Quote from: James J SkachAs I was writing a response, something came up in my head.

It only seems to matter - that is, groups have problems, designs aren't good, if there's a conflict amongst these things.  So..

Let's say the area west of the mountains, according to in-world (or reality based weather patterns say) lends itself to being prairie.

• You go with prairie because of in-world considerations.
• You go with prairie becuase of out-world considerations.
• Both - Synergy!

In any of these cases you only have conflict if your decision includes any one motivation that goes against the group dynamic (blech, can't think of a better word - style?) - not all or most.

Because if you went and made it desert for out-world considerations, and your group plays in-world - you've got some 'splainin to do...

At that point, you're only option is to make it prairie?

Yeah.  If I know my map is correctly drawn -- if the continent is the size I've depicted it as, if it's at the latitude I said it was, if the mountains are as high as I've said they are -- then I can't put a desert west of the mountains because there's no physical reason why it should be that dry.  It's mostly steppe and forest steppe.  And if I tried to tell the players it was a desert, Russell at least would be saying, "It can't be."

I can do things for out-of-world reasons if there isn't any in-world reason why I shouldn't.  But our tacit agreement -- 'game contract,' in rgfa jargon -- includes 'The world will be as consistent and believable as we can make it' way up there on the priority list.  Which precludes putting deserts in impossible places.

I might end up putting a desert somewhere I didn't originally expect to see one if I realized that one of my initial guesses about the geography of the continent was wrong.  Say, if I realized that it was larger than I first thought, or if there was another range of mountains disrupting other parts of the circulation pattern.  Or maybe I realize that there is a desert west of the mountains; therefore, the continent must have a geography that will yield a drier interior.  What I can't do is put a desert in a physically implausible place because I want the plot to include a jaunt through the local equivalent of the Taklamakan, or because I have designs on a scene that feels like "Ozymandias."

Hey, there.  I wrote the second FAQ which was quoted there.  However, I didn't originate the idea and don't want to be too definitive about it.  The concept started with Kevin Hardwick's post in July 1995:

Narrative and Style

However, he doesn't give hard definitions there -- he's relying on metaphor.  The definitions were only loosely hashed out in later discussion, and both Neel and I tried to paraphrase them.  Looking back at how Neel and I each wrote this, I think Neel put a heavy emphasis on IC stance as the stance of "play itself" -- which I think more reflect his vision of play.  That might be where you get the idea that IC stance is somehow necessary to action.  

Based on how I remember rgfa usage, I would say that if you are always taking into account the character's personality as well as the meta-game or out-of-game implications, then you are squarely within rgfa Author stance.  Author stance does not imply ignoring the character's motivations.

Quote from: jhkimHey, there.  I wrote the second FAQ which was quoted there.

Yes, I know.  That's why I picked it without reading it too closely.  Do you remember why you changed the language from the first FAQ and defined Immersion the way you did?

Quote from: jhkimHowever, he doesn't give hard definitions there -- he's relying on metaphor.  The definitions were only loosely hashed out in later discussion, and both Neel and I tried to paraphrase them.  Looking back at how Neel and I each wrote this, I think Neel put a heavy emphasis on IC stance as the stance of "play itself" -- which I think more reflect his vision of play.  That might be where you get the idea that IC stance is somehow necessary to action.

Can you clarify what you were trying to say about Actor?  It really does look like it's saying two things in your FAQ.  What were you intending to convey?

Quote from: jhkimBased on how I remember rgfa usage, I would say that if you are always taking into account the character's personality as well as the meta-game or out-of-game implications, then you are squarely within rgfa Author stance.  Author stance does not imply ignoring the character's motivations.

For the most part, using or not using meta-game was probably one of the most central r.g.f.a concepts.  It was at the heart of the world-based vs.
story-based split that led to the Threefold.  But I think Tony has a point.  If we're talking about stances, I'm not sure why a decision has to be based on only one.  It seems like a player can apply the sensibilities of different stances to come up with something in the overlap and it may be worth noting all of those stances that contribute.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, I know.  That's why I picked it without reading it too closely.  Do you remember why you changed the language from the first FAQ and defined Immersion the way you did?

Neither Neel's nor my FAQ are the original source.  I didn't intentionally change the language of Neel's FAQ, but rather had a different paraphrase of the original source -- Kevin's stance discussions.  

Quote from: John MorrowCan you clarify what you were trying to say about Actor?  It really does look like it's saying two things in your FAQ.  What were you intending to convey?

