The Forge Archives

Over in Writing Style, Detail, and Simulationism

Quote from: VincentIan, can you come up with a case where pursuing Story Now might damage the Dream? I can't. Story Now depends on consistent, plausible, faithful Exploration, same as the Dream does. (It's easy to come up with cases where pursuing the Dream doesn't live up to Story Now, because Story Now depends on Exploration + Addressing Premise, not Exploration alone.) Maybe a new thread, if you feel like it?

Ok - the game is 4th Age Middle Earth, the premise is "What will we sacrifice to rebuild a shattered world?" and the setting is a village in Rohan, put to the torch by Saruman insipred wild men of the the hill types.  Everyone is busy addressing the premise and making good with the themes.

Then some of the guys settle down and watch Return of the King and at the end someone says "The elves leave along with Bilbo and Frodo.  The other hobbits rebuld the shire, then move to Kent and star is HE Bates novels.  The Ents all die cos they can't find the Ent wives.  It is the Age of Man.  WTF happens to the dwarves?"  This kind of gets everyone's curiosity.

So next session do we - (A) stick around in the village in Rohan and address premise or (B) explore the whole - and wholly unrelated to premise - issue of WTF happened to the dwarves.

Story Now (A) vs The Right to Dream (B).

I would say one of the most literary effects of Premise is to strip away superflous exploratory material - if it doesn't address premise, we don't explore it.  I'm arguing that this fact means that premise will impinge upon and limit exploration in ways that would be unfun to a pure simulationist.

What do you think? (Anyone should feel free to answer this not just Vincent - this is all just kicking ideas around)

[Caveats and Asides 1 - I'm a Peter Jackson fan not a Tolkein fan, and the fact that Tolkein may have written what happened to the dwarves somewhere has no bearing on the example cos the players in my example are just as dumb and ignorant as I]

How will sticking around in Rohan and leaving the fate of the Dwarves unexamined damage the Dream?

Ditching out of Rohan and chasing some other part of the Dream might very well mess up the Story Now, that's obvious.  But if we stay in Rohan, will somebody go, "dude, that wouldn't happen, you're totally messing up my in-game"?

-Vincent

I think that, generally, you're right, Ian. That is, there do come times where the game goes generally one way or another, and conflcit between the styles occurs. And your example could be one - but there's always a problem with these sorts of examples. Which is that someone will come along and point out that "what happened to the dwarves?" could mutate into lots of narrativist premises at any time. So, then we say, "But in the example we meant that they decided to go Sim." But then that's tautological, isn't it? Your example shows an exception to Vincent's supposition only if it's defined as an exception.

The real question comes back, IMO, to the idea of Instances of Play. That is, I agree that you can characterize play in blocks that are Sim or Nar. But when you look at smaller parts, you see that there are those fluctuations where the players are actually going back and forth on a smaller scale. Which is why I say that the idea that these things must conflict is irrelevant.

Because, the conflicts, when they occur, seem to me to only occur in the short term. That is, you can easily, IMO, decide on a "nearly-Hybrid" CA that works in all cases as long as players agree to it. Which is to say, "Play with X level of Sim Dream, and play with Y level of dedication to Story Now, and if/when they conflict, do ABC." Where ABC is to either Go Sim or go Nar in those cases. It can even be to discuss it in some cases.

Now, I think that Ron would say that the ABC that you decide upon edges the game into the territory of either S or N. Hence why I call it "nearly-Hybrid", and not truely Hybrid. The point, however, is that you can get "close enough" in play to really satisfy both urges over the long run for a group of players who really want both.

This has been my understanding of things for a while now. I've tried to put it out there in many different ways. It really doesn't change anything with GNS, other than to point out that I think that "pure play" is actually rare, and only suitable for those who really, really dislike some element in their play. For others, near-hybrids can be perfectly coherent.

So, yes, technically I side with Ian. But in spirit I'm with Vincent.

Mike

Hello,

And let's not forget that ditching Rohan doesn't automatically mean that people will not do Story Now somewhere else (i.e. as they see fit), with that "somewhere else" having a solid basis in Exploration too.

I'm not seeing the dichotomy you're trying to portray, Ian. Not at all. Either the people want to address Premise, or they don't, and where they do it is irrelevant.

