I just posited these questions to one of my group. I don't think I got it quite right, but here is what I asked, as an example of starting a GNS discussion with my play group. (I'm looking for better ways to ask these questions of my group.)

Creative Agenda (Group): Might sound something like this... as questions from my point of view.

Gamist: To be fulfilled at the table, do you guys want a game which primarily focuses on "winning." To that end, it means, you want me, the GM, to create situations where through charcters and tactics, you try to reach a goal, defeat an opponent... essentially WIN.

or

Narrativist: To be fulfilled at the table, do you guys want a game in which the main point is to explore moral and ethical choices. That the game revolves around your characters being put into situations where they have to choose between equally important actions... that the PLAYER is taking a stand on moral and ethical issues by the actions the character takes..

or

Simulationist: To be fulfilled at the talbe, do you guys want a world where cause and effect and a sense of "this is a world that has a strong existence" is the focus. Questions may come up, actions will be taken, but instead of making a decision based on "I do this because I believe it to be ethically correct" you are instead saying, "I choose this action, because I want to see what happens. I think it's the right decision, but if it isnt', ok let's see what happens."

Immersion into a character... BEING that character and being IN that world... can happen in all three.

Hi Neil,

I gotta say, and this is a general point to everyone, that there is no more destructive phrasing toward the body of my theory-stuff than saying "explore moral or ethical issue" regarding Narrativist play.

"Explore" is a terrible word for talking about Premise and themes. Really, it's awful. I know people use it a lot in literary or cinema discussions, and it causes all sorts of trouble there too. It implies a lack of resolution and an unnecessary level of abstraction within the context of the fictional events and characters.

Say "address." It works, it makes sense, and you can always use the breakdown in the Narrativism essay if someone has trouble.

Second, when you say "moral or ethical issue," apparently people instantly think of some kind of highbrow, high-falutin', art-house kind of content. The kind of thing in which the characters verbalize some kind of abstract quandary. The recent reference to the idea that the philosophical maundering in The Matrix: Reloaded might be similar to Narrativist play horrified me and represents a good example of this misunderstanding.

How's this: The people get pumped about the problem the character faces, because they identify with how it relates to their or others' real-life hassles. And specify that it doesn't require any particular overt recognition by the people in order to happen. Furthermore, that various techniques during the course of play provide the players with the right to have their character act however they want in dealing with them.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: How's this: The people get pumped about the problem the character faces, because they identify with how it relates to their or others' real-life hassles. And specify that it doesn't require any particular overt recognition by the people in order to happen. Furthermore, that various techniques during the course of play provide the players with the right to have their character act however they want in dealing with them.

Wow... just when I think I'm actually Narrativist... this comes along..

they identify with how it relates to their or others' real-life hassles

Hi Neil,

You know, I think you might be better off not trying to slap labels on your forehead just yet.

So while you're in limbo/musing mode (which is much better than label-stuck and wondering is-it-right), try this:

There is no such thing as a fictional "ethical quandary" which does not relate, in metaphorical or exaggerated sense, to a real-life one.

What is the proper use of power by a metahuman? Should you follow the status quo, or try to change the planet?

Neil,

I think you may be missing the power of metaphore. Sure, none of us have been metahumans with the power to dissintegrate the president with a look. BUT we've all been in positions of power to drastically affect the course of events at, say, our jobs or with our families and hell, military and political assassinations DO happen in reality just with guns and not summoned lightening bolts. In a Narrativist superhero game the SCALE of conflict is unrealisitic but not the NATURE of the conflict.

Another example,

There's this british miniseries called Ultraviolet that's kind of an ultra-realistic take on vampires (if anything with vampires can be described as realistic). In one of the episodes there's this woman who really really really wants a baby but has had trouble conceiving. Finally she does get pregnant but it turns out the child is an attempt to have a vampire born from a human in the hopes that the child will be kind of like Blade (all the powers of a vampire with none of their weaknesses). Now, because of all the secrecy behind the vampire stuff no one is giving this woman any straight answers. They just keep telling her that there's a problem and for her own safety she should have an abortion.

Now, no one in reality has ever and most likely never will be pregnant with what amounts to a vampire secret weapon. BUT women DO have complicated pregnancies where carrying the child to term may be unhealthy for the mother. But such women have no independent confirmation of that risk outside of what others tell them. Should she trust the judgement of others and have an abortion? Or does she decide to take the risk and how does she deal with outside pressure to have the abortion?

