Caring How it Resolves?

[Paganini]

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?

OK then. I'm cool with that.

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

The answer is, most of the time, no. In the largest percentage of play, addressing Premise does not require a break in in-character causality.

But *sometimes,* to get the particular situation or resolution that the player wants, the player will have his character act, intentionally, in a way that he perceives his character would not act. For example, he goes ahead and has his character be in a scene in a place that it doesn't make sense for his character to be at. Way back a long time ago in Mike's Synthesis playtest at one point I had my character show up at a scene that it made no sense for the character to be at.

We're specifically talking about Author and Pawn stance here. Most of the time, Nar play is fine for SoD. Sometimes, to get what you want in Nar play, you might have to retro-justify to maintain SoD. Or, sometimes, you just don't worry about SoD. You just accept that things are the way they are, even if they don't make sense, even if there's some continuity problem, just because it's important to you. I'm reminded if the final Star Trek: TNG episode where there's a huge, gapingly obvious continuity error that the entire resolution of the episode absolutely hinges on.

<snip some>

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

Yup. Your motivations are below the detection level. The transcript your play produces could have just as easily been produced by Nar as Sim. There's no way for me to be sure. I just have to trust you when you tell me its Sim.

[Marco]

I'm okay with that, assuming Vincent et. al agrees that Nar play will eventually involve what I'd think of as violation of the original character concept. I don't get that from the essays (even what you quoted) and I've seen lots of posts here saying that Nar play doesn't compromise character. But I admit, I always wondered about that.

It also seems that the decision to re-con the character is a meta-game decision and therefore doesn't seem like something one would do without meaning to: something I've seen people say of Nar-play.

I can see someone doing it without having a name for it--but I think that violating a character "for the story" (to make a particular premise addressing point during play) would require a conscious act. You mention intent, specifically.

Also: I've seen descriptions of 'Story-Now' play where everyone at the table is acting in-character. From what you're saying I don't see how, in a traditional game with premise, one would ever really know, save for one's self who was violating their character internally.

As you point out, it'll look from the outside as a string of in-character decisions.

I don't see how one would diagnose Nar play in others then--only one's self (which I'm fine with--but I've seen several posts discussing the use of the theory as a diagnositc tool for other players specifically on the Nar-Sim divide spectrum). Even with a long time to look at it (considering that I'd need a long time to look at *myself*).

Finally: Your take on this would be far simpler to express than the Nar essay. Just say "You make your non-railroaded decisions from a authorial rather than In-Character standpoint consering human interest stuff and poof: Nar play. It might even involve you violating original character concepts which, really, is the deciding point in play."

I think something like that'd be pretty clear to everyone.

I'm not sure that Nar facilitaitng games I've read do this, however. I think that Sorceror would facilitate IC play as much as OC play as far as I can see.

-Marco

[C. Edwards]

I don't see how one would diagnose Nar play in others then--only one's self (which I'm fine with--but I've seen several posts discussing the use of the theory as a diagnositc tool for other players specifically on the Nar-Sim divide spectrum). Even with a long time to look at it (considering that I'd need a long time to look at *myself*).

Observable behavior, what the participants are grooving on, just like the essays say. Nate and I are specifically talking about self-diagnosis and the internal state of an individual participant. So you have both things going on, with the only real way to diagnose the play of others being observable behavior.

You don't have to subscribe to one thing or the other. They're both mutually compatible.

-Chris

[Marco]

Well yes--I agree. But if what's being observed is emotional intensity and the presence of a human-interest question that's, IMO, not so hard (unless you have to split the difference and tell if that's *more important* than developing the situation, say).

But having to tell if someone is internally violating their character seems like murder.

I could do it for the self-diagnosis though.

-Marco

[Paganini]

I'm okay with that, assuming Vincent et. al agrees that Nar play will eventually involve what I'd think of as violation of the original character concept. I don't get that from the essays (even what you quoted) and I've seen lots of posts here saying that Nar play doesn't compromise character. But I admit, I always wondered about that.

