Fidelity vs. Integrity

[Emily Care]

Hi Walt,

Fidelity and interactivity (real decision-making power, or in GNS terms, authorship) are fundamentally incompatible.

Ah, but then so to is game design in general.  No mechanic or system is necessarily going to enforce or encourage fidelity or consistency with anything else.  Putting the decision into the players hands simply makes more opportunities for play to run counter to--or support--fidelity. So the degree of verisimilitude may arise out of individually negotiated enactments of the social contract, instead of one blanket agreement made at the start of play.  Perhaps the increased likelihood of inconsistency you are looking at may be the result of the anarchy of the situation: if everyone can choose, there is less certainty that all efforts will mesh.  However, going back to the band metaphor, what is needed at all times is for all parties to be commited to the central vision.  Allowing more individual input puts the responsibility and the power in all hands to find options that harmonize.

All play has Fidelity, only certain play is High Fidelity for purposes of the discussion.

Mike, in your discussion of High Fidelity in this thread, you focus on the internal consistency of the characters to game world etc. Are you also implying that high fidelity refers to a commonly understood source material (ie reality, pulp detective fiction, star wars)?  What it sounds like you are describing as the highest level of consistency is:
fidelity to referent + integrity with in-game elements.

The point Vincent originally made was that internal consistency of any given element (it's integrity) is independent to emulating, simulating, mimicking, re-enacting, re-creating, imitating or any other way of being faithful to one's impression of another story or real world period or some other aspect of the world.  You may start off with fidelity to star wars being the primary goal, then move off in a different direction.  Think of Cerebus: sure it started out as a Conan rip-off, and look where it went.  

So, in these cases, the referent for the fidelity stops being something external--there may be vestiges left, or even whole areas where simulation is very important (physics, technology, etc)--but the Vision and goal of the creative agenda become something else that is the outcome of play.

So, if I'm reading your posts right, Mike, the epitome of simulationism is when the attempt to be faithful to some text  is expressed through the system and play in such a way that the campaign itself becomes the referent, as a successful enactment of the genre (or whatever) in question.

--EC

[John Kim]

I asked whether giving players decision-making authority over their characters equivalent to the decision-making powers of a free-willed real person in the real world was sufficient to establish player authorship of character. I was assured, by many voices and with great certainty, that it was not.
...
I believe that a creative agenda is only fully in play when it is in jeopardy. If you can't lose (or at least perform poorly against) a challenge, then it's not really a challenge. If you don't have the authorial power to totally screw up a Premise, you don't have the authorial power to address that Premise. If you don't have the ability to break Fidelity, then how can play be "all about" Fidelity as we expect Simulationist play to be?  

OK, but doesn't the player assuredly have the ability to screw up a Premise?  Almost regardless of what system you use, if I and a bunch of drunk friends come to play in a game you GM -- it seems to me a sure thing that by actively trying, we can screw up any Premise you try to address.  (Not that I would really do that, mind you. :-) ) Just for starters, we can for an hour always reply with "My character closes his eyes and does nothing."  After that, we can start to creatively take actions to actively screw up the Premise.  

This seems inherent in Ron's "Impossible Thing" idea?  That is, if the players truly control their characters, then the GM cannot be author of the story.  It seems to me that people sometimes view authorship as a binary: i.e. either the GM is author, or the player is author.  But there is a wide range in between.  If the players only control their character, then authorship is split.  The GM has the power to screw up the Premise, but the players also have the power to screw up the Premise.

[lumpley]

John, your Star Trek setups are excellent examples of precisely what I mean.

(By "desirable" I didn't mean that I wouldn't trade them away in a second for something more desirable, like for instance commenting critically on the source material or creating satisfying stories now or whatever other interest I have in the game.)

Walt, do you see different authorship issues with internal consistency than with fidelity to source material?  I could have my guy act out of character, but I don't ever -- does that mean I'm not his author?  (The wall in the dungeon is pretty clearly an internal consistency of world concern, not a fidelity to source material concern anyway.)

