[Narrativism essay] Concept & excerpt

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Because in that instance, he's not talking about a style of play, he's talking about a way of writing stories.  At least, that was my interpretation.

If that's the case, I would point out that this is the method Stephen King prefers to use and outlined in his book On Writing. Love or hate him, he has a large body of work and a fan base that has allowed him to earn a living for several decades.

Obviously, something works in this.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Troy,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see it as one cant make a judgement about a recounting of events in a session/adventure without knowing specifics of the System (in this case Technics and Rules) and how the players used them. Right?

Right on the money. Assuming by "judgment" you mean GNS-analysis and by "events" you mean fictional events.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

The difficulty with that analysis is that it focuses on intention and motivation as explanatory variables.

You're right, and that's a good quibble.  The evidence of agenda is contained within the actual observable actions the players make at the table.  I have a question, though.  Are we not attempting to determine player intention and/or motivation when we do GNS analysis based upon play decisions/actions?  This is part of the reason why it takes a fairly large body of evidence in order to tease out an agenda, is it not?  Are we not attempting to draw conclusions about an internal state based upon external actions?

a) Sim-story arising "automatically" is very much like people who want to write novels by ... I'm sure there's a technical name for it ... enacting the fictional events through some kind of internal-cause logic, without "interference" from the writer. I consider it a vast waste of time.

I see the problem here.  I never said or implied that "internal-cause" logic means without "interference" from an author.  By "internal-cause" logic I meant something that does not violate the internal consistency of the fictional world at large.  That consistency could be either in reference to the physics of the world or the consistency of the "character" of the world.  I did not mean that all events must only arise out of the character space.  While the player's actions ought to be consistent with their character's motivations and personality (from a Sim game POV), the DM's actions can be based on a much wider area, that of the fictional world at large, including that portion which is beyond the characters' awareness.  The DM is free to bring in all sorts of story creating conflicts; the only proviso is that they need not break the arrow of time (internal causality).  World creation by the DM by itself does not break internal causality.  It only does so if it breaks precedent without an internally motivated/defensible reason.  Filling in "blanks" in the world is perfectly within the terms of "internal causality".  Conflicts are the building blocks of story creation, which conflicts the DM lays at the feet of the PC's shapes the nature of the story.  Creating or choosing which conflicts to present in game is not a passive process, but one that can be actively manipulated in order to create the most affective story possible.  How the PC's respond to the conflicts also impacts the direction of the story.  Both parties are involved in the narrative process, but neither have set about to create a specific story.  Rather the story is the product of the interaction of the conflicts and PC's.  Thus story is "automatically created" by the creative action of conflict and PC response.

I did not mean to imply that the narrative process arises from "automatically" from some sort of system.  In simulationist play the DM has the greatest responsibility for ensuring that conflict is created, but it is not in his hands alone.  The PC's are supposed to have motives to drive their characters forward as well.  The key here is that story is not overtly created as an end unto itself, but is rather the end product of motives put into action and the conflicts that arose and were met in the process.  These conflicts can arise from within the character space or without, it just works better, makes for a more interesting game, if the conflicts reflect something about the PC's.  There is nothing here that specifically prohibits "protagonist decision-making" by the PC's.  If a PC say's, "I want to build an empire," then the DM's job suddenly just got a lot easier.  To me, a DM's planned "scenario" should be treated as a plan "B" incase the PC's do not motivate themselves.

b) Sim-story works very nicely when Situation is locked and loaded prior to play, in the sense that most Call of Cthulhu games I've played have been so locked. The player-characters' decisions and actions are essentially taken as mildly wiggly pieces to fit into the existing puzzle.

The above seems to me a description of Illusionism.  To me Illusionism is more story telling than story creation as "protagonist decision-making" by the PC's are severely constrained and have little or no impact on story creation and thus little input on the already created story.  This style of play, I find, is too constraining for I like and want to have an impact on the fictional world.  It is one of the reasons I do play.  However, whatever makes the players happy is the "right way" to play.

c) Sim-story also works nicely, although it takes a lot of skill, when the GM constantly retro-fits and re-interprets events of a session just played to give them protagonist-like significance. The players discover how "important" they were in the next session.

There are a number of issues here, but I think it all boils down to the operative word, "important."  "Important," I believe, should be built into the conflicts presented, not bolted on as an after thought later.  "Important" should also be "culturally" influenced.  What's important to a Dunedain would be very different from what is important to a Hobbit, which in turn is very different from what would be important to a Khandian.  Again this is where the careful selection and creation of conflicts is a vital skill for the DM.  A stranger accusing a PC of murder has a completely different connotation if the accuser is a noble as opposed to a farmer.  The former could be the beginnings of a political intrigue story, the later a mystery or a story of mistaken identity.  To a paladin the repercussions of the accusation carry much more devastating effects than that of a thief accused.  For the paladin he must clear his name and also his faith while the thief must merely save his neck.  Again the protagonist decision-making is not specifically prohibited; it does have an "important" impact on the story creation process, and not just in a post game bolt-on fashion.

