I'm splitting my response to several posts about so-called "zilchplay" in the thread Understanding: the "it" of Simulationism to a new thread, since the topic is a bit of a swerve from original thread topic. (And my apologies, I should have done so sooner.)

Silmenume wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Jay, that's always been part of the model, as I understand it. Agenda only becomes notable in certain circumstances.

There’s something very important in the above quote. One of the main arguments that has been promulgated in these threads recently is that whenever G/N isn’t being addressed we are immediately defaulting into Sim. The above clearly implies that Agenda is NOT always notable. If that above is true then there are times or instances of play that are not Agenda identified. For lack of a better term those interstitial moments of play have been referred to as “Zilchplay.” Maybe this particular argument is circular, but something is amiss.

I think there are some conflicting ideas about what Exploration means in roleplay. As roleplay is a creation enterprise, we have more when we are done than when we started, and that the basis of roleplay is Exploration, I believe that Exploration must, by extention, be a creation activity. If you’re not creating you’re not roleplaying. I know the word create has all sorts of built in explodo buttons but hang with me for a moment. Any player action that makes it into the SIS is a creative in that something new, that which was not there before, has been added to SIS. However just because something was added to the SIS does not mean the goal/agenda of a CA have been added to. In other words if the action taken by a player does not add to the body of material that is building towards the goal of CA then that act is not CA specific, it is Zilchplay.

In Gamism the player is taking steps, adding to the body of actions that will hopefully bring said player ultimately to victory.
In Narrativism the player is taking steps, adding to the body of actions that will hopefully bring said player ultimately to theme/story.
In Simulationism the player is directly adding new pieces to the body of the Explorative elements.

A player merely walking around is himself not directly adding to the Explorative Elements. The DM who in response to the stated players stated intent of walking around adds to the SIS by describing setting, but the player has not. Zilchplay.

Thus if a player adds to the Explorative Elements directly, if this is his goal and this is what he is jazzed about, then said player is playing Sim. This can happen under two circumstances. When a player has a choice about an action that will prioritize one agenda over another, or vitally important to the idea of Sim as a stand-alone agenda, when the player steps out of Zilchplay and directly into Sim.

To employ the much used example, said character walks across the street. Zilchplay. However the player could while walking across the street stop, go to a knee, pickup a handful of earth and say, “This is good soil. I will build my farm here one day.” The player in this example was not under pressure to avoid Gam or Nar choices, but freely of his own creative inclination created an opportunity where none existed before to add to the Explorative Elements. He chose to play Sim as an Agenda. Like Walt said earlier, this creative bit must be “unexpected” or new to the circumstances.

So in order to see Creative Agenda in operation, something new/unexpected must be “created” and it must address the goals of that Agenda.

I believe the additive goal of Simulationism is adding to the Explorative Elements. The players are collaborating in the creation, maintenance, and social reward delivery for living the Dream.

Silmenume wrote: I don’t have any issues with games with ‘weak attention to Creative Agenda’ or perhaps what I think is a better term, ‘weak expression of Creative Agenda’ on any level. I don’t think I made any value judgment about such games other than to say they are difficult to quantify behaviorally in regards to the diagnostic portion of the model. I think it is interesting to note the idea that as intensity of engagement decreases the greater the probability that multiple modes of play can exist side by side as the players just aren’t all that fired up so the annoyance factor isn’t that likely to be an issue either.

Sean wrote: So at this point I'm sort of torn. On the one hand, I believe that people playing this way will probably be at least roughly diagnoseable with some kind of overall preference within any given game, G, N, or S. On the other hand, if they're happy with what they're doing, they might resist an intensification along any of those axes: they might make decisions not to explore intensely, or not to step on up, or not to get too hard-core into the story, because they just want to keep floating along. And in this sense, because they make negative decisions about the intensity of any of the three modes, it might make sense to talk about Z as a fourth preference - this one really defined negatively, as Sim should not be in my opinion. It's the creative agenda that says 'hey, let's not focus on any overall creative agenda, let's just bop around in the shared space and focus on whatever butters our muffin at the time, with the understanding that if your muffin gets too heavily buttered consistently in one direction you either need to lay off or find a new game'.

