OK, at Vincent (aka lumpley's) request, I am splitting off from "Sacrificing Character Integrity" - a Rant. In it, Vincent (aka lumpley) and Matt had some questions about my Water-Uphill-World campaign and how it worked. First of all, some references:
Campaign Web Page
Confused over Simulationism + example campaign
Virtuality and Ouija Boards

The second thread has a fairly extended description of the game. But what came up was more on the question of moral issues.

Matt Snyder wrote: That there are "many moral questions" similarly says nothing much at all. There may be many moral questions raised in, say, Gamist play, but the players don't particularly care, and they certainly aren't focusing on those. What was going on there? Were people addressing those questions? If so, Narrativism. If not, Something Else. Was it just the GM (presumably you) "addressing" those questions? If the players did address them, and addressed many of them (if, in fact, these were distinct and separate Premises), then maybe you had, um, messy Narrativism going on, but it's still Narrativism. Narrativism play doesn't mean "good" or "focused" or "better" play necessarily, of course.

lumpley wrote: As far as story structure goes, I have a hard time seeing where fit characters escalating a moral conflict into crisis and resolution would fail to produce a reasonably good story structure. I think you're asking this: "but what if they just meander around and bobble and hit-or-miss the Premise, but still address it?" The answer is, choose one or the other.

John: Well, there it is. Did you meander around and bobble and hit-or-miss the Premise, or did you address it?

What would you say were the main take-home messages of your Water Uphill game?

With Matt, who would you say contributed those take-home messages to the game?

Answer in Actual Play, I'll be there.

John, I'm with you so far. Here's my next question:

Addressing a Premise means that you have characters locked into a conflict across the Premise's moral line, and you play that conflict through to its conclusion: it escalates to crisis and resolution.

So those moral issues present in your game: did you play any of those conflicts through to their conclusions? Martin's lying and Noriko's disturbedness at it, for instance: what came of that?

-Vincent

It seems to me that this is front-loaded Narrativism with a concentration on a "Virtual World" technical agenda (note -- Vincent, I'm adopting your term of "technical agenda" Cool?) I.E. -- the basic situation is set up such that the game itself must be interesting, in a narrativist sense. Essentially, if you throw a bunch of people into a new world, rife with conflict, you will get a positive narrativist style experience out of it.

I play this way *all the time*, and I would go as far as to say that it is the most common form of narrativism. Further, I think it trips up a lot of self-defined "simulationist" players. To get past this, I think it is best not to think of GNS as "tribes" where you belong to one, but rather as "different ways to have fun" which everyone likes doing.

There are a metric ton of old threads on this, but I am in no state to look them up right now.

yrs--
--Ben

lumpley wrote: John, I'm with you so far. Here's my next question:

Addressing a Premise means that you have characters locked into a conflict across the Premise's moral line, and you play that conflict through to its conclusion: it escalates to crisis and resolution.

So those moral issues present in your game: did you play any of those conflicts through to their conclusions? Martin's lying and Noriko's disturbedness at it, for instance: what came of that?

John, forget about "neat" and "structured." That's not what I'm asking. Also "resolving the conflict" doesn't mean "...and everyone's happy."

What was the relationship between this:

The result was that she stopped talking to them...

Martin fell in love with a girl he didn't know and was drifting away from the others...

But this meant that distance actually grew between Noriko and Martin and they never resolved (or could resolve) their differences.

lumpley wrote: John, forget about "neat" and "structured." That's not what I'm asking. Also "resolving the conflict" doesn't mean "...and everyone's happy."

lumpley wrote: What was the relationship between this:

The result was that she stopped talking to them...

and this?

Martin fell in love with a girl he didn't know and was drifting away from the others...

lumpley wrote: Was this:

But this meant that distance actually grew between Noriko and Martin and they never resolved (or could resolve) their differences.

the end of the conflict? Or was it just sort of some random thing? Did it make the players sad or what?

Forget. About. Structure. Structure is not the key.

I think that Noriko absenting herself from discussion distanced everyone a bit from each other. So that might have contributed to Martin's behavior, but only pretty indirectly.

