John Kim's essay, Immersive Story Essay, and a quick study of the The Threeway Model FAQ triggered some ideas for me.

Can we differential GNS styles based on the amount and nature of external communication preferred?

For example in both gamism and narrativism, external events - those shared with the game group - are what are valued most highly. A gamist's reward is in the group acknoweldgement of his moxie, and a narrativist reward is in feedback about the coolness of his thematic choice. Both of these are expressed by descriptions of character actions which are communicated to the other players.

On the other hand, John Kim's essay, Immersive Story Essay, focusses on the internal rewards of roleplay in general, and a kind of play I would term simulationist in particulary. Whether the following is John's point, or just my own interpretation, the essays points to prioritizing internal, unshared experience as a mode of play.

Is a focus on the consistent internal experience of the player definitive of all simulationist play? Or is it just one sub-genre? Every RPG requires some consistency of internal experience, but does simulationism prioritize it above all other concerns? Or is there some external expression of simulationism?

Acting performance is sometimes associated with simulationism, but I wonder if that isn't really gamism. (If you have response to this particular assertion, see Acting as Gamism in GNS Theory.)

If simulationism really does prioritize internal experience of concerns of external expression, does it also intentionally avoid feedback from other players? (That sounds like a can of worms!)

Responses?

Hi Alan,

If we're discussing observed or associated features, then I think you're on the right track. But if we're discussing definitional features of the GNS distinctions, then I think this thread will become all strange.

So on the assumption that the first is correct ...

... yeah.

What gums up the point, though, are the two sorts of play that I criticize in the three specific GNS essays: versions of preferred Gamist and Narrativist play which insist on internal cause and the same sort of internal enjoyment you're talking about as "motors" for imaginary situations which lead, eventually or possibly, to their goals.

What especially characterizes these profiles is the willingness not to be fully satisfied with a session of play. If the G or N doesn't "appear" tonight because the various internal states didn't line up together and the various imaginary circumstances didn't seem to "yield" it, well, OK then. Guess we'll keep playing next week and see.

Folks who prefer (or habitually do) either of these often use the same terminology as full-on Simulationist-preferring folks - "immersion," "suspension of disbelief," etc. "Plausibility" won't do it for them, because they don't want even the hint that the imaginary stuff is being judged - even though their enjoyment (or putative enjoyment) is always under self-scrutiny for whether it "feels real enough."

Opinions about all this differ - speaking only from my observations, I consider these aims of play to be low-yield, perhaps with one payoff scene per eight or ten sessions of play. Apparently for some people that's enough, although the social context for their enjoyment seems dubious to me as well.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
If we're discussing observed or associated features, then I think you're on the right track. But if we're discussing definitional features of the GNS distinctions, then I think this thread will become all strange.

Ron Edwards wrote:
What gums up the point, though, are the two sorts of play that I criticize in the three specific GNS essays: versions of preferred Gamist and Narrativist play which insist on internal cause and the same sort of internal enjoyment you're talking about as "motors" for imaginary situations which lead, eventually or possibly, to their goals.

Hi Alan,

That's right, you are, just as Jay (Silnemume) is doing in his Simulationism and Character thread. Which is all fine, but I hope you guys won't mind if my main contributions are to say "Yup," and keep going.

Best,
Ron

Alan wrote:

It seems to me that both gamist and narrativist play require some "meta-game" communication - communication about what the story is going to do - to consistently and regularly meet their needs. It canhappen by accident, but direction helps a lot.

Good question. My take on it would this.

Sure the GM is inserting alot of Premise Potential moments into the game; but the real question is whether the players are engageing those moments.

The players might engage them or they might leave them lie and ignore them. If the player is entirely unaware that the GM is placing these premise nuggets in the game, then whether they engage or not will be a result of other factors (like "what would my character do") which just happens to line up with a "premise nugget" because the GM skillfully placed that nugget right where he knew the player would fall into it.

So this is what I think is meant by Story by Accident. If the player doesn't "fall into" the nugget then premise doesn't get addressed and story doesn't happen. If they do then premise does get addressed and story happens. But its rather accidental that it happens. The GM can more or less skillfully place the nugget based on what he knows of the player...but its still much like throwing a hook in the water and hoping to get a bite.

