An effort to un-gum the Discussion.

[Silmenume]

Hey Everyone,

Since everything is all gummed up right now on in the other thread, I thought I would pose this question from over here.  There are several underlying assumptions in your posts that interest me that I would like, with your help, to work out.

I personally find that redefinition to be lacking. As initally formulated it was a functional style of play where the gm ran the story and the players were ok with that, likely because it didnt mess with their agenda. The way it stands now it can not be a functional form of play.

Just so that we're clear, I am not calling this new idea the P word.  However just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -

"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"[/list:u]For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism.  From what I understand you this is above formulation to non-functional form of play.  Fair enough.  My question is why.

I have pondered this for a little while and in combination with another idea that seems to be floating around the zeitgeist here I have come up with a little formulation that I wish to employ for illustrative purposes only.
Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect[/list:u]Where –

[*]effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and [*]affect is what the player is "feeling" or "getting out of playing" – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.[/list:u]What has been argued on a number of occasions is that if the players have no effect on Situation, then that form of play is not functional.  Thus using the above formulation, if effect is zero then roleplay/CA expression is zero/null as well.  Conversely you have effectively argued that if affect is zero, if a player is not Stepping on Up, but he is addressing Challenge, then that form of play is also non-functional.

"Gamism by definition requires strategy and guts ...If a game is recognized as gamist simply because it has combat but no Step on up then I think it has been mislabelled."[/list:u]Again using the above model, if affect is zero then roleplay/CA expression must be zero/null as well.

To recap, if either effect is zero or affect is zero then, their product is zero and we do not have roleplay/CA expression.

Given the above formulation, Zilchplay would be considered non-functional because while affect is high their (they are enjoying themselves - underline) effect (on Situation - italic) is zero leading to zero/null roleplay/CA expression.  Which agrees with your formulation.

The players could be playing but not expressing a creative agenda, as Walt called it Zilchplay. They are there just to go with the flow and enjoy the experience.

I don't think I have mis-characterized anyone at this point.  Let me know if I have.  At any rate, games where players have zero effect has been suggested to be what amounts to be a category error as it is non-functional and thus does not belong under the moniker "roleplay".  I am not suggesting this is the case, I am just re-stating some views that have been voiced.  Conversely zero affect play has also been described as non-functional as well because the players are not "enjoying" or expressing themselves as they ought – addressing Challenge without Step on Up is not Gamist.

So the question becomes, if the one must have both effect and affect for functional roleplay/CA expression, why is Sim discussed as if it is Ok or understood that it functions quite fine when effect is zero?  Not only is Sim typically spoken about as if zero effect is tolerable, but Sim is often spoken about in such a way that effect MUST be zero.  IOW how many times it has been argued that if the players start having an effect on Situation or start having an interest in effecting Situation that they can no longer be considered to be playing Sim?  How can this be?

By using the above logic Sim play must have effect as well to be considered a Creative Agenda/functional roleplay for the same way that Gam and Nar are considered CA's.  If Sim does not require non-zero effect to be considered either a CA or a functional form of roleplay why not other CA's?  What justifiable argument can be forwarded that says some CA's must have non-zero effect and affect, yet other functional CA's can have zero effect play?

I don't buy the formulation that I have provided, but it does seem to be the unstated foundation for a number of inconsistent arguments that have been put forward.  I think games function in the following fashion where "->" means "drives".

CA expression -> effect -> affect = Functional roleplay.

I believe most players employ effect to derive affect.  I do not think the affect component should be definitional of a Creative Agenda nor do I think the affect component should be diagnostic of a CA.  However, I do believe the affect component is certainly be the frequently sought after "reward" for expressing a certain CA.  IOW we want to feel like we are Stepping on Up, getting Story Now, or experiencing the Dream.  However, these affect states are just that, states of being and cannot be "made."

Therefore I think it much more fruitful to discuss CA's and roleplay with the following ideas is mind.  Effect (addressing Challenge/Premise, Bricolage) is not self same as Stepping on Up, Story Now, and the Dream (which are affect).  Effect is employed in the hopes of creating affect in the players.  That a player may not feel the desired affect does not mean effect (CA expression) is not taking place, rather it means the player is enjoying the benefits of his labors.

