Developed Premise and Exploration

[Cassidy]

Facilitating a metagame concern (a developed Premise) differs greatly from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Premise, the imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system could easily encompass, say, Character-based Premise and prioritized Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable

I've read that passage time and time again yet I still can't get my head
around exactly what it is trying to say.

Any insight would be much appreciated.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Cassidy,

Back when I was writing the thing, just over a year ago, it was awesomely difficult to explain that two players could "like their character" and "want to see what happens with their character" and "enjoy role-playing their character" and ... be utterly incompatible in the same group.

To write it more clearly today, I'd say:

Facilitating a metagame concern (e.g. a developed Narrativist Premise) differs greatly from Exploring a listed element as a priority. To address a Narrativist Premise, the imaginary, internal commitment to the in-game events must be broken at least occasionally during play, to set up and resolve the issues of interest in strictly person-to-person terms. To Explore the topic in the Simulationist sense, breaking the imagined, continuous in-game causality is exactly what to avoid. The at-first attractive idea that a system could easily encompass, say, Narrativist Character-based Premise and prioritized Character Exploration is actually utterly unworkable

See what I'm after? I'm talking about Narrativist play which happens to have a strong Character Exploration as its foundation, as opposed to Simulationist play which happens to focus on Character Exploration as a priority. In my experience, these two modes of play may come into very savage conflict, much to the surprise and indignation of the people involved, because each one is artistically committed to "playing my character" but the goals are extremely different.

Best,
Ron

[Cassidy]

I think I do see what you mean now. Qualifying the nature of the developed premise used in the original text puts a completely different spin on the text.

I guess what you are highlighting are issues that may arise when the developed premise is designed to facilitate a style of play that is at odds with that of the player.

Exploring the topic in the Gamist sense, overriding competetive aspects of play to further the story or plot in a game with a developed Narrativist premise is potentially worrying for players who prioritorize gamist goals.

GM: The fight is brief and rather brutal, you dispatch the 2 guards with ease.
Player: What? Don't we get to play it out?
GM: Er....if you want to I guess.

Am I on the right track?

[MK Snyder]

Hmmm...

Ron, am I correct that what you are saying is that "An out-of-character discussion of where the plot is going may be essential to the player with Narrativist priorities, but can ruin the mood for the player with Simulationist priorities."?

[Paganini]

To me, the simplest way to think of it is to focus on the priorities. Say there are two players in a group. One player prioritizes addressing a narrativist premise; the other player prioritizes simulation with, say, exploration of character. At some point, a situation will arise in which addressing the premise (one kind of "story") will seriously damage the linear sequence of caused events (another kind of "story"). Both players will adamantly, and properly, maintain that they have unbending dedication to the "story." (This is a good example of why the word "story" is dangerous. :)  But there's a very good probability that, when the divergent instance of play is reached, a serious disagreement will arise because of the difference in priorities.

Up til this instance of play, an outside observer very likely would be unable to identify the respective goals of the players. But when it comes down to the wire in a situation where it's either one or the other, the player's choice is telling.

[MK Snyder]

Both players with Simulationist priorities and players with Narrativist priorities have occasions when they will feel it is appropriate to speak up in an Out of Game stance.

The Narrativist oriented player  would probably be motivated to speak up if she wanted to negotiate an aspect of story development (as a goal).

The Simulationist oriented player would probably be motivated to speak up if she wanted to correct an aspect of descriptive fidelity.
..........................................................
How is that?

[Cassidy]

To me, the simplest way to think of it is to focus on the priorities. Say there are two players in a group. One player prioritizes addressing a narrativist premise; the other player prioritizes simulation with, say, exploration of character. At some point, a situation will arise in which addressing the premise (one kind of "story") will seriously damage the linear sequence of caused events (another kind of "story"). Both players will adamantly, and properly, maintain that they have unbending dedication to the "story." (This is a good example of why the word "story" is dangerous. :)  But there's a very good probability that, when the divergent instance of play is reached, a serious disagreement will arise because of the difference in priorities.

Even players with a shared Premise will disagree at times. Sure, their priorities on creating a good narrative are shared, but in a given instance of play both may have different views on what is the best narrative to persue. That's unavoidable, people are people after all.

It is difficult to see how a system can accomodate Simulationist play and Gamist or Narrativist play without running into trouble at some point.

It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.

GNS seems to be saying that the focus on Exploration in Simulationist play may at times over-ride Gamist or Narrativist goals?

Over-riding one players priorities for play in favour of either another players or the priorities of the system itself seems inevitable.

Since that is to be avoided is Simulationist play inherently incompatable with the other modes of play?

[Paganini]

Even players with a shared Premise will disagree at times. Sure, their priorities on creating a good narrative are shared, but in a given instance of play both may have different views on what is the best narrative to persue. That's unavoidable, people are people after all.

<ALARM BUZZER>

Before I say anything, I want to remind you that Narrativism does not equal prioritizing a good narrative. (Mike just belted me with this about a month ago... I was making the same mistake you just did. :) Ron's essay does mention a "story in the LIT101 sense" or something like that. This isn't really the defining element any more. The reason is that "good story" is way to nebulous and subjective. For narrativism to exist, two things must be present:

1 - The addressing of a thematic question (what Ron calls "narrativist premise") must be prioritized by the players.

