I am an incompetent Narrativist!  …But what a fascinating examination of the differences between Nar and Sim through contrast!

Last night I met a couple of Forge-ites for the first time and sat down to play DitV.  I have never played a Nar facilitating game and was rather excited (and rather curious) about trying this new “way of playing” that has so many players gushing with such enthusiasm.

Due to traffic we were late arriving, but pretty much dove right in.  Other than what I had read about Dogs in the Actual Play threads and on the website for the game, I was going in blind.  We set about creating Characters and as we were doing so the rules were explained and many useful examples were given when I did have questions.  The other player played out her Accomplishment first so I could actually see how the system worked before it was my time.  We played through, but I just didn’t get a good “feel” for the “significance” of the various components.

Traits felt very odd to me – and I think this was the Sim in me refusing to let go.  The same went with “assigning dice” to Attributes, traits, relationships and objects.  All this felt uncomfortably awkward in the same way it feels awkward when a hair cutter folds the top of your ear over when trimming one’s hair.  It wasn’t painful, but I found myself constantly wanting to maneuver my way out of the process.  I was aware of this behavior at the time, noted it and kept trying to reapply myself to the task at hand.  No matter how it was explained to me I just couldn’t grok it, though I did finish with Character creation.

So play proper commenced and I felt myself continually slipping into Sim habits that I kept having to step out of.  I and the other Dog arrived at the outskirts of a town a little after nightfall when a man who was ringed by wolves was being run out of town.  I thought to myself, “Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?”  So I jumped right in pulled my long rifle, identified myself and called for the fleeing man to halt.  My mind started racing considering all the possibilities – what has this man done to stir up this town so?  Who was this man?  Who was the man who seemed to be leading the town’s people to pursue the man I had just apprehended?  How dangerous was the mob?  How much backbone did this mob have?  If the situation started to fall apart in a big bad way was what “tools” did I have at my disposal?  I started searching my mind for others who might also be instigators and who the weak links in the mob might be?  I “assigned” the other Dog to confront the mob leader and stop the mob while I interrogated my “prisoner.”

Then it hit me.  As I was watching the other Dog play out the “conflict” that I wasn’t thinking in terms of premise or story or anything at all along those lines.  I saw dice come out, raises made, countered by sees, fallout calculated.  I had already lost sight of the process of the game!  So I made an effort to make a mental readjustment.  I had been thinking like a Ranger of Ithilien, taking tactical stock of the situation and trying to quickly establish our authority over the mob.  What I hadn’t thought about were the traits on my sheet or what happened during my Accomplishment section of play earlier.

Play came back to me and as play unfolded I started to get a feel for the Situation.  So I called, no, ordered that all concerned parties present themselves at the temple so we could sort this whole mess out.  Once there I fell right back into Sim habits as I started my interrogations.  A lead eventually had us call in the daughter of one of the men involved in the dispute.  So I start trying to figure out how am I going to get her to confess her culpability when the DM stopped me and said, “This is a good point for a ‘conflict’.”  I looked at him dazed and was mildly irritated for a split-second because I was getting on a roll and was suddenly pulled out of the Situation to deal with “mechanics.”  I quickly realized, again, that I had totally missed the point of the game and the mechanics as I was pursuing my ends.  This only lasted but a moment and swiftly reoriented myself to the mechanics.

So we are going back and forth and I feel like a fish out of water.  Once into the mechanics of the conflict resolution I had totally emotionally disconnected from the scene.  I felt stymied and frustrated, but I didn’t express that in anyway because it was my fault for not cluing in!

So that particular conflict resolved and fallout was assigned.  When another conflict started immediately as one of the townspeople, the person who was leading the mob, suddenly grew claws, snarled and leapt on my back!  A fight was on and I immediately started thinking tactically about the Situation, how my Character would respond, what his training would or would not allow him to do, who was the biggest threat, who could be counted on, what was in the room that could be turned into a weapon if need be, could I use an exorcism, etc.?  What I didn’t consider were the traits on my sheet as my mind started whirring at a million miles a second – until everything stopped so we could start the conflict resolution process.  Dice were rolled, order of players determined and again I started to lose my connection to the Situation.  I didn’t really notice this until it was my turn to state my action, present my raise, roll a trait, etc.  In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  …and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

But that wasn’t the point of the game or game design!  I was Simming – again!  Doh!  I wasn’t thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like.  I was deep into the Situation wondering about my Character, what his duties and responsibilities were, what was available to me in the room, do I have the authority to kill under these circumstances, did the man who turned into a some sort of werewolf-like creature have the ability to infect others, etc.?

This is not to say that I am complaining about how the game was run or the game design itself.  I found it utterly fascinating at just how different the means and goals were in this game from my typical gaming and how badly I kept missing the mark!  I loved the Setting, the NPC’s, the Situation, my partner was very cool – I kept surrendering myself to all of those elements.  I just kept missing the boat on the priority of play.  A couple of times I apologized to the GM for not staying on CA, though he never gave me any grief and was extremely supportive.  I enjoyed playing with the GM and the other player, but I just wasn’t into the priority of play. 

