[DitV] - I am an incompetent Narrativist!

[John Burdick]

Jay,

I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

My first thought was more along the line of trying other focused Nar facilitating games to map which elements are unique to one game. I don't see the point of trying to "prove" anything specific based on a single experience, except yes this game was a stretching experience. By the time I read your opening post there was already 4 or 5 responses second guessing everything. I'm disappointed by that.

John

[contracycle]

Hmm, I find the excavation of what Jay means quite strange.

It all looks quite simple to me.  A non-Narr player went out of their way to experiment with a new style, didn't like it much, and is able to discuss what they didn't like.

Where is the problem?  Why all the questions?  We're getting valuable first person data from an informed observer.

[lumpley]

I want to be EXTREMELY clear, right now, that I think that Jay's observations are right on, and I have no questions or second-guesses about them at all. He's nailed the way Dogs treats cause and effect. I don't doubt his discomfort. As far as I can tell, he's astutely and critically observed the whole process.

Has he located his observations correctly in the Big Model? Are they really observations about Creative Agenda? I don't think they are - but saying so isn't at ALL the same thing as saying that I think they're bad observations.

-Vincent

[Brian Newman]

Sorry, John, contracycle; I had thought it on-topic for this thread since the poster brought it up in the first place.  I thought it germane to the concept -- I'm not any of those GNS things and yet I like Dogs; I don't see how labeling Dogs justifies the fact that you are or aren't having any fun.

[John Burdick]

Jay (and Fred),

I'm wondering how the others in the game reacted to your contributions. Were you able to support the game for them despite your awkwardness?

John

[Mike Holmes]

I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

I'm sorry you see our arguments this way. Could you try to see them as simply discussion instead of...whatever it is you're implying? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I've done something out of line, please contact me by PM and let me know.


Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre. We just disagree with you on what that problem was. We think it's techniques, you think it's overall mode. Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA, sort of like a subset of CA (the whole "skewers" concept).

Your implication of a double standard here, and your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque attacks simply aren't helping your argument. And we're still going to have to agree to disagree about bricolage.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Sorry, John, contracycle; I had thought it on-topic for this thread since the poster brought it up in the first place.  I thought it germane to the concept -- I'm not any of those GNS things and yet I like Dogs; I don't see how labeling Dogs justifies the fact that you are or aren't having any fun.

Bah!  Don't apologize!   ;)  Sim is controversial, as are Jay's views on it.  We aren't pickin' on Jay, we're discussing with him, and that's a hell of a lot better than being ignored.  Dialogue is a good thing.

Anyway...

*****

Jay,

While I don't wish to take this thread in this direction here, I am certainly open to discussing it on a theory thread, I just wanted to quickly note that bricolage cannot be a technique any more than engineering is a "technique."  Both are "points of view/paradigms" on how to approach and solve problems.  How Techniques are used by players in play will reflect (and be an expression of – much like how CA is not a Technique either but a process) the "problem solving paradigm", but Techniques are not in themselves engineering or bricolage anymore than they are "CA."  That is Techniques are employed to express CA, but are not CA itself.  Both engineering/bricolage and CA are emergent properties of play – not things in and of themselves.

What you have above is basically a restatement of assumption #3 (exclusive intent+action), which is fine, because I know that's where you're coming from, though I still disagree with the assumption.  I'm fine leaving it alone in this thread.  We know where we disagree, and I think that's about as far as we can get at the moment. :)

[contracycle]

Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre. We just disagree with you on what that problem was. We think it's techniques, you think it's overall mode. Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA, sort of like a subset of CA (the whole "skewers" concept).

Well sure.  But then, Surely Jay has done exactly the right thing: instead of transposing a CA clash on to the game itself, the people involved, or claiming the system is "bad", he has instead pointed out that he founf the techniques hard, and understands that this is so becuase they areb constructed in service of a different CA.  Thats what I don't understand.  Of course CA and techniques are not identical; of course techniques are an expression of CA.  And for precisely that reason, you will experience a GNS clash at the point of engagement with the actually implemented techniques.

[Silmenume]

Hey John,

I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

I don't find it quite as strange as just plain disappointing.

Hullo Vincent,

I want to be EXTREMELY clear, right now, that I think that Jay's observations are right on, and I have no questions or second-guesses about them at all. He's nailed the way Dogs treats cause and effect. I don't doubt his discomfort. As far as I can tell, he's astutely and critically observed the whole process.

Loud and clear!  I am heartened to hear that I have not done damage to your game by misrepresenting your game.  I also feel more surefooted discussing my perceptions hearing that I am not in gross error about your game, though my conclusions about my own play are still up for discussion.

Has he located his observations correctly in the Big Model? Are they really observations about Creative Agenda? I don't think they are...

