Looking at the Big ModelTM we note that “play” is said to have actually commenced at the level described as “Exploration.”  So what has changed when the players switch from the Social Contract level where play “is not” taking place to Exploration where play “is” taking place?  The most obvious difference, as per the current glossed definition, is that the players are “sharing imaginings.”  This definition, however, needs a bit more clarification or at least some examination.  For example its not that the players are just “sharing imaginings,” but there is a socially reinforces process which both limits what might even be considered for input by a player before he share’s his imagining to the overt social process of actually accepting, rejecting or modifying a given player’s statement after he has shared his imagining by all at the table.  There is some aesthetic operating both on an internal and social level that both delimits input as well as functioning as the “yardstick-of-player-effectiveness.”  IOW we look back over the shared imaginings and monitor these imaginings to determine if we like or don’t like what is “going on.”  It’s no secret here that this had been labeled “Creative Agenda.”  But the question I am interested is what exactly is the “going on” part?

We have a “shared imaginary space” that is the “official” compilation of “facts” that have been previously been imagined, shared and then agreed upon by everyone at the table.  As stated above, these “shared imaginings” are not just random statements of imagining, but rather “structured sharings of imaginging.”  There is a guiding aesthetic – In Narrativism that would be the Premise question and in Gamism that would be Step on Up.  In these two forms of role-play the players are actively trying to accomplish some over riding goal – whether they are overtly aware of this drive or not.  The shared imaginings are structured around this aesthetic (the realization of the CA).  IOW the players are trying to Engineer something (that is – create something specific)  via their “shared imaginings.”  In Gamism that would be an arena where Step on Up can be effectively expressed via conflicts organized and recognized as Challenges and in Narrativism that would be an arena where a Premise question might be examined under controlled circumstances.  Thus it could be said that in both cases the players are “using” their shared imaginings to create things.  Specific things.  IOW the players are using their shared imaginings or more specifically the SIS/Fact space to Engineer the “shape” of these arenas.  I should clarify that, given the Hardcore version of Gamism and the PTA expression of Narrativism, we can see that play can function on a level where the players employ a great many ad extra tools for the purpose of constructing their arena of play so that “play” may proceed according to their aesthetics (CA’s).  I am not saying that all play in either CA functions at the level of player control over the arena that I used in my example.  However, it is important to note that such play can be perfectly functional in both Gamism and Narrativism.  In fact such input to play from the players’ is so important that play is often considered incoherent (not necessarily dysfunctional) if they don’t have an “official means” of expressing their input to the creation of the arena.

OK – so we have established that players can and do use tools in coherent games designs (sometimes referred to as “meta-mechanics”) that function at the level of what has been called in the past the “meta-game” level.  This bifurcation is interesting to me as it implies that play operates at two levels or more specifically in two different ways.  The “upper” or “controlling” level operates at the Social Contract level – or at least outside the SIS.  IOW the players function and speak as players to players directly (bypassing the SIS “means” or “conduit”) about their intentions and desires.  Now this sort of activity is certainly a “part of play” but there is an implied or unstated difference between this “meta- level” of player dialogue and the expressions of “statements of fact” that MUST transpire regarding the facts that are in the SIS via the player’s “agency of action” – their Characters.  So we have a division of kind regarding statements from outside the SIS about the SIS and statements from within the SIS about the SIS.  Much of a games time can be spent at the meta-level but at some point or another players must make statements about how their agent inside the SIS “acts” regarding the conflicts facing the player’s agent.

These “internal” statements are very different qualitatively from the meta-level statements.  At the meta-level of play a player can state that they would like a conflict to be created “here” and what the conflict will be about, etc.  They are operating at the “concept” level employing an Engineering paradigm or put another way the players are talking to each other about ideas that they would like to see expressed within the SIS.  So my question becomes how are these “internal” statements regarding the SIS qualitatively different from meta-level statements about the SIS? 

I propose that these internal (ad intra) statements are not conceptual in nature but rather “concrete” in nature.  That is we “move” physical things around the SIS (that is have our Characters do things) in order to signify ideas.  We know, for example, that a Character in a Narrativist game is not the player inside the SIS, but rather a “physical” embodiment/representation of the Premise issue.  Thus we have “things” (objects) that are employed and manipulated by the players to demonstrate – signify – ideas.  All the “meta-mechanics” are really a formalized means by which we create the “concrete” pieces and pre-attach specific meanings said pieces so that we can be assured of reaching the conflicts we want.

