I am not certain whether this is a statement which is seeking debate or just a half baked idea presented to see if it leads anywhere (i.e. fishing).

I have pondering the “greater role” of mechanics within each of the three Creative Agendas. While the aggregate of the invocation of non dramatic resolution methods tends to focus the attention of the players on those moments, (i.e., combat, honor, story points), I think I can plainly state that the larger role of mechanics is to facilitate and focus the game on that process which supports which ever CA is being promoted. IOW in a game that a designer would wish to promote Narrativist play, the effort would be best served if the designer created a mechanics system that focused on and facilitated the address of Premise/creation of Story Now - whatever form that particular incarnation may take. For example, in the Riddle of Steel, the mechanics focus on combat, but combat is the means by which Premise is addressed. No new shakes there – just affirming what is becoming conventional wisdom.

The same holds true for Gamist facilitating game design. The role of mechanics is to facilitate the players ability to address Challenge as effectively as possible. Thus in this particular Creative Agenda resolution mechanics is frequently employed as an arbitration process to determine the effectiveness of the players’ strategy and guts. Mechanics, in the form of exacting numerical systems, simplifies/facilitates the task of objectively adjudicating the effectiveness of a player’s strategy and guts. Certain abstracted states (victory, loss, draw, place, etc.) can only be reached by achieving certain abstracted threshold values. One could argue that a higher resolution mechanics system would afford more tools/opportunities for the players to demonstrate strategy and tactics, but that is by no means definitive. (I am NOT arguing that Gamist play is “rules lawyering”)

That brings us to Sim. I would argue that the role of mechanics in Sim is to establish the normative (normal? I’m not sure which is the best term) behavior of that world/reality. Once again, what the mechanics do focus on will have an effect on what is focused on during the game, but the role of mechanics is to establish and maintain the norms of the game world. Norms are not exact. I am talking about bell curve distributions (more or less!).

This is an important distinction from what has typically been assumed in the past. Frequently high detail/resolution combat resolution systems have been labeled as Sim. That is problematic for two major reasons.

• Sim does not require exacting specifics, but norms.• The Sim game process has become incorrectly conflated with high-resolution mechanics.

Strictly speaking, in the celebration/defense of ideals, what is important is that the consequences for actions be reasonably predictable. The ability to predict the consequences of our actions is the means by which we assess the risks and thus assign a “value” to the ideal which is being celebrated/defended. This is where risk is made manifest in Sim play.

High resolution combat or any other conflict resolution system is not particularly indicative of Sim play or design at all. At best it might indicate a Gamist bent, but that is by no means a solid indicator.

I’m not sure what the above was, but there you have it. Food for thought. (No pun intended!)

Silmenume wrote: I am not certain whether this is a statement which is seeking debate or just a half baked idea presented to see if it leads anywhere (i.e. fishing).

... I think I can plainly state that the larger role of mechanics is to facilitate and focus the game on that process which supports which ever CA is being promoted.

That brings us to Sim. I would argue that the role of mechanics in Sim is to establish the normative (normal? I’m not sure which is the best term) behavior of that world/reality. Once again, what the mechanics do focus on will have an effect on what is focused on during the game, but the role of mechanics is to establish and maintain the norms of the game world. Norms are not exact. I am talking about bell curve distributions (more or less!).

Frequently high detail/resolution combat resolution systems have been labeled as Sim.

• Sim does not require exacting specifics, but norms.

The ability to predict the consequences of our actions is the means by which we assess the risks and thus assign a “value” to the ideal which is being celebrated/defended. This is where risk is made manifest in Sim play.

High resolution combat or any other conflict resolution system is not particularly indicative of Sim play or design at all.

Silmenume wrote: For example, in the Riddle of Steel, the mechanics focus on combat, but combat is the means by which Premise is addressed. No new shakes there – just affirming what is becoming conventional wisdom.

Marco wrote:
In this case, the mechanics that present the show's actuality will aid in the use of actor stance rather than the pursuit of a Simulationist CA.

Hey Chris,

I smile because you were the first to respond to what ended up to be a very esoteric post! I smile in gratitude for taking the time and effort to explain the difference between normative and norm(al). Your explanation was instrumental to me gaining the proper understanding and ultimately choosing which term I had wished to express – norm.

clehrich wrote: If someone wants to discuss the application of normative and norm and such to RPGs further, we should probably take it to another thread, but it's up to you, Jay.

clehrich wrote: But the point, and I think this is what you're really getting at, is that the formulation of such norms within system is intended to make the Dream match the model (the source material, etc.).

clehrich wrote: This is quite different from formulating norms in order to facilitate Step on Up or Story Now, because it acts to deflect player attention, in effect trying to suppress the system's existence or at least make it completely transparent to the game-world. Have I understood you correctly?

clehrich wrote:

The ability to predict the consequences of our actions is the means by which we assess the risks and thus assign a “value” to the ideal which is being celebrated/defended. This is where risk is made manifest in Sim play.

This one I don't follow, as it seems more a Gamist issue than a Sim one. Can you clarify?

clehrich wrote:

• Sim does not require exacting specifics, but norms.

True, but this is the case with all CAs, as demonstrated above. The nature of the norms can vary considerably, and it may be that CAs necessarily address or construct norms in distinct ways, but "specifics" as such mean nothing -- in any game the norms must be defined implicitly or explicitly in order to construct the ground upon which we build play.

clehrich wrote: In short, I think there's some interesting ideas here, but it seems to me that your argument, that

High resolution combat or any other conflict resolution system is not particularly indicative of Sim play or design at all.

is consistent with the thrust of the Big Model for quite some time now. I don't see that it alters or challenges the framework or structure of Sim. Am I missing something?

