Caring How it Resolves?

[Marco]

I think it's clear that neither side *does* agree with each other on the basic issues. For my take, I don't think the essays help much in figuring it out.

A few things:

1. MJ: While I would play from inside my character's head, I might design my character as a statement on the take of killing child molesters. This would not be a final statement--but rather one that I would consider when creating the character as the "point I'd like to make about this."

If I think killing child molesters is wrong, I would create a character who might feel very justified in doing so--but I would create him as a *tragedy.*

That's, IMO, 'address of premise' that is instantatiated by playing out the character.

However, during play I might have strong feelings about that statement and even change my mind about it--but I wouldn't take every action with the question in my head of "what would the character do vs. what would *I* like to say about this." I made my character, I'd want to play him.

2. I've seen threads questioning immersion here. I think this may be a pointless discussion. I can say this: I've played to make a statement. I've played in-character immersed. To me they feel different (I've also tried playing to "generate the best story possible" and that seemed different too than IC-immersed and a lot more like "making a statement").

I found IC-high Suspension of Disbelief play (I once was extremely surprised to discover it wasn't raining outside when we broke for lunch: in the game the city had been engulfed in a massive storm) to be a high preference for me.

Clearly this is a gradient. At times I may be more interested in "what am I saying"with this character. At times I may discover that "what I am saying" is counter to what I'd like to say (I've felt uncomfortable playing characters who would go ahead with something I wouldn't--and not always just purely for the 'ick' factor)--and I might adjust statement/adjust character/talk to the GM ('this makes me uncomfortable').

It depends on the situation.

Nathan: IMO the best stories rely on re-writing and sophisticated clean strutcture. In terms of caring about the 'story being generated in play,' someone who says they don't care about "polished structure" is talking a somewhat different language than me if they're concerned with generating a "good story" through play.

Not a wrong language--but a different one.

-Marco
[ Note: I've done collaberateive creative projects, shared writing, and even shared script writing. Play that I do to "make a statement" feels more like this than my normal RPG experience for me. ]

[Paganini]

Marco,

In the closed circle of GNS theory and terminology, there's no such thing as a "good story." A story is a transcript in which a problematic human issue is created and resolved. All judgements of whether or not the story was good are left up to the individual players, and are not covered by the theoretical model. I was going over this with Jack Spencer a week or two ago. I think I remember you posting to that thread, but I'm not sure. So, anyway, sorry if I'm posting something that you already know and just don't agree with.

[contracycle]

That's, IMO, 'address of premise' that is instantatiated by playing out the character.

It is not, IMO, it is only a statement of premise.  Having constructed this premise FOR THE CHARACTER, the character will be played entirely in Sim mode.  What you are doing is presenting your take on that premise to the other players, the audience.  But if you are not directly addressing premise in actual play, you are not addressing premise in actual play.

This to my mind is an exact analogy with the author of linear media and their construction of characters.  I may choose to create a character who exemplifies a particular view of vigilantiism, and explicate that to the audience through my story or play; but then it is the AUDIENCE who, at run-time, are engaged with the premise I have presented.  The author is, at best, observing the audiences responses.  But their creative exercise  has already ended.  More commonly I might create multiple characters and allow an audience to choose which of the answers given by my characters they prefer.  

However, during play I might have strong feelings about that statement and even change my mind about it--but I wouldn't take every action with the question in my head of "what would the character do vs. what would *I* like to say about this." I made my character, I'd want to play him.

How about if I proposed that this indicates a primary preference for Sim with Narr as a subordinate mode in which you make a non-trivial subset of decisions?

It depends on the situation.

Right; cos play is live.  That is exactly why designing a character with a nominal 'story' behind it and intended to express aview on a given issue is not inherently narratavism.  Actually doing it there and then when it matters is narratavism.  Establishing conflicted characters or whatever is merely a facilitative mechanism.

[Marco]

Well, Contra, if I make my character and then don't play him, I agree: it doesn't happen. If the character is played then whether it's Nar or not seems to me to depend on whether Nathan or Vincent is right about Nar.

Or it may be that being pretty immersed and into Suspension of Disbelief is antithetical to "address" so then it'd be Sim--I'm fine with that (that's an interpertation of what I see Nathan as saying).

But the Premise quesiton will still be central to play in "presence and power" (from the Nar essay) and a statement will be made by said play.

