model proposition

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

Well, this is that line of decision one must come to.

My call is that saying "story-oriented decision" is just too damn vague in the first place. It can't be both ways: either the person's decision is fundamentally about experiencing what his character feels and does, utterly regardless of whatever the GM or anyone else is up to, story or not; or his decision is about the character's personal story, again, utterly regardless of whatever the GM is up to, story or not.

So screw the GM and illusion and whether "story is going on around" the character or not. Either the player perceives Narrativist Premise happening and makes a Narrativist decision to address that Premise, or he doesn't, in which case he is "being the character" as the priority. GNS is about real people's actual decisions and goals during play.

In the case of your example, you say,
"The player wants his character to get shot because the PC was, previously, a selfish guy, but he's learned the value of friendship and is now willing to put his life on the line to protect others."

(a) There is no way to interpret what you have described as anything but Author stance: "The player wants ..." That's your Author power right there.

(b) There exists a values-based Premise: which has more value, selfishness or the needs of others? And an action answers it, as a priority: the needs of others - hence, creating Theme.

(a) makes the trick possible. (b) does the trick. Bam, Narrativist Premise. Bam, Narrativist decision, bringing personal judgment to that Premise. Bam, Narrativist play.

[Side note. It seems to me that people are way too hung up on the "consciousness" issue, as if Narrativist play has to be in some kind of non-experiential third-person at all times, as if in-character Author stance were not possible - when it is, as far as I can tell, observed very often as the most satisfying kind of Narrativist play.]

The next question is whether it is functional play or not. This is crucial as well; three possibilities exist.

1) If this decision is met with disappointment, anger, confusion, or anything similar, we have dysfunctional play. This might occur because the GM has plans for that character or the outcome of that combat. It might occur because the other players want this character around for one reason or another, or perhaps because they are annoyed at the "grandstanding" of the player - "It just has to be about you, doesn't it." The whole point of this kind of dysfunction is that the other people in the group do not care about the Narrativist Premise embodied in that character and they are irritated that it has interfered with their priorities, of whatever kind.

2) If this decision is basically irrelevant to the other players' emotions and concerns, we have ... marginally functional play, basically a hybrid that can at least walk (if not run or fly). Again, the others don't care, but they also don't mind that this player does and acts upon it. The player is making a Narrativist decision that more-or-less "abides" within the game - it might even be scooped up and made important to the GM's story later - but the character's actions had no thematic impact to anyone but that character's player.

3) If this decision is made in the context of the emotional commitment of the others at the table, such that the other players and the GM all grunt or cheer or whatever in acknowledging and valuing the Theme being created, then we have functional Narrativist play at the group level. Note that this may occur even if the Theme is depressing, grim, or reflects badly on the character as a person (ie if he'd left the others to die, in most cases).

All of these are concrete, definite, identifiable outcomes that I have observed multiple times during actual play over the years.

I submit that any allegedly-Dramatist decision of play may be broken down in this fashion, and either it will go the way this one went, or it will go in another direction entirely (any of a number of forms of Simulationist play).

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Ron, that is probably the most clear and concise break down of an example I've seen yet.  You should lift this whole cloth into your next essay.


As an aside, it occurs to me in following this thread that the existance of "Dramatism" as a something seperate and distinct relies on applying a different definition to Narrativism and a different definition to Simulationism than what is present in GNS.

In other words:  IF Narrativism meant this, and IF Simulationism mean that, THEN we've opened up a space where there is a type of play not included in either of those definitions and we'll label that space Dramatism.

Given the definitions of N and S as they exist in the GNS model, there is no such space, and instances of what is being called "dramatism" (once broken down) can be seen as being clearly N or clearly S.


Now while it is certainly possible to alter the definition of N and S in order to make room for D, I am not currently seeing the merit in doing so.

What is to be gained by adding D?  Is there some deeper insight into the nature of gaming that can only be gleaned if we expand our thinking to include D as a seperate entity rather than including D as part of N and S? If there is, then its an avenue definitely worth pursueing further.  If there isn't...then I'd have to ask "what's the motivation behind the desire to add D"?

The cynic in me suspects that the motivation is one of personal bias.  Namely identifying with the style defined independently as D, and wishing to see that style occupy a top level traunch in a model as some sort of confirmation of its legitimacy.

That, of course, is just cynical speculation on my part. I stand eager to hear more.

Not more about what D is (because we can fit what D is within the current model)

Rather more about why it is important to recognize D play as D play rather than recognize D play as a flavor of S play or a flavor of N play.  Again, what is the significance of seperating it out?

