intersection and/or near-convergence of Premise-addressing?

[eGuru]

Narr play and Sim play may result in play which is very much alike -- because the Exploration in each can push to similar outcomes, through like but different Creative Agendas.  Mostly, I think this is the case with Sim play focused on Exploration[Character].

Example: Campaign centers around the problem of characters where two values, X and Y, are regarded are absolute duties, and conflict has arisen between the two.  The Premise question for Narr play is something like, 'How can X and Y be reconciled?'; Sim play focused on a character addresses, 'What is it like to be a person caught between X and Y duties?'  Players acting from either/both CAs may have characters act in a similar set of actions, describing motives and dilemmas that are apparently the same -- all the while, playing out two different things.

While Narr play, a la 'Story Now', is , inherently, focused on addressing the Premise ('the question'), it is not exclusively able to address 'the question' (Premise).  The confusion arises because, I think, 'the question' may be addressed by Simulation play, in so far as 'the question' is part of Exploring the Character.

This is an intersection, or a convergence, or something, between Simulationist play and Narrativist play -- a player's character/contributions work out in the tale in such a way that a statement or response is made to the Premise.  For Narrativist play, this is the whole point of playing, while for Simulation[Character], this is one aspect of Simulating/Exploring the Character.

In the case of the X vs. Y conflict, Narr play and Sim play may both lead to a character's seppuku as a statement about the conflict of absolutes.  For Simulationist play, however, that is related to the Exploration of the character: 'For "my guy", to imitate the 47 ronin is the ideal solution to the dilemma.'  Simulationist play, however, might provide a different response to the Premise, given a different Character being explored: 'For "my guy", it is better to temporize indefinitely in search of a better solution, than to be destroyed by bringing duties into conflict.'

A key difference, then, I think, is that Narrativist play addresses Premise at every opportunity; Simulationist play addresses Premise exactly whenever/however the Premise intersects with the Exploration (usually, of Character), and if the Exploration does not intersect with a Premise-question, Simulationist play will not address the Premise, but Explore the elements at hand (Setting/System/etc.) instead.

Disclaimers: Credits to the recent thread "Narrativism? Simulationism?", specifically, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=155305#155305">apparition13's reply to xect here. First post, new concepts, etc.; and, I'm not proposing a secret map to 'El Dorado', but describing some dynamics which might help explain why the boundary between Simulationist play and Narrativist play can sometimes seem highly elusive in real life. YMMV.

Comments?

[Simon Kamber]

I mostly agree. However, I'd submit that the point where the two converge is not so much sim play focused on exploring character, but sim play focused on exploring a situation, or more accurately  set up by the players.

That is, I think the problem comes when the players engage in creating a story, for instance, about a character ending his life with seppuko. The players may well have cooperated to bring about the circumstances that lead to the characters seppuko decision.

I agree that the key difference between the modes is what the players seek. In Sim, they look for the "cool story" in a thematic way. A simulation of a character emulating the 47 ronin would in this case qualify as the "cool story". In Nar, the important part is the choices the character makes, and the choices that take place when he meets diversity.

However, the border between the two is so diffuse that it's very hard for someone who hasn't already seen it to be told what it is, as Ron Edwards also points out in the "say it yourself" chapter of the Narrativism: Story Now essay.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

the border between the two is so diffuse that it's very hard for someone who hasn't already seen it to be told what it is

I'm so with you on this it isn't even funny. I've been having trouble explaining this difference to verious people I game with (out of the gaming sessions, btw).

I tell them it's like good quality glass vs. lead crystal. They may look alike, but structurally they are very different. But you only get to really see the difference if you analyse it in some way other than just looking at it.

I posted a recent thread in Actual Play about some of these concepts.

Cheers,

J.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

If you guys would focus on the social interactions rather than on the content of the SIS, it would all become very easy. And stick with actual play as the topic, not "well if" speculations.

I'm beginning to get aggravated with how often people seem to be confusing "playing my character" for Simulationist priorities. All role-playing includes "playing my character."

