Caring How it Resolves?

[TonyLB]

Marco, I like the general question of what to do when a player believes their character would behave unconventionally.  Nice way to phrase it!

But I don't know that the question is "Can you do so?"  Let's assume that everyone is cool with you doing so.  The question becomes (IMHO) "What do you need to do to justify it?"

Sim treasures cause and effect.  So to justify such an effect, you need to introduce a cause into the game-world that creates it.  Cause predating effect, this means that you need to do some work before the decision itself (or some really quick and effective soul-searching).  Then everyone agrees that the decision was made respecting character integrity.

Nar doesn't have the same focus.  But Nar treasures the Premise-as-addressed.  So I think that if you choose to make an unconventional decision then you've added a wrinkle to the characters take on theme, showing that this particular situation was (to him) different than the others in the past.  To justify that you must do a lot of work after the decision itself, to explore and further address the question of what makes that situation different.

This is what Narr folks mean when they say they don't care how a decision works out.  It doesn't have to grow from the current situation, it has to plant seeds for the future.

If this makes sense to anyone (a big if), then I think I see more clearly how people could believe that Nar doesn't value character integrity:  Nar players put in the same amount of work, but they do it at different times.  A Sim player isn't going to even look at what happens after the event... if the decision isn't justified by what went before then it isn't justified for the Sim CA.

[Marco]

Tony,

I agree with much of what you said but I think that the idea that the Sim player doesn't look at what happens after the event is seriously mistaken. Even if this *could* be the case I can't imagine when it *would* be (who takes actions without caring about the outcome? If both modes can play "in character" then both Sim and Nar players will be caring about the outcome equally.)

I think that the stated Sim priorities are very poorly imagined under GNS. I don't know any players who are happy with their characters being hijacked. The idea of "not caring about addressing premise" boils down to "not having any emotional involvement in the issues of play" or "having emotional involvement but not acting in accordance with that."

The first is just low intensity play (that gives credence to the Beeg Horseshoe Theory, IMO). The second sounds dysfunctional no matter how I look at it (Sim == railroading/cowardice).

-Marco

[pete_darby]

Just from my PoV, the difference relies on what matters utmost to the player at the point of decision: Sim, the meat is getting the decision that the character would make, and good plot development arising from it is gravy. Nar, getting to the decision point, and the reprecussions of the decision whatever they are, are the meat, and justifying it through internal cause is gravy.

[contracycle]

I don't know any players who are happy with their characters being hijacked.

Alright; I've given a couple of examples of situations in which I, in my GM capacity and with the power mandated by the social contract, have unashamedly hijacked characters in the "how to introduce" thread here: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11583&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30.  Would you like to comment on those?

[Marco]

Just from my PoV, the difference relies on what matters utmost to the player at the point of decision: Sim, the meat is getting the decision that the character would make, and good plot development arising from it is gravy. Nar, getting to the decision point, and the reprecussions of the decision whatever they are, are the meat, and justifying it through internal cause is gravy.

That's what we're told, yes (I have massive reservations about the assumptions that go into that).

A player deciding an action should be taken because "this is a really good plot development" isn't, IMO, someone who's playing in a Virtuality. If we're told that the goals of Virtuality play are not antithetical to Nar then it's not a CA issue.

If the goals of Virtuality *are* antithetical to Nar then I think I logically conclude there is a trade-off between character/immersion and story.

-Marco

[Marco]

I don't know any players who are happy with their characters being hijacked.

Alright; I've given a couple of examples of situations in which I, in my GM capacity and with the power mandated by the social contract, have unashamedly hijacked characters in the "how to introduce" thread here: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11583&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30.  Would you like to comment on those?

Sure. I'd seen them.

1. TRoS, a game that is considered Nar or Nar/Sim hybrid (as opposed to Nar-Sim Incohernet) contains all sorts of character hijacks. I am told that if those are used in situaions where the player has strong feelings then it is a Violation of Social Contract.

Having read the book, that's not in there in any kind of explicit or (IMO) implicit fashion--but I agree with it: Interfering with play where the players have strong emotional involvement against their will and saying "the game lets me do it" is dysfunctional, IMO. I've never seen it otherwise.

This is key.

2. Your examples are not IMO anti-Nar or pro-Sim IMO if we assume they don't revolve around areas where the character has heavy emotional involvement. I can't see a Sorceror play bitching about losing several hours of his life after an abduction unless, you know, you had him kill everyone he loved. I can't see a GURPS player having a bitch either save under the same circumstance.

