What does the Right to Dream require? (split)

[Eric Provost]

In The Basis for Criticism Ron wrote:

Story Now requires Premise, which is to say an imaginary situation which throws a real-world problematic issue up for judgmental grabs.

Step On Up requires Challenge, which is to say an imaginary situation which puts real-world strategy and guts on the line.

The Right to Dream requires, h'm, we need a term, how about "Focus?" Maybe "Topic"?

Bolds are mine.

If I understand GNS as well as I think I do, then I think a "model" is what The Right to Dream needs.  

If the game is to simulate a Star Wars universe, then you use Star Wars as a model.  If the game is to simulate daytime soap operas, then you use those soaps as the model.

-Eric

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

That's not bad at all. I hope we are all on the same page that the "model" doesn't actually have to be a set of stories in the sense of beloved characters. It can be about "hey, no one ever seems to use teleportation right in movies," or something like that.

Any aspect(s) of an imaginative-fiction can be the to-be-celebrated feature of the model (term still provisional, obviously).

Best,
Ron

[Eric Provost]

Yep,

I think we're completely on the same page.  I imagine the Model can be anything. Um... wait...

Any aspect(s) of an imaginative-fiction can be the to-be-celebrated feature of the model (term still provisional, obviously).

(bolds from me again)

If I'm reading this correctly, you say that the model would have to be pulled from a fictional source?  

The more I read that sentence, the less I understand it.  Could you clarify please?

-Eric

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

Bad phrasing on my part, from trying to say something that I, at least, have no standardized term for.

I do not mean from a specific fictional source. I do mean some frame of reference or set of material that all the participants can at least acknowledge and be communally enthused about.

- It could be a specific fictional source or combination of them

- It could be a bunch of stuff in the real world

- It could be both of the above in combination

- It could be any of the above as filtered/modified by one or more members of the group and presented to the other members

- Anything like the above that I didn't think of in time to type it

Does that help or make sense?

Best,
Ron

[Eric Provost]

Makes a lot of sense to me, Ron.

In fact, I've gotta say that listing the elements that each CA requires goes a long way for me in understanding the CAs themselves.

It's been a long, confusing road, but I think I may almost be up to speed with everyone else.

Thanks again,

-Eric

[Walt Freitag]

[Edit: wild ideas that might be topic hijack split to new thread.]

- Walt

[Eric Provost]

Hiya Walt,

I think we're only half a step from being on the same page.

Walt said:

Model: the source material, as per Ron's list

Ideal: the specific qualities of the source material that are used to validate player input

Ron said:

- It could be any of the above as filtered/modified by one or more members of the group and presented to the other members

- Anything like the above that I didn't think of in time to type it

I didn't mean to imply that the Model would be completely drawn from any particular source intact.  I don't think Ron did either.  I'd say that you're still using a Model when you use any piece of any material from any source, share it with your friends, and then make rules for how that bit of material 'works' in the game.

So, I really think that your definition of Ideal are very close to what I was thinking of when I said Model.

Hmmm...

I'm sitting here, pondering & formulating words, and it occurrs to me that 1)  I think we're on the same page for what Sim needs, and 2) Model isn't entirely the best word for it.  I think perhaps that somewhere between Ideal and Model is where it's at.  

The Model (the piece of the source that's implimented), mixed with the Ideal (how we view that piece of the source?) leaves us with what we require to sim.

*bake at 350 degrees for 15 min*

Okies... a thought came to mind... tell me if I'm wandering off or not;

If one were to be categorized as a Simulationist, then it could be said that one desires to use the game to recreate, create, or otherwise simulate some aspect or aspects of the source material (or materials).  If a game were to be deemed a Simulationist game, then it would incorporate rules that would provide an output that the designer believes will simulate the source.

Ok.  If that's right, then I believe this:

The Model IS the Ideal, the Ideal is the Model.  

Imagine with me, if you will.  The Model, as I see it, is not necessarily taken from the source directly.  It is closer to the lump of clay a car designer uses to create their body designs.  It's the sketch that the sculpter uses to guide their chisels.  The finished product almost never matches the Model completely.  But that's where the artist started.

