Moral Articulation and GNS

[John Kim]

OK, this is split from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13154">Classifying by Social Function, as I thought this is an interesting topic -- but not really a part of generally classifying by social function, and shouldn't be bogged down in that thread, which ought to be drawn to a close, I think.  

Would I be right in saying, then, that we'd expect a long-term nar playing group to have a better expressed set of values than a putative control group, and that the tendency would be for those values to be held reasonably commonly among the members of the group?

Now that I agree with; they will indeed have a strongly expored, articulated, moral position.  And in some cases, ready answers provided by "case studies" they have already explored.  And this is not to be sneezed at; many people do not have any ability to discuss morality beyond what is, to them, "obviously" moral.  Which is of course no discussion at all, and I do think that Narr play will better equip people to actually discuss these issues with others in other social contexts.

It seems to me that such case studies and focus can come from any game which explores moral issues (i.e. the SIS includes moral content).  This goes back to a point brought up earlier: that actually demonstrating a moral point is helped by having a more passive audience, as opposed to one which can interject and disrupt more thoroughly.  I don't really dispute the original point:  If you have a putative "control group" which represents the median or lowest-common-denominator in RPGs, then it's probably a D&D campaign where orcs and other evil monsters are killed without question or thought.  I think this is true, but it isn't very interesting.  

A question I would be curious about is comparing a Narrativist game with a Participationist game, where both games explore moral issues.  In the latter, the players agree to support the current GM's vision.  Different views are expressed by different players taking turns as GM -- either as different games or a troupe-style campaign.  So essentially you're focusing on the current GM's beliefs and cooperatively articulating them.  

I bring this up as I ponder my now-ended James Bond 007 campaign.  That was essentially Participationist, and had lots of moral issues but little in-character questioning of them.  The campaign was set in the 80s and stuck to the genre (in a sense), so the PCs had few moral qualms and for the most part pursued their missions.  But this is also an examination of the morals of the 80s and of the genre.  ( BTW, notes on the game can be found at http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/jamesbond007/ )  This is pretty different from (for example) my current Buffy campaign, which is set in modern day and has a fair amount of in-character questioning of morals.

[pete_darby]

I'd agree pretty much with John's observations: in fact, I tried to stop using the term Nar and prefer "games focussing on fundamental issues" or some such to get out of the GNS colouring of the discussion, generalise it more.

That being said, since Nar pretty much runs on that kind of thing, Nar gaming is (almost?) always going to qualify, whereas sim and game wouldn't necessarily do so.

In participationism, the judgement rests with the players more "outside looking into" the SiS than a typical nar game. They accept that the moral system of the game is what it is, and it isn't the job of the players to challenge that within the SiS. Outside, it's human nature to judge what's happening in the SiS, but I'd guess participationism makes the call to keep this "out of game". The examinations are made, but at a coneptual distance form the "action".

This distance may be better at promoting some groups to debate and question the ethical givens, as the debate is expressly not "part of the game" and can't "spoil it".  

Gah! I'm too excited by the possible implications of this (in terms of ritual and PoMo ideas of the text and the reader) that I've written another paragraph three times and deleted it each time: critical failure on the self-expression trait folks!

[clehrich]

(Quotes are from the parent thread)

This is fundamentally in accord with certain Marxian theories, as well as functionalist anthropological ones.

Isn't it intriguing, how one and the same point is reinvented again and again from different perspectives? I got my point not from Marxism or anthropology, but from a certain strand in modern moral philosophy that includes such philosophers as Alisdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor, and which might be described - if I had to do it in three words - as "Aristotle after Nietzsche". Had I not been reading Taylor's magnificent if difficult "Sources of the Self: the making of modern identity", I probably would not have posted in this thread - and I certainly would not have used the word 'articulate'. :)

Of course, let's bear in mind that these things are mutually-informing.  MacIntyre, for example, had a famous debate with Winch (whose first name I forget -- Peter, maybe?) about anthropology, and Charles Taylor certainly knows his Marxism, and so on.

But I think it's not that this point is "reinvented."  Rather, there has been a fundamental recognition going really far back -- it's in the pre-Platonists, the ancient Chinese philosophers, and so on -- that a great deal of morality and ethics and whatnot happens at a level below awareness or consciousness.  This is of course the point of Socrates' remark about "the unexamined life": by bringing this stuff to consciousness, we expose the contradictions and examine our own being and life rationally rather than purely affectively.  The modern person who most gets credit here would probably be Durkheim, with Freud a close second: they recognize how it is that this stuff can happen quite functionally below the level of deliberate awareness, and they examine how it plays out into social engagement.

The point, of course, being that I think Narrativist gaming in many senses strives to be philosophical in this broad sense.  It strives to construct situations in which we examine our lives, but at a remove, such that what is really examined is a hypothetical situation, a kind of test-case.  And we can try out "wrong answers" if we like, and see where that leads us, because we have lowered the actual stakes by projecting it into a "safe space" for testing (rather than real life).

There's a lot more to be said here, but I need to think about where it's going.  Back soon.

[John Kim]

The point, of course, being that I think Narrativist gaming in many senses strives to be philosophical in this broad sense.  It strives to construct situations in which we examine our lives, but at a remove, such that what is really examined is a hypothetical situation, a kind of test-case.  And we can try out "wrong answers" if we like, and see where that leads us, because we have lowered the actual stakes by projecting it into a "safe space" for testing (rather than real life).

There's a lot more to be said here, but I need to think about where it's going.  Back soon.

I definitely agree with the idea of play as a test case.  Here you only refer to Narrativist play, though -- while I think that this applies more widely, and as a GNS thread I'd be interested in examining that here.  In particular, I think that deciding on the "wrong answers" at the start of play doesn't invalidate the test case.  In a sense, I think that pre-deciding lets you delve more deeply into where those wrong answers lead us -- as opposed to questioning which wrong answer to choose.  I also think that realistic cause-and-effect is extremely useful for examining the consequences of answers.  

For those who have read http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/">Beyond Role and Play, this makes me think of Mellan Himmel och Hav and Panopticorp (search on those and "LARP" will bring up various reviews).  These were both social test cases -- an alternate social structure was built into the design, and the function of play was to learn what the consequences were of that answer.  

Actually, it occurs to me that some people might consider these two Narrativist.  In the recent Literary Comedy thread, Pete Darby suggested that determining the "cost" (equivalent to "consequences", in my opinion) of a pre-determined choice could be itself a Narrativist premise.  That seems much more broad than I understand the term, however.

[Alan]

In the recent Literary Comedy thread, Pete Darby suggested that determining the "cost" (equivalent to "consequences", in my opinion) of a pre-determined choice could be itself a Narrativist premise.  That seems much more broad than I understand the term, however.

I have to disagree with that - if the important ethical choices are pre-determined then it is not narrativist play.  Narrativist play requires freedom for the the player to respond as he chooses to an eithically charged situation _during_ play.

Any roleplay can involve ethical issues, but narrativism makes them the central focus of play, rather than just one of the parameters.

One might think of this as the difference between playing tennis where the net is between the players and baseball where the net is the backstop.  Both are important to play, but one becomes the focus, while in the other, the focus of play is elsewhere.

To carry on the analogy, in narrativist play, the _nature_ of the "net" can be defined before play - this is the Premise that sets the ethical center around which the most important actions of play pivot.  But the players must remain free to hit their ball across the net any way they like.  For their own esthetic enjoyment, they may _choose_ to deliver their input in a particular pattern, but they are not required to do so.

I think one of the great difficulties people often have understanding narrativist play is that the parameters are more abstract than in gamist or simulationist play.  In gamist play, there's an objective standard of successs; in simulationist play, there's a shared ideal, often recorded somewhere in great detail, to compare to.  In narrativist play, the focus is Premise - which defines a category of ethical situation, but leaves the details up to the players to elaborate.

I assert that any rpg can articulate an ethical belief or system - or explore and develop one - but only narrativist play makes the free response _to_ an ethical problem the center of play.

[John Kim]

In the recent Literary Comedy thread, Pete Darby suggested that determining the "cost" (equivalent to "consequences", in my opinion) of a pre-determined choice could be itself a Narrativist premise.  That seems much more broad than I understand the term, however.

I have to disagree with that - if the important ethical choices are pre-determined then it is not narrativist play.  Narrativist play requires freedom for the the player to respond as he chooses to an eithically charged situation _during_ play.

Any roleplay can involve ethical issues, but narrativism makes them the central focus of play, rather than just one of the parameters.
...
I assert that any rpg can articulate an ethical belief or system - or explore and develop one - but only narrativist play makes the free response _to_ an ethical problem the center of play.