You're trying to contrast Narrativism and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any.

Vincent was absolutely right when he stated how Exploration relates to Narrativism. I'll summarize:

[Exploration] in isolation = not role-playing yet

[Exploration]-squared, to the exclusion of other priorities = Simulationism

[Exploration [address Premise]] = Narrativism

[Exploration [Step On Up]] = Gamism

So trying to dichotomize Exploration with Narrativism is meaningless.

Conclusion #1: hey, wait, we play Narrativist already! Right. It's more common than people think.

Conclusion #2: hey, wait, we make stories but don't play Narrativist! Right. That happens too.

Best,
Ron

I should make clear:

There's conventional wisdom here at the Forge that sometimes you have to compromise your character or your setting or your situation in order to effectively address Premise.  That is, sometimes pursuing Story Now means you damage the Dream.

My position is that no Story Now was ever served by compromising the integrity of the Dream.  In fact, damaging the Dream is a sure way to block Story Now.  Any Star Trek TNG fan can tell you: the sucky episodes are the ones where they didn't handle the characters or the setting or the in-world history with integrity.  Egri'd say the same.

So what I'm asking Ian for is a case where addressing Premise would be both a) satisfying and b) "unrealistic".  I can't think of one.  Lots of cases where doing something "realistic" wouldn't address Premise, but none where addressing Premise could violate the Dream.

Don't read this as saying that Simulationism doesn't exist.  It does.  It's where you're not supposed to address Premise or Step Up.  That's what Ron's "[Exploration]-squared, to the exclusion of other priorities" means, right?

-Vincent

Oh, and here I thought that Ian was talking about the Sim/Nar dichotomy.

Still, the point almost makes sense in this context. :-)

Mike

Hmmm

I was looking at the impact on addressing premise on the broad priority of the right to dream - i.e. the right to follow up on whatever aspects of the dream that are compelling to you.  So Mike was reading me right about the Sim/Nar dichotomy, and I was misreading Vincent's point.

In which case I don't think there's any disagreement here, just crossed wires.  My example was just "a gaming group choses sim priorities over narrativist ones" rather than about the dream being broken per se.

Addendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it?  Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

[Which as I type it, in the interests of full disclosure, may be a nagging doubt of mine vis-a-vis narrativism, being from the if-you-want-to-send-a-message-send-it-western-union school of thought]

Okay, lemme start by saying that I agree fully with Vincent in both this and his post that this thread was spawned from.  Well, I may have to wrestle him over whether Sim exists or not, but that depends on what is implied by  "exists" and isn't germane to this thread.

Enter Evil Jason (do you like my goatee?):

Sacrificing the dream for the sake of theme is quite common in media.  Star Trek has already been brought up, and I think it's a great example so I'll stick with it.  How many episodes of Star Trek have you seen where they had some sort of crisis down on the planet that they could have easily solved with some sort of gadget you know they have?  The transporter and the comms spring to mind as the most common candidates.  Alas, no.  Every backwater planet has froonium in the cave walls, or electrostatic interference that doesn't cause anything to cease functioning except the device in question (plus this interference never gives anyone a headache? or cancer?).  Or, why do aliens all speak fluent english - even if they don't have space flight?  

Because, in order to address the theme, and keep highlighting it, sacrifices in consistency must sometimes be made.  The crisis on the planet is the theme.  Just ending the problem via wizardry doesn't require the characters to make difficult decisions, even if it would be the most consistent and sensible thing for the characters to do.

That's how addressing the premise can damage the dream.

Enter Good Jason (clean shaven and dashing):

All the things Evil Jason mentioned are kludgey hacks to make a given premise fit into a setting it was not meant to.  Those things may have been necessary to make a TV show work, but they actually serve to hinder the addressment of theme, as Vincent has already mentioned.  Premise is always served by the explored elements, because theme is imbedded in exploration [Exploration [Creative Agenda]].  Pulling the audience away from exploration also severs their link to the theme.  Evil Jason puts the cart before the horse.

Enter Everyday Jason (scruffy and kind of a jackass):

Well, that's the best I could come up with right now.