I'm certain that Noriko's player (Josh) frequently felt conflicted and sad that she had sacrificed her friendship with the others for their safety, and perhaps resentful on some level that they weren't more grateful.

lumpley wrote: Forget. About. Structure. Structure is not the key.

lumpley wrote:

John Kim wrote: I think that Noriko absenting herself from discussion distanced everyone a bit from each other. So that might have contributed to Martin's behavior, but only pretty indirectly.

You're the one whose standards this game has to meet, so you tell me: is "pretty indirectly" good enough? Would you say that Noriko distancing herself stepped up or applied pressure to the conflict about Martin's lying? Did it show what was at stake in the conflict? Did it put pressure on other people to align themselves with one side or the other, even subtly?

What about the opposite: did Martin's lying put pressure on Noriko's decision to distance herself? Did it make it (for instance) harder for Noriko to stay with them, though they needed her?

lumpley wrote:

John Kim wrote: I'm certain that Noriko's player (Josh) frequently felt conflicted and sad that she had sacrificed her friendship with the others for their safety, and perhaps resentful on some level that they weren't more grateful.

Awesome.

Josh had his character prioritize her friends' safety over their friendship. This decision and its fallout engaged Josh emotionally.

If the game had continued, would it have been harder and harder for Noriko to stay with her friends? Would Josh have had to make that decision anew and anew, each time a little bit harder? Would Josh eventually have had to decide between "fuck it, they're on they're own" and "fuck it, I'll be here for them even now"?

Hey John.

I recognize that structure is vital to story in static media. I'm saying that it's not vital to Narrativist play. You don't play Narrativist by attending to dramatic structure while you're playing. Rather, dramatic structure arises from playing Narrativist, insofar as it does so, because of what you do attend to: fit character, moral conflict, escalate.

I'm sorry for patronizing you. I'll try to knock it off.

On the other hand, I suspect she did have at least a slight tempation to talk to them -- which would inherently mean that she was magically influencing them. She never gave into it, but I could feel it there. (And as GM I was a little worried about what that might do to inter-player dynamics.)

Once Noriko had taken on the power, she took over most of the talking for the group -- rather naturally since her voice now had magical influence. So that specific conflict didn't come up again. But there were certainly related issues of maturity and responsibility which did.

lumpley wrote: I'll spill: when I talk about conflict escalating to crisis and resolution, you seem to me to think that I'm talking about a formal structure. You seem to hear a metronome marking the beats: "...and ESCALATE and ESCALATE and READY? and CRISIS." Which you, naturally, reject; so do I. What I'm trying to say with my questions is: quite the contrary, it's possible and common for conflict to escalate to crisis very subtly, very naturalistically - as you say, changing, shifting, ebbing and flowing - but with a direction and a turning point overall.

lumpley wrote: I recognize that structure is vital to story in static media. I'm saying that it's not vital to Narrativist play. You don't play Narrativist by attending to dramatic structure while you're playing. Rather, dramatic structure arises from playing Narrativist, insofar as it does so, because of what you do attend to: fit character, moral conflict, escalate.

lumpley wrote:

John Kim wrote: On the other hand, I suspect she did have at least a slight tempation to talk to them -- which would inherently mean that she was magically influencing them. She never gave into it, but I could feel it there. (And as GM I was a little worried about what that might do to inter-player dynamics.)

Ah! I see.

1) What was the relationship between that temptation and her feelings of responsibility for the group? (Her feelings of responsibility predated her power, yes?) For instance, did her temptation to magically influence them, like, follow from or spring from the same source as her feelings of responsibility? Did getting the power make her more responsible for them?

2) Did the temptation to use the power on them grow over the course of the game? Like I asked about the wrong conflict, would Josh eventually have had to decide between "fuck it, I'm able to make the decision for them, I'm going to" and "fuck it, it's their decision even now"? Was the intensity of the temptation constant, inconstant, or growing?

3) If Josh had given into her temptation and it had caused inter-player problems, did you have any sort of plan or response or S.O.P. for dealing with it? And, did you communicate your worry to Josh in any way - I'm thinking of a warning look or an "are you ... sure?" I ask this last because knowing that you were worried about it might have constrained his decisions.

