Dramatism and Illusionism

[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.

Well, Calids, if we make the 4th lobe then the CA would be 'Dramatism.' It'd be like what Mike was describing. Rather than a commitment to "what if?" the players are (I'd think) playing with a commitment to cooperate with the GM (and this may even involve co-creating the story, I would think) but the commitment is on keeping things interesting and moving in some direction rather than a real "what-if?" style play. Premise might get addressed and challenges will be overcome but not as a priority or driving force (again, this is conjecture).

If "what-if?" would be boring or a dead end then the GM would probably manipulate things behind the scenes (illusionism) to produce a happier game.

Similarily the player might create major story structures but would be careful to to give the GM too much of a headache ("I'm going to do some major stuff next week, here's an email, get ready for it.") And the GM would probably get a lot of say and, I would think, veto power (although in functional play I would assume it'd rarely be used).

But if the GM was at a loss then illusionism would be a legitimate failsafe  rather than a betrayal.

I also think that in Dramatism there's sometimes more of a commitment to the transcript of story produced by play (i.e. it won't involve a meaningless or frustrating PC death) than other CA's. Certainly Virtuality has no commitment to the story produced by transcript, for example.

But, really, while I think it solves some problems I'm not certain it wouldn't create more--so I don't have a strong emotional attachment to it.

I just know that much of the sort of play that gets described as Sim doesn't have much in common with Virtuality--and what Ralph describes does.

-Marco

[John Kim]

Well, Calids, if we make the 4th lobe then the CA would be 'Dramatism.' It'd be like what Mike was describing. Rather than a commitment to "what if?" the players are (I'd think) playing with a commitment to cooperate with the GM (and this may even involve co-creating the story, I would think) but the commitment is on keeping things interesting and moving in some direction rather than a real "what-if?" style play. Premise might get addressed and challenges will be overcome but not as a priority or driving force (again, this is conjecture).

I'm not sure if I understand how you are proposing to define "Dramatism".  Are you saying that Dramatism would include only those instances of play where the players are cooperating with the GM on story?  Why wouldn't we keep the label "Participationism" for this?  

As we defined it in the rgfa Threefold, Dramatism was broadly defined as pursuing "story" as a goal -- which meant whatever the participants themselves defined as the best story.  It is, in my opinion, inclusive of most of what gets labelled "Narrativism" here, as well as most of Illusionism and Participationism.  

I think that part of the problem is with definitional wars.  On rgfa, posters who identified with drama resented the idea of being classified in the same group linear-plot games (similar to Illusionism and Participationism in Forge terms).  On rgfa, Simulationist-leaning posters were essentially dominant after more prominent Dramatist-leaning posters dropped out.  On The Forge, the reverse happened and the unpopular linear-plot games were classified with Simulationism.  

Having a fourth lobe makes some sense to me, but I'd prefer that it not be called "Dramatism" if it is going to clash with the Threefold definition of Dramatism.  I think it is confusing enough having clashing definitions as it is.

[Marco]

I'm not sure if I understand how you are proposing to define "Dramatism".  Are you saying that Dramatism would include only those instances of play where the players are cooperating with the GM on story?  Why wouldn't we keep the label "Participationism" for this?  

As we defined it in the rgfa Threefold, Dramatism was broadly defined as pursuing "story" as a goal -- which meant whatever the participants themselves defined as the best story.  It is, in my opinion, inclusive of most of what gets labelled "Narrativism" here, as well as most of Illusionism and Participationism.  

I think that part of the problem is with definitional wars.  On rgfa, posters who identified with drama resented the idea of being classified in the same group linear-plot games (similar to Illusionism and Participationism in Forge terms).  On rgfa, Simulationist-leaning posters were essentially dominant after more prominent Dramatist-leaning posters dropped out.  On The Forge, the reverse happened and the unpopular linear-plot games were classified with Simulationism.  

