The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

[Marco]

"But the analogy by itself communicates that the GM runs the world and the situation and the players (mostly) play one character each to which things happen."

Which is find for you're group -- because I'm assuming your group likes this.  

But I don't consider a protagonist someone "to which things happen."  You may (and probably will) consider me splitting hairs here, but I have experienced -- and been bored by -- too many sessions where I was supposed to respond to things happening and not have enough chance to MAKE things happen.  And clearly, the vigor and drive with which I want to take action through my PC outstrips what some other players like.  Reading your interpretation of how to negoatiate the failed instruction of TITBB gives me the willies.

Yours is one interpretation of negotiating TITBB into actual play.  And a valid one.  But can you agree it certainly isn't the only way to go? I find your easy comfort in knowing you "know" what is meant by this vague and contradictory notion baffling.

And that's it for me.  Nice stopping by.  But I gotta struggle back to work.

Best,

Christopher

Well, if you have 1 GM that is recongizable as a GM (i.e. does some prep-work that might be a relationship map, a linear adventure, a starting situation, a dungeon, etc.) and the players usually have 1 character whom they make decisions for during the game then: we are reading it the same way.

The analogy of TITBB is not about the exact nature of the power-split. It isn't about "protagonization" in the sense that The Forge has come to define it. I've seen a lot of RPG.net threads too. I think they're irrelevant.

The analogy is about the basic fundamental roles of the GM and the players. It doesn't get any lower-level, which is where you directly want, and need, to take it to declare it somehow dysfunctional or impossible.

Even if the players do a lot of work during the prep of the game--even if the players discuss what they want the game to be about or direct the GM as to how they want to play: if the dynamic of play is anything that would be recognized as a traditional RPG apart from, say, Universalis or a multi-GM larp then the description is apt and adequate.

Perhaps you want to be splitting hairs and have decided it somehow serves you to read "to which things happen" in a way that gives you the willies. But that's okay--if we were playing together, I'm sure that you'd be real clear about what you wanted and if I were GMing I'd be doin' my best to work together with you.

All that is well below the level of the analogy that got us to traditional roleplaying in the first place though.

-Marco

[Callan S.]

Just a short post in case I'm not reading correctly:

The way this impossible thing is worded, it seems to force a new interpretation by its impossibleness.

For example, imagine I gave you instructions to lay a piece of paper on your lap, and make holes in it by bringing down a knife hard, into the paper repeatedly.

Ah, I think your going to reinterpret what I meant by hard...like hard enough to go through the paper. But not hard enough to go through paper and your legs.

The impossible thing seems quite similar. Like with Marco and Christopher, I imagine they would work out something if they played together, because in communicative groups, if someone is getting 'stabbed in the legs' by the impossible thing, everyone feels it. People avoid unpleasant stuff, system does matter.

Personally I like the idea of "Just like how two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time or an object cannot be in two places at once."

Rather than my 'being stabbed in the legs' example, these two objects (GM and player effort to have COMPLETE CONTROL) are smashing together, as they try to be in the same place at once. While the impossible thing IS impossible, that doesn't mean it can't be attempted. And that is painful to all involved. Pain is a penalty, penalties lead to changes in behaviour (since system matters), and creative adaptions of the instructions are adopted.

Or not. I believe sometimes the pain of the impacts is outweighed by other factors...like a GM instructed that he is to spend a lot of time writing up an adventure and told 'GM is god'. In this rough example, the penalty of chucking away lots of the work he did and giving up this rather pleasant feeling of god-dom. This penalty is bigger than the penalty of butting heads with players...so he doesn't stop butting heads.

If I'm not keeping up, I'll bow out.

[greyorm]

No, Callan, you've got it. That's an excellent overview, I think.

[TonyLB]

I've been in many games where everyone involved tried to achieve TITBB.  Naturally, they all failed.  And when they failed the game would shift to some other balance of credibility, just like people have been posting here.

But here's the thing:  The advice is so prevalent, and so forceful, that I attributed those failures to some failing in me.  I assumed that people wouldn't be writing this advice if it had not worked consistently for them.  If I couldn't plot out a detailed story and tell it reliably, while giving the players complete freedom and basing everything on their decisions then it was because I was a bad GM.  Likewise, if I couldn't have complete freedom while also toeing the line of the GMs story then I was a bad player.  Very demoralizing.

