[DitV] - I am an incompetent Narrativist!

[Silmenume]

Hey Vincent,

Thanks for taking the time to hunt down and post links those threads.  I read them, and color me stooopid if you will, but I was rather confused reading them, as I was not sure how they related to what I am trying to discuss.  Perhaps your reply below might shed some light on where we are mis-communicating -

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.*

While that may be easy, that was not my question.  My question was - can you imagine a situation where a player's CA sensibilities do clash with the CA being supported by mechanics specifically due to the mechanics being designed to support a different CA?  IOW is it possible that a Gamist player might find DitV mechanics off putting not just because of their form, but because they aren't designed to support the address of Challenge?  That was my intended "Devil's advocate" question.

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.

This should probably be taken to another thread, but I have no idea what is meant by "cinematic" resolution rules.  I'm not sure what a "cinematic" type of conflict is.  My feeling is that is a red herring, thus I think I might break this out to another thread.

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.

I'm not sure how a game design could be called "Nar facilitating" if the resolution mechanics facilitate Sim priorities.  Sure, in play the players may drift said mechanics to support Nar, but until then, right out of the box, there will be some degree of incoherence.  By definition Sim facilitating mechanics would not facilitate the address of Premise, yet if said mechanics did support address of Premise then they should be called what they are - Nar facilitating.  I know it sounds like a tautology, but isn't that how mechanics are diagnosed, by what CA they functionally support in play, not what the designer had intended to promote?

Regarding "b)" I think you are probably correct.  I think there are very few Sim gaming group, and even fewer coherent published Sim facilitating game designs out there.

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.

Now this is a fascinating conclusion!  I don't follow this at all.  Wow!  Clarifying this just may clear the path to a better mutual understanding.  I don't how see anything that I have said that would lead to your conclusion thus I am very interested in how you came to this point.  It follows that my denial must be equally baffling to you, so if you are willing let us see where the difference lay.

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?

I don't mind if it will help the discourse.  I agree that if my "every time" is incorrect then it would most certainly be something fundamental.  Actually it is this very "fundamental thing" that I am trying to get at.  Hey, if someone can conclusively prove that I am wrong at a fundamental level I'd be all for it!  My "gripe" was that I feel that no one is willing to discuss things at this fundamental level.  To me, someone taking the time to logically demonstrate why I am in error at this fundamental level would be a wonderful breath of fresh air!  At least its engagement in the topic I am trying to get to the bottom of!  That was the whole point of my original "devil's advocate" proposal in the first place!  If I have to take a position by drawing a line in the sand so that someone will take a poke at my position – then so be it!  Let it be done!  (I should note that I am not trying to be provocative – its just that in order for me to learn more about what I am "studying" I need to stake out positions and try and defend them.)

Hey Aaron,

I appreciate your support!  It was cool meeting other Forge-ites.  It was doubly cool playing a very slick and sophisticated game of a different CA with those who not only were already open to other CA's than myself, but were already familiar with the game!  Overall I did have a good time.  I don't know that I would go out of my way to play DitV again, but if the opportunity came up again I would not turn it down.

Hi Mike,

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.

I agree that that is not what has been "said."  But certainly the notion that it is possible for a person to have GNS problems vis-à-vis mechanics has not been addressed or looked into at all.  While no one has said it is strictly impossible to have GNS problems vis-à-vis mechanics, no one has been willing to entertain that subject either.  And THAT is precisely what I do wish to discuss.

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.

Indeed – as Techniques are an expression of CA and conversely CA expression can be supported or thwarted by Techniques – my position is that my issues lay not with Techniques in and of themselves but rather by the when of the Techniques.  If the game is said to proceed in a serial fashion, and mechanics are the means by which time is introduced into the SIS, then "when" (that is - under what circumstances) the mechanics are hauled out is indicative of what is important and by extension what CA is being investigated/supported.  So I was saying that from a subjective point of view too little time was spent on the things that were interesting/important to my CA and too much time was spent on those things that were not interesting/important to my CA.  Yet I was interested in the Setting, Situation, and my Character.

