Referee/Player Sim/Nar Clash (from What GNS Is About)

[Marco]

One way is to say that your agendum is the basis on which you select your techniques; it is the controlling factor in the process. So if your agendum is narrativist, and you find that it is easiest for you to create theme in a highly immersive strongly centralized game, then you are selecting those techniques because your perception is that they fulfill your agendum.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

(Emphasis added)

Hi MJ,
I see the idea that an agendum is a fundamental kick and the technique is a means to that end--as a pretty canonical piece of theory--but it has a problem: What, exactly gets defined as a technique?

Several people have stated recenty that what the 3D model calls Decentralized Theme is just in no way like what it calls Centralized Theme (in fact, the difference is usually Nar and Sim under GNS).

But if I consider "centralization" to be a technique then, hey: how I get my kick does seem to be directly related to a technique. My kick doesn't just come from experiencing the GM's theme--it comes from the expendature of creative effort on my part to create it ... which relates directly to the presence of the centralization technique.

As in your example--the part I italicized--you discuss "creation of theme" and "centralization"--although I don't know what you mean by centralization, the current meaning of the word as I understand it, and the canonical meaning of "creation of theme" makes these things:

1. Completely at odds unless (even 'impossible'*)--
2. You are the GM

in which case:
3. The agendum does not fit the description of narrativist (which is the term you use to describe it).

If Narrativism can't be described without the use of a term that some people (at least) consider a technique (the level of centralizaiton of themeatic content) then I think it's not really possible to separate the "kick" from the "method."

That is one thing the 3D model, however, does do.

-Marco
* Note: it's possible that you simply are happy with creating less theme than a more decentralized structure would give you--or you might, you know, differ on what "creation of theme" means exactly--and I'd buy both of these arguments to some degree--but keeping with the general language here, a game where the GM creates the theme means the players aren't playing Narrativist.

[M. J. Young]

Well, there are two very challenging posts here; I hope I can do them justice.

I'll grant John that "more fundamental" is a bad way to describe what I mean; I'm not sure I have a better way. However, I think I can get to the difference easily enough. Here are some examples; they're stated in the first person, but please understand that these are examples, not statements o my personal preferences, and they may conflict.

[*]I like games in which dice are used to determine outcomes.[*]I like games in which I play my character as closely as possible to what he would really do.[*]I like games in which I have a lot of credibility to create things in the shared imagined space.[*]I like games in which character players always speak in the first person.[*]I like games in which the referee has a solid plan for what's supposed to happen.[/list:u]
I would classify all of those things as techniques. You might bicker about how you use them, or whether they really provide the kind of play you want. You might want to clarify exactly what each of them means. However, these are how you do it.

Now compare that to these.

[*]I like games in which I get to show off how skilled I am at beating the odds.[*]I like games in which a personally moving story is created.[*]I like games in which I am discovering something I might not be able to learn in real life.[/list:u]
These are statements, roughly, of agenda. The reason I know that they're not techniques is that they don't tell me how to do anything. They are actually all outcome oriented--this is what I want to have happen in the game.

That means that your techniques are selected based on your agendum; you decide whether you want centralized credibility or first person identification or planned adventures because those techniques are means to an end, and the end is that thing that you want to get from the game, that thing you want as the outcome, the agendum.

I certainly agree that there are other potential incompatibilities between gamers. I know people who don't like sci-fi, for example, and so wouldn't play in a Star Frontiers game. I happen to have very much enjoyed my Star Frontiers adventures, and would love to pick up where we left off someday. This, though, doesn't seem to be about what you want from the game; it's about how you get what you want. That's the difference I see.

Marco, as far as the question of whether centralized or decentralized credibility is definitional of narrativism, I think we just had this discussion on another thread, where I argued that this was clearly an error in the way this was generally considered. Techniques which provide broad distribution of credibility tend to be narrativist-facilitating, but they aren't vital to it. Ron agreed that you could have narrativist play in a tightly centralized game, as long as the players have some input into the important decisions in creating theme. I proposed that once the game is so tightly centralized that only the referee has any control over whatever matters, it doesn't cease to be narrativist, but it does cease to be functional. Simulationism may best be able to survive in very limited credibility distribution situations, but if you reach the point that only the referee's decisions matter, then you've reached the point at which the referee is playing alone and the so-called players are in essence watching.

