the importance of Sim-like gameplay to the Narrativist

[Mike Holmes]

You gotta make everythig so godamn complicated, Paul (then again, I'm like that, too). :-)

What are you looking for? Validation that unrestrained Narrative power might not be the best mechanics in the world? Especially with regard to certain areas of interest?

I'm with ya.

For how long now have we been saying that limiting narration to certain boxes, or rewarding certain kinds of narration are important parts of good Director Stance design?

But that can't be all that you're saying. So what am I missing? What's new here?

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Hey Mike,

But that can't be all that you're saying.

Well...that's a lot of what I'm saying. All the stuff about consciously defining audience and responsibility is in service to it. If you've been saying this for a while, I'd like to see some links.

I will say, though, that it's not all about Directorial power. It's about accommodating unmet authorial interests. Your contributions to Paul Elliott's development of http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1296">The Kap are a good non-Directorial example of mechanics that provoke respect for setting, and that I think would offer exciting support for type2 interests; player, attend to this setting and these conflicts and you will be rewarded. As such, The Kap is possibly the one languishing game development project I'm most eager to see completed.

Paul

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Paul,

OK, I think I got it - allowing myself some sloppy language, you're not talking about MORE Sim (like I thought), you're talking about reaportioning  the  "right amount" that already exists more towards the GM.  And having mechanics (rather than just social contract) that make that work smoothly.

You mention genre - Scattershot's Genre Expectations would seem to be in the area you're looking at.  And any mechanics that help define details about what folks get to narrate could help.

I have some ideas about managing the whole "flow" of narration that I hope to post before the end of the year - not sure how much they apply to your issue, but they might.  Beyond that . . . maybe Mike can provide some of those pointers to other threads in this area?  I'm just not certain where to focus discussion

Gordon

[Bankuei]

Paul,

let me make sure I got this right?

Consider that the unspoken request of a player acting on behalf of type1 interests is, GM, please take this character and conflict/situation and use it as the substrate for your handling of adversity and setting on behalf of character protagonism, and the request of a GM acting on behalf of type2 interests is, player, please apprehend this setting and conflict/situation and use it as the substrate for your architecting of character and work demonstrating character protagonism.

If I understand correctly, it seems that the usual method of making type 1 fly, is a "character-centric" attitude that everything is maleable to fit the needs of protagonizing the character.  Type 2 on the other hand, would be like a more idealized Whitewolf/L5R minus the metaplot, or, here's a setting rife with conflict, hop in and start swimming.  Correct?

I think the source of the issue may lie in this statement:

Influenced by Kickers, baked at The Forge games give players power over conflict creation as a matter of course. We drifted that same thing into EPICS, without even thinking about it, in service to player type1 interests, and at the expense of Tom's potential type2 interests

What we're looking at here is the idea of Situation and premise.  If those two don't hook the players, then there's no enthusiasm.  The key of Type 2 interests to work, is that they must have some sort of appeal to players Type 1 interests.  Some games do this by piling on the options"You can be a warrior, a courtier, a baker, a wheel maker, etc.", but in the end, its a matter of presenting conflicts and situations that the players would like to play out, hence the reason that you could run the same game in the Wild West, Fantasy, and Sci-fi, and some players just would be interested in one or two, but not all of them.

So assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, is what you're looking for a manner of encouraging the Type 2 Nar interests without stepping on type 1's?

Chris

[Paul Czege]

Hey Chris,

So assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, is what you're looking for a manner of encouraging the Type 2 Nar interests without stepping on type 1's?

I think you've got it...although it's not so much the type1 interests I'm concerned with stepping on as it is collaboration in general. It seems to me that game-specific retooling of a play group's concepts of audience (from all other players are the audience to one or specific other players are the audience) and responsibility (from primarily personal character protagonism and personal type1 interests to collaboration overall and type2 interests) is the social contract package required to support play that satisfies type2 interests. The trick isn't that you need to concurrently satisfy the type1 interests of players; the trick is that you need to have a strong enough social contract that players are comfortable suspending type1 interests out of recognition and awareness that the objective is to address type2 interests that are otherwise going unmet. Mike's solution for players getting satisfaction of type2 interests is for them to GM a Sim game. My suggestion is that a Narrativist group with a consciousness of social contract should still be able to achieve collaborative creation of story, particularly if the game mechanics in question reward the apprehension of delivered conflicts and respect for setting.¹

Paul

¹ The most superficial comparison of EPICS and The Kap suggests a vast, exciting range of unexplored mechanics that could potentially service this objective.

[Bankuei]

Ok, gotcha.

So in the concern is maintaining player protagonization, without having the GM's constructed (world/organizations/npc/ setting structure) getting obliterated in the process.  In the case of genres, certain rules or expectations form that inviolate area that the players can't just trample at will.

I'll also go with you that Narr Type 1 interests can be fufilled without having to massively redistribute power.  I'd say the Riddle of Steel is an excellent example as one way of doing it.

Secondly, I'd say for Narr play to work, you need to keep driving players and the GM towards a premise, whether specifically in rules or simply in social contract.  ROS does it by linking the reward system with its Spiritual Attributes, which are basically a means of making each player declare a Premise for their character.

I'd say that the reason you've seen the massive push for player power is because its a simple means of opening the door for players to get that type 1 thing going on.  The hard part about doing the type 2 stuff, is that its a thin line between a detailed and roiling setting, and railroad central.  I think the desire for type 2 play, poorly communicated may be the cause of a lot of railroading in gaming.

Chris

[lumpley]

I've been chatting with some folks about themes in RPGs and there was this convergent conversation thing.

So Narrativism a la Ron isn't just addressing the Premise, it's the players addressing the Premise via the actions of their characters.  In this other convo one of us was expressing concern about the GM's feelings about the Premise spilling over into event resolution, the way the GM's attachment to a front-ended plot so often does.  Like, Meg's and Emily's and my Ars Magica game, the premise is all about using power wisely or not wisely in power-unbalanced relationships, especially: what makes a good parent?  When I'm the GM, I have opinions about what makes a good parent, for sure, but so what?  Absolutely can't-overstress-it critical is: it's not my job to answer.  When I'm the GM, my job is to put the PCs in situations where THEY answer.  If I adjudicate conflicts based on what I think makes a good parent, we're not addressing the Premise at all, we're just giving ourselves an opportunity to listen to me to preach.

Then what I've been thinking about this afternoon is: how do you prevent the GM from preaching?  Answer: redistribute power.  (Maybe all power, maybe just certain key powers, maybe via Director Stance, maybe via GM-sharing, maybe just via the game's reward system like the Riddle of Steel, whatever and ever.  We have lots of example solutions.)

So I think that there's your type1 Narrativism, tidily accounted for.

But now the type2 question is: how do you allow the players to address the Premise via the actions of their characters, and keep the GM from preaching, without redistributing power?

Which looks tougher to me now than it did at the start of the thread.

-Vincent

EDIT: Or else maybe I'm not the ballpark anymore.  Also a possibility.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Vincent,

I think we're mixing three concepts around and maybe using them interchangeably to confusing effect, and that we maybe should take a step back and clarify that we're understanding the terms the same way.

Power and Ownership aren't the same thing. EPICS delivers some traditional GM Power to the player, notably the ability to attach facets (traits) to other characters. But it doesn't give the player Ownership of the other character.

But now the type2 question is: how do you allow the players to address the Premise via the actions of their characters, and keep the GM from preaching, without redistributing power?

See...I don't think you need to preserve the traditional Simulationist Power distribution to satisfy Narrativist type2 interests. I think you need to preserve the traditional Ownership distribution. EPICS reserves unto the GM the Ownership of setting and the nature of conflict, despite delivering authorial Power to players that allow them to create new character facets (traits) through play. It seems to me that what you're bringing to the discussion is the notion that problems arise when a game's unspecified Ownership distribution is presumed to parallel its mechanical Power distribution. And I completely agree.

What I'm seeing is that there are two possible solutions:
1. a game needs to be explicit about its distribution of Ownership, or
2. the social contract must take up the slack, protecting unspecified Ownership by provoking Respect in the usage of redistributed Power¹

Paul

¹ This is why a game like Dust Devils has fewer issues associated with the delivery of Director Power than games like The Pool and The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. It comes packaged with a genre that unconsciously provokes Respect in the usage of the redistributed Power.

[contracycle]

what if... there were a large number of pre-approved events or what have you that the players could invoke?  That is, they are set up as relevant and aligned with the colour and GM premise, but their actual entry into play occurred at the character players discretion?

Two immediate problems I see are the amount of work and a means of communicating the options.  But assuming these were overcome, how would that play?

[lumpley]

Ah!  I get it.

So, cool.  So is it just a matter of Fang-esque proprietorship?  Do you need mechanics to make ownership explicit, or can the game text just say Hey, players, the setting's the GM's, don't be messin'?

-Vincent

[Emily Care]

what if... there were a large number of pre-approved events or what have you that the players could invoke?  

In a game I began but didn't finish (Kitezh w/Vince & Meg), one of the two storylines followed the course of a Russian myth.  I was the sole gm, and I planned to collaborate with the players to incorporate events that "had" to happen when they arose, by having certain Story moments (I can't remember what I wanted to call them). At these points I would explicitly ask them to have their character to react in a certain way (fall in love etc) in order to bring the myth into being.  It was going to be part of the contract of play. I'm sorry I didn't get to see how it worked.  
(An example of overt-consensual, strong gm-oomph/force, with varying flexibility?)

--Emily Care

[Gordon C. Landis]

Power and Ownership aren't the same thing. EPICS delivers some traditional GM Power to the player, notably the ability to attach facets (traits) to other characters. But it doesn't give the player Ownership of the other character.

Paul,

Can you say some more about where you see the distinction between Ownership and Power?  My first reaction is that if you have enough Power, you're going to be able to trump any Ownership.  E.g., even without "Ownership", it's entirely possible to attach a trait to someone/thing that generates the very disruptions (in GM-centered NPC/environment control) you seem to want to avoid.

So - maybe your point 2 (social contract taking up the slack) is all there is, with more explict Ownership at BEST a tool that makes the social contract a little easier to manage.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your distinction between Power and Ownership - so I'm askin' for some more details.

Gordon

[Paul Czege]

Hey Gordon,

Sorry for the delayed response; six fewer shopping days this holiday season...and I got the flu.

So - maybe your point 2 (social contract taking up the slack) is all there is, with more explict Ownership at BEST a tool that makes the social contract a little easier to manage.

You've got it exactly right. In real life, I have the power to enter your back yard and piss in your swimming pool. It's social structure that constrains me from exercising that power. Genre, in a game like Dust Devils, is an example of a social structure that reigns in the use of directorial power. The purpose of this thread is twofold: 1. to argue that there are legitimate reasons for Narrativist game designs to provide other than full-bore Authorial/Directorial power, and 2. to inquire how the goal might be accomplished, through mechanical or social means, recognizing that genre doesn't work for every game.

Paul

[Gordon C. Landis]

Paul,

Sick over the holidays - yuck.  My condolences.   I think I'm finally right on-track with your question.  I guess limiting the use of power could be handled as a classic limited Resource of some kind - only attach Traits to something/one Owned by another person once per session, but no (or different) limit on stuff you/no one Owns.

Maybe this can only be approached productively in a specific design . . .

Gordon

[Le Joueur]

Genre, in a game like Dust Devils, is an example of a social structure that reigns in the use of directorial power.

May I suggest it does this partly because said genre is well purveyed by the game and firmly entrenched in the minds of the participants?  Likewise, the respect (or attraction) for the genre drives the choice to play it.  I'd say, at least unconsciously, this drives the social agreement to play 'within the genre,' creating strong guides or limitations on the scope of play.

The purpose of this thread is twofold: 1. to argue that there are legitimate reasons for Narrativist game designs to provide other than full-bore Authorial/Directorial power,

I'm in total agreement with you there.  Is it possible that much of 'traditional gaming' is driven by a lot of the expectations of 'how a game goes' based on the experiences of the participants and the packaging, that even drift in a Narrativist direction takes advantage (or at least cues) of the same principle I mentioned earlier?

and 2. to inquire how the goal might be accomplished, through mechanical or social means, recognizing that genre doesn't work for every game.

I can't really speak on the social side, but I'm convinced that what many  games based on 'unique worlds' lack is the drive to stay 'within genre' I mentioned earlier.  Turning that into system is what I've been struggling towards in Scattershot's Genre Expectations and Experience Dice Mechanix.  It's not the most elegant solution, but so far it's all I got.

Maybe this can only be approached productively in a specific design....

I want to thank Gordon for mentioning Scattershot earlier.  What I'm curious about is how Paul feels about the mechanization of the 'drive' to stay 'within genre' as a design goal.  It works on two different fields (I've found); first it supports the tone/color/feel of a genre, but it also shapes the 'usage of rules'/style of play/depth of approach too.  I wanted to know about using the same kind of mechanization (rather than depending on previous gaming experience) to support the 'how to play' part fits into the picture.

Fang Langford