2 - The story is authored by the players (traditional sense), rather than the GM. This might sound deep, but all it really means is that the PCs make choices that address the premise. Director stance is not necessary, as long as the players have narrative control provided by Author stance.

The issue you touch on above (what narrative to persue) is unrelated to the original question about conflicting priorities. It's a matter of whose word carries weight. Take a look at The Pool, for example. The Pool is all about determining "whose word carries weight," but it doesn't encourage Narrativism, particularly. It can be easily drifted to do so, but it also works fine in other modes (Well, mostly in Sim modes; it kind of breaks down in Gamism, but that's another story. :)

The original question is a matter of conflicting play priorities. It's unreasonable to assume that Narrative priorities and Simulationist priorities will be indefinitely compatible. A sizeable amount of actual play may ocurr before the divergent instance of play is reached, but it inevitably *will* be reached.

GNS seems to be saying that the focus on Exploration in Simulationist play may at times over-ride Gamist or Narrativist goals?

Not exactly. It's saying that Simulationist play prioritizes Exploration, and doesn't care about anything else.

Since that is to be avoided is Simulationist play inherently incompatable with the other modes of play?

I maintain that all the modes of play are inherently incompatibile with each other, in the sense that I outlined above (IOW, there will eventually be a conflict of priorities.) However, remember that GNS is a tool for identifying decisions in individual instances of play. Other phrases (like "narrativist system" or "simulationist session" are only shorthand phrases.

[Cassidy]

<ALARM BUZZER>
Before I say anything, I want to remind you that Narrativism does not equal prioritizing a good narrative.

I know it isn't and to be fair I didn't say that Narrativism equals prioritorizing a good narrative although my post may have presented the impression that I was.

In hindsight I should have ommited the word good from my prior post to prevent any misunderstanding.

Narratism can be described as a  mode of observed play wherin the a players goals and decisions are prioritorizing the creation of a story with a recognizable theme.

What I meant by their priorities on creating a good narrative are shared was that the players are exhibiting a Narrativist mode of play and doing so with the intent of creating individually what they deem to be a good narrative.

The issue you touch on above (what narrative to persue) is unrelated to the original question about conflicting priorities.

I was merely trying to highlight that conflicts can occur even when in GNS terms the players are playing by the same Premise.

I mentioned it because to me it is related. It's something that GNS doesn't touch upon but it is an area of potential conflict. Upon reading that particulat part of GNS it's ommision inferred to me that players with the same Premise don't come into conflict. I merely drawing attention to the fact that they do.

GNS seems to be saying that the focus on Exploration in Simulationist play may at times over-ride Gamist or Narrativist goals?

Not exactly. It's saying that Simulationist play prioritizes Exploration, and doesn't care about anything else.

That clarifies things for me. The mode adopted by a player is exclusive of any other mode in a given instance of play. That makes sense.

I maintain that all the modes of play are inherently incompatibile with each other, in the sense that I outlined above (IOW, there will eventually be a conflict of priorities.)

So do I, and I asked the question to see if anyone felt the same. As you say in your example with the Pool, the trick in game design would seem to be to design a game that recognises areas of potential Premise based conflicts and that also provides a mechanism resolving them which doesn't favour or encourage either of the conflicitng modes of play.

However, remember that GNS is a tool for identifying decisions in individual instances of play. Other phrases (like "narrativist system" or "simulationist session" are only shorthand phrases.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.

[Paganini]

I mentioned it because to me it is related. It's something that GNS doesn't touch upon but it is an area of potential conflict. Upon reading that particulat part of GNS it's ommision inferred to me that players with the same Premise don't come into conflict. I merely drawing attention to the fact that they do.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

That clarifies things for me. The mode adopted by a player is exclusive of any other mode in a given instance of play. That makes sense.

Right. However, an outside observer can't always tell what mode a player is using in a given instance of play. This is because players may be making similar choices for different reasons. A player's current mode is only apparent when one of his choices sacrifices the other two modes. This is why Ron always tells people that he'd have to play with them for a few sessions before trying to make any kind of GNS statements about them.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Ummm, Nathan and Cassidy seem to have handled a lot of this already, but since MK's question was directed to me, I'll answer as best I can:

Yes, that's pretty much it, but I have to emphasize that there isn't "a" Narrativist/Character player and "a" Simulationist/Character player to point to. I'm talking of the historically most common forms of these two modes, as follows:

- Narrativist/Character player as best facilitated by the play of Sorcerer, with Kicker, player-generated conflict, world-built-mainly-through-play, and a reward mechanic with a potential backlash.

- Simulationist/Character player as best facilitated by (um ...) Unknown Armies (2nd edition), with Trigger Event, player-generated conflict, world-built-mainly-through-play, and a punishment mechanic with several possible directions.

Let's pick two folks who really love these modes of play, respectively, and who have decided to play one of these games in the mistaken belief that they think "character-generated story" as a priority will be smooth sailing. My call is that traditionally, out-of-character discussion is more acceptable (even necessary) for the first person, and generally discouraged for the second. However, to take it out of history and look just at the theory, the issue becomes, not out-of-character discussion, but rather, "what the player is for," and out-of-character discussion issues are problematic not so much for their presence but for their content.

Best,
Ron