Address vs. Bricolage

[Caldis]

Ok Marco let's take it one step further and look at a more difficult example.  Jay (Silmenume's) actual play experience found here.  He qualified it as the most emotionally heart wrenching moment of play his group has had.  The players were immersed in the situation and empathically connecting with their characters.  The main character accidentally kills Elronds sons.  How did it come about?  Not through a player connecting with a human issue and making a choice about it but because of the system that kept the players disoriented and allowed the gm to resolve things dramatically.  I think their play has a strong emphasis on setting, system and situation, that at some points can seem like Narrativism and at some it may even be but for the most part it's not.

[Marco]

Ok Marco let's take it one step further and look at a more difficult example.  Jay (Silmenume's) actual play experience found here.  He qualified it as the most emotionally heart wrenching moment of play his group has had.  The players were immersed in the situation and empathically connecting with their characters.  The main character accidentally kills Elronds sons.  How did it come about?  Not through a player connecting with a human issue and making a choice about it but because of the system that kept the players disoriented and allowed the gm to resolve things dramatically.  I think their play has a strong emphasis on setting, system and situation, that at some points can seem like Narrativism and at some it may even be but for the most part it's not.

Okay, let's do look at that.

I think the accidental slaying of the sons is simply situational. That is: it's something in the game world that the players and characters react to as opposed to any kind of CA-addressing action on a player's part.

The player is not pursuing a CA by accidentially slaying the sons: it's CA-neutral. It's a mistake on both the player's and the character's part.*

It creates the human experience issue of a devastating loss and responsibility for a terrible mistake and maybe shame in the SiS.

How the players and characters react to the human-experience stuff is, IMO, what determines the CA (i.e. if the player makes statements that have his or her character take action congruent with the player's experience of the human-condition stuff then it's, IMO, Nar play. If the player doesn't experience the loss as anything but a fictional hypoithetical and simply acts as he or she believes his character would then it's not "addressing" the human-experience issues in the game from a player-perspective).

I think accidentially killing somone you love due to a hasty or ill-considered decision could certainly happen under any CA--and it seems the sort of thing that would set up particularly powerful Narrativist play to me.

-Marco
* Note: just because a player is the active ingredient doesn't, IMO, make much difference. In a horror game where my family is threatened by some horiffic force I, as a player/character do not create the threatening situation--but my reaction to it and the decisions I make because of having to choose between, for example: myself and my family or my family (whom I could save by taking and leaving with) and the masses of innocents (who will surely die if I run) seem like very premise-y style questions that I, as a player, might connect to.

[Caldis]

Okay, let's do look at that.

I think the accidental slaying of the sons is simply situational. That is: it's something in the game world that the players and characters react to as opposed to any kind of CA-addressing action on a player's part.

The player is not pursuing a CA by accidentially slaying the sons: it's CA-neutral. It's a mistake on both the player's and the character's part.*

But the slayings werent an accident, they happened very deliberately.  

The system being used in the game was one that made these accidents very likely to occur, combine that with the GM's role in the system whereby he is free to manipulate events in virtually any manner to get an interesting outcome and voila you have an almost exact retelling of the Tale of Turin Turambar one of Middle Earth's greatest stories.  They've managed through play to embed themselves in the dream and that's the heart of what Sim is about.

[Marco]

But the slayings werent an accident, they happened very deliberately.  

The system being used in the game was one that made these accidents very likely to occur, combine that with the GM's role in the system whereby he is free to manipulate events in virtually any manner to get an interesting outcome and voila you have an almost exact retelling of the Tale of Turin Turambar one of Middle Earth's greatest stories.  They've managed through play to embed themselves in the dream and that's the heart of what Sim is about.

If the slayings weren't an accident on the GM's part then the tragedy was simply an expression of the GM's agenda for the game. Once it was manipulated to happen it's just situational material (as with any other GM introduced situation) and the players respond to it with whatever CA's they have (if they take action congruent with their own connection to those events then I would say their actions are meaningfully addressing those events).*

So I don't think it matters if it was accidental or not. As an "accidental event in the game" (from the player's perspective, which I think it was) it's just situational whether or not the GM manipulated it to happen.

NOTE: The players did, in fact, take actions (and fairly dramatic actions) following the situational event. These actions were, IMO, congruent with players feeling strong emotions as described and therefore, again, IMO, would address the sense of situational tragedy.

-Marco
[ If the actions weren't an accident of the Player's part (i.e. he just pretended to make a mistake) then it's just a case of the player introducing human-condition stuff into the game's situation. Again, whatever actions anyone takes based on that situation is indicative of their CA (this seems *very* unlikely based on the text). ]

[Caldis]

If the slayings weren't an accident on the GM's part then the tragedy was simply an expression of the GM's agenda for the game. Once it was manipulated to happen it's just situational material (as with any other GM introduced situation) and the players respond to it with whatever CA's they have (if they take action congruent with their own connection to those events then I would say their actions are meaningfully addressing those events).

