Musings on mechanics and The Dream

[Silmenume]

I wasn't quite sure where this fit in the whole mechanics threads scheme of things, so rather than botch someone else's efforts - I put this here.

If Drama as a resolution "mechanic" can be considered a pure and naked instance of the Lumpley Principle in action, which then tends to be not noticed at all, then I propose that the other resolution mechanic methods, Fortune and Karma function strongly as efforts to call attention a specific event.

In system does matter, what it really boils down to, is that the game designer first and then later the players later, are saying that these specific instances where we drag out the credibility negotiation mechanic (Fortune and/or Karma) are important to this game experience.

Think of every instance of non-Drama resolution mechanic employment as a bell being rung stating, "pay attention to this transaction!"  There is significance to this moment and we want to draw attention to it!

Thus a game designer faces the task of determining and institutionalizing which moments of game play he believes are important to the enjoyment of the players.  These decisions are not easy, obviously, for there are several balls that must be juggled.  Not the least of which is which Creative Agenda to support.  However, the form that this abstraction of the Lumpley Principle process takes is also vitally important.

Let me create an example –

We have two players, one the traditional DM and the other the traditional player.  The sequence of events up to this point has led to a pistol duel.

Both players call out at the same, "I draw down on you faster than you do!"  Obviously we have two competing statements vying for credibility.  The two look at each other blankly and can't decide which statement deserves to be entered into the SIS.  So the DM says, "I have an idea.  We'll each write a limerick.  Then well go outside and read them both to the first person we meet and whichever limerick the person says they like, the author will be granted credibility on their game statement."  This process is a resolution mechanic, and as unwieldy as it is, it can still work.  But why at first glance does it seem to not be a resolution mechanic?  Because the way the Lumpley Principle process has been dressed, the mechanic does not in any way seem to reflect what is being resolved, i.e. writing limericks and gun fights do not appear to be similar.

So how do we get around that?  By assigning the mechanic a label that sounds like it is related to gun fighting.  Maybe that mechanic might be called – "Gun Draw" or "Initiative."  But it's still the Lumpley Principle, but now it has a raiment that more closely reflects what is going on within the SIS.  This raiment is important, but not vital.  IOW the above process as goofy, as distracting as it is, it can be employed successfully as a method to distribute credibility.  This is an important point.  Limerick writing does not resemble gun fighting in any way, yet it can work.  This means that the resolution mechanic need not be representative of what is going on in the SIS.  So what is it doing if it can work?  Distributing credibility.  Mechanics do not represent anything.  The best that can be done for them is to dress them up in a way that makes it seem as if they are representative.

Why is making the mechanic (the dressed up Lumpley Principle) seem like the event that is occurring within the SIS important?  Because it helps keep us focused on what we are resolving while we are engaged in the process of resolving (distributing credibility).  This is why employing limerick writing and the hapless bystander as a method of determining resolution isn't going to fly with most players.  It takes us too far abroad from what we are trying to resolve.

Ok.  That was a silly example.  But it demonstrates the point that while we dress up the Lumpley Principle and call it a mechanic we forget that just because we dress up the mechanic in a certain way that that mechanic does not represent the actual statement being resolved.  The raiment may call to mind, but it is no substitute for, the statement itself.

That being said, mechanics cannot represent Step on Up, nor Story Now.  Both Step on Up and Story Now are intangibles that exist in the players minds.  One does not roll a 20 sided and say, "The dice indicate I am getting my Step on Up or Story Now."  The best the designer of mechanics can do is to hope to draw to the players' attention to this event right here that we call Challenge or Premise and get them to spend time and effort here.  It is what is being negotiated that may allow for the sense of Story Now or Step on Up to be felt.  The employment of a mechanic at this moment just says that this moment is important.  So why is it then acceptable to say that mechanics represent elements of The Dream?

As I understand, mechanics are shortcuts employed by the players to facilitate the distribution of credibility among the players making statements which are the expression of Step on Up or Story Now.  It's not the mechanics that make for those states of mind, but the players.