Just a very quick and brief note on another kernal of an idea -

Gamism empowers the players to manipulate mechanics to influence outcomes.

Narrativism empowers the players to manipulate outcomes via mechanics.

In Simulationsim the players are subject to outcomes via mechanics. Thus in Sim, as the players are subject to them, it is important that the mechanics act in a regular and reasonalby predictable manner (normally) so that effective choices maybe made.

Silmenume wrote: Gamism empowers the players to manipulate mechanics to influence outcomes.

Narrativism empowers the players to manipulate outcomes via mechanics.

In Simulationsim the players are subject to outcomes via mechanics. Thus in Sim, as the players are subject to them, it is important that the mechanics act in a regular and reasonalby predictable manner (normally) so that effective choices maybe made.

contracycle wrote:
I think most simulationists want to fire the phasers, not indulge in some insipid moralising.

clehrich wrote: No, I don't think this is right at all. You're trying to differentiate Sim from Gam and Nar, but the principles you ascribe to Gam and Nar are really not correct. Think about it: this is in effect saying that Nar "naturally" tends toward meta-mechanics, for example.

From the Narrativism essay wrote: Most especially for Narrativist play…the game-rules' focus must expand to social and procedural behavior at the table, not merely the Techniques subsets of scene and conflict resolution.

Emphasis mine

Hey Marco,

I’ve been pondering your post since I first read it. I was trying to figure out how it related to my central idea and whether my response belonged here or in a PM.

I agree with you that there probably isn’t a reliable mapping between GNS and system mechanics. I think it has been clearly argued and demonstrated on the boards that any particular game system can be employed to express another Creative Agenda than the designer had originally hoped to facilitate. That being said, I would still argue that “System does matter.” Sure, one can swim against the tide…

In my recent maunderings I have come to believe that mechanics serve two basic roles. The first is to help focus the attention of the players on the actions/decisions that the designer thought was important and the other is to attempt to facilitate a given Creative Agenda. The second is much easier to override than the first.

Thus there can be many games with different Creative Agendas that all expend a fair amount of page space on something like combat. The question then becomes why are we spending so many resources on combat? Is it because we are seeking to make or discuss some point? Is it part of the march to victory? Is because we are celebrating some virtue and we are using combat as the risk generator? (I am not implying that all or even some of the conflict must come in the form of combat.)

One of the implications of this is that I think that mechanics that would ostensibly support Sim would in many instances be fairly indistinguishable from Gamist mechanics. The big difference would be that the reward mechanisms would be very different. I think this is why Sim game designers in the past worked so hard to try and build in “safe guards” against Gamist “exploitation.” I don’t believe that a Sim facilitating game design would have much in common with Nar facilitating game design because Sim, by and large, eschews meta-game mechanics. Thus far I described a system that is not-Nar game meta-mechanics and and not-Gam reward mechanics. I’m beginning to wonder if it is possible to even design an off the shelf game that should or even can reliably “reward” Sim tenets. It seems to me, so far, that Sim facilitating mechanics don’t encourage or facilitate any particular type of behavior – in fact they seem to be designed discourage Gam and Nar behaviors. Take away rewards and you dampen Gamism, take away empowerment and you dampen Narrativism.

The question becomes what does one encourage reliably in Sim? I know what my group does, but I wonder if what we do is universal or justly highly evolved to a specific and narrow group of individuals. IOW is it possible to generate a “universal” or widely applicable “reward” or “empowerment” or “option C” system that not only discourages Gam and Nar behaviors but actually encourages Sim behaviors? I’m beginning to wonder if its even possible…

Sorry Marco, I didn’t stick to your question faithfully. I do believe that one does not just “play” Sim anymore than one plays Gam or Nar without some idea ahead of time just exactly what you are looking to do. I believe that if one does indeed to choose “to Sim” a TV show then one is making an overt decision not to wrestle with the issues but is instead seeking to celebrate the ideals or values that have already been established in that show. Thus if one were to “Sim” Star Trek, one does not debate the Prime Directive, but rather seeks to celebrate it by making sacrifices to stick to it. In Star Wars one does not focus on trying to determine under what circumstances a jedi would resort to the dark side of the force, rather one does his best to uphold the peace without ever trying to use it all. We already accept that it is bad from the movies, we are just trying to see what it is like to be faced with similar circumstances – would we do as well? Better? Worse? What’s typically lacking is the overt agreement of what ideals or values are going to be celebrated.

At any rate I am too depressed about the notion of Sim game design to continue at the moment...

Silmenume wrote:
I agree with you that there probably isn’t a reliable mapping between GNS and system mechanics. I think it has been clearly argued and demonstrated on the boards that any particular game system can be employed to express another Creative Agenda than the designer had originally hoped to facilitate. That being said, I would still argue that “System does matter.” Sure, one can swim against the tide…

In my recent maunderings I have come to believe that mechanics serve two basic roles. The first is to help focus the attention of the players on the actions/decisions that the designer thought was important and the other is to attempt to facilitate a given Creative Agenda. The second is much easier to override than the first.

Thus there can be many games with different Creative Agendas that all expend a fair amount of page space on something like combat. The question then becomes why are we spending so many resources on combat? Is it because we are seeking to make or discuss some point? Is it part of the march to victory? Is because we are celebrating some virtue and we are using combat as the risk generator? (I am not implying that all or even some of the conflict must come in the form of combat.)

