I broke this out from the GNS Sim thread since it's something I wanted to look at separately.

Walt Freitag wrote:

c) Is the division between Sim and Nar (absent railroading or force or whatever) that the "unexpected stuff" I get from other players doesn't engage me emotionally?

Hell no. I've always thought any distinction based on absolute degree of emotional engagement is a theory quagmire. If the "unexpected stuff" about the SIS is what I want most from other players, why could I not be emotionally engaged in it?

Note that judging prsence/absence or degree of emotional engagement isn't the same as judging what a player is most emotionally engaged in, which is a legitimate aspect of perceiving Creative Agenda. So if, for instance, someone appears to be more emotionally engaged in the meaning of events or things (intruduced by others or themselves) in the SIS with respect to a Premise rather than in their meaning with respect to the SIS itself, then I'd likely call it Narrativism.

- Walt

You've used this term before; you've also misspelled it before, and it's caused me confusion. I think the first time I noticed the term you'd spelled it "empatic", and I immediately knew it was either "empathic" or "emphatic", both of which you have used subsequently.

At this point, I'm pretty certain you mean "empathic" every time, but it has been confusing to get this far, and we may all have to be careful of our typing on that term if we're going to use it.

I agree that the kind of emotional involvement is different in each agendum; I think that's a large part of why we can distinguish these as distinct agenda--because they appeal to distinct fundamental somethings (desires, drives, pleasure centers--I don't know that we understand exactly what at this point) within us. Thus the kind of emotion we experience is in one sense distinct.

On the other hand, when you speak of being moved to tears as specifically indicative of narrativist play, I think you're confusing the kind of emotion with its intensity. I'm sure I've been moved to tears in totally gamist play when my character was blindsided and I should have seen it coming; death of my character has meaning to me, but it's not narrativist meaning and it's not empathic (I'm not sad because I relate to my character; I'm sad because I suffered the loss personally, not because he did). I think I could be moved to tears by the beauty of an experience in simulationist play, or possibly by the sadness of it, without having any theme or premise involved.

I'm also not certain that empathic sadness is limited to narrativist play. If I'm identifying with my character within the shared imagined space, and something terrible happens that makes him sad such that I am saddened by it, that is the type of emotional experience I was seeking from such identification. It doesn't have to involve premise at all. The death of an heir in a simulationist game might be a cause for sadness, without having any particular meaning in the context of the game beyond what it is.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: You've used this term before; you've also misspelled it before, and it's caused me confusion. I think the first time I noticed the term you'd spelled it "empatic", and I immediately knew it was either "empathic" or "emphatic", both of which you have used subsequently.

--M. J. Young

Marco wrote:
Furthermore, I think that any time someone is having what I'm gonna call (lacking a better term right now) emphatic emotional response during a game (or movie or play or book) they are responding to Premise-type stuff in that work (I'm not the first guy to say this).

So I think that "premise" (or, if you prefer) "theme" is present in any game where a player is having a strong empathic emotional reaciton (as opposed to: "Wow, this risk is exciting" or "Man, that's a really cool concept.")
-Marco

Note: I'm not saying "strong emotion"--I'm specifying empathic emotion--emotion associated with empathy with another person (which, in this case may be the character you are playing or an NPC or another PC).

I also am not at this point sure that that's unequivically Nar-play. I just think it's a key, often distinguishing ingredient of Nar-play--and may be a workable distinction between many cases of Sim and Nar (although I'd frankly be surprised if most people here really agreed with me).

It's my take that you're associating the act of combat or simply engaging challenge with Gamism--to my understanding of the theory that's not correct.

I think that if the emotion that the player is feeling is righteous anger empathic with his character then the basis for the emotion is premise even if the action is combat.

For the act to be Gamist the key ingredient isn't the fight--or even the reasons for the fight (although if the player is going for the thrill and satisfaction of victory then I would agree with you, but consider it a sort of "personal agenda")--the key is gaining cred with your fellow players.

The player who, in touch with his character being pushed to his limit and has decided that his safety, his pride, and his sense of self is on line and it's time to fight back isn't fighting back to get cred from his friends.

He's answering a question along the lines of "What is more important, pride or forward progress." And he has decided, angrily, this time, it's pride.

The act that's being observed is the character fighting. I do think it's the 'why' of it that makes the difference in Creative Agenda--rather than being meaningless.

-Marco

I'm not going to try to defend the paragraphs of mine that Marco quoted above. The contextual bait-and-switch makes them irrelevant. (Marco said "emotional engagement" and I assumed he was talking about all emotions. Like excitement, for instance, and curiosity. But as revealed in this thread, he meant a particular kind of emotion.)

What I meant by the distinction between the relevance of events in the SIS itself versus their meaning with respect to a Premise is something like this:

(1) "Oedipus is blinded and disgraced. The city has lost a good king; if only he hadn't been so insistent on finding the truth we might be better off. On the other hand, he has paid for his wrongs and the gods' curse need no longer trouble us."

(2) "Oedipus is blinded and disgraced. Showing that no man can escape his fate, for in our flaws we carry and nurture the seeds of our own downfall."

In Greek drama it's a real simple distinction to pick out: the characters say things like #1, and the chorus says things like #2. Harder in Shakespeare, but not much harder, really.

It only makes sense to say that a certain type of emotional engagement can arise only in response to "Premise-type stuff" if the "Premise-type stuff" can be distinguished from the "other stuff." So can a distinction be made, or is it all the same thing? I don't get it.

- Walt

Walt,

I wasn't trying to bait and switch you--if you think I improperly quoted you, I apologize. If you see the need to defend those paragraphs, PM me--I wasn't trying to attack them at all. I moved this to a new thread to try to avoid de-railing the other one. I generally don't consider curiosity or 'excitement' an emotion per-se, so that's why I think there's been some miscomunication there (I'm not saying it isn't reasonable to consider curiosity or excitment or whatever an emotion--just that I usually don't, so that's the source of some confusion here recently).

But given your clarification, if you're willing to discuss it, I'd still like to ask your views on this:

If the player is empathically involved in your statement (1), i.e. sad that the city has lost a great king--perhaps sympathetic for Oedipus--would you still consider that an aspect of Sim play? Or would you find it to lean more towards Nar?

If the player(s) are only intellectually interested in, say, the effects of the loss of the king or the lifting of the curse then, to me, that would be a hall-mark of Sim play ("let's find out what happens")

Similarly if the player(s) are only intellectually interested in the story-structure that has been created by showing that no man can escape his fate, then, too, I'd say that's a hallmark of Sim (or something, maybe Sim). As in "this game has created a really cool view of predestination."

In your last paragraph, you say this:

Walt Freitag wrote:
It only makes sense to say that a certain type of emotional engagement can arise only in response to "Premise-type stuff" if the "Premise-type stuff" can be distinguished from the "other stuff." So can a distinction be made, or is it all the same thing? I don't get it.

First, a clarification of my earlier post. I wasn't equating 'combat' with gamism. I was identifying the desire of a player to achieve in-game results for their own sake (as opposed to enhancing the Dream or Addressing Premise) as Gamist.

I see the 'emapthic' vs. 'emphatic' typo. I still am of the opinion that treating all empathetic emotions as essentially Narr is simply wrong, and the only way to make that identification swing is by triviallizing the concept of Premise.

He's answering a question along the lines of "What is more important, pride or forward progress." And he has decided, angrily, this time, it's pride.

Hello,

Oddly enough, I find myself in the postition of defending Marco.

[Satan gazes at frozen tundra. "Wasn't there a lake of fire right friggin' there?"]

You see, I've never liked the difficulty with talking about emotional engagement per se as a defining feature of Narrativist play. Mike Holmes especially doesn't like it, and I can see why - it's just vague, that's all.

But since that phrase entered the discourse in a particular way, it might be good to talk about that particular way, because that's what I think you're onto here, Marco.

It's not emotional engagement per se that defines Narrativist play. Clearly any CA relies on that.

It's engagement with Premise. And that's key, because Premise is not contained within the components of Exploration. Premise is not a feature of the SIS, any more than Step On Up is.

Premise exists specifically in the abstract, in the non-verbal portions of our minds that frankly, neither you nor I can articulate easily without first disengaging from it. The ranges and parameters for Premises are buried deep in the human mind in a fashion that people really don't like to talk about - what we do, not what we say we do; what we are interested in, without knowing why, and even shying away from asking.

When we tie a given set of "imagined communicated stuff" into this portion of our minds, wham - it's hard core commitment time. A person who's interested in doing this is like a fiend; he or she contributes to that "stuff" in a fashion that is almost terrifying if you aren't ready for it. Maybe that contribution is in pure Actor Stance, and timed to show up only in absolutely key moments during play. Or maybe it's all kind of pervy Director Stance in some wild-ass shared-GMing set of techniques. Doesn't matter.

So that's why people talk about emotional engagement with Premise - but in discourse, the wrong piece of that phrase got emphasized. The emotion part isn't some kind of profound or exclusive feature of the definiton, it's stated there merely because that's the only way to engage with Premise.

Marco, do you think that point is helping your case? Or am I merely wandering around and howling at the moon again?

Best,
Ron

eef wrote: First, a clarification of my earlier post. I wasn't equating 'combat' with gamism. I was identifying the desire of a player to achieve in-game results for their own sake (as opposed to enhancing the Dream or Addressing Premise) as Gamist.

This issue has caused you fits on your Sim-related posts, Marco. To try insist that Sim is inherently emotionless is simply contrary to my experience.

Hiya,

Oh, I dunno, Marco, "fits" isn't too colorful a description, I think. I mean, I know I had fits during those dialogues, so why not you?

I think I should have said stuff about humor in the new sticky too. A little self-directed humor isn't a bad idea in this forum for all of us, including accepting a funny hat if someone thinks you look good in it. You only have to wear it for the length of a post, after all.

Back to the discussion ...

Best,
Ron

* Hate'em! Gaahh! Kill all smileys and emoticons!

Ron Edwards wrote: Hiya,

Oh, I dunno, Marco, "fits" isn't too colorful a description, I think. I mean, I know I had fits during those dialogues, so why not you?

I think I should have said stuff about humor in the new sticky too. A little self-directed humor isn't a bad idea in this forum for all of us, including accepting a funny hat if someone thinks you look good in it. You only have to wear it for the length of a post, after all.

Back to the discussion ...

Best,
Ron

* Hate'em! Gaahh! Kill all smileys and emoticons!

Marco wrote:
Neither is in any real danger. The player feels the romantic attachment through the proxy of the PC--there's no real gamism at work (the challenges are all push-overs, the exercise is a forum for banter, for some swashbuckling action, etc.)--I can't honestly imagine what the premise would be if that were a book.

I think once the emotion is felt and play continues a premise-answering choice has been made. That makes the play, IMO, Narrativist"

Hiya,

This is why hypotheticals really aren't applicable for this kind of discussion. It's a lot like saying, "Does gravity work?" then saying, "But what if I let go a rock and it just floats there? That's gravity-not-working, right?"

I'm not trying to be dismissive, that's a minor side point worth considering on its own, but now I'll leave it behind.

If we had a situation like this in play, and if it happens just as you describe it, and if the romantic situation in-game carried no Premise-weight, and if ... then your point stands, sure. But I'm with Gareth - you're describing Situation, and that's all we've got.

If there's nothing else, no involvement of any Creative Agenda, then it's Zilchplay, if I'm using Walt's term correctly.

But you know what? I'm almost positive all this is a tangent. Let's go back to the beginning - you've posited that Narrativist play requires an emotional involvement of a particular kind, and I threw in some points that were intended to back you up in this.

Were those points of mine on track? Given the topic of this thread, are you and I singing a duet about this issue? I'd like to think so, and it seems to me more important to stick with that rather than to get stuck on minor points about the tangent.

Best,
Ron

Well, the topic (scrolls back to re-read)--is like this (and yeah, I did agree with you--I only had a chance to respond to one msg before leaving for work): I'm hypothesising that any time that a player has an empathic emotional reaction to (and at this point, I'll narrow it down) situation that the player is involved and interacting with then there's premise in the situation and the premise question is being answered by action (absent force/railroading), hence Narrativism.

I'd originally said "well, any empathic emotion is, IMO, related to premise so therefor it must be in situation--and therefore acted on." But I think there are, at least, hypothetical cases (as I submit) where that might not be the case.*

I think contra's statement that you can feel the emotion and not do anything is a redherring--with respect to feeing the empathic emotion relevant to situation.

I can see a person feeling a strong emotion, say, in the Nazi game, and deciding to go on with the mission because that's what's socially expected--or being forced to by the GM.

In my experience that would be *dysfunctional,* though--not "not doing anything." You can tell me it's functional that a player who feels disgusted at the idea of rescuing the scientist goes along and plays it out anyway becuase either he feels he must or the group says he must--but I don't buy it.

But if the person feels the emotion and then rescues the scientist anyway in a functional fashion then the question's been answered: the player has acted and Gareth's assessment of whether the emotion impacts the game-space is, IMO, moot.

The emotion doesn't have to be seen to be connected to the action--that's my point. I the player experiences it and play continues, then the emotion has impacted the player and the premise question has been answered (questions of social feedback aside for now: can other players tell? I dunno--most people tend to say "yes" though so I think that's not so important).

-Marco
* I suspect that in the heroes-go-on-a-date play I hypothesize there would be elments in the game (the romantic banter between player and NPC) that would, in fact, produce a Narrativist style inter-relation assuming that the player(s) were, say actually in love with each other and using the game as a romantic venu--or, at least, really feeling as though they were--but the hypotheitcal serves as an edge condition--an "exception" that probes the rule, if you will.

Hello,

We're close enough to one another for listenable jazz, I think, on this one.

Now, I must go defend Gareth's point against some argument of yours in some other thread, I'm sure.

Best,
Ron

Quote:

This issue has caused you fits on your Sim-related posts, Marco. To try insist that Sim is inherently emotionless is simply contrary to my experience.

Fits, eh? That's needlessly condescending.

Marco wrote:
But if the person feels the emotion and then rescues the scientist anyway in a functional fashion then the question's been answered: the player has acted and Gareth's assessment of whether the emotion impacts the game-space is, IMO, moot.

contracycle wrote:

Marco wrote:
But if the person feels the emotion and then rescues the scientist anyway in a functional fashion then the question's been answered: the player has acted and Gareth's assessment of whether the emotion impacts the game-space is, IMO, moot.

What you are eliding, yet again, is that the character might not care a fig about some politically correct sob-story in which we are all expected to hate the nazis as a part of our cultural conditioning and therfore experience moral qualms; and they may well engage with the game purely as a challenge, and punch the air with joy when they succesfully complete the mission.