Part of the problem lies in that the phrase, "The Dream," is not defined.  Both Step on Up and Story Now are phrases that are openly understood to be human processes that are experienced by the players.  Step on Up isn't constructed by mechanics, its created by the statements of and experienced by the players.  Story Now isn't constructed by mechanics, its created by the statements of and experienced by the players.  The Dream as it is currently employed seems to conflate two distinct ideas – the experience of the Dream, and the efforts to accurately model the nonhuman external/physical.

Do the following statements make any sense?

"However, I am now looking at the common and well-known attempt to construct Step on Up using "system" composed of representations of its competitive bits"?

"However, I am now looking at the common and well-known attempt to construct Story Now using "system" composed of representations of its human issue bits"?

So why is the above formula applicable to Simulationism?

No matter how you dress up mechanics, they are nothing more, nor nothing less than pre-defined Lumpley Principle negotiations.  Mechanics don't make the experience (Step on Up, Story Now, the Dream), but they can color it.

[Paganini]

Jay,

Uh, yeah.

Except that I think the whole limmerick thing looks *exactly like* a resolution mechanic. It is one. It just doesn't try to masquerade as "representing the game world." I play a lot of games where this is the case, so it doesn't strike me as a big deal.

[Silmenume]

Hey Paganini,

You are correct.  The limerick is a resolution mechanic, and that was my point.  Resolution mechanics do not represent anything inherently.  Thus by extension mechanics do not the Dream make.

[Paganini]

Hey Paganini,

You are correct.  The limerick is a resolution mechanic, and that was my point.  Resolution mechanics do not represent anything inherently.  Thus by extension mechanics do not the Dream make.

Why?

I mean, I agree with your foundational points WRT the nature of mechanics, but, as far as I know, "the Dream" is not about representing anything, it's about causal relationships. Resolution mechanics are not necessary in order for causal relationships to exist, but they *are* useful for formalizing causal relationships.

[clehrich]

as far as I know, "the Dream" is not about representing anything, it's about causal relationships.

In a lot of Ron's formulations, the Sim focus on Dream is precisely about representing some established material, such as Star Trek or whatever.  The Dream isn't quite the same as SIS, though they are very similar and closely overlapping.  Causality is necessary within the SIS in order to ensure that what is represented is rendered in a fashion appropriate to the causality of the source material.  For example, causality in a Star Trek game includes the fact that an engineer can, by ranting incoherently about warp drives and flux modulators, produce significant changes and enhancements.  What I think Jay is saying is that mechanics support this representation, but are not themselves representative.

I don't happen to agree, but for reasons far too complicated and off-thread to get into here.

[Silmenume]

Causality is to the Dream as mechanics are to Step on Up or Story Now.  It constrains and limits and helps give shape to, but the employment of causality is not in and of itself the Dream any more than the employment of mechanics is Step on Up.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Jay, here's my take on it.

Causality is the Dream in motion. It's an inherent property of all roleplaying, but it is a prime element of the Dream. Causality is the dynamistic force within the Dream.

Once we get our set pieces all gathered together in our imaginations, what then? We have Klingons, Cpt. Kirk, a green space babe, and a dubious application of physics. These icons are only part of what we need to set the Dream in motion. We also need the specific nature of causality in Star Trek in order for these icons to interact in a manner that makes us feel like we're imagining the Star Trek universe.

So, I disagree that causality is to the Dream as mechanics are to Story Now and Step On Up. You can attempt to model causality with System, thereby giving motion to the Dream through the interactions of a game, but you can't remove causality itself without reducing the Dream to a snap shot. No action, no motion, just icons in freeze frame.

-Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi guys,

Jay, I suggest that The Dream is defined, and that our shared task is to find words among us, here, to understand what I've written about it so far. If such words have not as yet been discovered for (say) you, then I hope we can arrive at them. I would prefer to stick with that approach to the conversation and exhaust its potential (if it must fail) rather than begin with "the Dream is not defined." Do me, or rather the author of that essay at the time it was written, the favor of at least trying it this way first.

For example, Julie (jrs) recently suggested that the key term for her, in understanding what I mean by "the Dream," is a sensation of transportation. We were talking about opera and how her aesthetic "goal" in enjoying it is to be transported.

