Narrativism: Not a Creative Agenda...

[Marco]

As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

I thought about this when I read the most recent Force post. The Nar essay holds that:

In Narrativist play, using Force by definition disrupts the Creative Agenda.

But in the most recent post we see that:

5. How Force relates to Creative Agenda is a matter for discussion. My outlook, which is not definitional, is that Gamist and Narrativist play are ill-suited to including Force, but do very nicely with replacing it with inter-player influence over one another's characters through explicit permission.

(Emphasis IN original)

So I began thinking about that. Ralph (re-reading) the first post, gets his thoughts from the 3D model--which treats Theme as a goal and player-empowerment as a technique. So Theme-play becomes any play that has an intent to create theme (Alan argued against this, saying the choice was what was key and the creation of theme was a by-product, true--but what Ralph is calling Theme play is, IMO, fairly clear).

And I'm fine with that conclusion--but it puts Participationism (with intent on the GM's part to create theme) back in the Narrativist bucket--essentially making Narrativism into Dramatism.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

What you're missing, Marco - and what you've missed from your first day at the Forge - is that pre-created Theme cannot be created in play. A pre-created Theme can only be accepted as a group constraint going into the process or be imposed by a player with extra authority during the process.

Narrativist play pre-supposes that Theme is not pre-created. Period. Hence Participationist play (which I stress is not an agenda but a set of Techniques) is not compatible with it.

Now is probably the time to make it absolutely clear what Simulationist play is, as far as my model is concerned. I've tried many ways and many times, and I have no particular hope it'll get across this time, but here goes.

Simulationist play is defined by confirming one's input, via the output.

You're a Star Trek fan? OK, then, let's play Star Trek. Whatever the agreed-upon important input is, its effect during play is supposed to get us Star Trek.

That input might be the funny-physics of the show. Fine - we work out what those are (or read them in the sourcebook, whatever) and put them into action via System.

Or that input might be the distinctive character interactions or political tropes of the show. Fine - we dedicate ourselves to depicting and reinforcing those issues through what our characters do, which is also System.

Or ... and so on. Whatever angle you choose as the motor for input, i.e. processing through System, the output should confirm that this is, indeed, Star Trek. To play in this fashion is a celebration of Star Trek.

It is absolutely irrelevant to the general concept of Simulationism whether a story is produced or not. It is, however, very important in terms of an applied instance of Simulationism whether a story is taken as one of our going-in constraints.

For instance, one group might be more interested in "being kitty-people fighting with ray-guns" than in "doing Star Trek." Their play-experience and attention to "doing the story right" will be very different from that of the Star Trek fans. However, the guiding aesthetic is the same: agreed-upon input, processing, confirmatory output.

Narrativist play, like Gamist play, is not confirmatory of anything that "goes in." In Gamist play, play itself determines who wins or does best in terms of personal strategy and guts. Similarly, Narrativist play is that in which only play itself determines how Premise is transformed into Theme.

To clarify about Narrativist play, think in terms of any story created by any person or group in some familiar medium like movies or novels. It is absolutely irrefutable that at some point in time, there was no story of this particular sort (medium, presentation, details, etc). But at some point in the creative process, a story did indeed appear.

Whatever happens at that transition is what happens during Narrativist play. It cannot be agreed-upon beforehand, nor can it be imposed by a single person in an "ah-ha" sense upon the others during the process.

To sum up, Marco, it is entirely irrelevant to me whether you agree with any of the above. The question is whether you understand it. To date, I have no sense of confirmation about this.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hello,

What you're missing, Marco - and what you've missed from your first day at the Forge - is that pre-created Theme cannot be created in play. A pre-created Theme can only be accepted as a group constraint going into the process or be imposed by a player with extra authority during the process.

Ralph isn't distinguishing between pre-created theme and theme created through play. I think that's the issue of the Narrativist guys who don't want other elements of Dramatist play thrust upon them (and legitimately so). But whether it's all Theme-Play or not seems non-contraversial: you discuss creating-theme-through play. That seems to place it firmly in theme-play.

