The Forge Archives

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

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

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

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

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

[*]Sim does not require exacting specifics, but norms.[*]The Sim game process has become incorrectly conflated with high-resolution mechanics.[/list:u]Strictly speaking, in the celebration/defense of ideals, what is important is that the consequences for actions be reasonably predictable.  The ability to predict the consequences of our actions is the means by which we assess the risks and thus assign a "value" to the ideal which is being celebrated/defended.  This is where risk is made manifest in Sim play.

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

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

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

I'm not either, but I'll give it a go.

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

That, of course, is an ideal state. In essence, this is "system does matter" achieved, in the sense that we're talking about systems whose mechanics fully promote expression of the desired CA. As you know, there is very often an actual mismatch, which is "incoherent" design. Just clarifying a bit, but I agree that, given that we're talking about coherent and successful design, this is an essential goal of mechanics. I don't know that it's the only role of mechanics, but it's an essential one.

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

1. The difference between "normative" and "normal" is that the former makes explicit a notion of desirability, something often but not always embedded in the latter.  For example, consider the role of violence and combat in RPGs.  This is certainly "normal", because it appears in most games.  At the same time, it has become "normative", in that a considerable proportion of the potential readership (playership?) will be confused or bothered if an extensive combat system is not present.  One thing we find with games like MLwM, among many others, is the displacement of combat from its usual high-resolution focal position; part of the point of such a design move is precisely to demonstrate that what is "normal" (having a detailed combat system) need not be "normative" (having a detailed combat system is always desirable).  In other words, a "normative" claim is one that says, "X is a norm and should remain so," which is an ideological statement.  

Formal usages of "normative" usually also point out the ways that norms get structured as "natural," which is a way of propping up a "normative" claim by reference to a supposedly non-ideological reality.  For example, "RPGs need to have detailed combat systems because RPG play requires them; without a detailed combat system, you just get the old 'I got you' 'No way' stuff that collapses games; therefore RPGs naturally evolve detailed combat systems and that's just the way it has to be; it's not a question of whether we want it that way, because it's intrinsic in the nature of gaming itself."  Note that the claim here is that the norm (that there are detailed combat systems) is a requirement of nature; since it is demonstrably not the case that all RPGs require detailed combat systems, the claim (detailed combat <-- nature) is false, and we know that it must be a normative claim: (detailed combat <-- ideology).  This is by far the most common usage of "normative", in my experience, and it has its roots in Marxian analysis.  

As a side note, this is very often the point of entry for deconstructive analyses.  The analyst, examining an accepted norm, finds that it is usually "below the radar" within the discourse that manipulates it.  For example, in American political rhetoric, it is accepted that religion has to do with God or gods, in some way or another; some people think that religion should be central to all American public life, and some think that it should be excluded from the same, but there is no disagreement about more or less roughly what we mean by "religion".  "Religion" clearly entails faith in some sort of higher power(s).  But of course, a century of scholarship on religion has grappled with the fact that this connection is simply false: over the course of history, the majority of religions, by any definition except this singular criterion (i.e. things that seem in every way to fit what we mean by religion, setting aside the issue of faith in gods), either have no god(s) at all or have nothing resembling the notion of "faith".  Thus this norm of American political discourse is in fact a normative claim: "if you don't recognize that faith in god(s) is obviously and naturally the most important thing in religion, you cannot speak about religion and your voice is omitted from the discourse." This is ideology at work: American public discourse has internalized this notion of religion as obviously true, to the point that questions of the constitutionality of federal religious initiatives and the tax-exempt status of religious institutions are fully predicated upon a definition that amounts to, "If it accepts that Luther was basically right, and that Protestant Christianity is the standard against which all religions should be judged, it can be classified as religious for legal purposes."  

I don't know if that helps. If someone wants to discuss the application of normative and norm and such to RPGs further, we should probably take it to another thread, but it's up to you, Jay.

2. The bell curve distribution thing I find quite interesting.  In Sim, it's very commonly the case that the norms of the game world are significantly non-binary.  For example, if we're simulating a skill like Drive Car in NPCs, we would "in the real world" expect that there is a range of abilities that tend to cluster in some sort of curve around a median position.  The same could be said about a great many things that are commonly simulated, suggesting that multi-die bell-curve mechanics often facilitate the Dream.  

