What I had started to despair as the impossible has been demonstrated to me to be utterly possible!  Through a strange and convoluted series of incidents my GM and I were put in touch with another role-playing group that was very similar to ours in many deep and structural ways.  Almost immediately we had found each other kindred spirits.  This is the first time that has happened since my GM starting running over 20 years ago and the first time that has happened to me since I starting playing in my GM’s game 9 or so years ago.  I had started to despair because as I was digging deeper and deeper into theory (i.e., trying to understand the principles of Sim play) I was growing ever more panicked by the fact that my data set was exactly – one.

After an initial round of emails, my GM and I decided to “interview” with the GM of the other game – Myranus.  We had scheduled ourselves to talk for less than two hours, but found ourselves yapping for over four!  Both groups were utterly amazed at how similar our game priorities and methodologies were.  I wish I could find the original email sent to my GM from the Myranus group so that I could post it here.  Perhaps with a little luck…

I do not recall all the details of the conversation as it was long and ranged over a good number of topics, but there were a few that stuck with me as particularly interesting.

The first was the Myranus group was highly selective about its players, hence the interview.  Though they were not aware of role-play theory they were obviously fishing for players who had a Sim CA.  I should also note that on top of that they were looking for a certain level of (for lack of a better term) skill in their players.  From what I could discern the Myranus group had a very prominent Social Contract where it was made extremely clear that not all players had what it took to play their game and that any new players understood that their first few games were probationary.  We came back to this topic several times and again from what I understood the GM was very adroit about this process that he called “firing” as many of his friends had cycled through the game but did not make the cut – and their friendships were not negatively affected.  Kudos to that GM!

This brings me to my next point of interest.  During the Character creation process, which apparently is fairly extensive (mostly personality and back story stuff) a player is presented a list of “skills” which they may choose from.  The skills were labeled with two icons, the first of which I can’t remember, but the second icon was the face of a pig.  He explained that these skills required the players to play the skills out (act – ham it up).  IOW one could not say something like, “I use my ‘fast talk’ skill to get past the guard.”  Oh no.  Having the skill meant that the player was allowed to “fast talk” and if he chose that skill, the player had best be good at it because it was the player’s skill that made that particular skill work – not the mechanic.  I was floored by this as this lined up very nicely with the notion I had posted on the theory boards sometime past where I said our skill system is really more of check on what skills the player’s can bring to bear, not so much an indication of the Character’s skill and an even less important part of the mechanical resolution system.  This explained the Myranus GM’s strong interest in the player’s skills and the interview process and the Social Contract stipulation of the GM having the ability to “fire” new players if they couldn’t make the cut.  While we haven’t institutionalized the probationary process and don’t use the term “fire” both our groups do weed through potential players with the ultimate goal of finding highly “skilled” players. 

Before that ugly and hoary old specter of “Immersion” gets dragged out front and center and beaten to death again – the ability to play a skill is not the same as “immersion.”  Just as a Gamist player must show ingenuity when facing a Challenge I claim that the demonstration of said skills is the Sim equivalent thereof.  The use props, we don’t.  The use accents, we don’t.  The dress up, we don’t.  They rarely speak out of Character, we speak more frequently out of Character.  The key to understanding this is grokking the idea that the portrayal of such skills in the face of a difficult situation is exactly where the demands on the players’ creativity and ingenuity are made.  (Just as they are when the Players are addressing Premise or addressing Challenge.)

I have not yet played in the Myranus world, but the GM and one of his players played in our game last night.  In the after game debrief, which I think is a critical element of successful Sim play, the Myranus GM commented how he felt that didn’t get as much time to stay in his Character as much as he would have liked while I felt that last night’s game was pretty standard fair.  IOW, the whole jumping up and down with the accompanying finger pointing and hooting about “immersion” in my game and about Sim games in particular is bogus.  The point is that the game I play in has far less “immersion” than at least one other Sim game.  Staying in Character is a dial setting, an aesthetic choice locally made, not an underlying or defining principle of Sim play.

Going back to the interview I want to draw forth one last moment that really stood out in my mind.  The Myranus GM made an off the cuff remark about how he sometimes wished that system (what he meant is described here at the Forge as Resolution Mechanics here) would just go away.  Fascinating!

