Caring How it Resolves?

[Doctor Xero]

Well, Doc, what I said wastrue, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. Plus, since your response is a blanket denial, and you ignored my request for clarification, I guess I'm not much interested in discussing it with you. See you around.

That you choose to misunderstand my clarity does not mean none was provided.

But move on instead, as you say, to the meat of this topic.

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.
---snip!--
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.

True, Marco, but who makes the judgement call?

In the conventions which first established the position of game master, the task (and painful responsibility!) of making the judgement call was given over to the game master.  It was her or his position.  This also meant that there would be a single person held accountable by the entire gaming group for the integrity and credibility of her or his judgements.

Otherwise, there is the distinct possibility of judgements being rendered not in terms of the rules and the setting's integrity but in terms of the charisma of the player involved, so that highly charismatic players can violate continuity and characterization with little restraint while the less charismatic players might as well toady up to the charismatic ones if they want to avoid being neglected altogether.  And with no one person held to account, judgements become anonymous and therefore outside both accountability and verification.

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. "

That sounds far more like the use of Force than anything a game master might do!

Why is it acceptable when one player chooses to utilize Force in that fashion yet it is unacceptable for a gaming group to choose as a community an individual -- labelled the game master -- to support and adjudicate towards a specific genre/ambience/style effect?  This makes no sense to me, and I do not think it fits narrativist play, really.

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?

Rejoice?

Seriously, this sort of conflict is what Simulationist players love -- IF the conflict is within the genre/ambience/style they signed up for when they agreed to play in the campaign.

Facing a direct conflict gives the Simulationist player an opportunity to explore and manifest characterization.  (I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of Sim players are also involved in community theatre and work to publish short stories and novels, since both dramatics and characterization are part of the intertwined thrills of simulationist play.)

That said, one of the aspects of playing Simulationism rather than Narrativism in the campaign is that the genre/et al. provide a sort of gateway or brake to keep out certain Premises while allowing others within.

Thus, in a space opera based on any of the Star Trek television or film series, there are a number of Premises players may wish to address within the game, but a few others are avoided because they disrupt the genre feel of the campaign -- for example, no one questions the hierarchial assumptions of Classic Trek nor the defensive cliquisheness of ST: Next Generation because they are part of that sub-genre's infra-structure.

What some hardcore narrativists fail to understand is this:

simulationist players don't avoid certain Premises because we chose a specific genre/et al.,

simulationist players choose that specific genre/et al. in part because it encourages certain Premises and keeps out other ones we aren't interested in.

(And if we develop an interest in those excluded Premises, we develop a new campaign in which it we can address those in the simulationist fashion we enjoy.)

Of course, the first reason we chose that specific genre/ambience/style could be because we think it's cool! <grin!>

Doctor Xero

[Marco]

Doc,

I think everyone at the table makes the judgment call: the players can and IMO should vote with their feet if they think the GM's call is in error and negoitation fails.

I find the idea that only unconventional play is Nar very problematic logically. If I begin play with a conflicted character then either choice made along thematic lines would be explicable: i.e. the character is a hard drinker and is begning to weigh egoism of indulging in drink with the consequences.

If the drinker gives up the bottle after any consequence then he is "playing Sim" since it's a sensible outcome.

If the drinker doesn't then, similarly, it's Sim because he was drinking to begin with.

This seems to me to be a logical paradox in Nathan's framework.

Additionally: Nathan seems to assume that the player shows up with a pre-determined outcome in mind and it can't be changed by in-game events--for if it is, then the player's message is subverted by in-game causality.

Both cases (a conflicted character and a player who is, through the game and via the eyes of his character, determining how he feels) sound like prime Nar territory to me.

-Marco

[Paganini]

Marco,

The whole "predetermined idea" thing is garbage. I never said it, it's not part of my construct. The Doc tried pin it on me in an erlier post. The Doc is without a clue. He doesn't understand the basic foundation that I'm working with, so there's no way he can correctly assess my construct. Basically, if you take pretty much his posts so far and treat them as being unrelated to anything I've said, you'll be on the right track.

I find the idea that only unconventional play is Nar very problematic logically. If I begin play with a conflicted character then either choice made along thematic lines would be explicable: i.e. the character is a hard drinker and is begning to weigh egoism of indulging in drink with the consequences.

If the drinker gives up the bottle after any consequence then he is "playing Sim" since it's a sensible outcome.

If the drinker doesn't then, similarly, it's Sim because he was drinking to begin with.

This seems to me to be a logical paradox in Nathan's framework.