So: decisions in play are always understandable as little-g, little-s, or little-n, at least barring finding some new form of focus. And many games will have a creative agenda which involves focusing on one of these and making play more intense: the capital letter modes. On the other hand, there's also an overall creative agenda which is explicitly aimed against heavy focus, which we're calling "Zilchplay", but since that's negative and implies to me an absence of player desires, which is incoherent, I'd prefer C, "Casual Play", as the title, if this exists.

Earlier in the thread, Mike wrote: Walt, I think you're explaining a phenomenon, but not one that's important to GNS per se, but more Creative Agenda overall. That is the GNS portion of CA is about coherence. So, unless you can show that this is a point of potential conflict, I think you're describing a subset of a mode - as you say splitting Sim. This doesn't create another mode, however, it just further subdivides one that already exists in a manner that it needs to exists for the model.

Earlier in the thread, Emily wrote: What I'm hearing is that zilchplay is exploration without intent, so to speak. Or role-playing that neither engages nor expresses any creative agenda and is in fact reactive to the catalyzing input of another player's expression of their creative agenda, though it may not appear to be so.

Sounds good, and I'd love to see sim split up into something managable that people could agree exists. But can play really be unmotivated? In the model, as soon as two or three come together and play, you've got creative agenda. You're positing a world where (perhaps) the most common situation is a game where one person (the gm) has a CA, and most others (the players) don't have one, or at least may get on just fine without one. That's a very different world than the one that gns has been thought to inhabit.

When do you cross out of zilchplay? Is that a personal decision? Is it based on the other players' interest in what you do? If not, how do we discern whether an action is "expected" or not? A player may put a lot of care and thought and hold attachment to an action that another would judge to be formulaic. This reminds me of the concept of pastiche, also. How attached to the concept of expected/unexpected are you? Do you see zilchplay as being limited to actions that seem formulaic?

Just trying to get clearer. Hope it's of use.

I've moved the following post from the parent thread, and made some edits.

My question is: are the zilchplayers engaged in what they are exploring? Are they enjoying it?

If something about the exploration is exciting them, there is a CA here somewhere. If they are just going through the motions, just exploring because they need an excuse to tumble little plastic dice across the table, then I'd say no CA is at work - Sim or otherwise.

I'm not certain that I've ever witnessed zilchplay, so I can't answer this question for myself.

cruciel wrote: I'm not certain that I've ever witnessed zilchplay, so I can't answer this question for myself.

[Edit: cross-posted with ScottM; this answers Jason (Cruciel)]

Are they enjoying it? Usually.

Have I inadvertently conjured up images of zombie players, sitting around tables with dice, paper, and nachos all covered in dust and cobwebs like Miss Havisham's wedding feast? Not the idea at all. Think instead of the lucky volunteers called up to the stage during a glitzy Vegas magic show. Cool, I get to participate! Are they involved? Sure. Are they excited? Quite possibly. Does any of what transpires depend on or reward their own self-expressioon in any way? No.

So, are they engaged in it? Depends on what you mean by "engaged."

Nothing wrong with it. I don't read novels or participate in friends' wedding ceremonies to express myself creatively, and I don't always role-play for that reason either. (But I don't usually prefer to GM in zilchplay style. If I'm going to be doing all the creative decision-making myself, I prefer to work in text interactive fiction or computer game form, where there's a good possibility of getting paid for it.)

I don't accept the idea that if play doesn't express a creative agenda, then it must be just an excuse to throw dice (or some other similarly unrewarding reason). Going to the movies isn't self-expression, so is it just an excuse to walk on a sticky floor?

- Walt

ScottM wrote: I suspect the trick to this is distinguishing what people want. I suspect a lot of zilchplay comes about due to lack of spotlight or a distracted player. Is a lack of spotlight really a choice of that player though?

For an example of a distracted player, I've probably gamed in a way that resembles zilchplay. I enthusiastically accept that D&D can be a great deal of gamist fun (and I urged and try to educate our DM in ways to make "challenges" rather than walkovers). In fact, that may be a large part of my personal challenge-- as the local D&D 'rules expert', I spend a lot of time helping the DM interpret the nasty side of our opponents, figuring out what all those abilities do, etc. Often my character falls into the background (automatically healing the wounded, etc.) while I help the DM get his end straight. Does this qualify as zilchplay?