Actually, I'm not even sure I'd go that far. I'd say that Nar play *may* eventually involve that, but that there's no guarantee that it will. I was only disagree with Vincent becuase he seemed to be saying that it *can never happen,* when my personal experience, and my interperetation of GNS is contrary to that. So, to adopt your terminology from the bottom of your post, Nar play in general *is* IC play. But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

It also seems that the decision to re-con the character is a meta-game decision and therefore doesn't seem like something one would do without meaning to: something I've seen people say of Nar-play.

To me it seems like making a retro justification is something that happens pretty naturally. I mean, we even do it in our day-to-day lives. The train of thought would be something like "We've already established that his bike is out of gas and he has no other vehicle, but I really want him to be at the hotel so that he can catch Alice and Bob together. I'll say that his neighbor Carl was going that way and he bummed a ride." If the player has the freedom to invent Carl (if necessary) and get a ride with him, then everything is kosher. The player's train of thought between the quotes is basically a close up view of what it means to Address Premise on the construction side.

If this same player isn't terribly worried about SoD in this element of the SiS, he might just gloss over how his character got to the gas station, and just take it as given that the character got there somehow or other.

Both of these possibilities must, of course, comply with the Social Contract of the group as a whole. If Carl hasn't been previously mentioned, and only the GM is allowed to create NPCs, for example.

Also: I've seen descriptions of 'Story-Now' play where everyone at the table is acting in-character. From what you're saying I don't see how, in a traditional game with premise, one would ever really know, save for one's self who was violating their character internally.

Yup. That's pretty much it exactly. This is what all that stuff about "observable behavior" I've been saying is about. If you're talking about just looking at the transcript, there is no way to tell.

However, if you add a social layer, the the interplayer relationships, reinforcements, and so on can give you a clue, even if you're just an observer. And then, with the people I game with, who are all aware of GNS theory, there's often forthright discussion about what we're prioritizing. Take for example, me and Chris discussion what Aysha has been doing in Mike's HQ game. Basically, you can only tell by looking at *what people do,* not by looking at what happened in the transcript. This is why "instance of play" is some undefined but quite long length of time. This is why transcripts posted to the Actual Play forum are not usually sufficient to identify what the players are actually doing. It hardly ever happens that you have some kind of glaring conflict of interest in the actual transcript itself, where you can tell *just by looking* what the players prioritized. Most of the time it's not even an issue what the player prioritizes, because everything gets along fine.

Remember, the whole point of GNS originally was to *identify disfunction.* So none of this really matters until there's a social contract level disagreement about what happens.

Finally: Your take on this would be far simpler to express than the Nar essay. Just say "You make your non-railroaded decisions from a authorial rather than In-Character standpoint consering human interest stuff and poof: Nar play. It might even involve you violating original character concepts which, really, is the deciding point in play."

I think something like that'd be pretty clear to everyone.

Unfortunately, Ron doesn't really like making things easily accessable to everyone. This is my one peeve with him. :)

[Marco]

My problem with "may happen" is that I read you as saying that until it does you're playing Sim. So for the game to be Nar it seems to me that the violation of character would *have* to happen. Otherwise how would you or anyone else know?

Are you saying "being *ready* to violate character makes it Nar even if it never happens in a game?"

Because I really don't see that in the essays.

-Marco
[Note: I couldn't defend this position from the essays either--but, hey, if everyone agrees, I'm down with it too. ]

[Paganini]

My problem with "may happen" is that I read you as saying that until it does you're playing Sim. So for the game to be Nar it seems to me that the violation of character would *have* to happen. Otherwise how would you or anyone else know?

Being willing is part of it. But also, the internal thought process is the important thing. If I'm playing nar, my internal thought process is "what conflict do I want to create / how do I want this to resolve? OK, how can I get that? I'll do this. Do I need to retro-justify that to keep from breaking the game? Does it matter?" If I'm playing sim, my internal thought process is "what makes the most sense to happen next?"

This thought process is invisible in the transcript. You can only detect it if you observe the interractions of the players. The only exception is if there's a big honking divergence point where it's completely obvious that two CAs are getting thrown to the wolves in favor of the other CA. In all cases, it takes an extended period of observing actuall play, not just reading transcripts.

