flawed definition could such a range of incompatable stuff get all lumped under the Sim umbrella.



My goals in the essay were these

1) Start with a definition of what Sim is...then see what does or doesn't fit into it.

2) Ensure that the definition of Sim parallels that of Nar and Gam.  This is important to a) make all three equal, and b) make all Creative Agendas uniform with regards to what it is a Creative Agenda is about.

With this approach I wanted to avoid having Sim be the red headed step child its been since nearly the beginning.

If Creative Agenda's are to all occupy the same level of the model it is important that all Creative Agenda's address the same type of thing.  You can't have 1 Creative Agenda that's primarily about Social Contract, and another that's primarily about Techniques, and lump them together in the same box (as an example).   What then is the common thread defining what a Creative Agenda is and ensuring that all 3 Creative Agendas are uniformly about the same thing?

Conflict is what I found to be the defining feature of Nar and Gam play.  How the players address conflict in the game is what distinguishes N and G.  Since we are pretty secure in our definition of G and N and not very secure in our definition of S it seems quite reasonable to define CA in these terms.  

So my starting premise then was that Creative Agenda is about the player's response to in game conflict.   That's very clearly 100% what Step on Up is about.  Its very clearly 100% what Story Now is about.

If S is to occupy the same level in the model as G and N then from my perspective its very clearly what Sim must be about too.  Otherwise the CAs don't belong in the same box.


Once you define Creative Agenda as being about the player's response to in-game conflict then Sim falls very neatly into place as a true peer of G and N.  It is not some bastard dumping ground for stuff G and N players don't want.  Nor is it the base-line of all roleplaying with G and N being just offshoots of it (as Mike's version of Beeg Horseshoe would put it.)  In other words it stops being lesser than or greater than G or N and simply becomes, like G or N a very simple and straightforward equal.

The next step for me was simply identifying what that player's response is?  If the player's response in G is Step on Up, and the player's response in N is Story Now...what is the player's response in S.  For me the best answer seems to be the "Simulation as 'what if' experiment" approach that I've been espousing.  

That answer seems to me to be the most clear, concise, and compelling definition of what Creative Agenda's are and what the Simulationism Agenda is that I've seen presented   <he says somewhat immodestly, though taking credit only for the presentation and not for the concepts which have been espoused in full or part by many others>

That, or Participationism is play without a CA. Which seems to be a contradictory statement. Or you could say that Participationism isn't Role-playing - but then you get into the same sticky areas that we're in with regards to CRPGS and solo RPGs. Is the ability to explore the SIS, even if in only limited form, role-playing?

I don't see why play without a CA is contradictory at all.  Good old Exploration by itself without any excess baggage of a player's meta game agenda (which is what CAs ultimately are) seems like a perfectly valid form of play to me.  It also fits into the model as I've presented it seemlessly.

If a CA is a player's response to in game conflict, then play without a CA must therefor mean (for the definition to hold) that the player has no response to in game conflict.  It seems to me that Participationism is quite perfectly explained by this.  Ultimately the player has no response to in game conflict, because the player has ceded all authority to resolve conflict to the GM.  The player's response is to shrug and accept whatever resolution the GM provides.  

The difference between Participationism and Tourism then could be seen in the player's level of interest in that resolution.  A Participationist is one who is eager and committed to seeing what the resolution of the conflict is, even though they don't really want to be a part of the determination themselves.  They cede the act of conflict resolution to the GM because they expect the GM to deliver an exciting result (like an author in a book).  Playing through Savage Worlds Evernight setting would be a text book case of this.

A Tourist  doesn't really care how the thing resolves or what the end result is because they're just along for the ride, for something to do.


That's where I'm coming from.  I'm pretty convinced that its a more functional approach than either the status quo or the variant Beeg Horseshoe.  Is that any more clear?

[ErrathofKosh]

My goals in the essay were these

1) Start with a definition of what Sim is...then see what does or doesn't fit into it.

2) Ensure that the definition of Sim parallels that of Nar and Gam.  This is important to a) make all three equal, and b) make all Creative Agendas uniform with regards to what it is a Creative Agenda is about.

