The Forge Archives

We seem to be having several discussions lately questioning this aspect of the Big Model so it seems time to tighten up the definition in hopes of gettting everyone on the same page.

From the provisional glossary...

QuoteThe aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing. Three distinct Creative Agendas are currently recognized: Step On Up (Gamist), The Right to Dream (Simulationist), and Story Now (Narrativist). This definition replaces all uses of "Premise" in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory aside from the specific Creative Agenda of Narrativist play. Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.

This seems very broad to me.  If it's only about aesthetic priorities for whats being explored then there could be an endless stream of creative agendas; a sci-fiist who's priority is playing in a futuristic setting, a Tolkienist who values the game on how close it sticks to J.R.R.'s writings, etc.  I dont think this is what the term Creative Agenda was intended to denote.  If someone see's a value in it being this broad then please speak up and clarify to me what it is.  Is this what the creative agenda as skewer view is proposing?

So how to define it then?  I look to GNS since the definition recognizes them as creative agenda's.  My anlaysis of GNS leads me to believe that creative agenda is defined by what the players actions are causing in play now.   It's a very short term measure and that's why it allows simulationism to include games where developing a story is an important aspect of the game but it is spread out over a two year campaign with ones that have no goal of creating a story, in the short term they are both about simulating the results of what happens in this situation.

I think this works as a definition and allows us to use creative agenda to specify something distinct.  I'm not sure that some of the recent proposals do this.  The new 3d model for instance (and I note it doesnt use the term creative agenda) proposes a classification based on the presence of theme and how centralized the power structure is.  This misses the question of time.  Theme can still be a goal of a game and the players can be empowered to create it however they dont create it by their choices in game. As an example I'm thinking of a Gurps campaign I'm in where the GM has a plot going on in the background and where it usually shows up is in our choices between game.  We are allowed to choose the direction of the game between sessions but when we actually play it's all very much simulation.   GNS fairly accurately describes whats going on to me, I'm not sure that the 3d model does.

Caldis,

While "what the players actions are causing in play now" may be useful for disecting certain kinds of dysfunction (but perhaps not others) I would ask what the broader application of that is.

I've found that conversations about roleplaying and analysis of what I enjoyed/enjoy in my play revolve more around  "What I want and how I go about getting that" which the 3D model does help me articulate (the Big model can too--but I'm less clear what language to use to do that).

If I'm going to design a game that hasn't been played then a language suited to describing short time-periods detailing what was done in another game system back then seems overly tactical (tightly focused on a bunch of specifics) when it should be strategic (focus on objectives and aims the designer has).

When I sit down with a new, prospective GM and say "explain to me how you do things" a description of what was created over a short time in some game will, I think, be less useful to me than a discussion of guiding principles and point of view.

All of those do clearly come out of The Big Model--but I think the 3D Model (although I believe it could use some enhancement) goes directly to the point on that.

A further expansion on The Big Model could certainly fit the bill there--in order to do so I would want it to formalize the centralized/de-centralized descriptor in the 3D model.

-Marco

Quote from: CaldisSo how to define it then?  I look to GNS since the definition recognizes them as creative agenda's.  My anlaysis of GNS leads me to believe that creative agenda is defined by what the players actions are causing in play now.   It's a very short term measure and that's why it allows simulationism to include games where developing a story is an important aspect of the game but it is spread out over a two year campaign with ones that have no goal of creating a story, in the short term they are both about simulating the results of what happens in this situation.

Hmm.  OK, so here you're saying that short-term resolution defines what Caldis-Creative-Agenda is, right?  So in this scheme, my Water-Uphill-World game and Marco's Salga-Del-Mundo game would both be clearly Caldis-Simulationist, because short-term everything was resolved by internal cause-and-effect.  (For my Water-Uphill-World game, cf. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5113">Confused over Simulationism + Example Campaign and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11662">Virtuality and Ouija Boards and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11830">Water-Uphill World: Virtuality Examined.  For Marco's Salga-Del-Mundo campaign, cf. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12061">Weekend Game Analysis and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12540">Techniques, Expectations, and Interactions.)  