This brings us to the question, "If the players are not interested in pursing effect themselves but are enjoying (affect) the labors of another (the GM) is that considered functional roleplay?"  (This would be that controversial P-word play) IOW if the part that immediately precedes "Functional Roleplay" is affect (the players are happily "feeling," real/earned or otherwise, Step on Up, Story Now or the Dream) does it really matter if the players themselves were involved in the effect portion – assuming that they were Exploring?  And if not, why?

(Actually this grew away from me - what a shock.)

[Caldis]

Good topic Jay, I was hoping to hear more from you or MJ on this because I think this is the heart of where our disagreement and misunderstanding lays.  I dont have much to add at this point but I have to ask for clarification on one point you made in the following section.  

Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect[/list:u]Where –

[*]effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and [*]affect is what the player is "feeling" or "getting out of playing" – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.[/list:u]

I have a problem making a distinction between the two or in seeing where to properly fit things within each.  To me the effect a "CA specific instance of decision making" has on situation is what the player is getting out of play, or to rephrase affect = effect.

So for instance lets have an example of play where an Orc is holding a princess hostage, threatening to kill her if the characters approach.

The gamist looks at the situation as a chance to display his skill and trys to come up with a plan to get the best result, kill or capture the orc and save the princess. The situation is a test of skill.

The narrativist looks at the situation as a chance to make a statement, that requires a little backstory to the situation let's make it simple and say that he seeks revenge on the orc and is in love with the princess.  The situation is a test of values.

The simulationist looks at the situation as a chance to reinforce the dream, to create a shared meaning among the participants.  So an orc hating Dwarf will say to hell with the princess and charge in with his axe swinging.  It's a question of staying true to the ideal.  (If you have a problem with this definition of sim a simple note will suffice and we'll take it to a seperate discussion)

The players are engaged in Step on up, Story Now, and the Dream their feelings are irrelevant but assumed to be positive with regard to the activity, i.e. they are enjoying doing it.   What they've got out of the game was that instance of decision making, how they reacted was CA specific.

Beyond that I'll say certain events in play will undercut the players ability to express their CA but what undercuts one will not necessarily be a problem for the others.  Something that undercuts all three will definitely be dysfunctional, such as a gm's pet npc showing up and resolving all situations.  If players have no input then they cant be enjoying the game, or at least not for very long.  

I'll also note that certain things will undercut a players enjoyment but not necessarily based on CA lines.  Illusionism is certainly one example.  It's a breach on the social contract level and not necessarily CA, though certain CA will find it unacceptable.

[Marco]

Hmm ... I think the "affect" vs. "effect" thing is actually a very, very good point. This is because I've noted that people's idea of what 'empowerment' as a PC is varies greatly.

Almost everyone agrees that at some point the GM can/should step in to prevent player actions in a traditional game (where the Player in a hard-boiled detective game declares he grows wings)--but where the actual line is drawn and under what circumstances is a very hazy boundary (being shanghaied at the start of a game doesn't, by itself, preclude any CA--but a lot of players might very much object to the GM's heavy-hand in direction of the game).

So what Joe considers X-ism and what Fred considers X-ism might be two very different things.

I didn't find Chris' example in the other thread to be X-ism. It might be something else though (the P-word).

-Marco

[clehrich]

Jay, thanks for re-starting this on a new basis.  I think it will be clearer that way.

[Edited to add: long post!]

First, for the benefit of future readers or late arrivals, some back-threads to which I think this is relevant:

Participationism with an Agendum
Celebrating Theme is the Equivalent of Gamist Crunch
Self-Deception as a Design Consideration
Pattern Recognition, Metaphor, and Continuity
And we could go backwards into various threads about Simulationism and its definition.[/list:u]Before I weigh in, I want to get clarification on something.  Ideally, I want to check what both Jay and Marco have to say about this:

However just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -

"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"[/list:u]For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism.  From what I understand you this is above formulation to non-functional form of play.  Fair enough.  My question is why.

To put that more clearly to me at least:

Marco defines X-ism as:

a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]

Jay reads this:

Marco believes this is a necessarily dysfunctional form of play.  Jay is not convinced that it is so.[/list:u]Have I got that right?

Next part of the question -- the real question:
a game where

the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]Now this is going to sound like silly semantics, but it's not.

1. It is, presumably, the players giving over control.  Yes?
2. By "they like," do you mean "those choices they like to make" or "those choices they willingly give up"?
3. By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" do you mean all such choices, all important such choices (defining "important" by some means we haven't gotten to yet), or all such choices they willingly give up?

