1/3rd baked idea about Situation and Sim

[Marco]

Okay--I understand now how this activity has nothing to do with situation: photon torpedoes simply aren't relevant to the game in progress and people are stopping play to discuss them. I understand.

I can see how someone could make a case that this kind of activity 'isn't actually roleplaying' (or not CA-relevant). I'm not sure how this is really different than what goes on without books and dice at any fandom discussion. I mean, I can take it for granted that this happens--but discussions of what exactly the no-win scenario in Star Trek 2 consisted of broke out during one of my Star Trek games and I don't think any players there would've considered the discussion roleplaying--but rather a break in it.

That has all the topicality of a setting discussion (i.e. the discussion was "in a hypotheitcally real star trek universe what did this known-to-exist thing consist of?") and zero relevance to situation (the PC's were the bridge crew of an acting ship that had nothing to do with the academy).

-Marco

[Sean]

But it could be connected, too. This isn't that hard. The game is Star Trek; there's a Romulan Bird of Prey off the starboard bow; you want to know whether to fire on them, and one thing that factors into that is how on earth photon torpedoes work. That's the situation I'm imagining. This sort of thing comes up all the time:

"Wait a minute. You're hitting an IRON GOLEM with an unenchanted broadsword? It's got to get nicked or scratched or something..."

"If magic works based on contacting other dimensions that's fine, but if it's more like a psychic power the spell ought to work like this..."

In other words, it's when these kinds of discussion come up in relation to play that they're related to play, and not a digression.

There are players, and occasional moments for all players, when these kinds of questions become really, really important. The people who like to address them, and see addressing them as one of the points of play, and play for moments where they get to address them, tend to fall into the broad category of players who belong in a Sim CA.

Now these same questions can come up in the actor stance type situation. "I'm a Dunedain. What would I do here?"

"Vulcans believe that...therefore, I simply turn away from his challenge."

"Dude! In Akira it worked like this..."

Again, these could be fandom discussions, but when they come up in play, and mediate your own relationship to your own character, and your own role-playing, they aren't - they're Exploratory material in the game.'

If seeking out and answering those kinds of questions, and deepening your understanding of them, and 'getting it right' with respect to them in general, is your thing, you're in all likelihood a Sim-oriented player, at least when you play that way.

On the other hand, if you seek out and answer those questions because you want to engage directly with the moral and emotional material in them, make choices about them, etc., you're likely oriented towards Narrativism.

It's not that there are different questions, though the Sim player may ask them more emphatically or more regularly, because that's the point of play for them. It's what the questions are asked in service of that is indicative of Creative Agenda. I'm pretty sure.

One 'holy grail' of one type of immersionist play is to get so good at acting out your idea of elfhood that you don't have to break character to have the right responses. Fine, cool. I actually sort of like that kind of play, as long as the person doing it will break character to address important social issues in the group, and isn't using it as a cover for fuckwitude, etc.

Am I doing anything to help out here, or am I just creating more confusion? Or am I missing some other point that this thread is trying to make?

[Marco]

If seeking out and answering those kinds of questions, and deepening your understanding of them, and 'getting it right' with respect to them in general, is your thing, you're in all likelihood a Sim-oriented player, at least when you play that way.

On the other hand, if you seek out and answer those questions because you want to engage directly with the moral and emotional material in them, make choices about them, etc., you're likely oriented towards Narrativism.

If the statement is made that Sim players stop play and discuss some element of SIS "far more commonly and reliably" than Nar players then it is a tell, statistically. I think this is similar to claims made about 'story' (that being that despite what the essays say, if your transcript is gettin' story you are really likely to be playing Nar).

I'm not sure, myself. But if the activity is a tell based on the "reason why it is done" rather than the idea that "doing it" is indicative of the reason then I think, maybe, we're lookin' at it backwards.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

There is no contradiction.

My phrase "dropping out of Situation" referred to Situation as Jay values Situation, for purposes of explaining my point to him. This purpose has clearly backfired into an incredible mess, and the backfire represents one of the primary reasons why this forum is no longer functional.

