Having Fun with Narrativistic Amber (long)

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Ron,

I wasn't dodging behind my character! I really should have been clearer, but I was in hurry when writing that post.

Umm, that sounds like you were provoking the GM to address premise! How exactly did this simulationist GM react to this provocation?

Was I doing that? I don't know, I was just reacting instinctly, doing what "felt right".

In my answer above, that "I" strongly means me, the player, not the character. And I agree that those kind of moments are the most important emotionally. That's why I spent the coin. So that the GM would know how emotionally important the action was for me.

That "I don't know" part of my answer was a quite another kind of dodge. I was genuinely surprised by Callan's comment and caught off guard. "I don't know" was just very poorly phrased "Give me some time to think about it". After I posted the answer I found myself fully agreeing with Callan's comment, but at the same time I was pleasantly surprised that I really was subconsciously provoking the GM to address the premise. That's very cool.

Part of my confusion came from the fact that we have never consciously defined our premise. But now that I think of it, after all this writing about our campaign, we've had a very coherent shared Amber-premise for a long time. That makes me happy. Thanks for the food for thought, Callan and Ron, you really did make me think! (And the thinking has not ended. I have to think carefully about your words, Ron, and observe real roleplaying situations. You're not dead on with your comments, but there might be something of value there.)

I know I should separate "me" and "my character" better in my writing, but I'm used to using first person when talking about Istwan. And in the game I really don't separate these two so much: my character is me, and his moral decisions are mine (or my evil twin's). With Istwan I'm exploring my own darker side, and sometimes I'm very surprised about the things I find. That's a big part of why roleplaying is so exciting for me. It's exciting because it truly is dangerous. ;-)

(Edited a bit a couple of minutes after posting.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Mikko, you've mis-read my point. I am not discussing player vs. character goals at all. I fully understand that you are talking about yourself, not about being "in character."

I am discussing your "I don't know" that I spotted and that you now have mentioned. Your phrasing in that post was indeed avoiding answering the question.

Fortunately, you have realized this already:

After I posted the answer I found myself fully agreeing with Callan's comment, but at the same time I was pleasantly surprised that I really was subconsciously provoking the GM to address the premise. That's very cool.

Part of my confusion came from the fact that we have never consciously defined our premise. But now that I think of it, after all this writing about our campaign, we've had a very coherent shared Amber-premise for a long time. That makes me happy.

My response: good. Exactly my point. Saying it that way is a lot more substantial than any "I was just ..." phrasing, don't you think?

My goal in posting, to anyone reading this: take a look at your responses to any discussion of Creative Agenda, when they concern your experiences during actual play. How much dodging are you doing?

... and Mikko, perhaps it would be valuable to reflect on how much of that sort of phrasing, if any, is going on in your group's person-to-person discussions. Perhaps the answer is "none," but the reflection is worth it.

Best,
Ron

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Synchronistically, I've just been discussing Amber Diceless Role-Playing (ADRP) in my friend's LiveJournal. It gives my two cents on why Amber is so prone to un-fun play and why Drifting it is so prevalent and fruitful.

Michael, very interesting thoughts!

It seems that, as written, ADRP seeks to replicate the dysfunction of the *characters* in the relations of the *players & GM.* No wonder so few people play it as written, and so many drift it into something functional and fun.

That reminds me of the relationship of me (playing Istwan) and Robert (playing Salvador). Earlier I wrote this:

We've been having a lot of roleplaying fun with Robert in the past. (And to say the truth, also a lot of roleplaying boredom.) Our characters ALWAYS fight much of the time, and often hate each other with passion. Almost the same holds true for us players, in real life... our friendship has always been a quite uneasy one. Like me, Robert is using his old character. This Salvador - a nasty Warfare guy - scares the hell out of my character, Istwan, but curiously I think I'm really missing Salvador. Just like Istwan-Nina, this is another very intense and interesting relationship between player characters.

...and a very intense and interesting relationship between players, too. And a dysfunctional one. Scary.

Yeah, I loved playing Amber with Robert. And I hated it. Often I was full of anger, addrenaline running in my veins. How can Salvador be so unfair? How can Robert be such an asshole? Yep, the fight scenes between Istwan and Salvador were very intense... but at the same time I was a bit worried about this phenomenon, and sometimes wishing for a better rules system. Our sadistic GM seemed to enjoy this shit. Me too, sometimes.

Sometimes we succeeded in forming shaky alliances. Those were moments of glory for me, full of emotion. Slowly Istwan and Salvador began to respect each other, and that was one of the most important story lines for me in the old campaign.

In the end of the campaign Salvador died. I was partly relieved, partly sad. And now Salvador is coming back...

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Ron, I'm glad I managed to answer your question even through the slight misunderstanding. You and Callan did catch me off guard with your questions, and maybe I was being a bit defensive for a while, trying to answer the questions quickly, although I didn't quite understand what was going on. Learning sometimes feels like that: a bit unsettling.