Let me illustrate by way of analogy.  This analogy is for illustrative purposes only and not intended to be the actual thesis.  Let us imagine the “fact space” to be the analogous equivalent of a game board – in this case let us say a chessboard.  This “board” is the arena that all the interested players will be referencing when either planning their next move (deciding which imagined statement to share) or monitoring to determine their satisfaction (deciding whether Premise has been addressed in an interesting manner or that Step on Up has been satisfactorily scratched).  This “board” is also the arena where the “actual moments of play” will transpire.  In this example it is not enough that the players are talking “smack,” they have to demonstrate Step on Up via the interactions of the pieces on the board.  Now those “pieces” that we just readily assume to do certain things without much thought a forehand are really nothing more than shapes in some material – wood, plastic, glass, metal, etc.  That a piece is called a “Queen” and can “move” certain ways are concepts that must be agreed upon by all the players.  You will note that there is no piece, no specific move nor any rule that is “Step on Up.”  The nature of the Step on Up (stakes and arena/form) is discussed before hand but the process which demonstrates Step on Up (“play”) is a derived quality of the play.  That is the movement of the pieces demonstrates or signifies Step on Up – something that is not inherent in the medium.  However by careful negotiation and agreement we decide that moving the pieces around in certain ways will have “significance.”  In this example moving the plastic, metal, glass, etc., objects on the board in a structured fashion can be employed to demonstrate “concepts” from “concrete” objects – that is not only do I have more guts than you, but I am also a more effective strategizer!  The pinning of the King, which is typically the ultimate end, need not necessarily be so.  IOW “victory” need not be the sole end of the game.  There are many, many ways that these pieces/concrete objects can be pre-seeded with meanings and the manner in which they interact is also completely up for grabs (mechanics design).  This pre-seeding of meanings to the pieces, the choosing of the milieu in which the pieces will interact on and determining the goal of these interactions – when they are present mechanically are the meta-mechanics in RPGs.  This analogy also extends to Narrativism --- and ultimately Sim.

What does all this boil down to?  That the meat and potatoes of role-play is a mythic style bricolage process.  Gam and Nar harness bricolage to their Engineering style – we are doing or creating X via a highly structured signification process.  We as players create a Premise so that we can then bricole towards a goal.  We as players agree to the stakes and milieu in Gamism so that we can then bricole towards a goal (demonstrate Step on Up).  It is relatively easy to discuss such play, as this is a common literate culture way of thinking.  Sim, however functions at the other end of the spectrum with the mythic bricolage paradigm.  Sim doesn’t have a specific constructed or conceptualized goal; which makes it difficult to discuss other than perhaps a generalized “knowing” – the Dream.  Here we come to the conundrum of Sim.  Like both Gam and Nar which use bricolage to signify or demonstrate “concepts” so does Sim.  However, what “concepts” are demonstrated and how we choose to do so is very different is Sim.  In Sim the players demonstrate the soundness or completeness of the model – only when they are at the ragged edge of the known “concepts.”  IOW the Dream grows not because the mechanics “hold it together,” but rather the Dream grows because the players “expand” the understanding of how the Dream works by providing solutions to conflicts that are NOT accounted for in the mechanics.  Typically this expansion would fall into the realm of the “social rules of interaction” but the mechanics themselves not only can also open to expansion but need to be.  So how is this done?  By bringing play to the edge of the known and then have the players demonstrate that the unknown was “really/already known” – the Dream is truly whole and unfailing.  Except that it was the players who demonstrated the “wholeness” of the Dream – not the fixed rules.  See, this expansion of the understanding of how the Dream works is the Sim game action – and it is demonstrated through the signification process (bricolage) of adding facts to the “fact space” in a manner which signifies the wholeness of the Dream.  IOW when the players are at the edge of the known they create more Dream as they attempt to patch over the gap in knowledge ad intra (from within the SIS.)

I digress, but the gist of my idea has been presented. 

I had been wrestling with this issue not long after I got here when I noticed myself and everyone else stumbling over and tap-dancing around that black box moment when “play happened.”  …or to use a phrase that Walt employed – turned the “semiotic crank.”  I hope there is some meat to this and that it helps in future discussions not only about play but in game design as prior to my epiphany there seemed to be big ragged hole regarding “the moment of play.”

Any thoughts?

Hi Jay,

Can you restate your main point in 100 words or less?  I'm afraid I couldn't find it.

- Alan

Hey Jay,

This is the exact kind of stuff I've been trying to figure out at my blog, when I'm not design journal-ing.