Mike, how do my two concerns fit into your fidelity?  M. J. said "fidelity to the integrity of the world itself and fidelity to the source materials"; does that encompassing usage of "fidelity" fit your take?  

(I think me and Emily are asking the same thing.)

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Holy cats I'm behind.

First, Vincent, I totally agree with John Kim that this is different thing. How a game is designed has nothing to with what a player intends with his decisions or how they are percieved. It's a totally different idea, not Fidelity at all for purposes of this discussion (and another example of Fidelity being less than optimum for the name).

Let me be clear again on that point that people seem to be missing. Fidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real". That's actually poorly stated, but intentionally so to make people get away from where I think they're sliding. We're not talking fandom here, we're talking a very specific way of making decisions in RPGs that has a very specific effect on perception by other players. No, keeping with source material has nothing to do particularly with fidelity (it would have to be an express part of the game).

Further, I'd agree with John in all particulars that there's no imprative on what makes a good game based off of source material. That is, if you want to make Elfquest Monopoly, that might be a good game from somebody's POV. Even if it's not yours. Sim games that emulate source material do some things well, and other things not so well. It's totally preference as to what's the "best" thing to deliver.


Walt, I see no difference functionally between players and GMs. They all have power, and can accept or ignore each other's narrations at will. That is, if you say as GM, "There's a wall there" I can say, "no there's not, there's a door". This is no different than a player saying, "I walk into the room," and the GM saying, "no you don't there's a wall there." For purposes of Fidelity. The difference is that in most games the GM has the authority to say the latter thing while the player usually doesn't in the former case. Making the first one a contradiction of agreed to fact (and thus Lowest Fidelity) and the other a representation of what's in-game (and thus very Hi-Fi). This is why the pervy narrativists on Indie Netgaming could be described as LowFi. They all create on the spot and accept what everyone else says without any external validation or support.  

Consider Universalis for an instance where anyone can claim anything at any time, and anyone else can say, "no you don't". Very low Fidelity. Doesn't matter that the players are all sticking to genre conventions or whatever. They're still not doing anything to enhance the decision beyond the point of Internal Consistency which is the basline. And in fact, Universalis provides no tools to do that. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, just means you have to have a really low Fidelity tolerance to play.


Can we Inductively reason from those two "is nots" what Fidelity is?

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I believe that a creative agenda is only fully in play when it is in jeopardy. If you can't lose (or at least perform poorly against) a challenge, then it's not really a challenge. If you don't have the authorial power to totally screw up a Premise, you don't have the authorial power to address that Premise. If you don't have the ability to break Fidelity, then how can play be "all about" Fidelity as we expect Simulationist play to be?

That's profound, Walt.

As I've said, limiting player power limits the ability to go off on some axis. The Impossible thing is the idea that a player and GM can both be empolying the power to make a Narrativist decision simultaneously. Which nobody has a problem with understanding conceptually.

This is another advantage of the model in that it says that power is not part of what qualifies a decision as G or N or S (or Conflict/Fidelity), it's what allows that decision at all. I mean, obviously if a player doesn't have the power to make a decsion, then he can only either A), not make that decision, or, B), make it anyhow, which drops Fidelity through the floor (almost another issue at the social contract level at that point; the player might be thought of as "cheating").

Mike

[Emily Care]

Fidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real"....
Consider Universalis for an instance where anyone can claim anything at any time, and anyone else can say, "no you don't". Very low Fidelity. Doesn't matter that the players are all sticking to genre conventions or whatever. They're still not doing anything to enhance the decision beyond the point of Internal Consistency which is the basline. And in fact, Universalis provides no tools to do that. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, just means you have to have a really low Fidelity tolerance to play.

If I read you correctly, fidelity is consistency.  Is your emphasis on the elements of play "seeming real" related to what you were saying about fidelity always being an attempt to reach verisimilitude?

--Emily Care

[C. Edwards]

Can we Inductively reason from those two "is nots" what Fidelity is?