Finally to really gum up the works I will end with a quick note about the actual play sessions where both the new players just seamlessly slipped right into the game process and our system like they had been in our game for years.  It was absolutely uncanny how effortlessly they took to “our way of play.”  Never have we had players come up to speed so quickly that a “first game” ran just as quickly as when strictly populated by our core members.  It was awesome, and I can’t wait to get more data points to see where our styles differ (what the variables are in Sim play) and where the common elements lie (the underlying process and principles).

I don’t know if I have provided enough information to be worthy of comment, but I was so excited that I felt compelled to share my experience with others.

My only comment is that there's little mention of the famed bricolage in this post yet a whole lot about shared goals of play.  The unifying aspects of your play seems to be the commitment to certain expectations from the players, the weeding out of those incapable or unwilling to play in your manner.  To me this suggests that Ron's idea of "The Right to dream"  is correct, play is about dreaming in the right way.   I'd also add that there are other ways of making the dream right, through mechanics such as personality mechanics that dont allow the player to choose a wrong option.  This option would use a different technique then the one your group prefers.

Jay, it's an interesting account, thanks. The pig symbol is an especially good use of System clarifying social contract, I think. It also interests me that it implicitly or explicitly sets performance standards for play, no? Is it a "Step On Up" cousin? Is there a group interest in seeing players succeed or fail gracefully at pig tasks? It seems that a "fumble" - a bad performance - could risk people's sense of the integrity of the fiction (jeopardize the Right to Dream, I mean).

Here's something I'd love to learn from your next report - maybe you could ask the GM. Has anyone ever "taken a dive" on a pig task, that is, purposefully done less than optimal hamming because they felt their character "should" fail?

Best,

Jim

Hi Caldis,

Long time, no talk – mea culpa!

Caldis wrote: My only comment is that there's little mention of the famed bricolage in this post yet a whole lot about shared goals of play.

The unifying aspects of your play seems to be the commitment to certain expectations from the players, the weeding out of those incapable or unwilling to play in your manner.

To me this suggests that Ron's idea of "The Right to dream" is correct, play is about dreaming in the right way.

I'd also add that there are other ways of making the dream right, through mechanics such as personality mechanics that dont allow the player to choose a wrong option.

This option would use a different technique then the one your group prefers.

Supplanter wrote:
Jay, it's an interesting account, thanks. The pig symbol is an especially good use of System clarifying social contract, I think. It also interests me that it implicitly or explicitly sets performance standards for play, no?

It seems that a "fumble" - a bad performance - could risk people's sense of the integrity of the fiction (jeopardize the Right to Dream, I mean).

Here's something I'd love to learn from your next report - maybe you could ask the GM. Has anyone ever "taken a dive" on a pig task, that is, purposefully done less than optimal hamming because they felt their character "should" fail?

Merry Christmas Jay

I have a few points and clarifications to make I dont really want to go line by line to address your concerns so I 'll first start with an actual play example and the try to work around to as many of the points your raised as I can.

The gurps campaign I'm in does use personality mechanics and it's a very simmy game.  I'll show two uses (or actually one use and one non-use) of the mechanics so you can see how it works and why it is sim. 

First off the non-use.  My character has the disadvantage greed.  He will do almost anything for money.  I actively portray him as greedily taking up any opportunity to gain extra coins.  The game has progressed to the point where he is a wealthy businessman but someone comes along and offers him a small sum to kill an important individual.  I gave the explanation that the risk of killing the individual would cause more monetary damage then the killing would gain me so I turned down the offer.  The GM did not make me roll because I've actively portrayed the character as greedy and framed the decision as being influenced by greed.

Another character in the game has the flaw bad temper.  She was in a situation where an npc in the game acted in a derogatory manner towards her.  The player hesitated not sure how she wanted to respond, the gm stepped in and forced her to roll against her bad temper.  She failed her roll so she had to react in an angry manner.  The gm didnt force her action but it did eliminate many possible choices for her.  She was a tough warrior woman so she slugged the guy.

So you see Jay the mechanics worked to reinforce the elements of the game that were sim,  They made the fact that her character had a bad temper show up in play.  Was it deprotagonizing?  Not in this instance, did the player lose some choice of how to handle the situation?  Yes absolutely.

To me this does the same thing as your groups weeding out of players who cant react properly, or the other group requiring people to know about bows if they intend to use them.  It keeps the exploration functioning in the right manner, it treats these elements as sacred.  Of course not being part of your group maybe I misunderstand the criteria for dropping people.  Can you think of examples of people that you have dropped and what the reasons were?  I believe I read of them in your first actual play example but my interpretation of them may be wrong.