This seems to me not necessarily the case in all types of system.  Gamism does not in principle require that probabilities match any particular simulated reality; it most likely requires only that the probabilities be consistent and known, in order to facilitate stepping up to a challenge rather than simply making guesses.  So if we get into a car chase with an NPC, we the players may need to be able to make a plausible prediction about his or her driving skill in order to decide an appropriate tactic for "winning" the chase.

Narrativism similarly does not require any particular sort of probability in any particular case, except at a meta-level: a Nar system needs to know probabilities insofar as they relate to the story and theme at hand, in part to ensure that such probabilities do not interfere with player addressing of Premise.  So if the desired story-type is one in which people's self-assessments (of skill or whatever) are importantly the issue, having I suppose something to do with ego vs. self-understanding, then it might be desirable to have a 50/50 probability on the car-driving skill: NPCs are either Very Good or Terrible at driving, with nothing in between, because this ensures that any NPC encountered has his or her own notional addressing of Premise. (Not that NPCs actually address Premise -- or really, PCs either -- but if the game is so constructed that the Premise is a perpetual haunting presence in every situation, that may facilitate the players' developing situations in which they can address Premise).

This all suggests to me that CAs formulate norms by reference to desired goals, which may seem obvious but is a little peculiar in the case of Sim. In Sim, we have the "source material" or the constructed game-world, which is imagined in such a way that it has certain kinds of norms of its own.  Going by the "No Myth" principle, we know that these norms do not actually exist in the game world unless and until they are formulated there.  But the point, and I think this is what you're really getting at, is that the formulation of such norms within system is intended to make the Dream match the model (the source material, etc.).  This is quite different from formulating norms in order to facilitate Step on Up or Story Now, because it acts to deflect player attention, in effect trying to suppress the system's existence or at least make it completely transparent to the game-world.  Have I understood you correctly?

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

That has been true in the past, but I do think that one of the successes of the Big Model has been to undermine this connection.

Quote

[*]Sim does not require exacting specifics, but norms.[/list:u]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to call this section out because it's indicative of what I think is the problem with applying GNS, a measure of what was enjoyed or reinforced in play, to game design and mechanics.

I don't think there is a reliable mapping. And therefore I don't think incoherence is actually a GNS CA clash that exists in the rules so much as a set of personal preferences that exist between players.

That is: I don't think incoherence is a measure of game design. If it is, then I think TROS must be seen as incredibly incoherent by any rigorous measure. Since I don't think this is the case, I think that the actual-play focus of GNS makes applyng it to game design dicey at best and a vehicle for biased, meaning-free analysis at worst.

And by at-worst, I do NOT mean 'as it is done here', by and large but rather as it is done when Gamist is related to all D20 mechanics is related to hack-and-slash.

I say this because it is very clear that a lot of instances of play that I (and others here) consider reasonably Narrativist adhere to the technique of simulation-like play. Furthermore, at least two of the top 10 or 20 posters (myself and John Kim) have enjoyed games that we think revolved around premise but were, I would say, assisted by the technique of simulation-like rules. Notably, I think, these games enjoyed a depth of immersion.

Considering that the forge is self-selecting in terms of its population, I think that number is significant.

That said: if we all agree that we are Simulationist and that the point of our game will be to play in star-trek and adhere to the formula of the TV show while never becoming engaged or excited at the premises that were prevalent in almost every example of that show then, yes, it behooves us to have a reasonable level of fidelity to the vision of that world.

But I think the agreement to simulationst play has to come first and is the key issue. If we simply sit down and 'play out an episode of the TV show,' the GM will start by taking a relevant social issue that we, as the audience, hopefully feel strongly about, and will render it with in-game situational relevance using the system.

I submit that if we do become excited about the issues therein and take any action based on them (and are not coralled by the GM in a forceful manner or otherwise slapped down) then we have something that is very arguably Narrativist (and, IMO, fits the printed definition, even if some people disagree).

