The Forge Archives

I have been recently thinking more on the nature and interrelation of CAs and Techniques in the context of my recent essay (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12181).

I've been thinking a great deal on the idea that the road taken to arrive at a destination is frequently mistaken for that destination.  As an example, mistaking Illusionism for Simulationism because Illusionist techniques are frequently associated with with Simulationism.  Or mistaking Dramatism for a Creative Agenda when really it refers to a specific set of Techniques used to achieve a Creative Agenda.  In other words, Dramatism is a road to an Agenda, not an Agenda in itself.

In processing these thoughts its become apparent to me the importance of having a clear understanding of what a Creative Agenda is and what a Technique is and how they relate to each other.  You can see some of my thoughts on this in this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=132905#132905).  To summarize I think its essential to have a clear and concise definition for each level or tier; and this definition should describe what each item in that tier is about...i.e. what distinguishes that tier from other tiers.


Along the way my efforts in this direction made it very easy for me to distinguish between Simulationism as a CA and Illusionism as a Technique.  But when I started thinking about Narrativism things got a little murky.  Then I hit on an idea that demurked it for me, but which essentially challenges the very nature of Narrativism.

In this post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=132834#132834) Marco indicates that since illusionism is a technique one should be able to play Narrativism in a purely Illusionist style, because if done properly, the players wouldn't know.  I almost replied "no, illusionism is incompatable with Narrativism because Narrativism requires players empowered to address Premise" (Gareth made essentially this same point shortly thereafter).

I didn't press submit on that reply because it hit me that Marco was right.  IF, in my mind, I have clearly articulated Illusionism as a Technique, and IF the tiers are separate and distinct, then it SHOULD be possible to apply any Technique to any CA.  Clearly some combinations of Techniques will work better than others, but there really shouldn't be any that are simply absolutely incompatable period.  If there is then there is too much overlap and either the Technique has been erroneously defined to include CA specific elements, or the CA has been erroneously defined to include Technique specific elements.


Then I thought...isn't player empowerment really a category of Techniques?  Techniques that would include Director Stance, Author Stance, Kickers, various IIEE arrangements, and a variety of other things?  Narrativist play might use any or all of these (or others not listed) to achieve a level of player empowerment that allows Premise to be addressed.

Premise CANNOT be addressed without some level of Player Empowerment.  But Player Empowerment methods (whichever are used) are Techniques.  So IF addressing Premise is the defining feature of Narrativism and IF addressing Premise requires Player Empowerment, then we have a situation where the tiers are overlapping...which in my mind is a huge problem.

Things that are irrefutably Techniques are being defined as being part of a Creative Agenda.  If I wouldn't accept this with regards to Simulationism and Techniques like Illusionism (a category of Techniques itself).  Then I can't very well accept this situation for Narrativism.

Player Empowerment methods are Techniques.  They belong in the Technique tier and should not be part of any definition of a Creative Agenda nor should they be required for the definition of a Creative Agenda to be fulfilled.  Therefor, Player Empowerment must be removed from Narrativism.

Narrativism must be defined in such a way that it is a functional Creative Agenda using Player Empowerment Techniques or without Player Empowerment Techniques.

But its been established that one can't address Premise without some level of Player Empowerment.  Any example offered in the past has been explained as being not Narrativistic addressing of Premise but adhering to established theme (which has been called Simulationist in the past.  I disagree that it is Simulationist, but clearly it isn't Narrativist either.)

So if you can't address Premise without Player Empowerment, and if Player Empowerment is a collection of Techniques, and if you can't overlap tiers and combine CAs and Techniques...then...

Addressing Premise cannot be a Creative Agenda.


Interesting says I...pretty radical...lets see where it leads.

Some of my recent thoughts have been influenced by the discussion around the 3D model (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12289) idea.

In that thread the idea was put forth that Narrativism was really the combination of Theme with Decentralized Control.  I questioned that this idea was missing the notion of Premise...but I think my above chain of thought helps reconcile this.


What then is the Creative Agenda we're currently calling Narrativism really?  Since the current definition includes Techniques within it, it hasn't been distilled down to its essential core.  What is that essential core, and what should we call it?

Theme.  Theme is the essential core of the Creative Agenda.  Ultimately after all is said and done, Theme is what Narrativists wish to wind up with.  It is also what Dramatists want to wind up with.  The difference lies in the combination of Techniques these players are willing to take to get there.

In other words, the problem I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, that of mistaking the road for the destination.  Addressing Premise is not the destination.  Theme is the destination.  Addressing Premise is the road that Narrativists take to get to Theme.  Illusionism (et.al.) is the road that Dramatists take to get to Theme.  

These labels do not refer to Creative Agendas.  They refer to a combined package of a Creative Agenda and a collection of Techniques commonly used to get to that Creative Agenda.  This is what all of the "Subsets" referred to in the main GNS essays.  

So Narrativism is not a Creative Agenda.  The style of play we call Narrativism is a skewer that passes through a Creative Agenda and spears a number of Techniques.  Dramatism is a skewer that passes through the same Creative Agenda and spears a different collection of Techniques.  Niether is the essential core of the Agenda.


My definition of Creative Agenda from my essay is "the player's response to in game conflict".  What then is the Creative Agenda that both Narrativism and Dramatism is skewering?  What is the response to conflict?

I think its ultimately the Agenda of Theme.  I'd call it "story" which I think is more correct but we all know what a bugaboo that word is.  The "Themeatist" player (man, that word sux) will view conflict as an opportunity to pursue / follow / illustrate Theme.  The techniques a Narrativist will use to do this differ dramatically from the techniques a Dramatist will use, but ultimately they are after the same goal...just with completely incompatable methods.  


Similarly Virtualism I think can probably be described as being a Skewer that passes through the Simulationist Agenda.  I'd be interested in hearing more specifics on which combination of Techniques best support Virtualism.  I suspect that Purist for System and High Concept are likely also skewers that pass through Simulation and spear a different combination of Techniques.

Edited to add:  I think that the Virtualism skewer likely spears many of the same player empowerment (i.e. free from railroading and Illusion) techniques that the Narrativism skewer does...which is probably why there's been significant back and forth on whether certain games described by Marco and John Kim are Sim or Nar.  


A fairly radical departure...but at this point I'm seeing a lot of utility here.

Quote from: ValamirIF, in my mind, I have clearly articulated Illusionism as a Technique, and IF the tiers are separate and distinct, then it SHOULD be possible to apply any Technique to any CA. Clearly some combinations of Techniques will work better than others, but there really shouldn't be any that are simply absolutely incompatable period. <emphasis added by me>

I disagree with the assertion that any technique should be compatable with any CA. Follow me for a minute...

In my experience, Illustionist techniques are not only used to create theme, but also to regulate the difficulty of conflicts. When the GM wants a fight to be easy, they modify the enemies/conflict/challenge/etc so the players breeze through them. When he wants the characters to win or lose, he modifies things accordingly.

So then, for the Gamist, how can the Gamist Step on Up, if the challenge is Illustionary? If the GM determines the outcome of events, how can a Gamist prove he has what it takes?

To me, this type of Illusionist techniques aren't compatable with Gamism. If we follow the same logic you used with Nar, then Gamism can't be a CA either.

I would argue that each CA holds different things as important, and certain things as unimportant. The things that are unimportant can delegated to the GM (or whoever), while the players must be empowered in the things that ARE important.

Nar holds theme important, so techniques that restrict empowerment over theme are incompatable with Nar play. Gamism holds challenge important, thus techniques that block or restrict player skill/tactcs/etc are incompatable with Gamist play. Sim... well, we're still discussing Sim.

Ralph

Very interesting I think I almost went blind when reading it.  I have a couple of questions though of I that will make some sense.

First, much of your argument weighs on Illusionism as an example of a Technique and the idea that any technique should be usable with an CA? Basically then, can you use Illusionism as a Technique for Theme and can you use all other Techniques with Theme as well? Obviously I am not asking you to go through every Technique and match it against every CA, but I would think ingeneral that Illusionism itself and the other techniques need to all fit in the same way with Theme as you suggest they do with Sim and Gamism.

Second, do these Skewers in Theme have comparable Skewers in G & S. You mention virtualism for Sim but is there an example for Gamism OR are Skewers even necessary for CA? That is some CA's have Skewers but it's not necassary for the CA to have.

There is a great deal to digest here and re-read and read back so the above are just 2 quick observations.


Sean

Hey Tim, actually I've argued pretty strenuously elsewhere that Illusionist techniques are quite common for Gamist Play.  In fact, I think that may well be their most common useage.

1) The use of the Illusionist technique may be completely seperate from the points of Step on Up.  In other words, the Gamist players could well embrace Illusionist / Participationist GM techniques as a way of teleporting them from one interesting challenge to the next without having to waste time in between figuring out what to do next.

2) The use of Illusionist techniques doesn't invalidate the Step on Up if it is used at the point of challenge.  The GMs use of such techniques could well be part of the victory or loss conditions of the challenge.  i.e. "We're so good, the GM had to manipulate the combat to make it a challenge and we still kicked its ass" (victory) or "We completely screwed up the encounter with the Frost Giants, the GM had to fudge a few rolls to save our characters" (loss).

In the loss condition, Step on Up has been achieved because there was a challenge and the player failed.  The loss condition for Step on Up doesn't have to be Loss = Character Death.  It could well simply be Loss = GM had to save us.  Certainly less hard core, but still valid step on up.

Further the step on up might be Player vs Player, so the GM having to save one player's bacon while not having to do so for another player can equally be seen as victory/loss conditions.

Quote from: ADGBossFirst, much of your argument weighs on Illusionism as an example of a Technique and the idea that any technique should be usable with an CA? Basically then, can you use Illusionism as a Technique for Theme and can you use all other Techniques with Theme as well? Obviously I am not asking you to go through every Technique and match it against every CA, but I would think ingeneral that Illusionism itself and the other techniques need to all fit in the same way with Theme as you suggest they do with Sim and Gamism.

Don't get too hung up on my example of Illusionism.  That just happened to be the point where I went "boink".  Its not that all techniques must be equally useable with all CAs in all combinations, but that the two levels should be independent of each other.  One should not be able to say "ah, for CA X you must use Technique Y" nor should one be able to say "ah you are using Technique Y you must be using CA X"

One should be able to say "ah you are using Technique A, H, Q, S, and Z, that combination is quite common for the particular brand of Simulationism known as Virtuality" for instance.

QuoteSecond, do these Skewers in Theme have comparable Skewers in G & S. You mention virtualism for Sim but is there an example for Gamism OR are Skewers even necessary for CA? That is some CA's have Skewers but it's not necassary for the CA to have.

Skewers are not my invention.  They've been part of the model for awhile (pretty much at the same point as the nested boxes came in use).  So yes there are all kinds of skewers going through each of the levels.  Every single time you sit down an play a functional game you are "on a skewer" that spears a particular combination of Social Contract issues, Exploration Dials, Creative Agenda, Techniques, and Ephemera.

Some of those skewered combinations are so common that they've been recognized and given labels in the gaming community.  Those labels don't necessarily define every single element on the skewer but some percentage that are widely held as being part of that particular style with the rest representing possible variations that would still fall under the label...so you'd have a range of skewers that encompasses what gamers typically mean when they say "Hard Core Power Gaming".

My revelation in this thread is that I'm proposing that Narrativism is represents a range of skewers (typically those that combine the Thematic Agenda with Premise Addressing and Player Empowerment Techniques) rather than being an actual Agenda.



[note:  one could argue that the word Creative Agenda would better be applied to the Skewers and the Gamist, Simulationist, Thematist? modes called something else, but that's getting way ahead of ourselves]

I'll just drop my two cents on the possible pragmatic outcomes this new view  (which takes into account the ideas exposed in the New 3D model (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12289) and Lee Short's What GNS is about (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12404)) could generate.

As a total n00b in GNS and other rpg-theory related stuff, I think that the separating of CA and Techniques could help to make the whole model much clearer and easier to grasp.

The huge problem I encountered with the current GNS articles is that they are really long and complicated to read.
If you break up the descriptions of GNS into separate points, one could begin with the basic CA (now much shorter to read), then continue on with Techniques, and finally the rest of the articles (History, etc.)

The general picture comes along much quicker, and experienced "theorists" can refer with ease to precise parts of the model.


Now I do have a question on your essay itself:
Is there really a hierarchical arrangement between the different blocks? (two being clearly defined, others could probably be added)
Is CA definetly more "fundamental" than Technique, ie. does CA define/allow for Techniques or is the other way round also possible?


Hope this can be some food for thought ;)

Ralph,

Rather than discovering that narrativism isn't an agenda, I think you've just proved that not all techniques are universally applicable.  And what's wrong with that?

Quote from: AlanRalph,

Rather than discovering that narrativism isn't an agenda, I think you've just proved that not all techniques are universally applicable.  And what's wrong with that?

The problem, I think, is that the incompatibility means that some CA will be defined in ways that are reserved for the Techniques level. If degree of player empowerment is seen as a technique rather than an end unto itself ("what does one do with that power") then a top-level-goal should not be defined in terms of a empowerment. The preference for play still exists--but would not be defined in terms of being a top-level-goal.