Chris, I am not going to deal with Jay-through-you. Post what you think, not as Jay's representative.

Best,
Ron

[Caldis]

If the statement is made that Sim players stop play and discuss some element of SIS "far more commonly and reliably" than Nar players then it is a tell, statistically. I think this is similar to claims made about 'story' (that being that despite what the essays say, if your transcript is gettin' story you are really likely to be playing Nar).

I'm not sure, myself. But if the activity is a tell based on the "reason why it is done" rather than the idea that "doing it" is indicative of the reason then I think, maybe, we're lookin' at it backwards.

The tell is in the how and why it's done Marco not that it is done.  A gamist can do it to try and find tactical advantage, a narrativist to seek clarification to better address premise.  The tell is that the sim player is finding enjoyment in the act of figuring it out rather than using what's figured out for something else.

[Marco]

The tell is in the how and why it's done Marco not that it is done.  A gamist can do it to try and find tactical advantage, a narrativist to seek clarification to better address premise.  The tell is that the sim player is finding enjoyment in the act of figuring it out rather than using what's figured out for something else.

It's not that I don't buy this--I'm just not clear on why this is called "a tell." What's the tell "telling?"

In poker a tell indicates the existence of some otherwise hidden piece of information (playing with one's wedding band indicates a bluff).

If we know the what, the how, and the why of an action, what is the piece of otherwise hidden information it is refering to?

-Marco

[Caldis]

It's not that I don't buy this--I'm just not clear on why this is called "a tell." What's the tell "telling?"

In poker a tell indicates the existence of some otherwise hidden piece of information (playing with one's wedding band indicates a bluff).

If we know the what, the how, and the why of an action, what is the piece of otherwise hidden information it is refering to?

The telling piece of information is the engagement with this activity.  If this is the part of play that the players can be seen to be really getting off on, if this is the biggest part of why the player is playing the game, then this can be said to be a sign of the players creative agenda.

[Marco]

It's not that I don't buy this--I'm just not clear on why this is called "a tell." What's the tell "telling?"

In poker a tell indicates the existence of some otherwise hidden piece of information (playing with one's wedding band indicates a bluff).

If we know the what, the how, and the why of an action, what is the piece of otherwise hidden information it is refering to?

The telling piece of information is the engagement with this activity.  If this is the part of play that the players can be seen to be really getting off on, if this is the biggest part of why the player is playing the game, then this can be said to be a sign of the players creative agenda.

So what we're saying is: If the player enjoys activities for reasons we define as Sim then it is likely the player enjoys Sim-play?

-Marco

[Caldis]

So what we're saying is: If the player enjoys activities for reasons we define as Sim then it is likely the player enjoys Sim-play?

Maybe Marco, though your wording sounds weak but then again so did mine so I'll try again.   What we are saying is that by watching a large variety of people play roleplaying games we see patterns in how they react in game and in what is giving them enjoyment from the game.   Those patterns tend to fall along the lines that Ron has laid out as GNS.  

It's not something that is neccessarily easy to see.  We have to infer the thought processes that are going on inside a persons head based on their reactions, and some people react in a just plain weird fashion and what can look to be one reaction may actually be totally different.  However if we can see signs that a person is reacting positively to the game and it looks to be that they are reacting positively to specific activities that seem to attract  that type of player then we can make a judgement that the player is following that agenda.

I'm sorry but I think I'm wording this fairly poorly.  You may have to read between the lines to get what I'm saying here , if you do then great if then just give me a  'I dont get it' and I'll try and think on better phrasing for a couple days.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Caldis & Marco, whaddaya think about starting a new thread? I think (but am not sure) that there's some topic-drift going on.

No need to answer me, just utilize some self-critique and carry on as seems best.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

My phrase "dropping out of Situation" referred to Situation as Jay values Situation, for purposes of explaining my point to him.

Okay, so a "key tell" of Sim is a particular type of shift in the techniques of addressing Situation, yes?  Good, then we've concluded that this is a technique.