Chris, representation/emulation of an existing set of setting/story material is one way to enjoy The Dream, in terms of the touchpoint the group needs, or its goals of what to appreciate. As I've tried to express before, it is also possible to enjoy The Dream when the touchpoint is imaginary process rather than product (e.g. "how my so-very-realistic system really does combat right").

I also suggest that we consider a general point about discussing Creative Agenda and most especially Simulationist play. I think one of the biggest problems in the whole CA discussion thing, all these years, is that people not only want to see "their way" all laid out down to Techniques and Ephemera, but they also want its ineffable wonderfulness to be preserved in the definition or explanation. Again and again, people object that what I'm describing can't be what they do because the essay text doesn't feel like what happens during play, or it doesn't praise them as doing something awesome and good. I think this kind of "feeling rejected by Ron" sensation is pretty common, in fact.

So I'm asking that people look over some of the Sim points again, especially those in the essay, and put a big gold star on every single paragraph, with the star meaning AND HE LOOKED UPON IT AND FOUND IT GOOD. Also, if you fill in the Social Contract yourself, the Exploration priorities yourself, and then the Techniques/Ephemera combinations yourself, as befits your particular group ... then I think the essay makes a lot more sense in terms of the arrow which drives down through the levels.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

So how do we get around that? By assigning the mechanic a label that sounds like it is related to gun fighting. Maybe that mechanic might be called – "Gun Draw" or "Initiative." But it's still the Lumpley Principle, but now it has a raiment that more closely reflects what is going on within the SIS. This raiment is important, but not vital. IOW the above process as goofy, as distracting as it is, it can be employed successfully as a method to distribute credibility. This is an important point. Limerick writing does not resemble gun fighting in any way, yet it can work. This means that the resolution mechanic need not be representative of what is going on in the SIS. So what is it doing if it can work? Distributing credibility. Mechanics do not represent anything. The best that can be done for them is to dress them up in a way that makes it seem as if they are representative.

"All system can ever do is decide whose statement is credible" is a gross exaggeration of the Lumpley Principle. That notion has turned into a theoretical black hole that's swallowing up reasonable notions of how System acts and leaving vague everything-is-equivalent nothingness behind.

The problem, I believe, is that word "agree" in the definition of the Lumpley Principle. System is the means by which players "agree upon" events in the shared imagined space. A lot of commentary has been interpreting "agree" as meaning "resolve disagreements." But the existence of disagreements between participants is not implied, and System in the form of resolution mechanics can be in action whether there are disagreements between participants or not. What is being resolved is just as often uncertainty as it is disagreement.

In the real world, five people can get together and agree with each other that skateboarding off a greenhouse roof is a really cool idea. Then they try it, and end up with videotaped footage that gets included in "America's Stupidest Hospitalized People III." We live in a reality that sometimes confounds our expectations, even our shared expectations. We can agree to imagine a reality that does the same thing. We do that by ceding credibility to mechanical results.

So, when our gunfighters meet in a showdown, characterizing the players as asserting "I draw faster," "No I do," is only one possibility, and not the most likely one. What the players are more often asserting is "I don't know who draws faster," "Neither do I." So in that case we roll dice, why... to choose which player's uncertainty we give credibility to? No. To decide which character wins the bloody gunfight! That is, to decide not whose statement to give credibility to, but what statement to give credibility to.

This doesn't contradict the LP at all. Nothing in the LP says that we must reach agreement by first proposing contradictory possibilities and then deciding via System whose proposal to accept. It says only that System is however we reach agreement. That could be, and often is, by plugging situational variables into a mechanism, executing it, and reading off the results; e.g. "Nott was shot, and Shott was not."

This supports the Dream by giving the shared imagined space the same qualities of uncertainty about what's going to happen (including the possibility of feeling certain but being wrong, like stumbling over the chair in the dark along the path to the bathroom one thinks is clear) that reality has.

So, can mechanics represent elements of the Shared Imagined Space? Certainly they can, in any Creative Agenda. The number of hit points the monster has left has a lot more to do with how players imagine the monster (that is, what statements about the monster are potentially credible) than about who gets to credibly make statements about the monster (especially if that "who" is always invariably the GM alone -- in which case since "who" is not even an issue, the idea that all the mechanical aspects of playing the monster are about making that non-decision is absurd). Does the Master's Fear and Reason not have something to do with, um, the Master?