The value of separating them out is that you wind up with a deeper taxonomy than you do if you combine them. Under present GNS there isn't a way to distinguish between:

1. The guy who wants the GM to make sure the game universe assists in his stated answer to Premise (i.e. that the results of his answer-action is affirming--which might concievably involve the GM cheating at dice!)

2. The guy who wants the GM to challenge his premise-answer-action in a substantial fashion in order to 'test it' (which might involve the GM taking power away from him temporarily in order to stage the challenge--which is then resolved fairly)

3. The guy who wants the GM to remain neutral and refer to in-game-cause with regards to the results of his premise-answer-action.

And so on (there are even more in the Sim bucket).

The present system also has weaknesses like this: We also say that Illusionism is incompatible with Narrativism--but is okay for Sim when, in fact, under the present description:

a) Illusionism certainly could provide acceptable gaming (if undiscovered) for Narrativism.
b) It's clearly not acceptable (if discovered) for a lot of Sim just as we say for Nar.

Breaking these things out would make this a lot clearer and, IMO, result in a theory that is both easier to apply and easier to understand.

-Marco

Quote from: Valamir
2) The use of Illusionist techniques doesn't invalidate the Step on Up if it is used at the point of challenge.  The GMs use of such techniques could well be part of the victory or loss conditions of the challenge.  i.e. "We're so good, the GM had to manipulate the combat to make it a challenge and we still kicked its ass" (victory) or "We completely screwed up the encounter with the Frost Giants, the GM had to fudge a few rolls to save our characters" (loss).

In fact, a Gamist game might profitably use this to apportion rewards: if the GM had to fudge, you get fewer (or no) XP -- or even lose XP.  

For all I know, HackMaster actually does this.

Quote from: ValamirHey Tim, actually I've argued pretty strenuously elsewhere that Illusionist techniques are quite common for Gamist Play.  In fact, I think that may well be their most common useage.

Ralph,

I know what you're referring to, and actually, I *generally* agree with you that Illusionist techniques are often employed for Gamist purposes. My point earlier was that certain applications of Illusionism DO run counter to Gamist priorities. (Hell, I personally have used both covert and overt Force to supress Step On Up when I felt it ran counter to my intended "story." As I'm sure you know, it's not very difficult to diffuse or alter conflicts when you want to.)

My point is not to get hung up on Illusionist techniques (I know you don't want to either). My point is that Nar is not the only CA that is incompatable with certain techniques, or at least with certain applications of techniques. Thus, incompatability is not a useful criterium for defining what is and isn't a CA.

I also wanted to say, I've understood "addressing Premise" to basically mean "creating Theme," so to me, it looks like you're just arguing for a change in terminology. Do you see a significant difference between the concepts of "addressing Premise" and "creating/whatever Theme?"

QuoteI also wanted to say, I've understood "addressing Premise" to basically mean "creating Theme," so to me, it looks like you're just arguing for a change in terminology. Do you see a significant difference between the concepts of "addressing Premise" and "creating/whatever Theme?"

No, what I'm proposing is that Creating Theme isn't the Agenda.  The desire for the resultant story to have a theme is the Agenda.  Creating Theme / Addressing Premise is one way of accomplishing that.  Reinforcing a predetermined theme through adhering to standard genre tropes would be another way of accomplishing that.  

The destination is, at the end of the day, to have a theme.
The road could be to create this theme in play through players empowered to address premise. Or the road could be some other method.

I am really excited about your premise (no pun intended), Ralph.  This thread seems to have the most potential of any I've read over the last several months for really tamping down some greater distinctions within the three-fold model of the Creative Agenda.

What other approaches can you perceive in your new distinction?  Why is "pursuing a theme" the Agenda?  Isn't this position present in both Gamism and Simulationism?  Story Now seems to be different from the Thematic element of your claim.

I'm still a bit foggy and trying to muddle through, but I do like where you're trying to go (if indeed you haven't already gotten there!) :)

Quote from: Valamir2) The use of Illusionist techniques doesn't invalidate the Step on Up if it is used at the point of challenge.  The GMs use of such techniques could well be part of the victory or loss conditions of the challenge.  i.e. "We're so good, the GM had to manipulate the combat to make it a challenge and we still kicked its ass" (victory) or "We completely screwed up the encounter with the Frost Giants, the GM had to fudge a few rolls to save our characters" (loss).

I vehemently disagree.  Firstly, I accept thepattern if play in which Gamists agree to the illusion to teleport to actual conflicts, but I point out that if the players agree with it and are cool with it then it is properly participationism not illusionism.  The players are agreeing to punctuate step on up with going with the flow in order to frame the conflicts, but still engaging with the conflicts fully.

As to illusionism in a step on up conflict, I disagree more fundamentally.  I see the statement about the GM having to adjust rather as a statement that their opponent was driven to desperate and cowardly measures.  That does not imply consent to me and I would think that if this sort of manipulation were persistent, the player would rightly feel that their actions in the face of challenge were meaningless.    If the players are throwing down everything they have and the SIS is adjusted only according to "the GM's story" the players will likely cry railroading.


I agree that CA should describe  what the players want and the techniques what they do, but it seems to me the vaslue in the whole model overall is to see that that what some people want leads them to do things that you find unacceptable.  That is, the particular rather than universal relationship of techniques to CA's seems useful to me for explaining actual agenda clash.  What person A wanted to do lead them to select a particular technique that limited your CA in practice.  If we make techniques universal to all CA's, how then will we describe such a clash?

Hi Ralph -

I wonder if this isn't a glass half-full/half-empty thing. I agree with you that Narrativism is often discussed in terms of particuar techniques, and your conclusion follows from that. But on the other hand many past discussions have also taken pains to boil things down to essentials, where something like 'theme' or 'moral/emotional charge' (or, actually, 'premise') gets pretty clearly articulated as 'the part of Narrativist play that really matters'.

I feel like I was bringing up some of these same points a few months ago, though not with the same level of expertise you and Mike bring to the table, but a variety of people persuaded me that they weren't relevant. Maybe I was wrong to be so persuaded; but if you think about CA in terms of what the players are trying to get out of play, I wonder if this doesn't turn into a kind of 'say it for yourself moment' which strips Nar down to its essentials rather than dwelling on the many intensively Nar-facilitating techniques which some Forge regulars both favor and have developed?

Functional Illusionism in Gamism: The player takes a risk which is ballsy but is not likely to result in death. Things go horribly wrong and the character is sliding down a slope towards water that will kill him. The GM secretly determines that she does not want the character to die.

She resolves to call for rolls (DEX, Climbing, whatever) each time narrating the character closer and closer to the water--but the character, assuming the player ever makes a roll, will not reach it.

The player makes the second roll (believing that a last-chance before death) and everyone is happy. Gamist cred has been lost or gained. The character is still alive. The GM doesn't have to worry about having miss-judged the risks or having an annoyed player.

But if it ever comes out, the player might object.*

Narrativist Techniques: If player-choice (what I think Mike called Player Input in his 3D schema) is considered a technique (and I think it should be using the Big Theory model) then what is described as Narrativist play is simply a preference for theme with the Player-Input-Dial turned all the way up.

A mode of play for which there is no agreed on GNS term would be the same preference for theme with the PI dial turned down or part-way down. This might be Dramatism. It might be Participationism--neither actually fit, however.

What that's really closest to is the standard take on GNS Sim (wherein there is a "point" to the game or a GM's story and players are expected to pretty much adhere to it).

-Marco
* Illusionism is a tough one since, in pure form, you never know it's there unless you catch the GM doing it and then, if you aren't pissed about it, the game is declared to have been participationism.

Quote from: ValamirNo, what I'm proposing is that Creating Theme isn't the Agenda.  The desire for the resultant story to have a theme is the Agenda.  Creating Theme / Addressing Premise is one way of accomplishing that.  Reinforcing a predetermined theme through adhering to standard genre tropes would be another way of accomplishing that.  

This is where I think you've left GNS behind and gone off in a different direction.  I've always understood creative agenda to be what the players at the table by their actions are doing.  That means that the players are creating theme/addressing premise, or building the dream, or stepping up to the challenge.   It's not what the game is doing it's what the players are able to accomplish in the game.  I find this a valuable distinction when talking about what will cause players conflict based on these differing goals.  In my expereince I have never seen any conflict between players building the dream with or without theme if they are both just experiencing it.  I have seen and felt conflicts between people trying to create theme and those just left to experience it.

That's why GNS tells me something.  Saying that a game is Thematist tells me nothing, I could be a spectator or I could be driving the theme I dont know what I'll be doing in play.  It's much like the break we were talking about in this thread  "Some myths about Virtualism"  (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12351) when considering GDS.  The virtualist is concerned with how decisions are made in play not with what the game allows the player to do.  Your division of creative agenda is another break along different lines, what does the game create rather than what do the players create.

Quote from: Marco
But if it ever comes out, the player might object.*

* Illusionism is a tough one since, in pure form, you never know it's there unless you catch the GM doing it and then, if you aren't pissed about it, the game is declared to have been participationism.

Please see above:

Me:

Quote
If the players are throwing down everything they have and the SIS is adjusted only according to "the GM's story" the players will likely cry railroading.

I have already dealt with this.  In a purist gamist sense, the GM has cheated.  It is frankly none of the GM's business whether my character lives or dies.   If we did not agree to Participationism, then the GM is cheating and this will likely cause a ruckus as you recognise.  And despite your sarcasm, the distinction between consent and decepetion is highly relevant.  It is precisely why people feel more than just loss if they are defrauded, but also insult.  I find this blind-spot surprising from someone so interested in the allocation of blame.

This is "functional" so long as one participant succesfully deceives the others, which almost always means: for not very long.

A better angle to what Ralph has suggested as the use of illusionism in gamisms is probably scene framing not even confident of my own statement that moving from conflict to conflict is particpationism and propose that as an alternative.  Is it an illusion when the action stops and the set is re-dressed for the next conflict?

Quote from: Valamir
No, what I'm proposing is that Creating Theme isn't the Agenda.  The desire for the resultant story to have a theme is the Agenda.

So, you're saying that the narrativist agenda is to end up, when the session is done, with a story that has theme?

That's not my experience.   I realize that this is just one subjective anecdote, but I shall provide it anyway - because I feel strongly about it.  I am not satisfied if the final result of play demonstrates theme.  One can almost always find theme when looking back on a series of events.  

What I find satisfying is being able to play moments of thematic importance as they happen - in the moment - Now!  And I want to choose how they get expressed - not in some future result - but now.  I don't think this is a subcategory if the narrativist preference, I think it's the defining feature.

Quote from: contracycle
It is frankly none of the GM's business whether my character lives or dies.   If we did not agree to Participationism, then the GM is cheating and this will likely cause a ruckus as you recognise.  And despite your sarcasm, the distinction between consent and decepetion is highly relevant.  It is precisely why people feel more than just loss if they are defrauded, but also insult.  I find this blind-spot surprising from someone so interested in the allocation of blame.

I don't know if you're refering to me or not--but if you are:

1. What sarcasm?

2. From where do you get your assertion that a Gamist doesn't care if your character lives or dies? I think that's just your own preferences speaking--there's nothing in the essay that discusses whether a GM might or might not have that preference.

Sure, there's got to be risk--there has got to be challenge--but the only person assigning a terminal condition is you. Show me how, in the case of the character taking risk and failing, and being saved by the GM, the Gamist agenda hasn't been fufilled.

Yes, I agree that the player might object if they found out--but the play is still Gamist--the GM still qualifies as a Gamist GM, and the play is functional.

3. If you are refering to the "blame test" in the consequences thread (I don't know if you are) you have catastrophically misunderstood it and I encourage you to post to that thread and answer the question I posed honestly and in as much detail as you need to explain yourself. That will, I would hope, illuminate how you see the social contract in your gaming (if you blame the GM since he spoke but absolve the pusher-player then you are, indeed, holding responsible the person who uttered the breaking words--but not the person with the intent to break it, for example).

-Marco

Quote from: Valamir
IF, in my mind, I have clearly articulated Illusionism as a Technique, and IF the tiers are separate and distinct, then it SHOULD be possible to apply any Technique to any CA.  

HI Ralph,

I think the above is a falacy.  You have assumed that, because the creative agenda arrow must pass through the sub-category of technique, that it must be able to pass through _all_ techniques in the category.

Sure, it's a nice elegant assumption, but do you have any other support?

Quote from: Valamir
Premise CANNOT be addressed without some level of Player Empowerment.  But Player Empowerment methods (whichever are used) are Techniques.

Indeed, but consider that no form of role-playing is possible without some level of player empowerment.  A game without empowerment is the players sitting around a table, listening to the GM tell them what their character's do and experience.  All RPGs use this particular technique: it's a matter of degree, not absense or presence.

In fact, one might consider some element of illusionism (force, I recall) the yin to the player empowerment's yang.  Both techniques are always present in some degree in a role-playing game, the variation is a matter of realm: what the technique is applied to.  In a narrativist game, force gets used on things of low-priority for the players.

The argument you present arises from a series of all or nothing assumtions, from seeing the various labels as absolutes, with black and white consequences, on and off.  I would suggest that many, if not all techniques can be seen as pairs of concepts: as one is emphasized, the other's dominance is reduced.  

Seen from that angle, force, as I noted, can appear in narrativist play.