Short-term action/conflict resolution (and even sometimes long-term resolution) is often said by people to be a Technique rather than a Creative Agenda.  For example, several people have expressed that Virtualism is a grouping of Techniques.  

Quote from: CaldisI think this works as a definition and allows us to use creative agenda to specify something distinct.  I'm not sure that some of the recent proposals do this.  The new 3d model for instance (and I note it doesnt use the term creative agenda) proposes a classification based on the presence of theme and how centralized the power structure is.  This misses the question of time.  Theme can still be a goal of a game and the players can be empowered to create it however they dont create it by their choices in game. As an example I'm thinking of a Gurps campaign I'm in where the GM has a plot going on in the background and where it usually shows up is in our choices between game.  We are allowed to choose the direction of the game between sessions but when we actually play it's all very much simulation.   GNS fairly accurately describes whats going on to me, I'm not sure that the 3d model does.

OK, I'm not following this, and I think that's because I don't know much aobut the game you're talking about.  Could you describe more about the GURPS game or give some references?  How would you classify it in GNS terms and why?  Conversely, how would you classify it in 3D Model terms?

Quote from: John KimHmm.  OK, so here you're saying that short-term resolution defines what Caldis-Creative-Agenda is, right?  So in this scheme, my Water-Uphill-World game and Marco's Salga-Del-Mundo game would both be clearly Caldis-Simulationist, because short-term everything was resolved by internal cause-and-effect.
Short-term action/conflict resolution (and even sometimes long-term resolution) is often said by people to be a Technique rather than a Creative Agenda.  For example, several people have expressed that Virtualism is a grouping of Techniques.  

Not at all John I'm saying precisely the opposite.  Because the situation was arranged in such a manner as to make address of premise precisely what was going on during play the games were likely narrativist.  That is why it doesnt have to be a conscious decision to address premise it can come up because the situation is inherently filled with premise.  

It's the big difference between GDS and GNS, looking at how the decisions are being made in the game and looking at what the players are achieving.

QuoteOK, I'm not following this, and I think that's because I don't know much aobut the game you're talking about.  Could you describe more about the GURPS game or give some references?  How would you classify it in GNS terms and why?  Conversely, how would you classify it in 3D Model terms?

I wont go into too much detail in an effort to try and remain on topic but I'll give a brief overview.   It's a fantasy campaign set in a massive asian city that is the center of magic in the world.  It's in the only mana rich area of the world and does big trade in magical powerstones.  The secret behind the gemstones is the big story in the campaign and we slowly meet the powers behind it and the plot gets revealed over the course of the whole campaign.  In GNS terms it's very simulationist because during play internal cause is king, we play out the experience of being the character in the situation without any thought for the big plot.  Between sessions the gm gives us a list of where we would like to go next or even make suggestions on what we would like to do next.  He will then prepare for that.

In 3d model terms I dont know where to place it.  The game definitely has thematic goals but it's happening over the course of the campaign, not at the table every session.    Centralized versus decentralized I have the problem of where to draw the line as well.  The players have control of what aspect of the theme we go to next but the GM is determining what and how it will be revealed.

That's what I'm looking for in this thread a clarification on what is being measured so that we can decide how to proceed.  I think if we look at goals of play then we cant limit it to three, we get the big list that Hunter Logan wrote up.  I dont see how the 3d model changes that at all.  Whereas I can look at Hunters list of player goals and then ask the player what they want to be doing in play.   Does he want as 'the conqueror' to be facing challenges or to be creating a story that tells how the powerful rule over the weak.  GNS does something for me.  