See, how we read this formulation (which I realize is off the cuff) matters a great deal for discussing this.[list=a][*]X-ism is a gameplay mode in which the players and GM agree, overtly or otherwise, on CA.
[*]Therefore they can agree on which choices are CA-meaningful.
[*]The players agree willingly to cede control over some range of such choices.

This leaves us with options:
[*]If that range is constrained, i.e. does not include all such choices, then their CA-meaningful focus may be on that which they do not cede.
[*]If that range is constrained similarly, then their CA-meaningful focus may be on what the GM is doing rather than their own choices.
[*]If that range is total, i.e. includes all such choices, then their CA-meaningful focus must be redirected to what the GM is doing rather than their own choices.[/list:o]To my mind, this is crucial.  By one formulation, we're saying that the dysfunction of X-ism is entailed by the inability of the players to make CA-meaningful choices.  By another, we're saying that this dysfunction occurs elsewhere.

So on this one I need a little clarification.

------------
Now let's consider Jay's formulation:

Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect
Where –

[*]effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and [*]affect is what the player is "feeling" or "getting out of playing" – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.[/list:u]

I realize this isn't quite what Jay thinks himself.

But I wonder whether the first part of the equation can or should be challenged.  The whole question of X-ism seems to me to come down to whether in fact "Functional roleplay" = "effective CA expression."

For example, Dr. Xero has been pointing repeatedly to a form of gaming which, as I read it, is precisely not this.  The players enjoy themselves, and ask for more, so as I understand it this is functional play.  But they make no "effective CA expression" themselves -- this is handed over to the GM, and the players go around essentially trying to discover the story already constructed by the GM; through this process, they participate only in the revealing of the story, which as I see it has no CA relevance under current definitions.

If on the other hand we agree that functional play must involve effective CA expression, then we do indeed have a distinction to make between what the players feel about play (what Jay calls "affect") and what the players do in play (what Jay calls "effect").  This takes us over to Mendel's thread on Self-Deception: if the players feel they are doing something, say telling a story, then Mendel argues they may be a functional group; their actual "effect" in play may be minimal, simply aiding the GM to do storytelling, for example.  At any rate, they may feel that they are doing storytelling when they are not, as in WoD.

Further, and now I think I'm on the same page with Jay, there should presumably be a distinction between success and attempt.  So long as the players' "affect" is that they are addressing Challenge, it may make no difference that their actual "effect" is nil.  Whether the GM deceives them into thinking otherwise, or they deceive themselves, or they just don't really care about anything but trying, the "affect" is identical to functional gaming in which they actually do have "effect".

And I think I'm where Jay is that far because

Given the above formulation, Zilchplay would be considered non-functional because while affect is high their (they are enjoying themselves - underline) effect (on Situation - italic) is zero leading to zero/null roleplay/CA expression.  Which agrees with your formulation.

-----------
Now let me parse out the rest of Jay's argument.  Again, my point is primarily clarification.  This discussion draws in bits and pieces of a very wide range of threads spanning several months, and most of those have been derailed at some point by a confusion about initial positions.  So if I go wrong here, that needs to get cleared up.

We have several criteria.

[*]Proposition: Functional play requires effective CA expression
[*]Effect: the play-effect of CA-meaningful choice or action by players
[*]Affect: the emotional, intellectual, subjective impact of play upon players
[*]There are currently three known Affects classified: Step on Up, Story Now, and Right to Dream.[/list:u]Unless there is an error in the initial proposition, functional play requires both Effect and Affect.  Thus deceptive play in which players experience Affect but have no Effect, is dysfunctional.

Now in the specific case of Simulationism, we have the problem that Right to Dream does not appear to allow for Effect.  Thus it is not at all clear how functional Simulationism is possible.

What Jay argues is that this is by definition incorrect.  Unless Simulationism be redefined as inherently dysfunctional and probably dishonest, it is necessary that Effect be normal in Sim.  This means that we need to understand what sort of Effect players have in Sim, and how they go about achieving it.  The only other way to make this work is to redefine functional play such that it does not require Effect, only Affect: so long as the players feel as though they have an impact, in whatever CA, their play is functional.

Next, Jay suggests that it is really Effect and not Affect that ought to define a CA.  I think this does not quite make sense -- both are required for the definition.  But it is worth noting that the definitions of Gamism and Narrativism are in many respects active, founded on Effect, and at the same time make clear the Affect.  I think Jay's point (here and elsewhere) is that Simulationism lacks Effect in its definition, and this is confusing matters.

