On another thread entitled Retroactive Story Ron Edwards make a post that caught my attention. The particular post can be found here. In it he describes a CoC game whereby the Theme is pre-established and “celebrating” that pre-established Theme is the “point” of that game. If I read the post accurately, I believe Ron implies that this “Theme celebration” can be described as Sim. If I am mistaken and misunderstood Ron’s claim about his example’s CA as Sim (certainly he claimed such play to be non-Narrativist and by exclusion, I inferred that he was saying it was probably not Gamist either), then this post has no merit. Ron let me know if I mistook you.

The point of all this rambling introduction is to lay the claim that such play – The celebration of “Pre-established Theme” via role-play is not Sim, but Narrativist. Now before everyone rushes for their banana suits hear me out.

Ron has claimed, in the Narrativism Essay, that Nar and Gam are (or appear to be) “mirror images or twin siblings” of each other. That being said, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to The Crunch “style” of play or better yet “approach” to Challenge.

Let me start with the glossed version of The Crunch in the Provisional Glossary.

The Crunch

An application or type of Challenge, based on high predictability relative to risk. A feature of Gamist play

Emphasis mine

Ron Edwards wrote: So we do it! Rock on! We have celebrated Lovecraft as we understand it (or perhaps, which I didn't touch on, as we saw fit to modify it). To have deviated from that Theme would have violated the whole point of being there.

Ron Edwards wrote: … if everyone is on board with this, it's not railroading. It's (as I understand the term) perfect Participation. The story is not authored in play, but embellished and refined during play, as a given/fixed element of Exploration (shared imagined space).

Underlining mine.

Hello,

Controversial, to be sure.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume wrote: High predictability of what? High predictability of success; or for the purposes of my argument – High predictability of Victory. Given this particular understanding, that the outcome of Victory is highly likely, one might then ask why bother. IOW as Victory is more or less guaranteed, what are the players doing?
What are the players doing if the measure of player effectiveness is more or less rendered irrelevant?

I thought the "addressing" part of addressing premise in actual play was definitional to narrativism. If so, Jay's whole argument turns on whether premise can be said to be addressed in this situation. I think it's a pretty long stretch to say just affirming or celebrating or following the form of a theme necessariliy involves addressing premise during play. Are we going to say that the very act of celebration is addressment? That seems pretty broad.

Hey Tim,

Just to make sure, I went back and re-read the section in the Gamist essay on the Crunch as well as the Glossed entry.

Gamism Essay wrote: The distinction between Gamble and Crunch isn't quite the same as "randomness;" it has more to do with options and consequences. Fortune can be involved in both of them, and it doesn't have to be involved in either (see Diplomacy for a non-RPG example).

Alan wrote: Are we going to say that the very act of celebration is addressment? That seems pretty broad.

Jay, Ron's description of simulationism has never used the word "address" as a definitional term. That comparison is fallacious.

Hello,

The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the “celebrating Theme” (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).

I have two things to say about this--both of which are reasons why I am not clear on exactly what is being said.

1. Gamism is, to me, very murky on the guy who plays to "build up his character." I'm pretty sure this is a common and observable phenomena and I do not think it is related to social cred. It must be socially acceptable to be functional--but it is not "respect" the gamer gets but rather the internal joy of having a built-up character--even if that character never performs in "a fair fight."

I have a player (a very good RP'er, IMO) who also spends hours grinding on MMPORGS. Sometimes, under some conditons, he scratches that itch in tabletop-play.

Actual Play Experience: He found GURPS--which had fairly few upper-level development options worse than Fantasy Hero (where he could make new spells) or D&D (we think--un-verified to the extent I would like) where there are clear lines for upward development.

He finds (I would say) nerve-biting fights overly stressful and prefers a series of encounters where the battles are very well skewed in his favor. A good deal of the reward in this is, I think, the treasure: He would insist on clearing a level since there's treasure "at level" to be gotten rather than up the risk/reward by going one level deeper.

I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

2. I believe that it is correct to say that a player "authors" "story" in Sim play. This is because the Story-elements (thematic elements) will have come out of the player's mouth (and into the transcript) in an unpredictable fashion.

This is not saying that I dsagree with Ron on his quote.

