Re: Sim has not be discussed as process yet it needs to be s

[John Kim]

I think I see the troublesome issue here.  There is a difference between the literal meaning of the phrase "Story Now" using the glossary definition of "story" -- and the meaning of Narrativism.  Let me try giving three cases.  

1) Players are playing with the mindful agenda of "addressing premise" as their purpose.  As the transcript happens, they can see the results of their efforts.  When the transcript is complete, it forms a story.  

2) Players are playing with some other agenda, such as following their character's motivations or competing over some resource.  Nevertheless, when the transcript is complete, it also forms a story.  

3) Players are playing with some other agenda, as in #2.  When the transcript is complete, it does not form a coherent story.  Later, a player tells a story about happened, editing and perhaps embellishing the transcript to do so.  

Now, here's the trick.  The definition Ron suggests of Creative Agenda says that #1 is Nar, while #2 and #3 are not.  However, story is defined in terms of the transcript -- so both #1 and #2 are identical in terms of story produced.  Now, one can claim that #2 happens very rarely -- i.e. comparable to waiting for accidents.  That's debatable but I'll accept it as a valid claim for the moment.  But if that is true, then transcript should be a reliable indicator of Creative Agenda, except in rare cases.  So I see a split in usage, or at least emphasis, in what Narrativism is about.  

Narrativism-as-story:  The creation of a story is definitional to Narrativism -- where "story" is a quality of transcript as defined in the glossary and commonly thought of in other media such as books.  Sim will not reliably produce a transcript with story, and can create stories only by editing and embellishing after-the-fact.  This means that transcript is a fairly reliable criteria, particularly over several sessions.  If something reliably creates transcripts-with-story, then it is Narrativism.  

Narrativism-as-experience:  The creation of a story is necessary but not sufficient for Narrativism.  i.e. Narrativism is more than just story.  Various other forms of play will also reliably create story.  So even if I am reliably creating transcripts which have story, I may not be getting true Narrativism.  There is some other quality to play that is required.  

It seems to me that in practice people seem divided over usage -- or even perhaps drift back and forth between these two.

[The GM]

I agree the entirely honest and open play group is a case where the identification of agenda is entirely trivial. But we also want to be able to identify less overt signs and patterns, otherwise the distinction becomes useless except for groups that have already made it.

Mendel,
I let this statement sit for a few to chew it over. When I came back to it, it still bothered me. Perhaps I'm going off tangent a little too far for the purposes of this thread, if so, we can move the discussion. My question, is a simple one though. Why in the world would you waste your time in playing with a group that is not 'entirely honest and open.' This seems, to me, to be an exercise in frustration and disapointment. How can you form group agenda if people aren't being honest?

Thanks for any clarification you have to add. :)

[Silmenume]

Hey John,

Narrativism-as-story:  The creation of a story is definitional to Narrativism -- where "story" is a quality of transcript as defined in the glossary and commonly thought of in other media such as books.  Sim will not reliably produce a transcript with story, and can create stories only by editing and embellishing after-the-fact.  This means that transcript is a fairly reliable criteria, particularly over several sessions.  If something reliably creates transcripts-with-story, then it is Narrativism.

The problem with this is that CA's describe action verbs.  Players are "addressing" Challenge, "addressing" Premise, or engaging in "Bricolage."  CA's by definition describe processes (things that human beings are doing), not products (things that human being have created).  Conversely products cannot traced by to CA's.  It is not a commutative process.  Process leads to product reliably, but not flawlessly or perfectly.  Because of this imperfection one cannot abduce back from product to process and hence CA.

Narrativism-as-experience:  The creation of a story is necessary but not sufficient for Narrativism.  i.e. Narrativism is more than just story.  Various other forms of play will also reliably create story.  So even if I am reliably creating transcripts which have story, I may not be getting true Narrativism.  There is some other quality to play that is required.

Again this is flawed.  Narrativism is not an experience, it is a process.  To rephrase I would offer –

Narrativism-as-process: The creation of a story is typical (even expected) but not sufficient for Narrativism.  i.e. Narrativism is not equivalent to story.  Various other forms of play can possibly create story, but not nearly as reliably.  So even if I am creating transcripts which have story, this is not evidence enough to claim that I am expressing the Narrativism CA.  There is some other quality to play that is required.  This quality is the address of Premise.

My take on the issues...

[Marco]

Narrativism-as-process: The creation of a story is typical (even expected) but not sufficient for Narrativism.  i.e. Narrativism is not equivalent to story.  Various other forms of play can possibly create story, but not nearly as reliably.  So even if I am creating transcripts which have story, this is not evidence enough to claim that I am expressing the Narrativism CA.  There is some other quality to play that is required.  This quality is the address of Premise.

My take on the issues...

