Water-Uphill-World: Virtuality Examined

[lumpley]

Oh!  It's because you've convinced me that you weren't actually addressing Premise without noticing it.  You didn't resolve the conflicts and thus didn't address Premise.  Here are the sentences that convinced me, for what it's worth:

There was no particular escalation. Now, obviously, situations which would tempt her to use it would come and go. So I suppose you could say that there was escalation and de-escalation -- but there wasn't a larger pattern to it.

You keep saying "Messy Narrativism," but that's not really a thing.  You had potential Premises but never addressed them.

No?

-Vincent

[Marco]

Vincent,

Why is escalation required? It seems like resisting temptation in one case is an answer to the question (answer: "No, I won't do that for power" (or whatever) ) and succombing in another case is an answer ("Yes, here is what I will do for power" (or whatever) ).

Does the question have to never come back into the game for it to be Nar play? It seems that 'properly played' Sorceror would be a never-ending stream of the same question (what will I do for power?).

This also seems to imply that if a question is posed and the player answers it without escalating it--going directly to resolution that it's not Nar play.

I can see if John had said those issues weren't important to the play--but they look like a major feature/draw to me.

-Marco

[lumpley]

Marco: John says that they didn't resolve the conflicts.  I didn't believe him until he said that not only didn't they resolve them, they didn't even consistently escalate them.  Dropping a conflict isn't the same as resolving it, and you have to resolve 'em to play Narrativist.  That's in the definition of addressing Premise.

-Vincent

[Matt Snyder]

However, I would point out that escalation isn't a part of the current Narrativist definition.   By the current definitions, I would tend to call it (as Matt Snyder put it) "messy Narrativism".

Couple things. I did "introduce" Messy Narrativism. I also said that maybe that's what was happening in your game. Now, however, I tend to agree with Vincent. It appears your group did not resolve moral conflicts it explored. It seemed to leave them dangling without obvious (that is, obvious to me) rhyme or reason. Maybe your group prioritized other modes. I dunno. Seems like it did not address premise as a priority, however.

I do know what I meant by Messy Narrativism. By that I meant Narrativism play in which players were, variously, addressing completely different, wholly seperate Premises. At one time some players over here addressed "What will you do to get what you want?" and later on, some other players in the group addressed "Is blood much thicker than water?" Etc. It's a mess, in which the 'story' being produced by actual play is a jumble of themes that likely aren't related. For my money, that concept sounds like a heck of a lot less fun than Narrativism in which the Premise is more focused and addressed by everyone. (shrug)

[John Kim]

Marco: John says that they didn't resolve the conflicts.  I didn't believe him until he said that not only didn't they resolve them, they didn't even consistently escalate them.  Dropping a conflict isn't the same as resolving it, and you have to resolve 'em to play Narrativist.  That's in the definition of addressing Premise.

Fair enough.  I would note that conflicts in Water-Uphill-World were rarely dropped, but rather either stuck around or changed to a different conflict.  But I think we agree that they weren't resolved.  As a note to other posters, the definition of "address" is given in Ron's "Story Now" essay as:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

[*]Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.[*]Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.[*]Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.[/list:u]

So, just to be clear, I understand "resolve" to mean that the conflict is over, and a clear authorial statement has been made about which side is right.  I think I'd agree that this is a feature of stories in the classical sense, though I'm not sure it is central to my personal/intuitive concept of "story".  

So while I see it in action, for me this isn't the most interesting part of stories.  For me, what makes play interesting is new facets and insights for all sides of the moral conflict.  The process of reducing this to a single answer is necessary for closure, i.e. for the story to truly be over.  However, the meat of the story is in the insight which it brings to bear on the question, not its conclusion.  Given the multi-author nature of RPGs, I see resolution and closure as problematic in a sense.  If the moral conflict is really problematic, chances are that the players will each have different answers.  As long as the players continue to have differences over an issue, one could argue that that issue shouldn't be resolved.  But I guess that's part of the difference between GNS Simulationism and GNS Narrativism.

[clehrich]

John,

Your reference to Ron's 3-fold addressing process really startled me.  I never focused on that.  Now let me get this straight -- correct me if I go wrong.