There is a method of Simulationist play that you did not mention.  It is one where the DM creates a locale with a number of motivated NPC's and drops in the PC's at a moment of crisis/decision.  The GM has no clear idea how things are going to resolve, as the actions of the PC's will have a vital effect on the unfolding of events.  The idea is to create a situation where lots of conflicts are present and the presence or actions of the PC's impacts them all.  This does not preclude the protagonist decision-making process as the PC's can still chose to go off in their own unanticipated direction.  Every decision has consequences, great or small, yet each decision creates a bit of story.  The idea of using motivated NPC's instead of pre-created plots is that there is more flexibility in such an arrangement.  If the PC's move off in unanticipated directions the NPC's can react in a fashion that is based upon desires and motives, not fixed plans.  

The nice thing about this style of play is that it inherently allows for protagonist decision-making processes.  This style of play is like a very intuitive dance between DM and Player with each partner passing off the lead to each other at the proper moments.  Each partner must pay close attention to the needs of the other; the DM to his players so he can construct conflicts that revolve around the interests of the players, the players to the DM in the form of trust and communicating intent.

In all cases this boils down to the player wanting to experience something.  Be it the life of noble knight or to just feel what it's like to be empowered as an ass-kicker.  This can be in a deeply "immersive" way or just wanting to feel what its like to do something that one can't do in real life, like being empowered enough to kick the crap out of bullies or one's boss!  Whatever the reasons, the desire to experience something by no means prohibits protagonist decision making by the players in any way.  One may wish to experience what its like to create a dynasty, and that is a process long on protagonism in my book!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

PS - as I look at this post I wonder if this is something that should be split as it deals with Simulationism and not Narrativism.  I apologize Ron if I took your thread in the wrong direction.

[pete_darby]

A, possibly beffuddling tuppence worth: to me, there are a couple of differences between N and S story making..

1. S story making tends to be an emrgent quality. Exploration of theme tends to produce recognisable stories as a by-product of the exploration. But any exploration produces what my teachers called a narrative, ie a series of events linked by a common protagonist. But any stories arising are emrgent from the act of exploration, and often "remembered" as stories by participants rather than being structured dramatically during actual play.

2. N story making arises from wanting to tell a story that matters to the participants... or, indeed, being in the kind of mood, having the kind of engagement with the theme, that the only satisfactory way for the players to continue is to address the premise through play. Sim exploration of theme can certainly lead to this, depnding on how the players engage with the theme, but needn't. I spend most of my time in HQ games at this level: even when dilemmas come in as Egri style permises, they're enagged on a sim level of theme.  Occassionally, we'll get grabbed by an issue that the answers matter to us. The techniques and ephemera shift to support premise, hero points get spent more freely, etc etc.

Like the oracle said in the good matrix movie "It's like being in love, you can't describe, you just feel it, balls to bones." That's the difference for me between N & S story telling, the difference between raising an eyebrow like Spock and saying "fascinating," and playing while feeling like you've got a spear in your guts twisting a story out of you.

[Ian Charvill]

Pete

1. I think it would be more correct to say theme is an emergant quality of sim play rather than story (with the caveat that theme can be preloaded cf Call of Cthulhu).  

2. I think just speaks to preferences.  The foregrounding of moral issues, for me, always runs the risk of kicking me out of the imagined space.  It can have the effect of distancingme from the story.

I think it's Chris Kubasilik that keeps talking about doing a thread to demonstrate that N story-telling is superior to S story-telling.  I'm kind of curious to see his arguments, but for me I think it'll just come down to different strokes for different folks.  Narrativism will tend to produce stories that will be more compelling to people with narrativist tendencies.  I'm rather dubious of the idea that there will ever be any way of objectively arguing for the superiority or inferiority of a particular story.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm rather dubious of the idea that there will ever be any way of objectively arguing for the superiority or inferiority of a particular story.

I'm inclined to agree, Ian, unless we can find an objective mean to examine and judge the parts of a story and, by this criteria, be able to say if story X is better made than story Y.

Unfortunately, roleplaying is a temperary temporal art. It's played and then it's gone. I suppose we could video tape sessions, but I really have no interest in do so. Anyone?

[John Kim]

I'm inclined to agree, Ian, unless we can find an objective mean to examine and judge the parts of a story and, by this criteria, be able to say if story X is better made than story Y.

Unfortunately, roleplaying is a temperary temporal art. It's played and then it's gone. I suppose we could video tape sessions, but I really have no interest in do so. Anyone?  