So, in spite of what most people seem to think, it's really difficult to identify CAs in action. And, most people who characterize themselves as a particular kind of GNS gamer are people who are familiar with the theory and have decided they prefer a particular mode. Or they're totally clueless and just like GNS as a handy labeling system.

But, mostly, people adapt. Like me, I'm playing sim in Mike's HQ game, and Nar in my Trollbabe: Vampires game. You have to trust me when I tell you that, because, so far, there hasn't really been anything in the transcript that would convince you one way or another.

[contracycle]

My problem with "may happen" is that I read you as saying that until it does you're playing Sim. So for the game to be Nar it seems to me that the violation of character would *have* to happen. Otherwise how would you or anyone else know?

I can't see how these two sentences arise from this discussion.  Whether or not Narr contains the capacity for a character to be so altered does not seem to suggest to me that without such alteration Narr is invisible.

Because, this is only ONE KIND of clash between creative agendas that might occur.  Causality is not the only thing to be discounted by Narr, challenge is well, and of course sim is going to discount premise and challenge both, left to itself.

It is erroneous to take from the statement that the prioritisation of premise over causality is a diagnostic indicator for the presence of Nar to mean that without that particular clash Narr does not exist.

Marco wrote:

It also seems that the decision to re-con the character is a meta-game decision and therefore doesn't seem like something one would do without meaning to: something I've seen people say of Nar-play.

I think you have misinterpeted something.  The players need not be consciously aware that they are addressing pemise explicitly and in those terms; its adequate for them to only be aware that this is "cool" and "fun".  This does not mean they are making any change by accident; only that knowledge of this jargon is not required nor need it be a big issue for the participants if they do it easily, automatically and comfortably.  That is what is indicated by the statement that Narr players need not be consciously practicing Narr, as I understand it.

[lumpley]

Nathan, about your excellent examples of breaking continuity:

But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

That happens in Sim play too.  All the frickin' time.  There is no clearer nor better example than the group staying together even when it wouldn't.  Remember how I said that the standards for in-game plausibility vary from group to group and game to game?  That's precisely what I meant.

Otherwise, still big disagreement from me, and it's: using internal states and individual decisions to "call it" Narr or not.  Marco, you have it exactly right:

...if what's being observed is emotional intensity and the presence of a human-interest question that's, IMO, not so hard...

Narrativist play has never depended on anybody's internal state, what they're prioritizing inside themselves.  That's invisible.

It depends on what's being socially reinforced.

a) Is Premise being addressed, plus b) is the addressing of Premise being socially, collaboratively reinforced by the group.  If both, then Narrativist play.  Doesn't matter if the individual players think that they're doing in-character thinking or in-setting continuity.  They're addressing Premise and they're collectively diggin' it: Narrativism.

The Narrativist CA is quite easy to identify in action, contrary to what Nathan says, provided that a) you know a Premise when you see one, and b) you know social reinforcement when you see it.  

Marco, I can only recommend that you try on both my view and Nathan's.  Check out the essays and what else goes on here and see which view sheds more light on them.

-Vincent

[Bob McNamee]

One way I think about this issue as a player.

"Addressing" is a verb, so is "Exploring".

A nar leaning player is using Exploration to Address.
A sim leaning player is Exploration to Explore.

etc.

There's a difference of focus.

Are you choosing to have your character act in whatever way, plausible or not, to drive the Story Now (spotlighting a premise question, or an external theme, or some statement important more to the Player than the Character)?
If yes, you are probably a Nar-leaning player...or playing with one.

Are you having your character act in a pattern determined beforehand because it was determined beforehand, or is the most plausible extrapolation of previous acts? without prioritising hitting any external premise 'marks'?
If yes, that says Exploring to explore...or Sim-leaning to me.

Can it be hard to determine when looking at individual acts? Sure.

But it feels different over time to me... a matter of focus.

Note: Even a 'breaking from previous behavious' feels different over time when its done Sim "To Explore the Exploration of Character Situation etc" than when its done Nar "To Address the Story Now needs"

Maybe, I'm not helping and saying anything that hasn't been said before other ways...this is just the way I think about it. It looks and feels different to me. It really does come down to a player agenda.

