Address vs. Bricolage

[Marco]

Okay, I've read the latest threads and I have tried to figure out if:

(a) they have changed my understanding of GNS Sim vs. GNS Nar
(b) they have changed how I'd express GNS Sim vs. GNS Nar.
(c) I understand this at all.

I'm most dubious about (c), but I think that (a) or (b) is possible. So I'm posting in hopes of some help.

1. Practical Explanation. My interest in distinguishing the two of these is that I'm trying to find out if what people say the model says about game design, and Incoherence in particular, is applicable to my gaming in some what that could present a fundamental improvement.

I have no luck assessing the agendas of other players I game with but I can assess the practical effects and what they say. I can also self-assess myself and see when I'm pleased with how things are working or less pleased (and then try to figure out why).

I certainly think some of my play fits the Nar profile on the face of it but I think that the techniques and mechanics I favor are all Sim. I don't understand the idea of story-before as anything but a hypothetical (I don't identify with the descriptions of it in any play I've ever seen). I recognize, however, that I might not see it--especially if it's tied to immersion or what might be considered the "mythic" quality of Sim play.

Basically, what this means is: I'm not sure if the play is Sim or Nar and I don't know how to figure it out from the essays.

At one point I'd hypothesized that my play was more-Sim in the begining of a game and we were exploring the situation (and had interest and engagement in figuring out what was happening) and then became more-Nar when the battle lines got drawn up (and I don't mean "the last climactic battle" but more like "half-way through").

However: I have no idea if this is a legitimate interpertation.

Examples for Contrast: My problem with Jay's Sim formulation has always been that it looks like Address of Premise to me from Actor Stance. Actor Stance is, IME, not all that well associated with Nar play (i.e. when you say "story on purpose" it doesn't sound to me like you are talking about immersed play).*

Part of my confusion with the language being used is as follows:

Myth vs. Premise: I'm not sure what the relevance of myth is to the player compared to Premise. I've seen suggestions that it is about social structures instead of "moral issues" but I think Premise is really "human-experience stuff" and therefore that includes social structures (well, problems with social structures).

Connection vs. Judgment: Narrativism is often described as being a judgment on some premise issue. However, I don't like that term: I can judge something without being really invested in it ("I conclude the Camery is less-value-for-the-money than the Honda Accord"). But if I connect to that issue ("Man, my whole livelyhood is riding on making the right choices with my meager funds!") then it seems more like a Premise issue to me.

So the examples I have seen where someone is judging what a character will do vs. connecting with what the character will do indeed seem to distinguish Sim from Nar--but on the basis of whether the person is actually invested as a player in the imaginary drama or invested in as an analyist.

Rejection of Input: I think (IMO) the clearest way to look at a functional CA is by what kind of input it doesn't get or doesn't admit. For example, we say that reliably the Narrativist will not be stopping to talk about things (ammunition) that we don't see as relating to a human-experience issue (that is: if for some reason ammo choice is important to the human experience issue, as when the character in a murderous rage buys special toxic-tipped bullets to ensure a kill as illustriative of just how mad he is, it'll be freakin' obvious why he's concerned about ammo).

To my understanding (previous to the bricolage/myth issue) Sim play rejects input because the other players (and/or just the GM) determine it doesn't fit the pre-established theme.

So if we're having a Sim game of CoC and a Sim player decides "what his character would do" is high-tail it out of there and take his family with him to ensure their safety, the other players might point out that there isn't much of a story if that happens and so he re-assess his character's behavior to have him stick it out.

NOTE: To my understanding this would be functional because the player is more concerned about the 'unfolding story' of play than responding to the (in this case, not felt) emotion of fear for one's loved ones. If the player really is connecting to a fear of his loved ones (even in the game) he may not think it's all that functional to stay and fight the lovecraftian horrors "for the story" (I think this is a simplistic case--but, hopefully, a pretty clear one as presented).

Now, if this is an accurate assessment then my question is this: how is either the process of bricolage or the product of myth interperted as to define this behavior (note: I'm not saying this is wrong--just that I don't get it)?

If one of the basic definitions of the character is that "he will stay and solve the mystery" then couldn't the bricloature ... brico ... the Player just, you know, change that?

