"Situation Creation" mechanics - and Sim

[Josh Roby]

A process is visible to all users, explicit, and exists external to the people employing it. A mechanic must be formal, constructed, and organised, otherwise a pile of rocks would have to be construed as just as mechanical as an engine.

So if Thag uses a tree branch and a rock to tip over a boulder, it's not a lever?  Just because it's not recognized does not mean it's not a procedure, and just because it's not named doesn't mean it's not a mechanic.  A procedure is just something that people do.  That's it.  It doesn't need to be recognized as a discrete entity (it may not be a discrete entity), it does not need to be named.  A mechanic is the same deal, it just implies a little more crunch is involved.

For my money, it's probably that implication of crunch-factor that's tripping Jay up.  Nobody's saying that situation creation mechanics need be written down, work off of game terms, or the like.  They can, but they don't need to.  They can be wholly informal and idiosyncratic, even subconscious.  But if they could be described, and if they are even marginally consistent across applications, then it's a procedure or mechanic.

Elliot --

I think, based on roleplaying's wargaming roots, where terrain set up and army selection was certainly a separate step from the implementation of turn-by-turn tactical decisions, that situation and roleplay are traditionally represted by different procedures.  However, as we see with PTA, Universalis, and Multiverser, situation procedures can also be internalized with the rest of the game (minor note: this usually requires distributing power differently).  While doing so will usually result in a simpler game in terms of complexity of the ruleset, I imagine the question of separate versus integrated situation creation mechanics will be determined by the specific and idiosyncratic needs of the game -- Town Creation works very well in Dogs; it would make no sense in, say, PTA.

[Callan S.]

Hi Jay,

Say we were playing nar and the situation had been created that your murderous brother can be captured by you (but he'll be hung) or you can let him go (he'll murder more people).

What are situation creation mechanics in this instance? Mechanics which create that scene? Or mechanics which determine what happens next, based on the players choice?


Now, for sim, would mechanics that determine what happens next be as out of place? As out of place as any mechanics that make the nar players choice for him? Is that what you mean, when you say situation mechanics are out of place? Because a great deal of situation creation in sim is supposed to come from player address of causality, rather than mechanically determined?

I'm assuming alot, so I'm probably way off.

[Silmenume]

Thanks everyone for your input.

I feel terribly embarrassed as I must have posted my original thoughts in a manner which must have been opaque.  Contracycle, you are right, my "initial claim was, situation creation mechanics have no place in Sim.  The claim was not "there is no situation creation in Sim".  You are also correct in rephrasing the question as –

...are situation creation mechanics appropriate for Sim?

[/list]

So it is with the above that I wish to direct my efforts.

Say we were playing nar and the situation had been created that your murderous brother can be captured by you (but he'll be hung) or you can let him go (he'll murder more people).

What are situation creation mechanics in this instance? Mechanics which create that scene? Or mechanics which determine what happens next, based on the players choice?

"Mechanics which create that scene?" – absolutely.  I would call any mechanic which via some meta-game manner lead to that scene a "situation creation mechanic" and something that do not fit in with Sim.

"Or mechanics which determine what happens next, based on the players choice?" – Depends if such choices are acted out via the Player's agency within the SIS or using some sort of inter SIS mechanics that is not "connected" with their Character's action within the SIS.  The former is not a Situation creating "mechanic" while the latter certainly is," and for that reason I would say it would be conflicting with the Sim CA action.

Now, for sim, would mechanics that determine what happens next be as out of place?

Do you mean resolution mechanics, or do you mean mechanics that permit Players to have an influence on the outcome of the problem beyond that of their Character's/avatar's?  A regular good old fashioned resolution mechanic is not incompatible with the Sim agenda in my opinion.  However any mechanic that has an effect outside their avatar's scope of abilities to effect the SIS is something that I believe conflicts with the Sim process of play.

As out of place as any mechanics that make the nar players choice for him? Is that what you mean, when you say situation mechanics are out of place? Because a great deal of situation creation in sim is supposed to come from player address of causality, rather than mechanically determined?

Absolutely!  For all your "assumptions" you have certainly nailed the issue right dead on in the 10 ring.  If Situation is the interaction of Character and Setting, as per the Provisional Glossary, then in Sim there never really is a moment that is outside of Situation!  Thus any Mechanic/Technique that allows any player (Gm or not) to alter the Situation in a way that does not justifiably flow out of what already is contradicts the Sim CA process.