Huh?  I don't see it.  As I define it, Actor Stance is focused on one thing -- consciously portraying the character as it is at the moment.  That's what I define it as in the first paragraph.  There is a negative clause in the second paragraph that clarifies that it is not concerned about character development and not about thinking as the character, but that's just reinforcing what is said in the first part.  It is rather arbitrary, in my opinion, but fairly clear.  

Going back, I can see that Tony has injected this claim:

Quote from: TonyLBYeah ... the two FAQs are inconsistent.  In fact, I'm not at all sure that each FAQ is not slightly inconsistent within itself, between the Actor description as it references the "In-Character" description and the In-Character description itself.

I'm seeing at least two different distinctions being drawn:

• Actor is about portraying the character, not about deciding what the character is, whereas IC is about deciding what the character is and does, regardless of how it is portrayed.
  
• Actor is about playing a character (including both portrayal and decisions) with conscious recognition of out-of-game elements, whereas IC is about playing the character (both portrayal and decisions) while not consciously referring to any out-of-game elements.

I don't see where this second claim comes in.  

Actor is about conscious portrayal of character to the other players.  This is inherently an out-of-game focus, since it is about communicating to the other players (who are out-of-game entities, after all).  There will be decisions involved in portrayal, and they'll be made on the basis of communicating what the character is.  

Quote from: John MorrowBut I think Tony has a point.  If we're talking about stances, I'm not sure why a decision has to be based on only one.  It seems like a player can apply the sensibilities of different stances to come up with something in the overlap and it may be worth noting all of those stances that contribute.

Well, you can't mix Author and In-Character stances this way, at least.  If you're using out-of-game information in your decision, then it's pure Author Stance.  I can see blending Actor and Author stance, though, as they are defined.

Quote from: TonyLBAm I missing something?

I think Keran is doing a better job of explaining the model than I am.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're ... you're asking me to frame an example where my style of play breaks down.  You get that, right?    So I've racked my mind for actual examples, but I got nothing.

Yes, because I thought that would illustrate something.  But since you're having trouble coming up with a real example, I'm going to work with your real example and try to explain what I'm looking for to see if you can find it.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm playing a young Taoist girl of high social standing and no combat skills.  I immediately and unequivocally beg the indulgence of the fighters, pointing out how completely in their power my character is physically ... how dependent she is upon their support and protection.  Couched in formal language and ritual humility it was totally a natural thing for her to do.  In doing so, I draw the other players to concede, contrari-wise, that they, rough and ready brawlers that they are, are completely dependent upon me to negotiate the finer points of etiquette and ethics (a nasty and important tangle in the world we're playing in, even (we decide) when confronting ogres and demons).  We all end up with our spheres clearly defined, and I end up with my in-character attitudes and my meta-game resources and desires happily aligned, all as a natural outgrowth of selecting one possible choice that grows naturally out of the character as it was provided to me.

The issue I'm trying to get two is how and when you filter all of the possibilities down to the option you selected.  Yes, they were based on both "What's fun?" (Author) and "What makes sense in character?" (IC) but how does does each contribute to the winnowing that leaves you with a decision that's both fun and IC?  For example, did you flip through a bunch of ways your character could behave in your head and select which one was fun (e.g., role differentiation) over ones that were not fun (e.g., being arrogant and obnoxious)?  Did you flip through fun ways your character might behave and then pick the one that best matched the character?  Which filter do you start with and which has the final say or do you really do both at once without being able to seperate them, coming up with a list of things that are both appropriate and in character from the get go, without any conscious choosing things on those grounds?

Quote from: TonyLBThis is how I do things.  I don't choose Author and then IC.  I don't balance one against the other.  I find the way that I can have both, in the same moment, always.

I plan on touching on the opposition in the model in another reply, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for.  I don't think you are playing Author against IC.  I think you are using both to create an intersection set to choose an option.

Let me see if I can illustrate with an example that will probably make more sense if you've done any programming but hopefully will make sense to you even if you haven't (it's essentially a "bit mask").  What's illustrated below is technically a mask and not a filter but see if it makes any sense:

Suppose you the list of all possible things any character might do in a given
situation looks like this (list abbreviated to 16 possibilities):

All Options:   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Of all possible things that any character could do, there is a smaller list of
things that your character might do:

Character:     A     D E F       J K L       P

Of all possible things that any character could do, there is a smaller list of
things that would be fun:

Fun:           A B C         H I   K       O

So things that are both fun and in character are:

Fun and IC:    A                   K          

Of those two, K is more fun than A so you choose K.  You can also get the
same intersection set by selecting the Fun options first:

Fun:           A B C         H I   K       O

...and then selecting what makes sense for the character...

