Address vs. Bricolage

[contracycle]

Wow Ian, I am blown away, thank you.

[M. J. Young]

Ian's post is excellent. Marco, I want to make a couple of points that are more on the order of saying that I have similar questions to yours, but couched differently in a way that may help you make sense of them.

[*]I am not persuaded that Jay is primarily simulationist. For some reason he thinks he is, but he also wants to think he is. Every time he has attempted to reformulate simulationism, it has felt like he is either limiting it to his own play focus or trying to coopt significantly narrativist tendencies within it. I've probably had more arguments than I can remember when he has initiated some new "this is simulationism" conception. Of course, he has similar problems with me, and sometimes others have agreed that what he has said is simulationist (even when I didn't see it that way), but I would not conclude that anything is specifically simulationist because Jay says it is, at least at this point.[*]Now that I'm beginning to grasp the concept of bricolage (thanks, Chris), I'm inclined to think that it is not at all specifically indicative of simulationism, but rather is descriptive of exploration within the shared imagined space in any agendum. That would of course mean that it was highlighted in simulationism, because that's where exploration of a broader and more general nature comes sharply into focus (perhaps an oxymoron, but that's what I mean). It would still be not merely present but foundational to all agenda.[/list:u]
I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

My reading of Bricolage was that it was essentially a fancy way of saying "Exploration" too, MJ.  

I'll also note that parts of Jays recent threads where he starts to define the distinguishing feature of an Agenda is how they deal with Situation...is pretty much the point I made in my Model According to Valamir post where.  I identified Conflict as the distinguishing feature...but there is no Conflict without a Situation...so I think the parallels are pretty close.

I'll also expand on one of your points about Jays play style and say that  many of the parties who've spent a tremendous amount of time trying to pin down the nature of Sim and having trouble understanding it, and looking at it from all kinds of angles trying to get it to fit with their own style of play...are people who IMO have displayed Narrativist tendencies with great frequency.  Marco knows I've called him a closet Narrativist on several occassions.  Sometimes it seems those folks are bound and determined to call themselves Sim no matter what.

Of course I've also said the whole "what am I" sequence of trying to self analyse one's own play history to GNS and figure out which label to claim is a huge Red Herring, and if people would just stop doing that things would get a whole lot easier.

[Ian Charvill]

Hi

Ralph and MJ

Say you're playing an Inspectres type game where dice rolls give narrative rights.  Say you make up something entirely true.  That's pretty clearly exploration and it's pretty clearly not bricolage.

Two more examples: first, the Relationship Map example I gave earlier.

Also: your running D&D and you just read two fantasy books.  You take the names from the first book and the plot from the second as the basis for your next adventure.  This is clearly bricolage.

What do they have in common: they're both prep.  Prep is before play; prep is not exploration per se.

I think it's pretty clear that bricolage isn't synonymous with exploration in Ron's Big Model.  I suspect it sits at a technique level (or more correctly I think it's a family of techniques).

HTH
Ian

[Caldis]

I think the important point they were making Ian is that it is not something related directly to any one agenda, so yeah you are probably right it's at the technique level.

Marco, did Ian's example of bricolage and sim help at all?  

I'll give an example of what he called 'who-cares-about-the-theme' play.

Generic fantasy Gurps game.  We've all created characters, taken advantages, disdvantages, and a list of quirks.  The gm has thrown together a world based on various different cultures and has a plot or series of plots to keep the characters occupied.

Now let's look at at what Ralph calls a 'cycle of conflict'.  The gm looks at the character sheets and finds something on one of them that ties into a plot he has developed.   Let's say a wealthy merchant's niece has disappeared, one of the characters is a merchant so he uses that connection to give the plot to the players.  

The players look at their character sheets, one notices a 'clean freak' quirk and so proposes the group move to a bath house to plan out their next move.  At the bath house a character with high charisma, and fast talk skills come up with a plan to walk into her last known residence and charm information out of anyone there.  Another character, a sneaky assasin/thief type come up with a plan based on her stealth skills to sneak into the place and gather information.  A wizard character suggests finding an item that belonged to the girl so he can use a spell that will let him track the girl.

Eventually a plan is worked out and if the GM has decided that clues are there then it leads them on to rescuing the girl.  Where again the players find aspects of their characters to guide their actions and the gm uses aspects of his world to guide the outcome.  For instance if the characters have done anything illegal and left any evidence of their involvement they may have to deal with law enforcement.  

So the plan succesfully resolves the situation and the niece is rescued.  The wealthy merchant rewards the characters and the gm rewards the players with character points that they can use to increase the abilities they used in the game.  

