I'd love to see an expansion of "address."

[Marco]

Edit: cross-posted with John

On observances of GNS decision making...

Remember that the vast majority of RPG decisions will produce similar observed decision for players of G,N,or S... (attack the evil guy or whatever)... but certain decisions are where the 'rubber meets the road' where the decision made will be different depending on what mode the Player favors...that's where the really useful observable event is, even though most of the previous decisions made by the player were made in their usual GNS mode.

Watching their choices when in critical decision points over time is one way to determine what their GNS preference is.

I want to take another look at this--since I think I may have missread you on my first pass.

This seems to stipulate that at some point during actual play there will be an in-game decision where decision a) will show the player to be Sim while choice b) shows the player to be Gam--is that right? Is that what's meant by "the decision made will be different?"

This means the telling decisions will be those where there is a clear case where a decision to "Step on up" is notedly different from one to "address premise" or "explore X."

If this were true then it seems one *could* determine GNS mode of play simply by looking at a transcript of what the characters did (what decisions they made).

This would be very interesting. I have a couple of observations.

If my understanding of what you are saying is correct then the GNS analysis would be simple and clear: it would based on those critical decision points--what other information would you need? Other people have said repeatedly there needs to be more information--what is that?

Looking at the text of these other responses, it is clear that there is a body of information that is contained in an understanding of the social interaction of the group:

What is the critical minimal sub-set of additional information? That, as I see it, is where GNS analysis becomes riggorously clear.

But if I do have you right and there are identifiable rubber-meets-the-road decsions then I have another question: doesn't this  require that the analysist and the decision maker see the choices and their implications as well as the range of possible decisions in the same way. That is, that I think a choice to take action X will be a choice to address premise where as a choice to take action Y will be a decision to explore situation. I have to be certain you see the situation the same way.

And I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation, unless I am both the observer and the person making the decision.

By way of example: I watch someone make a decision to lose a fight against an inferior when personal honor is on the line. To me this seems like address of premise. If the person doing it is exploring their character then the determination of GNS mode seems to be completely subjective to the analyist. And I certainly haven't learned their preferred mode.

-Marco

[C. Edwards]

Hey Marco,

But what if there's no *there* there? What if the shared imaginary experience exists only as an IRC log between two people: GM and player. Then how do you make that determination? Maybe you can't. Maybe you need the video feed?

It's important because the very definition of Narrativist play doesn't deal with intent but rather observable behavior as it pertains to social reinforcement amongst the group.

You can only observe what is made accessible for you to observe. For instance, when we play over irc in Indie-Netgaming we use two channels, an Out Of Character channel and a Narration channel. All the standard player banter and discussion of mechanics and whatnot takes place in the OOC channel. A lot of social reinforcement takes place in that OOC channel. If a participant is "quiet" and doesn't type much in the OOC channel that in itself has connotations that concern the social reinforcement.

So, what I'm saying is that the irc gaming environment is only short one major thing when compared to the face-to-face gaming environment -- body language. Which, while important, isn't the end all be all of observing player behaviour. And you might be surprised how much emoting goes on in that OOC channel in response to play and the other players behaviour.

-Chris

[John Kim]

You can only observe what is made accessible for you to observe. For instance, when we play over irc in Indie-Netgaming we use two channels, an Out Of Character channel and a Narration channel. All the standard player banter and discussion of mechanics and whatnot takes place in the OOC channel. A lot of social reinforcement takes place in that OOC channel. If a participant is "quiet" and doesn't type much in the OOC channel that in itself has connotations that concern the social reinforcement.

So, what I'm saying is that the irc gaming environment is only short one major thing when compared to the face-to-face gaming environment -- body language. Which, while important, isn't the end all be all of observing player behaviour. And you might be surprised how much emoting goes on in that OOC channel in response to play and the other players behaviour.  