I was nodding at some of the stuff in your post, but I think a summary would make it easier to talk about. Though, I would like to know what you think about this idea: Bricolage is the primary dynamic that is roleplay, and is present throughout all play. Roleplay can also include Story and Challenge, and often does - that is, all three are often present, though Bricolage is always present to some degree. Narrativism is Story on Purpose, and Gamism is Challenge on Purpose. Likewise, Simulationism is Bricolage on Purpose.

How does that interface with your thoughts?

Hey Nathan (and Alan),

Nathan wrote: I was nodding at some of the stuff in your post, but I think a summary would make it easier to talk about.

Nathan wrote: Bricolage is the primary dynamic that is roleplay, and is present throughout all play. Roleplay can also include Story and Challenge, and often does - that is, all three are often present, though Bricolage is always present to some degree. Narrativism is Story on Purpose, and Gamism is Challenge on Purpose. Likewise, Simulationism is Bricolage on Purpose.

How does that interface with your thoughts?

Silmenume wrote: So I see Bricolage, which is a process that purposefully creates meanings, yoked to Premise or Challenge concepts – that is Bricolage is employed by an Engineering mindset.  This is not accidental but can only happen “on purpose.”  Hence Narrativism and Gamism can only be “meaningful” if they are “on purpose.”  It cannot happen passively, the players must be involved with the symbols sets in order to derive meaning from their interactions.  They are trying to demonstrate/imply ideas.

Hi Justin!

Since you’re a new guy, let me say, “Welcome to the Forge!”

Justin wrote: Perhaps this is just me being the new guy and misinterpreting something here, but by this statement are you saying that everyone who roleplays by default falls into Simulationism because they are not actively participating in bricolage?

Justin wrote: I suppose the issue I have with this statement is the "meaningful" part. Perhaps I have missed something, but what exactly do you mean when you say "Narrativism and Gamism can only be 'meaningful' if they are 'on purpose.'"?

Ron wrote: "Conscious" is a terrible term. It focuses on introspection, deliberation, and "what I meant to do," staying locked up in the person's head.

It's also fundamentally meaningless, if you want to get really critical. After all, am I "conscious" of my desire to publish a game? To play a game? To eat lunch? And so on.

However, "mindful" is much more useful because it's social and has an "off" condition. I am mindful of your actions when I consider how they affect me and behave accordingly. I am mindful of my actions when I consider how they affect you and behave accordingly. You can see when I fail to be mindful of either of these, in how I talk, how I treat you, and what I do.

Silmenume wrote:

Role-play is the process of the creation of symbols (via meta-mechanics) whose interactions are informed/delimited by resolution mechanics so that they may be manipulated by the players to signify concepts/memes/ideas.

Hello,

Jay, jargon aside, it seems to me that you're presenting a fairly close paraphrase of "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory."

1. Basic, required, communicative process underlying the activity, regardless of goal.

2. Two distinct goals which utilize that process as a medium, as well as a third goal which focuses on refining the process itself.

Best,
Ron

Jay,

Cool! I'm pretty sure I'm grokking you, and, for the most part, agree. However, I'm not so sure about the clear divide that I see in your statement that

Silmenume wrote:
...I don’t think it is possible that all three CA’s all being present in a given player’s play in a given night.  First it would be difficult to diagnose and second given that all the symbols would have to be reinterpreted in their entirely when “switching” from one CA to another – that would be a monumental task.  Now do that many times in a night.  Then add in that as this is a social process all the other players would have to make the same reinterpretations of the symbols and all come to the same (or extremely similar) interpretations before play could start to be “meaningful” again.

Hullo Simon,

I apologize, but I’m not sure if you are looking for a response and if so what you are looking for from me.

Hey Ron,

I am both excited and somewhat uncertain of your response!

I am excited that what I wrote dovetails so smoothly with the GNS and other matters essay.  I did not have that essay in mind when I set off on this thread, but that I did not contradict it is very good to hear.

However I was dismayed that the main thrust of my post went by more or less uncommented.

Ron wrote: 1. Basic, required, communicative process underlying the activity, regardless of goal.

Italicizing added

Nathan wrote: Anyhow, my basic question to you is what do you think of the notion that a symbol can be consciously representative of an array of meanings, to be pared down through the actual events around the table and in play?

Silmenume wrote:
I apologize, but I’m not sure if you are looking for a response and if so what you are looking for from me.

