[DitV] - I am an incompetent Narrativist!

[Darren Hill]

Hey Darren,

I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion.

There’s a false assumption in your argument.  I was not concerned with “immersion,” I was deep into a thought process that had to be interrupted because I had to deal with mechanics.

Minor point - notice that I presented two possibilities. My first proposition: you were unfamiliar with the drastically different mechanics, and this interrupted your chain of thought.  This is a lot like what you describe, and this does not require there to be a CA clash. Of course, it might be a CA clash - that's why I posed my suggestions as possibilities to consider rather than definite statements.

About Seeing a Raise: I was more definite here. Take note of what Vincent, John, and Eero have said. If the other participants in a conflict are playing properly, you get exactly the same information to interact with as you would in a pure simulationist system. That information is produced the exact same way, too. In a traditional simmy game, the GM will look at your dice, and interpret the roll to tell you what happens (in combination with other in-game feedback, such as hit points). In DitV, the same thing happens but instead of the GM interpreting the roll to tell you what happens, another player does it.

In Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in.

Actually it is different.  First of all each “trait” is only usable once per “conflict.” 

A pedantic nitpick which you may realise already. :) You only get the trait's dice once per conflict, but you can "use" the trait as often as you like after that. In one raise, you might say, "I fire my shotgun" and as a result get your 2d6 trait. In a later raise, you might describe "I fire my shotgun" - you don't get any more dice, but you DO inflict different fallout if you hit, than if you chose to talk. So there is a definite, qualitative difference between some types of traits.
Using the same trait over and over again doesn't net you any extra dice, but those you have in front of you may be enough - and it saves you the effort of coming up with ways to narrate less suitable traits into the conflict.

[Silmenume]

Hi Kintara (Adam),

... Assign your stats by looking at the conflicts the stats are used in, and emphasize the ones where you think your character will excel. ...

That was the problem.  At the time of creation I didn't know what conflicts the stats were used in, and I certainly didn't have any idea what my character would excel in.  In the game I play in Stats don't "match up to conflicts".  In fact once the Character Creation process is done the sheet need only be referenced infrequently at best.  I am used to "just playing," as it were.  That is – it is pretty much up to me to portray my Character through action and not rely or refer to mechanics at all.  It's not so much what I can do is defined by what's on my sheet, rather it is up to me as a player to make that "sheet" come alive.  So this whole define what your Character is good/bad/interested in during creation by writing traits and assigning values/dice is a total 180-degree flip for me.  I am NOT saying that one way or the other is superior, just that the methodology of thinking/creating used in DitV is completely backward from what I have been doing for the last 8 years.

That being said I was having one heck of a time personally relating/connecting to what I think were some very central elements of the game.  I find this collision in "order of thought" to be very enlightening regarding the differences between Nar and Sim.

Hey White Rat (a different Adam!),

I wonder if you were jarred less by the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism, and more by the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.

The way you needed feedback about that punch you threw -- that suggests to me that you were expecting the ultimate outcome to depend in part on that one task (e.g., Task Resolution) instead of merely expecting the outcome to take color from that task (e.g., Conflict Resolution).

Absolutely!  What was interesting to me though, upon reflection, was just how subjectively "wrong" Conflict Resolution felt!  Remember I went into this game with the idea of being intentionally open to new CA process.  I'm not saying that I succeeded, but I did make an effort to monitor myself to see where I might be clashing CA's.  Thus when I was feeling stymied I would try to examine the why's, address the problem I was having and then try to move forward with a positive outlook.  What surprised me was how powerful my reaction was – not that I had some reaction.

Hey Jason,

...I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

Other than the "de-escalation process" I don't think there is any technique listed above that is specific to any CA.  However, I do agree with you that discussions "about" CA tend to obscure what was "really going on," but the key element for Gamism was utterly lacking – There was no Step on Up on my part.  I did not find myself addressing Challenge at all.  There was no jockeying for (peer) recognition or seeking of means to display my skillz as a Player, etc.

I also want to note that all the taking stock you described in your list is also that of the bricoleur inventorying his shed for objects/structures when faced with a problem.

