Thursday evening I read through the RPGNet GNS thread again. Then I followed the link back to the March thread and read that. Then I spent about twelve straight hours rereading old threads here on The Forge. I did all this because I realized I still couldn’t answer, to my own satisfaction, a simple question about narrativism, and this bothered the hell out of me.

For those who are sick of this type of discussion and may want to bail out now, I’ll say up front that my design here is to challenge the current definition of Narrativism in GNS. I believe it conflicts with the functionality of the GNS model as a whole in such a way that either:

(1) play in which N decisions are prioritized does not necessarily meet the definition of narrativism,

or

(2) important decisions occur in play that prioritize something other than G, N, nor S. (I mean important to what transpires within the game, not external decisions like what kind of pizza to order).

I’m not going to get all the way there in this one post, though. Instead, I want to focus on the question that was bothering me in the wee hours of Friday morning.

Suppose there’s a gamemaster running an old school game in which the GM holds authorial power. He normally makes simulationist decisions as long as those decisions are also compatible with maintaining a minimal level of aesthetics in the emerging story through authorial artifice. By authorial artifice I mean things like plot structure, building suspense, and bringing about a satisfying climax. Whenever following in-game-world causality would conflict with the stories' aesthetics, he always decides in favor of exercising authorial artifice rather than following the in-game-world causality. For example, he would decide that the thug who gets off a lucky close-range shot will target the PC wearing a bullet-proof vest rather than one one whose targeting would best challenge the players’ ability to react or the one it would make the most in-game-world sense to the thug to target. He would do this in order to avoid deprotagonizing a player-character, though he’d probably describe it in his own words as "not messing up the game by having a player-character get shot by a lousy mook at a completely inappropriate time." For another example, he’ll withhold information in order to maintain suspense even if that information was "fairly earned" by the players through effective use of in-game resources, or even if the in-game-world course of events should causally lead to their obtaining the information.

Just to be clear, I’m focusing on a single such decision but that decision takes place within the context of a persistent pattern of similar decisions made on the same basis. Also, let’s assume my hypothetical GM is not railroading the players in the conventional sense. (Since some appear to believe that the fact that authorial power rests entirely with the GM constitutes railroading no matter what the GM actually does in play, I can’t decisively say that he’s not railroading them at all, but there is no pre-planned story and he is not systematically subverting their ability to make and execute in-character decisions.)

Finally, the game has no literary Premise. Mention Lajos Egri and our GM will rack his brain trying to remember which James Bond movie villain you’re talking about. Everything he knows about storytelling, he learned from Vince McMahon.

Think you’ve heard all this before, over and over, on any number of old threads? Me too. But in all those threads I’ve looked at, the question and discussion that follows focuses on characterizing the resulting play as a whole. There has been much discussion of whether or not some example or another is (a) narrativism (b) vanilla (c) abashed (d) railroading (e) illusionism (f) dramatism (g) drifted (h) functional (i) simulationism (j) exploration of situation (k) exploration of setting (l) simulation of story (m) exploration of story (n) exploration of situation (o) intuitive continuity (p) coherent… and so on. That is not the question I want to address, at least not yet. (I know a few of those concepts have been discredited, but all have been discussed.)

GNS is based fundamentally on decisions made in individual instances of play. So all I want to do is characterize one decision. Let’s say, the decision that the thug shoots the guy who’s wearing the bullet-proof vest instead of the guy who’s the most immediate in-game threat to the attacker or the guy whose getting shot would cause the most challenge for the players.

Which priority is expressed by that decision: G, N, or S? Something else, and if so, what? Impossible to determine, and if so, why?

- Walt

[edited to clarify that the question with the (a) (b) (c) choices is not being asked, the question in the final paragraph is]

O) Intuitive continuity

Seems to sum it up nicely. No preset goal, or attempt to get at a particular Premise, but the GM is making story happen anyhow.

Mike

Probably so, Mike, but that's not the question I was asking. Summing things up is exactly what I don't want to do. I want to classify the prioty indicated by one single decision (or, if that just can't be done, the priority indicated by the smallest set of similar decisions it is possible to classify). The existence of such priorities, and their classifiability into exactly one of G, N, or S is one of the fundamental principles of GNS theory. So let's do it.

- Walt

Hi Walter,

With respect, you have permitted some fallacious interpretations to interfere with what I'm saying in my essay, and so a lot of the contrasts or logic-steps you present are valid - but they are solutions to problems that don't exist. The main problem you perceive, I think, is that I would somehow insist that the GM you describe is not playing in a Narrativist way. However ... shock! ... he is.

Suppose there’s a gamemaster running an old school game in which the GM holds authorial power. He normally makes simulationist decisions as long as those decisions are also compatible with maintaining a minimal level of aesthetics in the emerging story through authorial artifice. By authorial artifice I mean things like plot structure, building suspense, and bringing about a satisfying climax. Whenever following in-game-world causality would conflict with the stories' aesthetics, he always decides in favor of exercising authorial artifice rather than following the in-game-world causality.

Right. Illusionism. So far so good.

Finally, the game has no literary Premise. Mention Lajos Egri and our GM will rack his brain trying to remember which James Bond movie villain you’re talking about. Everything he knows about storytelling, he learned from Vince McMahon.