OK.  I understand that you feel that I have made some sort of logical error with my observations.  That you think way is fine – I accept that we have differing points of view.  But I ask you in all seriousness to consider, as one would in a debate, to consider why I might be right.  If you could, please, if only for an academic exercise, play devil's advocate with your point of view and present an argument or two why a player's problems with mechanics may indeed lie in CA clash?  IOW do you feel that such a condition is even possible – and if so, how?  I fully understand that this would not mean that you agree with or support my analysis.

Should you opt to do this I wish to thank you in advance.

Having reviewed my posts in response to your posts, I am unable to see where I made "straw man" arguments.  If I did indeed do so please kindly point them out to me so that I may in the future address the sloppiness of my posting habits.

Hey Brian,

What Jason Lee said.  I have no beef with what you have posted!

Hi John,

I'm wondering how the others in the game reacted to your contributions. Were you able to support the game for them despite your awkwardness?

I certainly tried, but the other two will have to answer for themselves.  I just don't know.

Hey Mike,

Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre.

I certainly cannot speak for what Vincent is thinking, but he most certainly posted that he thought my issues were not creative agenda related.  I quote -

When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda.

Bolding added.

That being demonstrated I'm confused about the assertion that I did not address his "arguments."  I have argued that my issues are CA related – in direct response to his argument.

Regarding the synecdoche issue -

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

I directly addressed that issue as well.

Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA...

I fully agree that techniques are NOT equivalent to CA.  Not only do I agree I have posted as such in this very thread.  I thought that my quoting from the Narrativism essay would indicate that I shared the same position.  To whit –

Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

Underlining added.

[/list]

What I am trying to argue is that my particular issues with the mechanics are CA related, not Technique issues.  What I have not argued is that Techniques = CA anywhere in this thread.  To claim I said otherwise is a straw man argument.

I fully agree that mechanics straddle both Techniques and CA expression – that's part of what makes them so important and so darn interesting!  The disconnect that has been going on in this thread is that no one is allowing for the "CA expression" conflict part – i.e., I must be having Techniques issues and not having CA issues.  Why?  Why must I be having such an obvious issue with Techniques that CA issues can be dismissed summarily?  No one has demonstrated why the CA issue is irrelevant or not germane – only dismissals have been offered, not logical arguments.

And we're still going to have to agree to disagree about bricolage.

I had hoped to get a sound argument grounded in the Big Model why I am wrong, but I am not going push the issue here.  Fair enough.  Here we agree to disagree.

Hello Jason,

What you have above is basically a restatement of assumption #3 (exclusive intent+action), which is fine, because I know that's where you're coming from, though I still disagree with the assumption.  I'm fine leaving it alone in this thread.  We know where we disagree, and I think that's about as far as we can get at the moment. :)

Right on!

[lumpley]

Hey Jay.

It's easy - trivially easy - for me to imagine a narrativist game whose resolution rules exactly match the resolution rules you use all the time.*

It's also easy for me to imagine simulationism-accustomed players who wouldn't find Dogs' resolution rules any kind of stretch - if they were accustomed to "cinematic" resolution rules in their simulationist play. In fact, I hear from these kinds of players sometimes. They like Dogs' resolution rules a lot, they find Dogs' handling of pacing and escalation compelling.

As far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

In order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

Do you feel like Devil's-advocating your own position? What if the answer to your "every time" question is that you're mistaken about something fundamental?

* Egri & the "Lumpley Principle", with followup here: Backstory vs. Strong Character Creation. If you haven't read these two threads before, please do, especially my posts and Ron's.

-Vincent

[Jaik]

Hi Jay!

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.

[HUGE snip]

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.?

[Snip of how neat the game really was]

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

First, let me express my emerald green envy for your opportunity to play Dogs.

Second, thanks for stepping outside of your comfort zone to try this experiment.

Third, my main point, I think you're being too hard on yourself.  And I think you were trying a little too hard.  That middle part of the quote sure sounds like you thinking about hard decisions to me.  "What are my duties?  What are my resources?  What authority do I have?  What is the scale of the danger?"  Those sure look like factors that would need to be weighed in order to make a life-or-death (in-game) decision.  You seemed to be trying to think from your character's perspective, including what his training would prompt/allow him to do in certain circumstances, but I think you HAVE to do that to some extent, just to follow the Faith.

Your comments on character creation give me the impression that your normal playstyle is pretty much freeform.  I'd love a PM discussion about this.

You seemed to have an agreeable time.  Was it enough fun that you'd try Dogs again?

[Mike Holmes]

The disconnect that has been going on in this thread is that no one is allowing for the "CA expression" conflict part – i.e., I must be having Techniques issues and not having CA issues.  Why?  Why must I be having such an obvious issue with Techniques that CA issues can be dismissed summarily?  No one has demonstrated why the CA issue is irrelevant or not germane – only dismissals have been offered, not logical arguments.