What's behind this, I suspect, is the blunt fact that much discussion still holds to the principle that if the players are having a meaningful Effect with their choices, and doing so mindfully, they must not be playing Sim.  This entails that all Sim is necessarily dysfunctional.

-----------
So here's where I stand.

I think the real problem is actually that Right to Dream is not defined all that precisely.  It appears that most thinking about CA around here does smoothly merge Effect and Affect.  Practically speaking, this makes good sense.  In analyzing actual play, the first question for CA-diagnosis is to consider Affect.  And if we find that the Affect matched Step on Up or Story Now, we are fairly confident that the play must have included the appropriate Effects, and we go look for them.  But the way Right to Dream, as an Affect, is defined, it is difficult to spot whether it has occurred.

Jay proposes that Affect is a poor diagnostic tool, for this reason among others, but it does seem to be working fine for Nar and Gam.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it, I say.

But in order to resolve the matter where Sim is concerned, we need to go back to actual play and not to the definitions, as there is reason to suspect that there are structural problems there.

My suggestion would be that there are really two parts to resolving this question.

On the one hand, we need to take a hard look at

[*]Dr. Xero's actual play experiences
[*]Actual play examples of what Mike calls Participationism
[*]Jay's actual play experience
[*]Mendel's self-deception theory and the actual play examples to which it refers
[*]Any other examples of apparently functional Sim play[/list:u]We need to analyze these carefully, starting with the basic postulate: if Affect is positive and happy, i.e. the game was fun, we have functional play.  If at the same time it does not match Gamism or Narrativism, we begin with the hypothesis that we are looking at a mode of Sim.  Later on, this may turn out not to be true, but we start there.  

In analyzing all this, we need to focus on Effect, not Affect, once the initial classification is made.  The fundamental question is: what is the Effect the players are having?  We know, from our definitions, that they are having an Effect.  So what is it?  I suspect this will require considerable rethinking of the concept of meaningful choice.

On the other hand, we need to examine all the many possible ways in which Effect may be occurring, setting aside all preconceptions about what is and is not functional.  Remember, we know in advance that the game is functional, because Affect was positive.  The only way that could happen without positive Effect is through extreme deception.  But that raises a vaguely philosophical question: if everyone in the game thinks the game is functional, and everyone is genuinely having a lot of fun, should we consider the possibility that this is actually dysfunctional and everyone is simply deluded?  Assuming otherwise, we need to know what sort of Effect is going on.

I think this will take us into deep theoretical waters, because it slips well into Mendel's issue of deception and self-deception.  The question is not at all what the players think they are doing, or what Effect they do or do not think they are having.  The question is what Effect they are actually having, and the way in which this is structured.  

I suspect that with Sim in particular, we're going to find that there is a lot of concealed Effect going on.  There are a lot of places where in essence the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing.  The players genuinely think they are "playing along," not having any impact on the game.  But in fact, that is not the case: they are having an important and meaningful Effect.  And once we pinpoint the "meaningful" nature of that Effect, we will be very close to understanding the Sim CA.

For example, let's suppose that we end up classifying Dr. Xero's gaming as (a form of) functional Sim.  This means that Dr. Xero and his players are at some level not seeing something: they do not see that the players are not adhering to the GM-constructed baseline world and discovering the patterns and whatnot within it, but are actually doing something that has a meaningful constructive effect on that baseline.  Thus what he's been writing about discovery and fidelity and such becomes a rhetorical strategy of self-deception (let's all remember that Mendel is emphatic that self-deception is no bad thing), somewhat different from what is actually going on.  This seems to me emblematic of a great deal of Sim gaming, actually, and the fact that we're having so much trouble parsing it coherently (on all sides) indicates again the problem Jay is pointing to.

Ultimately, I think we're going to have to accept that one of the following is true, like it or not:[list=1][*]Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression
[*]Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dysfunctional
[*]Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire[/list:o]I think #3 is the most coherent solution, but any one of these would solve it logically.


As with Jay, this sort of got away from me....

