Beeg Horseshoe Theory Revisited

[Mike Holmes]

For example, prioritizing Explore:System may be nothing more complicated than devoting more thought to how the movement rules work (System) than what the character looks like when running (Color).

Except that by the larger definition, how you determine Color is via system. How you determine Situation is via system. How you determine setting is via system. I mean, if the system is that the GM is arbiter of the setting as he ususally is, then isn't the GM creating a setting detail like a palace just a use of system?

Better put, give me an example of using the system that's not also one of the other four. I mean if rolling to hit is a great example of exploring system, isn't that just altering situation as well? Or do we mean simply resolution systems, and not system overall?

If the group ignores a rule, haven't they just drifted to a new rule that says that this situation isn't covered by resolution mechanics? That it's covered by GM fiat, or something like that? Isn't that system?

I'm not getting it, Ron.

*****

On Congruence:
All this approach is saying (in a round-about way) is that Sim/Nar Congruence and Sim/Gam Congruence is a valid single priority; and that Gam/Nar Congruence may occur, but the player is not prioritizing the Congruence, it just happened (or someone else, like the GM, engineered it to happen).  I suppose it is also implying (by the way it is organized) that some level of Sim Congruence is what most players desire.

I think that those are somewhat valid conclusions, but they don't enlighten the base of the model.

I think that Fidelity might be different because exploration seems to preceed Conflict in a very real way (as it does in schematics that say that GNS comes after Exploration). Basically, Incoherence can occur at the Exloration level (Fidelity based), or it can happen in terms of where GNS is located (Conflict). This is not to say that players have to go through this process, it's saying that the foirst things that has to be considered is what's happening in the shared imagined space. And that requires the act to have some reference to Fidelity first.

But I'm not really prepared to look into that right now. At the moment I'm going off of personal evidence mostly.

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

The reason I put Challenge and Theme on the same axis is that I tend to agree that on that count you probably only consider one option or the other. Or that, at least perceptually this seems to be the case.

Just as there are those who want story (or maybe Story or Theme or whatever - exact meanings here are tough to establish, hopefully a general idea is all that's needed for this particular point) to result from a true Sim, there are those who want story to result from a pure Game.  I've played with some such people, and R. Talsorian's Mekton (Zeta flavor, though my impression was they tried this with EVERY flavor that ever came out) was the game they tried to use for this goal.  It didn't quite work, IMO, and GNS may be a big part of why.

But - maybe that experience has warped me, but my biggest problem in this Horseshoe 2 stuff has been I just don't see Challenge and Theme on the same scale.  They exist independently, as far as I can tell.  Admitedly, there is cross-influence but . . . well, everything has cross-influence, really.

In the draft of the Gamism essay I read, Ron discussed the "want story to emerge from game" phenomena a bit, and had no easy answers for such players.  By putting Theme and Challenge at opposite ends of the same scale, you do explain WHY such folks can't get what they want - but when I say it didn't quite work, that implies also it wasn't a total failure.  And if you're still mapping behaviors with this Horseshoe 2, it seems clear to me that many folks are NOT behaving like Challenge and Theme are on the same axis . . .

Sorry that my first comment on the intriging approach of Horseshoe 2 is kinda negative - I'm liking a lot of what I read here - but unless I'm missing something, Challenge/Theme on one axis doesn't hold up very well.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

The way I see it, if you have Character, Situation, Setting, and Color, then nothing happens. That's right, even if you have Situation. It's all frozen without System.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

Except that by the larger definition, how you determine Color is via system. How you determine Situation is via system. How you determine setting is via system. I mean, if the system is that the GM is arbiter of the setting as he ususally is, then isn't the GM creating a setting detail like a palace just a use of system?

Better put, give me an example of using the system that's not also one of the other four. I mean if rolling to hit is a great example of exploring system, isn't that just altering situation as well? Or do we mean simply resolution systems, and not system overall?

I guess I was thinking of System (in the Exploration context) as mechanics, both formal and informal - the rules of the game.

