When Is It Real?

[Ben Lehman]

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?

BL>  I do it all the time with D&D.  Just stick the characters in a position where they are forced to make difficult and uncertain choices and watch the sparks fly.  My favorite is to give them a huge amount of authority over a group of people that they don't understand very well.  No need to re-engineer behind the scenes -- your whole premise is packed in the situation like gunpowder down a musket-barrel, and all it takes is someone to pull that trigger.

yrs--
--Ben

[Caldis]

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

But what if two disadvantages come into conflict?  This is where the system breaks down if the character comes into a situation where his cowardice prevents him from acting to save the love of his life the Gurps system puts it in the hands of dice rolls.  The player cant make the decision on whether it's possible to overcome cowardice when something important is on the line, only the dice can make the decision.  That destorys narrativism in my mind.

Now going back to the original post I think people are missing the word shared in shared imaginary space.  While all the back story or plotting details may be real in the mind of one player or the gm they can not be real inside the game until they are shared.  These details cant be explored until they are revealed and so they are not yet in the game for the whole group.

[lumpley]

Nathan: What's a Herbie?

I think you may be spotting the thing I left out.  I hit submit, powered down my machine, we all got our shoes on and left for the fireworks, and I'm like, "...oh crap."

Here's what I shoulda said.

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 or the players' investment and contributions. 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 or the players' authorship? If so, I'm pretty sure that rewriting behind the scenes won't save us.

And I should say, my limited experience with GURPS suggests that as the players' investment and authorship increases, the number of times per session that they roll dice or look at their character sheets decreases pretty radically.  But that's just me.

(Sorry for the synechdoche.  Please read "what you need is..." as "you can do it with...")

Caldis, yes, I agree: the game's rules can undermine the player's authorship.

Marco, your questions are great ones!  Here's a recent post by Ron, you probably read it already.  I read it to say that the work of creating a fit character at a turning point is distributed among the character, the setting, and the situation - any of them can do the bulk of the work, they can share it out, there are a bajillion ways to make it happen.  None of the Premise, the Character, the Setting, the Situation has to come first - I mean, one of them sort of does, but which one and how much is endlessly variable.

You can create a character with passion, ambition, strength, weakness - and then fit the conflict to him.  "Crippling cowardice" can absolutely be Premise-meat, if the conflict fits to it.

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?

In fact that happens all the time in Narrativist play!  I make an unforced decision, you the GM present me with the consequences of my decision, which naturally limit my choices going forward.  I make a new unforced decision in the new situation, and you present me with the consequences...

Looking forward, neither of us knows how it'll turn out.  Looking backward, its course seems inevitable.  Every decision, made freely, creates the decisions to come.

-Vincent

[Marco]

Caldis,

There's no question that a player wishing to explore Cowardice in a certian fashion might be ill-advised to take that exact disad in GURPS (you can explore Cowardice just fine in GURPS without the disadvantage, for example).

Even if one does, the GM is allowed to assign WIL modifiers and therefore it becomes a matter of the player explaining his position (if the player explains that the love of his life is on the line in a cowardice-vs-love situation and the GM says "Plus Zero" then, well, I think the player has a good reason to walk).

As for the dice determining things: I don't see that's the real issue so much. Yes, the dice may determine things but dice can determine things like if you're knocked out too. While I agree it's different, I'm not sure it's all *that* different: in my experience players who've taken "cowardice" (or whatever) have done so because they wanted the experience of playing a character with that but, and this is key, that may not have been central to the Premise they wanted to address. Same as taking Flaws in TROS.

In fact, let's look at TROS: a fine system that is generally seen as either very Nar or at worst Sim/Nar hybrid (i.e. coherent). In that a character can have Lecherous and Loves Wife (5). If the GM introduces a threat to a mistress (introduced through Lecherous) and the wife the player may decide his character loves his new mistress more but the system won't support that (changing SA focus will drop his SA to zero and cost him one other as well--if that decision is made at crisis time the whole thing's a bust).

