Narrativism: Not a Creative Agenda...

[contracycle]

But if it ever comes out, the player might object.*

* Illusionism is a tough one since, in pure form, you never know it's there unless you catch the GM doing it and then, if you aren't pissed about it, the game is declared to have been participationism.

Please see above:

Me:

If the players are throwing down everything they have and the SIS is adjusted only according to "the GM's story" the players will likely cry railroading.

I have already dealt with this.  In a purist gamist sense, the GM has cheated.  It is frankly none of the GM's business whether my character lives or dies.   If we did not agree to Participationism, then the GM is cheating and this will likely cause a ruckus as you recognise.  And despite your sarcasm, the distinction between consent and decepetion is highly relevant.  It is precisely why people feel more than just loss if they are defrauded, but also insult.  I find this blind-spot surprising from someone so interested in the allocation of blame.

This is "functional" so long as one participant succesfully deceives the others, which almost always means: for not very long.

A better angle to what Ralph has suggested as the use of illusionism in gamisms is probably scene framing not even confident of my own statement that moving from conflict to conflict is particpationism and propose that as an alternative.  Is it an illusion when the action stops and the set is re-dressed for the next conflict?

[Alan]

No, what I'm proposing is that Creating Theme isn't the Agenda.  The desire for the resultant story to have a theme is the Agenda.

So, you're saying that the narrativist agenda is to end up, when the session is done, with a story that has theme?

That's not my experience.   I realize that this is just one subjective anecdote, but I shall provide it anyway - because I feel strongly about it.  I am not satisfied if the final result of play demonstrates theme.  One can almost always find theme when looking back on a series of events.  

What I find satisfying is being able to play moments of thematic importance as they happen - in the moment - Now!  And I want to choose how they get expressed - not in some future result - but now.  I don't think this is a subcategory if the narrativist preference, I think it's the defining feature.

[Marco]

It is frankly none of the GM's business whether my character lives or dies.   If we did not agree to Participationism, then the GM is cheating and this will likely cause a ruckus as you recognise.  And despite your sarcasm, the distinction between consent and decepetion is highly relevant.  It is precisely why people feel more than just loss if they are defrauded, but also insult.  I find this blind-spot surprising from someone so interested in the allocation of blame.

I don't know if you're refering to me or not--but if you are:

1. What sarcasm?

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.

Sure, there's got to be risk--there has got to be challenge--but the only person assigning a terminal condition is you. 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.

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.

3. If you are refering to the "blame test" in the consequences thread (I don't know if you are) you have catastrophically misunderstood it and I encourage you to post to that thread and answer the question I posed honestly and in as much detail as you need to explain yourself. That will, I would hope, illuminate how you see the social contract in your gaming (if you blame the GM since he spoke but absolve the pusher-player then you are, indeed, holding responsible the person who uttered the breaking words--but not the person with the intent to break it, for example).

-Marco

[Alan]

IF, in my mind, I have clearly articulated Illusionism as a Technique, and IF the tiers are separate and distinct, then it SHOULD be possible to apply any Technique to any CA.  

HI Ralph,

I think the above is a falacy.  You have assumed that, because the creative agenda arrow must pass through the sub-category of technique, that it must be able to pass through _all_ techniques in the category.

Sure, it's a nice elegant assumption, but do you have any other support?

Premise CANNOT be addressed without some level of Player Empowerment.  But Player Empowerment methods (whichever are used) are Techniques.

Indeed, but consider that no form of role-playing is possible without some level of player empowerment.  A game without empowerment is the players sitting around a table, listening to the GM tell them what their character's do and experience.  All RPGs use this particular technique: it's a matter of degree, not absense or presence.

In fact, one might consider some element of illusionism (force, I recall) the yin to the player empowerment's yang.  Both techniques are always present in some degree in a role-playing game, the variation is a matter of realm: what the technique is applied to.  In a narrativist game, force gets used on things of low-priority for the players.

The argument you present arises from a series of all or nothing assumtions, from seeing the various labels as absolutes, with black and white consequences, on and off.  I would suggest that many, if not all techniques can be seen as pairs of concepts: as one is emphasized, the other's dominance is reduced.  

Seen from that angle, force, as I noted, can appear in narrativist play.

[Marco]

Indeed, but consider that no form of role-playing is possible without some level of player empowerment.  A game without empowerment is the players sitting around a table, listening to the GM tell them what their character's do and experience.  All RPGs use this particular technique: it's a matter of degree, not absense or presence.

I've always seen player empowerment in general as a slidebar control that can be moved along a spectrum. That doesn't tell the whole story since there will be important "singularity-points"* in play where player empowerment will be vastly more important to me and the game than others (i.e. you can frame me all over but if I get no say in the outcome of an important drama then I'm unhappy).