Hiya Simon,

I hadn’t really given much thought previous to this as something that is specifically a four-part process.  So to your specific question of, “Am I [Jay] saying there are four processes?” The answer is, I wasn’t trying to say that, but it does seem to be a reasonable conclusion.  However, I have not thought this through enough to make a solid claim that there are four and only four processes.

Regarding your flow –

First I would say that in order for a symbol to be “symbolic” is must be imbued (usually by the creator) with at least a meaning or it will be unusable.  That is it will cease to be a symbol and default to the literal sign itself.  A symbol must point to a referent/meaning.  One cannot have an “empty” symbol and manipulate it – which results in the obstructing of the interaction and meaning steps.  In fact the whole process is predicated on there being a “meaning” to operate on.  Most solid Narrativist supporting game systems have mechanics that do this overtly and empower the players specifically for this process so that the interactions will be the kinds the players are looking for.  Thus we have your model modified.

Meaning
      ↓
Creation -> Manipulation -> Interaction -> Meaning
      ↑               ↑                     ↑                ↓
      └────────┴──────────┴─────────┘

I have taken the liberty of borrowing from you post to try to indicate my thoughts as they line up with yours.  I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

So, the Symbol is created (introduced by a player and given at least one meaning) and set in motion then a player uses it to interact with other meaning laden symbols to try and create a new meaning.  In this process all the symbols that were employed are all changed to a lesser or greater degree by these interactions.  In Sim this self-reflexive morphing of the meanings of the symbols is the priority of play – while in Nar and Gam the morphing of the meaning of the symbols is yoked to an “outside” prioritizing idea which is here called Premise or Challenge.

I don’t know if any of this helps, but it is the best I can do right now.  Feel free to ask any additional questions you might have.

Regarding “cause” and “effect” I don’t understand what you are trying to get at.

Hey Jay,

This all sounds good to me.  One exchange in this discussion caught my attention and it's something you've been on about for awhile yet I dont totally fathom it. 
This section is where you really speak of it.

Silmenume wrote:
If the symbol is already deeply “known” then there is little for the player to do.  However if the symbol has the potential of “breaking the dream” then interpreting it in such a way as to account for it within the Dream then one has both understood and expanded the Dream because the player has made to work that which was previously not accounted for.

Silmenume wrote: Thus if one is “creating Story” or more specifically addressing Premise then one must view all the symbols in the “fact space” and their attendant “meanings” in a unified fashion.  This is part of what “on purpose” means; at least to me thus far.  Same goes for Gamism and Simulationism.  This is why I don’t think it is possible that all three CA’s all being present in a given player’s play in a given night.  First it would be difficult to diagnose and second given that all the symbols would have to be reinterpreted in their entirely when “switching” from one CA to another – that would be a monumental task.

Hello,

Joshua, I invite you to the GNS forum where certain misconceptions of yours can be dealt with directly. Some of them are pretty off-base, and you might be surprised to learn what is really being said rather than what is wildly promulgated in various places.

Your point about signifiers and referents doesn't have anything to do with GNS, but it sure does address the topic of this thread. I'm interested to see what Jay makes of it.

Best,
Ron

Jay,

Good times. I'm totally on board with most of your reply, but theres one thing I want to harp on. After reviewing some Big Model material, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that - well, lets set up something of an example. In a primarily Simulationist instance of play, there certainly can be moments of address of premise and of challenge (small-n and small-g, if you will). Now, the symbols brought into play surrounding those moments can certainly be loaded with potential meanings that could end up being self-reflexive exploration, or could end up concerning address of premise or challenge, depending on the interpretation of those in play. Further, these symbols could be consciously loaded toward this end, with the intent to create the possibility of small-n or small-g moments, but also with the intent to contribute to the overall Bricole.

I'm also going to take a stab at deeply known/edge of known symbols, cuz that makes sense to me (unless I misunderstand your intent, of course...).

A deeply known symbol would be something like an NPC thats been known to the players for the entire game - indeed, perhaps a signiture or expected NPC, like the innkeeper in many D&D games. Or even something basic, like a sword in a fantasy setting. Everyone at the table is on board with what that sword "means" right from the get-go. Nobody is going to be all "holy crap, a peice of metal with sharp edges! that couldn't possibily be right!"

A symbol at the edge of the known, on the other hand, would be something that takes some justification and exploration to understand how it fits in. The tribal dwarfs your party just fought had some kind of projectile weapon that belched smoke and fire, and tore through metal armor like paper. Now, if this is your standard medieval setting, say, thats something that needs to be explored to be understood in context of the setting - is it magic? Is it a bound demon? Is it technological advancement? You suddenly have fodder for further exploration and bricolage, as the group attempts to incorporate that previously unknown symbol into the Dream.

