Water-Uphill-World: Virtuality Examined

[Mike Holmes]

I don't disagree with this.  However, you're implying that GNS either has to work as written or it should be abandoned.

No, I'm not. That does not follow. I'm merely restating the theory as it stands, and pointing out that it's not unuseful (which was proposed by somebody) as is. Things can always be improved.

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.

Your response is too general. We all want to communicate better about games. My question is more specific. How is GNS supposed to do this? Or, rather, what would you like to see it do that it doesn't do now? You say that the nar/sim arguments weren't important - I can see where you're coming from, I think. But I'd like to know from you why they aren't important, which is another way of asking what it is that you would rather see from the theory than what it provides now.

What sort of analysis of your campaign would allow you to communicate something important about it to other gamers? What would it communicate?

IOW, without a plan for what you want the theory to express, what I see happening is people trying to mold current ideas without an idea of where they're going. Or, if they do have an idea, it's not been stated, and so it's hard to see the direction in which they're trying to go. For example, from this post, all I can see is that you want GNS to be improved so that it says something important about this one particular campaign (or possibly campaigns like it). But I'm guessing that there's more to it than that.

I'm just interested in where you're trying to go with this. I personally like your virtuality distinction, and think you already have that angle solved. So either it has to be something else, or maybe you're trying to alter GNS so that it describes the virtuality dichotomy as well?

Mike

[John Kim]

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?

I'll try.  As I see it, Virtuality will generally mean that the narrative will give mixed messages.  For example, if two PCs clash over some issue, there probably won't be a strong resolution.  The transcript and diegesis (i.e. Shared Imaginary Space) will reflect both players' views, and thus won't have a definite statement one way or the other unless the players agree on the issue.  Now, resolution of issues is a traditional story quality, but on the other hand it isn't what I consider most important about story.  i.e. Fiction which shows new facets and insight into moral dilemmas can be great even if it lacks strong resolution of issues.  

In Water-Uphill-World, this can be seen in the dynamic of Noriko and Martin.  Noriko arguably made a great sacrifice in order to try to protect her friends.  On the other hand, she did this by being literally power-grabby.  However, Martin didn't feel the danger that she did and instead followed his curiosity.  He didn't feel strongly about Noriko, but if anything I thought that he felt held back by her protectiveness.  There was never a clear authorial judgement about which one of them was wrong for the game as a whole.  Thus, the issue didn't resolve.  On the other hand, to me the interesting part was seeing the different views on the issue -- even if it didn't resolve into a single one.  


To Mike:  I think the purpose of theory question is way off-topic for this thread.  I'd like to get to it -- maybe by starting a thread in RPG Theory or something.  On the other hand, I'm a little tied up with real-life work right now.

[lumpley]

John, cool.  Thanks.

I honestly don't get why virtuality would cause that kind of play, as a rule.  Wouldn't it depend on the characters and the circumstances?  If our characters aren't willing to let the conflicts go like that, won't we escalate and resolve them - because of virtuality?

...Unless "virtuality" means more than an approach to character action and resolution.  What constraints are there on character creation in virtuality?  Beyond "your character has to be possible," which is a constraint in most play.  Are we allowed to conspire together to all play characters who won't or can't let a particular moral conflict rest, or would that seem contrived?

-Vincent
who's sorry to Mike and everybody for more "escalate and resolve."

[Marco]

...Unless "virtuality" means more than an approach to character action and resolution.  What constraints are there on character creation in virtuality?  Beyond "your character has to be possible," which is a constraint in most play.  Are we allowed to conspire together to all play characters who won't or can't let a particular moral conflict rest, or would that seem contrived?

-Vincent
who's sorry to Mike and everybody for more "escalate and resolve."

I think the biggest constraint on character (but not creation) in Virtuality will come from a GM who is not handling thematic issues in a story-like fashion.

A character may have two or three things going on at once and they may interleave in a way that is ugly from a narrative standpoint (additionally, a character may go directly to resolution rather than escalation in a fashion that would make a weak narrative).