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Chris, #3 is what I've been saying all along. Talking about overt recognition, conscious desire, and so on, are red herrings, as far as I'm concerned. This arises from my general viewpoint that what we say we think or want or believe is basically just more behavior, and not to be taken as an automatic indicator of what we actually do. Such self-examination is difficult and requires certain touchpoints among the participants (e.g. the favored mode of presentation and response in the Actual Play forum).

#2 makes no sense because dysfunctional play is defined by dissatisfaction. "Incoherent" play (multiple-CA) may be fun and functional, however.

#1 makes no sense unless you can imagine everyone sitting around engaged in zilchplay and still call it role-playing at all. I cannot. I've seen groups hang out for many hours and mainly reminisce about old games or have long debates about whether Deckard is really a replicant, desultorily playing out their characters inspecting an alcove, but I don't consider them to have been role-playing.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

For emphasis, please, everyone, read Ron's reply carefully.

Yes, Ron, I do know that this is implicit -- and in some respects explicit -- in the Big Model, right the way back to the origins of GNS.  But I also think that this has most certainly not been generally accepted.  That is, I think that a great deal of discussion continues to founder on the following statement:

"No, I was there, and what we were doing was...."[/list:u]Which usually is validated by:
"We felt about it like this."[/list:u]I've mentioned Dr. Xero's gaming style as one example of such an analytical misrecognition -- if it isn't such, there's something very wrong with the model itself.  But the most classic form of this is:
We were doing Sim, but telling stories anyway....[/list:u]I don't want to think about how many times we've all had this conversation, in which Ron et al. are saying, "No, you're doing Nar, you just don't realize it," and the poster is saying, "No, we don't like all that meta-mechanical cheating stuff, we're doing Sim."  Mendel's recent thread has pointed to a less-common but real version of the reverse: "I'm telling stories so I must be doing Nar," when in fact you're not telling stories nor doing Nar and are really quite happy doing Sim.

I hope that this thread can clear some of the air about this, because cracking open that weirdness called Sim is going to require people to bite the bullet and accept that they can be flat-out wrong not only about what they

want out of gaming but what in fact they are doing while they game.  And I think Jay's analysis gets this going in an interesting and fruitful direction.

[M. J. Young]

I'm uncomfortable with a couple of ideas that are floating around here, but maybe I can focus some things.

First, players ceding control over all CA-relevant input and output is not dysfunctional play, if they choose to do so. It produces enjoyment, and therefore is functional. For what it's worth, Participationism is said to be functional precisely because it's what everyone at the table wants to do. (Illusionism is said to be non-functional because one participant is fooling the others into thinking they're doing something they aren't doing.)

Second, some time back it was recognized that every agendum has active and passive "modes". The easiest to observe is gamism. The referee (passively) creates the challenges, and the players (actively) overcome them. The players could not engage in gamism at all were it not for the referee providing something to which they can step up. Similarly, in gamist play there may be character players who are playing passively: their roles in the games revolve around making it possible for some other character player to step up and face the challenge, as they more passively facilitate this and encourage it through social reinforcement.

Such passive play is integral to all three agenda.

X-ism seems to raise the issue of whether you can have a game without active play occurring. That is, if the referee raises challenges no one faces, is it still role playing? I'm inclined to think that in X-ism, whatever it is, the roles have shifted such that the referee is the active participant and the character players are passive--they are there to support his play. This can in theory happen in any agendum; I object to the notion that we should assume play to be simulationist when it becomes X-ist.

Finally, Chris, your list missed #4: The effect in play does not need to come from the character players for genuine functional role playing to be occurring. It is clear in participationism (whatever else is known about it) that the players are having no impact on anything meaningful in play; yet a functional role playing session is occurring, because the referee has such meaningful impact on the shared imagined space, and the players are content to enjoy that.

--M. J. Young

[clehrich]

X-ism seems to raise the issue of whether you can have a game without active play occurring. That is, if the referee raises challenges no one faces, is it still role playing? I'm inclined to think that in X-ism, whatever it is, the roles have shifted such that the referee is the active participant and the character players are passive--they are there to support his play. This can in theory happen in any agendum; I object to the notion that we should assume play to be simulationist when it becomes X-ist.

I wouldn't call this simulationist, certainly, but rather zilchplay.  And I'm inclined to think that it is inherently dysfunctional -- or not roleplay.  To take it to extremes, what you describe is the GM telling a story and the "players" saying, "Uh huh, tell us more."  These "players", whatever else they are doing, aren't roleplaying.  So this isn't functional roleplay.