Addressing Premise through "playing my character" is not some weird hybrid or transition zone between Narrativist and Simulationist play. It's Narrativist play, plain and simple.

Best,
Ron

[Simon Kamber]

If you guys would focus on the social interactions rather than on the content of the SIS, it would all become very easy.

I see what you mean, but does that mean that technically there's no creative agenda if it's not played out in social interactions? As I see it, the CA is the players' reasons for playing, not the social interactions. In functional play, the players agree on which creative agenda to work with, but the CA still refers to the priorities in play, not the social interactions that result from these priorities. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Addressing Premise through "playing my character" is not some weird hybrid or transition zone between Narrativist and Simulationist play. It's Narrativist play, plain and simple.

I know that. What I was saying is that to people with certain play experiences, like myself before the "Narrativism? Simulationism?" thread, the difference between adressing premise through creating and exploring situation, and enjoying the creation and exploration of situation in and of itself, is very hard to define. Especially in the case of narrativism where the player isn't consciously aware of premise.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Distinguishing between individual and social CA is a lost cause. It's only meaningful in the context of disconnecting them, which by definition moves us into dysfunctional play. When talking about functional (Fun) play, the individual CAs are always relevant to the social one(s).

This is not to say that every single person at the table must have identical CA concerns - but it does say that socially, their concerns should be compatible if the game is to yield any Fun. (That current Actual Play thread about Illusionist D&D is a grim and terrifying case in point.)

Therefore it's best to focus on those social interactions and to derive the functional CA, if present, from them. Delving into individual heads to find CA is a fucking huge waste of time.

Far better to focus on actual play examples and to reflect on them as if from the others' point of view, or as if from the point of view of an observer.

Please note these "as ifs." They are important. I'm not saying an observer would be best. I'm saying that to have been a participant, but to reflect as if an observer, is best.

Get thee to Actual Play, xect. And Joe Dizzy, and Joachim (Daredevil). And all you other guys who are staggering around in circles right now. Your efforts here will not be meaningful otherwise.

Best,
Ron

[eGuru]

Hang on -- I think this clarifies something I'd missed in my previous reading, if I can attempt to say it in my own words: A CA is essentially not about participants' intentions, but about the course of play as a whole; hence the emphasis on the exclusivity of modes, because overall, play really only ("functionally") does one of {GNS} as it happens.

I've been understanding 'Creative Agenda' as what participants bring to the table, their intention to do one of those things in playing; from that point of view, almost any game might be somewhat dysfunctional.  So the cases I had in mind from where I started, are probably examples of Simulationist play (arrived at by compatible CA concerns among participants), functional even with participants whose concerns diverge (not incompatibly).

Distinguishing between individual and social CA is a lost cause. It's only meaningful in the context of disconnecting them, which by definition moves us into dysfunctional play. When talking about functional (Fun) play, the individual CAs are always relevant to the social one(s).

This is not to say that every single person at the table must have identical CA concerns - but it does say that socially, their concerns should be compatible if the game is to yield any Fun. (That current Actual Play thread about Illusionist D&D is a grim and terrifying case in point.)

Therefore it's best to focus on those social interactions and to derive the functional CA, if present, from them. Delving into individual heads to find CA is a fucking huge waste of time.

(Apologies if this thread dropped into the wrong area, it might've worked better if I had any examples still fresh in memory to work from empirically, as Actual Play.)

[Ron Edwards]

Score that man a great Fat Kiss. You nailed it!

And now armed, I suggest presenting any example of your own actual play, however new or old, as soon as possible. You can get all GNS-y or not with it, as you see fit.

I foresee an excellent discussion.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Cooper]

I'm not posting around here anymore if Ron's going to start handing out kisses.

:-)

Thanks for the thread guys.  eGuru's last post gelled some things for me as well.  I was considering CA having to do with intentions also.  Shifting the focus is giving me new things to think about.