OK, so what does not using the OOC channel connote?  That seems to be the case which Marco is getting at.  I agree that OOC can be used for clearly non-in-game social cues.  But let's consider the case of an online game which has no OOC chat.  Whereas face-to-face table-top play always has OOC body language and cues, in IRC it is at least possible for there to be no "there there", as Marco puts it.   For example, in MUD play I almost never used OOC channel.  Does this say something GNS-wise?  

So assuming you have a game where the players don't have OOC chat but instead only post in-game descriptions, what does this imply for GNS?  Is it possible to determine the GNS mode?  As a related case, one could also consider live-action play where everyone stays in-character.  

Personally, I am skeptical of the huge importance placed on OOC cues.  If I am analyzing a game, the combination of in-game play and player/GM intent are of prime importance to me.  Social cues are definitely important as well, mind, but I'd look at them after the other two (although that is partly because they're a little harder to get after-the-fact or for someone who wasn't there).

[Marco]

John is on target with my question.

And to go even further: If a player says in meta-game "I really liked that last scene!"

How do you know from which perspective (G or N or S) the player appreciated it?

Can you tell just by looking at the in-character channel and the guy's actions in the scene?

If so, then why do you need to know he liked it. It was an ... S scene--so if we had 6 of those and 3 G scenes then, hey, by a 2:1 ratio the game is rated S (no matter if the audience on the other side of the cloud was bored silly by the S scenes--the rating is correct).

-Marco

[greyorm]

a) you think I'm telling people they aren't getting anywhere. I don't get that. Maybe you can be specific where you see I'm doing that?

It's an analogy. The "not getting anywhere" is a substitute for certain of your statements which appear to underlie the attitude that "this doesn't work because" or "this is incorrect because" in regards to certain points of Narrativist theory.

It is much as with your past grievances towards the utility and even existance of TITBB, which basically discounted its utility or even its status as a revelation of the source of previous problems for a good number of regulars on this board.

To wit, you call it a molehill, when for many it is nonetheless provably a mountain. By analogy, you call the bus illusory when people are in fact riding it somewhere. Hence the source of the problem.

I'm hoping that's clear enough this time, since I won't be repeating myself.

b) You think I accused you of something. I'm not sure what. I didn't see how your (text-book?) Narrativist-requirement-in-game example pertained to address of moral question in anyway--but maybe you could elaborate on that?

Actually, I'm going to ask you to elaborate -- what are you referring to?
I've examined my post and see nothing that indicates I believe you to have accused me of anything. This, to me, is simply another example of what I brought up in my previous message: ascription of ideas to elements which those elements do not contain.

c) You are essentially saying "you don't get it so ... you don't get it and maybe you should give up?"

While that is a choice you could make, that was not my suggestion. My suggestion to help your understanding was as printed above: identify the truth or fiction of the source of your beliefs which bring these questions forth, rather than seeking to have the questions answered and finding such unsatisfactory when they prove adequate (or more than) for most others.

Hence my use of allegory in regards to the physics student and the sound waves.

I didn't start this thread (and I do think my questions are on topic for it).

Sorry about that. My bad. But I still feel the questions are, in most cases, ridiculous in their obviousness...particularly your continued focus upon the IRC medium and its supposed contextual lack. But as I have already covered that in my previous post, I see no need to rehash it again.

Ask yourself: Why did Ron limit the list of respondees? Why does John (who's nobody's dummy) find the questions interesting and you don't?

He didn't, but that was covered. I can't speak for John, but I can make a guess: John and you have typically found many of the same stumbling blocks in your reviews of points of the theory, and he thus finds the questions interesting for the same reasons you do. And I don't think either you or John are dummies, as indicated, so intelligence isn't a factor or an issue in any of this and you can drop all reference to it now because it's a red herring.

And why did Jack Spencer start the thread? Why have a Narrativist essay at all? Even Ron has suggested I wait for it. I found the Gamist one enlightening and ground breaking.

I suggest you wait for it to; but I certainly hope my advice can help you identify the source of some of your confusions, since (thus far) the straightforward approach of simply answering the questions has failed.

Given that, we can either accept the answers are wrong -- which I think has been suitably shown as unlikely given the ratio of individuals who understand it as opposed to question it -- or we can accept that the questioner's own mental constructs of the situation contain unintended elements which are causing them to stumble. As above regarding my statements about the bus, sound waves, et al.

In regards to the need for an essay if so many understand it, the answer is that the essay will help provide ease of informational dissemination for newcomers. Sure, most of the regulars understand the theory competently, but that is because they have been discussing it for years. The essays will provide an excellent overview for the newcomer for whom the GNS essay itself is inadequate in its explanations of the nuances of the theory, being more comprehensive (and more up-to-date) than the essay itself.

But you run an IRC Narrativist game (IIRC) so there's something I'd like to ask you about it: if I looked at your trasnscript how would I judge that it was Narrativist? What points would show me that vs., say, Exploration of situation? Could you provide examples? They'd be in black and white then.

I could, but then I would have to provide you with the logs of the games for the past few years. I cannot point to specific instances which declare the game to be Narrativist beyond all doubt, though I can point to instances of situations in which the choices can be construed most likely as Narrativist. Taken over time, these choices made and situations in which they arose indicate the game to be Narrativist.

In fact, you might note my second post in No-Death and Trollbabe, where I briefly reference an Exploration of Situation game I used to run prior to my current game.

For me and my players, there are very clear and distinct differences between the mainly Narrativist game I'm running now and the EoS games I used to run -- even though none of them are up on Forge theory in any way.

From player behavior and approaches to play to my attitude and choices while GMing the game, there is so much so of a difference that there is no possibility of confusing the two games as similar in style and play, no more than I could confuse red and white.

I know you very much want concrete examples, but I am deliberately avoiding them for the same reasons I am against the elephant's ear in my next post (should be up shortly). As well, overviews of events and reactions/choices/behaviors in my game can be found in the threads about my 3E game posted here to Actual Play, so I see no need to retype all of it.

[greyorm]

Whereas face-to-face table-top play always has OOC body language and cues, in IRC it is at least possible for there to be no "there there", as Marco puts it. For example, in MUD play I almost never used OOC channel. Does this say something GNS-wise?

First off, you and Marco are mangling the environment of the IRC medium so badly that I just want to scream. How are you doing so?

You unfortunately (and unintentionally) cloud the issue, John, by comparing IRC and MUDs. IRC is not a MUD, however; they are dissimilar envrionments with dissimilar expectations of play, player relation to the environment, and even engines. IRC is simply an electronic table; a MUD, however, is a virtual environment, more akin to a computer game or MMORPG than an actual table-top RPG.

Thus, while there may be no OOC chatting in an IRC game, the chances of such occuring are so remote and slim as to be nonexistant -- I would, in fact, have a much better chance to win the lottery than for such to occur.

All IRC games I have ever participated in have contained OOC chatting as part of the "coversation" in the regular channel, which otherwise included IC comments, actions, dice rolls and so forth. Indie-netgaming is the first such game I have been involved in on-line in over ten years of on-line play where there was explicitly an OOC channel seperate from the game channel.

The very context of MUD play is, in itself, a telling point of play. MUDs are immersive, social-acting activities. Those who enjoy such activities stick around, those who don't

In fact, you may as well ask yourself the same question of LARPs as you have of IRC, for the former HAVE NO SOCIAL/OOC CHAT because you are to remain in character. Does GNS now not apply or become obscured? No. Remaining in-character is part of the implicit/explicit social contract of such venues of play.

So let's please drop all this "Well, what if?" crap...it's providing nothing more than strawmen to bat around, and thus producing no useful dialogue or understanding -- why? We're not talking about real situations, which is all the model can deal with; it isn't designed to handle created situations.

As was stated previously by (I forget who), just because you can ask, "Well, what if I dropped this coin and it just hung there in mid-air?" doesn't mean you've found a problem with the theory of gravity.

And to go even further: If a player says in meta-game "I really liked that last scene!" How do you know from which perspective (G or N or S) the player appreciated it? Can you tell just by looking at the in-character channel and the guy's actions in the scene?