For example, a character who forgets about a clear clue they've left at a crime scene may be interrupted in the pursuance of a premise-related agenda by the police and be dragged off for a trial involving entirely different premises.

Although such a costruct is possible in well designed fiction I would expect the author to work the suprise arrival of the police so that it fit somehow symetrically with the rest of the narrative.

While I don't believe in the "real-life-isn't-a-story" argument (roleplaying, no matter what commitment to virtuality isn't "real life") if it's possible to just "have things happen" in a way that's antithetical to "story now" this would seem to me to be it.

-Marco

[John Kim]

I honestly don't get why virtuality would cause that kind of play, as a rule.  Wouldn't it depend on the characters and the circumstances?  If our characters aren't willing to let the conflicts go like that, won't we escalate and resolve them - because of virtuality?

...Unless "virtuality" means more than an approach to character action and resolution.  What constraints are there on character creation in virtuality?  Beyond "your character has to be possible," which is a constraint in most play.  Are we allowed to conspire together to all play characters who won't or can't let a particular moral conflict rest, or would that seem contrived?  

I'm confused by your statement about characters.  From my point of view, the approach you suggest seems to be a prescription for the exact opposite.  If the characters don't let the conflicts go, then the conflicts won't be resolved.  The conflict could potentially be cut short, say, if one character kills another -- but that doesn't resolve the moral conflict between the opposing positions.  In other words, it isn't clear to the audience whether the killer is right or wrong.  If the story were to end there, then it would seem ambiguous or incomplete.  That judgement of right or wrong is what is necessary for dramatic resolution.  

The way for a conflict to be resolved is by change of character.  Someone has to learn their lesson, such that the moral conflict is resolved in favor of one side.  That change of character, called a "dramatic arc", defines the progress of a traditional story.  For example, in Star Wars the end of the dramatic arc comes when Luke decides to not use his targeting computer.  This is the change of character.  Because it worked and the Death Star was blown up, his choice was validated and a definite authorial voice was made clear.  

Now, the restriction on character creation is a good question.  This was a controversial point on rgfa.  It seems that if you allow enough front-loading of character and situation, that the distinction of Virtuality and Dramatism disappears.  With a careful setup, you can arrange to have characters conflict and resolve purely from in-game causes.  But in practice, after a relatively short time all plans get trashed by the chaotic interaction of everyone's imaginations and/or random resolution.  There are roughly two positions here:

1) For some, designing characters and situation for a specific storyline or theme seems against the spirit of Virtuality even though it isn't part of the formal definition.  The spirit of Virtuality is about finding out what's there, not executing a plan.  

2) Others, notably Brian Gleichman, held that this just showed that the scope of the Threefold as a theory is limited.  i.e. It doesn't apply to character or setting creation or to very short games.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that you both make too much of the requirements of narrativism. It's only about how the decisions are made. It's not about whether or not the decisions are "visible" to anyone else, or follow any sort of dramatic structure per se. Not only can narrativism be performed badly, but even when done well, that doesn't mean that the end result looks any more like a traditional story to anyone observing it. It may well look entirely like a sim game where no attempt is being made to address premise.

I think you guys are both only looking at some small sub-set of narrativism in this discussion.

Mike

[Marco]

Not only can narrativism be performed badly, but even when done well, that doesn't mean that the end result looks any more like a traditional story to anyone observing it. It may well look entirely like a sim game where no attempt is being made to address premise.

Mike

I've thought that would be the case--but I've been told directly that in Nar, Premise is an almost tangible thing that no one at the table could mistake (nor could two players likely come up with two separate premises one set of actions addressed).

-Marco

[John Kim]

I think that you both make too much of the requirements of narrativism. It's only about how the decisions are made. It's not about whether or not the decisions are "visible" to anyone else, or follow any sort of dramatic structure per se. Not only can narrativism be performed badly, but even when done well, that doesn't mean that the end result looks any more like a traditional story to anyone observing it. It may well look entirely like a sim game where no attempt is being made to address premise.

