Narrativist or not?

[Nuadha]

Hello everyone,

(I apologize if this post rambles a bit, but I've just finished reading several of Ron's GNS articles and I have a lot of jumbled thoughts.)

I'm pretty new to the GNS theory and have been occassionally reading through the articles over the last couple of weeks.   Now I'm wondering if I understand it correctly.

Recently, I've noticed how my RPG tastes have changed over the years.   10 years ago, my favorite RPGs were GURPS and Champions.   I liked the detailed rules built to cover every situation and the "realism" it provided.   I now understand this to be "Simulationist," according to the GNS model.

These days, I've found that my tastes have changed and some of my changes seem more narrativist, like wanting to explore a theme or idea through roleplaying.   One of the things is that I try to encourage that players discuss things like the philosophies behind their character's and their opponent's actions.     Am I right in this desire for in-game philisophical conversation is an element of Narrativist play?

The Champions group that I play with each week seems to be mostly Simulationist with elements of Narrativist and Gamist.   At times this seems to have caused some friction between me and the group and I think that one of the reasons is because I tend to build my characters with less thought in mind of "getting along with the group" or "fitting in" and more with exploring some narrative concept that has popped in my head while creating the character and as I try and explore these themes, I sometimes act in exact opposite direction of the group's goals.

One of the things that I thought about while reading the article is a conversation we had about the Matrix Reloaded.    Several of my fellow players were saying how much they hated the conversation with the "French Guy" and all the psuedo-philisophical rambling about free will and such.   For me, it was one of my favorite bits in the movie.   I want psuedo-philosophy and the exporation of literary themes to be part of the stories I read and the stories I roleplay in.   Am I right that this is another example between Narrativism and Simulationism?

Another thing I've noticed lately is my preference for player control.   I like systems that allow players to affect elements of the story.   Things like drama points that give players more choice on in what happens in the game.   Would this be considered, Narrativist, Gamist or something completely seperate from the GNS theory?

[hix]

Heck, I'll give this a go (because it's a way of clarifying my own understanding of it).

I've found that my tastes have changed and some of my changes seem more narrativist, like wanting to explore a theme or idea through roleplaying.

A 'theme' - when it's phrased as an question without a clear answer or as a difficult choice between two evenly balanced options- seems to be a hallmark of Narrativism. And that's referred to as a Premise, here.

One of the things is that I try to encourage that players discuss things like the philosophies behind their character's and their opponent's actions. Am I right in this desire for in-game philisophical conversation is an element of Narrativist play?

Not necessarily. You could simply be playing Simulationist, in a world where these types of conversations are colour. Talking about philosophy is very different from actually making a difficult choice that illustrates where you stand on the Premise you want to explore.

Systems like drama points that give players more control or redistribute the right to narrate events in the game are referred to as Techniques. From the Narrativism essay, Ron Edwards wrote:

Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

So it's not necessarily Narrativism, but it's helping give players the power to explore a Premise or detail the areas of the game they're most interested in - which promotes Narrativism.

Hope that helps (and I prepare to be corrected!)

Steve

[Jack Spencer Jr]

OK, a good deal of confusion on recognizing narrativism comes from not understanding story. In past discussion, the term "story" has been deconstructed to the point of no longer being useful. That's all well and good, but we can do this to every word and so make the English language vanish into a puff of incomprehension through airtight logic.

There are few things that we phrase properly;
most things we phrase badly: but what we are trying to say is understood.

So, rather than fleeing to dictionary.com to find the multitude of accepted definitions of a word, and then robbing the word of any meaning we might find useful, let's see what we actually mean when we refer to a story.

We'll start with the dictionary definition, which says a story is a narrative relating a series of events. Reasonable enough, but not enough, as I had said in another post:

"If that's all a story is, then why is Jaws a good story but Jaws II not as good, Jaws III worse than Jaws II, and Jaws the Revenge utter crap?"

There must be more to story than just a series of events. There must be some quality that makes people thing "What a great story" about some things and make a movie critic say a film has no story even though the film undeniably relates a series of events.

The reason is story is life poetry. That is, story tells a deeper meaning with ecconomy like poetic verse, but the meter and rhyme scheme of story are the events of life. It looks like life, but is not life. It is a work of art and as the Mona Lisa is not a woman, story is not life but bears a striking likeness to it.