Why does one need a mechanic to do something if it is reasonably justifiable given the Setting and Characters involved?  If it isn't justifiable given the circumstances then such a Mechanic does pose a problem to the CA expression process.  Given that the combination of both Setting and Character are so infinite, I just don't see how it is possible to create a mechanic can be constructed that can aid in the prepping of play for the Sim CA.  I believe that there are tools that can spur the imagination, but I don't believe that fixed procedures (mechanics) can spit out a "situation" that would be relevant for all the various Characters given their various conditions without unduly constricting play (effectively railroading - Force).

Callan, your assumptions are spot on!  Did you read my mind?

Hi contracycle,

And in nthis regard I disagree with Jay.  I think Sim would benefit from proper situation creation mechanics, on the understanding that the players (of characters) will not want to engage with these mnechanics; that is, they should serve as prompts for the GM

Given your provisos, about the "players" not "engaging" said Mechanics, I'll have to ponder your suggestions.  I, for example, will typically peruse the list of the 36 Dramatic Situations for inspiration when constructing scenarios for play.  However, I don't regard them as a Mechanic because they don't "spit out an answer" as to what to create for a specific night of play.  But, I do agree that such "lists" are extremely useful in inspiring the GM and keeping Sim games lively and interesting.

And I think this becuase I suspect that the habitual Sim GM thinks very little about the structure of the game as an entertainment, and that this can produce Sim games that are unfocussed and become steadily purposeless.

Funny you should mention "structure."  However, I do agree with you on the whole.  But my question is, if mechanics which are inherently restructured and by their very nature do not involve the players, how can they keep track of what the players have already done up to the moment and include such actions in the current output?

Hey Elliot,

What I'm proposing is that regardless of whether we are talking about well-defined mechanics or freeform procedures, it is important to consider whether there is a hierarchy or division that separates "situation creation" mechanics/procedures from "everything that happens in the game".

I don't believe there is such a hierarchy in Sim play – everything is Situation from top to bottom.  Just like, by way of analogy, your Chess example.

[contracycle]

Given your provisos, about the "players" not "engaging" said Mechanics, I'll have to ponder your suggestions.  I, for example, will typically peruse the list of the 36 Dramatic Situations for inspiration when constructing scenarios for play.  However, I don't regard them as a Mechanic because they don't "spit out an answer" as to what to create for a specific night of play.  But, I do agree that such "lists" are extremely useful in inspiring the GM and keeping Sim games lively and interesting.

Agreed.  The 36 dramatic situaitons are not in themselves a mechanic, merely a prompt.  But I suggest they can be developed into a mechanic.  Because you can in fact make some statements about what kind of action the game will have to exhibit in order to stay in the framework of the selected dramatic situation.  Say for example we select "the death of a kinsman unrecognised"; we can then identify our dramatis personnae; and having done that, we can reasonably conclude that the game should include at least one scene in which each of those characters is presented to the players for exploration, else the dramatic situation has no resonance.  There's still a great deal of freedom even here though because a story of this nature could start before or after the tragedy just as easily.

Funny you should mention "structure."  However, I do agree with you on the whole.  But my question is, if mechanics which are inherently restructured and by their very nature do not involve the players, how can they keep track of what the players have already done up to the moment and include such actions in the current output?

Through the agency of the GM, which in sim games is equipped with both universal knowledge of the characters and unlimited authority with which to define the world.  Thats why I specifically mentioned character-playing players, do distinguish them from the GM.  The GM is not getting exactly the same exporative buzz as the character-players are, and can therefore utilise techniques that would be jarring to those players.  THe GM can decide that the next scene should be such-and-such Because It Would Be Interesting in a way the players cannot, I think.

[Mike Holmes]

Let's try to put this on an easier plane to discuss. Jay, would you say that the player creating the world in any way, other than the impact of the actions he directs his character to take, damage the sim CA? Is that a true statement? If I, as a player, am allowed to create a tower in the middle of a city, that's not simulationism? It has to be narrativism or gamism?

I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line. Because right now, it's starting to sound like you believe that sim play is equal to Actor Stance play.

