When Is It Real?

[lumpley]

In this post in Waiting for Narrativism...

What do you think about the split of "whether something is real even if its not entered that space, vs. only if it has" (as Ralph phrases it)? This seems to match my Storytelling paradigm vs Immersive Experience paradigm.

I think that the idea that something's real in your game even though your fellow players don't know about it is, y'know, wrong.  Sometimes it's wrong and harmful, sometimes - maybe most of the time - it's wrong and it doesn't matter.

Don't miss the "in your game."  Something you've thought of but not communicated can be real in your own private head, your own private experience of the game, but it can't be real in the group consensus.  Because it's not in the group consensus.

Let's call it commitment, okay?  I'm committed to the ideas in my head, more committed or less committed per idea.  The group's committed to the ideas in their consensus, again more or less per idea.

I don't think that anyone's shown that Narrativist play requires me to be less committed to the ideas in my head than Simulationist play.  Ralph's raised the topic but hasn't really made a stab at it yet.  John's Storytelling vs. Immersive Experience paradigms may be the exact same thing - which counts as "real"? - but they aren't tied to Narrativism and Simulationism at all, that I can tell.

-Vincent

[Marco]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right but I think you're saying commitment is a better term than "real."

I think that's a reasonable assertion but I'm not sure it's more correct than the other way around: since no one thinks the imaginary space is "really real" anyway, using the term "real" seems both valid in context and sufficiently clear (the two words might represent different takes on it and saying one is more harmful than the other seems like a matter of opinion to me).

But where I have a specific issue is this: there are things that *are* in the shared imaginary space that may not be obvious to the other participants. The clear case of this is a master villain whose actions are predicated on data the players don't know.

They can see the actions but until they have the whole picture the actions don't make sense to them. It's the tip-of-the-iceberg scenario.

That backstory is, IMO, as 'real' as anything in the shared imaginary space since it informs it.

This applies from the player's standpoint too: a player has a secret about his character no one knows but it informs his play until it's unveiled.

The problem is that, in a sense, *everything* in the participants private imaginary space casts those shadows into the shared space IME.

And when they conflict it's just as valid as any other conflict, IMO.

-Marco

[Marco]

Also: I read Raven as saying that the GM (in a Nar game, I think) has a mandate to keep things moving in an interesting and forward-going manner no matter what the players decide.

I don't agree with that. I agree that ideally the play will be interesting and forward moving but it seems clear to me that there are going to be gradients to that and if enough specific decisions are made by people on either side of the GM's screen that one can move into fairly bleak territory without anyone being 'to blame.'

So I think the important question is *why*/under what conditions do you give up on your commitment or the reality of your ideas?

And it seems to me from reading the fora here that there's a pretty significant story/virtuality split ... and I think that does seem pretty congruent (but perhaps not causal) to two distinctive views of Narrativism (classic GNS vs., maybe, Beeg Horseshoe).

-Marco

[Andrew Cooper]

But where I have a specific issue is this: there are things that *are* in the shared imaginary space that may not be obvious to the other participants. The clear case of this is a master villain whose actions are predicated on data the players don't know.

They can see the actions but until they have the whole picture the actions don't make sense to them. It's the tip-of-the-iceberg scenario.

That backstory is, IMO, as 'real' as anything in the shared imaginary space since it informs it.

I would say that the backstory isn't real until it is actually revealed in the SiS.  Let's take your example of the villian.  In a setting where the GM has hidden knowledge of the villian's motives, they still aren't real until the GM reveals them for the simple reason that up until they are revealed they can be changed at the GM's whim... and no one would know the difference.  As a GM, I've had NPC's that I've started with one set of backstory and motivations and then through play discovered a better one by paying attention to my players.

So, while the villian's actions (and personality) are real and can be deduced in the SiS.  I'd have to say that specific motivations and background are not solidified until they actually enter the game, either through narration or group discussion when setting up the game or whatever other methods there are.


[/quote]

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The problem is that, in a sense, *everything* in the participants private imaginary space casts those shadows into the shared space IME.

This is as it should be. No matter how carefully held to one's self the elements of the private imaginations should have an effect on the shared imagination, regardless of how subtile. If it doesn't, then there's a problem, I think.

[Marco]

But where I have a specific issue is this: there are things that *are* in the shared imaginary space that may not be obvious to the other participants. The clear case of this is a master villain whose actions are predicated on data the players don't know.

They can see the actions but until they have the whole picture the actions don't make sense to them. It's the tip-of-the-iceberg scenario.

That backstory is, IMO, as 'real' as anything in the shared imaginary space since it informs it.

I would say that the backstory isn't real until it is actually revealed in the SiS.  Let's take your example of the villian.  In a setting where the GM has hidden knowledge of the villian's motives, they still aren't real until the GM reveals them for the simple reason that up until they are revealed they can be changed at the GM's whim... and no one would know the difference.  As a GM, I've had NPC's that I've started with one set of backstory and motivations and then through play discovered a better one by paying attention to my players.

So, while the villian's actions (and personality) are real and can be deduced in the SiS.  I'd have to say that specific motivations and background are not solidified until they actually enter the game, either through narration or group discussion when setting up the game or whatever other methods there are.