Precisely. And if you can't, then you just don't have enough information. Wait for more scenes and decision points. Eventually a pattern will emerge. You can't tell what an elephant looks like by examining its ear, even if the ear is right there, right then, and it's the thing. Blind men and elephants...I see where Ron's coming from with that.

If so, then why do you need to know he liked it. It was an ... S scene--so if we had 6 of those and 3 G scenes then, hey, by a 2:1 ratio the game is rated S (no matter if the audience on the other side of the cloud was bored silly by the S scenes--the rating is correct).

Talk about over-analyzation! And yet more "what if monkeys flew out of my butt?"...I'm sorry to be so derogative, but hurling strawmen around just won't get us anywhere, because it never has, and I think I've made myself quite clear on what I think of the use of such as a tool for discussion.

I'm perfectly willing to talk about actual, real live play, however.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Marco/John,

All I can really do is repeat myself. You can only observe what is made accessible for you to observe. Lacking body language, lacking OOC communication, determining a GNS mode is going to pretty damn difficult if not impossible.

Marco, you really seem to want GNS to be something that it is not and, while I sympathize, you're not going to grok it while you're focusing on irrelevancies.

Personally, I am skeptical of the huge importance placed on OOC cues. If I am analyzing a game, the combination of in-game play and player/GM intent are of prime importance to me.

If it works for you, John, that's great. But I've got to know, how do you (as in John Kim) determine intent? How do you get down to the very bottom most layer of intent, the deep stuff that is actually relevant to GNS? How do you know if that was REALLY that player's intent?

Granted, there's a tone of sarcasm to those questions, but I really would like to know the process you go through to determine intent.

-Chris

[John Kim]

First off, you and Marco are mangling the environment of the IRC medium so badly that I just want to scream. How are you doing so?  

You unfortunately (and unintentionally) cloud the issue, John, by comparing IRC and MUDs.  

Sorry.  Marco initially suggested IRC as a case, but I've never actually played over IRC.  I have played in a few multi-user (MUD/MUSH) environments.  I don't see that I'm clouding the issue, since I don't think the issue is specific to IRC as a protocol.  The point is just about cases of roleplaying where there aren't OOC cues.  If MUD and LARP play make better examples, then let's discuss those instead.  

The very context of MUD play is, in itself, a telling point of play. MUDs are immersive, social-acting activities. Those who enjoy such activities stick around, those who don't

In fact, you may as well ask yourself the same question of LARPs as you have of IRC, for the former HAVE NO SOCIAL/OOC CHAT because you are to remain in character. Does GNS now not apply or become obscured? No. Remaining in-character is part of the implicit/explicit social contract of such venues of play.  

Right.  I brought up exactly the case of LARPs earlier.  But you haven't answered the question.  So some LARPs have remaining in-character as part of the social contract.  What does that say about Creative Agenda?  Is this inherently Simulationist?  Narrativist?  If not, then how can one distinguish between the two if the players stay strictly in-character?  

If you want a specific example, I can try to write up some more on say the Tekumel LARP event that I was in at ConQuest a few months ago.

[John Kim]

Personally, I am skeptical of the huge importance placed on OOC cues. If I am analyzing a game, the combination of in-game play and player/GM intent are of prime importance to me.

If it works for you, John, that's great. But I've got to know, how do you (as in John Kim) determine intent? How do you get down to the very bottom most layer of intent, the deep stuff that is actually relevant to GNS? How do you know if that was REALLY that player's intent?

Granted, there's a tone of sarcasm to those questions, but I really would like to know the process you go through to determine intent.

Well, first of all, for the case of myself I know my intent pretty well.  This is pretty important as far as using GNS for my own techniques and behavior.  