In the context Ron was discussing (Address of Premise == Authoring Theme) he was correct and, IMO, fairly clear.

My point is that when you start saying that "author" reasonably means one and only one thing (the creation of story in a Narrativist context) you start getting into I-switch-this-word-out-here-and-in-there arguments like the one we see.

If we assume that "authoring story" in a Simulationist context means something entirely different then the substitution example doesn't work.

And, indeed, I don't think it does on that basis: If Ron had said "Premise is not addressed ... " rather than "Story is not authored" then the form this conjecture has taken (word substitution) wouldn't make sense.

-Marco

Hiya,

Marco's nailed it. Truth is, I really think that "author" as a verb, and (in other discussions) a few similar terms like "control," are causing us a lot of trouble. I'll shape up a little on the former (always avoided the latter for that reason).

Best,
Ron

Hey Jay,

Here's where your argument breaks down for me..

Silmenume wrote: The converse of this is the Crunch. The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the “celebrating Theme” (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?). (Some may ask if Theme is pre-established how can it not be realized? The players may do something to alter the Theme unintentionally or maybe not enough events transpire in the “celebration style” game to allow for the Theme to be fully realized.)

I find myself in an awkward position, because I tend to agree with Jay's conclusion, but not with the means by which he arrives at it.

The distinction between gamble and crunch lies in the predictability of outcomes.

If I'm playing bridge, I know the Ace of the trump suit will take the trick; that's predictable. If I control the Ace, I know that the King is also guaranteed to take a trick. I don't know from that whether or not I will win; only that these particular tactics will succeed.

If in Dungeons & Dragons, I cast a Magic Missile spell, according to the book rules there is no significant gamble--it hits the target and does a specific range of damage. If I cast a Spiritual Hammer spell, by contrast, the spell will work, but I still have to make die rolls to see whether I hit the target at all--I might miss every time. If I pick up a Wand of Wonder and aim it at an opponent and activate it, I don't know whether I'm going to get fireballs or butterflies. Magic Missile is high crunch; Wand of Wonder is high gamble; Spiritual Hammer is somewhere between the two. High crunch does not mean that the use of Magic Missile guarantees I will win the combat. It means that I can predict with high certainty that Magic Missile will have specific desired effects.

Yet I agree that the celebration of theme in role playing is probably a form of narrativism. I've thought so for a while.

The problem is that all forms of role playing require that the participants be permitted to make meaningful decisions which advance their personal agenda. Gamism is made functional because players can choose strategies and tactics which might lead to victory. Narrativism is made functional because players can choose character actions which explore issues. Simulationism is made functional because players can choose directions which open new discoveries. It is evident that illusionism is dysfunctional as play precisely because the only participant whose input matters is the referee, but the other players do not know this. Thus it is dysfunctional as gamism because nothing we do affects whether we succeed; as narrativism because nothing we do impacts the issues; as simulationism because nothing we do reveals what we would not have been told anyway.

Participationism is functional because the character players have agreed that the only person whose input matters is the referee. That means if the referee reveals his interesting world to us, we have participationist simulationism (the most functional of participationist forms). If he takes us on a rollercoaster ride in which we feel like we have saved the world through our character actions, that's participationist gamism (very like identifying with the hero of an action movie, only more so). If he weaves a tale of moral or thematic interest, it's participationist narrativism.

Some players are quite happy with participationism. I contend that most are not. This is especially so among narrativists, because a large part of their interest lies in being able to make statements about the issues themselves--the difference between attending a lecture and participating in a discussion group. It is also prominent among gamists, although not as much so--players who have low confidence in their ability to win welcome the opportunity to be made to feel like winners without actually having done anything, and are willing to ignore the fact that it was not possible for them to have lost. Confident gamists want the risk (whether from the gamble or the crunch, both of which entail risk) because they don't really feel the glory if the risk is absent. Since participationist simulationism is more functional than the other agenda, you don't see as much rejection of it--but there is some.

So I'd agree that a game which is about theme, in which the referee is the only person who provides any input to that theme, is still narrativist. Its appeal is different, just as the appeal of participationist gamism is different.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

The difference to me is that the gamist faces a challenge whereas the narrativist addresses premise. In facing a challenge the gamist either wins or loses it's a binary result. The address of premise is an act of creation with an infinite string of possible results of which you choose one. If there is only one option available you are not making much of a choice.