[Marco]

Contra (first),

I don't think I've misunderstood--when I am in a state of weighing thematic decisions I find myself conscious of what statment is being made by play. When I am suspending disbelief, I'm not.

I indicated explicitly that I could see doing Nathan-style Nar play without a name for it or jargon--but not doing it without being aware of it. I don't see the same states as nearly identical in myself.

Even a writing style where the author is setting out to make a point vs. determine what would really happen is different, IME/IMO (and I think it produces different writing transcript wise too, but that's just me and Stephen King). And I find what you called the "objectifying" experice (for challenge) and/or/both Suspension of Disbelief far stronger in RPG's with IC play than with writing.

Nathan,
Maybe it's easy to detect CA's maybe not. I think "not" but that's just me. You indicate that from an outside perspective it looks like a string of IC decisions. I'm not sure how you'd tell the difference without someone saying "boy I like manipulating these themes!" (since even someone praising their presence and power wouldn't be distinguishable).

Getting a great, deep, meaningful statement from play seems like, when premise is in play, either would be equally likely (unless you believe that the way it "really would happen" is likely to make the less powerful of the two statements). I think it'll definitely not be as likely have the polished story structure in what you're calling the sim-mode.

Vincent,
And here we go ... I find your take on it the more compelling of the two from the articles and the fora. Here's why.

1. There's a lot of "Intent" stuff and a lot of "observed behavior stuff" and I've seen more of the latter than the former and it seems like this is a case where the two would most commonly provide strong opposite examples.

Since I see many people saying it is easy to do the diagnosis I think that speaks against it (although, like I say, I personally think Nathan's take where the major distinction is relatively invisible is the one that I hold more in common with). Maybe what it speaks to is a much, much larger Instance of Play--but I've said before: if you don't know where to put the dot, how do all the dots eventually line up?

2. If, as Chris says, the goal of play is most wonderful when it's IC and immersed then, IMO, that makes Narrativist play is the best-case of a dysfunction.

I think what he may've meant is that Nar play is never truly what I'd call immersed but, hey, it's always better when you don't have to change your character view. That could be--Chris, you can clarify.

But if he means it's immersive (heavy suspension of disbelief, no attempt to make a statement with play--simply to resolve a situation from an IC perspective) then that makes "setting out to play Nar" a plan to have a disconnect (and what I consider a dysfunction).

The idea of discussing the situation with the GM (as detailed in the case where the GM does something like a Kicker that to the player looks like a left-turn into bizarro world in terms of premises present*) didn't get much play. Most cases where I'd violate my character to change the answer to the premise question that makes the most sense to me are the result of what I see as a dysfunctional mutation in play.

But that's not a CA at all--and if Nar play *is* mostly immersive, breaking out when necessarily to adjust character, then I wouldn't find that an especially valid take.

However, as I said--I'm a bit more sympathetic to your view. That doesn't make it right.

-Marco

[pete_darby]

Okay, I thought the difference between sim and nar was purely, what's getting re-inforced, what's being approved... internal consistency of the SiS and it's consistent expansion, or adressing a "human interest" issue.

Addressing premise to "get the right answer for you" is a red herring in my mind: "pure" nar play is about adressing the issue, expressed in the situation, through the character, and gross breaking of internal cause to address the premise "right" is dysfunctional Nar, as the thrill is from the action of adressing an issue of human interest, not in getting the "right answer". That seems to me a sure way to get unsatisfactory play. Theme arises from play, am I right? Prejudging theme, attempting to resolve premise by imposing a resolution upon contrary to established and evolving contents of the SiS is anathema to good nar play.

Immersion is a red herring. You can play entirely deeply immersed and still be playing nar if you're grooving on the address of premise above the sanctity of the dream.

Inferiority or superiority of Nar / Sim is a red herring. Nar isn't just sim plus address of premise, or depth, or whatever. "Pure" nar play is lacking in curiosity about the SiS except as it relates to address of premise. Compared to a "pure sim" game it can look mannered, cartoony, symbolist, and everything else that indicates that the characters and world exist purely to "make a point" rather than be rounded, "real."

