Narrativism: What the Heck is it?

[greyorm]

This thread is being started based on a number of recent newcomers to the Forge who have been having trouble with the concept of Narrativism and what it entails...mainly, their questioning of WHY Narrativism does not apply to so-and-so or such-and-such:

I'll use fusangite's statements as an example of the sorts of problems being encountered (sorry) though he is not the only individual to whom I'm addressing this post:

I think there is a real problem with Edwards' assumption that narrativist premises must necessarily be themes centred on moral or ethical questions.

It seems to me that Edwards consigns all narrative themes/premises which are not ethical questions to the realm of simulationist play. I think this is an error in the GNS classification system. Fatalist, cyclical and teleological visions of history/narrative, in my view, can qualify as premises for narrativist play.

Moral/ethical hierarchies are not a precondition of intentional narrative.

...basing a character's actions on serving the narrative is not identical to basing a character's actions on the exploration of a moral/ethical theme.

The deal with Narrativism is that you need to call it "Flox"...that's right, it's Flox. You're a Floxist. You're playing in a Floxist game. There we go, a nice, nonsense word all free of connotations.

Floxists play games in which they explore a moral or ethical premise, riffing off it in play via those actions which highlight the premise central to the game (not secondary).

Narrativism has nothing to do with "narratives" or "stories" or anything like that. Floxist games create thematic stories in hindsight by their use of riffed premise. Additionally, the events and choices of the game have immediate thematic importance based on their use of premise.

So, now every time you are tempted to use the word Narrativism in thought or speech or writing, use Flox instead, and the veil of confusion should lift quite a bit, because narrativism isn't necessarily about intentionally creating a narrative (or story).

[fusangite]

OK -- I'm trying to comprehend what you guys are saying here.

So, if I am playing in a campaign in which I realize that I am existing in a figure of Odin, Thor and Loki's trip to Utgaard to battle Utgaard-Loki and I then direct my character to behave in such a way as to make the narrative unfold consistent with this form, am I engaging in Narrativist, Simulationist or Gamist play?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Fusangite, the information you've provided will not help us define or (better) to understand your role-playing, for that instance. You simply aren't discussing GNS when you give that kind of description.

The only variables that really make sense, in discussing GNS, are the social interactions and communications that go on among the real people at the table, during play.

What is reinforced among them? Who praises whom, for doing what, and how often? When is a stated or proposed action disallowed, often in very subtle form? What gets everyone listening with undivided attention to a single person's announcements? When do people laugh? When do they not laugh, or socially squelch someone else's amusement?

All of those things, and more, are the only valid variables for assessing a GNS profile for a given instance of play. (And by "instance," I mean a lot of play, at least a session, probably more.)

I wish I'd made this point earlier. It's a big deal. The definitions of GNS are not the same variables one uses to assess GNS in action. Since GNS is a subset of Social Contract - indeed, it's the application of Social Contract to the imagined material ("Exploration") - its identity for that group can only be assessed in social terms.

Fusangite, tell me how your group interacts socially, about various techniques of play in action, over a substantive period of play, and GNS assessment is easy as pie. But describing the imaginative content of play, specifically the situation of play, with only passing or limited reference to the techniques being used, won't be enough.

Best,
Ron

[fusangite]

Thanks Ron. As I think I have mentioned elsewhere, your GNS model is of considerable utility in understanding RPG play, even granted my evidently limited comprehension of your model.

The hypothetical question with which I came forward is, unfortunately, just that: hypothetical. So, my first problem in responding to your question is to wonder which group dynamics in my various experiences of metatextual play I should be describing.

One of the reasons the peculiar style of metatextual play has developed in my small corner of the gaming world (I am only one of three GMs I know who uses it) is the heterogeneous nature of the gaming groups. Arbitrarily taking the Midgaard campaign in which I was involved as an example, I would respond as follows:

What gets everyone listening with undivided attention to a single person's announcements?

Convergence between something being significant on a textual level and something being significant on a metatextual level. In the Midgaard group, some players were engaging in a textual analysis of new phenomena while others were analyzing their players' experiences metatextually. Different players therefore attached different levels of significance to specific episodes -- what for some players were digressions were, for others, the unfolding of the "real story" and vice versa. If a situation met the criteria for a major plot event on both a mundane and a symbollic level, only then would it be an event that got everyone's attention. Thus, for those engaged in metatextual play, discovering the Rainbow Bridge's identity was crucial whereas for the other players, the crucial event was the operation of the Bridge. Arriving at the other side, on the other hand, got everyone's attention.