I was not trying to subvert play at all.  I was overtly trying to play Nar and that was my goal for the night.  I tried to support the GM and the other Player in their gaming efforts as best as I could understand.  I really wanted to see how this unfamiliar CA worked.  I do not consider my time wasted at all.  I gleaned some valuable insight into the contrasts between Nar and Sim, was exposed to a completely new game and resolution system and met some wonderful creative intelligent new people. 

I’m just not cut out for Narrativist play!  Fascinating!!

Hi Jay,

Then it hit me.  As I was watching the other Dog play out the “conflict” that I wasn’t thinking in terms of premise or story or anything at all along those lines.  I saw dice come out, raises made, countered by sees, fallout calculated.  I had already lost sight of the process of the game! 
(snip)
I wasn’t thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like. 

Glad you got the chance to play. And with Forge members! How cool, dat? I think it's beneficial to play varying styles. There's so much variety within a single CA. I happily lose sight of it while getting into how the next group does things.

Silmenume wrote: In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  …and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion. I had a player in my game who found the conflict system very jarring for the first two sessions, and said some exact same things to you - just as he was in getting in the zone of the scene, the conflict system reared his head and caused him to lose his train of thought.
That passed.

One thing you said:

Silmenume wrote:
In this particular phase I sledge hammered my attacker in the face with a right hook.  …and was staggered when there was no determination of the effect of my blow right then and there.  I needed feedback from my actions in order to determine my next course of action.

I'm curious about what you didn't understand in chargen.  I'm wondering if you're overthinking the process, or purpose of the process.  I've heard the creator of the game comment that chargen shouldn't consume that much time.  Just throw together your character.  It's going to be hard to do it "wrong."  In fact, you can make your character similarly to a Sim character.  Traits are like skills.  Belongings can be assigned as appropriate to what you think is logical for your character to have.  Relationships don't need to be assigned at all, or can be used as character hooks for the GM, if you want.  Assign your stats by looking at the conflicts the stats are used in, and emphasize the ones where you think your character will excel.

I'm not saying you can't get tricky with the chargen process ("I have trouble talking to women." 2d10!...?), but if you don't, it's not going to be a big deal.

The other thing I noticed is that it sounds like you might, maybe, not be the right fit for DitV's resolution mechanic.  It's rather prominent, and it can distract from immersion.  At least, I know people that find that to be the case.  There's nothing wrong with preferring Sim mechanics that just take care of all the physics.  If you get the hang of it, then that's great.  If you don't, then you don't.

I wonder if you were jarred less by the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism, and more by the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.

The way you needed feedback about that punch you threw -- that suggests to me that you were expecting the ultimate outcome to depend in part on that one task (e.g., Task Resolution) instead of merely expecting the outcome to take color from that task (e.g., Conflict Resolution).

I agree with Chris 122.4% on Nar, so I have nothing more to say on that because he's already done such a fine job.  I don't see Nar here though.  The agenda at work is difficult to tease out just because agenda is being talked about so much (that tends to heavily skew descriptions), but I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

For Gam, just watch for de-escalation as it's almost a sure sign.  Likewise with Nar, escalation is almost a sure sign.  Anyway, this may or may not be what your play was like.  Just something to think about.

Guys!

It's farily well established that Dogs is a game that strongly supports narrativist play.  Jay has been championing simulationist play here for years, has been described as the Sim Poster Child, and is conversant with the theory here.

Can we assume he knows what he's talking about when he says "Wow, Nar and Sim are totally different things!  This was a learning experience!"

That being said - Jay, it sounds to me like you were working too hard to play Nar.  Trust Vincent.  He wrote a well targeted game.  Play the game, premise will happen.  :)    (which is what Chris said, I realize)

James

Blankshield wrote:
Guys!

It's farily well established that Dogs is a game that strongly supports narrativist play.  Jay has been championing simulationist play here for years, has been described as the Sim Poster Child, and is conversant with the theory here.

Can we assume he knows what he's talking about when he says "Wow, Nar and Sim are totally different things!  This was a learning experience!"

James

Hey everyone!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.  There are a lot of responses and that’s really cool!  I hope to address the salient part of all your posts.

Chris,

Bankuei wrote: In the same sense, it's completely possible, and reasonable, to play Dogs without thinking about premise at all and at the end of play realize you've been addressing premise.  Fallout?  How you choose to have your character change based on the conflicts says something.  How you choose to have your character react says something.  All of these things are really sneaky ways to get you to say something thematically- to address Premise without having to consciously think about it.  That's the strength of Dogs.

Bill wrote:
Glad you got the chance to play. And with Forge members! How cool, dat? I think it's beneficial to play varying styles.

Darren wrote: I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion.

Darren wrote: You do actually get feedback, exactly the same way you do in other games.
Here's what happens - you throw a punch. In another game what will happen? One of several things.
1. The punch connects and your opponent is hurt. This is a DitV Take The Blow
2. The punch is blocked and has no effect, or your foe shrugs it off harmlessles. This is the Block or Dodge in DitV.
3. Some systems also allow a counterblow - where your punch attempt is blocked so effectively your opponent gets an immediate conter-attack. This is the DitV Reversal.

Darren wrote: In Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in.

Speaking as the GM for this particular game, I want to say that Jay played well, for a first-timer, and I think that with a few more sessions (Selene has a copy, remember, Jay!  Hint!  Hint!) you'd be able to lose the "bump" from the unfamiliar mechanics.