On the other hand, saying that mechanics "represent" any particular Creative Agenda itself is, I agree, dubious. But who's been saying they do? Wrenches don't "represent" fixing a car engine. No menu option in a word processor "represents" writing a grant application. The connection between mechanics and CA is "facilitates." (Or fails to do so, or impedes.)

- Walt

[clehrich]

Jay, I suggest that The Dream is defined....

May I point out that it isn't directly defined?

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda.

Right to Dream, the
Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority for role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play.

There is an implicit definition here, which is that the Dream is "the imagined events" with a heavy emphasis on causality, and that it doesn't have an agenda, and that it's like a daydream.  I think Jay's point is that this may not be a completely coherent definition; one thing that has already come up is that this definition looks a lot like SIS but isn't the same.

Chris, representation/emulation of an existing set of setting/story material is one way to enjoy The Dream, in terms of the touchpoint the group needs, or its goals of what to appreciate. As I've tried to express before, it is also possible to enjoy The Dream when the touchpoint is imaginary process rather than product (e.g. "how my so-very-realistic system really does combat right").

Yes, I do see that.  But I'm saying that a "combat done right" is itself a product that is to be generated here, and that it is based on representation of source material.  Unless everyone at the table has been in a lot of fights just like what's happening in-game, the representation must be based on various kinds of sources, fictional and otherwise, and a shared conception of the kind of causality that goes into it.  Otherwise you wouldn't have so many arguments about which combat system is the most "realistic": "reality" is itself a representation here.

[Ron Edwards]

Agreed on all counts, Chris.

Regarding the definition issue, I am not claiming that a textual definition exists which makes anyone reading it go, "Oh, yeah, that, I get it." I am suggesting that me-the-author of that essay had something in mind, and expressed it however well or badly he did. It would be nice to give him the credit of trying, among all of us (including me-now), to try to get at it.

This isn't intended to shut down this thread - far from it, I'd really like this thread to get somewhere.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Hey Ron,

I was a little startled by your last post.  I had never intended any disrespect to you and/or your efforts in your Sim essay.  I have issues with the subject matter, but I hoped never to promote the idea that I did not appreciate the efforts of you as the author.  If that is not readily apparent please let me know.  My interests are rooted strongly in the investigation of ideas, not in the slamming of the efforts of individuals.

Returning now to address the ideas that I wish to discuss...

Hey Walt,

Your description of the Lumpley Principle is certainly broader and more inclusive than what I had originally indicated in my first post.  As you had detailed, the LP is better described as a process of deciding what statement to give credibility to.  However, even allowing for that important correction, nothing about my assertions regarding resolution mechanics is obviated.  No matter how one dresses the resolution mechanics up, no matter how one abstracts the negotiation process, it still all boils down to all the players having to agree as to which statement to give credibility.  A resolution mechanic does not give credibility to an event, rather the resolution mechanic is given credibility by the players.  

The question to ask is not what is being rendered by the mechanics, but why a resolution mechanic is being employed at this moment in play.  In coherent Gam and Nar game designs that question is fairly easily answered.  This type of moment, which has been created by player actions/statements has been rendered into a resolution mechanic because it has been deemed relevant, in one way or another, to a conflict type (a forced decision) called Challenge or Premise.

You asked at the end of your post "who's been saying they do" represent a particular Creative Agenda.  I'll cite a few quotes –

Internal Cause is King...However, the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from System outcomes, in application.

Purist for System ...The only required priority is to enjoy the System in action.  (I'm not claiming here that the other four elements are irrelevant, though.)

High Concept...The process of prep-play-enjoy works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything along the way.

Historical note: BRP...Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design...
...The influence operated primarily through the popularity of both RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. Looking across the early versions of these games as well as Superworld, Questworld, and more, I think BRP is identifiable as a Purist for System design and publishing.

Rules-lite Story or Character priorities... Here's my point: in application, a covert System is heavily, heavily entrenched, regardless of whatever to-hit modifiers or dice rolls have been peeled away. ... It's not just High Concept though. It looks like it - the heavy emphasis on story/genre, with overt eschewing of System, but it's also (a) actually pretty heavy on Drama-driven or Karma-driven System and (b) emphasizes customizable Settings as in Purist for System play.

