Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Silmenume, October 25, 2005, 01:52:40 AM
Quote from: LordSmerf on November 18, 2005, 03:07:12 PMJay, I think this is where most of the confusion is coming from. What you keep seeming to say is that "each Player (including the GM) has absolute control over their pieces of play, and that when it really comes down to it the fun is reached through some means other than mechanics." But "Each Player has absolute control over their pieces of play" is a mechanic. We tend to call it "fiat" or something like that, but it turns out that it really is a formalized way of interacting with the game in the exact same way that Universalis' "You have (almost) absolute control of the components that you pay to have control of." is a mechanic.
QuoteMechanicsIndividual and specific features of System; Mechanics in text form are "rules."SystemThe means by which imaginary events are established during play, including Character creation, resolution of imaginary events, reward procedures, and more. It may be considered to introduce fictional time into the Shared Imagined Space. See also the Lumpley Principle.TechniquesSpecific procedures of play which, when employed together, are sufficient to introduce fictional Characters, places, or events into the Shared Imagined Space. Many different Techniques may be used, in different games, to establish the same sorts of events. A given Technique is composed of a group of Ephemera which are employed together. Taken in their entirety for a given instance of role-playing, Techniques comprise System.
Quote from: Mike Holmes on October 28, 2005, 01:24:10 PM...It's just a disagreement on what a useful meaning for the term is. There was a whole long thread that considered terms like Mechanics, Rules, Text, Procedures, etc. I think this thread is moving to the other topic, so if anyone wants to discuss that definition, I think a new thread is in order.
QuoteLumpley Principle, the "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." The author of the principle is Vincent Baker, see Vincent's standard rant: power, credibility, and assent and Player power abuse.
QuoteWhat you keep seeming to say is that "each Player (including the GM) has absolute control over their pieces of play, and that when it really comes down to it the fun is reached through some means other than mechanics." But "Each Player has absolute control over their pieces of play" is a mechanic.
QuoteYou keep saying "You can't have mechanics interfering", and then seem to turn around and say "Unless it is this specific set of mechanics." Now, you're a smart guy, and I think you've got some good ideas, but you're presenting this one in a terribly confusing manner. You say on the one hand that there should be no mechanics intervening in these circumstances, but then you present an actual play incident in which the situation is constructed out of a set of mechanics (namely fiat*).
QuoteWhile you say "There are no situation creation mechanics in Sim" you also seem to be saying "The GM creates situation" which seems to be a mechanic...
QuoteThis is where all the confusion is for me, it sounds like you're saying that it's only Sim (or perhaps Sim is always best realized) if it uses this narrow set of mechanics for situation creation, and that strikes me as simply untrue...
Quote from: Mike Holmes on November 18, 2005, 04:12:48 PMQuoteSim has not come an effective or useful "conclusion." That's your opinion. It works as defined just fine in my estimation, and have provided arguments as to why.
QuoteSim has not come an effective or useful "conclusion."
QuoteBut we've argued a lot about this, and came to the conclusion that Character doesn't have to mean one-to-many. Could you either refute our arguments or provide one of your own? Why must this be so?
QuoteThe GNS model has a certain predictive value that's valuable, and part of that is based on the modes in question following Ron's description of them as decscribing all of RPG play in three broad categories. Your definition takes a portion of functional play and says that it has no mode. Wrecking the functionality of the model. Your have not said why this is either not so, or why the replacement is superior enough to ignore this. The only answer we get is that it makes more sense to you without argument.
QuoteIf we can't get past the defintion of sim, then all of the questions of how things like Character relate to it are going to be meaningless. That is, we're going to disagree perforce until there's agreement on the original problem. To say that we're not making arguments against your position is to willfully ignore the arguments made.
QuoteQuote- it's only going to slow down the investigation process to see whether my thesis has any merits.I see, we should merely accept what you say because you say it. To do otherwise is obstructionist. I see.
Quote- it's only going to slow down the investigation process to see whether my thesis has any merits.
QuoteAnd have provided arguments that say why we disagree. To say otherwise is insulting.
QuoteAs I've said, prove that sim is bricloage.
QuoteYou've refuted the essay on sim? There is, in fact, a definition of simulationism that's widely agreed to and functional.
QuoteAh, but we're just deluding ourselves. I see.