With this approach I wanted to avoid having Sim be the red headed step child its been since nearly the beginning.

If Creative Agenda's are to all occupy the same level of the model it is important that all Creative Agenda's address the same type of thing.  You can't have 1 Creative Agenda that's primarily about Social Contract, and another that's primarily about Techniques, and lump them together in the same box (as an example).   What then is the common thread defining what a Creative Agenda is and ensuring that all 3 Creative Agendas are uniformly about the same thing?

Conflict is what I found to be the defining feature of Nar and Gam play.  How the players address conflict in the game is what distinguishes N and G.  Since we are pretty secure in our definition of G and N and not very secure in our definition of S it seems quite reasonable to define CA in these terms.  

So my starting premise then was that Creative Agenda is about the player's response to in game conflict.   That's very clearly 100% what Step on Up is about.  Its very clearly 100% what Story Now is about.

I agree with your basic premise of attempting to define Sim in the same manner as the other CA's are defined. And I agree with the need to do so.  However, I think that you've made a mistake in choosing conflict as the defining feature of a CA.  

IMHO, a CA is defined by what it explores.  

I would agree that most of roleplaying explores a conflict of one type or another, but it doesn't have to. This can be difficult to see looking at Nar or Gam play because exploring Challenge and exploring Premise are difficult to do without conflict.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict-full.

Sim play, at first glance, is also full of conflict.  But, in my view, this is an illusion perpetrated by historical Sim game play.  MOST Sim play is based on exploring situation, some on exploring character and some on exploring setting.  How are these elements explored?  Usually through setting, character or situation.  Therefore, situation is usually present in some form or fashion and situation usually includes conflict.

However, if I engage in Sim play that explores setting via system, I have very little situation and by extension, little conflict.

Thus, I propose that CA's are defined by Exploration.  I have seven elements that I can explore: Premise, Challenge, Setting, Character, System, Situation, and Color.  I have five elements that I can explore with: Setting, Character, Situation (includes Challenge and/or Premise sometimes, but they are not distinct in this mode), System and Color.

And thus, I have three main CA's, but one, Sim, can be broken down into five "sub-CA's."  I propose that while these sub-CA's are more compatible than the main CA's, they still provide conflict between players and are rightly called differing agendas.  (A roleplaying spectrum, if you will...)

Fire away!

Cheers
Jonathan

[Marco]

The role of Force in Nar play can be seen when the system imposes cause-and-effect on a character and the players would rather it not (there is a fear check that forces the character to behave in a fearful manner).*

The role of Force in Sim play (under Ralph's definition, which I wholeheartedly support and see, as he says, as quite different than the current status quo in some ways) is when the system (usually the 'GM-decides' part of System) imposes something on the characters that is not cause and effect.

But either way, Force is still in essence railroading which I'm going to re-state here as: taking the game in a direction the players don't want it to go by way of system manipulation ... usually by the GM.**

What this means is the following: if you have a game and you resolve NEVER to let it leave the rails but the PC's never try to leave the rails then the game could count as Narrativist for all anyone will ever care (your rails happened to coincide with the game going exactly where the player wanted it to in order to address premise in the player's preferred fashion).

I'd be skeptical about how long that arrangement would last--but I don't think it'd count as railroaded or force-ful (but maybe illusionist?) in any meaningful sense.

The same may be true of Sim games wherein the GM is willing to breach cause and effect but doesn't ever need to.

Again: how long that arrangement will last depends on the threshold of the players for anti-CA action in their game and the skill of the GM in applying illusory techniques (when it does breach).

But that means that a game where the players "do what the GM expects of them" (assuming they do not do it because the GM expects it but merely because it works out that way) is one where Force isn't necessary.

(and remember, what Force is seems to change from one preferred-CA to another ... and two players in a given game might have very different ideas of what Force is ... and the GM a third--but there you go).

So really, Force is always dysfunctional (under this construct) and is really a sub-set of railroading.