This quote Ron used in the simutlationism essay explains fully to me why a theme laden situation can be simulationist.

From the introduction to Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, author is Marc Miller):


... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the character ...

Hey Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote:

Silmenume wrote: The Crunch (in Gamism) has a high predictability regarding final outcome just like the “celebrating Theme” (in Narrativism) has a high predictability as to what the final outcome will be (that is – which Theme do we want to be produced?).

Lost me on that one, for two reasons. The first reason is being discussed by others, in that your understanding of "Crunch" seems off to me. It would be very very valuable to present instances of play in Actual Play which illustrate the Crunch as you see it, and then we can all work from those.

Marco wrote: Actual Play Experience: He found GURPS--which had fairly few upper-level development options worse than Fantasy Hero (where he could make new spells) or D&D (we think--un-verified to the extent I would like) where there are clear lines for upward development.

He finds (I would say) nerve-biting fights overly stressful and prefers a series of encounters where the battles are very well skewed in his favor. A good deal of the reward in this is, I think, the treasure: He would insist on clearing a level since there's treasure "at level" to be gotten rather than up the risk/reward by going one level deeper.

I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

C. Edwards wrote: The ease of all participants distinguishing the same tactical outcome as successful and that of distinguishing the same thematic outcome as successful seems greatly disparate. Regardless, there is still no guarantee of successful overall outcomes in either approach. They're certainly not, as you say, "(virtually/nearly) 100% predictable".

Jay wrote: In this example the condition of Victory is not what is up for grabs as he “expects” rewards (for victories) via that act of “earning” them. He “expects” the environment will give him a steady stream (highly predictable victories). There really is no room or desire for “if”.

Marco wrote: 1. Gamism is, to me, very murky on the guy who plays to "build up his character." I'm pretty sure this is a common and observable phenomena and I do not think it is related to social cred. It must be socially acceptable to be functional--but it is not "respect" the gamer gets but rather the internal joy of having a built-up character
*snip*
I think it is reasonable to say he is 'celebrating victory'--although I wouldn't have put it that way. I think it is a stretch to say he is Gamist uner the present defintion: he doesn't like puzzles, tough fights, or challenge per-se, in this mode--but he does like a constant string of minor risks for constant rewards.

There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

Silmenume wrote: Hey Caldis,

You’re arguing conclusions. You haven’t put forth anything other than Sim is noun. Why is Sim defined this way? Espeically since its not a definition with regards to the Model or CA process/verb. Identification with Character is not an external process which deals with Situation; it is an inherently internal process – its what the player “feels”. That makes “identification with Character” as an identifier of Sim outside the scope of the model.

Noon wrote:
It's simulationism. Anything that breaks or doesn't befit his prefered CA, he avoids or ignores. He avoids fortune and ignores social feedback, because he's exploring the growing character like some would explore the sprawl of an imaginary city. That's interupted by fortune, and back slapping social feedback doesn't add to exploration.

As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

From here the predictable outcome your refering to with crunch is more a matter of drifting crunchy gamist structure to simulationism, by sticking to the predictable parts of it (which isn't the whole of it). That doesn't support your position.

contracycle wrote: I'm not sure its that cut and dried. Certainly the description given could easily be gamist IMO. It would just be of the 'purist for system' variety, in all propabability. The avoidance of fortune does not disqualify the player from a Gamist mode, it merely renders it a preference for Crunch over Gamble.

Marco wrote: There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

Caldis wrote:

Marco wrote: There is no back-slapping "hey, you made it to 6th level" or "good move on those goblins" or anything like that. He expects the level when he earns it and he expects an environment that will give him a steady grind to that level--but in terms of social feedback, I think that's it.

A gamist who prefers crunch will still be looking to prove his ability, he'll just believe that his methodic approach of avoiding risk is the smart way to proceed. "By searching every room on the level and clearing out the goblins still there we gained 800 more xp than we would have if we had went down to the next level as soon as we found the stairs. Now we're that much tougher and have that much more gold to resupply and prepare for that next level, we are so going to beat it."

I would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

Hey Caldis,

Caldis wrote: I'll agree that play in a manner which prefers crunch to gamble can still be gamist. The reason Marco's example appears simulationist to me is the lack of interest in the victory.

Marco wrote: I would agree, save for the fact that I think that CA's are defined by social reinforcement. In this case, I do not think the Gamist is getting any 'cred.'

Well I agree almost entirely with Sil's post above, but unfortunately I do think some further discussion of social reinforcement is necessary.

The issue of social reinforcement is operating at a level beyond that of the immediate game being played, and has to do with our intereactions with ewach other as people. In order for us to feel satisfied with ourselves, we need to feel that we are valued and respected by others in our social context.

Now the argument that the purpose of the pursuit of victory and challenge is to display competence, fitness, garner respect and acclaim, is IMO sound. But the idea of social reinforcement as used in discussions here has sometimes been dumbed down to mere verbal, or at least explicit, demonstrations of appreciation. Nothing like that is required.

If you are a quiet, unassuming, managemental gamist, it may be that you never do a victory dance on the table, nor get accolladed as a strategic genius by the other players. But they may also defer to your decisions when you are at the general store outfitting for the dungeon, and they may take your decision as carved in stone if you say its time to head to the surface. And these things are also very valid forms of social acclaim that make the gamist player happy in their gamism; recognise their contribution to the group effort.

So we must not eliminate social approval and reduce it to being ONLY a tell. It is more than that, receiving some form of recogition is a basic Purpose in engaging with this activity in the first place. Marco is still wrong to say that the CA's are DEFINED by social reinforcement, becuase solo games can be played without any such social reinforcement. But social reinforcement from others carries more credibility than your own assesment of your competence, and is very much more important.

While agreeing with some problems in the discussion of Sim, I do not think it is true that social reinforcement is necessarily the mistaken projection of my preferences onto another players actions.

Yeah, well, as I said, I'm a bit murky on the social reinforcement thing. I value the guy for role-play inspite of the 'gamist' tendency. I think he often makes poor judgments about the values of things in game play--so I'd do my own pickin' at the general store (he may be right--he's very smart--but we do disagree).

What I'm saying is that I think he gets the real enjoyment out of building the character up--not out of social reinforcement.

Yes: there's a certain degree of social acceptance necessary for him to sit at the table for functional roleplay--but I like higher stakes combat. I don't care about building characters up. Neither of us really enjoy "the grind" but he gets something out of it (a better character) which I don't (I get a better character too, but don't care).

When we play gamist together, we are socially incompatible: I like low level D&D games where death is a constant fear (I hate to die--I play very carefully). He likes the higher level ones where death won't interfere most likely unless things go really wrong.*

If it's me, him, and the GM (and it has been) I'm not real clear on how social reinforcement enters into his enjoyment of the game.

The issue of solo play is, IMO, a very good one: this guy gets out of MMPORGS exactly what he gets out of some types of role-playing. He's good with grouping (social) or going it alone (not-social).

I think that the going-it-alone is out of step with the GNS social-reinforcement aspects ... but I'm not really sure.

As I said, I'm murky on it.

-Marco
* I'm aware that two gamists can easily be incompatible--the reason I bring this up is: "In the situation where we are incompatible and we're both still enjoying aspects of the game--but to differing degrees" where does the social reinforcement come from.

Marco wrote:
* I'm aware that two gamists can easily be incompatible--the reason I bring this up is: "In the situation where we are incompatible and we're both still enjoying aspects of the game--but to differing degrees" where does the social reinforcement come from.

Yeah, I totally get the X-wing thing. I had the same issues with that game (I wish I'd had someone to do shields and power stuff so I could just fly). I mean, I think it's possible he's getting some cred somewhere I'm not seeing right now--however, in the other thread on Sim I noted that Sim was (under canoncial GNS) sort of a sense of craftsmanship.

Thinking about that, I believe that the player gets satisfaction from building up a character (as with a sense of craftsmanship) which would, if that analogy is relevant, lead to this being Sim play (Exploration of System?)

I mean, I'm not sure. I get a sense of satisfaction when I win at Solitaire--I don't get any social cred for it from anywhere.

