From Outside the Big Model

[Simon Marks]

So as I said, I don't play with a creative agenda. But I do play with an agenda, a very definite and overwhelming agenda. I facilitate the enjoyment of the game, whether I'm GM or player, that is the role I undertake. And what engages me in that role is the very emotional responses of the other players. Each player's actions and emotions are what I focus on during play. Then I make in game, meta-game, or even out-of-game decisions to help adjust the context of play to enhance that enjoyment.

From 'Watching the English' by Kate Fox (Hodder & Stoughton, 2004)

...that the rest of the world is not as socially inhibited and inept as the English.We do not find it easy to initiate friendly conversation with strangerswith fellow [people]. We need help. We need props. We need excuses to make contact. We need toys and sports and games that get us involved wih each other

Page 241

Now, Kate's book may be a bit populist - but it is a serious piece of social anthropology. Now can we all see where we are going with this?

Let me expand with an example.

A year ago a friend of mine, Allen, invited me along to LRP system {X} to join Group {Y}
"Why" I asked "Would I want to do that? You know that {System X} events leave me cold. I don't like the set up, premise or system"
"Yeah, but you don't have to do any of that. You can just sit around in character with us {Group Y} and you know, roleplay for a weekend."
"What, and not do any thing?"
"Yeah, just sit around in character with mates - have a barbie and a beer. IC Socialise"
"Why, Allen, would I want to hang around and socialise with the people my friends are pretending to be as opposed to socialising with my actual friends?"
It was about this point we amicably agreed that there wasn't much common ground.

What am I getting at? Well, I suppose it's the answer to the question "Why would I want to hang around a socialise with the people my friends are pretending to be as opposed to socialising with my actual friends?"

There are, to my mind, two answers.
The first is for the joy and exhileration of actually, y'know, roleplaying.
That is - I guess - firmly sim territory.

But there is another reason, do I have to spell it out?

Some socially inhibeted people (such as, say, the English) play games to OOC socialise. Thats why they are there.
What I am seeing here isn't quite Zilchplay - but I think a reasonable agenda - "Socialisation".

Their actions, both in game and out of game, are furthering the socialisation agenda - allow people to bond.

Now Mendle, I really, really don't want this to appear to be any criticism or attack on you. And I do see this "Socialisation" as a totally valid (and possibly more valid than some others such as Fred/Valaxion may have indicated on this thread). In fact I have done it myself.

Here is a general comment for every one.
I think that everyone has an ageda when they come to the table - aside from "Lets play an RPG".
The glossary refers to

Three distinct Creative Agendas are currently recognized: Step On Up (Gamist), The Right to Dream (Simulationist), and Story Now (Narrativist).

"currently recognized" - thats important.

I don't think there have to be only three - and I don't think it pays too much to get horribly hung up on the CA part of the model.

Accept you have an Agenda, and I'd venture forth that if Agenda Clashes aren't a propblem - don't agonise over which agenda you have!

So, if I can say it clearly at the end of this post.
1) The behaviour you are identifying is an Agenda - possibly even one that isn't the 'Big three'
2) You agenda may well be "Support the dominant agenda" or "Socialisation" or "Entertainer". Or it may be one of the big three.
and 3) (which is important I think) if your agenda is not causing problems, then don't sweat it if you don't know what it is, and from what I can tell - it's not causing problems.

[Wormwood]

Mike,

Analogical connotations aside, I do largely agree with Joshua on this. I've not been trying to argue that the Big Model describes my play, nor that it ought to. Rather I've been motivating that additional theory is required to enhance my approach to play, by establishing that the Big Model does no do so. As such, I'm looking for suggestions of where such theory might come from. I'm gratified that you think my Play Content, Play Controls, and Play Constraints theory fits the bill. I concur, but since I developed it that shouldn't be too surprising that it fits my play approach fairly well. But, I want to see what other theory might do so as well.