Watch out here, I think. The GM could well be working with a perfectly ginchy Egri-style Premise without knowing jack about the theory. When you say the game has no literary Premise, that's different from saying the GM isn't thinking about or using Egri. These mental processes are buried very deep in the human mind (some say at the very root of "cognition," which is pre-human) and happen without "thinking about them" in the general/casual use of that phrase.

Look at that paragraph of yours I quoted above - it's impossible for the GM to be doing any such thing as your "authorial artifice" unless he does have an Egri-style Premise in mind. It may not be a very deep one - for instance, when Victor von Doom tries to dominate the world yet again, we're just seeing a Rivalry-oriented Premise recapped - but it's there.

GNS is based fundamentally on decisions made in individual instances of play. So all I want to do is characterize one decision. Let’s say, the decision that the thug shoots the guy who’s wearing the bullet-proof vest instead of the guy who’s the most immediate in-game threat to the attacker or the guy whose getting shot would cause the most challenge for the players.

Which priority is expressed by that decision: G, N, or S? Something else, and if so, what? Impossible to determine, and if so, why?

I'll stick with the Illusionist GM you described above, who, as I say, is indeed addressing Narrativist Premise during play. He wants his game to end up "like a story," and presumably his players do too (in a "I'm contributing" way that doesn't have much to do with authorship). So he uses these types of decisions to do it.

That's Narrativist. What's hard about that?

However, it is only Narrativist on his part, not the players. This is important - GNS is about actual play, not "reasons to play" beforehand or "results of play" afterwards. We are talking about role-playing decisions and interactions at the very moment - and these players are not playing Narrativist, given your description. We are looking about a mixed-priority group in which everyone hopes a story emerges but no one wants the process of creating a story to be in anyone's hands except the GM's. He is playing Narrativist but they are not.

So I'm totally cool with identifying the GM as making Narrativist decisions. I also claim he's got an uphill row to hoe, because player-decisions will pingpong about and he has to play manager-man to assemble them, his back-story, and the illusion of plausibility into something that turns out to be a story.

I don't see the theory-based problem, Walt. It all lies on the paradox that you propose, that he's not a Premise-y GM but he does have that "authorial artifice" (exactly as you describe) going on. However, that won't fly. Either the GM has an Egri-style Premise (of even the most basic sort, like Bond movie) in mind, and he's making a Narrativist decision to get there, or he doesn't - and in that case, that whole "authorial artifice" that you describe ceases to exist.

My only claim is that he and his group might run into serious problems of the sort I ran into, and tons of others have as well, as in order to achieve his priorities, he tends to railroad more and more, and the players who share the Narrativist priorities turn out to be the ones who are least satisfied over time.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

The main problem you perceive, I think, is that I would somehow insist that the GM you describe is not playing in a Narrativist way.

It was actually a three-way conundrum. I saw three possible interpretations:

- The GM I described is not prioritizing narrativist decisions. But then, what the heck is he prioritizing? Result: GNS is incomplete. (As in all the old "you need dramatism" arguments; my possibility 1.)

- The GM is prioritizing narrativist decisions, but because there is no literary Premise, he cannot be playing in a narrativist fashion. Result: the link in GNS between decision-making priority and mode is broken somehow. (My possibility 2. I thought this was the most likely possiblity, because there have been hints of it in past discussion. To wit:

-- The assertion, often made and not to my knowledge challenged by you, that most RPG play includes instances of the two modes not prioritized as well as the one that is. How could a gamist game, for example, include any admixture of narrativist play without a literary Premise?

-- Probably in reaction to that problem, statements (by others, I think, not you, and it would take me a long time to find them again) implying that the trace of "N" decision-making that mixes into gamist and simulationist play often uses, or must use, a different definition of story than N decisions in narrativism does.

- The GM is prioritizing narrativist decisions, and is playing in a narrativis way, but the assumption of no literary Premise cannot be true. (Your answer.) Result: see below...

It appeared to me that each of these possibilities had comparably severe consequences for my understanding of narrativism. #1 would have led me into the dramatist camp to see if I could scrounge up anything useful to fill the apparent gap. #2 would have, most likely, led me to seek out an alternate definition of narrativism. #3, well now, all that does is radically change my understanding of Premise in the context of narrativism.

The GM could well be working with a perfectly ginchy Egri-style Premise without knowing jack about the theory. When you say the game has no literary Premise, that's different from saying the GM isn't thinking about or using Egri.

Agreed. The assertion that the hypothetical GM was unaware of Egri's identity or theory was irrelevant. My point would have been stronger without it.

These mental processes are buried very deep in the human mind (some say at the very root of "cognition," which is pre-human) and happen without "thinking about them" in the general/casual use of that phrase.

Look at that paragraph of yours I quoted above - it's impossible for the GM to be doing any such thing as your "authorial artifice" unless he does have an Egri-style Premise in mind. It may not be a very deep one - for instance, when Victor von Doom tries to dominate the world yet again, we're just seeing a Rivalry-oriented Premise recapped - but it's there.