Mike

[timfire]

... my "initial claim was, situation creation mechanics have no place in Sim."

Ditto what Mike said. Also, Jay, I believe focusing on "mechanics" alone (whatever that means) is a red herring. RPG's do not live on "mechanics" alone. You should be considering all procedures of play, both informal and formal. This was one of the points Vincent was trying to make. If you only focus on formal procedures, and ignore the informal ones, you will arrive at bad conclusions.

If Situation is the interaction of Character and Setting, as per the Provisional Glossary, then in Sim there never really is a moment that is outside of Situation!

Umm, I believe that for the most part, all roleplaying is "inside" Situation. I find it hard to imagine something that is "outside" Situation.

[Josh Roby]

However any mechanic that has an effect outside their avatar’s scope of abilities to effect the SIS is something that I believe conflicts with the Sim process of play.

That's Actor Stance, not Sim.

Through the agency of the GM, which in sim games is equipped with both universal knowledge of the characters and unlimited authority with which to define the world.

That's a typical division of credibility that appears in many games, but again, that is not Sim.

Perhaps formalized and published situation creation rules are anathema to the way you are used to playing, but your favored methods of play are necessarily going to be more narrowly defined than the vast reaches of Sim play.  On the other hand, I think you certain do use procedures and perhaps even mechanics to create situation in your particular play style.  For instance:

I, for example, will typically peruse the list of the 36 Dramatic Situations for inspiration when constructing scenarios for play.  However, I don’t regard them as a Mechanic because they don’t “spit out an answer” as to what to create for a specific night of play.  But, I do agree that such “lists” are extremely useful in inspiring the GM and keeping Sim games lively and interesting.

The procedure you describe is "Reference the list of 36 Situations.  Strike out any that don't fit your setting.  Strike out any that you know won't engage your players.  From what's left, pick whichever one strikes your fancy or you think will engage the players."   The things that you do, the steps that you take, certainly do "spit out an answer" for you -- otherwise you wouldn't have anything to play about for that specific night of play.  You may not recognize it as such, but it's still the things you do and do 'typically'.  Do you consider it not a "mechanic" since it requires input from players/GM?

[Marco]

That's Actor Stance, not Sim.

Correct, IMO--or more generally, "Immersion." I'd said as much in the actual play thread.

-Marco

[Callan S.]

Okay I think we should all slow down on the rules and procedures of play talk. For this thread, it's like talking about an address of premise that was made and then asking 'so what procedure or rule did you use when you made up that address'. That ISN'T how address of premise is made, M'kay? :) And nor is an address of causality!

That said,


Hi Jay,

I'm glad I wasn't off base! Now, looking into this...

Given your provisos, about the "players" not "engaging" said Mechanics, I'll have to ponder your suggestions.  I, for example, will typically peruse the list of the 36 Dramatic Situations for inspiration when constructing scenarios for play.  However, I don't regard them as a Mechanic because they don't "spit out an answer" as to what to create for a specific night of play.

I get the impression that 'mechanic' is very important here, in that it describes how the world works. Normally if you were playing and used a resolution mechanic, that's okay because the player initiated that as part of him saying what would happen.  The mechanics are encapsulated within the players assertion of how the game world works, thus the player is in charge/protagonised. However, scene creation mechanics put the cart before the horse, as the mechanics are in charge of whether the players assertion of how the game world works, does come to pass.

The difference with the 36 dramatic situations process is that no one has asserted how the game world works yet...so no one's assertion is being screwed with. It's much like proposing to start a brand new narrativist game and saying 'And each PC is a murderer'. No one minds this, because they have made no statements yet about the nature of their characters.

Basically you need rules that don't screw with player address (which is exactly what the other two agendas need as well). Way off?

[M. J. Young]

With Mike, I think that Vincent has taken some liberties with the use of the word "mechanic"; however, John has cited the glossary, and if I'm reading the quotes aright, Vincent is using the term correctly. Thus, again with Mike, I'm inclined to wonder whether that is what the term ought to mean. I'm inclined to think of mechanics as discrete aspects which inform system, on reflection to be more on the order of authorities than system itself (in the sense that when you roll a die and check a chart, these are not the decision about what happens but the basis for asserting that decision; the system here is that someone has been given the credibility to translate the die roll and chart reading into a statement in the shared imagined space). That ought to be discussed.