As I think, I consider that Pattern or Blueprint might also be fitting words for what we're talking about.

-Eric

[Walt Freitag]

Sorry about the confusion, dear readers.

Eric is referring to the first post in this thread, which I originally posted above (the "[edited -- split to new thread]" post above) and then decided might be hijacking the topic.

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Well, it seems as if some self-moderation has demonstrated what a bitch moderating can be. Welcome to the pain, my friends.

Anyway! Positing that the poor reader has clicked on the other thread, and has now returned, I think that Walt has hit the nail on the head with his term "Ideal." That's what I've been after.

However, Walt, you've created a bit of a monster by forcing the term Model (or anything it referenced) to be focused on the source material. We were always talking about what you called the Ideal.

You see, I never wanted to get bogged down in the whole issue of source material. What matters is what the group wants to work with, which can be inspired by anything.

Marco, when you first asked, "But what is it?" (paraphrasing), my response to myself was, we'd have to look at the one-sheet or the conversation that served as the one-sheet. There's wherte we'd see the "input" which was to be confirmed via play.

So it doesn't really matter what inspired the input-into-play as long as everyone knows what it is and is enthused about it - and they want to confirm their enjoyment as the first priority, which is what makes the play Sim.

So I beg everyone, please let's not focus on the nature of the source of inspiration as the main feature of this "stuff" (model, topic, ideal, etc) that we're talking about.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

However, Walt, you've created a bit of a monster by forcing the term Model (or anything it referenced) to be focused on the source material. We were always talking about what you called the Ideal.

Oops. Simply poor reading comprehension on my part, I see. I thought the list of possible sources you offered described Models, but in its full context you were clearly stating that it describes things whose aspects can be incorporated in Models. So yeah, Model = Ideal.

Eric, your argument is spot on too, if we downplay the "Model is a piece of the source material" idea from early in your last post, and focus more on the more general case of Model being aspects of the source material, as you seem to come around to later in the same post. I intepret "piece" to mean a literal element such as a character or setting. (The Model/Ideal can include pieces of source material, but it doesn't necessarily have to; that's a matter of subdivision within the overall Sim domain.)

In any event, this looks to me like the beginning of the end of the long "What Is Sim?" road that we've been going down for about two years now. The Model/Ideal, or more specifically the attention paid to it, is the positive quality that makes play Sim. It's not the extra focus on Exploration per se that's key; it's the effort to realize (in all senses of that word) the Model/Ideal through Exploration.

(And it might have been right there in the Big Model all along, but even so, teasing it out is significant. In hindsight, Special Relativity was "right there" in Maxwell's Equations for many years.)

- Walt

[John Kim]

 You see, I never wanted to get bogged down in the whole issue of source material. What matters is what the group wants to work with, which can be inspired by anything.
...
So it doesn't really matter what inspired the input-into-play as long as everyone knows what it is and is enthused about it - and they want to confirm their enjoyment as the first priority, which is what makes the play Sim.  

In any event, this looks to me like the beginning of the end of the long "What Is Sim?" road that we've been going down for about two years now. The Model/Ideal, or more specifically the attention paid to it, is the positive quality that makes play Sim. It's not the extra focus on Exploration per se that's key; it's the effort to realize (in all senses of that word) the Model/Ideal through Exploration.

I hate to say it, but this just seems like passing on the issue.  Apparently the "Ideal" can be anything which the group knows and is enthused about.  To me, that's not any clearer than the previous issue.  

I think Ron's Star Trek example and Christopher Kubasik's genre-fiend group example gave an impression of clarity because there showed a more specific picture.  Genre-fiend-ism is a pretty well known and identifiable type to many gamers.  However, once you remove that and say "substitute anything in for genre", then the picture becomes far less clear.  I guess that one thing which remains is that the Ideal is apparently already known to the participants.  If that is true, then this is defining GNS Simulationism as effort to meet preconceptions -- presumably as opposed to dynamically finding new, unexpected stuff.  This matches up with the idea that pre-determined theme is part of GNS Simulationism, for example.  