For other people, well...  I ask.  Is this really that tricky?  I'm not saying that this is 100% accurate, because people can lie or be confused -- but in most cases it can be very informative.  Nothing's perfect.  Body language and other cues can be confusing or misread.  I'll certainly fold anything else I know about a player when I think about her intent, whether in-game or out-of-game -- and this includes OOC cues during the game.  But the important thing is the intent.  Suppose a person gives confusing cues during the game but I'm convinced through conversation and outside knowledge that his intent is X.  I will act based on my best guess on his intent -- not based solely on OOC cues during the session.

[Marco]

a substitute for certain of your statements which appear to underlie the attitude that "this doesn't work because" or "this is incorrect because" in regards to certain points of Narrativist theory.

It is much as with your past grievances towards the utility and even existance of TITBB, which basically discounted its utility or even its status as a revelation of the source of previous problems for a good number of regulars on this board.

To wit, you call it a molehill, when for many it is nonetheless provably a mountain. By analogy, you call the bus illusory when people are in fact riding it somewhere. Hence the source of the problem.

I'm hoping that's clear enough this time, since I won't be repeating myself.

You've always been very clear. My mention of TIT was to point out that what you see as a mountain I see as a molehill--it was in direct response to Matt saying "you're making mountains out of molehills."

Your bus analogy is broken (as most analogies are--and if you rely on them it will simply produce more confusion).

I think Narrativist play works just fine--you're imputing things to me I'm not saying. What I don't think works fine is the specific definition there-of.

So long as you keep making statements like "if you're worrying about your character's effectivenss you're playing Gamist," I'm with you. It's when I make them and am told they're wrong that I disagree.

Look at Matt's examples of Nar vs. Sim play. Both start with the player thinking about what he's going to do--and then doing it. They don't refer to group support for it. They imply observably distinguishing behavior, etc.

That's what I question. Not that someone can have a great time addressng moral issues.

Actually, I'm going to ask you to elaborate -- what are you referring to?
I've examined my post and see nothing that indicates I believe you to have accused me of anything. This, to me, is simply another example of what I brought up in my previous message: ascription of ideas to elements which those elements do not contain.

Maybe you thought it was John accusing you. I'm not sure. I thought you felt it was me. That's why I asked for clarification. I had mentioned you specifically in my post as well.

I know you very much want concrete examples, but I am deliberately avoiding them for the same reasons I am against the elephant's ear in my next post (should be up shortly). As well, overviews of events and reactions/choices/behaviors in my game can be found in the threads about my 3E game posted here to Actual Play, so I see no need to retype all of it.

Okay. Not to be snarky but are you certain that you *could* present them? Or that you'd present a lot of stuff that you felt pretty sure was Nar/Sim/Gam but that maybe wouldn't be clear to someone else?

That's what' I'm saying I'd expect.

-Marco

[Matt Snyder]

Look at Matt's examples of Nar vs. Sim play. Both start with the player thinking about what he's going to do--and then doing it. They don't refer to group support for it. They imply observably distinguishing behavior, etc.

I see what you're getting at regarding my "What will I kill for?" example, Marco. It could have been worded more carefully on my part. The important part of that example is definitely not the introspective "Hmm, should I kill this guy?" on one player's part. The "rubber meets the road" when, you know, the player's character actually does kill the guy. This isn't some inner monologue! Players roll dice, use mechanics, talk out loud to each other, etc. Stuff actually happens and people interact to make the action happen. This stuff happening is the observable stuff that matters. This stuff answers the premise, not some silent introspection on the player's part. It is an observable instance by all folks at the table. It answers the premise, and is therefore narrativism.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Matt,

I'd like to go even further with this and note another kind of observable behavior.

In an example of Actual Play from Jesse's terrific Gothic Fantasy game, sometimes one of the folks at the table (the players, the GM) would say, essentially, "My guy does this," and the other folks at the table would do this really please, kind of creeped out - "ooooh."  Or even, under the breath, "Oh, that's great."  All this in reaction to characters making choices in addressing the premise.

That's another example of social reinforcement.  Again, the model is about how the players are interacting with each other, not how the characters are interecting with each other.  In the examples from Jesse's game, we were clearly open to expressing pleasure at the disturbing implications of some of the choices we created for our characters.  