I'd suggest that it be thought of with respect to Stance, incidentally, but that is a subject for another thread.  It does, however, imply that techniques may well serve as "tells" for CAs, which although in common usage (with respect to meta-play or Director Stance in Nar) is often seen as a dangerous connection to make.

The only piece of it that remains controversial is the definition of "investment," which clearly is not well understood.  Had we all known exactly what "investment" means, in particular what "investment in Situation" means, the argument would probably not have arisen.  I suggest that this would be an especially fruitful area for further thinking, as in many respects this is the rubber hitting the road.  Now that we have at least one example of two variant forms of Simulationist techniques for such investment, we have grounds for valuable synthesis from all the vast knowledge and theory about Nar.

Chris, I am not going to deal with Jay-through-you. Post what you think, not as Jay's representative.

I resent that.  The very lengthy post concluded that Jay is incorrect in his assessment, because of a faulty causal construction: he has implied that effect entails cause.  I realize that you have found this thread frustrating, but that is no reason to take a swipe at me.

[Silmenume]

Hey Marco,

Okay--I understand now how this activity has nothing to do with situation: photon torpedoes simply aren't relevant to the game in progress and people are stopping play to discuss them. I understand.

I can see how someone could make a case that this kind of activity 'isn't actually roleplaying' (or not CA-relevant)...

That has all the topicality of a setting discussion (i.e. the discussion was "in a hypotheitcally real star trek universe what did this known-to-exist thing consist of?") and zero relevance to situation (the PC's were the bridge crew of an acting ship that had nothing to do with the academy).

Emphasis added

Exactly.  Though I would be more inclined to say such play is "not CA-relevant," but certainly can be enjoyable while gaming.  It certainly adds to the game experience by adding Color.  I see it as a way of helping "saturate" the game play experience because it is related on a general level to Setting and would include such things as say action figures, posters, music, etc.

My question is, if your examples are "not CA-relevant", and a game was composed entirely of such conversations and non-situation relevant pieces, then how do you diagnose such a game?  There are three prevailing schools of thought in this matter.  Such a game would not be role-play.  Such play falls inside the Model and is considered role-play but would be diagnoses as something like Zilchplay.  Or we consider the idea that such a game is something like M. J.'s GM only input play (to Situation) and thus still considered part of some CA though the player input (to Situation) dial happens to be zero.  This last one is difficult to justify since the Model seems to be based on the idea that Situation must be dealt with by the players before such play is considered "role-play."  By the way I am not making up the claim that "Situation is central" out of personal preference, this is clearly stated in the Model and the essays.

Just to be clear such "filling in of details" or conversations about "photon torpedoes" is CA-relevant and in fact important if they do have relevance to the Situation of the game in progress (Frex - a battle was just about to explode, or the player playing the Engineer was trying to effect a repair on the Photon Torpedoes or discern the effect of the Photon Torpedoes when used in an entirely unprecedented fashion).

So the long and short of it you understand what I am talking about.  Whether I am right or wrong is still being worked out, but you have what I was trying to get at.

Hey Sean,

But it could be connected, too. This isn't that hard. The game is Star Trek; there's a Romulan Bird of Prey off the starboard bow; you want to know whether to fire on them, and one thing that factors into that is how on earth photon torpedoes work. That's the situation I'm imagining.

I fully agree, this isn't that hard.  You are basically agreeing with what I have been saying about such details being import when they are CA-relevant – as long as they are relevant to handling of the Situation at hand.  My issued lies with the claim that a game where the players focused specifically on non-Situation relevant details is definitional of a type of Sim.  The problem is the Model, as it currently stands, states that dealing with Situation is the core of role-play.  If you have a game where the players are not "dealing with Situation" by focusing on details as a satisfying end unto itself without an interest in "dealing with Situation" then the Model says we have a degenerate case – the equivalent of a division by zero error if you will.

It's what the questions are asked in service of that is indicative of Creative Agenda.

Again, I agree.  The issue becomes again a matter of "dealing with Situation."  If the questions are asked in service of "handling of Situation" then they are CA-relevant.  The question is the same I posed to Marco.  A type of play has been proposed where the questions are not in the service of "handling of Situation" – What do we diagnose such a game as?  The glossary describes such activity as Color.