Hey there James,

That being said - Jay, it sounds to me like you were working too hard to play Nar.  Trust Vincent.  He wrote a well targeted game.  Play the game, premise will happen.  :)    (which is what Chris said, I realize)

Indeed, perhaps I was!  That the game is brilliantly designed I have no doubt.  However, I may have mislabeled this thread as I did not lament my time spent; it was educational at the very least.  I had a number of motives for playing and many of them were more than adequately met.

Hello Marco!

What he's the posterboy for, IMO, is immersive play...

Me?  Posterboy?  Didn't know I had to the looks for it!  I will agree with you Marco, that when I first arrived and for a number of months following I was playing around with and to a certain degree arguing for "immersion."  However I changed my thinking on that back in August of last year.  I do think that one needs to adopt the structures of the fictional world, but I have stated that I do not believe that one needs to identify/empathize with the structures (immerse) in order to employ them.  Simply put I have not argued the "immersion" position in at least a year or longer.  That this confusion or conflation between adoption and immersion continues to pop up does shed an important light on some of the stubborn confusion regarding Sim play.  This is very interesting...

I have not run Dogs--but if thinking "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?" is wrong I can't imagine it'd be as well loved as it is.

Don't get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn't capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Again it grows late and I grow weary.  I will continue to respond as I can to Callan, Vincent, Jason, Eero and Darren!

[Marco]

Me?  Posterboy?  Didn't know I had to the looks for it!  I will agree with you Marco, that when I first arrived and for a number of months following I was playing around with and to a certain degree arguing for "immersion."  However I changed my thinking on that back in August of last year.  I do think that one needs to adopt the structures of the fictional world, but I have stated that I do not believe that one needs to identify/empathize with the structures (immerse) in order to employ them.  Simply put I have not argued the "immersion" position in at least a year or longer.  That this confusion or conflation between adoption and immersion continues to pop up does shed an important light on some of the stubborn confusion regarding Sim play.  This is very interesting...

I'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion--from what I have read of your other play you clearly experience emotional interaction with the game (anger, sadness, fear, etc. when Elrond's sons are killed, forex) which, to me, clearly means empathy with the events. You don't convey that you experience the game simply as a cool intellectual exercise.

Your attempt to "make the sheet come alive" absent the rules is, I think, some of the most immersive language I've ever seen. When I play in what I would describe as an immersive manner, I am often excited about events in the game, feel an emotional attachment to them (and to NPCs), imagine the play vividly, and sometimes lose track of time (as when reading a good book).

All of that sounds like what you're trying to do and I don't see how you are distinguishing anything descriptive about the activity (there's a lot of terminology like bricolage and myth and such--but I'm not sure these aren't simply renaming elements of immersion like an empathic identification with the events in the game as my character would experience them).

Don't get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn't capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Yes--I understand that you want to draw the difference between Sim/Nar as the "means" by which SIS is explored. I think that's common but since there is no satisfactory method of doing that when the player is not in author stance the line is so blurry as to be effectively nonexistant (absent defintional elements such as railroading, complete absence of anything that could be called a human-experience choice, or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events).

-Marco

[Brian Newman]

For example I most certainly was not thrilled about choosing my own fallout.  In fact it just plain rubbed me the wrong way.  It's not the mechanic per say that troubled me, but rather it was something I just wasn't interested in.  Choosing fallout, especially one's own, is something that is entirely opposed to the Sim paradigm.  It just seems "wrong," however, as I understood that in this game it was part of Addressing Premise so I gave it the old college try.  (When I say "wrong" I do not mean in an absolute manner in any way – just a perception from a Sim perspective.)

Hello!

Yes, I'm new around here.  I have to say that this is a bit confusing to me -- stating "It didn't follow the Sim paradigm, therefore I didn't understand it".  That seems completely backwards.  It reminds me of something a taster once said on Iron Chef -- "Well, I'm only 19, so I'm not old enough to like this dish yet."

It's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.  Discovering this first hand was very interesting!  This game was a wonderful opportunity to compare and contrast different approaches to conflict (CA).

The resolution mechanics require one to provide the information you were looking for when Seeing, Raising, Taking the Blow, etc.  So it wasn't the mechanics that failed.