Sorry Mike, I'm failing to make some cognitive leap here.

Between this:

Fidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real".

and this:

This is why the pervy narrativists on Indie Netgaming could be described as LowFi. They all create on the spot and accept what everyone else says without any external validation or support.

I'm just a little confused. I don't see what is inherently LowFi in the Indie-Netgaming example compared to the first statement. Unless you're infering that the System doesn't provide for in-game causality except in the smallest degree, that job being handed over to the players.

What exactly is "doing anything to enhance the decision beyond the point of Internal Consistency"? I think the answer to that question will shed the great light of Grok upon Fidelity for me.

-Chris

[lumpley]

Gah!  Game design shmame design!  I'm talking about actual play too.  I agree with John Kim too.

But

Let me be clear again on that point that people seem to be missing. Fidelity itsn't adhering to the setting or any other element so much as it is an attempt to make those elements seem more "real".

and earlier

Fidelity has to do with making decisions seem like they're not "out of game". That's why No Myth has limited support for some people. Fidelity is not just that Internal Consistency that provides a common minimum for most play. ...That is, higher fidelity requires that a player make decisions as though the character were a real entity in a real world, and based on that world's logic.

So!  You're talking about fidelity to the myth!  What the myth is, precisely, doesn't matter -- that's what I've been talking about, the contents of the myth -- what matters is that we uphold the myth as real!

I get it!  Or I'm wrong-o again!  Tell me which!

That does indeed mean that my two concerns aren't really related to your fidelity.  Okie-dokie.  I still maintain that they're concerns of Exploration, but, um, in a non-petty way without any whining.  They're not concerns at the same level, 'scool.

-Vincent

[Walt Freitag]

EDITED to note that due to cross-posting, this post is a response to three posts that begin seven posts back.

Fidelity and interactivity (real decision-making power, or in GNS terms, authorship) are fundamentally incompatible.

Ah, but then so to is game design in general.  No mechanic or system is necessarily going to enforce or encourage fidelity or consistency with anything else.  Putting the decision into the players hands simply makes more opportunities for play to run counter to--or support--fidelity. So the degree of verisimilitude may arise out of individually negotiated enactments of the social contract, instead of one blanket agreement made at the start of play.  Perhaps the increased likelihood of inconsistency you are looking at may be the result of the anarchy of the situation: if everyone can choose, there is less certainty that all efforts will mesh.  However, going back to the band metaphor, what is needed at all times is for all parties to be commited to the central vision.  Allowing more individual input puts the responsibility and the power in all hands to find options that harmonize.

Yes indeed. And very nicely stated. That I regard creative agenda as being by nature "in jeopardy" doesn't mean I regard it as "doomed to failure." Far from it.

System can confer or withhold power, but it cannot specifically confer "the power to do only good." Fortunately, most participants, given power and coherent creative agendas, will "do good" with it anyway.

Fidelity ensured by the players' lack of power to break it cannot, in my mind, be a part of a creative agenda. The guaranteed existence of such fidelity, though, can support a creative agenda that lies elsewhere (as in, "I want to experience what it's like to be a midshipman in a rendered-in-high-fidelity Star Fleet Academy.")

John, if a group of players is actively trying to screw up an understood Premise, then there is no social contract in effect and all bets are off. Certainly that can happen, but I'm talking specifically about power granted or not granted within a functioning social contract.

If a group of players wants to be Star Fleet midshipmen, and they want me to portray the setting with high fidelity within a social contract that gives them no authorial power over the setting, does this make the fidelity of the setting part of their creative agenda? Does the fact that it's something they want from me and if I don't provide it they'll be angry make it one of their priorities in play? I'm suggesting the answer is no. I can and do play this way, and when I do so the fidelity of the setting is part of my creative agenda, but not theirs. It's compatible with theirs (in the sense of not conflicting), if theirs is exploration; they might very much want to explore the setting I create. It would still be compatible with theirs if their creative agenda were Gamist, which I think is the sort of "high-fidelity/Gamism" congruence that Mike is trying to model.