John,

The way I play is intentionally constructed as a Rorschach test of play decisions. I provide a set of options which gives them context, and observe how they observe those options. The knowledge that certain players do not consider some of their options is a vital part of finding new decisions to provide. The approach of pulling out a small number of decisions from such play as the "true" motivations is essentially useless. Another person could pull out the tactics and confrontation of the phone game, and the SG team's focus on overcoming their own limitations as strong Gamism. As you pointed out, adherence to canon settings and likewise to the tropes built in them could be considered strong Simulationism. (As a point of clarification, the canon settings is actually due to player requests, setting and trope fidelity has never been something I have hesitated to kill when the situation calls for it.)

Indeed, in each of these cases, the player responses have varied, sometimes embracing, other times ignoring the options entirely. And yet, this had no effect on my enjoyment of play. So, in short, I am not playing a closet ... er vanilla narrativism. If you are seeing such a thing, it is predominantly because I gear my play to be perceived differently by different players.


Simon,

A facilitative agenda is not simply socializing. It is an intense and definite focus on the play responses of the other players (and usually all of them).  As much as a high-intensity Narrativism focuses strongly on the moral and ethical conflicts of the premise, I focus on the very strategies and perceptions of the players, and then test and expand those strategies by careful manipulation of the decisions they encounter.

And as far as the idea of "if your agenda works, why bring it up?" The reason I bring it up, is that it works. Because back in the day, Narrativism worked, but it could work better, and so theory was developed to do just that. Why shouldn't I be looking for a way to help a facilitative agenda work better? If not for me, perhaps for other players who play similarly?



   - Mendel Schmiedekamp

[Judd]

The way I play is intentionally constructed as a Rorschach test of play decisions. I provide a set of options which gives them context, and observe how they observe those options.

Isn't this basically a re-wording of bangs?  I comment on it because it is a part of your writing that I can easily grip.  I've read this thread a number of times and I still can't get a feel on your play-style.  I don't mean how your play-style fits into any kind of theory but just what sitting at your table and playing is like and why it is so radically different than anything else described here.

I am going to give it another read-over and try to post again later when I feel I have more to say.

[Mike Holmes]

From stuff you say like:

I am quite suspicious that the Big Model lacks the capacity to adequately describe my actual play. It is my hope that my suspicions are wrong.

It does seem that you're trying to find out how your play fits the Big Model theory. But then you approach it from Creative Agenda. Which is only a small part of the Big Theory - this is actually why it's called "Big" so that people get that it encompasses the very small part of the more encompassing (though still not anything like "complete") model.

In fact, the Big Model does have a layer at which your goals can be ascribed to the behaviors of that level. That's the Social Contract level. Basically you're saying that you have developed a social contract that involves making sure others have fun. According to the Big Model, that is at a level that encompasses smaller things like creative agenda. There's nothing in the Big Model that rejects the idea that people's social level drives can't be more important than their creative ones. In fact, one of the most common sources of gaming dysfunction occurs from people putting their social level needs above their creative ones. That is, the phenomenon of playing with people who have a different agenda, simply because they're friends, but then not liking play because of the creative problems.

Basically it sounds like to me that, for you, CA isn't very important in terms of your enjoyment, and any socialization and play that produces any CA enjoyed by any other player than you is fine with you. Does that sound right?

That all fits perfectly in the Big Model. But that doesn't mean your social level stuff is somehow a creative agenda.

Mike

[Simon Marks]

Simon,

A facilitative agenda is not simply socializing. It is an intense and definite focus on the play responses of the other players (and usually all of them).  As much as a high-intensity Narrativism focuses strongly on the moral and ethical conflicts of the premise, I focus on the very strategies and perceptions of the players, and then test and expand those strategies by careful manipulation of the decisions they encounter.

And as far as the idea of "if your agenda works, why bring it up?" The reason I bring it up, is that it works. Because back in the day, Narrativism worked, but it could work better, and so theory was developed to do just that. Why shouldn't I be looking for a way to help a facilitative agenda work better? If not for me, perhaps for other players who play similarly?

