The Role of Theme; Simulationism vs. Narrativism

[jburneko]

These two paragraphs in Ron's new essay really caught my attention:

The key word is "genre," which in this case refers to a certain combination of the five elements as well as an unstated Theme. How do they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style, and more. "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

"I also recommend examining Theme carefully. In this game, it's present and accounted for already, before play. The process of prep-play-enjoy works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything along the way."

I'll get back to these two quotes in a minute but first I have to take you on a bit of mind walk, so please bare with me.

I've been following Ron's Trollbabe comic and I have to admit, up until recently, I really wasn't enjoying it.  The two Rhetta stories made me think that Ron was selling himself and his game short.  They seemed too silly, cartoony and frivilous to me.  Then, we got to the begining of the Tha story, and now I'm digging it.  I'm reading the Tha story and my mind is now going, "AH, now THIS!  THIS, is Trollbabe."

Light bulb!

It suddenly occured to me that if this were actual play (and yes, I know the comics aren't supposed to be examples of play, humor me) and I had two players and one was acting like Rhetta and one was acting like Tha, I would be very anoyed with the Rhetta player.  I would think the Rhetta player wasn't getting it.  I would sub-conciously relegate Rhetta to "silly sidekick/comic relief" status and dote on the stronger more compelling, to me, Tha player.

I then realized that I had a pretty strong notion I wasn't even aware of about what Trollbabes were, in an in-game sense and what Trollbabe stories must be like, in a metagame sense.  

Then I read those two paragraphs I quoted above and went, "Hmmm...."

First, is there a spectrum between front-loaded Theme and wide open Theme, and if so, at what point does one switch from Narrativist to High Concept Simulationism as the range of "acceptable" Themes narrows?

What's the relationship between Premise, Theme and actual "physical" in-game outcome?

Example 1

What if there was a game that dictated that once some endgame condition was met all the players must engineer their character's suicides?  By making suicide a guaranteed "physical" in-game outcome, have I completely precluded the addressing of Premise to produce Theme?  Would this be some kind of reverse Narrativism where the Theme is given but the players must effectively reverse engineer and author a Premise addressing character that they think leads to that Theme.

Example 2 (more abstract)

What if I said the Premise of the game was Obsession but I also said, that by the endgame that Obsession must have ruined your character.  What the obsession is, how and why the obsession ruins your character however, is totally up to you and is the purpose of play?

Finally, I have a practical question that might deserve its own thread.

What happens if you're trying to GM a Premise focused game but the Theme that one or two players seem to be developing just bores you to tears?  This is particuarly probalamatic if the other players seem to be digging it as I'm sure some people were digging the Rhetta stories.  How can the GM "spice up" the situation without smashing the player's authorial input?

I look forward to yoru responses.

Jesse[/quote]

[xiombarg]

I'm not sure I can answer your question directly, but I'll note the Schism supplement for Sorcerer says, outright, that your character WILL die from his psychic powers. The only question that remains is HOW you will die -- like a mouse or like a lion?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

Most of your questions seem very strange to me ...

is there a spectrum between front-loaded Theme and wide open Theme, and if so, at what point does one switch from Narrativist to High Concept Simulationism as the range of "acceptable" Themes narrows?

In a word, Yes, and not to be insulting in any way, Obviously. To answer that "at what point" question is a very good question for general debate, but I think it has to be addressed at the fullest level of analysis possible: Social Contract, GNS within that, System within that, and Stance within that, among a few other details scattered through there. You won't be getting a one-sentence answer to that any time soon.

I suggest specifying the question to a particular game or set of similar games, and also to a particular set of values and interactions among the people in question, to start.

By making suicide a guaranteed "physical" in-game outcome, have I completely precluded the addressing of Premise to produce Theme?

I'm kinda staring at this one is bewilderment. It seems like you're assuming that character live-or-die is the most significant act or outcome of the game. I don't see why that's an assumption of play-in-general at all. It might be the case for some or most play, but certainly not in general.

To turn it to movies just for a moment, think of all the movies that let you know, in the first scene or two, that the main character will be dead by the end of the story. In all cases, it enhances the story to come, rather than invalidating it, by focusing the viewer's attention on some action that is not live-or-die.