Having a fourth lobe makes some sense to me, but I'd prefer that it not be called "Dramatism" if it is going to clash with the Threefold definition of Dramatism.  I think it is confusing enough having clashing definitions as it is.

Ah--yeah--total agreement. Total. I was using Dramatism as a place holder. I'd really be happier with Virtuality and ... I guess Participationism is good too (although in a minute I'll address that).

I don't know exactly what the 4th lobe would be. My stab at it was top-of-my-head. I just know that there's a deep difference between playing with a story structure (or just "things have to be kept interesting and moving") as priority and a serious commitment to what-if.

I also know that the line gets blury in practice because no one wants to be bored so these what-if scenarios have to occurr in situations that are intrinsically interesting (your on the city's secret paranormal SWAT Team) or highly player directed (where you can go and get what you want if it doesn't come to you).

But over all, I think there's a very real and big divide between how the GM and players make decisions (and it's along the lines of Actor and Author stance for the players and Illusionism and ... Virtuality for the GM, I expect).

As for Participationism: I have heard of games where the players utterly submitted their power of choice to the GM--I don't think that's what was going on in Mike's game.

I think that there's a very definite threshold wherein the GM can get away with that kind of manipulation, even in "participationism." Specifically, so long as the players are kept happy.

They may get unhappier faster if other people have different ideas about what makes a good game (different CA's)--but any time the rails show I suspect it's a dysfunction that everyone would rather they avoid.

What's different between that and Virtuality is that if the rails *ever* show with a game with a strong commitment to Virtuality then the players are gonna be disolusioned and may revolt.

In this sense the GM is Participating too. The game may be heavily one-sided (GM-sided) but it might not. After all, if a compotent illusionist GM is told by a player "I am going to open a bar and start making money" the compotent GM will not "blow it up" (a cliche, apparently)--but rather will integrate that into plot ideas. Those ideas will still have, in this case, a higher commitment to story structure than what-if or Premise or challenge--but it is hardly the single tyranny of the GM over the players in a functional case.

In other words: it still isn't just "The GM's story with the players adding color."

NOTE: The above is based on my own, limited, experiences with Illusionism. I don't gravitate toward that style of play. I don't make decisions that way as a GM, and I'd be upset to find someone else covertly making decisions that way if I was a player.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

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.

I'm not even sure where Ron got that definition. It seems very much to be a shortening of some of the concepts of the Sim essay, without considering other parts. I don't like it, either. How about:

Simulationism is prioritizing exploration.

That's not self-referential, not a rejection of N or G (if so, then the definitions of N and G have the same problem), and it's not vague in the least. It means that when the player has a decision to make his agenda will be to consider the explorative or "what if" value to come up with his decision. Not neccessarily "what if I attack?" but also "What if I go over the hill? What will the character encounter?" And not just in terms of the results, but in terms of it being a simulation. That is, he considers the validity of his inputs as well to make the whole seem objective. Meaning that the player will only have the character go over the hill if it seems like "what the charcter would do." Not retroactively as an explanation for any other motive, neccessarily, but as the primary motive. This is important, the mode indicates that the player is as interested in setting up the feel of objectivity as he is in the outcome. Again, it's not just that it's all internally causal, but that it seems as if the causality comes from the world, and not from the player (again, as always, "seems", because the causality does come from the player).

So part one of the definition is simply "Simulation requires exploration" which is true of all roleplaying.

Yes, but simulation doesn't simply require exploration, but in "committment" what's implied (or what should be there) is that it's a commitment to making it seem all the more "real" by eliminating the appearance of external motives. This is not a negative definition. The player takes the extra step to ensure that the action seems not just plausible, but as though it's coming from the character, and not himself. The GM strives to make his judgements seem as though they come from a reading of the world, and not from his own agenda (even though this is an agenda itself, yes).

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.  

How so? Again, Special Relativity doesn't fit your definition, but it's still very useful. In any case, the definitions of Sim that I've seen are far easier to understand than that. I'm not against making the theory easier to understand, that's a laudable goal. But if that's the only goal, then the new version should have all of the functionality of the previous version.