What you are saying appears to be that prioritization of any form of metagame narrative aesthetic concerns over gamist and simulationist goals automatically gives rise to, or proves the prior existence of, literary Premise. Sure, certain effective forms of narrativism might require a focus on Premise, but definitionally, you don't have to focus on Premise for it to be narrativist, you only need to prioritize some form of metagame storytelling principles, and literary Premise will be there anyway, whether you're aware of it or not. To misquote Hamlet: "Assume a Premise, if you have it not." (And either meaning of "assume" will do.)

Is this new understanding not the "widening" of the narrativism category that so many have been agitating for? Don't most descriptions of dramatism now fall neatly into a sub-category (a rarely used sub-category, as you've pointed out) of narrativism? Can we tell at least some of the people on RPGNet who object to GNS because they believe they focus on narrative concerns but they think GNS lumps them in with simulationist play styles with very different priorities, because they don't focus on Premise, that they were really narrativists all along? (Some of them, at least, describe styles that are close to that of my hypothetical GM.)

However, it is only Narrativist on his part, not the players. This is important - GNS is about actual play, not "reasons to play" beforehand or "results of play" afterwards. We are talking about role-playing decisions and interactions at the very moment - and these players are not playing Narrativist, given your description. We are looking about a mixed-priority group in which everyone hopes a story emerges but no one wants the process of creating a story to be in anyone's hands except the GM's. He is playing Narrativist but they are not.

Understood. I think the realm of asymmetrical (in the GNS sense) play is fertile and largely unexplored. I'm looking at GNS as a potential tool for characterizing the asymmetry. There are six asymmetrical GM-player combinations before even considering drift, transition, and variant styles within modes. GNS meets transactions?

Part of the reason for my interest in asymmetrical play is that many of the forms of interactive storytelling I'm interested in exhibit even larger asymmetries due to the nature of their performance media. The difference in goals between a simulationist and a narrativist is not great compared to the difference between a human and a computer, or the difference between participants paid to participate and participants who pay to participate.

My only claim is that he and his group might run into serious problems of the sort I ran into, and tons of others have as well...

Yep. Fertile, largely unexplored, and teeming with tigers and bears. Did I forget to mention that last part?

...as in order to achieve his priorities, he tends to railroad more and more, and the players who share the Narrativist priorities turn out to be the ones who are least satisfied over time.

Makes sense. In a transactional model asymmetry fuels transactions, and symmetry can stall them. If everyone in the cafe wants to recite poetry and no one wants to listen to poetry, no one's going to be very happy, unless they break the symmetry by dividing things up to create local asymmetries that get things moving again. That's what taking turns is all about. Except, crap, I'm getting off-topic in my own damn thread. Never mind.

Best regards,

- Walt

PS For the record, my hypothetical GM is not me, though he might have been me at some past time.

wfreitag wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: It's impossible for the GM to be doing any such thing as your "authorial artifice" unless he does have an Egri-style Premise in mind. It may not be a very deep one - for instance, when Victor von Doom tries to dominate the world yet again, we're just seeing a Rivalry-oriented Premise recapped - but it's there.

What you are saying appears to be that prioritization of any form of metagame narrative aesthetic concerns over gamist and simulationist goals automatically gives rise to, or proves the prior existence of, literary Premise. Sure, certain effective forms of narrativism might require a focus on Premise, but definitionally, you don't have to focus on Premise for it to be narrativist, you only need to prioritize some form of metagame storytelling principles, and literary Premise will be there anyway, whether you're aware of it or not. To misquote Hamlet: "Assume a Premise, if you have it not." (And either meaning of "assume" will do.)

Is this new understanding not the "widening" of the narrativism category that so many have been agitating for? Don't most descriptions of dramatism now fall neatly into a sub-category (a rarely used sub-category, as you've pointed out) of narrativism? Can we tell at least some of the people on RPGNet who object to GNS because they believe they focus on narrative concerns but they think GNS lumps them in with simulationist play styles with very different priorities, because they don't focus on Premise, that they were really narrativists all along? (Some of them, at least, describe styles that are close to that of my hypothetical GM.)

Hi Walt,

Well, we've moved closer in terms of talking about what I think Ye Hypothetical GM is doing. I've got three points to riff on from your post.

ONE
I'm afraid you are persisting in paraphrasing my point into strange places:

"What you are saying appears to be that prioritization of any form of metagame narrative aesthetic concerns over gamist and simulationist goals automatically gives rise to, or proves the prior existence of, literary Premise."

Not guilty. As I tried to emphasize with some inserted phrases, I was working off your very specific description of the GM. That description included many strong and focused elements, and was summed up with the term "authorial artifice." Those elements, in combination, required the presence of a literary Premise. I did not use the process of elimination ("no G, no S, must be N") to arrive at that conclusion.

Now, looking at your paragraph that I've quoted, I agree with it in one sense - there are three very general metagame concerns regarding the actual role-playing: Narrativist, Simulationist, Gamist. That's nothing but what my GNS chapter says in the first place. (To clarify, any of these is embedded in a larger social matrix of metagame goals, but that's grading up/out in concept-scale, and I won't deal with it further here.)