Quote from: Alan
Indeed, but consider that no form of role-playing is possible without some level of player empowerment.  A game without empowerment is the players sitting around a table, listening to the GM tell them what their character's do and experience.  All RPGs use this particular technique: it's a matter of degree, not absense or presence.

I've always seen player empowerment in general as a slidebar control that can be moved along a spectrum. That doesn't tell the whole story since there will be important "singularity-points"* in play where player empowerment will be vastly more important to me and the game than others (i.e. you can frame me all over but if I get no say in the outcome of an important drama then I'm unhappy).

Looking at how the GM in a traditional game employs power to manipulate those settings is, I think, an examination of technique.

Certainly that's not the same as a generalized goal of play. I think few people would say that Narrativism is just "all about the power."

I think that the idea of a preference of style that encompasses these (Mike's 3D Model) makes sense as a language for discussion. For a pure taxonomy, some sort of GDS paradigm seems reasonable--and that would mean one of two things:

a) you keep Narrativist (theme plus empowerment)--but then you have problems with Virtuality and Participationism being hard to explain, asymetrical and confusing (look at the posts claiming that player impowerment is no different in Nar play than Sim play--and look at the descriptions of play that are associated with each).

b) You use Story-ist or Themeist or something and have empowerment as a technique which exists comfortably under that bin and under What-if-ist (!?) as well.

The fact that (as you note) Force can appear in Narrativist play (despite numerous posts, analysis of GURPS disads, and the glossary entry--even in its presumed revised state) lends, I think, credence to this.

-Marco
* borrowed from the Historical Singularity terminology of Vernor Vinge (http://urchin.earth.li/cgi-bin/twic/wiki/view.pl?page=HistoricalSingularity)

Quote from: Alan

Quote from: Valamir
No, what I'm proposing is that Creating Theme isn't the Agenda.  The desire for the resultant story to have a theme is the Agenda.

So, you're saying that the narrativist agenda is to end up, when the session is done, with a story that has theme?

That's not my experience.   I realize that this is just one subjective anecdote, but I shall provide it anyway - because I feel strongly about it.  I am not satisfied if the final result of play demonstrates theme.  One can almost always find theme when looking back on a series of events.  

What I find satisfying is being able to play moments of thematic importance as they happen - in the moment - Now!  And I want to choose how they get expressed - not in some future result - but now.  I don't think this is a subcategory if the narrativist preference, I think it's the defining feature.

I'm not sure where the disconnect here is Alan.  You keep missing the essential point that I'm trying to make.  Narrativism as I've proposed above is 1 part agenda and 1 part techniques.  Yes, the agenda part is to wind up with theme.  But the Technique part is all about HOW you wind up with that theme...which is what your anecdote is about.

To be clear.  I'm not suggesting changing Narrativism at all.  100% of every discussion ever had about what Narrativism is all good.  All's I'm doing is saying that it isn't an Agenda by itself.  Its a combination of an agenda + a certain combination of techniques used to get there.

I'm saying that as long as what we label as Agendas also include built in techniques AND there are additional techniques in the technique box that the model is guarenteed to be confusing to new readers and convoluted in application.  I therefor am proposing that all Creative Agendas should be void of any and all techniques.  

Thing is that what differentiates Narrativism from Dramatism is all in the technique.  They both ultimately want theme but Dramatism isn't going to give you "being able to play moments of thematic importance as they happen - in the moment - Now!  And I want to choose how they get expressed - not in some future result - but now."  The difference is in the techniques used in play.  What gets you "Story Now" is the techniques you use to get to theme.

I'm not changing the Narrativist Agenda here.  I'm just relocating it to a skewer through the levels of the model, rather than a layer of the model.

The Narrativist wants theme...achieved using this subset of techniques (and there are tons of valid combinations that all can produce Narrativism)

Quote from: Valamir
I'm not changing the Narrativist Agenda here.  I'm just relocating it to a skewer through the levels of the model, rather than a layer of the model.

You've confused agenda with realization.  I might have an agenda for story now, but be faced with techniques that don't satisfy it very well.  No one ever said that a creative agenda is defined by how well it gets realized.  

Quote from: Valamir
Yes, the agenda part is to wind up with theme.  But the Technique part is all about HOW you wind up with that theme...which is what your anecdote is about.

This overlooks a significant distinction:

Part of a dramtist agenda may be to wind up with theme sometime during play.  A narrativist agenda is to have it _now_.  That's not a "how do you get it" that's a goal or standard used to prioritize choices.

Quote from: Alan
Part of a dramtist agenda may be to wind up with theme sometime during play.

I'm not sure a "dramatist" would agree with you. If you stipulate that resolution of the 'answer to premise' is not necessary for theme (i.e. I create theme at theexact point I make the decision, not later when the consequences have been resolved) then what you and the dramatist want are exactly the same.

If you do require resolution of the 'story' (and the acts) in order to examine and define theme then you don't create anything 'now' either--you have to wait for the dust to settle just like everyone else.

I have to admit I think the whole now-vs-later thing is something I don't get. I recall the "real life isn't a story" argument (which I understood but didn't agree with)--but if you are talking about Author Stance used to make a statement (story-on-purpose) the dramatist can employ that as well as the Narrativist.

What's different is the level of input both players might expect to have. The Dramatist may expect that the GM will step in to prevent unwanted anti-climax (either unwanted by him or to the majority of the players) or use force or illusionism to raise the stakes and build towards a more intense resolution where as the Narrativist might not (according to what I see people say, anyway).

But neither need expect that the GM will frog-march them through one scene after another which they essentially watch happen. It's a gradient--and I think describing that element (Player Input) as a technique makes a more cohesive theory than tying it to Narrativism.

But if you decide to combine the two, then how do you feel about splitting Virtualist play apart from Participationist play as top-level CA's?

-Marco

Quote from: Alan

Quote from: Valamir
I'm not changing the Narrativist Agenda here.  I'm just relocating it to a skewer through the levels of the model, rather than a layer of the model.

You've confused agenda with realization.  I might have an agenda for story now, but be faced with techniques that don't satisfy it very well.  No one ever said that a creative agenda is defined by how well it gets realized.  

Nothing I've said has anything to do with realization.

You have a destination (your priority) and you have the road you will take to get there (your techniques).  There are many different roads that may get you to your destination...some work better than others and some boil down to preference.  There are other roads that will almost surely not get you to your destination.

How effectively you employ the various techniques will, of course, be important to actual play, but it has nothing to do with this essay at all.  

This essay is about recognizing that there are destinations and roads, that they are seperate things, and that mixing them together is a big reason for alot of the confusion in the model.  I'm not really changing anything about the model or Narrativism in particular.  I'm merely tidying up the organization and presentation.  In addition to simply being more clear how the parts fit together, I think it also will provide new avenues for investigation.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, because so far, nothing you've said really disagrees with anything I've proposed.

Quote

Quote from: Valamir
Yes, the agenda part is to wind up with theme.  But the Technique part is all about HOW you wind up with that theme...which is what your anecdote is about.

This overlooks a significant distinction:

Part of a dramtist agenda may be to wind up with theme sometime during play.  A narrativist agenda is to have it _now_.  That's not a "how do you get it" that's a goal or standard used to prioritize choices.

Well, we could go to another thread to discuss narrativist agendas, but the narrativist agenda is not to have theme now.  The agenda is to address premise now, and in the end the result of addressing the premise will be a theme.  

Both Narrativism and Dramatism can be said to have "theme at the end" so to speak...that's not anything I've invented, that's part of Narrativism since at least the big essay.  The difference has always been about how that theme gets set.  With narrativism the theme gets established because players addressed premise in play.  With Dramatism the theme gets established because players adhered to various genre tropes and conventions during play designed to lead to a specific theme.  This is straight from the essays.

My point is that Addressing Premise is one road to the destination of theme while adhereing to genre tropes is another road to the destination of theme.  Far from ignoring the distinction, that distinction is front and center to the whole point of this essay.  Trust me I'm WELL aware of the distinction.

Marco,

The distinction is that a narrativist agenda does not require that the events taken as a whole have any particular structure.  The narrativist agenda wants to address premise now - in every play decision the player makes.

Ralph,

Quote from: Valamir
Both Narrativism and Dramatism can be said to have "theme at the end" so to speak...that's not anything I've invented, that's part of Narrativism since at least the big essay.

Have another look at Ron's essay "Narrativism: Story Now."  That's not how I read it.  For example, "There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point:... "

Quote
The difference has always been about how that theme gets set.  ...
My point is that Addressing Premise is one road to the destination of theme.

But as Ron says in his essay, the point of narrativist play is not to get to theme, the point is to address premise (as you rightly noted).  Addressing premise only has emotional value in relationship to theme - but theme is subservient to the goal of achieving moments of addressing premise.

So you have it backwards.  For a narrativist, theme is a road to addressing premise.

Quote from: AlanMarco,

The distinction is that a narrativist agenda does not require that the events taken as a whole have any particular structure.  The narrativist agenda wants to address premise now - in every play decision the player makes.

(Emphasis added)

As stated, I would contrast this to the Dramatist who doesn't demand to address premise in every play decision the player makes--only some. This makes the degree of input the axis that I see shifting.

-Marco
[ I think there is some more to it here as well, as I said elsewhere, certain decisions will be more key to both players than others--but as stated here, I think it's clear that the use of the term every specifies a matter of degree or magnitude. ]

Quote from: ValamirYou have a destination (your priority) and you have the road you will take to get there (your techniques).  There are many different roads that may get you to your destination...some work better than others and some boil down to preference.  There are other roads that will almost surely not get you to your destination.  

I think you have a good distinction here, but I'm a little wary about how it is being cast here.  In terms of your road analogy, it is possible to care more about how you get there than where you are going.  But the terms "priority" and "technique" seem to obscure that, by implying that it is the destination that is the priority.  I think this is similar to what Alan is saying.  

I'm not sure of what to call these, but maybe Theme and Challenge could be called "Transcript Goals".  And things like empowerment and internal causality could be called "System Goals" (?).  However, while Theme is a property of the transcript, Challenge is not.  i.e. You can't tell from the transcript of what the characters did how challenging it was for the players.  

Quote from: ValamirBoth Narrativism and Dramatism can be said to have "theme at the end" so to speak...that's not anything I've invented, that's part of Narrativism since at least the big essay.  The difference has always been about how that theme gets set.  With narrativism the theme gets established because players addressed premise in play.  With Dramatism the theme gets established because players adhered to various genre tropes and conventions during play designed to lead to a specific theme.  This is straight from the essays.  

I'm going to nitpick a little here about calling this "Dramatism".  (This goes for Marco and others, too.)  Dramatism is not established Forge-specific term, and Dramatism in the rgfa Threefold was much broader than this.  It isn't clear to me, at least, what people mean by "Dramatism".  If we want to define a style based on pre-established theme and/or genre, maybe we could call it "Genre-ism" or somesuch?

Quote from: John KimI'm going to nitpick a little here about calling this "Dramatism".  (This goes for Marco and others, too.)  Dramatism is not established Forge-specific term, and Dramatism in the rgfa Threefold was much broader than this.  It isn't clear to me, at least, what people mean by "Dramatism".  If we want to define a style based on pre-established theme and/or genre, maybe we could call it "Genre-ism" or somesuch?

Agreed. I'm (badly) using the term instead of Participationist here (which doesn't really fit either since I'm not sure that a goal of participationism is "story" or "drama"--I think it's mostly about control issues). Dramatism, IIRC, encompassed Narrativism ...

Story-as-a-goal-however-you-get-there? Something like that? I dunno.

Also: I think in context of the Big Model, Ralph is right--there are overarching goals and at another level of the venn diagram, techniques--but that's just to get everything into the Big Model framework.

Clearly that model may have some limitations (expressing Sim-sub-set Virtuality as Sim + a technique when an identical (or similar) technique is hardwired into Nar) but if it's retained in a limited-t- three-bin form, I think Ralph's break-up is more functional.

-Marco

Quote from: John Kim
I think you have a good distinction here, but I'm a little wary about how it is being cast here.  In terms of your road analogy, it is possible to care more about how you get there than where you are going.  But the terms "priority" and "technique" seem to obscure that, by implying that it is the destination that is the priority.  

Granted, in trying to respond to Alan I got a little sloppy.

The Skewer that goes through Social, Exploration, CA, and Techniques could place the actual priority in different places along the skewer.  In fact, as I mentioned above, discussions of the relative importance to the player of Techniques vs Agenda would be an interesting avenue to pursue.

I think that one could easily make a case that for alot of gamers the Creative Agenda isn't really their real priority at all.  the Turku school for instance seems to me to prioritize the technique of immersion above anything and everything else.  Its the Technique that's most important.

Quote
I'm going to nitpick a little here about calling this "Dramatism".  (This goes for Marco and others, too.)  Dramatism is not established Forge-specific term, and Dramatism in the rgfa Threefold was much broader than this.  It isn't clear to me, at least, what people mean by "Dramatism".  If we want to define a style based on pre-established theme and/or genre, maybe we could call it "Genre-ism" or somesuch?

Again correct.  Dramatism would be a skewer just like Narrativism.  What exactly is being skewered would be open to additional discussion.

Hi Ralph,

Let me clear some things up here.

I disagree with the basic assumption that a narrativist creative agenda requires certain techniques.  I think that I've always separated what one's agenda is, from how it is realized.  It seems obvious to me from first principles.  

