Indie summer!

[JC]

Here's some stuff I learned this summer. Part of my reason for posting is that it makes me write these things down, which in turn helps me understand them better. Part is that I'm curious what other people have to say about it.

So... This summer, I set out to get as much Nar role-playing experience as possible. I kept reading these amazing AP threads, and I had a feeling Nar was what I was looking for. I wanted to be sure. Since I had plenty of time on my hands in July and August, this seemed like a perfect time.

I'd tried playing The Mountain Witch and Dogs in the Vineyard with my usual group, and was kind of disappointed both times. Not because the games sucked, but because my friends didn't enjoy them. So I decided to broaden my horizons, and look for players elsewhere.

In the end, I found some like-minded folks on the net. Some were far away, and we gamed using IRC or Skype. Some were close enough that we could get together IRL. They were a mix of experts and newbies, so I sometimes found myself in the awkward position of explaining a game I'd never played.

The games I got to try were:
-   Dogs in the Vineyard. I played this the most, simply because this is the game most people had access to, or at least had heard about and wanted to try.
-   Freeform. I played just one freeform game. It was completely improvised, but it was a real eye-opener.
-   Contenders. Got to play it just once. I'm eager for more (and I hate boxing).
-   Cold City. Another one I played just once. Didn't turn out too good, but it was a player problem; nothing wrong with the game.
-   The Shab-al-Hiri Roach. Also played just this once. Very fun.

Not very relevant, but hey, here are the games I haven't got to try yet:
-   Carry
-   Sorcerer (Charnel Gods and Mu in particular)
-   Polaris
-   and I just ordered Grey Ranks

I won't go into specifics about each game (unless there are questions). Instead, I'll try and tease some broad observations from these two months of gaming. Some (perhaps all) of the following points may seem obvious to those who hang around here a lot. But I'm sure it might help some of the noobs like myself have a better time gaming. Here we go...

Observation N°1: Not everyone likes Nar.
Some of the people I played with understood what the games were about, but just didn't like it. Often, it boiled down to, "I don't want the rules to get in the way of my role-playing. I want the GM to handle the story, so I can get on with experiencing my character and the game-world." At first, I thought I hadn't played the game right, or that it was a question of setting. But now I think I see it's just a classic Sim vs. Nar clash. This was a big disappointment for me, but in the end, persevering was just going to turn into an argument with my friends.

Observation N°2: Playing through IRC and/or Skype is fun.
This doesn't have anything to do with Nar per se, but it was still a discovery for me, so I'll include it here anyway. I was hesitant to try it out at first. Some of the software involved is a little obscure, and face-to-face acting seemed like a big part of role-playing to me. In the end, it's great fun, if a little different from the IRL thing. The only real downside is that text-based gaming is a bit slower than talking. The other, minor quibble I have is that you can only play with three people or so in total, as more gets too confusing/slow.

Observation N°3: Freeform, and what are rules for?
My freeform game was a blast. I've discussed here before if it was actually gaming or not, but let's leave that aside here. This game showed me that you don't need a GM, a scenario, a rules system, a setting, or any of that to have fun role-playing. In turn, that showed me that all those things better enhance my game-experience if I'm to consider including them in my games. In particular, it helped me to understand that rules are only there to facilitate the negotiations between players about what happens in the game (the SIS?).

Observation N°4: Do we really need a GM?
I didn't really know what to think about GM-less games. On the one hand, lots of people seemed to be having fun with them. On the other hand, my control-freak tendencies screamed "Nooooooooooooooooo!!". In the end, I understand now that GMs are not necessary. They do make some things easier though. When you have a GM, you don't have to actively contribute to the game as much, in the sense that you can concentrate on your character more. A related point: when there's a GM, you don't have to be as careful about the other characters. GMs also make it easier to introduce surprises into the story.

Observation N°5: Some people think they're playing Nar.
One game in particular I played in showed me that even people who are interested in Nar don't necessarily understand what it's about. We were playing Cold City, and a/ none of our secret agendas came into play, b/ trust was never used, c/ all we rolled were skill-checks. Just picking up a game that says "Nar" on the cover is not enough...

Observation N°6: Nar and Immersion.
This last one's tricky. I keep hearing how Nar keeps you from immersion, because of the fact you need to be one step removed from your character in order to make decisions about the story. But I distinctly felt immersion almost every time I played. I even felt it playing NPCs when I GMed. "Immersion" seems to be much debated, so for clarity: I felt like what was happening to the character happened to me; I felt sorry/happy/etc. for the character; I reacted emotionally to in-game events, because of how they made me feel; I pictured the scene in my head as we were describing it. It wasn't like that all the time. Sometimes, I was too busy trying to come up with a good scene. But a lot of the time, I felt just like I felt playing Sim all those years.