TWO
You wrote,

"Is this new understanding not the "widening" of the narrativism category that so many have been agitating for? "

I have stated for many moons, now, that most people's reading of Narrativism is too narrow. When challenged on this, I've offered multiple examples of relatively-incompatible Narrativist play. Narrativism as I've described it doesn't need to be widened - people's awareness of what that description means needs to be.

I have also stated, many times, that Dramatism suffers from a lack of actual example, as a unique/undescribed phenomenon in my scheme. When, sometimes tearfully, I am presented with a putative example, I get (1) Simulationism with strong Situation or Character emphasis or (2) Narrativism with a system that focuses on Drama and a fair dose of railroading. I've never said that no example of something that someone calls Dramatism was not, or could never be, Narrativism.

I do emphatically state that "Dramatism" is a term that has no operational definition and that any single example I'm provided with (which, I add, I can count using the fingers on one hand) has been swiftly categorized without inconsistencies using my terms/framework.

THREE
Please explain what you mean by asymmetry. Is it related to what I call Balance of Power (and what Fang would prefer we use some gentler term for)?

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Paraphrasing your point into strange places... people are always doing that to you, aren't they?

Okay, I jumped the gun in extrapolating implications from a single example. But you didn't think I'd stop at one example, did you? ;-)

But before breaking down/generalizing the example in question, I have to address the process of elimination. In some ways it's the crux of the whole issue.

When a categorization is complete (the union of the categories includes every possibility), then it is logically valid to apply the process of elimination to categorize an item, even if you don't prefer to apply that method yourself. My interpretation of GNS, confirmed by what you just said in point one, is that the GNS categorization of metagame concerns regarding the actual role-playing is complete. Some, even many, individual instances might not be categorizable due to insufficient visible evidence, but every categorizable example must be one of the three.

Therefore, a decision-making priority can be established as narrativist by demonstrating that it is not simulationist and not gamist. "No G, no S, must be N" should be valid, as long as it's clear that "no X" means "overwhelming evidence contraindicating X," not merely "lack of evidence of X."

Conversely, if the process of elimination is not valid, then the categorization cannot be complete.

Says me, anyway. What says you?

Respectfully,

Walt

Diving in on the shallow end of this discussion....

Walt wrote: the decision that the thug shoots the guy who's wearing the bullet-proof vest instead of the guy who's the most immediate in-game threat to the attacker or the guy whose getting shot would cause the most challenge for the players.

Hi there,

I have a lot to say in this post, but I also think that the danger of getting into irrelevant little side-eddies is very high. I ask that everyone help keep the focus throughout this thread.

Walt,
The issue is not whether one can use process of elimination. The issue is whether I had to (as you stated). I say that I did not; that you provided enough internal evidence to peg the GM as making a Narrativist decision.

Even that issue is not the main one. The main issue is whether your rather grand concern about the validity of Narrativism as a whole has been addressed. I think it has, and I want to see either confirmation or refutation on that.

I don't really like the "maneuvering" mode of argument, in which a person says, A is reasonable, right? Yesss ... Then B is reasonable too, right? Um, OK .... Then ha! C!

Tell me C up front. What are you saying?

Fang,
With respect, you have fallen into the same trap that others have fallen into. "Ron says Dramatism is Simulationism." Well, I frickin' don't say that. I reviewed all sorts of threads about this yesterday, and again and again, I presented the Simulationist/Situation option as an example of what some play tagged as Dramatism is doing. Other play tagged as Dramatism is quite likely Narrativism - this is the less-difficult connection, and as such, didn't need to be emphasized (so I thought).

I must say it again: there is no such "thing" as Dramatism. When I ask for a description, I (a) get a diversity of incompatibles, each of which is (b) easily categorized in GNS terms.

If this must be brought up again, then we should do it in a new thread. I'll say in advance that the only person I've seen present a meaningful argument about Dramatism is Gareth Martin, and he's doing so by assigning a whole new structure to the model. Everyone else is making category-errors at fundamental levels in order even to ask the questions they're asking.

Best,
Ron

The GM is prioritizing dramatic structure as a concern, ergo, Narrativism.

I utterly fail to see what the fuss is about. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I don't really like the "maneuvering" mode of argument, in which a person says, A is reasonable, right? Yesss ... Then B is reasonable too, right? Um, OK .... Then ha! C!

Tell me C up front. What are you saying?

What you are saying appears to be that prioritization of any form of metagame narrative aesthetic concerns over gamist and simulationist goals automatically gives rise to, or proves the prior existence of, literary Premise. Sure, certain effective forms of narrativism might require a focus on Premise, but definitionally, you don't have to focus on Premise for it to be narrativist, you only need to prioritize some form of metagame storytelling principles, and literary Premise will be there anyway, whether you're aware of it or not.

The bottom line is that any play that prioritizes non-simulationist non-gamist concerns must possess a Premise.

Gareth, I largely agree. The sentence you quoted is not a statement of my personal beliefs about storytelling and Premise. It's what appears to me to be a logical conclusion implied by the GNS model.

Though people have assumed the contrary, and I can understand why, my concern is not dramatism. I have never entered the dramatism debate. (However, I'm glad to see the accord that Ron and Fang have reached which agrees with my opinion about it.) My agenda is nothing other than to identify areas where GNS might be modified to produce a new model with greater internal consistency. If the same results can be accomplished by improving my understanding of the model as it is, I'm happy with that.