John,

Would you say that there was a depth of emotional involvement in the players? Or would you say the interest was primarily intellectual?

(It seems to me you've said the former was certainly present--but I'm asking if you can try to compare the two--and if you can't, to compare the two in yourself).

I am thinking presently that as described the major operational difference between Nar and Sim deals with emotional vs intellectual investment.

As I said to Contra, since a story can have both (and the example would be the story that gets spycraft right or computer technology right and is still a great story on a human level) then this *does* make Sim merely an inferior form of Nar (less emotional investment or equal emotional investment but some form of restriction in place on acting on it--railroading).

You've been pretty clear that the Water-Up-Hill game wasn't "railroaded" from your POV.

But I have one more question along that line:

Did the players ever "try to do something they thought should've worked in the world" to discover that for reasons you'd built into situation/setting it didn't or turned out to be, in their view, a very bad idea (perhaps with unintended consequences)?

I believe that the definition of Force and Railroading is a gray area for some people when the GM is running a virtuality and doesn't change it to accomodate players or 'story' needs.

-Marco

The question for me is were the theme's central to play? Did most scenes keep coming back to what the game was about? It's not important whether plots were resolved but were they directed towards a central theme?


From the sound of it a premise at least developed, something along the lines of children existing without parents can they accept the responsiblities of an adult world. You've set that up and are allowing the players to react to it and answer the question however they want, the only question is whether it became the focus of play or whether wandering around exploring the strange world they live in took precedence with those concerns becoming secondary. Some of the things you've mentioned seem like issues that fall under the banner of the larger premise, one character lieing and another taking issue with it. Were all the issues that came up subservient to that bigger question of children and responsibility?

Marco wrote: Would you say that there was a depth of emotional involvement in the players? Or would you say the interest was primarily intellectual?

(It seems to me you've said the former was certainly present--but I'm asking if you can try to compare the two--and if you can't, to compare the two in yourself).

I am thinking presently that as described the major operational difference between Nar and Sim deals with emotional vs intellectual investment.

Marco wrote: Did the players ever "try to do something they thought should've worked in the world" to discover that for reasons you'd built into situation/setting it didn't or turned out to be, in their view, a very bad idea (perhaps with unintended consequences)?

John: I accept at long, long last that you weren't playing Narrativist. What's the next step, establishing that the reason it was non-Narrativist play was its virtuality?

In order to do that, we'll have to establish that the reason wasn't a) the details of the setup, or b) incoherence. Either of those could create non-Narrativist play independently, virtuality or no. That's how I see it, anyhow. What do you think?

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: John: I accept at long, long last that you weren't playing Narrativist. What's the next step, establishing that the reason it was non-Narrativist play was its virtuality?

In order to do that, we'll have to establish that the reason wasn't a) the details of the setup, or b) incoherence.

Oh! It's because you've convinced me that you weren't actually addressing Premise without noticing it. You didn't resolve the conflicts and thus didn't address Premise. Here are the sentences that convinced me, for what it's worth:

There was no particular escalation. Now, obviously, situations which would tempt her to use it would come and go. So I suppose you could say that there was escalation and de-escalation -- but there wasn't a larger pattern to it.

Vincent,

Why is escalation required? It seems like resisting temptation in one case is an answer to the question (answer: "No, I won't do that for power" (or whatever) ) and succombing in another case is an answer ("Yes, here is what I will do for power" (or whatever) ).

Does the question have to never come back into the game for it to be Nar play? It seems that 'properly played' Sorceror would be a never-ending stream of the same question (what will I do for power?).

This also seems to imply that if a question is posed and the player answers it without escalating it--going directly to resolution that it's not Nar play.

I can see if John had said those issues weren't important to the play--but they look like a major feature/draw to me.

-Marco

Marco: John says that they didn't resolve the conflicts. I didn't believe him until he said that not only didn't they resolve them, they didn't even consistently escalate them. Dropping a conflict isn't the same as resolving it, and you have to resolve 'em to play Narrativist. That's in the definition of addressing Premise.