Finally, Chris, your list missed #4: The effect in play does not need to come from the character players for genuine functional role playing to be occurring. It is clear in participationism (whatever else is known about it) that the players are having no impact on anything meaningful in play; yet a functional role playing session is occurring, because the referee has such meaningful impact on the shared imagined space, and the players are content to enjoy that.

That's option #1, M.J.  As I understand it, if we're talking about roleplay, the claim is that the players involved must be having some impact on the game.  If that is not the case, then either the proposition is false (option #1) or it's not functional roleplay.

I must say that I am adamantly opposed to #1 (or your #4, if you like).  I cannot believe that functional roleplay includes not roleplaying but rather sitting back and listening to someone else roleplay.  I think that in your #4 situation, what is happening is that the players are having a meaningful impact, but would prefer not to think so, for any number of reasons.  This to me is self-deception -- a particularly successful form of it, apparently.

Fish or cut bait, as they say.  It seems to me that this proposal makes cutting bait into fishing.  Or, if you prefer, it makes turning on a CD player into performing music.

But in any event, my parsing still suggests three options:[list=1][*]Functional roleplay can happen without meaningful CA expression
[*]Fun gaming can be dysfunctional
[*]Meaningful CA expression can happen even when the players do not realize or accept that it is happening[/list:o]I confess that at this stage of the game it's largely an aesthetic guess: I simply prefer to think that players in happy games are doing something than that they are sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything meaningful.  I prefer to think that roleplay is a process of collaborative meaning-construction, rather than novel-writing with an audience.

Probably ultimately the only way to decide that is to follow through on the analysis of functional play that appears non-Effective, which usually (though not always) manifests as some mode of Sim play.

Incidentally, this ultimately may get us somewhere toward a definition of roleplay.  If that definition includes a major mode that has no active component whatever, in which one can stand at the side without having any meaningful impact, then I for one think that's an unfortunate mode of play.  I just can't understand why anyone would rather do this than read a book, in which at least the author has had the time and medium to construct something really good.  If gaming has one significant strength to balance against its various weaknesses, it's collaborative effort -- and to play by eliminating that strikes me as basically a waste of time.

[Caldis]

I'm right with Ron and Chris on the unconcious part of CA expression.  The way I view CA is that it is the the manner in which the player is approaching the situation, what they feel is the right way to view the situation.  Is it a test of my skills, an opportunity to address premise, or a chance to live the dream?  The way these differing approaches may effect the situation can vary wildly or be quite similar so I dont think the effect necessarily tells us much about CA.  

Effect can set off tells however.  If the effect does not match with the input the player has given he may show signs of discord, the play doesnt match his standards and so something is wrong, we're not playing right.  The matching of input to output serves as social reinforcement for the players play style.

An offshoot of this is the fact that play without CA is impossible.  You cant approach situation without an idea of how to do so.  You must approach the situation in some manner, that approach is CA.

So the matching of input to output is important.  It shows that we are in agreement over what our play is about.  What's really important though is the input is what the player is bringing to the game, it's what's driving him on.   Anything that prevents him from bringing that input to the game makes his play irrelevant.  Predetermined theme prevents the players input from mattering to the narrativist, strategic irrelevance makes the gamists input meaningless,  but what causes problems in Sim?  I believe it would have to be something that supplies a result that does not match with the players understanding of the ideal.  

If something that seems out of place comes up that can cause problems unless the discrepancy can logically be solved.   Since the ideal is rarely a fully formed thing problems can usually be worked out by refining the ideal, finding something within it to make sense of the new situation.  If that doesnt resolve the incidence than the most typical result is an instance where the character would leave play rather than continue.  Face with such an instance one of three things can happen, the gm refines the situation to follow the pc, the player refines their understanding of the ideal to remain with the game, or the pc leaves the game.

[clehrich]

I think I agree with you, but we've got this annoying problem with Jay's terms, which is that they are very spelling-inflexible.  And lots of people confuse "effect" and "affect" anyway, as verbs and as nouns.  Let me just check my understanding -- and I'm going to propose new terms, at least for the duration of this thread.

I'm right with Ron and Chris on the unconcious part of CA expression.  The way I view CA is that it is the the manner in which the player is approaching the situation, what they feel is the right way to view the situation.  Is it a test of my skills, an opportunity to address premise, or a chance to live the dream?  The way these differing approaches may effect the situation can vary wildly or be quite similar so I dont think the effect necessarily tells us much about CA.  