I do agree that that requirement can be read from some of Ron's writings, particularly his gloss of Story Now.  However, when I read that gloss, I take it as a round-about way of describing how the narrativist agenda is _best_ acheived, not as a rigid definition.  I think the word choice of "required" is unfortunate.

--------

Here's my own explaination of the narrativist agenda:

The agenda prioritizes getting the juice by making a meaningfull decision in the moment.  A decision is only meaningfull when there's a value standard to judge it by and, in fact, some  consequences drawn from that judgement.  I would assert that "making a meaningfull decision in the moment" and addressing premise are the same thing.  

Now you might say: therefore "Premise" must be a technique.  No, it is a situation - a confluence of fantasy elements (character, in game situation, setting), a value standard, and potential consequences.  

Nor is "addressing premise" a technique.  It is an act done when premise is available.

We might use techniques to make sure these opportunities to address premise happen often, but we can also just _find_ the opportunties in the flow of fantasy events in any role-play.


Hence addressing premise is something we seek, not a technique for reaching a goal.  

------

Marco:

About theme and addressing premise:

Theme is a murky word, but the further I delve into fiction theory, the better I understand it.  

Theme is not the premise, the value standard or the consequences.  Theme emerges from a series of events that address a value standard in various situations and from various perspectives.  In an rpg, theme may be produced by a series of events which address premise.  I think of it as the byproduct of the real activity.

QuoteNow you might say: therefore "Premise" must be a technique. No, it is a situation - a confluence of fantasy elements (character, in game situation, setting), a value standard, and potential consequences. We might use techniques to make sure these confluences happen often, but we can also just _find_ them in the flow of fantasy events in any role-play.

Cool.  I see where you're coming from.

I agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations.  But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

What are you the player doing in that particular situation that can be said to be addressing the premise, vs. what you may do in that situation that wouldn't address any premise?  Those things are techniques.

Also establishing a premise into a situation may just happen.  But often times it is engineered into the situation by use of such techniques as Actor or Director Stance.  Other times it is inserted into the game through the GM's advanced prep.  How the GM delivers that prep into the SiS and handles the player encountering it is all about technique.  Presented a certain way its a premise laden situation.  Presented another way its not.

Quote from: Valamir[The Skewer that goes through Social, Exploration, CA, and Techniques could place the actual priority in different places along the skewer.  In fact, as I mentioned above, discussions of the relative importance to the player of Techniques vs Agenda would be an interesting avenue to pursue.

I think that one could easily make a case that for alot of gamers the Creative Agenda isn't really their real priority at all.  the Turku school for instance seems to me to prioritize the technique of immersion above anything and everything else.  Its the Technique that's most important.

Interesting...

This heads in nearly the same direction as what I proposed over in Motives and Methods, Conflict and Elements (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12398).  Indeed this thread has made me realize that my definition of player motives is too narrow.

Quote from: Valamir
So Narrativism is not a Creative Agenda. The style of play we call Narrativism is a skewer that passes through a Creative Agenda and spears a number of Techniques. Dramatism is a skewer that passes through the same Creative Agenda and spears a different collection of Techniques. Niether is the essential core of the Agenda.

As Ralph wrote beginning of this thread, the Nar CA has issues that make it difficult to classify it as a CA.  I suggest replacing all of the CA level in the model with Conflict-types and looking to the skewers as "CA's."  Of course, we would only classify a few of the more popular skewers....

BTW, Ralph your CA's defined by conflict conversation started me in this direction, and this thread seems to be heading in that same direction.

Cheers
Jonathan

I've been pleasantly encouraged by the ease at which a number of issues that we've wrestled with in various places fall rather nicely into place with only a relatively few minor tweaks.

Really the only thing that I've changed is to define CA in terms of conflict, define Instance of Play in terms of conflict cycle and determined to eliminate the overlap between techniques and CAs.

I agree that CA as I've framed it is really more appropriate called Conflict Approach, and the player's agenda is more properly defined by the skewer.  

Conflict Approaches become simply Theme, Challenge, and Internal Causality.  Players thus view conflicts as opportunities to illustrate thematic elements, opportunities for challenge or conflict, or opportunities to illustrate what "should" happen.

All of the various subsets of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism thus become Skewers.

This visualization allows us to more easily keep the full model in mind when talking about play styles and gives us a starting point to discuss what aspects of Social Contract, what Exploration Dial Settings, and what Techniques might combine to deliver a particular play experience.

Quote from: Valamir
I agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations.  But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

Addressing premise does require techniques - but does it _require_ any particular techniques?  I don't think so.  The player merely needs a means to effect a result.  Such means need not have anything to do with the value standard, they can simply affect the characters and setting.  Role-playing games provide many techniques for affecting character and setting.

For example, if in the progress of a DnD3e game, I stumble into a situation and, out of the shared imagined space, another player comments on it.  I can play off his evaluation by making a choice within SIS.  It could be as simple as choosing to attack or not.  So I say techniques are not required to address premise - addressing premise is an act of decision, not a technique - ie it is not a method for achieving something.

You know, we could have this same argument about Challenge - is Challenge a technique or a choice to perform?

EDIT " So I say _particular_ techniques are not required to address premise"

Hi Ralph,

In this model, how do you define "Technique"?  Because it seems trivially easy for me to call, say, "measurable/discernable challenge result" a Technique that must be used in order for Gamism to happen, creating the same problem for Gamism that you posit for Nar/Empowerment.

Seems to me the core issue here is in distinguishing Technique from CA, but that the way those are distinguished is not by saying they don't overlap.  Rather we must learn to recognize what is simply a Technique in use and what is an Agenda being realized.  I agree this is a hard/confusing thing, but it is the core of GNS as a whole: recognizing that all play worth discussing in depth exhibits a CA, and learning how to seperate out that CA from everything else (i.e., Techniques, System, Explored Elements . . . maybe others?)

But you may be defining Techniques in a new way (or I missed a tweak that came up over the last few months - been away from the Forge a while, as you know).  Because unless there's some special definition, I think it would always be possible to define a Technique that is "unique" to any particular CA-wording we come up with.  We have to distinguish them in a different way because we can't keep 'em from overlapping.  At least, that's how it looks to me at the moment,

Gordon

Dang, this has exploded.

I'm going to caveat that "Illusionism" is not "a technique" it is a combination of techniques which combine to create a referee style. "Participationism" is a closely related referee style which uses most of the same techniques. "Trailblazing" is a distinct referee style which uses mostly different techniques, and "Bass Playing" is different yet again. Each of these combines many techniques to the objective of a certain style of refereeing. The techniques used in illusionism are reasonably termed "illusionist techniques" and are used in varying degrees in each of the agenda. For example, I observed long ago and repeatedly since that the "moving clue" technique Ron recommends for facilitating narrativist play in a mystery adventure is an illusionist technique. Thus it is clear that illusionist techniques are compatible with narrativism, just as they are with gamism and simulationism. The question is not whether such techniques can be used, but how they can be used.

Otherwise, I agree that there's a serious problem with the notion that narrativism doesn't exist if the players corporately are not creating theme. Given that the referee is one of the players, if theme is created through play I'm not entirely certain why there is a suggested "minimum threshold" for the distribution of credibility to the other players, other than that there must be a minimum threshold in all play for there to be actual exploration occurring. Illusionism is problematic, in that by definition the players have less credibility than they believe. Participationism, however, is significant in this regard. If the character players have agreed that their part in the game will be to contribute color, and that the referee player will weave the story as it progresses, would it not be possible for this to be a narrativist address of premise? The alternative would seem to be to insist either that every participant in the game must make a specific minimum contribution to the development of the theme, or that there is a specific maximum amount of control over the theme permitted to any one player in narrativist play, neither of which seems to be as much about creative agendum as it is about technique. So I agree there. I'm not sure that means that "narrativism" as defined is mistaken; I think that narrativism as applied is mistaken.

I also think that Illusionism is a red herring in all these discussions; it should not be produced as an example of any agendum, because although it appears to be functional play it incorporates an inherent dysfunction: the system itself is not what the character-players believe it to be. To reference a concurrent discussion, the players think they have the power to break the vase by knocking it off the balcony, but they don't have that power--but the referee is not going to let them know they don't have that power. In illusionism, players have no credibility; the referee dictates the content of the shared imagined space, and the players accept it, making comments that have no functional impact on that shared imagined space. When the vase lands in the swimming pool and is unbroken, the players think it was just their bad luck, when it was actually entirely because the referee wanted the vase to remain intact and it didn't matter how he did it as long as the players didn't catch on that they lacked the power to break it. Since illusionism gives the players no credibility, exploration for them is limited to listening to the referee's story being told to them as if it were a story they were creating. Now, whether this is functional play in any agendum is doubtful. Yet I think it could be dysfunctional play in any agendum--you could have illusionist narrativism, illusionist gamism, and illusionist simulationism, in which the players think they've created something but unbeknownst to them all of their input has been negated and used to achieve the referee's ends. It doesn't matter what your agendum is. When you discover that none of your choices ever make any difference to anything that matters to you, either you shift to participationism because you're enjoying the movie, or you quit the game because you realize you have no control over anything. (I have seen both responses to illusionism.)

Also Ralph, when you say

QuoteI agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations. But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

there's some obscurity there. Premise is inherent in situation (and/or setting and/or character), and addressing premise requires techniques. However,

• Addressing premise is not itself a technique, but something for which techniques are used, and
• Addressing premise does not require one specific set of techniques, e.g., immersion may or may not be included, author stance may or may not be included, illusionist techniques may or may not be included--what matters is not which techniques are used, but whether they are used to address premise.[/list:u]Anyway, I think there's some worthwhile thought here, but I'm not ready to abandon narrativism so much as consider how it fits with different distributions of credibility.
  
  --M. J. Young

Excellent post, MJ--one thing: I don't think that the presence of Illusionism implies the players have no power--just that they don't always have as much as they might think.

The GM might generally play it straight but not allow the major enemy to be killed in the 'first act' (although if they manage to get him in the 'second act,' instead of the prefered 'third,' that's okay--or if they screw up and he gets them, well, that's the way the dice fell).

So I think there *is* a gradient and, thus, as a player, when I discover Illusionism I might not leave; not sign on to "watch the movie"; but rather: voice my expectation that there hopefully won't be too much of that.

If I'm a pure virtualist and the GM is constantly doing things to enhance the drama, eventually I'll want to leave--but if my concerns are simply more about player input, then the GM stoking the drama-level may not bother me (even if it means a minor loss of assumed power in a few cases).

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
2. From where do you get your assertion that a Gamist doesn't care if your character lives or dies? I think that's just your own preferences speaking--there's nothing in the essay that discusses whether a GM might or might not have that preference.

The problem is that it is the GM's prerference, not mine.  I do not need to be nannied, and I do not need the GM to save my arse for me.

QuoteShow me how, in the case of the character taking risk and failing, and being saved by the GM, the Gamist agenda hasn't been fufilled.

Because it revealed that my setp on up was worthless, and that my decisions were worthless, and really the GM is just running me through their own story like a rat in a maze.

Quote
Yes, I agree that the player might object if they found out--but the play is still Gamist--the GM still qualifies as a Gamist GM, and the play is functional.

The GM's play preferences are wholly irrelevant.  We are all at the table, and the GM's gamism does not licencse them to overrule the gamist interests of the players.

Gareth, this is blatant synecdoche.  You're confounding one perfectly valid perfectly understandable way of achieving gamist priorities with all gamist priorities.  

I can assure quite readily, that when step on up involves showing off to your friends what a masterful player you are that there can be zero difference between the failure condition being character death or failure condition being character would have died if the GM hadn't saved me.

Either way I screwed up, I was defeated, my gamer Fu was weak, and everybody at the table knows it.

THAT'S step on up in action.  That's Gamism.


If for your particular brand of gamism you're not satisfied unless the failure condition is character death...great...but that's YOUR schtick.  Trying to claim that's necessary for gamism is completely wrong.

Quote from: ValamirGareth, this is blatant synecdoche.  You're confounding one perfectly valid perfectly understandable way of achieving gamist priorities with all gamist priorities.  

Blatant is certainly a good word for it. Gareth, what's going on here?

-Marco

Quote from: Valamir
Either way I screwed up, I was defeated, my gamer Fu was weak, and everybody at the table knows it.

But they do NOT know it.  They do not know it because the GM lied and saved me; thus it appears my Gamer Fu was strong, strong enough to escape by the skin of my teeth.  My failure was NOT represented in the SIS and I gain kudos I do not deserve.  That is not gamism, that is manipulation.

Quote
If for your particular brand of gamism you're not satisfied unless the failure condition is character death...great...but that's YOUR schtick.  Trying to claim that's necessary for gamism is completely wrong.

Remember that Marco proposed the example, not I.  Death is irrelevant - the fact that I succeeded or failed is relevant, and whether or not this changes the SIS.  If my success or failure CANNOT change the SIS, then I am not driving any of the action, and my step on up doesn;t matter at all - my character receives success or failure, and the associated kudos, from the GM willy nilly and I might as well be watching TV.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough (although Ralph got it).

Imagine the character challenges a guardian on a bridge to a battle with staves to pass that way. The character goes out and they fight. The player makes two tactical blunders and is soundly beaten.

On the last roll, the player blows a DEX check and according to system moves "three yards to the right, falling down." That places him "off the edge of the bridge."