Actually it is different.  First of all each "trait" is only usable once per "conflict."  A great part of the creative demand of the game lies in the Players' ability to somehow work in their traits (be they relationships, skills, traits, objects or what not) to aid in the prosecution of the conflict.  However, at the time of the conflict there is no real qualitative difference between the types of "traits," they all added various kinds and numbers of dice to the pool.  In Sim the differences in the qualities or types of the traits is profoundly important at the time of conflict and is used to demonstrate "how the world works" or "that the world is operating in a 'normal' manner."

I guess my response here is... so what?  If you need the Traits separated conceptually, write up your own character sheet and place your Traits in conceptual sections -- Innate Mental, Innate Physical, Innate Spiritual, Trained Mental, Trained Physical, Trained Spiritual, External Physical (equipment), External Spiritual, External Relationship, External Social, etc.  It won't harm anything to break them up into whatever classifications make sense for you.

In fact, you can even do more than that.  If you want your character to be more focused on physical training, put higher dice in those Traits that reflect that.  Done.

I'm not so sure that allocating skill points to various skill categories is all that simulationist to begin with...

[John Harper]

Hey Jay, you said:

It's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.

To help those who are confused (like me) can you give us an example of system-in-action that does give you the information you need? Something that "focuses on and provides normalizing information." Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can use a real game system as a reference point (GURPS maybe? I don't know what's hip for Sim these days) I think that would help. Thanks!

[Jason Lee]

Hey Jason,

...I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

Other than the "de-escalation process" I don't think there is any technique listed above that is specific to any CA.

Yep. ;)  In fact, none of those map directly to a CA, as there is no 1:1 Technique:CA relationship.  De-escalation is just a very common mathematical way to approach puzzles, thus the anti-climax is very common in Gam.  I can point to an analogous game such as 8-Ball that is de-escalation, but a game such as 9-Ball or many gambling games are escalating to climax.  CA analysis is about patterns of behaviors.  Combinations of behaviors may indicate a strong likelyhood of an agenda, but they can never confirm one, as in any behavioral analysis.  It's all about the list as a whole - not individual elements.

However, I do agree with you that discussions "about" CA tend to obscure what was "really going on," but the key element for Gamism was utterly lacking – There was no Step on Up on my part.  I did not find myself addressing Challenge at all.  There was no jockeying for (peer) recognition or seeking of means to display my skillz as a Player, etc.

I also want to note that all the taking stock you described in your list is also that of the bricoleur inventorying his shed for objects/structures when faced with a problem.

Step on Up seems much like address of Premise in that it is one of those things that is absent from any concious thought in most of play.  You are left looking for the manifestations of the agenda, such as challenge and theme; left looking for that CA feedback cycle of:

challenge -> enjoyment -> challenge engaging behavior -> challenge -> and so on...
theme -> enjoyment -> theme creating behavior -> theme -> and so forth...

If you asked me why I engage in any challenge I wouldn't say "to prove I'm better than the people I'm playing with."   At best you'll get "to test myself".  Through various logical twists and turns (within the context of the model) we arrive at the conclusion that testing myself within a social activity is equilavent to vying for esteem within a group (within the context of the model).

Anyway, judging by other comments it's likely that engagement in challenge was lacking from your play, but I thought I should follow up as your initial post read very strongly like it was present.

[Silmenume]

Hey Vincent,

I have stuff to say about your GNS analysis, but not the time, so right now I'm going to limit myself to this one little practical concern.

Your expectations about taking the blow are dead on. If your opponent wasn't giving you exactly the information you needed - shrug it off or stagger back, go down with his nose fountaining or snarl and look pissed - he was letting you down.

Just to make myself understood, this was not a bag on anyone thread – but I get ya.  When you do get the time I would be interested in what you have to say about my GNS analysis.  It doesn't have to be here if you feel it would better on another board.  Thanks for your time nonetheless!

Hey John,

You need this detailed information to inform your Sees and Raises. No one gets to just say "I Raise" or "I Take The Blow." Not good enough. Because when you say, "I Take The Blow... He goes down, clutching his neck and trying not to pass out," and Raise with, "He desperately kicks at your legs, trying to drive you back a pace," then I have the ammo to say, "I Block. A good kick to the shins isn't enough to stop me. I step in close and finish him off with my knife."