Basically the GM who engineers a choice between a newly beloved mistress and the passion the character has 5 dice in is using the system to defeat the player's choice (and this might be a surprise for the GM, the player may, in the heat of the crisis decide his physical passion is more important than his spoken commitment). But the problem an issue of the system: If the player could just "adjust his focus" at will, this wouldn't be an issue and would work "correctly" (the answer to premise the player wants will be facilitated by five extra dice!)

But it's the same thing in GURPS. At leas the way I've played it (and if that's drift then so be it: I'd call it the GM and players paying attention to each other having a good time--the changes were not at the rule-system level).

-Marco

[Marco]

And I should say, my limited experience with GURPS suggests that as the players' investment and authorship increases, the number of times per session that they roll dice or look at their character sheets decreases pretty radically.  But that's just me.

-Vincent

Vincent,
I agree muchly with what you wrote (almost everything but what I quoted above). The idea that GURPS is like that is, well, IMO, biased. *I* certainly never saw it like that (any more than My Life With Master is the same game over and over and over and ...).

I can see an argument in Sorceror where the player does "the best he can" and the GM removes humanity and the player objects. The rules (at least the apprentice rules--I've read the published book but I don't have one here) allow the GM to make the call.

What I'm saying is that *any* system can *somewhere* interfere with a player's wanted method of development--and that's when the group finds out if the players are committed to power struggle or to cooperation.

How the rules themselves interact with the players even without change is, IMO, a matter of opinion and preference--but has nothing to do with Creative Agenda per-se save in very severe edge conditions (which I believe GURPS and Hero are not one--not nearly).*

-Marco
* Saying the rules interfere is like saying the rules are "broken"--there may be cases where almost everyone agrees but I think it should mostly be understood as a matter of opinion--not 'fact.'

[Paganini]

Nathan: What's a Herbie?

Herbie is the original GM from the "System Does Matter" essay.

But, anyway, I know pretty much zero about GURPS other than a couple of scans through the "quickstart" rules. But, let's take D&D 3e, say, which everyone pretty much agrees gets in the way of Narrativism. Raven has had pretty much success, I think, getting around the inherent problems in his play. So, you're forgiven. And, just for the record, the techniques you describe are *very strong.* Unless the game mechanis really really screw up your input as a player (say, random lifepaths and such), you can do Narrativism, in the way you describe, and it's pretty easy.

I think Ron disagrees with me a bit here, but: Since "Addressing Premise" includes creating it, as well as resolving it, I think character creation can be actual Narrativist play. So if you're playing GURPS or D&D or whatever and you're using chargen techniques to get your character into the kind of problematic situation you want, then bang, Narrativism during chargen.

In a way, character creation is an instance of director stance. There's always that social contract level negotiation with the GM in a lot of games, but mostly the player gets to make his character how he wants. What is real in his head becomes real in the SiS. So, you can have Narrativism there.

[Caldis]

Caldis,

There's no question that a player wishing to explore Cowardice in a certian fashion might be ill-advised to take that exact disad in GURPS (you can explore Cowardice just fine in GURPS without the disadvantage, for example).

That seems illogical to me given that the whole point of character creation in Gurps is to define your character.  If you intend to explore something and avoid using the rules given to define it in the game it sounds to me like you are avoiding using the system and yeah that'll be drift.

In fact, let's look at TROS: a fine system that is generally seen as either very Nar or at worst Sim/Nar hybrid (i.e. coherent). In that a character can have Lecherous and Loves Wife (5). If the GM introduces a threat to a mistress (introduced through Lecherous) and the wife the player may decide his character loves his new mistress more but the system won't support that (changing SA focus will drop his SA to zero and cost him one other as well--if that decision is made at crisis time the whole thing's a bust).

You miss a very important distinction with your example though Marco, while the player may be penalized in Riddle of Steel for deciding to break with the old SA he is still free to do so.  He'll have to face the consequence of his action, not having all those bonus dice available to him, however he is free to act in either direction regardless.  In Gurps he comes up against the dice roll and that tells him how he is going to act, if he fails it, no matter what bonus the gm gave him to succeed, he can not act as he chooses in the instant.   That kills narrativism dead on the spot.

[Caldis]

I think Ron disagrees with me a bit here, but: Since "Addressing Premise" includes creating it, as well as resolving it, I think character creation can be actual Narrativist play.  

I've been thinking about this for awhile and I definitely agree with you especially the following statement.

So if you're playing GURPS or D&D or whatever and you're using chargen techniques to get your character into the kind of problematic situation you want, then bang, Narrativism during chargen.

Of course I think the other agendas show up in character creation as well.  A gamist will be choosing skills and abilities that better allow them to step on up, and for sim choosing the abilities and skills that most make sense for the type of character they've chosen.  So I guess what we can say is that character creation is a part of play and that creative agenda will possibly rear it's head during that segment of play.

[Paganini]

Absolutely Caldis!

[John Kim]

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.

As Marco aptly puts it -- nothing in the game is physically real, regardless of whether 1, 2, or 5 people imagine it.  You can define "the game" as group consensus -- but that's just makes the definition circular.  To me, what's important is the collection of players' individual imaginings.   The abstraction of "the group" as a unified entity might be useful to help everyone have fun, but it's a means to an end and not a real thing.  

I'm curious about the "wrong and harmful" part.  What sort of harm do you think that I cause when I imagine stuff as real?  

But what if two disadvantages come into conflict?  This is where the system breaks down if the character comes into a situation where his cowardice prevents him from acting to save the love of his life the Gurps system puts it in the hands of dice rolls.  The player cant make the decision on whether it's possible to overcome cowardice when something important is on the line, only the dice can make the decision.  That destorys narrativism in my mind.  

Hmmm.  Well, personally, I don't like these sort of behavior mechanics.  However, I think that is a matter of taste.  In GURPS, the opposed disadvantage roll only sets a limit on what the character can do -- they don't negate all player input.  The player can still have plenty of input on the premise through other choices.  As an alternate example, in My Life With Master there are similar cases where the "Self-Loathing" rating comes into conflict with the "Love" rating.  What the PC does in this case is determined in part by a die roll.  i.e. If the player rolls badly, he must obey the master's orders.

[Caldis]

As Marco aptly puts it -- nothing in the game is physically real, regardless of whether 1, 2, or 5 people imagine it.  You can define "the game" as group consensus -- but that's just makes the definition circular.  To me, what's important is the collection of players' individual imaginings.   The abstraction of "the group" as a unified entity might be useful to help everyone have fun, but it's a means to an end and not a real thing.  

I'm curious about the "wrong and harmful" part.  What sort of harm do you think that I cause when I imagine stuff as real?  

Role playing is a social undertaking and as such there is a group that has to bring their individual imaginings together into a workable form.  When they bring those imaginings out into the open thats when the game is on.  I can imagine my character is the greatest painter who ever lived but if I dont bring it up in play then it's simply not part of the game.  Likewise a gm can have all the little plot details figured out in advance but if they dont come up in play and no one else experiences them then they're not really a part of the game.   They can be influences on the game but so can the tv show I watched last night or the book I read last week.

The danger in assuming what you've preimagined is a real part of the game is if play moves on to the point where your imaginings no longer hold relevance but you've put enough work into them that you feel you must shoe horn them back into the game somehow.  It's not a given that this will happen, as Vincent said it may be innocent it may be harmful, but that is where the danger lies.

[Marco]

Caldis,

I'm not missing the distinction: I know both games pretty well. I don't even disagree with your analysis. I do, however, think your conclusions are overly extreme.