What this means is this: either Sim play has:
1. No strong feelings associated with it --or--
2. It does and these don't violate them in any way (i.e. contextually the character is fine with killing some nobody he's guarding but is really interested in his affair with the female cyborg so the hijack isn't around an existing area of emotional involvement: it's color) --or--
3. It violates these feelings, the player is unhappy (presumably) but takes it because the player is a coward (or some such).

As I said, I think this argues for the Beeg Horseshoe theory.

-Marco

[Paganini]

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

Nonononono! AIEEEEEE! :)

The SiS can't ever decide what happens. Only the players can do that... that's what System *is.* That's the Lumpley Principle (which is why I'm surprised Vince and I are having any kind of disagreement at all). The SiS is sort of like computer RAM. It's not a real place.Things only sort of exist there, because real people imagine that they do.

Sim is when there are social contract constraints - either in the form of rules, or just from agreement to be "realistic," or whatever - to make "the stuff that gets imagined into the SiS" internally consistent.

In fact, Marco is very close to being right on the money, even though he doesn't want to be, with his comments about how the player feels.

Marco, every post you've made in like the last 3 days is getting hung up on Force. Now, I agree with you that the GM making a player do something with the player's own character that the player doesn't want to do is a Bad Thing. But that doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

The decision to not contradict established SiS reference points happens at the Social Contract level, just like always. Social Contract is the all-encompassing box.

So, if the GM wants causality while the player wants a resolution that conflicts with causality, you've got a Social Contract breakdown. Plain old disfunction. This is not a new story. This is like the whole point of GNS from way back when.

This:

there's nothing to stop Nar play from being "in genre" unless the player decides to break it.

Absolutely correct! You *can't tell* by looking at a transcript whether the play was Narrativist or Sim. Nar play can be "in genre" unless the player decides to break it. More importantly, Nar play can appear to be causal unless the player decides to break causality. This is why "instances of play" are really big. This is why Mike keeps saying "all three Creative Agendas are always on." They only conflict when they conflict.

[Paganini]

OK, big letters.

This is not a thread about Force and Railroading.[/color][/size]

Marco, Gareth, every thread you guys have posted to over the last couple of days has been majorly hijacked in this direction. Please don't do it to this thread. Posts about Gareth's TROS game belong in Actual Play.

[contracycle]

Interfering with play where the players have strong emotional involvement against their will and saying "the game lets me do it" is dysfunctional, IMO. I've never seen it otherwise.

Well then, I am directly reporting to you that I have seen it done with my own eyes, and that I have done it, and that I knew I was doing it when I did it, AND THAT the players were perfectly happy with it.

Because those events reinforced The Dream, and so despite the fact that they lost control, it met their goals.

So I'm not going to respond to the TROS discussion; thats only a discussion of a text, not an actual instance of play.  I have provided some examples of actual instances of play, and will be happy to expand on them if you have any questions about the details.

2. Your examples are not IMO anti-Nar or pro-Sim IMO if we assume they don't revolve around areas where the character has heavy emotional involvement.

Well my examples are not pro or anti anything, they are just examples.

I certainly feel that I was empowered to do these things through the sim contract to enforce and reinforce The Dream.  My players, apparently, agree with me.  These events were major changes in direction for the characters; why do you assume that they were not emotionally significant?

What this means is this: either Sim play has:
1. No strong feelings associated with it --or--
2. It does and these don't violate them in any way (i.e. contextually the character is fine with killing some nobody he's guarding but is really interested in his affair with the female cyborg so the hijack isn't around an existing area of emotional involvement: it's color) --or--
3. It violates these feelings, the player is unhappy (presumably) but takes it because the player is a coward (or some such).

I cannot see why these are the only options.  The fourth option is:
4. They did have strong feelings about it, but this sort of imposition by the world on them is exactly what they wanted to get out of the game in first place; its part of what makes the SIS "real" to them.

I would go so far as to say that doing this well can make for a very powerful and engaging experience.

[Marco]

In fact, Marco is very close to being right on the money, even though he doesn't want to be, with his comments about how the player feels.

Patronizing, bro. Try not to.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Point taken.  Marco, at nthis point, I would suggest creating a thread articulating you precise concerns again, from the top.

