Narrativism & Illusionism (and other matters)

[greyorm]

This discussion is split from Schizo Exalted.

If Narrativism isn't about telling/creating a narrative, then wouldn't it be a bit of a misnomer? And you're right, charcters with a weak defense in design have nothing to do with narrativism in design. In execution however, a narrative GM would be more likely to forgive or work around a character's weak defense for the purpose of a story.

The idea that "Narrativism" may be a misnomer because of that issue has been discussed repeatedly, and to death. I suggest you familiarize yourself with why the term Narrativism has been used.

In fact, I have to assume from your arguments that you have no idea what any of it means. While I note you are using the GNS terminology in your responses, you are not using the terms as GNS has defined them -- by using the terms, but using your own definitions for them, you are doing the discussion a disservice. We cannot communicate until

This is my plea that you actually go and read up on the theory before continuing a discussion grounded in theory.

GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing is the first place to start. You can also find it, and a variety of other basic articles required for discussion of GNS, via the "Articles" link up top.
Then I suggest you peruse past threads in these forums which deal with the three modes.

In regards specifically to the issue of what a Narrativist GM would do, you're very confused. A Narrativist GM is not required to forgive or work around a character's weak defenses "for the purpose of a story" -- he can, in fact, ruthlessly exploit those weaknesses.

I believe you are basing your assumptions of what Narrativism is on old concepts of "storytelling games" and "ROLEplaying vs ROLLplaying" (at least that is what I am hearing in your arguments).

In Narrativism there is no story. Narrativism is predicated on the central conflict being moral/ethical choices, rather than a predefined or preconceived plot, or "what would be really cool if it happened, so I can't allow this to happen."

You know, I think the real problem is a lack of cooperation between players and GM. These powers are leading to 'The game ends in 5 minutes because we know everything' or 'The GM's creative drive is stymied because we just skipped a bunch of well crafted material, ie we saved 10 minutes and in the process hurt the GM's desire to perform'.

Really it could be better handled just by the GM saying before game "Okay, you guys have powers that could answer all questions in five minutes, probably and/or they'll mean you'll skip interested material. Now, if you guys do that and don't want the game to finish that quick/miss out on interesting stuff, your going to have to think about that when using the power...and when you do use them, I'm going to ask you how its still limmited enough so that it only advances you in a cool way and doesn't end the session. Let's co-operate so you can use the powers AND enjoy a solid and filling session."

Suppose I prefer Simulationism -- going along with this metagame intrusion into my character's behavior and the use of his abilities would seriously disrupt the truthfulness of the game's reality -- it would break my suspension of disbelief and thus ruin the experience of the game for me.

As a Gamist, imposing limitations on my tactical options solely for the sake of "more play time" would be counter to my entire desire for play, because progression through the game and meeting the challenges placed there to be overcome is what the game is all about for me.

As a Narrativist, I might balk at the idea that the point (the Premise) of play is being tampered with by artificial means solely for the observance of pre-existing (but as yet unplayed) events, thus rendering the entire exercise of examination futile or suspect because it is tainted by outside control factors.

So while your suggestion would work, what I believe you are suggesting here is a style of play known as "Illusionism" or, given that the players are notified ahead of time, "Participationism" (IIRC).

Quite frankly, I can't stand either (which isn't to say some people don't enjoy it). I, however, will read a book if I want this sort of experience.

My solution is to call for more rigorous GMing: if your players can "solve the mystery" in five minutes by use of a well-cast spell, well, you suck as a GM, or at least as the designer of adventures.

Step down and hand off to someone who can hack it, or learn some different ways to run a game -- such as basing play around player input and acting solely as a referee and guide/narrator, rather than a storyteller or "the guy with tonight's adventure" or in this case "the guy with interesting stuff."

It seems obvious to me that events which can be solved in five minutes by player use of granted powers means the adventure design itself is broken, simply for failing to take the game's own rules into account in its design, and thus relying on everyone "ignoring the man behind the curtain."