If one of the functions of myth is that "we resolve the issue in a pre-defined way" then why is that "mythic?" I realize we don't mean real myths (in most cases)--but is it that everyone staying together to make a story they've agreed to make is some kind of group-thing vs. an individual thing (three Narrativists go in separate directions and then have to sit out 2/3rds of the game as the GM handles each one separate?)

Finally: Don't get me wrong here. I'm not down on the terms. I have read the descriptions. I think this is deep stuff and my background isn't all that well suited to it. However: when I look at my play (which most people I've talked to in PM or elsewhere, thinks is at least described as very, very Sim) I don't see the "items in the garage" being bricoled (!?) any more so than I see that as a basis for the imaginary manipulation any concept in, say, Gamist play.

And when I try to relate bricolage to building, like, a work of art with these things (which kind of makes some sense to me) I don't see how that's different for Narrativist play if you just define "art" as "that which has meaning to me."

So I'm kinda lost for the practical differences.

-Marco
* somone pointed out that the process by which we get games together which involves a multi-step feedback process of presenting basic, foundational, situation, making 'fit characters,' and then fleshing out the situation to cater to those characters is, entirely, an on-purpose activity.

[contracycle]

I have no luck assessing the agendas of other players I game with but I can assess the practical effects and what they say. I can also self-assess myself and see when I'm pleased with how things are working or less pleased (and then try to figure out why).

Marco,

Over in Actual play, in the thread [L5R] GNS On Display, JMendez gave us what I thought was an excellent example of Narr in action:

And then it hit me. BAM! I can make a statement! Right here, right now, I can show everyone what it means to be a samurai. Honor versus duty, past versus future, what am I willing to give up for what I believe in. Not what would my character do, but what will my character do. It took me about 3 seconds to reach a decision, and then I pretended to take off my emerald bracelet and throw it on the floor, and I said "I am no longer a magistrate." And they all stared at me.

Has anything like this ever happened to you?  Do you think anything like this has happened to your players?

[Marco]

I have no luck assessing the agendas of other players I game with but I can assess the practical effects and what they say. I can also self-assess myself and see when I'm pleased with how things are working or less pleased (and then try to figure out why).

Marco,

Over in Actual play, in the thread [L5R] GNS On Display, JMendez gave us what I thought was an excellent example of Narr in action:

I saw that. Again: seems like immersive play vs. non-immersive play. Let's look at three different ways of approaching that situation:

1. I think of myself as a director of a play and ask "what would the audience believe this character doing?" (Sim)

2. I think of myself as a director of a play and go "wow, I can make a *statement* right here, right now and show everyone how I feel about honor!" (Nar)

3. I feel a gut-level emotion as though I am there, reacting to the horror of the question and to the difficulty of the choice. Certainly the person reacting is *me* and not 'my character' however, I have an imaginary context which gives the situation relevance through my character (Sim? Nar?)

This 3rd contains aspects of both since how *I* feel about honor in the context of 'being a samuari' is not how *I* feel about honor in the context of being an adult, male, American citizen. I have not sworn an oath to a liege. I would not commit suicide over leaving a job, etc.

The pressures (ineternal and social) that the character would feel are *alien* to me and, unless established in a 'what would this character do context' inscrutable (or simply accademic, rather than meaningful).

If I take the action of honorable suicide because I saw a character do it in Shogun and think it'll be *likely* or *credible* then I would identify that as Sim. If I do it because I am imagining feeling the weight of a personal sense of honor then it isn't going to be me as a player making a statement to other players around the table, IMO.

Has anything like this ever happened to you?  Do you think anything like this has happened to your players?

The only way I could imagine what this would look like from outside is someone being powerfully effected by the game in progress.

Yes: that happens to my players and myself.
No: I, when this happens to me, I don't think of it as showing all the others what it's "what it means to be a samurai."

Edited to add: In my write up of After The War (actual play) there were times during the game when I felt a literal gut-wrenching reaction to the imaginary events of the scenario. There were times when, in fact, *I* was taxed as a player to make a moral decision that I could live with. But: I wasn't going "I can make a statement about forgiveness and show everyone what I believe about it."

Instead I was like: damn, man, did I really sign up for this!? on a player level, during breaks and I am going to rain my firey vengance and burning lead down on these bastards most of the time during play.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I saw that. Again: seems like immersive play vs. non-immersive play. Let's look at three different ways of approaching that situation:

No lets not.  I only want to know if you, personally, viscerally, recognise that experience.  At the moment I think you are saying "no", is that fair?