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

-Marco

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

Well that has its ups and down.  For example, the long-running soap Corronation Street has a statisticially absurd frequency of both violent crime and self-employed business people by comparison to the rest of the country - and yet the very draw of these soaps is that they allegedly portray normal people.  But the need to shoe-horn some sort of dramatic situtation into these scenarios has blown realism out of the water.

So IMO there is a big difference between duplicating Trek's twee emotional dramas, and duplicating the world of Trek.  I fully agree that a game that sought to simulate THE TV SHOW, as opposed the universe described in that TV show, would necessarily have to introduce similar 'drama's to those employed by the show.  But this assumption seems badly flawed to me. I think most simulationists want to fire the phasers, not indulge in some insipid moralising.

Hey Chris,

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

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

While the above is certainly an interesting idea, it is not where I am looking to go in this thread.  Thus taking it to another thread, should one wish to pursue it, would be my preferred solution.

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

I hadn't quite thought about it in that slant but, yes, that is accurate.  My thinking prior was to the establishment of a norm – I hadn't given much thought to the idea that the norms of the Dream must match the norms of the model.

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

Here's where I'll diverge a little bit.  I am not sure the intention is to deflect player attention or there is an overt effort to suppress the system's existence, but rather that is a likely emergent effect.  Mechanics aren't there for the players to employ to an end, but rather mechanics ensure a consistent (normal) world that the players are both subject to and can rely upon when assessing risks.  IOW there is no advantage accorded to the players in the celebration of ideals by the overt employment of mechanics.  In a certain way it would work against a player to do so.  For example if a Sim player were to overtly employ mechanics in such a way as to reduce the risk of failure (that runs counter to the normal behavior of said character) while celebrating/defending an ideal, then the value of that celebration is lessened.  (This is actually a more complicated matter which in all likelihood will require further illumination)

This is interesting to me.  This suggests that in Sim, mechanics have their greatest effect over the long term/aggregate.  An individual instance of Fortune or Karma isn't so important to the Dream as the long-term effects of the resolution mechanics as a whole.  Like the dream itself, mechanics take a long time to come into its own (baselines take a long time to lay down).  This is why I think Drama integrates so well in my current game experience, as long as the Drama resolution result does not deviate too sharply from the established norm no one is really going to notice too much.  And even if it did on rare occasion, how do you establish that it was too many standard deviations out to be plausible?

Quote from: clehrich

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

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

I'd be glad to try.  The idea was vague in my mind when I first wrote it, so it's not surprising that it's unclear.  

Er...

I have been pondering what I want to say for several hours now, and I still don't know how to phrase it cleanly.  So I'm just going to dump the thoughts out here and hope that in the process I or someone else can make sense of what I am trying to get at.

First, I don't think the issue of risk is neither more Gamist nor Narrativist than Sim.  Risk is an equal participant and thus equally important in all three modes of play.  It is what puts "spice" into all the proceedings.  The question that has been asked (rightfully) several times in the past was, "Where is the risk in Sim?"  With regards to Sim, I think that question is better phrased as, "What is being risked and when?"  Well, as I regard Sim as a game of contrasts, I posit that two things are being risked simultaneously and the level of said risk is found in how much the realization of the first impinges on the viability of the second.  The two items in question are the ideal and the most important need/drive of the character that is in jeopardy at that time.

I'll give an example for the ideal of friendship –

A player character, seeing that his buddy is badly wounded, decides that he will stay behind as a rear guard action to hold a door as long as he can to give his friend as much lead time as possible.  The player character knows that there are many bad guys coming, so what he is doing is dangerous.  One ideal here being manifested by his action is friendship.  Why is this an example of the celebration/defense of friendship?  Because the player is risking something important to himself (the life of his character/drive) for the sake of that friendship/ideal.  The player freely opted to put his life into greater danger for the sake of friendship.  The risk being borne is the potential real loss of the character that the player is willing to bear.

This is where norms come into play.  The player, having been in combat many times, and having faced similar foes, knows (projects forward based upon past experiences) that his chances of surviving are slim and declining.  This is important.  It is important to the celebration of the ideal that the player "know" ahead of time what risks he's potentially facing.  The greater the risk, the stronger the celebration becomes.

Now here's the deal.  When celebrating an ideal two questions are asked simultaneously.