The GM has said below the bridge is a nasty rushing river (which would be impossible to cross and the character can't swim). The GM's take on the situation is that, yes, the character would probably pitch into the deep river ... and drown.

But he doesn't want the player to lose the character. He describes the character landing on the (previously described as treacherously steep) slope and therefore sliding down--but the GM secretely resolves that the character will never make it all the way down to death.

The player doesn't get any cred for kicking ass--he got beaten soundly. But the GM's asthetic is preserved by illusionism (the character continues, the player, although not enthausitic, accepted defeat as a possible outcome and is ready to continue).

Play is functional, gamist, and illusionist (un-caught).

-Marco

Previous response stricken

It seems to me that is a weak example.  The fight is over if the player is knocked off the bridge - at that point the step on up stops.  The defeat given by system is severe - effectively "be lucky to survive".

The GM intervening to make a character a lucky survivor does not frustrate gamist SOU; the player is reduced to hoping to be lucky, and that does not imply the same reqirement for demonstration of competence, strategy or guts.

So really you are showing an example in which a gamist SOU was completed , the challenge was lost, but then the player was saved from the claws of fate by the GM.  This is not an example of gamist illusionism IMO becuase none of the SOU decisions were overruled by the GM.

Quote from: contracyclePrevious response stricken

It seems to me that is a weak example.  The fight is over if the player is knocked off the bridge - at that point the step on up stops.  The defeat given by system is severe - effectively "be lucky to survive".

The GM intervening to make a character a lucky survivor does not frustrate gamist SOU; the player is reduced to hoping to be lucky, and that does not imply the same reqirement for demonstration of competence, strategy or guts.

So really you are showing an example in which a gamist SOU was completed , the challenge was lost, but then the player was saved from the claws of fate by the GM.  This is not an example of gamist illusionism IMO becuase none of the SOU decisions were overruled by the GM.

Gareth,

I saw your previous answer. It indicates to me that you did understand the question as phrased originally and you stood by your original answer.

I'll take another look at this response later--but right now I don't buy this either.

-Marco

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Valamir
Either way I screwed up, I was defeated, my gamer Fu was weak, and everybody at the table knows it.

But they do NOT know it.  They do not know it because the GM lied and saved me; thus it appears my Gamer Fu was strong, strong enough to escape by the skin of my teeth.  My failure was NOT represented in the SIS and I gain kudos I do not deserve.  That is not gamism, that is manipulation.

(Empasis added)

In case this is where the problem is (and my appologies for going back to GNS basics with folks who obviously understand 'em quite well): whether or not your failure is represented in the SIS is not, of neccessity, an important factor in evaluating your Gamer Fu.  Did or did not the group evaluate it as weak and display that evaluation?  If so, the situation in the SIS doesn't matter.

Now, failure in the SIS can be a good way to help promote that evaluation.  But it ain't needed.  GM intervention that prevents the group from realizing AT ALL that that a Step On Up opportunity was, ah, not taken advantage of is a barrier to Gamism.  But the realization does not have to be from within the SIS.

Hope that's relevant in some way,

Gordon

Quote from: MarcoExcellent post, MJ--one thing: I don't think that the presence of Illusionism implies the players have no power--just that they don't always have as much as they might think.

The GM might generally play it straight but not allow the major enemy to be killed in the 'first act' (although if they manage to get him in the 'second act,' instead of the prefered 'third,' that's okay--or if they screw up and he gets them, well, that's the way the dice fell).

So I think there *is* a gradient and, thus, as a player, when I discover Illusionism I might not leave; not sign on to "watch the movie"; but rather: voice my expectation that there hopefully won't be too much of that.

O.K., this may be more of a terminological dispute.

I played in a game once in which nothing the players did ever really impacted outcomes of anything. Some of the examples from that game might be enlightening.

• On one occasion, our party encountered a group of orcs on the road. A fight broke out. The referee had no papers, no records, nothing in front of him; I was keeping track of the damage taken by all the player characters. Periodically the referee would walk over and check how much damage we had taken. At the point where I was thinking we weren't going to make it, about half the orcs died and the other half fled.
• One of the player characters had stumbled into a rather complicated situation in which he had the power to set himself up as the heir to the inheritance of a very wealthy elderly man. He took careful steps to do this. Between sessions, he overheard the referee explaining to some of the other players what was going to happen, why the plan was going to fail, and how things would work out from there. That player left the game. He was the first person to realize that little or nothing that he did ever really impacted his character's fate.
• The referee had created "resurrection insurance"--essentially a popular plan by which characters would make regular payments to a religious organization, and if they were killed they were guaranteed to be brought back to life. A group of player characters decided to go on a rather dangerous mission that went terribly badly for them. Four of seven characters were killed. The four who were killed all had resurrection insurance, and the three who survived with serious injuries did not.
• My character was placed in a position in which his honor demanded that he undertake an extremely dangerous mission, and his character asserted that he had no fear. This combination made him, in my estimation, extremely vulnerable. I was fortunate in that he had what I called my "trump card"--a magic item that had fallen into his lap which was extremely powerful. Thus my character could go forward in his own courage, and I could know that I had this trump card if things went particularly badly, so I didn't have to fear losing the character. (I did not see resurrection insurance as the sort of thing a brave and noble character carries.) On the first day of this venture we were pursued by a small force of very deadly enemies. It took every bit of strategy I could muster, and we fought to within an inch of our lives, killing all but one, who escaped (I am tempted to say by fiat, but it was not unreasonable). Before we could as much as regroup and assess our injuries, reinforcements appeared at least ten times as strong as the group we had just withstood. I didn't hesitate; I spent my trump card. Just as soon as it was played, the invading force began to retreat, leaving us to continue on our journey--and I realized that the entire battle had been staged to strip me, personally, of that security blanket, so that the referee could make me worry. I had been manipulated into making that choice.[/list:u]I see what you're describing as heavy use of illusionist techniques--and I have no problem with that as functional play. To me, Illusionism will always mean that the referee has full control over everything that "matters" in play. I've seen it. As long as you couldn't see the man behind the curtain, it was exhilarating, because you always felt like you had just managed to come through by the skin of your teeth once more; as soon as you understood what was happening, it no longer mattered. After I left that game, some of the players began pushing the envelope, trying to figure out just how crazy and stupid their characters could be without getting killed. The fact was, the only way a player character could be killed in that world (which gave the illusion of being gamist) was to tell the referee out of character that you wanted to retire the character by having him killed--and then there was no way the character could survive, unless you changed your mind and said so. At one time I'd felt good about what I'd accomplished and the characters I'd saved, but after I saw through the veil it didn't have much meaning anymore.
  
  Illusionist techniques can be used to greater or lesser degrees, and can be used effectively, without becoming illusionism. Participationism uses illusionist techniques. All referee styles do to some degree, including bass playing.
  
  Little Ariel is sitting on grandad's knee, and grandad says, "Once upon a time there was a princess." Ariel says, "And the princess's name was Ariel, right grandad?" "That's right, Ariel," Grandad says; "The princess' name was Ariel." It doesn't matter to the story what the name of the princess was, so Grandad lets Ariel give the princess her name. That's illusionism: you can only change things that don't really matter.
  
  So if you can't kill the boss in the first act but you can in the second even though the third would be better, that's not illusionism--that's illusionist technique used to preserve an important villain temporarily. The players still have the power to kill him. If the villain will die at the hands of the player characters in the third act, even if they give up and stop looking for him, that's illusionism.
  
  --M. J. Young

There seem to be different discussions going along, but from what I gather, no one really challenges the idea to separate destination and road anymore.

Ideas that I found interesting were that there could be a big number of skewers under your model, some of which would describe what GNS or other models describe, and some could represent play styles (that's what I understand the union of one (two?) CA and a set of Techniques describes) that seem to generate a lot of discussion, making them styles in their own right. One could even want to experiment an untried combination of techniques under the guidance of this model. (It's certain that some combinations won't work though).

The fact that CA is not necessarily the priority is also important to underline IMHO.

So, Valamir, when do you treat us with a nice and clean write up? :-)

QuoteIdeas that I found interesting were that there could be a big number of skewers under your model, some of which would describe what GNS or other models describe, and some could represent play styles (that's what I understand the union of one (two?) CA and a set of Techniques describes) that seem to generate a lot of discussion, making them styles in their own right. One could even want to experiment an untried combination of techniques under the guidance of this model. (It's certain that some combinations won't work though).

That's the benefit I see, Cristoph

But it should be noted that the skewers have been a part of the Big Model since it was first outlined, I'm just drawing attention to them.

This shouldn't be thought of as "Valamir's model"; most of the changes I'm proposing are just in presentation and organization.  All but a few of the concepts here are already part of the Big Model.

Most of the new-ish conclusions I'm coming to is nothing more than what falls out of the Big Model naturally when you clarify it enough to see where all of the individual parts are.

Quote from: M. J. Young

Quote from: Marco
So if you can't kill the boss in the first act but you can in the second even though the third would be better, that's not illusionism--that's illusionist technique used to preserve an important villain temporarily. The players still have the power to kill him. If the villain will die at the hands of the player characters in the third act, even if they give up and stop looking for him, that's illusionism.

--M. J. Young

Okay--so "Illusionism" is complete control and Illusionist Technique is limited control? I can dig that (if we get a glossary for it so everyone else agrees). I still would want to distinguish between what the GM is doing with that control (creating a structured story? Faking tough challenges? Faking a real-world in which dramatic things "happen by chance" but doesn't really conform to a specific story-structure ...)

But, yeah, I could buy that.

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
I saw your previous answer. It indicates to me that you did understand the question as phrased originally and you stood by your original answer.

I went bacvk and re-read Valamirs remark and saw that my initial answer may have missed his intended question, and so I re-approached the problem.  It is not invalid to see a mistake in ones own thought process.

My initial response was not mistaken in principle, but did not apply strictly to this example.

Hey Ralph!

Lots of ideas going on here, but there are a number of issues here that I would like to clarify before going further.

What is meant by Player Empowerment exactly?  It is a very nebulous term that seems to have several assumed meanings in this thread.  I have an idea, but I want to get to Illusionism first.

The next issue is that of Illusionism and what it means.  Again it seems to have several assumed meanings working in this thread making fruitful discussion difficult.  I also have an idea, (lucky you!) which actually dovetails nicely with your notion on the cycle of conflict.

As near as I can tell, with reference to Creative Agenda, and this thread is about CA, is that Illusionism is - Force applied to CA conflict decisions (the whole cycle of conflict) without player knowledge and thus approval.  

This is a profoundly important idea.  

What it amounts to is the unauthorized diluting or vacating of the players CA "statements".  IOW the player, if he knew, could not claim to have effectively Stepped on Up, or sweated out Theme, or paid the "true" price for navigating conflicts while staying true to social conventions within the Dream.  (Note by statement I don't mean making a speech – but the communication of an idea/concept through action{s})

Illusionism is a form of covert deprotagonism.  If the players are aware of this process, and go along with it, then you no longer have Illusionism, but participationism.  If not, then you have railroading.  Obvious.

This brings us back to Player Empowerment.  My feeling is that Player Empowerment is just a broader interpretation of protagonism – the player's ability to make important decisions (untainted by Force) regarding any CA expressing conflict.  IOW if scene framing does not impact disenfranchise the players CA expression then the DM making such an act is not deprotagonizing – no CA specific (conflict addressing) player decision has been vacated or diluted.

The problem then with the basic tenet of using Illusionism as demonstration of the faultiness of the definition of Narrativism as a CA lies in that definition of Illusionism is faulty, not that the definition of Narrativism is faulty.

ALL CA's require Player Empowerment – definitionally.

I believe that Ron, with Narrativism being so close to his heart, and claiming that any Force in Narrativism is verboten, is proclaiming one-true-wayism.  Logically following out from that position, one could claim that the only way to play Gamism is Hardcore.  Why?  Because any employment of Force vacates any victory.  The Crunch is the functional form of Gamist participationism.  The ultimate failure of any one-on-one combat is death.  In The Crunch that particular outcome is not really permitted to come into being, but how can one who is engaged in combat – the act trying to kill your opponent who is attempting to use deadly force on you in return – not reasonably expect death as a viable outcome?  Because all those present agree that despite the inherent deadliness of the act of combat, death will not be allowed to fall upon the player characters.  How is this held up?  Force.  If it is possible for there to be functional Gamism with the acknowledged use of Force, why can't their be functional Narrativism with the acknowledged use of Force?

Ron's dismissal of the employment of Force in Narrativism as a shift to Sim only demonstrates a lack of understanding of Sim and an idealistic effort to protect the purity of the turf of Narrativism.  His assertion that Force is pure poison to Narrativism is to discount the Crunch style of Gamist play.

Also I believe that Ron misapplies the term Illusionism in Narrativism precisely because he does say it is perfectly allowable in Sim.  To whit – Illusionist play, by definition, is unknown to the players!  As unknown as it is to the Simulationist it is equally unknown to the Narrativist!  Ron conflated Illusionism with Force.  Illusionism is a type of Force, one that is unknown to the players.  How can Illusionism, successfully applied, poison Narrativism if the players never learn of it?  Conversely why can't participationism function in Narrativism?  My main argument is that the other CA's are as crushed under railroading as is Narrativism.  The key to understanding this is realizing that which is being created is what is being created is altered or watered down.  In Nar it is Story, in Gam it is Step on Up, in Sim it is the player test.