[Walt Freitag]

The demands for simulationism are pretty explicit: Adherance to cause and effect rules of verisimilitude. If this adherance is violated by even 10% in order to achieve some competitive end or to drive the story towards a Premise, then it is not a simulationist decision. There is no such thing as "it was 'mostly' a simulationist decision". You either adhered to the dictates of casaul reality or you were willing to violate those dictates to pursue a gamist or narrativist goal.

For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice.  It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

This is a perfect outline of the difference of perspective; to me I think that it is precisely a combined decision, and that the player has sought out a solution that allows a sufficiently comfortable compromise between their two drivers.  The player has made neither a pure gamist nor pure simulationist choice - they have selected a mode that accomodates both to the extent that they (the player) are comfortable.

Yep.  Thats where the difference lies.  I don't see this as being a combination at all.  To be a simulative decision, the player would have had to have made a choice that was completely within the parameters of verisimilitude.  Since in this example he made a choice that was outside the parameters of verisimilitude it was NOT a simulative choice.  The issue of Premise never entered into it so it was NOT a Narrativist choice.  The player had a choice between verisimilitude and increasing character effectiveness, and he chose to increase character effectiveness.  That is clearly a gamist choice.

Granted he did mitigate the "damage" to verisimilitude in the example.  But that does not make the decision simulative.  Making a choice that is less of a violation than another choice doesn't change the fact that its still a violation.  Now this player very well may be the kind of player who normally prefers to make simulative choices, and so selecting the lesser violation is easier for him to live with; but that does not change the fact that that particular decision was still a gamist one.

This analysis is suspect, IMO. The assertion is that "one drop" (or, at least, 10%) of Gamist consideration makes a decision Gamist. In other words, simulationist principles must be inviolate in a simulationist decision, but  gamist principles in gamist decisions don't have the same fragility. Why not? This asymmetry is a logical weakness because the argument can simply be turned around. Allow me to paraphrase:

To be a gamist decision, the player would have had to have made a choice that was completely within the parameters of gamism.  Since in this example he made a choice that did not optimize his effectiveness it was NOT a gamist choice.  The issue of Premise never entered into it so it was NOT a Narrativist choice.  The player had a choice between maximizing character effectiveness and verisimilitude, and he chose verisimilitude.  That is clearly a simulationist choice.

Granted he did mitigate the "damage" to his effectiveness in the example.  But that does not make the decision gamist.  Making a choice that is less of a violation than another choice doesn't change the fact that its still a violation.  Now this player very well may be the kind of player who normally prefers to make gamist choices, and so selecting the lesser violation is easier for him to live with; but that does not change the fact that that particular decision was still a simulationist one.

Both arguments cannot be valid for the same example, yet neither argument seems superior to the other. Conclusion: both are invalid, by reductio ad absurdum.

Contracycle's obeservation that individual decisions do not necessarily fall unambiguously into one of the three modes still has merit, I believe.

But G N S decisions are discrete and mutually exclusive because they've been defined that way. If you [contracycle] want to fashion your own theory with your own definitions where this is not the case than feel free to do so, Ron has infact encouraged this. But your altered definitions in no way invalidate the definitions that are set for GNS. Only whether your model proves more or less useful after several years of implementation and practice can it be judged as to whether it is more or less effective then GNS at certain things.

Contracycle was reporting observations, not definitions. When an observation contradicts a theory, there is no onus on the observer to propose an alternative theory to validate the observation. Observations stand on their own merits. The theory's proponents are welcome to challenge the observation on its accuracy, interpretation, validity, or applicability; or modify the theory; or decide that the theory does not agree with observation but is useful anyway. But using the theory itself as grounds to dismiss the observation abuses the theory.

- Walt

[edited to fix a quote tag]

[Walt Freitag]

Whoo, major issues going down while I was writing about something else from back in the thread.

Ron, I buy your breakdown of the Narrativism of the example of the player who wants his character to get shot. Excellent insight.

But it looks like I can toss the arguments I was preparing to dispute "#1 and #2" from the RPG Theory/Illusionism thread. You're doing the work for me.

- Walt

[Gordon C. Landis]

I want to put a message at the top of the GNS Forum - "Important, Substantive clarifications of GNS in this thread - everyone come look!"

I'm gonna re-read and digest - it seems like everyone's covered the ground here well, so this long-time GNS-discussor can probably just sit back and read in appreciation all the great stuff you folks are posting.  

One aside the example brings up for me - in my experience, putting a characters' life seriously on the line is a key way players "test" what kind of a game the GM is running (especially when things are getting marginally dusfunctional).  Is it really a Sim (I'm-a-gonna-die), or some form of Illusionism?  Can I really impact the story, or is the GM tied to his "plans" for my character?  I'm not sure if that helps illuminate anything, but . . . there you have it.