Marco I'm not forgetting about you but I think I've answered your questions here as well.  I agree that knowing how you go about getting something may be as important as what you get.  I just dont think the two distinctions have to be intertwined.  I think that at one level you can look at what is happening in the game and on another you can look at the guiding principles.  

Having said that I can see the 3d model as possibly being useful I just need to know what it is defining and therefore what it tells me.

Caldis,

I should remind you that at least three GNS-experienced people have looked at my writeup and deemed it Simulationist. One of the comments I got (at least twice) was that it seemed that way because I didn't specify how decisions were being made.  I, myself,  called it Nar-At-The-End since there was lots of exploration in the begining that led to climaxes with, IMO, very clear premises--but I was told by one fellow poster they weren't "up front" at all times during play.

Frankly, I don't see anything in my or John's game that could be called Story Now (as opposed to Story-Anything-Else).

Now, in your case, in the GUPRS game you say that you have the experience of being in the situation with no thought as to the big plot. Well, that's every bit of my play. I don't think "ooh, here's a plot point" or "what statement is this making? What statement do I want to make?" Nothing like that.

When you look at my play (take a look at the most recent game: After The War) do you see me wanting to create a story that tells how Mercy is greater than Justice? I find that a very misleading way to describe my Actor-stance play.

-Marco

This all ties in with Marco's words in the "3D Model" thread.  I'll start with those, and work my way back to Caldis' point.  

Quote
I think my question about the observation of Decentralized Immersionist achieving theme and then declaring them Narrativist is this: what does The Big Model say that's useful about that? (I'm not saying it says nothing--I'd really like to know what, that is valuable, could come out of that categorization)

I think I see it, Marco.  I'll admit I had the same reaction for quite some time.  Going  through The Azeel Campaign on actual play has pinpointed it for me:  I think this is primarily useful for advice/techniques/rules about how to set up the Setting/Char/Sit/Color/Sys to get a game that will generate theme.  When I think about John's Water-Uphill-World and, say, your 'typical' game of Sorceror, what they share in common is that they both set up the S/C/S/C/S so that Premise will be addressed.  It's all about the front-loading; that's what they have in common.      

I'm not saying that they've got nothing else in common; I just don't see what it is.  

Off the top of my head, I think the same thing could be said about GNS-level Gamism -- to the degree it's really kept distinct from GDS-level Gamism.  

Quote
As someone who also identifies with that mode of play, I think there's a reason I'm skeptical of a lot of the Nar-centered dialog that goes on here that doesn't fit that mode

I can totally understand this.  As Ralph has pointed out, I think that a lot of Techniques have been bundled with CAs, that don't really belong bundled.   I think this is precisely why it often looks like GNS and GDS are after the same thing, when really they're not.  That's one of the reasons that it's so often misunderstood -- I'm at least guilty here as the next guy.  

I agree with you that Ralph's and Mike's new models are about Techniques not traditional CAs.  I agree strongly with Marco that there's room in the Big Model for both.

Quote from: MarcoCaldis,

I should remind you that at least three GNS-experienced people have looked at my writeup and deemed it Simulationist. One of the comments I got (at least twice) was that it seemed that way because I didn't specify how decisions were being made.  I, myself,  called it Nar-At-The-End since there was lots of exploration in the begining that led to climaxes with, IMO, very clear premises--but I was told by one fellow poster they weren't "up front" at all times during play.

I haven't had a chance to read your latest posting in actual play so I was considering the previous one, the end of the world in the desert game.  I felt that game was set up in such a manner that narrativism resulted.  Now that may be incorrect, and likely there's a mix of both going on.

If we use Ralph's cycle of conflict approach to diagnosing your games then the early parts of the game may be viewed as simulationist.  The events that took place couldnt be seen to be creating theme or addressing premise, they were just characters reacting to a situation.  During the end period when premise was addressed and all the players felt it happening the game definitely turned narrativist, so likely what you have happen is a coherent Sim-Nar hybrid.