Normally, I would think of "system" as:  Setting, Color, System, and a little Character.  Which is what they seem to be talking about in Baseline/Vision, but I guess that isn't germane to the discussion.

*****

I think that Fidelity might be different because exploration seems to preceed Conflict in a very real way (as it does in schematics that say that GNS comes after Exploration). Basically, Incoherence can occur at the Exloration level (Fidelity based), or it can happen in terms of where GNS is located (Conflict). This is not to say that players have to go through this process, it's saying that the foirst things that has to be considered is what's happening in the shared imagined space. And that requires the act to have some reference to Fidelity first.

By that approach Fidelity conflict encapsulates an idea I've been calling Exploration conflict - very elegant.

[Mike Holmes]

The way I see it, if you have Character, Situation, Setting, and Color, then nothing happens. That's right, even if you have Situation. It's all frozen without System.

Right. So either you explore System, or nothing happens. Which means that you are always exploring system in play. How can one prioritize system, if it's always already in use?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

"Use" and "prioritize" aren't the same things. I'm kind of puzzled, man. All of the five elements are "always in use." Prioritizing them is a matter of which causes which, or which receive more energy and attention than the others - not a matter of which get used at all and which don't.

I was under the impression that the Sim essay was pretty clear about that.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Ron I think the problem Mike is having is that this discussion seems to have inflated system into something that is no longer 1 of the 5, but rather above the remaining 4.

i.e.  Instead of

[Social Context [Exploration of the 5 [GNS]]]

it now appears to be:

[Social Context [System [Exploration of the 4 [GNS]]]

[talysman]

I thought I'd reiterate a point someone already mentioned in the thread, a point I think is getting lost here; Fidelity as it was originally proposed by Emily Care was simply a one-word rephrasing of the metagame priority of Simulationism. it's Fidelity (faithfulness) to the referrant (source). that source may be a movie, tv show, book, body of myth, set of genre expectations, or setting description in a game book. it's what was later called Baseline+Vision in another thread.

it is not Fidelity to Exploration (imagining), since Exploration happens in all role-playing. I think I made the mistake of talking about "Fidelity to Setting" in my contribution to the thread. I think Fidelity to Setting, Situation, Character and Color only matters for Simulationism in so far as those elements relate to Baseline+Vision; and Fidelity to System only matters in Sim games where System represents gameworld physics.

Integrity, which is being discussed in a spin-off thread, is something different; I classify it as similar to Handling Time, Points of Contact, and similar system features: you can vary any of these in any game, regardless of where it lies on the Big Horseshoe. as an example: I've played a lot of Hi Fi Sim before and Lo Fi Gamist, but I prefer Low Handling Time in either of those game flavors. I also prefer High Integrity of Color, decent Integrity of Character and Situation, but I'm willing to play looser with Integrity of Setting, which is why the improvised world approach of Sorcerer & Sword is appealing to me.

[talysman]

Ron I think the problem Mike is having is that this discussion seems to have inflated system into something that is no longer 1 of the 5, but rather above the remaining 4.

I'm betting Ron would say the same thing about any of the elements of Exploration... if you have Setting, System, Situation and Color, but no Character, you have no play.

[Mike Holmes]

But - maybe that experience has warped me, but my biggest problem in this Horseshoe 2 stuff has been I just don't see Challenge and Theme on the same scale.  They exist independently, as far as I can tell.  Admitedly, there is cross-influence but . . . well, everything has cross-influence, really.

Which is cool. That ends you with the threeD model. But that hurts my brain to think about (try it for a minute, plot a High Fi, Low Theme, High challenge decision in your mind). Worse, I just don't think people think in these terms on the spot.

When you ask a player what's wrong, he'll say one of three sorts of things, true. But consider these examples:

"Not realistic enough." - the player really doesn't care why it wasn't realistic enough, just that for some reason it wasn't. Perhaps some other priority made it that way, or maybe it didn't.

"Not a good move." - the player does care why. That is, if he has a high Fidelity requirement, and it was Hi Fi, then he'll say, "But realistic" (which may mitigate or not depending). If he has a low Fi requirement, his objection will be, ", because you're using your power to intentionally lose for some reason."