Our specific narrations form the "sim dialectic" you were talking about. The more specific the better, in my experience. This is just like a Sim-supporting system. The game rarely works right if everyone just says, "I hit for 4 points."

Colored emphasis added.

Indeed, I'm obviously with you that "more specific" is better than "less specific" – but with provisos.  (Ack!  There are always provisos!)  One proviso being the nature of the circumstances.  As I am no expert in Gamism, I do not know enough to be even reasonably sure how the "4 hit points" thing and that particular CA work, so I'll have to defer to Callan or contracycle.

The big assumption, above, which correlates to your next post -

Hey Jay, you said:

It's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.

To help those who are confused (like me) can you give us an example of system-in-action that does give you the information you need? Something that "focuses on and provides normalizing information." Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can use a real game system as a reference point (GURPS maybe? I don't know what's hip for Sim these days) I think that would help. Thanks!

- just what are Sim "supporting" mechanics?  I do not believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is to "resolve" tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to "normalize" i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn't happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the mechanics is Sim are not "just" normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a "roll" is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is "meaningful" even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution mechanics were "not" called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a "void" in the information/feedback stream.  Sure it could have been stated that I turned my opponent's nose into mush but is it possible that I could have killed him outright with the GM still having more than a fist full of dice remaining?  However, what is important to acknowledge is that the "real damage" – aka fallout – is not determined until after the conflict is resolved...and that is unsettling from a Sim perspective.  This – disconnect – sent confusing messages to me as a player trying to make sense of the situation.  The world does not withhold its message even if the response to my action is delayed!  (Be patient with me – this is stuff I am still trying to sort out in my own head as well!)

Now, to get to the meat of your question, I have not come across any common/real game system that is Sim supporting.  As my exposure has been rather limited I would not take my statement to be rigorously authoritative.  Yet I have not heard of any game system where the role of mechanics is to "normalize" the fictional game world – so that the unusual is unusual but can happen and be truly unusual (IOW – not always in a pre-generated table) should it happen!  Conversely such a system would typically not require a roll in truly "ordinary" circumstances as, well, the ordinary is quite expected and doesn't require "proving," (additional/external authority) you see!  Just like in Nar, not every contested statement headed for the SIS meets the "requirements" for the hauling out of the resolution system – that is some contested statements are basically "irrelevant" with regards to what is being prioritized in play.  The shape of the resolution system [dfk] is "fairly" irrelevant – what really gives it it's CA punch is under what circumstances/conditions the resolution system is called into action.

Have I said anything cogent?

Hullo Darren,

Minor point - notice that I presented two possibilities. My first proposition: you were unfamiliar with the drastically different mechanics, and this interrupted your chain of thought.  This is a lot like what you describe, and this does not require there to be a CA clash. Of course, it might be a CA clash - that's why I posed my suggestions as possibilities to consider rather than definite statements.

Well said.  I am a little red faced, but as long as we understand each other's positions all's right in the world!

Take note of what Vincent, John, and Eero have said. If the other participants in a conflict are playing properly, you get exactly the same information to interact with as you would in a pure simulationist system. That information is produced the exact same way, too.

I do see what you are getting at, and I think what I finally managed to put down in my reply to John does cover what "wasn't quite sittin' right in my chaw."  You see, I was not getting the "exact same information" as one would in a "Sim" supporting system.  That information is conveyed in the "when-of-the-application-of-the-resolution-system."  To the Simulationist that there two arenas-of-effects that are temporally and qualitatively distinct and that distinction is institutionally enshrined is confounding.  In a way it's like constantly ret-conning vital information that was already taken to be "fact."

A pedantic nitpick which you may realise already. :) You only get the trait's dice once per conflict, but you can "use" the trait as often as you like after that. In one raise, you might say, "I fire my shotgun" and as a result get your 2d6 trait. In a later raise, you might describe "I fire my shotgun" - you don't get any more dice, but you DO inflict different fallout if you hit, than if you chose to talk. So there is a definite, qualitative difference between some types of traits.

