Caring How it Resolves?

[lumpley]

From "Sacrificing Character Integrity" - a Rant.

Vince, I don't usually disagree with you, but I got to now. Train of thought commencing:

A transcript is an account of the sequence of events that is created in the SiS during play.

The definition of Sim is that the priority of the players is to ensure that the transcript is internally consistent with respect to one (or more) of Character, Situation, Setting, etc. Such a causal transcrapt may include Premise (problematic human issue) and theme (resolution of said issue), but the players of the game do not care how those issues resolve, so long as they resolve in a way that is consistent with the previously established prameters of the SiS.

The definition of Nar is that the player does indeed care about the Problematic Issue resolving in a particular way. The player desires a specific outcome, because it has personal significance. Having the moral issue resolve a certain way makes a point about the player's beliefs as one of the Real People (TM).

That's the thin dividing line: If you don't care how the Problematic Issue resolves, it's Sim with Theme. If you do care how the Problematic Issue resolves, it's Nar.

So, there will absolutely be times when resolving the Problematic Human Issue in the way *you* want it to resolve will violate the game's causality. It may even contradict SiS parameters that you have previously established about your character. This happens constantly in literature, movies, and so on. It's called a "turning point." The character does something unexpected, something that is out of character given what you already know about him. This is interpereted by the audience as character growth. It's a fundamental part of making three-dimensional characters.

In the hypothetical pure Sim-Char mode, a player will *never* make a decision that will violate previously established facts about his character. If the character is described as being miserly, he'll *always* be miserly, until the player gets tired of playing a miser and makes a new character. The miser will never take pity on the poor starving waif as penetence for the death of his own brother, who died in a workhouse.

In the hypothetical pure Nar mode, a player will violate the previouslly established facts any time he needs to, to ensure that the Problematic Human Issue is resolved with the outcome he wants it to have.

To which I respond:

Nathan:  Huh?  I don't agree with a word of that.  I have no idea where that understanding of Simulationism and Narrativism would even come from.  It's certainly not supported by the essays or by any of the Narrativist games I know.

Let's take this:

I make a character who's passionately committed to a moral ideal that I personally find problematic: a vigilante with a gun, he shoots child molesters in the head while they're out on bail.  That's his deal.

I put him at a turning point: his 18-yo nephew, to whom he's always been a guardian angel, has just been arrested for (allegedly) molesting a child.

To launch play, the GM tells me that my guy's nephew calls him to arrange bail.  I gotta find out whether the kid did it and then I gotta decide what to do about it.  I think we all know that he did it, and what I'm going to be finding out is a) how difficult it is to know beyond a doubt, and b) how human he is despite the fact.

You're saying that if I, Vincent, want this to play out such that killing this kid is the right thing to do, I'm playing Narrativist, but if I'm curious to find out whether killing the kid is the right thing to do, I'm playing Sim?

That's like, nonsense.  That's not the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism a'tall.  I'm thrown for a total loop, I'm not sure what to say.

Anybody want to back me up or knock me down?

-Vincent

[JamesSterrett]

Speaking from the nosebleed section of the peanut gallery....

"That's like, nonsense. That's not the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism a'tall. I'm thrown for a total loop, I'm not sure what to say. "

To ensure that I can follow, could you restate the situation cited such that it better shows how you understand the distinction?

[lumpley]

Sure thing.

Situation and characters as written.

If the GM's decided that killing the kid is what my character will do, and arranges things so that I have no other setting- and character-consistent choice, that's Force and thus not Narrativism.  (Or if any other player does the same, or I do the same to any other player's take on the issue.)

Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him?  Let him go?  Make bail?  Leave him in jail?  It's Narrativism.  Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise.  Story Now.

-Vincent

[Silmenume]

Hey Vincent

Unless I am way off the make, Force is the act of deprotagonizing a player's thematically significant decision.  That the DM creates a really shitty situation where there are only poor choices for the player is just Scene Framing.

As long the DM didn't vacate a decision you as the player have already made, nor removed the opportunity for any decision from within a situation that you would ordinarily have exercised a decision then that is not Force.  You always have a choice even if none of them are to your liking.