This is the difference between Sim and Gam and Narr.  In Sim there is a right way, those elements like greed and bad temper have meaning and must be portrayed correctly. There is no right way to address premise or challenge there is only the active pursuit of either.  If greed and bad temper show up in nar we dont worry that someone who has that trait is portraying it properly we see it as an opportunity to make a statement about greed, whatever that statement will be.  That last bit about nar is poorly phrased but I cant think of a better way to say it at the moment. 

I wonder about personality mechanics - to me they say "No, you don't get to make the choice about how this works". Which is cool - the player isn't supposed to make choices about that.

Jay, are you concerned about what the player is explicitly stated as having a choice on (like how their characters personality works)? But if their choice is deemed incorrect by someone else at the table, THEN the personality mechanics are brought out by this someone to correct that? Do you think at this point we have simulationist deprotagonisation?

Merry Christmas to you as well, Caldis!

I apologize if I came off as cranky in my previous post, but I just changed meds and my head is still literally spinning.

Caldis wrote: The gurps campaign I'm in does use personality mechanics and it's a very simmy game.

So you see Jay the mechanics worked to reinforce the elements of the game that were sim,  They made the fact that her character had a bad temper show up in play.  Was it deprotagonizing?  Not in this instance, did the player lose some choice of how to handle the situation?  Yes absolutely.

Red highlighting added.

To me this does the same thing as your groups weeding out of players who cant react properly, or the other group requiring people to know about bows if they intend to use them.  It keeps the exploration functioning in the right manner, it treats these elements as sacred.

Can you think of examples of people that you have dropped and what the reasons were?

Callan wrote: I wonder about personality mechanics - to me they say "No, you don't get to make the choice about how this works". Which is cool - the player isn't supposed to make choices about that.

Jay, are you concerned about what the player is explicitly stated as having a choice on (like how their characters personality works)? But if their choice is deemed incorrect by someone else at the table, THEN the personality mechanics are brought out by this someone to correct that? Do you think at this point we have simulationist deprotagonisation?

Silmenume wrote:
Merry Christmas to you as well, Caldis!

I apologize if I came off as cranky in my previous post, but I just changed meds and my head is still literally spinning.

The most notable is the notion that one MUST be forced into acting in a very specific manner in order to “fulfill” the CA requisites.  While I can similarities with mechanics that, say, bring the Address of Premise front and center in an unavoidable way I do not think the example you presented functions on the same general principle.  I.e., bringing the central game process inescapably to the fore and dropping it square in the players’ lap.  IOW I don’t see your example as an instance of system compelling the player to make a CA relevant decision, but rather said mechanic is an instance which removed/negated the player’s decision.  To my understanding, such an act clearly fits the definition of “player deprotagonization.”

I don’t buy that argument at all.  While all mechanics can be said to be a subset of Social Contract what your statement implies by extension is that Social Contract level issues can be handled by a system of 3rd party decision making.  If I don’t like player A because he’s hitting on my girlfriend I can resolve that by going to page 18 in the 4th addenda rules appendix and make him stop if I roll a better than a 15 on a d20.

Gee whiz!  I mean if someone is playing Darth Vader, he’s dying, his son is standing over him and he says, “I want to see you with my own eyes,” is some one going to point out a personality mechanic and say, “You can’t play Vader that way!  He’s evil to the core!  Take that back and do something completely evil!”

Having Vader make such an unusual choice makes for interesting play.  Yes there are norms of behavior, but they are not straight jackets nor are they programs.

Now let me give an example of player where a certain type of behavior might be expected from a player and what could happen if said player opts out of the culturally expected behavior.  Let’s say I am the champion of barbarian village.  I am the baddest, toughest, bravest warrior in the tribe.  My character has fought his way to this position through many a bloody and gruesome battles.  I am called forth by circumstances to represent my chieftain in a trial by battle.  As a player I know this foe is a virtual death machine.  I should have the ability as a play to choose not to engage in battle.  However – this does not mean such an action would not be read as cowardice or treason and I have no reason to believe that my character would not be humiliated, executed outright, exiled or what not.

