Narrativist Hard Questions

[Alan]

In his essay [a href = "http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/25/" ]Narrativism: Story Now[/a], Ron proposes the "hard" questions.  Here are my responses:

Are you Simulationist-by-habit?  ... if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally defined the activity.

As a player I've found narrativism supporting games to be liberating.  For two decades I have often yearned for my character to be the center of events meaningful to me, tried to pass the GM hints in my character background, and tried to set up situations.  But my desires and hints and tries all seemed to either be ignored or just weren't addressed with any depth.  That's different now.

As GM I think I still have some Illusionist habits to unlearn.  I think I have a tendency to refer first to my own understanding of the ongoing fantasy when deciding what to propose next, rather than considering the players hints at Premise.  I imagine I'll get this in a little while.

Neither as GM nor player has simulationist play been definitive of role-playing.  I suspect I've always preferred narrativist play (and coherent gamist play second, and sim way down on the list).

The second, larger question is ... why role-play for this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium like writing comics or novels or screenplays?

I write fiction; the feedback loop there is measured in years.  In role-play I have a feedback loop measured in seconds.  In addition, there's the excitement of raw creation, with little or no chance to second guess oneself – and a level of acceptance.  Not every utterance in an RPG has to be good – they are ephemeral and can be adjusted on the fly.  The whole act of creating and adjusting on the fly is rather like the act of writing fiction, except compressed in a short period, with no grueling revisions.

But let's say you do ... hold your head up as a Narrativist role-playing practitioner, addresser of Premise. Fine - now you have to ask yourself whether you can handle artistic rejection.

I write fiction.  And I submit it for paid publication.  QED

But my personal ego trip aside, I think RPG participants tolerate uneven performance out of necessity.  We're all in a game of spontaneous creation and we know every spont won't be brilliant.  In addition, I think there's a recognition that, because it is a game of the imagination, one person may get a lot more juice out of his personal experience of the game than another does observing his play.

Now for the final conundrum: what will you sacrifice to sustain [good narativist play]? Maybe your spouse is tired of the time you spend on this; maybe you and a fellow group member get a little too close; maybe you decide your art would be even better if your best friend's sorry ass was no longer gumming up the group's work.

I measure commitment to an art form by personal rewards, practical rewards, and the potential size of the audience.  

For my fiction career I've made lots of choices that have affected my whole life.  Fiction writing exercises my creative urge, it has the potential to earn money, and the audience can be large.  I've made a lot of life decisions to support my writing career.

In comparison, role-playing has a lot of creative rewards, but the potential for money is worse than fiction writing (zero, if I only play and don't design), and the audience is 3 or 4 people.  I would not jeopardize things such as a good friendship or my spouse's peace of mind – or my writing time.  

But the question "what will you sacrifice" does include an assumption that something of value to me must be sacrificed.  I don't find this in practice.  With diplomatic negotiation, I can get my desire for good play met, without, for example, telling my best friend to get out of the game.  What's wrong with starting another one without him and playing both?  If he's my best friend, he isn't going to be such a dork that he insists we must be joined at the hip.

I guess I have sacrificed something: my opportunity to socialize with people who don't care about my likes and needs as much as I care about theirs – but what loss is that?

[james_west]

Alan,

I think you've given the sort of answer that many of us would give, especially your answer to the second question; payoff is a lot faster in role-playing than in other artistic forms. Fundamentally, Role-playing is a primary profession for essentially no-one. It gets us something we want, with limited investment and limited risk.

I actually thought his hard question for narrativism was a softball. I've got a lot harder question, along the lines of the one for gamism.

(Q) Why do you look to a game for meaning in life? There are a lot of other, real-world relevant ways to test your moral beliefs and the strength of your convictions. Are you afraid your convictions won't stand up to anything but fictional challenges?


- James

[Alan]

I think you've given the sort of answer that many of us would give,

I suspected that would be true.

(Q) Why do you look to a game for meaning in life?

You're question assumes that role-playing is the only place I find meaning in life (or even just the best place).  This would be insulting if I didn't suspect you were getting at something else.

Do you want to ask why role-playing is one of the many mediums in which I like to confirming ethical principles?  The answer to that is: I like to confirm ethical principles in everything I do: play, work, politics, and fiction.  I think it's an inherent human drive in social systems; we do it for real and we do it in play.

