[DitV] - I am an incompetent Narrativist!

[Silmenume]

I am an incompetent Narrativist!  ...But what a fascinating examination of the differences between Nar and Sim through contrast!

Last night I met a couple of Forge-ites for the first time and sat down to play DitV.  I have never played a Nar facilitating game and was rather excited (and rather curious) about trying this new "way of playing" that has so many players gushing with such enthusiasm.

Due to traffic we were late arriving, but pretty much dove right in.  Other than what I had read about Dogs in the Actual Play threads and on the website for the game, I was going in blind.  We set about creating Characters and as we were doing so the rules were explained and many useful examples were given when I did have questions.  The other player played out her Accomplishment first so I could actually see how the system worked before it was my time.  We played through, but I just didn't get a good "feel" for the "significance" of the various components.

Traits felt very odd to me – and I think this was the Sim in me refusing to let go.  The same went with "assigning dice" to Attributes, traits, relationships and objects.  All this felt uncomfortably awkward in the same way it feels awkward when a hair cutter folds the top of your ear over when trimming one's hair.  It wasn't painful, but I found myself constantly wanting to maneuver my way out of the process.  I was aware of this behavior at the time, noted it and kept trying to reapply myself to the task at hand.  No matter how it was explained to me I just couldn't grok it, though I did finish with Character creation.

So play proper commenced and I felt myself continually slipping into Sim habits that I kept having to step out of.  I and the other Dog arrived at the outskirts of a town a little after nightfall when a man who was ringed by wolves was being run out of town.  I thought to myself, "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?"  So I jumped right in pulled my long rifle, identified myself and called for the fleeing man to halt.  My mind started racing considering all the possibilities – what has this man done to stir up this town so?  Who was this man?  Who was the man who seemed to be leading the town's people to pursue the man I had just apprehended?  How dangerous was the mob?  How much backbone did this mob have?  If the situation started to fall apart in a big bad way was what "tools" did I have at my disposal?  I started searching my mind for others who might also be instigators and who the weak links in the mob might be?  I "assigned" the other Dog to confront the mob leader and stop the mob while I interrogated my "prisoner."

Then it hit me.  As I was watching the other Dog play out the "conflict" that I wasn't thinking in terms of premise or story or anything at all along those lines.  I saw dice come out, raises made, countered by sees, fallout calculated.  I had already lost sight of the process of the game!  So I made an effort to make a mental readjustment.  I had been thinking like a Ranger of Ithilien, taking tactical stock of the situation and trying to quickly establish our authority over the mob.  What I hadn't thought about were the traits on my sheet or what happened during my Accomplishment section of play earlier.

Play came back to me and as play unfolded I started to get a feel for the Situation.  So I called, no, ordered that all concerned parties present themselves at the temple so we could sort this whole mess out.  Once there I fell right back into Sim habits as I started my interrogations.  A lead eventually had us call in the daughter of one of the men involved in the dispute.  So I start trying to figure out how am I going to get her to confess her culpability when the DM stopped me and said, "This is a good point for a 'conflict'."  I looked at him dazed and was mildly irritated for a split-second because I was getting on a roll and was suddenly pulled out of the Situation to deal with "mechanics."  I quickly realized, again, that I had totally missed the point of the game and the mechanics as I was pursuing my ends.  This only lasted but a moment and swiftly reoriented myself to the mechanics.

So we are going back and forth and I feel like a fish out of water.  Once into the mechanics of the conflict resolution I had totally emotionally disconnected from the scene.  I felt stymied and frustrated, but I didn't express that in anyway because it was my fault for not cluing in!