Couple of things I need clarification on...

There is a consensus that "story by accident" is not Nar play. Yes/no?

Second, I interpret your response to say that "Anything less than explicitly stated Premise moments is basically story by accident." Maybe you aren't saying that, but that is what I read in your post.

So, taking those two together, Nar play can't just happen. That goes against very clearly stated bits from Ron and others that say addressing premise/Nar play can be unconscious.

Hence my confusion.

Basically, if Nar play (addressing premise) can be done unconsciously, then isn't that "story by accident?"


Also, as the GM is considered just one of the players, and she is placing her "premise nuggets" consciously, then she is certainly playing Nar. Now, I totally agree that the other players may not... but isn't, by Ron's own assertions, the player who is consciously or unconsciously looking for those premise nuggets ALSO playing Nar. Granted, without the full on metagame discussion, some nuggets are missed or interpreted differently... but it's still Nar play... isn't it?
Even metagame "let's address such and such premise" won't lead to seamless communication and interpretation.

Also... what if I really feel that my personal priority is this "Premise Nugget" kind of play? I don't want metagame discussion to contrive too much, but as GM I will be placing these nuggets all over... as a player I'll be looking for those moments that speak to me as "premise" of one sort or the other. To me, this is Nar, absolutely, but because it is "premise by accident" (as you defined it) the definition says this is NOT Nar.

See... I confuse myself. Help?

Yeah, the whole "unconcious" thing I think was an early attempt at expressing something that was difficult to put into words, and is thus too easily confused with "by accident". It threw me to.

My own use of the phrasing "premise on purpose" however, was too easily confused with being premeditated.

Check out this thread from back in March and see if that helps.

It includes the following from Ron.

I do think the term "mindful" is involved, which is only to say that I don't think Creative Agendas arise through some kind of confluential accidents, but rather through the mental, emotional, and communicative capacities of human beings.

I like "mindful" as a term because it connotes, to me, that some part of the person's mind is involved in the Creative Agenda, and it avoids to some extent (although apparently not for you) the baggage-heavy, openly-verbalized connotations of "conscious" or "aware."

Thanks for the reminder of "mindful." I read that thread when it was active, and didn't get it, at the time. Makes more sense, now.

Anyway... this "Premise Nugget" style is very important to me as a GM and player. Now this has me thinking about effective ways to structure the game to facilitate "Premise Nugget" play, that doesn't cross too far into open metagaming which can feel contrived to me, and cause me to lose interest.

I may not be a game designer, but I run so many games, that I look at "play session design" as the critical application of all this theory for me. How will I run this session? What needs to be explicitly stated and agreed upon by the group? What can I do with the illusion of simulation? What can I "just let happen" that will still be dramatic?

(Uh, oh thread drift now...)

Hmmm... since much of this discussion is to help you designers figure out effective game design, is there a place where you guys discuss... Balancing The Creative Agendas.

By this I mean, it has been stated over and over something like, "Likely, any really good player incorporates all three CAs in their actual play." To this I agree.

The next step SEEMS to me to say "Likely, any really good GAME incorporates all three CAs in it's actual design," but instead just the opposite seems true. Game design seems to focus on "This is gamist" or "This is Nar."

What about a game who's structure was intended to guide the GM/players to a recognition of all three elements as necessary in play... "to create the best game possible!" (or some such hyperbole.)

If nothing else, such a design would be helpful for GMs to design their play session to be responsive to all three in varying degrees.

Or is that heretical to GNS game design thought?

RDU Neil wrote: Couple of things I need clarification on...

There is a consensus that "story by accident" is not Nar play. Yes/no?

Second, I interpret your response to say that "Anything less than explicitly stated Premise moments is basically story by accident." Maybe you aren't saying that, but that is what I read in your post.

Also... what if I really feel that my personal priority is this "Premise Nugget" kind of play? I don't want metagame discussion to contrive too much, but as GM I will be placing these nuggets all over... as a player I'll be looking for those moments that speak to me as "premise" of one sort or the other. To me, this is Nar, absolutely, but because it is "premise by accident" (as you defined it) the definition says this is NOT Nar.