[pete_darby]

A player deciding an action should be taken because "this is a really good plot development" isn't, IMO, someone who's playing in a Virtuality. If we're told that the goals of Virtuality play are not antithetical to Nar then it's not a CA issue.

If the goals of Virtuality *are* antithetical to Nar then I think I logically conclude there is a trade-off between character/immersion and story.

-Marco

Errm, that's not what I'm saying at all; you can, quite happily, in a virtuality, still manipulate events to a crisis of premise entirely through diagetic, in character actions, as "immersed" as if the action is being driven through pure internal cause.

IN Nar play, the story pretty much has to arise through the interaction of characters with situation, so how that forms a dichotomy between character & story is beyond me.

For me, the whole of this thread has been built on misconceptions of both nar and sim: a nar player wouldn't "break character to address premise", as the actions of the character within a premise rich situation are the method of address of premise. In fact, most Nar players will instinctively build premise rich characters as well as involving them in premise rich situations. The whole idea that somehow character integrity would be thrown away to "address premise" or "advance story" seems nonsensical, as the story, and indeed the address of premise are through this guy in this situation, and changing the guy to get a better address is missing one of the hallmarks of nar play (story now, implying the story we are playing now, not necessrily the story you intended to tell now).

Similarly, there's been the idea that the satisfaction of sim play relies on making the present decision arise correctly from the established facts of play: which is only half right. To my mind, the sanctity of internal cause in sim is only just another part of the bedrock of exploration which fuels the engine of sim, which to my mind is curiosity. Which can of course be expressed through the question "well, what happens now?" In order to be satisfying, it must be consistent with internal cause established in the SiS, but that's just the mechanism. Sim exploration of situation is, in some respects, a great deal wider than Nar, as nar limits itself to questions relating to the human condition expressed through situation, where sim situation play is interested in any situation, valuing it for itself.

To my mind, sim play can certainly have very strong feelings associated with it, but the driving force is curiosity, what happens next, how does that work, why is he doing that, with no drive to make it necessarily "issue relevant" as long as the SiS is made broader and fuller.

[lumpley]

Sounds to me like you're all forgetting the Instance of Play.  CA is invisible at the single decision level.  It's only as you see what the players actually do over time - do they address Premise, consistently and reliably?  Do they maintain causality but no sign of Premise addressage, consistently and reliably? - that you can tell what matters to them.

At every individual moment of decision, you'll have your character do something your character would causally do.  It's only over a whole instance of play - did addressing Premise arise from your individual causal decisions, or didn't it? - that you can tell CA.

What a player has uppermost in his or her mind at the moment of an individual decision is inaccessible to everybody, probably including the very player him- or herself.  We can't depend CA on it.

edit: Crossposted with Pete, and I'm sorry for saying "you're all."  Of course you're not all forgetting the Instance of Play.  I gotta chill.

-Vincent

[JamesSterrett]

Pete and Vincent - those are very helpful posts, at least for my understanding, especially when combined.  Thank you.

[Paganini]

In fact, Marco is very close to being right on the money, even though he doesn't want to be, with his comments about how the player feels.

Patronizing, bro. Try not to.

-Marco

Oh boy, I feel a strong urge to reply in kind, but in the interests of the Forge spirit I will refrain.

I wasn't being patronizing. I expressed simple fact. Your phrasing made it clear that this quotation is meant as a rhetorical example of something patently false, when in fact, in spite of your intent, it is right on the money:

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

Whether it seems right to you or not, it is in fact correct. Ron has stated countless times, both in threads and in the essays, is that *player intent* is the fundamental defining factor. At this level, it doesn't matter what the outside observer sees. At this level, all that matters is what the player prioritizes.

If there's no conflict of CA, the outside observer can't tell what the player is prioritizing. I repeat from my previous post... that's why Instances of Play are LOOOONG. You have to wait until there actually is a conflict to see what the player prioritizes.

Edit: I just want to add that I'm kind of disappointed that, out of what I feel to be a pretty substansive post covering the main points in this thread, the only thing Marco found to take away was one sentence that made him feel patronized. I'm not here to antagonize anyone. I'm here to correct misconceptions in an academic discussion... and that includes my own if it turns out I'm wrong. Vince and I are both long time posters and readers of the Forge, and after a large amount of mutually productive discussions over some years, one of us is pretty seriously confused about this issue. I freely admit that it might be me. But Marco, your posts are not helping to clarify anything, or address any pertinent points. You're only making things more confused and foggy.