(Accepting/Rejecting) x (Text/Meaning)

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Here's my best attempt at an answer:

Or, short-form: Do people care about Text, or only about Meaning?

People can emotionally care about anything they choose.  Humans are like that. The GM can be absolutely in love with the mahogany door with a brass doorknocker in the shape of a lion's head that leads to the maiden's chamber.  But if the fact that the door is made of wood and the knocker is brass never affect the PC's or become plot points or are used again later on in the campaign, they are just Color.  Yeah, they can care about it, but not all Text is useful to all players.

So, perhaps a better way to phrase your question might be "Do people find all Text useful or only Text that has been given Meaning?"

In that case, I think the answer would have to be just "Text with Meaning" simply by definition.

Peace,

-Troy

[Callan S.]

Correct.  The Meaning (in the terminology I'm using) is posited here in the moment that the road is used to support the addition of something new into the SIS.

You don't really mean the 'road' is used, right? What's used (by reference) is the agreement between players.

For example, say they agree it's a packed earth road. Then along the road they get into a fight and the GM says a monster reaches down and grabs some dirt to throw into the players eyes. But the player then refers to the previous agreement about the road and how it's hard packed. We'll say they then agree this isn't possible.

Then say latter a monster knocks this players PC back, so he's on his back sliding along the ground toward the edge of a small cliff. This same player declares he's going to dig his fingers in to stop himself. But the GM refers to the above agreement (which by its nature, also refers to the first agreement). The player faces two agreements Vs his attempted SIS contribution.

So in measurable terms were looking at the number of agreements stacked and counting them. In the above example the player faces two agreements tied to each other. Can you imagine facing five, or ten of them all linked up? Very compelling.

This reminds me of legal precident. Close to what you want, Tony?

[Vaxalon]

Correct.  The Meaning (in the terminology I'm using) is posited here in the moment that the road is used to support the addition of something new into the SIS.

So what you're talking about is the quality of setting precedent.

I say that ALL contributions to the SIS have the potential for setting precedent, by definition, and that it is impossible to accurately predict what another player will remember and (at a later time) find important enough to use as precedent.

[charles ferguson]

Hi Tony,

If you're interested in my opinion (which I'm no longer sure of) then take my earlier post

My take...is, people often DO care about establishing events into the SIS in and of itself--but only because they see this as synonymous with establishing significance. I see this as a tremendously important point, because it gives rise to the mistaken belief that once an (explict) event is established in the SIS, an (implicit) significance is also established, which leads to all kinds of messy complications later (like "breaking" the SIS). It can also lead to strenuous objections over the inclusion of seemingly trivial events, because what is really being objected to is the unspoken (& in this situation, unshared) significance the objector sees as being inserted along with that event. Which, because it's never articulated, can be wearying to resolve.

and insert your definition of Meaning wherever I say 'significance'.

[TonyLB]

Callan:  Yes, I think that the force of that precedent would be nigh-overwhelming in a social contract that favored precedent as the means of establishing the right to narrate.  Do we agree that there are functional ways other than precedent to establish the right to narrate?


Charles:  Whatever I've said that led you to think that I don't value your opinion, I would like to know so that I can humbly (and specifically) apologize for expressing myself poorly.  Maybe by PM?

In any event, I agree whole-heartedly with your take on the matter.  I think that peoples patterns of behavior confirm the SIS as a tool, rather than as a goal:  even (and often especially) when they claim that it is a goal, rather than a tool.

But people disagree with me (and, I think, with you).  And I am very much conscious of the fact that I could be wrong about this.  If somebody's got a good explanation for how the SIS could be a satisfying goal in and of itself, I'm all ears.


Troy:  Yeah, see... I'm not sure that human beings are quite as unfathomable as you think they are.  Usually, if you dig a little, you'll find that we're very simple creatures on a decision-by-decision basis.  We generally have motivations for what we do.

So I really am not sure I can agree with "People can emotionally care about anything they choose."  I think that they have to have a reason.  Are we just at a fundamental impasse on that?

[Vaxalon]

Callan:  Yes, I think that the force of that precedent would be nigh-overwhelming in a social contract that favored precedent as the means of establishing the right to narrate.  Do we agree that there are functional ways other than precedent to establish the right to narrate?

I don't want to speak for Callan, but for my own part, I would say that they certainly are possible.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya :)

Troy:  Yeah, see... I'm not sure that human beings are quite as unfathomable as you think they are.  Usually, if you dig a little, you'll find that we're very simple creatures on a decision-by-decision basis.  We generally have motivations for what we do.