On the other hand, Jay, you're doing your old synechdoche thing again, imagining that because your play is within the definition of simulationism it is the definition of simulationism. Situation-determining mechanics are very much part of many forms of simulationist play, even if they are not part of yours. Just a few that might be included in a simulationist game:

• A random events table. "Stranger comes to town," "Letter is received from relative," "Government issues new law," "Natural disaster destroys significant building," and other events which could happen and could lead to interesting play situations might be on that table.  Because these are things that happen once in a while that can't easily be drawn from the ongoing causal chain of play, injecting them from a randomized mechanic makes perfect sense in a simulationist setting.
• A general effects roll.  Multiverser, of course, uses this to determine whether things are going generally favorably or generally unfavorably for the character. Since our universes have to deal with a certain amount of chaos theory, one can never be completely sure of the effects of any cause.  If the characters attempt to stir up good feelings about themselves, do their efforts actually cause the town to think well of them? For example, let's suppose they throw a lot of money buying drinks for everyone. This is intended to result in the men thinking they're good guys, and so building up a positive attitude about them. It might, however, backfire, resulting in the men thinking that the characters are showing off how wealthy they are, and the women thinking that the characters are trying to corrupt their men and make them drink too much, and the local cleric putting pressure on the town leaders to do something about this corrupting influence. Assuming task resolution (most common in sim games), there is no way to trace the causal chain without making assumptions. The GE roll provides those assumptions: did this work much as the players hoped, or did it backfire terribly? It's still perfectly simulationist, used thus; it just provides the answer to the uncertainty of how an action will be received by the majority of the people.
• Random dungeon generation. Sometimes you can find these online (although the last one I used seems to have vanished, due I think to the tendency of students to post these on their university web spaces and then lose them when they leave school). These can be computerized, or they can be as simple as the old instant dungeons that used dice to determine what comes next (I recall there's one in the back of the OAD&D DMG, although I never used it). From one perspective, these save the referee a lot of trouble; from another, they remove his biases from the process. They create an objective reality, often on the fly, and so produce situation mechanically.

Those are just a few examples; I'm sure there could be others.

Certainly you can play in any agendum without "situation mechanics" of these types; you can also play in any agendum with situation mechanics.

That's quite apart from the problem that of course in every game, system conspires to create situation, and therefore there are techniques which do so. I think Mike and I agree that mechanics are one class of techniques, but that doesn't appear to be what the glossary says, so either we're misreading it, or it needs to be corrected, or we're mistaken.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

That's a typical division of credibility that appears in many games, but again, that is not Sim.

Perhaps formalized and published situation creation rules are anathema to the way you are used to playing, but your favored methods of play are necessarily going to be more narrowly defined than the vast reaches of Sim play.  On the other hand, I think you certain do use procedures and perhaps even mechanics to create situation in your particular play style. 

That division of authority may strictly not "be" Sim, but it is particularly useful to Sim.  The players gain a sensation of an objective world by having it espoused by an objective authority.  I don't really understand your second paragraph, because I have precisely proposed that there potentially can be formal situation creation mechanics and that they may even be a good idea.

[Mike Holmes]

I think Mike and I agree that mechanics are one class of techniques, but that doesn't appear to be what the glossary says, so either we're misreading it, or it needs to be corrected, or we're mistaken.

It's just a disagreement on what a useful meaning for the term is. There was a whole long thread that considered terms like Mechanics, Rules, Text, Procedures, etc. I think this thread is moving to the other topic, so if anyone wants to discuss that definition, I think a new thread is in order. But do search up that old thread first if you can!

Mike

[Josh Roby]

Gareth, the second paragraph was more directed towards Jay than you; on that point you and I seem to be in agreement.  As far as the GM being the sole objective arbiter of the newtonian world, while that may create the sensation of an address of causality, I can't help but think it is in reality merely an address of authority.  There's no reason why a Sim game can't be constituted as an arena in which all player are invited to arbitrate and negotiate causality and/or genre conventions.

Which, to link this to the thread topic, suggests that a Sim game can employ situation creation mechanics (understanding that 'mechanic' means a way in which player input is communicated, ratified, and/or rejected) in such a situation.  I'd take the stronger case, that any game will utilize a situation creation mechanic, but I'd like to hear Jay's response before pressing on.