Marco, you've talked before about emotional invlovement.  Can you see how the players in the above example are not emotionally involved in resolving the situation but they are emotional involved in bringing out those aspects of their character or the setting that they find important?  I think this is what Ron meant when he talked in GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2 about enhancing one or more of the listed elements.    Can you see how plot can be the same as character or setting and getting it to happen in the way the GM planned can be as emotionally gratifiying as revealing those quirks in play?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I've always hoped that the "emotionally involved" aspect of discussion could be put in better perspective.

The whole difficulty with Creative Agenda is that one's man's emotional involvement is another man's ho-hum, or at best, a means to another end. That's why Creative Agenda is diverse. It'd be so much simpler if we only had one, among us all.

Emotional engagement is not unique to Narrativist play. The reason people ever used that phrase was because they were trying to explain Premise to someone who wasn't see it.

When someone says, "But my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict, so that's Premise," then it's perfectly reasonable to say, but were you emotionally engaged in why he fought the dragon? "Oh!" says the guy. "No, I was engaged in whether my guy would die [whether I would lose]." It's a fruitful dialogue, especially if the other person is working from a Gamist perspective.

However, to take that exchange and then say, "Oh, so if I'm emotionally engaged in the situation, then it's Narrativist," is incorrect. Because Narrativist play is defined by the Premise being the target of the engagement, not on the engagement existing.

(I coulda sworn I wrote this exact argument a couple years ago ... oh well ...)

I hope that helps or makes sense.

Best,
Ron

[Caldis]

However, to take that exchange and then say, "Oh, so if I'm emotionally engaged in the situation, then it's Narrativist," is incorrect. Because Narrativist play is defined by the Premise being the target of the engagement, not on the engagement existing.

Just to extend this thought a little further to clear up another common misconception, it's not the presence of Premise that equates to Narrativist play it's the engagement with creating that Premise through play.  That's why just having story, even a dramatic story that revolves around complex issues like losing your humanity, does not mean you are playing narrativist.

[Marco]

Marco, you've talked before about emotional invlovement.  Can you see how the players in the above example are not emotionally involved in resolving the situation but they are emotional involved in bringing out those aspects of their character or the setting that they find important?  I think this is what Ron meant when he talked in GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2 about enhancing one or more of the listed elements.    Can you see how plot can be the same as character or setting and getting it to happen in the way the GM planned can be as emotionally gratifiying as revealing those quirks in play?

While I can't be an authority on what GNS defines as Premise, I can say this: I think it's very easy to distinguish between emotional involvement as in 'wanting to win' and emotional involvement as in 'relating to the events in the game as if they were real.'

Even in the 'gray area' where your warrior is in a battle he "wants to win" because of an emotional attachment to in-game events 'as though they were real' I think it's an easy distinction to make, In fact, to my read, GNS hits this perfectly: do you 'want to win' because you want to beat your friends/the GM, do you 'want to win' because you decided your warrior has a highly tuned 'survival instinct' or do you 'want to win' because you feel an internal need to survive.?

Arguments, as in Ron's case, are, IMO, purely semantic. Now, that's IMO and just because I think this standard is easy to see doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with me.

But I do think it's pretty clear, and I always have. I think any joy, anger, sadness, or fear one feels as a result of an in-game situation, felt empathically to the characters or in relation to the imaginary situation as though it were real indicates the existence of a human-experience issue with which the player connects. I think any action taken while feeling that emotion is, in any meaningful sense, a judgment of it.

I don't happen to think "excitment" is an "emotion" in an empathic sense but is rather something associated with the intensity of an emotion--but I'm sure people can argue that until the sun burns out. I think there's a very clear difference in a game in doing something because I'm personally having a connection to the events or because I am rationally analyzing how my character would react.

Whether this (the internal connection) meets the minimum requirements for Nar play isn't up to me--but I've yet to see a good standard to separate my standard from 'Address of Premise.' (Most people who I talk to do make the distinction based on, what sounds to me, like stating that the player must be in Actor Stance to address Premise, although the essays say that's not so).

As per Bricolage: What I got from Ian, which is very similar to the conclusion that I came to, was that bricolage can occurr in any game in any way. I think that in some sense exploration can be interperted as bricolage (although I see Ian's suggestions that before-play constructions aren't exploration--I think that's a complex issue and worth addressing--but maybe not here).

His statement that bricolage can occurr in Narrativistic play is, pretty much, what I'd concluded. Gareth says that pre-defined theme sim is "only one kind."

