Clashes over Channeling?

[Marco]

Hold on.  I consider that leaving the table or threatening to leave the table is most certainly Force.  I'm not saying that threatening to leave the table can't occur over other, non-GNS differences -- but I don't see a conceptual difference between the GM saying "You have to do X" and a GM saying "If you don't do X, then I walk".  In this case, that's effectively what this came down to.  Play ground to a halt, and the only way that we were able to proceed was by an out-of-character compromise. 

I don't see how a non-objecting convention could possibly render your PC effectively an NPC.  The convention is that you as a player don't try to stop the game over this.  There is nothing preventing your PC from taking action, which isn't the same thing. 

I don't think that's Force. I agree that it's forceful. It's pressure. But I don't think it's capital-F Force.

Firstly, in the extreme case (but one, I will note, has happenend in Actual Play) if player-A is downright morally offended by player-B's answer to the premise question I don't think it's anti-Nar (and therfore Force) to say "Woah. No. We're not going there--or at least I'm not!"). This is a more extreme case than yours but I think it's relevant. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation for anyone to be "open to any answer to the premise question a person might come up with--to the extent that they are obligated to continue play if the game ceases to be fun."

Secondly, unless we can identify what, directly was responsible for both sets of actions I'm not sure we have a stronger case for Sim-vs-Nar than Sim-vs-Sim or Nar-vs-Nar. You cited a desire for story as being the objection--and did not succinctly state the Premise. Both of these are, IMO, fair (I would rarely state the "premise" of any of my play if one even exists--and then, usually only in retrospect as a lit-crit exercise).

However, in cases where I relate to the other players, I have simply been disappointed by someone's course of action. I want high-energy action--they want cautious pragmatism. Neither of these concerns exist on the CA level (nor do even more basic wants such as party cohesion or a game infused with a sense of heroism). If Chris had said "Look, John, this isn't how my story is supposed to go" or David had said "John, clearly we're supposed to go on the rescue--what's wrong with you?" then I think I'd be swayed. An appeal to a pre-generated story with required courses of action sounds like Sim to me.

But if it's just a general sense of "man, we can't get a good satisfying dynamic going here" then I don't think it can be easily categorized as a CA-level conflict.

-Marco

[John Kim]

Firstly, in the extreme case (but one, I will note, has happenend in Actual Play) if player-A is downright morally offended by player-B's answer to the premise question I don't think it's anti-Nar (and therfore Force) to say "Woah. No. We're not going there--or at least I'm not!"). This is a more extreme case than yours but I think it's relevant. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation for anyone to be "open to any answer to the premise question a person might come up with--to the extent that they are obligated to continue play if the game ceases to be fun."

Obviously, people should do whatever they are comfortable with and find fun.  However, there is also no requirement that whatever the players find fun has to be Narrativism.  If the players don't enjoy addressing Premise, then they shouldn't do it.  But failing to address Premise or blocking other players' address of Premise means that the game is not Narrativist.  For example, suppose we're playing a game of Little Fears, and the way the story is going touches off a nerve of one player about his real-life family history.  He asks that we calls off the game and wrap it up in an abstract, non-emotionally-intense way which avoids the touchy issues that the game had been hitting.  That's absolutely the right choice.  However, it also wasn't Narrativist. 

Narrativism inherently requires that you be open to whatever answer to Premise the players have.  You can set limits on this -- but the more limits you set on what answers are acceptable, the more you are interfering with Narrativism. 

However, in cases where I relate to the other players, I have simply been disappointed by someone's course of action. I want high-energy action--they want cautious pragmatism. Neither of these concerns exist on the CA level (nor do even more basic wants such as party cohesion or a game infused with a sense of heroism). If Chris had said "Look, John, this isn't how my story is supposed to go" or David had said "John, clearly we're supposed to go on the rescue--what's wrong with you?" then I think I'd be swayed. An appeal to a pre-generated story with required courses of action sounds like Sim to me.

But if it's just a general sense of "man, we can't get a good satisfying dynamic going here" then I don't think it can be easily categorized as a CA-level conflict.

I certainly couldn't quote exact words of the discussion after many years, but my opinion is that it was an appeal to pre-generated story/theme.  That's why I suggested that it was Nar-vs-Sim.  Specifically, it was not an appeal to, say, heroic action.  In other episodes, it was perfectly fine for Harkel to act like an unheroic jerk if that is what the plot called for.  But here, the feeling I got was that I was in trouble because I was messing up the prepared story. 