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.  

To be precise, yes, observable, but that implies also that the theory would pertain. That is, for instance, one might be able to use it to determine incoherence. Basically I'm saying that if the theory is still useful in the ways it always has been when it comes to analyzing non-conflict play, then I can't see limiting the definition so.

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?

Will you then do the same for Gamism and Narrativism? GNS never said that playing in one of the three modes will eliminate the possibility of style clash within the mode. Ron has always been very explicit about that. There's no way that looking at three categories of play can ever narrow play definitions down to the point where all of the variations will be compatible with each other. In terms of conflict (and GNS is not only about conflict, I agree), GNS only points to the overall breakdown that's most likely to cause problems because of the mutual exclusivity of decisions that must perforce occur during play. That is, while sub-modes can get along without conflict indefinitely (despite otherwise having the potential for conflict), the main three modes can't. Eventually something will happen to reveal the mode, and then the conflict will occur if there are different agendas.

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).

First, to reiterate, of course simplicity is a good goal, just not at the sacrifice of other parts of the theory.  I don't think the black box exists - can you give me an example?

In terms of the atomic diagnosis, I think that's really what's going on here in a lot of ways. That is, I see the way to go as leaving the notions of "agenda" behind entirely, and moving on to the atomic, while you seem to be trying to stick the old labels on the atomic model. To keep them separate, that's why I've been advocating the whole "little G" or other alternate naming scheme to talk about what we're getting at here. Because, yeah, if you want to look at individual decisions to see if they do or do not have value in terms of doing analysis of play, then I'm right there with you. I agree, certainly, that much play that is "just exploration" is not valuable in terms of these analyses (other than to note their existences), and that we can talk in those terms.

But GNS is about agendas, not atomic instances, other than they can be deduced from many of them over time. So it seems to me like you're just advocating the atomic model, but striving to use Ron's terms.

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.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Participationism seems clearly to me to be the abdication of power to the GM for the purpose of assuring that all the "right" decisions will occur. Yes, Participationism is a set of techniques, but using Ron's "Skewers" I think it's pretty obvious what the intent of the techniques are.

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:

<snip example>

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.

This is a circular argument. A is not evidence, because it has no conflict, which was to be proved. I think that no matter what evidence I provide, that you'll just say that it's not, but I'll try again. What if the player said, "I'm going looking at swords, because it nourishes the inner gamist in me." Would that suffice?

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.

But you insist that, without the resolution, that you can't tell the nature of the Instance. So, while you include "conflictless" play in theory, you insist that at some point there be a conflict. But I can imagine play without a conflict, and it would very much shout Sim. Why? Because of the three modes Sim is the only one in which there isn't a pressing need to get to conflict. The need for conflict in sim is "as it would occur."

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"

It was a plausible example. Don't be absurd, of course this isn't the only response. But it's a possible response. That's all I have to prove. Not that incoherence will always be in evidence here, just that it might. That there is potential value in this sort of analysis.

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.

Again, I don't think I need to prove "reliably" either. Whether or not it's easy to apply is beside the point, I think. That is, I think in some of these cases it will be easy. In others it will be too hard to accomplish. But if there's even one point at which the idenitfication can occur, then it seems to me that your conflict requirement is ancillary.

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.

I agree that these are very different. But no different than Gentleman Gamism vs. Powergaming. Or any other sub-modal conflict that you can come up with. They're just less mutually-exclusive (meaning that they can occasionally exist side by side) than the three basic modes.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks Mike. I needed that post.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Simulationism is prioritizing exploration.

That's not self-referential, not a rejection of N or G (if so, then the definitions of N and G have the same problem), and it's not vague in the least. It means that when the player has a decision to make his agenda will be to consider the explorative or "what if" value to come up with his decision.

This is the sticking point Mike.  Pretty much everything else we disagree on derives from this.

You see this as a functional definition.

I see this as completely, utterly, 100% useless as a definition.