Sounds fab to me, but...

As Mike says, your method of play fits well within 'the big model'

So, before I leave this discussion let me ask you a question "What is the player's agenda?"

You may not have an Agenda aside from one on a 'Social Contract' level - but I'd guess that it's likely your players do.

If I may, you have an agreement in the 'Social Contract' level of your play that "I, Mendle, will facilitate the play of the my Players" - that's not a creative agenda. What we have is a totally functional 'Social Contract', which includes the Ref supporting the Players CA.

Or, if I suppose I can sum up, you are altering your CA to try and match the players CA.

(Although I do have to say, Socialisation is never simple. Especialy here in the UK and especially in Gamer groups)

[Wormwood]

Mike,

My concern has never been that the big model does not provide a pigeon-hole to fit what I'm doing. I'm claiming that the pigeon hole is defined only by absence, and not in a manner which can provide useful insight into play. All agendas operate on the social level of the big model, the only distinction made is that my agenda does not operate at some indefinite lower level, or at least does not do so as a creative agenda. But, yes, I'm not playing by a creative agenda. It would be helpful if we could say something more substantial than that.

Basically it sounds like to me that, for you, CA isn't very important in terms of your enjoyment, and any socialization and play that produces any CA enjoyed by any other player than you is fine with you. Does that sound right?

Ah, good. This is about the other players ultimately isn't it. In retrospect I should not accepted the term facilitative, it has a passive connotation which can be misleading. In practice when I am discerning a player's play preferences this goes much further than CA. Indeed, I will often use CA as an initial approximation. But ultimately I want to develop a likelihood model of each player, and of the group as a whole, from which to personalize play even further. Often this means carefully blocking the CAs of players to move beyond them. Consider in the actual play examples I posted earlier in this thread that if I was simply supporting the CA of one or more players, the resulting CA would be evident in play.

Simon, I believe that ought to answer your question as well.


   - Mendel Schmiedekamp

[Josh Roby]

It would be helpful if we could say something more substantial than that.

'We' meaning the rest of us diagnosing your play, Mendel, or 'we' including yourself?  I see a lot of you jumping around asking people to classify you, and you refusing to accept any classification.  Why don't you lay out something more substantial?  Perhaps outline how your P3 thing applies to you?  Perhaps take a look at Channels or Interactions and see if those apply.

In practice when I am discerning a player's play preferences this goes much further than CA. Indeed, I will often use CA as an initial approximation. But ultimately I want to develop a likelihood model of each player, and of the group as a whole, from which to personalize play even further.

While I'm still of the opinion that your play doesn't fit within the Big Model at all, you seem to think that there are only three CAs and they are all defined in very simple terms -- that there's Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.  That's an overly simplistic view.  I find it more useful to consider the Big Three as families of agendas.  One instance of narrativist play might focus heavily on characterisation of the main characters; another instance might focus on the choices that the world foists on them.  Your 'beyond CA' seems to be making these finer distinctions.

Lastly, this:

Often this means carefully blocking the CAs of players to move beyond them.

is about as clear a definition of incoherence as I can think of.  You're actively blocking your players' preferences because you know better than they do what they want?  Do you talk to players before, after, or during play to see what they want out of the game (which is different than asking if the game was 'good' or 'fun')?

[Wormwood]

Joshua,

Why don't you lay out something more substantial?

Fair enough. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the theories that could apply need to manage play individually and dynamically. So, for example, Channel theory and the four types of referees fail to manage the dynamics. Since that prior post I have been able to more carefully read your Interaction model. I believe that it does fit the individual and dynamic requirements. Now I have some concerns about your model, but on the whole I believe that it is significantly more promising than I thought in my first (and very quick) reading.

Indeed, I could describe my approach as being a player whose imagined aspect is replaced with an approximation of the other players' goal aspects. That is a positive description. Whether it produces eventual results aside, it at least gives a basis to start predicting future results.

