In this post in Waiting for Narrativism...

John Kim wrote: What do you think about the split of "whether something is real even if its not entered that space, vs. only if it has" (as Ralph phrases it)? This seems to match my Storytelling paradigm vs Immersive Experience paradigm.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right but I think you're saying commitment is a better term than "real."

I think that's a reasonable assertion but I'm not sure it's more correct than the other way around: since no one thinks the imaginary space is "really real" anyway, using the term "real" seems both valid in context and sufficiently clear (the two words might represent different takes on it and saying one is more harmful than the other seems like a matter of opinion to me).

But where I have a specific issue is this: there are things that *are* in the shared imaginary space that may not be obvious to the other participants. The clear case of this is a master villain whose actions are predicated on data the players don't know.

They can see the actions but until they have the whole picture the actions don't make sense to them. It's the tip-of-the-iceberg scenario.

That backstory is, IMO, as 'real' as anything in the shared imaginary space since it informs it.

This applies from the player's standpoint too: a player has a secret about his character no one knows but it informs his play until it's unveiled.

The problem is that, in a sense, *everything* in the participants private imaginary space casts those shadows into the shared space IME.

And when they conflict it's just as valid as any other conflict, IMO.

-Marco

Also: I read Raven as saying that the GM (in a Nar game, I think) has a mandate to keep things moving in an interesting and forward-going manner no matter what the players decide.

I don't agree with that. I agree that ideally the play will be interesting and forward moving but it seems clear to me that there are going to be gradients to that and if enough specific decisions are made by people on either side of the GM's screen that one can move into fairly bleak territory without anyone being 'to blame.'

So I think the important question is *why*/under what conditions do you give up on your commitment or the reality of your ideas?

And it seems to me from reading the fora here that there's a pretty significant story/virtuality split ... and I think that does seem pretty congruent (but perhaps not causal) to two distinctive views of Narrativism (classic GNS vs., maybe, Beeg Horseshoe).

-Marco

But where I have a specific issue is this: there are things that *are* in the shared imaginary space that may not be obvious to the other participants. The clear case of this is a master villain whose actions are predicated on data the players don't know.

They can see the actions but until they have the whole picture the actions don't make sense to them. It's the tip-of-the-iceberg scenario.

That backstory is, IMO, as 'real' as anything in the shared imaginary space since it informs it.

Marco wrote: The problem is that, in a sense, *everything* in the participants private imaginary space casts those shadows into the shared space IME.

Gaerik wrote:

But where I have a specific issue is this: there are things that *are* in the shared imaginary space that may not be obvious to the other participants. The clear case of this is a master villain whose actions are predicated on data the players don't know.

They can see the actions but until they have the whole picture the actions don't make sense to them. It's the tip-of-the-iceberg scenario.

That backstory is, IMO, as 'real' as anything in the shared imaginary space since it informs it.

I would say that the backstory isn't real until it is actually revealed in the SiS. Let's take your example of the villian. In a setting where the GM has hidden knowledge of the villian's motives, they still aren't real until the GM reveals them for the simple reason that up until they are revealed they can be changed at the GM's whim... and no one would know the difference. As a GM, I've had NPC's that I've started with one set of backstory and motivations and then through play discovered a better one by paying attention to my players.

So, while the villian's actions (and personality) are real and can be deduced in the SiS. I'd have to say that specific motivations and background are not solidified until they actually enter the game, either through narration or group discussion when setting up the game or whatever other methods there are.

...accidental post...

It doesn't matter when things become "real." As Marco says, there are people committed to both views, and so what anyway?

The question is, can you tell which CA a game has by which view its players take? Do John's Storytelling vs. Virtual Experience paradigms line up with Narrativism vs. Sim?

It occurs to me as I pose the question that the answer is a big inescapable no! Here's why: I hold the extreme of one view - nothing's real in the game until it's been established by fully-informed group consensus, plus sufficient time has passed since then that nobody's going to take it back, for all roleplaying anywhere ever - and yet I can still play Simulationist if I want to.

-Vincent

What about the reverse: you'll play in my real-world where I don't change things behind the scene to promote story/premise/whatever.

Can you play Nar then?

-Marco

Absolutely. We can set the game up from the start to play out Narrativist, right out in the open. When does My Life with Master (eg) say to rewrite behind the scenes?