Gordon

[Marco]

The hangup with authorial power lies in the Narrativist defintion of "creation of story."

I have seen it held here that character's play without directorial power results in merely adding color to the GM's story but that with meta-game mechanics story can actually be created. It has further been stated here that without actual creation of story then the players are not engaging in Narrativism.

In the example I cited there is no meta-game mechanic in play so how is story being created? If I'm wrong about story-creation then what is missing from VtM? (the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast).

To further expound on the guy-getting-shot scenario: if the decision comes into play when the GM offers a chance to get shot (i.e. the player doesn't go "okay, now it's time in my story arc to take the bullet" and then engineer a scene to do just that, but instead, in a plot-line created gun battle the player decides that his character has had enough and stands up and walks out blazing away suidicially into gunfire--the character's action being a rationalization of the player's wish for a dramatic story-altering death scene) then isn't the story still being created by the GM (in Narrativist terms--I suspect most RPGamers would accept story-creation as the result of a character aciton without directoral power)?

-Marco

[Mytholder]

I have a much longer reply to this coming, but I'll wait until Marco's most recent post is answered, as he touches on similar topics. I'll just interject:

In the case of your example, you say,
"The player wants his character to get shot because the PC was, previously, a selfish guy, but he's learned the value of friendship and is now willing to put his life on the line to protect others."

(a) There is no way to interpret what you have described as anything but Author stance: "The player wants ..." That's your Author power right there.

To clarify: when I said "the player wants", I was trying to suggest that this is something the player privately desires, not something that he's declaring to the GM. He's not saying "can the bullet hit my guy?" or "my guy leaps in front of the bullet", he's saying "my guy tries to leap in front of the bullet". All resolution is in the hands of the GM. It's externally indistinguishable from Actor stance.

(I suspect I, and maybe others, have been interpreting Actor and Author wrongly for quite a while...)

[Mike Holmes]

To clarify: when I said "the player wants", I was trying to suggest that this is something the player privately desires, not something that he's declaring to the GM. He's not saying "can the bullet hit my guy?" or "my guy leaps in front of the bullet", he's saying "my guy tries to leap in front of the bullet". All resolution is in the hands of the GM. It's externally indistinguishable from Actor stance.

Usually you cannot distinguish when a player is in Actor or Author mode. It is an internal decision of whether or not to have the character do something becuase, respectively, it's "what the character would do" or it's "what is good for the story". No declaration necessary to use Author stance, and players do it all the time without letting anyone know.

And, Marco, there certainly don't have to be any metagame mechanics used to facilitate this. Such mechanics may support this sort of play, but Vanilla Narrativism is often just making such decisions without using any particular mechanical help.

Mike

[Laurel]

To clarify: when I said "the player wants", I was trying to suggest that this is something the player privately desires, not something that he's declaring to the GM. He's not saying "can the bullet hit my guy?" or "my guy leaps in front of the bullet", he's saying "my guy tries to leap in front of the bullet". All resolution is in the hands of the GM. It's externally indistinguishable from Actor stance.

I  disagree about it being externally indistinguishable.  If the player were in Actor stance, than the only way the character would be shot is if the dice roll or GM decree ~first~ produced an outcome that led to him being shot.  By taking the iniative and having the character leap into that bullet, whether or not he said outloud "I want this" or "I want to try this"-- Actor stance is clearly in play.  Success or failure at the outcome of an action involving author stancing is irrelevant to this issue of the stance itself. player could well continue in author stance for the next moment of play, after the GM's response, but doesn't necessarily have to.  Or so my own understanding of stances goes.

Laurel

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This post is written as a companion to Mike's, above.

1) Gareth, although one cannot tell Author/Actor stance apart without OOC dialogue being involved (and sometimes not even then), the distinction is eventually noticeable across scenes or other units of play. Please see two parts of my essay: (a) the examples of stances, and (b) the part of the GNS section about instances of play. The "instance of play" referred to in my essay specifically refers to enough play such that the distinction among GNS goals may be made by others. Author/Actor stance is involved (although not definitive) in this distinction.

2) Marco, I have no idea where you acquired the notion that Narrativist play requires or is defined by metagame mechanics. I have never said any such thing, and have repeatedly corrected others when they strayed in that direction. I suggest that you lose this particular cognitive association, because all it's doing is gumming up the dialogue.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

And, Marco, there certainly don't have to be any metagame mechanics used to facilitate this. Such mechanics may support this sort of play, but Vanilla Narrativism is often just making such decisions without using any particular mechanical help.