Looking at how the GM in a traditional game employs power to manipulate those settings is, I think, an examination of technique.

Certainly that's not the same as a generalized goal of play. I think few people would say that Narrativism is just "all about the power."

I think that the idea of a preference of style that encompasses these (Mike's 3D Model) makes sense as a language for discussion. For a pure taxonomy, some sort of GDS paradigm seems reasonable--and that would mean one of two things:

a) you keep Narrativist (theme plus empowerment)--but then you have problems with Virtuality and Participationism being hard to explain, asymetrical and confusing (look at the posts claiming that player impowerment is no different in Nar play than Sim play--and look at the descriptions of play that are associated with each).

b) You use Story-ist or Themeist or something and have empowerment as a technique which exists comfortably under that bin and under What-if-ist (!?) as well.

The fact that (as you note) Force can appear in Narrativist play (despite numerous posts, analysis of GURPS disads, and the glossary entry--even in its presumed revised state) lends, I think, credence to this.

-Marco
* borrowed from the Historical Singularity terminology of Vernor Vinge (http://urchin.earth.li/cgi-bin/twic/wiki/view.pl?page=HistoricalSingularity)

[Valamir]

No, what I'm proposing is that Creating Theme isn't the Agenda.  The desire for the resultant story to have a theme is the Agenda.

So, you're saying that the narrativist agenda is to end up, when the session is done, with a story that has theme?

That's not my experience.   I realize that this is just one subjective anecdote, but I shall provide it anyway - because I feel strongly about it.  I am not satisfied if the final result of play demonstrates theme.  One can almost always find theme when looking back on a series of events.  

What I find satisfying is being able to play moments of thematic importance as they happen - in the moment - Now!  And I want to choose how they get expressed - not in some future result - but now.  I don't think this is a subcategory if the narrativist preference, I think it's the defining feature.

I'm not sure where the disconnect here is Alan.  You keep missing the essential point that I'm trying to make.  Narrativism as I've proposed above is 1 part agenda and 1 part techniques.  Yes, the agenda part is to wind up with theme.  But the Technique part is all about HOW you wind up with that theme...which is what your anecdote is about.

To be clear.  I'm not suggesting changing Narrativism at all.  100% of every discussion ever had about what Narrativism is all good.  All's I'm doing is saying that it isn't an Agenda by itself.  Its a combination of an agenda + a certain combination of techniques used to get there.

I'm saying that as long as what we label as Agendas also include built in techniques AND there are additional techniques in the technique box that the model is guarenteed to be confusing to new readers and convoluted in application.  I therefor am proposing that all Creative Agendas should be void of any and all techniques.  

Thing is that what differentiates Narrativism from Dramatism is all in the technique.  They both ultimately want theme but Dramatism isn't going to give you "being able to play moments of thematic importance as they happen - in the moment - Now!  And I want to choose how they get expressed - not in some future result - but now."  The difference is in the techniques used in play.  What gets you "Story Now" is the techniques you use to get to theme.

I'm not changing the Narrativist Agenda here.  I'm just relocating it to a skewer through the levels of the model, rather than a layer of the model.

The Narrativist wants theme...achieved using this subset of techniques (and there are tons of valid combinations that all can produce Narrativism)

[Alan]

I'm not changing the Narrativist Agenda here.  I'm just relocating it to a skewer through the levels of the model, rather than a layer of the model.

You've confused agenda with realization.  I might have an agenda for story now, but be faced with techniques that don't satisfy it very well.  No one ever said that a creative agenda is defined by how well it gets realized.  

Yes, the agenda part is to wind up with theme.  But the Technique part is all about HOW you wind up with that theme...which is what your anecdote is about.

This overlooks a significant distinction:

Part of a dramtist agenda may be to wind up with theme sometime during play.  A narrativist agenda is to have it _now_.  That's not a "how do you get it" that's a goal or standard used to prioritize choices.

[Marco]

Part of a dramtist agenda may be to wind up with theme sometime during play.

I'm not sure a "dramatist" would agree with you. If you stipulate that resolution of the 'answer to premise' is not necessary for theme (i.e. I create theme at theexact point I make the decision, not later when the consequences have been resolved) then what you and the dramatist want are exactly the same.

If you do require resolution of the 'story' (and the acts) in order to examine and define theme then you don't create anything 'now' either--you have to wait for the dust to settle just like everyone else.

I have to admit I think the whole now-vs-later thing is something I don't get. I recall the "real life isn't a story" argument (which I understood but didn't agree with)--but if you are talking about Author Stance used to make a statement (story-on-purpose) the dramatist can employ that as well as the Narrativist.

