Dramatism & Other Behaviors- New Level

[Mike Holmes]

Well, this isn't my bag, but it seems pretty clearly individual decisions versus patterns of decisions.

That fits the analogy, but is not at all what I'm talking about. An example is necessary.

Lets say I find a new substance called Immersion, and another similar substance called Deep Immersion. Now we all know what these are (or we will assume for the example that we do), but what we do not know is if they are elemental or not. On close examination using some protocol we might find that Immersion is actually a whole group of molecules formed using Deep Immersion as one element of their construction.

That would be cool. Now what's the protocol for determining an elemental behavior? What observable properties do they have which the molecules do not?

And if we were to find all five hundred behaviors (or four, or however many there actually are), I despair that the only thing we would learn from them is what sort of GNS and Stance composition they had. Which we can do now with existing theory applied to any particular behavior we'd like to look at on an individual basis. So why bother?

Unless there is some other factor we'd like to identify in the mix which we haven't previously. Are the motivations behind combinations of GNS and Stance the only things that motivate players? I doubt it.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Double posted, and me with an edit button but no delete button.

[Valamir]

And a finer example of an analogy taken to absurd extreme I never did see :-)

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I'm absolutely serious. I only extended the metaphor becasue people seemed to Grok it.

If you don't get to these "elements" you will find that everyone and their brother has an idea of what constitites a particular behavior with a particular label. I pose Illusionism as a case in point. We thought that we knew what that behavior entailed, but on analysis it took a gargantuan thread to sort out. And I believe that it's still not been settled in any coherent way. We can't get to analyzing a particular behavior until we can agree what that particular behavior is.

And we now have to contend with Gamist Illusionism, and other things that got constructed along the way. This sort of proliferation seems to me to be a real potential problem without a method for constraint.

I don't think that my fears are unfounded.

OTOH, if somebody were to propose a coherent guideline, I think that we might have something. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, just that we cannot prceed willy-nilly. and if we can figure out what those constraints and criteria are, they might say something about the games in general, much like the Periods of the Periodic Table say something about the elements therein (oops, extending the metaphor again). For example, Gareth's criteria would be such a guideline (and would, ironically have rows and columns like a Periodic table). I'm not a big fan of those particular guidelines, but I feel that something is needed.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Well, this isn't my bag, but it seems pretty clearly individual decisions versus patterns of decisions.

That fits the analogy, but is not at all what I'm talking about. An example is necessary.

Let's say I find a new substance called Immersion, and another similar substance called Deep Immersion. Now we all know what these are (or we will assume for the example that we do), but what we do not know is if they are elemental or not. On close examination using some protocol we might find that Immersion is actually a whole group of molecules formed using Deep Immersion as one element of their construction.

That would be cool. Now what's the protocol for determining an elemental behavior? What observable properties do they have which the molecules do not?

Right now the only criteria I can suggest is 'individual decisions' and 'everything else;' we only just came up with this theory.  While I was mostly speaking about concepts for looking at conception, I suppose I can take the plunge into the theory arena.

Okay, both Immersion and Deep Immersion need to be separated from the 'sub-atomic' realm.  Criteria?  Can you make an individual Immersive or Deeply Immersive decision?  Or do these only become obvious over a number of decisions?

I don't know, but let's assume the latter (and for the sake of argument neither includes examples of clearly dysfunctional play).  There seems to be only four possibilities.[list=1][*]Both are separate Elements.
[*]One is composed using the other.
[*]One is an Element, the other composed of Elements not including that one.
[*]Both are created using unlisted Elements (either with the same, similar, or markedly different ingredient lists).[/list:o]If we assume that the names given these are not inaccurate, then #1 is unlikely.  #2 is implied, but looking at #3, it is obvious that there still are alternatives.  And since #4 is a huge can of worms, Occam's Razor suggests we leave that for when (and if) Holmes tells us that "when you eliminate the obvious, whatever left, however unlikely, must be the case."

Whether we pursue #2 or #3, it probably is not that important (since we have very little additional information about various Elements to compare) to determine whether either is Elementary, let us simply search for the relativity of them.  Eventually the bases of what is truly Elementary and what is likely compound will be important, but if we get bogged down arguing the specifics of the identity of what is 'Element' or not, we'll never build up either the experience or criteria to separate them at any level.  Better, I think to get the hang of relative differentiation and then when we 'hit the bottom,' we can assume those are Elements.