[/quote]

It's true that the GM can change those things--but the GM can cheat at dice too if the rolls are behind the screen and the numbers that came up are objectively real in his perception but not to the player's.

If the GM is committed to *not* changing those motivations then they're just as real as anything in the game. If the GM feels that changing those motivations would degrade his or her experience who can say they are wrong?

But more importantly: saying the unrevealed is not "real" is missing the point--there are people who believe that the un-revealed *is* real in the context of an RPG and saying it ain't so is not going to change that belief/commitment to play.

It's not like one is right and one is wrong (or, put another way, if you think that your view, the not-real, is the "clearly correct one" then I think you're making a mistake).

Edited to Note: A GM could also hijack SiS with "it's all a dream" (or ailen implant or whatever) effectively ret-conning shared events at will. I don't think something having happened makes it any more "real" than the rest of roleplaying.

-Marco

[John Kim]

...accidental post...

[lumpley]

It doesn't matter when things become "real."  As Marco says, there are people committed to both views, and so what anyway?

The question is, can you tell which CA a game has by which view its players take?  Do John's Storytelling vs. Virtual Experience paradigms line up with Narrativism vs. Sim?

It occurs to me as I pose the question that the answer is a big inescapable no!  Here's why: I hold the extreme of one view - nothing's real in the game until it's been established by fully-informed group consensus, plus sufficient time has passed since then that nobody's going to take it back, for all roleplaying anywhere ever - and yet I can still play Simulationist if I want to.

-Vincent

[Marco]

What about the reverse: you'll play in my real-world where I don't change things behind the scene to promote story/premise/whatever.

Can you play Nar then?

-Marco

[lumpley]

Absolutely.  We can set the game up from the start to play out Narrativist, right out in the open.  When does My Life with Master (eg) say to rewrite behind the scenes?

-Vincent

[Marco]

I don't know MLWM--how about GURPS or Hero? Do the rules have to have some sort of powerful support for Narrativist play or is this something you can do as easily as you shift it to Sim?

Edited to add: If we do use a traditional game system, what kind of work needs to be done? Can the GM simply make a premiseful situation and give you some basic character parameters or do we need some lit-theory style discussions of theme, what will and won't be done to characters, and limits on the GM's power?

If so what would that look like?

FWIW: I'm not sure that viewpoint is related to CA either--but if it's not then I think a serious look needs to be taken at the concept of Force.

-Marco

[lumpley]

Well, if you buy what I've been selling selling selling for the last few days, what you need to launch a Narrativist game is: fit characters at a turning point into a moral conflict, plus resolution rules that won't fuck up the escalation.  I imagine you can play GURPS or Hero that way, if you get the characters and initial situation right.  Will GURPS's resolution rules fuck up the escalation?  If so, I'm pretty sure that rewriting behind the scenes won't save us.

-Vincent

[Marco]

Well, if you buy what I've been selling selling selling for the last few days, what you need to launch a Narrativist game is: fit characters at a turning point into a moral conflict, plus resolution rules that won't fuck up the escalation.  I imagine you can play GURPS or Hero that way, if you get the characters and initial situation right.  Will GURPS's resolution rules fuck up the escalation?  If so, I'm pretty sure that rewriting behind the scenes won't save us.

-Vincent

The resolution system has never screwed things up for me, but I can't say for anyone else.

How much do you think you need to know to make Fit characters? A whole stated premise? Basic who-the-characters-are and what-the-action-sorta-is?

If the GM runs things as a virtuality would you consider a situation that developes plausibly into a narrow corridor of possibilities (i.e. eventually you are left with few good options) Force?

And those resolution systems: if the player does select Crippling Cowardice (a hypothetical character-hijack: I don't think it's a real GURPS/Hero Disad) does that mean it'll fuck up the escalation or that the lack of control the player may have in that situation can actually be *crucial* to the situation?

That is: the esclation is hightened because the player has intentionally cut off an avenue of "action" for his character and wants it that way?

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

I've often suggested on this board that there can be elements accepted as real in the shared imaginary space which are known only to one of the contributors. The biggest example is when the group agrees to play a module, agreeing that the contents of the module define the world but that only the referee is permitted to read the module. It works the same way if the referee creates his own maps, his own world, and has done so in advance of play--everyone agrees that whatever is in that file of papers from which he's working is part of the shared imaginary space, waiting to be shared more completely.

The same can be the case for events. If as referee I know that no matter what the player characters do, in three months from this game date there is going to be a major economic collapse, that's part of the Shared Imaginary Space even if it has not yet been revealed. I think it may be part of the SIS even if I don't know when it's going to happen but I know it to be a certainty waiting for the right moment.

Those sorts of predetermined moments can function as kickers; they aren't limited to one agendum.

--M. J. Young

[Paganini]

Vince, you're doing synechdoche. The way you play Narrativist, with characters, strong backstory, turning points, etc. is great. It works. I like it. But it's not the only way there is. Sure, you can do it in GURPS. But in a Narrativist game, *everyone is Herbie.* If you use GURPS, there will be a lot of Herbie's time wasted.