I think there is a fine line between genre expectations that can be reduced to in-game-world causal or behavioral rules (e.g. villains will always reveal their plans before attempting to kill a captured hero; detectives will always notice every clue; explosions cannot harm action heroes because the hero can leap and allow the fireball to push him to safety), and genre expectations of results that only the outside-the-game-world machinations of an author can reliably produce (e.g. villains will always fail; detectives will always solve the case but only at the last possible minute). If we were dealing with only the former type of genre expectations, then simulationism suffices. The latter type of genre expectations, as you point out, are really story outcome expectations. (Meaning, not expectations of how the story ends, but expectations of the characteristics of the story that are generated as the outcome of play.) These expectations cannot be met by decisions prioritizing in-game-world causality, and therefore must be something else besides simulationism.

(The line between sim and non-sim genre expectations can be even finer than that. "The hero always survives" could be either type of genre expectation. It could be simulational -- the system for injury simply does not allow for the character to die no matter what happens to him (as in the aptly named Die Hard) -- or it could be metagame -- the character could die but the circumstances for making that happen will just never come about (Batman).)

The question is what the something else that's not simulationism is. There are three possible answers.

1. It's not narrativism because the genre expectations substitute for Premise, and narrativism requires Premise, therefore it must be something else such as dramatism. (This seems to be what you're suggesting.)

2. It is narrativism, and shows that narrativism extends into areas where Premise is absent. (This was my hypothesis coming into this thread, and it's still my preference. I'd scrap Premise as being definitional for narrativism, and replace it with protagonism. An N decision is a decision that prioritizes protagonizing a character. Different "flavors" of narrativism would follow from different ways characters can be protagonized. Exploring an Egri-style Premise being the most literary form of protagonism, hence the most literary form of narrativism.)

3. It is narrativism, and you're wrong about the genre-expectation decisions being Premiseless. There's an unrecognized Premise in there somewhere. The kind of decisions you describe cannot be made based on genre expectations of outcome alone; a Premise must be there to guide you. (This is Ron's answer in this thread so far.)

- Walt

Hi Walt,

I request that you read the whole of the following thread before responding, because there's a midpoint that would be a terrible jumping-off point for debate. (Not that you've ever demonstrated this behavior, but if ever it would be disastrous, now's the time.)

In my view, your #2 and #3 are far closer than you may think.

"Character" as protagonist, in the literary sense, implies Premise. The presence of the former means that the latter is now in action. I am using a fairly restrictive form of protagonism here, in that the character is passionate about something, engaged in something, and about to do something. (See my recent posts about The Club Dumas in the Sorcerer forum.)

Now, not all player-characters in role-playing conform to this, of course. Some are "protagonists" in a much more general sense, meaning that the player is satisfied with the character's role in play (e.g. "the bad-ass" in a certain kind of Gamist group). And of all these protagonist-types across the GNS spectrum, some or many are deprotagonized routinely through certain types of play/rules.

But if you start with a "character who makes a good story," then you have Premise too. It's no use talking about which comes first; the one necessitates the other.

Now, if that's the case, why don't I talk about a character-first, protagonism-based definition of Narrativism? Because I think that setting-based and situation-based Narrativism occur as well, in role-playing. I think that it is perfectly valid to start with a setting which invokes a Premise, and to have characters grow into protagonists through play (Hero Wars, Castle Falkenstein). I think it is perfectly valid to start with situations in which a character "discovers" his or her passions and is revealed as a protagonist in play (Prince Valiant).

Granted: Sorcerer conforms very well to your suggestion of protagonist-first, hence Premise. However, I think that to define Narrativism accordingly would be much like what I'm accused of by many, mistaking my own preferences for a "fundamental type" of play.

Best,
Ron

wfreitag wrote: The question is what the something else that's not simulationism is. There are three possible answers.

• It's not narrativism because the genre expectations substitute for Premise, and narrativism requires Premise, therefore it must be something else such as dramatism. (This seems to be what you're suggesting.)

• It is narrativism, and shows that narrativism extends into areas where Premise is absent. (This was my hypothesis coming into this thread, and it's still my preference. I'd scrap Premise as being definitional for narrativism, and replace it with protagonism. An N decision is a decision that prioritizes protagonizing a character. Different "flavors" of narrativism would follow from different ways characters can be protagonized. Exploring an Egri-style Premise being the most literary form of protagonism, hence the most literary form of narrativism.)

• It is narrativism, and you're wrong about the genre expectation decisions being Premiseless. There's an unrecognized Premise in there somewhere. The kind of decisions you describe cannot be made based on genre expectations of outcome alone; a Premise must be there to guide you. (This is Ron's answer in this thread so far.)

I hesitate to contribute to this debate due to my inexperience to the GNS theory and the possibility of my having misread it. It is also some time since I was an undergraduate English Lit student. Nevertheless, I think that you might find some answers to your questions over reconciling Illusionist and Narrative styles (strongly GM authored and player-GM authored) in Eco’s semiotic analysis of text in The Role of the Reader (1979).