The difference is, simulationism is life. It does not attempt the ecconomy for the purpose of meaning that story does. That's not its purpose.

So, going back to your post with this, first off, I don't think "detailed rules built to cover every situation and the "realism" it provided" is necessarily simulationism. Detailed rules, player control,  and a sense of "realism" can be found in all the creative aggendas.

Your current trend of building characters that do not fit in with the group may or may not be narrativism vs something else. It's difficult to say.

I can't speak about Matrix:Reloaded since I didn't see it. But is sounds more to me like you are more focused on the deeper meaning than your group. This does not mean they cannot appreciate it, but you are more concious in your appreciation. The scene you refer to sounds like philisophical stuff was made pretty overt so they couldn't just absorb it unconciously. Beyond this, I really can't say.

[John Kim]

"If that's all a story is, then why is Jaws a good story but Jaws II not as good, Jaws III worse than Jaws II, and Jaws the Revenge utter crap?"

There must be more to story than just a series of events. There must be some quality that makes people thing "What a great story" about some things and make a movie critic say a film has no story even though the film undeniably relates a series of events.

The reason is story is life poetry. That is, story tells a deeper meaning with ecconomy like poetic verse, but the meter and rhyme scheme of story are the events of life. It looks like life, but is not life. It is a work of art and as the Mona Lisa is not a woman, story is not life but bears a striking likeness to it.

The difference is, simulationism is life. It does not attempt the ecconomy for the purpose of meaning that story does.  

OK, I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here, because I think it is important to understand examples.  It may not have been intended, but your blocking here implies that the later Jaws movies lacked economy of meaning, and that they are associated with Simulationism.  

I find this strange, because overwhelmingly to my mind, the problem with the later Jaws movies was that they felt contrived.  They illustrate the complete opposite problem to what is suggested about Simulationism.  Jaws the Revenge, for example, is loaded with attempted emotional stuff with Ellen Brodie's family.  It is clearly a reaction against the impersonal and formulaic slasher approach of the previous two films, and highlights personal and family issues.  However, the plot is so preposterous, it is impossible to connect with any of the material.  

To me, Jaws the Revenge demonstrates a hideously bad usage of narrative methods.  The scriptwriter decided on a moral premise about what the mother Ellen would do to protect her children, and used that as the basis of his screenplay.  My point is simply that there are many qualities which make up a good story.  On the one hand, yes a good story has theme/premise -- but there are also tons of bad stories with theme/premise.

So, going back to your post with this, first off, I don't think "detailed rules built to cover every situation and the "realism" it provided" is necessarily simulationism. Detailed rules, player control,  and a sense of "realism" can be found in all the creative aggendas.  

Your current trend of building characters that do not fit in with the group may or may not be narrativism vs something else.  

I would point out that there are clashes of style other than between GNS modes.  For example, it might be that you enjoy more talky philosophical stories and they enjoy more action-oriented stories.  In GNS terms, this could be a difference over type of Simulationism.  i.e. You prefer exploration of character, philosophy, and culture -- while they prefer exploration of situation and system.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

OK, I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here, because I think it is important to understand examples.  It may not have been intended, but your blocking here implies that the later Jaws movies lacked economy of meaning, and that they are associated with Simulationism.

Actually, I was suggesting nothing of the kind. I was using the Jaws movies to illustrate that there is something more to story than just a series of events. Or at least there is for a good story well told. I then went on to describe what I have come to understand is a story. In no way am I suggesting that Jaws II and following were Simulationist in nature, if a film could be said to be such. If story is life poetry, the Jaws sequels are bad poetry, perhaps. Something to be explored elsewhere, I think.
 

I would point out that there are clashes of style other than between GNS modes.  For example, it might be that you enjoy more talky philosophical stories and they enjoy more action-oriented stories.  In GNS terms, this could be a difference over type of Simulationism.  i.e. You prefer exploration of character, philosophy, and culture -- while they prefer exploration of situation and system.