No doubt. But is this actually Narrativism? Is story being created with Author Stance? If it is, then are the GM and players "creating beautiful stories together" when the players are in Author Stance? If so, then why is VtM's color deceptive  (the impossible thing, etc.)?
-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

And, Marco, there certainly don't have to be any metagame mechanics used to facilitate this. Such mechanics may support this sort of play, but Vanilla Narrativism is often just making such decisions without using any particular mechanical help.

No doubt. But is this actually Narrativism? Is story being created with Author Stance? If it is, then are the GM and players "creating beautiful stories together" when the players are in Author Stance? If so, then why is VtM's color deceptive  (the impossible thing, etc.)?
-Marco

Yes it's Narrativism. It's the definition of Narrativism. Players making decisions that prioritize story over any other consideration. And to the extent that the player does it well, he and the GM are addressing the Premise and making Narrativist Stories. Narrativist intent alone does not automatically create Narrativist Stories, it also requires successful effort in that direction.

V:tM is deceptive (I'd use a different term) because it says that it's about Storytelling, and encourages players to play this way, but then fails to back it up in any way mechanically. This does not mean that people cannot play V:tM in a Narrativist fashion. They sure can, and lots probably do (using Vanilla Narrativism for the most part). Its just that playing in such a fashion is swimming upstream. The system works against the players. This is drift.

Keep in mind that Narrativist Game is just shorthand for "Game that supports Narrativist play". It does not mean Game that can only be played in Narrativist fashion. So if I say that Vampire is Simulationist, it means that this is the mode that the mechanics best support. Whatever the text might claim. (note I will not argue the actual condition of that particular game here as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand; V:tM is used here just for illustration).

Mike

[Marco]

Hi Mike,

You missed the sailent points of my post, I think.

1. Is story being created in a traditional game without any actual or social-contract-implied directoral power rules?

2. If that's so, what is the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that it asks us to believe (Taken from Ron's essay)?

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

We're dragging this dangerously off topic, but:

1. Story (I assume we're referring to the Narratvist definition, though less stringentlydefined forms are even more certainly being created) can be created in such a traditional game, yes. By players playing in a Narrativist fashion. Happens all the time. My favorite example is Peter Seckler's D&D game which is, from all reports, run in a completely Narrativist fashion.

Ron (and others) have wondered out loud why he bothers with a system that resists his efforts as much as D&D does, but there is no reason why one cannot play in a Narrativist fashion in D&D. The system just fights such efforts. Again calling D&D Gamist means that it best supports Gamism, not that you can't use it for other things.

2. "The Impossible Thing" is a player making a decision that is intended to both create Verisimilitude and Story simultaneously. Or a system that can enable a player to do such, I suppose. Note that certain decisions can create both by accident or coincidence, but at the moment of decision the player must be prioritizing one or the other. In any case, the important idea is that since a player can't do that (supposedly, that is the debate in this thread) a system cannot be created to support such an urge (which definitely exists).

Is this helping. If further clarification is needed on a point that is not pertinent to the thread, lets do this via PM.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

You wrote,
"Is story being created in a traditional game without any actual or social-contract-implied directoral power rules?"

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

GNS is not about what is produced through play, but about the decisions, goals, and priorities of the participants. Therefore, screw the rules in question, at the most basic level. What are the goals and decisions? As I think I demonstrated, unequivocally, above, they are very easily categorized into G, N, or S, or (rarely) functional hybrids.

Now, if no activities, reinforcement, or standards of play at the social level are encouraging (say) Narrativist play, you'll get that kind of blah-neutral functionality I described above. So yes, you "can" get Narrativist play, speaking for one player at a time, in the total absence of such things. It ain't very significant at any level above that one player's experience.

If any activities, reinforcement, or standards of play at the social level do encourage (say) Narrativist play, then we move into functional Narrativism, at the group level. [Just as we would for any other of the GNS categories.]

Okay ... now for the big point, which I think you have been missing from day one. Systems, rules, and game mechanics are a formal method of activities, reinforcement, and standards of play at the social level. That's what they are, no more and no less.

1) GNS describes individual priorities of play.
2) Functional group play is achieved in large part by sharing compatible priorities.
3) Rules and systems are a means of promoting compatible priorities, or rather, they encourage enjoyable play insofar as they do this.

Thus we are not discussing whether "story" is being produced. We are discussing what people do during the moments that they engage in role-playing. Please see the paragraph that I quoted from my essay in my "Seven Misconceptions" thread, as well as the section from the essay that concerns "story" as it relates to Gamist and Simulationist play.

In conclusion, I think that you have failed to see my entire argument concerning the Impossible Thing. I am not claiming that "it cannot make story" or anything like that. I am claiming that these two things, (a) GM authors the story and (b) players determine protagonist actions, are literally impossible to combine, procedurally, at any given instant, in any given way, ever, during play.

Best,
Ron