[*]Will he?  (Which can be thought of how long will he engage in this action – which can be from zero to death, completion or drop out.)[*]And how effectively?[/list:u]It is not enough that a player just decides to defend/celebrate an ideal!  Oh no!  He must do so effectively as well.  It's no good to put oneself in harm's way and then get pasted early on (ineffectiveness)!  Conversely effectively dealing with the situation, but then ducking out early is not much of a celebration of an ideal either (not very long)!  However, there are no system penalties for changing one's mind, though there may be in game consequences.  Conversely a personality "mechanic" that "drives" a character to do something is no celebration of an ideal either because there was no informed choice by the player.  It is also possible to have more than one ideal up for contention at a given time.  Finally the potential loss to the player must be personal, if imaginary.

The point of all this is that the player needs to understand the likely outcomes of his actions before he willingly chooses that path, and that can only happen if the consequences of his actions are reasonably predictable beforehand.  The nature of that celebration is esthetic in nature.

Quote from: clehrich

Quote

[*]Sim does not require exacting specifics, but norms.[/list:u]

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

You miss my point.  I'll take the blame for that.  I make my assertion because of the nature of the Creative Agendas as they are expressed via roleplay.  Gamism, from what I understand of the essay, requires a metric to measure player effectiveness.  Because the effects of the players' actions must be abstracted (because they are all taking place in the SIS and are not physical) and because the results of the players actions need to be easily compared to a metric, it follows that the player need to operate on these abstractions in a reliable and accurate manner.  I contrast this with Sim, which employs mechanics to demonstrate and establish norms and does not "require" quantizing (Gaussian distribution norms being a better choice) while Gamism (virtually) demands it.  Hence my earlier, ambiguous worded, assertion about Sim not requiring "exacting specifics."  One does not need a mechanic to celebrate an ideal, while a mechanic is necessary to demonstrate (or measure) abstracted effectiveness.

Again – I want to make clear that I am NOT implying that Gamism is rules lawyering.  I am just trying to point out the role of mechanics in each of the CA's, specifically Sim.

Quote from: clehrichIn short, I think there's some interesting ideas here, but it seems to me that your argument, that

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

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

Not really.  I am not trying to alter or challenge the framework of structure of Sim either.   I just read a couple of posts over the last few weeks which used phrases similar to "Simulationist resolution mechanics" without anyone stepping forward to correct that usage.  That, to me, indicates a tacit approval of such concepts and phrasing.  I was attempting to drive home the idea that there is no such thing as "Simulationist resolution mechanics" which reside in otherwise Gamist or Narrativist facilitating game designs.

Some minor surgery and generous helpings of pain meds have certainly dulled this mind.  Marco I will address your post as soon as I am able.

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

Gamism empowers the players to manipulate mechanics to influence outcomes.

Narrativism empowers the players to manipulate outcomes via mechanics.

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

Quote from: SilmenumeGamism empowers the players to manipulate mechanics to influence outcomes.

Narrativism empowers the players to manipulate outcomes via mechanics.

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

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

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

This is true by default: if they're simulationists then they don't touch premise with a 10-foot pole. But argument by tautology aside, I think in real life everyone appeares in the spectrum of GNS and the star trek game is going to almost inexorably have threads of moralizing within it. Part of what makes trek into trek is the rock-solid moral basis for the characters and the federation (utopian and inconsistent as it is--and as americanized and without consequence as it is).

But that doesn't change the fact that a real group of maybe-Nars or sometimes-nars or virtualist-nars or immersive-Nars are going to want fidelity to simulation in a system. IME.

-Marco

Quote from: clehrichNo, I don't think this is right at all.  You're trying to differentiate Sim from Gam and Nar, but the principles you ascribe to Gam and Nar are really not correct.  Think about it: this is in effect saying that Nar "naturally" tends toward meta-mechanics, for example.

Actually, that is exactly what I am getting at.  I am obviously no expert in either the history of roleplay nor of the Narrativist CA, however I will cite the source that helped inform my idea.

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

Emphasis mine

Maybe I am mistaken in my understanding, but from what I can gather the expression of the Narrativist Creative Agenda is certainly given a huge boost by the inclusion of meta-game mechanics.  So yes, I am saying that the address of Premise (The Narrativist CA) is strongly facilitated by meta-game mechanics and thus I claim by way of extension that Narrativism does "naturally" tend towards meta-mechanics.  I don't believe that is a particularly controversial assertion given the above citation.