[Marco]

I saw that. Again: seems like immersive play vs. non-immersive play. Let's look at three different ways of approaching that situation:

No lets not.  I only want to know if you, personally, viscerally, recognise that experience.  At the moment I think you are saying "no", is that fair?

I strongly identify with half of it. Specifically I identify with the sense of having to make a terrible choice about deeply held beliefs. The part I don't identify with so much is "Right here, right now, I can show everyone what it means to be a samurai."
(Emphasis added)

'Cause to me that seems like being about presentation of an idea rather than it's internal conceptualization.

In a recent game I was portraying an enraged character who'd been betrayed by a member of the ship's crew (my character is the Captain). When speaking to the traitor over the ship's intercom I did, indeed, feel a presentational thrill of speaking in-character and portraying that sense of rage I could touch on personally. But I wouldn't have described what I was  doing as showing them "what I thought of vengance vs. humanity" I would say it as showing them "a deeply enraged  character ditching his humanity." Indeed, it is *possible* the players would not have expressed two sides of the decision I made the way I concieved of it)

In the example you cite, it seems to me, because of the language I bolded, that the emphasis of play is on the presentation of the player's statement rather than the internalization of the difficulty of the choice which will then come out in play as a result of the choice being made (and come out in play, my choices did--strongy--but not as a statement made to show the other players what it means to choose vengance over humanity, but rather as the results of that internal choice made in-character).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'll follow up on that answer. Marco, I'm not interested in whether you wanted to show the other folks all this stuff you're feeling. J did state it in this fashion, but that is just him. I'm interested in whether the other folks at the table recognized and enjoyed your experience of this sort, at the time.

Also, I have to say - is it not possible merely to drop this whole issue of "people told me I was playing Sim!" You seem to have hugged that to your chest for years now, in some kind of ... I don't know, deeply felt fashion. Bluntly, who cares? I certainly didn't tell you that you must have been playing Sim at any point, but I'm the one who seems to have to cope with your (?) resentment? confusion? what (?) about it. Like, a lot.

I thought we dealt with all that ages ago when I talked about the game-book extruding tentacles ... in fact, I just re-read that thread and couldn't find anything that failed to address what you've raised here.

What am I missing? One can play Narr with GURPS. One can play Narr with JAGS. Whether you are or not, is between you and ... well, you and you. Not me.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hello,

I'll follow up on that answer. Marco, I'm not interested in whether you wanted to show the other folks all this stuff you're feeling. J did state it in this fashion, but that is just him. I'm interested in whether the other folks at the table recognized and enjoyed your experience of this sort, at the time.

Also, I have to say - is it not possible merely to drop this whole issue of "people told me I was playing Sim!" You seem to have hugged that to your chest for years now, in some kind of ... I don't know, deeply felt fashion. Bluntly, who cares? I certainly didn't tell you that you must have been playing Sim at any point, but I'm the one who seems to have to cope with your (?) resentment? confusion? what (?) about it. Like, a lot.

I thought we dealt with all that ages ago when I talked about the game-book extruding tentacles ... in fact, I just re-read that thread and couldn't find anything that failed to address what you've raised here.

What am I missing? One can play Narr with GURPS. One can play Narr with JAGS. Whether you are or not, is between you and ... well, you and you. Not me.

Best,
Ron

Well, hang on, Ron.

The reason I brought my own play into this at all (which may've been a mistake) was because of this: I see Jay's formulation is Nar but others see it as Sim. I see my play as meeting a standard for Nar--others see it as Sim.

I expect that whatever's going on it's probably the same issue in both cases.

Dig that? Whatever analysis I am performing or miss-performing on Jay's formulation (which seems to fit into the bricolage thing) leads me to a different conclusion than other people's.

So I'm askin' why.

My Play See: I examine my play and the theory and I say "yes, indeed, human-experience issues were, indeed addressed during play--and with reliability, IMO."

I conclude: Nar

Other people (like Contra, and Mark W. and Tim C.) read my write-ups and conclude: Sim (as recently as last week).

I've wondered why that is. What's it say about the theory? The writeups are pretty in-depth. They do, in fact, talk about how decisions were made and what I was thinking at different points in the game. They are not simply "transcripts" from which we could tell nothing.

So where's the disconnect? Do other people not see the human-experience questions in the action of play? Am I seeing something that isn't there? Am I not communicating something that is?