Maybe that's totally not the picture that was intended, but if not, then I'm having trouble seeing what the remains after the generalizations.

[contracycle]

Previously I have proposed "thesis" as the Sim equivalent of premise.   That is, it seems to me that a Sim game contains the implicit claim that "this is an reasonable model of the world".  The thesis is essentially validated by acclaim, in it not being rejected by others as silly.

[Silmenume]

Hey Walt,

My gut feeling is that you are breathing all over answer, but aren’t quite there yet.  I don’t mean that as a criticism, but as a – “Hey we’re finally starting to get close!”

I like your idea of “Ideal.”  Much needs to be worked out as to what that means functionally, but it is an appealing notion.  It’s the first one put forward that feels right.  I know that feel isn’t rigorous or defensible, but it’s a start.

Which brings me to John’s objections.

Ideal isn’t just things, but includes qualities.  Sim isn’t just things in the setting, but also qualities about that setting.  Again setting just isn’t physical things, but the sentient beings’ social structures as well.  The two cannot be disentangled in Sim as each informs the other.

Now, as creating players are involved, it’s not just building and operating a clockwork machine, but as John Kim seemed to be alluding to (though I fully admit I maybe completely off the mark, so let me know please John) it’s about making more Dream.  Yes, input needs to be validated, and the yardstick by which input is measured against is the “Ideal”, but that yardstick/Ideal needs to grow and evolve too.  It’s not static.  The Dream is not static.  The Dream is an evolving growing identity.  But in order for the Dream to have an “identity” that means it must have norms.

Look at John Kim’s example of his James Bond game here.  The game he described wasn’t a slavish recreation of the books.  Certain easily identifiable and representative qualities that were present in the books were lifted while using the same basic setting elements.  They were all spies, philandering was common though not necessary; they all had their guns and drinks of choice.  Other qualities were up for grabs.  One agent was married and true to his relationship, while another was gay.  The Dream was not frozen, but has grown and evolved a bit via player input.  Just as play was in all likelihood not limited to just those physical settings that were established in the books, neither were the conventions or the qualities.  (Again I am guessing, John let me know if I am putting words in your mouth.)

There needs to be enough normative setting material and qualities to make the game space familiar, but Sim is not a regurgitation of those things.

The players need to be involved in Situations that reflect the “Ideal”.  Again using John’s James Bond game, I am assuming the players were faced with similar though not identical situations that James Bond faced in the books.  The qualities of the situations that 007 faced were distilled and transformed into new, but vaguely familiar difficulties.  The players in their decisions create new qualities that then add to the universe of the Dream.  The Dream again grows.  So Sim is both a validation and a creation process.

Just as in Nar where null or nullified player input results in nullified game output, just so in Sim.  Just as in Gam where null or nullified player input results in nullified game output, just so in Sim.  The “Ideal” setting elements create the arena where the “Ideal” situations can be created and player actions input validated and where finally the norm (the Ideal) is adjusted.

The key is defining what is meant by Ideal.

[Ron Edwards]

I'm with Jay on this one. John, I hope my Bond comments made sense on the other thread (we're seeing some parallelism).

To repeat them slightly, the way I'm seeing Sim goes like this:

1) arrive at input - the group has to reference something, and maybe put its own spin on it pre-play (or not)

2) play utilizes System, and you can betcha that, most of the time, the play-content will include things that didn't happen in the source material (if indeed this material is concrete enough to have things which happen; some does, some doesn't)

Via System, however, this new or different stuff becomes acceptably integrated into the existing knowledge

3) aesthetically speaking, the group is confirmed in its appreciation of the baseline knowledge/fandom

It's totally neither N or G. There is no thematic judgment constructed via play on the issues raised by the input material, if any - the judgment was already made in our choice to use it in the first place. Nor is there any distraction from the confirmation going on due to injections of affirming one's personal strategy and guts.