Although I agree that this is a more text-book way to say it, I think that the element that I agree with John on is that address of Premise is most clearly defined, IMO, experientially (the player's experience is what detects premise).

-Marco

[John Kim]

Narrativism is not an experience, it is a process.  To rephrase I would offer –

Narrativism-as-process: The creation of a story is typical (even expected) but not sufficient for Narrativism.  i.e. Narrativism is not equivalent to story.  Various other forms of play can possibly create story, but not nearly as reliably.  So even if I am creating transcripts which have story, this is not evidence enough to claim that I am expressing the Narrativism CA.  There is some other quality to play that is required.  This quality is the address of Premise.

This is inconsistent hedging between the two, in my opinion.  You're trying to deny that it is the product, and yet make a claim about reliability at the same time.  What if something does reliably create transcripts with story?  Does that tell us anything about whether it is Narrativist?  If not, then you need to drop the claim about reliability from the definition.  

Assuming that you do drop this, then I'm fine with it.  The words "experience" versus "process" create a slightly different emphasis, but they are similar and both denote something active rather than a fixed product.   By saying it is a process, you are emphasizing technique -- i.e. Narrativism is one way of creating story.  Different ways of gaming may reliably create story, but if you stick to one particular process of creating story, then you are Narrativist.  On the other hand, "experience" emphasizes the feelings of the real people involved.  i.e. Any process which creates the same feelings in the participants is Narrativism.

[contracycle]

The problem seems to be a confounding of terms, which supports Marco's claim that we should abandon the idea of a retroactive story.

which is arse-backwards: the whole reason I am proposing such emphasis on retroactive story is precisely to resolve this very issue.

Sim can reasonably produce a Transcript which is a story.

... which I deny, without serious editing.

These are clearly different phenomena, but without some further clarity there is no way to disambiguate the term retroactive story, making it largely irrelevant to the discussion.

Narr creates story in play.  Sim creates events which can be storyified after play.  I don't see any ambiguity.

Also, the utility of talking about modified transcripts seems only relevent if you have fallen into the fallacy that since Nar implies a story transcript, a story transcript implies Nar. The positive does not (in general) imply the converse.

No, what it attmepts to do is cirumvent the blind alley of asserting that sim and narr can both produce story.  We are attempting to specify that they do so in different ways.

[contracycle]

This is inconsistent hedging between the two, in my opinion.  You're trying to deny that it is the product, and yet make a claim about reliability at the same time.  What if something does reliably create transcripts with story?  Does that tell us anything about whether it is Narrativist?  If not, then you need to drop the claim about reliability from the definition.  

I don't think iot can be reverse engineered like this.  I'd be willing to concede that a heavily railraoded game might be rigorously structured to produce a story-like transcript but I do not believe such a mode of play can do so RELIABLY, for all the reasons dfiscussed under TITBB.

I EXPECT that most instances of narr play will produce something story like.  

By saying it is a process, you are emphasizing technique -- i.e. Narrativism is one way of creating story.  Different ways of gaming may reliably create story, but if you stick to one particular process of creating story, then you are Narrativist.

That does not follow as far as I can see.  Firstly I dispue different ways of gaming can reliably create story, secondly I dipsute that Narr ius characterised by one particular process.  Narr is THE process fo creating actual story here and now, as I see it.  Sim is NOT.

[Marco]

Sim can reasonably produce a Transcript which is a story.

... which I deny, without serious editing.

If this is true, then we need the concept of an "accurate Transcript" which would, indeed, distinguish Nar from Sim play (well, reliably). But the essays tell us flatly this isn't so--and don't make any mention of people necessiarily exaggerating, adding, or subtracting from the transcript (i.e. the example transcript in the Nar essay is discussed as inaccurate--it just says 'we can't tell').

This would at least re-define Transcript as listed in the glossary.

Earlier I had given an example:

A group of supers are sent on a mission to rescue a turned Nazi scientist during WW II. His 'capture' will be of great importance to the allied war effort. Along the way of searching for him, they come across various atrocities of his (and may have to fight some). In the end, assuming they overcome the obstacles and don't abandon the mission (both of which are reasonable for the characters) they find him.

An NPC will bring up the question as to whether he should be rescued (or terminated or left to the Nazis).

It seems to me that most of the time (relaibly) this game-scenario will play out:
1. With Premise inherent in the situation.
2. In the form of beginning, rising action to climax, conclusion.
3. With whatever foreshadowing or symbolism is in the various obstacles and environments.
4. Reliably. That is, if I ran it and the power-scale was approproiately judged and the players had agreed to play generally patriotic (but not necessiarily dogmatic) supers recruited by the allied forces the game would proceed along a sufficiently predictable path).

Therefore: It seems to me it should make a Story without editing being required.