An example in 'Dramatist' play is when the GM plays 'by-the-rules' and an untimely character death results in contravention of the preferred CA that says PC death is only gonna happen during the climax.

The exception cases are, I think, where:

a) the GM is "railroading behind the scenes" but the players are happy. In this case it's perceptual: The players will complain if the causes for the manipulation are known but don't have an issue with the direction the game took. Example: the GM intervenes to save a character during Sim or Gamist play when that character should be dead. The player is happy to live--but will be annoyed if it turns out he 'lived through cheating.''

b) the game is assumed to be Participationism but the contract isn't explicit (i.e. in just about every garden-variety case ever seen). In this case I submit that we really don't know. The players may put up with some manipulation as a sort of "signal-to-noise-ratio" but we never found out if there was ever a case where the "chips were down" and it "really counted."

I wouldn't throw a fit if the GM amped the rider's stats to try to get me on the start of an adventure. I wouldn't *prefer* it--but I wouldn't go looking for conflict and power-struggle with the GM early in a game when little was at stake (which is how I imagine Mike's example).

But I'd certainly object or gracefully bow-out if the GM did that in a case where my chosen option really mattered to me and it was clear the GM was trying to nullify my power of choice for some reason.

In the functional case the GM manipulaitng things is like the moving-clue in Nar play (a presumedly functional case of GM manipulation). Same as Sim. And just as in Nar play if it takes me in a CA-violating direction, it'll be a deal-breaker.

This perspective makes me think that Force "does not play nice with Sim" just as Force "does not play nice with Gam or Nar."

-Marco
* Force in Nar play could also be to force an outcome of a scene against the way that a player's action would dictate. In this case the definition of Force lines up, IMO, exactly with Gamism Force and Simulationist Force in terms of what's annoying the player.

** That is, Force is a sub-set of railroading since railroading can be accomplished quite "ca-legally" by systemic manipulation of *setting.*

[Mike Holmes]

Ralph, your characterization of my reasoning process is faulty. I'm not starting from any such assumption, but asking the value of changing the current theory. That is, I can tell you what the definition of sim is as I understand it, why it exists as such, and why that includes participationism. I've done do repeatedly. In fact, I could attribute the same sort of motives to your argument. That is, I could say that you don't "get" sim as it stands, so you've created a criteria that you can understand, and forced the rest of the theory to adjust so that it fits the model that you can understand.

But I'll assume that you are arguing from a more rational basis than you would attribute to me.

What your version doesn't address is what value it brings to the model outside of idenitfication. More importantly, you still haven't addressed the problems with your modification to the model that I've brought up.

To reiterate, if I have a player who's playing Participationism, and another who's playing Gamism, I can tell you that they're going to have a CA problem. How is this not the Gamism/Simulationism problem? How does taking Participationism out of the model improve our understanding of the end results of different modes of play being applied.

Also I 100% disagree that Gamism and Narrativism are 100% defined by conflict. I've given examples repeatedly about evidence of play that is not conflict related in terms of determining mode, which don't get refuted, just ignored. If a player can determine mode without conflict, then other GNS analysis can apply to play that's not conflict related. Again, lets say that a particular player decides to have his character in play go to all of the weapon stores in the city to see where they have the best weapons, or the cheapest ones, or some combination. He has no money, so he doesn't buy, but he's exploring in order to have the information later. He says, "Someday I'll have the best sword in the land!" This is very clearly indicative of a Gamism mode of play. Non conflict involved, no repercussions, nothing that you'd call a conflict by your criteria. Yet the player opposite him, wanting narrativism, says, "Dude, you're slowing down the game. That stuff's useless. You're annoying me."

Completely plausible, completely analyzable, having nothing to do with conflict, but with the standard sorts of exploration that occur during play. GNS problems can occur because of this stuff. So how does it help if you eliminate it from being called part of the mode?

Again, if you want to say that conflict punctuates Modes, making them easier to discern at those moments, I'm all with you. But especially with sim, where the CA may tell you that you can't reasonably have a conflict at a given time, I think that it's unreasonable to assume that only conflict is telling.