Percisely what I was saying. :)

[Scourge108]

I really feel like I'm in a similar position to Nuadha.  If I'm wrong, I apologize, as I'm not trying to hijack a thread and it really seems relevant.  I, too, want to explore premise in a game.  I like to center stories around a philosophical or moral dilemma.  I want to simulate what it is like to be in such a situation, and see if the players can resolve the issues.  I recall playing Vampire once, being low on blood points and knowing a combat was coming up soon.  I needed more blood, and actually started to feel what it would be like to be so hungry.  I found myself rationalizing, trying to find a way I could satiate my need for blood without risking any more Humanity, since having low Humanity is really a pain in the ass when the cops show up at noon.  Then it hit me that the game mechanics had at this point effectively simulated what it was like to be in this dilemma.  I can't for the life of me figure out if this is a Simulationist or Narrativist agenda (or both, or something else entirely).

[Bill Cook]

I, too, want to explore premise in a game. I like to center stories around a philosophical or moral dilemma. I want to simulate what it is like to be in such a situation, and see if the players can resolve the issues.

I think it's most important to simply reflect this desire in making choices for your character.

I recall playing Vampire once, being low on blood points and knowing a combat was coming up soon. I needed more blood, and actually started to feel what it would be like to be so hungry.

Sounds like Immersion.

I found myself rationalizing, trying to find a way I could satiate my need for blood without risking any more Humanity, since having low Humanity is really a pain in the ass when the cops show up at noon.

Curious about this.  Don't know Vampire, but it sounds like what you're digging is being one.

Then it hit me that the game mechanics had at this point effectively simulated what it was like to be in this dilemma.

A system can only support or obstruct an agenda for play.  It sounds like what hit you was that the system was supportive of a highly immersive state.

I can't for the life of me figure out if this is a Simulationist or Narrativist agenda (or both, or something else entirely).

I see agenda as a trend.  It sounds like you had a powerful moment.  I would say you're jazzed by immersive play and systems that support it.

Remember that the range of agenda gets sprinkled throughout play.  It's what's featured that gives the tell.  Not that you'll care, since when you hit the right vein, you'll be so caught up in it, you'll forget to analyze.

Anyway, you'll probably settle on the issue after you've sought new play experiences, discarded things that weren't what you thought they were and refined some ideas to your liking through use.  I remember when I first read GNS: System Does Matter.  I got Nar and Sim wrapped into a big, tangled knot.  But the play's the thing.  Trust your inspiration.  Follow your desire.

[Andrew Norris]

To me, the Vampire example sounds like Sim / Exploration of Character. Answering the question "What would it be like to be a vampire?" is thoroughly Sim, even though it doesn't focus on Exploration of Setting, for instance. That's a stumbling block I ran into a lot when I first read these essays; I conflated Narr with Sim/EoC for a while.

If you were to phrase a Premise such as "Is it worth killing mortals to continue a vampiric existence?" that's a Narrativist angle. Whether the game itself is Narrativist or not depends on the priorities set.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

What I'm seeing, Nuadha, is that you might be mixing up two things:

1. The presence of philosophical or thematic elements vs. addressing philosophical or thematic issues.

I use that word "address" very, very specifically, and I hope you check out the Narrativism essay for how I break it down. My quick point here is that role-playing with content which mentions or presents such elements is not necessarily the same as role-playing which addresses them.

2. The characters' appreciation and mention of the philosophical or thematic elements vs. the real people's appreciation.

I can't stress this distinction hard enough. Creative Agendas are not about what the characters think or understand. They are about what the real people want and do. These are completely independent.

a) Characters might be all about major, deep philosophical crises, and the players' activities and enjoyment don't address those crises at all.

b) Conversely, characters might be all about totally non-moral stuff, and the players bring intensive and joyful effort into addressing all sorts of moral issues.

Add to this concept the key point that people do not have to articulate Premise and Theme in order to appreciate, utilize, address, and resolve them.

I hope these two points help clarify a bit about how we should go about discussing Narrativist play.

Finally, overall, this thread suffers badly from discussing non-role-playing examples. Sometimes, depending on the person's inquiry and depending on the issues, such examples are very useful. Other times, particularly when discussing the "addressing" issue, they are absolutely poison. I strongly suggest we swing this thread very far into the role-playing examples and experiences zone, in order for it to make sense to the people with the questions.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Ok Ron... as the GM of Nuadha's Champs game, I'll take a stab at examples... but I ask the same of you.

b) Conversely, characters might be all about totally non-moral stuff, and the players bring intensive and joyful effort into addressing all sorts of moral issues.