Hi Jay,

I'd describe it that you were working from a fixed character base. From it you were using causality to determine what to do next (the character would think about the tactics of the situation). When the play is about defining that character base (determining how the character feels about the situation). Until that's sorted out, you can't figure out tactics at all (ie you can't causally figure out tactics that save the princess, if you haven't yet determined if you give a shit about her).

Silmenume wrote:
How does the foe respond to the blow?  Does he shrug it off or does he stagger back in pain?  Does he go down to the floor?  Does he spin around exposing his back?  Did my hand get hurt mashing against his skin?  Does he appear to be shaken up or does he just look angrier?  All this is not Color but real conveyed information that is important feedback in the Sim dialectic process.  I don’t need to know hit points, but what I do need to know is how is he responding to my actions. 

I was going to say what Vincent just said. So I'll elaborate.

You need this detailed information to inform your Sees and Raises. No one gets to just say "I Raise" or "I Take The Blow." Not good enough. Because when you say, "I Take The Blow... He goes down, clutching his neck and trying not to pass out," and Raise with, "He desperately kicks at your legs, trying to drive you back a pace," then I have the ammo to say, "I Block. A good kick to the shins isn't enough to stop me. I step in close and finish him off with my knife."

Our specific narrations form the "sim dialectic" you were talking about. The more specific the better, in my experience. This is just like a Sim-supporting system. The game rarely works right if everyone just says, "I hit for 4 points."

The ongoing narration also has several mechanical effects, where the rules query the SIS details. If you drift the game so that you're not supplying description, the following established rules and techniques become impossible:
- Determining whether a trait use is valid.
- Finding improvised tools.
- Determining the fall-out die size.
- Determining who has to See a given Raise.
I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to play DiV conflicts properly without an ongoing, realistic back-and-forth about the details of the action. You'd have to make drastic changes in the rules to make it possible, because, as the above examples demonstrate, many details of the conflict rules are actually very dependent on the SIS.

Silmenume wrote:
Hey Darren,

Darren wrote: I'm not sure what you're describing is a class of CA styles. It sounds to me like a clash of familiar game mechanics versus unfamiliar gaming mechanics. Or, having to deal with a different Stance while playing, so it disrupts your immersion.

There’s a false assumption in your argument.  I was not concerned with “immersion,” I was deep into a thought process that had to be interrupted because I had to deal with mechanics.

Darren wrote: In Dogs, it's the same thing - you look at the traits on your sheet, and try to find ways to work them in.

Actually it is different.  First of all each “trait” is only usable once per “conflict.” 

Hi Kintara (Adam),

Kintara wrote: … Assign your stats by looking at the conflicts the stats are used in, and emphasize the ones where you think your character will excel. …

WhiteRat wrote:
I wonder if you were jarred less by the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism, and more by the difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.

The way you needed feedback about that punch you threw -- that suggests to me that you were expecting the ultimate outcome to depend in part on that one task (e.g., Task Resolution) instead of merely expecting the outcome to take color from that task (e.g., Conflict Resolution).

Jason wrote: …I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

Blankshield wrote: That being said - Jay, it sounds to me like you were working too hard to play Nar.  Trust Vincent.  He wrote a well targeted game.  Play the game, premise will happen.  :)    (which is what Chris said, I realize)

Marco wrote: What he's the posterboy for, IMO, is immersive play…

Marco wrote: I have not run Dogs--but if thinking "Wow, this is really interesting, I wonder where this is going to lead to?" is wrong I can't imagine it'd be as well loved as it is.

Silmenume wrote:
Me?  Posterboy?  Didn’t know I had to the looks for it!  I will agree with you Marco, that when I first arrived and for a number of months following I was playing around with and to a certain degree arguing for “immersion.”  However I changed my thinking on that back in August of last year.  I do think that one needs to adopt the structures of the fictional world, but I have stated that I do not believe that one needs to identify/empathize with the structures (immerse) in order to employ them.  Simply put I have not argued the “immersion” position in at least a year or longer.  That this confusion or conflation between adoption and immersion continues to pop up does shed an important light on some of the stubborn confusion regarding Sim play.  This is very interesting…

Don’t get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn’t capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Silmenume wrote:
For example I most certainly was not thrilled about choosing my own fallout.  In fact it just plain rubbed me the wrong way.  It’s not the mechanic per say that troubled me, but rather it was something I just wasn’t interested in.  Choosing fallout, especially one’s own, is something that is entirely opposed to the Sim paradigm.  It just seems “wrong,” however, as I understood that in this game it was part of Addressing Premise so I gave it the old college try.  (When I say “wrong” I do not mean in an absolute manner in any way – just a perception from a Sim perspective.)

Silmenume wrote: It’s not that the resolution mechanics were “different,” they weren’t providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.  Discovering this first hand was very interesting!  This game was a wonderful opportunity to compare and contrast different approaches to conflict (CA).

Silmenume wrote: Actually it is different.  First of all each “trait” is only usable once per “conflict.”  A great part of the creative demand of the game lies in the Players’ ability to somehow work in their traits (be they relationships, skills, traits, objects or what not) to aid in the prosecution of the conflict.  However, at the time of the conflict there is no real qualitative difference between the types of “traits,” they all added various kinds and numbers of dice to the pool.  In Sim the differences in the qualities or types of the traits is profoundly important at the time of conflict and is used to demonstrate “how the world works” or “that the world is operating in a ‘normal’ manner.”