Yes, I think that the issues of definition of these modes are complex. That said, I think actual idenification is quite easy. Just because the philosophical underpinnings of simulationism are complex doesn't make the model inaccurate. Special Relativity is very complicated, but closer to the truth than relativity or Newtonian Mechanics.

BTW, I use "seems" because given that the universes in question are fictional, they cannot "actually" be objective. In fact from an epistemological POV, nothing is objective. In any case, relative to the real world, the best you can hope for is the feeling of objectivity. This is key, and the problem that I have with some of Marco's POV. He seems to assume that there can be an actual objective world that exists. I'd say that a computer can at least give a steady state illusion of such a world, but you can't get that from a human. There's always the chance that the human is using Author stance, and you don't know it. The best you can get is trust that the human involved isn't channging the world behind the scenes.

In any case, this is not antithetical to simulation per se. That is all simulations are simulacra of reality. As such they have the advantage that the parameters of the simulation can be altered at will. If you really don't want this, then what you want is not a Virtuality, but reality. Again, those who want their Simulation to look as "hard" as reality as possible are "Virtualists." But not all simulationism requires this - just that internal causality be consistent. For instance, if a better way to model something is found, most simulationists will adopt the better model even amidst play, because it's not a question of the methods of determining what happens remaining unalterable as they are in the real world. It's a matter of the rules intending to model an unchanging Virtuality.

Mike

[Valamir]

Ralph, your characterization of my reasoning process is faulty. I'm not starting from any such assumption, but asking the value of changing the current theory. That is, I can tell you what the definition of sim is as I understand it, why it exists as such, and why that includes participationism. I've done do repeatedly.

Really?  I've yet to see a two or three sentence definition of Simulationism that isn't a) self referential, b) based on Not N, Not G, or c) so vague as to be unuseable; and which defines sim as being something more than just exploration plus more exploration.

The definition in the provisional glossary reads:

Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements.

This is pretty unuseable as a definition.  Why?

1) Because the first clause is essentially nothing more than Exploration itself and is true of all roleplaying (and thus not a distinctive feature of sim) witness the definition of Exploration from the same glossary

The imagination of fictional events...

What exactly is the difference between "Commitment to the imagined events" and "the imagination of fictional events"?  None whatsoever unless one wishes to imply that Exploration doesn't require commitment.  So part one of the definition is simply "Simulation requires exploration" which is true of all roleplaying.


2) Because the second clause, is essentially "Simulation requires Internal Causality" which, as we've recently discussed in great detail, is also true of all roleplaying.  So far, nothing to uniquely differentiate Sim here.


and 3) Because the final clause about pre-established thematic elements is basically "Simulation requires adhering to genre convention".  Not only do I find the idea that all sim adheres to genre convention (or pre-established themes...take your pick which turn of phrase you like better) questionable, its hardly a desire unique to sim.


So if you have another definition that can be concisely given about what feature sets sim play apart from G and N, that isn't simply some variation on "Exploration squared" which I entirely reject as a foundational definition, I'm all ears.

In fact, I could attribute the same sort of motives to your argument. That is, I could say that you don't "get" sim as it stands, so you've created a criteria that you can understand, and forced the rest of the theory to adjust so that it fits the model that you can understand.

And you'd be absolutely right in such attribution.  I don't get sim as it stands.  Because as it stands it makes very little sense.  Nor do I think I'm alone thinking this given the never ending cycle of "what is sim" threads that are perennially returned to.  Yes I did create a criteria that I can understand, and I endeavored to frame it as clearly and concisely as I could...because a definition that cannot be understood and cannot be clearly and concisely articulated is useless.  But no, I didn't force the rest of the theory to adjust to the sim defintion, quite the opposite.  I adjusted the rest of the theory and let the definition of sim fall out of it naturally.

And the kicker is, it works.  It holds together from beginning to end, with no black boxes and no convoluted hard to understand explanations.

