Social Function and Feedback in Narrativism

[John Kim]

So I was struck by a recent comment of Chris Lehrich's in the thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13501">Ramblings on the role of Mechanics in CA's (fishing).  So I thought I would follow up on some of the ideas in an earlier thread I started, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13154">Classifying by Social Function.  In that first thread, I felt that discussion was clouded by a perceived need to distinguish between GNS Simulationism and Narrativism.  For this thread, I'd like to consider only Narrativist play.  

Well, by your formulation of Sim that means that we don't allow what you might call feedback from the SIS. That is, the manipulation can only go one way: we can take stuff from the social and express it in SIS, but we barricade off the SIS from its potential implications for the social.

To put it straight-up, we claim that "this is only a game, not art or deep thought or philosophy or whatever, it's just fun damnit." Look at some replies to Jonathan Walton's column "The Fine Art of Gaming" on RPG.net some time, and you'll see this popping up very vigorously. The thing is, of course it feeds back. How can you play these games and these characters and these actions and not have it affect you personally? And one of the points of Narrativism is to make this explicit, to formulate directly that this form of gaming should be about real moral quandaries, not simplistic constructs like alignment systems and whatnot. But the point about Sim is that it denies such a possibility at the same time as it forces it actually to happen.

I'd like to pick up here about Narrativism.  By contrast, you imply that Nar explicitly includes feedback to the social.  i.e. The diagesis/SIS is supposed to affect the social.  However, it isn't clear to me at all what this explicit feedback is.  When I brought this up in the social function thread, there was disagreement about what Narrativism's social function was.  I'd say there were roughly three categories of answer:

[*] Art for Art's Sake [*] Encourage individual moral/ethical articulation [*] Reinforce and bond over a group moral/ethical position[/list:u]

I suspect that this is a major split of categories within Narrativism.  Personally, from my recent Soap and My Life With Master, I saw at least little of the latter two.  Both of these are widely considered Narrativist.  However, to me they were primarily about television/literary genre.  I recently polished off my own review of http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/mylifewithmaster.html">My Life With Master.  My regular player and soulmate recently blogged some bathtub thoughts on gaming, at http://badgerbag.typepad.com/badgerbag/2004/11/i_was_just_thin.html .  Now, she freely admits to not paying much attention to the specifics of Forge GNS stuff, but I thought the comments were interesting.  

But it seemed to me (in this minor epiphany in my bubble bath) that I can think of MLWM (as a system, and how we played it trying to adhere to its structure) as an example of what R.E. calls Narrativism. From that game I learned some very interesting things about a literary genre and how it works - about how storytelling works for that genre, about its structures and assumptions. It was great and it was both instructive and inspiring to me as a writer and as a reader!

So this describes real feedback -- i.e. the game changed her view of things outside of the game.  On the other hand, this was not her view of society, but rather her view of other art.  So this isn't quite "Art for Art's Sake" exactly -- but it is literary criticism, or "Art for Other Art's Sake".  

This isn't the whole of Narrativism, but I can't really speak for the whole of Narrativism.  Thus, I'd be interested in other views on what sort of feedback that other Narrativist games have.

[clehrich]

But it seemed to me (in this minor epiphany in my bubble bath) that I can think of MLWM (as a system, and how we played it trying to adhere to its structure) as an example of what R.E. calls Narrativism. From that game I learned some very interesting things about a literary genre and how it works - about how storytelling works for that genre, about its structures and assumptions. It was great and it was both instructive and inspiring to me as a writer and as a reader!

So this describes real feedback -- i.e. the game changed her view of things outside of the game.  On the other hand, this was not her view of society, but rather her view of other art.  So this isn't quite "Art for Art's Sake" exactly -- but it is literary criticism, or "Art for Other Art's Sake".

I find this very striking, and wonder whether it's a common experience of Narrativism.  The game I'm in right now, Age of Paranoia, would I think also be classified as Narrativist, and it has prompted me to look at espionage fiction and history somewhat differently and more deeply than I used to.  I think that fits what Liz is talking about.  I find this quite striking, and I would definitely put it in the category of social effects or feedback.  I guess I'd say that Narrativism does make explicit that this is desirable; would you agree?