It's like me saying I don't want to be railroaded in my Virtuality game--same issue. No one is saying that Nar play doesn't exist or isn't distinct from Centralized Theme--what's being said is that a three-CA model that leaves both Centralized Theme and Decentralized Immersion in the same bin is unweildly and confusing and could probably be improved.

We can see that by the two sections I quoted above (in one Force is definitionally opposed to Narrativism. In the other, it's open for discussion).

-Marco

[Sean]

Ron wrote: "As far as I can tell, therefore, I have already presented the point and content that Ralph (Valamir) has outlined so carefully. As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism."

I hate to come with these 'me too' posts, but I'd concur with Ron's assessment here (and did on page 1 of this thread) - in particular, because (a) I was confused, in a number of threads (the 'big fight' thread I got into when I first got here, and the 'social mode' threads from a couple of months back) between Narrativism-qua-CA and certain Narrativist techniques, and (b) several people's helpful responses to my confusion (Ron, Chris Kubasik, Raven, and MJ stick out most strongly in my memory - apologies if I'm forgetting anyone), which ultimately convinced me, wouldn't have made any sense if this wasn't the case.

Ron, the only place I disagree with your formulations above a little is that it's possible that a group could have, and display in play, a Narrativist CA, but be using techniques which don't facilitate it - thinking e.g. that the only way they can 'create story' in play is by having a certain percentage of that story 'built in' from the get-go, that's actually not strictly necessary, maybe even stifling, to what they're trying to do. What you'd see in this case would be a group that makes certain telling play-decisions in a Narrativist direction, but then also uses a number of techniques which don't support those decisions, maybe because of habit, or because of false beliefs about those techniques' efficacy, or because they're playing with a system that simply doesn't do anything to facilitate Narrativism so they handle that aspect with socially-agreed Drama resolution wherever they can and wherever doing so doesn't conflict with other system elements, etc. I'd be surprised if that conflicted with anything you actually thought (as opposed to implications one might take away from your words), though - these are just familiar 'goals of practice vs. techniques for achieving them' issues.

[Sean]

Marco's last post raises an important issue for me.

GM-force, creating-theme-before-play, etc. are techniques, yes? So are we asserting that theme created before play absolutely can't then be created in play? Put like that, it's a logical truth, so yes - point for Ron. But you have to be a little careful what consequences you draw from this, I think. It seems to me that you can certainly specify a great deal of the thematic, moral, and emotional content before play and still be 'playing Narrativist'. The Nar-facilitating designs on this site actually do that to a certain degree, by narrowing down the field of possible moral questions to the ones the game wants to facilitate addressing.

As long as the pre-game prep leaves some part of theme open for the players to address in play, though, so long as it's not e.g. assumed from the get-go that the characters always respond to certain morally/emotionally loaded situations in certain kinds of ways, it seems to me that you can still have Narrativist play, if the players seek out those decisions, care about them, and provide genuine input into them. And so you can have 'Illusionist Narrativism' just like you have 'Illusionist Gamism', but both depend on deception - this is just where you feel like your input is meaningful but it actually isn't. (Question, though: if no-one but the GM ever knows that you didn't make your own choices to Address Premise or Step on Up, but you feel like you did, don't you still get some satisfaction from it? I suppose the ethics of illusionism default to the ethics of dissimulation more generally.)

I think centralized vs. decentralized control is an extremely important issue. But it's not part of a 'creative agenda' to have centralized or decentralized control - that happens at the System level, I think. Different kinds of control can facilitate different CA. And there's surely a range of levels of centralized control possible for a Narrativist CA - the only thing that a GM absolutely has to leave space for in play theme-addressing decisions on the part of the players. But this can be done in a wide variety of ways corresponding to a wide variety of levels of centralized GM control.