It was also suggested that the distinction Ron intended was not as much whether the players or the referee create the theme, but whether the theme is created through play or devised before play and dictated into it. I have said before that I think this distinction untenable. Whether I as a game participant decide what I'm going to do right now during the game, or whether I think about it during the pizza break and then do it when the game resumes, or stay up the night before planning what I want to do, or write up my perfect idea for what's going to happen in the next game session that might because of circumstances be three years from now, whatever is put into the shared imagined space is current at the moment it is introduced. If the referee is imposing a pre-ordained theme and boxing out all efforts to tinker with it, he is still playing narrativist, and it is a dysfunctional narrativist game in which all participants but one have been rendered powerless (whether or not they are aware of this).

I would say that as long as all participants are engaged with theme emerging from premise it is narrativist play, and as long as all participants have some ability to impact the content of the shared imagined space and are satisfied with the amount of credibility they are able to exercise, it is functional play. Thus centralized credibility in the creation of theme would, as I see it, be narrativist, as long as everyone is on the same page.

I agree with Ralph that to date narrativism has been misunderstood as specifically involving a technique, and that understanding of it has to be revised in that regard. Narrativism is about being engaged with theme emerging from premise through exploration. Credibility distribution can be important in facilitating that, but it's not central to the definition.

I hope that's an acceptable answer. At the moment it's the best I've got.

--M. J. Young

[Marco]

MJ,

It's an acceptable answer--certainly. What I'm not sure of is where it leaves us with respect to canonical GNS.

1. If Narrativism can be said to be similar to the 3D's Theme, which is expressed as degrees of player-input then, in fact, the 3D's mapping (although having only Cen/Decen might be seen as clunky) would seem to be a pretty valuable description of the phonomena.

2. I'm not sure GNS Sim is best described as play with an intent "to learn something." I'm interested in Ron's recent post that discusses Sim as having a "point" of gating factor for player input in effect (either from the GM or the players themselves)--but Ralph makes a fairly strong case for it being something like Virtuality.

3. You discuss Gamism in terms of proving oneself to others--and I agree that's pretty canonical GNS. But you also, once, discussed a possible imaginary audience that would step in to fufill the "others" role if it wasn't coming from the actual humans.

I don't know if that's canonical either. Can I be said to have Gamist play if the other players tolerate but do not give props for my victories?

Ron: these are questions I've got and your input would be welcome here. This might be best with another thread if you see fit. I wanna say that I don't consider this per-se challenges to the Big Model. I understand that some of what I've brought up here are special case edge conditions (the gamist one, especially). So this isn't meant as any kind of attack.

-Marco

[John Kim]

I agree with Ralph that to date narrativism has been misunderstood as specifically involving a technique, and that understanding of it has to be revised in that regard. Narrativism is about being engaged with theme emerging from premise through exploration. Credibility distribution can be important in facilitating that, but it's not central to the definition.

I think there's more agreement than disagreement here, actually.  M.J., you're saying that the understanding of "Narrativism" should be revised so that it doesn't depend on centrality of authorship -- i.e. players don't have to be empowered any more than in other modes.  

Marco and I favor the 3D model, which says something similar to this:  i.e. there is a category of focus on Theme, similar to your re-understood Narrativism.  This category is independent of centrality of authorship.  

In part, this is a framing issue -- i.e. do we call this a re-understanding of GNS Narrativism, or do we give it a new name?

The other question is about player empowerment / centrality of authorship.  I don't think it was a mistake for GNS Narrativism to emphasize these as central to creative goals.  The 3D Model similarly emphasizes the distinction between centralized play (i.e. Participationism focused on theme) and decentralized play (i.e. Narrativism).  The difference is that 3D says that centrality is important for all modes of play.  Also, note that I am talking about authorship, which is not the same as credibility.  See Gordon's note on the subject http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=134202#134202">here in the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12460">More on 3D Model thread.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco,

I'm reading this thread with extreme interest! And if I may be so bold, your posts have become, for me, eagerly anticipated rather than dreaded/frustrating. Not that my approval is necessary or anything, but it seems a little feedback about that is at least possibly appropriate.

Anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, the 3D material isn't a challenge or a reconstruction of most of the Big Model to the extent that some are reading it. I used to draw all sorts of little representations in dialogues with Ralph which showed a baseline of Exploration (like a floor), then vertical bars that represented G, N, or S. Sometimes the floor would "extend up" into the base of the bars, sometimes not (depending on the given group). But one of my points with this was that the Sim bar was the same color as the floor, and the others were not.

That's not quite the same as the 3D stuff that Ralph is describing, but it shows, I hope, that we've been kicking around similar concepts about it for a while. And the visual representation of the Big Model per se is very much intended to draw that Techniques/Agenda distinction that he's making, so all of his points about that seem to be agreements to me.

The issue of Narrativism as a Techniques-set vs. an actual Agenda is the topic of a hell of a lot of interpersonal dialogue between Ralph and me right now, and both of us are actually revising our positions due to that.

I think that identifying any Techniques with an Agenda is a bad starting point, but that we should also be open to the idea that various Techniques combinations are going to vary in their reliable/fun support of different Agendas. That shouldn't be surprising.

Part of the issue is terminological - what word do we use for the relevant agenda, which then pulls in all the is-Sim-a-good-word stuff - and part of it is conceptual - what is that agenda which produces Theme, and is all play which produces Theme really alike in terms of aesthetic agenda.

As I say, both of us are really working hard to think about this stuff, and all the dialogue in this and related threads is helping a lot. Keeping the threads slow and avoiding having multiple-front threads to deal with is especially helpful too.

I'll stick with musing about your questions right here in this thread. "Musing" is definitely the right word, both in terms of not delivering The Anssssswer and in terms of opening myself up for inspiration.

1. If Narrativism can be said to be similar to the 3D's Theme, which is expressed as degrees of player-input then, in fact, the 3D's mapping (although having only Cen/Decen might be seen as clunky) would seem to be a pretty valuable description of the phonomena.

Check on the valuable part.

Your text confuses me just a little about Techniques, 'cause I see centralization as a dial. I thought my table in the Narrativist essay was clear about that, in terms of centralization of input and resolution. In terms of the more fundamental (oops that word) issue of authority over theme, I think I'm stickin' with the idea that play of This Agenda really requires no authority over theme, that play-responses and decisions themselves literally must produce it. I'm not seeing that as a technique, but as an aesthetic.

2. I'm not sure GNS Sim is best described as play with an intent "to learn something." I'm interested in Ron's recent post that discusses Sim as having a "point" of gating factor for player input in effect (either from the GM or the players themselves)--but Ralph makes a fairly strong case for it being something like Virtuality.

That was the big topic of our recent phone conversation. I'm really happy with my recent phrasing about the output/confirmation concept. Ralph then insisted that "emulation" is a better term for this than "simulation," and I responded that I'd already acknowledged this in the Simulationism essay.

I think that I'm very, very happy with the notion that any Creative Agenda must have an identifiable point or aesthetic raison d'etre. I'd tried hard to articulate such a thing for the Simulationist one in that essay, but for some reason (that was the first of these essays, and it shows), it's still kind of shaky. Maybe my recent phrasing will be acceptable or "good enough," I dunno.

I never did find the "learn something" or "discovery" terminology very helpful, but always thought of it as a "way to say it yourself" that seemed to work well for some folks and not introduce any really awful misconceptions that I could see.

3. You discuss Gamism in terms of proving oneself to others--and I agree that's pretty canonical GNS. But you also, once, discussed a possible imaginary audience that would step in to fufill the "others" role if it wasn't coming from the actual humans.

I don't know if that's canonical either. Can I be said to have Gamist play if the other players tolerate but do not give props for my victories?

I'd say that in this case, the person is playing Gamist, but at the risk of some incoherence among the group. As I've said earlier, incoherence does not necessarily mean less fun or no fun.

I guess it depends of how they tolerate it. If the "tolerance" you're referring to is friendly, it means that the other people in the group are also acknowledging the imaginary audience's validity to the one player, they just don't really feel part of it. If the "tolerance" is instead a matter of "shit, must put up with Bob" and involves a lot of tuning out and maybe bitching about it when Bob's not there, then the Gamist player is a source of some dysfunction (i.e. not fun).

Does that work?

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hi Ron,

It works very well--I am going to consider each of the three and, one at a time (to help keep things reasonably paced), start threads about each of them to further explore them.

I too am very happy with the quality, tone, and content of these discussions. :-D

-Marco