Character:     A     D E F       J K L       P

...giving the same....

Fun and IC:    A                   K        

Clearly, you get yourself to the set of options that are Fun and IC.  My question is do you start with the character filter or the fun filter or do you jump right to the set of things that are both Fun and IC without any distinct choices that get you there?

One last mostly unrelated thing I want to add.  The application of the "Fun" filter to In Character choices leaves a noticeable pattern behind.  Using my example above:

If I filter all options with both character and fun (Author mode), I get:

All Options:   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Character:     A     D E F       J K L       P
Fun:           A B C         H I   K       O
Final Set:     A                   K          

If I apply only the character filter, I get:

All Options:   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Character:     A     D E F       J K L       P
Final Set:     A     D E F       J K L       P

If I use the character and fun set to reverse mask (or true filter) the
character only set:

Character:     A     D E F       J K L       P
Fun and IC:    A                   K    
Final Set:           D E F       J   L       P

...you'll get the options that will never be chosen if the fun filter is also
applied.

What I'm trying to point out here is that a player who applies a meta-game filter like fun will never have their character do certain things (those things that aren't fun).  In short games, that's difficult to notice.  In very long games, it can become difficult not to notice.

It's as if you chose never to type the letters a, f, m, n, q, and w while writing.  If you write a single word, I'm not likely to notice the absence.  If you type pages of text, it becomes much easier to notice the absence, especially if you have to stretch at all to avoid using a word with one of those letters.  

Similarly, if you play a character that never does anything that's not fun, even when unfun choices seem possible, it can become possible to notice the meta-game filter that's being applied.  And, yes, it's possible to create a character where the differences between the character filter and the fun filter is very small but for other characters, the filtering can be a lot more noticeable, at least in my experience.

Quote from: jhkimNeither Neel's nor my FAQ are the original source.  I didn't intentionally change the language of Neel's FAQ, but rather had a different paraphrase of the original source -- Kevin's stance discussions.

Neel's FAQ says, "This section was written by Sarah Kahn," one of the two people he credits for the developed model.  Just curious why you reworded it, since it seemed pretty clear.  I guess the obvious answer was that you were trying to clarify it.

Quote from: jhkimHuh?  I don't see it.  As I define it, Actor Stance is focused on one thing -- consciously portraying the character as it is at the moment.  That's what I define it as in the first paragraph.  There is a negative clause in the second paragraph that clarifies that it is not concerned about character development and not about thinking as the character, but that's just reinforcing what is said in the first part.  It is rather arbitrary, in my opinion, but fairly clear.

I can see why it looks clear to you.  The problem isn't the negative clause in the second paragraph but the positive counterpoint that says it invovles "trying to portray the character as defined"  and the example, "Michael has a weakness for women, so I'll say pick-up lines to this NPC."  The example looks pretty IC to me because the motive for tossing pick-up lines to the NPC comes from the character's weakness for women.  I guess that's not what you intended but I honestly though it was confusing, too.

Quote from: jhkimWell, you can't mix Author and In-Character stances this way, at least.  If you're using out-of-game information in your decision, then it's pure Author Stance.  I can see blending Actor and Author stance, though, as they are defined.

I think you are correct that this is how r.g.f.a would conventionally interpret the decisions, and I think Keran did a pretty good job of explaining why.  But I think Tony has a point.  It looks like rec.games.frp.advocacy (to which we both contributed) was practicing a "one drop" style assessment where "one drop" of meta-game makes an entire decision meta-game.  While that's a useful analysis from an Immersive and GDS Simulationist perspective (I make a similar point at the end of my filter/mask post before this one), it's not necessarily a fair assessment and capturing all of the decision layers (as Tony seems to want to do) might be more useful.

Quote from: John MorrowI can see why it looks clear to you.  The problem isn't the negative clause in the second paragraph but the positive counterpoint that says it invovles "trying to portray the character as defined"  and the example, "Michael has a weakness for women, so I'll say pick-up lines to this NPC."  The example looks pretty IC to me because the motive for tossing pick-up lines to the NPC comes from the character's weakness for women.  I guess that's not what you intended but I honestly though it was confusing, too.