[talysman]

Jay,

I'm not going to restate what I and others have said before about how your preferred method of Sim play is not the same method all other Sim players prefer, since each time I say "I prefer Sim but don't have the same preferences as you do", you state that I am therefore not a Sim player.

nor am I going to focus on the definition of the word "mechanics". I am going to assume, as you do, that "mechanics" here means some kind of formal, public procedure, such as dice-rolling or point-spending or drama negotiations between players.

what I am going to do instead is focus on what I see as the root problem of this disagreement, which is best illustrated in this quote:

Say we were playing nar and the situation had been created that your murderous brother can be captured by you (but he'll be hung) or you can let him go (he'll murder more people).

What are situation creation mechanics in this instance? Mechanics which create that scene? Or mechanics which determine what happens next, based on the players choice?

"Mechanics which create that scene?" – absolutely.  I would call any mechanic which via some meta-game manner lead to that scene a "situation creation mechanic" and something that do not fit in with Sim.

"Or mechanics which determine what happens next, based on the players choice?" – Depends if such choices are acted out via the Player's agency within the SIS or using some sort of inter SIS mechanics that is not "connected" with their Character's action within the SIS.  The former is not a Situation creating "mechanic" while the latter certainly is," and for that reason I would say it would be conflicting with the Sim CA action.

the key word here is "metagame".

when Vincent made his initial claim that every RPG needs to create Situation, perhaps he was thinking specifically of metagame mechanics, but I don't know; he didn't say anything about metagame at all, however. and yet, obviously, you are thinking "metagame" ... and more to the point, you are ignoring the fact that Sim has metagame mechanics, too, just not the same kind of metagame mechanics as Gam or Nar.

the difference is: in Sim, all metagame mechanics receive player input based solely on the SiS and any genre expectations or existing world facts, while Gam and Nar metagame mechanics allow input based on relationships between the players. Gam/Nar metagame mechanics allow the real world to influence the way the SiS develops, while Sim metagame mechanics are designed to *prevent* the real world from interfering with the SiS.

given that definition of "metagame", there should be no objection to Situation mechanics in Sim as long as they operate in a Sim manner; and there certainly shouldn't be an objection to Situation mechanics if they aren't metagame at all.

you haven't addressed the examples of non-metagame Situation creation mechanics that I raised before. perhaps you missed them... if there is a mechanic that states "the GM will periodically roll for wandering monsters, on a table that appropriately represents the monster types that frequent the area; this roll occurs more often if the party is noisier or if the dungeon inhabitants are otherwise alerted" that is a Situation creation mechanic. it is pure Sim, it is not metagame, and it's been used for many years. if there is a spell backfire table that allows results like "a demon is accidentally summoned" or "all monsters within range become alerted to the caster's presence and become hostile", this is a Situation creation mechanic. heck, Alignment is a Situation creation mechanic, since it can affect whether an encounter will be innocuous Color or a hostile Situation.

and Situation can be more than just be more than just violent physical or non-physical conflict; if the players use a tool or device that has a misfire roll that could collapse a ceiling or knock over trees to block your path, that is a mechanic that can create a complication (Situation.)

all of these are examples of non-metagame Situation creating mechanics that have actually been used in D&D, GURPS, and The Fantasy Trip. early D&D could be played either Gamist or Sim, as could TFT, and GURPS is obviously intended to be strong SIM. there are similar mechanics in other games as well. there's really a very long tradition of Situation creation mechanics in Sim. and, although not every mechanic is suitable for every game, I can't see why any of these mechanics "have no place in Sim"... I could think of specific ways some of them could be used so that they wouldn't fit in Sim (liek soem ways of handling Alignment, for example,) but I have seen them used in a Sim fashion with no Sim objections raised.

so, Jay, do you agree that your objection to Situation creation mechanics only applies if we're taling about metagame mechanics that ignore the SiS in favor of tactical or premise-related negotiations? if so, I think no one here will really disagree with that, and we can avoid a lot of future arguments.

[Silmenume]

Hey everyone,

I'm going to append this mess with a preamble saying this will probably be the most incoherent reply ever written –

Hi Callan!