-Vincent

John Kim wrote: However, I would point out that escalation isn't a part of the current Narrativist definition. By the current definitions, I would tend to call it (as Matt Snyder put it) "messy Narrativism".

lumpley wrote: Marco: John says that they didn't resolve the conflicts. I didn't believe him until he said that not only didn't they resolve them, they didn't even consistently escalate them. Dropping a conflict isn't the same as resolving it, and you have to resolve 'em to play Narrativist. That's in the definition of addressing Premise.

Ron Edwards wrote: Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

John,

Your reference to Ron's 3-fold addressing process really startled me. I never focused on that. Now let me get this straight -- correct me if I go wrong.

In Water-Uphill, you did not front-load Premise, i.e. pre-determine what it (or they) would be, but as Ron keeps pointing out that's not required for Nar. Play was focused on all sorts of Premises, moral issues, stickiness, and so forth. Ultimately, Premises just tended to drift; their resolutions were not central to play, at least partly perhaps because much of that resolution (if any) was internal to the character and thus not part of the shared imaginary space. Furthermore, as Premises moved toward resolution, they tended to morph naturally into other Premises. Right? Obviously, this is a very Nar-focused way of analyzing.

So if we run through a kind of checklist:

• Was there Premise? Yes, lots.
• Did it/they get developed? Oh sure, constantly.
• Was that development important to play? Totally central.
• Did those Premises resolve importantly? No, not so much.

Buzzzz--- okay, it's Sim. Or rather, it always was Sim, it's just that you couldn't tell at the time.

Is that really a sufficient distinction? I mean, you could only decide whether the game was Sim or Nar when it was over, and I mean completely over, at which point who cares? Not to be snarky; I mean that Ron et al. are constantly harping on how analyzing dead-and-gone games doesn't help anyone. But in this case, it appears that there is no way to analyze prior to the game's conclusion, which would mean that there is no way to analyze the game at all. That's silly.

As far as I'm concerned, the distinction between Nar and Sim here is so fine as to be nonexistent. I suspect you agree, though I don't know. I mean, it looks like Nar, smells like Nar, plays like Nar, but oops! after the fact it turns out it was a doppelganger.

I'm sure I'm off-base here, because there's got to be something wrong. Where am I lost?

clehrich wrote: Is that really a sufficient distinction? I mean, you could only decide whether the game was Sim or Nar when it was over, and I mean completely over, at which point who cares? Not to be snarky; I mean that Ron et al. are constantly harping on how analyzing dead-and-gone games doesn't help anyone. But in this case, it appears that there is no way to analyze prior to the game's conclusion, which would mean that there is no way to analyze the game at all. That's silly.

As far as I'm concerned, the distinction between Nar and Sim here is so fine as to be nonexistent. I suspect you agree, though I don't know. I mean, it looks like Nar, smells like Nar, plays like Nar, but oops! after the fact it turns out it was a doppelganger.

I'm sure I'm off-base here, because there's got to be something wrong. Where am I lost?

lumpley wrote: Marco: John says that they didn't resolve the conflicts. I didn't believe him until he said that not only didn't they resolve them, they didn't even consistently escalate them. Dropping a conflict isn't the same as resolving it, and you have to resolve 'em to play Narrativist. That's in the definition of addressing Premise.

-Vincent

Yep.

I fall on my knees now and beg you all in advance to forgive the I told you so I'm about to commit.

In the thread that started this, I wrote: If this were a real conversation with actual RGFA Simmists, here's where we'd take the discussion to Actual Play. Maybe we'd get somewhere and maybe we wouldn't.

John wrote: For me, what makes play interesting is new facets and insights for all sides of the moral conflict. The process of reducing this to a single answer is necessary for closure, i.e. for the story to truly be over. However, the meat of the story is in the insight which it brings to bear on the question, not its conclusion. Given the multi-author nature of RPGs, I see resolution and closure as problematic in a sense. If the moral conflict is really problematic, chances are that the players will each have different answers. As long as the players continue to have differences over an issue, one could argue that that issue shouldn't be resolved.