Oh.  Be pedantic!  I hadn't thought it through that way!  However, using what you said, it is true after "firing my (weapon)" a second time or more in a given conflict does not get me any more dice but the fallout is certainly more than talking and thus "different".  However at this stage once "hit" there is no quantitative difference between firing a Derringer from across the room and unloading a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun pointblank into the brain pan – each gets a d10 fall out roll.  In a Sim game this would not hold true – a derringer and a double-barreled shotgun would do vastly different types of "damage/fallout."  Its not that the mechanics could be different – but rather the emphasis of the mechanics is vastly different.  In Sim it follows that a large gun have more of an effect than a small gun, and this is frequently supported by the mechanics – this helps "normalize" the fictional game world.  In DitV, the message sent by the mechanics is not so much that one worry about the "damage" of a weapon (normalizing the fictional game world), but rather that one went to a weapon (escalated the conflict) in the first place!  That "message" is not lost on those who are looking for it and I assume one intended by Vincent.  I think this is a fascinating and illuminating contrast!

Eero – I hope that some of the above has addressed your comments.

Marco, Brian and Jason I will respond to you soon!

[lumpley]

When you do get the time I would be interested in what you have to say about my GNS analysis.

The short form is: someone accustomed to simulationist play in a more genre-emulation or "cinematic" mode - say a long-term player of 7th Sea or Feng Shui - probably wouldn't have the same objections to Dogs' techniques that you do.

When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda. Your analysis of Dogs' construction of cause and effect is right on, but your ... dissatisfaction? discomfort? incompetence? whichever you prefer - your discomfort with it is all technical.

I do not believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is to "resolve" tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to "normalize" i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn't happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the mechanics is Sim are not "just" normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a "roll" is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is "meaningful" even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution mechanics were "not" called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a "void" in the information/feedback stream...

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

Oh - Jay, and yes, I think that this reaches right into your bricoleur-vs-engineer analysis. You've identified a technical distinction, a distinction at the technique level, I think, not a distinction between creative agendas.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Thank you, Vincent, I've been saying this for ages now.

Jay, I don't think you have a problem with narrativism at all. I think you just have very specific sorts of mechanics you like (mostly ones that are ignored most of the time). Interestingly lots of players who identify with narrativism have the same urges.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Mike and Vincent,

Jay and I just went over this ground recently in Exploration does not equal Bricolage.  Though, your mileage may vary with that thread.  Jay and I came out of it with very different views.  I consider it fairly conclusive evidence that bricolage is a Technique, due to it being anything but a Technique being founded on assumption #3 from my second to last post and my two actual play examples from that thread falsifying assumption #3.  I haven't thought too much about it since then, but I think what allows #3 to be disproved is not a fault in the engineering/bricolage distinction, but incorrectly mapping that distinction onto the process of role-playing.  Assumption #3 is able to exist in the context of building something or myth because of manufacturing "materials" that are immutable.  A chair or a thunderstorm is a chair or a thunderstorm regardless of what I want it to be, and they have certain qualities regardless of what I perceive those qualities to be.  However, role-playing, being a purely mental process, has no immutable materials to build from.  A chair or a thunderstorm is exactly what I want and perceive it to be.  Hence, all elements are at some level engineered and assumption #3 becomes false.  It's not that the engineering/bricolage distinction isn't useful, just that it can't go from the tool-shed to Exploration unmodified.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain Jay's view on the thread was quite different.  I don't want to derail too much.  Just thought I'd mention it.

[Silmenume]

Hey Marco,

I finally get to respond to you!

I'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion...

Well as "immersion" has been so far undefined, any lengthy discussion about Sim in terms of "immersion" will ultimately be an exercise in futility.  However, despite the warning, I will boldly rush in where angels fear to tread and attempt to make a cogent response. 

• 1.  The difference between adoption and immersion is when one stops relating to the tools available to the Player as tools and starts reacting to them emotionally.
• 2.  As I have stated as recently as my last post – I am not saying nor am I even attempting to imply that one must "immerse" in order to get one's Sim on.
• 3.  I do enjoy play that is deeply emotional, but I am not saying nor am I implying that this "emotionalist preference" is in ANY WAY descriptive or definitional of any Creative Agenda.

All the above being established, I am confused buy your consistent return to the "emotional issue."

You don't convey that you experience the game simply as a cool intellectual exercise.