[Marco]

Obviously, people should do whatever they are comfortable with and find fun.  However, there is also no requirement that whatever the players find fun has to be Narrativism.  If the players don't enjoy addressing Premise, then they shouldn't do it.  But failing to address Premise or blocking other players' address of Premise means that the game is not Narrativist.  For example, suppose we're playing a game of Little Fears, and the way the story is going touches off a nerve of one player about his real-life family history.  He asks that we calls off the game and wrap it up in an abstract, non-emotionally-intense way which avoids the touchy issues that the game had been hitting.  That's absolutely the right choice.  However, it also wasn't Narrativist. 

Narrativism inherently requires that you be open to whatever answer to Premise the players have.  You can set limits on this -- but the more limits you set on what answers are acceptable, the more you are interfering with Narrativism. 

Well, the play isn't *any* CA since the game stops (or effectively stops) once the hot-button has been pressed. That same limit exists for Sim or Gamism too. More prosaically, any game I play will have a built-in threshold wherein if the other players don't hold my interest for a long enough time I'm going to quit.

This doesn't make me "anti-CA" it just makes me anti-boredom. I don't see how Nar is inherently any freer in that regard. If the issue is Player-A not being engaged by Player-B's play then it seems a flat issue across CA and every technique, for that matter.

I certainly couldn't quote exact words of the discussion after many years, but my opinion is that it was an appeal to pre-generated story/theme.  That's why I suggested that it was Nar-vs-Sim.  Specifically, it was not an appeal to, say, heroic action.  In other episodes, it was perfectly fine for Harkel to act like an unheroic jerk if that is what the plot called for.  But here, the feeling I got was that I was in trouble because I was messing up the prepared story. 

Okay--this I can buy. I'd just used heroism as a generic example but if the issue was prepared-story vs. enjoyable-story then, yeah, Sim (I think it definitonally has to be). But a simple "desire for story" or a "desire for entertaining story" or even "desire to keep playing in a domain where the GM is able to function" is not the same thing as "requirement for prepared story."

When I (and this is a rare occassion, unfortunately) have played with an inexperienced GM, I have usually done what I can to facilitate them within my own comfort zone. This means that I'll usually check with them prior to taking actions I think might surprise them.

The reason for this is straightforward: no matter how committed a traditional GM is to *any* CA there (and this echoes my point above) is usually a limit on what they are able to process. If a situation is suddenly shown to be paradoxical, for example and it's a mistake on the GM's part, if the GM gets flustered or embarrassed or whatever, the game'll stop or slow down ... or maybe just suck.

Again, this across any agenda of play: once the guy is stuck the experience suffers. So if I were playing with a group and I saw another player doing something that was flustering the GM I--and I felt it was an intentional push-pull powerstruggle (i.e. the player knew his actions were upsetting the GM, degrading the game experience for the rest of the group, and still wouldn't back off) I might be annoyed by that as well. That wouldn't be because I wanted a specific CA (say I want gamist D&D, the other guy wants gamist D&D, the GM is ready and willing to do gamist D&D but the play has mutated for some reason to where the GM is fumbling, looking in books, and generally unsure how to handle things*)--the experience, again, suffers. In that case it might look awfully similar to what you saw and not be a CA clash per-se.

-Marco
* the case that comes to mind is one where a fellow player decided to kill a friendly NPC who was important to the developing action for no easily discernable reason, throwing the neophyte GM into chaos. While the player clearly *had* his reasons, I do not think they were CA related and while I, as a GM, could've recovered from that, the guy running the game couldn't. The player wasn't being a pure asshole--but he certainly saw he was having a disruptive effect on the game everyone was playing in and didn't care. I wasn't happy with that as a fellow player--and the GM felt ambushed--but, again, I wouldn't chalk that up to CA. I think that was a pretty gamist venue all around.

[John Kim]

For example, suppose we're playing a game of Little Fears, and the way the story is going touches off a nerve of one player about his real-life family history.  He asks that we calls off the game and wrap it up in an abstract, non-emotionally-intense way which avoids the touchy issues that the game had been hitting.  That's absolutely the right choice.  However, it also wasn't Narrativist. 

Well, the play isn't *any* CA since the game stops (or effectively stops) once the hot-button has been pressed. That same limit exists for Sim or Gamism too. More prosaically, any game I play will have a built-in threshold wherein if the other players don't hold my interest for a long enough time I'm going to quit.

This doesn't make me "anti-CA" it just makes me anti-boredom. I don't see how Nar is inherently any freer in that regard. If the issue is Player-A not being engaged by Player-B's play then it seems a flat issue across CA and every technique, for that matter.