Whether that counts for Nar play isn't clear to me (and doesn't really matter)--but it doesn't sound like a restrictive methodology and would be, IMO/IME, just as interferred by with character hijacks since those tend to break SoD for me as well when applied.

-Marco

[lumpley]

Has everybody else noticed that Nathan and I play the exact same way?  Marco too, probably?  We create our character, put him in morally challenging circumstances, and turn him loose to see what he does.  We don't disagree about how we're playing, we disagree about what it's called.  Particularly, I think that Ron had our way of playing in mind, and Nathan thinks he didn't.  

Either way it's not an insurmountable disagreement about the fundamental nature of roleplaying.  It's just some random thing that's gotten all blown out.

Nathan, do you find that "Narrativist games" generally work well with our way of playing?  Hero Quest, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Universalis, Trollbabe...?

-Vincent
who asks mercy of all the game designers whose work I just reduced to "..."

[Marco]

Has everybody else noticed that Nathan and I play the exact same way?  Marco too, probably?  We create our character, put him in morally challenging circumstances, and turn him loose to see what he does.  We don't disagree about how we're playing, we disagree about what it's called.  Particularly, I think that Ron had our way of playing in mind, and Nathan thinks he didn't.  

Either way it's not an insurmountable disagreement about the fundamental nature of roleplaying.  It's just some random thing that's gotten all blown out.

Nathan, do you find that "Narrativist games" generally work well with our way of playing?  Hero Quest, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Universalis, Trollbabe...?

-Vincent
who asks mercy of all the game designers whose work I just reduced to "..."

Vincent,

I ... don't agree :)

What Nathan is describing is consciously making statements during play. I don't do that--I play from inside my character's head (mostly). Now the character itself may be created as a moral statement of some sort--but I when that clashes with the in-game situation, I consider that dysfunction (i.e. I make the assassin and he gets teleported to planet Tiberious 12 and forced to fight in the arena).

Contra says that's not Nar play because the "address" happens at character creation not during play.

You say the telling factor is behavior (does this stuff happen and get reinforced at the table).

Nathan says it's a state of mind that must be deduced.

I think it's a massive distinction. Under one format I'm nar, under the other I'm Sim.

Raven's questions about force and John's about Virtuality boil down to differences on this point as well (which social contracts are Sim, who can say what is Force).

Finally: this is the exact point (albeit in different language) that I quoted Ron's essay on. This sort of question has, for me, been central to trying to figure out if what I do to improve my play is informed by GNS.

-Marco

[Doctor Xero]

What Nathan is describing is consciously making statements during play. I don't do that--I play from inside my character's head (mostly). Now the character itself may be created as a moral statement of some sort--but I when that clashes with the in-game situation, I consider that dysfunction (i.e. I make the assassin and he gets teleported to planet Tiberious 12 and forced to fight in the arena).

Contra says that's not Nar play because the "address" happens at character creation not during play.

You say the telling factor is behavior (does this stuff happen and get reinforced at the table).

Nathan says it's a state of mind that must be deduced.

I think it's a massive distinction. Under one format I'm nar, under the other I'm Sim.

Raven's questions about force and John's about Virtuality boil down to differences on this point as well (which social contracts are Sim, who can say what is Force).

Finally: this is the exact point (albeit in different language) that I quoted Ron's essay on. This sort of question has, for me, been central to trying to figure out if what I do to improve my play is informed by GNS.

Marco, if I might make a relevant commentary on theory in general?

In both science and scholarship, a common danger is that theory may become treated as proscriptive of reality rather than as descriptive of it.  In other words, the purpose of a model is to create a theoretical construct which is supposed to accurately represent reality -- what goes wrong is that scientists and scholars sometimes fall in love with the model and begin trying to fit reality to conform to the model.

This is (part) of the origin of the fallacious concept of epicycles in astronomy, for example.

When people think they have the answering model to life, the universe, and everything, they tend to fit all new data into that answering model even when it might challenge said model or demonstrate the need for rebuilding that model almost from scratch.  Edward Robert Harrison presents eloquent explanation of this in Masks of the Universe: Changing Ideas on the Nature of the Cosmos, a wonderful book about the tendency to tenaciously preserve a paradigm until it disintegrates (and certain groups, such as creationists, may still refuse to let go of the paradigm anyway, simply ignoring any and all evidence which successfully challenges it).