Hey Jay, you said:

Si wrote: It’s not that the resolution mechanics were “different,” they weren’t providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.

Silmenume wrote: Hey Jason,

Jason wrote: …I smell standard "immersionist" Gam.

By "immersionist" Gam I mean:

•  Self imposed character integrity limitations on tactical options.  Typically though adherence to a trope such as ranger, knight, or navy seal.  Primary limiters are usually moral code and training.
•  Strong need for direct translation of character training into system.  Like needing a Wilderness skill for rangers.
•  Strong need for predictable game world physics to support sequential actions (I do A and A is B successful, so my new options are P or Q, which will be X or Y successful, and so on).  I feel this leads to a preference for ablative hit points, but that's not really important.
•  Heavy attention to resources.  Concerns such as "I bring rope", "what skills did I buy?", and "what's available in the area to use?" tend to dominate.
•  Engages in information collating - dividing elements of a puzzle into chunks and working each chunk in series.  Like getting all suspects together and interrogating them one by one, following the same introductory series of questions when interrogating, etc.  The Gam de-escalation process is very obvious when this is done, as you can see each chunk of situation being attacked and defeated.  Leading to a "chipping away" method of conflict resolution.

Other than the “de-escalation process” I don’t think there is any technique listed above that is specific to any CA.

However, I do agree with you that discussions “about” CA tend to obscure what was “really going on,” but the key element for Gamism was utterly lacking – There was no Step on Up on my part.  I did not find myself addressing Challenge at all.  There was no jockeying for (peer) recognition or seeking of means to display my skillz as a Player, etc.

I also want to note that all the taking stock you described in your list is also that of the bricoleur inventorying his shed for objects/structures when faced with a problem.

Hey Vincent,

lumpley wrote: I have stuff to say about your GNS analysis, but not the time, so right now I'm going to limit myself to this one little practical concern.

Your expectations about taking the blow are dead on. If your opponent wasn't giving you exactly the information you needed - shrug it off or stagger back, go down with his nose fountaining or snarl and look pissed - he was letting you down.

John wrote: You need this detailed information to inform your Sees and Raises. No one gets to just say "I Raise" or "I Take The Blow." Not good enough. Because when you say, "I Take The Blow... He goes down, clutching his neck and trying not to pass out," and Raise with, "He desperately kicks at your legs, trying to drive you back a pace," then I have the ammo to say, "I Block. A good kick to the shins isn't enough to stop me. I step in close and finish him off with my knife."

Our specific narrations form the "sim dialectic" you were talking about. The more specific the better, in my experience. This is just like a Sim-supporting system. The game rarely works right if everyone just says, "I hit for 4 points."

Colored emphasis added.

John wrote: Hey Jay, you said:

Si wrote: It’s not that the resolution mechanics were “different,” they weren’t providing the information I needed.  The resolution mechanics were neither focused on nor providing normalizing information – the behaviors of the antagonist (nonself) did not change in a way that was reflected in the functioning of the mechanics.

To help those who are confused (like me) can you give us an example of system-in-action that does give you the information you need? Something that "focuses on and provides normalizing information." Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can use a real game system as a reference point (GURPS maybe? I don't know what's hip for Sim these days) I think that would help. Thanks!

Darren wrote: Minor point - notice that I presented two possibilities. My first proposition: you were unfamiliar with the drastically different mechanics, and this interrupted your chain of thought.  This is a lot like what you describe, and this does not require there to be a CA clash. Of course, it might be a CA clash - that's why I posed my suggestions as possibilities to consider rather than definite statements.

Darren wrote: Take note of what Vincent, John, and Eero have said. If the other participants in a conflict are playing properly, you get exactly the same information to interact with as you would in a pure simulationist system. That information is produced the exact same way, too.

Darren wrote: A pedantic nitpick which you may realise already. :) You only get the trait's dice once per conflict, but you can "use" the trait as often as you like after that. In one raise, you might say, "I fire my shotgun" and as a result get your 2d6 trait. In a later raise, you might describe "I fire my shotgun" - you don't get any more dice, but you DO inflict different fallout if you hit, than if you chose to talk. So there is a definite, qualitative difference between some types of traits.

Silmenume wrote:
When you do get the time I would be interested in what you have to say about my GNS analysis.

Silmenume wrote:
I do not believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is to “resolve” tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to “normalize” i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn’t happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the mechanics is Sim are not “just” normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a “roll” is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is “meaningful” even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution mechanics were “not” called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a “void” in the information/feedback stream...

Oh - Jay, and yes, I think that this reaches right into your bricoleur-vs-engineer analysis. You've identified a technical distinction, a distinction at the technique level, I think, not a distinction between creative agendas.

-Vincent

Thank you, Vincent, I've been saying this for ages now.

Jay, I don't think you have a problem with narrativism at all. I think you just have very specific sorts of mechanics you like (mostly ones that are ignored most of the time). Interestingly lots of players who identify with narrativism have the same urges.