(What I'm saying is I can buy your hypothesis. I accept that there may be social cred coming from somewhere I'm not seeing. But in light of the fact that the player, by his own admission, gets the same thrill from soloing on-line on World of Warcraft, I think that it might be plausible to define Gamism in terms of an internal sense of reward and leave the social reinforcement to the realm of making the play functional with a group ... but that's just me thinking out loud).

-Marco

A (hopefully quick) note on social reinforcement.

The lone gamist in the group gets his social reinforcement reflexively: he respects what he did as something he thinks the other players should respect and admire, even if in his mind there's something wrong with them because they don't. This is where the gamist solo video gamer gets his glory, either from telling tales of his game successes to others who know the game or from comparing himself to real or imagined other players. This is where the glory arises in solitaire, as we pat ourselves on the back for doing so well.

You have probably noticed that many solo computer/console games encourage high scorers to enter their names or initials. This is glory. You played the game alone, but you played it extremely well, and others will hear about it. Even on your own computer, some of the games have this option to record who you are next to how well you did. In fact, the Tetris game in my cell phone has such a record. If you think too hard about it, you realize it's silly--who is going to know?--but you can get that reinforcement of "look how good I did" even if no one is ever going to look or care.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: A (hopefully quick) note on social reinforcement.

The lone gamist in the group gets his social reinforcement reflexively: he respects what he did as something he thinks the other players should respect and admire, even if in his mind there's something wrong with them because they don't. This is where the gamist solo video gamer gets his glory, either from telling tales of his game successes to others who know the game or from comparing himself to real or imagined other players. This is where the glory arises in solitaire, as we pat ourselves on the back for doing so well.

--M. J. Young

Silmenume wrote:
You are very much mistaken. The player does have a deep and abiding interest in Victory, he would not play the game if he didn’t achieve Victory all the time. Like Marco had said, he expects a steady stream of rewards. Rewards can only be had from Victories. What he doesn’t want is (high) risk, and thus by extension he is not particularly interested in the social rewards for Stepping on Up in the face of (high) risk. What the player is seeking is the regular and consistent internal and mechanical rewards for successfully addressing Challenge. The thing that stands in the way of that stream of rewards is the high potential of non-victory outcome and the necessary risk of loss or rewards inherent in high risk of loss style of Challenge addressment. IOW the player wants to feel the success of winning all the time; he’s not that interested in the thrill of risk as a thing unto itself.

Ron Edwards: Gamism: Step on Up wrote: The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).

Ron Edwards wrote: The Theme is pre-established and known: "Mankind's ideals are flickering little pinpoints in a horrific, insane void." All of us are utterly complicit in bringing that theme into "narrative life."

So we do it! Rock on! We have celebrated Lovecraft as we understand it (or perhaps, which I didn't touch on, as we saw fit to modify it). To have deviated from that Theme would have violated the whole point of being there.

Hey contracycle,

I think that all of your points are valid. I did not intend to imply that social reinforcement’s only role was that of a “tell.” Social reinforcement does indeed play a very important part in the social dynamic of roleplay. I, in my haste, did not clarify my thoughts enough regarding that issue. I was only trying to say that social reinforcement is not definitional to a CA.

Just to be clear –

From a diagnostic point of view, social reinforcement is nothing more than a “tell” as to what is interesting to the players observing the player who is engaging Situation.

Everything else you said about its importance to play, I’m square with.

Hey Marco,

Marco wrote: (…I think that it might be plausible to define Gamism in terms of an internal sense of reward and leave the social reinforcement to the realm of making the play functional with a group ... but that's just me thinking out loud).

Labels
Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labeling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making."

Emphasis added.

Marco wrote: If we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

Caldis wrote: If success is guaranteed then they have not displayed anything...It’s a test of the player to see if he can find a way to win.

Labels
Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labeling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making."

Silmenume wrote:

Marco wrote: If we can say a person with a GNS CA is getting reinforced by an imaginary crowd then why can't we can drop the social reinforcement requirement altogether and just say it's just a "nice to have?"

Unless I am mistaken, I don’t recall social reinforcement being absolutely required, though its presence is endemic as the persons are engaged in a social activity. To whit – a single player can be playing Gamist in a Sim oriented Game. He may not be enjoying himself as much as if he was sitting at table full of Gamists, but he’s still expressing a Gamist CA even if he is receiving negative social pressure. That the Gamist player is not receiving positive social reinforcement does not negate the diagnosis of his play as Gamist.

Silmenume wrote: Decisions that have no effect on outcome are no different that decisions made with the specific intent not to alter the pre-established outcome. Marco’s example, if not Gamist, cannot be Sim either because there are NO decisions of merit (effecting final outcome) being made at all. By the logic you’re arguing Caldis, Marco’s example is an example of non-CA play or Zilchplay, much like Ron’s example of “celebration of Theme.”

Noon wrote: As a mental exercise, if you were interested in exploring the rise of a hero to great heights of power, would you be interested in adding in fortune? Something that can easily interupt such an exploration?

Hello,

People always seem to miss the Gamist definition, or miss a piece of it. Marco, no one in this thread seems to have said what they needed to say, although nothing is terribly wrong with what's been said. Maybe this will help.

Social cred in Gamist play has exactly the same role that it does in any sort of play. It's the matrix in which play is embedded. So any questions about solo play, for example, apply to "role-playing in general." My thinking about that can wait for another thread.

It comes up all the time when people discuss Gamist play because of the long-standing misapprehension that Gamist play must be "selfish."

But to focus on it as a unique definitional feature is to get off track. The unique definitional feature of Gamist play is not the social cred, but the social cred about personal strategy and guts. If these can be observed to be the "creative motor" throughout a full cycle of the reward system,* then we're talking Gamist play.

The proportions of strategy vs. guts, by the way, are highly variable. I think that has a lot to do with Gamble vs. Crunch.

Side point: what about the ostensible Gamist who just likes winning, without strategy & guts? I'm not convinced that this actually describes the example player who's been brought up, but let's say it does. In my view, such a player is a dysfunctional disaster - a wimp who likes the feel of winning but who cannot stand to lose. He'll do fine as long as he's safely mingled with non-Gamist other players. Put him in with real Gamists and he'd get mutilated.

Before discussing any more about this fellow or any other hypothetical/real fellows, I suggest that this thread, more than any other I've seen in recent history, needs to be founded on discussions of actual play.

Best,
Ron

* This is my current phrasing that I used to call an "instance." Usually requires a session at the very least, often more.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

People always seem to miss the Gamist definition, or miss a piece of it. Marco, no one in this thread seems to have said what they needed to say, although nothing is terribly wrong with what's been said. Maybe this will help.

H'm, seems like low-stress Gamism to me.

To use the Solitaire analogy (a game I like too, so it's a good touchpoint), it's not like I stress about winning ... but there's some tactics there. Sometimes two possible moves are available, and I have to pick one. For example, if I can pull a card off a higher stack, I choose it rather than the card over the lower stack. Or decide whether to play a king from the draw rather than from a stack. That sort of thing. It's still tactics, even if one's whole ego isn't at stake. I certainly don't make such decisions randomly, and I suspect no one who enjoys Solitaire does.

In fact, the willingness to recognize that one has lost this time, for whatever reason (bad draw, early decision that turned out not to fly, whatever) is part of enjoying the tactics. That, in my mind, is part of "guts" - which I think is pretty important. Sometimes the guy who's less stressed about losing is the guy with the most guts.

You're right, though, that it's very different from the Wimp who cannot bear to lose, that I was describing.

Jay, I really think that your ability to communicate and debate your points in this thread will be made possible (not just enhanced) through discussions of actual play events and decisions. Marco has modeled the value of this approach perfectly, in one brief post.

Best,
Ron

There seems to be a lot happening here; it's one of those threads I have to start answering before I finish reading, or I'll never get it all clear in my brain.

Marco: all social reinforcement can be internalized or externalized. That is, I can be proud of what I did because people saw it and were impressed, or I can be proud of what I did because had they seen it they would have been impressed. In Solitaire, it's almost always the latter--I feel like I did well, that I played well and I won, and that's something to respect. Maybe no one will ever know, but I know, and I respect myself a bit more for that success.

Caldis: the very point that is at issue here is the nature of play in which the character players are not contributing significantly. Traditionally this gets shoved into simulationism, as if illusionism is not dysfunctional if it is simulationist illusionism. What is being said here is that illusionism is always dysfunctional, and participationism does not automatically mean simulationism--it could mean gamism in which everyone is pretending that there is something at risk even though deep down they know there isn't, so they respect each other for the decisions that they're only pretending made a difference; it could mean narrativism in which only the referee addressed premise in any way.

Look at it from another angle. We all agree that gamism, narrativism, and simulationism can all be played with what might be called full open credibility: everyone has the right to make any statement about any object or event within the shared imaginary space which fits central agreements about that space. This is what GM-full play is all about. Most people are more comfortable if you dial that back such that the referee has more credibility, usually more credibility than the character players. On a thousand point scale, we can reduce the dial to 999 to 1 in favor of the referee and still have any one of the three agenda in play. Now, some people think that if you get rid of that last one increment of credibility in the hands of the players, you have simulationism. I say no. Either you have nothing at all as an agendum, or we have participationist gamism, narrativism, or simulationism, depending on whatever the only player who still has credibility is pursuing.

The essays are written with the idea that participationist narrativism can't exist and participationist gamism probably can't exist, so participationism must be simulationist. I'm saying that participationism is no less problematic for simulationism than it is for the other two agenda, and that it is entirely possible to have participationist play which is about glory or premise.

Back on the first page of this thread I made a post that I thought got to the heart of the matter. Participationism is possible in all three agenda; as long as one participant (the referee) is contributing to the shared imagined space and the others are approving what is contributed, we have an agendum functioning.

Ron: your hypothetical wimp is exactly the sort of player who wants gamist participationism. He wants to be made to feel like a winner without any real risk of losing. In the same way, a participationist narrativist wants to feel like he was part of this great meaningful story without having to make the decisions that matter.

On Solitaire: I learned a great deal about strategy in relation to randomized systems from playing that game. When I was a teenager, I would play it in my room (with real cards--personal computers didn't exist then), and if I lost, I would face all the hidden cards to work out exactly why I lost and whether I could have won had I played differently. I have a pretty good handle at this point on how to maximize my chance of winning that game, because, as Ron observes, there are better and worse moves. Most people never give this a thought--they'll tell you that you should make a certain move merely because you can make it, and that's often incorrect strategically.

--M. J. Young

MJ, I'm with you--I think it was an internalized reward. Who knows, maybe he was imagining an audience that would applaud his mad level-getting skillz. I don't know--I guess it doesn't matter. If we're going to allow imaginary audiences, I think I'll ignore the 'social' descriptor since, to me, that doesn't work with imaginary friends--but it's not a big deal.

Also: I agree with you all on the Solitaire thing.

-Marco

M. J. Young wrote:
Caldis: the very point that is at issue here is the nature of play in which the character players are not contributing significantly. Traditionally this gets shoved into simulationism, as if illusionism is not dysfunctional if it is simulationist illusionism. What is being said here is that illusionism is always dysfunctional, and participationism does not automatically mean simulationism--it could mean gamism in which everyone is pretending that there is something at risk even though deep down they know there isn't, so they respect each other for the decisions that they're only pretending made a difference; it could mean narrativism in which only the referee addressed premise in any way.

I find M. J.'s proposition very interesting.

I've tried to come to grips with the phenomena you're talking about here, or very similar ones, with the concept of zilchplay. The difference is whether we're focusing on individual participants (zilchplay is something an individual participant can do, but, probably, a whole group cannot and still be doing anything resembling role playing) or still trying to identify an agenda for the whole group (for which M. J.'s CA-specific flavors of participationism make better descriptors).

There's also this to consider: some individual internal motivations and rewards for play, though they probably exist, cannot be comprehended within the Big Model. The largest box in the Big Model is the Social Contract, which is entirely, um, social. Nothing in the Big Model is not within that social box. Hence, anything that is not in that social box is not part of, and not accessible to, the Big Model. This includes hypothetical "purely internalized" rewards.

This basic issue bites us in the ass every time we try to compare or apply non-social solitaire play to the Big Model.

Yes, there is plausible reason to believe that a solitaire (card) player finds the activity rewarding, and we can easily describe plausible reasons why such a player might find it so, even if the player never brags, compares scores, or communicates anything whatsoever with anyone whatsoever about that play.

Yes, it's quite plausible that some role players might also find some role playing rewarding for some or all of those same reasons.

But we can't recognize the existence of, categorize, or analyze the consequences of, those reasons in terms of the Big Model. Because they're nowhere in the Social box that is the Big Model's entire domain.

The way I prefer to think of it is this: to say that Creative Agenda characterizes or illuminates "how we have fun" in role playing is a slight overstatement. It actually characterizes "how we have fun socially" or, you might put it, "how we contribute to one another's fun." There might be all kinds of solo-fun going on too -- and promoting such solo-fun might very well be a worthwhile objective for a role playing game designer -- but solo-fun neither illuminates, nor is illuminated by, the understanding or identifying of Creative Agenda.

- Walt

Hey M. J.,

M. J. Young wrote: … Either you have nothing at all as an agendum, or we have participationist gamism, narrativism, or simulationism, depending on whatever the only player who still has credibility is pursuing.

The essays are written with the idea that participationist narrativism can't exist and participationist gamism probably can't exist, so participationism must be simulationist. I'm saying that participationism is no less problematic for simulationism than it is for the other two agenda, and that it is entirely possible to have participationist play which is about glory or premise.

Caldis wrote: … Participationism involves giving up all thematic control to the gm.

Caldis wrote: The simulationist is able to contribute in a game even if he is not contributing thematically.

Caldis wrote:
That's what I dispute. Narrativism can not exist with only the gm addressing premise. The narrativist player is looking to express his take on the premise, he's there to create that address of premise by his actions in game. He is not there to experience a game that has premise or addresses premise if he is not part of creating that experience, just as the gamist has to be involved in creating victory.

Silmenume wrote: Actually that is synecdoche. You have mistaken the whole for the one. Participationism is the giving up all CA relevant input to the GM – not just Thematic input. ]

Not according to the glossary.

Participationism is "The Technique of using Force without the Black Curtain". Force is "The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player."

Now I know the glossary is provisional but this is exactly how I've always understood the term and how I've seen it used here. I believe you are conflating the term to describe something it's not intended for which will cause all kinds of problems if we try and have a discussion using the term.

The problem I see with your definition is that if I am conciously giving up all CA related input to the GM then how can I possibly be expressing that agenda? It seems disfunctional to me, you cant express an agenda if your input is irrelevant.

Marco wrote: If, at the end of play, the two Sim players have not really engaged with the moral/ethical/human experience aspects of the situation (but did really love the game and had fun) I think it's fair to say the GM has played "Narrativist" andthe players played "Sim." ]

What your example shows is a gm who has set the game up for a narrativist situation but it doesnt show how he plays. Has he expressed narrativism by trying to make the choice of what to do with the officer the central focus of play or has he drifted towards what seems to have been of interest to the others. Maybe just tactical WWII combat.

Caldis wrote:
The problem I see with your definition is that if I am conciously giving up all CA related input to the GM then how can I possibly be expressing that agenda? It seems disfunctional to me, you cant express an agenda if your input is irrelevant.

Caldis wrote:
What your example shows is a gm who has set the game up for a narrativist situation but it doesnt show how he plays. Has he expressed narrativism by trying to make the choice of what to do with the officer the central focus of play or has he drifted towards what seems to have been of interest to the others. Maybe just tactical WWII combat.

The GM is a player. So you have mixed game with one Narr player and two Sim players. They may be exhibiting their individual CA's, or not, depending on how much support they get in so doing. If they can play succesfully, they have likely negotiated some sort of drift.

contracycle wrote: The GM is a player. So you have mixed game with one Narr player and two Sim players. They may be exhibiting their individual CA's, or not, depending on how much support they get in so doing. If they can play succesfully, they have likely negotiated some sort of drift.

Marco wrote:
So then MJ is right and Narrativism can exist with "only the GM addressing premise?" (which was what sparked this question)

You guys are getting into the "is it a CA if only one person is doing it?" question. Which is totally separate from the topic of the debate ...

... Hey! The current debate is off the topic of the thread!

Dammit. Humpback thread alert. Close it down.

Time for new threads. Jay, a re-phrasing of the basic topic of this one also needs its new thread.

Best,
Ron