One of the implications of this is that I think that mechanics that would ostensibly support Sim would in many instances be fairly indistinguishable from Gamist mechanics. The big difference would be that the reward mechanisms would be very different. I think this is why Sim game designers in the past worked so hard to try and build in “safe guards” against Gamist “exploitation.” I don’t believe that a Sim facilitating game design would have much in common with Nar facilitating game design because Sim, by and large, eschews meta-game mechanics. Thus far I described a system that is not-Nar game meta-mechanics and and not-Gam reward mechanics. I’m beginning to wonder if it is possible to even design an off the shelf game that should or even can reliably “reward” Sim tenets. It seems to me, so far, that Sim facilitating mechanics don’t encourage or facilitate any particular type of behavior – in fact they seem to be designed discourage Gam and Nar behaviors. Take away rewards and you dampen Gamism, take away empowerment and you dampen Narrativism.

The question becomes what does one encourage reliably in Sim? I know what my group does, but I wonder if what we do is universal or justly highly evolved to a specific and narrow group of individuals. IOW is it possible to generate a “universal” or widely applicable “reward” or “empowerment” or “option C” system that not only discourages Gam and Nar behaviors but actually encourages Sim behaviors? I’m beginning to wonder if its even possible…

Sorry Marco, I didn’t stick to your question faithfully. I do believe that one does not just “play” Sim anymore than one plays Gam or Nar without some idea ahead of time just exactly what you are looking to do. I believe that if one does indeed to choose “to Sim” a TV show then one is making an overt decision not to wrestle with the issues but is instead seeking to celebrate the ideals or values that have already been established in that show. Thus if one were to “Sim” Star Trek, one does not debate the Prime Directive, but rather seeks to celebrate it by making sacrifices to stick to it. In Star Wars one does not focus on trying to determine under what circumstances a jedi would resort to the dark side of the force, rather one does his best to uphold the peace without ever trying to use it all. We already accept that it is bad from the movies, we are just trying to see what it is like to be faced with similar circumstances – would we do as well? Better? Worse? What’s typically lacking is the overt agreement of what ideals or values are going to be celebrated.

At any rate I am too depressed about the notion of Sim game design to continue at the moment...

Hey Marco,

There seems from my point of view several misunderstanding about the nature of the topic of this thread. Let me try to clarify my position so our dialogue may be more fruitful.

First I am playing with some ideas about how systems generally support the mainline action of a Creative Agenda, not if. Your position is important and has been noted, but is not the topic I wish to discuss on this thread.

Given the rest of your response, it appears to me as if you think I am saying that players engage in a certain Creative Agenda because of mechanics. Since I can’t read your mind, I will proceed on the hope that I have read you correctly. Let me know if I am incorrect.

I am not asserting that mechanics drives CA, rather I am asserting, that ideally mechanics support CA. The question I had posed was, “How?” Thus in the example on Gamism, given that Step on Up is taking place in the arena of Exploration, I asserted that the role of mechanics was to facilitate that action. How? By providing many tools for addressing Challenge (preparing, mediating, etc.) and providing awards for effectiveness.

Note - when I say “awards” I do not mean “power levels” or the like. I mean that as the process of addressing Challenge in the arena of Exploration is an entirely imaginary (non-corporeal) process that a means of assessing successes ought to be part of the mechanic system – awards. This is not to say Gamism is about gaining stuff, but rather in order to gauge effectiveness and thus credibility a system of metering progress needs to be part of the mechanics. Sure any game system can be employed to engage in Step on Up, but it certainly becomes much easier to determine/guage effectiveness if there is some sort of quanta based award system built in. None of what I have stated conflicts with your statement about Gamists and Credibility. I’m saying that a “good” Gamist facilitating mechanics system should help players in their pursuit of “cred.”

The same logic holds true for Narrativism. The “role” of mechanics in Nar is to facilitate (read – empower) the players in their pursuit of asking and making a decision. I have not, nor do I in any way state or imply that gaming is “about” the mechanics and how they facilitate. I am not saying that Narrativism is about “empowering” players. I am saying that the role of mechanics is a Narrativist facilitating game is to empower the player to address Premise (ask and answer the question). IOW mechanics, ideally, are there to support and aid the players in the expression of Creative Agenda. In Nar that means “empowering” the players, via mechanics, to do address Premise. However as the players are addressing Premise via Exploration that means “empowering” the players to manipulate (alter, control, scene frame, etc.) the SIS for the sake of ensuring effective addressing of Premise. This does not mean that playing a Narrativist game is “about” empowerment; rather the expression of the Narrativist CA is well served by mechanics that do allow such player “empowerment.”

Like I said before, I’m not making a particularly controversial statement. Mechanics should reflect/facilitate the CA goals. I was pondering on the how?

I had also argued in an earlier thread that the form of the mechanics will have an effect on or send a message as to what the designer feels is “important” (and “exciting” can be read to mean important) to the game experience. When I used the word “focus” I was not referring to CA expression, but rather those events that are likely to transpire frequently in the SIS. (By the way this is something that was brought up before, by Mike Holmes – I think.) Thus if the game is set in a swords and sorcery setting and the designer feels that sword combat is going to be an important part of the game he is designing then he will include many mechanics that deal with sword combat and related issues. Given that example it is unlikely that such a game will spend significant or even any amounts of time on something like arbitrage.

Regarding your counter example on the James Bond car-chase rules, I am not saying that car-chases are the “focus” of the movies. Rather I am implying, via your example, that since car-chases are an important part of the James Bond “world”, that having such mechanics facilitates/supports the Exploration of that one aspect of the many identifiable aspects of his movies. If the only mechanic in the game centered on car-chases exclusively then it would be a fair assumption to make that the James Bond game is a racing game. But that is clearly not the case as there are many other mechanics within the totality of the system. Thus one cannot assert that the James Bond game is about racing. Neither am I.