Mike

Mike and Vincent,

Jay and I just went over this ground recently in Exploration does not equal Bricolage.  Though, your mileage may vary with that thread.  Jay and I came out of it with very different views.  I consider it fairly conclusive evidence that bricolage is a Technique, due to it being anything but a Technique being founded on assumption #3 from my second to last post and my two actual play examples from that thread falsifying assumption #3.  I haven't thought too much about it since then, but I think what allows #3 to be disproved is not a fault in the engineering/bricolage distinction, but incorrectly mapping that distinction onto the process of role-playing.  Assumption #3 is able to exist in the context of building something or myth because of manufacturing "materials" that are immutable.  A chair or a thunderstorm is a chair or a thunderstorm regardless of what I want it to be, and they have certain qualities regardless of what I perceive those qualities to be.  However, role-playing, being a purely mental process, has no immutable materials to build from.  A chair or a thunderstorm is exactly what I want and perceive it to be.  Hence, all elements are at some level engineered and assumption #3 becomes false.  It's not that the engineering/bricolage distinction isn't useful, just that it can't go from the tool-shed to Exploration unmodified.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain Jay's view on the thread was quite different.  I don't want to derail too much.  Just thought I'd mention it.

Hey Marco,

I finally get to respond to you!

Marco wrote: I'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion…

Marco wrote: You don't convey that you experience the game simply as a cool intellectual exercise.

Marco wrote: Your attempt to "make the sheet come alive" absent the rules is, I think, some of the most immersive language I've ever seen. When I play in what I would describe as an immersive manner, I am often excited about events in the game, feel an emotional attachment to them (and to NPCs), imagine the play vividly, and sometimes lose track of time (as when reading a good book).

Marco wrote:

Don’t get me wrong!  I said this not to imply that Nar isn’t capable of creating this effect but rather to demonstrate that I was into the situation and setting.  I was drawing the distinction that my difficulties lay not in the elements of the SIS as in the means it was Explored.

Yes--I understand that you want to draw the difference between Sim/Nar as the "means" by which SIS is explored. I think that's common but since there is no satisfactory method of doing that when the player is not in author stance the line is so blurry as to be effectively nonexistant (absent defintional elements such as railroading, complete absence of anything that could be called a human-experience choice, or a game where no one experiences any real emotional attachment to the imaginary events).

Brian wrote: I have to say that this is a bit confusing to me -- stating "It didn't follow the Sim paradigm, therefore I didn't understand it".  That seems completely backwards.  It reminds me of something a taster once said on Iron Chef -- "Well, I'm only 19, so I'm not old enough to like this dish yet."

Brian wrote: The resolution mechanics require one to provide the information you were looking for when Seeing, Raising, Taking the Blow, etc.  So it wasn't the mechanics that failed.

Brian wrote: If you need the Traits separated conceptually, write up your own character sheet and place your Traits in conceptual sections -- Innate Mental, Innate Physical, Innate Spiritual, Trained Mental, Trained Physical, Trained Spiritual, External Physical (equipment), External Spiritual, External Relationship, External Social, etc.  It won't harm anything to break them up into whatever classifications make sense for you.

In fact, you can even do more than that.  If you want your character to be more focused on physical training, put higher dice in those Traits that reflect that.  Done.

Jason wrote: Step on Up seems much like address of Premise in that it is one of those things that is absent from any concious thought in most of play.  You are left looking for the manifestations of the agenda, such as challenge and theme…

Jason wrote: It's all about the list as a whole - not individual elements.

Jason wrote: Anyway, judging by other comments it's likely that engagement in challenge was lacking from your play, but I thought I should follow up as your initial post read very strongly like it was present.

I do agree that it is all about the aggregate, however other than the note on de-escalation that particular list (as a whole) really didn’t point to any specific CA behavior that I could find echoed in the Big Model.

Silmenume,

I get where you're coming from.  Thanks for the explanation.  I just think it's a mistake to say "I'm not getting this/I'm in conflict with the rules because I'm a Simulationist."  I think I'd say just try it and have fun, and if it's the one non-Simulationist game that you like and play, good for you and it.

Hey Vincent,

lumpley wrote: The short form is: someone accustomed to simulationist play in a more genre-emulation or "cinematic" mode - say a long-term player of 7th Sea or Feng Shui - probably wouldn't have the same objections to Dogs' techniques that you do.

…

When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda. Your analysis of Dogs' construction of cause and effect is right on, but your ... dissatisfaction? discomfort? incompetence? whichever you prefer - your discomfort with it is all technical.

lumpley wrote:

Silmenume wrote: I do not believe that the role of Mechanics in Sim is to “resolve” tasks (or conflicts) rather it is to “normalize” i.e., to try to ensure that the unlikely doesn’t happen very often and that the likely happens most of the time.  However, the Mechanics is Sim are not “just” normalizers – they are also a tool of Exploration that is used by the GM to convey clues/information.  What I mean is that the very act of calling for a “roll” is telling in and of itself.  Such an act is “meaningful” even before the die is rolled – and sometimes that mere act of just throwing the die is all that matters.  Ultimately I believe that the role of Mechanics in Sim is really a means for the GM to communicate to the players – THIS IS IMPORTANT (or interesting?)!  Thus that the resolution Mechanics were “not” called into play to indicate the direct result of my action in a temporal fashion left a “void” in the information/feedback stream...

This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

Narrativism: wrote: [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]. The panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. …

…But if you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented by Creative Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.

Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

Underlining added.

The wrote: Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.

lumpley wrote: This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche.

lumpley wrote: To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

lumpley wrote: Oh - Jay, and yes, I think that this reaches right into your bricoleur-vs-engineer analysis. You've identified a technical distinction, a distinction at the technique level, I think, not a distinction between creative agendas.

Jason wrote: I consider it fairly conclusive evidence that bricolage is a Technique…

Jay,

I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

My first thought was more along the line of trying other focused Nar facilitating games to map which elements are unique to one game. I don't see the point of trying to "prove" anything specific based on a single experience, except yes this game was a stretching experience. By the time I read your opening post there was already 4 or 5 responses second guessing everything. I'm disappointed by that.

John

Hmm, I find the excavation of what Jay means quite strange.

It all looks quite simple to me.  A non-Narr player went out of their way to experiment with a new style, didn't like it much, and is able to discuss what they didn't like.

Where is the problem?  Why all the questions?  We're getting valuable first person data from an informed observer.

I want to be EXTREMELY clear, right now, that I think that Jay's observations are right on, and I have no questions or second-guesses about them at all. He's nailed the way Dogs treats cause and effect. I don't doubt his discomfort. As far as I can tell, he's astutely and critically observed the whole process.

Has he located his observations correctly in the Big Model? Are they really observations about Creative Agenda? I don't think they are - but saying so isn't at ALL the same thing as saying that I think they're bad observations.

-Vincent

Sorry, John, contracycle; I had thought it on-topic for this thread since the poster brought it up in the first place.  I thought it germane to the concept -- I'm not any of those GNS things and yet I like Dogs; I don't see how labeling Dogs justifies the fact that you are or aren't having any fun.

Jay (and Fred),

I'm wondering how the others in the game reacted to your contributions. Were you able to support the game for them despite your awkwardness?

John

John wrote:
I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

Brian wrote:
Sorry, John, contracycle; I had thought it on-topic for this thread since the poster brought it up in the first place.  I thought it germane to the concept -- I'm not any of those GNS things and yet I like Dogs; I don't see how labeling Dogs justifies the fact that you are or aren't having any fun.

While I don’t wish to take this thread in this direction here, I am certainly open to discussing it on a theory thread, I just wanted to quickly note that bricolage cannot be a technique any more than engineering is a “technique.”  Both are “points of view/paradigms” on how to approach and solve problems.  How Techniques are used by players in play will reflect (and be an expression of – much like how CA is not a Technique either but a process) the “problem solving paradigm”, but Techniques are not in themselves engineering or bricolage anymore than they are “CA.”  That is Techniques are employed to express CA, but are not CA itself.  Both engineering/bricolage and CA are emergent properties of play – not things in and of themselves.

Mike wrote:
Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre. We just disagree with you on what that problem was. We think it's techniques, you think it's overall mode. Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA, sort of like a subset of CA (the whole "skewers" concept).

Hey John,

John wrote: I also find the eagerness to explain away your perceptions strange.

lumpley wrote: I want to be EXTREMELY clear, right now, that I think that Jay's observations are right on, and I have no questions or second-guesses about them at all. He's nailed the way Dogs treats cause and effect. I don't doubt his discomfort. As far as I can tell, he's astutely and critically observed the whole process.

lumpley wrote: Has he located his observations correctly in the Big Model? Are they really observations about Creative Agenda? I don't think they are…

John wrote: I'm wondering how the others in the game reacted to your contributions. Were you able to support the game for them despite your awkwardness?

Mike wrote: Jay, you didn't even come close to addressing the argument made, but instead have constructed several straw men from Vincent's arguments. For example, he didn't say that you didn't have a problem with the creative agenda. I know that you did, and I think Vincent will agre.

lumpley wrote: When you talk about the construction of cause and effect in a game, you're talking about techniques, not creative agenda.

Bolding added.

lumpley wrote: This is a very particular kind of simulationism you're describing here. Calling it Sim, unmodified, is, well, synechdoche. To associate your own discomfort with Dogs' techniques so strongly with simulationism is to associate simulationism way, way too strongly with your own play style.

Mike wrote: Yes, techniques are part of the expression of CA. That doesn't make them a CA. In fact the big model goes out of it's way to show how techniques are something different from CA…

Silmenume wrote:

Narrativism: wrote: Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

Underlining added.

Mike wrote: And we're still going to have to agree to disagree about bricolage.

Jason wrote: What you have above is basically a restatement of assumption #3 (exclusive intent+action), which is fine, because I know that's where you're coming from, though I still disagree with the assumption.  I'm fine leaving it alone in this thread.  We know where we disagree, and I think that's about as far as we can get at the moment. :)

Hey Jay.

It's easy - trivially easy - for me to imagine a narrativist game whose resolution rules exactly match the resolution rules you use all the time.*

It's also easy for me to imagine simulationism-accustomed players who wouldn't find Dogs' resolution rules any kind of stretch - if they were accustomed to "cinematic" resolution rules in their simulationist play. In fact, I hear from these kinds of players sometimes. They like Dogs' resolution rules a lot, they find Dogs' handling of pacing and escalation compelling.

As far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

In order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

Do you feel like Devil's-advocating your own position? What if the answer to your "every time" question is that you're mistaken about something fundamental?