If that's so then I need to know what the other kinds are because my present understanding, directly from Ron's posts, is that the predefined-theme nature of play is what makes it Siim.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco,

Nope, that's not what makes it Sim. Nope, nope, nope.

The way to put it is, when pre-defined theme is present in a game, Narrativist play is not possible. Because the cake is already baked, so you can't bake a cake.

Now, I strongly suggest - and look forward to discovering whether I'm right through personal experience - that your preferences are so strongly Narrativist that anything with thematic material in it, seems like Premise to you.

Give Marco a pre-defined theme? He'll turn it into Premise and make his Theme via Narrativist play. In other words, bake him a cake and he'll render it into baking materials, then bake a cake himself.

I only make these arrogant personal comments because it's a condition or outlook that I know very, very well from my own life. So either I'm right, via empathy, or I'm wrong and am projecting myself onto you. Dunno yet.

I think any joy, anger, sadness, or fear one feels as a result of an in-game situation indicates the existence of a human-experience issue with which the player connects. I think any action taken while feeling that emotion is, in any meaningful sense, a judgment of it.

That is a Narrativist manifesto. Sim play specifically disavows any such outlook, particularly the "judgment" part. How this relates to my views on Jay's play-experiences is worth a whole discussion in itself, but that is not the point here.

All this time I've often thought you were a Sim-favoring role-player, Marco, but over the last few months I've changed my view entirely. I think you're a hard-core Narrativist who has no problem using (e.g.) GURPS to get there, simply because your aesthetic preference is so damn strong. To the extent that what many others get from playing Sim is incomprehensible to you, such that you don't even see it as a possibility. Wherever you look, you'll see Premise to play with. To do otherwise is simply falling down on the job, to you.

Forgive me for my continuing, absolutely unwarranted telepathizing. I admit right this minute that I could be 100% very wrong. But indulge me as well, for only a paragraph or two more.

When you read Jay's actual play stuff, you see emotional involvement, you see characters in action ... and you see Premise. But I suggest that you see Premise in it, and that the folks who are actually playing are seeing no such thing. They are seeing a venue in which they can rip raw emotions from their chest in a group-therapeutic context, and their mode of play is intended, through the presentation of theme-heavy situations, for each person to let these emotions "out" - not to extend judgment in a thematic sense. The role-playing per se is a safe-zone in which the emotional and social outlet is permitted, and as such, it is "just" Exploration (in comparison to Narrativism and Gamism) - i.e., Sim. It serves a Social Contract function, but the Exploration itself already has its theme (cake) rock-solid; the point of play is to eat it, not to make it.

This is the only way I can try to explain it to you - you see Premise wherever you look, because that's what you came for, and you'll make it if you have to. Hence Simulationist play will always be a blind spot for you, as in order to make what you're looking at (or reading about) comprehensible at all, you turn it into Premise and Narrativist play.

Remember way back when, when I tried to describe what a railroady GM does (in modern lingo, less pejorative, uses Force, but not railroading) - and your response was dismissive - "Oh, that's just bad GMing." That's what I'm talking about. Personally, in terms of my own enjoyment, I agree entirely. Analytically, I know that some other folks call it necessary, fun, and reasonable play.

I am not kidding when I say I regret the intrusive nature of my comments in this post. It really bugs me when someone co-opts another's "head-space" for purposes of making a point, and although it's easy to see that such an act is provisional during one-on-one, real-life conversation, it's impossible to see the same thing via internet communication. Please accept my apologies in advance for doing so.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Hey M. J.,

...but I would not conclude that anything is specifically simulationist because Jay says it is, at least at this point.

I would certainly hope not!  The only thing I could hope to claim to have is a certain credibility based upon my past argumentation, not because I outright claim to have some authority.  That is why I am not particularly thrilled with Ralph's post.

Hey Ian,

I am with you that it is pretty clear that Exploration is not synonymous with Bricolage and that Bricolage is probably best thought of as a family of Techniques.  To me, Exploration means the sharing of imaginings, nothing more.  Addressing Premise, Addressing Challenge or Bricole(ing?) are the guiding forces driving and organizing/shaping the "sharing of imaginings" (Exploration).  If we regard roleplay as "playing on purpose" then I would say that Exploration = "playing" and Addressing Premise/Challenge and Bricole(ing?) = "on purpose."

Hey Ron,

But I suggest that you see Premise in it, and that the folks who are actually playing are seeing no such thing. They are seeing a venue in which they can rip raw emotions from their chest in a group-therapeutic context, and their mode of play is intended, through the presentation of theme-heavy situations, for each person to let these emotions "out" - not to extend judgment in a thematic sense. The role-playing per se is a safe-zone in which the emotional and social outlet is permitted, and as such, it is "just" Exploration (in comparison to Narrativism and Gamism) - i.e., Sim. It serves a Social Contract function, but the Exploration itself already has its theme (cake) rock-solid; the point of play is to eat it, not to make it.