And why should I?  "Sim is fun/engrossing," is not an oxymoronic statement.  I don't hear Narrativists relating their play "as a cool intellectual exercise," nor do I hear Gamists relating their play experiences "as a cool intellectual exercise."  I would go so far as to say that if anyone did described their game play in the AP threads, "as a cool intellectual exercise," would in all likelihood generate a whole stream of posts that would be sniffing all around the question of dysfunction.  From a common point of view, though certainly not definitional, role-play (the expression of CA) is supposed to be fun!  I fail to see the logic of your statement.  Sim is defined by cool and calculating play?  Bull-poop!  Engrossing Exploration automatically excludes the Sim agenda?  Bull-poop squared!

Your attempt to "make the sheet come alive" absent the rules is, I think, some of the most immersive language I've ever seen. When I play in what I would describe as an immersive manner, I am often excited about events in the game, feel an emotional attachment to them (and to NPCs), imagine the play vividly, and sometimes lose track of time (as when reading a good book).

Absolutely.  That is the manner in which I enjoy play.  That, however, is not how I am attempting to define the Sim Creative Agenda.  When I discuss Sim as Theory and not my functional play experiences, I am attempting to discuss and define the process of Sim (much like we discuss Nar as a process – address of Premise – and discuss Gamism as a process – address of Challenge) When discussing Theory I am not interested in defining interior states of players as the Big Model is predicated upon observable expressed behaviors.  Period.  If I didn't make myself clear about that in the past, I apologize.  However, from this point forward please disabuse yourself of any notions that I am claiming that Sim play must be emotionally entangling.  In fact I will make this statement as clear as I can possibly make it –

Sim is no more, nor no less, capable of generating an emotional response/experience among players than Narrativism or Gamism.[/list]

Sure one can approach Sim play from the point of view of a cool intellectual exercise just like an experimental psychologist could approach Nar play from the point of view of a cool intellectual exercise or a war planner could approach Gam play from the point of view of a cool intellectual exercise.  This whole cool intellectual exercise topic is utterly outside the bounds of the Model and not something that I find particularly helpful or insightful.  Of all the times this argument has come up not once has anyone indicated why an emotional state should belong in the same topic of Process.  I mean, that is how CA's are defined, are they not?  If you feel that such a topic is germane then I'll just have to say we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on from there or perhaps something more fruitful might be gained if start a thread indicating logically how "emotion = process."

Don't get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn't capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Yes--I understand that you want to draw the difference between Sim/Nar as the "means" by which SIS is explored. I think that's common but since there is no satisfactory method of doing that when the player is not in author stance the line is so blurry as to be effectively nonexistant (absent defintional elements such as railroading, complete absence of anything that could be called a human-experience choice, or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events).

Not true – a lack of evidence does not indicate negative evidence.  If there are no tells then all we can say is that there are "no tells."  Conversely railroading, by definition, is a dysfunctional form of CA expression, not a tell of Sim play.  Regarding "or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events" I ask Callan or contracycle to tell me if they play Gamist regularly with "no emotional attachment to the imaginary events."  That these statements (which basically describe dysfunctional play) are even employed as "tells" strongly indicates that such an observer does not know what exhibited behaviors to look for.  Dysfunctional play and effective Creative Agenda expression are strongly opposed though not entirely exclusionary.

I apologize if I came off a little "ranty."

Hi Brain,

Welcome to the Forge and thanks for making the effort to contribute!

I have to say that this is a bit confusing to me -- stating "It didn't follow the Sim paradigm, therefore I didn't understand it".  That seems completely backwards.  It reminds me of something a taster once said on Iron Chef -- "Well, I'm only 19, so I'm not old enough to like this dish yet."

Indeed, if I had claimed that I did not "understand" the process because I have a Sim priority background then your argument would be sound.  However, that was not my claim.  It was not that I did not "understand," but rather I found the events I described irksome and attempted to do more than just "complain."  Rather, noting my discomfiture, I tried to figure why this highly functional game would bother me in terms of the Big Model.  I read it as CA conflict – which I then seized as an awesome opportunity to plumb the differences between the two CA's from a less distant perspective – that is I have my own data set!

