Caring How it Resolves?

[Marco]

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.

This is a good point--thinking about it, I agree: it's possible that the players might be happy with it.  I do think that there are some stipulations that I think are important.

1. I don't think hijacking a character in "some" situation is necessiarily dysfunctional (this is pretty much agreement). I can see a hard drinking Sorceror character losing time and not knowing what he did.

2. As I said: I think the key test comes when the taking control is related to the solution of something the players are heavily engaged with. To an extent: caring how it turns out. At some point, all players, IME, care how something turns out (else how would they take a specific action). If that is what's determined in toto by the hijack--especially if the player doesn't see it as a direct conseqence of another action they willfully took--then I'd expect complaints.

Example:
I can see a romantic affair between bodyguard and client having a traumatic end when the cybernetic bodyguard is forced to kill the client--however. I can see how that could make for a powerful experience.

But: I think that to satisfy the players I've seen it would either:
a. Have to punctuate some already completed scene or drama and/or
b. Have to lead to another story (a powerful revenge story, most likely) that the player is interested in.

If it was done to stop things the player was interested in exploring half-way through and there was no possibility for revenge or real closure then I would expect the players to bitch.

I'm not saying they'd be *right* too (or *wrong*)--I'm just saying I'd be very loathe to do that to someone's player even as a consequence when there was nothing they could do to get traction with it.

But since you mention The Dream, I submit that this can also be Address of Premise (the character is paying consequences for the action of letting the corporation mess with their brain: that seems perfectly within the realm of Nar play to me). I don't see it as a distinguishing feature of Sim vs. Nar but rather a social contract piece that's concerned with how players are to be screwed over.

So I do agree that those things could be fine (and I'm guessing they were)--I would expect problems if the players draw their scope on continuity different than the GM does.

If the player sees the assassination as the result of a larger series of actions that stretches back to the mind-implants (which I assume the player chose) then it might be part of that "premise" or simply a "realistic consequence" (story vs. virtuality).

If the player saw the implant scene as unrelated to the romance (either thematically or because the player didn't expect to be screwed that hard) then I wouldn't be surprised if the GM got a lot of heat for that.

Either way, you make a good point: but my experience is that there are points in play where most players will be fine with such a thing and points where they won't and the thing that determines that will be the level of emotional involvement in the scene that resolved by the GM.

I don't think any player anywhere likes being in a situation where they feel they might as well have not shown up to play and whether a hijack will cause that is, you know, a tricky business, IMO.

-Marco

[ADGBoss]

Marco

Reading a couple of your posts both in this thread and the one on Force, I am going to take a stab in a totally different direction in addressing your questions / ideas.

It seems to me that there is some perception on your part of an almost advesarial relationship between Player and GM.  LEaving aside GM-less play for the moment, I think many of your concerns would more properly be addressed by Social Contract BEFORe play. The player's views on CA and on Force and deprotaganization would all or should all be addressed there. Many of your examples seem to me to be very basic misunderstandings of what the Players want and what the GM wants.

Well the most basic theory for that is: Call Timeout and say "Hey lets talk about this a second." Or possibly mark down that episode for the post-session discussion or pre-session discussion fo next time. Frankly no amount of theory and definitions are going to substitute for plain old adult discussion.  Notice I say adult. Even among those who grok the Jargon here, if I was GMing and some stopped the game to say IW as violating CA by using Force to deprotaganize them , that person would probably have to die ( ;) j/k folks... ).  Seriously though if a player wanted to take 5 and discuss the current situation in light of our game /system /campaign then I would have no problem with that.

So in answer to many of your questions i would just say make sure everyone is on the same page before the game starts and make sure you have faith in your GM.



Sean

[Paganini]

So, I'm posting to this thread like three times in a row. But now it's *after* dinner, and I just want to appologize to Matt and Vince (and whoever else) for that terribly unclear and inacurrate post I made earlier. I was throwing jargon around like nobody's business. This is what happens when you post on an empty stomach.

Anyway, let me try it again here, from the ground up.

What I've been talking about all along is what it means to Address Premise - in spite of the way I mangled it up there. :)

We all understand that a Premise is a human-interest conflict, and that Theme is produced by resolving it during play, right?

So, any series of events produced by play (transcript) can contain Premise and Theme. Any time the group collectively imagines a qualifying conflict and the resolution thereof, you've got Premise and Theme, and therefore Story, by the Nar essay's definition.