In as much as this is an attempt to stay on the point of this thread, I would say that you are more or less right on the target regarding my game play experiences/understanding.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Jay,

Whew! I was concerned I'd gone over a line in dragging you into that conversation. Thanks for the confirmation; I'd also found myself wondering how to broach certain aspects of my impressions with you. (The plan was to get into the recent actual play thread, which I suppose I still ought to do.)

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled thread topic ...

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hi  guys,

I think this is fairly on track for this thread. So I'm gonna keep going with it.

Whether or not I'm unable to comprehend Sim, I can say that I think the 'threshold' for Nar play is a lot lower than many posters here. Specifically:

My understanding of Nar play is this: the player connects to some human-experience issue in the imaginary situation of the game and takes some action congruent with the player feeling that connection. That's it.

Edited to add: That's why I'd have said it was address of Premise and not Judgment of Premise.

'Judgment' is, IMO, the analysist's word (a critique of the action and not necessiarly the mind-set of the participant)--not necessiarily the word the player would use (especially if the player is in actor stance). When I analyze my play post-hoc I can say that "there was a judgment made." But I don't usually think about those judgments during play.

Here's an example of Jay's play:

This is the first test/difficult situation that this new player to our table faces. It is interesting to see how he will respond as there appears to be no good way out. The player is obviously stressed as he stammers and finds it difficult to make any decision at all. The GM is pulling at him from many different directions, and I know that I have been in his shoes many times before. The decision itself, while potentially interesting isn't so important as "what it means". I'm thinking during this process, is he going to make Gondor look good or bad? Is this whole situation going to go to pot? If he is weak this whole group could disintegrate. If he is weak then I know as a character that I can't trust him when things get tough. I'm also wondering, is the player, Jesse, going to approach this like D&D (which was his primary game) or is he going to reach somewhere else? Is he going to play on loyalty or survivability? How serious do he see the situation?

There are not that many examples of play where Jay is involved and expresses feelings on the issue (there are many where he expresses feelings as an audience member--but not so many, that I've seen where he expresses feelings as a participant).

Now, here he expresses the value of the decision in terms of whether the player makes Gondor look good or bad and whether or not he can trust the character (and, how much faith can he put in the player). I don't know what Jay's connection to the game at hand was but I wouldn't believe it if he told us: "none, it's just a game--I was merely curious."

So I think there is some fear involved (which hightens the tension). I think there is a sense of actuality about the game with which the player connects and has expectations that'll result in disappointment or gratification depending on whether they are met.

here:

When what character I am playing that night is eventually revealed to me I immediately think, "Oh shit. If I find anything that is of Númenórean make, I am going to have to make a grab for it." See, unfortunately the very same stuff that Nicodemus is searching for is very probably Númenórean make and he would have the power of the party behind him. This has the potential for conflict written all over it. I am oath sworn to return all Númenórean artifacts and the character firmly believes that such items should not even touch the hands of those who are not of the line of the kings. Gulp...

We see a case where Jay is actually involved in making (well, potentially making) decisions. There's fear (gulp). There's a sense of duty. There's a sense of threat.

Now: if Jay says "my evaluation of that in-game situation is purely 'as a game' or 'as a chess move' wherein I only respond to situational dynamics--and the imaginary import of the situation has no bearing on me' then, yeah: no connection to human experience stuff.

And it's true: a chess player wanting to win the game, could say "gulp" when his opponent's strategm becomes apparent. But I don't think Gamism is the case here. I think the Gulp is about fear of conflict (perhaps fear of being the outsider or fear of a choice of duty over life).

Again: my recollection of those threads is murky--did this ever come up? I'm not sure. But it does seem that certain players (Nicademus not being petty-evil, for example) *are* making decisions that make other players uncomfortable.

This is also interesting to me, because this is the first player character to play evil in a way that is not "petty." This is deep dark stuff – and there is much baggage associated with it. The player of the character has expressed concerns because certain situations might call for him to "go places" that might be very uncomfortable. I know that I can't play evil for that very same reason – there are "places" that I just don't wish to go to. Also there are general concerns around the table because the balance is already so far in the side of evil that bringing in more via player characters will only make matters that much hopeless. (We love the world kinda stuff) There will also come a time when we are going to be directly opposed to him and that is not looked forward to with any great enthusiasm. Ah... the lust for power!

