Risk in Sim play.

[Marco]

In a word... yes.

The group makes the statement (through action, not consciously) that we want our characters to develop in a certain way with certain goals in mind.  My character simply wants to defeat the Empire and any dark Jedi in the process.  (He's a Jedi.)  Another character wants revenge against the Imperials for killing his family...  Another just wants his life back.  (he's wanted by the Empire.)  But, the healer Jedi says, "I could give a hoot about fighting the Empire, and by in-game extension, finding the cloaking device, I want my character to become a very powerful healer."  
We say, "I can't believe she doesn't want to go after the cloaking device!"
She is not following the group consensus of "we want to go after the Empire!"

Cheers
Jonathan

So Sim play is defined by there being a group consensus about what the group does? That doesn't work for me. What about out-of-genre play and Sim play with groups where everyone does their own thing?

Sure, a group might decide to place emphasis on doing something together--but they might also assign social cred based on who brings the best munchies.

I don't see that as being CA-related at all.

-Marco

[Valamir]

Ralph if I get you right then a lot of good techniques for sim play are about diffusing or reducing the "bad dream" risk. Do you think there are conditions where sim players actively embrace that risk or at least somebody actively presents bad-dream risk to the players forcing them to deal with it?

I think there are probably occassions where sim players wear their willingness to risk a "bad dream" as a badge of merit...as evidence that they are the ones "playing correctly" if you will.  

You see some of this come out from time to time on threads like the one on RPG.net awhile back that said Narrativists were the new munchkins.  The idea being (confusing Narrativism with Director Stance of course) that player empowerment was just the new way munchkins found to juice up their characters and gain immunity.

I also think that what would be considered a "bad dream" will almost certainly be different for sim groups vs. more...Dramatist (for lack of a better word) groups.  

Do you have any thoughts on where the cut off point is? What decides the sim tolerance level for risk?

I imagine a whole ton of the GDS discussions focused on the line between these.  In otherwords a Dramatist is almost certainly more likely to call a session a "bad dream" than a Sim player because they have different standards of what the end result is supposed to look like.

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Interesting question.  I think I'll have to punt on this one for now.  When I was playing in what I'd today consider a Sim fashiony, I certainly didn't have the tools to frame what we were doing in this manner.  I'm not sure looking back through the years with the lens of nostalgia would provide any good answers.

Marco or John Kim might have a better notion being more currently involved in this play style.

I know you played a lot of L5R (I'm guessing that like us you mainly drifted it into Nar though) did you ever have experiences where the GM purposefully presented situations where a likely outcome just "wasn't right" for the L5R dream?

When I was playing L5R ('94-'96ish IIRC) we would have been pretty firmly in the Illusionist camp.  Our primary areas of interest was in exploring the differences between the clans as they fed into the broader story line of the GM (which I have no idea if it was canonical or not, as I soon lost interest in collecting the canonical splats so couldn't say)

In fact, I would say that in my experience L5R is really a World of Darkness variant.  Replace gothic sub culture with Nipponophilia sub culture.  Replace vampire houses with Samurai houses.  Replace wacky vampire blood powers with wacky samurai bad-ass powers.  But still the same overall early-90s sense of play style.  So not a good reference for me for this thread.

[Marco]

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Interesting question.  I think I'll have to punt on this one for now.  When I was playing in what I'd today consider a Sim fashiony, I certainly didn't have the tools to frame what we were doing in this manner.  I'm not sure looking back through the years with the lens of nostalgia would provide any good answers.

Marco or John Kim might have a better notion being more currently involved in this play style.

My experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

I mean, it could happen but it wouldn't be part of the game virtualist players would want to play.

I think in a participationist (dramatist?) game the threat would be to have a game where the players wanted a happy ending derail to tragedy.

It'd be same as the GM in a gamist game doing something to threaten the challenge or a Narrativist GM threatening to take away power to address premise, IMO.

I think.
-Marco

[Tony Irwin]

My experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

Thanks for replying Marco. Say if in the middle of your latest game in Actual Play you had said to Stephanie's player "Oh and there's a message on your answering machine. It's from Xeron Energetics, problems with funding, they need to speak to you about clawing back half the grant they sent you by mistake". You're presenting this player with the risk that its going to turn out to be a very different game from the one they're currently enjoying. Do they jolt up in their seat and say "Hell no! I'm gonna sort them out", and give another one of their great in-character speeches to the XE suit, or do they hiss in annoyance at this interruption to the fun they're having with their investigations?