I am not saying that mechanics drive play, but I do believe they do have an effect on “focusing” the players’ game time on those transactions that are mediated by the mechanics. To be coherent I think the form of the mechanics should conform to the Setting and facilitate the expression of a Creative Agenda at the same time. Since the number of mechanics must necessarily be limited, it is impossible to predict all situations, the designer must pick and choose which transactions that he feels would be most “exciting” or representative of the game he is hoping others will enjoy. Again, this is not particularly controversial.

All that I am saying is that both Gam and Nar facilitating mechanics empower the players to express their Creative Agendas by the direct employment of those mechanics. IOW mechanics have a subservient role to the expression of CA while resembling the setting and focusing the players attention on certain “common” or “likely” transactions.

Sim facilitating mechanics, on the other hand, I believe, do not directly empower the players. In fact I think Sim mechanics tend to be somewhat “alien” to the players. IOW the players are more subject to the mechanics in Sim unlike Gam and Nar where the mechanics are more subject to the players. This does not mean that the players don’t have input in Sim, rather the players don’t have direct input/involvement via the mechanics.

If the role of Sim facilitating mechanics function to establish norms, the question I was hoping to ask originally in this thread was, “How do mechanics facilitate Sim CA expression?” Since Sim mechanics establish and reinforce norms then the question becomes what is open to the players? I would argue that I believe that Sim mechanics establish the norms of the physical external world to the characters. I would then say that the in game social norms are entirely within the purview of the players – subject to existing in game social norms. This may sound circular, but I believe that most Sim games are derived from existing Setting materials where such social structures are already present and thus available to act as the pre-existing social norms.

I now believe that in Sim, causality should be thought of as two distinct but interacting parts – the “immutable” and mechanics protected physical norms, and the dynamic evolving negotiable social norms. It is in the social norms section that the players express their input.

I should expand on what I mean by social norms. By social I mean the interactions/relationships between the denizens of the world. By norms I mean how such interactions/relationships are governed or regulated. This could be anything as formal as government and treaties with laws (etc.) down to the social mores, traditions, customs and worldview (etc.) of an individual within a tribe. This can also include an individual’s relationship with himself, others and the physical world. These “rules” are subject to negotiation and revision, but not outright challenge much in the same way Chris’ bricoleur can “change” an iron into a heavy weight and/or a local source of heat but not into a refrigerator. (This analogy was drawn from Chris Lehrich’s article Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games.)

The conundrum I was suffering was that these social norms are directly informed and shaped by the physicality in which the denizens who created them reside. IOW it seems to me that it is virtually impossible to create a Sim game without a Setting. Also since mechanics are essentially “alien” to the players, how then does a designer create a mechanics system that supports, encourages, facilitates etc. the negotiation of social norms via mechanics? The way I see it, as mechanics (rules of physics) are effectively fixed and social norms are “rules” that are expressly open to negotiation how do you resolve the fixed nature of one and the dynamic nature of the other? By analogy, from a Sim point of view, it would be akin to mechanics dictating to Nar players what Premise they must Explore. How does a designer decide which social norms are the “focus of transactions” without choking or constraining the very decisions which are ostensibly the ones that should be free for the players to chose in the first place? Is it not the players who should decide which social norms are open to negotiation much in the same way that Narrativist players should have the choice of which Premise’s are open to negotiation/Exploration? Design wise, is this solvable on a general scale or only solvable on the local scale thus negating the point of published game system?

Jay,

I finally get what you're saying here. Thanks for that post. A few remarks from the peanut gallery:

Silmenume wrote: Sim facilitating mechanics, on the other hand, I believe, do not directly empower the players. In fact I think Sim mechanics tend to be somewhat “alien” to the players. IOW the players are more subject to the mechanics in Sim unlike Gam and Nar where the mechanics are more subject to the players. This does not mean that the players don’t have input in Sim, rather the players don’t have direct input/involvement via the mechanics.

If the role of Sim facilitating mechanics function to establish norms, the question I was hoping to ask originally in this thread was, “How do mechanics facilitate Sim CA expression?” Since Sim mechanics establish and reinforce norms then the question becomes what is open to the players? I would argue that I believe that Sim mechanics establish the norms of the physical external world to the characters. I would then say that the in game social norms are entirely within the purview of the players – subject to existing in game social norms. This may sound circular, but I believe that most Sim games are derived from existing Setting materials where such social structures are already present and thus available to act as the pre-existing social norms.

I now believe that in Sim, causality should be thought of as two distinct but interacting parts – the “immutable” and mechanics protected physical norms, and the dynamic evolving negotiable social norms. It is in the social norms section that the players express their input.

I should expand on what I mean by social norms. .... These “rules” are subject to negotiation and revision, but not outright challenge much in the same way Chris’ bricoleur can “change” an iron into a heavy weight and/or a local source of heat but not into a refrigerator. (This analogy was drawn from Chris Lehrich’s article Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games.)

The conundrum I was suffering was that these social norms are directly informed and shaped by the physicality in which the denizens who created them reside. IOW it seems to me that it is virtually impossible to create a Sim game without a Setting. Also since mechanics are essentially “alien” to the players, how then does a designer create a mechanics system that supports, encourages, facilitates etc. the negotiation of social norms via mechanics? The way I see it, as mechanics (rules of physics) are effectively fixed and social norms are “rules” that are expressly open to negotiation[,] how do you resolve the fixed nature of one and the dynamic nature of the other? By analogy, from a Sim point of view, it would be akin to mechanics dictating to Nar players what Premise they must Explore. How does a designer decide which social norms are the “focus of transactions” without choking or constraining the very decisions which are ostensibly the ones that should be free for the players to chose in the first place? Is it not the players who should decide which social norms are open to negotiation much in the same way that Narrativist players should have the choice of which Premise’s are open to negotiation/Exploration? Design wise, is this solvable on a general scale or only solvable on the local scale thus negating the point of published game system?