Depending on the duration of an instance, other events seem similar. For example, a priest or (in my case) druid often makes his decisions well in advance of a fight and there's often little "challenge" involved in those decisions. If he decides to "buff" his allies before the combat, then during the actual combat there are few real decisions to make (due to lack of remaining spells, lack of useful attacks, etc.) If the instance examined was the battle alone, then I (the druid's player) probably look like a zilchplayer, but looked at in context, the spell (etc.) decisions are more clearly dedicated to beating the foe-- a kind of "no personal challenge, but group facilitating gamist" kind of decision.

Of course, that's another question... does zilchplay cover the _____ist facilitating roles? Should it?

Walt Freitag wrote: Are they enjoying it? Usually.

So, are they engaged in it? Depends on what you mean by "engaged."

Walt Freitag wrote: One more quibble: I think "weak expression of creative agenda" is a useful concept, but in your earlier post you made it sound like it could be a synonym for "incoherence." I don't think that's the case (and it might not have been what you meant to say anyway).

Walt Freitag wrote: I don't believe the directness is required, though directness does make the player's contribution to the Dream easier to perceive.

Walt Freitag wrote: But indirectly can be good enough for me -- and because of that, sometimes a PC "just walking around" is enough to express a Sim creative agenda.

Walt Freitag wrote: Thus, a player can engage in creation, self-expression, the unexpected, whatever we want to call it, without ever being visibly out of Actor stance, under the right circumstances.

Walt Freitag wrote: Little z, individual moments of idling play in which no particular creative agenda is being expressed (and/or when no one is making any unexpected decisions), is pretty universal and not usually dysfunctional or even undesirable.

Hi Jay,

You're right about "incoherence." The comment I was referring to wasn't yours at all, it was Sean's. Sorry about that.

Other than that, about all I can say is I agree with every word. It's almost frightening. Just as what I said about players adding to the explored elements indirectly had already gone through your mind when you decided to keep things simple by saying "direct," what you said about the significance of the context in creating meaning for "just walking across the street" had already gone through my mind when I decided to keep things simple by saying "sometimes just walking around is enough to exress a Sim creative agenda." (And you're right, too, in that the possibilities aren't limited to a Sim creative agenda.)

Of course, even with such context, most likely walking across the street will express at most a slight hint toward the player's creative agenda, a little bit of information to be incorporated into an even larger context over a longer period of time, rather than being the sort of "hey look, that street-crossing was Narrativism!" moment you refer to. I assume you're already aware of that, and were presenting exaggerated examples to make the important fundamental point, but I mention it for others' benefit.

Your comments about applications to Sim play (applying theory to improving play -- woo hoo!) are very perceptive and interesting. The idea that it is almost impossible for Sim players in traditionally structured games to address character (and easier to address Situation) is just the reverse of what one might expect, given the usual understanding that players "control their characters" while GMs tend to exercise "control of the situation." Yet I think, I think, you're right. Your explanation makes sense and it accords with my experience. I'll have to think about how this might figure into the "my world vs. my guy" problem and its solutions.

Your mention of "zilchplay games with color thrown in by the players" reminds me that I didn't directly address where play focusing on "exploration of color" falls with respect to zilchplay. "Just contributing color" sounds at first like a description of zilchplay or at least close to it, but it's not necessarily so. Exploraiton of color is subject to the same acid test as other kinds of exploration. Is the color the players provide filling in prior expectations of what the color should be, or are unexpected color elements being introduced and appreciated? Possible zilchplay in the first case, not in the second.

- Walt

Jason, "I want to see what happens" or "I want to see how it comes out" is sufficient reason all by itself for enjoyment of reading a novel. Why is it not sufficient reason all by itself for enjoyment of exploration, if by means of that exploration one is learning a story that one happens to find interesting? Is exploration that much more difficult or onerous that it universally requires some additional attraction?

My contention is that enjoyment of exploration does not require a creative agenda. Enjoyment of self-expression by means of shared exploration reqires a creative agenda -- that is, something to express oneself about. But not all exploration in role playing involves self-expression. Sometimes exploration is listening, or going through the motions, while imagining. (Like turning the pages of a novel -- yes, it's an observable action on the reader's part and it's absolutely necessary to the act of reading, but it doesn't make the reader a contributor to the content.) That's zilchplay.