My definition may not be 100% the way to go either.  But it was predicating on throwing the above 100% away and starting over.  I realize that you, Ron, and others (myself included) have spent many many hours and thousands of words on the mental gymnastics required to try and get this definition to work.  But it doesn't.  It doesn't work.


Why do I say so strongly that it doesn't work?

1) You say its not self referential, but in fact the entirety of the definition is self referential.  All roleplaying is built on a foundation of exploration.  All roleplaying must be committed to all of the elements of exploration.  Can you say that a sim player cares more about Setting than a Nar player?  Can you say that a Sim player cares more about Situation than a Gamist player?  Can you say that a Sim player cares more about Character, or Color or System?  No.  No you can't.  You can find examples where that is the case.  But you can find the same examples among Nar and Gamist players too.

If you can't say that a Sim player cares more about setting, character, situation, color, and system, then saying "Prioritizing Exploration" is utterly meaningless.  Exploration *IS* setting, character, situation, color, and, system.  There is no point at which a Sim player can "prioritize" any of these things to a greater degree than a Nar or Gam player.  Its a nonsensical statement.

Same with that other bugaboo "internal causality".  Important for all modes, not exclusive to Sim.


2) You say that it is not a rejection of G or N but your very next sentence, is a rejection of G and N.  You say "It means that when the player has a decision to make his agenda will be to consider the explorative or "what if" value to come up with his decision"

There are only 2 possible interpretations of this sentence.

a) that when a player has a decision to make, his agenda will be to ONLY consider the explorative "what if" factors...in which case this is absolutely a Not N, Not G definition...or

b) that when a player has a decision to make, his agenda will be to include consideration of the explorative or "what if" value to come up with his decision...in which case such a statement is 100% applicable to G and N too and not at all definitive of S.  G players and N players also consider the explorative value when making decisions, because G and N player also value Setting, Character, Situation, Color, and System.


How you can conclude that this isn't vague in the least is beyond me.  Its so vague as to be completely useless.  There is absolutely no roleplaying in the world that doesn't fall under this definition.  If this is your definition than ALL roleplaying is Sim.

...which I understand is the arguement you like to take with the Beeg Horseshoe...and which I don't disagree with.  I just prefer not to misuse the idea of Simulationism as being what is at the arch of the horseshoe.  What is at the arch of the horseshoe is not Simulationism.  Its Exploration.

The reason it keeps getting confused with Simulationism is because of erroneous definitions like the above which treat Simulationism and Exploration as veritable synonyms.  They aren't.

Exploration is the base of the horseshoe...Narrativism and Gamism are the arms, and Simulationism is a third equal lengthed arm...(making the horseshoe into a pitchfork if you will).


Pretty much everything you've written about the Beeg Horseshoe I am in near complete agreement with.  As long as you do a find/replace and replace your use of Simulationism with Exploration and return Simulationism to being a legitimate Agenda with its own goals independent of the baseline goals of exploration which all Agendas share.

Any definition of Simulation that is basically a restatement of Exploration is without value.


Edited to Add:  Ron, I'm not sure what to make of your last post.  Was that pretty much a "me too" or is there something you wanted to add that Mike's post help clarify for you?

[Ron Edwards]

Just a "me too," Ralph. Nothing major.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

First, in the Beeg Horseshoe, it's my point precisely that the bend of the shoe is Exploration. I say that about a jillion times in the big thread on that. I say that this correllates to Ron's definition of Simulationism as far as I can tell, if you have to put simulationism on the Beeg Horseshoe. But That's exactly why the model exists, so that I don't have to do that.

But it's also the point of the Beeg Horseshoe that all CAs that I've actually seen in action (no matter how I'd like to theorize about "conflictless" play) have conflict. But it's also the point of Beeg Horseshoe, that this is either Gamism or Narrativism when it happens. What you seem to be proposing is a third "prong" to the horseshoe. Which is what I'd object to.

Think about it this way. Ron says that narrativism, when it gets down to it, is being interested in the ramifications of a conflict, emotionally. Well, if I'm getting "Jazzed" about "what if" isn't that emotional? Put another way, give me an example of a "sim" conflict. I propose that conflict as a sorta literary term refers to what interests the player. If it doesn't, then as you say it's the "inconsequential" wood-carving case. Which is "just exploration."

Which is (to put the positivist spin on it so that MJ doesn't object), the player ensuring that the exploration is interesting by not marring it by going back down the prongs to boardgaming, or storytelling. That is, the positivist puts the arch of the horseshoe at the top, and makes going up to the top an act of creativity instead of an act of pusilanimously backsliding down to the bottom as one might assume. (Of course MJ may now point out the usual, that by making this different from the other two that it still marginalizes the activity in some way).



Anyhow:

There are only 2 possible interpretations of this sentence.

a) that when a player has a decision to make, his agenda will be to ONLY consider the explorative "what if" factors...in which case this is absolutely a Not N, Not G definition...or

You can say the exact same thing about the other two modes. In fact, you can say this about anything. That is, if I positively say that something is X when that's known to be mutually exclusive from Y and Z, then saying it's X automatically means that I've said that it's not Y and Z. Hence, if I say that I'm prioritizing player challenge, I'm saying I'm not doing Sim or Nar. You don't leave me with a way out. Nor does your own definition work. Because in saying that a player is doing "what if" with the conflict, he can't be doing Gamism or Narrativism.

Can't be a criteria, or the whole model falls apart. That is, I agree that there should be a positivist angle to each description, but I've given one that's as good as the other two.

Mike

[Valamir]

First, in the Beeg Horseshoe, it's my point precisely that the bend of the shoe is Exploration. I say that about a jillion times in the big thread on that. I say that this correllates to Ron's definition of Simulationism as far as I can tell, if you have to put simulationism on the Beeg Horseshoe. But That's exactly why the model exists, so that I don't have to do that.

Thanks for clarifying that.  It certainly has seemed to me that you've been using the terms completely interchangeably.

But it's also the point of the Beeg Horseshoe that all CAs that I've actually seen in action (no matter how I'd like to theorize about "conflictless" play) have conflict. But it's also the point of Beeg Horseshoe, that this is either Gamism or Narrativism when it happens. What you seem to be proposing is a third "prong" to the horseshoe. Which is what I'd object to. [/qupte]

So given that:
we can agree that the bend in the horseshoe is exploration,
we can agree that all CAs involve conflict
we can agree that when conflict happens you move out of exploration and into the prongs.

What exactly is your objection to having 3 prongs instead of 2?

and if, as you note above, "that all CAs you've seen in action have conflict" what is your objection to defining CAs as being the player's response to that conflict?  That seems to be the distinguishing feature we've both hit on that differentiates a CA from exploration.

I'm finding it harder and harder to determine what it is you're actually disagreeing with.

Think about it this way. Ron says that narrativism, when it gets down to it, is being interested in the ramifications of a conflict, emotionally. Well, if I'm getting "Jazzed" about "what if" isn't that emotional?

No more than getting jazzed about step on up is emotional, and you agree that that's not narrativism.  


It seems to me that once we agree that it is conflict that moves us out of the base of exploration and into the prongs, then it must be the approach to that conflict that differentiates one prong from another.

That approach to conflict (or what I called "the player's response to conflict" in my essay) is Story Now for N-play.  Step-on-up for G-play.

Why is it difficult to imagine a third approach to conflict that is neither N, nor G, nor just Exploration alone?

Why is it difficult to imagine that this third approach to conflict does not involve the emotional mano-a-mano engagement of step on up, nor the emotional addressing of premise engagement of story now; but rather the more clinical fascination with "what happens" of Discovery.

Why is it difficult to imagine that what all three of these things have in common, what sets them apart as Agendas that go beyond basic exploration is the requirement of proactive engagement on the part of the player?

When a player is interested in the resolution of situation on a visceral step on up basis to the point that they view conflict as an opportunity to demonstrate their prowess and actively seek out such opportunities, that's Gamism.  When they aren't so interested, then its just the resolution of situation through system of basic exploration.

When a player is interested in the resolution of situation on an emotional thematic basis to the point that they view conflict as an opportunity to address premise and actively seek out opportunities for Story Now, that's Narrativism.  When they aren't so interested, then its just the resolution of situation through system of basic exploration.

When a player is interested in the resolution of situation as a commitment to furthering the experiment of "what if" to the point that they view conflict as an opportunity for Discovery to "see what happens" and actively seek out such opportunities for the purpose of setting them in motion that's Simulationism.  When they aren't actively pursueing opportunities to act as a catalyst to conflict and are just dealing with adversity as it comes up, that's just the resolution of situation through system of basic exploration.

You can say the exact same thing about the other two modes. In fact, you can say this about anything. That is, if I positively say that something is X when that's known to be mutually exclusive from Y and Z, then saying it's X automatically means that I've said that it's not Y and Z.

But that's not what's happening.

You can define gamism as Exploration plus something else without reference to N or S.
You can define narrativism as Exploration plus something else without reference to G or S.

Because both of them have actual meaningful definitions.  The fact that they are also mutually exclusive and can be defined as Not N, Not S; or Not G, not S is irrelevant, because they don't have to be defined that way.

Only S cannot currently be defined as Exploration plus something else.
Only S can only be defined with the Not N, Not G property of being the third element of the mutually exclusive triad.

My desire is to a) acknowledge that this definition is insufficient as it currently stands, b) avoid simply defining it out of existance by replacing it with Exploration at the base of the horseshoe and not leaving a prong for it as your approach seems to be, and c) come up with a valid "Exploration plus something else" definition for S.

[ErrathofKosh]

You say its not self referential, but in fact the entirety of the definition is self referential.  All roleplaying is built on a foundation of exploration.  All roleplaying must be committed to all of the elements of exploration.  Can you say that a sim player cares more about Setting than a Nar player?  Can you say that a Sim player cares more about Situation than a Gamist player?  Can you say that a Sim player cares more about Character, or Color or System?  No.  No you can't.  You can find examples where that is the case.  But you can find the same examples among Nar and Gamist players too.

If you can't say that a Sim player cares more about setting, character, situation, color, and system, then saying "Prioritizing Exploration" is utterly meaningless.  Exploration *IS* setting, character, situation, color, and, system.  There is no point at which a Sim player can "prioritize" any of these things to a greater degree than a Nar or Gam player.  Its a nonsensical statement.

I disagree.  What is Challenge?  What is Premise?  SITUATION.  Thus N and G players prioritize Situation. Sure, maybe they emphasize setting or character in their situation.  But it's still all about situation.  In S, situation is present, but it's not always the most important part of play.  In fact, one of the big reasons it occurs in Sim is to help the player explore character or setting or even the system.  The Dream includes situations, but it is not all situation.  Challenge is situation.  Premise is situation.


I think the mix up occurs between what is explored and what is being used as a tool to explore with.  Do N and G players use setting and character and system to explore their chosen situation?  Yes, they do.  Do they explore anything but situation?  No they don't.  Do S players explore setting via system, or character?  Often.  I haven't yet seen otherwise.
Cheers
Jonathan

[Marco]

I
Simulationism is prioritizing exploration.

That's not self-referential, not a rejection of N or G (if so, then the definitions of N and G have the same problem), and it's not vague in the least. It means that when the player has a decision to make his agenda will be to consider the explorative or "what if" value to come up with his decision. Not neccessarily "what if I attack?" but also "What if I go over the hill? What will the character encounter?" And not just in terms of the results, but in terms of it being a simulation. That is, he considers the validity of his inputs as well to make the whole seem objective. Meaning that the player will only have the character go over the hill if it seems like "what the charcter would do." Not retroactively as an explanation for any other motive, neccessarily, but as the primary motive. This is important, the mode indicates that the player is as interested in setting up the feel of objectivity as he is in the outcome. Again, it's not just that it's all internally causal, but that it seems as if the causality comes from the world, and not from the player (again, as always, "seems", because the causality does come from the player).

Emphasis added:
The player in the participationist game may make decisions specifically to help the story along rather than for what-if reasons. If this, indeed, is a distinguishing factor then we can let that out of Sim altogether.

Really, the difference will be seen when the player does "what his character would do" and the GM alters things to prevent it from happening or being effective and the player comes back into line. In practice, in functional play, the player will not keep banging his head into the wall. The player will cooperate with the GM as much as possible.

At this point the character may well do things for reasons other than "what I think he would do."

But looking deeper at the definition, I think my question becomes (and Ralph touches on this) "Why is the player focused on exploration and what, exactly is being explored?"

In participationism what exactly is being explored? As with the question of "where's the conflict when the player sets up and authors his own conflict?" I think the construct of of participationism lets out any real quality of 'exploration' of the five different elements. What you are exploring is (sort of) the 'story' (maybe the GM's story--but not necessiarily limited to one person's input).

The second question is why the Virtualists (or participationist) is exploring whatever they are exploring.

I think Ron says that's to celebrate it--but that doesn't feel like Virtuality play to me. I believe that Ralph is on the money when he says it has something to do with experiencing in-character challenges or drama as it would really happen in the fictional world.

The participationist does not want to explore these issues as they would really happen. The participationist only explores those issues or elements as they would make a good story.

As I'd said before I see this split as being no less fundamental than Gamism vs. Narrativism. If there's no way to show that the style-clash is less fundamental than the agenda-clash, why not make it a 4th prong?

If you say the two styles (virtuality and participationism) are the similar because in both cases the experience *seems* like one is in the world then I think what you are talking about is playing from Actor Stance which Vincent says he can play Narrativist comfortably from in the Stances thread (i.e. you can do that from any CA).

It doesn't look like a reasonable distinguishing factor to me.

Finally: Mike, you say this:

Think about it this way. Ron says that narrativism, when it gets down to it, is being interested in the ramifications of a conflict, emotionally. Well, if I'm getting "Jazzed" about "what if" isn't that emotional? Put another way, give me an example of a "sim" conflict. I propose that conflict as a sorta literary term refers to what interests the player. If it doesn't, then as you say it's the "inconsequential" wood-carving case. Which is "just exploration."

Emphasis added.

This is very interesting to me--I don't know where this is from but I don't see all the rest of Narrativism implied in here (after all, I can be emotionally involved in a conflict where the decisions are being made for me. I can be emotionally involved in a conflict and not have personal credit with my peers riding on how I address that conflict. I can be emotionally involved in a conflict and not be doing anything that I think would equate to Story Now ... I think).

But if we are going to try to rope that off for Nar play then, it seems, any GDS Simulationism (Virtuality) would become Narrativist play if the players are strongly emotionally involved and (as would logcially be the case) focused on the issue.

That seems a very strange conclusion.*

It also means that Simulationist play is either railroaded/Forceful or purely an intellectual exercise.

I've seen posts here to that effect but I've found them weak. I wouldn't think them widely accepted.

-Marco
* One could say that disads like GURPS Greed mechanically exercise Force that makes the play not Narrativist. That might be true for some play but not, I think, the vast majority of it since even if a character in GURPS is greedy and could be compelled to take some aciton, there's an infinite spectrum of moral issues the character may face that don't interact with those rules at all--and the GM certainly can't be employing Force in virtuality play in the manner of the examples I've seen here.

[Valamir]

I disagree.  What is Challenge?  What is Premise?  SITUATION.  Thus N and G players prioritize Situation. Sure, maybe they emphasize setting or character in their situation.  But it's still all about situation.  In S, situation is present, but it's not always the most important part of play.  In fact, one of the big reasons it occurs in Sim is to help the player explore character or setting or even the system.  The Dream includes situations, but it is not all situation.  Challenge is situation.  Premise is situation.

I think that's a basic synecdoche, Jonathan.  

You are certainly correct that there is ample evidence of Sim players dialing setting or character higher than situation or Nar players dialing situation higher than setting or character.

But I don't see that as definitional by any means.

One could find examples of Sim players dialing up Situation or Nar players dialing up setting.

In fact, it is almost always situation that is being Simulated in sim play.  One doesn't simulate being a noble knight.  One simulates being a noble knight doing something.  Doing something requires situation.  

Which dial happens to be cranked higher at the time I think is primarily a matter of personal preference although there is some influencing trends based on Agenda and also on the Techniques being employed (which may be being employed for no better reason then they are the only ones the group knows).

[ErrathofKosh]

Here's what I read from the glossary:

Challenge
The Situation, i.e., adversity or imposed risk to player-characters of any kind, in the context of Gamist play. It's the imaginative arena for the Creative Agenda of Step On Up. See the Gamble and the Crunch.

Premise (adapted from Egri)
A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe. In role-playing, "protagonist" typically indicates a character mainly controlled by one person. A defining feature of Story Now.

Explain to me how these do not transfer into in-game situation.  How can you have either Premise or Challenge without situation?  If there were no situation what would the G player have to surmount? What would the N player have to address?

In fact, it is almost always situation that is being Simulated in sim play. One doesn't simulate being a noble knight. One simulates being a noble knight doing something. Doing something requires situation.

True, but you're using the situations to explore being a knight in S, not playing a knight to overcome challenges or address human issues (exploring G or N agendas).  In S you use situation to explore, in N and G you use everything else to explore situation.

That's why I think the idea of defining CA's by conflict is flawed.  Sure, most of the time S is explored via conflict, but it doesn't have to be.  I could explore a setting via my character. (a la MJ)  In N and G, (some kind of) conflict is what's being explored.  In S conflict is only used as tool to reveal my character or the setting.

[Valamir]

Explain to me how these do not transfer into in-game situation.  How can you have either Premise or Challenge without situation?  If there were no situation what would the G player have to surmount? What would the N player have to address?

You can't have Premise or Challenge without Situation.  You also cannot have Sim without Situation.  All 5 elements are present in all Agenda.  They may have different priority rankings, and there may be trend or tendency for how to rank those elements in priority based on Agenda (which is what you're seeing), but that tendency is not definitional.

In S you use situation to explore, in N and G you use everything else to explore situation.

You are mistaking "often times it works like this" with "it always works like this"


You can use Character or Setting to explore Situation in Sim play.  I did this frequently with Pendragon.  The situation I wanted to explore was the tension between young knights (chivalry, romance, poetry) and old knights (battle proven, war veterans, learned in battle tactics rather than table manners).  The tools I used were the setting (there is a built in generational tension in Pendragon) and my character (an old knight) with the other players characters (sons of previous characters and thus young knights).  I wasn't exploring my character using situation.  My character was just a proxy for his generation.

That may not be as common as the direction you're referring to, but it is certainly easy enough to do and thus can't be a deciding factor in what's sim and what's Nar.

There may be trends and tendencies with how the elements of Exploration are prioritized, but personal preference and the needs of an individual game will far out weight those trends in actual play.

[ErrathofKosh]

No you can't have a CA without situation.  You must have all 5 elements.  I agree with that.And I'm not saying that that you can't explore situation in S or that you always have to use situation to explore in S.  


What I'm not convinced of:
That G and N can explore all the elements.  


I think they are concerned with primarily exploring situation, other explored elements are secondary or being used as tools of exploration.  
If you can give a good Premise about setting, I'd like to see it.  But, make sure it's exploring setting, not using setting to explore.

SO, if you want, you can say that I define two things by what they explore and throw everything else under a third category.  But I see similarity in that category, not discord.

Cheers
Jonathan