(Actually, both can be present, just not as priorities - my "none" and "nor" and "any" are too extreme, above)

Overall, I think this applies incredibly well both to "must ... do combat ... realistically!" play as well as to "god damn but Anne Rice is cool" play, as well as to a variety of others, most of which I hope I summarized in the Sim essay.

Jay, we're same-paging together, as far as I can tell.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Jay, I completely agree in all respects.

The Ideal is a standard for evaluating input, but it itself is subject to being pressured, made to grow or change, by the input. And it's not "some input conforms to the Ideal, and some input pressures it." The very same input can do both.

Example: Star Wars game. "My character is a droid Jedi."

(One can immediately imagine the conformity [wrong word, need a better one] with the Ideal being negotiated around the table. "Droids can't be Jedi, they don't have midochlorions." "Well midochlorions don't make any sense anyway, that was a script mistake that should have been edited out." "But Obi-Wan said the Force came from living things. Droid's aren't living." "Well clearly the Force can interact with non-living things, because you can telekinetically move non-living things." Etc.)

In any case, the dynamic-ness of the Ideal is important. It's the reason I was so hell-bent on separating the Ideal from the source material itself, when Eric's initial post (and not just my mis-reading of later ones) appeared to equate Model with the source material.

(Oh, and that word I was looking for, for describing the quality of input with respect to the Ideal, is "fitness." What's being examined or negotiated about input is its fitness with the Ideal. The Ideal is in turn largely a collection of ideas already deemed fit. Darwinian analogy to an organism within an environment already populated with other organisms. And a particularly fit proposition can change that environment.)

(And by the way, this appears very similar to the way the SIS itself is created via participant input. Perhaps similar enough to say that the Ideal is being "Explored?" Such "Exploration" being simultaneous and parallel, but meaningfully separate from, the Exploration of the SIS? Is that the second factor of "Exploration" in "Exploration squared?")

Pressuring the Ideal admits novelty, which is important in its own right. But it also confirms (highlights, celebrates) those "core" aspects of the Ideal that remain unchanged in the process. The gay double-0 agent confirms the ideal-element of praising risk-accepting opportunity-seizing real-man-hood while a (say) cowardly or prudish double-O agent would trash it.

I'm largely repeating what others have already said.

Marco's objection that this is passing on the issue deserves serious consideration. I can see one skeptical take on it already: "You can look at anything and decide you perceive an 'Ideal' in action if you look hard enough. So now you're going to be deciding on a vague a priori basis when you think an example looks like Simulationism, and then pulling an 'Ideal' out of your ass to prove it. [snark]Just like with Narrativism and Premise![/snark]"

So the question is, is all filtering or fitness-testing of input indicative of an underlying "Ideal" and indicative of (possibly secondary- or tertiary-priority) Simulationism? Can you ever have Gamist or Narrativism in which this kind of input confirmation is entirely absent? Actually, I can answer in the affirmative for that possibility in Gamism, remembering some "dungeons" of mine (and others I played in) that were pure challenge engines with no more discernment of input than a pinball machine design. (In fact, arguably my best of this type was a dungeon whose overall layout was designed to resemble a pinball machine. No giant steel balls rolling around, though.) Anyone who's ever encountered the Knights Who Say Ni or a Scrubble (a giant, insane Scrubbing Bubble -- yes, the kind on bathroom cleaner commercials -- that was included in one of the All The World's Monsters collections) on the way to confront a world-threatening evil warlock knows what I mean.

But in Narrativism, does any objection to any input (such as, say, Spongebob showing up in a Trollbabe adventure) imply some underlying Sim something-or-other somewhere? Or is there some basis other than unfitness with respect to an Ideal by which players can reject inappropriate input? My feeling, like Jay's, is that validating input with respect to an Ideal is not one of those things that is necessarily present in all play and therefore problematic for characterizing Simulationism specifically. But I can't prove it's not, at far as Narr is concerned, until I can say what the Narr players do about Spongebob.

- Walt