When do people laugh?

There are various conditions that trigger laughter. Recalling the group I'm describing (which broke up 5 years ago), I think the main things people laughed about were when we digressed and discussed things that were not game-related. Typically, the things that made the game itself funny were either characters behaving inadvertently or intentionally in a comic way. Also, the GM would embed various puns in the metatext of the game, Rainbow Bridge being the most obvious example but such puns tended to be differently received based on what the player was engaged with. Thus, the shrine to the Elvish Priestling didn't do a lot for me but for those involved at a more literal level, the pun was funnier. Mistakes in the use of world terminology by players/characters were funny; the fact that the glass was a unit of time and a unit of alcoholic beverages led to some amusing scenes in which the player forgot the in-game temporal meaning of the term and instead caused much confusion by thinking in terms of modern English usage. But generally, people laugh at games I attend when they stop talking abou the game.

When do they not laugh, or socially squelch someone else's amusement?

I don't recall this happening in games I attend. I game with a player who often laughs nervously in a way that has nothing to do with things actually being funny but that's about the only instance. This player often does so when she is in the middle of realizing that she misinterpreted something; people tend not to laugh because we fear that she might interpret this as us laughing at her.

Who praises whom, for doing what, and how often?

Generally, most praise in games I'm in is based around one of the following:
1. Figuring out the metatext of the game
2. Figuring out complexities in the text of the game (e.g. political intrigue)
3. Successfully interacting in a high-stakes realtime verbal interaction with an NPC
4. Displaying a comprehensive understanding of the game world (usually in the service of one of the above three but also in other situations which afford this opportunity)

To be honest, I really don't keep track of how often people are praised. Generally, praise is mostly given by fellow players because the GM can only praise people for understanding the world when such praise will not reveal hidden information. Thus, GM praise is usually limited to the players demonstrating understanding of their characters' culture and place therein.

What is reinforced among them?

This question is a little too broad for me to handle. Perhaps you could break it down based on my responses to other questions here.

I'm not going to go on at length until I see if I'm answering your questions in the way that you would like. So, more later.

[greyorm]

Seperate question from Ron's line, for my own comprehension of your question:

behave in such a way as to make the narrative unfold consistent with this form

Consistent how? That's what I'm not understanding...what are you making consistent and how are you making it consistent?

By way of explanation, I'm wondering if you mean consistent with the actions taken in the source material, consistent just with the style of the material...what?

Actual play examples of this consistency in action would help (the actual behaviors, what those behaviors accomplished, etc), as would definitions of what consistency is, as well as to what it is applied to.

[fusangite]

Seperate question from Ron's line, for my own comprehension of your question:

behave in such a way as to make the narrative unfold consistent with this form

Consistent how? That's what I'm not understanding...what are you making consistent and how are you making it consistent?

My motivation as a player is typically to identify the metatextual basis of the story and the direct my character's actions to conform to the narrative that seems implicit in the metatext. If there is no accessible/predictive metatext, I take this down a level and do the same with the text.

By way of explanation, I'm wondering if you mean consistent with the actions taken in the source material, consistent just with the style of the material...what?

The source material circumscribes the number of possible narratives. I typically look at the finite options of possible narratives and choose to follow the direction of the narrative it is most feasible to follow. By feasible, I mean most likely to take place based on the other players' agendas.

Actual play examples of this consistency in action would help (the actual behaviors, what those behaviors accomplished, etc), as would definitions of what consistency is, as well as to what it is applied to.

I think I'm starting to discern what the bigger problems are in our discussions here and why I'm constantly feeling baffled. By behaviour, do you mean my behaviour as a player or the behaviour of my character? It seems to me that you are asking about my behaviour as a player. If so, I'm having trouble breaking down which elements of player behaviour are under discussion and which are not. Would the behaviours under discussion include all game-related behaviours such as corresponding with other players about theories in between games? Would they include all behaviour during gaming sessions whether or not they are directly game-related, such as telling/listening to anecdotes about people's social lives between sessions?