* Egri & the "Lumpley Principle", with followup here: Backstory vs. Strong Character Creation. If you haven't read these two threads before, please do, especially my posts and Ron's.

-Vincent

Hi Jay!

Silmenume wrote:
I am an incompetent Narrativist!  …But what a fascinating examination of the differences between Nar and Sim through contrast!

Last night I met a couple of Forge-ites for the first time and sat down to play DitV.  I have never played a Nar facilitating game and was rather excited (and rather curious) about trying this new “way of playing” that has so many players gushing with such enthusiasm.

[HUGE snip]

But that wasn’t the point of the game or game design!  I was Simming – again!  Doh!  I wasn’t thinking about Premise or hard decisions or story or anything of the like.  I was deep into the Situation wondering about my Character, what his duties and responsibilities were, what was available to me in the room, do I have the authority to kill under these circumstances, did the man who turned into a some sort of werewolf-like creature have the ability to infect others, etc.?

[Snip of how neat the game really was]

I’m just not cut out for Narrativist play!  Fascinating!!

The disconnect that has been going on in this thread is that no one is allowing for the “CA expression” conflict part – i.e., I must be having Techniques issues and not having CA issues.  Why?  Why must I be having such an obvious issue with Techniques that CA issues can be dismissed summarily?  No one has demonstrated why the CA issue is irrelevant or not germane – only dismissals have been offered, not logical arguments.

Silmenume wrote:
Hey Marco,

I finally get to respond to you!

Marco wrote: I'm not sure where you draw the line between adoption and immersion…

Well as “immersion” has been so far undefined, any lengthy discussion about Sim in terms of “immersion” will ultimately be an exercise in futility.  However, despite the warning, I will boldly rush in where angels fear to tread and attempt to make a cogent response. 

• 1.  The difference between adoption and immersion is when one stops relating to the tools available to the Player as tools and starts reacting to them emotionally.• 2.  As I have stated as recently as my last post – I am not saying nor am I even attempting to imply that one must “immerse” in order to get one’s Sim on. • 3.  I do enjoy play that is deeply emotional, but I am not saying nor am I implying that this “emotionalist preference” is in ANY WAY descriptive or definitional of any Creative Agenda.

All the above being established, I am confused buy your consistent return to the “emotional issue.”

Hi, Vincent,

Regarding your last post, a Nar game may see the use of Jay-approved mechanics but does that mean a Sim game can use "Nar-supporting" mechanics? And just because players who are accustomed to Sim can enjoy the DitV mechanics, that doesn't show that those mechanics are "Sim-supporting". After all, those people are enjoying Nar when they play DitV (presumably).

In other words, Jay's claims are consistent with the proposition that "Some CA-modes of play don't work well with some mechanics".

Hello, Marco,

Even though Jay was "doing Nar", does that mean he couldn't have felt a clash with his Sim-preferring sensibilities?

All,

I'm surprised I'm going to argue this given my general dislike of the Sim-Nar distinction, but take a look at Ron's description of Sim as "confirmation of input via output" (as here) and the exchange with Jay in Goals and G/N and S and I think we can see exactly what Jay is talking about. The argument is that Sim does not work (well) with mechanics that operate on an overt metagame level, as "meaning" on the metagame level (extradiegetic or Affect Space) must derive from "fact" in the SIS(*), not the other way around.

Now, I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this but I think Jay's position is worthy of serious consideration, if for no other reason than to examine how it interacts with the "input/output" concept of Sim.

(* acknowledging that this term, as well as diegesis, is subject to different interpretations among theorists)

ewilen wrote:
Even though Jay was "doing Nar", does that mean he couldn't have felt a clash with his Sim-preferring sensibilities?

Hey Vincent,

Thanks for taking the time to hunt down and post links those threads.  I read them, and color me stooopid if you will, but I was rather confused reading them, as I was not sure how they related to what I am trying to discuss.  Perhaps your reply below might shed some light on where we are mis-communicating -

lumpley wrote: It's easy - trivially easy - for me to imagine a narrativist game whose resolution rules exactly match the resolution rules you use all the time.*

lumpley wrote: It's also easy for me to imagine simulationism-accustomed players who wouldn't find Dogs' resolution rules any kind of stretch - if they were accustomed to "cinematic" resolution rules in their simulationist play.

lumpley wrote: As far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

lumpley wrote: In order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

lumpley wrote: Do you feel like Devil's-advocating your own position? What if the answer to your "every time" question is that you're mistaken about something fundamental?

Mike wrote: Nobody has said that it's impossible for a person to have a GNS problem in this case. You're making it seem as if we think that one cannot have a GNS problem between sim and nar priorities. That's not at all what we've said.

Mike wrote: We're saying that from what you've said that it seem like you, in this particular case, bring up objections that say you're opposed to certain techniques, techniques that are potentially abhorred by players who prefer multiple modes. So there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question. Or, more specifically, that you disliked the mode of play in this particular instance.

Mike wrote: So there's no particular evidence that disliking these techniques that this means that you dislike the mode of play in question.

Mike wrote: The problem largely extends from your defining of simulation by what we believe is a set of techniques.

Mike wrote: So, you say, "I prefer these techniques…

Mike wrote: So it's not surprising that you see the a rejection of narrativism, where we see a rejection of certain techniques that are not definitive of sim.