Hi Jay,

I don't think it's deprotagonisation occurs in narrativism if, in advance of making an address, the rule is made that certain address types can't be made. Like if I'm playing Ghandi and the rule is I can only use peaceful protest, that's fine. However, if that rule isn't agreed to in advance it's different. If I have Ghandi go violent and someone says "No, that's no good and has to change, he's non violent!", I'll tell them they can go stuff themselves in no uncertain terms!! Surely you can't have a problem with this? If you don't feel you can agree to a 'peaceful protest only' type rule, then you don't play that game. If you feel you can stick to it, you do play?

I have to wonder if your actual problem is with people who will calvin ball terms along with the mechanics which help them do so. In these cases you didn't agree to a personality mechanic restriction, but the other person uses slimy tactics to try and enforce that restriction on you. It might be cutting to the core a bit, but perhaps you see personality mechanics as ripe for abuse?

BTW, are we staying on topic enough here? Has this sort of discussion come up/will come up with the other group?

Hi all,

Touching back on the original post, here's my question:

Jay, what is the "interview" process like?

Please, tell me, what happens? How does it happen? What sort of metric is used to determine who is in and who is out? Who's there when it happens? Who gets to decide?

I'm fasincated.

Christopher

Silmenume wrote:
Yes it does, if I am reading you correctly.  What it signifies is that for the players who are considering choosing such a skill they had best be able to perform that skill effectively in play because the mechanic will not be substituted for actual player ability.  For example, the GM of Myranus clearly stated if that a player wished to use a bow in game as a weapon then he had best be knowledgeable about bows because what the player brings to the table will be the basis of the determination of the Character’s effectiveness with the bow.  He said that he has told players in the past that they should at the very least read some books on bows if they play to be effective with the bow in game.

Hi Caldis,

I’m going to save my response to you for another post.  I hope you don’t mind.

Hey Callan,

Callan wrote: Like if I'm playing Ghandi and the rule is I can only use peaceful protest, that's fine. However, if that rule isn't agreed to in advance it's different. If I have Ghandi go violent and someone says "No, that's no good and has to change, he's non violent!", I'll tell them they can go stuff themselves in no uncertain terms!! Surely you can't have a problem with this? If you don't feel you can agree to a 'peaceful protest only' type rule, then you don't play that game. If you feel you can stick to it, you do play?

Callan wrote: I have to wonder if your actual problem is with people who will calvin ball terms along with the mechanics which help them do so. In these cases you didn't agree to a personality mechanic restriction, but the other person uses slimy tactics to try and enforce that restriction on you. It might be cutting to the core a bit, but perhaps you see personality mechanics as ripe for abuse?

Has this sort of discussion come up/will come up with the other group?

Christopher wrote: Jay, what is the "interview" process like?

Please, tell me, what happens? How does it happen? What sort of metric is used to determine who is in and who is out? Who's there when it happens? Who gets to decide?

Supplanter wrote: Wow. With *bows*? THAT'S hardcore.

Now I'm wondering two things: 1) What ISN'T a pig skill? 2) Why not? That is, the criteria for "pigginess" are apparently a lot broader than I thought. So what is the dividing line between Pig and . . . "Kosher"?

Let me stress that I don't have an a priori problem with the approach. If Swordsmanship is a pig skill, so be it!

• I even see the advantages from a "right to dream" perspective - it's one expression of the "responsibility TOWARD the Dream" flipside, isnt' it?
• It's also an approach to distributed credibility specifically tailored to support Sim, don't you think?
• That is, if boning up on bows actually earns you credibility in-game. Does the GM defer to a player's pig knowledge?
• IOW, can I get successes or bonuses toward same by making authoritative statements about bow capabilities?



Formatting altered for ease of addressing.

Can I add directly to the fiction (Director stance stuff) by using my bow knowledge to make fiat statements? e.g. "They can't reach us from here. I've seen that kind of bow in action and I know." and it becomes true because I said it? Or is that kind of thing still GM territory?

Sticking with bows and pigginess, what effort of mine as a player earns me what benefit in play?

Because I'm thinking of how it seems like it flouts the assumptions behind a particular class of complaint/GM advice in "trad" sim/incoherent designs. The classic example is presented as: "You're the GM. One of your players is a martial artist. Here's how you deal with THE PROBLEM of him trying to overwhelm you with his knowledge in play." (e.g. he describes some super-cool move that should foreclose any response you personally can think of. My own solution to this problem was always, "Cool. Now tell me what a competent enemy's response should be. Cause that's what your opponent does.")

It sounds like your particular social contract is saying, "Problem?? No, that's good stuff!" (For local values of reinforcing the texture of the fiction as opposed to hijacking play, I assume.)