Jay's Example I look at Jay's examples and the bricolage thing and I examine it and ask "are human experience issues bein' brought up in Jay's examples and addressed?" and I go "yes."

And I ask: "is the player connecting to those issues" and I ask Jay and he says "yes."

So then I go: well, by the theory, that's Nar (I'm not the only one--looks like Vincent agreed, at least somewhat).

The Disconnect: I think that the disconnect deals with how people interpert "story on purpose" or "immersion" or the player's mode of decision making during play.

I realize that is not part of the theory per se. But I'm guessing that's where the problem lies.

I think that it can be solved by examining:
(a) How to the bricolage/myth process arrives at pre-determined theme if a bricolature can change the 'iron' to a 'heating element' during his process.

(b) how to distinguish the Sim player from the Nar player under Jay's formulations. I ask this 'cause the guy in his example seems like premise-stuff to me if the player is involved.

Is that clearer?

-Marco

[contracycle]

I have certainly said - with caveats though - that I think your play style is sim.  Probably, maybe.  I wouldn't bet 10 pence on being right though because I am so remote from the actual subject.

But in my view, your writeups have largely hindered rather than helped.  In my totally subjective and unimportant opinion, I think they contain too much intellectualising of the experience.  Thats why I just want to ask questions about your experience - not what you THINK about your experience.

The one thing I absolutely certainly do not want to do is get into another go-around of but-x-then-y-if-z.   I also want to break out of having to address the game and all its players as whole.  You should be able to give yes/no answers to these questions.

Do you recognise that experience yourself?
Do you think any of your other players would recognise that experience?

[Marco]

Do you recognise that experience yourself?
Do you think any of your other players would recognise that experience?

Actually, this speculation can go in another thread (or nowhere).

Can you explain how the bricolage/myth formulation of Sim relates to pre-determined theme?

I'm especially interested in how someone's actions are rejected as not fitting the theme under the bricolage/myth model.

-Marco

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

Ok, after reading the whole thread, it strikes me that I have been having this very same discussion with some friends here in Portugal. The mixup seems to be between Nar and Sim-Char. It is my view that these two are structurally very different, but the diference may be hard to spot, just like glass and lead crystal are structurally very different, but hard to tell apart, so to speak.

I feel a gut-level emotion as though I am there, reacting to the horror of the question and to the difficulty of the choice. Certainly the person reacting is *me* and not 'my character' however, I have an imaginary context which gives the situation relevance through my character (Sim? Nar?)

This 3rd contains aspects of both.

Not really. Of course you have an imaginary context, otherwise, you wouldn't be role-playng at all. Let's not forget that the Big Model states that exploration is always there, holding the experience together. Also, the Big Model says that the difference between G, N and S is in the why you are enjoying the experience.

If you are enjoying yourself because you get to put yourself in that position and feel the choice, even through the imaginary context, then you're enjoying the more Narrativistic aspects of role-playing. "What will I, as my character, do?"

But if you are enjoying yourself because you get to explore your character's actions and reactions when faced with a difficult choice, then you are probably enjoying the more Character-based Simulationistic aspects of role-playing. "What would my character do?"

Now, you may say, but it's both. I would say, maybe, but one of them is probably more important for you than the other. You may try to convince me otherwise, but in my mind, they are so fundamentally different, I just can't see them being simultaneously equally important.

Note that Stance is quite independent from Mode. One can be playing fully immersive, but there will be a reason why one enjoys that full immersiveness, and that reason for enjoyment makes all the difference as far as mode is concerned.

Note also that there is no requisite in the definition for Nar that your character must make the same choices that you would make if you were there personally.

Or at least, that's my understanding. :)

Cheers,

J.

P.S. It's João, not Jay. :)

Edit for spelling and to add that last note.

[Marco]

Jay is the poster who posted to the GNS forums about a formulation of Bricolage/Myth. His handle is Silmenume. That's who I'm talkin' about.

Secondly: the I-as-me or I-as-my-character is, I agree, the important element. But ultimately, I think the only language we have to discuss the difference between the two in the context of RPG's is something like 'connection' or maybe 'emotional connection' (another term I've used "empathic emotions").

Edited to note: this 'connection' to events means in a personalized internalized sense. Kind of the difference that a person has when they are looking at a hypothetical ethics question vs. when they are faced with it, with real stakes.