Jay, feel free to correct my examples, but thats my understanding of what you're talking about.

Hey there Vern,

Caldis wrote:

Silmenume wrote:
If the symbol is already deeply “known” then there is little for the player to do.  However if the symbol has the potential of “breaking the dream” then interpreting it in such a way as to account for it within the Dream then one has both understood and expanded the Dream because the player has made to work that which was previously not accounted for.

…Could you post either short examples (or an Actual Play thread) showcasing play where the symbols are deeply known contrasted with one where the symbols had the potential to break the dream.

Hey Joshua,

Joshua wrote: I think you're giving short shrift to ambiguity, here, and you're assuming too explicit a connection between a signifier and its referent.

Joshua wrote: Signifiers point to referents -- but that's not the same as saying a signifier points to a referent.  In fact, any signifier points to a number of different referents.  This is why a cigar can be a phallus or just a cigar -- or a spaceship.  This is not, however, a problem, and is, in fact, a great boon to creative minds everywhere.  The juxtapositions of the different referents assigned to a specific signifier can create tons of meaning (concrete example: the old veteran NPC can be both a father-figure and an embodiment of military tradition).  Further, the referents attached to specific signifiers can be idiosyncratic to different players around the table (my father-figure, your embodiment of military tradition), and can even be complicated by different referents for a player and his character (I personally find the Big Bad repulsive evil, my character thinks she's gloriously uninhibited) or multiple referents all working at the same time in one person's head (player or character).

Bolding added.

clehrich wrote: Essentially a structure is two things.  First of all, it is a pre-made machine, already pretty well tuned and running just fine.  We can slap it into any machine we want to build and know it will run in particular ways.  Second, it is the abstract formulation entailed by the machine.  This is the hard part.

Suppose we step back from the actual machine for a minute and look at it like the engineer.  Yes, that thing there is an iron, but from the perspective of the machine in which it is placed it is really a meaning: it means “local heat, heavy, etc.”  We may only be using “local heat,” but it’s still heavy.  But from this perspective it isn’t “iron.”  So the structure of “iron” put this way is (Local Heat)&(Heavy).  If we look at a whole big elaborate machine, we’ll see a long column of such meanings intersecting.  We’ll also see some apparently contradictory meanings: because we wanted the heating thing to be light, we have both Iron (Local Heat)&(Heavy) and Helium Balloon (Really Big)&(Delicate)&(negative-Heavy).  In this machine, Heavy and negative-Heavy cancel out, so we get a light total.  You see?

The thing is, any structure like this is a horrible mess if it takes into account every single potential meaning, because every thing we use has a huge raft of potential meanings, i.e. is structured densely.  This isn’t true with engineering, because you design things to have one meaning and little else, but in bricolage you’re stuck with the vast entailments of actual things as they really are.

So in addition to structure being a quality of the machine, it’s also an aesthetic constraint on what the machine ought to look like.  This has many, many layers—which we can roughly break down into those functions (practical, psychological, social) and some intellectual and aesthetic ideals of how we like things to be.

Back to RPGs.  I did promise, I know.  And yes, I’m getting on toward practical implications.

So CA is basically this kind of aesthetic constraint structure.  It says that of the many possible games we could play with our mechanics and characters and so on, we only want a limited set of them.  Others will be counted failures, even if there are no rules-violations or anything like that.  So every time we dig into the shed of System or whatever to get something, we choose not only what could work but what works well under these constraints.

Now that means we’re always thinking CA no matter what we’re doing.  It’s no good trying to build a light heating machine with an iron if we don’t actually own a helium balloon.  Just so, it’s no good trying to develop an on-the-fly rule for handling energy weapons in a Gamist game if it creates a “you automatically win if you have an energy weapon” rule.  But on the other hand, that might be just fine in other games: maybe part of the Premise in a Nar game is about the uses of absolute power, so by creating a new absolute power we actually encourage the addressing of that Premise.

Joshua wrote: This ambiguity is not, as it may first appear, to be detrimental to the creation of meaning, only that it complicates and qualifies all meaning created -- it, in fact, creates more meaning than if the signifiers exclusively and exhaustively pointed to one and only one referent.  Deciphering ambiguity, deciding when to parse it out, when to consider more than one option, and when to leave it as an open and intriguing question, are processes that we as signifying monkeys do every day.