That I am trying to differentiate Sim from Gam and Nar shouldn't come as a surprise either.  I've been trying to do that since I arrived.  However, I do firmly believe that Sim firmly sits within the Big Model, cheek to jowl, with Nar and Gam.  The idea that the role of mechanics in each of the Creative Agendas is unique does not negate their kinship with one another as Exploration efforts employing the same elements of Exploration to some creative social end.

Hey Marco,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My suggestion that looking at mappings of CA to mechanics is, IMO, the wrong way to go, does NOT mean 'System doesn't matter.' I think it's tempting to cast it that way for variety of reasons--but ultimately that's not what I'm saying.

Firstly, System Does Matter refers to a number of things. Does it refer to the first essay? Does it refer to the Lumpley Principle? Does it refer to mechanics primarily? What about in-book setting?

The idea that mechanics "matter" is incontravertible. The idea that Simulationist prefer GURPS to Riddle of Steel is a great big question that no one can answer. The idea that Narrativists prefer Over the Edge to GURPS is, I think, equally unanswerable--and even badly posed.

None of that has anything to do with System Does Matter because there don't exist platonic Narrativists or perfect Simists who can speak for everyone else who might qualify for that designation.

Even the bunch of guys who Christopher K. played with originaly (and from the post they seem like a bunch of jerks who would turn me off to gaming) can't speak for Simulationists because even though I think they fit the bill (right down to fleeing anything that looks premisey) the average gamer just isn't that specific set of guys.

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

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

I believe that mechanics focus on what the designer believes will be exciting--not, necessiarily, what will be the 'focus of play'--because I don't think that traditional game designers really think about the 'focus of play' the same way that The Forge does.

Even though D&D 3rd was 'back to the dungeon' there are all KINDS of things in there that aren't dungeony (the Ranger) and, well, I just don't buy it. A D&D 3rd game will traditionally have some dungeons in it but Raven made a good go of running it Narrativist. Dungeons are just setting.

Let me put this another way: James Bond had ground breaking car-chase rules. Are car chases the *focus* of Bond movies? No. But they are, traditionally, *exciting* moments. One might use your analysis to conclude that James Bond is a racing game.

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

There are many, many things here that I just disagree with. I don't think rewards drive people all that greatly. By 'people' I don't mean your friends--I mean mine. But regardless:

Gamisim is about cred, not gaining power-level.
Narrativism is about making a decision, not 'empowerment' in any mechanical sense.

Let's take GURPS as a Sim game (we can take Over the Edge if you want to, you know, blow the whole thesis--but that'll degenerate into an is it Nar or is it Sim discussion).

1. The idea of balance in GURPS seems, to me, to mainly revolve around a point-based economy system--not an anti-gamist bulwark.
2. There's nothing in GURPS, outside of a few psychological disads (which Riddle of Steel also has) that is discouraging to Narrativism. In fact, IMO, detailed character background systems mean the opposite.

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

Sim is, as far as I can tell, a game wherein people derrive the enjoyment from the idea of sticking to a specific point of some sort that does NOT include a premise-like choice.

It's sort of enjoying the genre simulation but *without* enjoying the built-in premises that occurr with clockwork regularity in every real genere. You want to encourag that? Make sure no one has a deeper appreciation of the genre other than as parameters for a low-key performance art.

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

What you are saying is a tautology: "When one agrees not to engage in any of the moral or ethical issues inherent in a situation then one is agreeing not to engage in any of the moral or ethical issues of a situation."

On the other hand, if we agree to run a Star Trek game what we're gonna engage in us up for grabs.

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

One way to do it is by taking away any possible option of decision making--'cause once it's there someone is going to get engaged with some extant aspect of situational premise and you're all shot to hell.