Silmenume wrote:
I now believe that in Sim, causality should be thought of as two distinct but interacting parts – the “immutable” and mechanics protected physical norms, and the dynamic evolving negotiable social norms. It is in the social norms section that the players express their input.

Hey Chris,

clehrich wrote: I'm a little confused here. You're saying, I think, that in Gam and Nar the expression of CA occurs through mechanics, whereas mechanics act as a constraint on expression in Sim? I'm not clear on how this distinction works, since it seems to me that in Gam and Nar the expression of CA, because it can only occur through mechanics, must also be constrained by mechanics. Doesn't this amount to the same thing?

clehrich wrote: So you're saying, then, that mechanics act in Sim to channel the manipulation and deployment of social structures from outside the game world and then express them into the game world? Whereas in Gam and Nar, manipulation occurs within SIS? I think I get half of this: that Sim refers upward to Social Contract (in Ron's formulation) for its resources, in the sense that Social Contract is what determines that X is the source-material from which we draw. Is that what you're doing?

clehrich wrote: It sounds to me as though you're going Ron one further, arguing that in Sim there is an open zone of manipulation and a closed one, and that the open zone is Social Contract whereas the close is SIS. So the only way we can act in Sim is to express elements of the established Social Contract through mechanics, which act as a constraint on the way in which these social elements can be formulated and expressed. If we attempt to add things into the SIS by other means, they will be rejected. Whereas in Nar and Gam, I take it, the manipulation of SIS is the point, and Social Contract simply determines the sort of manipulation we consider legitimate. Something like that?

clehrich wrote: Well, by your formulation of Sim that means that we don't allow what you might call feedback from the SIS. That is, the manipulation can only go one way: we can take stuff from the social and express it in SIS, but we barricade off the SIS from its potential implications for the social. Is that what you mean? Because the point about bricolage would be precisely that there is no such barrier. My sense is that you're wrong, in that this really is bricolage, but that you're right, in that Sim gaming does indeed swear up and down that this feedback never happens. Myself, I think it does happen, all the time, and thus Sim is very supportive of subculture formation and legitimation, but at the same time it is very much in denial about this. But that may all be a vast tangent from your point. Have I got you more or less right, though?

Silmenume wrote: ....I do think mechanics manipulation/employment is the primary tool by which the Gamist CA is expressed. This particular tool happens to be very much subservient to the player’s efforts.

....In Narrativism mechanics are employed so as to maximize the moments where the players get to make those important and difficult decisions....

The problem is that Sim does not empower the players to “use” mechanics to pursue its CA. Nor do I think it is possible for mechanics to directly engage in the Sim CA. .... Sim on the other hand creates not a thing, but many things – social/behavioral norms/rules. There is no bound to the number of social/behavioral norms/rules. .... In Sim there is no inherent boundary to the creation and revision of social/behavioral norms/rules that facilitates the process of Dream creation. The Dream is inherently unbounded; though the players may choose anytime to stop there is nothing in the SIS social/behavioral norms/rules creation process that would dictate that end.

To get back to my point that mechanics are not directly involved in the creation revision of social/behavioral norms/rules; I say this because such norms are governed by the dynamic social/behavioral norms which evolve and are effected by such decisions during game play and are not static like published mechanics or physics mechanics.

In Sim, all player decisions are essentially behavioral decisions – we are laying down norms/rules of behavior. Any social/behavioral based mechanic that determines which/whether behavior is displayed by a player character essentially negates that very input. ... [example about the suave guy who fails] ....

.... In Gam and Nar, the “design” of the mechanics does “constrain” initially, but the employment of them actually empowers the players. In Sim mechanics employment does not empower the players to establish or negotiate social/behavioral norms and at worst constrains, dilutes or otherwise corrupts this very Sim CA action as the norms are expressed and not stated. As everything that a player does in the SIS is part of the social/behavioral process any mechanic other than the physics of the world unduly alters that process. The best thing that mechanics can do is get out of the way. But not completely, and that is one of the many paradoxes in Sim. If we do get rid of mechanics completely then we are directly in the realm of myth and are no longer Exploring.

I don’t think that mechanics can directly channel the manipulation and deployment of social structures within the SIS – at least not in a way that is consistent with Sim. That is the conundrum that I was wrestling with. Game designs typically deal with manipulation processes, and Sim is not amenable to such processes. Like you mentioned in your thread On RPGs and Text [LONG], Sim starts with things and moves towards structures. Except I believe that Sim frequently starts with some social structures already in place via source material (the code of the Jedi, the beliefs of the Dunedain, etc.). The key here is I don’t think those social structures can really be codified in mechanics per se, though they may be presented “in text” as background material or ethnographic “information.” It is just these social/behavioral norm/rules that I believe are being celebrated in Sim and if that is truly the case then there is one hell of problem for the designer.

Actually I am coming to the belief that there is no direct way to express Sim – which automatically precludes mechanics as a means of Sim expression. This is not to say that mechanics are not necessary. Not at all. If I recall properly, you indicated that the myths of the mythic cultures are first and foremost based upon/informed by the physical world around those creating them. The same works for Sim. The “point” of mechanics is to function as that physical fictional world. Ideally “everything” that a player commits to the SIS is filtered through the physics of the fictional/SIS world. Practically that is not possible nor is it really desirable or strictly necessary as long as norms are more or less adhered to. However, the physics/mechanics should be fairly “alienated” from the players for the express reason of making the physics non-negotiable.