To legislate an immutable/unwavering “rule” of behavior is to “freeze up” a part of the Sim process – i.e., it weakens the effective expression of the Sim CA.

It’s not that my problem lies with that personality mechanics are ripe for abuse (though I do think that is a distinct possibility in play) but rather their very nature is antithetical to Sim expression.  To the same extent that firm, fixed rules are crucial to Gamist expression; firm, fixed personality rules are antithetical to a similar extent to Simulationist expression. 

I know that sounds very odd, but please take a moment to consider how bricolage works before dashing off a rebuttal!  I’m not implying that you are rash or anything like that, but that what I am suggesting is a little difficult to make that conceptual shift if  one comes at it from a rules-first point of view.  You see, bricolage makes rules!  It also bends, folds, spindles and mutilates rules in the process!

I see the distinction you are making, but from a bricoleur’s point of view such “rules” are an inherent problem.  See, the very nature of bricolage is such that the very “rules” (governing the interactions of the objects – Ghandi is peaceful) themselves can and more importantly will evolve over time as a result of the bricoleur’s efforts.  Even if the players/bricoleurs are not mindfully seeking to “change the rules.”  This morphing/evolution of the “rules” is an integral part of the bricolage/Sim process.  To legislate an immutable/unwavering “rule” of behavior is to “freeze up” a part of the Sim process – i.e., it weakens the effective expression of the Sim CA.

That’s a great question, and I hope that my answer helps illuminate my thoughts some.  It’s not that my problem lies with that personality mechanics are ripe for abuse (though I do think that is a distinct possibility in play) but rather their very nature is antithetical to Sim expression.  To the same extent that firm, fixed rules are crucial to Gamist expression; firm, fixed personality rules are antithetical to a similar extent to Simulationist expression.

I know that sounds very odd, but please take a moment to consider how bricolage works before dashing off a rebuttal!  I’m not implying that you are rash or anything like that, but that what I am suggesting is a little difficult to make that conceptual shift if  one comes at it from a rules-first point of view.  You see, bricolage makes rules!  It also bends, folds, spindles and mutilates rules in the process!  To drop a static point in there somewhere will water down that bricolage/Sim process.  From a certain point of view what is referred to as Calvin Balling in Gamism is acceptable in Sim, but it had better be supportable via the history of the SIS somewhere or it will be regarded as “cheating!”

contracycle wrote: No I disagree; Calvinballing is an inherently dishonest act and I cannot see how this can be construed to be important to sim.  That would make sim the domain of the best liar.  I would also think its directly contradictory to the general process of bricolage on which you base your argument, because calvinballing is the construction of claims that are NOT based on the properties of the objects of their history of manipulation in play, but instead on the opportunistic desire of ther play to achieve some goal by rationalisation.

Hey there Caldis, now I reply to you!

Caldis wrote: This is not a problem for sim because that is the heart of what sim is, getting the play right. Accepting constructive denial as Ron put it in one of the last few posts in the GNS forum.  The dream is created before the play even begins it has nothing to do with their decisions creating it, the dream is simulated in play.

Red highlighting added.

No that's not what I've said at all.  What I've said is that your group has accepted the idea that removing players who dont live up to your standards is socially acceptable.  Whether it's because they dont have the same agenda or there not on the same page with you as to what the game is about the answer is the same.  In other groups dropping people is not socially accepted, therefore they have adopted other means to get people on the same page,  personality mechanics being one of them.

Red highlighting added.

See Jay that's a narrativist choice right there.

Ron wrote: The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing.

Caldis wrote: What other games have you played that you would identify as sim?

Callan wrote:

To legislate an immutable/unwavering “rule” of behavior is to “freeze up” a part of the Sim process – i.e., it weakens the effective expression of the Sim CA.

I'm glad you said this, because I totally agree. Except I see it as a feature, not a bug. It's a creative focus - yup, that part of the sim process is frozen - because this game will be about exploring issues other than that.

It may be too much stick though, not enough carrot. Personality rules which propose a certain character reaction (like rage), with a reward as an incentive is probably better.

Okay, understanding you a bit more. And I think I understand a sim address.

But I think your treating book rules as if really their just the same as setting.

The former is open to change - if you pour blue ink on her head, her hair changes colour. With the book rule in place, her hair doesn't change colour - it remains red. I'm pretty sure at first this rubs a simulationist back the wrong way - "There's no causal reason - her hair just remains red? Regardless of all the other stuff in the universe? What if we nuked her/atomised her - would she even exist so that her hair is still red? What!? It would! That's freakin' rediculous!"

