Ron wrote,

P.S. Whoops, editing this in, Marco - your example sounds Narrativist to me. But it's kinda sketchy in your summary, so maybe I'm projecting into it to say so. Can you start a thread about it with specific reference to techniques, interactions, and so on?

The game to which I referred was the most recently posted one in Actual Play here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12061

I am posting a second game with notes (in which I was a player) shortly.

I want to talk here about the general expectations, techniques, and interactions that were common to both games. This, I think, encompasses some of "why we play," some of "what we do when we play," and some of "what we expect others to do to facilitate our play."

I think it is agreed that while there's a lot of overlap, these are not the same thing.

Note: Both these games are, IMO/IME, abnormal in terms of general roleplaying. They were:

1. Short (run over about 3 days) but intense (approx. 20-26 hours of play).
2. There was no reward mechanism at work nor was one expected by the players.
3. Everyone expected a single focus of action rather than a serial of adventures involving the same character. Each game is a single "novel."


GM's Preferences, Responsibilities and Expectations
Preference for Story
I believe in both cases (one where I was a GM and one where I was a player) there was a wish on the part of the GM that the transcript of play be a decent story. This would be in the following respects:

1. A sense of action and pacing would hopefully be preserved.
2. There would be a basic introduction of characters (PC and NPC), a general rising of action without massively time consuming side-trips, and then a climax (and follow-through, which, in accordance with past history could take place outside the game with a Q&A session with the GM and players).
3. There would be some element of "craftsmanship" in a literary sense to the situation (i.e. the GM would be pleased with his "cool ideas" and set-up).

Payoff: The payoff for me as a GM is a sense of statisfaction and kudos from the players. Both are important to me in about equal measure. I consider running a "great game" a feat of skill (and a little luck sometimes) and I'm pleased when I can pull it off.

Responsibilities
Speaking for myself (I believe the other GM would agree), I felt that I was responsible to be:
1. Fair. I would not place my preferences over someone else's all things being equal. That meant that in the case of a conflict of desired outcome, for example, rolling the dice (on the table) would be an acceptable resolution. If what a player desires is something I think (or know because of special knowledge of the situation) is impossible then I would go with my ruling.

2. Consistent. I had to have as good an idea as I could about what was going on and drive from that map rather than just inventing things constantly or, say, to serve my preference for a good transcript of play. Things could be invented, yes, but I'd have to do my best to make sure that everything introduced into the game followed from the starting set-up.

3. Entertaining. Ultimately I saw myself as the facilitator of a good time. That meant that description, atmosphere, and dialog would need to be gripping. I wanted the action to appeal to the players as well as characters, and I wanted (within the constrains of the first two responsibilities) to ensure that the players were kept engaged.

If the players became un-engaged or the action became unsatisfactory, so long as it was fair and consistent, I would let that happen too. I wouldn't be pleased with it--but that was my commitment (and it was a pretty strong commitment--but not absolute--note: in my case it almost ended the game on a less than climactic note).

Expectations (as a GM)
I expected my players to bring any issues to me before there were hard feelings. Although there has been some discussion of this, I'm not sure how well it was communicated. It wasn't an issue in either game.

I expected the players to be somewhat proactive. I expected the players to have some amount of motivation and be willing to take a hand in initiation of action. I don't demand that they "always have thought of something to do"--but I expect at least some movement or exploration on their part (and if there's a lot, so much the better).

I expected the players to align their characters within the confines of the starting scenario (or bring exceptions to me early). I expect this will be tricky to explain. The starting stuff I gave them specficed some basic facts about the characters. Stuff like:

.- You're both about the same age (young)
.- You're both friends.
.- For a reason you decide you both live in this town.
.- You have a passion--tell me what it is.

I did not say: "This is a tale where you play a character from SW Indian mythhology incarnated in the present. Please guide your play accordingly." The starting scenario rules, for my game, for instance, precluded someone playing Donald Trump.

I expected the players to be enthausitiac and energetic.

A Note on Preferences vs. Responsibilities: I hold my responsibilities higher than my preferences as a GM. I would hold to them even if the experience was poor (obviously at some point, I'd quit)--but I would expect to learn from the experience and produce a more satisfying game next time

Expectations as a Player
As a player I expected that GM be fair, and consistent, as outlined above. This meant that I felt that I could, literally, do anything I wanted to (with gating factors being the imaginary physical reality).

I did not adhere to genre constraints or a GM's expectation of either story or theme.

I expected the GM to have some powerful ideas and some interesting situation--but I did not expect to be forced by anything other than internal cause to interact with them.

If the GM or another player had said to me (when I took some action) "that's out of genre" I'd have been surprised (but I would be more surprised that the game--either of them--was seen as fitting into a specific genre). I wouldn't consider that a valid complaint on its stated merrits (although a player being upset would get my attention).

I do not expect the other players to always approve of what I do. There are times when I do things because I want to (but I do share in the responsiblity to get along).

I play from Actor Stance most of the time. When, as a player, I know something about the internal state of the character that the character doesn't, it's more like Author Stance but I'm still trying to get inside the character's head.