Similarly, I can reasonably describe my play as being a pair of views - cultural for the matter of other players responses to decisions and procedural for the matter of changes in the views of other players, both of which are extracted from accessory views adjusted to match the observable views of those players,

What I think ought to be noted from both of these is the self-reference of the description. I suspect that my play approach can only be described in a positive manner by incorporating at least part of the theory as part of the description.

As far as beyond CAs, I'm more referring to finding dynamic equilibrium, while not rely on overt unity of CA.

You're actively blocking your players' preferences because you know better than they do what they want?  Do you talk to players before, after, or during play to see what they want out of the game (which is different than asking if the game was 'good' or 'fun')?

To the first question, sometimes yes. Although more often it is a matter of blocking a CA to enhance the play for everyone, and indirectly that player, or because of the CA being a habitual behavior, rather than a desired behavior. Sometimes it results from a CA which will railroad the player, and subtly blocking it provides more avenues later. I've been interested for some time in rehabilitating and training players, usually this not something which can simply be talked out. As PCon3 might indicate, what I gauge in terms of ultimate results is what my players learn from the game. And, yes I do speak with my players before and after, (and occasionally during) about what they want in play. While it is rarely the case, one of my goals is to help my players be able to answer those questions openly and knowledgeably. And I'm perfectly willing to use covert means to do so. And yes, I find it engaging, fun, and ultimately rewarding to do all of this.

   - Mendel Schmiedekamp

[Adam Dray]

PCon3 sounds interesting. Can you give us an Actual Play example from your own experience -- and focus more on what you and the players did in the context of PCon3, and less on what the character story is? I feel this discussion needs some AP "teeth" to sink into; else it's all just groundless theory.

[Wormwood]

Adam,

I'll do my best to give you some actual play support to what I'm attempting to describe in PCon3. The main hurdle is that the typical approach of example -> meaning doesn't work so well for inductive theories. Instead, I'll need to generate a variety of examples for each inductive idea I'm presenting. As such, I'll apologize in advance for the number of actual play examples I will need.

The first axiom of PCon3 is that we can consider the purpose of play to be learning or reinforcement. To put it another way, players are playing to encounter and eventually absorb specific patterns. These patterns may be novel (learning) or familiar (reinforcement), but in either case these patterns are being taken in by the players. These patterns may be data (such as the day-to-day life of a medieval merchant) or they may be practice (such as criteria for the best weapon) or they may be empathic (such as the responses of players to guilt and innocence). Players have "fun" by encountering the patterns they want, and being able to make sense of them. That means that the patterns cannot be too complex (random), nor too simple (static).

A few of the play examples I put forth already demonstrate this concept.

First, the D&D phone campaign (listed as my first example in this thread) was predominantly focused on developing tactical and strategic skill (especially on the part of the player). The constant cycle of conflict and consequences was a pattern which permitted that learning. At times other elements needed to be added. I intentionally constructed decisions were sac refice was needed, because strategy is, among other things, the art of knowing when and what to sac refice to achieve the greater goals. Whether it was the paladin, or the bombardment of fertile lands and thriving cities to hold off a fiendish assault, or the final sac refice of the character, the decisions existed to teach the player the worth of sac refice, neither to be taken lightly, nor to be avoided. Also, I introduced many elements of coalition building and negotiation. These are the otherside of strategy, knowing when not to fight. These occurred within the royal family squabbles, the international politics, and the acquisition of followers. As the game progressed, I intentionally mixed those elements in when the game became too simply tactical. As a result, the player identified a significant growth in his tactical and strategic knowledge, and he felt that his time had been well spent acquiring it.

As an aside, the identification of what is learned or reinforced is the first step to employing PCon3.

A second example is a camarilla-based Changeling larp, which I ran about a year and a half-ago. It was the first game of our new Changeling venue. I had decided before hand to build in a motif of games within games. I had about 20 players, all commoners (due to the background of the town), and after the usual getting to know each others' character stuff, I handed out a series of dreams to each players. Those came with a mini-quest to perform. Then I let them operate on their own for a while. The objective of the mini-quests was only to provide more reason for interaction between characters. But part of this was also a breaking the ice for new players, as many of the participants did not know each other.