I do not think that anyone is treating the G/N/S model as the answering model to life, the universe, and everything, but I do think that sometimes people here expect overmuch real life experiences to conform to the model.  Hence, we have some people tell those of us who have experienced simulationism and narrativism simultaneously that it's not possible, and we are even told that we may THINK we are doing this and THINK we are seeing others do this but we must be wrong -- our experiences are asked to conform to the model instead of the model being modified to incorporate into its theoretical construction the reality of our experiences : the model can not be wrong, so if our reality (or our knowledge of our reality) conflicts with it, our reality must be what is in error.  Hence, we have some people tell you different and implicitly conflicting model labels for the same experience.

You have experienced what you have experienced.  When the model helps you better understand that, it is of value.  When the model clashes with your knowledge of reality, doublecheck yourself to ensure that your perceptions have not been deceived (such deceived self-perception often happens in people's recognition of their own gender roles, for example), and if your perceptions have not been deceived yet the model clashes with you, ignore the model if you can not modify it.

As the risk of being castigated as presumptuous or impertinent in these forums (again), I would say that
theoretical constructs ought to serve human knowing -- they should not subjugate it.

Doctor Xero
P.S. For those reading this who are prone to inferring defensively an ulterior agenda the poster has not in any fashion implied, no, I have nowhere denied efforts to modify the model towards greater representation of reality -- I simply note a tendency, nothing further.

[Paganini]

Nathan, do you find that "Narrativist games" generally work well with our way of playing?  Hero Quest, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Universalis, Trollbabe...?

I do, yes. However, I just point out that there is no "our way of playing." I don't play in the exact same way all the time. I play differently depending on the actual game mechanics I'm using, depending on who I'm playing with, what the setting is, etc. etc. etc. So, yeah, I do play your way. But it's not like my one-and-only way to play. I'm gonna address this in a different thread, because an idea hit me last night while I was weathering the thunderstorm.

Marco, I think the problem lies in your use of "disfunction." Disfunction is conflict between the players. I'm talking plain-old "did too! did not!" argument type stuff, to a greater or lesser degree. A play-style itself can't be disfunctional. If you made your decisions based on a certain thought process... well, that's how you made your decisions. It can only be disfunction if your approach is at odds with that of another real-life player.

If you find that there's a conflict between the moral statement you want to address and the game's causality, it's not disfunction. You just have to make a choice... which is more important to you, causality, or that moral question? This, in a nutshell, is the nature of a CA prioritizing decision-point. If that choice is one you'd rather not have to make, then be sure that the group you play with and the system you use is not one that puts you in a situation where you have to choose.

[Marco]

Nathan,

I understand what you're saying about dysfunction (and it's been a long time since I've done Did-not-did-to ... well, except for last night on IRC ... ;) )--but I still must beg to differ: the cases I've seen are *always* the result of another person (usually the GM).

And while I don't blame the GM per-se, I do consider it a breach of what-I-want or a breach of fun. That seems a reasonable use of the word dysfunction.*

(the vast majority of my play, even when this happens is fun and functional, also).

Everything that happens in gaming is the result of *someone* (and dice rolls, yes--but aside from that) and that can conflict.

-Marco
* Obligatory jargon-rant I'm not sure that even in a GNS discussion, in this context there's actual correct or incorrect use of the term. If we're going to use "functional" for "fun" then it seems logical. But it's also based on the actions of another, anyway.

[Doctor Xero]

However, I just point out that there is no "our way of playing." I don't play in the exact same way all the time. I play differently depending on the actual game mechanics I'm using, depending on who I'm playing with, what the setting is, etc. etc. etc.

A good point, and one often neglected in such discussions.

You just have to make a choice... which is more important to you, causality, or that moral question? This, in a nutshell, is the nature of a CA prioritizing decision-point. If that choice is one you'd rather not have to make, then be sure that the group you play with and the system you use is not one that puts you in a situation where you have to choose.

Or you can negate the conflict altogether by effectively designing player-characters who address both simultaneously.  And yes, it can be done, and yes, it is what I have most often seen being done in groups which emphasize "roleplaying" (simulationism-narrativism simultaneously) rather than gamism.

