Celebrating Theme is Nar Equiv of the Gamist Crunch.

[contracycle]

It's simulationism. Anything that breaks or doesn't befit his prefered CA, he avoids or ignores. He avoids fortune and ignores social feedback, because he's exploring the growing character like some would explore the sprawl of an imaginary city. That's interupted by fortune, and back slapping social feedback doesn't add to exploration.

I'm not sure its that cut and dried.  Certainly the description given could easily be gamist IMO.  It would just be of the 'purist for system' variety, in all propabability.  The avoidance of fortune does not disqualify the player from a Gamist mode, it merely renders it a preference for Crunch over Gamble.

As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

Kinda agreed, in that if your goal was just to go through the motions, yes that would be sim.  If you actually want to make the decisions, then no it probably has to be gamist.  

From here the predictable outcome your refering to with crunch is more a matter of drifting crunchy gamist structure to simulationism, by sticking to the predictable parts of it (which isn't the whole of it). That doesn't support your position.

I think that is a fair description of such drift, were it to occur.  But I do not accept that the example given should necessarily be interpreted in that way.  There are many management games in which the game-play is satisfying in this way, shuffling thiings from point to point with maximal efficiency and avoiding the risky and dangerous options.

[Caldis]

I'm not sure its that cut and dried.  Certainly the description given could easily be gamist IMO.  It would just be of the 'purist for system' variety, in all propabability.  The avoidance of fortune does not disqualify the player from a Gamist mode, it merely renders it a preference for Crunch over Gamble.

I'll agree that play in a manner which prefers crunch to gamble can still be gamist.  The reason Marco's example appears simulationist to me is the lack of interest in the victory.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

A gamist who prefers crunch will still be looking to prove his ability, he'll just believe that his methodic approach of avoiding risk is the smart way to proceed.  "By searching every room on the level and clearing out the goblins still there we gained 800 more xp than we would have if we had went down to the next level as soon as we found the stairs.  Now we're that much tougher and have that much more gold to resupply and prepare for that next level, we are so going to beat it."

[Marco]

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

A gamist who prefers crunch will still be looking to prove his ability, he'll just believe that his methodic approach of avoiding risk is the smart way to proceed.  "By searching every room on the level and clearing out the goblins still there we gained 800 more xp than we would have if we had went down to the next level as soon as we found the stairs.  Now we're that much tougher and have that much more gold to resupply and prepare for that next level, we are so going to beat it."

I would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

-Marco

[contracycle]

I would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

IMO the requirement for social reinfocement is overstated; many computer games operate that way.  The question, as alwaysd, is what the player is engaged with.

[Silmenume]

Hey Caldis,

I'll agree that play in a manner which prefers crunch to gamble can still be gamist.  The reason Marco's example appears simulationist to me is the lack of interest in the victory.

You are very much mistaken.  The player does have a deep and abiding interest in Victory, he would not play the game if he didn't achieve Victory all the time.  Like Marco had said, he expects a steady stream of rewards.  Rewards can only be had from Victories.  What he doesn't want is (high) risk, and thus by extension he is not particularly interested in the social rewards for Stepping on Up in the face of (high) risk.  What the player is seeking is the regular and consistent internal and mechanical rewards for successfully addressing Challenge.  The thing that stands in the way of that stream of rewards is the high potential of non-victory outcome and the necessary risk of loss or rewards inherent in high risk of loss style of Challenge addressment.  IOW the player wants to feel the success of winning all the time; he's not that interested in the thrill of risk as a thing unto itself.

Hey Marco,

I would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

Actually that is not correct.  CA's are defined by how the players approach Situation, not social reinforcement.  Social reinforcement is nothing more than a reflection of the interests of the players surrounding the player expressing his CA.  This social reinforcement is necessarily accurate.  How do I know?  Simply because when I write about what is interesting to me as a Simulationist, people here constantly misinterpret what is going based upon their own CA inclinations.  Posters here fail to identify the CA I play in all the time.  Social reinforcement means nothing more than the other players are jazzed about something they perceive.

Social reinforcement is nothing more than a "tell" as to what is interesting to the players' observing the player in engaging Situation.  As the players observing are all reacting to their own CA inclinations, their "reinforcement" begs the question as to just what is being reinforced.  Social reinforcement just means to someone trying to diagnose CA – "Look here.  The player who is expressing support is having his CA bone tickled by what is going on right now."  The question remains - what is it that we are looking at in the SIS?  Ideally one would want everyone to be socially rewarding the same CA, but that is by no means guaranteed.