Q: Can Simulationist play be Vanilla?

A: Well, we don't say Vanilla and Pervy any more (too rude for some, apparently). Now we talk about Points-of-Contact being low or high for given portions of rules. But to lapse back into the old terminology, yes, it can. Dread is a veritable poster child for Vanilla Sim, which I would generalize to mean a High Concept Simulationist design with low Points-of-Contact and a high emphasis on Situation. Pervy Sim basically just ups the Points-of-Contact as well as the emphasis on Exploring anything regardless of topic, which pretty much describes any member of the Purist-for-System category.

There is Group II Simulationists, who are dedicated to increasingly complex rules systems that attempt to emulate every nuance of the world, in the hope that when the system is working perfectly the dream will flow without any interruption; it would seem to me that the sort of interruption feared here is that someone would not know what to do, and would make something up that didn't feel right, so the answer is to be certain that the system answers everything and no one is ever left floundering for an answer.

There is still at least Group III Simulationists, for whom mechanics are a tool for crafting the world and the characters, who aren't particularly worried about whether they "get in the way of the experience" because to some degree they are part of the experience--like being able to watch the puppet show from behind the curtain, and see how the puppets work.

Walt, in all the above, to borrow you analogy about the wrench, the clear implication is that wrenches do indeed mean that one is working on a car.  IOW mechanics in and of themselves do represent elements of or constitute the Dream directly.  I don't buy that.

In all of the above – never does anyone say anywhere what kinds or more importantly that the player are making any kinds of decisions at all or that said decisions are even important.  In fact it is stated in certain styles of play that real player input is all but irrelevant.  However, they all make constant, repeated reference to the employment of mechanics.  With regard to the employment of resolution mechanics, the question that should be asked is not what is being resolved, but why are these events being dragged front and center?  Resolution mechanics are just abstracted instances of negotiation.  Why are we negotiating this event or rather why have we introduced a "third party" into this particular negotiation instance?  What player action/decision is being mediated this way?  In Gam and Nar, in both essays it is clearly stated that it is the players actions/decisions that are important and that mechanics are there to facilitate the negotiation of such player action/decision making.  Not so in the Sim essays.  Sim as currently described is all about system employment – which I believe later came to be understood as mechanics.

In the Vanilla description of Sim we have a game where we hope the mechanics doesn't fuck up what the players are trying to do (whatever that might be).  Then we have Pervy Sim where the priority of the game is the employment of mechanics for their own pleasure.  Huh?  What about what the "actions/decisions" of the players?  In Gam/Nar mechanics mediate the negotiation process of the players intents as they are attempted to be placed into play.  In Sim all we hear about is the employment of mechanics (abstracted LP negotitians) but nothing about what the input the players are intending by their "actions/decisions".

Where are the players in all of this?  In both cases (vanilla/pervy) their interests are held hostage/beholden to mechanics.  But the employment of resolution mechanics begs the question of why are the inputs are the players trying to establish important here?

Apparently in Sim either resolution mechanics runs the risk of interfering with whatever the players are trying to do, or the employment of mechanics (the distribution of credibility) is the point of the game.  But in both cases the question is why are the players negotiating about these things in the first place?  What are they doing, what actions/decisions are they making, that they need to engage in negotiation?

In Gam the players are addressing Challenge.  In Nar the players are addressing Premise.  However, in Sim rather then ask what the players are addressing, I will first ask what it means to address.  Addressing, to me, means trying to make sense of what is going on in the SIS (Situation), then trying to implement a decision/action based upon the results of our analysis.  IOW - abduction and deduction.  We try and figure out what is going on, and then we try to implement a course of action based upon our analysis.  In Sim (as in Gam/Nar) we are always trying to make sense of the Situation.  The key is that conflict forces us into making a decision/action right now.