So that particular conflict resolved and fallout was assigned.  When another conflict started immediately as one of the townspeople, the person who was leading the mob, suddenly grew claws, snarled and leapt on my back!  A fight was on and I immediately started thinking tactically about the Situation, how my Character would respond, what his training would or would not allow him to do, who was the biggest threat, who could be counted on, what was in the room that could be turned into a weapon if need be, could I use an exorcism, etc.?  What I didn't consider were the traits on my sheet as my mind started whirring at a million miles a second – until everything stopped so we could start the conflict resolution process.  Dice were rolled, order of players determined and again I started to lose my connection to the Situation.  I didn't really notice this until it was my turn to state my action, present my raise, roll a trait, etc.  In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  ...and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

But that wasn't the point of the game or game design!  I was Simming – again!  Doh!  I wasn't thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like.  I was deep into the Situation wondering about my Character, what his duties and responsibilities were, what was available to me in the room, do I have the authority to kill under these circumstances, did the man who turned into a some sort of werewolf-like creature have the ability to infect others, etc.?

This is not to say that I am complaining about how the game was run or the game design itself.  I found it utterly fascinating at just how different the means and goals were in this game from my typical gaming and how badly I kept missing the mark!  I loved the Setting, the NPC's, the Situation, my partner was very cool – I kept surrendering myself to all of those elements.  I just kept missing the boat on the priority of play.  A couple of times I apologized to the GM for not staying on CA, though he never gave me any grief and was extremely supportive.  I enjoyed playing with the GM and the other player, but I just wasn't into the priority of play. 

I was not trying to subvert play at all.  I was overtly trying to play Nar and that was my goal for the night.  I tried to support the GM and the other Player in their gaming efforts as best as I could understand.  I really wanted to see how this unfamiliar CA worked.  I do not consider my time wasted at all.  I gleaned some valuable insight into the contrasts between Nar and Sim, was exposed to a completely new game and resolution system and met some wonderful creative intelligent new people. 

I'm just not cut out for Narrativist play!  Fascinating!!

[Bankuei]

Hi Jay,

Then it hit me.  As I was watching the other Dog play out the "conflict" that I wasn't thinking in terms of premise or story or anything at all along those lines.  I saw dice come out, raises made, countered by sees, fallout calculated.  I had already lost sight of the process of the game! 
(snip)
I wasn't thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like. 

I think you might be overprojecting what Nar play is about.  You don't have to have your mind on "the Premise" all the time- in fact, I don't think ANYONE plays like that. 

I just finished playing in an Unknown Armies game over the course of a few months where no one else playing has even heard of Narrativism, Premise, or any of that- but we were having Nar play happen.  The players established real issues with their characters- the GM provided some tough conflicts, and we had to make meaningful choices- and before you knew it, everyone had some fully developed premise going on.  I know for myself personally, most of play involved me "thinking from the character's perspective" and we still got an awesome conflict and premise going on.  It took awhile for it all to develop, but it did, and stayed on strong.

In the same sense, it's completely possible, and reasonable, to play Dogs without thinking about premise at all and at the end of play realize you've been addressing premise.  Fallout?  How you choose to have your character change based on the conflicts says something.  How you choose to have your character react says something.  All of these things are really sneaky ways to get you to say something thematically- to address Premise without having to consciously think about it.  That's the strength of Dogs.

Check out some of the other Actual Play threads- other folks aren't talking about thinking hard about premise during play.  If you missed the process of the game- I'd say it was in worrying about "finding premise" instead of just playing the game.

Chris

[Bill Cook]

Glad you got the chance to play. And with Forge members! How cool, dat? I think it's beneficial to play varying styles. There's so much variety within a single CA. I happily lose sight of it while getting into how the next group does things.

In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  ...and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

I have problems with this, too. Like, majorly. For some reason, it irks me more with TSOY than DitV. Go figure.

** ** **

What Chris said. I maybe have flashes of Premise awareness while playing. (e.g. When Cory's character in Jason's Traveller campaign was ordered to missile strike the building where my character, unbeknownst to him, was being held captive. Would he bring ten floors down on the man who had saved his life earlier in the session?) But I certainly don't try to be Nar or whatever; I just want my guy to go do that thing.

[Darren Hill]

I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion. I had a player in my game who found the conflict system very jarring for the first two sessions, and said some exact same things to you - just as he was in getting in the zone of the scene, the conflict system reared his head and caused him to lose his train of thought.
That passed.