RDU Neil wrote: By this I mean, it has been stated over and over something like, "Likely, any really good player incorporates all three CAs in their actual play."

Uh-oh--this is one of those threads that seem to require that I start writing answers before I finish reading posts. I hope I can bring this together intelligently.

Alan, I think that it can be said that simulationism is more internalized and less metagame driven than the other two agenda in general, but that it's not a hallmark that can be used specifically.

First, in any coherent play, part of how we know it's coherent is that all of the player tells are approving the same actions. That's communication (albeit subliminal) between the players. It's also inter-player reward (or discouragement) for play within the agendum. Thus in (a certain sort of) sim play if someone gets out of character to do something tactical--say the quiet studious magic user suddenly starts telling the other characters what sort of battle formation would be best to fight against the enemy, and steps up to lead the fight--there are frowns and scowls on the faces of the other players, because this guy is out of character; the guy who does a good job of bringing off the revelation of new material within the parameters of the group is rewarded by tacit approval.

Second, all reward in all play has this combination of the approval of the group feeding the internal satisfaction.

Third, there are forms of gamist and narrativist play which are much more internalized that some forms of simulationist play.

Thus overall it's a broad generalization which proves true sometimes.

Simulationism can be driven by metagame communications. It's unusual, particularly traditionally. However, having players discuss what to explore next, or where they want the game to take them, is perfectly consistent with simulationism. After all, no matter how "internally consistent" you play your character, there will be some choices which really could go any of several ways, and it is entirely up to what the player wants to explore next to determine which way it does go.

Neil, I think you've got a couple of different things going.

One of them is what is called "frontloaded narrativism". This is the sort of play in which the characters are created and the world designed such that premise exists within the world, and the players will almost certainly address premise merely by playing their characters internally consistently. In such play, premise is addressed whenever the players consider how the character is going to react to the situation, to the degree that this is not writ in stone. That is, if we all know that the samurai will not violate his honor and he chooses not to violate his honor, then premise likely has not been addressed. If we know at the moment the choice comes that the samurai player is seriously considering whether or not the character will violate his honor, premise is being addressed regardless of which the player chooses to do. Frontloaded narrativism is usually avoidable, but there is strong impetus to address premise in the setup.

What you call "backloaded story" seems to be more story by accident, as suggested--you see events that have happened, and you work behind the scenes to create a story around them. That's not narrativism--the players are not addressing premise and creating story, but the referee is taking the character actions and weaving story around them.

I think most of the rest is good, particularly the idea that you can enjoy all three agenda, but only one at a time.

--M. J. Young

Alan wrote:

What you describe is most likely simulationist play with hopes that thematiccally meanginfull choices will occur - I guess that's story by accident.

RDU Neil wrote: Alan wrote:

What you describe is most likely simulationist play with hopes that thematiccally meanginfull choices will occur - I guess that's story by accident.

See, this I can't agree with. As GM, I'm consciously trying to place "Premise Nuggets" in the game. I'm doing this because I want situations where players question meaning and the like by making choices. To M.J. Young's example, I'm constantly presenting the Samurai with situations that test his honor.

Described that way, it sounds like Narrativism to me. That is, you (singular, Neil, the GM) are playing Narrativist.

Whether your players are playing Narrativist depends on how they digest those nuggets. Is the Samurai's player addressing -- emotionally engaged with, when making decisions; making a statement about, by making those decisions -- honor? Is the Samurai's player mindful of questions of honor?

Suppose you do have those Premise-nugget Situations rigged so that no matter what the player decides, it says something about honor. Does that mean that the player is necessarily addressing honor by playing? No. Suppose, for instance, the player is making the decisions by flipping a coin. That player isn't addressing anything, let alone honor. Something is perhaps "being said" by the process, but it's not the player saying it, any more than my cat is "writing" when he walks on my keyboard. What's missing is the mindfulness, which distinguishes "addressing" from cat-on-keyboard happenstance.

Now suppose that the player is making those decisions based entirely on which choices give him the best prestige payoff within the group. As far as the question of whether he's addressing honor or not, that's no different from when he's flipping a coin. The outcome will still be "about honor" in some way, because you've set it up so that that happens no matter what the player decides or how he decides. But the player isn't addressing honor; he's not mindfully engaged with the issue of honor while making those decisions. He's playing Gamist.