Nobody has said that it's impossible for a person to have a GNS problem in this case. You're making it seem as if we think that one cannot have a GNS problem between sim and nar priorities. That's not at all what we've said. We're saying that from what you've said that it seem like you, in this particular case, bring up objections that say you're opposed to certain techniques, techniques that are potentially abhorred by players who prefer multiple modes. So there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question. Or, more specifically, that you disliked the mode of play in this particular instance.

The problem largely extends from your defining of simulation by what we believe is a set of techniques. So, you say, "I prefer these techniques, so I must not prefer nar, since the techniques I prefer are sim." Now, you believe that what we call techniques are definitive of sim. So it's not surprising that you see the a rejection of narrativism, where we see a rejection of certain techniques that are not definitive of sim.

It's this assumption that Vincent is talking about above. While we disagree on the definition of sim, our viewpoints on this matter will neccessarily differ.

Gareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA. You can have two narrativism demanding players, one who likes a technique, and one who does not. So the question when somebody likes or dislikes a technique is whether or not what they dislike about it is how it supports a CA, or something else.

Mike

[Marco]

Hey Marco,

I finally get to respond to you!

I'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion...

Well as "immersion" has been so far undefined, any lengthy discussion about Sim in terms of "immersion" will ultimately be an exercise in futility.  However, despite the warning, I will boldly rush in where angels fear to tread and attempt to make a cogent response. 

• 1.  The difference between adoption and immersion is when one stops relating to the tools available to the Player as tools and starts reacting to them emotionally.
• 2.  As I have stated as recently as my last post – I am not saying nor am I even attempting to imply that one must "immerse" in order to get one's Sim on.
• 3.  I do enjoy play that is deeply emotional, but I am not saying nor am I implying that this "emotionalist preference" is in ANY WAY descriptive or definitional of any Creative Agenda.

All the above being established, I am confused buy your consistent return to the "emotional issue."

Simply put, the reason I'm coming back to the the "emotional issue" is because, as written, if you are emotionally engaged in the play, no matter what you say about addressing social-structures vs. premise, I think you are meeting the textual requirements for Nar play. Even if you don't like Dog's mechanics.

You show Premise, address of premise, and player-connection to premise in your write-ups. It is my take that your disconnect with Dogs was at the level of immersive technique (i.e. that the mechanics made it difficult for you to immerse yourself in the play), not the exploration-as-a-goal vs. address-of-premise-as-a-goal level. The situation you were exploring was loaded with premise and you were ready and willing to take action on it, as far as I can tell.

What it seems to me you had trouble with was your ability to relate to the imaginary world because of how the mechanics were being run (no feedback) and the actor-vs-author-stance issue of having to choose your own fallout. These are, IMO, immersive issues--not Sim/Nar ones.

-Marco

[ewilen]

Hi, Vincent,

Regarding your last post, a Nar game may see the use of Jay-approved mechanics but does that mean a Sim game can use "Nar-supporting" mechanics? And just because players who are accustomed to Sim can enjoy the DitV mechanics, that doesn't show that those mechanics are "Sim-supporting". After all, those people are enjoying Nar when they play DitV (presumably).

In other words, Jay's claims are consistent with the proposition that "Some CA-modes of play don't work well with some mechanics".

Hello, Marco,

Even though Jay was "doing Nar", does that mean he couldn't have felt a clash with his Sim-preferring sensibilities?

All,

I'm surprised I'm going to argue this given my general dislike of the Sim-Nar distinction, but take a look at Ron's description of Sim as "confirmation of input via output" (as here) and the exchange with Jay in Goals and G/N and S and I think we can see exactly what Jay is talking about. The argument is that Sim does not work (well) with mechanics that operate on an overt metagame level, as "meaning" on the metagame level (extradiegetic or Affect Space) must derive from "fact" in the SIS(*), not the other way around.

Now, I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this but I think Jay's position is worthy of serious consideration, if for no other reason than to examine how it interacts with the "input/output" concept of Sim.

(* acknowledging that this term, as well as diegesis, is subject to different interpretations among theorists)

[John Burdick]

Even though Jay was "doing Nar", does that mean he couldn't have felt a clash with his Sim-preferring sensibilities?

This fits my reading of what Jay said. He was trying to play the game as he understood it, and that was hard to do.

It has been agreed before that trying to change a persons habitual mode of play through minor tweaks or coaxing is unproductive. See Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode. I think that the mechanics of Dogs were pushy enough that he could avoid reverting to play in his habitual manner, particularly given his intent in playing the game.

If you have an agenda neutral game and try to manage an unfamiliar agenda using it, we consider that sneaking up and unproductive. In the case of the biased rule set of Dogs, the rules caused the player to be pushed out of his comfort level. Can we have a game that pushes a player out of his habitual creative agenda without the mechanics also feeling strange? If the rules stop him from sliding into familiar habits, I'd think that in itself makes it feel awkward.

John