Marco wrote: I interperted him as haivng resolved conflict in situation A but then haivng it crop up again in situation B.

This is precisely why I think you never should have used the term "resolution" Vincent. And I completely don't understand what you mean by "escalate." I don't see any of this as required by narrativism, and I think you're just using terms that make it intelligible to you personally.

"Addressing premise" is adequate, and merely means that the player was thinking in terms of what would be interesting to see happen in the game from the perspective of the issue as they, the players, percieve it (which isn't the same thing as saying that they have to be consious of the process). As opposed to trying to determine the most "plausible" result, or a response that is in response to a player challenge.

Further, we're missing the question of "Instances of Play." What does it matter if premise didn't get addressed each and every time? The question is not whether or not that happens, but whether or not it represents an agenda over time.

I'm seeing simple shifting play. Some narrativism followed by some simulationism, and never enough to make a clear diagnosis of the overall agenda.

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game? Well, plenty. If I said that I had a set of symptoms that one could observe that would diagnose a disease 50% of the time, would that not be valuable? Just because some play is hard to define means that GNS is useless? We use GNS to identify modes of play all the time with positive effects. Nobody ever said that one can classify every game by it's GNS mode (which is not to say that it doesn't have one, just to say that it's not determinable from observation at that point).


Here's what I think is the interesting point:

There were various arguments back and forth over whether it was GNS Simulationist or Narrativist. I could follow these, but ultimately I felt that the arguments over which one it fell into weren't very important.

lumpley wrote:

John wrote: For me, what makes play interesting is new facets and insights for all sides of the moral conflict. The process of reducing this to a single answer is necessary for closure, i.e. for the story to truly be over. However, the meat of the story is in the insight which it brings to bear on the question, not its conclusion. Given the multi-author nature of RPGs, I see resolution and closure as problematic in a sense. If the moral conflict is really problematic, chances are that the players will each have different answers. As long as the players continue to have differences over an issue, one could argue that that issue shouldn't be resolved.

I agree with you in full, except: resolving the conflict doesn't mean resolving the issue. When I resolve "will I shoot my brother?" I don't resolve "is blood more important than justice?" We will all have different takes on the moral question. I get to share my take on the question in just these circumstances, by having my character shoot his brother or not; you're sharing your take at the same time, and our takes will be the same, or different, and that's the good stuff.

Ron Edwards wrote: A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says), constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level.

lumpley wrote: So John, am I getting anywhere? I hope I've clarified the difference between the conflicts and the issues, and made it clear that resolving the former is one way to shed light on - but probably never resolve - the latter. I get that you didn't resolve the issues. Would you still say that you didn't resolve the conflicts, or would you agree with Marco?

Marco wrote: I interperted him as haivng resolved conflict in situation A but then haivng it crop up again in situation B.

Mike Holmes wrote:
What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game? Well, plenty. If I said that I had a set of symptoms that one could observe that would diagnose a disease 50% of the time, would that not be valuable? Just because some play is hard to define means that GNS is useless? We use GNS to identify modes of play all the time with positive effects. Nobody ever said that one can classify every game by it's GNS mode (which is not to say that it doesn't have one, just to say that it's not determinable from observation at that point).

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game? Well, plenty. If I said that I had a set of symptoms that one could observe that would diagnose a disease 50% of the time, would that not be valuable? Just because some play is hard to define means that GNS is useless? We use GNS to identify modes of play all the time with positive effects. Nobody ever said that one can classify every game by it's GNS mode (which is not to say that it doesn't have one, just to say that it's not determinable from observation at that point).

Mike Holmes wrote:

John Kim wrote: There were various arguments back and forth over whether it was GNS Simulationist or Narrativist. I could follow these, but ultimately I felt that the arguments over which one it fell into weren't very important.

Why did you feel this way, John? I'd be very curious to know.

A friendly jibe, John, but you seem to me as to GNS as Neitsche was to God. That is you say over and over that GNS is irrelevant, yet here you are arguing about it as much as anyone else. What is it that you're hoping that GNS or any classification system can do for you?