Mike wrote: Gareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA.

Mike wrote: Simply put, the reason I'm coming back to the the "emotional issue" is because, as written, if you are emotionally engaged in the play, no matter what you say about addressing social-structures vs. premise, I think you are meeting the textual requirements for Nar play.

Mike wrote:
Gareth, a person can dislike a technique in a way that has nothing to do with whether or not it supports CA. You can have two narrativism demanding players, one who likes a technique, and one who does not. So the question when somebody likes or dislikes a technique is whether or not what they dislike about it is how it supports a CA, or something else.

lumpley wrote:
As far as I can tell, your position is that a) a narrativist game whose resolution rules match your accustomed resolution rules would be, in fact, a simulationist game, not a narrativist game; and b) the simulationism-accustomed players I hear from are not, in fact, accustomed to simulationism, but to some other kind of play.

In order for me to consider the possibility that you're right, here, I have to consider the possibility that Egri is wrong about premise and Ron is wrong about narrativism - which latter seems unlikely to me, to understate it considerably, as he invented the word.

Gareth, are you reading the posts between me and Jay? We've discovered the bone of contention here. Yes a person can say that they don't like a technique because it supports a particular CA, but to be correct, the technique does have to support that CA. Basically we're arguing that what he cites as distasteful as a result of CA is some sub-modal thing. Actually he is correct to say that it's a problem with CA, just not that it's a problem between narrativism and simulationism. Which are not the only identifiers of a CA.

I wish I could create a Venn diagram. But essentially Vincent and I see the objected to techniques as straddling the sim nar line, and Jay sees them as distinctly unsupportive of sim. The problem is where we draw the line as to what sim is, essentially. Until we have agreement on that, the disagreement here is insoluble. Everyone is right about everything else but that one point.

Mike

Silmenume wrote:
I’m not sure how a game design could be called “Nar facilitating” if the resolution mechanics facilitate Sim priorities.

Jay, please consider this old post of mine too, with an open mind: Re: Subtyping Sim.

-Vincent

This should probably be taken to another thread, but I have no idea what is meant by “cinematic” resolution rules.  I’m not sure what a “cinematic” type of conflict is.  My feeling is that is a red herring, thus I think I might break this out to another thread.

Hey Mike,

Mike wrote: But essentially Vincent and I see the objected to techniques as straddling the sim nar line, and Jay sees them as distinctly unsupportive of sim. The problem is where we draw the line as to what sim is, essentially. Until we have agreement on that, the disagreement here is insoluble.

contracycle wrote: I don't see anything to suggest that Egri or Ron might be wrong, or that their positions clash with Jay's.

lumpley wrote: That's exactly the problem: you think that resolution Mechanics can facilitate Sim priorities.

Resolution Mechanics, yet!

lumpley wrote: Take any mechanical component of a game's ruleset - its resolution, its reward, its Character creation, its Situation creation, its scene framing, its narration, its world building, any component. All by itself, that component cannot - cannot possibly - facilitate any CA. Of the ones I listed, reward and Situation creation Mechanics have the most CA-relevant power - resolution among the least - but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

lumpley wrote: …but none of them can be said to "facilitate Sim or Nar or Gam priorities."

lumpley wrote: Jay, please consider this old post of mine too, with an open mind: Re: Subtyping Sim.

lumpley wrote: Like say I want a Narrativist game that's like anime: I have to choose rules that both support collaborative Premise-addressal and are like anime.

Jason wrote: I can't speak for Vincent, Mike, or anyone else, but why I wouldn't label such play Sim is because neither causality nor avoidance of meta-game indicate Sim to me (assuming for the moment I believe in Sim).

Jason wrote: That doesn't quite resolve the issue of Nar versus Sim though.  I wouldn't reject Marco's position outright, because he's basically asking if you were addressing Premise.  He's just wording theme in terms of identification with Character and revealing Character, instead of wording theme in terms of a moral or ethical question.

Silmenume wrote: Jason!

You again!!  You’re everywhere!!!  ;oP

Meta-game Mechanics do interfere with or at least contradict the bricolage process – as it were.

I disagree.  As I have read him over the years, he’s basically claiming if the Player is invested in Situation – then it’s Premise(y) – which I reject categorically.  That he is not wording theme (or Premise) in terms of a moral or ethical question is a major problem.  All modes of play can result in Players being deeply, emotionally committed to the Situation at hand – he consistently argues otherwise.  He wasn’t asking me if I was addressing Premise as per the Narrativist essay, rather he was just asking whether I, as Player, had emotional stakes in the Situation – with the implication that such an investments means that I am addressing Premise.  I don’t buy that.

Silmenume wrote:
Absolutely.  Very much so.  Or I should say that Nar and Gam facilitating resolution Mechanics can thwart Sim expression while Sim facilitating resolution Mechanics should by their nature mostly stay out of the way of the decision making of the players.  Sort of, “seen but not felt.”

[snip]
Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

Jay, rather than raising issues with me in future threads, please consider asking me honest questions. I'll respond better to that.

I'm pretty much out of patience for this discussion, and it's left your Dogs in the Vineyard play pretty far behind, so this is going to be my closing point here:

Silmenume wrote:
Situation creation Mechanics have little or no place in Sim.

Hello,

Thread's closed now, folks.

Best,
Ron