This is not a logical paradox in my framework. This is supported by my framework. Please, reread my previous three posts in this thread, along with C. Edward's comments. Take a couple of days to think about it. I really mean that! Please don't post again until you've really stepped back and thought about what I'm saying.

[lumpley]

M.J., Xero:
Since there aren't "Simulationist players," only Simulationist play, you can't really talk meaningfully about what a Simulationist would do.  Instead ask: what would it take to make this setup play out Sim?  What would it take to make it play out Nar?

Nathan:

"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.

Nathan: Nature can't take it's course in a roleplaying game.  I'm not harping on your phrasing, I'm getting at a fundamental disconnect.

Everything that happens in your game or anybody's game happens because someone took at active hand in setting up and resolving it.  There's no nature to take its course.  The in-game consensus has no momentum or causality of its own, ever.  In order for the game to go forward, somebody's saying something, actively, every moment.

Narrativism demands that the players take an active hand as opposed to leaving it to one of the other players, not as opposed to leaving it to in-game causality.  You can't "leave it" to in-game causality: the established facts of the in-game provide constraint, not impetus.  Your understanding of "the players are taking an active hand" is based on a misunderstanding of what the alternatives are.

-Vincent

(I know that Mike used to talk a lot about individual lower-case g, n, s decisions, and signal to noise, and waiting for a key decision to spike.  It wasn't really true then either.)

[Marco]

This is not a logical paradox in my framework. This is supported by my framework. Please, reread my previous three posts in this thread, along with C. Edward's comments. Take a couple of days to think about it. I really mean that! Please don't post again until you've really stepped back and thought about what I'm saying.

I understand you're frustrated--but I find your mode of communication condescending. I'm sorry: I do see logical contradictions in what you say. I don't know if Vincent does or not--but I agree almost completely with his most recent post in this thread.

And I see it as touching on the same issue: the game isn't "real" no matter what the commitment to virtuality. Any time the character acts under the control of the player the player is doing something that may be informed by in-game causuality but is not dictated by it (as opposed to the character being hijacked--which *can* happen but isn't the case I'm interested in here).

In-game causuality is what the viewers make of it. I see you as saying one choice is addressing premise while the other choice--equally freely chose--is (maybe) "creating theme."

That, to me, is a logical contradiction since I think it's trivial to find a case where we disagree on which choice is which.

If you don't like me telling you how I read you, I can only say that I'm being honest and I'm not mad at you.

Explain to me why you think what I see as a logical contradiction isn't. You can even, you know, use small words. ;)

Edited to add: If I told you to not post again until you took a few days to consider what I'm seeing in your argument would you hang up the keyboard for a few days? Would it make a stronger point to you that I think there's something in your posts you're not seeing? I doubt it but you can tell me if I'm wrong there.

Vincent,
There aren't any Nar players either but, on the other hand, this board is full of 'em. As someone who's being told they don't understand the basis of Narrativist play I'd be hesitant to argue definitions (even though I agree with your clarification).

I think that it's perfectly undestand able to read "What would a Simulationist do" as "what would it take to make a situation play out Sim" since the person who would do such a thing would theoritically be a person who prefers such play which is what the jargon really means.

-Marco

[Paganini]

Nathan: Nature can't take it's course in a roleplaying game.  I'm not harping on your phrasing, I'm getting at a fundamental disconnect.

Everything that happens in your game or anybody's game happens because someone took at active hand in setting up and resolving it.  There's no nature to take its course.  The in-game consensus has no momentum or causality of its own, ever.  In order for the game to go forward, somebody's saying something, actively, every moment.

Narrativism demands that the players take an active hand as opposed to leaving it to one of the other players, not as opposed to leaving it to in-game causality.  You can't "leave it" to in-game causality: the established facts of the in-game provide constraint, not impetus.

I agree with all of this. Maybe "letting nature take its course" was a bad choice of expressions on my part. This whole post of yours basically looks like restating what I've been saying all along in your own words. :)

You wrote: "In order for the game to go forward, somebody's saying something, actively, every moment." That's absolutely true. The Creative Agenda stuff deals with how each person decides what to say. Sim behavior is characterized as prioritizing preservation of causality. Nar behavior is characterized as prioritizing specific Premise and Theme. We agree on this, right?

So, the disconnect is over whether it's possible to break causality when Addressing Premise and Theme. I posted examples from actual play that I have personally experienced. Do you agree with me that having Aysha *not* ask Marek to take her with him would break causality?

[Paganini]

Marco,

I'm sorry you find me condescending. The thing is, though, the things you say you *disagree* with me on, while *agreeing* with Vincent on, are things that Vincent and I have been pretty much of the same mind about for a long time.

