The Dream vs Story Now!

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

"To the exclusion of other priorities"

I wonder if there's something there.

Consider Bill, Margret and Jeff playing... I dunno, a roleplaying game. They all prefer Simulationism and are trying to live that dream. But

Bill says to Mar "Hey, that's a clearly-visible sign of choreographed story. You're ruining the dream for me."

Mar says to Jeff "Hey, you're using too much strategy and tactics. You are ruining the dream for me."

Jeff says to Bill "Hey, that's a clearly-visible sign of choreographed story. You're ruining the dream for me."

I purposely had Bill have a problem with Mar and Jeff have a problem with Bill in the area of "clearly-visible signs of choreographed story" to illustrate the point (I don't know if strategy and tactics is a good boil-down of Gamism, but so long as you get the point, I guess)

[Gordon C. Landis]

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

Well, I'd rather stick with prioritized Story Now rather than go to Story on Purpose, but I thought I'd establish that I certainly agree it (Nar, by whatever descriptor) contradicts the very point of Sim.  My last post shouldn't be seen as contradicting Ralph's "Exactly John" on that issue.  Just in case,

Gordon

[Gordon C. Landis]

Jack -

I think - Yes.

"For me" confused me a bit, as it sounded like a sign of selfish a "make me happy, dammit!" attitude that has nothing to do with GNS, but I think it could also be a constructive acknowledgement that what is a problem for me ain't neccessarily a problem for you, so . . .

Yes.

Gordon

PS - That "problem for me ain't neccessarily one for you" thing?  That's why just knowing you all like Sim doesn't mean all the work needed to get enjoyable play is done.  One man's tiny intrusion of non-prioritized story into The Dream is one woman's unforgiveable trespass against it.

[Jason Lee]

I think it might be worth it to throw out a few qualifiers.

Good Jason in his reply to Evil Jason (who I think is in fact, simply misunderstood - not Evil) overstates the value of realism, and is overly harsh of Star Trek for not adhering to it.  It would require superhuman ability to truly remain consistent, especially during the collaborative authoring found in RPGs.  This does not however prevent you from committing to the explored elements, just from being perfect at it.  

Adhering to the integrity of Exploration, for me, refers to the integrity of whatever abstract concepts are being explored.  A tricorter isn't a scientific instrument.  It is a box with blinking lights the character can point at something, it makes sounds, and yields some fancy sounding information; oh, and it may also lose its properties if the key phrase 'electrostatic interference' occurs.  Most often this is used as an excuse to justify the character knowing something or deciding to do something.  (I've been asked in our game, "What does a scanner do anyway?".  This was my reply.)  So, maintaining integrity with the fictional concept 'tricorter' means not breaking the above rules.  If you've got a tricorter, and you need some fancy sounding information to get through the situation, it'd be internally consistent to use it, right?

Remaining consistent with Character (or whatever element you fancy) doesn't necessarily mean everything about the character, just the character elements that contribute to the premise (little 'p').  Let's say your character says he's from Omaha one week and two months later says he's from Boise.  You knew you said Omaha to begin with, but just liked Boise better for whatever crazy reason floated to the top of your brain.  If there is no meaningful change (Omaha doesn't carry thematic weight), then you aren't really violating the integrity of the element, because that detail isn't part of the premise (little 'p').  However, in my experience, the actually amount of the thematic weight an element carries can be very small for it to qualify for integrity violation.  I don't imagine alleged Sim play has to remain perfectly consistent with all elements, or pieces thereof, either - just with the Exploration focus.

The way I see it, yes it does break the model.  But, that's not a valid argument.  I've been trying to find a way, that makes sense to me, for it not to, and haven't gotten there.  Because consistency is valid and necessary for Nar, all 'Exploration to exclusion of other priorities' says to me that you're just driving by the Creative Agenda layer and flipping it off.  MJ Young in particular, but others as well, deserve credit for providing consistently convincing examples of the existence of the play Sim is meant to define.  So I've got this style of play I know exists, and a definition for it I know doesn't (both 'knows' being non-absolute).  I'm sure I'll be back to beat this horse, after the Nar essay comes out, and the vultures have picked the flesh from its bones.  I've surely spent too much time in a place that isn't the point of the thread already, it's just hard not to end up there.