-Vincent

I don't know MLWM--how about GURPS or Hero? Do the rules have to have some sort of powerful support for Narrativist play or is this something you can do as easily as you shift it to Sim?

Edited to add: If we do use a traditional game system, what kind of work needs to be done? Can the GM simply make a premiseful situation and give you some basic character parameters or do we need some lit-theory style discussions of theme, what will and won't be done to characters, and limits on the GM's power?

If so what would that look like?

FWIW: I'm not sure that viewpoint is related to CA either--but if it's not then I think a serious look needs to be taken at the concept of Force.

-Marco

Well, if you buy what I've been selling selling selling for the last few days, what you need to launch a Narrativist game is: fit characters at a turning point into a moral conflict, plus resolution rules that won't fuck up the escalation. I imagine you can play GURPS or Hero that way, if you get the characters and initial situation right. Will GURPS's resolution rules fuck up the escalation? If so, I'm pretty sure that rewriting behind the scenes won't save us.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Well, if you buy what I've been selling selling selling for the last few days, what you need to launch a Narrativist game is: fit characters at a turning point into a moral conflict, plus resolution rules that won't fuck up the escalation. I imagine you can play GURPS or Hero that way, if you get the characters and initial situation right. Will GURPS's resolution rules fuck up the escalation? If so, I'm pretty sure that rewriting behind the scenes won't save us.

-Vincent

I've often suggested on this board that there can be elements accepted as real in the shared imaginary space which are known only to one of the contributors. The biggest example is when the group agrees to play a module, agreeing that the contents of the module define the world but that only the referee is permitted to read the module. It works the same way if the referee creates his own maps, his own world, and has done so in advance of play--everyone agrees that whatever is in that file of papers from which he's working is part of the shared imaginary space, waiting to be shared more completely.

The same can be the case for events. If as referee I know that no matter what the player characters do, in three months from this game date there is going to be a major economic collapse, that's part of the Shared Imaginary Space even if it has not yet been revealed. I think it may be part of the SIS even if I don't know when it's going to happen but I know it to be a certainty waiting for the right moment.

Those sorts of predetermined moments can function as kickers; they aren't limited to one agendum.

--M. J. Young

Vince, you're doing synechdoche. The way you play Narrativist, with characters, strong backstory, turning points, etc. is great. It works. I like it. But it's not the only way there is. Sure, you can do it in GURPS. But in a Narrativist game, *everyone is Herbie.* If you use GURPS, there will be a lot of Herbie's time wasted.

Marco wrote: What about the reverse: you'll play in my real-world where I don't change things behind the scene to promote story/premise/whatever.

Can you play Nar then?

Marco wrote:
And those resolution systems: if the player does select Crippling Cowardice (a hypothetical character-hijack: I don't think it's a real GURPS/Hero Disad) does that mean it'll fuck up the escalation or that the lack of control the player may have in that situation can actually be *crucial* to the situation?

That is: the esclation is hightened because the player has intentionally cut off an avenue of "action" for his character and wants it that way?

-Marco

Nathan: What's a Herbie?

I think you may be spotting the thing I left out. I hit submit, powered down my machine, we all got our shoes on and left for the fireworks, and I'm like, "...oh crap."

Here's what I shoulda said.

In a better world, I wrote: Well, if you buy what I've been selling selling selling for the last few days, what you need to launch a Narrativist game is: fit characters at a turning point into a moral conflict, plus resolution rules that won't fuck up the escalation or the players' investment and contributions. I imagine you can play GURPS or Hero that way, if you get the characters and initial situation right. Will GURPS's resolution rules fuck up the escalation or the players' authorship? If so, I'm pretty sure that rewriting behind the scenes won't save us.

If the GM runs things as a virtuality would you consider a situation that developes plausibly into a narrow corridor of possibilities (i.e. eventually you are left with few good options) Force?

Caldis,

There's no question that a player wishing to explore Cowardice in a certian fashion might be ill-advised to take that exact disad in GURPS (you can explore Cowardice just fine in GURPS without the disadvantage, for example).

Even if one does, the GM is allowed to assign WIL modifiers and therefore it becomes a matter of the player explaining his position (if the player explains that the love of his life is on the line in a cowardice-vs-love situation and the GM says "Plus Zero" then, well, I think the player has a good reason to walk).