[Callan S.]

*snip*

You know, I think the real problem is a lack of cooperation between players and GM. These powers are leading to 'The game ends in 5 minutes because we know everything' or 'The GM's creative drive is stymied because we just skipped a bunch of well crafted material, ie we saved 10 minutes and in the process hurt the GM's desire to perform'.

Really it could be better handled just by the GM saying before game "Okay, you guys have powers that could answer all questions in five minutes, probably and/or they'll mean you'll skip interested material. Now, if you guys do that and don't want the game to finish that quick/miss out on interesting stuff, your going to have to think about that when using the power...and when you do use them, I'm going to ask you how its still limmited enough so that it only advances you in a cool way and doesn't end the session. Let's co-operate so you can use the powers AND enjoy a solid and filling session."

Suppose I prefer Simulationism -- going along with this metagame intrusion into my character's behavior and the use of his abilities would seriously disrupt the truthfulness of the game's reality -- it would break my suspension of disbelief and thus ruin the experience of the game for me.

Simulationism...in..mage? Okay, cheap shot there.

Okay, its quite simple. Just tell the GM you don't want to be this and instead be simulationist.

As a Gamist, imposing limitations on my tactical options solely for the sake of "more play time" would be counter to my entire desire for play, because progression through the game and meeting the challenges placed there to be overcome is what the game is all about for me.

Okay, its quite simple. Tell the GM you want that. In doing so you accept it might last only five minutes.

As a Narrativist, I might balk at the idea that the point (the Premise) of play is being tampered with by artificial means solely for the observance of pre-existing (but as yet unplayed) events, thus rendering the entire exercise of examination futile or suspect because it is tainted by outside control factors.

Okay, its quite simple. Tell your GM that you want to play this way.

The way I wrote it before, it was supposed to suggest a deal. And as you'd expect in a deal, it suggests the dealers prefered way is really good and cool. But it is still just suggesting a deal, not dogma.

So while your suggestion would work, what I believe you are suggesting here is a style of play known as "Illusionism" or, given that the players are notified ahead of time, "Participationism" (IIRC).

Quite frankly, I can't stand either (which isn't to say some people don't enjoy it). I, however, will read a book if I want this sort of experience.

No, its called collaboration. We cut a deal amongst ourselves as a group on how things work. You could still called that illusionism, but quite frankly if everyone is happy with deal made...what practical use is your terminology? It's railroading not to give the D&D characters a rocket ship so they can travel to the moon, even if no one else has rocket ships or even anything remotely like that. Maybe its illusionism if they don't realise the option to go to the moon isn't available. Or may be its just a deal.

My solution is to call for more rigorous GMing: if your players can "solve the mystery" in five minutes by use of a well-cast spell, well, you suck as a GM, or at least as the designer of adventures.

No, I suck IF they want to play in what I'll call 'players VS the GM's construct' and they win in five minutes. If part of the deal is that they take some responsibility for their actions/play, then it isn't my fault.

And if they agree to pick up some responsibility happily, well, what can you add?

Step down and hand off to someone who can hack it, or learn some different ways to run a game -- such as basing play around player input and acting solely as a referee and guide/narrator, rather than a storyteller or "the guy with tonight's adventure" or in this case "the guy with interesting stuff."

</rant>

It seems obvious to me that events which can be solved in five minutes by player use of granted powers means the adventure design itself is broken, simply for failing to take the game's own rules into account in its design, and thus relying on everyone "ignoring the man behind the curtain."

'player use of granted powers is always legit and not to be undermined'.

This is the way you like to play and what you would have in the deal (or whatever). You. Millions of other gamers might like the same or only a handful. But cut your own deal with your own group, because it sound like your telling me this is must be in every group deals. And I think that's far worse than a game session ending five minutes early. You are only suggesting it as one possible deal option, right?

Edited; because I always end up havinng to edit something.