Same goes for the Obsession thing, but I want to clarify one thing about your phrasing - does it make a difference to you whether the GM or the player specifies the character's eventual ruin? If it does, then I suggest you're laboring under some Balance of Power issues that have to be resolved before this question can be addressed.

What happens if you're trying to GM a Premise focused game but the Theme that one or two players seem to be developing just bores you to tears? This is particuarly probalamatic if the other players seem to be digging it as I'm sure some people were digging the Rhetta stories. How can the GM "spice up" the situation without smashing the player's authorial input?

Whoa. Complete horror. I'm GM-ing a Premise-focused game but the players' Theme isn't good enough? Since when did I, the GM, become the arbiter of whether the Theme is good enough? And it's problematic if the other players are liking it? That would indicate to me that the problem lies a little closer to home.

I mean, I'm starin'. The GM, in that situation, is in precisely the same situation as a bass player who thinks the lead guitar is a talent-less hedge. He can (a) try to get some accord going with the lead, which presupposes that the lead cares; (b) get the band to start looking for another lead, which presupposes that the other band members agree about this one; or (c) start looking for another band.

I must also point out, emphatically, that the GM is not special in this regard but has exactly the same choices and concerns as anyone in the group, GM or player.

Is this the same Jesse who wrote the Narrativism-for-Sim essay, or are you channeling your girlfriend or other fellow players again?

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Okay, now that I've frightened Ron, I'll try again.

First of all, my initial post was just a reaction to my light bulb moment about Trollbabe.  When I react, my mind goes to extreme places to do a sort of worst-case-scenario experiment.  I began to wonder if perhaps any other unnoticed assumptions about how things "should be", on my part, could be the basis for any of the few remaining points of problematic play in my group.  Perhaps there's a player I've been short-changing, subconciously viewing and treating them as a side-kick when they're really just a protagonist I don't like.  Like I said, worst-case-scenario thinking.

Back to my examples:

I KNOW whether a character lives or dies isn't the issue.  I could have easily picked, "everyone gets married."  But "everyone commits suicide" is different than simply "everyone dies."  When you state upfront that "everyone dies" there's a wide open playing field concerning WHY and HOW "everyone dies."  Like in Schism.  But suicide, on the other hand carries with it an implicit set of moral values.  And since Theme basically equals Moral Values, to say that "everyone will comit suicide" seems to narrow the range of "acceptable" Themes.

Now, I'm NOT saying that everyone who ever commited suicide harbors the SAME Moral Values.  Obviously the playing field is still quite open, it's just narrower than "everybody dies."

And the question of how narrow, is too narrow, facinates me.

To make this a little more personal, I re-evaluated my thoughts on Gothic drama.  In the source material I had identified the central issue of Emotional Sanity.  But just addressing Emotional Sanity as a whole Premise isn't what facinates me about the litterature.  It isn't where my love for that genre comes from.  The complete, question that interests me is "In what ways, can our passions destroy us?"

And like suicide that represents a narrowing of "acceptable" Themes.  I'm not necessarily attaching a value judgement on that.  It just makes me go, "Hmmmm...."

Now, as for the bass critiquing the lead, surely in the history of music some bass player has started out with a low kind of mellow Bah, Doom, Bah, Doom, only to have the lead break in with some kind of bizare, twangy, twinkle, twinkle, tiddly, twinkle?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

I see where you're coming from. I also see it as one of the reasons why all Narrativist play isn't alike. Yes, the degree of fixed-ness is certainly one of the most important dials of play.

For example, playing Le Mon Mouri (and really hammering it with N priorities; I'm not saying the game forces it) would entail a narrow range of thematic statements, whereas, as you notice, playing Trollbabe or Sorcerer entails accepting damn near anything that floats a given player's boat.

I now get your point about suicide - it includes a highly specific act, not an outcome. Speaking personally, I think that incorporating an act into the Social Contract prior to play is too limiting, but that doesn't mean it's non-Narrativist or wrong in any way - it's just out of my own comfort zone with this mode of play.

As for the bass/lead thing, I think Yes, indeed probably many a bass player has thought to himself, "Oh God, there he goes with that fluffy crap again over my brooding sinister bass-line, how long must I endure this, oh God, oh God." Or whatever. The question is who has authority over what to do now. And boy does that become an issue in music, and I don't see any route except to acknowledge that it's the same issue in role-playing.

Best,
Ron