So I was struck by a recent comment of Chris Lehrich's in the thread Ramblings on the role of Mechanics in CA's (fishing). So I thought I would follow up on some of the ideas in an earlier thread I started, Classifying by Social Function. In that first thread, I felt that discussion was clouded by a perceived need to distinguish between GNS Simulationism and Narrativism. For this thread, I'd like to consider only Narrativist play.

clehrich wrote: Well, by your formulation of Sim that means that we don't allow what you might call feedback from the SIS. That is, the manipulation can only go one way: we can take stuff from the social and express it in SIS, but we barricade off the SIS from its potential implications for the social.

clehrich wrote: To put it straight-up, we claim that "this is only a game, not art or deep thought or philosophy or whatever, it's just fun damnit." Look at some replies to Jonathan Walton's column "The Fine Art of Gaming" on RPG.net some time, and you'll see this popping up very vigorously. The thing is, of course it feeds back. How can you play these games and these characters and these actions and not have it affect you personally? And one of the points of Narrativism is to make this explicit, to formulate directly that this form of gaming should be about real moral quandaries, not simplistic constructs like alignment systems and whatnot. But the point about Sim is that it denies such a possibility at the same time as it forces it actually to happen.

Liz Henry wrote: But it seemed to me (in this minor epiphany in my bubble bath) that I can think of MLWM (as a system, and how we played it trying to adhere to its structure) as an example of what R.E. calls Narrativism. From that game I learned some very interesting things about a literary genre and how it works - about how storytelling works for that genre, about its structures and assumptions. It was great and it was both instructive and inspiring to me as a writer and as a reader!

John Kim wrote:

Liz Henry wrote: But it seemed to me (in this minor epiphany in my bubble bath) that I can think of MLWM (as a system, and how we played it trying to adhere to its structure) as an example of what R.E. calls Narrativism. From that game I learned some very interesting things about a literary genre and how it works - about how storytelling works for that genre, about its structures and assumptions. It was great and it was both instructive and inspiring to me as a writer and as a reader!

So this describes real feedback -- i.e. the game changed her view of things outside of the game. On the other hand, this was not her view of society, but rather her view of other art. So this isn't quite "Art for Art's Sake" exactly -- but it is literary criticism, or "Art for Other Art's Sake".

clehrich wrote:

John Kim wrote: So this describes real feedback -- i.e. the game changed her view of things outside of the game. On the other hand, this was not her view of society, but rather her view of other art. So this isn't quite "Art for Art's Sake" exactly -- but it is literary criticism, or "Art for Other Art's Sake".

I find this very striking, and wonder whether it's a common experience of Narrativism. The game I'm in right now, Age of Paranoia, would I think also be classified as Narrativist, and it has prompted me to look at espionage fiction and history somewhat differently and more deeply than I used to. I think that fits what Liz is talking about. I find this quite striking, and I would definitely put it in the category of social effects or feedback. I guess I'd say that Narrativism does make explicit that this is desirable; would you agree?

Oh, well, I wouldn't put too much weight on that. The game happens to be very strongly rooted in both historical and literary materials, so naturally I end up reflecting on both. Liz was in a MLwM game, right? Not exactly about history. Unless you're fishing for something in particular? I mean, if I played in a PTA game, I think I'd expect to be reflecting on TV shows more than literature, for example.

clehrich wrote: Oh, well, I wouldn't put too much weight on that. The game happens to be very strongly rooted in both historical and literary materials, so naturally I end up reflecting on both. Liz was in a MLwM game, right? Not exactly about history. Unless you're fishing for something in particular? I mean, if I played in a PTA game, I think I'd expect to be reflecting on TV shows more than literature, for example.

Hello,

This is nifty because I am currently working on my espionage project, and I'm thoroughly buried in texts ranging all across novels, criticism, biographies/autobiographies, historical and political analysis, polemic, reflection and self-evaluation (not quite the same as autobiography), and many more.

Anyway, John, what it sounds like Liz is saying to me is partly another of those valuable "say it for yourself" statements to describe Narrativist play, and partly an extension from there - essentially, that if one actually writes a freakin' novel (for instance), one has a better framework from which to work in evaluating what novel-ness or story-ness is.