[eyebeams]

Well, I've read the relevant material. I just reject it, is all. It's why I don't post in the GNS section. Having read it, I think Narravitism is mostly used because of legacy drag from USENET, not because of any essential merit that the word possesses.

Outside of GNS, the term "narrative" has a real meaning that can be applied to RPGs. I think it's a touch counterproductive to wholly relagate the term to GNS. For example, I'm interested in game development as a narrative project that has some interest parallels in postmodern literature, like Foucault's Madness and Civilization. Working with Mage across multiple developers, there's really been a multiplicity of narratives about what the game's about, where it's been and where it's going, from development, freelance and fan sources.

If I ever talk about this, I'm going to use the word "narrative" over and over again.

I'm also somewhat dismayed at the casual rejection of some of the classic ideas behind talking about roleplaying. It looks to me like this is counterproductive ivory-tower building. People *really do* have a sense that dice rolls sometimes interfere. They *really do* work on collaborative storytelling in their games. Ignore that, and you're basically talking about games in a manner that's not really relevant to most roleplayers.

Now as to the issue at hand: It's just bad GMing. But everyone miscaulculates and everyone had brain hiccups, so in that context, the solution is to collaborate with the players on a solution or toss a backup plan in. Wing it.

[M. J. Young]

I think Narravitism is mostly used because of legacy drag from USENET, not because of any essential merit that the word possesses.

Outside of GNS, the term "narrative" has a real meaning that can be applied to RPGs. I think it's a touch counterproductive to wholly relagate the term to GNS.

No one here has ever made any effort to restrict the use of the word "narrative" that I'm aware. In fact, I've been in a number of threads where wide use of that word has been encouraged.

However, my spell checker always chokes on "narrativist" and "narrativism"; but just in case that's a fault in the spell checker, I've run both on Dictionary.com. There are no definitions for these words. They are not words in the English language, and have no meaning.

That being the case, there's no reason why we cannot give them meaning.

As far as the "drag from Usenet" is concerned, Usenet used "dramatism" to describe that which Ron recast as "narrativism". His reasons for changing the term are, I believe, stated in System Does Matter, and make good sense. A term was needed for play which focused on developing stories by responding to issues and ideas (in contrast to those developed through action adventures and those developed through discovery). This is a distinct form of play, and vocabulary was needed to discuss and explore its parameters.

You seem to have serious objections to the core concepts of gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. Is it that you don't believe these modes of play exist, or that you don't believe players generally gravitate to one or another, or that you don't believe the compartments can be so broadly defined, or something else?

--M. J. Young

[greyorm]

Well, I've read the relevant material. I just reject it, is all.

Actually, Malcolm, the request to read the source material wasn't directed towards you, but towards Funksaw, who was using the GNS terminology in his statements, so I don't have much to say to you regarding that.

Also, you might do a search regarding the use of terminology like little-n "narrative" around here -- it doesn't simply get handed off to big-N "Narrativism." I know there are a couple threads covering this out there, but I can't think of them off-hand.

People *really do* have a sense that dice rolls sometimes interfere. They *really do* work on collaborative storytelling in their games. Ignore that, and you're basically talking about games in a manner that's not really relevant to most roleplayers.

And you are not making any points about anything that I've said or claimed, nor claims about what the participants in an RPG "*really do*" that anyone else on the Forge has ever made as far as I am aware.

However, regarding the situation at hand, I agree with your statement that the solution is to collaborate with the players on a solution, toss in a back-up plan, or simply wing it.

That must be examined in light of Callan's statement and my response to him, of course.

Callan, your statement is that problems with player powers overriding the GM's plot could be "better handled" by your method, and my response was that such a method would not be pleasing to all players, hence not handled better by your method, because the suggested method failed to take into account other desires.

Such methods as you have described have proven themselves to be extremely difficult to successfully negotiate repeatedly. It might work a few times out of a dozen, but it is going to be hit and miss because there is no base-line for understanding what will or will not "ruin" the plot or when "a good time" is unless the players are already privy to the plot ahead of time, and thus problems will definitely arise on a regular basis.