Fantasy of course is convenient because it is safer and offers more immediate rewards.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I wanna play.

The second, larger question is ... why role-play for this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium like writing comics or novels or screenplays?

I'm going to say it's because of the initmate nature of roleplaying. The reason to do this is because you are sharing a part of yourself with other who are doing likewise. This creates strong, personal bond. I see this as a reason to roleplay over practicing in any other medium.

But let's say you do ... hold your head up as a Narrativist role-playing practitioner, addresser of Premise. Fine - now you have to ask yourself whether you can handle artistic rejection.

That's part of it, isn't it? Like trying to talk you girlfriend into sexual acts you haven't done before... whatever they might be.

Now for the final conundrum: what will you sacrifice to sustain [good narativist play]? Maybe your spouse is tired of the time you spend on this; maybe you and a fellow group member get a little too close; maybe you decide your art would be even better if your best friend's sorry ass was no longer gumming up the group's work.

My answer to this goes along with the whole band analogy. Many bands come together, have a good run, then memebers leave or the group breaks up due to artistic differences. I see this as part of it. It's natural for band members to grow apart and then start solo careers. SO it is with a gaming group.

The sacrifice is pretty much a natural part of it. To an extent, you have to be obsessed to be able to do this. In a "you'll pry it from my cold, dead hands" kind of way. A spouse will either understand or she won't, to be honest. If the obsession also provides income, then her understanding is shallow.

I think that was in the movie Chaplin. One of his wives was getting fed upo with him always working. Finally, deciding that this was it, she shouted his name and asked "It this why your other wives left you?" He replied "I don't know. You'll have to ask them."

[james_west]

You're question assumes that role-playing is the only place I find meaning in life (or even just the best place).  This would be insulting if I didn't suspect you were getting at something else.

I was originally just intending to parallel Edwards' Hard Question for gamism. Looking at the actual construction for that, I think it would be more accurately paralleled by striking the Why at the start of my question, and adding Ron's caveat ("I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high priority. ") Removing the why removes the implied assent.

Beyond that - I think to a certain extent, the hard questions are meant to be mildly insulting, by questioning your fundamental motive for playing.

As a related example, I saw a video game in the stores a few years ago, in which you could pretend to be a volunteer firefighter. I was immediately struck by how absurd this was. You can just go and be a volunteer firefighter in most places - why would you play a sim of it rather than do it for real? As a second example, when I was in high school, someone proposed playing a role-playing game in which one played high school students trolling for dates. I refused, pointing out that my time would be better spent having the experience by -actually- trolling for dates.

Obviously, I play role-playing games, and I am reasonably comfortable with the fact that I do, but it still doesn't hurt to question one's motives.

I don't want to get away from the specific issue of addressing moral problems through gaming, though.

[Christopher Kubasik]

James,

A lot of stories put characters in moral quandires, from fairy tales ("Do I share the last bit of bread my mom gave me with the complete strange I just met in the forest?"), to "High Art"" ("Is it better to do a right by doing a wrong, and just kill my uncle, even though all the evidence I'm going on is a ghostly image of my dead dad?")

Out of curiosity, would you put the tellers, writers, listeners and audience members in the same catagory of folks who play RPGs to examine this issue.

(And, for the record, I'm finding myself more and more saying, "Why wouldn't I go live that life, instead of writing a story about a character living that life?" so I'm not asking from the point of view of you being "wrong" to ask the question.)

Christopher

[james_west]

Out of curiosity, would you put the tellers, writers, listeners and audience members in the same category of folks who play RPGs to examine this issue.

Absolutely.

I think I'll give my own answer to the question now, because I've gotten a few e-mails from folks who found it insulting.

Playing role-playing games to examine moral issues is, in my opinion, is fundamentally useful for precisely the same reason that play-fighting is useful to tiger cubs. You don't want to find yourself in a tough moral situation for real, without having practiced resolving them.

I don't mean that, in the slightest, in a condescending fashion. Most peoples' real lives allow very little opportunity to solve difficult moral questions, and understanding your moral boundaries is fundamentally important to avoid making egregious mistakes when you hit a situation where you need to.