I'd view the 'minimal' level of Narrativism then as being a game where, say, all the players at the table are committed to a very similar ethical system, and it's expected that certain kinds of decisions are always made a certain kind of way, but the GM maybe provides some 'temptation' to decide a different way, in which case the game mostly becomes a kind of self-confirmation or self-congratulation about one's own moral stance. I think this would still count as Narrativism if these 'toy' decisions were in some sense at the heart of play, though a very attenuated form of it, granted. The examples that spring to my mind are Dragonraid and the 'Crusades' style of D&D, but so as not to appear prejudiced against Christians I can certainly imagine a group trying to play Tribe8 or Witchcraft in a similar sort of fashion with a different ethical compass. (I wonder if Dogs in the Vineyard could lend itself to this for a very orthodox LDS play group?)

I guess Ron wants to read that kind of play as Simulationist because so much of the thematic space of the game is built in up-front. I think I see why he would say that, but I'm not sure I can agree. If the players make real decisions of this kind, seek out such decisions in play, and gain joy from these moments, then I'm not sure why it's not Narrativism, even if it's not a variety I imagine I'd have much fun with.

Or maybe I've gone completely off track here. More thoughts for the thread in any case.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sean,

Actually, I see that as minimal Narrativist play too, in theory.

The question this raises for me is, how hard is it to perceive when "we all could decide to do otherwise, we just won't" becomes "don't decide otherwise 'cause it's bad play"?

I suggest, now that I think about it, that perceiving that from the inside (i.e. as a participant) is pretty strong - in fact, when you're the odd man out in either direction, it's like getting whacked in the nose, the palpable disapproval is so evident, even when unstated.

I also think that this topic should become its own thread with strong emphasis on actual play experiences.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

These last few posts illuistrate why I think that player input is a slide-bar--a gradient or spectrum, not an on/off switch.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The term "player input" is so vague as to be meaningless. All role-playing involves "input." Creative Agenda has always been an issue of what we're actually here to provide input (and process it together) for, as expressed in our actual play.

There is absolutely no controversy that I can perceive in this thread with any substance to it. Ralph, what's your call?

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hello,

The term "player input" is so vague as to be meaningless. All role-playing involves "input." Creative Agenda has always been an issue of what we're actually here to provide input (and process it together) for, as expressed in our actual play.

There is absolutely no controversy that I can perceive in this thread with any substance to it. Ralph, what's your call?

Best,
Ron

If you allow that there are Minimal, and therefore logically, Maximal degrees of Nar play (using your previous post which refered to "minimal Narrativist play") then clearly there is some aspect of play that, as it moves up and down defines the Nar CA (since when it falls too low, Nar play becomes something else).

What is it?

If it's Force, then Force is definitionally part of the Nar CA.

If it's not Force then what is it and what's a good term for it?

-Marco

[Valamir]

There is absolutely no controversy that I can perceive in this thread with any substance to it. Ralph, what's your call?

The thread has been a good source of discussion and idea bouncing, but I think its pretty much run its course.

There are some specifics that I don't quite agree with your interpretation of, but I can't tell yet whether its a matter of presentation or more fundamental then that.  

As for Narrativism as a term, it astounds me that anyone thinks that it is defined by Techniques. The entire Narrativism essay disavows this idea, in detail. It is the name I've given to one of these arrows. It is not a layer. What Ralph is calling "theme play" is Narrativism.

This, for instance, I don't hold with.  Narrativism is absolutely defined by techniques.  Not specific individual techniques that you can point to and and say "Technique A = Narrativism", but rather combinations of Techniques that either do or do not produce Narrativism.

You distinguish between pre created theme and theme created in play above; saying the latter is Narrativism and the former can never be.

The only difference at all between these two in actual playis the techniques used at the table.  Theme is theme.  There is no inherent difference in the theme itself whether it was pre created or created in play.   The difference then is not in the theme, but in how and when the theme got created.  The how and when is entirely dependent on the Techniques used in play.

So Narrativism is absolutely Technique dependent.  

There is therefor a recognizeable difference between the presence of theme (theme yes vs. theme don't care); and the methods for how one arrived at that theme (established in advance and reaffirmed through play vs. established in play through addressing Premise).

That difference is what this thread was distinguishing between.


Meaning, no, what I'm calling "Theme Play" above is absolutely NOT narrativism.  "Theme Play" was the theme-yes vs. theme-don't-care layer.  It is any form of play that involves realising theme as a priority.  

Narrativism, starts from the notion of theme-yes and combines that with any of a number of combinations of different techniques that involve createing this theme in play (the second item above).  This includes avoiding of other techniques (like Force) that are antithetical to this.  Thus there are any of a great number of skewers that could be labeled as Narrativism as I've defined it above.  

Other forms of Theme Play would be different skewers that, like Narrativism, pass through the "Theme Play" layer but which then move on to different combinations of techniques that result in play that is decidedly not Narrativism.


I'm pretty convinced that that is what is actually going on as far as the internal mechanics of how the model applies to actual play.  Apparently, I'm going to need to do a bit more work on the presentation because I don't seem to have conveyed this very well.

[Alan]

Narrativism is absolutely defined by techniques.  Not specific individual techniques that you can point to and and say "Technique A = Narrativism", but rather combinations of Techniques that either do or do not produce Narrativism.

I think this may assume that any set of techniques can completely preclude opportunites to exercise a given agenda.  

Envision the technique environment as an interacting field of technique effects, some not covering completely, some interacting to produce interferance patters or even chaotic interactions that produce one or more strange attractors with plateaus between.  Niche environments will appear on the irregularities and at the fringes.  If everyone agrees to play in a niche-environment, an otherwise poorly-supported agenda could flourish.

[Marco]

Envision the technique environment as an interacting field of technique effects, some not covering completely, some interacting to produce interferance patters or even chaotic interactions that produce one or more strange attractors with plateaus between.  Niche environments will appear on the irregularities and at the fringes.  If everyone agrees to play in a niche-environment, an otherwise poorly-supported agenda could flourish.

The Fractal Model of RP'ing Techniques. I love it!
-Marco

[Valamir]

I think this may assume that any set of techniques can completely preclude opportunites to exercise a given agenda.  

Envision the technique environment as an interacting field of technique effects, some not covering completely, some interacting to produce interferance patters or even chaotic interactions that produce one or more strange attractors with plateaus between.  Niche environments will appear on the irregularities and at the fringes.  If everyone agrees to play in a niche-environment, an otherwise poorly-supported agenda could flourish.

Definitely an interesting avenue of discussion, but one totally seperate from idea that there are techniques at work.

Remember also that techniques don't translate 1:1 to game rules.  It is absolutely possible to have narrativism flourish in an environment where the game rules poorly support it because the players are using Narrativist techniques to work around the game rule restrictions.

But Techniques are actually what players are doing at the table in real time.  If when the rubber hits the road, the players are using techniques that are antithetical to Narrativism, then Narrativism will not be, can not be, produced.

[Alan]

It is absolutely possible to have narrativism flourish in an environment where the game rules poorly support it because the players are using Narrativist techniques to work around the game rule restrictions.

Isn't that drift?  One group might go around adding or adjusting techniques to stamp-out niches that favor gamist play - but that's drift -and the decision to make those changes is a collective decision that may well demonstrate the groups agenda preference.

[Marco]

It is absolutely possible to have narrativism flourish in an environment where the game rules poorly support it because the players are using Narrativist techniques to work around the game rule restrictions.

Isn't that drift?  One group might go around adding or adjusting techniques to stamp-out niches that favor gamist play - but that's drift -and the decision to make those changes is a collective decision that may well demonstrate the groups agenda preference.

Although it isn't clear to me what might be considered drifting a game and what might not, I think, usually, that means changing or ignoring written rules. Techniques like a commitment to player empowerment, the creation of situations that leave the PC's with a great deal of choice (rather than directly and forcibly acting on them) and the use of GM ability to provide in-game elements that foster player emotional involvement are all quite possible without changing or ignoring any rule.

This is possible without even, I submit, working against any precieved "spirit of the game." I can't see how that would be reasonably seen as drift--if it is, then (as has been discussed here before) the act of making characters and making a scenario is always drift for any traditional game.

-Marco