Simply, it doesn't work effectively for the exact same reason that "Can't we all just get along?" isn't a real solution to problems and does not consistently work, even among willing participants.

Sure, it would be nice if everyone could, but it isn't going to happen just because everyone decides they're going to get along with everyone else. There are much deeper issues that need understanding and resolution.

As well, you'll note your original method stated "better handled by the GM saying", not via group contract, so what the player wanted was not, apparently, even an issue.

Keep in mind that around here we don't go along with "what I MEANT to say" as an excuse -- you've said what you've said. Period. Now, if you're changing the methodology you're proscribing, then my previous response would have to be modified to take that into account.

However, as I stated, if it (illusionism or participationism) works for a group, if they are agreeable to such methods, then everything's just fine.

I say that, however, with my extensive experience that long-time gamers are so indoctrinated as to what they "should" want or expect from gaming that even when they say they "want" this certain thing they often don't, and whether they do or not will become obvious from watching their behavior during a game session.

Which ties into your question about terminology:

No, its called collaboration. We cut a deal amongst ourselves as a group on how things work. You could still called that illusionism, but quite frankly if everyone is happy with deal made...what practical use is your terminology?

I can't answer for you what the practical use of terminology is for you, other than to point out that pretty much every profession and career relies heavily on terminology for communication and clarification purposes. It serves the same purpose here.

My father once questioned me on what the value of physics was -- what the value of obtaining knowledge or understanding mathematical formulae describing how things work was. I didn't have an answer for him back then, not that I could vocalize (it seemed pretty obvious what the value was), but the answer is that knowledge leads to advancement and innovation; it leads to clear systemic understanding which can be put to good use.

So, in gaming, by clearly defining and understanding what it is we are doing, we can discuss and conclude what it is we would like and how we would like to go about getting there far more easily than without such terminology and exacting understanding.

And when we're already happy with out gaming, when we truly understand what it is we enjoy and why, we can focus on that experience much more concretely and derive greater enjoyment from it.

Finally, there are few to no groups out there which would not benefit from greater understanding among members: you can enjoy yourself a great deal more in a group catering to different styles of play when you understand from what and where Bob's behavior arises, and you can even contribute to help him enjoy his game more.

If part of the deal is that they take some responsibility for their actions/play, then it isn't my fault.

It isn't about "player responsibility" -- that's just a slippery slope to nowhere: "Well you guys could enjoy this if you'd just cooperate! (It's your own fault, not mine!)" Again, it is a rephrasing of "Can't we all just get along?"

But consider, your response to my statements about the difficulties inherent in your method was that the player should just tell the GM that he wants to play that way -- but then we are left with the original problem you crafted your method to deal with: how is the problem effectively dealt with?

I'm afraid you've provided a circular answer with your answer to my examination.

Considering that you admit you are ranting, it is time to step back and take a breather and really examine what exactly I said, not what you heard me say. Please examine statements in the full context of the discussion, not merely whatever is the best way to refute or challenge the latest statement.

'player use of granted powers is always legit and not to be undermined'.

This is exactly it, because I have never, ever in twenty years of gaming with a variety of groups met a player who is happy with having their given ability to affect the game undermined...unless the player is getting what they want out of the deal as well. A solution will generally not make a player happy, even when they go along with it, if they are not having their expectations of play met.

Someone preferring a Simulationist game mode may agree to some metagame interference in his choice of actions, but unless he actually wishes to play in a different mode, he may as well not be playing at all because his reasons for play are not being met.

[eyebeams]

Greyorn and MJ:

I think Funksaw was using Narrativism in a literary sense sense, not a threefold sense, and that it was a mistake to take him to task for his usage instaed of asking for clarification, establishing terms and then attempting to mediate.

