What GNS is about [LONG]

[Ron Edwards]

Um. I think what I'm talking about is that play can turn to a fascination with how the powers work, and a kind of "what would that do" priority that becomes almost an exercise in alternate-history construction. That construction occurs both during play itself and in the possibly-feverish game-world history that one or more people start writing.

In the real-life examples of this approach that I'm thinking of, there was no Premise because no one even looked in that direction, much less put any in-or-out-of character effort toward it.

So not really interference, but rather a "well, we're going this way" and that way just didn't have Premise involved.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

So not really interference, but rather a "well, we're going this way" and that way just didn't have Premise involved.

Best,
Ron

I'm following along--but the example we'd started with assumed a functional Narrativist GM (which, I assume, means the GM is interested in presenting premise-laden situations).

Was that the case in your history? Were, say, you as the GM throwing out premise laden adventures but the PC's were so interested in building the alternate history that they fled them to do history building stuff?

What happened when the practical consequences of un-addressed situation came crashing down?

Note: I'm thinking of my most recent Holes-in-the-world game write-up. There was some discussion of alternate-physics and, actually, some exploration of the technologies involved (this had to be the case since the scientist character did solve the problem with an application of her physics skills once she understood it).

However, due to what could be described as Narrativist proclivities on the part of the GM (me), there were elements of situation that were pretty difficult to ignore and, in fact, would've been catastrophic if they had been ignored (although, clearly, some were--and that was okay).

I'm wondering how these Sim players fail to engage with the situation--I mean, can't the GM just minorly amp the consequences of letting a given presented situation run it's course (this seems especially easy to do in what I understand of Godlike where there's a world war going on)?

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Ah - the groups I'm thinking of did not have a Narrativist-inclined GM.

So if we do have such a GM, then my point moves more toward my suggestion that Premise can then evolve over time, conceivably, as the players buy into making it by accepting and developoing the out-of-game personal charge that arises from the imaginary situation.

But I'm no longer sure what this thread is about ...

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

I'm wondering how these Sim players fail to engage with the situation--I mean, can't the GM just minorly amp the consequences of letting a given presented situation run it's course (this seems especially easy to do in what I understand of Godlike where there's a world war going on)?

Yes but I can't make them care about it.  So what if the situation runs its course?  Then they will get to see what happens next, which is fine.  If they are really uninterested in premise, I cannot compel them to address or explore it if they are not so inclined.  They can, if they wish, simply observe.  After all, even if the sim situation is catastophic, and the character gets killed, its only a game.

[Marco]

Yes but I can't make them care about it.  So what if the situation runs its course?  Then they will get to see what happens next, which is fine.  If they are really uninterested in premise, I cannot compel them to address or explore it if they are not so inclined.  They can, if they wish, simply observe.  After all, even if the sim situation is catastophic, and the character gets killed, its only a game.

This would give some credence to my observation that Simulationist play is noted observably for a lack of emotional engagement rather than an actual "gating factor" or systemically-enforced point.

The actual (hypothetical) case of a Nar-GM and Sim-Players that Ron suggests looks that way to me as well.

-Marco

[Caldis]

But I'm no longer sure what this thread is about ...

All right, I'll cop to a certain amount of floundering to find a point and possibly thread hijacking as well, so I'll try and regroup and clarify with a new thread likely not until tonight.

MJ, your last post had some good points but suffice it to say I disagree. Specifically that a seperate agenda for the players and the gm has to result in disfunction and that players watching the gm create theme are narrativists, by my understanding of creative agenda that's not true.  I hope the new thread will address some of these issues.  If you want to persue it with me directly feel free to pm me, though again I likely wont respond until tonight at the earliest.

I say this last part with a chuckle in my voice, Marco and Ron you two really have to sit down and hammer out this simulationist thing.  I feel like there's a lot being said between you but it's getting hard to follow with a couple posts in one thread and then a half dozen in another.  Maybe even start a thread and let it lie dormant for awhile if you've ran out of things to say then come back to it if something in another thread prompts you to it.

If that was out of line go ahead tell me to fuck off, I probably wont cry. ;)

[contracycle]

This would give some credence to my observation that Simulationist play is noted observably for a lack of emotional engagement rather than an actual "gating factor" or systemically-enforced point.

Hmm, I don't buy it I'm afraid.  The question was, can a Narr GM not compel players to care by amping the situational tension.  Answering no to that does not imply that sim play is emotionless and unengaged; it only means that it is not engaged with the addressing of premise and doesn't bite on the same bait you'd offer to Narr players.

[Marco]

Hmm, I don't buy it I'm afraid.  The question was, can a Narr GM not compel players to care by amping the situational tension.  Answering no to that does not imply that sim play is emotionless and unengaged; it only means that it is not engaged with the addressing of premise and doesn't bite on the same bait you'd offer to Narr players.

This is the situation I'm imagining: the PC's in a Godlike game (and I'm guessing here) are sent to rescue a turn-coat Nazi scientist. Along the way they see evidence of the atrocities he has committed.

The premise-ful situation is that their orders are to take him in (and maybe the war effort's success holds this important)--but he is a monster who will escape judgment.

In the case I imagine, the players go throught the adventure and then dutifuly rescue him (since that was their orders) and return with him.

Now: if a player hates the idea of rescuing the scientist and the other players shut him down, that's a (presumably) Nar player.

But here we have a bunch of Sim players--and they do not reject any input.

They do, in effect, answer the premise question: one's orders are more important than justice.
This fits the description of Nar play in all ways but one: they aren't emotionally involved.

As for consequences: the GM has induced the players to interact with the scenario by giving them orders. If they don't go on the mission they'll be thrown in the brig.

Thus, due to consequences, they engage (readily) with the premise-ful scenario, their play answering the premise question.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Guys!

This thread needs to end now. Let's pick up new topics in new threads.

Marco, you're engaging in about four fronts right now. Just pick one to be the main one to resolve just once, OK? Let the others sit.

This is a big deal; right now it's like playing badminton with Doc Ock.

To be clear: this one's closed.

Best,
Ron