octaNe == Sim: Color ?

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

In Ron's recent review of Jared's octaNe, he states that the game falls into the Sim camp, specifically as a Sim: Color-facilitating game.

My personal reaction is, "WHAT!?!"

I would put octaNe so far into the Narrativist camp that I cannot even contemplate debating the matter. Clearly, my understanding of GNS does not match Ron's, and I am looking for help. Can someone please explain in small enough words that I might understand?

Upon considering the matter, octaNe lacks an overt play goal beyond having fun, so I could see a party wandering around the landscape doing nothing much, but I do not see the system encouraging this behaviour, which is as close to Sim as I can put octaNe. I envision players taking the reins and driving the setting for all it is worth while the gamemaster does everything he possibly can to put bumps in the road.

In this thread, I was apparently on-track, but now I find myself not only off the road, but miles from any form of civilization. Anyone care to lend me a map?

Later,
Grant

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Grant,

To help illuminate the issue - what do you find narrativist about octaNe? Is there a mechanic, part of play, or text from the book that particularly strikes a narrativist chord with you?

I'll go ahead and eliminate one for you: the player narration. Player-narration = narrativism is the biggest fallacy I see online, and one that personally infuriates me. Tim Gray did an otherwise-great review of Donjon recently that called it "narrativist D&D." My teeth grit at such a crazy-ass statement. The narration in Donjon is a tool to use in gamism, as player and GM make up statements like genie wishes, trying to subvert the meaning of each other's. In octaNe, that same narration is a tool to bring the unique Color to the forefront, letting everyone contribute to the gonzo retro-trash-future.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Grant,

You're reading one major element of the review incorrectly - that I have classified octaNe in GNS, case closed. My point is that the system functions much better as a Consensual Storytelling game than any kind of role-playing game.

In case I didn't make it clear in the review, I also want to say that it is a far better CS game than any I've ever played or read about; such games are often badly in need of a "conch mechanic" that keeps things going, and octaNe provides that in spades.

As long as we're talking about role-playing, though, I want to echo Clinton's point: what makes octaNe Narrativist, in your reading? Bearing in mind that the root word of Narrativism is narrative, not narration. These are vastly different things.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey Ron,

Thanks for getting back to me. I misinterpreted you and stand corrected.

Color, of course, is a very strong element, but I would say that the game will hopelessly derail without a strong throughline on the part of the players. That throughline is most likely a premise in the Egrian sense, but certainly a premise of one form or another. When I think about existing Sim games, in particular ones that focus on Color, I must consider the strong fixed element of gamemaster control. For example, I find Feng Shui hopelessly frustrating for exactly that reason--no finding my own style and certainly no finding my own Chow Yun-Fat moments of human care.

I suppose what I am saying is that octaNe is narrativist or nothing, but I can see how you dislike calling it Narrativist-facilitating, considering the strong elements from both Sim and Gamism.

My question is this: in your experience, if you have to qualify octaNe as an rpg, thus falling under GNS, what mode have you most strongly observed in actual play?

Later,
Grant

[Bankuei]

While octaNe may not be narratvist, or narrativist-facilitating, it can very easily be drifted towards narrativism, as I experienced through my personal play using the Blood and Steel rules.  

What I think made the major difference was that premise was laid out to begin with(You play officers in an ancient Chinese city-state), and that Premise(as in the Narrativist moral question) was unspoken but addressed by all the players through the Situation that was set up(Which is more important, Justice or Peace?).

Although this basically amounted to vanilla narrativism, that could have been kludged out of any system, the players found octaNe worked well for that purpose, whereas different reactions have come forth from the same players when I've used different systems(D&D, Feng Shui, etc.).

Perhaps the major issues with octaNe being more focused for play lie around providing premise(what do you do?), Stakes(ala Trollbabe), and a very solid Situation.  Of course, these same issues arise with GURPS, CORPS, BESM, and a lot of other "universal" type Sim systems...

Any thoughts?

Chris

[ThreeGee]

Hey Chris,

Hmm, you have a point. I may be letting my own preferences color the game. I am strongly unfond of Sim play, and finding the narrative (story) potential in a game comes easily to me.

Nevertheless, the games you mention all color play to a remarkable extent. One game of GURPS, BESM, etc, is much like another, but with the default place-names crossed out and new ones written in. Maybe octaNe is a new type of Sim game, but I honestly cannot place it with even one other game in the Sim camp. To me, the strongest point of octaNe is that it does not limit my choices as a player. I can pursue whatever premise pleases me, even an extremely shallow one, if I so choose. No stupid skill rolls, no gamemaster telling me, "No, that's not realistic." None of that nonsense. Just me and my protagonist.

Anyway, since this thread started as a misunderstanding, I suppose we are done unless someone has further observation to add.

Later,
Grant

[Bankuei]

Actually, Grant, my point isn't about a Narrativist preference coloring the game, but rather for octaNe(and any of the other games I mentioned), to really "fly", that you need to give it some form of "oomph"(premise) for folks to get into it.  

For example, WW games are pretty Sim, but they give you some kickass setting filled with conflict and ideas that you just want to jump right in.  Here in octaNe, given the nature of the source material, everything from Surf Zombies to Godzilla fightin' Power Rangers springs to mind.  Because the options are so open, it becomes very important to provide a focus around with an octaNe game can "go".  

Consider this; premise is setting down the roadmap("Here's where you're driving around"), in this case, we could say "This game is going to be about fighting Surf Zombies", which gets the players hyped or gets shucked for another idea("No, I'd rather do Tremors meets Dusk til Dawn...").

The stakes is basically what's at stake during the whole affair.  It could be the PC's lives, or something else(little girl from Aliens, the future from Terminator, etc.).  The stakes basically serve as a Macguffin towards the conflict.  