QuoteQuote"By your definitions tons of functional coherent play is relegated to simply being zilchplay." I think this statement is also specious. First is that many descriptions of Sim play are frequently lumped into the category of "30 minutes of fun crammed into 5 hours of playing." Second there is the idea that has been floated a number of times that functional Sim game are rare.Not by anyone that I credit. This does happen. And it's a sign of the narrativism bias that this site has. The people who say this stuff are demonstrably wrong.
Quote"By your definitions tons of functional coherent play is relegated to simply being zilchplay." I think this statement is also specious. First is that many descriptions of Sim play are frequently lumped into the category of "30 minutes of fun crammed into 5 hours of playing." Second there is the idea that has been floated a number of times that functional Sim game are rare.
QuoteAll you're doing here is proving that you have an axe to grind. "I play sim, people are saying sim is bad, therefore they must not be defining it right." Attack the notion that sim isn't fun. Not that the definition is wrong.
QuoteBy the way, your definition of sim sounds like 5 minutes of fun crammed into 5 hours of play to me (whereas the other sim stuff that you leave out from your definition is fun when I play it). That's just my preference, however. Doesn't mean that it's not fun for others.
Quote"A lot" is not the same as "All Sim" and these forms of play are not what I'm talking about in my definition.
QuoteAre you going to say that nobody who ever persued a sim agenda ever failed to do it well?
QuoteCA isn't only about the imaginings, but all of play.
Quote from: "From the Provisional Glossary"Creative Agenda (CA)The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing. ... Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.
QuoteThat is, in determining incoherence it's not merely what's produced in the SIS that's important, but how it's produced. Expoloration of system, as opposed to, say, exploration of color where you wouldn't use system mechanics, is one way to do this.
QuoteI think it may be pricisely in focusing only on the SIS as the only determiner of Creative Agenda where you go wrong.
QuoteI'm talking about fun, functional play. Which must have a CA by definition.
QuoteYou simply won't address that I have not only been a part of, but seen tons of examples of this sort of play that were fun. If they weren't sim, what were they? If "zilchplay != fun" then they couldn't be zilchplay.
QuoteOr am I lying to you?
QuoteDo you even read what you're writing?
QuoteWell, if you think we're beyond redemption, then write this as a manifesto and revolt
QuoteOf course, then you'll claim that the following is institutional...odd, though, that "Indie-rpgs" would be seen as "institutional." When we throw each other into the fire on each alternate Thursday. But if that's your POV...
QuoteAs I have as well. The most damming is that the current definition of Sim does not describe a process of play nor a define the product of play. This condition fails the Model which is process driven. I propose that Sim is Bricolage which is a process that creates a product and solves two major problems that currently plague the given understanding of Sim - 1. No definition of process. 2. No definition Product. Now I may be wrong with bricolage, but it does more than what is currently offered with regards to satisfying the Model.
Quote from: Jason Lee on November 20, 2005, 06:26:51 PM...When System sets the feel (like swashbuckling versus gritty action) it defines Color, it sets the effectiveness of characters and makes actual statements about who those characters are, it defines the physics of the world and hence Setting, and so forth....However, as we are working within the context of the Big Model, I can't reject it. He's the rub though, you can't then reject it either when describing Sim....
Quote from: Jason Lee on November 20, 2005, 06:26:51 PMI think this is a good place for me to agree to disagree...
QuoteWould it make sense that if I see the same lack of delimiters in all play that I would be of the opinion that you're not getting Nar and Gam if you feel that that fluidity is a distinction between them and your play?
QuoteWhen I watch a movie, like Braveheart (because it's been on my mind for some reason), I don't see the theme as separate from the character motivations, or that the characters are defined independent of the setting, or that the moral of the story is driving the situations. I don't see those nice little chunks in my play either.
Quote from: LordSmerf on November 26, 2005, 07:01:19 AMI realize that this wasn't in response to me at all, but I do want to address it: It is not at all clear to me what the prodcut of bricolage is. So while you may have a process you don't really have a product here...
Quote from: LordSmerf on November 26, 2005, 07:01:19 AMOn the other hand, it's not clear to me what the "process" of Nar and Gam play are. Saying that the process is "Addressing Premise/Challenge" isn't going to cut it either. That tells me precisely zip about the process involved, or at least it tells me nothing more about what's going on than saying that the "Product of play is X".
Quote from: "Narrativism Essay"Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place. Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all. Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances. ...How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme. I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I mentioned......But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme.Red highlighting added.