In Water-Uphill, you did not front-load Premise, i.e. pre-determine what it (or they) would be, but as Ron keeps pointing out that's not required for Nar.  Play was focused on all sorts of Premises, moral issues, stickiness, and so forth.  Ultimately, Premises just tended to drift; their resolutions were not central to play, at least partly perhaps because much of that resolution (if any) was internal to the character and thus not part of the shared imaginary space.  Furthermore, as Premises moved toward resolution, they tended to morph naturally into other Premises.  Right?  Obviously, this is a very Nar-focused way of analyzing.

So if we run through a kind of checklist:

[*]Was there Premise?  Yes, lots.
[*]Did it/they get developed?  Oh sure, constantly.
[*]Was that development important to play?  Totally central.
[*]Did those Premises resolve importantly?  No, not so much.[/list:u]Buzzzz--- okay, it's Sim.  Or rather, it always was Sim, it's just that you couldn't tell at the time.

Is that really a sufficient distinction?  I mean, you could only decide whether the game was Sim or Nar when it was over, and I mean completely over, at which point who cares?  Not to be snarky; I mean that Ron et al. are constantly harping on how analyzing dead-and-gone games doesn't help anyone.  But in this case, it appears that there is no way to analyze prior to the game's conclusion, which would mean that there is no way to analyze the game at all.  That's silly.

As far as I'm concerned, the distinction between Nar and Sim here is so fine as to be nonexistent.  I suspect you agree, though I don't know.  I mean, it looks like Nar, smells like Nar, plays like Nar, but oops! after the fact it turns out it was a doppelganger.

I'm sure I'm off-base here, because there's got to be something wrong.  Where am I lost?

[John Kim]

Is that really a sufficient distinction?  I mean, you could only decide whether the game was Sim or Nar when it was over, and I mean completely over, at which point who cares?  Not to be snarky; I mean that Ron et al. are constantly harping on how analyzing dead-and-gone games doesn't help anyone.  But in this case, it appears that there is no way to analyze prior to the game's conclusion, which would mean that there is no way to analyze the game at all.  That's silly.

As far as I'm concerned, the distinction between Nar and Sim here is so fine as to be nonexistent.  I suspect you agree, though I don't know.  I mean, it looks like Nar, smells like Nar, plays like Nar, but oops! after the fact it turns out it was a doppelganger.

I'm sure I'm off-base here, because there's got to be something wrong.  Where am I lost?  

Well, I don't have a firm position with respect to GNS, so I couldn't tell you where you are lost.  I'm not sure that you are lost, actually.  The distinction based on resolution of issues was Vincent's take, and I simply quoted the portion of Ron's essay which he was referring to.  Now, I agree with Vincent that his point seems like a valid interpretation of the essay as written.  

On the other hand, I agree with you that this distinction (presence or lack of resolution) isn't hugely important, as least to me.  Two caveats: (1) I do think that resolution and more generally dramatic structure is important to story.  It isn't the heart and soul of story, but it is real and  of some importance (just not overwhelming importance).  (2) I don't think there is any claim that GNS mode must be the most important thing about a game.  I felt a similar way about analyzing my "Shadows in the Fog" game in GNS terms.  There were various arguments back and forth over whether it was GNS Simulationist or Narrativist.  I could follow these, but ultimately I felt that the arguments over which one it fell into weren't very important.

[Marco]

Marco: John says that they didn't resolve the conflicts.  I didn't believe him until he said that not only didn't they resolve them, they didn't even consistently escalate them.  Dropping a conflict isn't the same as resolving it, and you have to resolve 'em to play Narrativist.  That's in the definition of addressing Premise.

-Vincent

I understand what you're saying: I interperted him as haivng resolved conflict in situation A but then haivng it crop up again in situation B. A character with a voice that can command people won't ever get "resolved" until the story is over or the power is gone. But each case of the *question* gets an answer.

I don't know which is what actually happened in the game--but that's how I read it.

-Marco

[lumpley]

Yep.

I fall on my knees now and beg you all in advance to forgive the I told you so I'm about to commit.

If this were a real conversation with actual RGFA Simmists, here's where we'd take the discussion to Actual Play. Maybe we'd get somewhere and maybe we wouldn't.

emphasis added

End I told you so.

We agree that resolving the conflicts is part of the definition of Narrativism, right?  As it happens, I also agree with Marco and probably John and everyone else that resolving conflicts is not always clean and final - that the best conflicts, in resolution, raise more questions.