You can repeat ad infinitum that I haven't given sufficient proof as to why conflict is an essential part of the model, but I am fully satisfied with the fact that it works.  Including conflict as the core distinguishing feature causes numerous issues to disappear, numerous vagaries to now be defineable, and numerous black boxes to be opened and exposed to analysis.  In short it takes a bunch of key concepts of the big model and ties them all together into a fully functional and seamless whole.  For no other reason than that it deserves serious consideration.  And unless you can provide an alternative that works equally well, I'm more than comfortable with it.

And while I heard several people suggest that they aren't convinced that conflict is the key to understanding CA, I've yet to hear any compelling reason why it isn't.

The proof that you seem to be desiring to make is that if you can demonstrate that CA can be observed in situations of no Conflict, then my definition must be false.  Perhaps.  But I've yet to see any such demonstration that actually stands up to scrutiny.  So far all such attempts have either a) had an actual conflict buried in them, b) been examples of an isolated resolution point and not of a complete cycle of Conflict, or c) drawing a conclusion about what CA is present that isn't actually supported by the evidence in the example.

What your version doesn't address is what value it brings to the model outside of idenitfication.

Value?  Ummm, my essay is full of explaining the value.  How about finding a definition of Sim that doesn't allow tons of incompatible play styles to be included under the same umbrella simply because there's no where else for them to go?  How about finding a way to explain Creative Agenda in 8 words that doesn't rely on vague phrases or extended explanations and can be understood by someone new to the theory in short order?  How about finding a way to actually start to diagnose an Instance of Play from when it begins to when it ends rather than having it be the black box where stuff happens that we can't actually define?

Those all seem pretty valuable to me.

Really Mike, as a supporter of atomic diagnosis of CA I figured you'd recognize the value in having a way to define an Instance of Play that allows it to be as long as an entire session plus (the kind of Instances Ron like to look at...the broad brush over arching conflicts) or as short as a scene or part of a scene (the kind of Instances where your atomic analysis could apply).

More importantly, you still haven't addressed the problems with your modification to the model that I've brought up.

You'll have to bring them up again then.  I've addressed every comment that I've seen.

To reiterate, if I have a player who's playing Participationism, and another who's playing Gamism, I can tell you that they're going to have a CA problem.

Can you?  I doubt it.  In fact, I more than doubt it.  I expressly state "no you can't".  Especially since I have addressed this more than once already and indicated that I think Participationism and Gamism are fully compatable and that a great deal of traditional tactical gamist play is based on just such a system.

Further, I believe its been established (or at least agreed to by those weighing in so far) that Illusionism is a set of Techniques, not an agenda.  If Illusionism is a set of techniques, then Participationism (which is nothing more than Illusionism without the veil) must also be a set of techniques.

Therefor you cannot say that the players are going to have a CA problem.  If there is going to be a problem its going to be a technique problem not a CA problem.

How is this not the Gamism/Simulationism problem? How does taking Participationism out of the model improve our understanding of the end results of different modes of play being applied.

In exactly the way I described above.  If you see Participationism as a subset of Simulationism then you'll be prone to making statements like you did above, which I think is both conceptually and factually false.  But its seems like it should be true under the current model where sim is a vast dumping ground of conflicting concepts.  

Step back, define Sim as its own thing equal with its peers of N and G and one immediately recognizes that Illusionism and Participationism are NOT sim concerns.  Once disabused of that incorrect notion one can then begin to analyse what they in fact are...

I believe I have already offered 3 directions of discussion that could be pursued to analyse Participationism specifically.  

Also I 100% disagree that Gamism and Narrativism are 100% defined by conflict. I've given examples repeatedly about evidence of play that is not conflict related in terms of determining mode, which don't get refuted, just ignored.

I've yet to see any explanations of actual play that is devoid of conflict and which the agenda is clearly in evidence.

That includes this example:

Again, lets say that a particular player decides to have his character in play go to all of the weapon stores in the city to see where they have the best weapons, or the cheapest ones, or some combination. He has no money, so he doesn't buy, but he's exploring in order to have the information later. He says, "Someday I'll have the best sword in the land!" This is very clearly indicative of a Gamism mode of play.