Just to be clear, I agree with you, Alan, in that I think Narrativism is defined by focus on making moral choices during play.  That's what I meant when I said that Pete's view is broader than how I understand it.   However, I should at least link to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13222">the Literary Comedy thread and Pete's http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=141631#141631">"cost" post in context.  

However, I differ at least from your wording prior to the second part, where you imply that in non-Narrativist play, ethical issues are "just one of the parameters".  Specifically, I am thinking of play where you are exploring the consequences of an ethical choice, which is pre-decided.  There should be a term for such play, I think -- maybe just "Ethical Consequence" play.  In such play, ethical issues are very much the center of play -- but rather than focusing on the choice, play is focused on the consequences or cost which results from the choice.  I would say that "Mellan Himmel och Hav" and "Panopticorp" are examples of this -- detailed examination of an ethical test case.  They are GNS Simulationist, it seems to me.

[Alan]

However, I differ at least from your wording prior to the second part, where you imply that in non-Narrativist play, ethical issues are "just one of the parameters".  Specifically, I am thinking of play where you are exploring the consequences of an ethical choice, which is pre-decided....

I think we're only disagreeing on the use of the word "just."  If I implied that being one of the paramters somehow diminishes the importance of an element in non-narrrativist play, then I wish to correct myself.  

With the tennis net analogy, I'm struggling to express a certain relationship of player choice to the ethical situation in play.  To carry on the analogy,  a simulationist game where one explores the consequences of an action would establish the ethical situation as a territory to explore, rather than a net to play around.

[Blankshield]

Hmm.  I think I disagree with you on narrowing the focus of narrativist play so tightly.  I'm not entirely conviced you can, in fact, seperate the cost of a decision from the decision and not disembowel both of them.

A narrativist game doesn't just say "is X good or bad?".  It's equally narrativist, to say "X is bad!" and then constantly push that in play.  Even now?  Really?  How about this time? What if X is your son?  The premise isn't (necessarily) born out by always giving an open choice to a moral dillema.  In fact, premise is sometimes born out much more clearly when it isn't an open choice - when there are forces in the game world pulling both ways.  One of those forces can be "In this setting, X is bad."  The key is that the player can always go both ways, not that there is "in game" pressure to go one way.  So yes, I agree with Pete Darby: exploring the cost of an ethical statement is very Nar.  In a lot of ways, Nar is more about exploring the costs of a statement than it is about making the statement in the first place.

James

[Alan]

Hmm.  I think I disagree with you on narrowing the focus of narrativist play so tightly.  I'm not entirely conviced you can, in fact, seperate the cost of a decision from the decision and not disembowel both of them.

I'm focusing on what makes narrativist play unique, not restricting what it explores, nor denying the importance of consequences in making choice meaningful.

[John Kim]

I think I disagree with you on narrowing the focus of narrativist play so tightly.  I'm not entirely conviced you can, in fact, seperate the cost of a decision from the decision and not disembowel both of them.

A narrativist game doesn't just say "is X good or bad?".  It's equally narrativist, to say "X is bad!" and then constantly push that in play.  Even now?  Really?  How about this time? What if X is your son?

It seems to me that your questions here express attempts to re-ask the question -- trying to throw the answer into doubt.  As you phrase it, this isn't exploring consequences of one answer, but rather repeating the question in many variations.  Since the interest expressed here is in the choices made each time, I'd agree that you're talking about Narrativism.  

However, Ethical-Consequence play doesn't keep asking the question.  The answer is known, and thus repeating the question is pointless.  Instead we want to delve into what, how, and why.  What are the consequences of the choice?  How do they play out?  This leads, ultimately, to why is X bad?  This sort of play is driven by cause-and-effect, which provides the meat of play.  Have you read any of the articles on the two LARPs I mentioned?  I think they are interesting cases to study.  

One of those forces can be "In this setting, X is bad."  The key is that the player can always go both ways, not that there is "in game" pressure to go one way.  So yes, I agree with Pete Darby: exploring the cost of an ethical statement is very Nar.  In a lot of ways, Nar is more about exploring the costs of a statement than it is about making the statement in the first place.  

I'm not getting what you're talking about here.  Yes, if the player can always go both ways, then it is Narrativist.  i.e. The premise is not pre-decided.  The issue here is, what if the player can not go both ways?  i.e. What if the player/group has already pre-decided what the choice is, and play is instead about exploring the consequences of that choice.