- Walt

Walt,

Ah... I think I see where our disconnect is. I'm using Exploration differently.

You appear to be using Exploration as synonymous to experiencing, while I'm using Exploration as synonymous to creating. So, if I'm right here, then you and Jay's 'adding to Exploration' is synonymous with my 'Exploration'.

How many times do you think I can use the word 'synonymous' in this post?

Then using your wording, my question becomes: "Are zilchplayers interested in adding to Exploration?" Which I think you've already answered as negative, so then no Creative Agenda.

Walt, am I right?

Hey Walt,

No worries!

Walt Freitag wrote: Of course, even with such context, most likely walking across the street will express at most a slight hint toward the player's creative agenda, a little bit of information to be incorporated into an even larger context over a longer period of time, rather than being the sort of "hey look, that street-crossing was Narrativism!" moment you refer to. I assume you're already aware of that, and were presenting exaggerated examples to make the important fundamental point, but I mention it for others' benefit.

Walt Freitag wrote: The idea that it is almost impossible for Sim players in traditionally structured games to address character (and easier to address Situation) is just the reverse of what one might expect, given the usual understanding that players "control their characters" while GMs tend to exercise "control of the situation."

Walt Freitag wrote: Just contributing color" sounds at first like a description of zilchplay or at least close to it, but it's not necessarily so. Exploration of color is subject to the same acid test as other kinds of exploration. Is the color the players provide filling in prior expectations of what the color should be, or are unexpected color elements being introduced and appreciated? Possible zilchplay in the first case, not in the second.

cruciel wrote: You appear to be using Exploration as synonymous to experiencing, while I'm using Exploration as synonymous to creating. So, if I'm right here, then you and Jay's 'adding to Exploration' is synonymous with my 'Exploration'.

cruciel wrote: Then using your wording, my question becomes: "Are zilchplayers interested in adding to Exploration?" Which I think you've already answered as negative, so then no Creative Agenda.

I've only been skimming all this, and now I'm coming in late (though now I've read the whole thread), so I want to ask a small question for clarification.

As Walt mentioned, in Actual Play we get a lot of "I want my players to be more proactive." If I understand correctly, one classic version of this would here be phrased, "I want my players to stop playing zilchplay so much." The advice offered will amount to:

How to get the players to express a CA more rapidly (or at all);
How to get the players to speed through necessary zilchplay;
Or both.

In other words, to take the 1979 DMG example, which is pretty much all zilchplay, the question (if you want your players to be proactive) is how to get them to run through that stuff really fast -- sort of handwave it or otherwise get a move on -- so that CA can happen.

Thus zilchplay isn't a bad thing as such, for the same reason that reading a novel is hardly a bad thing, but when it comes to dominate play time it tends to provoke, "Why can't my players be more proactive?"

Have I got that more or less right?

Chris Lehrich

Hi Walt,

What I guess I don't understand is why you consider zilchplay to have been lumped with Simulationist play. Given your definition (and especially your clarification to Emily above), it seems very straightforward to me that:

a) zilchplay is not play, but at most a sort of Social-Contract-only presence among the other people; and

b) thus not involved with Creative Agenda at all; and

c) hence not Simulationist specifically.

Is there some particular post or thread that you're working from, in terms of the conceptual problem that you're correcting? I mean, I agree with the correction-concept, but I guess I don't see it as correcting anything - just stating something .... well, if not obvious, at least not controversial.

Best,
Ron

Jason wrote: You appear to be using Exploration as synonymous to experiencing, while I'm using Exploration as synonymous to creating. So, if I'm right here, then you and Jay's 'adding to Exploration' is synonymous with my 'Exploration'.

Chris wrote: As Walt mentioned, in Actual Play we get a lot of "I want my players to be more proactive." If I understand correctly, one classic version of this would here be phrased, "I want my players to stop playing zilchplay so much." The advice offered will amount to:

How to get the players to express a CA more rapidly (or at all);
How to get the players to speed through necessary zilchplay;
Or both.

In other words, to take the 1979 DMG example, which is pretty much all zilchplay, the question (if you want your players to be proactive) is how to get them to run through that stuff really fast -- sort of handwave it or otherwise get a move on -- so that CA can happen.

Thus zilchplay isn't a bad thing as such, for the same reason that reading a novel is hardly a bad thing, but when it comes to dominate play time it tends to provoke, "Why can't my players be more proactive?"

Have I got that more or less right?

Ron,

My previous post addressing Jason above crossed your post, but coincidentally its last paragraph (not counting the asterisked postscript) sums up how I believe we differ on this.

Since we have no consensual community definition of role playing here, I can't argue your conclusion that zlichplay is not role playing. Within the structure of the Big Model, it's a logical and internally consistent conclusion.

But I've seen lots of zilchplay, functional and otherwise, and I doubt any single one of those players would have the slightest inking that they weren't actually role playing, or would agree with that judgment if it were suggested to them.

If you observe a player in play and cannot perceive that player's Creative Agenda, how do you distinguish between "that player is role playing, I just haven't observed enough play yet to perceive his Creative Agenda," and "that player is not role playing?" The problem for Sim comes from the assumption, "if I can't perceive a player's Creative Agenda after looking for a good long while, it's Sim by default." That may not be how you intend the theory to work, but that's how it's been understood by many. Should it instead be "if I can't perceive a player's Creative Agenda after looking for a good long while then that player is not role playing?" I'd rarely if ever be willing to make such a judgment. That's why I prefer "if I can't perceive a player's Creative Agenda after looking for a good long while, then that player's play is zilchplay." I simply can't tell what he's expressing himself about because I haven't seen him express himself at all. (I might have to revise my assessment if more evidence of a CA occurs over time, but that's always true.) That "out" removes the temptation to overload the evidence and e.g. declare play Gamist because the player smiles at a favorable die roll.

- Walt

Jay,

I'm going to leave the fact that your Sim|Char examples reek of Vanilla Nar to me to the other threads that have sprung up about Exploration of Character and Nar.

Jay wrote: I think it would help to distinguish between the act/process of Exploration from the collective noun referring to the Exploratory Elements.

To rephrase your question, if I may be so bold –

"Are zilchplayers interested in adding to the Exploratory Elements?"

The answer is, it depends. If the players are squelching the expression of their CA’s so that their game may continue and not be torn apart, then the answer is yes. If zilchplayers are truly happy, just floating along, consuming and not adding much of anything to the Exploratory Elements, then the answer is no.

Walt wrote: The GNS/Agenda model describes Exploration as "shared imaginings." The "shared" part means that the imaginings are being shaped by communication about those things between the participants. (This is a pretty close paraphrase from the "The foundation: Exploration and more" section of Ron's Narrativism: Story Now article.)

So, the way I see it, experiencing alone isn't sufficient to meet the definition of Exploration, but introducing anything new or unexpected into the communication (one possible definition of "creating"*) isn't required to meet the definition of Exploration. That's not to say "creating" is not a strong expectation in some, even most, social contracts for actual play, just that without "creating" it can still be Exploration and still be role playing.

Picking up a die and rolling it when cued to do so by the system or the other participants (which even the otherwise silent players in the AD&D DMG play example are apparently doing) is communicating about the shared imagined space and is therefore Exploration, and it can even be said to be adding to the shared imagined space, but I wouldn't call it creating. Others will disagree; that's why "creating" is such a tricky verb to try to pin a definition on, leading me to try out the perhaps marginally less tricky "introducing the unexpected" as an alternative. Another description of the same "it" (which is the missing "it" in Sim but is not unique to Sim) is that "it" is the use of Exploration as bandwidth for self-expression.

Walt wrote: Since we have no consensual community definition of role playing here, I can't argue your conclusion that zilchplay is not role playing. Within the structure of the Big Model, it's a logical and internally consistent conclusion.

Walt wrote: I stress, I'm trying to stay true to the Big Model's meaning of Exploration, but the implications I'm reading into it contradict GNS/Agenda theory. To wit: I'm proposing it's the "it" rather than Exploration itself that requires a Creative Agenda; that Exploration can still occur without the "it," and that therefore Exploration (and role playing) can occur without a Creative Agenda. A different interpretation that would not lead to contradiction of the current model would be: Exploration cannot exist at all without "it," so that whether it's the Exploration or the "it" that requires a Creative Agenda is a meaningless question, and all Exploration has a Creative Agenda.