The conflict is real and recognizable even if the circumstances from which the conflict arrises are fantastic. The TV Show Buffy The Vampire Slayer was a MASTER at this technique. It used demons as a constant metaphore for the increasing complexity of very real world teenage conflicts about growing up and taking on ever increasing loads of responsibility.

Jesse

Oh I understand metaphor, and I was a big fan of Buffy for it's subtext and raw undercurrents... but for me, for that kind of thing to be effective, it has to be scripted. Dialogue has to be perfectly tweaked to give just the right humor and pathos and innuendo... events have to perfectly dove tail in a effective theme without being heavy handed.

RPGs are not scripted. They are fast paced and spontaneous, the events spawn out of each other, most often unexpected and rarely following even the most flexible outline by the GM. Metaphor may happen, but only organically, and often only for the individual... rarely for the group. To have the focus of the game be constant metaphor and consciously driving such pretentious notions... well, I just don't see it working for me.

This is good to know. I really am what I thought I was... a Sim gamer (from a GM point of view... I rarely play) and I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen" as long as it is causal within the world, grows organically out of the internally consistent world creation going on.

It will be interesting to see what my other players think.

and I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen"

Valamir wrote:

RDU Neil wrote: and I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen"

Sure. Its perfectly acceptable to enjoy theme and to wind up your initial situation so that you have a rich potential for theme "just happening". I'd say that's a fairly common way to play Simulationist actually.

I'd guess that alot of what folks like Marco (who hasn't been around much recently) and John Kim (John pipe up if I'm off base here) is exactly this.

The dividing line between Simulationism and Exploration Heavy Nar then becomes the degree to which you're willing to let theme "just happen" vs. your desire to nudge it when necessary to make sure it happens.

RDU Neil wrote: Oh I understand metaphor, and I was a big fan of Buffy for it's subtext and raw undercurrents... but for me, for that kind of thing to be effective, it has to be scripted. Dialogue has to be perfectly tweaked to give just the right humor and pathos and innuendo... events have to perfectly dove tail in a effective theme without being heavy handed.

RPGs are not scripted. They are fast paced and spontaneous, the events spawn out of each other, most often unexpected and rarely following even the most flexible outline by the GM. Metaphor may happen, but only organically, and often only for the individual... rarely for the group. To have the focus of the game be constant metaphor and consciously driving such pretentious notions... well, I just don't see it working for me.

First, a side point:

John Kim wrote: For a while, I've felt uncomfortable with this. It doesn't feel right to lump the "what if" no-pushing Threefold Simulationists with the match-the-genre hard-pushing Illusionists. It seems like such a deep split to me that it is very strange to say that they are in the same mode.

Valamir wrote:

and I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen"

Sure. Its perfectly acceptable to enjoy theme and to wind up your initial situation so that you have a rich potential for theme "just happening". I'd say that's a fairly common way to play Simulationist actually.

Front-loaded narrativism troubled me for a while - to the extent of whether that didn't turn a huge amount of what I'd been thinking of sim into narrativism.

If the players are primarily motivated to address premise, then front-loading will support narrativism. If not, then it won't.

[It strikes me as an aside, that because so much emphasis is placed on freedom in a narrativist context a large proportion of narrativist supporting techniques enable narrativism without promoting it.]

Hi Ian,

In many ways, this sentence:

If the players are primarily motivated to address premise, then front-loading will support narrativism. If not, then it won't.

Ron, my post was essentially a response to Ben's (and could probably have been helped by quoting it originally)

Just for reference, most of my play is like this (front-loaded premise Nar) and I consider it, after a lot of wrangling, a form of narrativism proper. So there is some disagreement about this (even if it is just me vs. the rest of the universe.)

Hi Ian,

I think we're on the same page now.

Neil, is any of this helpful to you? I do want to point out that you and your group currently have at least four very similar threads running concurrently, and that it's easy to confuse yourselves and everyone else when that happens.

With respect, could you consider which ones to emphasize for a while, and which ones to let sit, for re-visiting later?

Best,
Ron

Ian Charvill wrote: If the players are primarily motivated to address premise, then front-loading will support narrativism. If not, then it won't.