What is Dramatism?

[Alan]

I recall Marco somewhere saying it was play with creating story structure as the primary goal.  (However, I can't find the quote.)  In Narrativism: Not a Creative Agenda... Marco said "Story-as-a-goal-however-you-get-there."

On his web page The Threefold Model FAQ John Kim says
"'Dramatist' is the style which values how well the in-game action creates a satisfying storyline. Different kinds of stories may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes, varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character drama. It is the end result of the story that is important."

Now let's take the Right to Dream description from the Big Model Provisional Glossary:

"The Right to Dream AKA Simulationism: Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority for role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See Simulationism: the Right to Dream."

and amend it to read:

"Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements, genre tropes, and/or story structure patterns[/b]. ...."

This isn't a big stretch.  In one case, when in-game causality is the guideline, players limit their choices within its boundaries.  In the same way, players could limit their choices within the boundaries of story structure expectations.

So I see Dramtaism (as John Kim describes it) as a subset of the Right to Dream.

[Marco]

Alan,

The problem with this is that Contracycle argues that Sim is Virtuality and that tucking Participationism under it makes sense in some way.

I've seen that since I came to The Forge.

I've never bought it--and both Ralph and Mike (and John and Lee and presumably others) have reached the same conclusion: that combinging the two isn't a functional combination.

If we consider Virtuality and Dramatism somehow related then we have to reconcile the fact that the goals of play of each are diametrically opposed.

There is a difference between "goals of play" and "observed behavior of play" that gets sanded over here because of the whole "intent" and diagnosis thing. Virtuality play may indeed produce something that fits most of the definition of Narrativist play and may appear to fit all of it. But I don't think it'll get you there reliably (depending on what you take on Nar is, anyway). So you need to separate what happens from what the player's internal rewards were (and social rewards, but I don't have as much to say on that).

The problem with this is:

"Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements"

(Emphasis added)

is that in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements are different things.

Man, I really think the Impossible Thing is a poorly argued flaw with how-to-game writing, but if you want an impossible-thing to believe that quote is a good place to start. Consider that a commitment to both of these is to many people a absolute contradiction.*

Clearly, a game that hard-codes elements of fiction (blow-to-the-head-being-a-sure-and-safe-knock-out-in Hard Boiled: The Detective) is exactly the sort of gray area where you can analyze the "and" condition.

But the GM enforcing thematic elements or story-structures into play (or the players doing it) doesn't fit there.

Don't take my word for it, take r.f.g.a's.

-Marco
* If you want to argue that the contradiction I see there doesn't exist then, bro, we can look at how to improve the standard Impossibe Thing critique.

[Alan]

Hi Marco,

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean by Virtuality.  Please provide a short description.

[Marco]

Hi Marco,

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean by Virtuality.  Please provide a short description.

This thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12351&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Is a good place to start and there is a link to John Kim's essay on GDS Simulationist play (which is identical).

-Marco

[Caldis]

Hi Marco,

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean by Virtuality.  Please provide a short description.

I'm not Marco but I can get you up to speed.  Virtuality is a synonym for r.g.f.a Simulationism, used here to distinguish it from GNS Sim.  It's placement within GNS has long been a stumbling block to those familiar with GDS.  

Several recent threads have dealt with this including Some Myths about virtualism and RGFA GDS vs Big Model GNS: Inputs vs Outputs?

My conclusion on the subject of Dramatism, Virtuality, and the r.g.f.a. threefold in general is that what it describes is a different phenomena than GNS.  It's is not talking about what the people at the table are doing, the process oriented nature of gns, but how decisions in the game are made.  Sometimes the two fit together nicely and you get dramatism fitting into sim, and sometimes virtuality can fit into sim or sometimes it will fit into narrativism, but you also have narrativism fitting into dramatism because the decisions made in the narrativist game are made for dramatic reasons.


Oops looks like Marco beat me to the punch.

[John Kim]

...and amend it to read:

"Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements, genre tropes, and/or story structure patterns[/b]. ...."

This isn't a big stretch.  In one case, when in-game causality is the guideline, players limit their choices within its boundaries.  In the same way, players could limit their choices within the boundaries of story structure expectations.

So I see Dramatism (as John Kim describes it) as a subset of the Right to Dream.

Well, you're doing that by expanding the definition (though I agree it isn't a big stretch).  What's missing here, though, is that Dramatism also includes thematic elements addressed through the process of play.  There is nothing in the definition which limits Dramatism to "pre-established" thematic elements.  So if you want the "Right to Dream" definition to fully include Dramatism, then you should drop the "pre-established" qualifier as well.  

Of course, this means that it subsumes at least some Narrativism as well -- which was certainly intended.  As the rgfa Threefold was developed, games like Prince Valiant, Everway, and Over the Edge (cited as Narrativist in the GNS essays) were all understood as examples of Dramatism.

[Alan]

Hm.  Okay, we'll add to dramatism the possibility of inserting a thematic event into play.   Now, on the occasions when a player would like to insert a nice thematic event, but doing so would violate one or more of the accumulated rules of cause and effect - which gets chosen more often?  Which is given more weight?

[Marco]

Hm.  Okay, we'll add to dramatism the possibility of inserting a thematic event into play.   Now, on the occasions when a player would like to insert a nice thematic event, but doing so would violate one or more of the accumulated rules of cause and effect - which gets chosen more often?  Which is given more weight?

Basic Answer: theme is held more important than versimilitude. The event is inserted.

I would say that there are still "rules of fiction" in effect (not necessiarly genre) that would preclude in-context impossibilites and paradoixal situations that don't fit some literary structure--for the same reasons that people in hard-boiled noir novels rarely grow wings and fly away--not because the author couldn't type those words but because it would ruin the story).

More Nuanced Answer: There is a gray area where "what would happen" is unclear and each participant has to decide what their threshold of belief is.

If a PC goes to a massive train station and the GM rolls 1D1000 and gets an 001 and declares (honestly) that that was the number necessary for the PC to by-chance run into the dude he was looking for, some players might decide even *that* was too unlikely. Some wouldn't (I'd accept that).

Similarily, any single unlikey event will (likely, IME) be seen as valid under Virtuality--it's the preponderance and effect of them that leads towards Dramatism (if the game seems very likely, but the GM doesn't roll for the chance meeting and it's clear that that meeting in the train station takes the game in an important and dramatically new direction, then I would identify even that one event as Dramatist).

As John pointed out once, a single bullet missing a character is highly plausible. If the bullets always miss when the character is fighting for good--or always miss when the character is injured, for example, then the emergent pattern is likely one of Dramatism.

-Marco

[Alan]

Okay, so in general, inserting thematic event is preferred over maintaining the rules of cause and effect.

When one of these thematic events occur, and the player is faced with choosing a response he finds cool, verses one that confirms a previously established theme, which is given more weight?  Which happens more often?

EDIT: by "in general" I mean: which a particular group demonstrates over a series of such decisions.

[Marco]

I don't know. I'm not sure it's specified (although John or others might better weigh in here).

Edited To Add: GDS Dramatist play has a bunch of sub-types under it so exactly how input gets into the game will vary. What I don't know for sure is whether the player in a Dramatist game is expected to be "interested in creating a story" or may, for example, simply be there to experience being in a cool story (possibly "the GM's story")--this could lead to either of the two answers.

I have the same issue (albeit from a GM perspective, not a player one) with Illusionism and Participationism: is the GM weilding power to create a specific story-structure? Just doing what he thinks is cool? Providing versimilitude but with safety catches? Aiming for a "satisfying outcome" but without theme, necessary adherence to literary trope, or gener-compliance? Etc.

Remember: Dramatist play includes* Narrativist play--so some different priorities can be at work.

-Marco
* Just as Virtuality play can be Narrativist.

[Alan]

Hi,

You know that Ron's descriptions of the three agendas are all predicated on the observation of preference demonstrated over time by a particular group (or perhaps individual), with a particular set of rules and expectations.

For example, in a single game session, some decisions might be made to stretch or break causality in order to address premise, while other times decisions might be made to suppress addressing premise in favor of causality.  If, during a session which had 5 such prioritizing decisions, 3 were made in favor of simulationist agenda, then we can say that the group demonstrated a simulationist preference.  This is all Ron's GNS descriptions have ever asserted.

So it seems to me that Dramatism (and perhaps Virtualism) is GNS without any consideration for demonstrated preference.  I'm not sure this is very useful as a tool for understanding role-play.