The second phase of the game occurred when enough players completed their mini-quests. I had a gateway open in the freehold, and then led all the players who ventured through (nearly everyone) into another room. There I took away their changeling character sheets, and gave each a simple identity of a normal person in a hospital waiting room. In some cases, I also gave the player a particular response each time they heard a bell ring (I carried one along with me). In essence, I inserted a short "nordic style" larp within the very typical changeling larp. This exploited the fact that with many new players attempting to determine how this larp would work, they would be actively interested in learning about larp structure. Likewise, this served as an opportunity to understand one of the key concepts of changeling, Banality, another opportunity provided by this occurring in the first game. I then released the players, one by one, into another room which was a freehold (fae dwelling) that they had just rescued.

One of the key insights of PCon3 is to intuit the views (particular material the player wants to learn or reinforce) of a player, and then help ensure that something exists in play for the player to bit on, as it were. More technical discussion of views can be found here and here. But another important matter is to recognize that views can change, and the adjustment of views is a very important tool for enhancing play. So, in the larp example, my chicanery helped many players move from a view of how this game worked into a view of how larps work in general. The views are close, which helps to make them work together.

In the 7th sea game I mentioned, here, as a GM I had a significant task in determining the desired material of focus for each of my players. Some players were new to RPGs, such as the captain and the monk, they needed to be shown a variety of different approaches to play. Also, they needed to have their competency in play reinforced, a lesser form of what a traditional "munchkin" is looking to have reinforced. Another player, the one who decapitated the apparent traitor, wanted to show off his character's martial prowess. The faustian player, most depicted in there needed to re-examine his approach to play, unfortunately, despite my attempts to shift his view, his predominant view was cultural view of character dominance, and in particular his dominance (this is a matter of reinforcement). I know that because had his view been focused on procedural dominance of the game, then he would have been willing to return without a guarantee of a character powerful enough to kill all the other characters. Indeed, such a guarantee would have been anathema to a procedural view, since such a view indicates a desire to learn how to dominate, not to simply dominate automatically.

By piecing these views, and maintaining patterns in various different levels of play, I was able to ensure that much of the time the players received their desired type of play. By no means was this a simple or reliable process. Especially since I had to adjust for the coming and going of various players (the troubles of a gaming group with non-trivial romantic involvements). In the end the players stabilized, and the last few months (of weekly game) worked very well, with players having adjusted their views to avoid conflict with each other (note, this very much did not mean that those views overlapped, but the guardsman's player's view of recognition for martial prowess, fit well with the captain's player's view of learning what it is like to be a privateer captain).

The purpose of PCon3 is to provide a language, rather than a taxonomy for play, and to suggest ways by which players can adjust, or be adjusted to feed each others' goals, even if they'll never see eye-to-eye.

   - Mendel Schmiedekamp

[Adam Dray]

This is all very interesting, Mendel. Thanks for those examples.

I am having a hard time understanding exactly what your PCon3 techniques are though. Can you elaborate?

From your description, I think PCon3 fits fairly cleanly into the Techniques box of the Big Model. Essentially, you've described techniques for better play.

The techniques you described seem pretty heavy-handed on the GM side, for my tastes. A lot of trickery and force, it seems, to get players to do what you want, even if it's for their own good.

[Wormwood]

Adam,

From your description, I think PCon3 fits fairly cleanly into the Techniques box of the Big Model. Essentially, you've described techniques for better play.