I think if you are treating rules as if they are setting, this is why - the book rules create causal impossiblities. Thus, instead of being treated as unbending (which just screws with your agenda), they become treated as setting and open to bending, folding and spindling.

And that's all I've got, so I'm going to bow out on this issue (hope it wasn't a waste of time for you or other forge members).

I think sim play can and probably needs to benefit from the structure rules give.  But this is a difficult problem to overcome, should you want to.

contracycle wrote: I don't agree rules are an inherent problem to the bricoleur; there is nothing about this process of implicit and impressionist change that requires that all things be changeable.  In fact I would suggest that contradicts the idea that objects formed or altered by bricolage are then whole in their own right.  For this to be true they must have implications of their own, consequences to other objects, all of which is to say: they impose limits on what else can be done.  They construct rules of permissable future change.

The point of establishing such a statement about a character goes far beyond that they are "said to be" X, but in fact are known to be X, have been observed to be X from the past.  It is one of the properties of this object.  That does not imply that the object is unchangeable; but it seems, the mention of "entailments" related to "violations" assumes too much of the gamist use of personality mechanics as a punitive measure, rather than a sim-appropriate use for portrayal.

I fear thats an overextension to an illogcial degree - the presence of personality mechanics does not imply they are necessarily immutable.  I suggest that it is far more common to have some kind of escape clause rule about possible changes than it is to find a system asserting that a choice once made can never be altered by anyone or any act of play.

No I disagree; Calvinballing is an inherently dishonest act and I cannot see how this can be construed to be important to sim.

(Blast these post size limits!)

Hi Claire!

beingfrank wrote: What's to stop someone lying to fake expertise?  I can be a damn good bullshitter.  I could unscrupulously fake an expertise in something to gain advantage.

Or less brokenly, what happens when there's two experts and they disagree?  When it's something like bows, it's reasonably concrete.  If I were playing in such a game, I'd probably want a Pig skill related to the functioning of the criminal justice system, or psychology, since those are areas that I'm both interested in, and possess some expertise.  But someone with a similar expertise could have very different views and dispute the statements of authority I might make because they fundamentally disagree with the particularly theories I subscribe to.  Who decides who has the authority?

Or take something even more obviously controversial, like history.  There are major splits in the study of history over how things work or should be interpreted.  And I'm sure that even in the concrete example of bows, there are experts with different views who can have major spats over exactly how something was made or used.

I'm not trying to knock the technique, just see what it's limitations are so I understand it.  Basically what happens when someone lies, and what happens when there are multiple experts?

I';m afraid that response looks rather confused to me.  At the top you refer to mutual consensus, at the bottom you refer to submission to the arbitration of the GM.  Mutual consensus and submission to arbitration are not at all the same, and this reveals precisely where dishonesty can enter this picture.  I can subvert submission to the GM's authority by insisting on information I don't actually possess and blackmailing you to come to my "consensus".

Secondly, you appear to have assumed that the games CA is universally and inalterably held by all participants at all times, but this is unlikely to be the case.  Everyone exhibits all CA's in various degrees and with varying frequencies.  So you simply cannot rule out the appearance of a gamist decision, and the pursuit of advantage - which may itself be sublimated into "what the character would do" - even in game in which the Sim CA predominates.

Furthermore, I don't really follow how it can be that you say that decisions are made by consensus, and also that there are heated disputes about what a given outcome should be.  This is all the more striking in the light of your previous post some time back regarding a player decision with which you fundamentally disagreed.  It appears to me that you are achieving an eventual outcome through confrontation rather than consensus, and with the notional virtue of consensus serving to conceal the ultimate executive authority of the GM.

Anyway, I don;t mean to attack your game but I am trying to explain why I find your responses confusing.  Above, to caldis, you reject the idea that the dream pre-exists play, and yet previously you have said that players joining your group would be expected to read and digest LOT and related works, so quite clearly you are appealing to a dream the predates the game and is external to the players.  And indeed, without such an external and pre-existance standard, the ability to determine what is "correct" in the game world vanishes as there is no standard for comparison.  Why couldn't dwarves average 7'8" if that is what we agreed to imagine?  Because it contradicts the canon.