As for the dice determining things: I don't see that's the real issue so much. Yes, the dice may determine things but dice can determine things like if you're knocked out too. While I agree it's different, I'm not sure it's all *that* different: in my experience players who've taken "cowardice" (or whatever) have done so because they wanted the experience of playing a character with that but, and this is key, that may not have been central to the Premise they wanted to address. Same as taking Flaws in TROS.

In fact, let's look at TROS: a fine system that is generally seen as either very Nar or at worst Sim/Nar hybrid (i.e. coherent). In that a character can have Lecherous and Loves Wife (5). If the GM introduces a threat to a mistress (introduced through Lecherous) and the wife the player may decide his character loves his new mistress more but the system won't support that (changing SA focus will drop his SA to zero and cost him one other as well--if that decision is made at crisis time the whole thing's a bust).

Basically the GM who engineers a choice between a newly beloved mistress and the passion the character has 5 dice in is using the system to defeat the player's choice (and this might be a surprise for the GM, the player may, in the heat of the crisis decide his physical passion is more important than his spoken commitment). But the problem an issue of the system: If the player could just "adjust his focus" at will, this wouldn't be an issue and would work "correctly" (the answer to premise the player wants will be facilitated by five extra dice!)

But it's the same thing in GURPS. At leas the way I've played it (and if that's drift then so be it: I'd call it the GM and players paying attention to each other having a good time--the changes were not at the rule-system level).

-Marco

lumpley wrote:
And I should say, my limited experience with GURPS suggests that as the players' investment and authorship increases, the number of times per session that they roll dice or look at their character sheets decreases pretty radically. But that's just me.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Nathan: What's a Herbie?

Marco wrote: Caldis,

There's no question that a player wishing to explore Cowardice in a certian fashion might be ill-advised to take that exact disad in GURPS (you can explore Cowardice just fine in GURPS without the disadvantage, for example).

In fact, let's look at TROS: a fine system that is generally seen as either very Nar or at worst Sim/Nar hybrid (i.e. coherent). In that a character can have Lecherous and Loves Wife (5). If the GM introduces a threat to a mistress (introduced through Lecherous) and the wife the player may decide his character loves his new mistress more but the system won't support that (changing SA focus will drop his SA to zero and cost him one other as well--if that decision is made at crisis time the whole thing's a bust).

Paganini wrote:
I think Ron disagrees with me a bit here, but: Since "Addressing Premise" includes creating it, as well as resolving it, I think character creation can be actual Narrativist play.

So if you're playing GURPS or D&D or whatever and you're using chargen techniques to get your character into the kind of problematic situation you want, then bang, Narrativism during chargen.

Absolutely Caldis!

lumpley wrote:

John Kim wrote: What do you think about the split of "whether something is real even if its not entered that space, vs. only if it has" (as Ralph phrases it)? This seems to match my Storytelling paradigm vs Immersive Experience paradigm.

I think that the idea that something's real in your game even though your fellow players don't know about it is, y'know, wrong. Sometimes it's wrong and harmful, sometimes - maybe most of the time - it's wrong and it doesn't matter.

Don't miss the "in your game." Something you've thought of but not communicated can be real in your own private head, your own private experience of the game, but it can't be real in the group consensus. Because it's not in the group consensus.

Caldis wrote: But what if two disadvantages come into conflict? This is where the system breaks down if the character comes into a situation where his cowardice prevents him from acting to save the love of his life the Gurps system puts it in the hands of dice rolls. The player cant make the decision on whether it's possible to overcome cowardice when something important is on the line, only the dice can make the decision. That destorys narrativism in my mind.

John Kim wrote: As Marco aptly puts it -- nothing in the game is physically real, regardless of whether 1, 2, or 5 people imagine it. You can define "the game" as group consensus -- but that's just makes the definition circular. To me, what's important is the collection of players' individual imaginings. The abstraction of "the group" as a unified entity might be useful to help everyone have fun, but it's a means to an end and not a real thing.

I'm curious about the "wrong and harmful" part. What sort of harm do you think that I cause when I imagine stuff as real?