Okay I think we should all slow down on the rules and procedures of play talk. For this thread, it's like talking about an address of premise that was made and then asking 'so what procedure or rule did you use when you made up that address'. That ISN'T how address of premise is made, M'kay? And nor is an address of causality!

Thanks Callan!  OK everyone, I fully understand that Sim is a troublesome topic, and that plumbing it will unintentionally step on the toes of people who have invested much blood sweat and tears in formulating their own theories.  I readily include myself in that group.  However, lest we never get anywhere, I would wish to quickly bring to mind the On Charitable Reading thread.  Twice, civic-minded posters had to step forward to bring this thread back to some form of discussion.

I get the impression that 'mechanic' is very important here, in that it describes how the world works. Normally if you were playing and used a resolution mechanic, that's okay because the Player initiated that as part of him saying what would happen.  The mechanics are encapsulated within the Players assertion of how the game world works, thus the Player is in charge/protagonised. However, scene creation mechanics put the cart before the horse, as the mechanics are in charge of whether the Players assertion of how the game world works, does come to pass.

This "feels" about right, but I will have to spend more time pondering to see if I can find more reasons than just a "feeling!"

Roughly, I believe that Resolution Mechanics are a reflection of the Dream which starts with the source material and grows with the Dream via the growth of the SIS.  So yes they do "reflect" how the world works, they do not prescribe how it works.  Very important distinction – to me at least – at my current level of understanding.  The point is that the Players project forward into the world when making decisions about what to do and what is about to happen and they need the world to work in a "regular/normal" fashion in order to make these projections.  If the Resolution Mechanics support their projections then the Player has demonstrated his understanding of the world.  The protagonization comes from having the opportunity to demonstrate an understanding of the world in the first place and not being shut out because some sort of mechanic does not "exist" to cover such a Situation.

Now, as mechanics are a "reflection" of the world then a Setting Creation Mechanic is definitely a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Basically you need rules that don't screw with Player address (which is exactly what the other two agendas need as well). Way off?

Way ON! 

The thing is, it is the Players who are addressing causality – which displaces mechanics from its frequently misunderstood role.  Only Players can make an address of anything.  IF Sim is the address of Causality*, then the Players in the process of making said address must, ipso facto, be making "statements" about what is being addressed - causality.  And just as the address of Premise is reflected in the evolving Theme, then the address of Causality should then be seen in the evolution of the reflection of that causality - the Mechanics, yes?  This has the counter intuitive effect of having Players confirm the mechanics via play.  It is the Players who understand causality and express that understanding via Exploration which is later reflected in the mechanics.

*I should note that "causality" probably isn't the correct word for Sim in the same way that "competition" is not the correct word for Gamism.

The difference with the 36 dramatic Situations process is that no one has asserted how the game world works yet...so no one's assertion is being screwed with. It's much like proposing to start a brand new narrativist game and saying 'And each PC is a murderer'. No one minds this, because they have made no statements yet about the nature of their characters.

There is truth to this!  My concern comes from the condition of long running game when an incompatible "result" comes up that conflicts with an existing Character's background/play history/personality/etc.  However, even here you don't have Situation so much as Character!  The question that burns in my mind is, if the "Situation Creation  Mechanic" says that in the next scene Aragorn is going to murder someone, how does that come about without railroading Aragorn's Player?  Or does such a mechanic say a scene is framed in such a way that Aragorn has just committed the murder, despite the Player's insistence that he would never have Aragorn commit a "murder."  IOW the Player has just been deprotagonized so that the GM could force a Situation.  I foresee that such a scene set up process, if used mid-game, will in all likelihood break something in the chain of play to force the "mechanic created" Situation into being.

Upon review, the problem I think I am having is that since "Situation" is a derived quality of the interaction of the objects – Setting and Character – that "creating" a Situation would require some disconnects in the continuity of play in order to bring said Situation into being.  IOW if the Situation could not have arisen from the positioning of the elements within the SIS, but instead requires a "mechanic" to bring it into play, then we have a break in "causality."

All in all, I guess I'm with contracycle with the notion of using something like the 36 dramatic Situations to inspire the introduction of dramatis personae with pre-built motivations and relationships but we can't ever be certain that the Players will respond to the mechanically introduced elements in a way that will create the "desired" Situation.