If I am doing this:

But if you are enjoying yourself because you get to explore your character's actions and reactions when faced with a difficult choice, then you are probably enjoying the more Character-based Simulationistic aspects of role-playing. "What would my character do?"

Then am I as a player all worked up about the in-game situation 'as though it were real' (and I mean that in the same way we experience emotion at a movie--not as in 'a delusion')?

I think that if you say yeah, you are then it doesn't distinguish itself from this:

If you are enjoying yourself because you get to put yourself in that position and feel the choice, even through the imaginary context, then you're enjoying the more Narrativistic aspects of role-playing. "What will I, as my character, do?"

(Emphasis added)

When I am "not acting as my character" in an RPG I am:
1. concerned about, for example, offending another player rather than offending her character (my character, in a recent game, mutilated a captured NPC and I did worry that I might have offended one or more players ... after the fact).

2. I am in Author stance, making decisions to effect the game world by taking actions with meanings or motives the character would not have.

3. Analyzing character behavior as a sociologist or technician asking 'given the variety of internal and external forces on this character what would he do.'

(there may be more)

In the second case I could see a player-connection to the imaginary events as a person watching a movie feels an emotional connection to the imaginary events (as in a sense of sadness when a character does something that will result in tragedy).

But in the other two, I would say that "not being in the head of your character" is pretty much definitive of a detachment from the player's perspective to the emotional-impact/personal-connection of the imaginary events.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Can you explain how the bricolage/myth formulation of Sim relates to pre-determined theme?

I hesitate to respond.  This is my thought though: its like painting all the objects in the shed one colour.

Does that help?

[Marco]

Can you explain how the bricolage/myth formulation of Sim relates to pre-determined theme?

I hesitate to respond.  This is my thought though: its like painting all the objects in the shed one colour.

Does that help?

Maybe you should've hesitated longer.

I've read the write-up on bricolage and myth saying that Sim play is play where the participants manipulate and combine and modifiy pre-existing concepts, eventually creating as a product of play a narrative that is valued for it's Mythic attributes (where myth is not-story).

I've read the write-up on pre-determined theme saying that Sim play is play where the players have a gating-condition for input (the theme) and they provide input that is either accepted or rejected based on that condition. The final product of play is a narrative that is valued for its adherence to the gating condition.

These do not, to me, sound like the same thing. I don't see how bricolage implies a gating conditon. I don't see how adherence to that condition is necessiarily 'mythic.'

I'm not saying I can't accept they are the same thing (myth is pretty clearly being meant in a highly specific fashion and an anthropoplogical/semiotic context, after all) but I'm not clear on it.

Especially when the examples look like Premise to me.

-Marco

[contracycle]

These do not, to me, sound like the same thing. I don't see how bricolage implies a gating conditon. I don't see how adherence to that condition is necessiarily 'mythic.'

OK I think I understand your question now.  But in this paragraph I would replace "implies" with "allows", and would strike the word "necessarily".  Because theme-constrained sim is one form of sim; it is a special, not a general, case.

As Chris L. discussed, once you have manipulated an object in the shed, it can't be un-manipulated.  That necessarily introduces a limit on what can be done in the future.  That aspect of the "mythic shed" permits, allows the construction of of a thematic constraint if you wish.

I don't think such a constraint is in any way necessarily mythic - that IMO is a substution of cause and effect.  Lets say instead we can see a difference between freely associative mythologies, like those of which Chris gave examples, and purposefully constrained mythologies, like those that first and formost exist to exalt a particular god.  Whereas in  the aboriginal-mythic context you can associate nearly anything with anything, in the constrained context there are many things you cannot do.

I think you are constructing too strong and direct a relationship, whereas I see the reationship as loose and facilitative.

[Ian Charvill]

If Chris Lehrich were around I'd be staying away from this one -- nothing of what I'm about to say should be taken as authoritative.

The guy in the shed doing bricolage -- the bricoleur -- is putting old stuff together and making new stuff out of it.  Bricoleur is just the French word for 'handiman'.  He's not doing it for kicks though, he's doing it to serve a function.

Let's look at another jargon word Chris bought up - adequation.  Adequation is to do with an analogy never being the thing it describes.  It can just be a better or worse fit.  Adequation is the process of making it a better fit.