But Marco that event was what they found meaningful in the game.  They were emotionally invested in what happened, not in how they reacted to what happened.  It's not what their actions have created in the game it's what the game has managed to create through the use of the system they have in place.  It's how true the game is to Tolkiens' works that matters to them.

[Marco]

But Marco that event was what they found meaningful in the game.  They were emotionally invested in what happened, not in how they reacted to what happened.  It's not what their actions have created in the game it's what the game has managed to create through the use of the system they have in place.  It's how true the game is to Tolkiens' works that matters to them.

I think it's important to note that the strong emotional reaction to the death of Elrond's sons comes from connection to the tragedy as though it were real and not some kind of appreciation of the fidelity of the game to Tolkien's work (which is what "how true the game is to Tolkien's work" sounds like to me).

That's the human-condition stuff (the tragedy) and the strong connection to that is what generates the most energy in the play.

Now: human-condition stuff in SIS is addressed (and very strongly) in the game. Characters die, perfect 20's are burned, etc. Jay would sacrifice his character to save the sons if he could (what would you do to ...)

Is this address of human-experience stuff in the game enough to make it Narrativist?

From reading the essay (which talks about 'Address of Premise' as being the standard for Nar-play) one might say 'yes.'

But judging from most of the posts here I'm not sure. I think, as you say, the focus is, in fact, on the 'premise' rather than the 'address.' It's not on the PC's actions and their consequences but rather on the context of those actions.

However: if this is true then Address of Premise (and therefore Story Now) can (and does) happen in non-Nar play--it's just that in that case most of the enjoyment for the players comes from their connection to the premise and not from an investment in the consequences of their actions (although they still take those actions and do place a high priority on them).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

From "GNS and other matters":

So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play.

Is that all there is to it, or am I misunderstanding the current issue?

Oh, and is the current issue actually the thread topic?

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hiya,

From "GNS and other matters":

So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play.

Is that all there is to it, or am I misunderstanding the current issue?

Oh, and is the current issue actually the thread topic?

Best,
Ron

It's still relevant to the thread, I think. The main-goal (from which enjoyment of play derrives) seems, to me, to be connection to in-game human-experience stuff (and taking action upon it) rather than the fidelity to Tolkien's world (although that clearly is important too).

I don't see how there's a bricolage effect involved in the actions the player's take wrt Elrond's sons being killed more so than an 'address' of the in-game tragedy.

I think the issue was raised that the actions the group took were not "meaningful" in some sense and therefore didn't constitute an 'address' (but might constitute bricolage). That got a spin-off thread (what's the threshold for meaningful action and who gets to decide what that is?)

-Marco

[contracycle]

I don't see how there's a bricolage effect involved in the actions the player's take wrt Elrond's sons being killed more so than an 'address' of the in-game tragedy.

WTF?

I'm sure this has already been pointed out in this thread: bricolage is a process of manipulating existing objects, not a CA.  Full attention might be given to that process in the case of a sim gamer, but the apparent contradiction you appear to be constructinmg here between "an act of bricolage" and "an act of address of premise" is completely absurd.

[Marco]

I'm sure this has already been pointed out in this thread: bricolage is a process of manipulating existing objects, not a CA.  Full attention might be given to that process in the case of a sim gamer, but the apparent contradiction you appear to be constructinmg here between "an act of bricolage" and "an act of address of premise" is completely absurd.

Maybe it is absurd: are you saying that the actions that comprise Jay's player's response to the death of the sons are a form of bricolage but not a "actions taken congruent with the experience of a connection to human-experience stuff in SIS?"

Or that the actions are bricolage and actions taken congruent with the experience of a connection to human-experience stuff in SIS?"

-Marco

[Caldis]

Is that all there is to it, or am I misunderstanding the current issue?

Yup, that's all it's about Ron.  Showing how that's true in this instance.


Marco.  It's very much about about the address of premise and not just the premise itself.  Again in this instance who addressed premise?  The GM  through use of the system where he was free to manipulate events.  He added theme to the game but where did the theme come from?  An almost exact retelling of a Tolkien story.  He's not making his own statement he's making Tolkien's point again.  That's fidelity to the source.
Jay also admits that it's not just these big emotional scenes that bring the primary enjoyment to the game it's also the slow times, what's common to both?  The fidelity to the source.