The resolution mechanics require one to provide the information you were looking for when Seeing, Raising, Taking the Blow, etc.  So it wasn't the mechanics that failed.

Oh, I wasn't making a value judgment about the mechanics.  I was noting how the Mechanics and I didn't mesh and the all important question – why?  Some have suggested the that I was having trouble with the Mechanics as technique, and while I do agree that I can't discount all of that hypothesis, I do believe that something more fundamental was at root.

If you need the Traits separated conceptually, write up your own character sheet and place your Traits in conceptual sections -- Innate Mental, Innate Physical, Innate Spiritual, Trained Mental, Trained Physical, Trained Spiritual, External Physical (equipment), External Spiritual, External Relationship, External Social, etc.  It won't harm anything to break them up into whatever classifications make sense for you.

In fact, you can even do more than that.  If you want your character to be more focused on physical training, put higher dice in those Traits that reflect that.  Done.

But those artificial differences have no real effect on the process of play nor would such an effort be rewarded by system.  This does not mean the mechanics in DitV are broken, but quite the opposite.  They are so exquisitely tuned to supporting Nar play that they really do confound Sim priorities!  Which is really cool!  When such a "collision" does happen it reveals something about the priorities and processes of Sim by the nature of the collision.  Something analogous to atom smashing – in a weird really convoluted sort of mind stretching way...

Hi Jason,

Step on Up seems much like address of Premise in that it is one of those things that is absent from any concious thought in most of play.  You are left looking for the manifestations of the agenda, such as challenge and theme...

I agree about the absence of conscious self-aware address of Premise/Challenge, I had hoped to indicate that I was not pursuing Challenge via observable play either.  Obviously I didn't effectively communicate what I hoped to demonstrate.  However, even the de-escalation process you suggested was not in play nor  was it something that was "important" to me at the time.

It's all about the list as a whole - not individual elements.

I do agree that it is all about the aggregate, however other than the note on de-escalation that particular list (as a whole) really didn't point to any specific CA behavior that I could find echoed in the Big Model.

Anyway, judging by other comments it's likely that engagement in challenge was lacking from your play, but I thought I should follow up as your initial post read very strongly like it was present.

Right on!  Don't let me wriggle away without trying to pin me down!

That last few posts (Vincent, Mike and Jason) run in a completely different direction so I will address them in a separate post soon.  Thanks one and all for your input.

[Jason Lee]

I do agree that it is all about the aggregate, however other than the note on de-escalation that particular list (as a whole) really didn't point to any specific CA behavior that I could find echoed in the Big Model.

Ah.  The list basically boils down to characterization, power fantasy, resource micromanagement, quantifiable risk/consequence, and anti-climax.  That suggests a specific type of Gam to me, but if it doesn't to you then let's not sweat it.  There isn't really a way to argue for or against the relationship between specific behavior patterns and specific types of CAs, as it's only valid if based on observation and observation isn't defensible unless it can be shared.  If those aren't the patterns you see with this type of Gam we'll just end up spinning our wheels.

[Brian Newman]

Silmenume,

I get where you're coming from.  Thanks for the explanation.  I just think it's a mistake to say "I'm not getting this/I'm in conflict with the rules because I'm a Simulationist."  I think I'd say just try it and have fun, and if it's the one non-Simulationist game that you like and play, good for you and it.

[Silmenume]

Hey Vincent,

The short form is: someone accustomed to simulationist play in a more genre-emulation or "cinematic" mode - say a long-term player of 7th Sea or Feng Shui - probably wouldn't have the same objections to Dogs' techniques that you do.

...

When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda. Your analysis of Dogs' construction of cause and effect is right on, but your ... dissatisfaction? discomfort? incompetence? whichever you prefer - your discomfort with it is all technical.

What staggers me in this analysis is the denial of the very something that you have obviously mastered so well in your own game design – that System matters to CA expression.  Yes, I do agree with you that I did have issues with the Techniques, but the question is – why?  Nowhere in your analysis do you acknowledge that which you have accomplished so effectively yourself – that Mechanics can be formed in such a manner as to have a strong impact on the CA expression of the Players.  The logical extension of that argument is that if someone were to have a CA priority clash with a game design in play it would certainly show up with "problems" with the Mechanics.  I do not deny that the very form of the Mechanics design can be a contributing issue (that is a Nar leaning player could have problems with unfamiliar Nar facilitating Mechanics or Nar facilitating Mechanics that rub his aesthetic sensibilities the wrong way), but what I am astonished is the flat out denial that Mechanics design and implementation could clash with the CA priorities of a Player – especially when so much effort was put into said Mechanics to facilitate the expression of a given CA in the first place!