To which I can only say, nonsense.  This isn't clearly indicative of anything.  There is no evidence whatsoever as to why the player sent the character to search weapons stores for the best weapons.  It looks Gamist to you because that's what was in your head when you wrote it.  It doesn't look gamist to me.  I challenge you to find in the above any compelling evidence that Gamism is clearly the agenda at work here.  

In fact, this very type of situation (of the "my character climbs the hill to see what's making the smoke" variety) has previously been used to "prove" that Simulation doesn't require conflict.

This only convinces me more that Conflict is the essential key ingredient.  Given the above conflictless situation one could easily explain it as Gamism, Simulationism, or even Narrativism.  One can't tell for sure, one can only read into it what one expects to see there.

But I submitt that if you rewrote the situation so that it involved a clear conflict according to the 3 features of conflict I proposed, and outlined the player's responses over the full cycle of that conflict (from recognition through resolution and denouement) that you would be in a much better position to make a definitive statement about which Agenda is at work.

Remember while you insist that you can determine CA outside of conflict  that conflict is not simply the point of resolution.  I've defined Instance of Play as being the entire cycle of conflict which includes both the build up to and the denouement as well as the climactic moment.

I also think you have a tendency to sling around CA diagnoses with far more conviction than the evidence supports...as in your above example.

No conflict involved, no repercussions, nothing that you'd call a conflict by your criteria. Yet the player opposite him, wanting narrativism, says, "Dude, you're slowing down the game. That stuff's useless. You're annoying me."

Mike, I'm very surprised to see you making such sweeping claims about what a narrativist player would say.  You know full well that being a narrativist has nothing to do whatsoever with being annoyed at shopping trips.  You have no grounds at all to put words in the mouth of a narrativist player at this point based on what you wrote above.  

The narrativist player could just as easily say "Dude, way to demonstrate your character's commitment to the idea that the best warrior is the one with the best weapon.  That's a great way to address the premise of what defines a man? What he does or what he has?  Can't wait to see that play out"

You should be more careful with your examples.

Again, if you want to say that conflict punctuates Modes, making them easier to discern at those moments, I'm all with you. But especially with sim, where the CA may tell you that you can't reasonably have a conflict at a given time, I think that it's unreasonable to assume that only conflict is telling.

Maybe you're right.  But I'm not convinced that conflict just makes it "easier".  Rather I think it makes it "possible".  As in, outside of situations of identifiable conflict its impossible to determine CA reliably.  Surely I've seen nothing in your examples to suggest otherwise.

Does this mean that CA's only exist at the points of conflict and don't exist when there is no conflict?  Or does it mean that CA's can only be determined at the points of conflict and exist but are invisible (or indistinguishable) when there is no conflict?

Philosophically I'm inclined to the former, believing that without conflict you have pure exploration, and at the point of conflict you have exploration plus Agenda.

Practically, however, it doesn't really make any difference.  Either way you're limited to identifying CA during cycles of Conflict, and unable to do so outside of Conflict.

BTW, I use "seems" because given that the universes in question are fictional, they cannot "actually" be objective. In fact from an epistemological POV, nothing is objective. In any case, relative to the real world, the best you can hope for is the feeling of objectivity.

There is a big difference between

a) expecting a simulation to be as objective as humanly possible given the limitations and constraints of modeling and the conditions under which the simulation is run.  and

b) expecting a simulation to be as objective as the GM's whim feels like making it.

Simulationism accepts the former and rejects the latter.

Illusionism requires accepting the latter.

ergo they are incompatable.

[Marco]

Mike,

You have me wrong on the idea that I think there's a "real" imaginary world out there. I think if you check my writing you'll see I use the words 'commitment to virtuality' or some such.

That's important.

A Nar-inclined player has a *commitment* to addressing premise. That doesn't mean their every action, every noun and verb, or necessairly every scene will address premise.