This is what I'm thinking now: If I understood my CA better in an actual roleplaying situation, it would be easier to communicate my desires to the GM and the other players. Not "I just want to do this", but "I want to do this because it's relevant to our Premise." I believe this kind of communication would be very helpful for the group.

Sure we dodge a lot. That's because we don't have a shared language to talk about CAs, or at least we are not fluent in it. But after all this writing here I may have learned a) what I most want out of this Amber campaign, and b) to express my desires more clearly. The next thing we should do is to talk about our Premise with the group, and formalize it somehow, perhaps by writing it down.

And now I know what's the best use for the coins, if I want to maximise my enjoyment. I should use them in actions that address our premise. That should be a clear enough signal to the GM, too.

I don't want to "force" the other players to play Narr. (Although there definitely is some interest.) But I can do all these very helpful things while not becoming an irritating control freak in the eyes of the other players, and without excessive Forge-talk. Cool!

[Larry L.]

I'm interested in seeing how this coin mechanic works out in the long run.

I've tried "grafting" a coin mechanic onto GURPS in the hopes of facilitating Narrativist play; this fixed exactly nothing. The players still turtled up in their familar play modes. Tokens were squandered on either novelties which didn't interest any of the other players, or as means of bypassing conflicts. I had the same old crappy set of tools to diagnose players' interests and keep everyone engaged. I had to put the poor thing down.

Now in your game, it sounds like players have at least latched onto the coins as a means of constructive feedback to the GM. Which, as Tony points out, is more elegant socially than blunt criticism. This experiment may likely be useful in bringing to light deficiencies in the social contract. Once this has happened, though, I suspect a more complete re-evaluation of system will be in order, lest the gimmick itself becomes an enabler of dysfunctional habits.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

The next session is tomorrow.

I haven't told you most anything about the last session, which I consider the best ever. It was full of conflicts that addressed the Premise. (Now that I've learned to think about the premise like that. Our premise is a bit hazy, and somewhat difficult to define, but we do know what kind of conflicts we want to see in Amber.) PC actions were dramatic, and the outcomes surprised everybody. Both Nina and Istwan transformed because of what happened, I'm talking about big personality changes here. Now we just have to repeat the success. Just to remind you all that despite this talk about our group's problems, at the moment everything's wonderful.

I'll keep you posted if interesting thoughts surface. I'll tell you about the coins at least.

[Callan S.]

Hi Mikko,

The only reason I spotted the 'provoke the GM' moment, is because it happened to me. I have a thread on it here in actual play somewhere (I think it was called "Player pitching the GM some nar?"). It was in a PBP, with its low social feedback, of all places!

On another note, this thread so reminds me of the minor adjustments I was suggesting about Rifts, where its pitfalls might turn around and actually support narrativism: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15105

[Mikko Lehtinen]

On another note, this thread so reminds me of the minor adjustments I was suggesting about Rifts, where its pitfalls might turn around and actually support narrativism: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15105

Hello,

I don't know much about Rifts, Callan, but something you said in that post did ring a bell. I started to think about Amber's combat system, and how it supports our Narrativist goals. In your post about Rifts you talked mostly about Powers, but I'm going to talk Warfare.

Amber's combats demand constant player input. They put an awful amount of pressure on the player, its almost too much to cope with (at least in our games, and for me). In every combat, you need to quickly come up with reasons "why should my character win this fight." You need to be dedicated about it. You don't really have time to think there, only to react by instinct, emotionally. Of course the player could get all gamist, but I'm not like that. My player input has very often addressed the premise, and often I have surprised myself with my moral decisions.

In our recent fight against prince Random, Istwan did all kinds of funny and carnevalistic things, and so did uncle Random. For us, the fight wasn't serious, even though it was quite deadly. I got to make a very, very important statement that addressed the premise: "This is just how Amber's children play. Don't take it too seriously, kids." (The other kids were taking it all too seriously.)

In the many wars that Istwan has fought in, the statements I've made about my character are very different. Almost always moral decisions take the center stage: how much should I care about these Shadow people who just keep dying for me, and because of me. In the war in Avalon, Istwan got the nickname "Avalon's slaughterer". We won the war partly because of Istwan's cruelty toward his own soldiers, who were about to flee. Afterwards Istwan's wife asked: "What kind of a monster did I marry?"

And in the duels and psychic combats with Salvador, my clear statement was: "This is how much I hate you, cousin."

Our GM and the other players understood these three moral statements very well, they were behaving like a good audience. The GM really expects just this kind of input from me.

Of course there's always tactics and clever swordplay, etc., but even there I get to express my emotional state (and statement) with the tone of my voice and body language.