For me, what makes play interesting is new facets and insights for all sides of the moral conflict. The process of reducing this to a single answer is necessary for closure, i.e. for the story to truly be over. However, the meat of the story is in the insight which it brings to bear on the question, not its conclusion. Given the multi-author nature of RPGs, I see resolution and closure as problematic in a sense. If the moral conflict is really problematic, chances are that the players will each have different answers. As long as the players continue to have differences over an issue, one could argue that that issue shouldn't be resolved.

I agree with you in full, except: resolving the conflict doesn't mean resolving the issue.  When I resolve "will I shoot my brother?" I don't resolve "is blood more important than justice?"  We will all have different takes on the moral question.  I get to share my take on the question in just these circumstances, by having my character shoot his brother or not; you're sharing your take at the same time, and our takes will be the same, or different, and that's the good stuff.  That's where we get to know each other better.

I been playing this way for years, and lordy we've resolved some conflicts, but have we answered for final and all what it means to be a good parent?  Have we even made a dent?

So John, am I getting anywhere?  I hope I've clarified the difference between the conflicts and the issues, and made it clear that resolving the former is one way to shed light on - but probably never resolve - the latter.  I get that you didn't resolve the issues.  Would you still say that you didn't resolve the conflicts, or would you agree with Marco?

I interperted him as haivng resolved conflict in situation A but then haivng it crop up again in situation B.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

This is precisely why I think you never should have used the term "resolution" Vincent. And I completely don't understand what you mean by "escalate." I don't see any of this as required by narrativism, and I think you're just using terms that make it intelligible to you personally.

"Addressing premise" is adequate, and merely means that the player was thinking in terms of what would be interesting to see happen in the game from the perspective of the issue as they, the players, percieve it (which isn't the same thing as saying that they have to be consious of the process). As opposed to trying to determine the most "plausible" result, or a response that is in response to a player challenge.

Further, we're missing the question of "Instances of Play." What does it matter if premise didn't get addressed each and every time? The question is not whether or not that happens, but whether or not it represents an agenda over time.

I'm seeing simple shifting play. Some narrativism followed by some simulationism, and never enough to make a clear diagnosis of the overall agenda.

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game? Well, plenty. If I said that I had a set of symptoms that one could observe that would diagnose a disease 50% of the time, would that not be valuable? Just because some play is hard to define means that GNS is useless? We use GNS to identify modes of play all the time with positive effects. Nobody ever said that one can classify every game by it's GNS mode (which is not to say that it doesn't have one, just to say that it's not determinable from observation at that point).


Here's what I think is the interesting point:

There were various arguments back and forth over whether it was GNS Simulationist or Narrativist. I could follow these, but ultimately I felt that the arguments over which one it fell into weren't very important.

Why did you feel this way, John? I'd be very curious to know.

A friendly jibe, John, but you seem to me as to GNS as Neitsche was to God. That is you say over and over that GNS is irrelevant, yet here you are arguing about it as much as anyone else. What is it that you're hoping that GNS or any classification system can do for you?

Mike

[John Kim]

For me, what makes play interesting is new facets and insights for all sides of the moral conflict. The process of reducing this to a single answer is necessary for closure, i.e. for the story to truly be over. However, the meat of the story is in the insight which it brings to bear on the question, not its conclusion. Given the multi-author nature of RPGs, I see resolution and closure as problematic in a sense. If the moral conflict is really problematic, chances are that the players will each have different answers. As long as the players continue to have differences over an issue, one could argue that that issue shouldn't be resolved.

I agree with you in full, except: resolving the conflict doesn't mean resolving the issue.  When I resolve "will I shoot my brother?" I don't resolve "is blood more important than justice?"  We will all have different takes on the moral question.  I get to share my take on the question in just these circumstances, by having my character shoot his brother or not; you're sharing your take at the same time, and our takes will be the same, or different, and that's the good stuff.  

Well, the Story Now essay states that the third step is  "resolving the issue" (emphasis mine -- I quoted more complete text earlier).  So I think there is certainly some sort of mixup of jargon going on here.  The version in the essay makes more sense to me.  A story narrative has to resolve the issue -- it has to make a definite statement about what is right or wrong, not just "A guy killed his brother".  Now, the reader might disagree with the authorial judgement in a novel -- and in an RPG a player might disagree with the statement made.  But there needs to be a definite statement about the issue to have resolution.  Also from the Story Now essay, Ron paraphrases Egri, saying:

A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says), constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level.

I agree with this.  Stories need closure to seem complete, and closure means resolving not just a narrow conflict, but resolving the issue -- in other words, coming up with a firm answer to the issue's question which is exemplified in the story.  However, I also think that this isn't the most important feature of story.  