Color
Imagined details about any or all of System, Character, Setting, or Situation, added in such a way that does not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene. One of the Components of Exploration.[/list:u][/list:u]All I am saying is that because such non-Situational relevant details are Color, that play that centers on this process cannot be definitional of a type of Sim play.

One 'holy grail' of one type of immersionist play is to get so good at acting out your idea of elfhood that you don't have to break character to have the right responses. Fine, cool. I actually sort of like that kind of play, as long as the person doing it will break character to address important social issues in the group, and isn't using it as a cover for fuckwitude, etc.

Just to be clear I am not saying that this type of "immersionist play" is superior, better or preferred on any level to play where lots of questions need to be asked or are worked out.  Such detail questions happen in the game I'm in on a regular basis.  I'm just saying that the details need to be relevant to Situation to be CA-relevant and that very issue is what is being hashed out.

Am I doing anything to help out here, or am I just creating more confusion? Or am I missing some other point that this thread is trying to make?

I think you have been helpful.  The point of this thread is to argue that such details need to be in the service of Situation to be CA-relevant.  Thus far we are in substantial agreement.  There is a counter claim that such details need not be relevant to Situation to be CA-relevant that I do not agree with and I am trying to work through.  I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of the counter-claim.

Hey Ron,

My phrase "dropping out of Situation" referred to Situation as Jay values Situation, for purposes of explaining my point to him. This purpose has clearly backfired into an incredible mess, and the backfire represents one of the primary reasons why this forum is no longer functional.

Just to clear the air, the backfire didn't come from my disagreement with your position, what I took serious issue with was your mischaracterization of my motives then belittling me in a public forum based upon that very same mischaracterization of my motives.  I admittedly got upset and should not have vented, but I thought it was OK to occasionally not be "by your leave Alphonse" all the time.  Other than that I'm still excited to continue.

I am curious about your phrase "dropping out of Situation."  This is the first place where that phrasing showed up and to me the meaning of it is substantially different from your first phrasing "dropping investment in the current imagined Situation."  I have absolutely no issue with play where players "drop out of Situation" to iron out details about said Situation.  That has to happen.  I think it is impossible to stay entirely "in Situation" and role-play.  My contention is that when players do "drop out of Situation" to iron out details they have not "dropped investment" in the Situation.  IOW the reason the players are "dropping out of Situation" to work out such details is so that they may more effectively deal with Situation – they are still "invested."

There are also moments in games where such details get worked out that are not relevant to Situation, and I don't have issues with that either.  As in Marco's post for example, they may be related to the Setting.  My point is that when play centers on such "non-Situation relevant details" as an end to the exclusion or indifference to Situation, the Model itself says something is missing.  If messing with the 800-lbs gorilla is missing or not important then the Model yellow flags that style of play.

So as to clear the air, when you said "dropping investment in the current imagined Situation" did you intend to say "dropping out of Situation?"  IOW did you mean to say that play while the players drop out of Situation to iron out the details they were still interested/invested in Situation much in the same way Nar players can "drop out of Situation" to bid coins and still be invested in the Premise/Situation?  If that is the case we are in general agreement.  If you meant that the players "drop out of Situation" and work out such details as an end/goal of play and thus are not nor were ever particularly "invested" in Situation and that is indicative of CA-relevant play then we are still not in agreement.  This to me is the equivalent of players in the TROS really getting all excited and spending lots of in game time choosing, describing and talking about their Spiritual Attributes then having no interest in or completely avoiding all combat and calling that an example of functional Narrativist play.

I had a passing thought.  If you mean that this refining of details is a "tell" indicating that Sim play might be in progress I'm with you on that as well.  One would then still have to look and see what the players are doing with regards to Situation to ultimately make the diagnosis.  However, that the players are refining details is not sufficient to indicate Sim play in and of itself.

Hey Chris,

My phrase "dropping out of Situation" referred to Situation as Jay values Situation, for purposes of explaining my point to him.

Okay, so a "key tell" of Sim is a particular type of shift in the techniques of addressing Situation, yes?  Good, then we've concluded that this is a technique.