Please exemplify this.  It sounds to me like the Character is eating popcorn, while the player is saying/thinking "I choose to eat corn, but is this really less ethically dubious than eating meat?  Do vegetables really have less right to undisturbed existence than a cow?"

If I'm not getting it right, please give an example of the above.

As to our game, I do think Nuadha is Sim-Character very overtly, and the rest of us are Sim-Situation... at least in game play.   But, I would say that as a GM, I'm actually NAR in my desires, because in my 17 year Champions game, I've stated almost the entire time, "This game is about power, and how you use it.  What choices you make will bear out and affect the game.  Repercussions on the use of power exist.  This is not about following genre, but purposefully challenging superhero cliches that ignore really ethical questions about what is a proper use of power."

Now, I don't say that in every game, and rarely repeat it, unless I have a new player.  Personally, I'd love it if the other players examine this, but we don't debate or evaluate the state of that premise every game.  I simply try to present a simulated world where they are confronted with ethical and moral choices all the time, and the world tries to react in a believable, consistent and causal manner.   (i.e. If they do the same thing in two similar situations, the results will be similar and in game NPC reactions will be similar.)  The PCs are powerful metahumans and have debated taking over the US when the government became extremely oppressive (kind of like current reality).  They chose not to, but sorely debated the issue.  An entire game was these elite, powerful being trying to talk themselves OUT of invading the US, replace the President, and making the world a better place.  In the end, they chose not to... but only just.  Their decision had serious ramifications down the road... but either decision would have been valid in the game (I wasn't forcing them one way or another) but they were not willing to step over that line, at that time.

I believe Nuadha loved that episode... as it was all discussion and talking and debating.  Personally, I don't think it was Nuadha enjoyed the ethical discussion as much as he enjoyed talking in character and SIM-Exploring character.  I think this, because his charcter in this game was kind of a screw-ball.  Not dumb, but not a clear thinker.  Easily distracted and goofy.  Nuadha had more fun playing that up... often losing his chance to have meaningful input in the decision, because the CHARACTER wasn't up to the task of real debate.  The character would have moments of brilliance, and step up occassionally, but most of the time, when pressed to make the hard decisions, the player and the character would fall back on jokes and buffoonery and bombastic statements.

In the end, Nuadha's character did make a major ethical choice, returning to his villainous teammates from the past because the heroes were not acting as he thought they should... and this was a turning point in the game... but afterward, when the character paid dearly for this decision with the blood of many on his hands, the player, Nuadha, as well as the character tried to joke and connive their way out of paying the piper by making up excuses why he made the decision, both as a player AND as a character.

To be NAR, I believe players must be willing to make hard decisions, but be truly happy with whatever the outcome (as long as it is causal and makes internally consistent sense with the game world) because they have taken a stand.  Maybe their character pays dearly for the choice, but they (the player) was all about acting as they thought was "right" in a tough place, and this would not allow for excuse making or the like.

Is that an appropriate example?

[Ben Lehman]

We'll start with the dictionary definition, which says a story is a narrative relating a series of events. Reasonable enough, but not enough, as I had said in another post:

"If that's all a story is, then why is Jaws a good story but Jaws II not as good, Jaws III worse than Jaws II, and Jaws the Revenge utter crap?"

BL> I think it is useful, here, to differentiate between "a story" and "a good story."  A story is a narrative relating a series of events.  A good story is a narrative that relates a series of events in a way that is interesting to observe.

A narrative-inclined player wants *a good story*, and as such plays to produce *a story* but doesn't necessarily have the ability, tools, or even basic concepts to produce *a good story*

If, as it seems in this thread, both GM and player(s) are interested in Nar play, but are finding themselves frustrating by their attempts at Nar play, we should focus on giving them techniques and tools to produce *a good story*

In that spirit, I throw into the ring:

Technique 1: Collusion.  Discuss, in plain and unmasked language and out of game, what sorts of issues you want to address with your game, discuss how they might be addressed, and discuss possible outcomes.  Makes sure that everyone is on the same page about these things, and that you aren't violating someone's comfort zone.  Have these discussions regularly, not just "once in a blue moon" or "when a new player joins the group."  Don't let the GM dominate the discussion -- let the players bring their own ideas to the table and talk about them.

Note: You do not *have* to do this to play Nar.  It's just one of many useful techniques for pursuing that.