It's less (for me) the knife-in-the-leg metaphor than it is the "Work eighty hour weeks at your job, and always be there for your family, and be a pillar of the volunteer community."  It's not just bad advice, it's an impossible standard.  But because it is a standard some people pride themselves on living up to there is an unwitting conspiracy to conceal how impossible it is.

[John Kim]

But here's the thing:  The advice is so prevalent, and so forceful, that I attributed those failures to some failing in me.  I assumed that people wouldn't be writing this advice if it had not worked consistently for them.  If I couldn't plot out a detailed story and tell it reliably, while giving the players complete freedom and basing everything on their decisions then it was because I was a bad GM.  Likewise, if I couldn't have complete freedom while also toeing the line of the GMs story then I was a bad player.

Could you talk about which games you played where you got that advice?  In past discussion, I find that people often refer to wildly different actual text when they talk about "TITBB".  Ron's original essay cited 2nd edition AD&D (1989) as the pioneer, followed by 4th edition Champions (1989) and Vampire: The Masquerade (1991), and then Earthdawn, Kult, In Nomine, Deadlands, Legend of the Five Rings, and 7th Sea.  I would dispute some of these (mainly Champions), but I agree with the overall trend.  

Also, in my gaming experience, I find that people rarely play the game as written.  For example, I recall causing a fair amount of hair-pulling to my Call of Cthulhu GM when my PC continued to rationalize away the strange things he saw and go off in completely the wrong direction.  That was a pretty classic clash of player freedom vs GM control.  But that wasn't caused by the Call of Cthulhu text.  Rather, I was blatantly ignoring the CoC text.  CoC up front defines the PCs as "investigators" and repeatedly emphasizes that they are unraveling mysteries created by the GM.  But since it wasn't what I was interested in, I ignored that and caused a grief to my GM.  

Now, mind you, I don't hold up CoC as ideal instructional text.  Perhaps our problems could have been avoided if it had a better player's section, and probably I would have negotiated some changes to the structure before the game.  But it at least has well-written starting scenarios which illustrate the principles which it outlines.  There is no linear sequence of scenes, but there are a set of clues within the background and it is clear that the players are supposed to try to find the clues and solve the mystery.  

Lots of games have clear and functional divisions.  In Tunnels and Trolls or original D&D, the DM maps and populates a dungeon, then the players explore it.  In Champions, the GM creates villains and the players then try to defeat those villains.  Many games have fairly functional divisions like this.  

On the other hand, I do feel that there is some truly bad advice in games, and I overall agree with the trend Ron noted in his GNS essay.  I'll quote from Deadlands, page 15 and page 180:

Most of you players take on the roles of "player characters" -- the heroes and heroines of the story.  Collectively, you are the "posse".  Each of you tries to accomplish your character's goals, defeat nefarious villains, decipher the many mysteries of Deadlands, and avoid becoming lunch for some unsavory critter.

You're the Marshal.

Remember that.  You're the fellow who makes all the decisions and keeps things moving.  It's your job to make the posse afraid of the dark while still dying to know what's in it.  You have to run scenes full of high-action and drama, then turn around and do a little romance and comedy.  You need to know enough rules to get you by, and you'll probably wind up paying for more pizza and soda than anyone else in the room.

I't a tough order to fill sometimes.

True to what the latter quote says, adventures in Deadlands are laid out in a series of chapters.  Each chapter describes a location and the events that occur there.  So this has moved from the earlier model of the GM handling a background which the players explore, to the GM truly being described as author of the story who lays out chapter by chapter what is supposed to happen.  However, the description to the players has not correspondingly been changed to explain to follow the GM's lead.

[Marco]

The advice is so prevalent, and so forceful, that I attributed those failures to some failing in me. I assumed that people wouldn't be writing this advice if it had not worked consistently for them.

[snip]

Very demoralizing.

Edited intro: IME the text usually refers to "What is roleplaying" rather than "how to GM advice"--but I don't have specific references to cite handy. I think taking the statement as advice instead of an analogy that sets up the two, very possible, roles of GM and player is, indeed, destined for some confusion.

But that isn't what causes the problems associated with it.

Given someone who has read TITBB as advice the important question still is: How much to-blame is the text itself and how much is based on the fundamentals of traditional RPG-play?