A gamist has a commitment to challenge. The Gamist probably has a pretty high precedence on cause and effect in the game but that leads to uninteresting challenges then he'll be upset even though it's "fair and by the rules."

If a Sim-player has a commitment to virtuality (and I think he does) then a Sim player and a guy expecting participationism in the same game will cause problems in the same way that your sim player and a gamist player may.

That is:

1. they may NOT have problems if the elements of participationism are not used in a way that violates either's wishes.

2. If the Participationist expects plot-protection for the PC's and the Sim player expects internal-cause-and-effect let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may and there is an episode which results in a "meaningless" PC death then there *will* be exactly the same sort of intra-CA problem that is usually attributed here to inter-CA problems.

But, as Ralph notes: in the case of #1 there may be no conflict.

Why is that?

The reason is this. If we define Participationism as a commitment to story under the GM's aegis then we have done two things.

1. We have linked Participationism to story in such a way as to make it a GDS Dramatist phenomena. Irrevocably so in fact. The GM who is participationist is then *telling* a story. Not satisfying another CA.

2. In doing so the status quo means it CANNOT fit either Nar or Gamist by definition. Because there are only three bins it must therefore be Sim-ist. It can't be a technique since if it's to be functional then it has to be Sim-only. A gamist who loses "for the story" will be mad as will a Narrativist who wins for the GM's story when he tried to lose for premise (for example).

The GNS language used here answers the question for us without allowing any examination of whether or not Participationism fits under Sim. It has to. There's no where else for it to go.

But does it fit?

If we assume that 50% of Sim is "pure" sim or "pinball sim" then certainly Particiaptionism doens't fit there.

It only fits (I think, maybe) in High-Concept Sim? Right? That's the Dramatist lobe?

And if it's clear that the pin-ball sim player will have an objection of the exact severity and nearly identical nature to the Gamist or Narrativst objection ("My rightful input was squelched for someone else's concern--a concern I do not share") then what we have is not merely a  scope issue but actually an agenda one.

For Gamism competition vs. Step-on-up is, IMO, scope--intra-part competition is simply expanding the scope of whom do we compete against.

For Narrativism, for example, the existence of directoral power or not is a scope issue: how much input will I have over the results of my actions (or how much input into the story).

But for Participation vs. Virtuality the issue isn't scope--it's one of intent. It's a question over what the GM's commitment to play is.

Participationism is only functional under one CA. Dramatism (High concept Sim, if we want to keep that--but, IMO, it doesn't make sense and is ugly).

Now, if we step back and make Particiaptionism a technique as Ralph suggests then Participationst Gamist play is possible. In this case the essence of Participationism is a commitment to a plot flow that follows a branching structure hinging on the outcome of challenges.

Win one? You get "transported" to another challenge in another scene. Lose it? Again you are "transported" to the next (a different one). In this case while there may be a story involved, the story does NOT relate to whether the characters succeed or not--that's up in the air ... and so the Gamist and the Participationist can happily coincide.

But it depends on where you slice it.

I greatly favor the Dramatist designation becasuse, in this case, the Participationist-Gamist game can simply be seen as the GM adding color to the priority (challenge) rather than intimating that "telling a story" is the GM's highest goal in play.

Put another way: does how the players get from one challenge to another *really* matter that much? Compare to the sorts of gyrations one must go through to do plot-protection in most games (dice fudging, dues ex machina, etc.)

-Marco

[Caldis]

I greatly favor the Dramatist designation becasuse, in this case, the Participationist-Gamist game can simply be seen as the GM adding color to the priority (challenge) rather than intimating that "telling a story" is the GM's highest goal in play.

Put another way: does how the players get from one challenge to another *really* matter that much? Compare to the sorts of gyrations one must go through to do plot-protection in most games (dice fudging, dues ex machina, etc.)

-Marco

The only problem I see with Dramatism as a creative agenda is the consideration of the players rather than the gm, whats their creative agenda?  To me it seems pretty passive, they are not trying to create story they're just following along for the ride.  Under Ralph's view of the model they have no creative agenda, they're willing to let the GM pursue his agenda they just explore.