It's also quite possible, even likely, that your players are eating up those Premise-nuggets, getting emotionally engaged with the decisions the characters face, addressing the Premise, mindfully generating theme in the outcome. Narrativism for sure, at least during those segments (and if the rest of play is perceived and treated primarily as a way to get to those nuggets, it's Narrativism all the way).

Edit: cross-posted with Alan, who said it rather more succinctly.

- Walt

I agree with both of you that the other player (the samurai player in this case) may or may not be addressing premise, but I can't help that. I can't force them to a certain CA. I can only do what I can do to enhance the CA I want. I desire Nar in this case, and if, over time, the player gravitates to these "nuggets" and finds satisfaction in "mindful choice" then great... but all I can do from my point is give him that option.

Ok, it's not ALL I can do, but it's all I can do without stepping OOC and getting into metagame discussions where I explain exactly what I'm hoping with be addressed by any one scene. That is something I'm not prepared to do... it's a technique I'm not comfortable with.

So I will play Nar from my point of view, and it may be a less efficient form of Nar play, and I may be frustrated at times... but hell, that's life. Nothing is perfect.

In the end, I just want to clarify that Nar play doesn't require Successful addressing of premise... but just the desire to address premise... at least from the point of me, the individual. Would it be better, more fulfilling if every player addressed premise the same way, all the time? Maybe... but it's unrealistic, and such an ideal shouldn't be the ONLY way to play Nar.

Or is that what GNS says? My reading doesn't support such a "only like this" interpretation, and that's why these threads can be confusing. Too many opinions can be contradictory in their interpretations.

RDU Neil wrote:

In the end, I just want to clarify that Nar play doesn't require Successful addressing of premise... but just the desire to address premise... at least from the point of me, the individual. Would it be better, more fulfilling if every player addressed premise the same way, all the time? Maybe... but it's unrealistic, and such an ideal shouldn't be the ONLY way to play Nar.

Caldis,
I agree completely, and we definitely have "out of game" discussions about this to a very large extent. I am now much more aware when I find myself switching CA in a game based on a spark of an idea... and we definitely break out of game if frustration is too great or communication is getting heated.

I just wanted to clarify some issues, because I felt a number of posts were contradictory. i.e. the basic definition of Nar play seems to make sense, but very clearly individuals with their own idea of "the RIGHT way to play Nar" tend to couch things as "Nar only if you do it THIS way" which confuses me. (I don't think these opinions are intended this way, it's just the nature of forums, so I'm just nitpicking for my own clarification.)

Hi Neil,

It isn't about the right way to do narrativist play. If you're player put addressing premise ahead of other concerns, then he would be playing narrativist. That's the _definition_, not the prescripton. If he tends to miss or avoid addressing premise, then he's not playing narrativist.

Now _you_ may want him to address premise, while he isn't. This is called incoherance - the classic disjunction of GNS preferences, which as Ron observes, causes much frustration among players.

If you want to resolve your frustration, you might consider two levels of the game you're playing.

The following may appear to be "the right way to play narrativist" but in fact, it's the "right way to have coherent play" - gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. You just have to choose one.

1) At the level of social contract: make sure all your players want to play a particular way and that they understand that's what's going on.

2) At the level of Technique: focus rewards on the GNS aspect you want to see. So for narrativist play, instead of, for example, giving XP for killing monsters, give XP when the Samurai addresses premise.

These two elements are key to keeping players focused on a particular GNS prefence. Some may discover they like whichever it is, others may not.

I think Walt really nailed it. There's good reason to think that Neil is playing to a narrativist preference with high immersion, and the others are not on the same page, but he just accepts that. A lot of referees get enjoyment from having others enjoy the game.

I have one comment on what Alan wrote: 2) At the level of Technique: focus rewards on the GNS aspect you want to see. So for narrativist play, instead of, for example, giving XP for killing monsters, give XP when the Samurai addresses premise.

I think Walt really nailed it. There's good reason to think that Neil is playing to a narrativist preference with high immersion, and the others are not on the same page, but he just accepts that. A lot of referees get enjoyment from having others enjoy the game.