Addressing Premise is a special way of Exploring Premise and Theme. (Explore means "imagine into existence with your group," in case there are newbies watching)

The Nar Essay says that Addressing Premise is:

   *

     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.

Now, let's look at those in order. The first one is a given... if there's Premise and Theme, it has to have been imagined into existence. So this one is not dependent on Creative Agenda. Whenever your game produces Story, this has happened.

The second one is also pretty much a given, regardless of CA. In Sim play, once the conflict exists as a cause, it will produce effects. Characters will react to it as they should, the environment will respond in a logical way if appropriate, and so on.

The third one, resolving the issue, also has to happen. But wait... the conflict has to be resolved through the decisions of the players of the protagonists.

That's the important thing there. That's what distinguishes "Addressing" from just plain old "Exploring." The players are the ones doing it. They use the actions of their characters to set up and resolve the Premise.

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.

...

Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way.

Or, to put it another way, "Address" doesn't just mean "imagine a Premise and its resolution." It's something that goes on inside a player's head, and in the interractions of the players as a group. You can't see it happening by looking at a transcript.

So how can you distinguish actual Nar from just plain old Exploring of Premise, since most of the time the character will be "acting in character" at the same time as he sets up and resolves Premise?

You can't, unless there's a visible decision point where setting up and resolving the Premise in the way that the player wants departs from previously established game logic. This is back to the "identifiable instance of play" from the original GNS essay. An outside observer can't usually see Narrativism, because most of the time it will look like Sim play that incidentally produces and resolves Premise. He can only identify Narrativism in action if A) he can see inside the heads of the players (or trusts them enough to believe what they say about their play), or B) an exclusive decision point ocurrs where the player prioritizes one thing (causality or Premise) at the expense of the other. Otherwise, Nar and Sim are invisible, coexisting happily.

The Sim approach to conflict is that previous establishments inform current decisions. "He's Catholic, so he doesn't follow the hooker into the brothel." The Nar approach to conflict is that previous establishments may add weight or color to current divergences, but need not be rigorously adhered to, unless adherence is in the best interests construction and resolution of the Premise at hand. "He's Catholic, but wow, he went into the brothel anyway!"

In Mike's HQ game, I had a real choice; to continue playing as I had been, making each decision by asking myself "what would my character do?" or to switch back to my usual means of "what would be most meaningful to me here?" If I had switched back to my usual means, I *might* have gone ahead and decided that Aysha asking Marek to take her with him was the most powerful continuation. If I had done that, then both causality and Premise would have been observed, and no outside observer could have said *why* I did what I did.

But, if I had had her stay behind, then I would have broken causality. Staying behind was something that I had previously established (not just in my head, but using actual game mechanics) that *she would not do.* In that case, it would have been evident that I wasn't playing Sim. I *might* have been playing Gam, if breaking causality had brought me a benefit in effectiveness, so you still need one more layer of inspection before determining that the decision was Nar - presence or absence of personal gain.

C. Edwards just made a pertinent point to me in our chatroom on IRC. Take Universalis. Anyone who's done much Uni play knows that you constantly have to adapt, change, and discard ideas as a result of changes in the SiS. Remember that in Uni *everyone* is playing all the characters, with individual goals and visions that must change as the SiS shifts.

Vince, one potential reason for our disagreement might be that you're viewing "character integrity" and "breaking causality" as binary switches. But that's not the case. It's more of a continuum where you "bend" causality and no one else notices. Often, Addressing Premise is percieved by the rest of the players as being causal, even if it broke causality in your own head. This is interpereted as a change in the character's personality, a turning point as the character grows. On the opposite side, a causal choice may be interpereted as Addressing Premise by the other players. Chris has told me that he feels Aysha asking Marek to take her with him was the most powerful of the potential choices, even though I know that my motivation for making that choice was because it was in character for Aysha to do it.

[Marco]

Marco
It seems to me that there is some perception on your part of an almost advesarial relationship between Player and GM.  
Sean

I don't generally understand play where someone has intense feelings and the GM intervines in a disempowering and conclusive way for reasons the player had no control over (i.e. are not a consequence of a freely chosen action on the player's part) to be functional. That's not my experience anyway.

The absurd case (the player demands to grow wings and fly in a game where that violates continuity) seems to me like an extreme but typifying example of Force vs. Railroading.

Mike's example in the other thread of a character speaking out in a way that race doesn't typically (I don't know HQ so I can't say if it's similar) seems the same way to me.