Doctor Xero

[contracycle]

Or you can negate the conflict altogether by effectively designing player-characters who address both simultaneously. And yes, it can be done, and yes, it is what I have most often seen being done in groups which emphasize "roleplaying" (simulationism-narrativism simultaneously) rather than gamism.

I disagree, not least becuase of the snide back-hand delivered to Gamism.  In character design, there is no meaningful conflict.  It is not possible to design characters suited to every situation that will develop;  in play therefore, not at chargen, you will be confronted by a conflict between the CA's.  I can't see how a game could be constructed that insured that evey bit of the action coincided with the characters and coincided with premise-full issues, not if were on anything but rails.

[Marco]

I disagree, not least becuase of the snide back-hand delivered to Gamism.  In character design, there is no meaningful conflict.  It is not possible to design characters suited to every situation that will develop;  in play therefore, not at chargen, you will be confronted by a conflict between the CA's.  I can't see how a game could be constructed that insured that evey bit of the action coincided with the characters and coincided with premise-full issues, not if were on anything but rails.

Contracycle,

Why must "every bit" of action coincide with the characters for play to make their organic issues important? For that matter why must "every bit" of action be immediately associated with a premise? Surely your view of Nar play doesn't involve the players racing from one moral quandry to another, does it?

When told you're wrong about the principle you're arguing that if play isn't 100% focused then you're right. That doesn't seem logical to me.

After all, wouldn't exploration of situation and character be important to setting up those premise questions? It seems to me Nathan thinks so on the other thread.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Why must "every bit" of action coincide with the characters for play to make their organic issues important?

Because otherwise play would alternate between the CA's.  If Narr and Sim are going to occur simultaneously throughout play, this would have to pertain.  Otherwise we will see the theory as it stands at the moment; decisions alternating amongst the CA's by all players with preference exhibited at points of prioritisation.

For that matter why must "every bit" of action be immediately associated with a premise? Surely your view of Nar play doesn't involve the players racing from one moral quandry to another, does it?

No, but only because I don't expect such play to go through a lot of moral quandaries as if they were discrete challenges.

[Doctor Xero]

it is what I have most often seen being done in groups which emphasize "roleplaying" (simulationism-narrativism simultaneously) rather than gamism.

I disagree, not least becuase of the snide back-hand delivered to Gamism.

You make an . . . interesting . . . choice in interpreting negatively the term "rather" and ignoring the significance of the use of quotation marks.

In character design, there is no meaningful conflict.  It is not possible to design characters suited to every situation that will develop;  in play therefore, not at chargen, you will be confronted by a conflict between the CA's.  I can't see how a game could be constructed that insured that evey bit of the action coincided with the characters and coincided with premise-full issues, not if were on anything but rails.

What you label as impossible I recognize as something I have seen done repeatedly in real life and have read about frequently in the various literatures about gaming and the gaming subculture.

However, you are correct on one thing : the successfully construction of simultaneous simulationist/narrativist characters relies predominantly on the players (and their game master).  I've read numerous articles (and advice sections of gaming texts) giving advice to players on how to do so, but I do not recall reading anywhere about a system which encourages or even forces players to construct characters which are simultaneously simulationist/narrativist.  If memory serves, is it not "accepted wisdom" as The Forge that it is difficult at best if not impossible to design a game which restricts all play to any single CA as it is?

Doctor Xero

[Marco]

Why must "every bit" of action coincide with the characters for play to make their organic issues important?

Because otherwise play would alternate between the CA's.  If Narr and Sim are going to occur simultaneously throughout play, this would have to pertain.  Otherwise we will see the theory as it stands at the moment; decisions alternating amongst the CA's by all players with preference exhibited at points of prioritisation.

I would suggest that either:

1. Play does alternate on an atomic level but GNS looks at larger chunks so there's no problem --or--
2. Narrativist play will potentially include a lot of exploration of character/situation (which is what you view as sim) as a setup for the premise without invalidating it as Nar play (that would seem to me to be a fidelity issue rather than a CA issue). --or--
3. The interpertation of Nar play you are using doesn't match the one that Vincent and Nathan are using (in which case, how does the Actor-Stance Sim player distinguish from the Actor-Stance Nar player? It seems that both intent and observable behavior are identical to me in this case).

Maybe there's a 4th or more--I'm not sure.

-Marco