How do we determine whether Immersion contains Deep Immersion (or vice versa) or if the both are parallel but composed of different components?  Direct comparison using samples provided by those who 'discovered' them.  While I have experience with Immersion, I don't believe I have done anything that, to me, qualifies as 'Deep' Therefore, I need to talk it over (publicly, as in on a forum like this one - a way to get enough questions that the 'peer review' can follow what the two are) with someone who has experience with Deep Immersion.  One thing we need to avoid during such discourse are people chiming in with "that's not Immersion..." because were talking about specific samples, not theoretical ideals.

Once this dialogue has concluded it should be clear whether #2 one is of the other or #3 they share appearance but not content.  After doing the same to a number of examples (even between entities that don't initially share qualities) the preponderance of #2s will eventually show what is 'no longer reducible' leading to the first Elementary discoveries.

And if we were to find all five hundred behaviors (or four, or however many there actually are), I despair that the only thing we would learn from them is what sort of GNS and Stance composition they had. Which we can do now with existing theory applied to any particular behavior we'd like to look at on an individual basis. So why bother?

Unless there is some other factor we'd like to identify in the mix which we haven't previously. Are the motivations behind combinations of GNS and Stance the only things that motivate players? I doubt it.

I would despair the same except, even for the utility of it, the GNS would not be completely welcome in the above discourse.  I think the confusion behind this remark is that the GNS is not about motivation; motivation is what creates behavior and if we accept Elementary theory, then coherent motivations can lead to different GNS decisions even under similar situations.

I think the motivations, expressed as behaviors, have gone largely unexplored.  I was looking for this discourse when I started the 'More Than Three Boxes...' thread, oh so long ago.  The fact that people still struggle with the "I'm a Simulationist, but I make Gamist choices" is hallmark of this problem.  Simulationism is not a behavior; you are not a person who only uses Simulationism, you exhibit many more Simulationist choices over time, but to me that says very little about your motivation.  (Since I liken Simulationism to Neutrons, all this means is you're probably radioactive - a joke!)

If you don't get to these "elements" you will find that everyone and their brother has an idea of what constitutes a particular behavior with a particular label. I pose Illusionism as a case in point. We thought that we knew what that behavior entailed, but on analysis it took a gargantuan thread to sort out. And I believe that it's still not been settled in any coherent way. We can't get to analyzing a particular behavior until we can agree what that particular behavior is.

Illusionism is a great example of what I am suggesting.  Let's just stop trying to agree on what Illusionism is for everyone.  Everyone is obviously working from very different samples with only superficial properties in common.  One person can have players who are aware that they are subject to Illusionism, another not.  Stop trying to reconcile the differences!  Assume that you have different 'substances', compare.  After noting the important differences, try to determine the contrasts and whether they suggest #1, #2, or #3.

Better yet, call them both Illusionistic 'substances' and give them each separate names.  Eventually a number of these 'separately named' entities will turn out to be Elements, only then can you make concrete statements about what is or is not Illusionism and what it takes to get there and everyone will have come to an agreement beforehand.  Skip 'getting it right' until you know what you're arguing about.  (I'll even get you started, let's call my sample of Immersion, Avatarism).  

And we now have to contend with Gamist Illusionism, and other things that got constructed along the way. This sort of proliferation seems to me to be a real potential problem without a method for constraint.

I don't think that my fears are unfounded.

They aren't.  But assuming we can determine all the constraints before we haul the first samples into the spotlight is fraught with hubris.  I don't think we can say what makes Elements different until we have more experience comparing them.  I think you are allowing fears of infinite proliferation halt the first steps.  This is a journey long overdue and just because it might be long is no reason to not start it.  Think of how much it took to create the GNS from the perspective way back on r.g.f.x, a long and 'hot' trip, but in hindsight most worthwhile.

Personally, I believe once we roll up our sleeves and start contrasting samples instead of arguing about constraints you might find things solve out to a lot fewer Elements than you expect and what you are imagining is more the plethora of compounds.  We can't know unless we stop talking about doing it and start doing it.

OTOH, if somebody were to propose a coherent guideline, I think that we might have something. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, just that we cannot proceed willy-nilly. And if we can figure out what those constraints and criteria are, they might say something about the games in general, much like the Periods of the Periodic Table say something about the elements therein (oops, extending the metaphor again). For example, Gareth's criteria would be such a guideline (and would, ironically have rows and columns like a Periodic table). I'm not a big fan of those particular guidelines, but I feel that something is needed.