Greyorn, I thought it was pretty obvious that you devalued traditional critical perspectives like concerns about the impact of dicerolling and "storytelling"; you practically derided them. I explained why I think that's a mistake.

MJ, I normally don't post here because I don't think my objections would really be relevant vis a vis people developing their ideas along GNS lines. If I reject the premise, I can't really contribute to its refinements.

But since you asked, I will respond, briefly:

Ron's article posits that a system must offer a form of exclusive satisfaction. It's a no-brainer to say that you can't please everyone all of the time, but his definition goes beyond that and says that an RPG design can't simultaneously satisfy the three three broad models of play that he identifies. I think it's too rigid and that it stifles discussion that derives from games that don't use it for these reasons, among others:

* The model assumes a degree of control over how an RPG is interpreted that most authors, including myself, would be very reluctant to assert. This is why successful RPG designs offer multiple redundant toolkits. There seems to be a sentiment here that such designs are "incoherent" or the result of errors. They aren't.

* I also believe that these formal categories don't reflect the dynamism of real gaming groups. Real gaming groups rarely have a stylistic mission. They bounce all over the place. GNS doesn't exploit this; indeed, it seems to take an explicit stance against it, by advising designers not to make allowances for that dynamism. In the games I run and play in people jmp from simulation to straightforward tactical play to ethical quandaries all the time. What GNS has been useful for is asking exactly how a game should model things that have traditionally been left as abstractions, but this isn't necessarily unqiue; Pendragon is an example of a game that raised the same kinds of issues.

Getting back to toolkit appraoches, they pop up because the group will want different toolsets to suit their mood. Sometimes you want a detailed simulation of computer hacking. Sometimes it's just a success/failure question meant to set up on dramatic set-piece or another. These happen with the same game and the same players, and in most cases, everybody is just fine with it. But according to GNS, this is "incoherent."

* The three categories tend to bleed into each other so thoroughly that the exceptions eventually fail to prove the rule. If I make all rolls in the open in a major combat and refuse to mediate chance with determinism, that's a sign that the combat is truly consequential, rather than spice. Players react accordingly and  are sometimes inspired to do a great deal of interior roleplaying about these consequences, and the rules engine, as a simulation of the world, is put to the test. What kind of play style is this, then? If we make any assertion about it, we doubtlessly won't cover the gamut of reactions to be found in my group -- and, I suspect, most groups.

There are other reasons, but again, I don't think it would really help people in this chunk of The Forge with whatever they're doing.

I think that players must be understood in terms of their complex subject position and how they mediate the experience at the table. I may write about this another time, but it doesn;t really have much to do with GNS, so it won't be here.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Malcolm, on the off-chance that you're interested, perhaps the bevy of misconceptions you've reeled off in that post will be laid to rest by this thread: The whole model - this is it.

Best,
Ron

[eyebeams]

With all due respect Ron, I don't believe this clarification addresses my specific concerns.

First of all, it still emphasizes the designer and text's authority (it's "creative agenda" -- the implication is that this ought to be tightly defined and that groups that want to digress into tengential styles of play should just be out of luck) too much to really fly with me.

Secondly, the creative agenda is problematic in of itself. I think it's trying to pit the square peg of a typical roleplaying group into the round hole of a consistent, relatively static social contract and shared vision. I believe that individual points of divergence are an asset, not a flaw (though it is of course possible to have too much of a good thing).

Your response to this objection (which seems to hash out in this forum as people saying that they're enjoying themselves) implies that objectors are either unknowingly following your model or are deceiving themselves. I don't think this is particularly persuasive.

Finally, I don't see anything where you retract your old assertion that different styles (such as the three braod ones in your model) that these equire elements to be excluded, rather then included.

Having quietly watched GNS discusssion evolve over the last few years, I think that at this point, GNS is better defined as a manifesto, not a theory. You have strong ideas about the way games ought to be designed and as a result, people have put together the odd excellent game, so there's certainly no shame in GNS as a manifesto. I just don't find the aspiration to totalize this manifesto useful or conducive to discussing what's actually going in in many games, especially if it's something like Exalted, which is both extraordinarily popular and doesn't adhere to GNS values.