And this, it seems to me, unerlies your misunderstanding of the proposal in regards personality mechanics.  Becuase funcitonally, your game does appear to be willing and able to over-rule a given players proposed interpretation of the dream, hopefully by "consensus", but if necessary by GM fiat.  What the personality mechanics would seek to do is obviate the need for such socially coercive behaviours in favour of explicit statements as to how this aspect of the character is to be presented and portrayed in play, with the overt consent of all parties.

Iron element becoming component of cooling device, all accepted.

The problem is that such mechanics would not allow for any change or would certainly remove a player’s choice thus leading to deprotagonization with regards the Sim CA.  Using the analogy that Callan had employed above, such mechanics (like personality mechanics) that remove player choice are deprotagonizing – they are sticks and not carrots.  Conversely, rewarding players for employing or exhibiting certain (detrimental) personality traits is protagonizing as it preserves and even rewards(!) player input.

Maybe.  But my experience, which is openly admitted to be fairly limited, is that such “rules” are typically given huge amounts of credibility, so much so that failure to adhere to them is typically a “punishable offense.”  I agree that personality mechanics are not “necessarily” immutable, as per the Lumpley Principle, but I have not encountered much (any?) flexibility in my experiences.  So I’ll just note my disagreement and defer to someone else who has far more role-play experience to offer their own data/experiences with regards to the amount of credibility that is typically given to personality rules/mechanics in so called Sim facilitating games.

Hi Jay,

Okay, we hit a few nails on the head together, let's see how we go.

I fully agree that Sim does benefit from the “structure” rules give, but it needs to be understood and communicated that the rules are structures open to altering, folding, etc., and not immutable truths!  It is a terribly difficult problem to overcome and I am (still) hoping to defeat – but the resistance is staggeringly stiff.

Silmenume wrote:

One cannot have the Dream before play, because that, by definition, falls outside the Model.  The Dream does not; nay, cannot exist outside the players’ efforts.  Something else might exist outside of Exploration, but it is most certainly cannot be the Dream.  That’s foundational to the Model; human beings sharing imaginings.  Just as there is no Narrativism if the Theme is fixed prior to play, there is no Simulationism if the Dream is fixed prior to play.  Now, there may be the source material upon which the Dream will use as seed, but that source material will be altered during the course of play if the players are protagonized and you can’t have CA expression without protagonized players.

Now, what you described may be what is called as Sim and what I am describing may ultimately find another name, but I firmly assert this – What you describe and what I describe are as proudly incompatible and different in play as Gam/Nar are from what you described.  The difference being simply this – protagonism regarding conflict (G/N/and the type of play I describe which I believe is Sim) and deprotagonism regarding conflict (Zilchplay/the type of play you described above/what is currently called Sim).  Those two divisions are utterly incompatible and rightly so.

I’m trying not to just gainsay your positions as much as possible, but again I’m going to have to disagree with your arguments.  While I do agree that groups that don’t share compatible CA’s often have issues with removing such players, but your conclusion is just a glaring example of the Geek Social Fallacy in operation.

Not in the least – at least not with regards to role-play.  It is the player making the decision who determines if a problem is a Narrativist choice or not.  Like Ron’s sample scene in the Narrativism essay, one cannot determine CA from transcript.  Only from the players actions and reactions that make, express and support CA that CA can be seen.

Caldis wrote: What other games have you played that you would identify as sim?

Until about a few weeks ago, I would say that I had come across only one Sim facilitating game.  I fully admit that my experiences are very limited, but I have read and skimmed through a number of systems and they all suffered from that same basic conceptual problems.  Their insistence upon Story.  Their overwhelming resolution systems that suffer from two basic problems.  Their sheer crushing weight, and that they are framed basically as task resolution systems.  Sim is not about story and task resolution systems confound the Sim CA as much as conflict resolution systems do Gamism and task resolution systems do Narrativism.  Any game structured around one or both of these memes can and does confound the Sim CA expression.  I have not come across a published game design yet that has avoided both these common barriers to effective Sim expression.

Hi contracycle,

contracycle wrote:
I';m afraid that response looks rather confused to me.  At the top you refer to mutual consensus, at the bottom you refer to submission to the arbitration of the GM.

I can subvert submission to the GM's authority by insisting on information I don't actually possess and blackmailing you to come to my "consensus".

Furthermore, I don't really follow how it can be that you say that decisions are made by consensus, and also that there are heated disputes about what a given outcome should be.