Comments? Corrections? Feel free to chime in!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there! This is a nice thread to see.

I'd like to run through your observations and give you some feedback. It's sort of interesting to do it this way, because ordinarily, as moderator, I discourage taking bits and pieces from threads and responding to them in isolation. But since the whole topic is an abstracted overview, it makes sense to break it down this way. So here goes.

Observation N°1: Not everyone likes Nar.
Some of the people I played with understood what the games were about, but just didn't like it. Often, it boiled down to, "I don't want the rules to get in the way of my role-playing. I want the GM to handle the story, so I can get on with experiencing my character and the game-world." At first, I thought I hadn't played the game right, or that it was a question of setting. But now I think I see it's just a classic Sim vs. Nar clash. This was a big disappointment for me, but in the end, persevering was just going to turn into an argument with my friends.

You're absolutely right that we are talking about preferences, which by definition will not be universally pleasing or desired. That's how it is.

I think the phrase "I don't want the rules to get in the way" is a generic dodge, not a Sim vs. Narrativist issue. It's what people say when they're out of their comfort zone and really has nothing to do with rules at all. People who say it are extremely committed to the rules they do like, for instance.

Observation N°3: Freeform, and what are rules for?
My freeform game was a blast. I've discussed here before if it was actually gaming or not, but let's leave that aside here. This game showed me that you don't need a GM, a scenario, a rules system, a setting, or any of that to have fun role-playing. In turn, that showed me that all those things better enhance my game-experience if I'm to consider including them in my games. In particular, it helped me to understand that rules are only there to facilitate the negotiations between players about what happens in the game (the SIS?).

Your last sentence nails it! The Shared Imagined Space means we're all communicating with one another about how we're imagining the same material, as that material changes. It's the medium; without it, there's no role-playing. So let's start with the notion that we have one of these going, or at least that we want to.

You used the phrase "rules system," which I think can be turned into a more useful idea by making "system" a very big term, meaning anything we do to get that SIS going and moving; and by making "rules" a smaller subset, what I like to call "techniques." In this construction, even "you talk, then I talk," is a rule. As you can see, therefore, there is no such thing as rules-less, system-less play.

With this in mind, I completely agree with your basic point, but contest the idea that no rules or system are necessary. They are. But no particular one is necessary, nor is it possible to say that any particular one is closer to the heart of "real" role-playing, as long as we're talking about one that works.

Observation N°4: Do we really need a GM?
I didn't really know what to think about GM-less games. On the one hand, lots of people seemed to be having fun with them. On the other hand, my control-freak tendencies screamed "Nooooooooooooooooo!!". In the end, I understand now that GMs are not necessary. They do make some things easier though. When you have a GM, you don't have to actively contribute to the game as much, in the sense that you can concentrate on your character more. A related point: when there's a GM, you don't have to be as careful about the other characters. GMs also make it easier to introduce surprises into the story.

I've written a lot about the artificial construct of "the GM" that evolved over time. I usually say that there are necessary tasks of play that make most sense to be under a given person's control, rather than be subject to constant negotiation while in use. Now, if a particular game design puts some or all of these tasks into a given person's hands throughout all of play, that's fine. Or if another game divides them up differently, or trades them around the participants, that's fine too.

So if you look at it that way, GMing exists (or rather a multiplicity of associated tasks exist), but how it's constructed is tremendously wide open for design. Also, looking at it this way, there are no GM-less games. I agree with Emily's term and call games like The Shab-al-Hiri Roach or Universalis GM-ful, rather than GM-less.

Observation N°5: Some people think they're playing Nar.
One game in particular I played in showed me that even people who are interested in Nar don't necessarily understand what it's about. We were playing Cold City, and a/ none of our secret agendas came into play, b/ trust was never used, c/ all we rolled were skill-checks. Just picking up a game that says "Nar" on the cover is not enough...

There are two reasons this happens, most of the time.

1. A lot of people consider play to be successful merely because an SIS gets established at all. That's been such an unreliable accomplishment for them in the past that when it happens, they are ready to call that experience the bestest and most amazing play ever. What it's called depends on what the subculture is calling cool at the time. Right now, indie or Narrativist carries a meaningless cachet of this kind. Ten years ago, people swore that they needed "supported lines" (lots of supplements) to do it, because that's what they were spending their money on.