It is my belief that the question of competing power-over-game-direction is not based on the suggested analogy but rather happens because under traditional roleplaying (which is accurately, and profitably described by TITBB, which does not aim to do more than that) there is a GM with a significant authorial role and players who have a lesser authorial role but have the basic, reasonable expectation of their actions being significant.

You don't have to start applying specific defintions to these terms to understand what I am saying here: Any resonable spectrum of meanings the terms could have will still apply.

Thesis: Issues of control or input into game-direction are endemic to the traditional open-ended model of RPG's because the GM sets up Situation and runs the world** to a significantly greater degree than the players.

When the game reaches a point that the GM is either unprepared to facilitate the players or unengaged by the direction the players have chosen, there will be a legitimate problem, the solution to which must come from respect and cooperation because it exists above the level of game-system or even philosophy-of-play***.

Consider this: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9725

This is an actual play write-up of a Sorcerer game set in an asylum. The game took something of a left turn when one of the players decided his character was going to escape the asylum and the GM wasn't really prepared for it (I think the game was altogether a good one and everyone  comported themselves well--I'm not assigning any blame or calling the game dysfunctional).

But this is an Impossible Thing driven incident despite the game in use and the fact that several of the participants (including the GM) are Forge regulars.

I say this because:

1.The player is taking action to 'make a major change in the story happen' (an escape).
2. The 'authorial work' the GM has done (creation of Setting and Situation) doesn't encompass this and
3. There are problems in play (of a degree significant enough to post about and to have some other regular posters suggest a roll-back of events).

I mean, IMO, this is *textbook* 'TITBB problems.'

In a game that most certainly doesn't contain that text, with mechanics and a philosophy that is designed to counteract it and player(s) who are aware of this issue and therefore should be enured to its influence, how can this problem still come to be?

I submit that this problem happened and will still happen in any traditional game (which Sorcerer is, with it's one-GM, who does the prep-work, and the players who play their individual characters).

In Sorcerer the players, I would think, certainly get to make major plot twists like an escape--and the GM of a Sorcerer game would, I'd think, not be playing in the spirit of the system to simply stomp the PC's back into 'his story.'

Right?

So if the problem can (and will) appear without the text and not because of it, then where is it coming from? I think the write-up is very clear: When the GM is unprepared (or, maybe worse) unengaged by the action the PC's are taking (that the players are authoring or protagonizing or whatever verb you want to use to show the game-direction-impact the player's actions are having) then the world will tend to stop responding well.

There are ways around that--many non-traditional game-mechanics will, in fact, remove it as an issue. But as long as that lasts, you're going to see the problem of "who drives" with or without the text because one potential driver is responsible for the world and all the rest of the NPC's and the pacing of events not caused by the players.

That's the 'paradox' of the Impossible Thing and it will happen with or without the text and quite apart from anyone's reasonable expectations.

So why not "blame the text" anyway? (or hey, even blame the traditional model). The reason is that TITBB's text describes the power split which is more often than not very functional and fufilling. It's an accurate description of AD&D or Sorcerer or GURPS or Hero.

If someone has "tried and failed" to "live up to the analogy" they're barking up the wrong tree. There's whole books (and this board) that goes into detail about what it means to, for instance, 'be a good GM.' We still don't have a concise answer.

Any problems aren't the fault of the game authors who do their part in conveying that there exists a GM and players in their game. The statement is an excellent starting point for that. Converting it into some kind of discrete mission-statement will make it easier to assign blame there (or too oneself for somehow not living up to a perfect game) but the basic nature of the problem exist in all of traditional roleplaying and, IME, has a purely social solution.

-Marco
* Reading an analogy as literal advice really *is* the problem here. One might just as well also assume that RPG-play is a textual medium since authors are usually known for writing their work.

** By "running the world" I mean running NPC's, I mean applying laws of physics, I mean making a significant amount of pacing decisions, and I mean a generally greater use of directoral power.

When the players have as much or almost as much directoral power, control over pacing and NPC's, and input into the specifics of situation then we have departed the tradtional RPG model.

*** This could, for example,  be one of MJ's four modes of so-called solutions (or ways of 'making sense') to TITBB. Saying "We're doing Trailblazing" will not assist this problem. Even declaring "This is Participationism" won't help with it since although it removes an avenue of complaint ("The GM was railroading me!") it doesn't help make the play functional.