Hey Chris,

clehrich wrote: On the former, you're saying (I think) that the process of constructing complex self-referential systems of intertwined meaning is its own end, and thus it has no fixed end-point. There is no "arc" to this, no formulation of winners/losers or resolution or whatever; it just is what it is and the more you do it the richer it gets. Something like that?

clehrich wrote: I thought that the norms & rules were things that happened in the SIS through the constructed intersections of objects of the game-world, constrained by mechanics but still infinitely open. Now they're player structures? I don't quite see how this one works.

clehrich wrote: And if these are norms, then does that mean I have to do the same thing next time? Is this fidelity to character or something?

clehrich wrote: Yeah, see, this is where I think you're going to chase your tail. You're setting yourself up two different categories of structure, when there are clearly several more that have to be present.

• Physics structures -- these tell us the bounds of physical/natural possibility within the game-world
• World-cultural structures -- bad term, but I mean the stuff that says that people from Borogravniorgia generally behave like this when they see that
• Player-social structures -- another bad term, but these are the rules of play as play, the things that say you should talk in character or bring your own dice or pretend you haven't read the Monster Manual when you have
• Historical structures -- this is what you actually want to produce, the structures of how the game-world "really works" that come about from long experience of the intersection of all these other sorts of structure combined with lots of bits of "stuff" ground through the gears

I think that all of this could in principle be compiled and written down in the game books, except for the last.

clehrich wrote: What you're saying, I think, is that if you try to write down the latter sort of structures, you're in a hell of a lot of trouble, analogous to what happens if you say "Here's the Premise, and here's what the answer is, now go discover that" in Nar. Right?

clehrich wrote: See, I think you're making a classic mistake of Sim gamers in general. That's good, though -- you're a firsthand witness to how this really works and can check my arithmetic, as it were. There is this weird notion out there that somehow the "real" structures are physics and nature.

clehrich wrote: Where I think you're wrong is in saying that things like social mechanics cannot necessarily be inflexible. Why not?

clehrich wrote: Structures are handed to us, most obviously in everything from social agreements to rules systems to setting to whatever. We permit ourselves only a limited range of movement. At the same time, every manipulation of any structure within that system necessarily changes its meaning, however slightly…

clehrich wrote: …And you need a basic system like this in place or you have no "nature" as a baseline. What I think is very striking is that there doesn't seem to be a "culture" to balance that out in the normal thinking of Sim. What substitutes for it? Because it's the dialectical relationship between the two, the constant creative tension, that prompts myth to get cracking and do something. That's a tangent, but this thread is starting to explain to me a whole lot about Sim mechanics that I've been struggling with on the other thread without a lot of success.

clehrich wrote: We'll get back to feedback and stuff some other time; it's a tangent and off-thread. Sorry about that.

Silmenume wrote:
My understanding of this would be such. I am playing a Ranger of Ithilien. Every time I act in the capacity of a Ranger of Ithilien, I am adding to the body of the structure of “Ranger of Ithilien”. I am altering, however slight, what it means to be a Ranger of Ithilien. Every sacrifice I make, every judgment I make, every law I enforce or not enforce says something about what it means to be a “Ranger of Ithilien.” Rangers are supposed to law abiding, however there should be no mechanic that forbids me from acting in a manner contrary to that structure called “Ranger of Ithilien.” There must be consequences to my actions, but no prior mechanics based constraints outside of physics itself the should limit what I can and cannot do. That is what I mean when “social mechanics” should not be inflexible. It is just these very social structures which are being built upon, expanded, altered, etc., via play. Now I may be wrong, but that is what I meant. (Contracycle – I hope that I have addressed your issue here.)

You’ve run into the very problem that I created this thread about! That “culture” your refer to is the “World-cultural structures” aka social norm/rules that I have been going on about in this thread. While they can be compiled I do not think they can be formalized in mechanics!

Hey contracycle,

contracycle wrote: OK so this is like "representing". The idea is that any ranger of ilithien is a representative of all rangers of ilitien; the actions of this ranger and all rangers reflects up this ranger and all rangers.

contracycle wrote: If I am reading you correctly than I think the terminology at the moment is confusing things. The thoughts we associate with the term ranger of ilithien might be better identidfiable as the content of the setting, or as a meme associated with the term, which is part of the setting. Either way these are not really social STRUCTURES so much as the associations with particular names/ideas that grow and develop over the course of play.

contracycle wrote: The local group of characters, OTOH, may have a specific view based on personal experience, and that view may be fair or unfair (such as "all the ranger are hypocrites" based on some negative encounter). These are presumably the local-to-the-group historical structures.

contracycle wrote: I would suggest that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is a social norm that has been rendered into a mechanism.

Silmenume wrote: However, if such a social norm, which is always open to change over time, can be rendered into a game mechanic, I’m not certain one would want to do so. Social norms are subject to change, even if extremely slowly.

xect wrote: But would it not be possible to declare certain parts of the social structure immutable?

xect wrote: As far as I can see, it seems possible to create mechanics to represent the interactions of social norms, even if these social structures themselves are not defined by the mechanics.

Silmenume wrote: All those relationships define the police officer’s character. Restricting how the police officer manages his relationships with those various structures would be to impinge on the very game action in Sim. It would be akin to limiting player input, a priori via mechanics, on how a player is allowed to address a Premise or a Challenge.

I have taken the question of what a mechanic is to a new thead on the Theory forum, Defining Game Mechanic

I agree with Jay that Simulationism must involve creation within the shared imagined space, at least to some degree; I don't think that you can limit the amount of such creation. However, I agree with Marco that the example given seems entirely narrativist to me: if the player is psyched by examining the moral issues, he is playing narrativist, no matter what else is happening in the shared imagined space.

--M. J. Young

Silmenume wrote: However, I may be misreading you. Could you give a concrete example of what you mean by “mechanics that represent the interaction of social norms.” That would be very helpful!