Hey Mike,

So there are two topics for discussion here, and I'm not sure which Jay will want to see for the thread:
1. What the definition of mechanics should be.
2. Whether or not mechanics really are that different from less mechanical procedures as regards the context of the original objection. 
3. Both.

These are wonderful questions/suggestions and I am sorry that I missed them earlier.  Actually, for this thread I choose 4 – none of the above.  However, I would be very interested in 1 in another thread as I have burned many a synapse churning on that very question while working my way through this thread.

Let's try to put this on an easier plane to discuss. Jay, would you say that the Player creating the world in any way, other than the impact of the actions he directs his character to take, damage the sim CA? Is that a true statement?

In the short, I would answer this to be a qualified true.  The more formalized the process that empowers the Player to directly create beyond his Character the more "damaging" it becomes.  This is a dial setting, but I think once it becomes formalized into a "mechanic" then we are deep into "problem waters."

If I, as a Player, am allowed to create a tower in the middle of a city, that's not simulationism? It has to be narrativism or gamism?

The answer to both is no and no.  To me having a Player create Setting during play is the equivalent to a person playing chess against himself.  I would say that it is leading towards incoherent play – that being towards Zilchplay.  I believe that just like Gam and Nar, that the product of play in Sim is born out of the process of addressing the problems posed and answered via the SIS.  If Sim is the dialectic between Setting and Character, as I am proposing, then having a Player on both sides of the dialectic waters down the process as well as product.  Again this is a dial setting locally set, but the more often the Player are mechanically creating Setting then the more watered down the Sim process becomes.

Elliot proposed an analogy that I think is quite useful for illustrating my idea regarding Situation and Sim –

"Situation" in these games is not discrete but continuous, with any new Situation evolving out of the same mechanics used to explore and resolve the previous Situation. There's no hard and fast division between the opening and middlegame in chess, for example.

Exactly!  Unlike Gam and Nar which tend to lend themselves to discrete conflicts Sim does not inherently make that distinction.  The existence of "Situation creation mechanic," to me, creates a quantization that is at odds with Sim continuity.

Hey contracycle,

Funny you should mention "structure."  However, I do agree with you on the whole.  But my question is, if mechanics which are inherently restructured and by their very nature do not involve the Players, how can they keep track of what the Players have already done up to the moment and include such actions in the current output?

Through the agency of the GM, which in sim games is equipped with both universal knowledge of the characters and unlimited authority with which to define the world.  Thats why I specifically mentioned character-playing Players, do distinguish them from the GM.  The GM is not getting exactly the same exporative buzz as the character-Players are, and can therefore utilise techniques that would be jarring to those Players.  THe GM can decide that the next scene should be such-and-such Because It Would Be Interesting in a way the Players cannot, I think.

I agree that the GM in Sim play certainly does not get the explorative buzz that the Players do and is also the best situated to decide about the next scene for the very reasons you stated.  I guess my question falls back to Mike's earlier question about what makes a mechanic.  Near as I understand matters a mechanic either apportions credibility among the Players to do X, or draws credibility "upon itself" as it were and spits out an answer.  I'm having difficulty seeing how "peruse the 36 dramatic Situations and choose among them and institute the necessary input into Setting to create said condition," fits the bill as a mechanic.  It neither apportions credibility nor "creates its own output" that would seamlessly integrates into the current SIS circumstance.  I'm not saying you are wrong outright, but rather perhaps I am too thickheaded to see it at the present.  I am interested in where you are going with this and if you prove me wrong – then you are the man!

Hi Tim,

Also, Jay, I believe focusing on "mechanics" alone (whatever that means) is a red herring. RPG's do not live on "mechanics" alone. You should be considering all procedures of play, both informal and formal. This was one of the points Vincent was trying to make. If you only focus on formal procedures, and ignore the informal ones, you will arrive at bad conclusions.

You are correct about focusing on only the formal procedures could lead to bad conclusions, however as the model indicates that "system does matter," I am delving into what mechanics do and don't support the Sim CA and how.  In this case I am focusing on "Situation Creation Mechanics" in the same way that at one point someone focused on task resolution mechanics and discovered that they really didn't help focus the Nar CA in an effective way.  IOW such mechanics were at best peripheral and at worst obstructive to Nar expression.  Great.  I am trying to do the same with the Sim CA and "Situation creation mechanics."