And inconsistencies in the SiS are a friend to no CA. All CA demand a consistent SiS, for many reasons, but willing suspension of disbelief must be up there in all CA.

[Paganini]

Marco, Vince,

All through this thread my goal has been to go from what Ron has defined, and say what I think that means. I feel pretty strongly that Vincent is not working from what Ron has defined, but is instead working from his own ideas. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; it's just two different approaches.

Frex, Vincent is saying that it's trivial to identify Nar in action. I've seen Ron say multiple times that it is a difficult and lengthy process to identify any of the CAs in action.

Nathan, about your excellent examples of breaking continuity:
Quote:
But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

That happens in Sim play too. All the frickin' time. There is no clearer nor better example than the group staying together even when it wouldn't. Remember how I said that the standards for in-game plausibility vary from group to group and game to game? That's precisely what I meant.

I can't see this at all. I said that its "Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want." This can't be Sim behavior, because, in this case, what a Sim player wants is to *not go OOC.* You can't go OOC to stay IC. I think you're forgetting that the prioritization of causality is usually attached to one (or several) of the five explorative elements. All you're describing is a sacrifice of causality in a non-prioritized element in order to maintain causality in the prioritized element(s). If the player's agenda is Sim with Exploration of Character, then the other explorative elements can go zoom out the window to keep from breaking character.

I keep focusing on different parts of the equation, and you keep grabbing what I'm saying and treating it like it's the *whole* equation.

So, yeah, it's Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, with the implicit proviso that "what you want" is to Address Premise. Incidentally the whole "keep the party together" thing is something that usually is a result of gamism, I think.

Getting a great, deep, meaningful statement from play seems like, when premise is in play, either would be equally likely (unless you believe that the way it "really would happen" is likely to make the less powerful of the two statements). I think it'll definitely not be as likely have the polished story structure in what you're calling the sim-mode.

Yep, exactly. Except, I'm not sure what you're talking about with Polished Story Structure. I don't give a crap about story structure, polished or otherwise.

1. There's a lot of "Intent" stuff and a lot of "observed behavior stuff" and I've seen more of the latter than the former and it seems like this is a case where the two would most commonly provide strong opposite examples.

Note that "intent" is something internal that can't be identified unless communicated or demonstrated, and that whenever Ron talks about "observed behavior" in the essays, it's always in the context of the social interactions taking place among the actual real people during the act of play.

I just want to point out that a Kicker is, by definition, something authored by the player of a character. The GM doesn't do kickers. Kickers are a technique for zapping your character into the kind of problematic situation that you're interested in Exploring, and as such, are an example of Nar-facilitating Technique.

The whole "immersive" thing doesn't seem very useful, though. What does that mean, "immersive?" You're going to have to come up with a very explicit precise description of it before it can be plugged into *any*  take on the theory. "Immersion" seems to be a priority for you. How would you characterize being successfully "immersed?"

[M. J. Young]

Nathan, about your excellent examples of breaking continuity:
Quote:
But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

That happens in Sim play too. All the frickin' time. There is no clearer nor better example than the group staying together even when it wouldn't. Remember how I said that the standards for in-game plausibility vary from group to group and game to game? That's precisely what I meant.

I can't see this at all. I said that its "Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want." This can't be Sim behavior, because, in this case, what a Sim player wants is to *not go OOC.* You can't go OOC to stay IC. I think you're forgetting that the prioritization of causality is usually attached to one (or several) of the five explorative elements. All you're describing is a sacrifice of causality in a non-prioritized element in order to maintain causality in the prioritized element(s). If the player's agenda is Sim with Exploration of Character, then the other explorative elements can go zoom out the window to keep from breaking character.

You missed it, Nathan.

If the question is whether going out of character to get what you want in and of itself distinguishes simulationism from narrativism, then simulationism doesn't exist. You've essentially agreed in this text that a simulationist can go out of character to "get what he wants" if he isn't primarily exploring character.