What's different is the level of input both players might expect to have. The Dramatist may expect that the GM will step in to prevent unwanted anti-climax (either unwanted by him or to the majority of the players) or use force or illusionism to raise the stakes and build towards a more intense resolution where as the Narrativist might not (according to what I see people say, anyway).

But neither need expect that the GM will frog-march them through one scene after another which they essentially watch happen. It's a gradient--and I think describing that element (Player Input) as a technique makes a more cohesive theory than tying it to Narrativism.

But if you decide to combine the two, then how do you feel about splitting Virtualist play apart from Participationist play as top-level CA's?

-Marco

[Valamir]

I'm not changing the Narrativist Agenda here.  I'm just relocating it to a skewer through the levels of the model, rather than a layer of the model.

You've confused agenda with realization.  I might have an agenda for story now, but be faced with techniques that don't satisfy it very well.  No one ever said that a creative agenda is defined by how well it gets realized.  

Nothing I've said has anything to do with realization.

You have a destination (your priority) and you have the road you will take to get there (your techniques).  There are many different roads that may get you to your destination...some work better than others and some boil down to preference.  There are other roads that will almost surely not get you to your destination.

How effectively you employ the various techniques will, of course, be important to actual play, but it has nothing to do with this essay at all.  

This essay is about recognizing that there are destinations and roads, that they are seperate things, and that mixing them together is a big reason for alot of the confusion in the model.  I'm not really changing anything about the model or Narrativism in particular.  I'm merely tidying up the organization and presentation.  In addition to simply being more clear how the parts fit together, I think it also will provide new avenues for investigation.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, because so far, nothing you've said really disagrees with anything I've proposed.

Yes, the agenda part is to wind up with theme.  But the Technique part is all about HOW you wind up with that theme...which is what your anecdote is about.

This overlooks a significant distinction:

Part of a dramtist agenda may be to wind up with theme sometime during play.  A narrativist agenda is to have it _now_.  That's not a "how do you get it" that's a goal or standard used to prioritize choices.

Well, we could go to another thread to discuss narrativist agendas, but the narrativist agenda is not to have theme now.  The agenda is to address premise now, and in the end the result of addressing the premise will be a theme.  

Both Narrativism and Dramatism can be said to have "theme at the end" so to speak...that's not anything I've invented, that's part of Narrativism since at least the big essay.  The difference has always been about how that theme gets set.  With narrativism the theme gets established because players addressed premise in play.  With Dramatism the theme gets established because players adhered to various genre tropes and conventions during play designed to lead to a specific theme.  This is straight from the essays.

My point is that Addressing Premise is one road to the destination of theme while adhereing to genre tropes is another road to the destination of theme.  Far from ignoring the distinction, that distinction is front and center to the whole point of this essay.  Trust me I'm WELL aware of the distinction.

[Alan]

Marco,

The distinction is that a narrativist agenda does not require that the events taken as a whole have any particular structure.  The narrativist agenda wants to address premise now - in every play decision the player makes.

Ralph,

Both Narrativism and Dramatism can be said to have "theme at the end" so to speak...that's not anything I've invented, that's part of Narrativism since at least the big essay.

Have another look at Ron's essay "Narrativism: Story Now."  That's not how I read it.  For example, "There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point:... "

The difference has always been about how that theme gets set.  ...
My point is that Addressing Premise is one road to the destination of theme.

But as Ron says in his essay, the point of narrativist play is not to get to theme, the point is to address premise (as you rightly noted).  Addressing premise only has emotional value in relationship to theme - but theme is subservient to the goal of achieving moments of addressing premise.

So you have it backwards.  For a narrativist, theme is a road to addressing premise.

[Marco]

Marco,

The distinction is that a narrativist agenda does not require that the events taken as a whole have any particular structure.  The narrativist agenda wants to address premise now - in every play decision the player makes.

(Emphasis added)

As stated, I would contrast this to the Dramatist who doesn't demand to address premise in every play decision the player makes--only some. This makes the degree of input the axis that I see shifting.

-Marco
[ I think there is some more to it here as well, as I said elsewhere, certain decisions will be more key to both players than others--but as stated here, I think it's clear that the use of the term every specifies a matter of degree or magnitude. ]

[John Kim]

You have a destination (your priority) and you have the road you will take to get there (your techniques).  There are many different roads that may get you to your destination...some work better than others and some boil down to preference.  There are other roads that will almost surely not get you to your destination.  