Wait a moment.  I'm not claiming that Narrativism is any freer in this regard.  It is the same for any Creative Agenda.  If David is not engaged by my address of Premise, then that is anti-Narrativist.  By the same token, if David was not engaged by my stepping up to challenge, then that would be anti-Gamist.  Not being engaged by what is the basis of the Creative Agenda is inherently a problem for that CA.  It doesn't matter what the game shifts to after that point, it is striking directly at the CA. 

Suppose in my example, I specified that in the Little Fears game, what we did was say "OK, this creepy atmosphere is a little too close to home.  Let's step back from that and instead just play out the fights and see if we can beat the monsters."  The point is that since the player objects, we backed off from Narrativism and shifted to Gamism.  Whether we simply quit the game or shift to Gamism is irrelevant, the point is that we have backed off from address of Premise. 

I certainly couldn't quote exact words of the discussion after many years, but my opinion is that it was an appeal to pre-generated story/theme.  That's why I suggested that it was Nar-vs-Sim.  Specifically, it was not an appeal to, say, heroic action.  In other episodes, it was perfectly fine for Harkel to act like an unheroic jerk if that is what the plot called for.  But here, the feeling I got was that I was in trouble because I was messing up the prepared story. 

Okay--this I can buy. I'd just used heroism as a generic example but if the issue was prepared-story vs. enjoyable-story then, yeah, Sim (I think it definitonally has to be). But a simple "desire for story" or a "desire for entertaining story" or even "desire to keep playing in a domain where the GM is able to function" is not the same thing as "requirement for prepared story."

When I (and this is a rare occassion, unfortunately) have played with an inexperienced GM, I have usually done what I can to facilitate them within my own comfort zone. This means that I'll usually check with them prior to taking actions I think might surprise them.

The reason for this is straightforward: no matter how committed a traditional GM is to *any* CA there (and this echoes my point above) is usually a limit on what they are able to process.

Right.  Let me back up a moment and cover my point again.  I see this as a case of a clash of channeling-vs-drama which is also a clash of GNS Sim-vs-Nar.  However, I am also saying that these two are not correlated as far as I can see.  I think that channeling is not a reliable indicator of Narrativism in general -- that's a coincidence of this example,  in my opinion. 

Unless someone has reason to show otherwise, I'm suggesting that incompatibilities between channelers and non-channelers are uncorrelated to CA.  I agree that you could equally well have a clash of channeling-vs-drama when all of the players are Narrativist.  You brought up a good example of channeling-vs-drama (or at least "in-character-action vs storyline") in a campaign which you say was Gamist all around. 

[Marco]

I can buy the above. I agree that I don't see a real connection between drama/channeling and Nar/Sim. I think the mass of annecdotal evidence is more related to technique-level problems where immersion (to a lot of people) looks like Sim (Jay, IMO). Whether there's a real corelation of not statistically is really hard to know since that kind of data, so far as I know, doesn't exist.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Well, no, no hard data exists. But I'd say that a correlation exists, if I had to guess. Though I'd also say that it's probably mostly just traditional. That is, I don't think there's an

a priori

reason for he correllation, just how people have played in the past for the most part.

Mike

[John Kim]

Well, no, no hard data exists. But I'd say that a correlation exists, if I had to guess. Though I'd also say that it's probably mostly just traditional. That is, I don't think there's an a priori reason for the correllation, just how people have played in the past for the most part.

I'm not expecting scientific proof, just comparing differing experience.  So what direction do you think the correlation goes in?  Can you describe experiences of yours suggest that correlation?  Were there any other common factors? 

[Mike Holmes]

The corellation is that players who want channeling also seem to want simulationism. My experience with this stems from, first, my own play goals with these things matching - I played very sim for decades, and channeling was often the sumum bonum of play for me. Second, lots convention play with other folks. Third, lots of annecdotal evidence here. People who self-identify as channelers or "immersionists" also almost always identify with simulationism.

Note that I met few narrativism people, and tried to stay away from the gamism people. So I could probably correlate a lot more activities with sim, too, and it might just be a lack of a good sample of other players (channeling could correlate to all RPG play, actually). But from what I've seen of gamism players, especially, channeling does not strongly correlate. That's not to say that all gamists play pawn stance. But some do, and those who don't chide people who channel as "method-actors" and such. Not all, but large numbers from what I've seen. Most of my experience with narrativism has been, of course, through The Forge, and here there's a bias against channeling. So, again, I see strong anti-correlation there. But, again, I think that's just cultural.

