Caldis wrote
Take a look back at the example I gave earlier. The characters all end up taking on a mission that doesnt really have a lot of meaning to any of them. There's not a lot to connect to, sure there is a girl that's gone missing and that could be a tragic human issue but how does it relate to these characters? Let's say they do find out she is going to be sacrificed by an evil cult, what choice of action do the players have? Lastly and this may not have been clear in the example given but if the ramifications of their actions are simply that they gained character points and that the girl they rescued and the cultists that captured her rarely if ever show up in play again then in what way were the players actions meaningful?

Hi Marco,

Going with what you're saying, this lines up with some of my recent thoughts about gaming in general, also tied to Ron's comment that transcript(or what term are we using?) doesn't tell us about CA in any fashion-

Imagined contents of play tell us nothing about CA- only the choices and actions of the players at the table do.

Slaying dragons, rescuing princesses, flying spaceships- all of this focus is functionally useless for actually comprehending what CA is in action without further knowledge/focus on what's happening as a result of player actions. It seems that a common mistake in discussing CA is to focus on the stuff in SIS, when what people need to be looking at is the folks at the table.

Chris

Isn't this pretty much a settled thing by now? The contents of the transcript by themselves tell us very little about CAs that may have been operating.

Kidnapped girl, rescue.... so what? By itself, it's just plot.

The G-dominant player cares because there's a winning condition to be pursued.

The N-dominant player cares because there's something about the situation that speaks to them on a personal level. Them, not their character. They get to say something about who they are and what they value through their play.

The S-dominant player cares because the plot has all the right STUFF in it, and it's clicking along one-two-three without fracturing the Dream. Maybe the feelings of the character are engaged, maybe not. But the _player_ is grooving on how the game "feels right."

CA is not about structure, it is not about situation... it is about Why Do We Care?

Now, of course, we can structure the elements of exploration to mirror the Reasons We Care - if we know what they are. That's where coherence in play comes in - how well do the elements of exploration support the players' motivations for play? But fully (or even minimally) coherent alignment between player-level motivations and exploration-level structure is NOT NECESSARY for successful pursuit of a CA. It just helps.

Is that on target?

Best,

Mark

I think it's pretty clear, yes.

The problematic context, IME, was Caldis stipulating that the actions taken had to be "meaningful." This opens the door to the question: Could a player connect to a human-experience issue in a game, take action congruent with that connection, and have that action not be meaningful?

I'm inclined to say "No--not if the player is satisfied with the action s/he took." (i.e. if I feel a connection to an issue and hold back then, yeah, not congruent or not especially congruent and not so meaningful--but if I simply have my character blink his eyes and I'm satisfied? The CA-Police can't come and say that a mere blink wasn't meaningful enough to count.)

In a game I played recently my character hunted, attacked, and mutilated an NPC traitor. If you asked me why I did that I'd say "my character was totally mad at him" (I mean, I might go into more--and more useful--detail--but let's assume that maybe I'm just not being all that forthcoming right at the moment).

You can assume Sim-motives. I didn't say "my player" was mad at the NPC. I didn't specificy that I did what I did 'with rage in my real, beating, human heart.' If asked I could tell you all about the imaginary social context of my character's rage.

Furthermore, the game's over IRC and no one would have any way to really know what I, as the player, was connecting with during that incident.

So: was it *meaningful*? The character had his vengence. Who can say? Well, anyone who reads a transcript of the game can say. But only one human alive can have any idea if I connected to the issue as a player rather than a character.

As that guy, I can tell you: yeah, it was meaningful.

But no description of the game that any other person will have would tell you that. Even other players couldn't know for sure (oh, they might guess from the language I used--I expect that they, yes, would agree with my self-assessment)--but they can't really know.

So when someone discusses addressing a human-experience issue through play as taking meaningful action, I'm sayin' "only one guy counts for the meaningful bit: the analyst." (and really only the acting player for most practical purposes).

That means it's not a gating factor for most human-experience addressing play. The human (the player) connects to the imaginary issue and takes action congruent with it (and by congruent I mean action that is satisfactorily porportional to the connection). By virtue of being congruent with the connection to the human-condition stuff in SIS the action will, IMO, be meaningful.

-Marco

I'll cop to poor phrasing on my part. What I was really going for there Marco was the fact that the choice on the players part was recgonized as meaningful. It's not something that is simply ignored by the gaming group nor is it trod upon and his choice made irrelevant by further events. Does it require a huge transformation of the SIS? No, but it does require recognition.

Caldis wrote: I'll cop to poor phrasing on my part. What I was really going for there Marco was the fact that the choice on the players part was recgonized as meaningful. It's not something that is simply ignored by the gaming group nor is it trod upon and his choice made irrelevant by further events. Does it require a huge transformation of the SIS? No, but it does require recognition.

Marco, you still speak almost entirely in terms of actions in the SIS. Like Mark. I think this is a discussion we have had a thousdand times before - in-game action does not indicate CA. So continuous discussion of in-game actions is pretty much pointless.

But that is exactly why your statement that acion congruent to the human-condition issues is necessarily meaningful. This is not true - they can be meaningless to the player, as you acknowledge.

So what is the question?

contracycle wrote: Marco, you still speak almost entirely in terms of actions in the SIS. Like Mark. I think this is a discussion we have had a thousdand times before - in-game action does not indicate CA. So continuous discussion of in-game actions is pretty much pointless.