[John Kim]

So this describes real feedback -- i.e. the game changed her view of things outside of the game.  On the other hand, this was not her view of society, but rather her view of other art.  So this isn't quite "Art for Art's Sake" exactly -- but it is literary criticism, or "Art for Other Art's Sake".

I find this very striking, and wonder whether it's a common experience of Narrativism.  The game I'm in right now, Age of Paranoia, would I think also be classified as Narrativist, and it has prompted me to look at espionage fiction and history somewhat differently and more deeply than I used to.  I think that fits what Liz is talking about.  I find this quite striking, and I would definitely put it in the category of social effects or feedback.  I guess I'd say that Narrativism does make explicit that this is desirable; would you agree?

I'm curious -- could you say more about this, and especially compare and contrast how it made you look at espionage history vs. espionage fiction?  Liz's suggestion was that Narrativism was especially about literature, i.e. about the structure of story in an analytical way.  i.e. Narrativism functioned as a sort of literary criticism.

Edited to fix quoting

[clehrich]

Oh, well, I wouldn't put too much weight on that.  The game happens to be very strongly rooted in both historical and literary materials, so naturally I end up reflecting on both.  Liz was in a MLwM game, right?  Not exactly about history.  Unless you're fishing for something in particular?  I mean, if I played in a PTA game, I think I'd expect to be reflecting on TV shows more than literature, for example.

[John Kim]

Oh, well, I wouldn't put too much weight on that.  The game happens to be very strongly rooted in both historical and literary materials, so naturally I end up reflecting on both.  Liz was in a MLwM game, right?  Not exactly about history.  Unless you're fishing for something in particular?  I mean, if I played in a PTA game, I think I'd expect to be reflecting on TV shows more than literature, for example.

Well, this was part of Liz's suggested contrast.  That is, she suggests that there is a big difference between a game which is about the realities of espionage, and a game which is about creating thematic stories in the espionage genre.  It's not the only difference there is between games, but I think it is significant.  

Liz's idea is that Narrativism is specifically about the creation of stories, not about broadly any sort of possible meaning or point.  So it can be thought of as a tool for learning literary (or television or film) criticism.  This is distinct from, say, reflecting on the historical realities of espionage.  If you want to learn about the historical reality, then some other mode would be more appropriate.  

Now, I feel that there are many different takes on what the GNS modes really are, so I'd prefer to lay out all the different possibilities rather than argue over which one it really is.  Anyhow, I'd still be interested on your thoughts about how your particular game functioned for understanding espionage history vs espionage fiction.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This is nifty because I am currently working on my espionage project, and I'm thoroughly buried in texts ranging all across novels, criticism, biographies/autobiographies, historical and political analysis, polemic, reflection and self-evaluation (not quite the same as autobiography), and many more.

Anyway, John, what it sounds like Liz is saying to me is partly another of those valuable "say it for yourself" statements to describe Narrativist play, and partly an extension from there - essentially, that if one actually writes a freakin' novel (for instance), one has a better framework from which to work in evaluating what novel-ness or story-ness is.

Role-playing might even be a better medium in which to work in this regard, as the various components of "story-making" are perhaps more easily dissected out. Whether the components are essential units of story, or merely specific to role-playing, is an interesting question. It does seem to me that the neat thing about Narrativist play is that the group starts with what might be called unresolved components which (in any of numerous ways) help get Premise into (out of?) the SIS. The System in action, embedded as it is the author/audience communication among everyone, results in a story where there simply wasn't one before.

So a good look at how different approaches begin with different sets or types of unresolved components seems like a decent start to me. I'd written the Narrativism essay with that idea in mind, e.g., the table that's included toward the end.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Well, this was part of Liz's suggested contrast.  That is, she suggests that there is a big difference between a game which is about the realities of espionage, and a game which is about creating thematic stories in the espionage genre.  It's not the only difference there is between games, but I think it is significant.

Liz's idea is that Narrativism is specifically about the creation of stories, not about broadly any sort of possible meaning or point.  So it can be thought of as a tool for learning literary (or television or film) criticism.  This is distinct from, say, reflecting on the historical realities of espionage.  If you want to learn about the historical reality, then some other mode would be more appropriate.

Oh.  I get it.

Well, hmm.  I guess what we've been doing is dredging stories out of historical and semi-historical data.  Basically we tell classic espionage-thematic stories (the mole, the double-cross, the brush-pass in Moscow, the barium meal, the old friend who lets you in on something he shouldn't, the special hidden source, etc.), and in the process also weave our own characters' stories out of these.  So those stories we tell are cobbled out of bits and pieces of history but structured around themes and classic elements, then put together as essentially background files, parts of the personal and institutional histories of each character.  And all of that is set against another layer, in which we're telling a story about right now, right here, where our characters are sort of allies and sort of at cross-purposes, and sort of representatives of their services and their countries (not that those are the same) and sort of very much their own people.

If you've read John LeCarre's The Secret Pilgrim, I see it as sort of like that, except all woven together at another level to turn into Smiley's People meets The Spy Who Came In From the Cold.

For me, this is basically creating LeCarre out of thin air and some bric-a-brac of rather sketchy historical reading.  But then, I love LeCarre.  Some other players don't like him so much, so they try to pull together different kinds of stories, rather more Len Deighton with a touch of Robert Ludlum and a heaping cupful of cynicism.  Not surprisingly, perhaps, my stuff is focused on MI6/SIS and theirs is focused on the CIA; the MI5 guy is on hiatus right now, but was a sort of weird bridge.

I think I do end up thinking about modern political history quite differently than I used to, but on reflection that's mostly because I end up knowing a lot more about things like the history of the Caucasus in the early to mid-20th century, about which I previously knew very little.  But what happens in the game is reflection on that in a consciously "storied" mode: the history is a backdrop for the espionage tales we tell, which are very much about betrayal -- of hope, of country, of love, of self.

Does that make sense?  Does it help?  Do you want specifics?  Sorry, I'm not exactly sure where you're taking all this in your own head, so I don't know if I'm being helpful at all.

[John Kim]

For me, this is basically creating LeCarre out of thin air and some bric-a-brac of rather sketchy historical reading.  But then, I love LeCarre.  Some other players don't like him so much, so they try to pull together different kinds of stories, rather more Len Deighton with a touch of Robert Ludlum and a heaping cupful of cynicism.  Not surprisingly, perhaps, my stuff is focused on MI6/SIS and theirs is focused on the CIA; the MI5 guy is on hiatus right now, but was a sort of weird bridge.

I think I do end up thinking about modern political history quite differently than I used to, but on reflection that's mostly because I end up knowing a lot more about things like the history of the Caucasus in the early to mid-20th century, about which I previously knew very little.  But what happens in the game is reflection on that in a consciously "storied" mode: the history is a backdrop for the espionage tales we tell, which are very much about betrayal -- of hope, of country, of love, of self.

Well, I'll post my thoughts on this, but they're not at all settled.  Your phrasing here suggests that you and your way of thinking were affected by reading the history on which play was based -- but not by play itself.  Play itself, you imply, is an end in itself of creating stories which emulate LeCarre.  The thing is, I'm not sure I believe that.

Now, Liz's suggestion would mean that this is your way of analyzing and understanding LeCarre.  You immerse yourself in similar sources and try to create similar stories -- but the results of your game are always seen in light of LeCarre.  This is in effect a way of working through and considering what LeCarre means to you.  

Alternatively maybe something else is going on here -- such as one of the alternate suggestions of Narrativism's social function.  You mention that the tales are full of betrayal.  Have your real-world moral positions been refined or exposed through these tales?  You mention that there is a split in the group.  You describe it in terms of source material (LeCarre/MI6 vs Ludlum/CIA), but it is also ideological, perhaps.  Is this explicit?  i.e. Are there clear statements of the players' real-world morals during the games?

[clehrich]

Well, I'll post my thoughts on this, but they're not at all settled.  Your phrasing here suggests that you and your way of thinking were affected by reading the history on which play was based -- but not by play itself.  Play itself, you imply, is an end in itself of creating stories which emulate LeCarre.  The thing is, I'm not sure I believe that.

Now, Liz's suggestion would mean that this is your way of analyzing and understanding LeCarre.  You immerse yourself in similar sources and try to create similar stories -- but the results of your game are always seen in light of LeCarre.  This is in effect a way of working through and considering what LeCarre means to you.

John, you're reading far too much into my off-the-cuff remarks.  Yes, of course what you're saying is also true.  I think both things are true.  Why wouldn't they be?  I think you're making this harder than it is.

Alternatively maybe something else is going on here -- such as one of the alternate suggestions of Narrativism's social function.  You mention that the tales are full of betrayal.  Have your real-world moral positions been refined or exposed through these tales?  You mention that there is a split in the group.  You describe it in terms of source material (LeCarre/MI6 vs Ludlum/CIA), but it is also ideological, perhaps.  Is this explicit?  i.e. Are there clear statements of the players' real-world morals during the games?

I can't say that this has had much in the way of implications about actual ideological positions.  The only place I've seen that is that Jeff is playing a character who is essentially a proto-NeoCon asshole, and right after the election he was uncomfortable continuing to play exactly the sort of person who would be running Bush's dirty tricks department.  Does that count?

[John Kim]

Well, again, I'm just thinking out loud here.  If I've misinterpreted something, then obviously let me know.  My thinking here comes from stuff which you and Matt Snyder said in the "RPGs and Text" thread:

But, I have read Mike as saying the meaning in Narrativism is in making sense of the real world, to us the humans. By comparison, meaning in Simulationism is making sense of the imagined world. Of course, we might strive to do both in both Agendas, but the emphasis remains. In Narrativism, we're emphasizing results meaningful to our real, human lives. In Simulationism, we're emphasizing results meaningful to our explored, shared environment.

I'll let Mike handle whether you're reading him right. From my perspective, this does seem reasonably accurate. As you say, it's a question of emphasis: in both cases, we're manipulating symbols in order to impute deeper meaning to our actual lives, but that's relatively overt in Nar and not particularly so -- in fact often flatly denied -- in Sim.

So this is the part that intrigued me.  Here you both suggest that in Narrativist play, you are overtly imputing deeper meaning to your actual life.  That's why I'm asking questions about "Age of Paranoia", because it seemed like it might be Narrativist (though I don't assume that).  So I'm looking for what the deeper meaning to your actual life is.  

More generally, I want to look at this in general for Narrativist games.  i.e. How do Narrativist games affect the actual lives of those who play them?  Liz's idea, which I like, is that it is a form of literary criticism -- i.e. a way of analyzing and thinking about other stories.  This affects one's life indirectly, through how one is affected by stories.  It's a bit like, say, cleaning one's glasses.  That process doesn't itself change how you view the world, but when you actually go and look through your clean glasses you may see things differently.  

I can't say that this has had much in the way of implications about actual ideological positions.  The only place I've seen that is that Jeff is playing a character who is essentially a proto-NeoCon asshole, and right after the election he was uncomfortable continuing to play exactly the sort of person who would be running Bush's dirty tricks department.  Does that count?

Well, no, it doesn't seem like exposing ideology.  It sounds to me that he was uncomfortable because the game became too close to reality at the time of the election.  So in a sense this is the opposite -- he would prefer a greater conceptual distance between game and real life.  So by elimination this sounds more like Liz's concept of it being literary criticism.  

For comparison, I should add my own thoughts on our MLWM game.  I guess I mostly agree with Liz here.  For me as GM, the intriguing part was my role as aggressive scene framer.  It was challenging and also interesting, particularly when the scenes went non-linear (i.e. jumping back and forth in time).  It made me reflect on story structure.