However, let us not get bogged down lest we forget that this thread was spawned regarding the idea that "celebration of Theme" and the "Crunch" are mirror CA images of each other.  Even that is not sufficient to cover the idea I am groping for which is more accurately stated that both Gam and Nar have modes of play where the shaping of the outcome is not particularly important, so much as the indulgence or reveling in the pre-formed outcome itself.  This setting right of this asymmetry is very important, in my eyes at least, to eliminating one inconsistency in the structure of the Model as a whole.

Cross-posted with contracycle.

[contracycle]

Well  I agree almost entirely with Sil's post above, but unfortunately I do think some further discussion of social reinforcement is necessary.

The issue of social reinforcement is operating at a level beyond that of the immediate game being played, and has to do with our intereactions with ewach other as people.  In order for us to feel satisfied with ourselves, we need to feel that we are valued and respected by others in our social context.

Now the argument that the purpose of the pursuit of victory and challenge is to display competence, fitness, garner respect and acclaim, is IMO sound.  But the idea of social reinforcement as used in discussions here has sometimes been dumbed down to mere verbal, or at least explicit, demonstrations of appreciation.  Nothing like that is required.

If you are a quiet, unassuming, managemental gamist, it may be that you never do a victory dance on the table, nor get accolladed as a strategic genius by the other players.  But they may also defer to your decisions when you are at the general store outfitting for the dungeon, and they may take your decision as carved in stone if you say its time to head to the surface.  And these things are also very valid forms of social acclaim that make the gamist player happy in their gamism; recognise their contribution to the group effort.

So we must not eliminate social approval and reduce it to being ONLY a tell.  It is more than that, receiving some form of recogition is a basic Purpose in engaging with this activity in the first place.  Marco is still wrong to say that the CA's are DEFINED by social reinforcement, becuase solo games can be played without any such social reinforcement.  But social reinforcement from others carries more credibility than your own assesment of your competence, and is very much more important.

While agreeing with some problems in the discussion of Sim, I do not think it is true that social reinforcement is necessarily the mistaken projection of my preferences onto another players actions.

[Marco]

Yeah, well, as I said, I'm a bit murky on the social reinforcement thing. I value the guy for role-play inspite of the 'gamist' tendency. I think he often makes poor judgments about the values of things in game play--so I'd do my own pickin' at the general store (he may be right--he's very smart--but we do disagree).

What I'm saying is that I think he gets the real enjoyment out of building the character up--not out of social reinforcement.

Yes: there's a certain degree of social acceptance necessary for him to sit at the table for functional roleplay--but I like higher stakes combat. I don't care about building characters up. Neither of us really enjoy "the grind" but he gets something out of it (a better character) which I don't (I get a better character too, but don't care).

When we play gamist together, we are socially incompatible: I like low level D&D games where death is a constant fear (I hate to die--I play very carefully). He likes the higher level ones where death won't interfere most likely unless things go really wrong.*

If it's me, him, and the GM (and it has been) I'm not real clear on how social reinforcement enters into his enjoyment of the game.

The issue of solo play is, IMO, a very good one: this guy gets out of MMPORGS exactly what he gets out of some types of role-playing. He's good with grouping (social) or going it alone (not-social).

I think that the going-it-alone is out of step with the GNS social-reinforcement aspects ... but I'm not really sure.

As I said, I'm murky on it.

-Marco
* I'm aware that two gamists can easily be incompatible--the reason I bring this up is: "In the situation where we are incompatible and we're both still enjoying aspects of the game--but to differing degrees" where does the social reinforcement come from.

[contracycle]

* I'm aware that two gamists can easily be incompatible--the reason I bring this up is: "In the situation where we are incompatible and we're both still enjoying aspects of the game--but to differing degrees" where does the social reinforcement come from.

That might produce a kind of intra-CA territorial dispute, conceivably.  The thing though is unless the two of you are the only players ever present, it may not be from you that this player gets their reinforcing feedback.

Or maybe they are complimentary.  I used to play X-wing with a friend: he would fly, and I would handle the keyboard, providing him with shield deployments and assigning power supply to various functions.  He got the thrill of being in there mixing it up, and I got a more tactical pleasure out of being his facilitator and guardian angel.

So perhaps the reinforcement occurs in recounts of play in which the (generic) players particular contributions are recognised as worthy of remark.  Or as I mentioned previously, incidents in play in which the players special competence is tacitly acknowledged.  But it is of course very hard to comment on a player I've never met in a game I didn;t attend; hopefully this will provide avenues in which you might find the kind of reinforcement this player is getting.