Well, my being concerned about the consistency of the character isn't enough to make me call it character stance -- if it were, I'd spend a significant amount of the time when I'm writing in character stance, even though that rarely feels much like occupying the character's headspace.  What makes me say "this is character stance" is when what's going through my mind resembles what's going through the character's mind, however vaguely, shallowly, and incompletely.

If I said something like "Michael has a weakness for women, so I'll say pick-up lines to this NPC," I'd most likely be describing "Keran thinking about Michael" rather than "Michael thinking about the woman."

I find there's some awkwardness in writing examples of stances.  I can only describe the character's reactions in words, even when the reactions are partly or completely nonverbal.  That can make it difficult to distinguish between "Keran thinking about the character" and "Keran being the character."  Sometimes using first person for the latter conveys the idea successfully.   But sometimes it gives people the idea that we're talking about which part of speech one uses to roleplay (which we aren't), or that we're saying that the use of first person is necessary to character identification, or indicative of it (which isn't so either).  I don't know a perfectly reliable way to depict the distinction.

QuoteI think you are correct that this is how r.g.f.a would conventionally interpret the decisions, and I think Keran did a pretty good job of explaining why. But I think Tony has a point. It looks like rec.games.frp.advocacy (to which we both contributed) was practicing a "one drop" style assessment where "one drop" of meta-game makes an entire decision meta-game. While that's a useful analysis from an Immersive and GDS Simulationist perspective (I make a similar point at the end of my filter/mask post before this one), it's not necessarily a fair assessment and capturing all of the decision layers (as Tony seems to want to do) might be more useful.

I think so too, and some of my latter-day criticism of the Threefold involved similar ideas.  I didn't do a particularly good job of getting my point across, though.

Quote from: KeranThat can make it difficult to distinguish between "Keran thinking about the character" and "Keran being the character."  Sometimes using first person for the latter conveys the idea successfully.

I think that the third person "What would my character do?" and the first person "What would I do?" (while thinking in character) are distinct from "What should my character do?" (while considering not only the whole game milieu but also possibly meta-game concerns as well).  They are all distinct perspectives.  In a fiction sense, they are third-person, first-person, and omniscient perspectives.

Quote from: KeranI think so too, and some of my latter-day criticism of the Threefold involved similar ideas.  I didn't do a particularly good job of getting my point across, though.

I think there might have been more revision if there had been less hostility, which I think caused a "circling of the wagons" effect.  Oh, and I'm sure I was plenty guilty of shooting from behind the circled wagons and for that I appologize.

I like the mask & filter terminology. I think it does communicate the way that multiple motives can contribute to decisions, and also how they can skew decisions over time even when an atomic analysis is ambiguous.

E.g. you can do the same for the old issue of Simulationist vs. Dramatist. If I'm not mistaken, the old method of conceptualizing an aggegate "profile" of a person's preference, on a triangular graph, was only to look at situations where two or more of GDS conflicted, and count how many times each one won out. This led to problems with people who claimed that they always managed to make decisions that were both plausible and dramatic. The mask/filter concept helps in differentiating these preferences.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI like the mask & filter terminology. I think it does communicate the way that multiple motives can contribute to decisions, and also how they can skew decisions over time even when an atomic analysis is ambiguous.

I also think it can be used to talk about which mask/filter gets applied first or whether they are combined before being applied, which is what I'm really trying to figure out with Tony.  Clearly he combines multiple criteria but I'm curious how that works inside of his head.

Quote from: Elliot WilenE.g. you can do the same for the old issue of Simulationist vs. Dramatist. If I'm not mistaken, the old method of conceptualizing an aggegate "profile" of a person's preference, on a triangular graph, was only to look at situations where two or more of GDS conflicted, and count how many times each one won out. This led to problems with people who claimed that they always managed to make decisions that were both plausible and dramatic. The mask/filter concept helps in differentiating these preferences.

Correct.  The pattern created is what's not chosen, even if every choice is, in isolation, entirely plausible.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich filter do you start with and which has the final say or do you really do both at once without being able to seperate them, coming up with a list of things that are both appropriate and in character from the get go, without any conscious choosing things on those grounds?

I really do both at once.

This kind of combination isn't at all rare in human thinking, IME.  I'll use an example (even knowing that maybe the example will fall flat, and fail to communicate, if we think differently enough):

Suppose I ask you to think of animals whose names start with the letter "E".

