The Forer Effect and Narrativist Illusionism

[Call Me Curly]

The Forer Effect is a psychology term for when some gullible person believes a generic description of personality (such as a horoscope) is unique-to-them/customized/special/personal/scientific.

From wikipedia:

In 1948, psychologist Bertram R. Forer gave a personality test to his students, and then gave them a personality analysis, supposedly based on the test results. He invited each of them to rate the analysis on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) as it applied to themselves: the average was 4.26. He then revealed that each student had been given the same analysis:

    "You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic."

Forer had assembled this text from horoscopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect


SO... what happens when a generic description like the one above is plugged into Theme-centric character generation?

I contend that if the player of such a game believes that they just had a tailored experience-- can't tell the difference between the lack of unique mechanical effect on their play experience/ and the perceived presence of such an effect...

then the game in question is Narrativist Illusionism: laden with bells and whistles which supposedly enhance thematic play, but which aren't really key to the experience.   And all those rules can be cut without loss to the game's purpose.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it actually always the mettle of the player which is being vetted under the stress of gameplay, not the mettle of an imaginary PC?   If the PC is the one feeling and reacting to the stress... that would be a mere simulation of a real human engaging with theme in art.   The PC is always an illusion.  You can assign quantitative values to as many of her imaginary traits as you like, but it's always your actual themes which are on display.


Are ideas like the above even on-topic on the Forge anymore?

[Ron Edwards]

Provide an actual play account which either illustrates this effect, or provides some possibility or context for it.

If you do that, I'll move this into Actual Play and it can continue just fine. If not, it has to be closed.

Best, Ron

[Call Me Curly]

The only context I can offer is from this thread, which set me on the Forer/ Narr. Illusionism train of thought: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20464.msg213160#msg213160


Over there, Callan S. noted that my game

...goes into blurry 'make a roll and then kinda use that as a springboard to make up other stuff but don't realise were making a choice while doing so'.  ....  there are many other successful designs around the forge that use that (and tons of other posters dig it).

I'd love those questions to be gotten into in more depth - for some sort of bidding system so players could add smaller micro facts to the questions for characters other than their own.

I think that's a fair assessment of the game I presented in that thread, and all of my theme-first design attempts thus far.

My games would fail the Forer Effect test I describe above, and would be Illusionist in the sense that there's no explicit system actually  mechanically-connecting character generation techniques to the specific thematic focus of play implied by the char gen.  My designs only seem to do-so, at best.

I don't know what other games ["many other successful designs around the Forge"] Callan S. was referring to.

[baron samedi]

Hi,

The game UNKNOWN ARMIES uses horoscopes to the same effect you mentioned. Possibly some examples of play of this game could be relevant to your comment.

Erick

[Callan S.]

My games would fail the Forer Effect test I describe above, and would be Illusionist in the sense that there's no explicit system actually  mechanically-connecting character generation techniques to the specific thematic focus of play implied by the char gen.  My designs only seem to do-so, at best.

Okay, for you to help out Ron/the forge in general, I'll pitch some design concerns in relation to this to talk about (and see how I fare):
1. A game can easily be missing high level organisational components. Imagine a game where people going off to another room so they can't hear certain stuff is a key component to aiding creativity, by hiding certain information (and it is the only creative aid in the game). But the game doesn't have that in the rules. It has dice rolling and stuff like that. But a key organisational component is missing. Players either have to somehow invent this for themselves. Or they play the game without it and although they think they are engaging some creative pressure, they aren't (though they will wave around the book and insist they are, as they are heavily invested in what they've made).

The key to identifying these components is that they are high up in the structure - were not talking about a dice roll or adding the stats for a new gun. They are components which control when dice rolls are made or even whether that gun can come into play. Look for what your game has, then try hard to figure out what utterly controls those components. Then look further, for what controls that!! It's hard, but keep looking up to each higher level of control until you find the top level of control (or as close as you can find). This structure of control is what other humans need to know if they are to play your game.

2. Procedure and provocative suggestion are confused utterly: Many people will steadfastly claim 'we followed the rules'. Okay, procedure is something that if you give it to a thousand people, they will all end up doing exactly the same thing. If you end up with a high percentage of people doing wildly different things (I'm thinking anything over 2%), that is not a procedure, it's a suggestion. Which is good. But suggestions do not apply structure. See the above issue. If your control structure has any suggestions in it, it will collapse because instead of controlling play, it becomes the issue of play ("Yeah, well I use telekinesis and focus all the pressure in a needle point on the villains eye/brain...yes, for the 300th time!").
Side note: People generate high levels of ownership when they confuse suggestion for rule, as they feverently think that what they invented is actually the hard, always been that way rule. That's because it's incredibly empowering to have your heart felt internal desire for how things should be, to be miraculously already supported by an at hand text. I consider this to be incredibly poisonous, though it would take a small essay to define poison in this context.

3. I am not the forge - these are my concerns layed out for you. Take with a grain of salt.

I don't know what other games ["many other successful designs around the Forge"] Callan S. was referring to.

A. I think the above would help more for now and B. This sort of thing deserves more than a hasty post on my part.

[Call Me Curly]

Thanks Callan.   As before, you're describing the phenomenon well.

What you say covers all 'mechanics' which don't actually
mechanically affect that-which-they-purport-to.  My concern is with
ersatz theme-oriented character generation, in particular.

I regret the kewl neologism "Narrativist Illusionism" because
it muddles existing terms.  But it does pinpoint my area of concern.

And the following excerpt gives me exactly what I need from this thread:

Look for what your game has, then try hard to figure out what utterly controls those components. Then look further, for what controls that!! It's hard, but keep looking up to each higher level of control until you find the top level of control (or as close as you can find). This structure of control is what other humans need to know if they are to play your game.