Maybe I've missed some document about how we are discussing things but it seems to me that we are discussing player social interactions rather than play itself. This seems odd to me.

[newsalor]

fusangite:

Maybe I've missed some document about how we are discussing things but it seems to me that we are discussing player social interactions rather than play itself. This seems odd to me.

I believe that the actions of the characters in-game do are not relevant to the GNS model. The model is about how the game is being played. Supeficially similar elements could appear in any of the different ways of gaming, but it is the reasons and the social interaction behind it that we are interrested in. This is because the act of roleplaying is a form of social interaction and the experience itself is a product of social interaction.

Markus Montola did a splendid piece on roleplaying theory and his paper is a good definition of roleplaying.

So, of course we want to hear about the relationship of your game/campaign/in-game stuff and the players. Narrativism a way to play. A type interface between the real world and the game world. The priorities of your game and the players that are playing it define it. If the fun is in constructing a story with a good strong theme or metatextual content if you will, then you can draw your conclusions from that.

[fusangite]

newsalor says,

I believe that the actions of the characters in-game do are not relevant to the GNS model. The model is about how the game is being played. Supeficially similar elements could appear in any of the different ways of gaming, but it is the reasons and the social interaction behind it that we are interrested in. This is because the act of roleplaying is a form of social interaction and the experience itself is a product of social interaction.

I understand that. What I am having trouble with is what the boundaries are for your definition of play. As you can see, above, I've asked some questions about liminal areas of what could be defined as play. I would be interested in your judgement of which of these actually constitute play.

I'll take a look at the Montola article you recommend.

If the fun is in constructing a story with a good strong theme or metatextual content if you will, then you can draw your conclusions from that.

I tried to draw my own conclusion that this seemed like narrativist play but everyone seemed to object to the conclusion I reached because I was unable to detect an implicit morality/ethics in this process.

[Matt Snyder]

Fusangite,

It's important to note that players may create theme as part of any type of play, whether Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist. Theme does NOT equal Narrativism alone.

From the limited information I've read about your play experiences, it seems most likely (but I am not certain) that your group is engaging in a kind of simulationism. It appears your group plays in such a way that all or nearly all sessions/campaigns are about re-creating, re-living, or re-interpreting existing myths, literary events, etc. In effect, it seems you are simulating those tales. In fact, from your posts, I get the impression that you define role-playing, or at least your groups role-playing, by this activity. Is that correct?

(Your group could be prioritizing gamist play, perhaps. It may be possible that the main motivation for players to "solve" what you call the metatextual "stuff" -- it becomes a challenge the group thrives on, for example.)

I say this is simulation because your explanations of play seem to be describing exploration of situation and color, and perhaps character and setting. Your discussion of system hasn't really come up (or I've missed it). What system are you using? D&D? Some other system?

[fusangite]

Matt Snyder says,

From the limited information I've read about your play experiences, it seems most likely (but I am not certain) that your group is engaging in a kind of simulationism. It appears your group plays in such a way that all or nearly all sessions/campaigns are about re-creating, re-living, or re-interpreting existing myths, literary events, etc. In effect, it seems you are simulating those tales. In fact, from your posts, I get the impression that you define role-playing, or at least your groups role-playing, by this activity. Is that correct?

Well, that is how I play. The type of campaign I most enjoy is one in which other people do not have to also adopt my kind of play. Some people proceed unconscious of or uninterested in the metatext of the game. They are enjoying different things than I am and motivating their characters in different ways than mine are but the games I like are ones robust enough to allow for that without conflict.

(Your group could be prioritizing gamist play, perhaps. It may be possible that the main motivation for players to "solve" what you call the metatextual "stuff" -- it becomes a challenge the group thrives on, for example.)

Certainly that also makes sense. Those of us involved in metatextual play tend to have fluctuating levels of perceived agency (our level of actual agency doesn't really change -- we limit our characters' choices because we don't want to "ruin" the mythological structure of the campaign). Sometimes the structure of the world radically circumscribes narrative directions; sometimes the structure of the world allows for almost limitless choice. However, the "solving" aspect in discovering the metatext is definitely the part I enjoy most.

What system are you using? D&D? Some other system?