I think even this wouldn't be definitive.  Lisa Padol makes this point in her essay on http://www.recappub.com/games.html">Collaborative Storytelling in RPGs.  As she puts it, the "text" of the RPG is not the transcript.  If you judge by a videotape of the session, then the best games will be those where the players present a story to the camera rather than presenting a story to themselves.  The play is itself the text, meaning that it depends on the context and the people playing.  

I think that the only meaningful test is that people should try different techniques and systems.  Then they can decide for themselves what sort of stories they enjoy.  Now, techniques and systems aren't themselves GNS modes -- but there is no way to automatically change GNS modes.  One can only try different approaches and see if your mode changes.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Good discussion, everyone. I was looking at the post-count on this thread and kind of rolling my eyes, wondering whether I should come in and close it, but as it turns out .... no. This is very interesting all 'round.

One point for Jay. Jay, you wrote:

There is a method of Simulationist play that you did not mention. It is one where the DM creates a locale with a number of motivated NPC's and drops in the PC's at a moment of crisis/decision. The GM has no clear idea how things are going to resolve, as the actions of the PC's will have a vital effect on the unfolding of events. The idea is to create a situation where lots of conflicts are present and the presence or actions of the PC's impacts them all. This does not preclude the protagonist decision-making process as the PC's can still chose to go off in their own unanticipated direction. Every decision has consequences, great or small, yet each decision creates a bit of story. The idea of using motivated NPC's instead of pre-created plots is that there is more flexibility in such an arrangement. If the PC's move off in unanticipated directions the NPC's can react in a fashion that is based upon desires and motives, not fixed plans.

The nice thing about this style of play is that it inherently allows for protagonist decision-making processes. This style of play is like a very intuitive dance between DM and Player with each partner passing off the lead to each other at the proper moments. Each partner must pay close attention to the needs of the other; the DM to his players so he can construct conflicts that revolve around the interests of the players, the players to the DM in the form of trust and communicating intent.

That would most likely be Narrativist play, my friend. It's practically impossible actually to run a player-character in such a game without getting into a Premise of some sort.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think even this wouldn't be definitive.  Lisa Padol makes this point in her essay on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.recappub.com/games.html">Collaborative Storytelling in RPGs</a>.  As she puts it, the "text" of the RPG is not the transcript.  If you judge by a videotape of the session, then the best games will be those where the players present a story to the camera rather than presenting a story to themselves.  The play is itself the text, meaning that it depends on the context and the people playing.

I'm going to disagree with you here, John, on a couple points.

First off, yes roleplaying is presented to the players to be able to examine it at all, we need to be able to observe it. It's difficult to do so while playing because while playing you're supposed to be in the imagined space. Hence why we should never be surprised that most recountings of actual play will go like the first post in this thread. The players were not sitting at the table rolling dice and talking. They were in the imagined space. Do you watch the audience when you go to the movies? If so, they you should save your money and stare at people for free on the street.

So, in observing the session we have two problems:
First, observing and in some way recording the behaviors of the players to spot the giveaways on the GNS priorities. Here the players don't have to play to the camera so much as do what they do, sort of like a documentary.
The other is recording the story, such as it is, as it is made during play. That is, we want the first draft of the story, not third of fourth draft as the player repiece together what happened during the session from memory. Memory is unreliable, especially for our purposes here. The players don't have to play to the camera here, either. The camera is more a fly-on-the-wall while we eavesdrop, and can see the story, such as it is, that is formed from play.

This is what I was thinking, so I don't see what your objects to it are.

That said, I wouldn't want to be filmed such nor review the tapes. That's just me.

[qxjit]

In response to Jay's example of dropping the PC's into a moment of crisis,

That would most likely be Narrativist play, my friend. It's practically impossible actually to run a player-character in such a game without getting into a Premise of some sort.

Just to clarify for my own sake, Ron -- when you say that such a game would "most likely" be Narrativist, you are not ruling out the possibility of playing it Simulationist (exploration of Character or Situation probably).  Simply running into a Premise doesn't constitute Narrativist play.  We can't really say much about the mode of play in such a game without info about the decisions actual players made (which is the whole point of this thread).

[John Kim]

The other is recording the story, such as it is, as it is made during play. That is, we want the first draft of the story, not third of fourth draft as the player repiece together what happened during the session from memory. Memory is unreliable, especially for our purposes here. The players don't have to play to the camera here, either. The camera is more a fly-on-the-wall while we eavesdrop, and can see the story, such as it is, that is formed from play.

This is what I was thinking, so I don't see what your objects to it are.

OK, let me try to clarify. Let's say that you consider what is seen from the camera to be the "real" story. The result will be that the better story becomes that which looks better to the camera.  i.e. Suppose I GM for two groups of players.  The first do as you say and they don't play to the camera.  The second know about the camera and keep in mind that they want to make the story clear to the camera rather than just to themselves.  I claim that the second will have a better story.  