A few years ago I talked to you about this on GO, and we agreed to disagree, because we look at this sort of thing from two fundamentally different methodologies (for one thing, I'm very interested in post-structuralist perspectives on gaming, which I recall you don't have any use for). So I continue to disagree, but I don't mean to cast aspersions on the validity of your project. I just can't get behind it.

[greyorm]

I think Funksaw was using Narrativism in a literary sense sense, not a threefold sense, and that it was a mistake to take him to task for his usage instaed of asking for clarification, establishing terms and then attempting to mediate.

This may be true, I'll leave it to Funksaw to clarify how he was using the term if he chooses to do so.

However, in a discussion about GNS terms and their impact on play, when an individual is using the same terms as everyone else, and when you consider the other GNS terms were also used by that individual in his the postings, I'm certain you can see why the assumption was made that he was speaking GNS. Otherwise, you rightly point out the path I should have followed in the exchange.

Greyorn, I thought it was pretty obvious that you devalued traditional critical perspectives like concerns about the impact of dicerolling and "storytelling"; you practically derided them.

All I can do is shrug and say, "Ok, if that's what you saw, that's what you saw."

I don't really have a clear picture of what you are getting at by the former, and by the latter I assume you mean my stance opposing the GM being the story-maker & teller -- yes, you're right, I do deride it, and with good reason.

As a player, I suffered years of abuse at the hands of such traditions of gaming -- and before you say "It was just a bad group," or otherwise attempt to handwave the problem away as an experience limited by various factors, I assure you that such occurred in a variety of groups, and that I myself was even responsible for it in a number of those instances.

I have seen more than one player ruined (many times to the point of being pushed out of the hobby) by it -- both long-time players and newcomers -- so it is a big concern of mine. I don't find railroading, blatant or obscured, to be a functional style of play whatsoever.

And that's really what this thread is about.

BTW, call me "Raven", please.

[greyorm]

This is an addendum to the above, an attempt to clarify exactly what is being discussed here between Malcolm and I.

You stated in your most recent post that:

I thought it was pretty obvious that you devalued traditional critical perspectives like concerns about the impact of dicerolling and "storytelling"

But in the post prior to that your disagreement was that I failed to take into account:

People *really do* have a sense that dice rolls sometimes interfere. They *really do* work on collaborative storytelling in their games.

So, which is it?

I am not seeing how we've gone from discussing one to the other (if we have), thus what has me confused is whether or not you are trying to go from the latter quote from the former quote (from "really do" to devaluing traditional concerns), using one in support of or as a restatement of the other.

As sated previously, the "really do" stuff you've claimed I'm ignoring in some fashion isn't being ignored by myself or anyone else at this site at all, and I even recall a couple of recent discussions on exactly those two subjects. Hence, the "really do" stuff doesn't make sense to me as a criticism.

As this means I am afraid there's nothing there connecting them that I can see, I am assuming we are either talking about one or the other. In which case, why have we suddenly jumped subjects? Particularly since the claim about devaluation was made without responding to my return point about the first criticism.

So, help me out: could you detail not the "why" of doing so (devaluating) is a mistake, but where and how I'm making these claims in the first place?

Before you do that, however, can you define the terms (what you mean by) "traditional critical perspectives", "the impact of dicerolling" and "storytelling"? As well as how the first relates to the second two. I'm trying to figure out precisely what you're stating I am devaluing which you find great use for.

Thanks!

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi all,

I put together my response to eyebeams/Malcolm's concerns about GNS-in-general in a new thread here .  If nothing else, maybe that'll help keep it out of this thread.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

As far as this thread is concerned, I really don't see that it's accomplishing much, or for that matter that it's about Narrativism or Illusionism.

It is now closed.

Best,
Ron