I could be wrong but I think Force deals more with decisions player make from within a Situation, not the construction of a Situation.

shoot him? Let him go? Make bail? Leave him in jail?

Those are all questions a Simulationist would also ask himself - except he would limit/guide his responses according to the character he is exploring and what he would like to say about said character; he would not limit/guide his responses according to the effects they would have on what he would like to say about the premise being explored.  Character NOW, not Story NOW.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[lumpley]

Jay:  Narrativists limit their responses according to who the character is and what they want to say about him too.  Narrativists don't consider the theme over the character.  If they even consider the theme at all - usually it's just an overriding force in the character's life, like it's going to be for my vigilante guy.  I'm not going to think about "tonight on roleplaying: family: is it worth more than justice-or-whatever?"  I'm going to think about "damn, the gun got heavy all of a sudden.  And my stomach's a frickin' mess."

Playing the character doesn't make it Simulationist play.  Playing a character who can make a thematic statement makes it Narrativist.

-Vincent

[JamesSterrett]

What you're saying is clear, Vincent, but it's missing half of the answer I'm looking for - what's the Simulationist angle?

If playing a character who can make a thematic statement is Narrativist, what's the similar level of definition for Simulationist, and how would a Simulationist approach the situation you described initially?

[Kesher]

The definition of Nar is that the player does indeed care about the Problematic Issue resolving in a particular way.

This seems problematic in that it implies that the Narr-inclined player always wants the same resolution to the Premise in question; that they have an agenda regarding how the Premise should resolve, at some point, into Theme.  This, then, resolves into how some view Sim Exploration of Character.  The above doesn't hold true, however, if we add the qualifer "at that particular moment in the game".  Correct me if I'm way off, but Premise can be addressed again and again by chars. (in Narr. play) before it's ever Thematized for them.

[Paganini]

Nathan:  Huh?  I don't agree with a word of that.  I have no idea where that understanding of Simulationism and Narrativism would even come from.  It's certainly not supported by the essays or by any of the Narrativist games I know.

Well. I said a couple of different things in that post. The definition of Sim is almost word for word from Ron's essays. So... :)

From the original GNS essay:

"The key to Simulationist play is that imagining the designated features is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially over any metagame concerns. The name Simulationism refers to the priority placed on resolving the Explored feature(s) in in-game, internally causal terms."

From the Sim essay:

"Internal Cause is King
Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention. It's a tall order: the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. Since real people decide when to roll, as well as any number of other contextual details, they can take this spec a certain distance. However, the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from System outcomes, in application."

The idea of causality is basic to Simulationism. This is the agenda for sim of "Creative Agenda" fame. Agenda, as in what the player wants, and is trying to ensure actually is the case. The Sim player's priority is that the Exploration of the SiS be internally consistent, exhibiting logical cause and effect.

Now, for Narrativism:

The part of the Nar essay that talks about Story is quite long. I'm not gonna paste it. But basically, Story is a Series of Events (transcript) that contains a Problematic Human Issue type conflict (premise) that is resolved (theme). Every time you play a game you get a transcript. That transcript *might* be a story. The fact that your transcript is (or is not) a story, says nothing about the CA that produced it. Story can be produced by any of the three.

In order for your story to have been produced by Narrativism, there's the additional requirement of shared authorship. The practical upshot of this is that the players are the ones setting up and resolving the Problematic Human Issues through the actions of their characters. This is what it means "to address premise."

(Of course, it's possible to get some pervy-nar going where the players can use director stance to set up and resolve Problematic Human Issues, in addition to their characters, but that's neither here nor there.)

So, in order for theme to be generated, the players have to actually want the conflict to be resolved. They're out there actively trying to get the conflict to come out, not just sitting back and waiting to see what happens.

I'm doing a lot of this kind of Sim play in Mike's HQ game. My character is chock full of problematic human issues, but I don't care how *any* of them turn out... I know that no matter what happens, the result will be entertaining. When I play my character, I'm constantly asking myself "what would this character do?" I have not yet asked myself "what should I do in order to make sure that this conflict turns out the way I want it to?"