I have, in the past few years, hit the level of responsibility in my life in which my decisions have a fundamental, life-long impact on peoples' lives. I think that I would have had difficulty finding the courage to make these decisions if I was not already extremely aware, through role-playing, of my own moral boundaries. It allows me, in some occasions, to firmly say, "This we will not do," even when everyone else involved wants to do it - or on the other hand to do things that are somewhat physically dangerous, or politically risky, because my sense of morality demands it.

In this sense, role-playing morality is immensely, tremendously more useful than other media, because it allows you to understand what -your- morality is all about, and how -you- feel that these things need to be handled.

So, yes, I look to games to help me understand the meaning of my life, and yes, it's because I need the practice; without it I'm not sure that I, or anyone, is capable of making strong moral choices under pressure. It's better to get the practice by botching up a game than by botching up someone's life.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi James,

Cool.  That's pretty much the excitment I feel when using these games to that end -- to touch something that I, perhaps thankfully, don't have to deal with today, but enjoy examinging -- if only because, someday I might.

Christopher

[M. J. Young]

(Q) Why do you look to a game for meaning in life? There are a lot of other, real-world relevant ways to test your moral beliefs and the strength of your convictions. Are you afraid your convictions won't stand up to anything but fictional challenges?

James eventually gave an excellent answer to this (one I felt a lot like copying wholesale for use in a future Faith and Gaming article), but it was not the first one that came to my mind.

Exploring our own moral answers in a role playing context allows us to communicate about them with others in a unique manner.

It allows us to put forward competing moral and ethical concepts and test how they work in the same situations, and so see whether what we believe works, and why we don't believe the alternatives. It permits us to get direct feedback on indirect statements--to be able to suggest something as a belief without committing to it, and so get the responses of others to what we believe without feeling so much that this is a personal attack on us as individuals. It tends to soften reactions, to the degree that another player won't say outright that a position is stupid without thinking about it, but will have to consider it and work with it and present an alternative way of thinking about the same facts to address the concern. In all these ways, roleplaying can become a forum through which issues and ideas are discussed and communicated between friends with some of the edges rounded off; we learn about how our friends think, and how we think, without the sort of fights that often spring from direct discussion of such questions.

All beliefs of all fictional characters are, ultimately, hypotheticals; roleplaying a character whose beliefs are presented in the game is very much the same as presenting hypothetical beliefs for discussion, but putting them in the game creates a medium through which the discussion will, and indeed must, progress in reasonable ways.

I role play in part to understand what others think, and in part to communicate what I think. Moral issues are one area in which this medium enables us to communicate these things with no hard feelings.

--M. J. Young

[james_west]

M.J., I quite like (and agree with) your response as well; note that it doesn't conflict with mine.

- James

[pete_darby]

My reply to the last hard question is very simple: no other medium can deliver all that I want from a N experience.

1. Writing is, generally, non-cooperative, and usually has no immmediate feedback loop.

2. Impro acting, while co-operative and with immediate feedback, has little structuring or purpose beyond the immediate, usually brief scene. The "system" is entirely social, and, with timid performers, has a very high level of points of contact. Attempts to move beyond this tend to de-protagonize the participants.

Witness the work of Mike Leigh: Leigh writes the scenario & whole plot, and the actors busk within the scenario to achieve the pre-prescribed outcome of the scene.... unless they come up with something REALLY GOOD, which makes Leigh re-write. Usually, the busking occurs during rehearsals: by the time the cameras roll, Leigh has cherry picked the best from the impro sessions to create a conventional script. So the director / writer is returned as sole authority over "what really happens."

N rpg sessions democratize this by providing systems of apportioning responsibility, structuring without, in a good session, deprotagonizing.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi everyone,

I thought I'd put some perspective on the hard questions, which I thought had been clear from the other essays ...

They're intended to be answered privately.

Now, this has been a great discussion, and I am not closing the thread, so never fear. But please remember that what you're doing in it is, well, "exposing yourself" rather than entering into debate. By definition, one's answers to the hard questions in all three essays are not subject to debate, unless you want them to be and present them as such.

So to keep all this in the spirit of Forge discourse, it might be good to present your answers (if you do so) as springboards for discussing something else of interest.

Best,
Ron

[pete_darby]

Sure... I mean, my response was just a "Woo, yay, houpla for role playing," and dammit, I needed to say it somewhere.... but maybe not here.