This is what gets frustrating about the discussion of Sim.  One set of Model structures are applied to Nar and Gam, yet they are denied when it comes to Sim.  You say system matters, I agree system matters.  But then I am denied that system does matter with regards to Sim.  It's not that I am having a CA clash but rather I'm having a "technical issue."  How does that work?

I do not believe that the role of Mechanics in Sim is to "resolve" tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to "normalize" i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn't happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the Mechanics is Sim are not "just" normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a "roll" is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is "meaningful" even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of Mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution Mechanics were "not" called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a "void" in the information/feedback stream...

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

Again I am baffled here.  Are not Techniques employed to express CA?  Are they not an expression of CA?

[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]. The panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. ...

...But if you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented by Creative Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.

Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

Underlining added.

Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.

All I am doing is giving concrete evidence of Techniques failing to satisfy CA because of clash – just like the articles above claim can happen.  I find it somewhat disappointing that in theory discussion that my assertions are dismissed with outright credulousness, as I am not claiming anything that is not already expressed within the Big Model.

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche.

Perhaps.  However, I speak of the role of Mechanics in Sim.  What I described is no more synecdoche than saying that Mechanics in Narrativism should positively reinforce the address of Premise.  Well of course they should!  But is that synecdoche?  Narrativism is the addressing of Premise and the addressing of Premise is definitional of Narrativism – yes?  I mean it's not controversial to say that Nar facilitating Mechanics should "give" the Players aid in addressing Premise?  Wouldn't it be silly to claim that Mechanics have no business supporting the address of Premise?

To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

So if it is not controversial to claim that Mechanics can and ought to support the Address of Premise in Nar play (the role of mechanics) then why is my claim that the "role" of mechanics in Sim is to "normalize" the fictional world and reflect the evolution of the SIS?  Maybe I am wrong about the "role," but I have yet see anything else offered that covers the vast panoply of Sim play while staying true to the creative/construction base of the Big Model.  Sure this proposal excludes some form of play.  So did the proposal that Narrativism is not about "Story," but about player's Addressing Premise.  This particular formulation completely excluded railroading where the GM creates and "tells" a pre-generated story.  Why?  Partially because such play excluded effective Player input into what was being added to the SIS.  Is that so controversial?  Then why does it become controversial when I claim that Sim too has a creative/construction process as well – that which is in keeping the with gist of the Big Model – because certain non-constructive modes of play find themselves outside that descriptor?

Oh - Jay, and yes, I think that this reaches right into your bricoleur-vs-engineer analysis. You've identified a technical distinction, a distinction at the technique level, I think, not a distinction between creative agendas.

Again I disagree – obviously!  ;P  I think the bricoleur-vs-engineer distinction is the fundamental Chasm which separates Sim from Nar/Gam.  One cannot come to Nar/Gam with a bricoleur mentality/process and effectively address Premise/Challenge.  Conversely one cannot come to Sim with an engineering process/mentality and express Sim effectively.  The two processes are fundamentally at odds with one another.

Hey Mike,

Having reviewed what I have written above I think, I hope, that I have addressed your comment too.

Jason!

I consider it fairly conclusive evidence that bricolage is a Technique...

While I don't wish to take this thread in this direction here, I am certainly open to discussing it on a theory thread, I just wanted to quickly note that bricolage cannot be a technique any more than engineering is a "technique."  Both are "points of view/paradigms" on how to approach and solve problems.  How Techniques are used by players in play will reflect (and be an expression of – much like how CA is not a Technique either but a process) the "problem solving paradigm", but Techniques are not in themselves engineering or bricolage anymore than they are "CA."  That is Techniques are employed to express CA, but are not CA itself.  Both engineering/bricolage and CA are emergent properties of play – not things in and of themselves.