I see that as risk to the dream. The player is loving it all so far because the game is exactly the kind of fun the player wants. Then you're saying "I'm making this happen and it may change everything you enjoy if you don't do something". Sometimes that's appreciated because it thrills and inspires great play, sometimes that ticks people off.

In sim play I have experienced that "Yikes! I'm gonna lose it all" sensation and loved it. Other times its annoyed me that the GM is messing about with my character, with my dream of how things should be. Any thoughts on what the cut off point might be?

[Tony Irwin]

Edit: Double posted

[ErrathofKosh]

In sim play I have experienced that "Yikes! I'm gonna lose it all" sensation and loved it. Other times its annoyed me that the GM is messing about with my character, with my dream of how things should be. Any thoughts on what the cut off point might be?

The cut off point is (in Sim) defined by what the dream is about.  This means that players will accept obstacles if they expect obstacles and they won't if they don't!  If know that taking down the Empire is difficult, I expect to run into speed bumps while attaining this goal.  OTOH, if I'm flying to the next planet, have done it a hundred times before, there'd better be a damn good reason I end up in a meteor shower! (It's been blown away...)

If the bump is there to help me explore then I accept it.  If it's there for any other reason, I resent it.

Cheers
Jonathan

Edited: to fix quote error...

[Tony Irwin]

The cut off point is (in Sim) defined by what the dream is about.  This means that players will accept obstacles if they expect obstacles and they won't if they don't!  If know that taking down the Empire is difficult, I expect to run into speed bumps while attaining this goal.  OTOH, if I'm flying to the next planet, have done it a hundred times before, there'd better be a damn good reason I end up in a meteor shower! (It's been blown away...)

If the bump is there to help me explore then I accept it.  If it's there for any other reason, I resent it.

Hey Jonathon, where do you see the risk in that - what is it that the player puts up as stakes that may be irretrievably lost? What is it specifically that the player stands to gain?

[ErrathofKosh]

My character...

If my character happens to die, I have lost.  I feel sorrow, I mourn him.  However, as long as he died 'in character' I don't look to the GM for an explanantion.  

A good example (in which the character doesn't really die):

Back in the old days of WEG Star Wars, a character could go over to the dark side fairly easily if he wasn't careful.  I created a character that tried to do the right thing, but he was eventually seduced by the dark side.  As a player, I did not want that.  However, I didn't feel cheated or dissatisfied.  After all, I had rolled...  However, I felt sad that my character was no longer good.  
Fortunately, I didn't lose him forever.  Eventually I had the chance to allow him to redeem himself and he returned to the light side.  However, even that experience wasn't without great cost and sacrifice.  He lost the woman he loved...

Cheers
Jonathan

[Marco]

My experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

Thanks for replying Marco. Say if in the middle of your latest game in Actual Play you had said to Stephanie's player "Oh and there's a message on your answering machine. It's from Xeron Energetics, problems with funding, they need to speak to you about clawing back half the grant they sent you by mistake". You're presenting this player with the risk that its going to turn out to be a very different game from the one they're currently enjoying. Do they jolt up in their seat and say "Hell no! I'm gonna sort them out", and give another one of their great in-character speeches to the XE suit, or do they hiss in annoyance at this interruption to the fun they're having with their investigations?

Well, I think it's always possible for one person's input to take the game in a direction someone else doesn't want it to go. After all: if Player X says to Player Y "let's go on a sea-voyage" player X might 'hiss in annoyance'--and really be annoyed if they'd been hanging out together as a team and hated to see it split up.

I see that as an in-game complication. In this case it might interfere with some player's Intellectual Properity (IP). The player created Xeron Inc. and specified that the character had a grant--if I had the whole thing be a mistake, I think it woulda caused problems ... threatening "the dream" wherein Stephanie had a grant that wasn't a mistake.

But I'd expect the reaction to be out-of-game at the "hey, that's not cool level."

If it's a legitimate non-IP threatening event in the game I'd say that falls under the "Revolting development" cagetory which, holes opening in the world and sucking it down definitely fell into. The players were neither bored nor turned off by the development so it was fully functional.

But I think a real "threat to the dream" in the sense you mean it is more an example of dysfunctional play cropping up.

-Marco

[timfire]

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Hmmm... I have to disagree with this idea. I agree with Marco that I can only see risking the Dream as being dysfunctional. I mean, risking the Dream would be equalivent to a Nar GM trying to block a player's ability to adress premise.  The ability to express CA in the desired fashion is vital to functional play.

The GM's job is always about providing opportunities for the players to express their CA in the desired fashion. In Gam, it's about setting up situations that provide challenge, so that the players can Step on Up. In Nar, it's about setting up situations that provide the players opportunities to address premise.

In Sim - if we are using Ralph's "experimental" definition - the GM's job would be to provide situations that allow tha players to run their "what if" experiments.

I'm tentatively agreeing with Ralph that I think risk in Sim is pushed down to the character level. But I need to mull over this thread some more.

[Tony Irwin]

I agree with Marco that I can only see risking the Dream as being dysfunctional. I mean, risking the Dream would be equalivent to a Nar GM trying to block a player's ability to adress premise.  The ability to express CA in the desired fashion is vital to functional play.

The GM's job is always about providing opportunities for the players to express their CA in the desired fashion. In Gam, it's about setting up situations that provide challenge, so that the players can Step on Up. In Nar, it's about setting up situations that provide the players opportunities to address premise.

Thanks for replying timfire, I really appreciate your input. One of the reasons that I started this thread was that I see the GM presenting risk to players both in Gamism and Narrativism. The GM offers challenge, but with it there's the tremendous risk that the situation will prove "You suck!". The GM offers opportunities to address premise but with it there's the risk that "Your answers to the big questions aren't relevant here". Players can commit to an agenda, but I think risk pushes them to commit more and more.

If you see things that way, then my question is do you see the same thing present in sim play? Can the GM provide situations that say "Tell us your dream, make it happen", but in order to make the player commit more and more to that agenda, the GM ensures that the situation is loaded with risk, the risk being "Your dream will be left behind".

I've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

* A lot of my Universalis play has, I think, been Setting Creating sim followed by blasts of High Concept sim (once the setting is all fleshed out and ready to play in).

[Tony Irwin]

Well, I think it's always possible for one person's input to take the game in a direction someone else doesn't want it to go. After all: if Player X says to Player Y "let's go on a sea-voyage" player X might 'hiss in annoyance'--and really be annoyed if they'd been hanging out together as a team and hated to see it split up.

... But I think a real "threat to the dream" in the sense you mean it is more an example of dysfunctional play cropping up.

Thanks for responding Marco. Say then that Player X's "dream" for the SIS is simply that "It's a place with lots of pirate colour where I can enjoy fun adventures with my buddies". That was my dream during a lot of Seventh Sea play, and it gelled with everyone else at the table. I'm going to resent actions by anyone that could detract from the pirate colour, adventures I consider fun, or the teamwork and camaraderie I'm enjoying with my friends. I want to protect these things, I agree that someone joining the group with different priorities could lead to some miserably disfunctional play.

Is there ever a time when I'm willing to accept a threat to the fun I'm having? I think there is if taking on board that risk could yield more of what I want. I'll accept the threat of our adventures coming to an end if by doing so I can work towards having more and better adventures. I'll accept the risk of my dream being left behind provided the possible pay out is that the game resembles my dream even more closely.

With the example about the funding I guess a "please don't touch that!" response could be seen as risk with insufficient pay off. "I need that to make my dream work - to have a place where grad students can spend all day inventing and investigating weirdness." A successful outcome (preserving the grant) won't actually produce more inventing and investigating, so its too much risk for too little pay out.

Getting sucked down holes has big risk - "All that fun you're having, it could be about to end permamently" but there's a brilliant pay off - much more weirdness to investigate! The players take the risk on board, appreciate and are energised by the risk, because there's a chance for them to see more of their dream in play. The SIS is still a place where grad students investigate weirdness, only now much more so.

Do you think threats to the dream (or perhaps "the dream at risk") in this way can be part of functional play? Providing the same edge to play that bangs do for narrativist and challenge does for gamist?

Tony

[Marco]

Tony,

I think that by equating in-game risk to player risk you may have a point. I've noted that *terminal conditions* have a strong effect on my play. If I think something will either explicitly (death) or effectively (jail) end the game then I'm far more concerned by it than something with less severe consequences.

In other words, I interpert some of in-game risk as player-risk (I expect that's true for everyone to some degree--gamist, I expect, would certianly react more strongly to a deadly threat that could end the fun than to a less severe form of risk).

But also: when I'm immersed I play my character as I see my character--and that's usually 'to win'--I have a hard time setting up a dramatically pleasing loss when role-playing because even though I as a player might enjoy seeing that play out, if I maneuver my character to lose in a way that I feel breaks plausibility it hurts my enjoyment.

Thus, as we saw, the players took the holes in the world very seriously (even though, had they fallen down them it would not have ended the game)--and most of the drama was with dealing with the situation (examining the holes for the scientist and interacting with authority figures for the artist).