So there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question.

Obviously we disagree on this point, which is understandable.  However, let me ask you – what evidence would you consider sufficiently solid to demonstrate that it was indeed not the Techniques themselves but the CA they were supporting that was at issue?

The problem largely extends from your defining of simulation by what we believe is a set of techniques.

...and that is the fundamental core of our disagreement.  Bricolage is not a "technique."  There is no "bricolage" mechanic anymore than there is a "Narrativist" or "Gamist" mechanic.  Bricolage is a CA level process/aesthetic that is expressed using Techniques – but is in itself not a Technique level object.

So, you say, "I prefer these techniques...

I refer to the CA said Techniques are supporting or hindering the expression thereof.

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.

Again I fully agree with you that our contention does lie right here – all warty and ugly looking!

Gareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA.

Conversely a person can dislike a technique in a way that has everything to do with whether or not it supports CA.

Hey Marco,

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.

Actually – no.  You are basically arguing that if the conflict is emotionally engaging then its Premise, which is total BS.  A Premise Question is a compelling question about the human condition that "demands" an address through play.  To Gamist player fighting for his "life" I promise you that he is very emotionally involved in the Challenge at hand.  This is a topic that we have gone round and round and round on many times.  I respectfully request that it not be a part of this thread please.  If you think the topic important please take it to another thread.

Contracycle – you have summed up my position and efforts very succinctly.  Right on!

Elliot – spot on, mate!

John – well spoken.

Thank you everyone for your time!

[contracycle]

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.

I'm afraid thats irrelevant to this point.  I feel you guys are hugely, massively, over-reading what Jay is saying and imposing meanings upon his words that are no there.

No given single technique, in isolation, can be construed as having or being facilitative of a CA.  But a game as a collection of inter-related techniques,, mutually supporting and feeding into one another,  So if you encounter a game, in which the designer has specifically selected techniques to support a certain CA, one that you do not share, surely you would be aware of this?  You would look at the game and say "I don't like it".  What GNS allows you to do is then say something constructive: "I don't like it BECAUSE it supports a different CA".

[contracycle]

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.

I can't see how either of these make any sense at all.  It seems to me that your argument is that the CA of the player, and the CA which the game sets out to support, don't matter at all.  That is to say, that system doesn't matter, and any player can play with any system at all regardless of concerns about CA.  I don't see anything to suggest that Egri or Ron might be wrong, or that their positions clash with Jay's.

[Mike Holmes]

Gareth, are you reading the posts between me and Jay? We've discovered the bone of contention here. Yes a person can say that they don't like a technique because it supports a particular CA, but to be correct, the technique does have to support that CA. Basically we're arguing that what he cites as distasteful as a result of CA is some sub-modal thing. Actually he is correct to say that it's a problem with CA, just not that it's a problem between narrativism and simulationism. Which are not the only identifiers of a CA.

I wish I could create a Venn diagram. But essentially Vincent and I see the objected to techniques as straddling the sim nar line, and Jay sees them as distinctly unsupportive of sim. The problem is where we draw the line as to what sim is, essentially. Until we have agreement on that, the disagreement here is insoluble. Everyone is right about everything else but that one point.

Mike

[lumpley]

I'm not sure how a game design could be called "Nar facilitating" if the resolution mechanics facilitate Sim priorities.

That's exactly the problem: you think that resolution mechanics can facilitate Sim priorities.

Resolution mechanics, yet!

Take any mechanical component of a game's ruleset - its resolution, its reward, its character creation, its situation creation, its scene framing, its narration, its world building, any component. All by itself, that component cannot - cannot possibly - facilitate any CA. Of the ones I listed, reward and situation creation mechanics have the most CA-relevant power - resolution among the least - but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

This is really, really obvious if you understand what it means to address a premise.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

Jay, please consider this old post of mine too, with an open mind: Re: Subtyping Sim.

-Vincent

[Jason Lee]

This should probably be taken to another thread, but I have no idea what is meant by "cinematic" resolution rules.  I'm not sure what a "cinematic" type of conflict is.  My feeling is that is a red herring, thus I think I might break this out to another thread.

It's a small enough definition that it doesn't need its own thread.  Cinematic resolution generally refers to rules that favor pacing over accuracy.  Usually, cinematic and realistic rules are considered opposites.  That's a major simplification though, because cinematic and realistic are fuzzy terms.  For example:  Feng Shui is a cinematic game and GURPS is not; ammunition rules that ask you to roll every fews rounds to see if you run out of ammo are cinematic, and rules that make you count bullets are not.

*****

Jay,

In your original post most problems with the system seem to be either causality related or issues with meta-game interference (pulling out of character to resolve a conflict, etc).  I can't speak for Vincent, Mike, or anyone else, but why I wouldn't label such play Sim is because neither causality nor avoidance of meta-game indicate Sim to me (assuming for the moment I believe in Sim).  These are Techniques found equally often in both Nar and Gam and don't in and of themselves indicate Sim.  A combination of Techniques that expose more behavior is needed.  I did notice some tactical thinking that indicated Gam to me, but we've rejected that categorization, which is perfectly fine.  That doesn't quite resolve the issue of Nar versus Sim though.  I wouldn't reject Marco's position outright, because he's basically asking if you were addressing Premise.  He's just wording theme in terms of identification with character and revealing character, instead of wording theme in terms of a moral or ethical question.

I don't know if that clears anything up or just muddies the waters more, but that's what I see as the heart of the disagreement.

[Silmenume]

Hey Mike,

But essentially Vincent and I see the objected to techniques as straddling the sim nar line, and Jay sees them as distinctly unsupportive of sim. The problem is where we draw the line as to what sim is, essentially. Until we have agreement on that, the disagreement here is insoluble.

Nice summary.

I should note that while you and I have (finally!!) identified where we disagree, contracycle's response to Vincent is still valid –

I don't see anything to suggest that Egri or Ron might be wrong, or that their positions clash with Jay's.

However, as we (Mike and I) have come to an understanding about our mutual positions, I am too exhausted to refute Vincent's assertion.  Vincent, suffice it to say, on my behalf, that I was not making an effort to discuss the "nature of a Premise" nor Ron's "definition of Narrativism."  I'm sure we'll come across this again in the future...

That's exactly the problem: you think that resolution Mechanics can facilitate Sim priorities.

Resolution Mechanics, yet!

Absolutely.  Very much so.  Or I should say that Nar and Gam facilitating resolution Mechanics can thwart Sim expression while Sim facilitating resolution Mechanics should by their nature mostly stay out of the way of the decision making of the players.  Sort of, "seen but not felt."

Take any mechanical component of a game's ruleset - its resolution, its reward, its Character creation, its Situation creation, its scene framing, its narration, its world building, any component. All by itself, that component cannot - cannot possibly - facilitate any CA. Of the ones I listed, reward and Situation creation Mechanics have the most CA-relevant power - resolution among the least - but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

This is a discussion I will take up in another thread.  As a quick example –

"Of the ones I listed, reward and Situation creation Mechanics have the most CA-relevant power..."

Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

...but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

Again, as there is no ontological reason for the validity of this assumption, this is another assumption that I will deal with in a future thread.

Jay, please consider this old post of mine too, with an open mind: Re: Subtyping Sim.

I did go back and read it, and found nothing in there that contradicted my contention.

Like say I want a Narrativist game that's like anime: I have to choose rules that both support collaborative Premise-addressal and are like anime.

My beef was that the "rules" did not support the Sim bricolage process not that they didn't support "western religious culture" or weren't "realistic."

Jason!

You again!!  You're everywhere!!!  ;oP

I can't speak for Vincent, Mike, or anyone else, but why I wouldn't label such play Sim is because neither causality nor avoidance of meta-game indicate Sim to me (assuming for the moment I believe in Sim).