Again though, just becuase character building CAN be an expression of a gamist CA does not mean it necessarily is.  If the player is Sim after all, then the reinforcement may take a completely different form, such as treating them as an authority on the game world or similar.

[Marco]

Yeah, I totally get the X-wing thing. I had the same issues with that game (I wish I'd had someone to do shields and power stuff so I could just fly). I mean, I think it's possible he's getting some cred somewhere I'm not seeing right now--however, in the other thread on Sim I noted that Sim was (under canoncial GNS) sort of a sense of craftsmanship.

Thinking about that, I believe that the player gets satisfaction from building up a character (as with a sense of craftsmanship) which would, if that analogy is relevant, lead to this being Sim play (Exploration of System?)

I mean, I'm not sure. I get a sense of satisfaction when I win at Solitaire--I don't get any social cred for it from anywhere.

(What I'm saying is I can buy your hypothesis. I accept that there may be social cred coming from somewhere I'm not seeing. But in light of the fact that the player, by his own admission, gets the same thrill from soloing on-line on World of Warcraft, I think that it might be plausible to define Gamism in terms of an internal sense of reward and leave the social reinforcement to the realm of making the play functional with a group ... but that's just me thinking out loud).

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

A (hopefully quick) note on social reinforcement.

The lone gamist in the group gets his social reinforcement reflexively: he respects what he did as something he thinks the other players should respect and admire, even if in his mind there's something wrong with them because they don't. This is where the gamist solo video gamer gets his glory, either from telling tales of his game successes to others who know the game or from comparing himself to real or imagined other players. This is where the glory arises in solitaire, as we pat ourselves on the back for doing so well.

You have probably noticed that many solo computer/console games encourage high scorers to enter their names or initials. This is glory. You played the game alone, but you played it extremely well, and others will hear about it. Even on your own computer, some of the games have this option to record who you are next to how well you did. In fact, the Tetris game in my cell phone has such a record. If you think too hard about it, you realize it's silly--who is going to know?--but you can get that reinforcement of "look how good I did" even if no one is ever going to look or care.

--M. J. Young

[Marco]

A (hopefully quick) note on social reinforcement.

The lone gamist in the group gets his social reinforcement reflexively: he respects what he did as something he thinks the other players should respect and admire, even if in his mind there's something wrong with them because they don't. This is where the gamist solo video gamer gets his glory, either from telling tales of his game successes to others who know the game or from comparing himself to real or imagined other players. This is where the glory arises in solitaire, as we pat ourselves on the back for doing so well.

--M. J. Young

On the other hand, no one will ever know how many times I won at Solitare (there's no high-score list) and I'll never brag about it, and I play anyway. I think this is a reasonable suggestion--however I don't think it's a universal answer (i.e. we can postulate it but I don't think it really covers the problem).

If we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

-Marco

[Caldis]

You are very much mistaken.  The player does have a deep and abiding interest in Victory, he would not play the game if he didn't achieve Victory all the time.  Like Marco had said, he expects a steady stream of rewards.  Rewards can only be had from Victories.  What he doesn't want is (high) risk, and thus by extension he is not particularly interested in the social rewards for Stepping on Up in the face of (high) risk.  What the player is seeking is the regular and consistent internal and mechanical rewards for successfully addressing Challenge.  The thing that stands in the way of that stream of rewards is the high potential of non-victory outcome and the necessary risk of loss or rewards inherent in high risk of loss style of Challenge addressment.  IOW the player wants to feel the success of winning all the time; he's not that interested in the thrill of risk as a thing unto itself.

Then he's not interested in gamism.  The thrill and challenge is what it's about, not victory but in how victory is achieved and that has to be brought about by the actions of the player.

The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).

The players need to perform in gamism, they have to use strategy to succeed.  If success is guaranteed then they have not displayed anything, neither guts in facing the Gamble or strategy in using the Crunch.  It's a test of the player to see if he can find a way to win.  The presence of challenge doesnt make a game gamist, it's stepping up to the challenge that makes the game gamist.  It's exactly the same as the presence of story(or premise) not making a game narrativist it's addressing premise that makes it so.

Let's look at call of Cthulu and Ron's example.  

The Theme is pre-established and known: "Mankind's ideals are flickering little pinpoints in a horrific, insane void." All of us are utterly complicit in bringing that theme into "narrative life."

So we do it! Rock on! We have celebrated Lovecraft as we understand it (or perhaps, which I didn't touch on, as we saw fit to modify it). To have deviated from that Theme would have violated the whole point of being there.