I do not play characters with regard to what statement their actions will make or what theme will be produced.

GMing Techniques
As a GM the techniques that I used were:
1. Framing (for time passing, with full attendance to a player saying "Wait, before the next day, I do something).

2. Dramatic Timing. When an event is likely to occur (for internal cause reasons) I allow it to happen at the most dramatic time. I am aware that if dramtic timing circumscribes a players actions or has severe consequences due to the timing that they would likely have a complaint with me--and one that I would agree is legitimate. If I think that's likely I would want to roll for timing (on the table, preferably with the circumstances described to the player).

3. Dramatic Technique. When a character in my game went out to examine a location in the desert, I had the reporter who had called to say she was showing up the next day appear out there, taking pictures (of something the character would rather she not see).

That was a breach of Virtuality in that, I had not decided the reporter was snooping around and while I did specify that she had some "evidence of weird stuff happening out by where the character was" I did not specify recent photographic evidence (and even if she was out in the desert taking pictures the experiment site was very large--they wouldn't likely have met each other).

This was something I'm very careful with and don't like doing. It happened at the start of the game and (I think, I was not really cognziant of it at the time) it helped to get the energy up and moving. It was, essentially "raising the stakes" (the reporter and the character's auditor were both arriving tomorrow--now the reporter had pictures).

I would object if this was done often to me. In this case the impact was minimal and positive (in terms of the player's reactions)--and I'm not even sure my players would share the same expectations that I do.

NOTE: I greatly refrained from doing this through the rest of the game--when the PC's didn't engage with 'Major' NPC's, I had the NPC's re-appear only as I thought it most likely and never when it would've forced the kind of interaction I'd expected.

A Note On GNS
I don't know if there's ever going to be enough information to rate the game one way or the other--I believe the latter part of the game fits all or most of the description of Narrativism and the begining fits the defintion of exploration of situation.

Perhaps play shifted back and forth (exploration of situation illuminating a premise-style choice which was then made by the player)--but I don't know what GNS-enabled conclusions to draw about the game.

What I think is important to note is this:
1. The 3D Model gives me a good way to talk about what my expectations of a GM are (or responsibilities if I am the GM).
2. In terms of Ralph's model, I would say the GM is Nar and the players are looking for What-If (myself as a player too).

If the GM violates What-If (Virtuality) enough, I will complain, even if it brings the Premise more front-and-center.

A Note On Mechanics
This is echoed in the (as yet unposted) writeup for the second game. The mechanics for both these games were what, I believe, would be considered Sim. That would seem to square with the what-if nature of play.

I think it's really about what role I want mechanics to take. While I more or less demand a pretty strong commitment to what-if play, I wouldn't be as excited (I took days off from work) in playing in the GM's game if I didn't think it wouldn't include powerful "thematic" elements (Premise sorts of things--things that get me emotionally involved).

But part of the fun is finding out what those elements will be (and how they interact with the thematic elements my player brings to the table.

The render-the-world aspect of the mechics fits that bill perfectly. It suits the interaction of my play-style and my expectations.

I admit that this may be pure, standard, GNS Sim (or maybe High-Concept Sim)--but I don't see the gating agent that Ron has described--and if High Concept Sim has premise elements and allows choice, I'm not sure what differentates it from Nar play, ultimately.

-Marco

Hiya,

My call is Narrativist. Here's why.

1. The distinction between early and late play, specifically that a sense of Premise wasn't discernible early, isn't an important consideration.

As a basis for comparison, most Sorcerer play is actually predicated on not knowing where one's character stands, ethically or "whose side" or whatever, for a considerable period. That's supposed to emerge through decisions made while role-playing, not through front-loading.

2. The whole What-If terminology makes my head hurt. What I'm seeing in your write-up is that the players entered into the imaginary effort/endeavor (whatever we call it, the communication among us) with a good will to get into it. That's not Sim. It's not even "Virtuality" as I understand it. It's merely enjoyment of the SIS, which is to say, a necessary feature of role-playing which may or may not be intense.

[This ties into some of my larger issues with the Threefold which will be a thread sometime in September.]

3. So, putting the two of those together and looking at this,

part of the fun is finding out what those elements will be (and how they interact with the thematic elements my player brings to the table.

The render-the-world aspect of the mechics fits that bill perfectly. It suits the interaction of my play-style and my expectations.

... is solid Narrativism. Rock solid. I guess it's really hard for me to see why people can't understand that playing (e.g.) BRP or JAGS and achieving exactly this goal is a perfectly viable form of Narrativist play. The Creative Agenda is yours, not something the game system "makes you do."

This post is written partly in hope and partly in frustration, with a certain skew toward the former. What I'm really hoping is that the following false syllogism

Ron thinks JAGS facilitates Simulationist play very well
I play JAGS and have a great time with all sorts of emergent thematic impact on all of us
I must not be playing Narrativist because we used JAGS

can finally be stabbed very hard with a sword and left to bleed in agony and then die, forever and forever, amen. I picked JAGS on purpose 'cause it's a good game by all accounts.