The argument "Get just one Story Now player into an Illusionist group, and the game becomes a battlefield for control and story creation" is problematic.  By definition a group cannot be functionally Illusionistic.  Either the players are aware of the Force and thus are engaging in participationism as a group, or the GM (or whoever is in that role) alone successfully expands the illusion to cover the actions of the new player as well and thus continues to maintain the Illusion.  Illusionism, but definition is functional as long as no one knows that it is in operation.  One can make the above phrase relate to Gamism as well – "Get just one Hard Core player into an Crunch group, and the game becomes a battlefield over challenge level and Step on Up".

Narrativism is no more (accurately) defined by Player Empowerment than Gamism or Simulationism.

Quote from: ValamirYou have a destination (your priority) and you have the road you will take to get there (your techniques).  There are many different roads that may get you to your destination...some work better than others and some boil down to preference.  There are other roads that will almost surely not get you to your destination.
...
Yhis essay is about recognizing that there are destinations and roads, that they are seperate things, and that mixing them together is a big reason for alot of the confusion in the model.  I'm not really changing anything about the model or Narrativism in particular.  I'm merely tidying up the organization and presentation.  In addition to simply being more clear how the parts fit together, I think it also will provide new avenues for investigation.

I agree with you whole-heartedly in the principle of your efforts, but there appear to be some errors in the execution.

It appears to me that you are conflating two processes while trying to sort out two different processes.

I like your dichotomy of road and destination, but here's where the presentation runs into problems.  Creative Agendas are not defined as a destination (Theme or Victory), but as a process, i.e., addressing Premise or Challenge.  You're assertion that the core of Narrativism is Theme is problematic.  As the model stands CA's are defined as exhibited behaviors, not products.  The core of the CA's is not the product (the thing) but the process (the making).  Just as roleplay is a dialogue process, so then is CA expression a process.  All processes do create something reliably or they wouldn't be a process.  Hence addressing premise will produce a Theme.  Addressing Challenge will produce a victor(y).  By describing a CA as a process it covers both those who are interested in the process or the product because one cannot create the produce without the process.  Given that description, it does not follow that why players engage in a CA is that they are trying to create a thing.  IOW players are not necessarily engaging in certain behaviors (addressing premise, challenge) beyond the act of engagement itself.  Both types of players, processors or producers, however, will produce the same product reliably.  Does this mean that other means of addressing conflict can't produce the product (addressing Challenge produce a theme)?  No.  Can it do so reliably?  No.

Does this mean that processors and producers will get along?  Probably not.  However their actions – their conflict cycles – will be very similar, if not indistinguishable.  This is also what confused me about this thread.  The notion of CA being product oriented as opposed to process oriented obviates the notion of the conflict cycle as defining CA expression.

Where is the conflation that I was asserting exist?  First, that within a CA, the addressing process (addressing Challenge, Premise – the conflict cycle) is itself a road to a destination (Victory, Theme).  There is another process that is also road and destination.  That is the employment of Techniques and Ephemera (road) for the purpose of reaching the destination of CA expression.  IOW we employ Techniques and Ephemera so that we can effectively express our Creative Agenda (whether that lie in the satisfying act of addressing the conflict or in the satisfying creation of the product).  As I read the main thesis these two processes have been conflated or perhaps they at least have not been realized or identified as distinct.

The reason for my worry?  The first case of roads and destination, within a CA, is irrelevant.  Both are expressions of the same CA.  There is no difference.  However the second is profoundly important, as you have indicated.

Techniques and Ephemera are the roads that lead to the destination of CA expression (not CA product only  – the destination can be CA product but the destination of the players can also just be CA process).  This is why, as I understand you, that you wish to so strongly differentiate the distinction between the two.  There is no direct CA communication, it is made manifest through the employment of T&E.

I would indicate the roles as the following –

Ephemera are the moments of direct communication.  (Either character statements, laughing, slapping a player on the back, transmission of information via book, music cues, etc.)

Techniques are mechanics and serve to govern ephemera.

CA is primarily conceptual and drives Techniques and Ephemera.  (A CA cannot be directly expressed.  It is the guiding interest behind the actions of the players.  It is not directly seen/heard but felt.  This is why the notion of a Creative Agenda was so long in the discovery.)

Quote from: ValamirI agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations.  But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

What are you the player doing in that particular situation that can be said to be addressing the premise, vs. what you may do in that situation that wouldn't address any premise?  Those things are techniques.

Actually you missed something very important.  Addressing the situation requires Techniques (system) and Ephemera (statements).  Techniques merely apportion credibility to the statements are made at the Ephemera level.  What the player is doing in that particular situation that can be said to be addressing the Premise is directly communicating his intentions (Ephemera) which are then apportioned credibility via Techniques (system).  That a player can be diagnosed to be "addressing" Premise can only be determined at the CA level as Premise is a concept level notion.  Techniques (system – the Lumpley Principle) are entirely concept neutral/blind and thus are CA blind.  It is the individual players who have their own yardsticks (my CA concepts – Alan's value standards) about which statements/actions (Ephemera) are effectively addressing Premise (a CA level concept) or not.  That the player invoke techniques

Finally I have several problems with Dramatism.  How is it defined?  If it is equated to CA then it needs to be defined with reference to conflict.  If it is not defined as a relationship to conflict thus defining it as a CA then what is it?  If it is a way of describing play from a product orientated view then it cannot be effectively compared to Narrativism for you will be then comparing apples and oranges.  (Just as aside, could not one then consider "Gentleman Gamism" as a style(?) of play also?)  

This is not imply that discussing product oriented play is without merit, but it does raise a whole can of worms which haven't been properly addressed.  Given that CA's are behavioral, what would these other forms of play be describing?  And how would they be identified?  And what would be gained about our understanding of t he players from this particular framing?  IOW what are the advantages of this particular method?  Or have I missed the whole point of your essay in that you are asserting that within Narrativism there are consistent styles of play, i.e., Dramatism that once identified can be catered to?

Quote from: ValamirReally the only thing that I've changed is to define CA in terms of conflict

Hey!  I was arguing that back in March!!!!  I feel so used....

Oh well, here's another ode to my diarrhea of the key board...

QuoteALL CA's require Player Empowerment – definitionally.

If you change that to all CA's require players empowered to respond to Conflict as they desire; and you define functional Participationism as being roleplaying without a CA, yes.  I don't disagree at all.

The outline of my thought process above focused on Narrativism because that's where the discussion was leading me down the train of thought.  But while I didn't repeat the excersize for G and S above, I never said the same logic didn't apply.


I also don't disagree with your characterization of Agenda as a process.  In fact,

Quote from: a few posts back I
I agree that CA as I've framed it is really more appropriately called Conflict Approach, and the player's agenda is more properly defined by the skewer.

Conflict Approaches become simply Theme, Challenge, and Internal Causality. Players thus view conflicts as opportunities to illustrate thematic elements, opportunities for challenge or conflict, or opportunities to illustrate what "should" happen.

All of the various subsets of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism thus become Skewers.

So yes, the processes you are seeing as being part of the Creative Agenda, I see also.  I see them as being the individual skewers, however, that encompass not only the Conflict Approach (or Conflict Response to avoid the CA abbreviation) but also all the other parts of the model right on down to the ephemera that you rightly point out.

All of those are part of what we've been discussing as Creative Agenda.  None of that changes (significantly).  I'm not throwing out years of discussions about what Creative Agenda are here.  I'm merely rearranging the structure to enhance understanding.


The biggest change to the model this makes is to note that there are not just three Creative Agendas.  If each Skewer is its own Creative Agenda, then there are lots and lots of Creative Agendas.  For practical purposes the ones that are most similar can be bundled together under a single CA label and thought of as minor variants of each other.

What there are three of is three conflict responses (borrowed from the 3D model and related discussions leading up to that).  Those conflict responses occupy the same layer of the model that Creative Agenda do today (and did in my earlier essay as well) but they are not Creative Agenda.  


So really just shift all of the stuff you were saying about Creative Agendas (and which I pretty much agree with you on) to the skewers passing through all of the boxes instead of the current CA box and see if you still have the same issues with it.

Quote from: SilmenuneCA is primarily conceptual and drives Techniques and Ephemera.

Just to figure out if I'm getting this right:
If Techniques are part of System, does CA also drive the whole of System, and, continuing this thought, the rest of Exploration?

Quote(A CA cannot be directly expressed. It is the guiding interest behind the actions of the players. It is not directly seen/heard but felt. This is why the notion of a Creative Agenda was so long in the discovery.)

So what Valamir would need to do is to, extract the "Guiding Interests" out of the GNS CAs to define what he has named Conflict Response just now?
But if it cannot be directly expressed, is Valamir's tentative doomed?


BTW, can anyone give me an example of play without any conflict at either the meta or the SIS level?
I tend to believe that the absence of conflict results in bland and boring play, but I might be wrong of course.
This in turn would imply that Conflict Response is not necessary for play, just for interesting play.
Or maybe the "fourth" CA would be precisely one with absence of conflict?


Would it be possible to split two skewers in half, assemble a new one with two different halves and start poking at the different elements of Exploration with that one?
Would it be too fragile a skewer, or could it be molten into one perfectly solid alloy? (I'm guessing that is what people call Hybrids)
What could be the elements that can tell if the skewer will hold or not? The choice of the "meat" you skewer?
In this case, and this would be consistent with Turku roleplaying, CR is not necessarily on a "superior" level in the Big Model compared to Exploration.

Sorry if this has already been discussed multiple times ;)

I'm often picking on Jay's posts, so I wanted to point up something I thought was important in this one:

Quote from: SilmenumeIllusionism is a form of covert deprotagonism.  If the players are aware of this process, and go along with it, then you no longer have Illusionism, but participationism.  If not, then you have railroading.

I think that's at least useful. The three categories then would be:

• Illusionism is when the referee is in complete control of everything that matters, but no one else knows it.
• Participationism is when the referee is in complete control of everything that matters, but the players all knowingly acquiesce to this as part of play.
• Railroading is when the referee is in complete control of everything that matters, and the players are trying to break that.[/list:u]Good distinctions, particularly of railroading.
  
  Regarding Ron, Force, and Narrativism, he has elsewhere stated that the definition of "Force" in the provisional glossary is an error. He was looking for a phrase that meant something like "those decisions which mattered to the particular creative agendum" and rather than spend all day trying to think of how to say that he just stuck in "thematically-relevant" meaning to come back to change it, and never did. Thus it's accepted that the Provisional Glossary (which is, after all, a draft document) is mistaken on this entry, and that Force is inimical to any creative agendum, when it is understood to mean that the referee is using his credibility to prevent players from making decisions that would be meaningful to them.
  
  Christophe, one of the big arguments at the moment is exactly this "play devoid of conflict" issue. I'm among those who support it--tourism, scientific play, and similar "explorations for the purpose of discovery" forms which I claim are simulationist and Ralph and Jay claim are not.
  
  --M. J. Young

Quote from: Valamir

QuoteALL CA's require Player Empowerment – definitionally.

If you change that to all CA's require players empowered to respond to Conflict as they desire; and you define functional Participationism as being roleplaying without a CA, yes.  I don't disagree at all.

Ralph I believe that we are in complete agreement.  My earlier definition for "Player Empowerment" is identical with your "players empowered to respond to Conflict as the desire".

I also agree with you regarding Participationism being effectively without a CA.  To shade the issue, does one act of Participationism totally derail CA or conversely does one "player empowered" CA decision change the game from Participationism to CA expressive?  My feeling is that CA expression (empowerment) and Participationism (deprotagonism) are on a sliding scale and that diagnosis between the two in actual play could be very difficult.  At what point is the aggregate of play considered Participationism and when is it considered to expressing CA?  (by aggregate I am speaking of many Instances of Play.)  IOW is Participationism indicative of a diagnostic Instance of Play or is it a complete style of play (Exploration with out CA)?

Quote from: ValamirThe outline of my thought process above focused on Narrativism because that's where the discussion was leading me down the train of thought.  But while I didn't repeat the excersize for G and S above, I never said the same logic didn't apply.

My apologies.  As long as I am apologizing I must also apologize for not recognizing that you had already asserted prior to my post that CA is a process.  Obviously I am a mallet head.  What is amazing is not that I am a mallet head, but that I provide so much evidence to support that notion!

Quote from: ValamirAll of the various subsets of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism thus become Skewers.
...
The biggest change to the model this makes is to note that there are not just three Creative Agendas. If each Skewer is its own Creative Agenda, then there are lots and lots of Creative Agendas. For practical purposes the ones that are most similar can be bundled together under a single CA label and thought of as minor variants of each other.

I don't necessarily see the skewers as individual CAs as specific implementations of CA.  Let me argue by analogy!

Do you remember conic sections from algebra?  To me the act of addressing CA conflict is represented by the two cones (addressing Premise, Challenge, etc).  To me, the points of intersection between the plane and the cones represent the skewers you are talking about.  The various different shapes you get – point, circle, ellipse, parabola, line, etc., though they all look very distinct all have one thing in common – they are parts of the two cones.  So by analogy there are games that can look so distinct from one another at to appear to be totally unrelated, all have one thing in common – they all address the CA specific conflict.  These skewers are all instances of approach to conflict address.  Nevertheless they all do at one point or another cross that cone.  Would it not then be more profitable to define which cones are intersected than focus on the shapes of the intersections of the plane and the cones for diagnostic purposes?