I'm OK with that.  I have never had any issues with the idea of players stopping play to nail down details when it was, as you described, a technique of or for addressing Situation.  I was originally under the belief that there was a style of play proposed that claimed that such ironing out of details was not a technique used to address Situation but an end unto itself and that this was definitional of Sim.  I'm very happy and excited calling dropping out of Situation to iron out details for the ultimate purpose of addressing Situation a Technique.  Makes great sense to me.

The only piece of it that remains controversial is the definition of "investment," which clearly is not well understood. Had we all known exactly what "investment" means, in particular what "investment in Situation" means, the argument would probably not have arisen. I suggest that this would be an especially fruitful area for further thinking, as in many respects this is the rubber hitting the road. Now that we have at least one example of two variant forms of Simulationist techniques for such investment, we have grounds for valuable synthesis from all the vast knowledge and theory about Nar.

Agreed.  Had it been clear that "dropping investment" did not mean or imply a lack of interest in Situation then there indeed would have been very little argument.  However until Ron clarifies his position I wish to refrain from assuming his meaning or intent.

[Ron Edwards]

Easy.

"Dropping investment" can certainly be read in two ways.

The first one isn't what I was driving at, but it certainly was a reasonable inference on the reader's part. It means not playing. It means doing other stuff in a way which means play becomes less interesting to everyone. People often complain about others getting up to channel-surf, reading a Robert Jordan novel, or just interjecting with a completely unrelated conversation during play.

Perhaps it's best understood by a contrast. In our game group, for instance, play is often interrupted by a sudden urge to discuss (say) Clint Eastwood, or by food arriving, or comments on the wine, or whatever. But none of this actually disrupts play; part of our unspoken Social Contract is that "during this time, play is the priority, even if we're not doing it ... hence anything else is permitted as long as everyone understands that at least one of us probably needs a little break. We resume with full enthusiasm." In other words, we're not ceasing to invest in what's up with the role-playing until the session is designated to be over.

The second one has to do with shifting the focus of the SIS in some major way, that is, losing some or all of the attention and concenctration from where it was. This could be about anything - all the way from "let's quit all this stupid talk and fight!" to "But wouldn't a phaser melt the conduit, 'cause it can melt a bulkhead?" Or to whatever, maybe a sudden discussion of setting details because someone read a supplement (not uncommon during our Hero Wars game ...).

Think of everyone's attention and concentration on imagined stuff during play - not the resolutions and events, but the stuff. You can shift that attention and concentration up to a larger scale, down to a tiny scale; you can freeze in-game time to shift the attention and concentration 'round and 'round an in-game object; etc, etc.

In a Simulationist context, for some folks, such a shift can be a serious aspect of play, especially when it concerns exactly the sort of details that Sean has outlined so nicely. What's interesting about playing with these folks is how they don't seem to perceive it as a shift at all. Experientially, I'm with Jay - musing over how the phaser "really" works or saying "hold it! hold it! I'm calculating the effect of the ship's pitch and yaw on your grip on the rope" is agony for me. It's exactly like "Dropping investment" would be in my first description above, which is probably why I phrased it that way.

I also think it's most common in a Simulationist context specifically because Exploration qua Exploration is the goal (why Ralph doesn't like the term "Exploration squared" I'll never know; but everyone, say "emulation" instead if it helps). To some folks, getting into this "hold the phone" focus on what many of us consider insanely picky details is a high point of play. I think that in Simulationist play, this is at least aesthetically consistent with the basic Creative Agenda, even if it's procedurally or locally inconsistent for other members of the group, who have their own idea of what's appropriate to Explore.

Arguably, functional (fun) Simulationist play relies on agreements about that "focus/stop" knob, not because it's unique to Simulationist play, but because there's usually less overt "why we play" at the real-person level going on in Sim than in the other modes. That's a neat concept, and I wish I'd thought about it earlier. Caldis' points in this thread are consistent with this way of looking at it.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hey Marco,
Exactly.  Though I would be more inclined to say such play is "not CA-relevant," but certainly can be enjoyable while gaming.  It certainly adds to the game experience by adding Color.  I see it as a way of helping "saturate" the game play experience because it is related on a general level to Setting and would include such things as say action figures, posters, music, etc.