How can this be in any way Narrativist?  Narrativism is about addressing premise and to do so you have to take a stand on the issue.  In the example above the stand has already been taken, it's already a certain thing, not something that can be addressed.  If you tried to offer a differing view the mechanics of the game hammer it back upon you.  You cant remain sane and understand the Cthulu universe.  Even if we had all agreed that we were to try and create a play experience that proved this to be true what action can the player possibly take to prove this when the system has already guaranteed it to be true.  It's no action on the players part creating the address of premise.  The game may have it but the player does not do it.

What is happening in play is a vicarious experience of a character in a Lovecraft novel.  The player works to ensure that experience is as true to the source as possible, he chooses to act and react as a character in that novel would act.  This is simulationism.

[Silmenume]

Hey contracycle,

I think that all of your points are valid.  I did not intend to imply that social reinforcement's only role was that of a "tell."  Social reinforcement does indeed play a very important part in the social dynamic of roleplay.  I, in my haste, did not clarify my thoughts enough regarding that issue.  I was only trying to say that social reinforcement is not definitional to a CA.

Just to be clear –

From a diagnostic point of view, social reinforcement is nothing more than a "tell" as to what is interesting to the players observing the player who is engaging Situation.

Everything else you said about its importance to play, I'm square with.

Hey Marco,

(...I think that it might be plausible to define Gamism in terms of an internal sense of reward and leave the social reinforcement to the realm of making the play functional with a group ... but that's just me thinking out loud).

All rewards, if they are felt, must ultimately be felt internally for where else can they be felt?  The problem with proposing a diagnostic definition of a mode of play based upon a "feeling" is that feelings are not directly observable.  There is no way to corroborate a person's feelings.  Many times in the essays and in several threads about the Model, internal states were rejected as a means of CA identification because they are inherently unobservable.  IOW, I may be happy, but unless I do something externally that sheds light upon (reflects) my internal state, no observer will ever know.

I'll draw from the essay GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2.

Labels
Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labeling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making."

Emphasis added.

This is not to say that player's don't have internal states, but rather these internal states are not employed by the Model as definitional or diagnostic.  Note that as this process is going on in the venue of role-play, its not enough that the player is making decisions (an internal process) but that he must share them with other players at the table (the act of Exploration). While perhaps one could claim that a player who is getting his Step on Up must be addressing Challenge, it does not follow that addressing Challenge must always mean that a player is "feeling" Step on Up.  IOW Step on Up is defined in light of addressing Challenge.  However addressing Challenge is not defined by the emotive or mental state of Step on Up, rather addressing Challenge is described and defined by the process of strategizing and the employment of tactics.

Finally I would like to add that a Nar player would also likely feel an interior sense of reward when they too made a decision regarding Premise that they felt good about.  The same holds for a Sim player as well.  Interior rewards cannot define CA.  All those expressing CA's, making appropriate decisions, effectively will feel rewarded, by definition.  No where in the Model does it claim that expressing CA = having fun.

If we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

Unless I am mistaken, I don't recall social reinforcement being absolutely required, though its presence is endemic as the persons are engaged in a social activity.  To whit – a single player can be playing Gamist in a Sim oriented Game.  He may not be enjoying himself as much as if he was sitting at table full of Gamists, but he's still expressing a Gamist CA even if he is receiving negative social pressure.  That the Gamist player is not receiving positive social reinforcement does not negate the diagnosis of his play as Gamist.

Hey Caldis,

Much of your logic is sound and I have traveled down those very same paths many times myself trying to figure out why the model is applied so hypocritically with regards to Sim.  However, I am going to play devils advocate here to try and high light that inconsistency.

If success is guaranteed then they have not displayed anything...It's a test of the player to see if he can find a way to win.

Let me parse this out.  By declaring that the player has not displayed anything, I am assuming you mean that the player has not "demonstrated" anything to indicate a Gamist Creative Agenda.  To continue this parsing further, what is meant by "demonstrated" is a decision making ability regarding Situation which has been classified as Challenge.  Thus if the outcome of his decision making is pre-ordained, that is to say that his decisions have no effect on the final outcome, then there is no merit to such empty decisions as regards Creative Agenda.  Yes?

If that is indeed the case let me again call up an earlier quote –

Labels
Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labeling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making."