Let's take this:

<snip example>

You're saying that if I, Vincent, want this to play out such that killing this kid is the right thing to do, I'm playing Narrativist, but if I'm curious to find out whether killing the kid is the right thing to do, I'm playing Sim?

Yep. In fact, the player "Being curious to find out what happens" is one of the signs of Sim play in progress. Ron has said this in so many words, either in a thread, or in one of the essays.

[Paganini]

The definition of Nar is that the player does indeed care about the Problematic Issue resolving in a particular way.

This seems problematic in that it implies that the Narr-inclined player always wants the same resolution to the Premise in question; that they have an agenda regarding how the Premise should resolve, at some point, into Theme.  This, then, resolves into how some view Sim Exploration of Character.  The above doesn't hold true, however, if we add the qualifer "at that particular moment in the game".  Correct me if I'm way off, but Premise can be addressed again and again by chars. (in Narr. play) before it's ever Thematized for them.

Kesher,

If you consider that most of the time "Premise" is a synonym for "conflict," there's no problem. It's true that there are conflicts that aren't premises - random encounters in D&D, for example - but every premise is a conflict of some sort. So, it's not like there has to be some single high and mighty "The Premise" that you spend all of play addressing.

Take Trollbabe, frex. Every time the dice are rolled, you're resolving a conflict. That means each roll has the potential to produce theme. This is why, as much as I hate the trollbabes themselves, I like the game's mechanics. When you actually play trollbabe, there's never a time when you don't care about the outcome of a roll. You're always rooting for the roll to succeed or fail. As a trollbabe player, you almost always have an emotional investment in each conflict coming out a certain way. (This doesn't mean you always want success, either. There was a thread not too long ago about setting your own trollbabe up for failure in order to get the resolution you want.)

[Paganini]

Sure thing.
Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him?  Let him go?  Make bail?  Leave him in jail?  It's Narrativism.  Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise.  Story Now.

Nope. :) If you're playing sim, he doesn't have to choose. He shoots child molesters. That's his deal, remember? He kills his nephew, and that's the end of it. Cause: that's his deal. Effect: his nephew is dead. You end up with a transcript full up with a problematic human issue and a thematic resolution. But it's not narrativism.

If you instead actually do make those choices, then you've violated the established parameters of the SiS. You've prioritized resolving the situation in some way that's non-causal. You *may* in fact go ahead and have the guy shoot his nephew. In that case, an outside observer won't be able to distinguish whether the player was in Nar mode or in Sim mode. But, in fact, in this case, he did not shoot his nephew because "it's his deal." He shot his nephew because of your meta-game desires. You wanted it to turn out that way.

There are a whole lot of mechanics out there that were designed with the intent of enforcing this kind of Sim character consistency. Some of them work better than others. A great example of a failed attempt is D&D alignments. :)

[ADGBoss]

Nope. :) If you're playing sim, he doesn't have to choose. He shoots child molesters. That's his deal, remember? He kills his nephew, and that's the end of it. Cause: that's his deal. Effect: his nephew is dead. You end up with a transcript full up with a problematic human issue and a thematic resolution. But it's not narrativism.

If you instead actually do make those choices, then you've violated the established parameters of the SiS. You've prioritized resolving the situation in some way that's non-causal. You *may* in fact go ahead and have the guy shoot his nephew. In that case, an outside observer won't be able to distinguish whether the player was in Nar mode or in Sim mode. But, in fact, in this case, he did not shoot his nephew because "it's his deal." He shot his nephew because of your meta-game desires. You wanted it to turn out that way.

See I have a problem with Sim character as Robot, which I feel the above describes.  Its one of the reasons why Alignment is not a very good system.  Its impossible to pre-set emotion and reaction to every conceivable situation.  Simulationist characters  have to be more then a paper mache doll in order to explore anything. Can they not their unknown emotions in the big bad world?  I am not talking about specific Premise but about moral quandries that arise during the course of play.

