In short, while we can see a parallel division within both the two discourses and the two modes of behavior, this does not answer the question: why are RPG’s ritual. If the dichotomy between virtual experience and collaborative storytelling parallels that between performativity and what we might call the practice of bricolage, as yet this parallel serves no analytical or synthetic function; it is once more an over-theorized and over-determined metaphor. In addition, it is as yet under-explained, in that the theories may be formulated but their application to the specific situation of RPG’s is not yet clear.
This is exactly how my group achieves narrative play when we don’t use other methods to do so (such as metagame stances and Directorial power). From Melchie: >We aren’t so powerful or so clever; however, it is entirely possible to set up a game such that character motivations and relationships and setting situations all interact in a way that gives at least a very high probability that a good story will result. In theory, at least, once a game is started from that basis, no outside interference should be necessary to get a good story out of it.
If both businesses chose to collude on price rather than act competitively, the two firms would be able to increase their joint profits by £10m. However, if they agree to collude at the higher price of £20, then there is then an incentive for one business to under-cut the other, charge a lower price of £8 and inflicts a small loss on the other business.
This is the “2fold model” which PBlock recently asked about. This is how GEN is applied to system. Example: I’ve run a narrative game based on Alien that was simulatory, whereas my narrative Aliens game was cinematic. GEN belongs on the top tier, being the main indicator of a game’s goals and intent. Whether the setup of the situation or the outcome of the situation is realistic or not is a subissue, depending on your game’s realistic/cinematic nature, not part of the GEN concern. The top level view simply focuses on the setup of the situation, and what it will bring to the game (how GEN is used with Game Content). The overall GEN model uses a 2 tier system. The bottom tier is called the game’s Infrastructure, and contains everything that enforces, supports, or communicates the game’s Superstructure. Tools present on the Infrastructure therefore include the game’s system, stances, and the actual presentation of the Game’s Content in Textual & Graphical form. The top tier is called the game’s Superstructure, and details the game’s goals, intent, and limitations. This is the implementation level. In short then, where exactly is Simulation in GEN. The game’s Superstructure (intent) acts as a guideline to the Infrastructure (what you implement). It includes such concepts as mood, themes, plot, premise, etc.
At a more strategic level, groups may make a sharp distinction between in-character and out-of-character knowledge, raising as a problem whether a player may act in-character upon knowledge presumably not available to his character. That is, if Alan (playing Thror the Barbarian) knows that Marler the Wizard (played by Barbara) has been captured by an evil sorcerer and is held in a deep dungeon below the castle in which Thror now stands, and Alan knows this because as a player he was present when Marler/Barbara was captured, but Thror was not on the scene and thus has no particular way to know what has occurred, a group must consider whether Alan may have Thror head for the deep dungeon to rescue Marler.
In GEN, Simulation is opposed by Cinematic (not conforming to the basic laws of our reality, such as falling 50′ or being shot and easily surviving). It’s enforced by the rules and the Statements of Intent/Resolution that are made. In GEN, there is no such thing as a pure simulatory answer; it’s biased by the GENder of the game in question. Any Statements which break that integrity are not allowed. However, this Simulationary answer is based on GEN’s use of the term Simulation. If you specifically want the Simulatory answer, I need to give you back 6 responses from the GEN test: Simulationary Gamist, Cinematic Gamist, Simulationary Explorative, Cinematic Explorative, Simulationary Explorative, Cinematic Explorative. Simulatory goals are secondary to the GEN goals. If you’re saying the primary concern of Simulationist RPGs as defined by GDS is maintaining the integrity of the game world, I say that this is done in all RPGs.
In game theory, a player's strategy is any of the options he or she can choose in a setting where the outcome depends not only on his own actions but on the action of others.
I would say yes, you can have a completely intragame system supporting narrativist goals. Lewis somewhere discusses determinism and providence, and uses as an example the prayers of a mother that her son would not be hit by bullets on a battlefield; he assumes that the requested outcome occurs. You have to accept that players, at least (and to a lesser degree referees), are giving up a great deal of control over what story will be created.
What is the definition of a dominant strategy in game theory.
It is an iterated game. We are now deep in an iterative game. One is the current dominant political strategy of ginning up the base in hopes of winning. Parties subscribe to ideas. That would mean, by your definition of partisan nested within your definition of closet.
The possibility of recruiting others to back my esthetic objections and reinforce my bid posture modifies this somewhat, but even the new coalition’s scope of action is restricted by the fairness constraints of the contest mechanics. I must construct my sentence according to the rules. I might know for sure that a better story results if my sentence not refer to my own “PC. I may think that someone else’s sentence makes a worse story, but my scope of action is entirely confined to the mechanical plane – I can spend appropriate fiat tokens if I have them, or I can initiate a bidding contest and I can roll the dice. The restrictions on sentence construction and the supply of tokens are absolutes. Clearly, it is game values.
Adding more players than two becomes extremely complicated so if your game has more than two players, try to group the players into two broad groups with similar goals. The first step to constructing a game theory analysis is to write down the names of the players involved. In every game or multi-person interaction, you will have multiple players. For simplicity, it’s best to keep the number of players down to two.