Do you take a bunch of words:

Apple   Goat   Ecru   Elephant   Zither   Emu    Pizza   Elastic   Cheetah

And first filter these words to find the ones that start with E:

               Ecru   Elephant            Emu            Elastic

... then filter those words to find the ones that are animals:

                      Elephant            Emu

OR do you first filter the words to find the ones that are animals:

        Goat          Elephant            Emu                      Cheetah

... then filter those words to find the ones that start with E:

                      Elephant            EmuMy experience, personally, is that I don't do either of those.  I just think of animals that start with the letter "E".  Elephant, emu, echidna, eel ... does 'equine' count?  If I bothered to think about cheetahs and tree frogs and cobras it would take me forever to answer that question.  Likewise, if I were discarding words like elegant, estuary and eiderdown I would be much slower on the uptake.

This stuff happens all the time.  If you ask yourself "Do I have any friends in Baltimore I could stay with when I'm there?" you don't start by saying "Let me consider the set of all objects ... of those, which are people ... which of these people do I know ... which of these acquaintances are friends ... which of these friends live in Baltimore?"  You just think whether you have any friends living in Baltimore.

Quote from: TonyLBI really do both at once.

This kind of combination isn't at all rare in human thinking, IME.

I believe you.

Quote from: TonyLBSuppose I ask you to think of animals whose names start with the letter "E".  Do you take a bunch of words [a]nd first filter these words to find the ones that start with E [...] then filter those words to find the ones that are animals [...] OR do you first filter the words to find the ones that are animals [...] then filter those words to find the ones that start with E[?]

In reality the first filter creates the starting list.  In practice, I think of animals first (to reduce the set of starting words down to a manageable size) and then filter out those that begin with "E".  

How do I know this?  Because the starting set is much likely to include "Elephant" than "Elk" and much more likely to include those than "Ermine" (because it's not an animal I normally think about), "Eagle" and "Emu" (beause I tend to think of them as "birds", not "animals", even though they are both), Eel (think of those as "fish", even if that's not entirely accurate), and I won't think of Echidna (no clue what that is).  In reality, the first slice is animals that pop readily to mind.  I can also get a glimpse of the animals that I'm excluding ("No, doesn't begin with 'E'...") in my thoughts.  That's part of the reason why I asked about options that don't fit for your character.  I notice my own selection process by way of how I exclude things when the pop up to at least a semi-conscious level.  I can often observe evidence myself doing it, even if it happens very fast and seems to get muddled together at other times.

ADDED:  In some ways, the process is more like, "Dredge up a bunch of animal names.  Any 'E's?  No?  Dredge another batch of animals out of memory and check for 'E's."  Repeat as needed.  If the letter is something like "Q", I might dredge up and discard a few batches before I find something that fits.

Quote from: TonyLBMy experience, personally, is that I don't do either of those.  I just think of animals that start with the letter "E".  Elephant, emu, echidna, eel ... does 'equine' count?  If I bothered to think about cheetahs and tree frogs and cobras it would take me forever to answer that question.

You don't have to do all of that at the conscious level, and often animals happen so fast that it's difficult to observe.  Have you ever played the game "Categories" or "Super Categories"?  In the later, you take a piece of lined paper and write the latters from A-Z down the side, draw about 4-5 lines down the page to create columns, and then write a category at the top of each column (e.g., "Car Models", "Countries", "Historical Figures", etc.).  Each player then spends an agreed upon time (30 minutes, an hour, etc.) and tries to fill in as many words for each letter in each category as possible.  When you score, you get 5 points for an original word and 2 or 3 points for a word someone else has.

It's often easy to fill in a lot of the letters for each category but much harder to fill in certain letters when examples don't pop readily to mind because they are obscure or uncommon, don't sound like they start with that letter, or are very specific rather than general.  It's even more difficult if you want to try to be original.  The letters Q, X, and Z are almost always a problem, but other letters can be for certain categories, too.  

In my experience, if the category is "Car Models", for example, I'll start with the popular stuff.  Corvette, Camry, Taurus, etc. but it will take a lot more thought to come up with stuff like Rambler, Elise, Cobra, etc.  And as that process slows down, I can observe myself dredging cars up from my memory looking for a fit for a particular letter and going, "No", "No", "No", "Yes!"

Maybe your experience really is different (people do think differently), but are there any cases where your thinking of a match slows down enough where you can actually see what you are doing like that?

If you want to try this to see how you do it, and think that filling in all of the letters changes how you are matching items with a letter, you can also play just regular "Categories".  In regular categories, you write a word vertically down the side of the page and match the letters of that word, not the whole Alphabet, thus creating a true second filter.