Jasons, exactly right.  Ever notice how bad Star Trek sucks?  Ever notice how froonium just drains the ever-loving life out of whatever it touches, especially theme?  After those episodes, instead of us being all like "yeah! Didja see how much ass Worf kicks, especially when he said that thing? And how gripping Troi's scene with the Troohovians was?" we're all like "that was ass!  How come they didn't just refangle the tricorders like last week?  And who writes Troi's dialogue, a misanthrope?"

Ian, interesting addendum.  Can you say more about it?

-Vincent

Quote from: Ian CharvillAddendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it?  Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

Wanted to respond to this too.

That sounds more like a question of breaking Immersion (SimSpecImm I believe here).  Which, though concerns over Immersion are often present in alleged Sim play, Immersion does not equal the dream.  My view, (credit to M.J. Young) is that Immersion is just a Technique (or Ephemera - I haven't really decided where specifically I think it falls yet).

Hello,

Ian, you wrote,

QuoteAddendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it? Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

Unfortunately, your re-phrasing of the question in the second sentence almost completely baffles me. I'll deal with the first phrasing, which I think I understand.

Sure, that's possible. I usually find it to be supportive of the next set of shared attention to the imaginary events - kind of like everyone breaking the surface of the water and inhaling deeply, then plunging back down there again. The same thing goes for a certain kind of humor, the kind that engages and draws people closer, rather than distances them. And the same thing goes for certain kind of tangents, where we find ourselves referencing some other art or fictional events because our role-playing just established an emotional connection/memory to it (usually as a contrast).

The second sentence, though, seems to miss this potential positive effect and focus on some kind of loss or decreased potency. I think this may arise from the textual role-player's horror of "ceasing to imagine" - which I've never really understood well.

Is there a negative version of the effect you're talking about? Sure - humor and tangents that serve as distancers or distracters* are just what they sound like. I suggest that's definitely an issue for any play, but I don't see it as especially likely because relevant concerns are embedded in the material. Maybe it is for some folks, I dunno.

But here's another commonly-voiced fear about this "breaking Exploration" apprehension. Conceivably, let's say a group of thespians (directors, producers, actors, writers, crew, everyone) were suddenly to cease in the middle of a performance and discuss, "Hey, that invokes the essential conflict of sibling rivalry vs. kin-loyalty for me, how about you?" Or a bunch of jazz musicians stop playing and just ram into a technical discussion of how that grace-note or this harmonic did whatever it did.

What's my take on that? I've never seen such a thing happen during a theater performance, a musical jam session, or Narrativist role-playing.* It seems to be a baseless concern.

Best,
Ron

* Arguably, the tendency to break others' concentration by referring to other pop culture stuff is worthwhile topic for discussing dysfunctional Simulationist play, something that I didn't include in my Simulationism essay. This is the famous "Monty Python" problem.

** I specify to Narrativist role-playing because that's the particular manifestation that's being discussed. I could make this point regarding pretty much any emotionally-absorbing role-playing.

Quote from: lumpleyMy position is that no Story Now was ever served by compromising the integrity of the Dream.  In fact, damaging the Dream is a sure way to block Story Now.  Any Star Trek TNG fan can tell you: the sucky episodes are the ones where they didn't handle the characters or the setting or the in-world history with integrity.  Egri'd say the same.

So what I'm asking Ian for is a case where addressing Premise would be both a) satisfying and b) "unrealistic".  I can't think of one.  Lots of cases where doing something "realistic" wouldn't address Premise, but none where addressing Premise could violate the Dream.  

Don't read this as saying that Simulationism doesn't exist.  It does.  It's where you're not supposed to address Premise or Step Up.  That's what Ron's "[Exploration]-squared, to the exclusion of other priorities" means, right?  

Hoo boy.  This is an old argument from rgfa.  David Berkman would argue that Theatrix was just as realistic as all the "realistic" RPGs, plus it has the added benefit of supporting story.  Similarly, you say that Simulationism is pursuing "the Dream", but that Narrativism does just as good a job at the Dream plus has Story Now in addition.  This means that Narrativism is uniformly superior, since it adds Story Now but loses nothing of the Dream compared to Simulationism.  