I mean, I realize that Jay disavows judgment--and, in fact, if someone said to me that the best way to describe my play was one of acts-of-judgment I'd say "well, I think there's probably a better way to communicate what's going on."

But in terms of an analytical word for what is happening in the imaginary space of the game I think that the actions being taken are, in fact, making statements of some kind and I presume--from the words used--that there is player-connection to the imaginary space of the game.

-Marco

[Ian Charvill]

I'm glad my post seems to have proved useful.

A note on usage: French lacks a present participle -- there is no literal equivalent of he is pottering about, the French would say he potters (il bricole).  So there is no direct word for bricoling or bricolaging or whatever.  So sentences like:

<quote>Addressing Premise, Addressing Challenge or Bricole(ing?) are the guiding forces driving and organizing/shaping the "sharing of imaginings" (Exploration)</quote>

Should most probably read:

<quote>Addressing Premise, Addressing Challenge or Bricolage are the guiding forces driving and organizing/shaping the "sharing of imaginings" (Exploration)</quote>

HTH

Ian

[Caldis]

My understanding of Nar play is this: the player connects to some human-experience issue in the imaginary situation of the game and takes some action congruent with the player feeling that connection. That's it.

I'd say this is pretty close Marco but you're definitely missing a couple things.  The player has to have something to connect to and he must also be free to take that congruent action and have it be meaningful.  

Take a look back at the example I gave earlier.  The characters all end up taking on a mission that doesnt really have a lot of meaning to any of them.  There's not a lot to connect to, sure there is a girl that's gone missing and that could be a tragic human issue but how does it relate to these characters?  Let's say they do find out she is going to be sacrificed by an evil cult, what choice of action do the players have?  Lastly and this may not have been clear in the example given but if the ramifications of their actions are simply that they gained character points and that the girl they rescued and the cultists that captured her rarely if ever show up in play again then in what way were the players actions meaningful?

[Marco]

My understanding of Nar play is this: the player connects to some human-experience issue in the imaginary situation of the game and takes some action congruent with the player feeling that connection. That's it.

I'd say this is pretty close Marco but you're definitely missing a couple things.  The player has to have something to connect to and he must also be free to take that congruent action and have it be meaningful.  

Take a look back at the example I gave earlier.  The characters all end up taking on a mission that doesnt really have a lot of meaning to any of them.  There's not a lot to connect to, sure there is a girl that's gone missing and that could be a tragic human issue but how does it relate to these characters?  Let's say they do find out she is going to be sacrificed by an evil cult, what choice of action do the players have?  Lastly and this may not have been clear in the example given but if the ramifications of their actions are simply that they gained character points and that the girl they rescued and the cultists that captured her rarely if ever show up in play again then in what way were the players actions meaningful?

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. Reading back over what I wrote, I guess it was a bit terse. Those points ('something to connect to' and the 'freedom to take meaningful action') definitely are included in my formulation. It doesn't hurt to be clear though!

When I said that 'the player connects to something' I think that actually does specify that there must be 'something to connect to' (as in "some human experience issue" the player sees in the game).

When I say 'the player takes some action that is congruent with that connection' I think it's clear that they must, in fact, be free to take that action.

I believe that a player who takes an action that is congruent with their connection will find that action 'meaningful' in that it has "meaning to them in the context of the issue against which it was taken."

I think the issue of whether the action(s) taken are "effective in the game reality" are something of a red herring (but that's probably a topic for another thread).

Most people I talk to do, I agree, feel that something is missing from my formulation. For some people I think it's a level of empowerment on the part of the players. For other's I think it's an Actor Stance vs. Author Stance thing. But in terms of your example it's not too hard to see:

If the players don't care about the missing girl but go on the mission any way: not Nar (no player-connection). If a player does care and wreaks bloody venagnce on the kidnappers because of the anger he feels towards child abductors then it fits my formulation.

This last bit (bloody vengance) is an extreme example for illustration: I think the threshold for "meaningful action" is determined by the analyst and therefore, if the player is self-assessing his own play, if he's satisfied with the actions then it counts as meaningful. If another player on the other side of the table isn't impressed I don't think that changes the important, fundamental nature of the play (for the acting player, anyway--it changes the social dynamic--but if you are playing with another person who is never satisfied with your play it doesn't mean you can never meaningfully address an issue).

Finally, I think that even if an action fails it's still just as meaningful as if it succeeded (although it will be less effective and therfore may lead to dysfunction or frustration on the player's part) but that's probably a topic for another thread.

-Marco