So your handiman has a shed full of stuff and he's making a thing.  He's never going to be able to make quite the thing he wants because he's got to make it out of pre-existing stuff.  He's never going to quite have the parts he wants but he's got stuff that'll do -- stuff that's adequate.

Over time, collecting stuff, fitting it together in new ways, he might come up with better fitting stuff -- the process of adequation.

Let's take a break and go back in time.  Elizabethan London, everyone's excited about the latest playwright and all the new things he's doing.  Except there not.  Nobody much cares about newness.  They care about style and they care about tradition.  How does this new guy tell the old tales.  Marlowe retells Faustas, Shakespeare retells Hamlet, Webster...

Originality has a premium nowadays, but tradition still is hugely important, and people's takes on tradition.  Bands cover bands.  Fashions revive with a twist.  Hollywood remakes the shows of our youth.  Soap Operas tell endless variations of the same story.

Roleplaying is a very traditional form (who knows if it has to be, but it is).  Dungeons and Dragons takes magic from Vance, demi-humans from Tolkein, and so on and so on.  Glorantha raids Chinese myth for the east and Christianity for the West.  The World of Darkness reworks archetypal supernatural figures: vampires, werewolves, ghosts, fairies.  My Life with Master reworks ideas from a Hollywood subgenre of the Gothic novel.  Inspectres reworks Ghostbusters.  Dust Devils reworks the Western.  Sorceror is omniverous, first reworking pulp fantasy (Sword&) before going on to pulp detective novels (Soul).  Shadowrun reaches even further reworking Dungeons and Dragons itself, along with cyberpunk fiction.

Then there's a second level of reworking.  My players are reworking Sorensen's dotcom reworking of Ghostbusters and putting it in an English landscape.  Heroquest players rework Stafford's Gloranthan reworking of real world myths under the banner of Issaries' Golden Rule - Your Glorantha Will Vary.

Now think of how the game authors in each case -- and the role playing group beyond that -- are acting like the handiman in the shed putting together new things from old pieces.

Now, the point, and I think there is one:

<quote>Can you explain how the bricolage/myth formulation of Sim relates to pre-determined theme?</quote>

Now, I'm GNS agnostic, so I'm talking here in general terms.  The absolute pervasiveness of bricolage in the history of roleplaying has lead to a limited scope in terms of output.  If what you're interested in is making new things -- and making new themes is just a subset of the new things you could make -- making them only out of old things is going to limit you.

So, you're a "narrativist", you're authoring theme by mindfully addressing premise, there are going to be issues if bricolage is the only technique you've got.  The best you can hope for is adequation -- pressing these old things into service of your theme.  If your theme happens to be implicit in the preexisting material you have good shot, if it's not you're likely to become frustrated.

Example: Relationship Maps exactly as per Sorceror's Soul.  This is a kind of pastiche.  How well it works will depend on how closely you're interested in dealing with the implicit themes.  You R-map a pulp detective novel of the kind Ron favours you will get a certain amount of moral darkness -- as per the source: betrayal, murder, blackmail, and so on -- along with stresses along the lines of blood and sexual ties because these are the first lines you map (sex ties are of course merely potential blood ties so you're looking at blood -- which is to say genetic* -- ties and blood ties in a party dress).  Now Ron's an evolutionary biologist, so -- BANG -- this hits the button for him.  It empowers his ability to address premise because it provides him with old stuff that works great for making the new stuff.

To be explicit: we're seeing bricolage in "narrativist" play.  The stuff in the shed is adequate for the new stuff the handiman is putting together.

Now what happens if the stuff in the shed was inadequate?  What would this do to the guy who was mindfully addressing premise?  To go to another peice of jargon: deprotagonisation.  To skip the jargon: it would suck.  You'd be trying to make a new theme and it would come out looking more like a giraffe.

So "narrativism" can only use a subset of the tools and materials of the hardcore bricoleur.

Where does this stand in relation to simulationism and predetermined theme*?  Simple: you just generate the themes implicit in the material.  You play Call of Cthulhu, play with your shed full of Lovecraftian Things, and generate things with the same theme as Lovecrafts story.  And because you set out to make something which was like what Lovecraft made, the thing you end up with having a Lovecraftian Theme isn't just all right, it's right on.

You're playing within the tradition and part of the game is to stay within the tradition.

I hope this has been a useful contribution to the thread.

Ian

* You can substitute who-cares-about-the-theme for predetermined theme for more off-the-wall creative "simulationist" play.