D&D makes it almost impossible to have an accessible metatext. Gary Gygax finally explained that the physics of D&D is not, as I had imagined, his own corruption of aristotelianism but, instead, his adaptation of 19th century theosophy. Having a rules set grafted to 19th century theosophy makes it pretty unuseable for exploring any metatext other than one about 19th century spiritualist ideas.

I'm currently running a game with an inaccessible metatext using some of the D20 system but full metatextual play seems to me only possible with a rules system designed specifically for that specific campaign.

Thanks so much for this post Matt. For some reason what you are stating in your posts is completely comprehensible to me.

[jdagna]

The hypothetical question with which I came forward is, unfortunately, just that: hypothetical. So, my first problem in responding to your question is to wonder which group dynamics in my various experiences of metatextual play I should be describing.

::snip::

Generally, most praise in games I'm in is based around one of the following:
1. Figuring out the metatext of the game
2. Figuring out complexities in the text of the game (e.g. political intrigue)
3. Successfully interacting in a high-stakes realtime verbal interaction with an NPC
4. Displaying a comprehensive understanding of the game world (usually in the service of one of the above three but also in other situations which afford this opportunity)

I generally avoid talking hypothetically about most situations.  Asking "What if" can be a useful test, as long as you realize that it's possible to ask "What if" questions that can't be answered.  For example, asking "Well, what if I picked up a penny and it just floated in mid-air?" doesn't disprove the law/theory of gravity (the theory says such a thing is impossible, so it obviously cannot answer the question).

In regards to GNS issues hypothetical situations often either strip out the necessary information (like yours did) or otherwise provide an example that defies analysis

Anyway, based on your answers about the sources of praise, I think it's fair to say that Gamist modes predominate in your style of play.

Here's why (in the order that I found them important to my conclusion)
1) "high-stakes" This shows that challenge is important to gaining priase, that there should be something risked or at stake.
2) "Figuring out" You use this expression at least twice, and mention the concept several times.  Gamism as a mode is about challenge (and rising to meet it).  We often think in the classic "kill monsters, take their stuff" kind of challenge, but you've got a more literary challenge going.
3) "Displaying" Now, I know your responses are in the context of gaining praise, which means others have to be aware of what's going on, but the display of skill is another element in Gamism.  It's one form of competition between players even when their characters may be acting cooperatively.
4) I'm also basing this on the lack of elements I'd associate with Simulationist or Narrativist modes.

Keep in mind that GNS modes represent priorities and aren't exclusive over a range of play sessions.

[fusangite]

OK -- I'm convinced. The type of play I'm involved in is primarily gamist.

[greyorm]

My motivation as a player is typically to identify the metatextual basis of the story and the direct my character's actions to conform to the narrative that seems implicit in the metatext. If there is no accessible/predictive metatext, I take this down a level and do the same with the text...By feasible, I mean most likely to take place based on the other players' agendas.

It sounds like Exploration to me -- your focus is on versimilitude of experience, or rather, Exploration of Situation, of the Narrative. But without some actual play occurences to back that up, I won't say for certain. You're saying "Gamist" so that could be it as well, and you'd know better than I as you have the actual experience of your play to base that from.

But I'd like you to indulge me for a moment now:

The source material circumscribes the number of possible narratives.

Once again, what does that MEAN? What is a "narrative" in this context? An outcome, a style of play, something else entirely? I think the high-level vocabulary is confusing the issue in this case, so perhaps we can both use plain english (especially considering I've only skimmed your essay).

So, back that all up and see if you can describe it in layman's terms -- "Fusangite's Metatextual Play For Dummies?"

By behaviour, do you mean my behaviour as a player or the behaviour of my character?
...it seems to me that we are discussing player social interactions rather than play itself. This seems odd to me.

Your character doesn't have any behaviour, except that ascribed to it by you, thus even if we are talking about "character behavior" we are talking about player behavior. It's very simple, what do you do during a game session, what happens, around the table -- you can't seperate the "player" stuff from the "character" stuff.

So I find that as odd as you do, in reverse, since player social interactions ARE play itself, and I don't see much point in discussing "what happened in the game with the characters" as different from "what happened in the game with the players" -- the two are inseperable, the same thing, actually.