My question is, if your examples are "not CA-relevant", and a game was composed entirely of such conversations and non-situation relevant pieces, then how do you diagnose such a game?

In the extreme case, I don't think it's roleplaying (that is: no characters involved, no roles, no mechanics, no game ...) That's the extreme case though where the discussions are not held relative to some in-game or meta-game objective on the parts of the participants.

If the digression, however, does have a purpose then I think it is roleplaying--it's clarafication of situation. Since I think that happens all the time and the player's enjoyment of that activity is based on many factors like how invested they are in controling an outcome (or making a specific statement), how interesting they think the ideas coming out are, how long it goes on, etc. I don't see how it can be deemed 'Sim.'

Last night in an IRC StarCluster game a PC was trying to shutdown the ship's drives (an NPC was trying to blow up the ship). The PC knew nothing about the technology and asked the GM to determine whether or not she shut down the a-grav as well.

There was a brief discussion about how emergency shutdown worked (there's a big, clearly marked button the engineer could direct her to--and it happens fast--and it's engine's only).

Now, here's the thing: we're on IRC so I have no idea what was in the player's head--however: I know that if I'd been asking the GM to calculate if I shut down the a-grav it would be because:
(a) I think it would be cool (illustrative of the character's ignorance of technology) and might be an interesting springboard for my character feeling guilt (the other PC's were engaged in a battle with the NPC).
(b) I think it might illustrate how the PC engineer should really be the guy down here.
(c) I think it's a likely possibility and want the versimilitude of a check.

Energy was high (for me, on my end of the keyboard) and I thought "this is exactly the kind of Sim-tell that we're discussing on The Forge."  I liked that question because I thought it showed that the Player was interested in the game in that they were "using the GM" as a tool to see if they could affect the game without directly using their character.

I.e. it's sort of indirect author-stance. "I take this action and inform the GM that I think maybe X would happen but I don't directly 'author' X--I'll leave it up to his interpertation."

So here's what I'm thinking:

I don't consider this musing If players had been "musing" about how one might shut down starship engines I think the play would have looked *very* different. I think that term indicates that the energy of play is low or the player is calling for a break from high energy (the ship is pitching around and the guy wants to stop and discuss orbial mechanics that aren't relevant) to low energy.

If we consider "musing" a Sim activity but not "clarifying" I'm good with that--the thing is, I've not seen much musing (discussion for the sake of discussion). Everything I've seen is purposeful to the person asking for it in terms of the SIS.

In Ron's example, however (the guy calculating pitch and yaw) I would expect that the player acutally *does* have a rationale other than musing about physics. As tortorus as it might be, IME--in my experience (and we've all had different experiences) the players who do that have a reason for it.

In the case of the character asking for calculations about accidental a-grav shutdown, I think it was to possibly "highten the tension." However, it could be for any reason and we don't know.

-Marco
[ We can have another thread on Tells--but what I don't see here, in this case, is the equivalent of the call or fold that makes a tell a 'tell' in poker-terms. ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Marco, I agree with you about all that. You seem, however, to be convinced that I'm talking about some kind of automatic guarantee that the behavior is Simulationist.

... and that's just funky. We started this discussion with issues of Simulationist play, so let's stay there, and not worry about how anything we discuss might be present or manifested (similarly or differently) in any other sort of play. Differentiating between Sim and other forms of play just isn't an issue at the moment.

What I'm discussing is a set of behaviors which happen to be common across the diversity of Simulationist play (which is different from "common in any instance of Sim play by definition"), and why their existence refutes the extremity of Jay's initial starting position.

Side note: Jay very fairly presented his position as 1/3 baked and therefore acknowledged it as open for some major objections, with no implied critique of him as a person or as a thinker.

Not every damn discussion of Sim has to get into a freakshow about how it is or isn't different from the other modes. Let's just talk about Sim, for crying out loud.

Best,
Ron