Mike Holmes wrote: What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game?

Mike, you're right.

This is precisely why I think you never should have used the term "resolution" Vincent. And I completely don't understand what you mean by "escalate." I don't see any of this as required by narrativism, and I think you're just using terms that make it intelligible to you personally.

I'm seeing simple shifting play. Some narrativism followed by some simulationism, and never enough to make a clear diagnosis of the overall agenda.

What's the "point" of GNS if it can't diagnose John's game?

A story narrative has to resolve the issue -- it has to make a definite statement about what is right or wrong, not just "A guy killed his brother". Now, the reader might disagree with the authorial judgement in a novel -- and in an RPG a player might disagree with the statement made. But there needs to be a definite statement about the issue to have resolution.

John Kim wrote: I don't disagree with this. However, you're implying that GNS either has to work as written or it should be abandoned.

Mike Holmes wrote:

John Kim wrote: There were various arguments back and forth over whether it was GNS Simulationist or Narrativist. I could follow these, but ultimately I felt that the arguments over which one it fell into weren't very important.

Why did you feel this way, John? I'd be very curious to know.

A friendly jibe, John, but you seem to me as to GNS as Neitsche was to God. That is you say over and over that GNS is irrelevant, yet here you are arguing about it as much as anyone else. What is it that you're hoping that GNS or any classification system can do for you?

I don't think I've said that over and over. I am interested in GNS and in other classification schemes. After all, I wrote a fair bit on the Threefold Model and came up with my own schemes like Narrative Paradigms, for example. I would hope that a good classification scheme will help me communicate clearly with other thoughtful gamers, and help clarify my own thoughts -- and these in turn will help me run and play in better games, and help other people make better games.

lumpley wrote:

John Kim wrote: A story narrative has to resolve the issue -- it has to make a definite statement about what is right or wrong, not just "A guy killed his brother". Now, the reader might disagree with the authorial judgement in a novel -- and in an RPG a player might disagree with the statement made. But there needs to be a definite statement about the issue to have resolution.

Yep, you're clearly right.

Anything to be said about virtuality?

John, cool. Thanks.

I honestly don't get why virtuality would cause that kind of play, as a rule. Wouldn't it depend on the characters and the circumstances? If our characters aren't willing to let the conflicts go like that, won't we escalate and resolve them - because of virtuality?

...Unless "virtuality" means more than an approach to character action and resolution. What constraints are there on character creation in virtuality? Beyond "your character has to be possible," which is a constraint in most play. Are we allowed to conspire together to all play characters who won't or can't let a particular moral conflict rest, or would that seem contrived?

-Vincent
who's sorry to Mike and everybody for more "escalate and resolve."

lumpley wrote:
...Unless "virtuality" means more than an approach to character action and resolution. What constraints are there on character creation in virtuality? Beyond "your character has to be possible," which is a constraint in most play. Are we allowed to conspire together to all play characters who won't or can't let a particular moral conflict rest, or would that seem contrived?

-Vincent
who's sorry to Mike and everybody for more "escalate and resolve."

lumpley wrote: I honestly don't get why virtuality would cause that kind of play, as a rule. Wouldn't it depend on the characters and the circumstances? If our characters aren't willing to let the conflicts go like that, won't we escalate and resolve them - because of virtuality?

...Unless "virtuality" means more than an approach to character action and resolution. What constraints are there on character creation in virtuality? Beyond "your character has to be possible," which is a constraint in most play. Are we allowed to conspire together to all play characters who won't or can't let a particular moral conflict rest, or would that seem contrived?

I think that you both make too much of the requirements of narrativism. It's only about how the decisions are made. It's not about whether or not the decisions are "visible" to anyone else, or follow any sort of dramatic structure per se. Not only can narrativism be performed badly, but even when done well, that doesn't mean that the end result looks any more like a traditional story to anyone observing it. It may well look entirely like a sim game where no attempt is being made to address premise.