If I understand your reasoning, because the player's decisions were empty of affect on the final outcome the player failed to demonstrate the Gamist Creative Agenda.  However, given the above quote, decisions that affect final outcome are the very things that define CA. IOW decisions must matter (effect the final outcome), if they do not then they are not CA related.  CA as a term only applies to the decisions the players are making that effect final outcome.  If those decisions don't affect final outcome then they aren't really decisions in the first place.  If "decisions that have no effect on outcome" means not-Gamist and not-Narrativist because they are not indicative any CA, then by following the established logic that also means such play is not-Simulationist either.  A GNS label, a Creative Agenda, if founded upon the decisions that the player is making which must impact final outcome or they are not CA valid.  Decisions that have no effect on outcome are no different that decisions made with the specific intent not to alter the pre-established outcome.  Marco's example, if not Gamist, cannot be Sim either because there are NO decisions of merit (effecting final outcome) being made at all.  By the logic you're arguing Caldis, Marco's example is an example of non-CA play or Zilchplay, much like Ron's example of "celebration of Theme."

Again we are faced with the following options –

[*]Celebration of X is a true and valid expression of the CA of which it reflects.  Celebration of Victory is Gamist and Celebration of Theme is Narrativist and in either case the examples are not Simulationist.[*]Celebration of X is not a true and valid expression of the CA which it reflects.  Celebration of Victory is not Gamist, Celebration of Theme is not Narrativist, but neither can it be Simulationist for the same reasons it cannot be Gamist and Narrativist.  IOW any decisions which do not effect final outcome are not reflective of any CA because CA's are defined by decisions that must affect outcome.[*]CA definition is NOT really based on player decisions that effect final outcomes.  IOW a player choosing the color of their character's eyes is indicative of some CA.  We need only come up with some excuse why the Model breaks with itself in this manner, since it does operate this way for two CA's, and explain why we are OK with that.[*]We blithely ignore that the model is inconsistent with itself and be done with it.[/list:u]So how are we to fix this problem?  Do we ignore it?  Do we address it?  Do we accept the possibility of Zilchplay?  Or do was accept that there is a sliding scale of impact of player decisions on outcome that range from nil to hardcore within a CA?

[Marco]

If we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

Unless I am mistaken, I don't recall social reinforcement being absolutely required, though its presence is endemic as the persons are engaged in a social activity.  To whit – a single player can be playing Gamist in a Sim oriented Game.  He may not be enjoying himself as much as if he was sitting at table full of Gamists, but he's still expressing a Gamist CA even if he is receiving negative social pressure.  That the Gamist player is not receiving positive social reinforcement does not negate the diagnosis of his play as Gamist.

Nar play is about "addressing premise"--so if that is observed, the play is Nar.

Sim play is about reinforcing a point? (creating myth? etc.) -- so if that is observed the play is Sim.

Gam play is about getting (or trying to get) cred from your fellow gamers -- so if that is observed the play is Gam.

If we say Gam play is about "winning" or Gam play is about "overcoming challenges" then that's cool--and maybe that's what it is. But so long as social cred is the measure of Gamist play then, IMO, it is absolutely required.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not real attached to that definition--I think it has some big holes in it (imaginary audiences, soloist in MMPORGS who are assumed to brag to their friends, etc.) But if we're going to say that social reinforcement isn't required then Gamist play is about something other than getting credit for clever play.

Put it another way: if we say Gamist play is about getting the satisfaction that comes from winning and/or the satisfaction that comes from sportsmanship in a social context (i.e. applies either to me playing cards by myself or me playing volleyball with a team) then why do we have people (me included) postulating imaginary audiences at all?

Why not just say "Well, in the case where the guy isn't bragging about his exploits or being acknowledged for them it's just a clear case of observing him trying to beat the game."

(Why not? I dunno--but we don't seem to be saying that.)

-Marco

[Caldis]

Decisions that have no effect on outcome are no different that decisions made with the specific intent not to alter the pre-established outcome.  Marco's example, if not Gamist, cannot be Sim either because there are NO decisions of merit (effecting final outcome) being made at all.  By the logic you're arguing Caldis, Marco's example is an example of non-CA play or Zilchplay, much like Ron's example of "celebration of Theme."

I believe Noon answered this dilemma.

As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

Or to put it differently the rising power level of the character is part of the 'ideal'  the player is trying to realize.  Level systems have been described as a tool for dramatic pacing, that's what he's looking for an appropriate challenge that doesnt involve risk just the appearance of risk.  He vicariously experiences the rise to power.

So when the character has the choice of going deeper in the dungeon or clearing out the level he is on, he stays where he's at knowing the risk will be less and the experience he seeks will be attained.  More gold more xp less of a chance of ruining that experience of the rise to power.

The hard part is realizing what is part of the ideal.  I think it relates somewhat to the idea of bricolage and myth, almost everything in the game and the source material can be given meaning within the Ideal.