One thing you said:

In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  …and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

You do actually get feedback, exactly the same way you do in other games.
Here's what happens - you throw a punch. In another game what will happen? One of several things.
1. The punch connects and your opponent is hurt. This is a DitV Take The Blow
2. The punch is blocked and has no effect, or your foe shrugs it off harmlessles. This is the Block or Dodge in DitV.
3. Some systems also allow a counterblow - where your punch attempt is blocked so effectively your opponent gets an immediate conter-attack. This is the DitV Reversal.

The fact that this system can also be used for non-combat type actions, and "damage" actually has an effect other than whittling away hit points, is an advantage over some systems.
It's very easy to play Dogs conflicts in a traditional way. You can even get bonuses for using the scenery to your advantage. Grab a shovel from the floor and hit your foe? That's a d6 Belonging you get to roll into your attack.

Even this business of not thinking about your character traits... If you play D&D, you think about what Feats or magic gear you'll bring to bear. If you play Champions, you'll be looking for opportunities to bring different powers and abilities to play. In a martial arts game, you'll be looking at the martial arts manoeuvres on your sheet and trying to work them in.
In Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in. It's not so different after all. Since you get to choose those traits, now that you're a bit more familiar with the game, you can pick traits that feel more natural for you - things that won't be too hard for you to think of ways to bring them in.

[Kintara]

I'm curious about what you didn't understand in chargen.  I'm wondering if you're overthinking the process, or purpose of the process.  I've heard the creator of the game comment that chargen shouldn't consume that much time.  Just throw together your character.  It's going to be hard to do it "wrong."  In fact, you can make your character similarly to a Sim character.  Traits are like skills.  Belongings can be assigned as appropriate to what you think is logical for your character to have.  Relationships don't need to be assigned at all, or can be used as character hooks for the GM, if you want.  Assign your stats by looking at the conflicts the stats are used in, and emphasize the ones where you think your character will excel.

I'm not saying you can't get tricky with the chargen process ("I have trouble talking to women." 2d10!...?), but if you don't, it's not going to be a big deal.

The other thing I noticed is that it sounds like you might, maybe, not be the right fit for DitV's resolution mechanic.  It's rather prominent, and it can distract from immersion.  At least, I know people that find that to be the case.  There's nothing wrong with preferring Sim mechanics that just take care of all the physics.  If you get the hang of it, then that's great.  If you don't, then you don't.

[Adam Cerling]

I wonder if you were jarred less by the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism, and more by the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.

The way you needed feedback about that punch you threw -- that suggests to me that you were expecting the ultimate outcome to depend in part on that one task (e.g., Task Resolution) instead of merely expecting the outcome to take color from that task (e.g., Conflict Resolution).

[Jason Lee]

I agree with Chris 122.4% on Nar, so I have nothing more to say on that because he's already done such a fine job.  I don't see Nar here though.  The agenda at work is difficult to tease out just because agenda is being talked about so much (that tends to heavily skew descriptions), but I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

For Gam, just watch for de-escalation as it's almost a sure sign.  Likewise with Nar, escalation is almost a sure sign.  Anyway, this may or may not be what your play was like.  Just something to think about.

[Blankshield]

Guys!

It's farily well established that Dogs is a game that strongly supports narrativist play.  Jay has been championing simulationist play here for years, has been described as the Sim Poster Child, and is conversant with the theory here.

Can we assume he knows what he's talking about when he says "Wow, Nar and Sim are totally different things!  This was a learning experience!"

That being said - Jay, it sounds to me like you were working too hard to play Nar.  Trust Vincent.  He wrote a well targeted game.  Play the game, premise will happen.  :)    (which is what Chris said, I realize)

James

[Marco]

Guys!

It's farily well established that Dogs is a game that strongly supports narrativist play.  Jay has been championing simulationist play here for years, has been described as the Sim Poster Child, and is conversant with the theory here.

Can we assume he knows what he's talking about when he says "Wow, Nar and Sim are totally different things!  This was a learning experience!"