If the GM, out of respect and a spirit of cooperation, backs off on his story to make changes the player wants then we can't really say we are doing "Participationism" any more.

[John Kim]

Thesis: Issues of control or input into game-direction are endemic to the traditional open-ended model of RPG's because the GM sets up Situation and runs the world** to a significantly greater degree than the players.

** By "running the world" I mean running NPC's, I mean applying laws of physics, I mean making a significant amount of pacing decisions, and I mean a generally greater use of directoral power.

When the players have as much or almost as much directoral power, control over pacing and NPC's, and input into the specifics of situation then we have departed the tradtional RPG model.

Um, your definition of "traditional RPG model" doesn't include, say, a D&D DM running a written dungeon module.  Here the DM has virtually no control over pacing, for example.  Pacing is almost entirely handled by the players.  The linear-plot model of a GM who forcefully runs the PCs through scenes of his choosing is neither inherent nor traditional.  It became dominant for game designs in the 90s, but there are plenty of games and gamers who do not follow it.  

When the game reaches a point that the GM is either unprepared to facilitate the players or unengaged by the direction the players have chosen, there will be a legitimate problem, the solution to which must come from respect and cooperation because it exists above the level of game-system or even philosophy-of-play***.

Well, no.  Any game can have issues of competing authorship or direction, whether it has a GM or not.  This applies as much to, say, Soap as to traditional RPGs.  Now, Soap has rules to resolve what happens -- but that doesn't prevent the same thing you say about a GM.  I might still be (1) stuck for ideas of what to do on my turn, or (2) not engaged by what the other players are doing.  

The game does have an influence on this, though.  Many games provide implicit or explicit direction to the players.  For example, Trollbabe specifies that PCs should not exit the adventure which the GM prepares, but also specifies that the GM should not plan an ending.  A game can provide interesting material to be brought in and engaged by.  For example, D&D provides monsters and other elements to populate dungeons with.  Champions provides villains to fight.

[Marco]

Thesis: Issues of control or input into game-direction are endemic to the traditional open-ended model of RPG's because the GM sets up Situation and runs the world** to a significantly greater degree than the players.

** By "running the world" I mean running NPC's, I mean applying laws of physics, I mean making a significant amount of pacing decisions, and I mean a generally greater use of directoral power.

When the players have as much or almost as much directoral power, control over pacing and NPC's, and input into the specifics of situation then we have departed the tradtional RPG model.

Um, your definition of "traditional RPG model" doesn't include, say, a D&D DM running a written dungeon module.  Here the DM has virtually no control over pacing, for example.  Pacing is almost entirely handled by the players.  The linear-plot model of a GM who forcefully runs the PCs through scenes of his choosing is neither inherent nor traditional.  It became dominant for game designs in the 90s, but there are plenty of games and gamers who do not follow it.  

Note that I did, intentionally, use the words "open-ended model of RPG's" in the thesis statement.*

There's always a danger that a concise definition will have exceptions somewhere and module play is one of them here. I don't consider module play (or a dungeon, for that matter) especially "open-ended."

1. If you are playing only-in-a-dungeon AD&D or using a dungeon module (even more so) then TITBB is unlikely to be an issue--usually the system is very, very closed.

Of course a spell (Passwall, IIRC was specifically let out of Tomb of Horrors) or a clever strategm could upset a GM who was looking for a good challenge to happen--but I think that's a fundamentally narrower issue.

2. Additionally, I agree, in a "traditional" dungeon usually (IME) nothing (or not much) is moving other than the PC's so, yes, pacing isn't much of a factor there (if the GM created the dungeon then the other factors still apply, though).

And finally, in a tight module the GM doesn't get to exercise much directoral power either or, usually, do any prep-work.

That's all true. A discussion of how powersharing works under modules would be interesting--but I think it's also a bit tangential to my thesis which is talking about open-ended play wherein I don't think either "dungeon only" or "strict module" play really fits in--or at least I don't think it fits in well.

Well, no.  Any game can have issues of competing authorship or direction, whether it has a GM or not.  This applies as much to, say, Soap as to traditional RPGs.  Now, Soap has rules to resolve what happens -- but that doesn't prevent the same thing you say about a GM.  I might still be (1) stuck for ideas of what to do on my turn, or (2) not engaged by what the other players are doing.  