If the situation warranted that speech and the GM interviened I would find it dysfunctional (the character's family is killed but the character maintains decorum?). If the situation didn't warrant unusual speech and the player was talking in a way that violated continuity then I would say the GM was acting in the interest of any CA as the game facilitator (including Narrativist play).

Clearly what is warranted is a judgment call--and that's how I see these things: as judgment calls rather than any sort of measurable or objective quality of gaming events. Furthermore, I think they'll usually look different from one seat at the table to another.

-Marco

[Marco]

But Marco, your posts are not helping to clarify anything, or address any pertinent points. You're only making things more confused and foggy.

I'm sorry if you think I'm clouding the issue.

As to your argument: I don't see how there's a creative agenda that's based on "unconventional play."

That seems to suggest that Addressing Premise can only happen when the player does something the viewer (or the player himself) thinks is *un-natural.* Basically, no--I don't see that (It's not that I don't want it to be true or not--it's that it doesn't seem logical to me right now).

It seems that any choice that answers the question of premise would be sufficient for address so long as it is made by the player, not just the ones you think do not follow logically from the situation (in fact, I would find play that seems dedicatedly illogical to be dysfunctional).

-Marco

[Matt Snyder]

Nathan, thanks for the clarification. I see what you were trying to say in previous posts. Now, my brain and body are fried, so I'm just dropping in to say I'm thinking about the "bet you can't tell" dilemma. My gut says, "Nah, it shouldn't be so confusing." But, I can't properly say why. I'll have to think on it. Vincent may chime in meanwhile; I've really identified with the content of his posts today and yesterday.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Nathan,

There will at some point be a situation where you might want to address premise in a certain way, when doing so would contradict previously established parameters about "what your character would do."

How can that be, if addressing Premise means playing a moral conflict out to its conclusion?  Egri's very clear about this: if you have your character do something implausible, you've ruined your conflict and thus your Premise.  This matches my experience.

I'm with Vincent on this one. A point where you must choose either to demonstrate premise or not contridicting previous behavior is really not a choice at all. If you loose credibility, then the theme is also spoiled. Unless the creative agendas can be defined by what a player is willing to do to ruin everything. I suppose that would depend on a couple things:

[*]if adhering to "what your character would do" would also demonstrate premise
[*]what is meant by "want to address premise in a certain way" when the characters previous actions would not make demonstrating premise in this way credible[/list:u]
It may just be me, but the second bullet point sounds like a way to address premise and still fail to create a story.

[lumpley]

So Nathan, I'm zooming in with you:

The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way.

We agree that the emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise if it's about an interesting human issue or moral question.  We disagree about what it means to then address the Premise.

I'm saying that nurturing and developing the emotional connection with a PC's actions, through real-people interactions means: the group's leaning forward in its chairs, making eye contact, going "ooh, yeah!" and doing the kinds of things people normally do to nurture and develop emotional connections.  It depends on the PC's actions being plausible, because people don't connect emotionally with nonsensical actions.  Importantly, it's not just one person doing it, it's the group: each player both connects and nurtures others' connections.

You're saying that nurturing and developing the emotional connection with a PC's actions, through real-people interactions means: having your character do things that aren't plausible.

And I'm like no less baffled than when we started.

-Vincent

[C. Edwards]

Hey Vincent,

You're saying that nurturing and developing the emotional connection with a PC's actions, through real-people interactions means: having your character do things that aren't plausible.

I think you may be failing to take into account the distinction between the individual making an addition to the SiS (the author) and everyone else (the audience) and the varying perceptions of both parties. If you take that into account along with the idea that plausibility may be bent without being broken then I think you'll have a better idea of what Nate is talking about.

You may have your character do things that you feel are less plausible than some other action. Not "aren't plausible", less plausible. Big difference. And even though an action may seem to be more or less plausible to you, the author, the audience may have a completely different take on the matter.

This whole roleplaying thing involves a shifting SiS, shifting internal images from each individual regarding what is currently in the SiS and what needs to be there, and a host of shifting CA priorities along with a bunch of other variables. So, yeah, watching to see what the participants groove on is likely the easiest and most reliable way to determine GNS preferences.

I think, and I believe Nate does to, that on an individual level it can behoove a person to be mindful of their own decision making process during play on a more granular level than is perhaps put forth in the model. I also think that you can determine relevant data about your own CA by examining your decisions during play.

-Chris

[M. J. Young]

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.

Nathan, you missed a key point. He has two deals. One is that he shoots child molesters. The other is,

his 18-yo nephew, to whom he's always been a guardian angel,

making this a conflict of principles.

Clearly in narrativist play this sort of conflict of principles is very valuable to driving play. The question is, what is the nature of play when this sort of conflict of principles happens for a simulationist player?

A great example of a failed attempt is D&D alignments. :)

I think that D&D alignments get a lot of flack from people who didn't understand how they were supposed to work. They have always been a functional part of play in our OAD&D games. In fact, they often create exactly this sort of conflict: which of two values will my character pursue? Will he do the lawful thing, or the good thing? Will he do the good thing, or pursue his advancement in his career?

I think that they were not clearly understood by most players or referees, and that they were misused quite a bit, but the primary problems with them are not inherent to them, but[list=1][*]that they were attempting to set up something very like narrativist premise within the context of a fundamentally gamist-driven system and[*]that they fueled the conflicts created by The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, in that many referees saw them as permission to negate player choices (rather than handling infractions through system means such as experience docking).[/list:o]
I've raised the question, but I'm afraid I am terribly pressed for time and must leave the answers to the rest of you for the moment. What does a simulationist player do when his character faces a situation in which there is a direct conflict between the established values of his character?

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Not "aren't plausible", less plausible.

The waters are getting muddied. More or less plausible doesn't enter into it. I don't think it's a matter of varying degrees. It's either plausible or it's not. As you had said, what makes a character's actions more or less likely are based on so many factors, that it's difficult if not impossible to subjectively judge which action is the most plausible.

What does a simulationist player do when his character faces a situation in which there is a direct conflict between the established values of his character?

Wild stab: drift?

[Paganini]

Edited to fix a couple of stupid typos and clarify.

You're saying that nurturing and developing the emotional connection with a PC's actions, through real-people interactions means: having your character do things that aren't plausible.

You've mischaracterized me as making a statement of equality - that Addressing Premise is the same thing as having characters behave implausibly; this is *not* what I'm saying.

"Addressing Premise" is something players do. It's a behavior; a verb. I'm saying that *sometimes* players will break the causality of their characters to address premise. I have done it myself.

But, now that you've zoomed in with me, take a look at the thread title again. This is where I'm deducing things that the essay's don't actually say outright, but I think they imply.

I haven't mentioned this yet, since the original thread, cos I wanted to make sure we working on the same foundation.

So, I touched on what it means to "Address Premise" in my earlier post. It doesn't just mean creating and resolving the conflict in the SiS. It is characterized as the players caring about the conflict. This is explicitly stated.

Now, Sim play is often characterised as "wanting to see what happens." If the players don't care what form the Premise takes, or how it resolves, as long as it makes sense, then they're playing Sim. They can even be emotionally tied to the premise, identify with the characters involved, and so on. Being juiced about what's going on in the SiS is a basic part of Exploration. It's assumed that the player is engaged with what is going on.

The construction and resolution of Premise can spark emotional response. The player can be entertained. He can breath fast and say "cool." He can be emotionally moved by the exploration of a premise-qualifying conflict and the resolution of that conflict. He can be on the edge of his seat waiting to see what happens. It's still Sim. The player is not Addressing the Premise. He's emotionally tied to it, but he's only watching it unfold, not actively shaping it.

"Addressing Premise" is further charaterised by activity on the parts of the players. Just being juiced about what's going on in the SiS isn't enough. Now, the fact that the Players are taking an active hand in setting up and resolving the Premise, rather than just sitting back and letting nature take its course, implies that they have specific goals with respect to constructing and resolving individual Premises. If a Player is actively setting up a Premise, and actively resolving it, that means that the player is working to build and resolve the Premise a certain way. Not just *any* old way that makes sense, and is maybe moving, but the way *he, the player* wants it to be.

This is where my original point about players caring about the construction and resolution of Premise came from.

You must have encountered people who say "I never break causality, but my games are full of problematic human issues and moral situations that that get my emotional juices up. It's always really moving to see how they turn out. Am I playing Sim or Nar? Where do I fit in?"

It's Sim! Premise wasn't addressed, it was observed. Nar is "I think this conflict would be cool *this* way, I will exert my effectiveness to try and make it be like that, and to make come out the way I feel is most powerful. "

M. J.,

You are right about there being multiple deals, but I think I covered this with my HQ example. Aysha has multiple deals as well. If there's a conflict between her deals, her 15w Crush on Marek will win out over her 5w Hatred for Regina. In a causal sense, that's the point of having ratings for things... so that you know what will happen.

Vincent's phrasing was very strong when he described the scenario. I interpereted his phrasing in a similar manner to assigning 15w to "Crush on Marek" and 5w on "Hatred for Regina." In fact, I think this is why so many Sim games are so big on having lots of ratings. It's to avoid exactly the kind of potential misunderstanding that you and I might have here. I read Vincent's scenario as "shooting child molesters" being stronger than the relationship to the nephew. You might have read it just the opposite. If you give 'em ratings, you know which one is stronger, and there's no ambiguity in causality.

So, your question about conflicting principles is basically "what do you do when there's causal ambiguity?"

[Matt Snyder]

Nathan, I think I see now more of what you're saying.

You posed this question:

So how can you distinguish actual Nar from just plain old Exploring of Premise, since most of the time the character will be "acting in character" at the same time as he sets up and resolves Premise?

Then, it seems to me you've answered the question in your more recent post. (You certainly answered it to my satisfaction.) In Sim., players observe and watch things surrounding a them unfold. In Nar., they address (participate, shape actively, etc.)

I think we can observe this, and that one or the other happens for a group of players in a given instance. I think one of the "problems" with the theory is that it requires us to be honest with ourselves and to be seriously self-reflective and critical to ensure our fun. I use scare quotes on problem because I don't think it is a real problem, and I don't think any theory of any kind will solve that issue in a better way.

The issue people raise time and again is that the ol' "it's subjective" issue. They're saying since we can't really know which is which, the whole matter is subjective.

I disagree. I think the matter is objective. Either ONE or the OTHER is happening. Not both, and not Sim. to one person and Nar. to another person. I think what happens is that people often misread and misjudge what the instance of play (read: over time, as a group) emphasizes. I think people are missing premise sometimes, for example. I think people don't recognize, especially in cases where "their character" is involved, what's happening, who's getting excited about what, and people are generally badly observing play. I think this is extremely common, and certainly understandable. I absolutely do not think the matter is "subjective" in the sense that it's just where you're sitting, what you think or feel about it, and we can just leave it to opinion without point.

I think when we do that, the theory is completely and utterly useless. ("Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.") I don't think it is useless. I think I have both wrongly and rightly observed these kinds of situations in my own play, and I will continue to get it right and wrong. But, I have enough evidence for myself to accept that the theory is useful and that creative agendas are happening.


As a complete and unrelated aside, I do not buy the "break causality to address premise" routine because it presumes that all knowable things about one character already exist. "They guy's Catholic, so OBVIOUSLY he wouldn't go into the brothel." Really? How do we know until he does or doesn't do that? Are we basing that on stereotype, not individual character? Why are we selling his character, and his capacity for choice, short before the decision happens? Seems to me like we're caricaturing him more so than enforcing causality. That's just my take.

[C. Edwards]

The waters are getting muddied. More or less plausible doesn't enter into it. I don't think it's a matter of varying degrees. It's either plausible or it's not. As you had said, what makes a character's actions more or less likely are based on so many factors, that it's difficult if not impossible to subjectively judge which action is the most plausible.

You're missing the context, Jack. I was specifically referring to the author's own judgement of his/her character's actions.

At any rate, you can say "nay" and I can say "yay" till we're blue in the face. My experience, in roleplaying and other media, speaks to a spectrum of plausibility, not a binary switch. So, I guess I'm agreeing to disagree.

-Chris

[Paganini]

You posed this question:

So how can you distinguish actual Nar from just plain old Exploring of Premise, since most of the time the character will be "acting in character" at the same time as he sets up and resolves Premise?

Then, it seems to me you've answered the question in your more recent post. (You certainly answered it to my satisfaction.) In Sim., players observe and watch things surrounding a them unfold. In Nar., they address (participate, shape actively, etc.)

Yeah. That was more of a nodal point in my train of thought, than an actual question. :)

I agree with you that this behavior can be observed. In fact, if we are role-playing in a group, we are observing it. Whatever behavior goes on, we're seeing it.

However, it requires a more or less long period of observation before the behavior can be identified, because most of the time the behavior will fall in with all three of the CAs. Unless you are communicating extensively with the other players about what their emotions and motivations are, you must encounter a divergence point before CA can be identified. The player has to make a choice that sacrifices the agendas of the other modes of play in order for the current mode of play to be recognized.

I think Mike once used a signal / noise analogy. Most of the time the behavior of players doesn't go above the background noise of "general play." But every so often there'll be a "spike" that lets you see what's going on beneath the "undetectable threshold."

As far as the breaking causality thing goes, see Chris's most recent post to the thread about "more or less plausible," and my comments to M. J.