James

You'd think so, yes. I don't agree. I see nothing in his play that is textually anti-Nar (he certainly had a disconnect with the mechanics). I think his being "the poster boy for Sim" is one of the more confusing things I've read here. What he's the posterboy for, IMO, is immersive play, and immersive play and Nar have always had an uneasy history.

You won't see me agreeing with Chris very often (we are certainly philosophically on opposite sides of the spectrum) but I think he's bang on here. Jay, to my read, you are an immersionist player who, from what I have seen, usually plays with a GM that exercises some strong but subtle control of situation to arrange conflicts and put significant input into their development.

I think that DitV doesn't support this style of GMing, nor deep immersion, as well as you're is used to is where the comfort-zone violation came from rather than any fuzzy CA conflicts. I have not run Dogs--but if thinking "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?" is wrong I can't imagine it'd be as well loved as it is.

-Marco

[Silmenume]

Hey everyone!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.  There are a lot of responses and that's really cool!  I hope to address the salient part of all your posts.

Chris,

In the same sense, it's completely possible, and reasonable, to play Dogs without thinking about premise at all and at the end of play realize you've been addressing premise.  Fallout?  How you choose to have your character change based on the conflicts says something.  How you choose to have your character react says something.  All of these things are really sneaky ways to get you to say something thematically- to address Premise without having to consciously think about it.  That's the strength of Dogs.

I totally grok that one does not have to consciously think about addressing Premise in order to be mindfully Addressing Premise.  I'm with you on that.  I was trying to present several ideas.  Not the least of which is that I had gone into that game in an effort to see the differences between Nar and Sim in action.  I felt that in order to make sure I just didn't map Sim play onto a Nar facilitating system that I should be self aware of my approach to play and monitor what I did and did not enjoy and why.

For example I most certainly was not thrilled about choosing my own fallout.  In fact it just plain rubbed me the wrong way.  It's not the mechanic per say that troubled me, but rather it was something I just wasn't interested in.  Choosing fallout, especially one's own, is something that is entirely opposed to the Sim paradigm.  It just seems "wrong," however, as I understood that in this game it was part of Addressing Premise so I gave it the old college try.  (When I say "wrong" I do not mean in an absolute manner in any way – just a perception from a Sim perspective.)

Glad you got the chance to play. And with Forge members! How cool, dat? I think it's beneficial to play varying styles.

Thanks!  ...and I agree.  That was a significant part of the reason I gave it a go.

Hey Darren,

I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion.

There's a false assumption in your argument.  I was not concerned with "immersion," I was deep into a thought process that had to be interrupted because I had to deal with mechanics.  It would be akin to having to use task resolution as a part of Addressing Premise or using Conflict Resolution while addressing Challenge.  From my inappropriate to the game system Sim thinking, this "interruption" to deal with mechanics was a total t-bone to the process.  But not only was this a disruption to my "bricolage based thinking" it had a very long handling time.  IOW not only was prevented from engaging in bricolage thinking, I had to engage in another process that at the time I felt was inhibiting my ability to deal with the problem at hand.  Again I should note that I am not bagging on the mechanics – I am only attempting to report my (Sim based) reactions to the process of play at the moment of dealing with conflict.

You do actually get feedback, exactly the same way you do in other games.
Here's what happens - you throw a punch. In another game what will happen? One of several things.
1. The punch connects and your opponent is hurt. This is a DitV Take The Blow
2. The punch is blocked and has no effect, or your foe shrugs it off harmlessles. This is the Block or Dodge in DitV.
3. Some systems also allow a counterblow - where your punch attempt is blocked so effectively your opponent gets an immediate conter-attack. This is the DitV Reversal.

I'll agree with you that a form of feedback is provided, but it is essentially immaterial to the tactical needs of Sim.  If Sim is the dialectic between Person and Nature or self and nonself, then "takes the blow" is insufficient information.  How does the foe respond to the blow?  Does he shrug it off or does he stagger back in pain?  Does he go down to the floor?  Does he spin around exposing his back?  Did my hand get hurt mashing against his skin?  Does he appear to be shaken up or does he just look angrier?  All this is not Color but real conveyed information that is important feedback in the Sim dialectic process.  I don't need to know hit points, but what I do need to know is how is he responding to my actions.  Is the Dream operating in a consistent way?  Are my assumptions (abductions) being born out (deductions)? Yes?  Then I'll refine my actions.  No?  Then I start fishing around for what is different here (abduction, induction, deduction).  I am not saying Nar ought to work this way, but rather that the type of feedback is answering a very different type of question – which in my personal, as a player, struggles found fascinating.