I think (and I think Vincent's as much as said this) that the entire "going out of character" issue is a red herring. It's bad play for the simulationist, but it's bad play for the narrativist, too. It also assumes that in every situation faced by the character, there is always and only one option which that character would actually choose, and that we always know exactly which option that is no matter how complex the situation.

A few posts back, Marco addressed how he would handle the assassin's dilemma (to give it a name). He would sit down and weigh how his character feels about the nephew versus how his character feels about his mission to kill child molesters, and try to determine what it is that the character would actually do. From here, that sounds like simulationist exploration of character, with a very strong emphasis on living the life the character would live.

Yes, there are moral and personal issues involved; but Marco doesn't care about those issues from his own perspective--he's not trying to say which should be more important. He's only trying to determine which is more important in the mind of his character, and to experience what it would be like to be that person. He might have to define who that character is a bit better in order to reach that answer, but that's part of play. He might learn something about those moral issues, but that would be secondary, incidental to the primary goal of understanding that character and what it would be like to be him.

That doesn't mean that a narrativist player would step out of character to address premise. It means that faced with this choice, a simulationist trying to explore character as a priority is going to agonize over what the character would do, while a narrativist or a simulationist prioritizing different elements will assume that it is plausible for the character to do any one of several things in this situation, and will pick from among them based on that which will best serve his real agendum, whether that's address of premise or exploration of color.

It means that the entire issue of what is "in character" and "out of character" is always relative, that people really do things that would have been labeled "out of character" in the sense that they are unlikely to do them. It would be out of character for me to buy lunch at McDonalds; it would be out of character for me to barricade myself in a room in a tall building and start shooting pedestrians with a sniper rifle. I will eat at McDonalds if the alternative is to go hungry; I won't start shooting people as long as I have the option of checking into the psyche ward. For every decision any of us makes, there are the options which our friends would say we'd do every time, the options by which we surprise them, and the options which we can't imagine taking. There is nothing "out of character" about doing something in the second category. It is not contrary to narrativist play, but it is not contrary to simulationist play, either. Those things in the third category--things our character clearly would never do--are as bad for narrativist play as they are for simulationist play. So what if we choose to have our characters do them? In either simulationist or narrativist play, we either have a jarring discontinuity in our Shared Imaginary Space, or we look back over the previous events and provide a reasonable explanation for why the character has suddenly made this choice. We say, "Of course he always kills child molesters; but this is his nephew, whom he has always protected, and he's not going to be able to pull the trigger." Whether we do that because (narrativist) we want to make a statement about the importance of family over justice or (simulationist exploration of character) we believe that the character's devotion to his nephew is going to have this impact, and want to explore the consequences to the character of having made this decision or (simulationist exploration of color) we want to further explore the life and relationships of this character, which would be badly hampered if he started killing his own family members, we found a way to make the implausible choice plausible within the dictates of our metagame agendum.

If the decision is out of character and cannot be reconciled so as to seem within the shared imaginary space to in fact be exactly what the character would have done, then it's a bad decision in every agendum. If it enters the shared imaginary space as what the character did, and everyone accepts that it is what the character did, then it's in character to the degree required by the group. Creative agendum has something to do with it, but does not map to it.

--M. J. Young

[C. Edwards]

I think (and I think Vincent's as much as said this) that the entire "going out of character" issue is a red herring. It's bad play for the simulationist, but it's bad play for the narrativist, too. It also assumes that in every situation faced by the character, there is always and only one option which that character would actually choose, and that we always know exactly which option that is no matter how complex the situation.

You missed it, M. J.

Repeatedly we've said that this isn't a black/white or either/or issue and have given actual play examples and a whole lot of explanation. There are degrees of plausibility. We all have varying requirements for the degree of verisimilitude that we require for each of the elements of exploration. When you slam those two together you get exactly what Nate was talking about in the section of his post that you quoted.

I'm certainly not saying that anyone has to agree, but at this point the dichotomy between the two basic schools of thought expressed in this thread is not surmountable. Both sides have been explained thoroughly, and neither side agrees with the other on the basic issues.

So, for me at least, it's time to quit. I hope that we can pick this up again another time.

-Chris