For example. We have hardened soldier 1 and hardened soldier 2. HS1 and HS2 are killing Whatsits for America.  They are exploring combat and what it's like to be a soldier, telling civilians to suck it up and be tough as they go. Then HS2 catches a bullet in the skull and dies. So since HS1's player chose this tough guy he shrugs and keeps going.  His freind is lying in a pool of blood with his brains all over the place.  The Whatsit civies are gonna loot his body.  Your telling me this guy does not at least PONDER the emotional impact of that? Explore the fact that he is now alone? Remember he is not asking the question How much is it worth to me to keep doing this, he is exploring the wonderful world of war.

Maybe I am way off base :) or don't get it but hey thats me



Sean

[Paganini]

Sean,

I don't have a problem with what you posted. I don't see any conflict between it and what I said above. Or, basically, what I'm describing is not Sim character as Robot.

The whole thing with Sim is that you don't break with the established parameters. The point is not that HS1 can't care. The point is that if HS1 has previously been stated to be a suck-it-up Ah-nold type who doesn't give a crap about anything, and actually hates HS2s guts, then having him care when HS2 gets whacked would break causality.

Basically, if there's no parameter to contradict, you just make up whatever you want. (This is role-playing after all.) A lot of heavy-duty sim  games use the chargen rules to try and front-load characters with a lot of pre-established parameters to "guide play." A lot of lighter sim games take a DiP approach where you make stuff up when you need it. Once made up, that "stuff" is officialized into the SiS, so now you have established parameters that you have to be carefull not to break.

Sim isn't about excluding emotion. (I imagine that "what it's like to be a soldier" would be one of the more emotional subjects to Explore) Remember, you can get Story in Sim play, which means you've got the same kinds of conflicts and resolutions as you do in a Nar game... you're just treating them differently.

[ADGBoss]

Cool, I am down with that as they say :)


Sean

[Callan S.]

Sure thing.
Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him?  Let him go?  Make bail?  Leave him in jail?  It's Narrativism.  Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise.  Story Now.

Nope. :) If you're playing sim, he doesn't have to choose. He shoots child molesters. That's his deal, remember? He kills his nephew, and that's the end of it. Cause: that's his deal. Effect: his nephew is dead. You end up with a transcript full up with a problematic human issue and a thematic resolution. But it's not narrativism.

If you instead actually do make those choices, then you've violated the established parameters of the SiS. You've prioritized resolving the situation in some way that's non-causal. You *may* in fact go ahead and have the guy shoot his nephew. In that case, an outside observer won't be able to distinguish whether the player was in Nar mode or in Sim mode. But, in fact, in this case, he did not shoot his nephew because "it's his deal." He shot his nephew because of your meta-game desires. You wanted it to turn out that way.

There are a whole lot of mechanics out there that were designed with the intent of enforcing this kind of Sim character consistency. Some of them work better than others. A great example of a failed attempt is D&D alignments. :)

Interesting: It sound like your saying sim is where the SIS decides what happens and nar is where you as a player decide

The latter being an interesting game world/real world blur as well, IMO.

While what SIS contains to actually decide something is a lot of foreshadowing/establishment. Reading your right?

[Marco]

That example doesn't work for me (the kid being killed).

If the player feels 'conventionally' then it's sim? If the player feels 'unconventionally' then it's Nar? That doesn't seem right.

I don't think so--I don't remember the exact genesis of the example but I think this is not a real distinction.

The question is "what happens when the player feels 'unconventionally'?"

Is the PC hijacked by the GM? That's railroading, IMO.

Is the PC forced to play out a disad by the game rules in opposition to their wishes? The same group that does that with GURPS can do that with TRoS just as easily (or almost any traditional game system). If the GM sets up a case where a disad will hijack a character's actions in a way that makes the player unhappy that's, IME, dysfunction -- but we can discuss that.

But it looks like the example hinges on the is the "gener thing" (I find out what it's like to be a soldier) as opposed to "I find out what it's like to be a cop with uncontrollable rage issues."

I've never seen a case where genre concerns were held over someone's head above real intense emotion and everyone was okay with it.

I think this definition makes Sim play essentially dysfunctional since there's nothing to stop Nar play from being "in genre" unless the player decides to break it.

-Marco