So I really am not sure I can agree with "People can emotionally care about anything they choose."  I think that they have to have a reason.  Are we just at a fundamental impasse on that?

-Nah, we're not at impass. :) But I do believe that people can care about things that do not have Meaning.  And I'm not saying people are unfathomable, just widely varied.  That was just a minor point anyway.  What I really wanted to suggest was that what Text players find useful does not always line up with what Text they care about.

Peace,

-Troy

[TonyLB]

Troy:  Great!  That's exactly the sort of question I'm trying to get at.  Please elaborate!

Why do they care about the text, if not for its later meaning?  What other motive is active?

[Vaxalon]

Sometimes people care about the SIS not because it can be used as a precedent for later play, but because it has an aesthetic value of its own, divorced from strategic concerns.  Sometimes, we are touched, or revolted, or excited, or pleased, or tickled, or angered by the text of the game.

For example, I remember a particularly powerful experience in an Amber game I ran quite a few years back.  One of the PC's was visiting Tir-na Nog'th, the mirror realm of Amber, and she met the Tir' version of her father there... this mirror version, in contrast to the cold, domineering father she had in Amber, was warm and friendly, and asked after the health of herself and her friends.  He was fatherly in all the best aspects of the term, and I remember seeing a tear come to the player's eye as we played through the scene.

After the session was over, I spoke with the player about that scene, and why it had been so moving.  I was informed that his father had died while the player was an infant, and that the scene was bittersweet as a result.  I tried to apologize, but he waved me off, saying that he would treasure that fifteen minutes of play forever.  I felt honored to have been present, and to have participated in some small way in that moment.

Now I'm not saying a moment this powerful happens all the time, but most of the games I have been in have had moments that have moved me to a lesser extent.

The moment when Okhfels and Isadora had their first misunderstanding, when Okhfels thought Isadora was inviting him into her tent for something a bit more intimate than just a private conversation, that moment will always bring a smile to my face.  Their relationship has changed a good deal since then, and using that scene for precedent at this point is probably out of the question, because other events have superseded it... but I would feel incensed if someone wanted to retcon it out of the SIS.  It would cheapen it to me, drain it of some of its emotional value, if we were to say that it had never happened.

[TonyLB]

Interesting.  Is that related to CA, or distinct from it?

[Vaxalon]

I'd say it's related to CA, but then everything that happens in a game is at least related to CA, so the question seems kind of trivial.  I must not be understanding it right.

Can you be more specific about what you are asking about?

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Troy:  Why do they care about the text, if not for its later meaning?  What other motive is active?

Other motives might include wanting to impress others with one's knowledge or ability to embellish a situation.  It could be that a particular scene is not meaningful to the plot but touches on a subject that is very interesting to them (say a scene set in a classic theater or at an old west tavern).  Or it could be that they thought up this really cool mural and just want to share their inspiration with everyone else.  But in the end, none of these necessarily have Meaning for the campaign.  They're just color that one or more players find interesting from a non-gaming aspect.

Interesting. Is that related to CA, or distinct from it?

I don't believe it is tied to a CA.  Unless it's part of the system a Gamist who goes into great detail about the stonework of a castle does so only for personal enjoyment or emersion for the group.  Unless it's keeping up The Dream for Simulationists, extra narration is very unnecessary.  And of course narration does not equal Narrativism, so the player might just be wanting to evoke some emotion or once again immerse the players in the setting.  But unless it ties directly to moving the plot, I do not believe it has Meaning even though I do believe people can care about it.

Peace,

-Troy

Edit:  I think Vaxalon had a lot of good things to say a coupel posts above.  I agree with a lot of what he suggested.

[Victor Gijsbers]

Maybe the answer to the question can be gleaned from the following observation: you can care about games that have ended.

You will, by definition, never be able to use the elements in the SIS of a game that has ended to establish new facts, because you are no longer adding to that SIS. But you can certainly cherish the memories of that game, and not just about the social situation, but also about the contents of the fictional world. If that is possible, then you cherish Text without Meaning.

Just a related thought, not terribly important: doesn't saying that players can appreciate Meaning but not Text, not amount to claiming that people cannot appreciate books?

[Vaxalon]

I wonder if Tony has ever told a "No ****, there we were" story about a game that has ended.

[TonyLB]

Gotcha!  And yes, I have, although almost all of them are (as Victor anticipated I would say) about the social situation as expressed in the flow of the SIS.  But yeah, sometimes there are just moments in the SIS that give me warm fuzzies.

So, you've convinced me:  It exists.  Now... what is it?  And how can games encourage it mechanically?