Quote from: LordSmerf on November 26, 2005, 07:01:19 AMSo it strikes me that your "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem. This is especially true as the generally accepted "product" of Sim play is the nebulous "Dream"
Quote from: LordSmerf on November 26, 2005, 07:01:19 AMI think you would serve your position by laying out precisely what you think the product of bricolage is without referring to the process (saying "the product of bricolage is the thing that bricolage produces" is about as helpful as saying "the process of creating Premise is the process that creates Premise").
Quote from: LordSmerf on November 26, 2005, 07:01:19 AMAlternatively, explaining what you understand as the process(es) behind Nar and Gam play so that we can compare those processes with bricolage might be valuable.
Quote from: contracycle on November 21, 2005, 11:14:43 AMYou see, you say here that these issues were dealt with within the SIS. Well, I'm sick to death of doing that. The problem is then that I-the-GM have to do even more thinking for the player, second guessing for example, how much they even know about the blood feud principle. Previously, you suggested that players engaged with a particular topic can be taken to know something about it, but why should this be? Surely, people primarily try to explore things they do not already know - or they explore things they do already know in search of unexpected and unpredictable emergent phenomenon. So not only do I think it is unsafe to assume the players are well equipped regarding the topic of exploration, but worse, its probable they will be badly equipped.
Quote from: contracycle on November 21, 2005, 11:14:43 AMFor this reason I think having a systematic intervention can work as a representation of social expectations and mores. Lets say my player balks at the taking of revenge and says seomthing like "violence doesn't solve anything". My problem then is this: that sounds like such an ahistorical position to take, what does it mean? doe it mean the player is knowingly violating the social mores to see what happens? Or does it mean the player simply doesn't understand those mores? I can;t tell, and so its difficult to judge how to procede. But if this expeation were mechanically articulated, that confusion would evaporate - the players statement will HAVE to have been informed that a certain course of action is demanded by the setting.
Quote from: contracycle on November 21, 2005, 11:14:43 AMThats the kind of explicatory role I could see such mechanics serving, and I would suggest they would arguably be more valuable in sim than for any other agenda, as it is the agenda in which people are most likely going to be exposing themselves to unusual inputs, I would think.
QuoteTo be an effective bricoleur said individual should have a decent working knowledge of the objects he's likely to be employing.
QuoteSocial structure is one of those categories of objects that the player will be faced with. Such knowledge certainly does not need to be complete by any means, but to play without a basic understanding of the more salient social structures does severely restrict the options available to the Player when faced with a problem. How does one justify a barbarian, FREX, not being familiar with the customs and mores of his own culture?
QuoteI know that probably sounded odd, but I included it as an example of the ideas I am trying to communicate. You may disagree, and that's totally fine, but I am trying very hard to give you and all some insight to what is going on in my mind. See, I think that the heart of Sim lies in the source material, not in the mechanics. IOW I think, and I may be completely wrong, that most people (not all) who want to play "Sim" do so because they were inspired by the desire to continue the experience of some setting they had seen/watched previously.
QuoteIn your example, I don't think as a GM you have to second-guess what the Player does nor does not know. Just have the NPC's react as they would given their culture and leave it up to the Player to try and muddle his way through – thus learning about the fictional culture (Setting) in the process of play. This can be very interesting play as well.
QuoteThat problem is easily solvable by having a village elder or a sibling or a parent or a spouse or a friend approach and lay out the parameters.
QuoteAs I understand Sim, action is always demanded by Setting. IOW that is a basic tenet of the Creative Agenda. The challenge to the Player, where he is tested, is in the determination of just what his response will be. This is partly why I don't think that "Situation Creation" mechanics are necessary. Situation will arise naturally enough if the GM throws socially based problems at the Players feet, which are grounded in the local conditions.
QuoteThe Dream, in order to expand and grow, requires the Players to bump into such problems and their efforts to deal with them based upon their Character's own current conditions and cultural norms contribute to this very growth. This growth cannot happen if a mechanic "resolves" the issue in lieu of the Player's own creative input.
QuoteHowever a Player who has made the effort to read the source materials should have a knowledge of such cultural concerns. It's amazing how creative Players get when death is hanging on the line. Such matters as cultural norms I do not consider rules/mechanics but Setting material. And what's particularly intriguing is that these cultural norms are plastic and can change over time under the right conditions – which is another reason why I think that ossifying them into actual "rules/mechanics" prevents this very evolution from happening. IOW it is likely to interfere with the evolutionary effect of the bricolage process.