As I understand the Model, a well-tuned game is considered well-tuned precisely because the formalized procedures of play are well designed.  Mechanics do matter with regard to CA expression and are the designer's best efforts at facilitating the expression of a certain CA.  I understand that a CA is not defined by the mechanics, but mechanics can facilitate the expression of a CA.  Some are better than others and some are just plain ineffective with regards to a given CA.

Umm, I believe that for the most part, all roleplaying is "inside" Situation. I find it hard to imagine something that is "outside" Situation.

Conceptually I disagree.  Any sanctioned conversation or activity that takes place outside the SIS is by definition outside Situation.  Thus the employment of currency, "raising and seeing," or any other meta-SIS activity is outside Situation though it may be an important part of the whole of game play.  Defining a Premise is outside of Situation.  Leveling up is outside of Situation. 

This may sound silly, but anything that is tagged "Color" is outside Situation.  I don't believe there is such a thing as Color in Sim.  Everything in Sim has the potential to affect Situation.  In fact I think that which is called Color in G/N is a primary driving element of Sim.  Color is not decoration in Sim, it is the aesthetic that the Players are seeking to create/emulate/simulate.  The very existence of Color as a concept implies that there are elements of play that are outside of Situation – at least in G/N.  I don't believe that Sim (prioritized bricolage) makes that distinction.

Hello John (talysman),

nor am I going to focus on the definition of the word "mechanics". I am going to assume, as you do, that "mechanics" here means some kind of formal, public procedure, such as dice-rolling or point-spending or drama negotiations between Players.

Excellent!  We're on the same basic page then.

the difference is: in Sim, all metagame mechanics receive Player input based solely on the SiS and any genre expectations or existing world facts, while Gam and Nar metagame mechanics allow input based on relationships between the Players.

The problem is that by that formulation such an interaction is not "meta-game."  If the Players are functioning solely within the SIS, then the Players are not, by definition, operating at a "meta-game" level.

you haven't addressed the examples of non-metagame Situation creation mechanics that I raised before. perhaps you missed them... if there is a mechanic that states "the GM will periodically roll for wandering monsters, on a table that appropriately represents the monster types that frequent the area; this roll occurs more often if the party is noisier or if the dungeon inhabitants are otherwise alerted" that is a Situation creation mechanic. it is pure Sim, it is not metagame, and it's been used for many years. if there is a spell backfire table that allows results like "a demon is accidentally summoned" or "all monsters within range become alerted to the caster's presence and become hostile", this is a Situation creation mechanic. heck, Alignment is a Situation creation mechanic, since it can affect whether an encounter will be innocuous Color or a hostile Situation.

I apologize if I did miss your previous postings!

I do not believe such rolls to be "Situation creation mechanics" in Sim.  Situation is not just the introduction or presence of things, rather Situation is the relationship between Character and Setting.  To me that relationship is up to the Players to decide.  Thus a "Situation creation mechanic" would not only introduce certain physical elements into play (setting) it demands that the Players adopt said relationship between the mechanically introduced Setting elements and their Characters – even if said relationship runs counter to established Character history and Player desire.

So while I do agree that the GM can use "mechanics" to introduce Setting elements that are could be designed to illicit a response from the Players, the Players should not be obligated to respond in a fashion that is inappropriate to their Characters' history or personality just to make the GM's "Situation" happen.  I just don't think that a mechanic that "creates Situation" in functional in Sim – anymore than "task resolution mechanics" are particularly appropriate for Nar address of Premise.

if there is a spell backfire table that allows results like "a demon is accidentally summoned" or "all monsters within range become alerted to the caster's presence and become hostile", this is a Situation creation mechanic.

I don't know.  I think this is more of a causality mechanic than a "Situation creation mechanic."  It is entirely up to the Players to decide if this indeed a Situation that is hostile, neutral or beneficial to their Characters.  IOW it is up to the Players to decide if this is something that needs further attention or not, and the manner, if any, of address is again entirely up to the Players.  A GM can't force a Situation in Sim, but he can present Setting elements that the Players must decide how to respond to.  Their response however may be entirely different from the Situation he was hoping to create.  To me that is the freedom of Sim.