In that case I've been rather unclear. PCon3 is not the therapeutic techniques which can be derived from it. It is a model entire of collaborative play. But for someone with experience with the big model it takes some getting used to. First, imagined content is not innately distinguished by the theory (which is not to say that players won't make such a distinction). Second, the purpose of play is always a type of learning or reinforcement, which lends itself to quantitative approximation via the complexity properties mentioned earlier (it turns out high epsilon-complexity at some scale is a good approximation for learning value). In practice these epsilon-patterns can often be discerned and described without resorting to computational means, such as the procedural cycle pattern, the declarative random walk, and the cultural network activation.

As a result, play controls (PCon3's description of how player's choose content additions to play) can be Big Model techniques or social contract level agreements and understandings. The most naive therapeutic application of PCon3 suggests that if player views are very similar, play will be functional, with players receiving what they need to learn their desired material. This clearly fails in some cases. For example, the faustian character from 7th sea would function no better (and indeed would be far worse off) in a play group entirely of players wishing to reinforce their dominance over each other. On the other hand, closely related views can work quite well. I have run, for example, a Spookshow game in which the players had very similar views, mostly of a tactical bent. As a result I was able to feed that need by generating series of tactical and strategic situations, but within the fantastic (players as ghosts), yet realistic spy work (long wait times, punctuated by intense danger) of Spookshow. I'm not averse to using the Big Model's insight for play, I have simply observed that it remains too limited to achieve all that I wish to.

Fortunately, most players have multiple views, some connected, some not. Also those views can change over time, in a manner not unlike turning to look at movement on the side of your field of vision. As a tool, PCon3 analysis suggests observing these views, not only via decisions of play controls, but via subtle attention to play content on the part of players. By enticement it is possible to lead player's views towards more fruitful content patterns. This develops as a process of compromise, leading to significantly more effective play, as evidenced by all the games I mentioned earlier this thread.

PCon3 started as a rephrasing of the Big Model, but then I realized that the Big Model does not provide a rich enough language for what I routinely see in play. If I want to know when die-hard narrativism becomes incoherent (which I'd say is what happened here, your mileage may vary) then I need to know how narrativist goals can differ. With a language where cultural views focused on moral and ethical decisions can be produced as a sub-language, I gain the tools I need to not only classify the players, but actually to describe what the differences are, and to provide a wealth of ways to overcome them.

   - Mendel Schmiedekamp

[Adam Dray]

First, imagined content is not innately distinguished by the theory (which is not to say that players won't make such a distinction). Second, the purpose of play is always a type of learning or reinforcement, which lends itself to quantitative approximation via the complexity properties mentioned earlier (it turns out high epsilon-complexity at some scale is a good approximation for learning value). In practice these epsilon-patterns can often be discerned and described without resorting to computational means, such as the procedural cycle pattern, the declarative random walk, and the cultural network activation.

I just can't parse this at all. What does this mean?

"Imagined content is not innately distinguished by the theory." Distinguished -- that is, separated -- from what?

"Second, the purpose of play is always a type of learning or reinforcement, which lends itself to quantitative approximation via the complexity properties mentioned earlier..." Whose purpose? All participants (players and GMs)? What type of learning? Can you give an example of the "quantitative approximation" you mean, which I assume means you can assign numerical scores to it? Which complexity properties? I missed something there.

"...it turns out high epsilon-complexity at some scale is a good approximation for learning value." Are you applying the rigeur of another field (perhaps engineering or mathematics) to this model? If so, which? I'm not familiar with any complexity scale measured in Epsilon values. I'm familiar with some of your RPG.net work, so I assume this is related to physics.

"In practice these epsilon-patterns can often be discerned and described without resorting to computational means, such as the procedural cycle pattern, the declarative random walk, and the cultural network activation." You're just making up terms, aren't you. ;) Or was this written by a computer program? ;) Really, at this point, I need convincing that I'm not being taken for a ride. You're using a lot of very specific terms that I get no Google hits on, so can you please explain them?

Do you have a document that describes your model in its entirety?

[Wormwood]

Adam,

The most direct way that imagined content is distinguished in RPG theories is by the idea of Shared Imagine Space. Indeed many theories focus entirely on imagined content. The Big Model attempts to also speak about non-imagine content, which occurs in the Social Contract level of that model.

