Narrativism: Not a Creative Agenda...

[Valamir]

Now you might say: therefore "Premise" must be a technique. No, it is a situation - a confluence of fantasy elements (character, in game situation, setting), a value standard, and potential consequences. We might use techniques to make sure these confluences happen often, but we can also just _find_ them in the flow of fantasy events in any role-play.

Cool.  I see where you're coming from.

I agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations.  But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

What are you the player doing in that particular situation that can be said to be addressing the premise, vs. what you may do in that situation that wouldn't address any premise?  Those things are techniques.

Also establishing a premise into a situation may just happen.  But often times it is engineered into the situation by use of such techniques as Actor or Director Stance.  Other times it is inserted into the game through the GM's advanced prep.  How the GM delivers that prep into the SiS and handles the player encountering it is all about technique.  Presented a certain way its a premise laden situation.  Presented another way its not.

[ErrathofKosh]

[The Skewer that goes through Social, Exploration, CA, and Techniques could place the actual priority in different places along the skewer.  In fact, as I mentioned above, discussions of the relative importance to the player of Techniques vs Agenda would be an interesting avenue to pursue.

I think that one could easily make a case that for alot of gamers the Creative Agenda isn't really their real priority at all.  the Turku school for instance seems to me to prioritize the technique of immersion above anything and everything else.  Its the Technique that's most important.

Interesting...

This heads in nearly the same direction as what I proposed over in Motives and Methods, Conflict and Elements.  Indeed this thread has made me realize that my definition of player motives is too narrow.

So Narrativism is not a Creative Agenda. The style of play we call Narrativism is a skewer that passes through a Creative Agenda and spears a number of Techniques. Dramatism is a skewer that passes through the same Creative Agenda and spears a different collection of Techniques. Niether is the essential core of the Agenda.

As Ralph wrote beginning of this thread, the Nar CA has issues that make it difficult to classify it as a CA.  I suggest replacing all of the CA level in the model with Conflict-types and looking to the skewers as "CA's."  Of course, we would only classify a few of the more popular skewers....

BTW, Ralph your CA's defined by conflict conversation started me in this direction, and this thread seems to be heading in that same direction.

Cheers
Jonathan

[Valamir]

I've been pleasantly encouraged by the ease at which a number of issues that we've wrestled with in various places fall rather nicely into place with only a relatively few minor tweaks.

Really the only thing that I've changed is to define CA in terms of conflict, define Instance of Play in terms of conflict cycle and determined to eliminate the overlap between techniques and CAs.

I agree that CA as I've framed it is really more appropriate called Conflict Approach, and the player's agenda is more properly defined by the skewer.  

Conflict Approaches become simply Theme, Challenge, and Internal Causality.  Players thus view conflicts as opportunities to illustrate thematic elements, opportunities for challenge or conflict, or opportunities to illustrate what "should" happen.

All of the various subsets of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism thus become Skewers.

This visualization allows us to more easily keep the full model in mind when talking about play styles and gives us a starting point to discuss what aspects of Social Contract, what Exploration Dial Settings, and what Techniques might combine to deliver a particular play experience.

[Alan]

I agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations.  But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

Addressing premise does require techniques - but does it _require_ any particular techniques?  I don't think so.  The player merely needs a means to effect a result.  Such means need not have anything to do with the value standard, they can simply affect the characters and setting.  Role-playing games provide many techniques for affecting character and setting.

For example, if in the progress of a DnD3e game, I stumble into a situation and, out of the shared imagined space, another player comments on it.  I can play off his evaluation by making a choice within SIS.  It could be as simple as choosing to attack or not.  So I say techniques are not required to address premise - addressing premise is an act of decision, not a technique - ie it is not a method for achieving something.

You know, we could have this same argument about Challenge - is Challenge a technique or a choice to perform?

EDIT " So I say _particular_ techniques are not required to address premise"

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Ralph,

In this model, how do you define "Technique"?  Because it seems trivially easy for me to call, say, "measurable/discernable challenge result" a Technique that must be used in order for Gamism to happen, creating the same problem for Gamism that you posit for Nar/Empowerment.

Seems to me the core issue here is in distinguishing Technique from CA, but that the way those are distinguished is not by saying they don't overlap.  Rather we must learn to recognize what is simply a Technique in use and what is an Agenda being realized.  I agree this is a hard/confusing thing, but it is the core of GNS as a whole: recognizing that all play worth discussing in depth exhibits a CA, and learning how to seperate out that CA from everything else (i.e., Techniques, System, Explored Elements . . . maybe others?)

But you may be defining Techniques in a new way (or I missed a tweak that came up over the last few months - been away from the Forge a while, as you know).  Because unless there's some special definition, I think it would always be possible to define a Technique that is "unique" to any particular CA-wording we come up with.  We have to distinguish them in a different way because we can't keep 'em from overlapping.  At least, that's how it looks to me at the moment,

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

Dang, this has exploded.

I'm going to caveat that "Illusionism" is not "a technique" it is a combination of techniques which combine to create a referee style. "Participationism" is a closely related referee style which uses most of the same techniques. "Trailblazing" is a distinct referee style which uses mostly different techniques, and "Bass Playing" is different yet again. Each of these combines many techniques to the objective of a certain style of refereeing. The techniques used in illusionism are reasonably termed "illusionist techniques" and are used in varying degrees in each of the agenda. For example, I observed long ago and repeatedly since that the "moving clue" technique Ron recommends for facilitating narrativist play in a mystery adventure is an illusionist technique. Thus it is clear that illusionist techniques are compatible with narrativism, just as they are with gamism and simulationism. The question is not whether such techniques can be used, but how they can be used.

Otherwise, I agree that there's a serious problem with the notion that narrativism doesn't exist if the players corporately are not creating theme. Given that the referee is one of the players, if theme is created through play I'm not entirely certain why there is a suggested "minimum threshold" for the distribution of credibility to the other players, other than that there must be a minimum threshold in all play for there to be actual exploration occurring. Illusionism is problematic, in that by definition the players have less credibility than they believe. Participationism, however, is significant in this regard. If the character players have agreed that their part in the game will be to contribute color, and that the referee player will weave the story as it progresses, would it not be possible for this to be a narrativist address of premise? The alternative would seem to be to insist either that every participant in the game must make a specific minimum contribution to the development of the theme, or that there is a specific maximum amount of control over the theme permitted to any one player in narrativist play, neither of which seems to be as much about creative agendum as it is about technique. So I agree there. I'm not sure that means that "narrativism" as defined is mistaken; I think that narrativism as applied is mistaken.

I also think that Illusionism is a red herring in all these discussions; it should not be produced as an example of any agendum, because although it appears to be functional play it incorporates an inherent dysfunction: the system itself is not what the character-players believe it to be. To reference a concurrent discussion, the players think they have the power to break the vase by knocking it off the balcony, but they don't have that power--but the referee is not going to let them know they don't have that power. In illusionism, players have no credibility; the referee dictates the content of the shared imagined space, and the players accept it, making comments that have no functional impact on that shared imagined space. When the vase lands in the swimming pool and is unbroken, the players think it was just their bad luck, when it was actually entirely because the referee wanted the vase to remain intact and it didn't matter how he did it as long as the players didn't catch on that they lacked the power to break it. Since illusionism gives the players no credibility, exploration for them is limited to listening to the referee's story being told to them as if it were a story they were creating. Now, whether this is functional play in any agendum is doubtful. Yet I think it could be dysfunctional play in any agendum--you could have illusionist narrativism, illusionist gamism, and illusionist simulationism, in which the players think they've created something but unbeknownst to them all of their input has been negated and used to achieve the referee's ends. It doesn't matter what your agendum is. When you discover that none of your choices ever make any difference to anything that matters to you, either you shift to participationism because you're enjoying the movie, or you quit the game because you realize you have no control over anything. (I have seen both responses to illusionism.)

Also Ralph, when you say

I agree that Premise is situation, or more precisely Premise is found in certain situations. But I do think that addressing that situation requires techniques.

there's some obscurity there. Premise is inherent in situation (and/or setting and/or character), and addressing premise requires techniques. However,

[*]Addressing premise is not itself a technique, but something for which techniques are used, and[*]Addressing premise does not require one specific set of techniques, e.g., immersion may or may not be included, author stance may or may not be included, illusionist techniques may or may not be included--what matters is not which techniques are used, but whether they are used to address premise.[/list:u]Anyway, I think there's some worthwhile thought here, but I'm not ready to abandon narrativism so much as consider how it fits with different distributions of credibility.

--M. J. Young

[Marco]

Excellent post, MJ--one thing: I don't think that the presence of Illusionism implies the players have no power--just that they don't always have as much as they might think.

The GM might generally play it straight but not allow the major enemy to be killed in the 'first act' (although if they manage to get him in the 'second act,' instead of the prefered 'third,' that's okay--or if they screw up and he gets them, well, that's the way the dice fell).

So I think there *is* a gradient and, thus, as a player, when I discover Illusionism I might not leave; not sign on to "watch the movie"; but rather: voice my expectation that there hopefully won't be too much of that.

If I'm a pure virtualist and the GM is constantly doing things to enhance the drama, eventually I'll want to leave--but if my concerns are simply more about player input, then the GM stoking the drama-level may not bother me (even if it means a minor loss of assumed power in a few cases).

-Marco

[contracycle]

2. From where do you get your assertion that a Gamist doesn't care if your character lives or dies? I think that's just your own preferences speaking--there's nothing in the essay that discusses whether a GM might or might not have that preference.

The problem is that it is the GM's prerference, not mine.  I do not need to be nannied, and I do not need the GM to save my arse for me.

Show me how, in the case of the character taking risk and failing, and being saved by the GM, the Gamist agenda hasn't been fufilled.

Because it revealed that my setp on up was worthless, and that my decisions were worthless, and really the GM is just running me through their own story like a rat in a maze.

Yes, I agree that the player might object if they found out--but the play is still Gamist--the GM still qualifies as a Gamist GM, and the play is functional.

The GM's play preferences are wholly irrelevant.  We are all at the table, and the GM's gamism does not licencse them to overrule the gamist interests of the players.

[Valamir]

Gareth, this is blatant synecdoche.  You're confounding one perfectly valid perfectly understandable way of achieving gamist priorities with all gamist priorities.  

I can assure quite readily, that when step on up involves showing off to your friends what a masterful player you are that there can be zero difference between the failure condition being character death or failure condition being character would have died if the GM hadn't saved me.

Either way I screwed up, I was defeated, my gamer Fu was weak, and everybody at the table knows it.

THAT'S step on up in action.  That's Gamism.


If for your particular brand of gamism you're not satisfied unless the failure condition is character death...great...but that's YOUR schtick.  Trying to claim that's necessary for gamism is completely wrong.

[Marco]

Gareth, this is blatant synecdoche.  You're confounding one perfectly valid perfectly understandable way of achieving gamist priorities with all gamist priorities.  

Blatant is certainly a good word for it. Gareth, what's going on here?

-Marco

[contracycle]

Either way I screwed up, I was defeated, my gamer Fu was weak, and everybody at the table knows it.

But they do NOT know it.  They do not know it because the GM lied and saved me; thus it appears my Gamer Fu was strong, strong enough to escape by the skin of my teeth.  My failure was NOT represented in the SIS and I gain kudos I do not deserve.  That is not gamism, that is manipulation.

If for your particular brand of gamism you're not satisfied unless the failure condition is character death...great...but that's YOUR schtick.  Trying to claim that's necessary for gamism is completely wrong.

Remember that Marco proposed the example, not I.  Death is irrelevant - the fact that I succeeded or failed is relevant, and whether or not this changes the SIS.  If my success or failure CANNOT change the SIS, then I am not driving any of the action, and my step on up doesn;t matter at all - my character receives success or failure, and the associated kudos, from the GM willy nilly and I might as well be watching TV.

[Marco]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough (although Ralph got it).

Imagine the character challenges a guardian on a bridge to a battle with staves to pass that way. The character goes out and they fight. The player makes two tactical blunders and is soundly beaten.

On the last roll, the player blows a DEX check and according to system moves "three yards to the right, falling down." That places him "off the edge of the bridge."

The GM has said below the bridge is a nasty rushing river (which would be impossible to cross and the character can't swim). The GM's take on the situation is that, yes, the character would probably pitch into the deep river ... and drown.

But he doesn't want the player to lose the character. He describes the character landing on the (previously described as treacherously steep) slope and therefore sliding down--but the GM secretely resolves that the character will never make it all the way down to death.

The player doesn't get any cred for kicking ass--he got beaten soundly. But the GM's asthetic is preserved by illusionism (the character continues, the player, although not enthausitic, accepted defeat as a possible outcome and is ready to continue).

Play is functional, gamist, and illusionist (un-caught).

-Marco

[contracycle]

Previous response stricken

It seems to me that is a weak example.  The fight is over if the player is knocked off the bridge - at that point the step on up stops.  The defeat given by system is severe - effectively "be lucky to survive".

The GM intervening to make a character a lucky survivor does not frustrate gamist SOU; the player is reduced to hoping to be lucky, and that does not imply the same reqirement for demonstration of competence, strategy or guts.

So really you are showing an example in which a gamist SOU was completed , the challenge was lost, but then the player was saved from the claws of fate by the GM.  This is not an example of gamist illusionism IMO becuase none of the SOU decisions were overruled by the GM.

[Marco]

Previous response stricken

It seems to me that is a weak example.  The fight is over if the player is knocked off the bridge - at that point the step on up stops.  The defeat given by system is severe - effectively "be lucky to survive".

The GM intervening to make a character a lucky survivor does not frustrate gamist SOU; the player is reduced to hoping to be lucky, and that does not imply the same reqirement for demonstration of competence, strategy or guts.

So really you are showing an example in which a gamist SOU was completed , the challenge was lost, but then the player was saved from the claws of fate by the GM.  This is not an example of gamist illusionism IMO becuase none of the SOU decisions were overruled by the GM.

Gareth,

I saw your previous answer. It indicates to me that you did understand the question as phrased originally and you stood by your original answer.

I'll take another look at this response later--but right now I don't buy this either.

-Marco

[Gordon C. Landis]

Either way I screwed up, I was defeated, my gamer Fu was weak, and everybody at the table knows it.

But they do NOT know it.  They do not know it because the GM lied and saved me; thus it appears my Gamer Fu was strong, strong enough to escape by the skin of my teeth.  My failure was NOT represented in the SIS and I gain kudos I do not deserve.  That is not gamism, that is manipulation.

(Empasis added)

In case this is where the problem is (and my appologies for going back to GNS basics with folks who obviously understand 'em quite well): whether or not your failure is represented in the SIS is not, of neccessity, an important factor in evaluating your Gamer Fu.  Did or did not the group evaluate it as weak and display that evaluation?  If so, the situation in the SIS doesn't matter.

Now, failure in the SIS can be a good way to help promote that evaluation.  But it ain't needed.  GM intervention that prevents the group from realizing AT ALL that that a Step On Up opportunity was, ah, not taken advantage of is a barrier to Gamism.  But the realization does not have to be from within the SIS.

Hope that's relevant in some way,

Gordon