So you can talk about what the players would have done if they had the chance to save Elrond's sons but the fact is they never got the chance to show it.  They can feel like they added to the theme by the grief their characters showed after the fact but in the longer sequence of the game do they ever get to do more than react to the situation?   Are they more than just the bat boy handing the bat of to the player when it comes to injecting theme into the game?

[Marco]

Is that all there is to it, or am I misunderstanding the current issue?

Yup, that's all it's about Ron.  Showing how that's true in this instance.


Marco.  It's very much about about the address of premise and not just the premise itself.  Again in this instance who addressed premise?  The GM  through use of the system where he was free to manipulate events.  He added theme to the game but where did the theme come from?  An almost exact retelling of a Tolkien story.  He's not making his own statement he's making Tolkien's point again.  That's fidelity to the source.
Jay also admits that it's not just these big emotional scenes that bring the primary enjoyment to the game it's also the slow times, what's common to both?  The fidelity to the source.

So you can talk about what the players would have done if they had the chance to save Elrond's sons but the fact is they never got the chance to show it.  They can feel like they added to the theme by the grief their characters showed after the fact but in the longer sequence of the game do they ever get to do more than react to the situation?   Are they more than just the bat boy handing the bat of to the player when it comes to injecting theme into the game?

What's the "main goal?" (from Ron's quote).  How do we know what it is (and we have to before we can declare thematic contribution to the game to be not-narrativist; that statement is, in practical application, circular).

1. I think that if we describe the goal of the game in terms of fidelity to Tolkien's works we have to ask: What happened in "the source" (the similiron, I would think) to Elladan and Elrohir? I'm no Tolkien expert but, IIRC, they lived. Did this drama ever play out in 'the source'? I don't actually think so (I'm not sure this is relevant to what you are saying: maybe that's part of my problem understanding your formulation though).

2. As far as I can tell what Jay and co get out of play is a sense connection to human-experience stuff (which they do, in fact, take action upon). Assuming that we are saying that "fidelity to the soruce" means "personal connection to human-experienece events in the game (the source?) as though they were real events" then I agree: the experiential aspect of the game is a big draw for many people but that's usually called immersion and is considered pan-CA.

3. I can buy that the main goal of play is to experience (and then act) on the tragedy (with the emphasis on the experience part) but I think that once you combine that the experience with the action (the deaths and cost of bringing down Turandir) you get a combined whole that might be described as Premise and it's address (or, equally, Address of Premise).

When the son's die and Turandir is still out there swinging the tragedy is still happening. The actions taken and the costs paid to shut it down are both high (deaths, natural 20's) and (IMO) important to the characters who took them. A decision to go into the fray is, essentially, asking "what would you risk to regain lost honor?"

I think that part of the problem is that we're seeing these events from a PC who was a spectator rather than someone who actually did take part in them (Jay had no hand in the events--but some players did). I expect that they would tell you that the situation was powerful and their actions (losing the characters) were meaningful--even if the GM did set up the situation to begin with.

-Marco

[contracycle]

What's the "main goal?" (from Ron's quote).  How do we know what it is (and we have to before we can declare thematic contribution to the game to be not-narrativist; that statement is, in practical application, circular).

Nonsense - you said yourself you can recognise a CA in your own behavior.

1. I think that if we describe the goal of the game in terms of fidelity to Tolkien's

... then we have defined the CA as Sim, and concerns around address of premise can be dropped.

 Assuming that we are saying that "fidelity to the soruce" means "personal connection to human-experienece events in the game (the source?) as though they were real events" then I agree: the experiential aspect of the game is a big draw for many people but that's usually called immersion and is considered pan-CA.

Thats complete gibberish.  What you appear to have just said is that "Sim = Narr".

Fidelity to the source is necessarily a source external to the game - the source that Sim is mining for material.  The game cannot be its own source, obviously enough.

The personal connection to an important human issue is characteristic of Narr.

[Ian Charvill]

The personal connection to an important human issue is characteristic of Narr.

Personal comment on an important human issue is characteristic of "narrativism" if it exists as the sine qua none of the instance of play.

If the bar's as low as connection, I don't see how any play can be classed as "sim".

[Marco]

If the bar's as low as connection, I don't see how any play can be classed as "sim".

I think two cases of this would be:

1. Play where the only player relation to the in-game situation was, for example, an appreciation of the craftsmanship of play with relation to an external source ("I.e. this game is really 'just like' a classic star trek episode") would count as not having a real connection to the in-game events as though they were real on an emotional level (kinda like the way I viewed Cool World or Chronicles of Riddick).

(this sounds to me like pastiche)

2. The player may connect to the issue but whether s/he does or not the GM is running the PC or there is social pressure so the player takes no action or, perhaps, not satisfactory action.

(this, it seems to me, comes up a lot in discussions where Sim-style disads are discussed)

-Marco