"Not a cool story." - the player again cares why. If he has a high Fidelity requirement, then he'll say, "but very real" (and again that may mitigate). If he has a low Fidelity requirement, he says, "Because you're trying to win and not to tell a good story."

Now, I'm forcing these examples to an extent. But its very much the problems with general current GNS understanding and intuition of it that moves me to this. I too, as a practitioner of GNS theory tend to think in terms of three axes. But is that really how things go on the fly in play?

Well, I know I'm too close to it to say for sure. But it really seems to do something for me in terms of ease of understanding. And further, I think that the "Exploration preceeding Conflict" thing has something to it.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Ron, that's a semantic argument. Forget "Use". Insert your term. How does one prioritize system or give it more energy? If it's always given attention, then how can it have less attention given to it? Try examples. I really can't imagine what you're talking about if it's not resolution systems or mechanics.

For example, do you mean to say that if I am the GM, and am describing the setting, that I'm prioritizing setting then?

Ralph, you are correct that I have a problem with that discussion, and what it entails, but it's based on this current problem in understanding.

Mike

P.S. Please try to read each post individually, folks. I'm posting and getting so many responses that I'm having to post one post right after another (I post, come back to find more to post to, and have to post again right away to keep up). So I've given up on saying that I'm posting twice in a row etc. Just try to ensure that you don't miss a response to your concern.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

John wrote,

I'm betting Ron would say the same thing about any of the elements of Exploration... if you have Setting, System, Situation and Color, but no Character, you have no play.

And he'd win that bet.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

it's Fidelity (faithfulness) to the referrant (source). that source may be a movie, tv show, book, body of myth, set of genre expectations, or setting description in a game book.

Uh, I'm not sure what you're saying there, but Sim is not an attempt to emulate something Faithfully. I'm really thinking that Fidelity as a term has to go.

If player A says, "I jump the log" and does not roll, that's low Fidelity. If player B says, "I try to jump the log" and uses the resolution system to determine that the does, as long as that's part of what's to be explored, then that's HiFidelity.

It's not "sticking to the source material". Not at all. Unless that's supported somehow by the specific system. People have got to stop thinking this. It's not totally wrong, but there's this slippery slope away from a large percentage of potential design and play that does not fit this definition.

it is not Fidelity to Exploration (imagining),

I think maybe it is, but we're stuck on te uses of some of these terms here. I think your Integrity is more the Sim thing, and I'm thinking of going that way. Actually, I'm very tempted to just go back to Sim as I think that encompases both and nobody had a problem with that back then. Fidelity if we are to keep it, has to be broadly construed, not given personal slants.

Mike

[Emily Care]

Going way, waaaaay back to the start of this thread....

Like I said, I'm not going to call it Simulationism because that would indicate by the older model that it's a type of decision by itself. ...So I'm a little stuck for terms at the moment. What I need is a term for the spectrum that goes from at one extreme ignoring the "reality" of the game completely, and on the other pays so much atttention to the in-game conventions that it almost blots out the other axis. Plausibility almost works for this one, but not quite. Internal Consistency?

and:

How's this for a term?  Fidelity.  High Fidelity=Staying close to the plausibilty as defined by the game/setting/etc.  Low Fidelity=willingness to discard or ignor it at will for other purposes?

Okay, that helps me understand the disjunction going on (at least in my head) about how fidelity is being used. We've got one term with different definitions.

--Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

We've got one term with different definitions.

Well, I only had one meaning ever. It's just that the words I used to define it (or agreed defined it), are themselves interperable. I see both defititions above as meaning the definition that I see. You see them otherwise. I can see how you might have your opinion, can you see how I might have mine?

Thing is that I've tried very hard to keep at ensuring the definition was understood. And despite that, in only a couple of days people have started to see things that I've never intended. I must not be good at this.

So I've chosen a new term. Bloorn. Bloorn is that quality of a decision that makes it seem more solidly something that occured as a result of in-game causality of some sort.

How's that?

Mike