It's not that the resolution mechanics were "different," they weren't providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.  Discovering this first hand was very interesting!  This game was a wonderful opportunity to compare and contrast different approaches to conflict (CA).

In Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in.

Actually it is different.  First of all each "trait" is only usable once per "conflict."  A great part of the creative demand of the game lies in the Players' ability to somehow work in their traits (be they relationships, skills, traits, objects or what not) to aid in the prosecution of the conflict.  However, at the time of the conflict there is no real qualitative difference between the types of "traits," they all added various kinds and numbers of dice to the pool.  In Sim the differences in the qualities or types of the traits is profoundly important at the time of conflict and is used to demonstrate "how the world works" or "that the world is operating in a 'normal' manner."

Everyone else – Kintara (Adam), White Rat (Adam), Jason, James and Marco I want to answer your posts before you post again!

[Vaxalon]

Speaking as the GM for this particular game, I want to say that Jay played well, for a first-timer, and I think that with a few more sessions (Selene has a copy, remember, Jay!  Hint!  Hint!) you'd be able to lose the "bump" from the unfamiliar mechanics.

[Callan S.]

Hi Jay,

I'd describe it that you were working from a fixed character base. From it you were using causality to determine what to do next (the character would think about the tactics of the situation). When the play is about defining that character base (determining how the character feels about the situation). Until that's sorted out, you can't figure out tactics at all (ie you can't causally figure out tactics that save the princess, if you haven't yet determined if you give a shit about her).

[lumpley]

How does the foe respond to the blow?  Does he shrug it off or does he stagger back in pain?  Does he go down to the floor?  Does he spin around exposing his back?  Did my hand get hurt mashing against his skin?  Does he appear to be shaken up or does he just look angrier?  All this is not Color but real conveyed information that is important feedback in the Sim dialectic process.  I don't need to know hit points, but what I do need to know is how is he responding to my actions. 

Hey Jay.

I have stuff to say about your GNS analysis, but not the time, so right now I'm going to limit myself to this one little practical concern.

Your expectations about taking the blow are dead on. If your opponent wasn't giving you exactly the information you needed - shrug it off or stagger back, go down with his nose fountaining or snarl and look pissed - he was letting you down.

Here's a by-the-book Dogs interaction:
You: I wham him one, right in the nose!
GM, taking the blow: I take the blow.
You: ... and? How does it land? How does he react? Is he on the ground? Did I break his nose? What?

-Vincent

[John Harper]

I was going to say what Vincent just said. So I'll elaborate.

You need this detailed information to inform your Sees and Raises. No one gets to just say "I Raise" or "I Take The Blow." Not good enough. Because when you say, "I Take The Blow... He goes down, clutching his neck and trying not to pass out," and Raise with, "He desperately kicks at your legs, trying to drive you back a pace," then I have the ammo to say, "I Block. A good kick to the shins isn't enough to stop me. I step in close and finish him off with my knife."

Our specific narrations form the "sim dialectic" you were talking about. The more specific the better, in my experience. This is just like a Sim-supporting system. The game rarely works right if everyone just says, "I hit for 4 points."

[Eero Tuovinen]

The ongoing narration also has several mechanical effects, where the rules query the SIS details. If you drift the game so that you're not supplying description, the following established rules and techniques become impossible:
- Determining whether a trait use is valid.
- Finding improvised tools.
- Determining the fall-out die size.
- Determining who has to See a given Raise.
I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to play DiV conflicts properly without an ongoing, realistic back-and-forth about the details of the action. You'd have to make drastic changes in the rules to make it possible, because, as the above examples demonstrate, many details of the conflict rules are actually very dependent on the SIS.