The Powers could work in the same way, and I'm trying hard to use them like this, making statements about my character. But our GM handles Powers in a quite simulationist manner, and perhaps for this reason I've been playing warrior types more. In combat I've got more Narrativist freedom. Hmm, I wouldn't have realized this point without reading your post about Rifts, Callan!

Robert played the combats in a more gamist fashion, and we all liked to watch him in action. Sometimes our roles swapped: I had my gamist moments of glory, and Robert made important moral statements about his character. Oh, that Salvador is such a nasty guy! As long as the GM was able to adapt to different playing styles, Amber suited both of us well. But sometimes (in the old campaign) there were CA clashes, and one of us got bored. But I often admired what Robert did with Salvador, and Robert did applaud to my performance, too. With these two characters, Istwan and Salvador, our CAs came closer than ever. I hope that this trend continues in this new campaign.

Hmm, I got wordy again, I hope I don't bore you!

EDIT: In all those three example conflicts, my moral statements ended up being perhaps more important story-wise than the GM's declaration of the winner! The moral statements became in each case an important story element that affected many NPCs and PCs. Afterwards the GM always remembered to hit me with a Bang or two that had something to do with my moral statement during the fight.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Hey,

we didn't actually play tonight after all. But I just had a very good conversation with the GM. I told him what I've been writing here in Forge, about the responses, and about my revelations.

First we had a short chat about our Amber premise. He asked what I thought the premise was, and I told him this:

WHAT DOES THE FAMILY MEAN TO YOU?
1. Family vs. Morality. Is it okay to care about a family that is thoroughly rotten? Would betrayal be a better idea, for morality's sake?
2. Purity of the young generation? Are we going to be same kind of assholes as our parents? How will we deal with our own spouses and children - are we going to make the same mistakes as our parents? Have we inherited the sins of our parents?
3. Which side is stronger: Familiar love or hate, ambition, and playing the Machiavellian game?
4. Are family affairs more important than the lives of the Shadow people?

It was a magical moment. He just watched me for a while, and said: "Yep. That's it." No need to negotiate anything. :-)

We agreed that the war between Law and Chaos was really just Color. What really mattered was the Family. Law and the Pattern were important only because they were ancient family traditions.

Then I told him that this Amber campaign, and the earlier one, had actually been Narrativist from the very beginning. That means 22 sessions or something like that. I told him numerous examples how we had been addressing the premise (as presented above) all along. Not just me, but all of us, all the time; even Robert the Gamist. This had been a textbook example of Narrativist campaign, and we had not noticed it!

The GM said: "Hey, maybe I'm actually quite Narrativist myself."

We've had no language to talk like this before. Yeah, we've been discussing CAs in theory, but not in the context of actual play, not quite like this. (Thanks, Ron, for noticing my dodge.)

The lack of a shared language is actually quite literal. We had to speak a lot of English, because I didn't know how to translate some of the key Forge concepts in Finnish. Eero, are you reading this? I believe you are the professional here. Could you tell us how to translate these vital concepts: a) Addressing Premise, and b) Creative Agenda. I really have no clue. ;-)

We talked about the problems we've had in the past, and how to avoid hazards in the future. I firmly believe that this shared understanding of our CA will guide our way from now on, making things easier.

We talked about the one solution we already have: the coins. We discussed my use of coins in the famous "Random incident". He said that he would never have reacted so strongly if I hadn't used the coin, and that he was really happy about the way things turned out, about the big fight against Random and all. He agreed that the conflict addressed our Premise very directly.

The GM has always hoped that the players would take initiative, just like I did. He wants the players to shake the game world, and has been wondering why they don't do it. I'd say that in our Amber campaign he has been a Narrativist GM with strong Simulationist habits, or something like that. Bad habits die hard, and these habits are at least 15 years old. He's very happy about the coins, because they will force him to do things differently.

Hey, two coins/session means I can shake the world at least twice in a session. I'm happy.

This experiment may likely be useful in bringing to light deficiencies in the social contract. Once this has happened, though, I suspect a more complete re-evaluation of system will be in order, lest the gimmick itself becomes an enabler of dysfunctional habits.

Larry, you were right about the light. I think we have now abandoned our old social contract, and are quite prepared to sign a new one.

Now that we've had this important discussion, I'm ready to claim that there's nothing dysfunctional about the coin mechanic. At least not anymore. It's a tool that works.

[Eero Tuovinen]

The lack of a shared language is actually quite literal. We had to speak a lot of English, because I didn't know how to translate some of the key Forge concepts in Finnish. Eero, are you reading this? I believe you are the professional here. Could you tell us how to translate these vital concepts: a) Addressing Premise, and b) Creative Agenda. I really have no clue. ;-)

Yeah, I'm reading. Interesting stuff. I've been thinking about doing a translation guide for rpg theory, with both Finnish and Forgean terminology in both languages. It's just not been very relevant, as it's been much more prudent to talk about these matters without special terminology. Perhaps some day...