That's observable.  That's reinforcing a Creative Agenda, it's issuing approval around the table for how the Exploration is going.  It's a clear example of the model in action.

Best,
Christopher

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I should like to point out that John's example of "intent," both towards himself and others, are exactly the same as my discussion of observable Social Contract reinforcement. And I'm on record, many times, as saying that people are perfectly free to call that "intent" if they want to.

In other words, John just said what I've been saying all along and actually aligned with everything in my model, rather than falsified or contradicted any part of it.

This point, as far as I can tell, eliminates 100% of John's objections/concerns with my model.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

The important part of that example is definitely not the introspective "Hmm, should I kill this guy?" on one player's part. The "rubber meets the road" when, you know, the player's character actually does kill the guy. This isn't some inner monologue! Players roll dice, use mechanics, talk out loud to each other, etc. Stuff actually happens and people interact to make the action happen. This stuff happening is the observable stuff that matters. This stuff answers the premise, not some silent introspection on the player's part. It is an observable instance by all folks at the table. It answers the premise, and is therefore narrativism.  

Hmmm.  This is some sort of disconnect.  It seems to me that here you're supporting my (and I think Marco's) perspective -- because you're talking about in-character action as being where GNS determination happens.  You suggest that the important thing is whether the PC actually does kill the guy -- not the oohs and aahs of other players when he does so.  

The problem I'm having is the idea of OOC feedback being considered more important than in-character action.  Thus the test case of online or live-action play with no OOC, for example -- and much other discussion.  Suppose you have a game where people always applaud when Nar stuff is done, and sigh or look bored when Sim is done -- but they keep failing to address Premise in their character actions.  I don't think this should be considered Nar.  Like you say, the important thing to me is when the rubber hits the road.  The fictional narrative itself needs to address premise.  Saying that it's important or applauding when it happens is secondary.  

I'm not quite sure how OOC cues have taken on primary importance.  I'd theorize that maybe it has something to do with wanting to promote games where Premise is fairly explicit (like Sorcerer).  But to my mind, if play consistently engages the players and the actions of the characters reflect on moral issues -- then that ought to be Narrativism, regardless of what mechanics they are using or what the OOC cues are (or if there are any).  

I should like to point out that John's example of "intent," both towards himself and others, are exactly the same as my discussion of observable Social Contract reinforcement. And I'm on record, many times, as saying that people are perfectly free to call that "intent" if they want to.

In other words, John just said what I've been saying all along and actually aligned with everything in my model, rather than falsified or contradicted any part of it.

This point, as far as I can tell, eliminates 100% of John's objections/concerns with my model.  

This could be.  Note that my point is that the reinforcement is secondary, and that the primary thing is what the cues are supposed to reinforce: i.e. in-game action.  (I have some other concerns, but that'll be on other threads.)  It seems to me that some people have been pretty strident at times about the primacy of OOC-cues.  This may be an outgrowth of discussion more than your essays per se.  But it seems to me to be an important distinction.

[Christopher Kubasik]

John,

Now its getting kind of wierd.  You and Marco are coming up with "test" cases that, as far as I can tell, actually never occurr in on-line gaming.

Now you offer a hypothetical game where no one is addressing Premise, but "always applaud when Nar stuff is done, and sigh or look bored when Sim is done."  John, you can't applaud Nar stuff if the players aren't addressing Premise -- because Nar stuff *is* addressing Premise.

These hypotheticals and not-of-this-world "test cases" are failing the biggest point of the model...  Real world play with real world people.  

I mean, I could say, "Imagine an alien race that liked travelling to different worlds and crafting massive bones to leave under layers earth.  What would *that* to do the theory of evolution?"  But it'd sort of pointless.

In the same way, to keep *imagining* the situations that have no basis in reality (and I mean, simply, basis in reality -- ie, they actually don't exist in reality and are only hypothetical), is simply dragging all this round and round.

Why not talk about your actual games?  Using all the data that the model asks for and we'll see what happens?

Best,
Christopher