If I was trying to make an RPG game based on taking away all player choice that'd be a bit depressing to me too.*

-Marco
* Lest anyone think this is meant to be degrading to Sim, consider that under the current definitions, my understanding is that Sim play simply, definitionally, does not include any player-emotional envolvement in the imaginary situation which would lead to a decision--and it can't include any intentional authorship on the part of the player which would address any issue of any moral or thematic weight. I think once you take those out what remains is performance art with some sort of genre-like parameter used to measure quality. I don't think this is a form of gaming I've ever seen and doesn't sound like 'the norm' to me--but there you go.

I think real gaming is an often bloody mix of a lot of things and sometimes genre conventions vie with player choice (amongst a myraid of other things)--but I think casting that as Sim vs. Nar is valuable only in some cases. Treating the guy attached to the genre rules and the guy attached to the empowering choice as Simist-vs.-Narist is, I think, often a mistake.

Hey Marco,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jay,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mentioned the ritual article, and I think you've just walked right into the firing zone thereof.

This sounds to me like you've stumbled on Victor Turner's basic point about initiation ritual, which he later expanded (and I'd agree with him) to cover a great deal of ritual in general.  Basically the thing about ritual space is that it opens up all these exciting possibilities for free thought -- but at the same time it constrains the possibilities of how we think, and thus ensures that a desired answer is produced.  It's a kind of brainwashing, when we're talking about initiations.  Basically you think you are free to think whatever you like, but in reality the ritual is so structured that you can only come to one answer.

This applies here because the whole point is to establish the relationship between social contract and SIS such that it appears to be a freely constructed contribution.  That is, it seems like we can do anything we want.  But actually, the construction of the mechanics ensures that we will really only do a limited number of things, and if all goes well we will think we have complete freedom nevertheless.  Furthermore, we construct the whole system and its rhetoric to announce firmly that there will never be feedback.  To put it straight-up, we claim that "this is only a game, not art or deep thought or philosophy or whatever, it's just fun damnit."  Look at some replies to Jonathan Walton's column "The Fine Art of Gaming" on RPG.net some time, and you'll see this popping up very vigorously.  The thing is, of course it feeds back.  How can you play these games and these characters and these actions and not have it affect you personally?  And one of the points of Narrativism is to make this explicit, to formulate directly that this form of gaming should be about real moral quandaries, not simplistic constructs like alignment systems and whatnot.  But the point about Sim is that it denies such a possibility at the same time as it forces it actually to happen.  In other words, Sim would tend to announce that we can play games and live totally separate lives from ordinary people, yet this is all games and not serious at all, and even though we don't vote or take political action our opinions about such things are valid and important.

Veeery dangerous stuff, Sim.

I may be going into the implications of what you're saying rather than the nuts and bolts, but I think we're talking about the same thing.  Or are we?

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

I have trouble with this.  I agree that in most Sim games there is some material that discusses the setting specific social norms, but am not sure why it is that you see this as being more malleable than the norms describing the games physics.  I don't see players being free to devise or express the social norms of the setting any more than they are the physics of the setting, but I do think they can respond to those norms and affirm or refute through their actions.  There is some danger in that mode of play though in that it seems likely to go Connecticut Yankee and simply serve as a counterpoint for statements of the players real-world norms.

Hey Chris,

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

I don't think so.  First of all, I'm not saying the only place that CA expression can occurs is via mechanics.  I think it gets closer to that position in Gamism, but certainly not to exclusion.  To me the role of mechanics are to Gamism as the poker table, cards and chips are to poker or a basketball, a court and elevated baskets with backboards are to basketball.  Now, given that Exploration is such a nebulous activity including many transactions that are either resolved with Drama or take place entirely outside the SIS but still during Exploration (which can include such activities as Hacking) I cannot say that mechanics is the only way that Gamism is expressed.  However I do think mechanics manipulation/employment is the primary tool by which the Gamist CA is expressed.  This particular tool happens to be very much subservient to the player's efforts.

To role of mechanics in Narrativism are very different from that Gamism.  In Gamism mechanics are employed to determine effectiveness.  In Narrativism mechanics are employed so as to maximize the moments where the players get to make those important and difficult decisions.  IOW, now that we have employed mechanics to get us here, let us now delve into what is really important – the decision making (answering the Premise question).  The mechanics can be either front loading and/or dynamic.  