However: There's no reason to think it would be a Narrativist game. That would depend on how the players react to the inherent question of loyalty to the cause over a personal sense of justice. If they simply dig the fights, enjoy the versimilitude, apply themselves to talking in character (maybe even discussing the issue--but getting involved as their players) the game will be Sim.

This is, IMO, because the players are not 'engaged by premise.'

I don't see why this kind of game wouldn't be considered bog-standard or in need of editing.

Maybe you could explain how this example might pertain to TITBB--perhaps that will shed some light on why it wouldn't reliably generate story?

-Marco

[contracycle]

This would at least re-define Transcript as listed in the glossary.

so what?

4. Reliably. That is, if I ran it and the power-scale was approproiately judged and the players had agreed to play generally patriotic (but not necessiarily dogmatic) supers recruited by the allied forces the game would proceed along a sufficiently predictable path).

Sheesh, note all the qualifiers.  What if they ARE dogmatic. Thats exactly the kind of editing I am pointing too: your literal transcript might contain an hour long argument as to what is the appropriately patriotic action which may be ommitted when the play is recounted or remembered.

Therefore: It seems to me it should make a Story without editing being required.

Yes, if we assume Ideal inputs and perfect conditions, your logic is impeccable.  However, as you have yourself argued, UNLESS they engage with the premise they are reacting to the game on the basis of some other agenda, and if you contrain that activity to your idea of "appropriate story" structure you will probably be railroading and have all sorts of other problems to deal with.

I don't see why this kind of game wouldn't be considered bog-standard or in need of editing.

Because even if if it was rigorously participationist, as this proposition implies, if the players are not engaged with premise their actions will comprise decisions that do not address the premise and deal with other things like challenge.  I can't see what "bog standard" has to do with anything.

Maybe you could explain how this example might pertain to TITBB--perhaps that will shed some light on why it wouldn't reliably generate story?

Because they are not engaged with the address of premise.  The raw material contains many other things which will be ommitted in any telling of the story.  Or just the accidents of play - mabe they shoot the NPC whose supposed to raise the moral issue in act 1.  Maybe they don't care as they are only here to trounce nazis and don't care a fig about the "moral paradox".  Simply writing such a scenario, even running it, is no guarantee whatever that a story will be the end product.

[Wormwood]

contra,

You cannot prove non-existence inductively. Sim can, with the right techniques, and with appropriate circumstances produce a transcript which is a story with no editing. Is this probable? Hard to say, but claiming it is not possible by listing situations in which it doesn't occur is insufficient. Marco provided an example of the situation, that is enough to show that it can happen. (Reliability given appropriate circumstances is a trivial thing, which is what Marco seems to be getting at. Contra, you seem to be saying that sim play does not often reach those circumstances, which doesn't really matter, if in those cirumstances the transcripts are unmodified stories.)

Also, in the revisionist sense of retro-active story you are building bad theory. Since story is identified via interpretation, there isn't a point where you can certify that "re-writing" does not take place.

Lastly, if your claim of the converse fallacy (story transcript implies Nar) were true, then this implies that transcript is all that is needed to distinguish Nar, which as Ron pointed out is not valid.


The border between Nar and Sim is complex and deserves study, but the approach you are taking in defining that border is at best unhelpful, and at worst obfuscatory.  

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[contracycle]

Also, in the revisionist sense of retro-active story you are building bad theory. Since story is identified via interpretation, there isn't a point where you can certify that "re-writing" does not take place.

Thats kinda the point.

Lastly, if your claim of the converse fallacy (story transcript implies Nar) were true, then this implies that transcript is all that is needed to distinguish Nar, which as Ron pointed out is not valid.

Fortunately I offered the term EXPECT.  At no point did I ever advance as hard a claim as you are attacking here, or as hard as Marco has implied.  This whole discussion of the bloody transcript is wholly off the point as far as I am concerned, and conducted entirely as a courtesy to Marco, who for some reason doesn't really believe in Story Now.

The border between Nar and Sim is complex and deserves study, but the approach you are taking in defining that border is at best unhelpful, and at worst obfuscatory.  

I did not want to define a border, and if I were to nominate a border it would be the distinction between briocolage as the process of myth construction and narratavism as the process of story construction.

It doesn't seem impossible to me that some particular series of sim events might produce a story by accident, I just don't think it matters as a general principle.

[Marco]

Sheesh, note all the qualifiers.  What if they ARE dogmatic. Thats exactly the kind of editing I am pointing too: your literal transcript might contain an hour long argument as to what is the appropriately patriotic action which may be ommitted when the play is recounted or remembered.