QuoteI fully agree that such knowledge is most critical to Sim play, but not in the form of mechanics, but in the form of background material. That very material which is being celebrated – or conversely such knowledge can be learned through actual play once again obviating "the need" for such a mechanical enforcement.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMJay, you seem to be under the impression that several of us (Mike and me, at least) are not listening to you, or at least are not giving due consideration to the possibility that your definition of Simulationism as Bricolage is the correct piece that makes sense of the entire agendum.You are only partly right. It is not that we are refusing to listen to your revised definition of simulationism. It is that we listened to it, gave it serious consideration, turned it over with what we knew of simulationism, and rejected it as not matching the data we knew.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMMike and I are among a handful of people here who claim (and are recognized as claiming correctly) that we have played in simulationist games and enjoyed them. Thus some credit must be given to our assertions that your definition does not match our experience.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMThe first is that I have seen a great deal of quite enjoyable simulationism in which no one is trying to add anything or build anything from the elements provided.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMIf I were to accept your "bricolage" definition, I would have to discard this (and several other forms of play, such as Ralph's exploration of system by testing what actually happens given the mechanics rules) and begin the search for a new agendum which fits what it is these players--including I--are seeking.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMMore fundamentally, though, I cannot escape the impression, despite your protestations, that bricolage is a technique. Agenda are what it is you want to get; techniques are how you get it....However, the problem with bricolage is that as it has been presented it is not the desired end but the means to the end; it is a process by which play is conducted; it is, in a word, a technique--what you do to get whatever it is you want.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMBricolage is all about the process; agendum is about the desired outcome.
Quote from: clehrich on February 16, 2005, 05:14:18 PMEssentially a structure is two things. First of all, it is a pre-made machine, already pretty well tuned and running just fine. We can slap it into any machine we want to build and know it will run in particular ways. Second, it is the abstract formulation entailed by the machine. This is the hard part....So in addition to structure being a quality of the machine, it's also an aesthetic constraint on what the machine ought to look like. This has many, many layers—which we can roughly break down into those functions (practical, psychological, social) and some intellectual and aesthetic ideals of how we like things to be.Red highlighting added.
Quote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMI hope this clarifies the situation. I certainly am not saying that bricolage is not simulationist; think it most certainly is consistent with simulationism (but not excluded as a technique from other agenda). I am saying that simulationism is not bricolage, because there is much that is good and valid simulationist play that does not at all mesh with what I hear you describing.
Quote from: Silmenume on November 26, 2005, 06:36:54 AMQuote from: Mike HolmesAh, but we're just deluding ourselves. I see.Engage in ad hominem all you want, I'm still gonna keep plugging along working at process and product while you take digs at me.
Quote from: Mike HolmesAh, but we're just deluding ourselves. I see.
Quote from: JayCould you please explain to me how me arguing something about theory means I am saying people aren't having fun? Could you make that connection for me please, because I'm not seeing it?....Quote from: MikeI'm talking about fun, functional play. Which must have a CA by definition.Not that I can find.
Quote from: MikeI'm talking about fun, functional play. Which must have a CA by definition.
Quote from: Jay...people can have fun throwing bottle caps at each other. Not having a theoretically recognized or designated CA does not in any way "mean" people aren't having fun.
Quote from: Silmenume on December 01, 2005, 05:36:48 AMQuote from: M. J. Young on November 24, 2005, 07:53:12 PMIf I were to accept your "bricolage" definition, I would have to discard this (and several other forms of play, such as Ralph's exploration of system by testing what actually happens given the mechanics rules) and begin the search for a new agendum which fits what it is these players--including I--are seeking.This is very intriguing to me as I ask myself, "Why is this an issue?" Why do you as a GM or a Player have to discard anything because of a theoretical construct? You don't have to do anything. If the style of play you enjoy is functional – then God Bless! By all means keep doing what is and has been successful and enjoyable to you! But that does not illuminate what is going on as a process during CA expression as the Model has been formulated. The Model is a theoretical construct that tries to explain observed human behaviors expressed during play – it is not prescriptive. You can still continue to seek that which you enjoy in your games – my arguments have nothing to do with that at all. That particular concern is a non-issue. Conversely if it can be effectively argued that "bricolage" is something that is truly unique to a given CA and thus deserves it own "CA designation," I have no problem with that either.
Quote from: Valamir on December 01, 2005, 12:04:01 PMI've long said that Skewers are the most interesting conclusion of the model and long felt that we can consider the structure of the model largely correct and complete when we can stop talking about how to define GNS and start talking about Skewers.