Effect can set off tells however.  If the effect does not match with the input the player has given he may show signs of discord, the play doesnt match his standards and so something is wrong, we're not playing right.  The matching of input to output serves as social reinforcement for the players play style.

Okay, here's how I read this.  There are three elements to CA-meaningful play:

How I

approach play
What impact I have on play
What result I get from play[/list:u]You're saying, I think, that the different approaches lead to wildly different impacts, and thus to even more varying results.  Examining result or impact in isolation isn't very helpful, diagnostically, for this reason.  However, a mismatch between the actual perceived impact I had on play and the result I expected to get from it may "set off tells"; that is, if the mismatch is strong, I may react negatively.

Have I got that right?

Therefore:

So the matching of input to output is important.  It shows that we are in agreement over what our play is about.  What's really important though is the input is what the player is bringing to the game, it's what's driving him on.   Anything that prevents him from bringing that input to the game makes his play irrelevant.  Predetermined theme prevents the players input from mattering to the narrativist, strategic irrelevance makes the gamists input meaningless,  but what causes problems in Sim?  I believe it would have to be something that supplies a result that does not match with the players understanding of the ideal.

If my approach leads to impact and result that I expect, more or less, then I know we're all on the same page here -- we all have compatible approaches and seek similar results.  If I am unable to have any impact, my approach is irrelevant.

For Nar, if you tell me that the Premise is already X, and that there is a right answer to it, then my approach is irrelevant, I cannot have a meaningful impact, and I will not get my desired result.

For Gam, if my actions are strategically irrelevant, my approach is irrelevant, I cannot have a meaningful impact, and I will not get my desired result.

For Sim, this suddenly becomes tricky.  We have some sort of mismatch about my "understanding of the ideal".

Assuming we're now on the same page, I'm going to propose that we stick to these terms for the duration of the thread.  Effect/Affect is clearly going to cause problems.  But please, let's not use "impact" verbally, ok?  Your teeth and bowels can be impacted if you want.

Anyway, I agree with Caldis (assuming correct reading).  I think that the crux here is that an approach implies that one intends to do something, and that means one has to have some sort of impact.  If I can't have that, my approach is meaningless and irrelevant.  That's not CA-meaningful, and thus is zilchplay or flat-out dysfunction (or not roleplaying to begin with).  This then means that if I have an approach and I get a valid result for it, I must have an impact, whether I realize or admit it or not.

Jay, you out there?  Any comments?  Sorry I hijacked your terms, but those two were going to cause perpetual friction.

[ffilz]

I'd like to toss one thing out on the difference between reading a book, and "playing" with someone who is telling a story. In the latter case, the "players" could have the ability to aim the camera. Sure, in the end, the villain will be defeated and the world saved, but perhaps we will follow the grocery store clerk's struggle rather than the hero's.

How many times have you read a book or watched a movie, and wish more focus was applied to a particular character?

An analogue is music. Live performances are often way better than a recording even though a recording can have technically better music. The best live performances benefit from a feedback loop between the performers and the audience.

Frank

[clehrich]

Good point, Frank.  Fair enough.  I maintain, though, that aiming the camera isn't roleplaying, nor is generating a good energy for the band at the concert.  But you're dead right: they are important.

I think maybe that was what M.J. was referring to with passive play.  I guess I just think that purely passive play, in which we only aim the camera and never get to go out and make the film, is zilchplay or something of the kind.

[ffilz]

I'm inclined to agree that just aiming the camera is not role-play, though it can influence the actual story (perhaps the story teller changes who the real hero is because of where the camera is aimed).

I'd also propose that good role-play is similar to a good jam session, but I'm not sure that all role-play must reach the level of a jam session.

I'm not sure what it's role-play analogue is, but something interesting happened at one live performance I attended. Mary Jane Lammond had been scheduled to play at Borders but missed the date because their van broke down. They were able to make a later date and a last minute notice went out. A good sized crowd showed up and the performance was awesome and garnered a thunderous standing ovation. They were not at all prepared to do an encore, but we kept applauding. The musicians conferred amongst themselves and finally announced that they could do one more song. They were able to play a childrens song that  they felt comfortable doing, and it rocked. They remembered this reaction and on their next tour gave Borders a call and said, "You know what, we weren't scheduled to come through Raleigh on this tour, but we want to do another gig, do you think you could get an audience in two days?"