Quote from: ValamirSo yes, the processes you are seeing as being part of the Creative Agenda, I see also. I see them as being the individual skewers, however, that encompass not only the Conflict Approach (or Conflict Response to avoid the CA abbreviation) but also all the other parts of the model right on down to the ephemera that you rightly point out.

I may be mistaken, but I thought the idea of addressing Premise or Challenge necessarily encompassed the whole of the model from Social Contract right on down to Ephemera.  IOW one cannot address CA specific conflict unless one was roleplaying in the first place which denotes all five levels are in operation.  Let me know if I am mistaken in this assumption, please.

Quote from: ValamirI'm merely rearranging the structure to enhance understanding.

Aha!  Nobel effort!  However as I am thick in the skull, if you please, could you clarify what exactly you are trying to enhance understanding of?  The Model?  What constitutes a Creative Agenda?  How a Creative Agenda functions?  How an Instance of Play works?  How to diagnose play?  I'm really not trying to be provocative, I'm sincerely in the dark here.

On the other hand I think the idea of skewers is profoundly useful for game design!  By deciding on a line/skewer that penetrates all levels of the model I believe extremely novel approaches to game design can be discovered which might ordinarily be missed.

At least that is the frame of reference I am operating from.  If I am in total lala land maybe by stating where I am coming from you can better see where I am off target.  Let me know if I have derailed your thread and if I should move this elsewhere.

Hey Christoph,

Welcome to the Forge!

Quote from: Artanis

Quote from: SilmenuneCA is primarily conceptual and drives Techniques and Ephemera.

Just to figure out if I'm getting this right:
If Techniques are part of System, does CA also drive the whole of System, and, continuing this thought, the rest of Exploration?

That is an argument that I have put forth in the past, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is proven or held to be true yet.  I believe it to be so.

Quote from: Artanis

Quote from: Silmenune(A CA cannot be directly expressed. It is the guiding interest behind the actions of the players. It is not directly seen/heard but felt. This is why the notion of a Creative Agenda was so long in the discovery.)

So what Valamir would need to do is to, extract the "Guiding Interests" out of the GNS CAs to define what he has named Conflict Response just now?
But if it cannot be directly expressed, is Valamir's tentative doomed?

Unless I am mistaken, I think CA and Conflict Response are the same thing.  Better to ask Ralph.

I don't think that Ralph is saying that a CA is directly expressed either.  However, I will defer to Ralph again.

As M. J. Young has wisely indicated, the idea of a fourth Agenda, and the idea a conflict avoidant/indifferent mode of play belonging to or being separate from Sim is still under active debate.  Alas no firm answer can be offered yet.  Stay tuned and jump into the debates!

Hey M. J.,

I appreciate your kind words!

Hey this is a very short post for me!  Woo hoo!!!

Maybe I should hold off until Ron posts his restrictions and clarifications for this forum, but I have time free at the moment, so . . . I'l try and make this short:

I agree with Jay that thinking of the skewers as specific implementations of CA is not particularly accurate within the theory, and I think it seriously muddies the whole point of what a CA is.  On the other hand, I do think the skewers are important.  Hell, they're capital-I, bolded, really, really Important.  But that doesn't mean anything about the current G, N, or S has to change.

Simply and directly, I see a lot of value in the ideas in this (and other related) threads, but I have no understanding of why there seems to be a need to change the GNS mode definitions in order to pursue them.  I would love to talk more about particular preferences within a skewer, and how Techniques cluster together to support particular play styles.  But to my mind, "play style" is already a superset that includes under it (when applied to actual play) one of the three CA's.  I do not see in Virtualism or Dramatisim anything that prevents me from asking "what is prioritized - Story Now or The Dream?"  In fact, best as I can tell I need to have that answer, because it possible to prioritize either CA within the bounds of both Virtualism and Dramatisim.

That people care strongly about the play style issues involved in, say, Virtualism seems obviously true to me, and an important issue when playing/preparing for/designing a particular game.  But the GNS CA's - the priorities of play - are not the three things that people care most strongly about, they are the three things that are ultimately distinct and mutually exclusive.  Not of neccessity distinct and mutually exclusive at every instant of play - only neccessarily so when considered as the ultimate point of play (in a particular "instance").

CA's are certainly not the only things that are important about play styles.  But we don't have to alter anything about those three agendas in order to talk about the other important stuff involved in play styles.  At the moment, I don't see that we gain anything in attempting alterations at that basic, fundamental level.  There are three CA's.  There are many, many play style issues that people feel strongly about.  Those two points are not antagonistic, and we don't have to invalidate/alter the first in order to constructively and meaningfully discuss the second.

Hope that makes sense,

Gordon

Quote from: SilmenumeHey Christoph,
Welcome to the Forge!

Thank you ;)

Quote from: Silmenume

Quote from: ValamirI'm merely rearranging the structure to enhance understanding.

Aha!  Nobel effort!  However as I am thick in the skull, if you please, could you clarify what exactly you are trying to enhance understanding of?  The Model?  What constitutes a Creative Agenda?  How a Creative Agenda functions?  How an Instance of Play works?  How to diagnose play?  I'm really not trying to be provocative, I'm sincerely in the dark here.

If I may, as a relative beginner in the highly arcane spheres of rpg analysis, I will express the points which I see positive in Valamir's expansion of the Big Model.
- Creative Agendas get stripped off by the Lumpley Principle to become pure entities of one property only (which one it should be exactly I have personaly no idea, I'll gladly let the experts discuss this point).
- Techniques being now better seperated, I guess confusions can be reduced (from what I've seen on the discussions on Illusionism for example, I believe there could be a better consensus as to it's applications).

Quote from: SilmenumeOn the other hand I think the idea of skewers is profoundly useful for game design!  By deciding on a line/skewer that penetrates all levels of the model I believe extremely novel approaches to game design can be discovered which might ordinarily be missed.

This is precisely why I got interested in the Forge in the first place. And as you say it, by clarifying the CAs, it will be easier to imagine new combinations of Elements of Exploration (Techniques included) with CAs.
I sometimes wonder if the G, N and S categories don't make make some people stiff ("this is most definetly Sim!" "just Sim-Illusionism!"). Even though Ron indicates that each category can encompass vast numbers of sub-styles, I believe that building this allowance to diversity directly into the model with the modular "skewer" approach could help people to visualize differences more quickly and with less preconceptions, if the particular "atoms" are correctly described.
With Valamir's approach, each of Ron's three essays on G, N and S could probably be split up into two or more articles (also making an easier read at a time for beginners like me!)
The big problem is that it would take quite a lot of work...

Quote from: Silmenum

Quote from: ArtanisIf Techniques are part of System, does CA also drive the whole of System, and, continuing this thought, the rest of Exploration?

That is an argument that I have put forth in the past, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it is proven or held to be true yet. I believe it to be so.

Hum... anyways, what one must keep in mind is that even if this was true, it wouldn't mean that, f.ex., one Setting is exclusively suited to one CA. I believe that most Settings could allow for variable approaches by CAs, but each one would illuminate sligthly different aspects. Same kind of idea for the rest.


One thing I've not quite understood yet is if skewers represent CAs with their set of Elements of Exploration, or if they represent Styles of Play with their set of Elements of Exploration and a CA of some sort, which would not be necessarily be morte important than the EoE.

Even more fundamentally, I'm still unsure if the Big Model is used to describe Styles of Play or RPGs or even Instances of Play. I believe it's more SoP.
But then, how could this be used to develop RPGs?
Or is the aim of the Big Model precisely to produce RPGs that reflect one precise SoP and thus lead to Instances of Play that are more uniformised (and probably shorter)?
The idea being that if you want to change Style, you change for another RPG (this is obviously becoming extremely feasible with the vast amount of free RPGs on the net).

Any thoughts (either here or on my previous questions)?

Hi, gang.

Quote from: A couple pages back, Christoph (Artanis)Is there really a hierarchical arrangement between the different blocks? (two being clearly defined, others could probably be added)
Is CA definetly more "fundamental" than Technique, ie. does CA define/allow for Techniques or is the other way round also possible?

Recently,

Quote from: SilmenumeOn the other hand I think the idea of skewers is profoundly useful for game design!  By deciding on a line/skewer that penetrates all levels of the model I believe extremely novel approaches to game design can be discovered which might ordinarily be missed.

Quote from: And AlanisThis is precisely why I got interested in the Forge in the first place. And as you say it, by clarifying the CAs, it will be easier to imagine new combinations of Elements of Exploration (Techniques included) with CAs.
I sometimes wonder if the G, N and S categories don't make make some people stiff ("this is most definetly Sim!" "just Sim-Illusionism!"). Even though Ron indicates that each category can encompass vast numbers of sub-styles, I believe that building this allowance to diversity directly into the model with the modular "skewer" approach could help people to visualize differences more quickly and with less preconceptions, if the particular "atoms" are correctly described.

Ralph, can you clarify something for me?  What Christoph is saying, I think, is that if we take the "nesting" part of the "nested boxes" structure, and set it aside as its own thing (skewering), then what we have is a set of discrete boxes (CA, Technique, Exploration, Situation, Ephemera, etc.) with no preestablished relationship or priority with respect to one another.  In game design, play, etc., you pick up a metaphorical skewer and makes a shish-kabob: you take some from each box, in whatever order seems appropriate to you, and you slide them onto the skewer and grill it up.  Some combinations or orderings are unbalanced, unworkable, or just plain nasty.  Some are wonderful.  The ordering that the Big Model currently takes as normal is an established and highly successful structure, but there is nothing necessary about it.

Is that what you're saying?  That would, as I read it, completely solve the problem you began with.  The logical bind you started the thread with requires both that the definitions be sufficiently precise and that the hierarchical relations among categories be established.

As I read it, you were suggesting changing some of the definitions and shifting some categories from one "tier" to another, leaving the hierarchical "nesting" order intact.  Christoph reads you otherwise, and I'm stuck.

To my mind, removing the fixed nature of hierarchical nesting is the easy, simple solution to this and several other significant problems in the Big Model.  But I'm a little confused on where you stand.

In regards the narrativist creative agenda, I recently realized that Premise is a situation involving fantasy elements and a value standard.  Such situations my occur more often with one set of techniques than with another.

I think techniques work together to create an environment.  Different environments are more friendly to some creative agendas than others.  I suppose that players might also develop a taste for the flavor of a particular environment itself.

Hello,

Alan's nailed it.

For what it's worth, in the diagram and explanations of the Big Model, Creative Agenda is depicted not as a layer but as an arrow which connects layers.

In reality, it is composed of socially focused and reinforced imaginative input - i.e. "role-playing."

As far as I can tell, therefore, I have already presented the point and content that Ralph (Valamir) has outlined so carefully.

As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

I thought about this when I read the most recent Force post. The Nar essay holds that:

Quote
In Narrativist play, using Force by definition disrupts the Creative Agenda.

But in the most recent post we see that:

Quote
5. How Force relates to Creative Agenda is a matter for discussion. My outlook, which is not definitional, is that Gamist and Narrativist play are ill-suited to including Force, but do very nicely with replacing it with inter-player influence over one another's characters through explicit permission.

(Emphasis IN original)

So I began thinking about that. Ralph (re-reading) the first post, gets his thoughts from the 3D model--which treats Theme as a goal and player-empowerment as a technique. So Theme-play becomes any play that has an intent to create theme (Alan argued against this, saying the choice was what was key and the creation of theme was a by-product, true--but what Ralph is calling Theme play is, IMO, fairly clear).

And I'm fine with that conclusion--but it puts Participationism (with intent on the GM's part to create theme) back in the Narrativist bucket--essentially making Narrativism into Dramatism.

-Marco

Hello,

What you're missing, Marco - and what you've missed from your first day at the Forge - is that pre-created Theme cannot be created in play. A pre-created Theme can only be accepted as a group constraint going into the process or be imposed by a player with extra authority during the process.

Narrativist play pre-supposes that Theme is not pre-created. Period. Hence Participationist play (which I stress is not an agenda but a set of Techniques) is not compatible with it.

Now is probably the time to make it absolutely clear what Simulationist play is, as far as my model is concerned. I've tried many ways and many times, and I have no particular hope it'll get across this time, but here goes.

Simulationist play is defined by confirming one's input, via the output.

You're a Star Trek fan? OK, then, let's play Star Trek. Whatever the agreed-upon important input is, its effect during play is supposed to get us Star Trek.

That input might be the funny-physics of the show. Fine - we work out what those are (or read them in the sourcebook, whatever) and put them into action via System.

Or that input might be the distinctive character interactions or political tropes of the show. Fine - we dedicate ourselves to depicting and reinforcing those issues through what our characters do, which is also System.

Or ... and so on. Whatever angle you choose as the motor for input, i.e. processing through System, the output should confirm that this is, indeed, Star Trek. To play in this fashion is a celebration of Star Trek.

It is absolutely irrelevant to the general concept of Simulationism whether a story is produced or not. It is, however, very important in terms of an applied instance of Simulationism whether a story is taken as one of our going-in constraints.