For Semiotics, all attempts to communicate are interrupted by noise, gaps, and context. Every reading of a text is an act of interpretation by the reader. Eco postulates the existence of two types of text. The closed text is one which is most strongly author directed and linear, but necessarily presupposes an ‘idealized’ reader. The more the reader departs from this model the greater the dissatisfaction with the work the reader experiences as his or her context and ideological assumptions conflict with those of the author. Canonical examples of the ‘closed’ work are the James Bond novel or the Superman comic. The open text allows more possible types of interpretation in its reading. The reader finds themselves and not an ‘idealized’ reader more clearly reflected in the text. They tell a story that reflects what they bring with them. Joyce is a canonical example of this sort. Most works are neither completely open nor closed, but somewhere on the continuum between. We attribute greater literary value to the open work, but the closed is often ‘easier’ to read as it requires less reader engagement and so tends to dominate the stands at airports.

Following Eco one might classify the degree to which a Narrative session was open or closed depending on the degree of linearity to the narrative and the extent to which the story is GM as opposed to player-GM authored. The popularity of the ‘closed’ approach reflects the desire of many players to expend less effort in story creation, to play an ‘airport novel’ adventure, and the success or failure of such an enterprise depends on the degree to which the player reflects the GMs idealized player. A more open session is more challenging in demanding greater input from the player, but if the effort does not itself detract from the enjoyment of the game, could be more satisfying in reflecting what the player brings with them to the session.

The problem may be that you are focusing on premise as the dividing line between Narrativism and Simulationism when in fact it is a technique that helps achieve an aesthetically better story. I remain uncertain, due to my lack of familiarity with GNS as to whether a closed text is necessarily simulationist (or Illusionist) - I'd have to study Ron's essay much more closely. But wiser heads than mine might be able to exploit Eco's principal.

Ian Cooper

Hello,

Fang wrote,
"I think this can only be decided based on whether there can be story-intent genre expectations without unacknowledged Premise."

I agree with Gareth, and have always presented the notion, that such things ("story-intent genre expectations," what a mouthful) exist quite nicely without Premise, unacknowledged or otherwise. In this, I am also agreeing with Christopher's point as well in a parallel thread. Both Christopher and Gareth are saying the same thing (although their preferences differ) and I agree with it.

In other words, as I've always said:

Story-intent A: no Premise in play itself. Story is not created during play. This correspond with "genre-expectation" play, also known as Simulationism with a Situation emphasis.
Story-intent B: Premise present, in play itself. Story is indeed created during play. This is Narrativism with a vast range of how Premise might be established, and how overtly.

Apparently I have to clarify that I do not accept "invisible" Premise. By "in play itself," I mean that it can be identified by a knowledgeable observer in decisions and actions. The question of whether it is "conscious" or any such term has always been irrelevant to me, but I definitely state that it needs to be there, observable, and being addressed.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I think this can only be decided based on whether there can be story-intent genre expectations without unacknowledged Premise.

I agree with Gareth, and have always presented the notion, that such things ("story-intent genre expectations," what a mouthful) exist quite nicely without Premise, unacknowledged or otherwise. In this, I am also agreeing with Christopher's point as well in a parallel thread. Both Christopher and Gareth are saying the same thing (although their preferences differ) and I agree with it.

In other words, as I've always said:

Story-intent A: no Premise in play itself. Story is not created during play. This correspond with "genre-expectation" play, also known as Simulationism with a Situation emphasis.

Story-intent B: Premise present, in play itself. Story is indeed created during play. This is Narrativism with a vast range of how Premise might be established, and how overtly.

Apparently I have to clarify that I do not accept "invisible" Premise. By "in play itself," I mean that it can be identified by a knowledgeable observer in decisions and actions. The question of whether it is "conscious" or any such term has always been irrelevant to me, but I definitely state that it needs to be there, observable, and being addressed.

Le Joueur wrote: 'Story-intent' is as opposed to 'story-result.' 'Story-intent' requires that the parties involved recognize that a 'story' is being made not retroactively ('story-massaging' techniques), but actively during play (and not prior to play to be railroaded through). It can be argued that every game results in a 'story.'

Fang,

Aaaarrrghhh! You can't do that with "story intent." That term has been around a long, long time, and it applies to the full range that I and Gareth are using it with. Your definition (which is no more nor less than Narrativism) cannot be accepted.

Really. About a thousand GMs would rise up in a shrieking horde to dismember you if you try to take "story" from them, even though you and I (and Gareth, and Christopher) would agree that they are overseeing primarily Sim/Character or Sim/Situation play according to my framework. I would probably join the horde - although I do not enjoy their mode of producing story from role-playing (ie not from the role-playing), I respect their goals and won't marginalize them by hugging "story" to my Narrativist chest in an exclusive way.

That said, I do think that we can keep the discussion going. Suffice to say that we are talking about literary Premise, aknowledged/overt vs. unacknowledged.

"the question becomes is 'unacknowledged Premise' (that is a Premise addressed in play, using story-intent as I describe) therefore degenerative play bound for eventual breakdown? (Probably because, not being deliberate, the 'use' of Premise will be unfocused and likely to become incoherent.)"

I disagree. I think this form of play is probably fun, and generally successful. The problem is when the people within the group bring other forms of story-intent into the picture, and get irritated with the other members' constant (or at least repeated) focus on the Premise. Then the Narrativist-covert ones get irritated back, and no one can discuss it because they all insist they are "story" oriented.

"Would I therefore correct in surmising that you are saying that all story-intent (as I put above) has Premise and that only degenerative or naive story-intent play does not realize this?"

Correct and incorrect. Yes, all story-intent as you have defined it (which I call Narrativism) has Premise. However, no, I do not think that failing to acknowledge the Premise will be degenerative. Whether it's "naive" or not doesn't seem relevant to me - naivete doesn't have to be good or bad, and arguably such a group could achieve phenomenal Narrativist goals without ever being "enlightened," and if that's so, why should they be?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I hope this is still on thread. I think I am in need of some clarification. I don’t want to test your temper further but please understand I just want to understand you better.

My difficulty is that Egri’s premise is a structural part of a successful play; deciding it is, for Egri, the means to achieving aesthetic quality. Egri in fact notes that there are plays that do not have premise or have multiple premises, which Egri sees as failures or dysfunctional. Therefore, for Egri the premise infers a notion of quality. The problem then becomes is that by a skip and a jump the reader then assumes that Narrativism, when defined by the presence of premise, implies a story of quality. By inference, though I do not think by your intent, those prioritizing other play goals then assume that their perceived lack of premise (though it may just be that they are not aware of it) implies a lack of story quality and thus feel depreciated by the GNS model. I fear that this may be at the root of some resistance to the theory.

Is your use of premise distinct from Egri’s in this sense of denoting quality? If not, are you not using a marker of the quality of the result to separate play styles rather than the intent? If my intent is to create story, but I fail, because I don not include a premise or have mutiple premises, am I not Narrativist by that failure, or am I a dysfunctional Narrativist. If I am not Narrativist what happened to my intent, and what happens if I disagree that a single premise is a key part of writing a successful story. If I am dysfunctional, does not distinguishing Narrativism by premise fail me, because I intend to be Narrativist but my technique is poor?

Of course you may be using premise in a different sense to that which I understand it…

Hi Ian,

No need to fear my temper, I hope. I'm pretty sure Fang knows that any Aaaarrrghhh he gets from me is at least 90% in fun.

Let's see if I can run it down ... I'll try to address your post as a whole.

I agree with Egri that - given a literary/thematic goal - one must have Premise. In Narrativist role-playing, of course, the Premise can be emergent rather than explicit, and (I think) it can be a bit more multivariate or nuanced than it can be in a play or movie. The important point is that Narrativist play above the individual-instance level is about everyone having a lot of "rights" to deal with the Premise like an author does.

Regarding stories of quality ...

I agree with you that many people misread GNS discussions to perceive that Narrativism is somehow the be-all of role-playing. However, I think that every such case relative to my essays or posts is eventually reducible to a "well, I just feel it," when challenged. In other words, I can't help what people choose to project into the text. I try hard to put in qualifiers or statements to prevent that; as far as the current essay is concerned, it seems to be working.

I think most people who play this way would like to produce a story of quality, not that we always succeed.

Various people have suggested that "creating good stories" is an invalid defining feature of Narrativism, as (a) who's to say whether they're good or whether they suck, and (b) who's to say that stories created in non-Narrativist ways (e.g. front-loading + railroading) aren't good as well.

I agree with that point, which is why Narrativist play can't be defined by its result, but rather by its process (which is what GNS is about anyway).

Thus a person or group who plays in a Narrativist way but produces a poor story are exactly analogous to an author who writes a crappy story, or a band who plays a crappy song. Because someone tries to use Premise doesn't mean they succeed; because they don't succeed doesn't mean that they were not writing or playing music.

The biggest issue here is that Egri (or whoever applies his ideas to media like movies or novels) is concerned with a single-author situation, or at least with a situation in which the audience is emphatically not the creator. Role-playing is different - its product is enjoyed even as it's being produced, and the authors and audience are the same people. Therefore Premise becomes a question, not a statement; characters become extended verbs instead of nouns; and the plot becomes itself a negotiated and back-and-forth process rather than a set series of events to be enjoyed later.

So an Egri Premise can be evaluated simultaneously with whether the story sucks or not ... role-playing is a bit more tricky, more like music than a play, in this regard.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: You can't do that with "story intent." That term has been around a long, long time, and it applies to the full range that I and Gareth are using it with. Your definition (which is no more nor less than Narrativism) cannot be accepted.

Really. About a thousand GMs would rise up in a shrieking horde to dismember you if you try to take "story" from them, even though you and I (and Gareth, and Christopher) would agree that they are overseeing primarily Sim/Character or Sim/Situation play according to my framework. I would probably join the horde - although I do not enjoy their mode of producing story from role-playing (ie not from the role-playing), I respect their goals and won't marginalize them by hugging "story" to my Narrativist chest in an exclusive way.