I just don't think we're really in a position to get into constraints and criteria of what makes an Element, an Element yet.  But you are very wise; we cannot proceed willy-nilly.  For that Alchemists gave us a couple of tools (and they have nothing to do with the Elements themselves).  The first is scientific method and the second peer review.

Gaming isn't physics so we can't do the 'reproducible results' nor do many of us have the time to try out every little nuance of a potential Element.  What we can do is apply a threshold of 'well, I can imagine playing that way' (with the important caveat that it cannot matter 'but would I want to?').  Using that criteria will suggest to others how to ask 'how would I...?' questions instead of making 'you got it wrong' statements.

For peer review, we'd need to nominate people who we could collectively agree upon, so we can accept their discourse of regarding the #s of the compared samples.  These people would have to be willing to accept the responsibility to have the discourse (or at least stamp a 'yeah verily' on equally good discourse) as needed (an unwilling judge is not objective).  Why specific people?  Well, first of all, without them a discussion could run indefinitely (they'd be the 'brakemen').  There's also the president of so many references of to Ron; I think he'd be the perfect first nominee.  (How about it Ron?)

Fang Langford

(Who may actually should have gone to bed after the convention, instead of writing things out of his hat.)

[Le Joueur]

I think all of the above is also very relevant to a number of calls recently about why terribly incoherent games sell like gangbusters.

I think what's going on for those games is that the incoherency of design allows for 'drift' into the ranges of play of much larger groups of participants.  Since I also believe that 'system does matter,' I believe an alternative to designing games that are narrowly coherent in GNS terms is designing games that employ systems to be customized to the Elements that the customers want (and more of them per game), instead of relying upon unconscious, unspoken alterations (and the peril of misunderstandings).

Notable examples of this might be GURPS with its thousand and one optional rules and FUDGE's gamemaking toolkit.  The problem with these is the actual systems for customization are either too 'hidden' and underexplained or too overwhelming, for the lesser sophisticated gamer.

I believe that a good seller could be intentionally designed to be custonizable by its system and flexibility.  Such a game, prior to customizing would inherently be 'abashedly' everything, allowing any form of customization.  The mechanism of customization would have to be simple yet robust and well-documented.  I would even go so far as to say the utility of such customization systems could be tested by making it possible to change customization over time as the group's interest changes and that qualifies for the description of Transitional gaming.

I might even say that, if done extremely well, one could change the customization from one Element to another (relatively close one) from session to session or even from scene to scene.  But there is no way I can tell if such is feasible, possible, or worth doing.*  All I know is that such would benefit greatly from a discussion of individual Elements as opposed to yet another rehash of "My Problems with the GNS."

Fang Langford

* Actually, I'm lying here.

(Sleep, yes, definitely, sleeeepppp....)

[Mike Holmes]

Reduction. OK, that's a possible method. But as you say, you need a method to be able to "apply the breaks" as you put it. You suggest peer review? I like the way you think. But I may be the only one.

FWIW, I nominate you, Fang Langford, AKA Le Joueur, to the RPG Behavioral Theory Behavior Identification Review Panel.

Now, do you feel blessed or cursed?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Reduction. OK, that's a possible method. But as you say, you need a method to be able to "apply the breaks" as you put it. You suggest peer review? I like the way you think. But I may be the only one.

FWIW, I nominate you, Fang Langford, AKA Le Joueur, to the RPG Behavioral Theory Behavior Identification Review Panel.

Now, do you feel blessed or cursed?

Okay with the peer review idea?  Should we come up with criteria?  Should there be 'dissenters' on the panel?  Any other ideas who should be?  Ron?  Valamir?  You?

I might feel blessed if it doesn't become a solo effort (or if the title included 'Forge' and didn't seem redundant).

On the other hand, if it were the Behaviorial Application Behavior Identification Estimation Source, I'd feel cursed.

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

Like I said, I'm OK with it. But I think we'd be getting a little ahead of ourselves to assume that anyone else thought the idea was a good one. Just considering the democratic nature of the Internet, an Oligarchy might rub many the wrong way.

Give them a chance to read your post a few times (took me twice).

Mike