I think somewhere in there lies the heart of what role-playing is, why it is different that sitting on the floor in the library and listening to a story teller, and why it is different than Monopoly.

Frank

[Caldis]

Chris I think we're in 100% agreement.  

The only thing I'd add is where you say impact and results can vary wildly depending on approach they can also appear to be eerily similar, doubly so for impact.  Judging by impact doesnt tell what approach was taken, different roads lead to the same place kind of thing.

[Silmenume]

Hey Chris,

Thanks for fleshing out and making my original post more cogent and accessible!  At this point I don't have any overarching comments, changes or additions to make, so I will address piecemeal what has come up.

However just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -

"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"[/list:u]For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism.  From what I understand you [think] this [is] above formulation to [be a] non-functional form of play.  Fair enough.  My question is why.

To put that more clearly to me at least:

Marco defines X-ism as:

a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]

Jay reads this:

Marco believes this is a necessarily dysfunctional form of play.  Jay is not convinced that it is so.[/list:u]Have I got that right?

I cannot answer for Marco, but in my case you are correct.  

Next part of the question -- the real question:

a game where

the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM][/list:u]Now this is going to sound like silly semantics, but it's not.

1. It is, presumably, the players giving over control.  Yes?
2. By "they like," do you mean "those choices they like to make" or "those choices they willingly give up"?
3. By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" do you mean all such choices, all important such choices (defining "important" by some means we haven't gotten to yet), or all such choices they willingly give up?

My answers to your quest for clarification are the following.[list=1][*]Yes.[*]"Those choices they like to make"[*] By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" I mean all such choices.[/list:o]By using a definition instead of a label I was trying to avoid all the baggage that has been associated with current labels.  Hence my employment of the term X-ism.  However, one might look to Zilchplay or the P-play word and see startlingly uncanny similarities.  Do so at your own (gumming up) peril!

There is one point I would like to bring up that I think is proving to be something of a stumbling block.

The usage of the words "dysfunction" and "non-function."  I was using them in two separate ways with being fully aware of that until just now.  I think there is an important difference between the two and I would like to propose the following.

[*]Dysfunction – a "failure" of the affect portion of the game.[Non-function] – a failure of the effect portion of the game.[/list:u]This difference, which appears to be subtle, represents a huge assumed bias in the Model.  I do not mean bias in a negative on any level.  Dysfunction basically means that players aren't having fun or some such similar thing roleplaying (Exploring).  Non-function basically means that role-playing (Exploring) isn't happening – AT ALL.  What ever is happening is not Exploration.  To call such play Exploration/role-play is essentially a category error.  Big difference between what the players are feeling and the process itself failing to match the definitional criteria.

This brings me to this part of this thread –

Ultimately, I think we're going to have to accept that one of the following is true, like it or not:[list=1][*]Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression[*]Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dysfunctional[*]Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire[/list:o]Underlining added.

I would rephrase as such –[list=1][*]Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression[*]Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be non-functional[*]Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire[/list:o]

I think dysfunctional is inappropriately used and that non-functional is the better choice.  This is what, I think, led to Ron's apparent confusion about #2.

#2 makes no sense because dysfunctional play is defined by dissatisfaction. "Incoherent" play (multiple-CA) may be fun and functional, however.

#2 as previously stated says or implies something like – "Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dissatisfying (i.e. dysfunctional)."  However there is still a disjunction going on.  Both Ron and you see something that isn't quite right.  I think it is because if we use the word "non-functional" instead of "dysfunctional" at least we self-contradictory nature of the statement goes away.  That does leave with a new problem.  By my formulation, using non-functional instead of dysfunctional, #2 takes on a whole new meaning.

Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be non-functional (i.e. zero effect play).  So we end up with a contradiction again, but of a different sort – and one that demonstrates the bias of the Model.  Both you and Ron implicitly or explicitly reject zero effect play as non-functional and thus not roleplay at all.  

That's fine.  I know that M. J. Young has a different opinion.  My question is can either Ron or you (Chris) argue why effect must be present for the activity to qualify as roleplay?  Can we are argue that one must be effecting Situation in order for that activity to qualify as Exploration/roleplay are do we simply consign that position to "First Principle" or axiom?

I have to hop – Caldis and Chris I do wish to comment on both the ideas of "approach to play" and Chris' alternatives to "effect and affect."