Er, Mike?  I haven't been making any claims one way or the other about Narrativism.  Most recently, I have been talking about Virtuality and its consequences for narrative.  Maybe you were thinking of Vincent?  

I would encourage you to say more about how you think the distinction is made.  Do you disagree with Vincent and think that Water-Uphill-World was indeed Narrativist?  Either way, what were your criteria for deciding?  

One pitfall to be careful of is something that Chris Lehrich touched upon in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11891">More on jargon and models.  You are arguing over what Narrativism "really" is.  That is at heart a semantic issue, but around here it implicitly carries a judgement -- i.e. if Vincent's distinction about resolution of human issues isn't vital to Narrativism, then it is less important or interesting.  So I welcome your views on Narrativism and how it applies to this game, but it shouldn't be used to limit discussion.

[Mike Holmes]

Er, Mike?  I haven't been making any claims one way or the other about Narrativism.  Most recently, I have been talking about Virtuality and its consequences for narrative.  Maybe you were thinking of Vincent?  

You have been making such assumptions in that you seem to be buying into Vincent's arguments (or even in that you might be arguing against them). Yes, mostly it's Vincent who I think is making more of narrativism than is required.

I would encourage you to say more about how you think the distinction is made.  Do you disagree with Vincent and think that Water-Uphill-World was indeed Narrativist?  Either way, what were your criteria for deciding?  

I was sorta trying to avoid getting sucked into this. But there seems to be some assumption about structure with relation to narrativism. That narrativism produces something that looks like a story. That's a misreading, IMO. We all agree that all RPG play may or may not look like a story, and whether it does or not is irrellevant. This is why Ron changed his terminology to "story now." Meaning specifically that the part that's "storylike" is being created in play by the player, but not that it has to look like a story looking back at it.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most styles that desire to produce something that looks like story looking back at it, is in fact some sort of sim. Narrativism, IME, can look very little like a story, in fact. As little as Gamism looks like a story. Because you give the power to the player to create responses, not neccessarily to create pacing, or resolution, or escalation, or any of that stuff. The player might consider these things in his play, but from what I've seen they usually don't very much. They are a sub-set of overall narrativism. Narrativism itself only requires that the individual player makes decisions in relation to the moral and ethical quandries that are presented (as opposed to making them in relation to player challenges, or just to be "in" the game world).


As such, I do think that Water Up Hill was Narrativist. Or, rather, as I've said above, the agenda wavered back and forth. To say that not employing narrativism decisionmaking technique at every decision is sim would make all play sim. An agenda is something established over time, and represents the bias of the group - not an indication of what it does each and every time a decision comes up. Also see the discussions on "tells," and anything else Walt has had to say on the subject.

One pitfall to be careful of is something that Chris Lehrich touched upon in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11891">More on jargon and models.  You are arguing over what Narrativism "really" is.

As opposed to arguing what? That is, I'm trying to prevent the definition from changing without intent. If it's the intent here to change the definition of narrativism, then one should say so when doing it. That would be fine. But it seems to me that Virtuality is being considered in the light of the current understanding of narrativism, but then that definition is being altered to suit the discussion.

That is at heart a semantic issue, but around here it implicitly carries a judgement -- i.e. if Vincent's distinction about resolution of human issues isn't vital to Narrativism, then it is less important or interesting.  So I welcome your views on Narrativism and how it applies to this game, but it shouldn't be used to limit discussion.

It doesn't make it less interesting, it makes it either a subset or a change in the definition. It just isn't narrativism by any definition that I've previously read.

Mike

[lumpley]

Mike, here's the Narrativism I've been thinking of:

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]

As John quoted earlier in the thread.

I don't know what you think I've been saying, but what I mean to've been saying is that Narrativism requires the players to collaboratively address Premise, meaning that they create, continue, and resolve conflicts about a problematic human issue.  If that's changing the definition or describing a subset, I don't see how.