The difference between Gam/Nar and Sim is that in Sim conflict presents opportunities for failure.  In Gam the player is assumed to be in a state of losing until victory is achieved via making decisions/actions about specific types of conflicts.  A Gamist player can go through a whole game without a single instance of failure and still get his Step on Up.  In Nar the player faces specific types of conflicts so as to be able make decisions/actions that reflect issues about the human condition.  Success or failure are irrelevant to Story Now, just that an interesting decision is made.  In both cases its about empowering the player to make an attempt at success.

In Sim – it's about the establishment of and the absolute necessity of the failure of causality.  In Sim that can mean the player fails to understand causality correctly (abductive failure) or the player enacts an action specifically to cause causality to fail.  In either case the Dream is made richer.  In the first case a minor failure in causality drives the player to struggle harder to make sense of the situation (abduction) which he then tries to "prove" by deduction – taking actions that one thinks should result in certain predicted outcomes.  In the latter case the player is making a decision that breaks from a social norm – breaking social causality resulting in a more complex, richer set of social norms.  (This is the process of Character growth and the rewriting of social norms.)

In both cases causality needs to be strong and clearly established.  Mechanical resolution in Sim does not represent causality; rather mechanical resolution in Sim is rooted in causality.  One can have a game with virtually no codified mechanics resolution and still have a very rich Sim game.  Just like one can with either Gam/Nar.  Why?  Because mechanics are not the reason why the players make the decisions they do, they just help (or hinder) the process of CA expression.  

The Dream is built via the creation of more social norms/"rules of causality".  From the players perspective these "rules" or norms can only be built upon failure, but in order fo their to be failure the norms must first be made manifest and regular within the SIS.

Sim is not about proving that the system does work via the successful and repetative employment of mechanics (how the fictional world works – physical and social), rather it is about discovering that the system (how the fictional world works) doesn't always work and that new rules for the understanding the fictional world need to be created.  And/or it means the players create failures (specifically or otherwise at moments of conflict) within the system of how-the-world-works for the specific occasion of creating new rules of understanding of how the fictional world works.

Causality is up for negotiation in Sim!  The two questions facing the players in Sim are either, "has my understanding of causality been broken here? (IOW has causality been broken?)" or "should I break causality here?"  Either or both of which result in the creation of more rules of understanding/causality.

Walt – regarding non-resolution mechanics being representative of elements within the SIS I would argue that they too are abstractions and not truly representative.  But I'll save that for another post.

I'm done.

[Ron Edwards]

Gahh!

Jay - once and for all, put aside all concerns with disrespect. It is an obsession on your part and continually obstructs my attempts actually to have a dialogue with you.

I'm staying off this thread for a while. I'll come back later and see what's up.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Jay,

I've been mulling over your post for a day and a half now, but I'm sorry to say I'm still basically baffled by it. Completely. Beginning to end, point by point, sentence by sentence, nothing but failed comprehension rolls.

Perhaps we can work this out step by step somehow. To start with, I seem to be tripping over the words "represent" and "abstract(ion)" in several different places. The words apparently don't mean what I think they mean, because if they did, then a statement like "X can't represent Y because X is an abstraction" would be kind of like saying "X can't swim because X is a fish." That is to say, isn't representing things what abstractions do? Isn't that what makes them abstractions in the first place? What's wrong with saying that "has five hit points" represents a shared imagined characteristic of a monster? (Sure the players have to agree that's what it means, but so what? I've never seen players have any difficulty coming to that agreement, so why is it an issue?)

- Walt

[Silmenume]

Hey Walt,

Sorry about the confusion.

My thinking is thus.  

A representation tries to call to mind the object it is mimicking.

A line drawing of a fish calls to mind an actual fish.

An abstraction denotes a quality about an object and usually requires a fair amount of contextualization.

A number of 15 in the skill of swimming describes a quality about an object.  The number 15 is an abstraction of the quality of a persons' (object) swimming skill.

The quantification (15) does not exist in that object.  The 15 is an abstraction created in our heads so that we might quantify or otherwise make sense of a quality.  Quantification, the creation of an abstraction about an object, is something that exists in the head of the one making use of the abstraction, but it is not something inherent to the object.

15 is not part of the object.  The object does not possess an object called a "swim skill."  It just swims really fast and can stay underwater for long periods of time.

Did I do any better or have I just muddied the waters even more?