My point isn't that in other games there won't be conflicts--my point is that in "open-ended traditional RPG's" they will be fundamentally different, hard to have rules to concretely solve, and, IMO, often more severe than in many non-traditional games.

If the GM is tasked with running the world and an evolving situation of any complexity, when there is such a problem the results will be different than they are for games such as Universalis wherein a player might get stuck for his turn but that (I wouldn't think) won't deprotagonize another player.

I don't think it's unreasonable to make a statement that in traditional (non-module) RPG play the GM is responsible for more preporatory and world-oriented authorial/directoral elements than the players usually are. The (IMO) overwhelming nature of this in these games is going to lead to problems which are not easily resolved under that model.

I'm not to clear on what the power-split is in Soap. I know that there is a necessity for the GM to do some prep-work but, you know, if that's balanced by a lot of open-ended directoral power in the hands of the PC's then I probably wouldn't classify it as 'traditional.'

Of course people's threshold for that will differ and I'll readily accept that there are gray areas.

Like the module-case, however, I'm not sure that fundamentally addresses my thesis.

The game does have an influence on this, though.  Many games provide implicit or explicit direction to the players.  For example, Trollbabe specifies that PCs should not exit the adventure which the GM prepares, but also specifies that the GM should not plan an ending.  A game can provide interesting material to be brought in and engaged by.  For example, D&D provides monsters and other elements to populate dungeons with.  Champions provides villains to fight.

Oh I'm not saying there can't be *bad advice* (for some value of 'bad advice,' anyway). The Riddle of Steel is chock full of stuff that I consider questionable in a game that is so well regarded for it's focus on player-direction.

But I think that the target piece of text is a particularly bad example of poor-advice.

1. It (IME) isn't advice.
2. It's usually one of the first things said--an analogy to establish two fundamentally different roles--in which it is accurate.

There's a lot of text that usually comes later that, IME, is both more like 'advice' and, in the examples I have read, clears up the author's take on the analogy somewhat.

-Marco
* Edited to add: I think these games would also be the ones that are more often thought of has "having a story" (and AD&D can easily 'have a story'--I'm not talking about mechanics so much as the basic nature of play).

It's also not entirely clear what I mean by open-ended, I'm sure. I'm working on a concise textual definiton. I would let out games like MLWM which have hard-coded end-conditions. I wouldn't say that a linear dungeon is especially open ended in that spectrum either.

A very detailed module that tracked people's progress through scenes would be less open than one that just lays out, say, a relationship map and/or a situation and leaves it at that.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Everyone should remember that the purpose of the thread is to aid and abet Jay's understanding of the Impossible Thing.

As far as I'm concerned, M.J.'s breakdown (with the proviso/correction about Bass Playing) is sufficient and excellent toward that purpose.

This is not a place for people to say, "Oh, the Impossible Thing, well now, I have a bee in my bonnet about that, so I shall hold forth!" Which is what you're doing, Marco.

Nope. Don't post in reply. I do not care. You have numerous threads and posts already at the Forge about this. The responsible thing to do is to hunt them down, list them in a nice post which says, "A dissenting view may be found here," and be done.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

I want to apologize to Jay that I missed the point of his original post. I think I understand now what he is saying, and can address it a bit better.

My understanding is that The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (TITBB) is nothing more than bad advice offered by a game designer which basically instructs the GM to run his side of the game in such a way that directly deprotagonizes the players Creative Agenda relevant input.

If the TITBB is put into practice by the GM then TITBB is seen in operation as Force and can lead to dysfunction at the table.

This is all both correct and irrelevant, and that's why there's a problem with your definition.

You see, there is really nothing dysfunctional nor even wrong about the advice given to the referee, that he should run the story. I've been in riotously fun games run by Illusionist referees, where everyone had a great time and thought he was contributing to the outcomes but after the fact we discovered that the guy running the game never lost control of his story for an instant. All our choices were rigged, all our decisions were vacated if they interfered and affirmed if they contributed, and we never did a thing that was not exactly what he wanted. He took that "advice" seriously, and he made it work.

Of course, once we knew it was all an illusion, it shattered the game. A lot of us never played in his games again, because it just wasn't fun for us to go through the motions of play. Why agonize over decisions that won't matter? Why even think about them? Let me lay back on the sofa, and you just tell me the story. Don't make me work at trying to bring about the ending I want, when the ending that you want is inevitable and you're working hard to persuade me that it really was what I wanted all along.