I have noticed that the games you've discussed lately have been very short and that they've had a dramatic conclusion.  That to me also signifies Nar or at least more appealing to those with Nar tendencies.    Now consider if you were playing a longer campaign, say you strung out the same story over a 2 year period, you'd have a lot more time to build to that climax, what's inevitably going to happen is a lot more exploration that's not directed towards the theme.  That would be a much more simulationist game and some people do enjoy that.  One of the players in the gurps game I'm in says it's the best roleplaying game he's ever been in, while I like it for what it is it doesnt always fully engage myself.

This however is all tangential to the discussion I was hoping would develop. Something that would help define what creative agenda is so that we can start looking for the other factors that help in determining what you want from a game to see where they fit in the big model.

Let's accept this very loose definition for now then, creative agenda = what the players are noticably creating in the shared imagined space over an instance of play. What does the 3d model tell you on top of this that you find interesting?  What keeps the 3d model limited to the categories it has postulated?

For that first question I would guess that how decisions are made is important to you, I 'd also look to the format both you and the Lee used in describing games recently specifically the GM preferences, responsibilities and expectations area.

For the second question I dont see a limit.  If whether a game has a theme is a category then what prevents how well the game functions as a social tool or whether it can act as a form of therapy or do I get to play Conan.  If it is just a measure of what we want in the game then it can be endlessly broad.

Quote from: Lee Short
I think I see it, Marco.  I'll admit I had the same reaction for quite some time.  Going  through The Azeel Campaign on actual play has pinpointed it for me:  I think this is primarily useful for advice/techniques/rules about how to set up the Setting/Char/Sit/Color/Sys to get a game that will generate theme.  When I think about John's Water-Uphill-World and, say, your 'typical' game of Sorceror, what they share in common is that they both set up the S/C/S/C/S so that Premise will be addressed.  It's all about the front-loading; that's what they have in common.      

I'm not saying that they've got nothing else in common; I just don't see what it is.  

Off the top of my head, I think the same thing could be said about GNS-level Gamism -- to the degree it's really kept distinct from GDS-level Gamism.  

This is very interesting. I've been giving the idea of meta-game choices a good deal of thought concering CA since I read your response. Certainly I have something like a Narrativist CA at work--and clearly that influences certain choices I make in set up and play (both as a GM and a player).

Here are my present thoughts:

1. My meta-game choices are all made referent to a Virtuality (3D Dist/Immersion) technique choice. That is: as a GM I set up stuff I think will appeal on an emotional/human-experience level but I expect it all to play out through a very specific technique which, as it turns out, may not lead to Nar play.

Having said that, I'm not sure that's especially meaningful (after all, in the Salag-Del-Mundo game, the world was literally draining away underneath the characters, for them to disengage with situation would require a bit of a trick).

But that brings me to this:

2. What would I do differently in the pre-game in order to set up a Sim game? It has been noted that in some portion of my play Premise is not easiily identifiable front-and-center--so the play would, I think, in short term, look Sim-ish.

I may be wrong about that.

What it looked like in the Salga-game was players theorizing, problem solving, clue-finding, social-networking (in-game) and getting to do their character voices.

Now: I see this as an indispensible part of setting up context, character, and situation for climax. Without the climax I wouldn't find it a fufilling avenue of play--however, I find it an intergral part of *my* play (as a player) and an integral part of pacing (as a GM).

The players may not care much about the situation even if everything unfolds "perfectly"--but I'm darn-sure they won't if there isn't any context, NPC's they care about, or, perhaps, if they are brand new to their characters (this is more important for some players than others, I expect).

So I'm not sure what I would do in a front-loading, play-will-be-virtuality-sense to set up a strongly Sim game. I could pick issues that absolutely do not appeal to the players (I'd be hard pressed to do that, though. No one in my group is incredibly fired up about aboriton issues, for example--but if I put it in context, I could get some of that going).

How would I set up a non-gamist (I can figure that out) situation devoid of premise?

Especially when most genres are totally wrapped around premise (all Star Trek).

In other words, if it's a front-loading issue then I don't think that gets us all the way there--I don't see what's varied at that level between Nar and Sim.

But I'm listening--it's a good observation and I'm curious to hear other's thoughts.

-Marco

Caldis,

Firstly what I like about the 3D Model is that it gives me language to discuss what roles I want the GM and/or players to take in play. Although those may well exist in the Big Model, they are not presently clear to me.

The terms I would most like to use (Virtuality vs. Dramatism) are contentious, ill-defined, and variously understood here.

Under the 3D model, I have a big-honkin' head start. In fact, if I tell the GM I want him or her to run the game in Theme/Dist mode while I willl play in Immersed/Dist mode (can I even do that?) then I get pretty close to what my wirte up concering roles and responsibilities was (I think).

I mean, it's not all there--and it's not all perfect--but right now if I say I like Nar play people ask if I'm drifting the game I wrote. NOTE: I'm not saying this is a correct stance or that the statement was made that I must be drifting it--but most of my game write-ups were judged not Nar by people familiar with GNS--but, clearly, asking for a Sim game won't get me where I want to be either.

There needs to be more work done on techniques. This may be the time to get to it--and that's a good thing.

Secondly, I you ask what players are creating short-term. I'm okay with that for now--but what is Sim? Exploration without theme or challenge?

Exploration is taken to be part of all role-playing. If Exploration = Sim then do we grade games by a per-hour basis?

-Marco

Hi Marco!
It's rather late at my side of the world (an hour past midnight) and my daughter will be up and about in six hours, so I'll keep this short.

I think it's important not to get stuck in terminology here. Trying to pinpoint exactly what CA your game actually was will, I think, require you to forget parts of what actually happened, in order to make it fit. Still sounds like Sim to me, with certain pieces of Gamism thrown in for pacing and challenge and some Nar associated techniques employed for a satisfying climax, which is useful for ending an extended one-shot in a clean way. However, it still seems to me that the core motivation for playing was sharing the Dream. So you spiced it up and rounded it off using techniques associated with other forms of play, which made it work better than it would have done without. This makes the CA at work not entirely "clean", in that you as a group accepted satisfaction of other kinds than the central CA has to offer. That doesn't make the style of playing and setting up games any less primarily Sim; because theories and models are the only actual clean things around.

I might have misunderstood your question or the topic now, but if so I'm going to apologize and claim the excuse of time of night and not-native language.
-E

Quote from: Erling RognliHi Marco!
It's rather late at my side of the world (an hour past midnight) and my daughter will be up and about in six hours, so I'll keep this short.

I think it's important not to get stuck in terminology here. Trying to pinpoint exactly what CA your game actually was will, I think, require you to forget parts of what actually happened, in order to make it fit. Still sounds like Sim to me, with certain pieces of Gamism thrown in for pacing and challenge and some Nar associated techniques employed for a satisfying climax, which is useful for ending an extended one-shot in a clean way. However, it still seems to me that the core motivation for playing was sharing the Dream. So you spiced it up and rounded it off using techniques associated with other forms of play, which made it work better than it would have done without. This makes the CA at work not entirely "clean", in that you as a group accepted satisfaction of other kinds than the central CA has to offer. That doesn't make the style of playing and setting up games any less primarily Sim; because theories and models are the only actual clean things around.

I might have misunderstood your question or the topic now, but if so I'm going to apologize and claim the excuse of time of night and not-native language.
-E

Okay--so let's say we are primarily Sim. Firstly: several people have noted that "sharing the Dream" is a good description of all roleplaying. Secondly, Ron describes Sim as having a point--there being some sort of gating factor--what kinds of gating factors (if any) do you see in the write-up? Thirdly, and most importantly, what possible value could I derrive from that observation?

Additionally: why, outside of a general sense of Actor Stance ("dreaming ... being there)  do you make the Sim-designation?

Are you basing that on my Salga-Del-Mundo game? Or my most recent After The War. I can say that I found the methodology pretty much identical (although I was on different sides of the GM's screen).

-Marco

Whoa. I just read through ”After the War”, which turned out to be a blast. My original assessment of CA was based on reading “Salga-del-Mundo”, and I’ll admit that this one made me doubt the validity of my earlier judgement. My main problem is that identifying Creative Agenda on basis of a written report is neither easy nor very reliable. If we recapitulate the definition of Creative Agenda from the glossary, we are talking about “The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing.” Furthermore it is widely accepted that creative agenda is expressed through actual play, not by reported preference. In actual play, creative agenda can be indicated by several phenomena, such as:

[*]Praise or scorn on any level communicated by players in response to SIS input by a player.
[*]Choice and avoidance of technique combinations.
[*]Drifting of rulesets employed.
[*]Point of reference selected by player for making choices about character action (Maximizing efficiency/Intensity of statement (?)/Reinforcing consistency)
[/list:u]
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and my access to knowledge about any of them is limited in this case. I have to make
guesses, inferring what your motivations were for choosing and playing as
you do, and how the group reacted to what happened. Therefore, as I have pointed out before, I think you are far more qualified to assess the CA of your play than I am. Your play could very well be narrativist. I have no way of actually knowing what’s the case in that respect.

Therefore I’d like to pose you some diagnostic questions back:

Did you in the course of the games appreciate or actively pursue instances
of choice of character action where “consulting the internal character”
could not give an answer or guidance as to which choice to make? Did the
group pursue these kinds of situations, and/or make an effort to set them
up? Did you as a GM attempt to put characters in situations of that kind?

A yes to those would be an indication of narrativism.

Would it have been appropriate (as in Social Contract compliant) within
these games for a player to introduce a major shift or turnaround in the
character through spontaneous invention of a background factor, and/or
employment of director stance to introduce a trigger for the change?

A no to that might indicate simulationism, of the specific kind I am
suspecting here.

I am hypothesizing that both of these games were revolving around exploration of character reaction to a situation frontloaded with some pretty heavy themes. However, the themes are external, and the characters connections to them are through plot hooks; the themes are not reflected within the characters. (If “After the War” had turned out to be about the dilemma of alienation by unique experience vs loss of identity through supression of past, this would have been different, I think.) This means that the character becomes a tool for accessing the thematic material created by the GM, producing emotional impact. It’s kind of like spinning the thematic wool of the situation into a beautiful yarn rather than pulling out your characters body hairs one by one to do it. I base that perception on a general impression of how the characters interact with the situation and the themes, the problem solving/mystery-unraveling approach evidently taken and the “party  reaction” style of meeting a dilemma. But as I said, these are just impressions formed by my reading of your account of games that involved 2-3 others. And although I’ve tried to point out what I think, you can see I’ve realized that I’m not even able to pinpoint why I think what I do, having to resort to “general impressions” to explain it. I’ve tried to formulate some  diagnostic questions, also being interested in general critique on their relevance, which I hope might make things a bit clearer. I'm sorry for not answering your questions in a clearer way, but its the best I can manage right now. I still think that my remarks about not getting caught up in finding the exact answer according to the model applies to some degree. The model is good, but reality is complex.


-E

Quote from: Erling Rognli
Did you in the course of the games appreciate or actively pursue instances
of choice of character action where "consulting the internal character"
could not give an answer or guidance as to which choice to make? Did the
group pursue these kinds of situations, and/or make an effort to set them
up? Did you as a GM attempt to put characters in situations of that kind?

A yes to those would be an indication of narrativism.

I don't believe that there are cases where "consulting the internal character" does not give an answer or guidance as to what choice to make.

Basically I think this is a difference between Stances (somewhat) and may be a division some players make in reference to their characters (i.e. Joe may agree with me. Sid may hold that there are some decisions he can't make from internallly consulting his character).

I think this is close to the Actor-Stance/Author-Stance question on Narrativism--and while I think it's a common point of contention, I don't believe the present understanding of Nar-play holds it relevant.

In other words, I think your question is one many people have traditionally asked--but I think it's, ultimately, not an issue for the Creative Agenda.

Quote
Would it have been appropriate (as in Social Contract compliant) within
these games for a player to introduce a major shift or turnaround in the
character through spontaneous invention of a background factor, and/or
employment of director stance to introduce a trigger for the change?

A no to that might indicate simulationism, of the specific kind I am
suspecting here.

Any action that a player took that seemed resonable considering the "reality" parameters of the SiS would have been appropriate. That's our social contract.

Invention of background would be legitimate within certain parameters: it would have to be judged to be plausible. If it was being done for advantage there would be some checks and balances ("Oh, my character mustered out of the infantry with a neutron bomb. It's hidden under the apartment building in a lead safe.")

However, saying "I remember being beaten by my father and I dispised bullies" would be fine. The GM nor the players expect every instance of the character or their background to be known at start time. The player would be the authority on their character's upbringing and history.

Characters deciding to change the way they felt (a turnaround) was absolutely fine for the game. There were times we almost did it.

Directoral power as a major agency is not part of our play-style for the game in question. A player could create a friend who works in the movie theater, most likely. If a PC tried to create a friend who was a US Senator who owed a life-debt to him, that would probably be an issue (i.e. it would cost points or be subject to scrutiny).

When the rich character declared he knew the mayor, no one blinked. If I had declared my character was a childhood friend of the mayor that would probably not have flown.

Quote
I am hypothesizing that both of these games were revolving around exploration of character reaction to a situation frontloaded with some pretty heavy themes. However, the themes are external, and the characters connections to them are through plot hooks; the themes are not reflected within the characters. (If "After the War" had turned out to be about the dilemma of alienation by unique experience vs loss of identity through supression of past, this would have been different, I think.) This means that the character becomes a tool for accessing the thematic material created by the GM, producing emotional impact. It's kind of like spinning the thematic wool of the situation into a beautiful yarn rather than pulling out your characters body hairs one by one to do it. I base that perception on a general impression of how the characters interact with the situation and the themes, the problem solving/mystery-unraveling approach evidently taken and the "party  reaction" style of meeting a dilemma. But as I said, these are just impressions formed by my reading of your account of games that involved 2-3 others. And although I've tried to point out what I think, you can see I've realized that I'm not even able to pinpoint why I think what I do, having to resort to "general impressions" to explain it. I've tried to formulate some  diagnostic questions, also being interested in general critique on their relevance, which I hope might make things a bit clearer. I'm sorry for not answering your questions in a clearer way, but its the best I can manage right now. I still think that my remarks about not getting caught up in finding the exact answer according to the model. The model is good, but reality is complex.


-E

I understand the difficulty of working from a write-up.

However, being there, I can't do the CA-analysis any better than you do. I think your hypothesis about the front-loading being done by the GM is, for example, a non-issue.

Yes, the GM created a thematic situation--but Narrativist play allows for that.

I think by your defintion either:
1. The players would've had to say "here are the themes we are introducing" and, probably, exercised directoral power to do so.
2. The players would've had to know what the GM was planning (sort of like getting a story outline) and then worked the themes that were going to come up into their characters in order to make an intentional statement (kind of like writting an essay on an assigned theme).

Both of these are fairly constricted versions of what themed play (and therefore Narrativist play can or may be, IMO).

However, I think your take on the games write up is a very common one. It's a conclusion many people come to.

This is why I think techniques are usually, and IMO, incorrectly, mixed with CA's in theoritical discussion.

We can talk concretely about how the creation of thematic elements was distributed. We can talk concretely about how pacing was used to present them. We can talk concretely about how the PC's responded and how the players provided input to the game. We can talk concretely about our own personal reactions to the content.

I think I do all of that in the write ups.

If that doesn't give us enough to nail down CA then what's missing?

Maybe the social factor (although I'm not convinced on that yet--and I'm not sure it would be concretely analyzeable here either).

I think the 3D model starts to handle this very well though.

And I think the big-model can--but the emphasis needs to be taken off techniques (which is what I think you've gravitated to, probably because in my write-up that's the most tangible thing you can get) and moved towards the internal reactions of the players.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think this is close to the Actor-Stance/Author-Stance question on Narrativism--and while I think it's a common point of contention, I don't believe the present understanding of Nar-play holds it relevant.

In other words, I think your question is one many people have traditionally asked--but I think it's, ultimately, not an issue for the Creative Agenda.

Hmm. I had to chew on this one for some time, but after thinking it over I disagree. I think you misunderstand what I am asking about, although the misunderstanding is highly understandable, as I might not have been altoghether clear. I am referring, as you might have guessed, to my previous postulation of point of reference for choice of character action as one indicator of CA. As I see it, this isn't a matter of stance at all, it's actually just a reformulation of the concept of creative agenda. When playing with a distinct CA, the player is out to achieve something, what he wants to achieve will influence what factors he takes into account when deciding what his character will be doing. It is perhaps connected with stance, but I think it exists on a higher conceptual level, being a very direct expression of creative agenda.

At the same time I am becoming increasingly aware that I might be keeping an overly strict definition of Narrativism, but I see that as peripheral to this thread, so I might start a new one.

QuoteI think your hypothesis about the front-loading being done by the GM is, for example, a non-issue.

You might be right, but I'd like to know why you think that is a non-issue?

QuoteYes, the GM created a thematic situation--but Narrativist play allows for that.

Does it? As I have understood it, it usually doesn't, but as I've already said, I might be enertaining a too strict definition.

Are you sure that your identification of narrativism with themed play is valid? I mean, Illusionism could concievably be themed (I think I wrote a themed Illusionism scenario for a con some years ago), but I think it's fairly well established that Illusionism and Narrativism are not the same.

I have some other things to say about narrativism and such, but I feel were getting a bit far off topic now, and I need some more time to write them out.

-E

Hi Erling,

The defintion of Nar play (AFAIK) is that the situation contains a premise question and the player's play answers it AND:

1. It is socially functional (i.e. other players approve)
2. The player is emotionally engaged with the premise question

As far as I know, that's it.

How the question got there, how the player related to it, what the other players do to make it functional--all that is up in the air.

From what I have read there is some contention around the following issue:

a) whether one must be "mindful" of the premise question in some way and what that means.
b) whether or not playing from within Actor stance and simply playing in character is at odds with the authorial type creative effort that some people impute to Narrativist play ("It's kinda like we all sit down to write a play")
c) (I'm adding this one) What Story Now means in reference to GM created situation and Actor-Stance PC's.

Now, I would consider this unresolved save for a few things.

1. Nathan and Vincent had a big thread on this (discussing stances) and they both agreed that Actor Stance-Nar (i.e. GM creates situation, player is immersed) is a valid form of Narrativism.

2. As per the recent discussions there can be varying "degrees" of Narrativism or at least various frameworks for player input and how "much" theme a player creates.

This leads me to believe that there is certainly room for GM created situation.

3. There has for a long time been Vanillia Nar and "Prevy" Nar play. This was (I think) usually more about "techniques" (Directoral Power and really unusual games) than about 'stance' per-se, but even at the basic level of distinction, Vanillia Nar play was pretty much what I describe (although usually with a lighter rules set. Over the Edge was in that category, IIRC).

So I think front-loading is a non-issue. I think that because I don't think it matters how the situation gets there. What matters is that the players are emotionally engaged with the premise situation.

-Marco