Lastly, wow... that's a lot of commas.

[lumpley]

John and Ralph, you're reading me exactly the way I asked you not to.  Which I'll try again, but hey, please.

Simulationism is where you're not supposed to address Premise or Step On Up.  If you reliably, consistently address Premise (as in the parent thread), you're playing wrong.  You're breaking the game.  Exactly as you're saying, John, when you talk about patterns over time.

Anyhow you can stop trying to defend to me that Simulationism exists.  You can't play Narrativist and Simulationist at the same time, I get that.

Gordon, I thought hard before using "the Dream" to mean Exploration, and I decided to, and here's why: Simulationism is "the Right to Dream."  Dream=Exploration, the Right to=squared.

Otherwise I agree with you and Jason that tolerance for Star Trekitude is set locally, and is a separate issue.  The willingness of a Tolkeinesque group to accept inconsistencies in character and setting will be less than the willingness of a group emulating Star Trek, for instance, whether either group is playing Narrativist, Simulationist or Gamist.

-Vincent

[Ian Charvill]

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?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to see what I was getting at there - and people's responses vis-a-vis immersion are spot on.  But to try to shed some light on the second part (I'm not claiming that this was what I was saying all along, I'm very much thinking aloud).

There are certain types of plays, capital I issue plays, where the premise of the play is so damn obvious that from the first scene you're fully aware of it and either agreeing with it or disagreeing with it.  From then on you can't engage with the characters because they're just thinly veiled metaphors, not 'real' people; and you can't engage with the scenes because they're just thinly veiled arguments - and arguments that have been stacked to prove the author's point.

There are books like this as well, and TV programs.  The drama is overwhelmed by tendentiousness, there's nothing for the audience to connect with - they can only agree or disagree.

And some people love this kind of narrative, it's set out fair and square full of things they already know, with no contradictions.  It confirms their prejudices and three cheers for that.  But it lacks the space for the audience to inhabit it, for the audience to own it, for the audience to have a genuinely dramatic experience.

I've seen similar things with modern dress versions of Shakespeare where the director and company are so intent on making Shakespeare relevant to the issues of today, man, that the production turns into a one-note symphony.  The Merchant of Venice whose every scene is turned towards 'anti-semitism is wrong' will hold no interest.  Of course anti-semitism is wrong, it doesn't take two hours to say that.

I would suspect that if this affects plays, books, films and television that it would affect a certain amount of narrativism as well.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

Sure. That's part of the diversity of Narrativist play which shouldn't surprise anyone.

You might think of it as analogous to different degrees and types of Step On Up "reward variables" in Gamist play.

Given that play involves decision-making "about stuff," people are certainly going to be interested in different kinds and depths of "stuff" at different times. I can't see that as either controversial or difficult.

Editing in: Unsurprisingly, this issue sees a lot of dissection in the Adept Press forum. Here are some handy threads, with some useful links in them as well.
Premise in S&Sword
Let's talk about "meaningful" choice
Obvious choices
Why should the Narrativist Premise be pre-set in Sorcerer?

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

Ian,

I think I see where you're going...

Good Jason, being the pretensious sort that he is, would likely say that that's another example of poorly addressed theme.  Answering the theme requires supporting arguements, supporting arguements that the audience can relate to.  If it's too forced, then it's more like 'Did not! Did to! Did not! Did to!', instead of 'Did to, and here's why...'.  So, the theme isn't really addressed - it's more of a setting element (anti-semitism is wrong, them's the rules here).

I think Good Jason is probably right.  What do you think?

[Ian Charvill]

Good Jason might say it, I might say it, David Mamet might write essays railing against it - hey, even you might say it - but some people actually like that kind of thing.  I think it's a very marginal case of story now impacting negatively on the dream, but I think it is one.

It's like I might argue that on the whole gamism doesn't permit the GM to screw the players over - that there's nothing inderent in gamism to encourage that.  But the fact would remain that gamism can lead to unfair GM player balances of power.

I think as long as it's kept in perspective as a marginal case, the exception much more than the rule, I don't think there's anything too contentious about it.