In either case (G/N) which "choice" the player makes (though they may be limited in number by mechanics) is not constrained by mechanics.  The Gam player is free to pursue any strategy he sees fit given the tools (mechanics) he has at his disposal.  The Nar player is free to choose to answer the Premise question any way he sees fit after using the tools provided (mechanics) to get to that point.

The problem is that Sim does not empower the players to "use" mechanics to pursue its CA.  Nor do I think it is possible for mechanics to directly engage in the Sim CA.  Note – while I am speaking of products I am not speaking of player motivations.  Both the Gamist and Narrativist processes create a product – a Victor (the most effective/gutsy strategy) and a Theme (a story) respectively.  Sim on the other hand creates not a thing, but many things – social/behavioral norms/rules.  There is no bound to the number of social/behavioral norms/rules.  The more social/behavioral norms/rules, the richer the Dream.  While any given Gamist game may not have to be bounded by a victory condition, it is inherent to the CA.  IOW the conclusion of a game/campaign can be that moment in time when player effectiveness is ultimately assessed.  While any given Narrativist game does not need to be bounded by the definite conclusion of the examination of the Premise, such conclusions can be designed in a holistic and non-arbitrary manner such that they actually facilitate the examination of the Premise (i.e. What are you willing to go into deadly combat/die for?).  In Sim there is no inherent boundary to the creation and revision of social/behavioral norms/rules that facilitates the process of Dream creation.  The Dream is inherently unbounded; though the players may choose anytime to stop there is nothing in the SIS social/behavioral norms/rules creation process that would dictate that end.

To get back to my point that mechanics are not directly involved in the creation revision of social/behavioral norms/rules is that they are an emergent property of the decisions of the players.  As these rules are emergent, any mechanics that

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

In Sim, all player decisions are essentially behavioral decisions – we are laying down norms/rules of behavior.  Any social/behavioral based mechanic that determines which/whether behavior is displayed by a player character essentially negates that very input.  This would be akin to a Gamist mechanic deciding which strategy a player must employ or how a Narrativist player must answer the Premise question.  Conversely for these social/behavioral norms to be observed by the players as norms they must be demonstrated consistently, which strongly devalues the employment of a mechanic to just "state" said norm.  IOW in Sim social/behavioral norms are demonstrated by a player within the SIS and are (hopefully) inferred by the other players, not merely stated said player.  Now a player may not succeed in demonstrating his desired behavior, but that too is read in light of the social and physical norms of the world.  For example a player may wish to play himself off as suave, but for some reason (bad luck perhaps?) ends up getting shot down in flames consistently.  Maybe he's a jerk and doesn't see it in himself.  That would be a character norm.  Or maybe he just picks the wrong women.  That too could be a character norm.  Maybe he's just plain unlucky.  All the above and many more reasons could be mined out of the outcomes of the efforts, but that's the point.  If mechanics altered the player's input (not success - for that is beyond one's control) then mining the outcomes for norms would be pointless because it would be devoid of any player's influence.  Again this would be similar to trying to evaluate player effectiveness in Gamism when the mechanics dictated which strategy the player had to use or trying to evaluate player decisions with regards to Narrativism when the mechanics dictated which answer the player must use.

In Sim mechanics can be employed to mediate the consequences/results of a players choice/action, but they cannot be employed directly for the purposes of abduction, deduction or most critically social/behavioral induction.

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

I don't know if I've made any sense at all.  I'm having one hell of a time grappling with this myself right now.

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, from my point of view, I haven't really begun to touch upon the feedback loop between the SIS and "real world".  My employment of the term bricolage was in reference to the social/behavioral norms as they are negotiated within the SIS.  IOW the social/behavioral norms within the SIS should not be tossed around or discarded heedlessly, but rather seen as the source from which more complex and richer norms can be constructed e.g., there ought to be a continuity of change, not discontinuous changes.  

I am in full agreement about subculture formation and real world feedback between the SIS and the players.  We have a player in our group who likes playing evil characters.  Not just bad men, but demonically evil stuff.  Not only does this cause consternation within the game space, but all the rest of us have all collectively scratched our heads about him personally.  Conversely decisions made in game are constantly matched against the individual outside the game as we seek "meaning" to actions taken in game.

So where does that leave us?  Have I done anything to make my position any clearer?