1. TRoS contains exactly the same character hijacks GURPS does (in exactly the same place). If it's a coherent Nar/Sim game (as is claimed) then clearly there must be some way around them. You might argue that GURPS is bad for some kinds of play: be it playing a game where cowardice is taken by the player, defined in the system, and functions as a hijack against the player's will.

You might also say it doesn't work for high level supers. I slaute you for either one. But it's a matter of opinion and how the system is applied to those concepts.

For example, in GURPS the combat system isn't nearly as deadly as TROS's so when the TROS character's wish to address premise is denied by the system (by its refusal to help) the consequnece is pretty much death or a choice not to act--sounds pretty confining to me.

-Marco

[Paganini]

Marco,

So, this is getting a little far afield from what we're talking about in the other thread, but...

There's this fairly common perception that Nar facilitation is all about giving players unlimited freedom. Now, this is not true. In fact, the only freedom that players need to promote Nar play is that of creating and resolving Premise. It can even be a *specific* premise, as in Sorcerer. So, "Nar facilitating" doesn't mean "Complete Player Freedom." It doesn't even have to mean "complete freedom to Address Premise," although, often it does.

I believe a lot of people feel that the restrictions in TROS drive play in a particularly desireable direction. I personally haven't played it yet, although I do own the book, and have read it a couple of times. As a veteran of a lot of Nar play, I feel that it would produce some pretty great sessions, although the combat stuff is a little to heavy to work well on IRC, where I play most of my games.

[Caldis]

For example, in GURPS the combat system isn't nearly as deadly as TROS's so when the TROS character's wish to address premise is denied by the system (by its refusal to help) the consequnece is pretty much death or a choice not to act--sounds pretty confining to me.

-Marco

Not at all.  The Riddle of Steel is set up to answer the question what is worth fighting for and because it is so deadly the question is really what is worth risking death for.  If the player chooses a fight for this new love in his life and it's a close situation where those extra dice from the SA would make the difference he had better either fight smart with the aim of getting him and his love away from trouble or else be prepared to die for the cause.  The player has the choice and that's what's important, in Gurps their is no choice.

Now gurps is a fine system and I'm currently engaging in a fun fantasy campaign, very simmy with a fair dose of gamism.  However It does restrict in certain ways and there definitely are ways we've drifted the system, specifically the gm has never made us roll to force an action if an disadvantage comes up.  Really our disadvantages are used primarily as color, and it works for us, but it's not by the rules.

[Marco]

Not at all.  The Riddle of Steel is set up to answer the question what is worth fighting for and because it is so deadly the question is really what is worth risking death for.  If the player chooses a fight for this new love in his life and it's a close situation where those extra dice from the SA would make the difference he had better either fight smart with the aim of getting him and his love away from trouble or else be prepared to die for the cause.  The player has the choice and that's what's important, in Gurps their is no choice.

Now gurps is a fine system and I'm currently engaging in a fun fantasy campaign, very simmy with a fair dose of gamism.  However It does restrict in certain ways and there definitely are ways we've drifted the system, specifically the gm has never made us roll to force an action if an disadvantage comes up.  Really our disadvantages are used primarily as color, and it works for us, but it's not by the rules.

Caldis,
I don't think you see GURPS and TRoS in the same light that I do. But I don't see how you come by your take on the TRoS situation:

1. GURPS and TRoS disads work exactly the same way. Same character hijack, you know. If you decide to play it so that SA's always over-rule Flaws then, hey, that's cool--but it's no different than the GURPS GM handing out pluses to Will rolls, which I'd expect (and there are quotes in the book that indicate that even if a character has SA's in play they won't always over-rule the character-hijack of flaws).

2. A character with zero SA dice in play seems to me to be in the same situation as a GURPS character (it all comes down to skill and basic character power). I don't get it when you say this is contrasted to GURPS. Is it that GURPS is *less* deadly that you think the player need not either play smart or use tactics and strategy?

-Marco