Contrast this with having fidelity of the setting be part of a shared creative agenda. If this is what I (as GM) want, it's because I want creative contribution toward the setting from the players. We all want fidelity all the more, but shared creation means that others will be doing things that I don't specifically expect. (Otherwise, why bother to share?) I hope that the good surprises will outweigh the bad surprises, but I can't be certain of that. Fidelity is now a goal to cooperatively strive for, rather than a promised feature.

Both cases involve exploration of (imagining) a setting and both involve the desire for high fidelity of that element. But the two cases seem very different to me. Like you said, it's a question of sharing of authorial power.

Vincent, I don't really see any big technical difference between internal consistency and fidelity to source material. It's the same issue, it's just that the reference points come from different sources. As a thought experiment, imagine a generic space opera game that just happened to play out the exact plot of Star Wars (A New Hope) in a world where the movie didn't exist. And now the players want to continue play in that same setting. Compare that to a Star Wars game played after the movie (but not any of its sequels/prequels) was released, in which the players want to play what happens next. Is there any difference? In either case, would the participants' decision to introduce new characters named Yoda and Boba Fett and Londo Calrissian (sp?) compromise Fidelity, enhance Fidelity, or represent a Fidelity non-issue? (Remember, in both hypotheticals The Empire Strikes Back doesn't exist as a movie.) What about Ewoks?

See, there it is. Whenever you share responsibility for fidelity with anyone else, you could get "No, I am your father," but you could also get Ewoks.

- Walt

[John Kim]

This is why the pervy narrativists on Indie Netgaming could be described as LowFi. They all create on the spot and accept what everyone else says without any external validation or support.

I'm just a little confused. I don't see what is inherently LowFi in the Indie-Netgaming example compared to the first statement. Unless you're infering that the System doesn't provide for in-game causality except in the smallest degree, that job being handed over to the players.

I can't speak for what Mike really meant, but this seems like an important distinction that I make.  I agree with you that "Fidelity" is a poor term for what I think Mike means.  "Low Fidelity" implies unfaithfulness, falseness, or inconsistency.  However, improvising an in-game fact doesn't mean any of those.  It doesn't falsify anything, and it isn't inconsistent.  

At one extreme, you have a gamer with a strong, detailed model for the in-game reality outside of what happens in play (which could be in notes, maps, system, or just in her head).  She considers this model to be what is real.  At the other extreme, you have a gamer who considers only what happens in play to be real.  Anything written down (GM's notes, character sheets, etc.) but not demonstrated in play is not yet real, and may come out differently in play.  Quite possibly, very little is written down at all.  Everything shown in play is completely consistent, but there are no inviolable facts except what has been shown.  

For example, suppose the PCs come to a door.  They open it.  At this point, GM #1 consults her model.  Whatever is defined as being behind that door, well, that's what they find.  On the other hand, GM #2 doesn't have an inviolable model.  He may simply decide on the spot what is there, as long as he is confident that he can make it consistent.

[Editted to add that my "external model" is I think what Vincent calls the "myth" -- i.e. the "myth of reality"]

[Mike Holmes]

Vincent, Chris, a classic example of Fidelity in action would be to use a task resolution system. Let's say GURPS, that's about as High Fidelity as you can get. Not because it emulates anything well, but because the system intends to provide a framework where the players participating will feel that the results are more "realistic".

Now this is only one example of how to provide Fidelity (I need a new term). But in general, Internal Consistency of the decision is the lowest common denominator building block for such a decision. The decision has to be made in such a way as it goes beyond just the players agreeing that it makes sense. It has to somehow be supported by something that the game provides. Is there an essay on how Bards act in court in the setting notes? Did the player follow it? Is there systematic cues in resolution that inform the player what makes sense to do? Did the player follow them?

Basically, Chris, HighFidelity is what you don't like in play because you see it as interfering with the ability to create the sort of thematic action that you like. I thibk you're the same, Vincent. Does that help guys?