This is all the more striking in the light of your previous post some time back regarding a player decision with which you fundamentally disagreed.  It appears to me that you are achieving an eventual outcome through confrontation rather than consensus, and with the notional virtue of consensus serving to conceal the ultimate executive authority of the GM.

Furthermore, I don't really follow how it can be that you say that decisions are made by consensus, and also that there are heated disputes about what a given outcome should be.

It appears to me that you are achieving an eventual outcome through confrontation rather than consensus, and with the notional virtue of consensus serving to conceal the ultimate executive authority of the GM.

Above, to caldis, you reject the idea that the dream pre-exists play, and yet previously you have said that players joining your group would be expected to read and digest LOT and related works, so quite clearly you are appealing to a dream the predates the game and is external to the players.

And indeed, without such an external and pre-existance standard, the ability to determine what is "correct" in the game world vanishes as there is no standard for comparison.  Why couldn't dwarves average 7'8" if that is what we agreed to imagine?  Because it contradicts the canon.

And this, it seems to me, unerlies your misunderstanding of the proposal in regards personality mechanics.  Becuase funcitonally, your game does appear to be willing and able to over-rule a given players proposed interpretation of the dream, hopefully by "consensus", but if necessary by GM fiat.

So... I'm sure a bunch of folks will correct me if I'm wrong but I always understood things to work like this...

The Premise exists before the game.
The Challenge exists before the game.
The Dream exists before the game.

The game is the Exploration of the Premise or Challenge or Dream... depending on your CA.

Very simplified, with all the errors that entails... but it means that even if you have stopped the "ritualized process of Addressing the Premise" it doesn't mean that the Premise doesn't exist... you just aren't currently exploring it.  Same for the Dream... which exists to be explored in the "ritualized process" that is the game... but doesn't have to be explored to exist. 

Like I said... I could be completely off on this, but if I'm close it could explain some of the cross talk on this issue.

Hey contracycle,

The whole split post thing totally gaffled my little pea brain!  Here is my effort at a response to the second part of your post.

contracycle wrote: And as I have already pointed out, thats a faulty assumption of how personality mechanics must work.

There is no inherent reason that at the system level, the player could not simply strike a peronality value of their sheet and say "I'm different now".

You see what worries me is when the Dream should for example say that a character is so handsome that noble ladies swoon in his presence, but this becomes forgotten in the excitement and process of play.  Whereas if it is systematically represented, it is one of the ways in which play is carried out, and imposes itself on the game space through the action of system.

Callan wrote: I don't think you can do this to rules ad hoc. Rules are not just rules, they are often the conduits of other players input. When you say you can fold, spindle and alter the rules they are giving input by, it's putting you up higher in the social contract than they are - you can fold, spindle and alter their input, but they can't do that to you.

You want to iron out the game worlds wrinkles because having that (and even ironing) is fun.

A quick idea are rules that can be jetisoned. These would be used to guide the game to where everyone wants it to be. Then, by due process, everyone decides if they agrees to jetison them (kind of like a booster rocket once it's fuel is spent). If they agree, at that point the rules are either forgotten about, or go through usual process of folding, spindling, etc. That way they guide the game a bit, but everyone also gets to iron out the impossiblities.

The wrote: Please do NOT select any area of knowledge of which you, the player, know little or nothing. To truly role-play a character, you must at least have a firm grasp of the basics of an area. Thus, if you truly have no idea how to be a good hunter, what a tracker looks for in a print, how to read the stars, and how one goes about driving a “hard bargain,” choose other skills/characters. Research will increase your ability to play new characters if you are truly interested. Above all, DO NOT FAKE IT! Bullshitting your way through a skill makes people ignore you and is very unsatisfying for all involved.

Some skills are more challenging than others in the above manner. To this end, two special marks can be found among the text. These are serious warnings to dissuade the casually interested from investing in these skills, as player performance is crucial in their execution.

[Book icon here]  Do not select these skills unless you as a player are somewhat educated in their area, interested in learning much more about them, and willing to role-play a world view based on an understanding of this skill.

[Pig-face icon here]Do not select these skills unless you are able, willing, and eager to role-play them to the appropriate level, no more, no less. These skills generally grant “permission” to utilize real-world knowledge and skill in-character. The GM won’t help you if you can’t pull off the role-playing. These skills are mandatory to purchase if you intend to use similar real-world experience to assist your role-playing, such as salesmanship or leadership, and they are forbidden if you don’t have the talent.