So the name doesn't matter. The point is that today, any number of people are achieving the minimal necessity of an SIS reliably, for the first time, and inappropriately calling it Narrativist play. They also still have a while to go before they discover a Creative Agenda, i.e. any understandable reason to generate an SIS.

2. A lot of people confuse process with product. As I've written over and over, a "story" can be arrived at through any Creative Agenda. The point is whether the processes of play, the actual activity, generated that story through the shared interactions (note: the "shared" is important), or whether it was a one-man show with an audience, or whether it was imposed by prior preparation, or whether it was retrospectively tacked on.

So a lot of play and design that people want to call Narrativist isn't.

Observation N°6: Nar and Immersion.
This last one's tricky. I keep hearing how Nar keeps you from immersion, because of the fact you need to be one step removed from your character in order to make decisions about the story. But I distinctly felt immersion almost every time I played. I even felt it playing NPCs when I GMed. "Immersion" seems to be much debated, so for clarity: I felt like what was happening to the character happened to me; I felt sorry/happy/etc. for the character; I reacted emotionally to in-game events, because of how they made me feel; I pictured the scene in my head as we were describing it. It wasn't like that all the time. Sometimes, I was too busy trying to come up with a good scene. But a lot of the time, I felt just like I felt playing Sim all those years.

This last one's tricky because, if you're "hearing how Nar keeps you from immersion," then you're hearing a lot of fucking bullshit. (This is common.)

Given your definition of immersion, it can be a part of play for any Creative Agenda. It's also a desirable part of play, in my view, and I enjoy it myself regardless of what game I'm playing.

There is, indeed, a general avoidance of the term here at the Forge, but that has nothing to do with Narrativism. We avoid it because, as you point out, people use it for 100's of different meanings and thereby create confusions in discussion, for themselves and for others. That's all.

As long as someone provides a personal definition and as long as readers understand they must stick to that definition, for that thread, then it's fine.

Does any of that help, or make sense?

Best, Ron

[JC]

thanks for the detailed reply

Observation N°1: Not everyone likes Nar.
Some of the people I played with understood what the games were about, but just didn't like it. Often, it boiled down to, "I don't want the rules to get in the way of my role-playing. I want the GM to handle the story, so I can get on with experiencing my character and the game-world." At first, I thought I hadn't played the game right, or that it was a question of setting. But now I think I see it's just a classic Sim vs. Nar clash. This was a big disappointment for me, but in the end, persevering was just going to turn into an argument with my friends.

You\\\'re absolutely right that we are talking about preferences, which by definition will not be universally pleasing or desired. That\\\'s how it is.

I think the phrase \\\"I don\\\'t want the rules to get in the way\\\" is a generic dodge, not a Sim vs. Narrativist issue. It\\\'s what people say when they\\\'re out of their comfort zone and really has nothing to do with rules at all. People who say it are extremely committed to the rules they do like, for instance.

about the second part of your reply : I understand what you\\\'re saying, and I also think I agree

but I don\\\'t think that\\\'s exactly what I was talking about

so it\\\'s a minor point, but perhaps one worth exploring all the same

what people said to me, espacially with DITV, is \\\"this game makes me use rules at times when I really don\\\'t want to be bothered by rules, and just concentrate on the role-playing\\\"

what I really think this means is \\\"the way I usually play is either a/ we decide what happens and then manipulate the system and the dice to accommodate for that, so we don\\\'t actually bother with the rules until after the important facts have been established, or b/ the GM just decides what happens, while pretending to use the rules, much to the same effect... that way, I can just role-play (meaning go all Sim), and the rules are never really an issue... the only time the rules are really an issue is when we fall into gamist mode, like during combat scenes\\\"

maybe that _is_ what you meant

you tell me

Observation N°3: Freeform, and what are rules for?
My freeform game was a blast. I've discussed here before if it was actually gaming or not, but let's leave that aside here. This game showed me that you don't need a GM, a scenario, a rules system, a setting, or any of that to have fun role-playing. In turn, that showed me that all those things better enhance my game-experience if I'm to consider including them in my games. In particular, it helped me to understand that rules are only there to facilitate the negotiations between players about what happens in the game (the SIS?).

Your last sentence nails it! The Shared Imagined Space means we\\\'re all communicating with one another about how we\\\'re imagining the same material, as that material changes. It\\\'s the medium; without it, there\\\'s no role-playing. So let\\\'s start with the notion that we have one of these going, or at least that we want to.

You used the phrase \\\"rules system,\\\" which I think can be turned into a more useful idea by making \\\"system\\\" a very big term, meaning anything we do to get that SIS going and moving; and by making \\\"rules\\\" a smaller subset, what I like to call \\\"techniques.\\\" In this construction, even \\\"you talk, then I talk,\\\" is a rule. As you can see, therefore, there is no such thing as rules-less, system-less play.

With this in mind, I completely agree with your basic point, but contest the idea that no rules or system are necessary. They are. But no particular one is necessary, nor is it possible to say that any particular one is closer to the heart of \\\"real\\\" role-playing, as long as we\\\'re talking about one that works.

agreed 100%

this was pointed out to me in my thread about my freeform session as well

my bad for not expressing myself more clearly

Observation N°4: Do we really need a GM?
I didn't really know what to think about GM-less games. On the one hand, lots of people seemed to be having fun with them. On the other hand, my control-freak tendencies screamed "Nooooooooooooooooo!!". In the end, I understand now that GMs are not necessary. They do make some things easier though. When you have a GM, you don't have to actively contribute to the game as much, in the sense that you can concentrate on your character more. A related point: when there's a GM, you don't have to be as careful about the other characters. GMs also make it easier to introduce surprises into the story.

I\\\'ve written a lot about the artificial construct of \\\"the GM\\\" that evolved over time. I usually say that there are necessary tasks of play that make most sense to be under a given person\\\'s control, rather than be subject to constant negotiation while in use. Now, if a particular game design puts some or all of these tasks into a given person\\\'s hands throughout all of play, that\\\'s fine. Or if another game divides them up differently, or trades them around the participants, that\\\'s fine too.

So if you look at it that way, GMing exists (or rather a multiplicity of associated tasks exist), but how it\\\'s constructed is tremendously wide open for design. Also, looking at it this way, there are no GM-less games. I agree with Emily\\\'s term and call games like The Shab-al-Hiri Roach or Universalis GM-ful, rather than GM-less.

OK, agreed again

Observation N°5: Some people think they're playing Nar.
One game in particular I played in showed me that even people who are interested in Nar don't necessarily understand what it's about. We were playing Cold City, and a/ none of our secret agendas came into play, b/ trust was never used, c/ all we rolled were skill-checks. Just picking up a game that says "Nar" on the cover is not enough...

There are two reasons this happens, most of the time.

1. A lot of people consider play to be successful merely because an SIS gets established at all. That\\\'s been such an unreliable accomplishment for them in the past that when it happens, they are ready to call that experience the bestest and most amazing play ever. What it\\\'s called depends on what the subculture is calling cool at the time. Right now, indie or Narrativist carries a meaningless cachet of this kind. Ten years ago, people swore that they needed \\\"supported lines\\\" (lots of supplements) to do it, because that\\\'s what they were spending their money on.

So the name doesn\\\'t matter. The point is that today, any number of people are achieving the minimal necessity of an SIS reliably, for the first time, and inappropriately calling it Narrativist play. They also still have a while to go before they discover a Creative Agenda, i.e. any understandable reason to generate an SIS.

2. A lot of people confuse process with product. As I\\\'ve written over and over, a \\\"story\\\" can be arrived at through any Creative Agenda. The point is whether the processes of play, the actual activity, generated that story through the shared interactions (note: the \\\"shared\\\" is important), or whether it was a one-man show with an audience, or whether it was imposed by prior preparation, or whether it was retrospectively tacked on.

So a lot of play and design that people want to call Narrativist isn\\\'t.

not of much use to anyone but me, I guess, but I\\\'ll say it anyway:

you number 2. there is really interesting to me, because when I try to explain what I understand of Nar and GNS, people keep answering \\\"but I GM XYZ game and we have cool stories too\\\"

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Cool! These are good topics to discuss.

You wrote,

what people said to me, espacially with DITV, is "this game makes me use rules at times when I really don't want to be bothered by rules, and just concentrate on the role-playing"

what I really think this means is "the way I usually play is either a/ we decide what happens and then manipulate the system and the dice to accommodate for that, so we don't actually bother with the rules until after the important facts have been established, or b/ the GM just decides what happens, while pretending to use the rules, much to the same effect... that way, I can just role-play (meaning go all Sim), and the rules are never really an issue... the only time the rules are really an issue is when we fall into gamist mode, like during combat scenes"

I see what you mean and have seen/heard this many times. However, it's not Simulationism talking, not necessarily. In my experience, when the person says "so I can just role-play," there is something they can reliably get out of play during those times which the mechanics (as that group applies them, in that game system) interfere with. Whatever the something may be. It can be a Creative Agenda - any of them. It can simply be a preferred range of comfort, such as a minimal to absent chance of losing their character to damage, or any of a thousand techniques.

I wrote about this pretty extensively in the thread [Werewolf] Complete the mission! Realistically! (GN S?), when I was talking about bucket seats. It's a complex thread, but the posts I'm thinking about show up in about the middle of the second page. You'll see what I mean, I think.

I also think we could talk productively about two distinct large-scale approaches to play, including issues of what I called "the murk" last year, and related matters. But that might be getting out of the immediate topics at hand, or maybe I'll wait for a few posts that go over the present issues first.

About the story-as-product vs. story-creation-as-process, that's not just you, it's actually a widespread concern. I tried pretty hard to explain it in the opening sections of my essay, Narrativism: Story Now, in which I related a story which might emerge from play, and demonstrate that it could have arisen from any imaginable play experience, played from any Creative Agenda.

I explained it more recently, and I think pretty well, in my interview with Clyde Rhoer, about 6 or 7 minutes in. The link is Theory From the Closet #004 (warning: the link goes right to the MP3).

Best, Ron

[JC]

what people said to me, espacially with DITV, is \\\"this game makes me use rules at times when I really don\\\'t want to be bothered by rules, and just concentrate on the role-playing\\\"

what I really think this means is \\\"the way I usually play is either a/ we decide what happens and then manipulate the system and the dice to accommodate for that, so we don\\\'t actually bother with the rules until after the important facts have been established, or b/ the GM just decides what happens, while pretending to use the rules, much to the same effect... that way, I can just role-play (meaning go all Sim), and the rules are never really an issue... the only time the rules are really an issue is when we fall into gamist mode, like during combat scenes\\\"

I see what you mean and have seen/heard this many times. However, it\\\'s not Simulationism talking, not necessarily. In my experience, when the person says \\\"so I can just role-play,\\\" there is something they can reliably get out of play during those times which the mechanics (as that group applies them, in that game system) interfere with. Whatever the something may be. It can be a Creative Agenda - any of them. It can simply be a preferred range of comfort, such as a minimal to absent chance of losing their character to damage, or any of a thousand techniques.

I wrote about this pretty extensively in the thread [Werewolf] Complete the mission! Realistically! (GN S?), when I was talking about bucket seats. It\\\'s a complex thread, but the posts I\\\'m thinking about show up in about the middle of the second page. You\\\'ll see what I mean, I think.

OK, I read pages 1 and 2 of the Werewolf thread

I think I understand what you\\\'re saying here in this thread, but I\\\'m not sure

let me try and spell it out, and then you tell me if I\\\'m correct or not, if you like

I understand you\\\'re saying \\\"when your friends tell you they don\\\'t want the rules of DITV to get the way of their role-playing, what they really mean is that they don\\\'t want the rules of DITV to get in the way of the techniques they like, rather than in the way of Sim\\\"

is that what you\\\'re saying?

if it is, I see how this could apply to gamers in general, but I actually think that the friends in question really go for Sim, as I understand it

but maybe I\\\'m not good enough yet at separating the little green platform from the secondary structure

nota: I\\\'m not picking on DITV, it\\\'s just an example

I also think we could talk productively about two distinct large-scale approaches to play, including issues of what I called \\\"the murk\\\" last year, and related matters. But that might be getting out of the immediate topics at hand, or maybe I\\\'ll wait for a few posts that go over the present issues first.

I\\\'m game, but I have no idea what you\\\'re talking about here

About the story-as-product vs. story-creation-as-process, that\\\'s not just you, it\\\'s actually a widespread concern. I tried pretty hard to explain it in the opening sections of my essay, Narrativism: Story Now, in which I related a story which might emerge from play, and demonstrate that it could have arisen from any imaginable play experience, played from any Creative Agenda.

I explained it more recently, and I think pretty well, in my interview with Clyde Rhoer, about 6 or 7 minutes in. The link is Theory From the Closet #004 (warning: the link goes right to the MP3).

I\\\'ve read the essay

I\\\'d read it before, but realize now I hadn\\\'t understood half of it at the time

this point is clear for me now, I think

I just hope I\\\'ll be able to explain it better

and yeah, I\\\'ll listen to the MP3 as soon as I get the chance