[Marco]

So it seems to me that Dramatism (and perhaps Virtualism) is GNS without any consideration for demonstrated preference.  I'm not sure this is very useful as a tool for understanding role-play.

I agree. I don't know that Dramatism or Virtuality by themselves are especially good tools for "understanding" role-play by themselves, without other elements of theory.

But that doesn't mean that the concept of Dramatism (or Virtuality) in context with other observations isn't as important or, perhaps moreso, than the concept of Narrativism or Gamism.

That's why I like the 3D model--or something like an evolution of Ralph's paradigdm: they move things away from a pure analysis mode and start getting into more important areas such as:

1. What is the expected role of a GM in a given game?
2. How might I request certain techniques in order to best facilitate my play?

Presently GNS fails at both of these. If I request a "Virtuality" mode from the GM and the GM sees that that falls under Sim--does that mean she will refrain from giving me meaty moral issues in the situation, since to do so would push the game towards Narrativism?

If I am observed to greatly enjoy addressing premise, then the GM will most probably be surprised when I talk with her after the game and say I was unhappy that I found her rulings stretching credibility to the breaking point.

The GNS analysis I have seen, to date, doesn't square my prefered play-style with my prefered type of mechanics (choice of game). Something like the 3D model or Ralph's take on GNS, however, looks like it might explain it.

-Marco

[John Kim]

For example, in a single game session, some decisions might be made to stretch or break causality in order to address premise, while other times decisions might be made to suppress addressing premise in favor of causality.  If, during a session which had 5 such prioritizing decisions, 3 were made in favor of simulationist agenda, then we can say that the group demonstrated a simulationist preference.  This is all Ron's GNS descriptions have ever asserted.

So it seems to me that Dramatism (and perhaps Virtualism) is GNS without any consideration for demonstrated preference.  I'm not sure this is very useful as a tool for understanding role-play.

I'm not following this.  Both GNS and the rgfa Threefold are about preferences.  Both of them suggest that hybrid games are possible -- i.e. games which are properly categorized by two labels.  Further, both will use "Gamist" to indicate a game which is primarily Gamist in its priorities.  There are differences, however.  For example, GNS has the idea of an "instance of play" over which priorities are shown, while the Threefold counts by decisions (as you do here).  As I put it in my original Threefold FAQ:

2) Which one am I?  A Dramatist, Gamist, or Simulationist?          
                                                                               
Most likely, none of the above.  Your individual style cannot                  
be pidgeonholed into a single word.  More to the point, you probably            
use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one              
goal.  You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but                
you probably value a mix.

The original Threefold model posts (where the term was coined) by Mary Kuhner and others used a triangle diagram which placed a campaign at a point somewhere between the three poles.  Some other possibilities were also debated, but there wasn't clear consensus on such diagrams.

[Alan]

...getting into more important areas such as:

1. What is the expected role of a GM in a given game?
2. How might I request certain techniques in order to best facilitate my play?

Presently GNS fails at both of these. ...

I stand with my mouth hanging open.  I direct you to Ron's provisional glossary for terms to use when you want to define techniques you'd like to see in play.

But this thread isn't about the validity of the Big Model, it's about describing Dramatism.

I agree. I don't know that Dramatism or Virtuality by themselves are especially good tools for "understanding" role-play by themselves, without other elements of theory.

So what other elements of theory does it need?

[Marco]

I stand with my mouth hanging open.  I direct you to Ron's provisional glossary for terms to use when you want to define techniques you'd like to see in play.

Dramatism has proven, for more than one person, to be a viable stylistic request and a good starting point for discussion of priorities of play. Dramatism will be seen under GNS as some mixture of CA's and Techniques. I have no idea what they are and I don't think any of the stated ones exist without baggage (I could choose participationist but that means all Dramatist games must be railroaded, for example).

Let's go to the GNS Glossary:
Dramatism: One of the three styles of role-playing identified by Mary Kuhner in the Threefold Model, but not recognized as a distinct Creative Agenda in the Big Model.

That will, clearly, not be helpful either to me or a GM--even as a starting point for discussion.

I don't appreciate your stance of stunned disbelief.

But this thread isn't about the validity of the Big Model, it's about describing Dramatism.

Correct--but when you concluded that you didn't see it as especially useful, I pointed out that a request for a GNS Simlationist game is exactly as useful--or perhaps (thanks to innumerable "what is Sim threads) even less so.

-Marco