In PCon3, no distinction is made between content which is "imagined" and which is "real". This avoids the complexity of making a distinction. Some views will focus on nominally imagined content, while some will be focused more on the real. But in that case, the distinction is made by the holder of the view, not by the theory in general.

As far as learning and reinforcement this is the fundamental idea of the theory. Each player (GM included if one exists) is learning from some portion of the available content. We cannot be certain of the underlying views of a player, although retention tests can suggest what views are likely. The basic justification for a learning-centric theory is that RPGs are always identified (and self-identified) as play, regardless of anything else. And from an anthropology perspective, play has underlying purposes of learning and reinforcement (especially social reinforcement).

The quantitative analysis comes from the fact that we can record the content during play, basically as a ethogram (listing of behaviors). This ethogram can then be reduced to a sequence of symbols, based on what variations are being examined. The specific method of assigning symbols reduced the content further ideally into a single view. So for example, symbols could be chosen to encode certain mechanics, or lacks of mechanics (such as combat, parley, or development) or they could be chosen to encode certain topics (such as specific character description, related source material, or unrelated source material).  These symbols lend themselves to any number of complexity analyses. The expectation is that a random distribution of symbols is poorly suited to learning and reinforcement. But a very structured distribution of symbols is also ill-suited to learning and to a lesser extent reinforcement. Hence if learning is being satisfied in that view the symbol stream must not have a high complexity (random), nor a low complexity (static).

Now, an epsilon machine (see Crutchfield and Shalizi) is a nifty little idea, which basically is a probabilistic finite control, which is generated as an approximation for the underlying structure of a sequence of symbols. The advantage of an epsilon machine is that random patterns and static patterns both produce small machines (meaning small epsilon complexity), leaving our intermediate complexity as just high epsilon complexity. The best part of this being, that specific programs exist to produce approximate epsilon machines (Causal State Splitting and Reconstruction Algorithm).

Unfortunately I haven't yet had a chance to do an ethogram for a game, partially because I get looped into running them so often. However, I have noticed some patterns which are reminiscent of epsilon machine types, and which seem to correlated to three broad classes of learning: declarative, procedural, and cultural. Those are a random walk (which is a stochastic machine constrained by locality), the cycle (a ring structured machine), and a network (which is a series of separated chains), respectively.

As far as write-ups are concerned, I was working on the next version, which is half completed across three threads in the RPG theory forum: here, here, and here. The next most recent documents are from a series of RPGnet articles here, here, and here. These are fairly up to date, but don't yet contain some enhancements, such as the views as a regular language and the forthcoming bricolage and play controls investigation. Before that, I wrote a preview of the theory on my theory and design livejournal. And if you want to look into the earliest stuff, search for "Technical Play" and look for my posts on this site.

I'm hoping to finish the current chain of articles, and collect them all together, in the next few months. And if things work out, I'll have some ethograms done by then as well.

   - Mendel Schmiedekamp

[Silmenume]

Hi Wormwood,

What you are playing is basic, solid, hardcore Sim.  The reason you and others are having such trouble "classifying" it is because the model does not effectively account for Sim play.  There is obvious structure to your game, but it is neither oriented around Challenge or Premise.  The structure is seeded by the source materials, but then grows via the play of the Players.  What is important to notice is not the strict adherence to "tropes" which is a red herring, but rather the attention to the decision making that takes into account what happened in the past during play while "minding" the source material without being locked into it.  IOW the Players through their actions are building a world.  In one case the SG team has demonstrated through play actions their "incompetence" as well as that they don't have a good relationship with their high command.

Bog standard Sim stuff - especially where you indicated that you visualized and occasionally rolled a die.  Look at Chris' Bricolage APPLIED (finally!) thread.  The processes he describes there are exactly what you have described in your own gaming experiences.

You are playing Sim and as it currently stands the Model does not have anything to offer you with regards to helping you understand your game process.