However, I also claim that this shouldn't be considered the real story of an RPG.  The real story is in the minds of the players.  The same is true in all other media as well.  The end product isn't the physical book itself, but the understanding that happens when people read it.  For example, suppose a horror book fires the imagination of millions of people.  Everyone says that it describes some terrifying thing.  However, then some stodgy critic comes along and says that actually the content isn't interesting, it is just that people are adding in their own imaginings. He proves this by interviewing people and showing that they all actually have different pictures of what the horror is -- and in fact those are just things which they are afraid of.  I would say that the critic is wrong, and that the book should fire the imagination.  

In an RPG, the authors are in direct interaction with the readers as the story progresses.  So the participants can target directly who their audience are, to fire their imaginations -- for example, by making horrors which are personally frightful.  But this sort of specialization means that the action won't play as well to a general audience who watch the videotape.  

But even beyond that, the authors are the readers.  Ultimately, what the players find satisfaction in will be not what physically occurred, but what happened in their own imaginations.  Now, obviously the words of the session are important for this, but one shouldn't confuse the means for the end.

[Silmenume]

That would most likely be Narrativist play, my friend. It's practically impossible actually to run a player-character in such a game without getting into a Premise of some sort.

If you would be so inclined, could you explain to me what about that style of game would most likely be Narrativist?  I ask because what I described is primarily what I play.  The game is over 20 years old, I have been playing it for over 6, but in all that time nothing has really ever come up in conversation about premise.  We are fiercely Sim oriented; the catch phrase of the game being, "play your character."

I could be wrong about the analysis of the game so that is why I am asking you what I should be looking for.  What is it about that method of play that tends to drive towards Premise?

Thanks for you time.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[pete_darby]

Pete

1. I think it would be more correct to say theme is an emergant quality of sim play rather than story (with the caveat that theme can be preloaded cf Call of Cthulhu).  

Well, I meant what I said for a given value of "story": that is, that stories will be told be players about the events of a sim (or gam, for that matter) game, but the resultant story is an emergent by product of the actual play.

2. I think just speaks to preferences.  The foregrounding of moral issues, for me, always runs the risk of kicking me out of the imagined space.  It can have the effect of distancingme from the story.

I think it's Chris Kubasilik that keeps talking about doing a thread to demonstrate that N story-telling is superior to S story-telling.  I'm kind of curious to see his arguments, but for me I think it'll just come down to different strokes for different folks.  Narrativism will tend to produce stories that will be more compelling to people with narrativist tendencies.  I'm rather dubious of the idea that there will ever be any way of objectively arguing for the superiority or inferiority of a particular story.

I absolutely agree that N-style address of premise can, and often does, lead to disengagement from the "dream," in that the the exprience of the players is priveliged over the authenticity of the characters. Whcih is why a lot of players attempting to drift from S to N run into problems when they assume N will give them some sort of "super-hit" of engagement with the dream, whereas it often leads to a level of disengagement with the imagined lives of the characters as part of the engagement of the internal lives of the players.

Good N play will, of necessity, be more engaging for the participants, since good N play is about what the players care about. Whether that produces stories that a person outside the group gives two hoots about, has a decent narrative structure, or even looks like a story, is irrelevant and a terrible red herring for analysis of S and N strengths.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread is splitting around all over the place ...

Regarding my comments, which I suspected were going to cause some wide eyes and fluttering fingers:

1. Jay: nothing must "come up in conversation" about Premise. That is a key point. The human mind addresses Premise extremely easily and without self-reflection. Doing so is often expressed, relative to role-playing, as "playing my character."

In other words, there are thousands of role-players out there playing Narrativist who would not self-identify as doing so if they wrongly look for some kind of abstract awareness of the Premise as the indicator.

The play-activities you describe can go one of two ways: (a) nothing happens, as everyone wanders all 'round Doing His Thing without any particular reverberations or feedback from one another or from the in-game environment; (b) Premise gets addressed in all sorts of ways via the conflicts that become important to the players, mediated through the "filter" of "important to my character."

This issue is discussed in detail in the Narrativist essay. To discuss your game in more detail, and to see whether it's (a) or (b), we'd have to take it to a different thread - and with respect, I think it will require a better understanding, post-essay, on your part of what I'm saying. For now, I'll point out the phrase "protagonist decision-making process" and the trust-feedback as indicating most likely (a).

2. Qxjit: correct. You'll note the "most likely" and other qualifiers in my post. They were not merely place-holders. They really mean "most likely" and "almost" and stuff like that, for exactly the reasons you stated.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Thank you Ron!

I can clearly see just how little I do know about Narrativism.  I eagerly look forward to reading the final essay!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume