From "Sacrificing Character Integrity" - a Rant.

Nathan wrote: Vince, I don't usually disagree with you, but I got to now. Train of thought commencing:

A transcript is an account of the sequence of events that is created in the SiS during play.

The definition of Sim is that the priority of the players is to ensure that the transcript is internally consistent with respect to one (or more) of Character, Situation, Setting, etc. Such a causal transcrapt may include Premise (problematic human issue) and theme (resolution of said issue), but the players of the game do not care how those issues resolve, so long as they resolve in a way that is consistent with the previously established prameters of the SiS.

The definition of Nar is that the player does indeed care about the Problematic Issue resolving in a particular way. The player desires a specific outcome, because it has personal significance. Having the moral issue resolve a certain way makes a point about the player's beliefs as one of the Real People (TM).

That's the thin dividing line: If you don't care how the Problematic Issue resolves, it's Sim with Theme. If you do care how the Problematic Issue resolves, it's Nar.

So, there will absolutely be times when resolving the Problematic Human Issue in the way *you* want it to resolve will violate the game's causality. It may even contradict SiS parameters that you have previously established about your character. This happens constantly in literature, movies, and so on. It's called a "turning point." The character does something unexpected, something that is out of character given what you already know about him. This is interpereted by the audience as character growth. It's a fundamental part of making three-dimensional characters.

In the hypothetical pure Sim-Char mode, a player will *never* make a decision that will violate previously established facts about his character. If the character is described as being miserly, he'll *always* be miserly, until the player gets tired of playing a miser and makes a new character. The miser will never take pity on the poor starving waif as penetence for the death of his own brother, who died in a workhouse.

In the hypothetical pure Nar mode, a player will violate the previouslly established facts any time he needs to, to ensure that the Problematic Human Issue is resolved with the outcome he wants it to have.

Speaking from the nosebleed section of the peanut gallery....

"That's like, nonsense. That's not the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism a'tall. I'm thrown for a total loop, I'm not sure what to say. "

To ensure that I can follow, could you restate the situation cited such that it better shows how you understand the distinction?

Sure thing.

Situation and characters as written.

If the GM's decided that killing the kid is what my character will do, and arranges things so that I have no other setting- and character-consistent choice, that's Force and thus not Narrativism. (Or if any other player does the same, or I do the same to any other player's take on the issue.)

Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him? Let him go? Make bail? Leave him in jail? It's Narrativism. Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise. Story Now.

-Vincent

Hey Vincent

Unless I am way off the make, Force is the act of deprotagonizing a player's thematically significant decision. That the DM creates a really shitty situation where there are only poor choices for the player is just Scene Framing.

As long the DM didn't vacate a decision you as the player have already made, nor removed the opportunity for any decision from within a situation that you would ordinarily have exercised a decision then that is not Force. You always have a choice even if none of them are to your liking.

I could be wrong but I think Force deals more with decisions player make from within a Situation, not the construction of a Situation.

lumpley wrote: shoot him? Let him go? Make bail? Leave him in jail?

Jay: Narrativists limit their responses according to who the character is and what they want to say about him too. Narrativists don't consider the theme over the character. If they even consider the theme at all - usually it's just an overriding force in the character's life, like it's going to be for my vigilante guy. I'm not going to think about "tonight on roleplaying: family: is it worth more than justice-or-whatever?" I'm going to think about "damn, the gun got heavy all of a sudden. And my stomach's a frickin' mess."

Playing the character doesn't make it Simulationist play. Playing a character who can make a thematic statement makes it Narrativist.

-Vincent

What you're saying is clear, Vincent, but it's missing half of the answer I'm looking for - what's the Simulationist angle?

If playing a character who can make a thematic statement is Narrativist, what's the similar level of definition for Simulationist, and how would a Simulationist approach the situation you described initially?

Nathan wrote:
The definition of Nar is that the player does indeed care about the Problematic Issue resolving in a particular way.

lumpley wrote:
Nathan: Huh? I don't agree with a word of that. I have no idea where that understanding of Simulationism and Narrativism would even come from. It's certainly not supported by the essays or by any of the Narrativist games I know.

Let's take this:

<snip example>

You're saying that if I, Vincent, want this to play out such that killing this kid is the right thing to do, I'm playing Narrativist, but if I'm curious to find out whether killing the kid is the right thing to do, I'm playing Sim?

Kesher wrote:

Nathan wrote:
The definition of Nar is that the player does indeed care about the Problematic Issue resolving in a particular way.

This seems problematic in that it implies that the Narr-inclined player always wants the same resolution to the Premise in question; that they have an agenda regarding how the Premise should resolve, at some point, into Theme. This, then, resolves into how some view Sim Exploration of Character. The above doesn't hold true, however, if we add the qualifer "at that particular moment in the game". Correct me if I'm way off, but Premise can be addressed again and again by chars. (in Narr. play) before it's ever Thematized for them.

lumpley wrote: Sure thing.
Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him? Let him go? Make bail? Leave him in jail? It's Narrativism. Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise. Story Now.

Nope. :) If you're playing sim, he doesn't have to choose. He shoots child molesters. That's his deal, remember? He kills his nephew, and that's the end of it. Cause: that's his deal. Effect: his nephew is dead. You end up with a transcript full up with a problematic human issue and a thematic resolution. But it's not narrativism.

If you instead actually do make those choices, then you've violated the established parameters of the SiS. You've prioritized resolving the situation in some way that's non-causal. You *may* in fact go ahead and have the guy shoot his nephew. In that case, an outside observer won't be able to distinguish whether the player was in Nar mode or in Sim mode. But, in fact, in this case, he did not shoot his nephew because "it's his deal." He shot his nephew because of your meta-game desires. You wanted it to turn out that way.

Sean,

I don't have a problem with what you posted. I don't see any conflict between it and what I said above. Or, basically, what I'm describing is not Sim character as Robot.

The whole thing with Sim is that you don't break with the established parameters. The point is not that HS1 can't care. The point is that if HS1 has previously been stated to be a suck-it-up Ah-nold type who doesn't give a crap about anything, and actually hates HS2s guts, then having him care when HS2 gets whacked would break causality.

Basically, if there's no parameter to contradict, you just make up whatever you want. (This is role-playing after all.) A lot of heavy-duty sim games use the chargen rules to try and front-load characters with a lot of pre-established parameters to "guide play." A lot of lighter sim games take a DiP approach where you make stuff up when you need it. Once made up, that "stuff" is officialized into the SiS, so now you have established parameters that you have to be carefull not to break.

Sim isn't about excluding emotion. (I imagine that "what it's like to be a soldier" would be one of the more emotional subjects to Explore) Remember, you can get Story in Sim play, which means you've got the same kinds of conflicts and resolutions as you do in a Nar game... you're just treating them differently.

Cool, I am down with that as they say :)


Sean

Paganini wrote:

lumpley wrote: Sure thing.
Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him? Let him go? Make bail? Leave him in jail? It's Narrativism. Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise. Story Now.

Nope. :) If you're playing sim, he doesn't have to choose. He shoots child molesters. That's his deal, remember? He kills his nephew, and that's the end of it. Cause: that's his deal. Effect: his nephew is dead. You end up with a transcript full up with a problematic human issue and a thematic resolution. But it's not narrativism.

If you instead actually do make those choices, then you've violated the established parameters of the SiS. You've prioritized resolving the situation in some way that's non-causal. You *may* in fact go ahead and have the guy shoot his nephew. In that case, an outside observer won't be able to distinguish whether the player was in Nar mode or in Sim mode. But, in fact, in this case, he did not shoot his nephew because "it's his deal." He shot his nephew because of your meta-game desires. You wanted it to turn out that way.

There are a whole lot of mechanics out there that were designed with the intent of enforcing this kind of Sim character consistency. Some of them work better than others. A great example of a failed attempt is D&D alignments. :)

That example doesn't work for me (the kid being killed).

If the player feels 'conventionally' then it's sim? If the player feels 'unconventionally' then it's Nar? That doesn't seem right.

I don't think so--I don't remember the exact genesis of the example but I think this is not a real distinction.

The question is "what happens when the player feels 'unconventionally'?"

Is the PC hijacked by the GM? That's railroading, IMO.

Is the PC forced to play out a disad by the game rules in opposition to their wishes? The same group that does that with GURPS can do that with TRoS just as easily (or almost any traditional game system). If the GM sets up a case where a disad will hijack a character's actions in a way that makes the player unhappy that's, IME, dysfunction -- but we can discuss that.

But it looks like the example hinges on the is the "gener thing" (I find out what it's like to be a soldier) as opposed to "I find out what it's like to be a cop with uncontrollable rage issues."

I've never seen a case where genre concerns were held over someone's head above real intense emotion and everyone was okay with it.

I think this definition makes Sim play essentially dysfunctional since there's nothing to stop Nar play from being "in genre" unless the player decides to break it.

-Marco

Marco, I like the general question of what to do when a player believes their character would behave unconventionally. Nice way to phrase it!

But I don't know that the question is "Can you do so?" Let's assume that everyone is cool with you doing so. The question becomes (IMHO) "What do you need to do to justify it?"

Sim treasures cause and effect. So to justify such an effect, you need to introduce a cause into the game-world that creates it. Cause predating effect, this means that you need to do some work before the decision itself (or some really quick and effective soul-searching). Then everyone agrees that the decision was made respecting character integrity.

Nar doesn't have the same focus. But Nar treasures the Premise-as-addressed. So I think that if you choose to make an unconventional decision then you've added a wrinkle to the characters take on theme, showing that this particular situation was (to him) different than the others in the past. To justify that you must do a lot of work after the decision itself, to explore and further address the question of what makes that situation different.

This is what Narr folks mean when they say they don't care how a decision works out. It doesn't have to grow from the current situation, it has to plant seeds for the future.

If this makes sense to anyone (a big if), then I think I see more clearly how people could believe that Nar doesn't value character integrity: Nar players put in the same amount of work, but they do it at different times. A Sim player isn't going to even look at what happens after the event... if the decision isn't justified by what went before then it isn't justified for the Sim CA.

Tony,

I agree with much of what you said but I think that the idea that the Sim player doesn't look at what happens after the event is seriously mistaken. Even if this *could* be the case I can't imagine when it *would* be (who takes actions without caring about the outcome? If both modes can play "in character" then both Sim and Nar players will be caring about the outcome equally.)

I think that the stated Sim priorities are very poorly imagined under GNS. I don't know any players who are happy with their characters being hijacked. The idea of "not caring about addressing premise" boils down to "not having any emotional involvement in the issues of play" or "having emotional involvement but not acting in accordance with that."

The first is just low intensity play (that gives credence to the Beeg Horseshoe Theory, IMO). The second sounds dysfunctional no matter how I look at it (Sim == railroading/cowardice).

-Marco

Just from my PoV, the difference relies on what matters utmost to the player at the point of decision: Sim, the meat is getting the decision that the character would make, and good plot development arising from it is gravy. Nar, getting to the decision point, and the reprecussions of the decision whatever they are, are the meat, and justifying it through internal cause is gravy.

Marco wrote: I don't know any players who are happy with their characters being hijacked.

pete_darby wrote: Just from my PoV, the difference relies on what matters utmost to the player at the point of decision: Sim, the meat is getting the decision that the character would make, and good plot development arising from it is gravy. Nar, getting to the decision point, and the reprecussions of the decision whatever they are, are the meat, and justifying it through internal cause is gravy.

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't know any players who are happy with their characters being hijacked.

Alright; I've given a couple of examples of situations in which I, in my GM capacity and with the power mandated by the social contract, have unashamedly hijacked characters in the "how to introduce" thread here: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11583&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30. Would you like to comment on those?

Noon wrote: Interesting: It sound like your saying sim is where the SIS decides what happens and nar is where you as a player decide

Marco wrote: there's nothing to stop Nar play from being "in genre" unless the player decides to break it.

OK, big letters.

This is not a thread about Force and Railroading.

Marco, Gareth, every thread you guys have posted to over the last couple of days has been majorly hijacked in this direction. Please don't do it to this thread. Posts about Gareth's TROS game belong in Actual Play.

Marco wrote: Interfering with play where the players have strong emotional involvement against their will and saying "the game lets me do it" is dysfunctional, IMO. I've never seen it otherwise.

2. Your examples are not IMO anti-Nar or pro-Sim IMO if we assume they don't revolve around areas where the character has heavy emotional involvement.

What this means is this: either Sim play has:
1. No strong feelings associated with it --or--
2. It does and these don't violate them in any way (i.e. contextually the character is fine with killing some nobody he's guarding but is really interested in his affair with the female cyborg so the hijack isn't around an existing area of emotional involvement: it's color) --or--
3. It violates these feelings, the player is unhappy (presumably) but takes it because the player is a coward (or some such).

Paganini wrote:

Noon wrote:

In fact, Marco is very close to being right on the money, even though he doesn't want to be, with his comments about how the player feels.

Patronizing, bro. Try not to.

-Marco

Point taken. Marco, at nthis point, I would suggest creating a thread articulating you precise concerns again, from the top.

Marco wrote:

A player deciding an action should be taken because "this is a really good plot development" isn't, IMO, someone who's playing in a Virtuality. If we're told that the goals of Virtuality play are not antithetical to Nar then it's not a CA issue.

If the goals of Virtuality *are* antithetical to Nar then I think I logically conclude there is a trade-off between character/immersion and story.

-Marco

Sounds to me like you're all forgetting the Instance of Play. CA is invisible at the single decision level. It's only as you see what the players actually do over time - do they address Premise, consistently and reliably? Do they maintain causality but no sign of Premise addressage, consistently and reliably? - that you can tell what matters to them.

At every individual moment of decision, you'll have your character do something your character would causally do. It's only over a whole instance of play - did addressing Premise arise from your individual causal decisions, or didn't it? - that you can tell CA.

What a player has uppermost in his or her mind at the moment of an individual decision is inaccessible to everybody, probably including the very player him- or herself. We can't depend CA on it.

edit: Crossposted with Pete, and I'm sorry for saying "you're all." Of course you're not all forgetting the Instance of Play. I gotta chill.

-Vincent

Pete and Vincent - those are very helpful posts, at least for my understanding, especially when combined. Thank you.

Marco wrote:

Paganini wrote:

Noon wrote:

In fact, Marco is very close to being right on the money, even though he doesn't want to be, with his comments about how the player feels.

Patronizing, bro. Try not to.

-Marco

Marco wrote: If the player feels 'conventionally' then it's sim? If the player feels 'unconventionally' then it's Nar? That doesn't seem right.

Nathan, I don't think that's why Instances of Play are so long. They're long because it takes time to fulfill (or conclusively fail to fulfill) a Creative Agenda. It takes many, many character actions to address a Premise.

Here's from the glossary:

the Provisional Glossary wrote: Instance of Play
Sufficient time spent on role-playing necessary to identify all features of System in operation. According to the Big Model, once these features are identified and evaluated in terms of a given group's Social Contract, then Creative Agenda (or its absence) may also be identified. In practice, an Instance of play is rarely shorter than a full session, and may be much longer.

GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory wrote: In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

lumpley wrote:
Does "identify all features of System in operation" imply "identify places where in-game causality and thematic meaning are incompatible"? I don't think so, but then I guess I wouldn't.

Taken together, I think Ron's saying what I'm saying: it's not that most of the time you can't tell the difference between a "Narrativist decision" and a "Simulationist decision"; instead, there's no such thing as a "Narrativist decision" or a "Simulationist decision." Narrativist and Simulationist apply to many, many decisions taken as a whole - an Instance of Play - not taken as a pie chart.

Nathan,

You wrote: There will at some point be a situation where you might want to address premise in a certain way, when doing so would contradict previously established parameters about "what your character would do."

When they [a player's CAs] don't [conflict], an external observer can't tell which mode the player is prioritizing, because the player's actions support both CA's equally well. It doesn't *appear* that the player is really prioritizing anything.

the Provisional Glossary wrote: Premise (adapted from Egri)
A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe. In role-playing, "protagonist" typically indicates a character mainly controlled by one person. A defining feature of Story Now.

Hey Vincent,

You have to set the pins up in order to knock them down. Narrativist play requires you to be addressing a Premise from the get go or else there isn't going to be any Nar relevant conflict to resolve. I think Narrativism is visible in the set-up as well as the resolution.

Implausibility and the breaking of causality tend to be very subjective. Take your The Fugitive example for instance. It didn't break causality for me. Jones' character seemed to be dealing with a conflict between strict adherence to duty and his personal feelings. He had already told Ford's character that he would shoot him in a previous scene. I think your example scene was just indicitive of the ongoing internal struggle of Jones' character.

I'm not saying that Nar play is going to jump out and slap you in the face during those set-up stages, it might or it might not. I'm also not saying that The Big Model says that you can see Nar play in the set-up stages. But from my own experience, and that of others, I say it's there and it's visible.

Let's not forget the author/audience split either, and the difference in perceptions between those two during play.

-Chris

*edit: to fix a stupid tyope

Chris: Absolutely. Setup is the promise, resolution is its fulfillment. At setup you might be able to say, "ooh, I can't wait to take this Premise on." Then in the middle of an Instance you might be able to say, "if this keeps up, we're gonna rule this Premise."

(Breaking character is one of the things that can make "if this keeps up" turn out false.)

-Vincent

in one post Paganini wrote: My character is chock full of problematic human issues, but I don't care how *any* of them turn out... I know that no matter what happens, the result will be entertaining. When I play my character, I'm constantly asking myself "what would this character do?" I have not yet asked myself "what should I do in order to make sure that this conflict turns out the way I want it to?"

Noon wrote: Interesting: It sound like your saying sim is where the SIS decides what happens and nar is where you as a player decide

in a later post Paganini wrote: You *may* in fact go ahead and have the guy shoot his nephew. In that case, an outside observer won't be able to distinguish whether the player was in Nar mode or in Sim mode. But, in fact, in this case, he did not shoot his nephew because "it's his deal." He shot his nephew because of your meta-game desires. You wanted it to turn out that way.

TonyLB wrote: If this makes sense to anyone (a big if), then I think I see more clearly how people could believe that Nar doesn't value character integrity: Nar players put in the same amount of work, but they do it at different times. A Sim player isn't going to even look at what happens after the event... if the decision isn't justified by what went before then it isn't justified for the Sim CA.

pete_darby wrote: To my mind, sim play can certainly have very strong feelings associated with it, but the driving force is curiosity, what happens next, how does that work, why is he doing that, with no drive to make it necessarily "issue relevant" as long as the SiS is made broader and fuller.

C. Edwards wrote: You have to set the pins up in order to knock them down. Narrativist play requires you to be addressing a Premise from the get go or else there isn't going to be any Nar relevant conflict to resolve. I think Narrativism is visible in the set-up as well as the resolution.

lumpley wrote:

There will at some point be a situation where you might want to address premise in a certain way, when doing so would contradict previously established parameters about "what your character would do."

How can that be, if addressing Premise means playing a moral conflict out to its conclusion? Egri's very clear about this: if you have your character do something implausible, you've ruined your conflict and thus your Premise. This matches my experience.

When they [a player's CAs] don't [conflict], an external observer can't tell which mode the player is prioritizing, because the player's actions support both CA's equally well. It doesn't *appear* that the player is really prioritizing anything.

But that's definitely not true, because we can look back over the Instance of Play from the end of it and say, "dang, girl. You kicked that Premise's ass."

Playing Narrativist isn't visible only when you break causality. It's visible whenever you successfully address Premise.

Hey Doc,

Doctor Xero wrote: True. However, I've seen many a Sim game which also has built into it the challenge from the start. While World of Darkness's Vampire became a Gamist war game, it started out with possibilities for Narrativist questioning of how to deal with a hunger which borders on rape/murder as well as Simulationist exploration of what it would be like to a member of a vampire species as envisioned in the Anne Rice novels.

Doc,

Your post is kind of hard to parse, so I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Your question about "why do we do it with other people" pretty much applies to all the Creative Agendas, though. I think it's a bit of a red herring. We don't need other people to imagine things; we can do it on our own. I would suggest that even the desires that produce Gamist behavior can be satisfied via solo books, computer games, and so on. (There are elements of Gamism that are inherently social, though, so I'm not entirely sure about this. It's not the main point, anyway.)

Why don't I just go write stories instead of play nar games with my freinds? Well, for me personally, writing stories is a lot of work. I like to pool my creativeness with that of my freinds. Plus, it's a fun time to hang around with them as we engage in an activity that we all enjoy. Sure, we could all hole up and write our own stories, and I suppose that would be fulfilling in its own way.

But also, you seem to be implying that the premise and theme are hardwired ahead of time. That's not how it is. The distinction I was making is that, in a Sim game, Premise may be addressed incidentally, through the maintainance of causality. In a Nar game, the players address Premise in the way that they want it to be addressed, even if causality falls by the way side.

Nathan: That's not what the "Story" section's about. Read the "Story Now" section that immediately follows it. Together, the two sections say that you can't tell whether it was Narrativism by looking at the transcript, you have to know who authored it.

Narrativism: Story Now 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.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. 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. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments.

You wrote: It might be true that the Premise was totally kicked... but your girl could have done so without ever once thinking "how do I want this to turn out?" She could have spent the whole time thinking "what would my character do next?" This is *exactly* describes the way I played in Mike's HQ game. It's not Narrativist.

Simulationism: the Right to Dream wrote: Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.

It might be true that the Premise was totally kicked... but your girl could have done so without ever once thinking "how do I want this to turn out?" She could have spent the whole time thinking "what would my character do next?" This is *exactly* describes the way I played in Mike's HQ game. It's not Narrativist.

After the end of a game session, if Premise was Addressed, well, Premise was Addressed. That doesn't mean you were playing Nar.

C. Edwards wrote: Hey Doc,

Doctor Xero wrote: True. However, I've seen many a Sim game which also has built into it the challenge from the start. While World of Darkness's Vampire became a Gamist war game, it started out with possibilities for Narrativist questioning of how to deal with a hunger which borders on rape/murder as well as Simulationist exploration of what it would be like to a member of a vampire species as envisioned in the Anne Rice novels.

I'm specifically talking about "what the players do during play". Whatever issues may be front-loaded, be they in the setting or on the character sheet or anyplace else, are completely seperate from the act of play. Doesn't matter how much "fuel" you have to find/build/whatever a Nar Premise if you don't do the right things with it during play.

-Chris

Paganini wrote: Your question about "why do we do it with other people" pretty much applies to all the Creative Agendas, though. I think it's a bit of a red herring.

Paganini wrote: In a Nar game, the players address Premise in the way that they want it to be addressed, even if causality falls by the way side.

lumpley wrote:
"Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances" sure doesn't say "violating character integrity" to me.

It might be true that the Premise was totally kicked... but your girl could have done so without ever once thinking "how do I want this to turn out?" She could have spent the whole time thinking "what would my character do next?" This is *exactly* describes the way I played in Mike's HQ game. It's not Narrativist.

Are you, um, sure?

edit: From the "Shit! I'm Playing Narrativist" section in the Sim essay:

Simulationism: the Right to Dream wrote: Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.

Deciding to follow through on your character's crush wasn't proactive? Wasn't an emotional thematic issue? The System made you do it?

Matt wrote:
Narrativism does not require you to think "how do I want this to turn out." It may involve you, the player, thinking "what would my character do next" and still be Narrativism. This is Vincent's entire point in his recent rant, I believe. Do you agree?

Matt wrote:

I wrote:
After the end of a game session, if Premise was Addressed, well, Premise was Addressed. That doesn't mean you were playing Nar.

Um, it doesn't? You've totally lost me here. I believe that is the definition of Narrativism. It's like saying "After a game, if people Stepped on Up, well that's what they did. It doesn't mean it was Gamism." Say what?!?

Nar Essay wrote:
All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.

Well, Doc, what I said wastrue, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. Plus, since your response is a blanket denial, and you ignored my request for clarification, I guess I'm not much interested in discussing it with you. See you around.

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote:

I cannot see why these are the only options. The fourth option is:
4. They did have strong feelings about it, but this sort of imposition by the world on them is exactly what they wanted to get out of the game in first place; its part of what makes the SIS "real" to them.

I would go so far as to say that doing this well can make for a very powerful and engaging experience.

This is a good point--thinking about it, I agree: it's possible that the players might be happy with it. I do think that there are some stipulations that I think are important.

1. I don't think hijacking a character in "some" situation is necessiarily dysfunctional (this is pretty much agreement). I can see a hard drinking Sorceror character losing time and not knowing what he did.

2. As I said: I think the key test comes when the taking control is related to the solution of something the players are heavily engaged with. To an extent: caring how it turns out. At some point, all players, IME, care how something turns out (else how would they take a specific action). If that is what's determined in toto by the hijack--especially if the player doesn't see it as a direct conseqence of another action they willfully took--then I'd expect complaints.

Example:
I can see a romantic affair between bodyguard and client having a traumatic end when the cybernetic bodyguard is forced to kill the client--however. I can see how that could make for a powerful experience.

But: I think that to satisfy the players I've seen it would either:
a. Have to punctuate some already completed scene or drama and/or
b. Have to lead to another story (a powerful revenge story, most likely) that the player is interested in.

If it was done to stop things the player was interested in exploring half-way through and there was no possibility for revenge or real closure then I would expect the players to bitch.

I'm not saying they'd be *right* too (or *wrong*)--I'm just saying I'd be very loathe to do that to someone's player even as a consequence when there was nothing they could do to get traction with it.

But since you mention The Dream, I submit that this can also be Address of Premise (the character is paying consequences for the action of letting the corporation mess with their brain: that seems perfectly within the realm of Nar play to me). I don't see it as a distinguishing feature of Sim vs. Nar but rather a social contract piece that's concerned with how players are to be screwed over.

So I do agree that those things could be fine (and I'm guessing they were)--I would expect problems if the players draw their scope on continuity different than the GM does.

If the player sees the assassination as the result of a larger series of actions that stretches back to the mind-implants (which I assume the player chose) then it might be part of that "premise" or simply a "realistic consequence" (story vs. virtuality).

If the player saw the implant scene as unrelated to the romance (either thematically or because the player didn't expect to be screwed that hard) then I wouldn't be surprised if the GM got a lot of heat for that.

Either way, you make a good point: but my experience is that there are points in play where most players will be fine with such a thing and points where they won't and the thing that determines that will be the level of emotional involvement in the scene that resolved by the GM.

I don't think any player anywhere likes being in a situation where they feel they might as well have not shown up to play and whether a hijack will cause that is, you know, a tricky business, IMO.

-Marco

Marco

Reading a couple of your posts both in this thread and the one on Force, I am going to take a stab in a totally different direction in addressing your questions / ideas.

It seems to me that there is some perception on your part of an almost advesarial relationship between Player and GM. LEaving aside GM-less play for the moment, I think many of your concerns would more properly be addressed by Social Contract BEFORe play. The player's views on CA and on Force and deprotaganization would all or should all be addressed there. Many of your examples seem to me to be very basic misunderstandings of what the Players want and what the GM wants.

Well the most basic theory for that is: Call Timeout and say "Hey lets talk about this a second." Or possibly mark down that episode for the post-session discussion or pre-session discussion fo next time. Frankly no amount of theory and definitions are going to substitute for plain old adult discussion. Notice I say adult. Even among those who grok the Jargon here, if I was GMing and some stopped the game to say IW as violating CA by using Force to deprotaganize them , that person would probably have to die ( ;) j/k folks... ). Seriously though if a player wanted to take 5 and discuss the current situation in light of our game /system /campaign then I would have no problem with that.

So in answer to many of your questions i would just say make sure everyone is on the same page before the game starts and make sure you have faith in your GM.



Sean

So, I'm posting to this thread like three times in a row. But now it's *after* dinner, and I just want to appologize to Matt and Vince (and whoever else) for that terribly unclear and inacurrate post I made earlier. I was throwing jargon around like nobody's business. This is what happens when you post on an empty stomach.

Anyway, let me try it again here, from the ground up.

What I've been talking about all along is what it means to Address Premise - in spite of the way I mangled it up there. :)

We all understand that a Premise is a human-interest conflict, and that Theme is produced by resolving it during play, right?

So, any series of events produced by play (transcript) can contain Premise and Theme. Any time the group collectively imagines a qualifying conflict and the resolution thereof, you've got Premise and Theme, and therefore Story, by the Nar essay's definition.

Addressing Premise is a special way of Exploring Premise and Theme. (Explore means "imagine into existence with your group," in case there are newbies watching)

The Nar Essay says that Addressing Premise is:

*

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.

Nar essay wrote:
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.

...

Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way.

ADGBoss wrote: Marco
It seems to me that there is some perception on your part of an almost advesarial relationship between Player and GM.
Sean

Paganini wrote: But Marco, your posts are not helping to clarify anything, or address any pertinent points. You're only making things more confused and foggy.

Nathan, thanks for the clarification. I see what you were trying to say in previous posts. Now, my brain and body are fried, so I'm just dropping in to say I'm thinking about the "bet you can't tell" dilemma. My gut says, "Nah, it shouldn't be so confusing." But, I can't properly say why. I'll have to think on it. Vincent may chime in meanwhile; I've really identified with the content of his posts today and yesterday.

lumpley wrote: Nathan,

You wrote: There will at some point be a situation where you might want to address premise in a certain way, when doing so would contradict previously established parameters about "what your character would do."

How can that be, if addressing Premise means playing a moral conflict out to its conclusion? Egri's very clear about this: if you have your character do something implausible, you've ruined your conflict and thus your Premise. This matches my experience.

So Nathan, I'm zooming in with you:

Ron, in Narrativism: Story Now wrote: The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way.

Hey Vincent,

lumpley wrote: You're saying that nurturing and developing the emotional connection with a PC's actions, through real-people interactions means: having your character do things that aren't plausible.

Paganini wrote:

lumpley wrote: Sure thing.
Otherwise, if we stay true to the characters and the setting and I have to choose: shoot him? Let him go? Make bail? Leave him in jail? It's Narrativism. Fit character, moral conflict, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, resolution, address Premise. Story Now.

Nope. :) If you're playing sim, he doesn't have to choose. He shoots child molesters. That's his deal, remember? He kills his nephew, and that's the end of it. Cause: that's his deal. Effect: his nephew is dead. You end up with a transcript full up with a problematic human issue and a thematic resolution. But it's not narrativism.

what Vincent previously wrote: his 18-yo nephew, to whom he's always been a guardian angel,

A great example of a failed attempt is D&D alignments. :)

C. Edwards wrote: Not "aren't plausible", less plausible.

MJ Young wrote: What does a simulationist player do when his character faces a situation in which there is a direct conflict between the established values of his character?

Edited to fix a couple of stupid typos and clarify.

lumpley wrote: You're saying that nurturing and developing the emotional connection with a PC's actions, through real-people interactions means: having your character do things that aren't plausible.

Nathan, I think I see now more of what you're saying.

You posed this question:

So how can you distinguish actual Nar from just plain old Exploring of Premise, since most of the time the character will be "acting in character" at the same time as he sets up and resolves Premise?

Jack Spencer Jr. wrote: The waters are getting muddied. More or less plausible doesn't enter into it. I don't think it's a matter of varying degrees. It's either plausible or it's not. As you had said, what makes a character's actions more or less likely are based on so many factors, that it's difficult if not impossible to subjectively judge which action is the most plausible.

Matt Snyder wrote: You posed this question:

So how can you distinguish actual Nar from just plain old Exploring of Premise, since most of the time the character will be "acting in character" at the same time as he sets up and resolves Premise?

Then, it seems to me you've answered the question in your more recent post. (You certainly answered it to my satisfaction.) In Sim., players observe and watch things surrounding a them unfold. In Nar., they address (participate, shape actively, etc.)

Paganini wrote: Well, Doc, what I said wastrue, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. Plus, since your response is a blanket denial, and you ignored my request for clarification, I guess I'm not much interested in discussing it with you. See you around.

Marco wrote: I don't generally understand play where someone has intense feelings and the GM intervines in a disempowering and conclusive way for reasons the player had no control over (i.e. are not a consequence of a freely chosen action on the player's part) to be functional. That's not my experience anyway.
---snip!--
If the situation warranted that speech and the GM interviened I would find it dysfunctional (the character's family is killed but the character maintains decorum?). If the situation didn't warrant unusual speech and the player was talking in a way that violated continuity then I would say the GM was acting in the interest of any CA as the game facilitator (including Narrativist play).

Clearly what is warranted is a judgment call--and that's how I see these things: as judgment calls rather than any sort of measurable or objective quality of gaming events. Furthermore, I think they'll usually look different from one seat at the table to another.

Paganini wrote: Nar is "I think this conflict would be cool *this* way, I will exert my effectiveness to try and make it be like that, and to make come out the way I feel is most powerful. "

M. J. Young wrote: What does a simulationist player do when his character faces a situation in which there is a direct conflict between the established values of his character?

Doc,

I think everyone at the table makes the judgment call: the players can and IMO should vote with their feet if they think the GM's call is in error and negoitation fails.

I find the idea that only unconventional play is Nar very problematic logically. If I begin play with a conflicted character then either choice made along thematic lines would be explicable: i.e. the character is a hard drinker and is begning to weigh egoism of indulging in drink with the consequences.

If the drinker gives up the bottle after any consequence then he is "playing Sim" since it's a sensible outcome.

If the drinker doesn't then, similarly, it's Sim because he was drinking to begin with.

This seems to me to be a logical paradox in Nathan's framework.

Additionally: Nathan seems to assume that the player shows up with a pre-determined outcome in mind and it can't be changed by in-game events--for if it is, then the player's message is subverted by in-game causality.

Both cases (a conflicted character and a player who is, through the game and via the eyes of his character, determining how he feels) sound like prime Nar territory to me.

-Marco

Marco,

The whole "predetermined idea" thing is garbage. I never said it, it's not part of my construct. The Doc tried pin it on me in an erlier post. The Doc is without a clue. He doesn't understand the basic foundation that I'm working with, so there's no way he can correctly assess my construct. Basically, if you take pretty much his posts so far and treat them as being unrelated to anything I've said, you'll be on the right track.

I find the idea that only unconventional play is Nar very problematic logically. If I begin play with a conflicted character then either choice made along thematic lines would be explicable: i.e. the character is a hard drinker and is begning to weigh egoism of indulging in drink with the consequences.

If the drinker gives up the bottle after any consequence then he is "playing Sim" since it's a sensible outcome.

If the drinker doesn't then, similarly, it's Sim because he was drinking to begin with.

This seems to me to be a logical paradox in Nathan's framework.

M.J., Xero:
Since there aren't "Simulationist players," only Simulationist play, you can't really talk meaningfully about what a Simulationist would do. Instead ask: what would it take to make this setup play out Sim? What would it take to make it play out Nar?

Nathan:

You wrote: "Addressing Premise" is further charaterised by activity on the parts of the players. Just being juiced about what's going on in the SiS isn't enough. Now, the fact that the Players are taking an active hand in setting up and resolving the Premise, rather than just sitting back and letting nature take its course, implies that they have specific goals with respect to constructing and resolving individual Premises. If a Player is actively setting up a Premise, and actively resolving it, that means that the player is working to build and resolve the Premise a certain way. Not just *any* old way that makes sense, and is maybe moving, but the way *he, the player* wants it to be.

Paganini wrote:
This is not a logical paradox in my framework. This is supported by my framework. Please, reread my previous three posts in this thread, along with C. Edward's comments. Take a couple of days to think about it. I really mean that! Please don't post again until you've really stepped back and thought about what I'm saying.

lumpley wrote:
Nathan: Nature can't take it's course in a roleplaying game. I'm not harping on your phrasing, I'm getting at a fundamental disconnect.

Everything that happens in your game or anybody's game happens because someone took at active hand in setting up and resolving it. There's no nature to take its course. The in-game consensus has no momentum or causality of its own, ever. In order for the game to go forward, somebody's saying something, actively, every moment.

Narrativism demands that the players take an active hand as opposed to leaving it to one of the other players, not as opposed to leaving it to in-game causality. You can't "leave it" to in-game causality: the established facts of the in-game provide constraint, not impetus.

Marco,

I'm sorry you find me condescending. The thing is, though, the things you say you *disagree* with me on, while *agreeing* with Vincent on, are things that Vincent and I have been pretty much of the same mind about for a long time.

You will definitely find this condescending, but the fact is, I'm not talking about basic stuff in this thread. I went back and covered some basic stuff to make sure that Vince and I were working from the same foundation. I've invested a lot of time and effort here talking to people, reading, reflecting, on this material to get a solid core understanding of it. The 800+ posts you see if you check my profile don't mean much as a number; but they reflect the degree of time and effort that I put into this stuff. I'm frustrated because you keep running into problems with the basic stuff that I'm only interested in recapping to make sure we're all on the same page. I have been here for *years.* I've worked harder to grok this stuff than I worked to grok a lot of things in school. When you come along and start "spotting logical contradictions" and having problems with stuff that was more or less fully fleshed-out *two years ago* it just makes me want to throw up my hands and give up.

Edit: I just figured I'd better add; I'm not trying to use the post count as a measure of legitimacy or anything. I realize you've done a lot of posting as well. I'm just using that to show that I have a lot invested here - about as much as you can in an electronic social environment. That's why I take it seriously. That's why I want to build on old stuff, and explore new ideas. That's why I'm frustrated with all this sidetracking.

I really meant it when I asked you to take another look and some serious time before posting again. It took me months and months to get some of this stuff the first time around. A day or two of reflection is not an unreasonable request. It's a requirement for this kind of complex discussion. And yeah, there have been times where I've dropped an issue for a couple of days to reflect on it. I didn't get to a basic understanding of Narrativism by non-stop stream-of conciousness posting. I got there by a lot of reflection, private discussions, observing play, trying out techniques, reading and rereading the articles. This is a high level discussion. I expect the other people who participate to have a similar dedication to the material. That's like the core philosophy of the Forge.

In-game causuality is what the viewers make of it. I see you as saying one choice is addressing premise while the other choice--equally freely chose--is (maybe) "creating theme."

That, to me, is a logical contradiction since I think it's trivial to find a case where we disagree on which choice is which.

Nathan,

The only part of the last post I found patronizing was the part where you told me what I'd find condescending.

Mostly it's the personal-communication bits rather than the argumentation. Maybe the personal correspondence aspect isn't necessary for this thread? I dunno. It's not that bad or anything but I'm letting you know, y'know?

There is a fundamental and basic issue here: is addressing Premise requiring a break in in-game, in-character causality?

The conclusion of the answer "yes," is that for Nar I must at some point do something that makes me act as an author but not as a character. I must act, intentionally, in a way I precieve that my character would not act.

That's a prefectly fine distinction: but it means that Nar play is antithetical to what I think most people define as immersion or suspension of disbelief. I've seen that argued against here, true, but I can say for me personally that when I act from a player-driven cause in a way that's antithetical to the character-driven cause it breaks me out of "the story."

And that's no tragedy--I do that sometimes. But a lot of people have claimed the opposite (that Nar play is just as immersive in that exact sense as Sim play).

But I think the logical paradox that you're missing is the question of why one would do that.

If what I personally find most attractive from a theme standpoint and what I find most interesting from a story-development standpoint is always in character then I have essentially created what Vincent calls an "unfit" character by virtue of (accidentally) fitting into the story too well.

The character who is an alcoholic struggling to quit is an example of that: the play centers around whether I decide to quit or not and at every twist and turn the course of action I find most attracitve is what I think my character would do.

That makes the play Sim. Because my character is a perfect fit for my desires wrt making a statement about premise.

To me that sounds paradoxical: I maintain that so long as the player makes his choice unfettered it doesn't matter if the character would've made it or not (and I, and I suspect Vincent, would find it preferable if what is precieved to be the character's choices do line up with the player's preferences).

Edited to add: It seems to me that the reverse of this would be to make a character who was the anthesis of the point I wish to make in order to force myself to break character just to "play Nar." It seems a bit of a round about way to get there.

-Marco

Marco wrote: To me that sounds paradoxical: I maintain that so long as the player makes his choice unfettered it doesn't matter if the character would've made it or not (and I, and I suspect Vincent, would find it preferable if what is precieved to be the character's choices do line up with the player's preferences).

Edward,

The situations when I have found a character un-fit to address human interest situations in a way that I've wanted to have been dysfunctional play for me. Blameless dysfunctional play mostly--but dysfunctional.

I do whatever I need to do in order to get back in character (either change the character or not pursue the human-interest situation as I'd wanted for the time being and pay whatever the consequences are or discuss with the GM to reassess the situation). I do whichever one will address the dysfunction best and have the most luck negoitating with the GM.

If such a case (where I judge my character "un fit" to work in the way I want him to while staying in character) were to come up often then it would seriously degrade my enjoyment of gaming. If such an event defines an instance of play then, for me, it would be many months of gaming for each one.

-Marco

lumpley wrote: M.J., Xero:
Since there aren't "Simulationist players," only Simulationist play, you can't really talk meaningfully about what a Simulationist would do. Instead ask: what would it take to make this setup play out Sim? What would it take to make it play out Nar?

To the question I wrote: What does a simulationist player do when his character faces a situation in which there is a direct conflict between the established values of his character?

Hey Marco,

So, you find that the breaks in immersion that stem from your desires as a player clashing with your image of your character cause not-fun play for you? That's cool.

All I'm seeing is that you prefer a high level of immersion. That's neither here nor there, except that you probably need an incredibly "fit" character in order to enjoy Narrativist play. Not that Narrativist play requires violating your character concept per se, but that it most likely will require you to compromise without an incredibly "fit" character.

Marco wrote: I do whatever I need to do in order to get back in character (either change the character or not pursue the human-interest situation as I'd wanted for the time being and pay whatever the consequences are or discuss with the GM to reassess the situation). I do whichever one will address the dysfunction best and have the most luck negoitating with the GM.

Marco wrote: If such an event defines an instance of play then, for me, it would be many months of gaming for each one.

MJ,

This is very thought provoking and I'm still thinking about it. I think what comes to mind first and foremost is "what would/does this look like in my play?"

I can't say for sure. Given an unstoppable force - vs immovable object style character-trait clash (like the one postulated) I don't think I'd *ever* go and say "which element of exploration is being prioritized?" I mean, I'd try to get inside my guy's head and try to figure out what he'd do with a mind-bender of a situation like that but I'm not sure that's exploration of character, situation, color, or anything else.

You point out that the guy to the left and right of me can't tell either (which aspect is more important--but, I think, also which elemet is most present in exploration).

Now this guy (and me as a player), however, has human-experience issues going on: hatred, love, and now betrayal. No matter how I answer the question of what to do from inside my character's head I'm *also* going to answer "is betrayed love greater than hate" (or whatever).

An observer can *certainly* see that. They can see the question in the situation, the can see the presence and emotional power in my play, and they can see the answer in whatever I decide (they may disagree on what question I actually answered but the human condition is, IMO, undeniably present and if the emotions are present then I think it'd be clear I was engaged with it).

According to Nathan if I answer from inside my character's head then it's Sim. But to someone who is looking to see if my play centers on moral premise and I answer it then clearly I am (I'd say that's Narritivist but Nathan, I think, disagrees since I played from a pure IC perspective).

So I'm not able to say if I'd answer it Nar or Sim unless Nathan's standard holds. Then it's Sim since I don't approach that question with a significant concern about the outcome aside from the context of the character.

-Marco

Chris,

Well, which is it if I discuss with the GM (I propose a kicker and the GM, IMO, goes way, way south with it doing something that I totally didn't expect and wasn't implied).

I don't find that I have any particular problems with fit characters in practice--although I do usually have some input into the structure of the game before it starts so maybe that's why. I dunno.

And if Nathan is right and you agree he is then Nar play is simply antithetical to Immersion (Suspension of Disbelief) as I do it. As I said, that's cool.

But be aware that my primary goal is to get back into character. If in one situation it's easier to re-imagine the character I do that. If in another it's easier to step back and re-assess how I answer the premise question I do that.

I think calling that a "Creative Agenda" is a bit fishy: the kickers from Sorceror would, in this case, facilitate Simulationist play* since they make me unlikely to have to violate my character during the game.

If I have an intent or agendum per-se it's to address a human interest issue *with* and from *within* (i.e. immersed) a character.

-Marco
* From observable behavior anyway. The player may be ready to violate his character at any moment--but if the tool ensures that he never need do then does it really matter? Intent vs. observed behavor: I have always favored intent, I guess--but there's a lot of observed behavior in the text too.

Marco,

Without being present during your play over a long period of time, I'm not even going to attempt to make a statement as to what CA you're prioritizing.

I think we both agree that, at least for you personally, this is a big immersion issue. So, while I don't think that Nar play is antithetical to Immersion in general, it does seem that it can be a problem for you when your character's "fitness" comes into question during play.

What exactly does that imply? Personally, I think Immersion (and the degree of) is a variable across all play that, while maybe more common with certain CA, is fairly independent of them. Sim usually gets the big Immersion tag because the metagame agendas (as M. J. puts it) of Gamism and Narrativism can require that the player break from a comfortable level of Immersion in order to address those agendas.

-Chris

*edit: to add that I think the most common case is that people with Nar and Gam metagame agendas are generally comfortable with the level of Immersion breakage that those agendas require. So, it's not usually seen as Immersion breakage at all.

Marco wrote:
The only part of the last post I found patronizing was the part where you told me what I'd find condescending.

Mostly it's the personal-communication bits rather than the argumentation. Maybe the personal correspondence aspect isn't necessary for this thread? I dunno. It's not that bad or anything but I'm letting you know, y'know?

There is a fundamental and basic issue here: is addressing Premise requiring a break in in-game, in-character causality?

That makes the play Sim. Because my character is a perfect fit for my desires wrt making a statement about premise.

I'm okay with that, assuming Vincent et. al agrees that Nar play will eventually involve what I'd think of as violation of the original character concept. I don't get that from the essays (even what you quoted) and I've seen lots of posts here saying that Nar play doesn't compromise character. But I admit, I always wondered about that.

It also seems that the decision to re-con the character is a meta-game decision and therefore doesn't seem like something one would do without meaning to: something I've seen people say of Nar-play.

I can see someone doing it without having a name for it--but I think that violating a character "for the story" (to make a particular premise addressing point during play) would require a conscious act. You mention intent, specifically.

Also: I've seen descriptions of 'Story-Now' play where everyone at the table is acting in-character. From what you're saying I don't see how, in a traditional game with premise, one would ever really know, save for one's self who was violating their character internally.

As you point out, it'll look from the outside as a string of in-character decisions.

I don't see how one would diagnose Nar play in others then--only one's self (which I'm fine with--but I've seen several posts discussing the use of the theory as a diagnositc tool for other players specifically on the Nar-Sim divide spectrum). Even with a long time to look at it (considering that I'd need a long time to look at *myself*).

Finally: Your take on this would be far simpler to express than the Nar essay. Just say "You make your non-railroaded decisions from a authorial rather than In-Character standpoint consering human interest stuff and poof: Nar play. It might even involve you violating original character concepts which, really, is the deciding point in play."

I think something like that'd be pretty clear to everyone.

I'm not sure that Nar facilitaitng games I've read do this, however. I think that Sorceror would facilitate IC play as much as OC play as far as I can see.

-Marco

Marco wrote: I don't see how one would diagnose Nar play in others then--only one's self (which I'm fine with--but I've seen several posts discussing the use of the theory as a diagnositc tool for other players specifically on the Nar-Sim divide spectrum). Even with a long time to look at it (considering that I'd need a long time to look at *myself*).

Well yes--I agree. But if what's being observed is emotional intensity and the presence of a human-interest question that's, IMO, not so hard (unless you have to split the difference and tell if that's *more important* than developing the situation, say).

But having to tell if someone is internally violating their character seems like murder.

I could do it for the self-diagnosis though.

-Marco

Marco wrote: I'm okay with that, assuming Vincent et. al agrees that Nar play will eventually involve what I'd think of as violation of the original character concept. I don't get that from the essays (even what you quoted) and I've seen lots of posts here saying that Nar play doesn't compromise character. But I admit, I always wondered about that.

It also seems that the decision to re-con the character is a meta-game decision and therefore doesn't seem like something one would do without meaning to: something I've seen people say of Nar-play.

Also: I've seen descriptions of 'Story-Now' play where everyone at the table is acting in-character. From what you're saying I don't see how, in a traditional game with premise, one would ever really know, save for one's self who was violating their character internally.

Finally: Your take on this would be far simpler to express than the Nar essay. Just say "You make your non-railroaded decisions from a authorial rather than In-Character standpoint consering human interest stuff and poof: Nar play. It might even involve you violating original character concepts which, really, is the deciding point in play."

I think something like that'd be pretty clear to everyone.

My problem with "may happen" is that I read you as saying that until it does you're playing Sim. So for the game to be Nar it seems to me that the violation of character would *have* to happen. Otherwise how would you or anyone else know?

Are you saying "being *ready* to violate character makes it Nar even if it never happens in a game?"

Because I really don't see that in the essays.

-Marco
[Note: I couldn't defend this position from the essays either--but, hey, if everyone agrees, I'm down with it too. ]

Marco wrote: My problem with "may happen" is that I read you as saying that until it does you're playing Sim. So for the game to be Nar it seems to me that the violation of character would *have* to happen. Otherwise how would you or anyone else know?

Marco wrote: My problem with "may happen" is that I read you as saying that until it does you're playing Sim. So for the game to be Nar it seems to me that the violation of character would *have* to happen. Otherwise how would you or anyone else know?

It also seems that the decision to re-con the character is a meta-game decision and therefore doesn't seem like something one would do without meaning to: something I've seen people say of Nar-play.

Nathan, about your excellent examples of breaking continuity:

But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

...if what's being observed is emotional intensity and the presence of a human-interest question that's, IMO, not so hard...

One way I think about this issue as a player.

"Addressing" is a verb, so is "Exploring".

A nar leaning player is using Exploration to Address.
A sim leaning player is Exploration to Explore.

etc.

There's a difference of focus.

Are you choosing to have your character act in whatever way, plausible or not, to drive the Story Now (spotlighting a premise question, or an external theme, or some statement important more to the Player than the Character)?
If yes, you are probably a Nar-leaning player...or playing with one.

Are you having your character act in a pattern determined beforehand because it was determined beforehand, or is the most plausible extrapolation of previous acts? without prioritising hitting any external premise 'marks'?
If yes, that says Exploring to explore...or Sim-leaning to me.

Can it be hard to determine when looking at individual acts? Sure.

But it feels different over time to me... a matter of focus.

Note: Even a 'breaking from previous behavious' feels different over time when its done Sim "To Explore the Exploration of Character Situation etc" than when its done Nar "To Address the Story Now needs"

Maybe, I'm not helping and saying anything that hasn't been said before other ways...this is just the way I think about it. It looks and feels different to me. It really does come down to a player agenda.

Contra (first),

I don't think I've misunderstood--when I am in a state of weighing thematic decisions I find myself conscious of what statment is being made by play. When I am suspending disbelief, I'm not.

I indicated explicitly that I could see doing Nathan-style Nar play without a name for it or jargon--but not doing it without being aware of it. I don't see the same states as nearly identical in myself.

Even a writing style where the author is setting out to make a point vs. determine what would really happen is different, IME/IMO (and I think it produces different writing transcript wise too, but that's just me and Stephen King). And I find what you called the "objectifying" experice (for challenge) and/or/both Suspension of Disbelief far stronger in RPG's with IC play than with writing.

Nathan,
Maybe it's easy to detect CA's maybe not. I think "not" but that's just me. You indicate that from an outside perspective it looks like a string of IC decisions. I'm not sure how you'd tell the difference without someone saying "boy I like manipulating these themes!" (since even someone praising their presence and power wouldn't be distinguishable).

Getting a great, deep, meaningful statement from play seems like, when premise is in play, either would be equally likely (unless you believe that the way it "really would happen" is likely to make the less powerful of the two statements). I think it'll definitely not be as likely have the polished story structure in what you're calling the sim-mode.

Vincent,
And here we go ... I find your take on it the more compelling of the two from the articles and the fora. Here's why.

1. There's a lot of "Intent" stuff and a lot of "observed behavior stuff" and I've seen more of the latter than the former and it seems like this is a case where the two would most commonly provide strong opposite examples.

Since I see many people saying it is easy to do the diagnosis I think that speaks against it (although, like I say, I personally think Nathan's take where the major distinction is relatively invisible is the one that I hold more in common with). Maybe what it speaks to is a much, much larger Instance of Play--but I've said before: if you don't know where to put the dot, how do all the dots eventually line up?

2. If, as Chris says, the goal of play is most wonderful when it's IC and immersed then, IMO, that makes Narrativist play is the best-case of a dysfunction.

I think what he may've meant is that Nar play is never truly what I'd call immersed but, hey, it's always better when you don't have to change your character view. That could be--Chris, you can clarify.

But if he means it's immersive (heavy suspension of disbelief, no attempt to make a statement with play--simply to resolve a situation from an IC perspective) then that makes "setting out to play Nar" a plan to have a disconnect (and what I consider a dysfunction).

The idea of discussing the situation with the GM (as detailed in the case where the GM does something like a Kicker that to the player looks like a left-turn into bizarro world in terms of premises present*) didn't get much play. Most cases where I'd violate my character to change the answer to the premise question that makes the most sense to me are the result of what I see as a dysfunctional mutation in play.

But that's not a CA at all--and if Nar play *is* mostly immersive, breaking out when necessarily to adjust character, then I wouldn't find that an especially valid take.

However, as I said--I'm a bit more sympathetic to your view. That doesn't make it right.

-Marco

Okay, I thought the difference between sim and nar was purely, what's getting re-inforced, what's being approved... internal consistency of the SiS and it's consistent expansion, or adressing a "human interest" issue.

Addressing premise to "get the right answer for you" is a red herring in my mind: "pure" nar play is about adressing the issue, expressed in the situation, through the character, and gross breaking of internal cause to address the premise "right" is dysfunctional Nar, as the thrill is from the action of adressing an issue of human interest, not in getting the "right answer". That seems to me a sure way to get unsatisfactory play. Theme arises from play, am I right? Prejudging theme, attempting to resolve premise by imposing a resolution upon contrary to established and evolving contents of the SiS is anathema to good nar play.

Immersion is a red herring. You can play entirely deeply immersed and still be playing nar if you're grooving on the address of premise above the sanctity of the dream.

Inferiority or superiority of Nar / Sim is a red herring. Nar isn't just sim plus address of premise, or depth, or whatever. "Pure" nar play is lacking in curiosity about the SiS except as it relates to address of premise. Compared to a "pure sim" game it can look mannered, cartoony, symbolist, and everything else that indicates that the characters and world exist purely to "make a point" rather than be rounded, "real."

And inconsistencies in the SiS are a friend to no CA. All CA demand a consistent SiS, for many reasons, but willing suspension of disbelief must be up there in all CA.

Marco, Vince,

All through this thread my goal has been to go from what Ron has defined, and say what I think that means. I feel pretty strongly that Vincent is not working from what Ron has defined, but is instead working from his own ideas. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; it's just two different approaches.

Frex, Vincent is saying that it's trivial to identify Nar in action. I've seen Ron say multiple times that it is a difficult and lengthy process to identify any of the CAs in action.

Vincent wrote: Nathan, about your excellent examples of breaking continuity:
Quote:
But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

That happens in Sim play too. All the frickin' time. There is no clearer nor better example than the group staying together even when it wouldn't. Remember how I said that the standards for in-game plausibility vary from group to group and game to game? That's precisely what I meant.

Marco wrote: Getting a great, deep, meaningful statement from play seems like, when premise is in play, either would be equally likely (unless you believe that the way it "really would happen" is likely to make the less powerful of the two statements). I think it'll definitely not be as likely have the polished story structure in what you're calling the sim-mode.

Marco wrote: 1. There's a lot of "Intent" stuff and a lot of "observed behavior stuff" and I've seen more of the latter than the former and it seems like this is a case where the two would most commonly provide strong opposite examples.

Paganini wrote:

Vincent wrote: Nathan, about your excellent examples of breaking continuity:
Quote:
But it is Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want, if it becomes neccessary to do so.

That happens in Sim play too. All the frickin' time. There is no clearer nor better example than the group staying together even when it wouldn't. Remember how I said that the standards for in-game plausibility vary from group to group and game to game? That's precisely what I meant.

I can't see this at all. I said that its "Nar behavior to go OOC to get what you want." This can't be Sim behavior, because, in this case, what a Sim player wants is to *not go OOC.* You can't go OOC to stay IC. I think you're forgetting that the prioritization of causality is usually attached to one (or several) of the five explorative elements. All you're describing is a sacrifice of causality in a non-prioritized element in order to maintain causality in the prioritized element(s). If the player's agenda is Sim with Exploration of Character, then the other explorative elements can go zoom out the window to keep from breaking character.

M. J. Young wrote: I think (and I think Vincent's as much as said this) that the entire "going out of character" issue is a red herring. It's bad play for the simulationist, but it's bad play for the narrativist, too. It also assumes that in every situation faced by the character, there is always and only one option which that character would actually choose, and that we always know exactly which option that is no matter how complex the situation.

I think it's clear that neither side *does* agree with each other on the basic issues. For my take, I don't think the essays help much in figuring it out.

A few things:

1. MJ: While I would play from inside my character's head, I might design my character as a statement on the take of killing child molesters. This would not be a final statement--but rather one that I would consider when creating the character as the "point I'd like to make about this."

If I think killing child molesters is wrong, I would create a character who might feel very justified in doing so--but I would create him as a *tragedy.*

That's, IMO, 'address of premise' that is instantatiated by playing out the character.

However, during play I might have strong feelings about that statement and even change my mind about it--but I wouldn't take every action with the question in my head of "what would the character do vs. what would *I* like to say about this." I made my character, I'd want to play him.

2. I've seen threads questioning immersion here. I think this may be a pointless discussion. I can say this: I've played to make a statement. I've played in-character immersed. To me they feel different (I've also tried playing to "generate the best story possible" and that seemed different too than IC-immersed and a lot more like "making a statement").

I found IC-high Suspension of Disbelief play (I once was extremely surprised to discover it wasn't raining outside when we broke for lunch: in the game the city had been engulfed in a massive storm) to be a high preference for me.

Clearly this is a gradient. At times I may be more interested in "what am I saying"with this character. At times I may discover that "what I am saying" is counter to what I'd like to say (I've felt uncomfortable playing characters who would go ahead with something I wouldn't--and not always just purely for the 'ick' factor)--and I might adjust statement/adjust character/talk to the GM ('this makes me uncomfortable').

It depends on the situation.

Nathan: IMO the best stories rely on re-writing and sophisticated clean strutcture. In terms of caring about the 'story being generated in play,' someone who says they don't care about "polished structure" is talking a somewhat different language than me if they're concerned with generating a "good story" through play.

Not a wrong language--but a different one.

-Marco
[ Note: I've done collaberateive creative projects, shared writing, and even shared script writing. Play that I do to "make a statement" feels more like this than my normal RPG experience for me. ]

Marco,

In the closed circle of GNS theory and terminology, there's no such thing as a "good story." A story is a transcript in which a problematic human issue is created and resolved. All judgements of whether or not the story was good are left up to the individual players, and are not covered by the theoretical model. I was going over this with Jack Spencer a week or two ago. I think I remember you posting to that thread, but I'm not sure. So, anyway, sorry if I'm posting something that you already know and just don't agree with.

Marco wrote:
That's, IMO, 'address of premise' that is instantatiated by playing out the character.

However, during play I might have strong feelings about that statement and even change my mind about it--but I wouldn't take every action with the question in my head of "what would the character do vs. what would *I* like to say about this." I made my character, I'd want to play him.

It depends on the situation.

Well, Contra, if I make my character and then don't play him, I agree: it doesn't happen. If the character is played then whether it's Nar or not seems to me to depend on whether Nathan or Vincent is right about Nar.

Or it may be that being pretty immersed and into Suspension of Disbelief is antithetical to "address" so then it'd be Sim--I'm fine with that (that's an interpertation of what I see Nathan as saying).

But the Premise quesiton will still be central to play in "presence and power" (from the Nar essay) and a statement will be made by said play.

Whether that counts for Nar play isn't clear to me (and doesn't really matter)--but it doesn't sound like a restrictive methodology and would be, IMO/IME, just as interferred by with character hijacks since those tend to break SoD for me as well when applied.

-Marco

Has everybody else noticed that Nathan and I play the exact same way? Marco too, probably? We create our character, put him in morally challenging circumstances, and turn him loose to see what he does. We don't disagree about how we're playing, we disagree about what it's called. Particularly, I think that Ron had our way of playing in mind, and Nathan thinks he didn't.

Either way it's not an insurmountable disagreement about the fundamental nature of roleplaying. It's just some random thing that's gotten all blown out.

Nathan, do you find that "Narrativist games" generally work well with our way of playing? Hero Quest, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Universalis, Trollbabe...?

-Vincent
who asks mercy of all the game designers whose work I just reduced to "..."

lumpley wrote: Has everybody else noticed that Nathan and I play the exact same way? Marco too, probably? We create our character, put him in morally challenging circumstances, and turn him loose to see what he does. We don't disagree about how we're playing, we disagree about what it's called. Particularly, I think that Ron had our way of playing in mind, and Nathan thinks he didn't.

Either way it's not an insurmountable disagreement about the fundamental nature of roleplaying. It's just some random thing that's gotten all blown out.

Nathan, do you find that "Narrativist games" generally work well with our way of playing? Hero Quest, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Universalis, Trollbabe...?

-Vincent
who asks mercy of all the game designers whose work I just reduced to "..."

Marco wrote: What Nathan is describing is consciously making statements during play. I don't do that--I play from inside my character's head (mostly). Now the character itself may be created as a moral statement of some sort--but I when that clashes with the in-game situation, I consider that dysfunction (i.e. I make the assassin and he gets teleported to planet Tiberious 12 and forced to fight in the arena).

Contra says that's not Nar play because the "address" happens at character creation not during play.

You say the telling factor is behavior (does this stuff happen and get reinforced at the table).

Nathan says it's a state of mind that must be deduced.

I think it's a massive distinction. Under one format I'm nar, under the other I'm Sim.

Raven's questions about force and John's about Virtuality boil down to differences on this point as well (which social contracts are Sim, who can say what is Force).

Finally: this is the exact point (albeit in different language) that I quoted Ron's essay on. This sort of question has, for me, been central to trying to figure out if what I do to improve my play is informed by GNS.

lumpley wrote: Nathan, do you find that "Narrativist games" generally work well with our way of playing? Hero Quest, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Universalis, Trollbabe...?

Nathan,

I understand what you're saying about dysfunction (and it's been a long time since I've done Did-not-did-to ... well, except for last night on IRC ... ;) )--but I still must beg to differ: the cases I've seen are *always* the result of another person (usually the GM).

And while I don't blame the GM per-se, I do consider it a breach of what-I-want or a breach of fun. That seems a reasonable use of the word dysfunction.*

(the vast majority of my play, even when this happens is fun and functional, also).

Everything that happens in gaming is the result of *someone* (and dice rolls, yes--but aside from that) and that can conflict.

-Marco
* Obligatory jargon-rant I'm not sure that even in a GNS discussion, in this context there's actual correct or incorrect use of the term. If we're going to use "functional" for "fun" then it seems logical. But it's also based on the actions of another, anyway.

Paganini wrote: However, I just point out that there is no "our way of playing." I don't play in the exact same way all the time. I play differently depending on the actual game mechanics I'm using, depending on who I'm playing with, what the setting is, etc. etc. etc.

Paganini wrote: You just have to make a choice... which is more important to you, causality, or that moral question? This, in a nutshell, is the nature of a CA prioritizing decision-point. If that choice is one you'd rather not have to make, then be sure that the group you play with and the system you use is not one that puts you in a situation where you have to choose.

Or you can negate the conflict altogether by effectively designing player-characters who address both simultaneously. And yes, it can be done, and yes, it is what I have most often seen being done in groups which emphasize "roleplaying" (simulationism-narrativism simultaneously) rather than gamism.

contracycle wrote:
I disagree, not least becuase of the snide back-hand delivered to Gamism. In character design, there is no meaningful conflict. It is not possible to design characters suited to every situation that will develop; in play therefore, not at chargen, you will be confronted by a conflict between the CA's. I can't see how a game could be constructed that insured that evey bit of the action coincided with the characters and coincided with premise-full issues, not if were on anything but rails.

Why must "every bit" of action coincide with the characters for play to make their organic issues important?

For that matter why must "every bit" of action be immediately associated with a premise? Surely your view of Nar play doesn't involve the players racing from one moral quandry to another, does it?

Doctor Xero wrote: it is what I have most often seen being done in groups which emphasize "roleplaying" (simulationism-narrativism simultaneously) rather than gamism.

contracycle wrote: I disagree, not least becuase of the snide back-hand delivered to Gamism.

contracycle wrote: In character design, there is no meaningful conflict. It is not possible to design characters suited to every situation that will develop; in play therefore, not at chargen, you will be confronted by a conflict between the CA's. I can't see how a game could be constructed that insured that evey bit of the action coincided with the characters and coincided with premise-full issues, not if were on anything but rails.

contracycle wrote:

Why must "every bit" of action coincide with the characters for play to make their organic issues important?

Because otherwise play would alternate between the CA's. If Narr and Sim are going to occur simultaneously throughout play, this would have to pertain. Otherwise we will see the theory as it stands at the moment; decisions alternating amongst the CA's by all players with preference exhibited at points of prioritisation.

Marco wrote:
1. Play does alternate on an atomic level but GNS looks at larger chunks so there's no problem

What you label as impossible I recognize as something I have seen done repeatedly in real life and have read about frequently in the various literatures about gaming and the gaming subculture.

Contra,

Well, I understand what you're saying--but I'm not sure I agree with what the theory says about it.

To my understanding there is no "sim or nar" at the level you're saying it's alternating. There are a string of decisions that are *neither*--the theory is mute as to them.

If the theory *does* classify them (say, based on the intent of the player) then we don't need instances of play when we're dealing with ourself (I made this case once and got a strong negative from you, IIRC).

If the theory doesn't classify them then what you're seeing or thinking is happening doesn't relate to the theory, IMO.

I think the single-instance of CA is *only* related to large instances of play and it's flexible as to how-large.


-Marco

The way I see it, and I'm popping out of nowhere here to offer my opinion, is that the Creative Agenda is not applied during play but rather when play stops due to A)the end of a game or B)play becoming dysfunctional due to a conflict of what is now identifed as creative agendas. From what I can tell, GNS is forensic pathology: it only works on dead games, whether they died of old age or were killed in the crossfire.

Edit (12:34 EST)- putting the word "forensic" in front of pathology so I'm not accused of casting aspersions.

Marco wrote: Well, I understand what you're saying--but I'm not sure I agree with what the theory says about it.

To my understanding there is no "sim or nar" at the level you're saying it's alternating. There are a string of decisions that are *neither*--the theory is mute as to them.

If the theory *does* classify them (say, based on the intent of the player) then we don't need instances of play when we're dealing with ourself (I made this case once and got a strong negative from you, IIRC).

If the theory doesn't classify them then what you're seeing or thinking is happening doesn't relate to the theory, IMO.

I think the single-instance of CA is *only* related to large instances of play and it's flexible as to how-large.

TooManyGoddamnOrcs wrote: The way I see it, and I'm popping out of nowhere here to offer my opinion, is that the Creative Agenda is not applied during play but rather when play stops due to A)the end of a game or B)play becoming dysfunctional due to a conflict of what is now identifed as creative agendas. From what I can tell, GNS is forensic pathology: it only works on dead games, whether they died of old age or were killed in the crossfire.