So, yeah, tentatively, while I don't see "revolting developments" as "threats-to-the-dream" per-se (after all, no one was "enjoying" just 'being'--as Ralph pointed out there needed to be some conflict in their lives as the engine to drive play)--I think that I'll agree that in-game risk is assumed as player risk for much of my play.

What it isn't, especially, is social risk, I don't think. Certainly there are some social ramifications for not playing well with others. And there is even, I'd say, social pressure for players and the GM to present a consistent "realistic" (what-if) portrayal of character and situation.

Maybe the social cred is gained by adding versimilitude to the simulation? I'm not sure.

-Marco

[timfire]

Tony,

I think you're getting hung up on trying to make direct connections between the 3 CA's. Something that may seem counter-intuitive at first is the fact that the 3 CA's all function a little differently. Sim especially is different from the other two.

There's "risk" in all 3 CA's, but because the 3 CA's prioritize different things, what risk is and what risk looks like is different for each CA.

Gam is the only CA where players are overtly competing with each other. Players are overtly vying for social esteem by proving they have more guts than everyone else. Because of that, it's the only CA where players risk tangible loss. I mean, you can't Step on Up without risking something, 'cause its all about guts.

In Nar its all about creating theme through addressing Premise. In a sense, Nar play forces players to take a stand on moral issues. That takes some guts, but I don't believe that Nar players are really "risking" something in the same way that they do in Gam play. (If Nar players are unwilling to take a stand on issues, they would probably be looked down on by the other players, but its not a situation where they have to prove themselves like in Gam play.)

Risk in Sim play... well, that's obviously what we're trying to discuss in this thread.

I've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

Maybe you didn't intend it to be that way, but Dude, that's such a Gamist attitude! "Show us... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" That's pretty much a straight-up challenge to show your guts!

I've found this discussion to be very interesting, but I have to wonder, Tony, if you're asking this because you're a Gamist at heart, and its coloring your ideas. (There's nothing wrong with that, just something to be aware of.)

[Tony Irwin]

Gam is the only CA where players are overtly competing with each other. Players are overtly vying for social esteem by proving they have more guts than everyone else. Because of that, it's the only CA where players risk tangible loss. I mean, you can't Step on Up without risking something, 'cause its all about guts.

In Nar its all about creating theme through addressing Premise. In a sense, Nar play forces players to take a stand on moral issues. That takes some guts, but I don't believe that Nar players are really "risking" something in the same way that they do in Gam play. (If Nar players are unwilling to take a stand on issues, they would probably be looked down on by the other players, but its not a situation where they have to prove themselves like in Gam play.)

Hey Timothy, I think for Nar the comparative risk is that the player will be unable to make the thematic statements they desire. Your TROS character dies a meaningless death, you get the wrong epilogue for your MLWM minion, everyone challenges away your idea in Universalis. These are tangible losses to nar players, just as tangible as peer esteem to the gamist. You've been asked "What matters?" and you've been unable to use the SIS to say "This matters". For the narrativist I think that's The Loss, and great GMs threaten the players with it at every step. It's exhausting, demanding, yet exhilerating. That's my understanding of Bangs, the GM is effectively yelling "What matters? Quick! Right now! What matters?!" The players face the risk that "Despite all the investment* I have made in trying to make this thematic statement, I may never get to see it in the SIS".

Do you see it that way? That risk is a driving force in Narrativism just as it is in Gamism? "Despite all your efforts* - you suck!" is cousin to "Despite all your efforts - it still doesn't matter!". I confess I took it for granted that Nar worked that way before jumping ahead into looking for a third cousin in Sim.

*By investment and efforts I guess I really mean G/N agenda driven exploration. Apprehending, manipulating, and enjoying setting, character, colour, situation, and system for the sake of creating theme, or proving guts and smarts.

I've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

Maybe you didn't intend it to be that way, but Dude, that's such a Gamist attitude! "Show us... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" That's pretty much a straight-up challenge to show your guts!

Hey Timothy, I really don't think that's gamist. Yeah, its intense and demanding but I think that's what makes great games. I think it's a demand to "Show us what matters" which is different from "Show us how good you are". If you've been invited to play Sorceror, then someone is inviting you to the table show them what matters. Just as a D&D3E group is extending an invite to you to come show what you're capable of.

By taking on levels of risk you're saying "This matters more" with the Nar group. When the gamist group ups the risk they're saying "We're more good than we've previously proved"

Do you see it that way?

-------------------------------
edit: Wanted to add that those kinds of demands are also intensely personal They're asking you to make your own unique print on the SIS while everyone else watches. Either a print of "This matters" or "I rock". The risk is that your print won't come through clear (or at all). By accepting that risk you're showing just how much it really matters, or just how much I really rock.