Role-playing might even be a better medium in which to work in this regard, as the various components of "story-making" are perhaps more easily dissected out. Whether the components are essential units of story, or merely specific to role-playing, is an interesting question. It does seem to me that the neat thing about Narrativist play is that the group starts with what might be called unresolved components which (in any of numerous ways) help get Premise into (out of?) the SIS. The System in action, embedded as it is the author/audience communication among everyone, results in a story where there simply wasn't one before.

So a good look at how different approaches begin with different sets or types of unresolved components seems like a decent start to me. I'd written the Narrativism essay with that idea in mind, e.g., the table that's included toward the end.

Best,
Ron

John Kim wrote: Well, this was part of Liz's suggested contrast. That is, she suggests that there is a big difference between a game which is about the realities of espionage, and a game which is about creating thematic stories in the espionage genre. It's not the only difference there is between games, but I think it is significant.

Liz's idea is that Narrativism is specifically about the creation of stories, not about broadly any sort of possible meaning or point. So it can be thought of as a tool for learning literary (or television or film) criticism. This is distinct from, say, reflecting on the historical realities of espionage. If you want to learn about the historical reality, then some other mode would be more appropriate.

clehrich wrote: For me, this is basically creating LeCarre out of thin air and some bric-a-brac of rather sketchy historical reading. But then, I love LeCarre. Some other players don't like him so much, so they try to pull together different kinds of stories, rather more Len Deighton with a touch of Robert Ludlum and a heaping cupful of cynicism. Not surprisingly, perhaps, my stuff is focused on MI6/SIS and theirs is focused on the CIA; the MI5 guy is on hiatus right now, but was a sort of weird bridge.

I think I do end up thinking about modern political history quite differently than I used to, but on reflection that's mostly because I end up knowing a lot more about things like the history of the Caucasus in the early to mid-20th century, about which I previously knew very little. But what happens in the game is reflection on that in a consciously "storied" mode: the history is a backdrop for the espionage tales we tell, which are very much about betrayal -- of hope, of country, of love, of self.

John Kim wrote: Well, I'll post my thoughts on this, but they're not at all settled. Your phrasing here suggests that you and your way of thinking were affected by reading the history on which play was based -- but not by play itself. Play itself, you imply, is an end in itself of creating stories which emulate LeCarre. The thing is, I'm not sure I believe that.

Now, Liz's suggestion would mean that this is your way of analyzing and understanding LeCarre. You immerse yourself in similar sources and try to create similar stories -- but the results of your game are always seen in light of LeCarre. This is in effect a way of working through and considering what LeCarre means to you.

Alternatively maybe something else is going on here -- such as one of the alternate suggestions of Narrativism's social function. You mention that the tales are full of betrayal. Have your real-world moral positions been refined or exposed through these tales? You mention that there is a split in the group. You describe it in terms of source material (LeCarre/MI6 vs Ludlum/CIA), but it is also ideological, perhaps. Is this explicit? i.e. Are there clear statements of the players' real-world morals during the games?

Well, again, I'm just thinking out loud here. If I've misinterpreted something, then obviously let me know. My thinking here comes from stuff which you and Matt Snyder said in the "RPGs and Text" thread:

clehrich wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote: But, I have read Mike as saying the meaning in Narrativism is in making sense of the real world, to us the humans. By comparison, meaning in Simulationism is making sense of the imagined world. Of course, we might strive to do both in both Agendas, but the emphasis remains. In Narrativism, we're emphasizing results meaningful to our real, human lives. In Simulationism, we're emphasizing results meaningful to our explored, shared environment.

I'll let Mike handle whether you're reading him right. From my perspective, this does seem reasonably accurate. As you say, it's a question of emphasis: in both cases, we're manipulating symbols in order to impute deeper meaning to our actual lives, but that's relatively overt in Nar and not particularly so -- in fact often flatly denied -- in Sim.

clehrich wrote: I can't say that this has had much in the way of implications about actual ideological positions. The only place I've seen that is that Jeff is playing a character who is essentially a proto-NeoCon asshole, and right after the election he was uncomfortable continuing to play exactly the sort of person who would be running Bush's dirty tricks department. Does that count?