In other words, discussing the CAs we might be according with during play is aided by discussing what game system was involved, and it is aided by talking about features like reward systems and so on, but naming the game system as a determining feature - (a ha! you're using D&D! So it's Gamist!) is invalid.

Where are we - me and you, specifically - on this point, Marco? Making sense? Enjoying the conversation? Glaring at each other? Or?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:

Where are we - me and you, specifically - on this point, Marco? Making sense? Enjoying the conversation? Glaring at each other? Or?

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

We're definitely not glaring at each other--in fact, I agree with almost all of your analysis! There are a couple of areas that I want to discuss.

1. "The whole What-If terminology makes my head hurt."

I believe you and I wanna make a suggestion as to why: there is a subtle difference in paradigm that makes these conversations very hard to have since the same language means different things in each paradigm.

The first is (for lack of a better term) the GNS paradigm which (my parpahrase) states that the reason people play is to get enjoyment out of one of three general kinds of activities (G/N/S).

The second is (for lack of a better term) the GDS paradigm which (my paraphrase) states that people of different bents most enjoy play when the general activity of play conforms to certain rules (G/D/S).

A given gamer may well be best described by both axises (I know what I want and I know how I like to have it served).

Hence, in GNS, the game (by your analysis) is Nar because a substantial part of my fun is the address of Premise (and this is correct, IMO).

In GDS terms, the rules of the activity that I prefer are closer towards the GDS Sim end of the triangle. Something reasonably close to what has been termed Virtuality here.

Now, the problem with having the conversation isn't simply that GNS and GDS share some of the same nomenclature--it's that GNS Sim (check the sections of the essay Contracycle quoted recently, arguing that GNS Sim was Virtuality) sounds a lot like GDS Sim if you aren't cognizant of the paradigm shift necessary to translate it.

The result is that you can explain GNS Sim until you're blue in the face and it won't make any sense--unless you explain the context.

This brings us to point 2.

2. I'm not entirely sure what GNS Sim is. (Don't roll your eyes just yet--hear me out):

Here's the quote I'm looking at (and I fully realize this was done in a post, not an essay--so I'm not comparing it to other stuff). Where I'm going with this is that it seems, to me (right now) that GNS Sim sort of straddles the line between being rules of playing combined with "what we did."

Simulationist play is defined by confirming one's input, via the output.

You're a Star Trek fan? OK, then, let's play Star Trek. Whatever the agreed-upon important input is, its effect during play is supposed to get us Star Trek.

That input might be the funny-physics of the show. Fine - we work out what those are (or read them in the sourcebook, whatever) and put them into action via System.

Or that input might be the distinctive character interactions or political tropes of the show. Fine - we dedicate ourselves to depicting and reinforcing those issues through what our characters do, which is also System.

If GNS Sim is defined as a process of rejecting certain input (say that the captain has a messy, vengance laden affair with his crewmember, something that never happens in the Star Fleet of TV--but might happen, in some people's opinion, in the "real" star fleet) then it's both a rule (we will play by the Dramatist tropes of the show) and 'What We Did'--we rejected Joe's attempt to have an affair.

However, this doesn't work for Virtuality, which would not, likely, reject such things (for Virtuality to reject it, the characters would all have some trait like "self-actualized: always behaves with clarity and with regard to personal integrity"--or whatever. This would essentially mean that in the world of Star Trek, with regard to interpersonal relationships, at least, everyone is sorta mind-controlled or so well therapized that they never screw up--something that would have vast implications for star trek society and would be very, very difficult to roleplay (IMO)).

Note: if someone says that's a "Sim Style Character-Hijack Disadvantage" they're missing the point--but I won't go into that here in the interest of space.

In the example where the game involves the weird technology or "funny physics" (the closest example to Virtuality in that list, IMO) then I don't see what sort of input would be rejected/confirmed--I mean, I don't see anything that would preclude narrativism coming from that. My game had weird technology and funky (the funkiest) of physics ... and we did work them out and (roughly) implement them via system.

Now: I can see GNS Sim Gaming defined one of two ways.

Under GDS paradigm it would be something like: The GM and other players will reject anything that doesn't square with an assumed "point." That might be pure Dramatist with the GM ensuring the story comes out a certain way.

It could be open-ended and have no 'dramatic' timing events or literary structure or plot protection or cinematic action or anything--but if you stray from some stated boundary then you're wrong.

But in the GNS paradigm I think it's more like: we watched play where no one got really emotionally involved or, maybe did--but restrained themselves or were restrained by maybe the GM (note: Christopher K. kinda hits on this directly)

And I think, maybe, this whole lenghty, rambling post gets to the point that, from my perspective, GNS Sim as usually discussed is a GDS artifact (although it is not necessiarily any specific one of the GDS three lobes).

If this is seen as a valuable way of looking at it (and I'm not assuming I'll be convincing here) then I would reassess what a GNS-Sim facilitating game is (and while I see that an argument could be made for the disads being a restraining factor, I believe that's logically weak for reasons that I'll expound on later if anyone cares).

-Marco