For instance, one group might be more interested in "being kitty-people fighting with ray-guns" than in "doing Star Trek." Their play-experience and attention to "doing the story right" will be very different from that of the Star Trek fans. However, the guiding aesthetic is the same: agreed-upon input, processing, confirmatory output.

Narrativist play, like Gamist play, is not confirmatory of anything that "goes in." In Gamist play, play itself determines who wins or does best in terms of personal strategy and guts. Similarly, Narrativist play is that in which only play itself determines how Premise is transformed into Theme.

To clarify about Narrativist play, think in terms of any story created by any person or group in some familiar medium like movies or novels. It is absolutely irrefutable that at some point in time, there was no story of this particular sort (medium, presentation, details, etc). But at some point in the creative process, a story did indeed appear.

Whatever happens at that transition is what happens during Narrativist play. It cannot be agreed-upon beforehand, nor can it be imposed by a single person in an "ah-ha" sense upon the others during the process.

To sum up, Marco, it is entirely irrelevant to me whether you agree with any of the above. The question is whether you understand it. To date, I have no sense of confirmation about this.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

What you're missing, Marco - and what you've missed from your first day at the Forge - is that pre-created Theme cannot be created in play. A pre-created Theme can only be accepted as a group constraint going into the process or be imposed by a player with extra authority during the process.

Ralph isn't distinguishing between pre-created theme and theme created through play. I think that's the issue of the Narrativist guys who don't want other elements of Dramatist play thrust upon them (and legitimately so). But whether it's all Theme-Play or not seems non-contraversial: you discuss creating-theme-through play. That seems to place it firmly in theme-play.

It's like me saying I don't want to be railroaded in my Virtuality game--same issue. No one is saying that Nar play doesn't exist or isn't distinct from Centralized Theme--what's being said is that a three-CA model that leaves both Centralized Theme and Decentralized Immersion in the same bin is unweildly and confusing and could probably be improved.

We can see that by the two sections I quoted above (in one Force is definitionally opposed to Narrativism. In the other, it's open for discussion).

-Marco

Ron wrote: "As far as I can tell, therefore, I have already presented the point and content that Ralph (Valamir) has outlined so carefully. As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism."

I hate to come with these 'me too' posts, but I'd concur with Ron's assessment here (and did on page 1 of this thread) - in particular, because (a) I was confused, in a number of threads (the 'big fight' thread I got into when I first got here, and the 'social mode' threads from a couple of months back) between Narrativism-qua-CA and certain Narrativist techniques, and (b) several people's helpful responses to my confusion (Ron, Chris Kubasik, Raven, and MJ stick out most strongly in my memory - apologies if I'm forgetting anyone), which ultimately convinced me, wouldn't have made any sense if this wasn't the case.

Ron, the only place I disagree with your formulations above a little is that it's possible that a group could have, and display in play, a Narrativist CA, but be using techniques which don't facilitate it - thinking e.g. that the only way they can 'create story' in play is by having a certain percentage of that story 'built in' from the get-go, that's actually not strictly necessary, maybe even stifling, to what they're trying to do. What you'd see in this case would be a group that makes certain telling play-decisions in a Narrativist direction, but then also uses a number of techniques which don't support those decisions, maybe because of habit, or because of false beliefs about those techniques' efficacy, or because they're playing with a system that simply doesn't do anything to facilitate Narrativism so they handle that aspect with socially-agreed Drama resolution wherever they can and wherever doing so doesn't conflict with other system elements, etc. I'd be surprised if that conflicted with anything you actually thought (as opposed to implications one might take away from your words), though - these are just familiar 'goals of practice vs. techniques for achieving them' issues.

Marco's last post raises an important issue for me.

GM-force, creating-theme-before-play, etc. are techniques, yes? So are we asserting that theme created before play absolutely can't then be created in play? Put like that, it's a logical truth, so yes - point for Ron. But you have to be a little careful what consequences you draw from this, I think. It seems to me that you can certainly specify a great deal of the thematic, moral, and emotional content before play and still be 'playing Narrativist'. The Nar-facilitating designs on this site actually do that to a certain degree, by narrowing down the field of possible moral questions to the ones the game wants to facilitate addressing.

As long as the pre-game prep leaves some part of theme open for the players to address in play, though, so long as it's not e.g. assumed from the get-go that the characters always respond to certain morally/emotionally loaded situations in certain kinds of ways, it seems to me that you can still have Narrativist play, if the players seek out those decisions, care about them, and provide genuine input into them. And so you can have 'Illusionist Narrativism' just like you have 'Illusionist Gamism', but both depend on deception - this is just where you feel like your input is meaningful but it actually isn't. (Question, though: if no-one but the GM ever knows that you didn't make your own choices to Address Premise or Step on Up, but you feel like you did, don't you still get some satisfaction from it? I suppose the ethics of illusionism default to the ethics of dissimulation more generally.)

I think centralized vs. decentralized control is an extremely important issue. But it's not part of a 'creative agenda' to have centralized or decentralized control - that happens at the System level, I think. Different kinds of control can facilitate different CA. And there's surely a range of levels of centralized control possible for a Narrativist CA - the only thing that a GM absolutely has to leave space for in play theme-addressing decisions on the part of the players. But this can be done in a wide variety of ways corresponding to a wide variety of levels of centralized GM control.

I'd view the 'minimal' level of Narrativism then as being a game where, say, all the players at the table are committed to a very similar ethical system, and it's expected that certain kinds of decisions are always made a certain kind of way, but the GM maybe provides some 'temptation' to decide a different way, in which case the game mostly becomes a kind of self-confirmation or self-congratulation about one's own moral stance. I think this would still count as Narrativism if these 'toy' decisions were in some sense at the heart of play, though a very attenuated form of it, granted. The examples that spring to my mind are Dragonraid and the 'Crusades' style of D&D, but so as not to appear prejudiced against Christians I can certainly imagine a group trying to play Tribe8 or Witchcraft in a similar sort of fashion with a different ethical compass. (I wonder if Dogs in the Vineyard could lend itself to this for a very orthodox LDS play group?)

I guess Ron wants to read that kind of play as Simulationist because so much of the thematic space of the game is built in up-front. I think I see why he would say that, but I'm not sure I can agree. If the players make real decisions of this kind, seek out such decisions in play, and gain joy from these moments, then I'm not sure why it's not Narrativism, even if it's not a variety I imagine I'd have much fun with.

Or maybe I've gone completely off track here. More thoughts for the thread in any case.

Hi Sean,

Actually, I see that as minimal Narrativist play too, in theory.

The question this raises for me is, how hard is it to perceive when "we all could decide to do otherwise, we just won't" becomes "don't decide otherwise 'cause it's bad play"?

I suggest, now that I think about it, that perceiving that from the inside (i.e. as a participant) is pretty strong - in fact, when you're the odd man out in either direction, it's like getting whacked in the nose, the palpable disapproval is so evident, even when unstated.

I also think that this topic should become its own thread with strong emphasis on actual play experiences.

Best,
Ron

These last few posts illuistrate why I think that player input is a slide-bar--a gradient or spectrum, not an on/off switch.

-Marco

Hello,

The term "player input" is so vague as to be meaningless. All role-playing involves "input." Creative Agenda has always been an issue of what we're actually here to provide input (and process it together) for, as expressed in our actual play.

There is absolutely no controversy that I can perceive in this thread with any substance to it. Ralph, what's your call?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

The term "player input" is so vague as to be meaningless. All role-playing involves "input." Creative Agenda has always been an issue of what we're actually here to provide input (and process it together) for, as expressed in our actual play.

There is absolutely no controversy that I can perceive in this thread with any substance to it. Ralph, what's your call?

Best,
Ron

If you allow that there are Minimal, and therefore logically, Maximal degrees of Nar play (using your previous post which refered to "minimal Narrativist play") then clearly there is some aspect of play that, as it moves up and down defines the Nar CA (since when it falls too low, Nar play becomes something else).

What is it?

If it's Force, then Force is definitionally part of the Nar CA.

If it's not Force then what is it and what's a good term for it?

-Marco

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere is absolutely no controversy that I can perceive in this thread with any substance to it. Ralph, what's your call?

The thread has been a good source of discussion and idea bouncing, but I think its pretty much run its course.

There are some specifics that I don't quite agree with your interpretation of, but I can't tell yet whether its a matter of presentation or more fundamental then that.  

QuoteAs for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism.

This, for instance, I don't hold with.  Narrativism is absolutely defined by techniques.  Not specific individual techniques that you can point to and and say "Technique A = Narrativism", but rather combinations of Techniques that either do or do not produce Narrativism.

You distinguish between pre created theme and theme created in play above; saying the latter is Narrativism and the former can never be.

The only difference at all between these two in actual playis the techniques used at the table.  Theme is theme.  There is no inherent difference in the theme itself whether it was pre created or created in play.   The difference then is not in the theme, but in how and when the theme got created.  The how and when is entirely dependent on the Techniques used in play.

So Narrativism is absolutely Technique dependent.  

There is therefor a recognizeable difference between the presence of theme (theme yes vs. theme don't care); and the methods for how one arrived at that theme (established in advance and reaffirmed through play vs. established in play through addressing Premise).

That difference is what this thread was distinguishing between.


Meaning, no, what I'm calling "Theme Play" above is absolutely NOT narrativism.  "Theme Play" was the theme-yes vs. theme-don't-care layer.  It is any form of play that involves realising theme as a priority.  

Narrativism, starts from the notion of theme-yes and combines that with any of a number of combinations of different techniques that involve createing this theme in play (the second item above).  This includes avoiding of other techniques (like Force) that are antithetical to this.  Thus there are any of a great number of skewers that could be labeled as Narrativism as I've defined it above.  

Other forms of Theme Play would be different skewers that, like Narrativism, pass through the "Theme Play" layer but which then move on to different combinations of techniques that result in play that is decidedly not Narrativism.


I'm pretty convinced that that is what is actually going on as far as the internal mechanics of how the model applies to actual play.  Apparently, I'm going to need to do a bit more work on the presentation because I don't seem to have conveyed this very well.

Quote from: ValamirNarrativism is absolutely defined by techniques.  Not specific individual techniques that you can point to and and say "Technique A = Narrativism", but rather combinations of Techniques that either do or do not produce Narrativism.

I think this may assume that any set of techniques can completely preclude opportunites to exercise a given agenda.  

Envision the technique environment as an interacting field of technique effects, some not covering completely, some interacting to produce interferance patters or even chaotic interactions that produce one or more strange attractors with plateaus between.  Niche environments will appear on the irregularities and at the fringes.  If everyone agrees to play in a niche-environment, an otherwise poorly-supported agenda could flourish.

Quote from: Alan
Envision the technique environment as an interacting field of technique effects, some not covering completely, some interacting to produce interferance patters or even chaotic interactions that produce one or more strange attractors with plateaus between.  Niche environments will appear on the irregularities and at the fringes.  If everyone agrees to play in a niche-environment, an otherwise poorly-supported agenda could flourish.

The Fractal Model of RP'ing Techniques. I love it!
-Marco

Quote from: Alan
I think this may assume that any set of techniques can completely preclude opportunites to exercise a given agenda.  

Envision the technique environment as an interacting field of technique effects, some not covering completely, some interacting to produce interferance patters or even chaotic interactions that produce one or more strange attractors with plateaus between.  Niche environments will appear on the irregularities and at the fringes.  If everyone agrees to play in a niche-environment, an otherwise poorly-supported agenda could flourish.

Definitely an interesting avenue of discussion, but one totally seperate from idea that there are techniques at work.

Remember also that techniques don't translate 1:1 to game rules.  It is absolutely possible to have narrativism flourish in an environment where the game rules poorly support it because the players are using Narrativist techniques to work around the game rule restrictions.

But Techniques are actually what players are doing at the table in real time.  If when the rubber hits the road, the players are using techniques that are antithetical to Narrativism, then Narrativism will not be, can not be, produced.

Quote from: ValamirIt is absolutely possible to have narrativism flourish in an environment where the game rules poorly support it because the players are using Narrativist techniques to work around the game rule restrictions.

Isn't that drift?  One group might go around adding or adjusting techniques to stamp-out niches that favor gamist play - but that's drift -and the decision to make those changes is a collective decision that may well demonstrate the groups agenda preference.

Quote from: Alan

Quote from: ValamirIt is absolutely possible to have narrativism flourish in an environment where the game rules poorly support it because the players are using Narrativist techniques to work around the game rule restrictions.

Isn't that drift?  One group might go around adding or adjusting techniques to stamp-out niches that favor gamist play - but that's drift -and the decision to make those changes is a collective decision that may well demonstrate the groups agenda preference.

Although it isn't clear to me what might be considered drifting a game and what might not, I think, usually, that means changing or ignoring written rules. Techniques like a commitment to player empowerment, the creation of situations that leave the PC's with a great deal of choice (rather than directly and forcibly acting on them) and the use of GM ability to provide in-game elements that foster player emotional involvement are all quite possible without changing or ignoring any rule.

This is possible without even, I submit, working against any precieved "spirit of the game." I can't see how that would be reasonably seen as drift--if it is, then (as has been discussed here before) the act of making characters and making a scenario is always drift for any traditional game.

-Marco

Hello,

Ralph's called it, folks. Please take sub-topics to new threads.

Best,
Ron