M. J. Young wrote: I agree with Jay that Simulationism must involve creation within the shared imagined space, at least to some degree; I don't think that you can limit the amount of such creation. However, I agree with Marco that the example given seems entirely narrativist to me: if the player is psyched by examining the moral issues, he is playing narrativist, no matter what else is happening in the shared imagined space.

xect wrote: Basically, while I agree that you can't describe what a player character does under these circumstances, you can have the mechanics describe what happens to the society when he does it. What do the norms of the mugger dictate?

clehrich wrote: Jay is saying, and I think I agree with him, that mechanics do not dictate social norms. They may dictate the general framework, but social norms are flexible. We cannot know by looking at a chart how the mugger will react or deal with things.

clehrich wrote: I don't buy it. If every time a moral issue gets dealt with in a Sim game suddenly it becomes Nar, then we're shifting back to a true Big Horseshoe theory, in which Sim is nothing at all but exploration and as soon as anything interesting happens we get a "real" CA.

Jay's example was, I thought, about how the police officer is trapped in webs of social meaning not of his own making. What I think Jay is saying is that such social webs are important to the characters, and part of what makes Sim play interesting is watching how characters grapple with these things. Nar is at some level about our addressing these problems, by means of the characters; Sim is about the characters themselves.

I'm with Marco on this and I think the big distinction that his example shows is that it's not the presence of a moral question that makes it nar rather it's how the question is dealt with.

If the player is questioning what this decision will say about the characters values and morals, what meaning my choice of action for the character will bring to the situation, then it's narrativist. If the player is questioning what a character of this type should do based on genre tropes then it's a sim based decision.

Of course I'm a big proponent of the Beeg Horseshoe and dont see any problem with nar decisions like this popping up in a sim game.

Silmenume wrote:
I’ll agree with you that my terminology is probably confusing as I have not thought everything through yet. Nevertheless, you make the classic mistake of virtually all the discussions on Sim (As well as those of “Sim” game designers.) There is absolutely no ontological reason why social setting should be static or beyond the scope of action of the players in Sim play. I play a Ranger of Ithilien for the specific purpose of adding to the body of interrelated memes (historical structure) regarding what it means to be a Ranger of Ithilien. When Simulating, we are mucking around with the Setting elements (at least the social or socially derived ones)! Its not just some clockwork machine or deistic device – we are there to have input on the making of more!

I am saying that if sentient beings are involved then you will have social structures. If you have social structures then those structures are open to modification and addition. Those social structures be they governments, military units or social mores can only find expression via the actions of those who are subject to them or represent them. A man is not just unless he acts just. A government (a social structure) cannot be said to be just unless the individuals within it, on the aggregate, wield its powers justly.

I can see how that could be social norm, but I’m not sure how that is a game mechanic by my understanding of the term mechanic. My understanding is that a mechanic is a specific feature of system and system is the means by which events are established into play. I’m not seeing that a social more or social code and a process are the same. Could you expand on you assertion for me please?

Caldis wrote: Of course I'm a big proponent of the Beeg Horseshoe and dont see any problem with nar decisions like this popping up in a sim game.

Hey M. J.,

While it may be said that all (good) premises are about interesting conflicting claims laid upon a character, not all situations where interesting conflicting claims laid upon a character are Premises. The claim that all interesting conflicting claims laid upon a character is synecdoche. This goes all the way back to when I was saying that while conflict is the heartbeat of play, in isolation any given conflict is CA neutral. It is how the players approach and attend to the conflict which indicates whether this particular conflict is being seen by the players in the light of Challenge, Premise, or Sim opportunity. You can’t just look at the conflict from outside the game and say what CA is contained within. You have to look and see how the players dealt with it to make a call as to what form that conflict could be categorized into. Without context you can’t make the call. Conflict is just that, conflict. The only thing that has a CA identifiable aspect is the players’ actions. IOW there is no such thing as a Premise conflict. Rather you have a conflict that the players treat as a Premise (or a Challenge or Sim conflict).

Hey Xect,

xect wrote: … the mugger and the mugged, can be described, at least partly, through mechanics.

… you can have the mechanics describe what happens to the society when he does it. What do the norms of the mugger dictate?

clehrich wrote: Jay's example was, I thought, about how the police officer is trapped in webs of social meaning not of his own making. What I think Jay is saying is that such social webs are important to the characters, and part of what makes Sim play interesting is watching how characters grapple with these things.

Marco wrote: Yes, but I think that's pretty implicit to the model. That's one reason why the Beeg Horseshoe theory has a lot of traction.

contracycle wrote: Now there does not seem to be any reason to not set up such social structures as laws as thing that CANNOT be changed by character action. Part of the exploration of the setting might be exactly the fanaticism with which such structures are maintained. I think that is rather different from the broader case of not writing game mechanics that mandate player action. The law may not be changed by you but you can still 'physically' break it.

contracycle wrote: Now this makes the discussion of mechanism in RPG quite thorny. If I appreciate what you are saying, it is something like this: the setting may have a rule like 'thous shalt not covet they neighbours ox', but if I want my character to covet his neighours ox, that rule should not be interpreted as a mechanism that prevents that coveting as a character action. On the other hand, the social mechanism here is very definitely intended to prevent that coveting from happening in the first place. I think this is where we have previously parted company over whether "social norms" are mutable or immutable. If my character covets an ox that it is unlikely to feed back to the law and cause it to be changed - all its likely to due is to bring down retribution on my characters head.

contracycle wrote: Certainly two people in an organisation have a relationship that operates on at least two levels - the formal and the informal. Now the formal relationships are properly described as structures IMO, and they often impose themselves on the individual very firmly and an in a manner that implies a completely independent ontological existance. That is, "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law." Now it may be true that the structures power arises only as a result of human action, and it may also be true that the informal relationships between individuals modify the actual execution of those patterns of action and response, but it is still true that the structure exists in some degree, if only as a kind of social contract.[/qutoe]

Your take is, again, spot on. What I had been trying to say, however poorly, is that how the players respond in relation to such a structure will have some bearing upon it, however miniscule – I did not mean to imply that it will change in a large way or the player will overturn it or have it tossed out. All I’m saying is that the players can have an effect on how that structure is understood, implemented (or not!). Frex - "ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law” – unless you’ve saved the Lord’s/President’s/King’s life. However, even supporting that structure without any intent to undermine at all will alter the nature of that structure just due of the circumstances under which that structure was affirmed and reaffirmed. Finally suppose the players were responsible for the downfall of that segment of society which enforced that structure? I’m just saying that change to a social structure is not impossible, even if seemingly unimaginable, and for that reason they should not be codified into a game mechanic.

Finally, I should note that perhaps the reason the players have chosen to play a certain setting might just be because of the social mores implicit in the source material. All that I am saying is that all that stuff is inherently open to “commentary”, as you put it, in Sim. The key here is that what is or isn’t open to challenge is something that is set at the local level, much in the same way that what the Premise question is is set at the local level. I think many times that decision is made implicitly (one example of this is in the choice of source material) and never really openly articulated. So let’s say the players enjoy playing flawed good guys, and a new player comes to the table who enjoys playing really evil characters. I don’t think that any of the players’ predilections can be negotiated – they like playing the way they play (supporting certain social structures). If the new player does not desire to play flawed good guys then the only recourse is for everyone else to change their desires or for the players to vote with their feet. All this makes Sim very difficult to run. Because if one player is supporting one structure as his means of enjoyment and another is tearing down that same structure as his means of enjoyment, you are going to have some serious inter-player conflict. (I’m getting frustrated because I know that I am only confusing matters more than helping – I hope you can see through my shortcomings and get what I am trying to get at.)

contracycle wrote: Anyway I would like to extend what I understand of your argument a little further. As corollary to your claim that the player is 'commenting' on the 'rangers of ilithien' simply by choosing to be one, and for there actions to be interpreted in relation to that label, then my claim is further: the 'social structures' with which the players have chosen to engage dictate the true topic of play. If you have a player who is one of these rangers, and another who is the priest of some god, and another who is a renegade ork or whatever, then surely the conduct of play will comment on the relationships between the orks, the rangers, and the church, in various unpredictable ways.

Absolutely! You haven’t extended my point at all, you’ve just restated it in your own words! I see Sim something like this:

Character <---> Social Structures <---> The Dream/Source material.

So while our main vehicle of input is the Character in the long run what we are doing is building and expanding upon the Dream. Thus if one were playing a game in Middle Earth one would likely play character types that more or less reflect the social structures contained with the books that one liked while expanding on them (the social structures) at the same. IOW the characters reflect the Dream and the Dream is reflected in the characters. How we play our characters builds the Dream. The collective Dream effects our choices regarding our characters. This collective part in important. If we aren’t all on the same page, more or less, on what social structures are being celebrated, which one are open to change and which are essentially closed there is going to be much friction at the table.

In a strange way I think that Character and the Dream are all social structures. Yes, I understand that the physicality of the world is important and is not a social structure, but the social structures in the world are informed by them and thus are accounted for inherently. Think of the Freeman in Dune being so adapted to the harsh desert life and how that rang though all their customs and social structures. In essence the physical world’s effects are co-opted into social structures and are thus already accounted for.

contracycle wrote: I think that what you have identitifed is the underlying cause of some deprotagonisation in sim. I may choose to play a character of type X, but really the game has no need of a type X and my Xness is in fact irrelevant to the course of play. That is unsatisfying. The 'structure' with which the player sought to engage has been removed from the locus of play.

Absolutely! And all this stuff is worked out on the local level. Which made me wonder in the first place how mechanics fit in with all of this. My response was that player level mechanics (not in-game social mores, laws, etc.) really cannot aid in this portion of the game process. The best mechanics can do is get out of the players way as much as possible. There can be much prose written about the in-game social mores, laws, customs but I don’t believe they can or ought to be rendered into mechanics. Like you said, “the 'social structures' with which the players have chosen to engage dictate the true topic of play.” That topic is totally dynamic.

It’s getting late, but I hope that I have in some small way cleared up some minor discrepancies.

Silmenume wrote:
Hey Marco,

Marco wrote: Yes, but I think that's pretty implicit to the model. That's one reason why the Beeg Horseshoe theory has a lot of traction.

The problem with the Beeg Horseshoe theory is that it was based on an incorrect understanding of Sim. If Sim is a mythic process, which is about the construction and manipulation of meaning structures then Sim categorically cannot sit in the middle of the horseshoe. The best you can get is a pitchfork with Gam and Nar as the tines and Sim as the handle and Zilchplay at the intersection of all three.

I’ll say this again and again and it is getting very old saying this – engagement has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with determining which CA is in operation. Watch any Gamist in the middle of an intense/important Challenge and I sure that you will see and they will tell you they are thoroughly engaged in the Challenge at hand. I just wish this idea about engagement would die the ugly and ignominious death that it so thoroughly deserves. If the players weren’t engaged then they would not be playing – it’s really that simple.

Hey contracycle,

This is basically a PS to my previous post.

contracycle wrote: As corollary to your claim that the player is 'commenting' on the 'rangers of ilithien' simply by choosing to be one, and for there actions to be interpreted in relation to that label, then my claim is further: the 'social structures' with which the players have chosen to engage dictate the true topic of play. If you have a player who is one of these rangers, and another who is the priest of some god, and another who is a renegade ork or whatever, then surely the conduct of play will comment on the relationships between the orks, the rangers, and the church, in various unpredictable ways.