Quote from: TonyLBLikewise, if I were discarding words like elegant, estuary and eiderdown I would be much slower on the uptake.

I don't think anyone starts that way because the starting set of words is simply too large.  I simply offered it as a possible option.

Quote from: TonyLBThis stuff happens all the time.  If you ask yourself "Do I have any friends in Baltimore I could stay with when I'm there?" you don't start by saying "Let me consider the set of all objects ... of those, which are people ... which of these people do I know ... which of these acquaintances are friends ... which of these friends live in Baltimore?"  You just think whether you have any friends living in Baltimore.

Yeah, actually I can see myself doing that.  I can see myself picturing friends, applying the Baltimore filter and then a near Baltimore filter, and then applying the "Can I stay with them?" filter.  And I can see myself finalizing that decision by looking at how much I'd like to stay with them and how close they are to Baltimore.

For me, I can see how I'm narrowing things down.  I'm not saying that you have to do the same thing, but you are doing some sort of filtering in your subconscious, then, and I'm curious if you get any glimpses of how you do it.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not saying that you have to do the same thing, but you are doing some sort of filtering in your subconscious, then, and I'm curious if you get any glimpses of how you do it.

John ... I think that you've become very attached to your model, and that now you are interpreting all evidence in terms of that model.

Is there any piece of evidence that I could possibly present that would convince you that I actually do know how my mind is operating in this regard, and that it is not operating in the sequential-filter mode that you propose?

Or is this just going to be one of those cases where you say "I know what must be happening, my theory tells me so, so if you observe something different then you must be wrong."  'cuz I don't find those discussions terribly productive, so if that's where we'll going I'll just bow out now.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn ... I think that you've become very attached to your model, and that now you are interpreting all evidence in terms of that model.

Perhaps.  But somewhere in your brain, you are coming up with answers that fit multiple criteria.  That suggests that somewhere in your brain, perhaps in your subconscious, you are applying those criteria or using them in some other way to produce an answer that fits.  If your brain wasn't considering the criteria at all, I can't imagine how your brain would produce answers that just happen to fit the criteria, can you?  Is it possible to name an animal that begins with "E" without considering "animal" and "E" somewhere in the process?  Does that make any sense to you?

Also, the basic model doesn't require the filters to be sequential.  It simply requires that the player be selecting choices based on criteria.  It also allows for the filters to be combined before being applied, which is fine, too.  I'm trying to figure out what you actually do.

Quote from: TonyLBIs there any piece of evidence that I could possibly present that would convince you that I actually do know how my mind is operating in this regard, and that it is not operating in the sequential-filter mode that you propose?

I'm not saying that you have to operate in the sequential-filter mode.  I'm explaining how I know that I do and I'm asking if you've really checked if you do.  You may know how your mind works but a lot of people don't.  I don't know until I ask and can't understand what you do until you explain it in more detail.  "I just get an answer that fits both simultaneously" doesn't tell me how you get that answer.  If it's a subconscious process, that's fine but then something is going on in your subconscious to produce the answer.  If there is more to it than that and you've said so, I've missed ot or blocked it out.

Quote from: TonyLBOr is this just going to be one of those cases where you say "I know what must be happening, my theory tells me so, so if you observe something different then you must be wrong."  'cuz I don't find those discussions terribly productive, so if that's where we'll going I'll just bow out now.

Not at all.  I'd be just as happy if you explained to me how you do something very different.

Quote from: John MorrowAlso, the basic model doesn't require the filters to be sequential.  It simply requires that the player be selecting choices based on criteria.  It also allows for the filters to be combined before being applied, which is fine, too.  I'm trying to figure out what you actually do.

But if I'm really just applying all the filters at once ... what is there to figure out?  It's a single action.  It's no more subject to being broken up into pieces than any other filtering operation.  

What would you answer if I asked you "Well, do you have some sense of what process you go through when you look at a set of words and pick out the ones that are animals?"  Would you be able to give me individual, differentiated steps?  Or is that level of operation atomic for you ... unified enough that it cannot be sliced into smaller bits?

I think that applying that style of analysis at that level makes assumptions about the structure of what you're analyzing.  Asking me to break down the process of how I pick "echidnu" (a word that would never make it onto my lists of either "words starting with E" or "animal words") out of my brain is assuming that it is a process made up of distinct and separable pieces.

Likewise, asking me to break down the process of how I pick character actions that serve both the needs of the character and the needs of the meta-game is assuming that it is a process made up of distinct and separable pieces.

Do you get what I mean by that?