I think you have a good distinction here, but I'm a little wary about how it is being cast here.  In terms of your road analogy, it is possible to care more about how you get there than where you are going.  But the terms "priority" and "technique" seem to obscure that, by implying that it is the destination that is the priority.  I think this is similar to what Alan is saying.  

I'm not sure of what to call these, but maybe Theme and Challenge could be called "Transcript Goals".  And things like empowerment and internal causality could be called "System Goals" (?).  However, while Theme is a property of the transcript, Challenge is not.  i.e. You can't tell from the transcript of what the characters did how challenging it was for the players.  

Both Narrativism and Dramatism can be said to have "theme at the end" so to speak...that's not anything I've invented, that's part of Narrativism since at least the big essay.  The difference has always been about how that theme gets set.  With narrativism the theme gets established because players addressed premise in play.  With Dramatism the theme gets established because players adhered to various genre tropes and conventions during play designed to lead to a specific theme.  This is straight from the essays.  

I'm going to nitpick a little here about calling this "Dramatism".  (This goes for Marco and others, too.)  Dramatism is not established Forge-specific term, and Dramatism in the rgfa Threefold was much broader than this.  It isn't clear to me, at least, what people mean by "Dramatism".  If we want to define a style based on pre-established theme and/or genre, maybe we could call it "Genre-ism" or somesuch?

[Marco]

I'm going to nitpick a little here about calling this "Dramatism".  (This goes for Marco and others, too.)  Dramatism is not established Forge-specific term, and Dramatism in the rgfa Threefold was much broader than this.  It isn't clear to me, at least, what people mean by "Dramatism".  If we want to define a style based on pre-established theme and/or genre, maybe we could call it "Genre-ism" or somesuch?

Agreed. I'm (badly) using the term instead of Participationist here (which doesn't really fit either since I'm not sure that a goal of participationism is "story" or "drama"--I think it's mostly about control issues). Dramatism, IIRC, encompassed Narrativism ...

Story-as-a-goal-however-you-get-there? Something like that? I dunno.

Also: I think in context of the Big Model, Ralph is right--there are overarching goals and at another level of the venn diagram, techniques--but that's just to get everything into the Big Model framework.

Clearly that model may have some limitations (expressing Sim-sub-set Virtuality as Sim + a technique when an identical (or similar) technique is hardwired into Nar) but if it's retained in a limited-t- three-bin form, I think Ralph's break-up is more functional.

-Marco

[Valamir]

I think you have a good distinction here, but I'm a little wary about how it is being cast here.  In terms of your road analogy, it is possible to care more about how you get there than where you are going.  But the terms "priority" and "technique" seem to obscure that, by implying that it is the destination that is the priority.  

Granted, in trying to respond to Alan I got a little sloppy.

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.

I'm going to nitpick a little here about calling this "Dramatism".  (This goes for Marco and others, too.)  Dramatism is not established Forge-specific term, and Dramatism in the rgfa Threefold was much broader than this.  It isn't clear to me, at least, what people mean by "Dramatism".  If we want to define a style based on pre-established theme and/or genre, maybe we could call it "Genre-ism" or somesuch?

Again correct.  Dramatism would be a skewer just like Narrativism.  What exactly is being skewered would be open to additional discussion.

[Alan]

Hi Ralph,

Let me clear some things up here.

I disagree with the basic assumption that a narrativist creative agenda requires certain techniques.  I think that I've always separated what one's agenda is, from how it is realized.  It seems obvious to me from first principles.  

I do agree that that requirement can be read from some of Ron's writings, particularly his gloss of Story Now.  However, when I read that gloss, I take it as a round-about way of describing how the narrativist agenda is _best_ acheived, not as a rigid definition.  I think the word choice of "required" is unfortunate.

--------

Here's my own explaination of the narrativist agenda:

The agenda prioritizes getting the juice by making a meaningfull decision in the moment.  A decision is only meaningfull when there's a value standard to judge it by and, in fact, some  consequences drawn from that judgement.  I would assert that "making a meaningfull decision in the moment" and addressing premise are the same thing.  

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.  

Nor is "addressing premise" a technique.  It is an act done when premise is available.

We might use techniques to make sure these opportunities to address premise happen often, but we can also just _find_ the opportunties in the flow of fantasy events in any role-play.


Hence addressing premise is something we seek, not a technique for reaching a goal.  

------

Marco:

About theme and addressing premise:

Theme is a murky word, but the further I delve into fiction theory, the better I understand it.  

Theme is not the premise, the value standard or the consequences.  Theme emerges from a series of events that address a value standard in various situations and from various perspectives.  In an rpg, theme may be produced by a series of events which address premise.  I think of it as the byproduct of the real activity.