I think you guys are both only looking at some small sub-set of narrativism in this discussion.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Not only can narrativism be performed badly, but even when done well, that doesn't mean that the end result looks any more like a traditional story to anyone observing it. It may well look entirely like a sim game where no attempt is being made to address premise.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that you both make too much of the requirements of narrativism. It's only about how the decisions are made. It's not about whether or not the decisions are "visible" to anyone else, or follow any sort of dramatic structure per se. Not only can narrativism be performed badly, but even when done well, that doesn't mean that the end result looks any more like a traditional story to anyone observing it. It may well look entirely like a sim game where no attempt is being made to address premise.

John Kim wrote: Er, Mike? I haven't been making any claims one way or the other about Narrativism. Most recently, I have been talking about Virtuality and its consequences for narrative. Maybe you were thinking of Vincent?

I would encourage you to say more about how you think the distinction is made. Do you disagree with Vincent and think that Water-Uphill-World was indeed Narrativist? Either way, what were your criteria for deciding?

One pitfall to be careful of is something that Chris Lehrich touched upon in More on jargon and models. You are arguing over what Narrativism "really" is.

That is at heart a semantic issue, but around here it implicitly carries a judgement -- i.e. if Vincent's distinction about resolution of human issues isn't vital to Narrativism, then it is less important or interesting. So I welcome your views on Narrativism and how it applies to this game, but it shouldn't be used to limit discussion.

Mike, here's the Narrativism I've been thinking of:

Ron Edwards wrote: Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Narrativism itself only requires that the individual player makes decisions in relation to the moral and ethical quandries that are presented (as opposed to making them in relation to player challenges, or just to be "in" the game world).

lumpley wrote: I don't know what you think I've been saying, but what I mean to've been saying is that Narrativism requires the players to collaboratively address Premise, meaning that they create, continue, and resolve conflicts about a problematic human issue. If that's changing the definition or describing a subset, I don't see how.

Mike, two sentences later in the Narrativism essay Ron says:

The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it.

I'm not sure what Ron means by "paying attention" but my interpretation had been that this is just what it takes for this to be an agenda. That is, players merely have to reinforce each other when "tells" occur. Or even just not criticize each other.

If it does mean that players can't make up premise on their own, then I'd ask for a change in the definition. Because I'm sure that some players employ narrativism in a way that's very personal, and doesn't include any cues to outside players.

If this is not narrativism, then what is it? A. I'm describing something that does not exist. It could be that the definition of narrativism as an agenda only means such that it can be detected as such. But that's never been my understanding before. B. It's simulationism. Which means that only appearance matters. That is, if it's not obviously narrativism, then it's simulationism. Again, this doesn't match what's been discussed previously. C. It's a form of narrativism, and as such, the definition doesn't preclude it.

BTW, this is not the first time we've had this discussion. Last time someone agreed with me (Paul?) that it was narrativism, but not a form that they liked or something.

Mike

Mike: In other words, I can play Narrativist by myself in my group, provided that I'm addressing a Premise and my fellow players aren't screwing it up for me. They don't have to notice what I'm doing in particular, they just have to give me the creative space to do it. Right?

I'll agree to that.

I'm comfortable with your assessment of John's game too, except that it means that John's game doesn't shed much light on the virtuality vs. Narrativism question. So it goes.

John: I'm thinking about virtuality in character creation and scenario setup. I'll post in GNS probably when I compose my thoughts.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: I'm comfortable with your assessment of John's game too, except that it means that John's game doesn't shed much light on the virtuality vs. Narrativism question. So it goes.

Mike Holmes wrote: John, Virtuality isn't binary, is it? That is it's not either on or off during play, but sometimes more on than at others?

Actually I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that virtual in this context related to John's essay found here: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html

That said, the concepts seem to be very similar, and I don't think that anything that I've said fails to make sense in either context.

In any case, Ben, while the mode of play you're describing seems to indicate a "strong" committment, I think that's just one mode of many. That is, I think there are other modes that are just less committed to the idea of a virtual world. Not uncommitted at all, but just less committed. Moreover, I think that actual play striving for these modes fluctuates in it's achievment of the goal in question. Even if very committed, I think that sometimes things waver in play.