But that is exactly why your statement that acion congruent to the human-condition issues is necessarily meaningful. This is not true - they can be meaningless to the player, as you acknowledge.

So what is the question?

Marco wrote:
For purposes of my formulation (and the use of the term 'congruent') I am stipulating that a congruent action is definitionally meaningful as in "taken because the person is experiencing the connection."

It may be possible that a player takes action due to the connection to human-experience stuff in the game and it isn't meaningful but, you know, give me an example of that: what action would you take due to a personally-felt connection to human-experience issues in the SIS that 'had no meaning to you.'

Marco wrote:
However, I think that saying that the actions aren't meaningful is one claim you definitiely cannot make without being the player. I've simply stated that my character "stands very still and watches [the NPC] cooly."

Was it "recognized"? No. People did not high-five me or give me kudos. Did it "impact the game world?" Not in any manner I think you could call significant. No.

Was it meaningful to me? Yes. It was. I was thinking "I can can be just as cold as you are. Just as cold." And that was my statement. And it was satisfying to me.

If the GM had, for example, prevented me from taking the action ("No, you're frazzled") then it, indeed, would not fit my formulation. But the action, as taken, needed no confirmation from the game-world and, indeed, had no discernable effect.

contracycle wrote:
I still think its useless I'm afraid becuase:
1) I can perform actions that appear to be meaningful, but are not becuase I feel no connection, or
2) I can feel the personal connection and do nothing. Doing nothing can even become my meaningful action (an error of ommission rather than commission).

Caldis wrote:
I would say that is recognizing the action then or at least respecting it as opposed to the example you give of the gm overruling the action, an example of a certain type of sim. The other example would be of a gamist gm asking for your action and when he gets it saying "You stare at him, ok well while you sit staring he pulls out a gun and shoots you. You're dead now anybody else have a better plan to take this guy out then staring?"

One example prevents you from taking your meaningful action the other ridicules it once it has been made. In either case you are not going to be getting much of a positive feeling from the game if making that decision is what you were looking for. You are either going to need to find a new gaming group or change your expectations of the game to continue to enjoy the experience.

Without knowing the backstory on that incident I'd have to say there is one other risk with the example you've given. That is the subtlety of it may elude even a narrativist GM and he may blow right by it without much recognition. If the player is fine making that subtle statement and not getting much out of then great but for many they'd be looking for something more. This is not a division along CA lines but a subdivision within.

Marco wrote:
Well, from my perspective there was no risk at all. I didn't demand that the GM or other players understand what I was doing. I wasn't in it for the recognition. So, right: if I'd been looking for recognition I'd simply have stated my character's internal monologue as well.

Mark Woodhouse wrote:

Marco wrote:
Well, from my perspective there was no risk at all. I didn't demand that the GM or other players understand what I was doing. I wasn't in it for the recognition. So, right: if I'd been looking for recognition I'd simply have stated my character's internal monologue as well.

Ya know, Marco, it's cool that you have lots of trust established and therefore don't feel risk in this situation. But consider the situation in which your attempt to do this sort of meaningful statement had a reasonable expectation of being nullified by the GM or other players. This happens in actual play to plenty of people. I try hard to be an N-facilitating GM and I have inadvertently done it to players when I didn't notice what they were up to.

Nobody is trying to suggest that your play can't possibly work the way you say it does - only you really know that. But it does not follow from your example of functional play under these constraints that any play which has any meaningful attachment on the player's part is functionally N, does it? I think that there's got to be an element of player satisfaction at work - does the player with N agenda successfully communicate to the other players their statement?

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that play in which some substantial amount of CA-relevant stuff is going on "solitaire" is really functional... doesn't that undermine the status of roleplaying as a social activity?

I mean - I can play Baldur's Gate and get attached to playing with a particular set of values, but the game doesn't care one bit. Am I playing N?

Marco wrote: Can you give me some more information about what you mean here? A GM could overrule an action in any game under any CA in some circumstance (the jive-talking elf is told to rein it in--is that a CA specific action? Sim? I think if we say it is it's overly simplistic to the point of being naive).

Caldis wrote:

Marco wrote: Can you give me some more information about what you mean here? A GM could overrule an action in any game under any CA in some circumstance (the jive-talking elf is told to rein it in--is that a CA specific action? Sim? I think if we say it is it's overly simplistic to the point of being naive).

I'm thinking in terms of personality mechanics in basically the same situation as you described. You want to make a statement by acting cool, but the gm decides you have the frazzled conditon applied or that you have hot headed disadvantage and nullifies your action.

Marco wrote:
I think entangling the issues of empowerment or social reinforcement and personal meaning is a mistake.

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote:
I think entangling the issues of empowerment or social reinforcement and personal meaning is a mistake.

I don't see anyone proposing that they BE entangled except you. Everyone else seems conmfortable with a view of "meaning" that depends on the personal, and not on in-game actoions.

Yes Marco, but the very multiplicity of ways an action might be rendered meaningless should suggest there is something deeper going on. That
something deeper is the players personal investment in the issue.

The only thing I objected to in your formulation is the "congruence" between in-game action and such investment. It has always been the case that you identify CA through prioritisation, not by merely observing character actions.

contracycle wrote: Yes Marco, but the very multiplicity of ways an action might be rendered meaningless should suggest there is something deeper going on. That
something deeper is the players personal investment in the issue.