So John, am I getting anywhere?  I hope I've clarified the difference between the conflicts and the issues, and made it clear that resolving the former is one way to shed light on - but probably never resolve - the latter.  I get that you didn't resolve the issues.  Would you still say that you didn't resolve the conflicts, or would you agree with Marco?

I interperted him as haivng resolved conflict in situation A but then haivng it crop up again in situation B.

You need to clarify better what you would consider the "conflicts" in order for me to answer that.  If I phrase a "conflict" as "Does Martin lie under this circumstance?"  or "Does Noriko influence her friends under that circumstance?"  -- then yes, the conflicts were resolved.  In fact, I find it hard to picture conflicts not being resolved.  Obviously Martin is either going to lie or not lie in a given situation.  However, very similar conflicts would arise later when Martin is again tempted to lie, or when Noriko is again tempted to use her power.  

I should explain my own usage of the term "conflict" from prior posts.  I would term a conflict to be a disagreement over an issue.  i.e. In a particular circumstance, Martin lies, and Noriko doesn't like it.  Later on, Martin is tempted to lie again.  I would say that these are the same conflict, and that thus it was not resolved.

[Marco]

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game? Well, plenty. If I said that I had a set of symptoms that one could observe that would diagnose a disease 50% of the time, would that not be valuable? Just because some play is hard to define means that GNS is useless? We use GNS to identify modes of play all the time with positive effects. Nobody ever said that one can classify every game by it's GNS mode (which is not to say that it doesn't have one, just to say that it's not determinable from observation at that point).

Mike

If one doctor said "It's the easiest thing in the world to diagnose--up near 100%" and another said "No, more like 75%" and so on (down to "zero percent: you can maybe only tell after they died") then I'd be inclined to question what, exactly, was being diagnosed.

-Marco

[John Kim]

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game? Well, plenty. If I said that I had a set of symptoms that one could observe that would diagnose a disease 50% of the time, would that not be valuable? Just because some play is hard to define means that GNS is useless? We use GNS to identify modes of play all the time with positive effects. Nobody ever said that one can classify every game by it's GNS mode (which is not to say that it doesn't have one, just to say that it's not determinable from observation at that point).  

I don't disagree with this.  However, you're implying that GNS either has to work as written or it should be abandoned.  My hope with this and similar threads is that either GNS theory can be changed to work better, or a new theory can be invented which works better.  

There were various arguments back and forth over whether it was GNS Simulationist or Narrativist. I could follow these, but ultimately I felt that the arguments over which one it fell into weren't very important.

Why did you feel this way, John? I'd be very curious to know.

A friendly jibe, John, but you seem to me as to GNS as Neitsche was to God. That is you say over and over that GNS is irrelevant, yet here you are arguing about it as much as anyone else. What is it that you're hoping that GNS or any classification system can do for you?

I don't think I've said that over and over.  I am interested in GNS and in other classification schemes.  After all, I wrote a fair bit on the Threefold Model and came up with my own schemes like Narrative Paradigms, for example.  I would hope that a good classification scheme will help me communicate clearly with other thoughtful gamers, and help clarify my own thoughts -- and these in turn will help me run and play in better games, and help other people make better games.

[Rob Carriere]

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game?

Mike, I agree with your points, but want to add one:

GNS was designed to diagnose dysfunction. If A plays with B for a long time and all the experts are hesitant whether it was Sim or Nar, then play must have been functional. So, I'm not sure I would count this as a non-diagnosis.

SR
--

[lumpley]

Mike, you're right.  

This is precisely why I think you never should have used the term "resolution" Vincent. And I completely don't understand what you mean by "escalate." I don't see any of this as required by narrativism, and I think you're just using terms that make it intelligible to you personally.

Yep.  

I'm seeing simple shifting play. Some narrativism followed by some simulationism, and never enough to make a clear diagnosis of the overall agenda.

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game?

Well, something I was hoping for out of this thread, and maybe John was too, is some talk about the relationship between virtuality and Narrativism.

John, you're right too.

A story narrative has to resolve the issue -- it has to make a definite statement about what is right or wrong, not just "A guy killed his brother". Now, the reader might disagree with the authorial judgement in a novel -- and in an RPG a player might disagree with the statement made. But there needs to be a definite statement about the issue to have resolution.

Yep, you're clearly right.

Anything to be said about virtuality?

-Vincent