Mike

[contracycle]

Well, with due recognition of the cargo cult and ther lack of hard data, I agree with Mikes point - I too think there is a correlation, but not a direct or fixed one.  I have experienced channeling/immersion, but it was not the primary point of play - it helps to understand that I used to play a sort of crypto-Gamist sim.

I don't think a CA preference other than sim rules out channeling.  But certainly, I think, the people for whom channeling is the main point of interest are likely to exhibit sim preferences elsewhere.

[John Kim]

The corellation is that players who want channeling also seem to want simulationism. My experience with this stems from, first, my own play goals with these things matching - I played very sim for decades, and channeling was often the sumum bonum of play for me. Second, lots convention play with other folks. Third, lots of annecdotal evidence here. People who self-identify as channelers or "immersionists" also almost always identify with simulationism.

Note that I met few narrativism people, and tried to stay away from the gamism people. So I could probably correlate a lot more activities with sim, too, and it might just be a lack of a good sample of other players (channeling could correlate to all RPG play, actually).

Interesting.  So you say "almost always" here, which sounds stronger than a simple correlation -- but from your description, really it sounds like roleplayers in general almost always identified with Simulationism for you.  So that's not really a correlation.  i.e. If 95% of roleplayers were Sim, and 95% of channelers were Sim, then there was no correlation of Sim with channeling.  The key is those few Narrativists, I would think.  What were they like?  Did you ever meet anyone like me in the game that I describe earlier -- who wanted to follow through on their character's moral choices?  The situation described earlier in this thread is fairly typical of my experience. 

One comment on your observation.  I'd be extremely wary of self-identification, because the terminology has changed radically.  For example, I identified and indeed still identify with the term "Simulationist" -- because it was coined on rgfa to mean something quite different than it has come to mean here. 

I'm trying to understand how I would fit in with the people whom you identify as the people who identified with both immersion and GNS Simulationism.  Because there are several possibilities here.  One is that our experiences are simply quite different -- i.e. the immersionists whom you interacted with were quite different than the immersionists that I did.  But I'm not yet sure this is the case.  Another possibility is that our identifications are different.  I'd be interested to hear more about what immersionists of your experience are like, and how they compare with immersionists of my experience and myself. 

Most of my experience with narrativism has been, of course, through The Forge, and here there's a bias against channeling. So, again, I see strong anti-correlation there. But, again, I think that's just cultural.

That's another interesting topic -- that there has been a fair amount of anti-channeling sentiment among posters.  It being cultural is certainly an issue.  Have most of the Narrativist players you've actually played with been Forge posters?  I've been a pretty dedicated Forgite for a while, but only a handful of my Actual Play experiences are with other Forgites. 

[Marco]

I think the visible connection has to do with people identifying (mis-identifying?) Channeling or Immersion as Sim. That is: most of the conversation I have seen surrounding it conflates the two (Jay). Secondly: it may be very hard to judge a player's preferred CA if they're immersive (I've seen that suggested and can believe it).

-Marco

[John Kim]

I think the visible connection has to do with people identifying (mis-identifying?) Channeling or Immersion as Sim. That is: most of the conversation I have seen surrounding it conflates the two (Jay). Secondly: it may be very hard to judge a player's preferred CA if they're immersive (I've seen that suggested and can believe it).

It is hard to tell whether misidentification is happening, which is why I asked for clarification.  Certainly there are many people on the Forge and elsewhere who will say that immersion is Sim. 

Regarding the latter, I think it can be deceptive.  That is, an immersive may not be able to tell you why they did a particular action except as "that is what my character would do".  However, I think that you shouldn't trust such explanations in the first place.  Many people will talk extensively metagame about how they want to promote "narrative" and "story", but those explanations are deceptive.  The only way to diagnose CA is by what they actually do, not by what they say. 

[Marco]

The only way to diagnose CA is by what they actually do, not by what they say. 

Agreed--what I'm talking about is:
1. Player self-identifies: "I am playing immersed, it must be Sim."
2. Player examines someone else's play looking for presence of author-stance: I don't see it, must be Sim.
3. Someone says "well, I think it'd be cool to do X but I can't--my character wouldn't do that." and the observer assess: Sim (on the basis of that alone)

That'd be miss-identification based on criteria (i.e. the judgment could still be correct but the criteria are wrong) and it seems that happens ... well, quite a lot. Enough to be a trend, anyway.

-Marco