The rest of this post is unabashedly out of topic.

A couple of weeks back I did a little lecture on narrativism in Conklaavi. There I called Premise "Premissi" or "aihe" (issue). 'Premissi' is good, because it associates strongly with the idea that it's a technical theory term - Finnish theory terms are generally brought from English or classical languages. 'Aihe' is good, because it's a natural word and readily understandable. Might get mixed up with theme, though.

But "addressing premise"... I'd actually dodge this one in most cases and go with "creating theme", "teeman luominen". It feels more natural for most, and means the same thing. Easier to understand, too. Closer to root is "käsitellä premissiä" (handling/addressing premise), which I used in the lecture. Pretty good, actually.

Creative Agenda is easy, it's simply "luova agenda" or "taiteellinen agenda" (artistic agenda), if you want to keep it explicit.

Well, now that I'm here, I think I'll go through the provisional glossary and translate everything, or at least the frequently used stuff. Somebody might need these at some point...

Big Model terminology

Big Model
"Edwardsin malli" (Edwards' model) is the simplest. Really. You could use "iso malli" (big model), but what's the point? It'd just confuse people about what theory we're talking about, and it's pretty haughty to boot.

Coherence
"Koherenssi", simple.

Creative Agenda
"Luova agenda", as I said

Ephemera
"Yksityiskohdat" (details) works fine in Finnish, and is natural. "Häiveet" is more literal, and more difficult to mix up with anything.

Exploration
"Jaetun mielikuvitustodellisuuden käsittely" (exploring shared imagined space), or "käsittely" for short. Literal translation would be even more deceptive than the English term.

Lumpley Principle
"Lumpleyn periaate"

Social contract
"Sosiaalinen sopimus"

Techniques
"Tekniikat" is simple, but clumsy. Better is "menetelmät", which cannot be improved upon.

Others

Abashed
"Hämmentynyt", literal works fine.

Actor Stance
'Stance' first: "asenne" is bad, because it's also used for alignment and attitude. "Tapa" (manner) is my call, so it'd be "Näyttelijän tapa" (Actor's manner).

Addressing Premise
"Premissin käsittely" or "teeman luominen" (creating theme)

Author Stance
"Kirjailijan tapa"

Authority
"Auktoriteetti"

Bang
"Pamaus" is what I use.

Beeg Horseshoe Theory
Do you really need to translate this?

Blood Opera
"Veriooppera"

Calvinball
"Lassipallo", as it's called in Finnish language Calvin & Hobbes.

Color
"Väri" works, although clumsily. Anything else is problematic.

Conflict resolution
'Conflict' first: "Konflikti" or "Haaste", for better Finnish. So it's "Haasteen ratkaiseminen"

Congruence
"Kongruenssi" from math.

Credibility
"Uskottavuus"

Crunch
'Number crunching' is "numeronmurskaus", so I guess it's "murskaus".

Currency
"Valuutta"

DFK
"Draama", "onni", "karma", no chance of mistakes.

Director Stance
"Ohjaajan tapa"

Drift
"Ajelehtia", although it's irreflexive in Finnish... I guess active drifting is sailing, "Purjehtia" ;)

Fantasy Heartbreaker
"D&D-klooni" (D&D clone)

Force
"Voima"

Fortune-at-the-End
"Sattuma lopussa"

Fortune-in-the-Middle
"Sattuma keskellä"

Gamble
"Riskipeli"

IIEE
"Aie, aloitus, suoritus ja saavutus - AASS"

Immersion
"Immersio" or "eläytyminen", although some folks think that the latter is some hypercondenced form of the former.

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
Not translatable. I guess it's "valtaparadoksi" (authority paradox), unless somebody wants to dig up a similar Finnish proverb.

Kicker
"Alkupotku"

Layering
"Kerrostuneisuus"

Line
"Raja"

Narration
"Kerronta"

No Myth
I translated this with great difficulty last year... can't remember right now.

Pawn Stance
"Pelimiehen tapa", of course ;)

Points of Contact
"Kosketuskohdat"

Railroading
is of course "junaileminen", as we already knew.

Relationship map
"Suhdekartta" or "suhdeverkko"

Scene Framing
"Kohtausten rajaaminen"

Shared Imagined Space
"Jaettu mielikuvitusmaailma"

Veil
"Verho"


Now we'll just have to get Finnish hobbyists talking Forgese ;)

[Ron Edwards]

Cool!

("Big Model" is haughty? I only called it that because it's "bigger" than GNS by itself. Oh well.)

Thanks guys.

Mikko, you might be interested in my discussion of how Gamist and Narrativist play do and do not interact, in the two essays.

Best,
Ron

[Mikko Lehtinen]

Thanks a lot, Eero!

That list is very useful to me. I'm going to teach at least five words of everyday Forgese to my group.