Ramblings on the role of Mechanics in CA's (fishing)

[clehrich]

....I do think mechanics manipulation/employment is the primary tool by which the Gamist CA is expressed.  This particular tool happens to be very much subservient to the player's efforts.

....In Narrativism mechanics are employed so as to maximize the moments where the players get to make those important and difficult decisions....

Okay, I think I get this part.

The problem is that Sim does not empower the players to "use" mechanics to pursue its CA.  Nor do I think it is possible for mechanics to directly engage in the Sim CA.  ....  Sim on the other hand creates not a thing, but many things – social/behavioral norms/rules.  There is no bound to the number of social/behavioral norms/rules.  .... In Sim there is no inherent boundary to the creation and revision of social/behavioral norms/rules that facilitates the process of Dream creation.  The Dream is inherently unbounded; though the players may choose anytime to stop there is nothing in the SIS social/behavioral norms/rules creation process that would dictate that end.

I get the part about boundaries, but I'm not sure I'm getting this bit about empowerment.  On the former, you're saying (I think) that the process of constructing complex self-referential systems of intertwined meaning is its own end, and thus it has no fixed end-point.  There is no "arc" to this, no formulation of winners/losers or resolution or whatever; it just is what it is and the more you do it the richer it gets.  Something like that?  I'll get back to the empowerment in a second; something you say farther down seems to fit that for me.

To get back to my point that mechanics are not directly involved in the creation revision of social/behavioral norms/rules; I say this because such norms are governed by the dynamic social/behavioral norms which evolve and are effected by such decisions during game play and are not static like published mechanics or physics mechanics.

So there are basically two different sorts of structures at work here.  On the one hand, there are the game-mechanics, which dictate things like physics.  On the other hand, there are those which we develop and formulate through play, the intersecting meanings of the bits and pieces we cobble together to make the Dream live.  And the former are fixed and static, while the latter are utterly flexible.  Yes?

In Sim, all player decisions are essentially behavioral decisions – we are laying down norms/rules of behavior.  Any social/behavioral based mechanic that determines which/whether behavior is displayed by a player character essentially negates that very input.  ... [example about the suave guy who fails] ....

I don't really get this one.  I thought that the norms & rules were things that happened in the SIS through the constructed intersections of objects of the game-world, constrained by mechanics but still infinitely open.  Now they're player structures?  I don't quite see how this one works.  And if these are norms, then does that mean I have to do the same thing next time?  Is this fidelity to character or something?

.... In Gam and Nar, the "design" of the mechanics does "constrain" initially, but the employment of them actually empowers the players.  In Sim mechanics employment does not empower the players to establish or negotiate social/behavioral norms and at worst constrains, dilutes or otherwise corrupts this very Sim CA action as the norms are expressed and not stated.  As everything that a player does in the SIS is part of the social/behavioral process any mechanic other than the physics of the world unduly alters that process.  The best thing that mechanics can do is get out of the way.  But not completely, and that is one of the many paradoxes in Sim.  If we do get rid of mechanics completely then we are directly in the realm of myth and are no longer Exploring.

No, wait, hang on.  I don't want to derail this thread into the other very long one I'm in now, but there are mechanics in myth too.  You can't just do anything -- it's not freeforming.  But I'll get back to this in a second, since I think I see where you're going.

I don't think that mechanics can directly channel the manipulation and deployment of social structures within the SIS – at least not in a way that is consistent with Sim.  That is the conundrum that I was wrestling with.  Game designs typically deal with manipulation processes, and Sim is not amenable to such processes.  Like you mentioned in your thread On RPGs and Text [LONG], Sim starts with things and moves towards structures.  Except I believe that Sim frequently starts with some social structures already in place via source material (the code of the Jedi, the beliefs of the Dunedain, etc.).  The key here is I don't think those social structures can really be codified in mechanics per se, though they may be presented "in text" as background material or ethnographic "information."  It is just these social/behavioral norm/rules that I believe are being celebrated in Sim and if that is truly the case then there is one hell of problem for the designer.

Yeah, see, this is where I think you're going to chase your tail.  You're setting yourself up two different categories of structure, when there are clearly several more that have to be present.

[*]Physics structures -- these tell us the bounds of physical/natural possibility within the game-world
[*]World-cultural structures -- bad term, but I mean the stuff that says that people from Borogravniorgia generally behave like this when they see that
[*]Player-social structures -- another bad term, but these are the rules of play as play, the things that say you should talk in character or bring your own dice or pretend you haven't read the Monster Manual when you have
[*]Historical structures -- this is what you actually want to produce, the structures of how the game-world "really works" that come about from long experience of the intersection of all these other sorts of structure combined with lots of bits of "stuff" ground through the gears[/list:u]I think that all of this could in principle be compiled and written down in the game books, except for the last.  What you're saying, I think, is that if you try to write down the latter sort of structures, you're in a hell of a lot of trouble, analogous to what happens if you say "Here's the Premise, and here's what the answer is, now go discover that" in Nar.  Right?

Actually I am coming to the belief that there is no direct way to express Sim – which automatically precludes mechanics as a means of Sim expression.  This is not to say that mechanics are not necessary.  Not at all.  If I recall properly, you indicated that the myths of the mythic cultures are first and foremost based upon/informed by the physical world around those creating them.  The same works for Sim.  The "point" of mechanics is to function as that physical fictional world.  Ideally "everything" that a player commits to the SIS is filtered through the physics of the fictional/SIS world.  Practically that is not possible nor is it really desirable or strictly necessary as long as norms are more or less adhered to.  However, the physics/mechanics should be fairly "alienated" from the players for the express reason of making the physics non-negotiable.

See, I think you're making a classic mistake of Sim gamers in general.  That's good, though -- you're a firsthand witness to how this really works and can check my arithmetic, as it were.  There is this weird notion out there that somehow the "real" structures are physics and nature.  I think that's totally historical and cultural, having to do with the origins of such games in both wargames and also the longstanding correlation of gamer culture with computer/science "geek" culture.  Social mechanics and structures tend to drop out of the equation as though they don't work that way.  But you see, they do work that way, because actually nature does not work by these sorts of mechanics.  Nature doesn't actually give a rat's ass what happens to you -- what happens to you doesn't mean a damn thing from a cosmic perspective.  But we, as human beings, don't like that, so we construct nature as having rules of a higher sort.  Now in these various mechanics systems I see all sorts of desperate attempts to convince ourselves that this is "only the physics," there's no value judgments or anything built in, but it ain't so.  And I see a followup to that in the desire not to mechanize certain kinds of social interactions -- except that in fact, these rules-sets mechanize all sorts of social things, like morale in wartime and mass psychology and whatnot.  

Where you are dead right is in saying that some part of this equation has to be alienated: there has to be something against which to check whether your constructions make any kind of sense.  In myth, that's nature more or less as it appears to be, so we can't have eagles be phenomenal swimmers who eat ants.  I think that the physics mechanics substitute for that to some degree, but that actually a lot of the other mechanics do too.

Where I think you're wrong is in saying that things like social mechanics cannot necessarily be inflexible.  Why not?  The only thing that cannot be inflexible is the rules of engagement, how the players manipulate this vast system.  Everything else could certainly be predetermined.  In myth, in fact, these things usually are predetermined: you cannot conclude through myth that incest is OK, because that's as false a conclusion as that eagles swim in the deep sea and eat ants.  Both are simply untrue, and in the same way.  That's the point: you're claiming that the cultural law (no incest) is equivalent to natural law.  You see?

Basically the way I'm reading this, it seems like the point of mechanics in Sim is to construct fixed structures to which more or less everything can preliminarily be attached.  So when we see a big green guy with an axe, we may not yet be able to slot him into a really large system of meaning, but we have at least a working premise to go from, in the same way as we know that cars don't fly and that cows go "moo."  These things are equivalent to natural law, and if they are violated we expect to find a mystery, a way to prove that actually these laws weren't violated, because actually it wasn't a cow or whatever.  And you need a basic system like this in place or you have no "nature" as a baseline.  What I think is very striking is that there doesn't seem to be a "culture" to balance that out in the normal thinking of Sim.  What substitutes for it?  Because it's the dialectical relationship between the two, the constant creative tension, that prompts myth to get cracking and do something.  That's a tangent, but this thread is starting to explain to me a whole lot about Sim mechanics that I've been struggling with on the other thread without a lot of success.

We'll get back to feedback and stuff some other time; it's a tangent and off-thread.  Sorry about that.

[Silmenume]

Hey Chris,

On the former, you're saying (I think) that the process of constructing complex self-referential systems of intertwined meaning is its own end, and thus it has no fixed end-point.  There is no "arc" to this, no formulation of winners/losers or resolution or whatever; it just is what it is and the more you do it the richer it gets.  Something like that?

In a word, yes.

I thought that the norms & rules were things that happened in the SIS through the constructed intersections of objects of the game-world, constrained by mechanics but still infinitely open.  Now they're player structures?  I don't quite see how this one works.

The underlined part is in line with my thinking.  Let me expand a bit.  "...[T]he norms & rules were things that happened in the SIS through the constructed intersections of objects of the game-world" which are set into motion by player action, "constrained by mechanics..."  There would be no intersections of objects of the game-world without player action.  I see that I chose my original phrase poorly.  When I said "player structures" I was hoping to convey the idea that these structures (norms and rules) were both the objective and eventual result of the players actions, not such things as printed rules sets and preproduced "background material" which might cover such topics as governments and cultures.  Although this phrase falls short of the mark as well, I posit this in its stead as a pointer to the idea which I am flailing to get at – "player created structures."  But even this isn't entirely correct because the player efforts do not directly create things because their inputs are filtered through a layer of mechanics.  Thus these "structures" (norms and rules) are not truly, directly "constructed" by the players.  This has relevance to the "Historical structures" you mentioned and I will deal with that more later.  (I have sweated over this part of my response for a few days, and I know that I have failed to make myself any clearer.  Please feel free to ask pointed questions.)

And if these are norms, then does that mean I have to do the same thing next time?  Is this fidelity to character or something?

Does one have to do the same thing next time?  No.  A player does not have to do anything.  However if a player is trying to portray himself as brave, then he is going to have to respond to dangerous or threatening situations in a brave fashion often enough that others can read this pattern of behavior (read – rule of behavior) and ascribe it to him.  This is what I meant by norms.  But does the player have to play his character as brave?  Only if he wishes to be regarded as such.  Does this mean a player must always play brave?  No.  Characters, like people, are not immutable.  The idea is that the quality is expressed through repeated action and possibly over time becomes identified as a character norm.  However, as the character is also part of a larger social unit, his actions will or should reflect his "culture" as well.  Thus a player has the opportunity to play off, support, illuminate, contrast, etc. the character's culture (which carries its own rules of behavior, social mores, values, taboo's, etc.) in the process.  To draw on a previous example of Doc Holliday, he can be described as an excellent shot only because we have established through long play that he is indeed an excellent marksman.  That is a behavioral norm that a player actively cultivated for his character by consistent action.  Was the player ever forced to be a good shot?  No.  He chose to develop that aspect of the character.  Also, if the consequences of Doc's duels result in the people of the surrounding culture lionizing him for his skill with the gun and the killing of many men is such duels, then that "says" something (establishes a "rule/norm" of behavior) about the culture he is operating in as well.  (The "consequences" part is typically the DM's role – there is much to say about this, but I do not want to continue along that line here.)

Yeah, see, this is where I think you're going to chase your tail.  You're setting yourself up two different categories of structure, when there are clearly several more that have to be present.

[*]Physics structures -- these tell us the bounds of physical/natural possibility within the game-world
[*]World-cultural structures -- bad term, but I mean the stuff that says that people from Borogravniorgia generally behave like this when they see that
[*]Player-social structures -- another bad term, but these are the rules of play as play, the things that say you should talk in character or bring your own dice or pretend you haven't read the Monster Manual when you have
[*]Historical structures -- this is what you actually want to produce, the structures of how the game-world "really works" that come about from long experience of the intersection of all these other sorts of structure combined with lots of bits of "stuff" ground through the gears[/list:u]I think that all of this could in principle be compiled and written down in the game books, except for the last.

You are correct about the number of different categories of structure, I hadn't thought past the SIS itself and those design efforts engineered to manipulate it directly.  Those darn blinders of mine!

However I do wish to bring up a notion that I should clarify on my part just to make sure we are on the same page.  By mechanics I refer to the definition of System offered in the Provisional Glossary – "The means by which imaginary events are established during play, including character creation, resolution of imaginary events, reward procedures, and more. It may be considered to introduce fictional time into the Shared Imagined Space."  So while you are correct in that the first three items on the bulleted list can be compiled and written down, I do not think the compilation of those "structures" is rightly referred to as mechanics.  By Sim mechanics I mean the formalization of the "means(/process)" of the creation of the "Historical structures."  IOW you don't roll a twenty sided to create or are empowered by such an action to create a structure/norm (or Code as you employed it in your post in On RPG's and Text [Long].  The Code is a by-product of play whereas the Text is the direct result of play.

I'd like to refer back just a little on a section I skipped over earlier as it now relates to what I am driving at.  When I used the term "social structures" I was speaking of those structures within the game world that are the manifestations of what you provisionally termed "World-culture structures."  These structures are subject to change over time via the actions of the players.  I do not believe they are without "mass" or "inertia" and thus utterly changeable, but they are open to slow evolution and alteration.  These "social structures" can be entirely in the form of a meme and without physical form or fairly physical and can be seen in such things as governments with buildings and legislatures with legislators or kings with castles and armies and what not.  These "World-culture structures," I do not believe, are static and therefore should not be ossified within a fixed mechanics system.  These "World-culture structures" may be, and in my game at least, are some of the very things that we are attempting to build via character play.  This is both the celebration of the "World-culture structures" and our input to them through the course of play.  The players are going to (ought to) have an impact on the world, and it ain't gonna be on the laws of physics (physics structures)!

What you're saying, I think, is that if you try to write down the latter sort of structures, you're in a hell of a lot of trouble, analogous to what happens if you say "Here's the Premise, and here's what the answer is, now go discover that" in Nar.  Right?

Yes, exactly.  However, if you freeze the social structures (World-cultural structures) in the world by locking them into mechanics then you severely limit the impact the players have on the world.

See, I think you're making a classic mistake of Sim gamers in general. That's good, though -- you're a firsthand witness to how this really works and can check my arithmetic, as it were. There is this weird notion out there that somehow the "real" structures are physics and nature.

Actually I see Sim game play being primarily focused on the "World-cultural structures".  I may be short sighted in this, but this is where I think the players' actions are going to be felt.  In fact I believe it is the only place where the players' actions, via their characters, have an impact when dealing with the idea of structures within the SIS.  The way I have been employing the phrase social rules/norms is essentially synonymous with "World-cultural structures" – though in the wider sense (from personal to national) that I had proposed.  Am I making any sense?

Where I think you're wrong is in saying that things like social mechanics cannot necessarily be inflexible. Why not?

Well, I make assertion, which may very well be a misunderstanding, based upon my game experiences and this post in your thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!]

Structures are handed to us, most obviously in everything from social agreements to rules systems to setting to whatever. We permit ourselves only a limited range of movement. At the same time, every manipulation of any structure within that system necessarily changes its meaning, however slightly...

My understanding of this would be such.  I am playing a Ranger of Ithilien.  Every time I act in the capacity of a Ranger of Ithilien, I am adding to the body of the structure of "Ranger of Ithilien".  I am altering, however slight, what it means to be a Ranger of Ithilien.  Every sacrifice I make, every judgment I make, every law I enforce or not enforce says something about what it means to be a "Ranger of Ithilien."  Rangers are supposed to law abiding, however there should be no mechanic that forbids me from acting in a manner contrary to that structure called "Ranger of Ithilien."  There must be consequences to my actions, but no prior mechanics based constraints outside of physics itself the should limit what I can and cannot do.  That is what I mean when "social mechanics" should not be inflexible.  It is just these very social structures which are being built upon, expanded, altered, etc., via play.  Now I may be wrong, but that is what I meant.  (Contracycle – I hope that I have addressed your issue here.)

...And you need a basic system like this in place or you have no "nature" as a baseline. What I think is very striking is that there doesn't seem to be a "culture" to balance that out in the normal thinking of Sim. What substitutes for it? Because it's the dialectical relationship between the two, the constant creative tension, that prompts myth to get cracking and do something. That's a tangent, but this thread is starting to explain to me a whole lot about Sim mechanics that I've been struggling with on the other thread without a lot of success.

You've run into the very problem that I created this thread about!  That "culture" your refer to is the "World-cultural structures" aka social norm/rules that I have been going on about in this thread.  While they can be compiled I do not think they can be formalized in mechanics!  But that is the very heart of the game.  The physics is fixed – the cultures are informed by the physics/physical world, but are pliable and are open to growth via player actions.  The key is that the players must be keyed into the culture to begin with via source material.  It is the "culture," as it were, that we are fiddling with when we play!  That is why I keep going on and on about the physics needing to be alienated from the players.  If there is a dialectic between the two, one should be fixed and one should be open.  Given their natures, the physics must be locked so that the "culture" can be explored.  Just as the physics are typically informed by the source material/a source, so is the cultural.  (I wonder if a successful game of Sim can be created from scratch or without any cultural source material.)  The problem I've been wrestling with is, "How does one encourage/facilitate the players to adopt these cultural points of view via mechanics?"  I have a feeling that one can't, at least not universally.

We'll get back to feedback and stuff some other time; it's a tangent and off-thread. Sorry about that.

No worries.  I just don't have the mental agility to handle too many topics.  I would be interested in that thread when it does come up.

[contracycle]

My understanding of this would be such.  I am playing a Ranger of Ithilien.  Every time I act in the capacity of a Ranger of Ithilien, I am adding to the body of the structure of "Ranger of Ithilien".  I am altering, however slight, what it means to be a Ranger of Ithilien.  Every sacrifice I make, every judgment I make, every law I enforce or not enforce says something about what it means to be a "Ranger of Ithilien."  Rangers are supposed to law abiding, however there should be no mechanic that forbids me from acting in a manner contrary to that structure called "Ranger of Ithilien."  There must be consequences to my actions, but no prior mechanics based constraints outside of physics itself the should limit what I can and cannot do.  That is what I mean when "social mechanics" should not be inflexible.  It is just these very social structures which are being built upon, expanded, altered, etc., via play.  Now I may be wrong, but that is what I meant.  (Contracycle – I hope that I have addressed your issue here.)

Not as such, no.  Although I do think I have a clearer idea of what you are getting at.

OK so this is like "representing".  The idea is that any ranger of ilithien is a representative of all rangers of ilitien; the actions of this ranger and all rangers reflects up this ranger and all rangers.

If I am reading you correctly than I think the terminology at the moment is confusing things.  The thoughts we associate with the term ranger of ilithien might be better identidfiable as the content of the setting, or as a meme associated with the term, which is part of the setting.  Either way these are not really social STRUCTURES so much as the associations with particular names/ideas that grow and develop over the course of play.

That said though their growth is rather limited; it's rare that players run characters with so much influence that their behaviour is thought to be definitive for all similar characters in the setting.  In the next game, the default or generally-held perception of the rangers will still be dominant.  The local group of characters, OTOH, may have a specific view based on personal experience, and that view may be fair or unfair (such as "all the ranger are hypocrites" based on some  negative encounter).  These are presumably the local-to-the-group historical structures.

You've run into the very problem that I created this thread about!  That "culture" your refer to is the "World-cultural structures" aka social norm/rules that I have been going on about in this thread.  While they can be compiled I do not think they can be formalized in mechanics!

I would suggest that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is a social norm that has been rendered into a mechanism.

[Silmenume]

Hey contracycle,

OK so this is like "representing".  The idea is that any ranger of ilithien is a representative of all rangers of ilitien; the actions of this ranger and all rangers reflects up this ranger and all rangers.

In a way, yes.  But its more complex and takes place within an entire Sim game's "structural" framework.  For example this Ranger of Ithilien, whom I shall call Leuca (which strangely enough happens to be the name of my Ranger of Ithilien!), is a man who can also have the roles.  These other roles include leader among his men, friend to others, traitor to the Steward (back story), husband to a wife, and father and protector to a child.  All these roles overlap and compete for attention and ascendancy in my character Leuca, sometimes at the same time.  Every action he takes further defines his role in each, especially when they are in conflict with one another.  All these decisions not only reflect his fulfillment of each role, but they also define the individual.  Lastly they color the fictional world as a whole.  That's the whole point.  Its not just that he is a Ranger of Ithilien, it's the sum total of the entire web of relationships around him.  The aggregate of all these relationships (and the decisions that went into them) of all the PC's and the NPC's is the sum total of the Historical structures – everything that was added and which comprises the making of the Dream.

If I am reading you correctly than I think the terminology at the moment is confusing things. The thoughts we associate with the term ranger of ilithien might be better identidfiable as the content of the setting, or as a meme associated with the term, which is part of the setting. Either way these are not really social STRUCTURES so much as the associations with particular names/ideas that grow and develop over the course of play.

I'll agree with you that my terminology is probably confusing as I have not thought everything through yet.  Nevertheless, you make the classic mistake of virtually all the discussions on Sim (As well as those of "Sim" game designers.)  There is absolutely no ontological reason why social setting should be static or beyond the scope of action of the players in Sim play.  I play a Ranger of Ithilien for the specific purpose of adding to the body of interrelated memes (historical structure) regarding what it means to be a Ranger of Ithilien.  When Simulating, we are mucking around with the Setting elements (at least the social or socially derived ones)!  Its not just some clockwork machine or deistic device – we are there to have input on the making of more!

Let's examine your notion about the Rangers not being a social structure.  First of all the designation of Ranger is a social contrivance.  That these individuals (a social grouping) are grouped together with a common identity and purpose is a social contrivance.  They are a social structure; just like a government is a social structure, so is a military unit.  Sure they could have been introduced via a book and can be considered part of Setting, but as they are a structured group of sentient beings, there is absolutely no reason that a player cannot play one, nor is there no reason why a player cannot add to the corpus of understanding/meaning of that structure.  Remember, it is only through the actions of individuals belonging to that social structure that we can say anything about what it does or later stands for.  IOW the Rangers could say that they are nothing but brigands, but if they act in the defense of the people and are upright and just in all they do – it does not matter what they say about themselves, what matters is what they have done.  There is absolutely no reason why players cannot be part of "what they have done."

I am saying that if sentient beings are involved then you will have social structures.  If you have social structures then those structures are open to modification and addition.  Those social structures be they governments, military units or social mores can only find expression via the actions of those who are subject to them or represent them.  A man is not just unless he acts just.  A government (a social structure) cannot be said to be just unless the individuals within it, on the aggregate, wield its powers justly.

I would say then that a character is really nothing more than the aggregation of his actions.  If a character can be said to have qualities or behaviors then it is because the player has demonstrated such characteristics over long play.  IOW that thing which is called a character is actually a collection of behaviors (aka rules of behavior or norms).  Thus that which might be called Leuca can also be thought of as an interrelated grouping of exhibited behaviors/norms i.e. a social structure.

You are correct in that the larger the social structure is, the less of an influence the players will have on it as a whole.  The converse is that the player has a huge influence at the Character level.  In the game that I play in, because I have many characters, I do have a larger influence on the game world as a whole than if I just played a single character.  See, its not just about a/the character; its the entirety of the whole web of structures – which constitutes the Dream.

The local group of characters, OTOH, may have a specific view based on personal experience, and that view may be fair or unfair (such as "all the ranger are hypocrites" based on some negative encounter). These are presumably the local-to-the-group historical structures.

Absolutely!  We had two new players in our game last Friday.  Those two certainly came away from that particular game with a bitter dislike of Rangers.  That's the whole point!  That one person comes away from a game with a certain set of historical structures and another player will have another distinct set makes for a really fascinating after game debrief!  So not only are there different group level historical structures, there will also be player level historical structures.  I'm going to have a different take on the game events from that of another player, and that's really cool!

I would suggest that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is a social norm that has been rendered into a mechanism.

I can see how that could be social norm, but I'm not sure how that is a game mechanic by my understanding of the term mechanic.  My understanding is that a mechanic is a specific feature of system and system is the means by which events are established into play.  I'm not seeing that a social more or social code and a process are the same.  Could you expand on you assertion for me please?

However, if such a social norm, which is always open to change over time, can be rendered into a game mechanic, I'm not certain one would want to do so.  Social norms are subject to change, even if extremely slowly.  Ossifying it into a mechanic sends a message of "hands off."  That would be the equivalent of saying to a Nar player that you are not permitted address the Premise this specific way.  You see, the social structures are the very things that are available to the players to work on.  To cull any structure out of player influence a priori and say they are inviolate seems deprotagonizing to me – but that may just be more myopia on my part.

I'm tired – I hope I have made some sense.  I look forward to your response.

[Simon Kamber]

However, if such a social norm, which is always open to change over time, can be rendered into a game mechanic, I'm not certain one would want to do so.  Social norms are subject to change, even if extremely slowly.

But would it not be possible to declare certain parts of the social structure immutable? While it's possible for your ranger to change what it means to be a ranger, is it possible for your ranger to change what it means to be part of a social structure?

As far as I can see, it seems possible to create mechanics to represent the interactions of social norms, even if these social structures themselves are not defined by the mechanics. So, a mechanic could describe what happens what happens when a character from a given part of the structure interacts with another character, allowing the specific factor of "what it means to be a ranger" to have an influence, but allowing the players to define "what it means to be a ranger", and how it influences the mechanic through, for instance, modifiers to a fortune roll.

[Silmenume]

But would it not be possible to declare certain parts of the social structure immutable?

Because social structures are not ontological structures, but rather are constructed of the interactions between people.  Those nature interactions will always be different from one moment to the next, even if in the slight.  That means to a person who is being mugged a police officer is a good thing.  To the mugger that very same police officer, being a part of the same social structure (the police force), is now considered a very bad thing.  While the officer is doing the exact same thing, it is the relationships between the various individual that's important.  To demonstrate how social structures can overlap and collide, suppose the mugger was the police officer's friend.  Let us also say that the victim was some punk kid who was the son of powerful and corrupt nobleman who was making life very hard for his brother.  So here we have this police officer who is a member of that structure know as the police, who's relationship to that structure known as victim is both profession and antagonistic (which also means that police officer has a relationship to that structure known as lord of his brother), and who has a relationship to that structure known as criminal element that is called friend.  All those relationships define the police officer's character.  Restricting how the police officer manages his relationships with those various structures would be to impinge on the very game action in Sim.  It would be akin to limiting player input, a priori via mechanics, on how a player is allowed to address a Premise or a Challenge.

As far as I can see, it seems possible to create mechanics to represent the interactions of social norms, even if these social structures themselves are not defined by the mechanics.

The problem is that social norms can't interact.  It people interacting in ways that are consistent with social norms.  Some of the people are player characters.  The players can't manipulate social norms as objects, they express them through actions.  The interactions are the very player actions themselves.  You don't need mechanics to represent them because in acting the players are already expressing them.  How the players choose to act is the Sim game action.  If you put those choices into mechanics then you are removing the player input.  You would be killing the Sim game action.  Mechanics such as those would be the Sim equivalent of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

However, I may be misreading you.  Could you give a concrete example of what you mean by "mechanics that represent the interaction of social norms."  That would be very helpful!

[Marco]

All those relationships define the police officer's character.  Restricting how the police officer manages his relationships with those various structures would be to impinge on the very game action in Sim.  It would be akin to limiting player input, a priori via mechanics, on how a player is allowed to address a Premise or a Challenge.

The example you quoted seems to me to be one of Premise in the Narrativist sense. What distinguishes a Narrativist choice from a Simulationist choice in that scenario assuming the player's PC is the police officer?

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

I have taken the question of what a mechanic is to a new thead on the Theory forum, Defining Game Mechanic

I agree with Jay that Simulationism must involve creation within the shared imagined space, at least to some degree; I don't think that you can limit the amount of such creation. However, I agree with Marco that the example given seems entirely narrativist to me: if the player is psyched by examining the moral issues, he is playing narrativist, no matter what else is happening in the shared imagined space.

--M. J. Young

[Simon Kamber]

However, I may be misreading you.  Could you give a concrete example of what you mean by "mechanics that represent the interaction of social norms."  That would be very helpful!

I agree with you that mechanics should never define what the player characters do. But the results of these actions can be helped along by mechanics.

So, even though it's the players choice that this police officer chooses to go through with his job, the setting's reaction, which in this case means the mugger and the mugged, can be described, at least partly, through mechanics.

Basically, while I agree that you can't describe what a player character does under these circumstances, you can have the mechanics describe what happens to the society when he does it. What do the norms of the mugger dictate?

[clehrich]

I agree with Jay that Simulationism must involve creation within the shared imagined space, at least to some degree; I don't think that you can limit the amount of such creation. However, I agree with Marco that the example given seems entirely narrativist to me: if the player is psyched by examining the moral issues, he is playing narrativist, no matter what else is happening in the shared imagined space.

I don't buy it.  If every time a moral issue gets dealt with in a Sim game suddenly it becomes Nar, then we're shifting back to a true Big Horseshoe theory, in which Sim is nothing at all but exploration and as soon as anything interesting happens we get a "real" CA.

Jay's example was, I thought, about how the police officer is trapped in webs of social meaning not of his own making.  What I think Jay is saying is that such social webs are important to the characters, and part of what makes Sim play interesting is watching how characters grapple with these things.  Nar is at some level about our addressing these problems, by means of the characters; Sim is about the characters themselves.

[clehrich]

Basically, while I agree that you can't describe what a player character does under these circumstances, you can have the mechanics describe what happens to the society when he does it. What do the norms of the mugger dictate?

Jay is saying, and I think I agree with him, that mechanics do not dictate social norms.  They may dictate the general framework, but social norms are flexible.  We cannot know by looking at a chart how the mugger will react or deal with things.  What Sim wants is the depth and complexity of real life, so it projects unchallengeable structures into mechanics, and builds other structures in prose descriptions.  If all such norms were structured mechanically, we could play Sim with a computer GM, because all he'd be is a mechanical arbiter looking up the appropriate charts.

I think Jay is trying to pick out several layers in Sim, of which mechanics and character are only two.  Social norms are, if I understand him right, another layer, and one that is not -- or should not be -- mechanically formulated.

[Simon Kamber]

Jay is saying, and I think I agree with him, that mechanics do not dictate social norms.  They may dictate the general framework, but social norms are flexible.  We cannot know by looking at a chart how the mugger will react or deal with things.

I agree thus far. What I was talking about was: Is it possible to have a mechanic that gives the game master a structure that describes the interaction in such cases, allowing him some help in deciding the final action of the mugger. I agree that it can't be completely arbitrary, since that would leave the GM with little to do, but I also think that having to "play" the social norms of both the mugger, the mugged and everyone else in the setting without anything to aid him, is a bit much to ask of one player.

[Marco]

I don't buy it.  If every time a moral issue gets dealt with in a Sim game suddenly it becomes Nar, then we're shifting back to a true Big Horseshoe theory, in which Sim is nothing at all but exploration and as soon as anything interesting happens we get a "real" CA.

Yes, but I think that's pretty implicit to the model. That's one reason why the Beeg Horseshoe theory has a lot of traction.

Specifically, to my understanding, if what was enjoyed by the player (and reinforced by the group) was that complex decision and its vagaries then it's Nar.

It certainly fits the textbook definition of Nar. I'm not clear on how it fits the definiton of Sim.

If, say, the player didn't really care about the difficulties inherent in the decision but was just, for example, trying real hard to portray a cop and chose the 'choice I think he'd make in a movie' then I think that's Sim.

I think. I'm not real sure. But I'm pretty sure that if the player sees the choice as a hard one or a troubling one whether because of the social-web in-game or because of his own morality then I think it has got to be Nar play under the defintion.

Jay's example was, I thought, about how the police officer is trapped in webs of social meaning not of his own making.  What I think Jay is saying is that such social webs are important to the characters, and part of what makes Sim play interesting is watching how characters grapple with these things.  Nar is at some level about our addressing these problems, by means of the characters; Sim is about the characters themselves.

To me, watching how the character grapples with the situation when the player does not looks something like this (exaggerated to show that the player doesn't engage):

Player: "I shoot the mugger. Then, later at the bar, I'm angsty about it and complain to my partner. I sit over my drink and make a wistful remark to the waitress. Oh, and I reload my gun and make sure my car is maintenanced too."

Certainly the character is upset. The player isn't engaged with the emotional content of the issue. A real, more enjoyable example might involve some dramatic actions on the part of the player (such as saying the wistful remark and faking emotion)--but I think the real difference is, IMO, whether the player is engaged with the situation.

-Marco

[Caldis]

I'm with Marco on this and I think the big distinction that his example shows is that it's not the presence of a moral question that makes it nar rather it's how the question is dealt with.  

If the player is questioning what this decision will say about the characters values and morals, what meaning my choice of action for the character will bring to the situation, then it's narrativist.  If the player is questioning what a character of this type should do based on genre tropes then it's a sim based decision.  

Of course I'm a big proponent of the Beeg Horseshoe and dont see any problem with nar decisions like this popping up in a sim game.

[contracycle]

I'll agree with you that my terminology is probably confusing as I have not thought everything through yet.  Nevertheless, you make the classic mistake of virtually all the discussions on Sim (As well as those of "Sim" game designers.)  There is absolutely no ontological reason why social setting should be static or beyond the scope of action of the players in Sim play.  I play a Ranger of Ithilien for the specific purpose of adding to the body of interrelated memes (historical structure) regarding what it means to be a Ranger of Ithilien.  When Simulating, we are mucking around with the Setting elements (at least the social or socially derived ones)!  Its not just some clockwork machine or deistic device – we are there to have input on the making of more!

OK I understand your argument about meaning, about modifying the existing knowledge and perceptions associated with 'social structures'.  But I get a bit uneasy with the term structure in this context, and disagree with your conclusions about the common error in sim.

I definitely think you are on to something when you suggest that in selecting to play such a ranger, I am purposefully choosing to interpret rangerness and to comment on it, if only implicitly, to my audience (that is, other players).  I think that captures an interesting element in the way players approach the sim game.

On the other hand, I think there is an excellent reason for game design to use social systems as limits to action, hard limits.  And that is to impose this social structure on the players in much the way that it would be imposed on the characters.  I think that if a setting has rules of social behaviour then challenging/discussing them may be the purpose of play, but so may be to just explore and experience them.

I am saying that if sentient beings are involved then you will have social structures.  If you have social structures then those structures are open to modification and addition.  Those social structures be they governments, military units or social mores can only find expression via the actions of those who are subject to them or represent them.  A man is not just unless he acts just.  A government (a social structure) cannot be said to be just unless the individuals within it, on the aggregate, wield its powers justly.

I much prefer 'social relationship' to 'structure' but that may just be due to the conventions of my own reading on such topics.  Certainly two people in an organisation have a relationship that operates on at least two levels - the formal and the informal.  Now the formal relationships are properly described as structures IMO, and they often impose themselves on the individual very firmly and an in a manner that implies a completely independent ontological existance.  That is, "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law."  Now it may be true that the structures power arises only as a result of human action, and it may also be true that the informal relationships between individuals modify the actual execution of those patterns of action and response, but it is still true that the structure exists in some degree, if only as a kind of social contract.

I can see how that could be social norm, but I'm not sure how that is a game mechanic by my understanding of the term mechanic.  My understanding is that a mechanic is a specific feature of system and system is the means by which events are established into play.  I'm not seeing that a social more or social code and a process are the same.  Could you expand on you assertion for me please?

Hmm, my point was rather that this is an example of people trying to render fuzzy human interactions into some formal framework.  So they are building a social mechanism, in much the way they might build a house or dig a well.  In terms of that society - in terms of IT'S identity as a purely social structure - that law is indeed a mechanism that, ideally, should execute 100% of the time when triggered.

So again this was raised partially to address what may be a terminology problem - I think it may be as valid to talk about social mechanisms as it is to talk about game mechanisms.  You and I sign up to having certain decisions mediated by system and dice just as members of the body politic sign up to have some decisions mediated by due process and law.

Now this makes the discussion of mechanism in RPG quite thorny.  If I appreciate what you are saying, it is something like this: the setting may have a rule like 'thous shalt not covet they neighbours ox', but if I want my character to covet his neighours ox, that rule should not be interpreted as a mechanism that prevents that coveting as a character action.  On the other hand, the social mechanism here is very definitely intended to prevent that coveting from happening in the first place.  I think this is where we have previously parted company over whether "social norms" are mutable or immutable.  If my character covets an ox that it is unlikely to feed back to the law and cause it to be changed - all its likely to due is to bring down retribution on my characters head.

Now there does not seem to be any reason to not set up such social structures as laws as thing that CANNOT be changed by character action.  Part of the exploration of the setting might be exactly the fanaticism with which such structures are maintained.  I think that is rather different from the broader case of not writing game mechanics that mandate player action.  The law may not be changed by you but you can still 'physically' break it.

Anyway I would like to extend what I understand of your argument a little further.  As corollary to your claim that the player is 'commenting' on the 'rangers of ilithien' simply by choosing to be one, and for there actions to be interpreted in relation to that label, then my claim is further: the 'social structures' with which the players have chosen to engage dictate the true topic of play.  If you have a player who is one of these rangers, and another who is the priest of some god, and another who is a renegade ork or whatever, then surely the conduct of play will comment on the relationships between the orks, the rangers, and the church, in various unpredictable ways.

I think that what you have identitifed is the underlying cause of some deprotagonisation in sim.  I may choose to play a character of type X, but really the game has no need of a type X and my Xness is in fact irrelevant to the course of play.  That is unsatisfying.  The 'structure' with which the player sought to engage has been removed from the locus of play.