Caldis,

I'm not missing the distinction: I know both games pretty well. I don't even disagree with your analysis. I do, however, think your conclusions are overly extreme.

1. TRoS contains exactly the same character hijacks GURPS does (in exactly the same place). If it's a coherent Nar/Sim game (as is claimed) then clearly there must be some way around them. You might argue that GURPS is bad for some kinds of play: be it playing a game where cowardice is taken by the player, defined in the system, and functions as a hijack against the player's will.

You might also say it doesn't work for high level supers. I slaute you for either one. But it's a matter of opinion and how the system is applied to those concepts.

For example, in GURPS the combat system isn't nearly as deadly as TROS's so when the TROS character's wish to address premise is denied by the system (by its refusal to help) the consequnece is pretty much death or a choice not to act--sounds pretty confining to me.

-Marco

Marco,

So, this is getting a little far afield from what we're talking about in the other thread, but...

There's this fairly common perception that Nar facilitation is all about giving players unlimited freedom. Now, this is not true. In fact, the only freedom that players need to promote Nar play is that of creating and resolving Premise. It can even be a *specific* premise, as in Sorcerer. So, "Nar facilitating" doesn't mean "Complete Player Freedom." It doesn't even have to mean "complete freedom to Address Premise," although, often it does.

I believe a lot of people feel that the restrictions in TROS drive play in a particularly desireable direction. I personally haven't played it yet, although I do own the book, and have read it a couple of times. As a veteran of a lot of Nar play, I feel that it would produce some pretty great sessions, although the combat stuff is a little to heavy to work well on IRC, where I play most of my games.

Marco wrote:

For example, in GURPS the combat system isn't nearly as deadly as TROS's so when the TROS character's wish to address premise is denied by the system (by its refusal to help) the consequnece is pretty much death or a choice not to act--sounds pretty confining to me.

-Marco

Caldis wrote:
Not at all. The Riddle of Steel is set up to answer the question what is worth fighting for and because it is so deadly the question is really what is worth risking death for. If the player chooses a fight for this new love in his life and it's a close situation where those extra dice from the SA would make the difference he had better either fight smart with the aim of getting him and his love away from trouble or else be prepared to die for the cause. The player has the choice and that's what's important, in Gurps their is no choice.

Now gurps is a fine system and I'm currently engaging in a fun fantasy campaign, very simmy with a fair dose of gamism. However It does restrict in certain ways and there definitely are ways we've drifted the system, specifically the gm has never made us roll to force an action if an disadvantage comes up. Really our disadvantages are used primarily as color, and it works for us, but it's not by the rules.

GURPS and TRoS disads work exactly the same way. Same character hijack, you know.

character with zero SA dice in play seems to me to be in the same situation as a GURPS character

Is it that GURPS is *less* deadly that you think the player need not either play smart or use tactics and strategy?

Topic check -- while the GURP vs TROS stuff is potentially interesting, it is completely unrelated to the topic of the thread. I would suggest starting a new thread for it, please.

Meanwhile, in reply to Caldis...

Caldis wrote:

John Kim wrote: I'm curious about the "wrong and harmful" part. What sort of harm do you think that I cause when I imagine stuff as real?

The danger in assuming what you've preimagined is a real part of the game is if play moves on to the point where your imaginings no longer hold relevance but you've put enough work into them that you feel you must shoe horn them back into the game somehow. It's not a given that this will happen, as Vincent said it may be innocent it may be harmful, but that is where the danger lies.

contracycle wrote:

GURPS and TRoS disads work exactly the same way. Same character hijack, you know.

No they are completely different critters. Its not a case of 'choosing' to have SA's overpower flaws; SA's give bonusses which may be used to overpower flaws; thus its is exactly arising from system, not the GM's abnegation of system.

ahem. Deleted as that was intended to go by PM.

I'll take this to PM's then. The reason I used TRoS was that I was told by Ralph, Matt, and Raven (less so) that it was an example of a coherent Narrativist game (and that the SA's meant that a novice would overpower a master in actual play taking the gamist elements out of the combat system).

I'd seen posts by Ron calling it a coherent Nar/Sym hybrid (not abashedly Narrativist) with a good deal of argumentation.

If there's not nearly universal agreement on what it facilitates or why it does so, then it's not the good example I'd thought it was.

-Marco