There virutally aren't any stipulations at all: were this not the GNS forum, I would just say "the PC's are on a mission from the allied forces"--however, this dialog, being what it is, I have to be very exacting or people will, for example, claim that the PC's must be being railroaded for a "mission scenario" to be considered 'reliable.'

I think this is unfortunate--but I've seen it enough times to know it's a possible objection (and I think you're reading too harshly: I allow that players could have dogmatic characters--I simply didn't mandate it.)

Because they are not engaged with the address of premise.  The raw material contains many other things which will be ommitted in any telling of the story.  Or just the accidents of play - mabe they shoot the NPC whose supposed to raise the moral issue in act 1.  Maybe they don't care as they are only here to trounce nazis and don't care a fig about the "moral paradox".  Simply writing such a scenario, even running it, is no guarantee whatever that a story will be the end product.

It seems your supposition is that the actions the PC's take is where 'address of premise is found'--and therefore, if an accurate Transcript contains actions that look to the reader like address of premise then, indeed, it is reliably Narrativist (or are themed).

However, That isn't the case from the definition in the essay (and Ron says it's not so, as well). It's true that PC's must take actions in order for premise to be addressed--no argument.

That is only part of the Narrativist formulation. Those 'actions' could be taken under any CA.

The other part, what makes Narrativism distinct from other CA's, is the player's realtionship to those actions.

I think that what you are arguing for is basically "Story Oriented Gaming" under almost any reasonable definition: Theatrix will reliably produce a story. Call of Cthulhu will as well. There's a reason those games aren't  described as Narrativist though.

-Marco

[Marco]

Also, in the revisionist sense of retro-active story you are building bad theory. Since story is identified via interpretation, there isn't a point where you can certify that "re-writing" does not take place.

Thats kinda the point.

I'm not sure what 'the point' is though: If Story is something that exists only in the eye of the beholder and has no basis in transcript (i.e. that it's all deconstructionist and I can claim I see story in a completely accurately rendered transcript of a hack-and-slash D&D dungeon as easliy and correctly as I see it in a Sorcerer game) then, well, why should I believe in Story Now? Or even Story-At-All?

I think that it is profitable to use a 'reasonable' defintion of story and there are certainly cases where we have exacting transcipts of games (IRC games). Wouldn't those count as accurate?

-Marco

[John Kim]

By saying it is a process, you are emphasizing technique -- i.e. Narrativism is one way of creating story.  Different ways of gaming may reliably create story, but if you stick to one particular process of creating story, then you are Narrativist.

That does not follow as far as I can see.  Firstly I dispute different ways of gaming can reliably create story, secondly I dispute that Narr is characterised by one particular process.  Narr is THE process of creating actual story here and now, as I see it.  Sim is NOT.

As I said, there are different concepts being expounded here which are both using the label of "Narrativism".  I don't think either side is right or wrong -- they're just conflicting usage which has to be made clear.  It seems to me that your usage is what I described as Narrativism-as-story.  

Really, I like that definition because it seems clear to me.  Anything which reliably creates transcripts with story is by definition Narrativism.  However, it is not the definition which many people have historically meant when they used the word "Narrativism".  Notably, in his Narrativism essay a year ago Ron came out with the idea that transcript was not useful in determining the Creative Agenda of a game.  

I also note that you support Jay's idea of Simulationism-as-myth-making.  Again, there's nothing wrong with that idea, but it's different than prior definitions of the word "Simulationism".  For clarity of discussion, I think this should be clearly distinguished from other usage.  For example, you could label it as a variant model (like the "3D" model or Scarlet Jester's "GEN" model).  Indeed, I would strongly urge coining new terms even if the concepts are similar (perhaps Story-ism and Myth-ism ?).

[contracycle]

I'm not sure what 'the point' is though: If Story is something that exists only in the eye of the beholder and has no basis in transcript (i.e. that it's all deconstructionist and I can claim I see story in a completely accurately rendered transcript of a hack-and-slash D&D dungeon as easliy and correctly as I see it in a Sorcerer game) then, well, why should I believe in Story Now? Or even Story-At-All?

Thats facetious, yiou are in no doubt that story exists and can be produced.  

And it seems we are back to your very first question: if sim can produce story at all then it is indistinguishable from Narr.  The point I'm trying to make is that even when story does appear in the eye of a beholder of a transcript, that is NOT the same as story here and now in actual Narr play.

I think that it is profitable to use a 'reasonable' defintion of story and there are certainly cases where we have exacting transcipts of games (IRC games). Wouldn't those count as accurate?

I have already allowed multiple times that an after-the-fact transcript might resembvle a story, but that I consider this unlikely and improbable.  I cannot imagine that any mode of play other than the adress of premise will concentrate its action on the address of premise.  And if it fails to do so then the strictly observed action that appears in a transcript will contain non-story elements; the output as a whole will not be story like.