(if all you want to say is: it doesn't sound like very good narrativism, well, I'd agree with you there)

Edited to correct spelling and add an afterthought -

Typically plays don't require supporting arguments, they require supporting actions - arguments would be very much the kind of thing that would lift you out of the shared imagined space.

[lumpley]

What I'd want to say is: it sounds like the same kind of thing as Star Trekitude.  One group's Capital-I Issue is another group's Western Union.  In other words: how overt should addressing the Premise be?  Depends on your tastes.  Some Narrativist play will be too overt for you or me, but that's cool, we don't have to play in those games.  In other other words: I agree with Ron.

I'm having trouble making it into a case of "successfully addressing Premise but violating in-game integrity," though.  That's because as soon as you cross that line, as soon as the thing you describe happens where -

From then on you can't engage with the characters because they're just thinly veiled metaphors, not 'real' people; and you can't engage with the scenes because they're just thinly veiled arguments - and arguments that have been stacked to prove the author's point.

- as soon as that happens, you stop caring about the issues too, don't you?  I'm not successfully addressing Premise any more because my whole audience is going "blah blah blah" in their heads instead of listening to me.  I've messed up both the Dream and the Story Now.

-Vincent

[Jason Lee]

Typically plays don't require supporting arguments, they require supporting actions - arguments would be very much the kind of thing that would lift you out of the shared imagined space.

Sorry, too much metaphor on my side.  By supporting arguments I mean reasons; events, character backgrounds, playing with audience assumptions - whatever makes the point.

EDIT:  Cross post with Vincent.  Part of what he's saying was what I was getting at.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Vincent -

Ah, Dream vs. Right to Dream - sure, that can fully replace my subtle distinction between Exploration and Dream as a subtle distinction of its own.  All points are still valid with that substitution, I think.

Jason -

Yup, once the Narrativist essay is out, we should talk more about "all 'Exploration to exclusion of other priorities' says to me [is] that you're just driving by the Creative Agenda layer and flipping it off."  I think the Creative Agenda layer essentially *is* prioritization, so  . . . future discusion.

Gordon

[Ian Charvill]

From then on you can't engage with the characters because they're just thinly veiled metaphors, not 'real' people; and you can't engage with the scenes because they're just thinly veiled arguments - and arguments that have been stacked to prove the author's point.

- as soon as that happens, you stop caring about the issues too, don't you?  I'm not successfully addressing Premise any more because my whole audience is going "blah blah blah" in their heads instead of listening to me.  I've messed up both the Dream and the Story Now.

Absolutely Vincent - I'm not arguing that functional narrativist play would disrupt the dream.  I guess all I'm doing is suggesting a source of possible narrativist dysfunction where over-prioritizing the premise might disrupt the dream.

It's a challenge to "Story Now can't disrupt the dream!" but it's a challenge that rests on a technicality - and I see it very much as a marginal issue.  I think it demonstrates the point you were making: if you have to go to this kind of extreme case to show Story Now disrupting the dream - a plain old case of dysfunctional play - then on the whole Story Now doesn't disrupt the dream.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

Does that mean this thread has now rung its bell?

It's such a clean discussion that I'd hate to see it linger past its purpose. Let me know if you want it to stay open.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Absolutely Vincent - I'm not arguing that functional narrativist play would disrupt the dream.  I guess all I'm doing is suggesting a source of possible narrativist dysfunction where over-prioritizing the premise might disrupt the dream.

It's a challenge to "Story Now can't disrupt the dream!" but it's a challenge that rests on a technicality - and I see it very much as a marginal issue.  I think it demonstrates the point you were making: if you have to go to this kind of extreme case to show Story Now disrupting the dream - a plain old case of dysfunctional play - then on the whole Story Now doesn't disrupt the dream.  

As far as I can tell, this just goes back to what I said.  What you are saying is that Narrativism maintains the Dream just as well as Simulationism.  There are two possible conclusions here:

1) Simulationism is all about pursuing the Dream to the exclusion of other priorities.  However, it is futile extra effort.  It excludes Story Now in favor of the Dream, but the Dream is no more whole or complete than in the case of Narrativism.  In short, there is extra effort which excludes Story Now but there is no gain.  

2) Simulationism gains something other than the Dream.  So both Narrativism and Simulationism fully maintain the integrity of the Dream, but Simulationism gains a different quality.