On the other hand, a lot of people stayed with him, and the game shifted to participationism, because they knew he was manipulating everything, including them, to get his story told, and they enjoyed watching it happen.

So the advice given to the referee is not "bad advice" per se. It can lead to perfectly functional game play, if everyone is willing to play in a participationist game.

Nor is the advice given to players "bad advice" per se. A lot of games--most of the games, maybe all of the games, I've ever run--very much place the player choices in the foreground and the referee's involvement in a supporting position. The advice given to players, that they should play as the heroes in the story, make the decisions of the protagonists, can lead to excellent play.

The problem--the only reason why this is "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast"--is that the advice given to the referee and the advice given to the players cannot both be followed as writ and have any sort of functional play at all. One side or the other or both must compromise from that statement to some point of balance or agreement in which either the players are not really controling their characters (e.g., participationism) or the referee is not really completely controling the story (e.g., bass playing).

It is not that the advice given to the referee is bad advice. It is that it is in direct, obvious, and irreconcilible conflict with the advice given to the players.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

One side or the other or both must compromise from that statement to some point of balance or agreement in which either the players are not really controling their characters (e.g., participationism) or the referee is not really completely controling the story (e.g., bass playing).

It is not that the advice given to the referee is bad advice. It is that it is in direct, obvious, and irreconcilible conflict with the advice given to the players.

Does that help?

Well said, although I think "irreconcilible" is probably not what you really wanted to say.  As you note in the above paragraph reconciliation is possible through compromise...at which point the group has rewritten the advice to support their own play in a way that eliminates the conflict.

The Impossible Thing is impossible because both parts cannot both be true at the same time...not because either part by itself is inherently wrong.


I was flipping through an old Judges Guild RuneQuest supplement yesterday and came across a passage that really lept out at me.  It said (roughly) "If the players follow the lead they will wind up at the Inn, if they don't you might as well close the book now and play something else".

While perfectly functional, this represents a very definite (and common) compromise.  Here the players aren't controlling their characters.  The expectation is that they will play along with the GM's lead and if they don't the game is over.  In this solution, the players control of their characters is expected to be subserviant to the GMs control of the story.

[Silmenume]

Hey Ron,

Thanks for your aid in refocusing this thread.

Hey Christopher,

It is Jay, and it has been a while.  I hope that you are feeling better now.

You seem bent on interpretting it this way because you're on a path somewhere else. Godspeed -- but the truth is TITBB, to my weary, cough-jostled brain, simply isn't that complicated a concept. I don't quite get the shenanigans you're up to.

Shenanigans!  Me?  If I didn't know better, I think I should be insulted!  ;o)

You are right, TITBB isn't that complicated a concept.  Actually, it is quite simple.  Ralph (Valamir) stated it fairly clearly, but ironically enough if was M.J. Young who stated the issue in a way that best supports where I am trying to go.

The problem--the only reason why this is "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast"--is that the advice given to the referee and the advice given to the players cannot both be followed as writ and have any sort of functional play at all.

Emphasis mine

That's all TITBB as defined does lay claim to – not one iota more.  One cannot have a functional process (play) by employing the advice as given.

Part of the point of this thread was to demonstrate that many people don't understand TITBB.  Truth be told there are several things I wished to accomplish in this thread.

[*]A public acknowledgment of the definition of TITBB.  (My earlier conversation should not have foundered on a glossed vocabulary word.)[*]I wanted to generalize the understanding of TITBB into the form of a principle rather than in the form of a specific example.  (This opens up and helps make the model more versatile as a whole.)[*]From this generalized principle, as opposed to the specific form of TITBB, I wished to demonstrate that TITBB is most emphatically NOT about Story specifically, but about promoting a non-functional, self-defeating game process.  If anyone would wish to note, in my principle version of TITBB there is absolutely no mention of story at all.  The principle version does cover those games which do concern themselves with Story, such as Nar, but covers other CA relevant issues as well.  Which brings me to...[*]Finally I wanted to bring to light that the Forge community as a whole is engaged in The Impossible Thing Before Breakast EVERYTIME SIM IS DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF STORY.[/list:u]

Must as one is creating an impossible thing when arguing that addressing Premise will allow you to Step on Up, there can be no progress made in the understanding of Sim if every, and I do mean every conversation about Story drags in Sim, or every conversation about Sim drags in Story.  We already have a CA that covers story, and it does so quite effectively without having to make the players, designers and theorists contort the game process into these unbelievably tortured exercises of hiding the fact that story does not mate well with Sim.  Something always has to give.  The other two CA's don't have these persistent nagging problems over who has to compromise on the theory and play level.  Point in fact both Nar and Gam delight in encouraging the players to grab onto the CA process with both arms and teeth and go – Go – GO!  Sim discussion is always this tortured agonizing hammering of a square peg (Dream creation) into a round hole (story).

Folks – it doesn't fit.  Full Stop.  There can be no fruitful conversation about the nature of Sim if story is the measure.  Heck, lets look at the model itself.  Creative Agendas are indicated by player process.  If Nar is the player process (addressing Premise) of creating Story, then what process remains to Sim to – create – Story?

The plain answer is – there isn't.  Sim isn't about creating story or having story or anything else to do with story.  Why?  

Because the Sim player process is Bricolage.  That is the player process by which the Sim CA is expressed.  Bricolage is to Sim as Premise is to Nar and Challenge is to Gam.  Bricolage does not make stories.  Bricolage does make things, and in this case as the palette available to the Sim bricoleur is character, setting, situation and color, what you get is myth – not Story.

Thus you have the following -

Nar – player addresses Premise (Story Now) -> Theme/Story
Gam – player addresses Challenge (Step on up) -> Victory/Effective Strategy.
Sim – player engages in bricolage (The Right to Dream) -> Myth.

This thread is an absolutely perfect example of the unquestioning stampede to hammer story into Sim.  Not only did I not introduce story into my restatement of TITBB – I never mentioned Sim at all!!!  And yet this whole thread is littered with Sim and story.

I think it is time for the Forge to take a step back and really consider this problem.  There is a problem going on here that in the world of hard sciences would be appalling.  It is plain to see, especially in light of the Model, with implicitly seeks to facilitate CA relevant player input, that all the discussions of Sim and story center around finding ways to gracefully do what must unfortunately be done – finding a compromise on Sim player input.  As if Sim player input was a problem!!!  

And for all the blood that has been spilled on these forums the sad truth is that Sim player input is a problem – if you trying to force Sim in story.  However, there is another paradigm for Sim player input that does not require compromise or finding ways to compromise the Sim player input.  Like Gam and Nar, this process not only allows but enthusiastically encourages(!!) the players to wrap both arms around and bite into the process just as lustily – and its called Bricolage.

I would suggest in the strongest terms possible that posters consider this for at least 48 hours before stampeding in to defend any position.

Stop.

Think.

Reconsider.

There is an article and a thread that deal with this idea in a very profound way.  Yet it appears that few people are engaging in "Charitable Reading."  No one is really reading; everyone too busy ejaculating their dearly held ideas.  Before anyone responds to this thread please read the following three articles –[list=1][*]On Charitable Reading.  Read this post first.  There is precious little of what it calls for all of us to reach when engaging in intelligent discourse.  Look at this very thread as an example what isn't happening.[*]Next read the article Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games.  Unless I'm the only moron here, it will take more than one day to read and understand the article as it took me several days to read and process it.  Read this article while keeping in mind the principles espoused in the post on Charitable Reading.[*]Next read this thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!][*]Finally read the thread On RPGs and Text [LONG].  Please note the discussion on the difference between myth and story.  Also note how the respondents are not always reading charitably.  This thread is over 130 pages long in Word while in a 12 point font.  So anyone who claims to have charitably reads all these materials and comes back to post a response in under 2 days is not being honest.[/list:o]All the above links lay the necessary groundwork by which this new discussion can take place.  Until Sim is seriously discussed outside the paradigm of Story, there will be no progress in understanding.  To continue to do so would be to engage in the debate equivalent of TITBB.  Lets try the old debate preparation trick where we try to argue the opposing viewpoint (Sim is myth – myth is not story – the Sim game process is Bricolage) and see what insights we come up with.

I would like to consider this thread closed for at least 48 hours so that the ideas can be really considered.  This is not meant to stifle debate, but rather to allow people the time necessary to consider before posting.

Thank you.