Remember, when I say I like HiFi play, I play GURPS regularly, and that's the game that delivers that kick best.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with you that "Fidelity" is a poor term for what I think Mike means.  "Low Fidelity" implies unfaithfulness, falseness, or inconsistency.  However, improvising an in-game fact doesn't mean any of those.  It doesn't falsify anything, and it isn't inconsistent.  

I mean Fidelity in terms of a loyalty to making the in-game feel real. That's disrupted by things like gross use of Director stance on the spot. Even by a GM. Timing is everything.

That said, Fidelity has caused enough problems already that I'm ready for a new term.

At one extreme, you have a gamer with a strong, detailed model for the in-game reality outside of what happens in play (which could be in notes, maps, system, or just in her head).  She considers this model to be what is real.  At the other extreme, you have a gamer who considers only what happens in play to be real.  Anything written down (GM's notes, character sheets, etc.) but not demonstrated in play is not yet real, and may come out differently in play.  Quite possibly, very little is written down at all.  Everything shown in play is completely consistent, but there are no inviolable facts except what has been shown.  

As long as it's presented right, even stuff made up on the spot can seem to have Fidelity. Rememeber perception. This is why back end Illusionism works (when it does). If the player isn't aware that the thing was just made up, then Fidelity in this context is maintained.

[Editted to add that my "external model" is I think what Vincent calls the "myth" -- i.e. the "myth of reality"]

Yes, it's sticking with the Myth, or the external model that exemplifies Fidelity. So, anyone want to take a shot at a new term? Integrity? Nah, it's gotta be something where Low "X" is a good thing.

Mike

[C. Edwards]

Basically, Chris, HighFidelity is what you don't like in play because you see it as interfering with the ability to create the sort of thematic action that you like. I thibk you're the same, Vincent. Does that help guys?

Ahh, crystal. I feel better now. :)

I agree with you that "Fidelity" is a poor term for what I think Mike means. "Low Fidelity" implies unfaithfulness, falseness, or inconsistency. However, improvising an in-game fact doesn't mean any of those. It doesn't falsify anything, and it isn't inconsistent.

Just for the record, I don't think 'Fidelity' is a poor term to encompass Mike's meaning. That may be because I naturally think of it in electronics terms, 'signal strength' or 'accuracy of signal reproduction'. Perhaps there's something there in that, using Mike's GURPS example, the more framework for Fidelity that is provided beyond Internal Consistency the more likely that all the players will be producing very similar signals. Or something like that.

-Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Just for the record, I don't think 'Fidelity' is a poor term to encompass Mike's meaning. That may be because I naturally think of it in electronics terms, 'signal strength' or 'accuracy of signal reproduction'. Perhaps there's something there in that, using Mike's GURPS example, the more framework for Fidelity that is provided beyond Internal Consistency the more likely that all the players will be producing very similar signals. Or something like that.

Not similar signals, but ones that each player feels are solidly the product of some as-near-as-possible "actual" agents in a as-near-as-possible "actual" environment. Or the like.

The problem so far has been that I'm trying to allow for as much lattitude here as possible. And people are taking that lattitude to mean just the lattitude. I may just have to be more rigorous.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Well, I'm a little behind here, but...

There seems to be a concessus that fidelity(2) to source material and how Mike was using Fidelity(1) are seperate beasts.

I'd just like to add, based upon the discussion in the Is this really Nar? thread, that fidelity(2) to source material is most often going to be Nar play, not Sim play.  In order to truely emulate the Buffy source material your play will have to end up being about moral questions, like Buffy is (though it needn't be intentional); if it wasn't it wouldn't be truely emulating the source material (feel and all).  So, Sim as a priority in emulation of source material, unless that source material does not itself address a theme, is a paradox.

Meaning, Yes I agree fidelity(2) to source material could be a factor in all forms of play.

I'm all for fidelity(2) as a concept in Baseline/Vision and how that effects the distribution of Exploration priorities.