Yes, if playing with a 100% Virtualism agenda, I think that there's only room for Sim - Nar play can't occur. But in a realistic percentage of play there's plenty of room for narrativism. Again, see Beeg Horseshoe.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

lumpley wrote: I'm comfortable with your assessment of John's game too, except that it means that John's game doesn't shed much light on the virtuality vs. Narrativism question. So it goes.

That's been my position since John published the essay originally. They're not entirely unrelated concepts, but there's certainly no one to one link between, say, Virtuality and Simulationism (ala GNS - I'm not sure about threefold).

What I do think this relates to, however, is my version of the Beeg Horseshoe. Essentially I think that Virutality is a quality of the "sim" axis, a precondition, if you will.

John, Virtuality isn't binary, is it? That is it's not either on or off during play, but sometimes more on than at others?

2) Which one am I? Drama-, Game-, or Simulation-oriented?
Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot be pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but you probably value a mix.

At the moment, then, I'm not seeing any unanswered questions. Is there still a problem with understanding something somewhere here, then?

Mike

I think that there are a number of theory questions which have been opened up -- but they should be discussed under RPG Theory or GNS Model Discussion, I think. I think we're close to wrapping up the actual play discussion. Just a few clarifications here.

Mike Holmes wrote: In any case, Ben, while the mode of play you're describing seems to indicate a "strong" committment, I think that's just one mode of many. That is, I think there are other modes that are just less committed to the idea of a virtual world. Not uncommitted at all, but just less committed. Moreover, I think that actual play striving for these modes fluctuates in it's achievment of the goal in question. Even if very committed, I think that sometimes things waver in play.

Yes, if playing with a 100% Virtualism agenda, I think that there's only room for Sim - Nar play can't occur. But in a realistic percentage of play there's plenty of room for narrativism. Again, see Beeg Horseshoe.

Mike Holmes wrote: Actually I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that virtual in this context related to John's essay found here: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html

That said, the concepts seem to be very similar, and I don't think that anything that I've said fails to make sense in either context.

John Kim wrote:
Hmm. Water-Uphill-World was intentionally designed as an experiment which tried for 100% Virtuality. In practice, I think I came as close to 100% as any real game is -- though there were certainly some slips and shortcuts.

Well, the "Virtual Experience" paradigm is defined completely differently than rgfa Threefold Simulationism (aka Virtuality). Sorry if the word "Virtual" intersects here, but I'm dealing with what has happened before. (i.e. GNS appropriated the term Simulationism to mean something different). It may be that the two are correlated, but they are pretty darn different as defined.

The experiential paradigm is defined in terms of what is considered the discourse or product of play -- i.e. what is "real". However, it says nothing about how situations are resolved. So this may include, say, a LARP where various tricks are taken to try to encourage player emotional experience.

Mike Holmes wrote: "Intended." By yourself, right? Were the players informed of the intent? In the terms discussed here, or something approximate that would make them understand? It sounds to me like you're just talking about your own play as GM, which probably was completely sim. Which doesn't mean, however, that the players didn't ever do "narrativism-ish" things. And I'm not saying that you had a narrativism agenda, as a group, either, just that it was mixed, as I've said before.

Mike Holmes wrote: What I'm saying is that Virtualism as a subset of simulationism is play where decisions are made such that play is likely to produce the goal of Virtuality. That is, the Virtuality subset of simulationism produces that "Virtiual Experience" paradigm (when successful), no?

John Kim wrote: Well, of the players, two (Mike and Lisa) were pretty new to role-playing -- so I didn't lay much theory on them.

However, Josh (who played Noriko) understood pretty well my intention and was completely on board (I had met him through rgfa and we had discussed Simulationism at length). Both Russell (who played Martin) and Liz (who played Kate) understood reasonably well, I think. Liz I think wasn't completely on board with the concept of rgfa Simulationism. She complained some about the flat pacing of the game, for example.

I'm curious how you picture the game being mixed agenda and what effect this would have. How do you think my game would have been different if I had had pure Virtuality players?

In this case, what draws the players is the external results of the game (i.e. the shared play), not the immersive experience inside the player's head.