I'm not sure whether you're saying this, but I can tell you what I replied to David Berkman.  The problem with his claim was the assumption that in order to violate realism, there has to be a single atomic action which is in gross violation -- i.e. flatly contradictory to character, logically flawed, unrealistic, or what have you.  However, I would say that realism consists of more than just avoiding gross violations.  There are visible patterns to play.  Even if no single action is grossly wrong, play as a whole can seem unrealistic because it shows clearly-visible signs of choreographed story (which is certainly true in Theatrix).  

Indeed, the whole point of many mechanics (plot points, whimsy cards, story-based bonuses) is to change the game compared to purely reality-based resolution.  If these didn't visibly change play, there wouldn't be any point.  So they do make a visible difference in the Dream compared to purely reality-based resolution.

Quote from: John KimEven if no single action is grossly wrong, play as a whole can seem unrealistic because it shows clearly-visible signs of choreographed story (which is certainly true in Theatrix).  

I don't know about that. What are clearly-visible signs of choreographed story? I am unfamiliar with Theatrix or how that game works.

[EDITED to add the phrase "one part of" regarding Exploration and the human mind]

John (and all),

I *think* your rgfa problem does not actually apply here - because the claim is not that Nar does Sim as well as Sim does, it is that *any* roleplaying can do Exploration as well as any other roleplaying.  Sim (Exploration Squared) does not equal Exploration.  Vincent is wrong to say the integrity of The Dream is vital to Nar play - integrity of the Exploration is what's required.  It's a subtle distinction, but (I think) a VITAL one to GNS, without which the model falls apart.

This is why *totally* caring about the integrity of the Exploration (Immersion?) isn't in and of itself a GNS priority.  "To the exclusion of other priorities" is a very important component in Ron's analysis a few posts back.

I do find Vincent's claim (reworded and "downgraded" by me) that a lapse in the integrity of Exploration *never* helps the prioritization of Story Now (or Step On Up?) to be a bit broad.  My cut at it is that the integrity of the Exploration is NEVER a 100% thing, there is always SOME sort of acceptance of "this is just what we are imagining," and the degree to which you need to approach 100% will vary by situation and by taste across individuals/groups.  Sometimes, being willing to let the gap between your Exploration and that imaginary 100% integrity stretch a bit - but still be good enough to get the job done - can be useful in pursing Nar.  To the extent that Vincent means "you still care - deeply, and importantly - about Exploration when you're doing Nar," I agree, but I think that's a different thing than saying every compromise to the integrity of the Exploration is going to hurt your Nar.  Particularly if you're talking about a particular, practical situation that actual play has brought you to, as opposed to an ideal goal to strive for.

Perhaps obviously, plainly prioritizing the Exploration - doing Sim - can interfere with Nar.  I point this out here to make it clear that this integrity of the Exploration is NOT directly a GNS isssue.  Again, the distinction - Prioritization of Exploration (to the exclusion of other priorities) is a GNS CA.  Maintining (in various manners, and to various degrees) the integrity of Exploration is not.

I think what we are getting into here is one part of the nature of the human mind's engagement with Exploration - what people often speak of as "suspension of disbelief."  As I recall (from earlier discussion here, and literature studies way back when), that's from Coleridge (and is more fully "willing suspension of disbelief").  If I remember right, Keats called it our "Negative Capacity" - to what degree are we able to prevent the unavoidable unreality of a creation from interfering with our apprehension of capital-A-Art.

I'm not sure if either term is really appropriate to RPGs.  I think Ron disliked "suspension of disbelief" intensely, and I recall his arguments as fairly compelling.  But after the Nar essay was out, I was thinking of starting a thread about those issues - maybe "what are the various factors, no doubt varying by situation and individual/group taste, that determine whether or not 'enough' engagement with Exploration is happening?"  Because (consistent with a trend in my posting of late) my guess is that one of the best ways to keep people from bringing inappropriate issues inside of GNS CA is to clearly discuss them as important issues - which they are - seperately from CA.  We'll have to acknowldge where they touch CA, but that doesn't make 'em part of one.

Hope that makes sense to folks,

Gordon

Exactly John.  That's the "on purpose" part of Narrativism.  Story on Purpose contradicts the very point of Simulationism.