You will definitely find this condescending, but the fact is, I'm not talking about basic stuff in this thread. I went back and covered some basic stuff to make sure that Vince and I were working from the same foundation. I've invested a lot of time and effort here talking to people, reading, reflecting, on this material to get a solid core understanding of it. The 800+ posts you see if you check my profile don't mean much as a number; but they reflect the degree of time and effort that I put into this stuff. I'm frustrated because you keep running into problems with the basic stuff that I'm only interested in recapping to make sure we're all on the same page. I have been here for *years.* I've worked harder to grok this stuff than I worked to grok a lot of things in school. When you come along and start "spotting logical contradictions" and having problems with stuff that was more or less fully fleshed-out *two years ago* it just makes me want to throw up my hands and give up.

Edit: I just figured I'd better add; I'm not trying to use the post count as a measure of legitimacy or anything. I realize you've done a lot of posting as well. I'm just using that to show that I have a lot invested here - about as much as you can in an electronic social environment. That's why I take it seriously. That's why I want to build on old stuff, and explore new ideas. That's why I'm frustrated with all this sidetracking.

I really meant it when I asked you to take another look and some serious time before posting again. It took me months and months to get some of this stuff the first time around. A day or two of reflection is not an unreasonable request. It's a requirement for this kind of complex discussion. And yeah, there have been times where I've dropped an issue for a couple of days to reflect on it. I didn't get to a basic understanding of Narrativism by non-stop stream-of conciousness posting. I got there by a lot of reflection, private discussions, observing play, trying out techniques, reading and rereading the articles. This is a high level discussion. I expect the other people who participate to have a similar dedication to the material. That's like the core philosophy of the Forge.

In-game causuality is what the viewers make of it. I see you as saying one choice is addressing premise while the other choice--equally freely chose--is (maybe) "creating theme."

That, to me, is a logical contradiction since I think it's trivial to find a case where we disagree on which choice is which.

We don't have to agree which choice is which, because what we're talking about is behavior, not objectively identifiable data points. This is *exactly* what Chris was talking about, and why I asked you to reread his posts.

Most of the time - *all* of play, except for a few key decision points - what you're saying is exactly right. If you, Marco, were watching Mike's HQ game as an observer, most of the time you wouldn't be able to tell whether my behavior is Sim or Nar. The choices I make support causality and Premise equally well. Unless you can look inside my head and see my motivations - or unless you trust me when I tell you I'm prioritizing causality, you can't know *why* I make a particular choice. This is basic GNS stuff. The modes of play are only identifiable *if there's a conflict in priorities.* I've never said that *every single Narrativist decision breaks causality.*

What Vincent and I are disagreeing about has to do with the specific context of character. Vincent says that it's impossible to break causality WRT character while Addressing Premise.

[Marco]

Nathan,

The only part of the last post I found patronizing was the part where you told me what I'd find condescending.

Mostly it's the personal-communication bits rather than the argumentation. Maybe the personal correspondence aspect isn't necessary for this thread? I dunno. It's not that bad or anything but I'm letting you know, y'know?

There is a fundamental and basic issue here: is addressing Premise requiring a break in in-game, in-character causality?

The conclusion of the answer "yes," is that for Nar I must at some point do something that makes me act as an author but not as a character. I must act, intentionally, in a way I precieve that my character would not act.

That's a prefectly fine distinction: but it means that Nar play is antithetical to what I think most people define as immersion or suspension of disbelief. I've seen that argued against here, true, but I can say for me personally that when I act from a player-driven cause in a way that's antithetical to the character-driven cause it breaks me out of "the story."

And that's no tragedy--I do that sometimes. But a lot of people have claimed the opposite (that Nar play is just as immersive in that exact sense as Sim play).

But I think the logical paradox that you're missing is the question of why one would do that.

If what I personally find most attractive from a theme standpoint and what I find most interesting from a story-development standpoint is always in character then I have essentially created what Vincent calls an "unfit" character by virtue of (accidentally) fitting into the story too well.

The character who is an alcoholic struggling to quit is an example of that: the play centers around whether I decide to quit or not and at every twist and turn the course of action I find most attracitve is what I think my character would do.

That makes the play Sim. Because my character is a perfect fit for my desires wrt making a statement about premise.

To me that sounds paradoxical: I maintain that so long as the player makes his choice unfettered it doesn't matter if the character would've made it or not (and I, and I suspect Vincent, would find it preferable if what is precieved to be the character's choices do line up with the player's preferences).

Edited to add: It seems to me that the reverse of this would be to make a character who was the anthesis of the point I wish to make in order to force myself to break character just to "play Nar." It seems a bit of a round about way to get there.

-Marco

[C. Edwards]

To me that sounds paradoxical: I maintain that so long as the player makes his choice unfettered it doesn't matter if the character would've made it or not (and I, and I suspect Vincent, would find it preferable if what is precieved to be the character's choices do line up with the player's preferences).

Hey, don't we all? But when that is not the case, what do you do?

Therein lies the distinction between CA. You don't always have to prioritize, but when you do, viola. What did you choose?

-Chris

[Marco]

Edward,

The situations when I have found a character un-fit to address human interest situations in a way that I've wanted to have been dysfunctional play for me. Blameless dysfunctional play mostly--but dysfunctional.

I do whatever I need to do in order to get back in character (either change the character or not pursue the human-interest situation as I'd wanted for the time being and pay whatever the consequences are or discuss with the GM to reassess the situation). I do whichever one will address the dysfunction best and have the most luck negoitating with the GM.

If such a case (where I judge my character "un fit" to work in the way I want him to while staying in character) were to come up often then it would seriously degrade my enjoyment of gaming. If such an event defines an instance of play then, for me, it would be many months of gaming for each one.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

M.J., Xero:
Since there aren't "Simulationist players," only Simulationist play, you can't really talk meaningfully about what a Simulationist would do.  Instead ask: what would it take to make this setup play out Sim?  What would it take to make it play out Nar?

Thank you, Vincent; I think you may have pointed me to the answer,

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?

The answer is this.

All things being equal, when a player is faced with any choice, he decides based on his metagame priorities.

That is, using the example of the vigilante assassin, he has always executed accused child molesters when they were out on bail; he has always protected his nephew; his nephew is now an accused child molester out on bail. What does he do?

If we assume (in contrast to Nathan's quite reasonable suggestion) that there is nothing to say which of these is stronger, if any game mechanics which would ordinarily point us on this are completely equal, we have the choice to make.

The narrativist has as a metagame priority the address of premise; all other things being equal he will base this choice on that which will create or resolve the issues which he thinks are fundamental to the story.

The simulationist has as a metagame priority the exploration of the elements; all other things being equal, he will base this choice on that which will provide the best avenue to deeper exploration of those elements (or the specific elements he targets).

Why this is important comes back to that phrase, all other things being equal. It is often the case that all other things are not necessarily equal, or that there is no way to be certain which is stronger. In answering my point about the "two deals", Nathan postulated the existence of scores on the character sheet which provided a clear statement of which was stronger, and in setting up this post I suggested that those scores are equal. Let's take it a step further and say those scores don't exist. Instead, these are unrated traits on the page. We know he kills child molesters, and a lot of play has been about that. We know that he protects his nephew, but to now it has not really come up. There is no particular reason to assume one is stronger than the other, even though in play the one has had more exposure than the other. Thus the player to my right might think that because of all the play that has focused on it, the more important trait is the child molester thing, while the player to my left might think that even though it hasn't entered play before the familial love for my nephew must trump that. I might think they're equal.

This, then, is where the question of choosing the less plausible option arises. A lot of psychologists and sociologists are deterministic (I've got a bit of that myself), maintaining that there is always only one option for any person in any situation, no matter how much they think they could have chosen the other. If that's so, then only the most plausible option could ever be chosen by the character--but which is the most plausible anyway?

In simulationist play, it is often the case that the player's difficulty with the decision comes down to deciding what the character would actually do--which is the most plausible answer for this character at this time in this situation. In narrativist play, that's not a problem. As long as there are plausible options, the narrativist doesn't have to worry about which is the most plausible, because that's not his metagame. He's worried about which makes the best statement about the premise of the story. That's "which" of any number of apparently plausible options.

The simulationist, meanwhile, is only agonizing which of the options is most plausible if exploration of character is a major focus in what he's doing. To pick a new example, if the focus is exploration of setting, and the character is a photographer for a national magazine, he might suddenly decide to chuck his job because he's got an opportunity to travel to some entirely primitive corner of the globe--not because it is the most plausible for the character to do, but because in this case the simulationist metagame is exploration of setting, and this not completely implausible option opens doors to new areas of exploration.

So no matter what our agendum, we base our decisions on our metagame whenever the choices for the character include plausible options which matter within the context of our priorities. No one ever has his character do something completely unbelievable; whatever he does have his character do becomes in retrospect the most plausible action the character could take, because it is what he did, as long as it was reasonably plausible before it was done.

--M. J. Young

[C. Edwards]

Hey Marco,

So, you find that the breaks in immersion that stem from your desires as a player clashing with your image of your character cause not-fun play for you? That's cool.

All I'm seeing is that you prefer a high level of immersion. That's neither here nor there, except that you probably need an incredibly "fit" character in order to enjoy Narrativist play. Not that Narrativist play requires violating your character concept per se, but that it most likely will require you to compromise without an incredibly "fit" character.

I do whatever I need to do in order to get back in character (either change the character or not pursue the human-interest situation as I'd wanted for the time being and pay whatever the consequences are or discuss with the GM to reassess the situation). I do whichever one will address the dysfunction best and have the most luck negoitating with the GM.

The part of your statement that I bolded is a primary part of what Nate and I have been talking about. You choose the course of action that is most fun for you (addresses the dysfunction best), and by doing so you are making a statement about the particular CA you are prioritizing at that moment.

If such an event defines an instance of play then, for me, it would be many months of gaming for each one.

Which is fine. That's why an instance of play has no set length.

Btw, my name is not "Edward". You can call me "Chris", "Mr. Edwards", or even just "C". "Dude" even works most of the time.

-Chris

[Marco]

MJ,

This is very thought provoking and I'm still thinking about it. I think what comes to mind first and foremost is "what would/does this look like in my play?"

I can't say for sure. Given an unstoppable force - vs immovable object style character-trait clash (like the one postulated) I don't think I'd *ever* go and say "which element of exploration is being prioritized?" I mean, I'd try to get inside my guy's head and try to figure out what he'd do with a mind-bender of a situation like that but I'm not sure that's exploration of character, situation, color, or anything else.

You point out that the guy to the left and right of me can't tell either (which aspect is more important--but, I think, also which elemet is most present in exploration).

Now this guy (and me as a player), however, has human-experience issues going on: hatred, love, and now betrayal. No matter how I answer the question of what to do from inside my character's head I'm *also* going to answer "is betrayed love greater than hate" (or whatever).

An observer can *certainly* see that. They can see the question in the situation, the can see the presence and emotional power in my play, and they can see the answer in whatever I decide (they may disagree on what question I actually answered but the human condition is, IMO, undeniably present and if the emotions are present then I think it'd be clear I was engaged with it).

According to Nathan if I answer from inside my character's head then it's Sim. But to someone who is looking to see if my play centers on moral premise and I answer it then clearly I am (I'd say that's Narritivist but Nathan, I think, disagrees since I played from a pure IC perspective).

So I'm not able to say if I'd answer it Nar or Sim unless Nathan's standard holds. Then it's Sim since I don't approach that question with a significant concern about the outcome aside from the context of the character.

-Marco

[Marco]

Chris,

Well, which is it if I discuss with the GM (I propose a kicker and the GM, IMO, goes way, way south with it doing something that I totally didn't expect and wasn't implied).

I don't find that I have any particular problems with fit characters in practice--although I do usually have some input into the structure of the game before it starts so maybe that's why. I dunno.

And if Nathan is right and you agree he is then Nar play is simply antithetical to Immersion (Suspension of Disbelief) as I do it. As I said, that's cool.

But be aware that my primary goal is to get back into character. If in one situation it's easier to re-imagine the character I do that. If in another it's easier to step back and re-assess how I answer the premise question I do that.

I think calling that a "Creative Agenda" is a bit fishy: the kickers from Sorceror would, in this case, facilitate Simulationist play* since they make me unlikely to have to violate my character during the game.

If I have an intent or agendum per-se it's to address a human interest issue *with* and from *within* (i.e. immersed) a character.

-Marco
* From observable behavior anyway. The player may be ready to violate his character at any moment--but if the tool ensures that he never need do then does it really matter? Intent vs. observed behavor: I have always favored intent, I guess--but there's a lot of observed behavior in the text too.

[C. Edwards]

Marco,

Without being present during your play over a long period of time, I'm not even going to attempt to make a statement as to what CA you're prioritizing.

I think we both agree that, at least for you personally, this is a big immersion issue. So, while I don't think that Nar play is antithetical to Immersion in general, it does seem that it can be a problem for you when your character's "fitness" comes into question during play.

What exactly does that imply? Personally, I think Immersion (and the degree of) is a variable across all play that, while maybe more common with certain CA, is fairly independent of them. Sim usually gets the big Immersion tag because the metagame agendas (as M. J. puts it) of Gamism and Narrativism can require that the player break from a comfortable level of Immersion in order to address those agendas.

-Chris

*edit: to add that I think the most common case is that people with Nar and Gam metagame agendas are generally comfortable with the level of Immersion breakage that those agendas require. So, it's not usually seen as Immersion breakage at all.