Edit (12:34 EST)- putting the word "forensic" in front of pathology so I'm not accused of casting aspersions.

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote: Well, I understand what you're saying--but I'm not sure I agree with what the theory says about it.

Fine, but if you disagree about what the theory claims en bloc, then why interven in a conversation about the theory in a forum dedicated to duiscussing that theory?

Marco wrote:
See, what you're saying is a rapid low-level switch between Sim and Nar is, IMO, exploration of situation and character associated with Nar play. Remember that all play will have such elements.

contracycle wrote:
It MIGHT be true that switching between N and S only or predominantly is indicative of Narr exploration; I'm not aware of any discussion as yet of sub-groups of preferences.

contracycle wrote: I therefore speculate that what you really saw was a rapid alternating of modes between Sim and Narr - not the simultaneous execution of both. I may, of course, be wrong, but I'm not going to abandon a fruitful theory for one that appears less fruitful.

Doctor Xero wrote:
I honestly don't see what's so difficult to comprehend about such a thing.

In order for your story to have been produced by Narrativism, there's the additional requirement of shared authorship. The practical upshot of this is that the players are the ones setting up and resolving the Problematic Human Issues through the actions of their characters. This is what it means "to address premise."

I'm not sure that Sim is a state of "gee, I don't know what my character would do until it comes up."

That doesn't sound right to me. I think I can say for certain what a great deal (most?) of character would do in a given situation. This goes all the moreso for the act of making a character *as* a statement (Judge Dredd) who allows the player to explore an extreme view of justice against mercy (or even logic).

I think your mind-set of Sim is only one of a possible spectrums there-of.

-Marco

contracycle wrote: OK, whats difficult for me to comprehend is how you can simultaneously ask the question "I wonder how this would play out" and also the question "how can I make this play out in a certain way".

in his artist on Narrativism, Ron Edwards wrote: They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

Doctor Xero wrote: In the same fashion, two different creative agendae can be at work simultaneously, in this case simulationist and narrativist.

What the Doctor later wrote: In such campaigns, sometimes for weeks only the Dream is explored (simulationism), and sometimes for weeks only the Premise is addressed (narrativism), but sometimes for weeks both occur simultaneously. Is it the player or the character who is confronting? The answer is YES! No one can claim it is only the character without first blinding himself or herself to the unity of character and one of the player's selves. No one can claim it is only the player without a similar denial of the player's relationship/fusion with parts of the character.

M. J. Young wrote: You can't make a decision with two number one priorities.

Doctor Xero wrote: So, no, it seems to me that, yes, you can make a decision with two or more number one priorities. Indeed, the ability to do so is necessary in this world, IMHO.

M. J. Young wrote: The model maintains that players, in any instance of play, put one of the three agenda first, above the other two; that conflicts and dysfunction arise when they disagree through their actions as to which should be first; and that play is significantly facilitated by fostering agreement here. I would say it is a fundamental axiom of the model: only one can be first.

Here's where I question the lifeguard model:

The idea that CA-modes of play will be contradictory can fail in exactly the case this thread is about: if the priority is on Actor Stance then both N and S will fail at the same time for the same reason (the situation mutates to the point where the statement the character makes is no longer vaild/viable).

Nathan and Chris have suggested that how you fix that tells your agenda (do I change statement or change character concept). While this sounds good in theory, in my experience this is precieved as dysfunctional: I fix whichever is most expedient or with a player, play stops and there's a discussion until the game is back on track.

I can't speak for Vincent but I expect that if he says (as he said) that playing out of character isn't necessary for Nar play then his perception is perhaps the same: if I take his premise loaded character and send him to places where his premises are no longer valid, he might very well consider the game a bust and have a talk with the GM.

I would.

In this case the method that one uses to address premise (immersed in character play) is indicative of Sim.

This looks to me like a case of both-at-once, however, I'm still thinking about it.

-Marco

Excellent post by M. J. developing the lifeguard example.

I believe that the "two top priorities at once" question is inherently ambiguous because priorities exist over time, but are expressed through individual decisions -- some of which can in turn create long-term subordinate priorities. What the observer sees as the "top priority" thus can depend on how long the activity is observed and/or how the observations are interpreted in a larger context. That's why the model insists on the "instance of play" as the only meaningful observation -- but I'm not certain that really solves the problem.

An example I've used before is writing a sonnet. Suppose Valentine's Day were a week away and I decide to express my love for the love of my life by writing her a sonnet expressing my feelings. As you observe me writing the sonnet, you would see many occasions when I write down a word or phrase or sentence that perfectly expresses my feelings -- but the word doesn't rhyme, the phrase doesn't have the correct meter, the sentence doesn't fit into the fourteen lines. So I end up not using it, replacing it with something else that does fit the form that may or may not be as clear or accurate an expression of my feelings. From this it would be tempting to conclude that "adhering to the sonnet form" is an obviously higher priority for me than "expressing my feelings."

Yet, that conclusion would be absolutely wrong. Expressing my feelings is the entire point of the exercise. It's the higher priority, it's the "what" I'm doing. Sonnet form is a decision I've made as a means to that purpose; it's the result of a decision that established "how" I'm doing it. That decision is entirely secondary to the main purpose. Yet part of that decision is to allow the consequences of that secondary "how" to take precedence over the primary "what" at the level of individual small-scale decisions about what words to put on the paper, unless and until I change my mind about the "how" decision itself.

The demonstration of my true overall priorities is what would happen if I were to fail to express my feelings in sonnet form to my satisfaction. If sonnet form were the higher priority, I could perhaps satisfy that priority by writing a well-crafted sonnet about something else -- the Red Sox, for instance. If expressing my feelings were the higher priority, I could perhaps satisfy that priority by writing my endearments out in prose instead of a sonnet. Clearly, I would do the latter.

But, you would probably never observe this failure case occurring. Because I'm really good at writing sonnets. I'm not going to fail, unless additional constraints arise (I forgot Valentine's Day was coming, and now I have to write it in half an hour...). So, what length of "instance of endearment-writing" and what observations within such an instance will convince the observer that expressing my feelings is more important than writing in sonnet form, when the observer can easily see that over and over again, I reject ideas that effectively express my feelings because they don't fit the form?

Is the analogy to Simulationist ideals (fidelity, adherence to system, internal causality) and Narrativist goals (expressing theme through addressing of Premise in play) clear, or should I spell it out?

The Big Model's distinction between Simulationist and Narrativist modes of play is real and observable, in the same sense that the meaning of a text is real and observable. Attempts to decide the issue through some kind of flowchart (does player X do Y or Z when confronted with situaton N?) are as doomed (to either outright failure or bottomless complexity) as attempts to create rules that determine the meaning of a sentence.

As for ambiguous cases, they're just ambiguous. The question, "have I successfully described play that's truly ambiguous between Sim and Nar, or can you succeed in pinning it down to one or the other?" is not very useful when the play being described is hypothetical. It's absurdly easy to describe ambiguous hypothetical play, just as it's absurdly easy to write a sentence whose meaning cannot be parsed or with two possible (and contradictory) meanings. Creating such cases in actual play, with real people, is more difficult. I believe it can be done. But I'm still not sure what, if anything, it proves.

- Walt

M. J. Young wrote: It's very popular to say that by multitasking we can have multiple first priorities; but it doesn't hold up in reality. Conflicting priorities must be heirarchical, or they ultimately prevent choice.

Doc Xero,

I don't think you have not shown any substantive way related to gaming that Creative Agenda priorities might be simultaneously equal. Your arguments that we can know this because we can conceive of the holy trinity or an all-powerful god creating a heavy rock or African conceptions of binaries or drowning people and simultaneously dry lifeguards are completely irrelevant. They have less than nothing to do with gaming in general or the Creative Agenda model specifically. (Yes, M.J. created the lifeguard thingy; I'm not interested in it as an instructional analogy. It's really not holding water. Ahem.)

My humbly submitted recommendation to you and others participating here is to lose the analogies and especially the religious and mythical nonsense, which have no demonstrable basis in reality or practicality (whereas I think the model does). I think it's greatly clouding the discussion. Stick to actual gaming! Experience from actual play and actual, real-life examples would be fantastic (indeed, for me they'd be necessary) to show how someone or some group could prioritize more than one Creative Agenda in a given instance.

From where I sit, simultaneous play is not possible, while hybrid play certaintly is. M.J.'s lifeguard example is definitely applicable, as is Walt's sonnet. Here is an actual played example:

Sol Kelstar, my Jedi character, finds himself between a rock and a hard place. He has chosen to confront a Sith in order to allow his friends to escape. In this, he has been successful. However, his lightsabre has been destroyed and he is about to be killed. He has one last card he may play, the power of the Dark Side. He has an incredible ability with telekinesis and there are plenty of projectiles (stones and such) available. The rules of the game (system) state that using telekinesis for an attack draws upon the Dark Side, killing with it is especially dangerous for character's. Sol already has some Dark Side taint, so he's nearing the edge.

The question: is it better to live and go over to the Dark Side (possibly) or to die doing what is right? Definitely a good Premise, especially since Sol has been battling the temptation of going over to the Dark Side. I have NOT predetermined Sol's reaction, inclination, or anything else. But, in this situation, I ask myself, what would Sol do? Notice, what the question is NOT: what would make a better story or an interesting statement about life and morality? NO, I care about who my character really is.

Sol survives the situation, but in the process goes over to the Dark Side. As these events unfold (as my GM describes them), I watch with dread and fascination. I do care about the story! I want a good story, something that I'll remember for years after. How to reconcile these desires then? The Right to Dream first, Story Now second.

BUT if I had to sacrifice something, it would be the story. Sol has to react as I imagine he would, even if I decided on the spot that he would react that way.

No man can serve two masters...

Jonathan