Meta-game Mechanics do interfere with or at least contradict the bricolage process – as it were.

That doesn't quite resolve the issue of Nar versus Sim though.  I wouldn't reject Marco's position outright, because he's basically asking if you were addressing Premise.  He's just wording theme in terms of identification with Character and revealing Character, instead of wording theme in terms of a moral or ethical question.

I disagree.  As I have read him over the years, he's basically claiming if the Player is invested in Situation – then it's Premise(y) – which I reject categorically.  That he is not wording theme (or Premise) in terms of a moral or ethical question is a major problem.  All modes of play can result in Players being deeply, emotionally committed to the Situation at hand – he consistently argues otherwise.  He wasn't asking me if I was addressing Premise as per the Narrativist essay, rather he was just asking whether I, as Player, had emotional stakes in the Situation – with the implication that such an investments means that I am addressing Premise.  I don't buy that.

PS - thanks for the "definition" of cinematic.  I'll have to mull that over for a while.

[Jason Lee]

Jason!

You again!!  You're everywhere!!!  ;oP

Hehe.  I do that.  Like a ninja.  I can even turn into a log... or so my wife says.

Meta-game Mechanics do interfere with or at least contradict the bricolage process – as it were.

Okiee.  If you don't mind I think I'll leave this alone, as I don't agree with that or Sim as bricolage, so that's kind of a big topic.

I disagree.  As I have read him over the years, he's basically claiming if the Player is invested in Situation – then it's Premise(y) – which I reject categorically.  That he is not wording theme (or Premise) in terms of a moral or ethical question is a major problem.  All modes of play can result in Players being deeply, emotionally committed to the Situation at hand – he consistently argues otherwise.  He wasn't asking me if I was addressing Premise as per the Narrativist essay, rather he was just asking whether I, as Player, had emotional stakes in the Situation – with the implication that such an investments means that I am addressing Premise.  I don't buy that.

I'm not speaking for Marco, but seeing as I agree with him I might as well toss out my views.  This way of describing Nar harkens back to The Beeg Horseshoe II swarm of threads, possibly earlier, but that's my big memory of it being "formalized".  Basically, yes, any Creative Agenda can involve emotional engagement with the Situation.  The key detail is that when that engagement is with the emotions expressed in the Situation (as opposed to the resources or other tactical elements) you have engagement in theme, and engagement in theme means address of Premise occurred.  This line of logic calls the possibility of immersive Sim play into question, hence the talk of emotional detachment in Sim play, which leads right into MJ's discovery definition of Sim and why it's so logically stable.  In a way (possibly not directly), Marco is working from the discovery definition of Sim while you are working from a different definition, so you have a clash.

[Marco]

Absolutely.  Very much so.  Or I should say that Nar and Gam facilitating resolution Mechanics can thwart Sim expression while Sim facilitating resolution Mechanics should by their nature mostly stay out of the way of the decision making of the players.  Sort of, "seen but not felt."

[snip]
Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

I think this is the Immersive-Play = Simulationism argument again. If you define simulation to be only actor-stance play on the part of the players (a moderate simplification of what I think you are suggesting--but still) then you have huge swaths of play not covered by GNS.

For example, a person playing a game that makes players mechanically creates situations wherein the player is not using this rule to step-on-up/compete or to address premise (but, perhaps, to introduce genre elements into the story of the game) is, definitionally playing Sim.

Those mechanics can be all kinds of "in the way" too (of the experential aspect on the part of the player). It doesn't change the definitonal description of their play under the model.

-Marco

[lumpley]

Jay, rather than raising issues with me in future threads, please consider asking me honest questions. I'll respond better to that.

I'm pretty much out of patience for this discussion, and it's left your Dogs in the Vineyard play pretty far behind, so this is going to be my closing point here:

Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

Dude, you create situation somehow. Even in simulationist play.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Thread's closed now, folks.

Best,
Ron