If you want to get Narrativist with it, then you're addressing a Premise(with tha big P), which is usually stated as some question.  This could be conscious, or developed through play.  In the case of octaNe, this may be harder for some folks given some of the silliness that can occur, but even the Road Warrior does it fairly well.

Situation is the "problem at hand" that makes the scenario/episode/adventure.  It ties together premise(we fight zombies), stakes(Venice Beach), and Premise, if there is one, ("Is surfing more important than life?").

My point is that most universal games also tend to lack premise(what do we do), stakes, Premise, and often the guidelines for establishing good Situation.  It appears that most research into these things has all been done in the Narrativist camp, but, in Sim engines that fail to provide this, its some of the most vital stuff necessary to make them work.   These same games not only fail to provide a pre-set version like Whitewolf, but also fail to give you the tools to make it yourself.

I personally think that octaNe doesn't provide these things because they were implicitly assumed, but of course, only Jared can answer that.  Of course, I think the same thing about the Pool.  To me it only made sense that some form of agreement needs to happen as far as premise before play, which The Questing Beast and Universalis does explicitly.

Jared, can ya help us out?

Chris

[Maurice Forrester]

Tim Gray did an otherwise-great review of Donjon recently that called it "narrativist D&D." My teeth grit at such a crazy-ass statement. The narration in Donjon is a tool to use in gamism, as player and GM make up statements like genie wishes, trying to subvert the meaning of each other's.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.  And failing.  

Narration does not equal Narrative.  I get that and it makes sense to me.  And I get that the authorial intent in Donjon was for narration to be used as a Gamist tool.

But where I'm failing is the absolute statement that "narration in Donjon is a tool to use in gamism."  Isn't that a matter of how the group choses to play?  It seems to me that the narration could just as easily be a narratie tool as a gamist tool.  There's a seriousness dial in Donjon that the group agrees to.  Isn't there an implicit GNS dial in which the group decides how to use narration?

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Well, I'll give you some hints.

The Rule of Rock n' Roll is important.

So are the Modes.

So are the characters' Stamping Grounds.

- J

[Jared A. Sorensen]

But where I'm failing is the absolute statement that "narration in Donjon is a tool to use in gamism."  Isn't that a matter of how the group choses to play?  It seems to me that the narration could just as easily be a narratie tool as a gamist tool.  There's a seriousness dial in Donjon that the group agrees to.  Isn't there an implicit GNS dial in which the group decides how to use narration?

Narration is a stance thing. Stance is relagated to any particular facet of GNS other than G&N use author stance and S doesn't.

The system of "facts" in Donjon facilitates Gamist play, not Narrativist, I agree. All that a player is doing is sacrificing character effectiveness (successes) for player control (facts). These facts are basically ways that the player can turn the tables to his advantage. For example, if your guy has the skill "Destroy Evil with Spiked Mace," then you're going to be sacrificing successes to establish facts that take advantage of that skill (you're going to say that the dudes around the corner are 1) Evil and 2) not immune to a smashin' kinda weapon). In essence, you're setting up the next shot, the stance equivalent of "taking aim" before going for the kill.

[Maurice Forrester]

Thanks for trying Jared, but I still don't get it.  I fail to see how Donjon mandates that a player will use facts to "turn the tables to his advantage" instead of using facts to advance the narrative in some way.  Both seem equally viable to me.  But maybe I'm missing something because I haven't actually played Donjon yet.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Maurice,

You wrote,

Isn't that a matter of how the group choses to play?

... which is an icy chute leading to madness, in these discussions. Any group "can" do anything, in GNS terms. Further, no single mechanic (narration or otherwise) can act as an overriding facilitative GNS-enforcer. All of System, by itself, can be very strong in this regard, but even so, System is embedded in Social Contract, which is where the buck stops.

So I think you're over-reading the issue of narration being a Gamist tool in Donjon, or rather, placing too much emphasis on "narration is" rather than on "in Donjon."

Does that help at all?

Best,
Ron

[Maurice Forrester]

Ron, you won't get any argument from me on the importance of social contract.  Having GMed a game for my kids and some of their friends just yesterday, that point has never been more clear....

And I guess that's the reason why Clinton's statement about narration in Donjon didn't make any more sense to me than the original reviewers comment.  Both statements are equally true (at least from my reading of Donjon) and stating either one as an absolute just seems to muddy the waters.

[Mike Holmes]

Chris nails it on the head with his statement that Octane does not promote the adressing of premises, particularly.

My favorite quote from Jared is about how he doesn't make games that create story. He makes games that create interesting action. He agrees that his designs are Sim, essentially.

I'd go so far as to say that Octane is boldy Sim in a sort of Post-Modern away. It challenges you to create action so absurd as to be completely devoid of meaning (in the Narrativist sense). Or even to provide meaning in a way so cliched as to be meaningless. Yet still cool, which is what the Exploration of the Color is all about.

I am reminded of Nick Cage's character in Wild at Heart which is definitely Octane driven. At one point, he ask's Laura Dern's character in his best Elvis-ish,

"Have I ever told you why I wear this snake-skin jacket?"

to which she replies,

"Yeah, Cowboy, about a million times."

Which he summarily ignores (to her enthrallment), stating,

"I wear this snake-skin jacket as a symbol of my individuality."

Why does this happen, thematically (or most anything from this or any other David Lynch film)? The world may never know; it's meant to be absurd. But it's fun.

Mike

[Bankuei]

The Rule of Rock n' Roll is important.

So are the Modes.

So are the characters' Stamping Grounds.

Ah, leave it to the Master to give it to us Ninja style.  Change that from implicit to really subtle.  The only thing that the group need do is get an idea of premise from that, and the GM kick in a good Situation to make it roll.  Premise(with the big P), is optional...

Chris