My position wrt structure is that the process of addressing Premise - precisely the process you're talking about here:

Narrativism itself only requires that the individual player makes decisions in relation to the moral and ethical quandries that are presented (as opposed to making them in relation to player challenges, or just to be "in" the game world).

- will generally create something recognizably structured, without any attention or effort on the part of the players.  That's not part of the definition a'tall, nor do I intend to insert it.  I'm not interested a bit in whether John's game had any structure or what.  I'm curious whether he and his players addressed Premise.  That is, whether they created, continued, and resolved conflicts about a human issue, in play.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

I don't know what you think I've been saying, but what I mean to've been saying is that Narrativism requires the players to collaboratively address Premise, meaning that they create, continue, and resolve conflicts about a problematic human issue.  If that's changing the definition or describing a subset, I don't see how.

It's the "collaboratively" part that I think is the problem. Where in what Ron wrote does he indicate that more than one player has to understand that the premise is being resolved? In fact, if you read more of what Ron says about the subject, you find that he rejects the idea that these things even have to be done consiously, much less collaboratively.

Again, I completely disagree that narrativism has to produce anything that looks in retrospect like a story. Consider the idea of congruence. If it's true that many or most decisions are conguent with both sim and nar, and sim can produce a "series of events," something that doesn't look like a story, then how is it that nar can't end up doing the same.

Mike

[lumpley]

Mike, two sentences later in the Narrativism essay Ron says:

The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it.

That's what I mean by collaboratively.  "Collaboratively" might be a problem for you, because it implies different things to you than it does to me, but make allowances.  I just mean that nobody's cut out of the process, they're paying attention to one another.

And no, Narrativism doesn't have to produce a story.  Narrativism can produce something story-like, by virtue of being about something interesting and going somewhere cool.  I'm not saying it has to.  I'm saying that it often will, and who cares?

I think the problem's "escalate."  I wave "escalate" around like everybody knows what in the hell I mean.  Turns out that most of you don't!  Whoda guessed, since I haven't managed to articulate it yet.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not sure what Ron means by "paying attention" but my interpretation had been that this is just what it takes for this to be an agenda. That is, players merely have to reinforce each other when "tells" occur. Or even just not criticize each other.

If it does mean that players can't make up premise on their own, then I'd ask for a change in the definition. Because I'm sure that some players employ narrativism in a way that's very personal, and doesn't include any cues to outside players.

If this is not narrativism, then what is it? A. I'm describing something that does not exist. It could be that the definition of narrativism as an agenda only means such that it can be detected as such. But that's never been my understanding before. B. It's simulationism. Which means that only appearance matters. That is, if it's not obviously narrativism, then it's simulationism. Again, this doesn't match what's been discussed previously. C. It's a form of narrativism, and as such, the definition doesn't preclude it.

BTW, this is not the first time we've had this discussion. Last time someone agreed with me (Paul?) that it was narrativism, but not a form that they liked or something.

Mike

[lumpley]

Mike:  In other words, I can play Narrativist by myself in my group, provided that I'm addressing a Premise and my fellow players aren't screwing it up for me.  They don't have to notice what I'm doing in particular, they just have to give me the creative space to do it.  Right?  

I'll agree to that.

I'm comfortable with your assessment of John's game too, except that it means that John's game doesn't shed much light on the virtuality vs. Narrativism question.  So it goes.

John:  I'm thinking about virtuality in character creation and scenario setup.  I'll post in GNS probably when I compose my thoughts.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

I'm comfortable with your assessment of John's game too, except that it means that John's game doesn't shed much light on the virtuality vs. Narrativism question.  So it goes.

That's been my position since John published the essay originally. They're not entirely unrelated concepts, but there's certainly no one to one link between, say, Virtuality and Simulationism (ala GNS - I'm not sure about threefold).

What I do think this relates to, however, is my version of the Beeg Horseshoe. Essentially I think that Virutality is a quality of the "sim" axis, a precondition, if you will.

John, Virtuality isn't binary, is it? That is it's not either on or off during play, but sometimes more on than at others?

Mike