Aah Ok I think I get it let me see if I understand - the I can go away and ponder more:

- The intent not the result of play is being assessed.
- The GM and the players need not have the same intent but where their desire is different then tension may result.
- For Narrativist play premise is the goal of play though it might emerge through play. For RPGs the premise is a question rather than Egri's: chracter, conflict, conclusion. That it is the goal and not the quality of the result is the deciding factor in determining narratavist play.

Hope I have that now.

So by terms more familiar to me both an 'open' and 'closed' approach could be narrativism, if the premise is priveldged in play - but in the former case the players are not given the ability to play in Narratavist mode i.e. have no control of the premise, which might create tension if that is the mode that they seek.

Intent and possibly differences of intent seems to be the key here.

Hi Fang,

I've tried to make sense with everything I've posted, so I hope you're sticking with it.

1) Yeah, "active story," or "story now" (which is what I called it in Sorcerer & Sword) or Conscious Narrative or something like that would be better. I agree.

2) I think that for role-playing purposes, Narrativist Premise is a thematic question. I don't think I've ever been unclear about that; it is essentially my whole definition for the term. The answer, if it happens, is what's produced by play - and it's Theme, the "message" if you will. I've stated this quite a few times. You mentioned it in a recent thread ("Premise?") but I'll look up some of my answers from older threads and see what I can find.

The big issue - and apparently the source of some frustration for you - is the terminology overhaul issue. The problem is that there isn't any such thing; attempts at them always lead to chaos and multiple splinter groups. I think that it's best to stick with what does work, historically: a constant, somewhat aggravating re-mixture and re-combination of existing terms, with new ones emerging as details or groups as hierarchy-categories spring up and need labels.

The main objection to this is just the same as it is for any discipline: accusations of jargon, of non-intuitive or misleading terms, and so on. I'm afraid I can't see any solution to this except a willingness to continue to explain and to attempt, anyway, to keep the relationships among the terms coherent.

If I've read this thread correctly, the fundamental question you asked was whether a Narrativist group that did not articulate (or even think much about) Premise, Theme, thematic questions, etc, but whose attention was focused on them anyway in play, could be said to be playing in a Narrativist way. My answer is yes, and that such play can be highly successful and is in no necessary danger of becoming dysfunctional.

Let me know if other questions are outstanding that I've missed.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: 2) I think that for role-playing purposes, Narrativist Premise is a thematic question. I don't think I've ever been unclear about that; it is essentially my whole definition for the term. The answer, if it happens, is what's produced by play - and it's Theme, the "message" if you will. I've stated this quite a few times. You mentioned it in a recent thread ("Premise?") but I'll look up some of my answers from older threads and see what I can find.

The big issue - and apparently the source of some frustration for you - is the terminology overhaul issue. The problem is that there isn't any such thing; attempts at them always lead to chaos and multiple splinter groups. I think that it's best to stick with what does work, historically: a constant, somewhat aggravating re-mixture and re-combination of existing terms, with new ones emerging as details or groups as hierarchy-categories spring up and need labels.

The main objection to this is just the same as it is for any discipline: accusations of jargon, of non-intuitive or misleading terms, and so on. I'm afraid I can't see any solution to this except a willingness to continue to explain and to attempt, anyway, to keep the relationships among the terms coherent.

Hi Fang,

H'm. You've stated your case well. Noted and logged.

My own disinclination to do the re-labelling is either legit in practical/constructive terms, or it's the inability of an aging brain to break into necessary new ground. No way I can tell which. I could go into a big justification of the "legit" side, but maybe it's best to let the ideas simmer instead of retrenching around the old position out of habit.

The re-labelling may have to be left to the younger, new generation of Young Turks to do (after the Old Man's finally gone, of course), but it could be done.

Best,
Ron

Well, Ron, you'll be glad to know that I'm decidedly NOT going to jump in at this point and start casting votes for a terminology overhaul...that's completely up to you.

What I am going to suggest is something that's been rolling around in my mind for awhile now and this seems like an opportune point to bring it up. I think part of the problem is not strictly the terminology itself but the terminology as presented in your writings and essay.

What I mean by this is that you know intimately what the terms mean to you and how you use them. They've been worked around in your head so long that its second nature to you to associate the meaning you've ascribed to them with the term. I think perhaps that leads to a degree of taking for granted that the message you are trying to convey (both in the essays and various posts) is actually being communicated. I'd speculate that part of the recent confusion in this thread between what you've "always said" about this and that stems partially from you having said it in a manner that conveys the message to you (and those on the same wavelength) but doesn't necessarily sink in to others. I have to admitt that very thing applies to myself when it finally dawned on me what you'd been saying all along about instances of play.

So. At any rate my suggestion/query is this. Would it be useful to have the essay reparsed (or addended to) by others, not to change the context, but to clarify the presentation (subject to your final editing, of course). I'm thinking that perhaps having it organized and laid out by people for whom it is not immediately intuitive might lead to a structure geared more towards bringing a complete newbie up to speed. I know the act of writing my earlier "primer" helped solidify the concepts for me in a way that I understood more readily. Perhaps a similiar approach for each major section of the essay might create a body of work that is more accessible to the first time reader.

I'm thinking this may be a way to lower the hurdle bar without having to reinvent all of the terminology.

Thoughts? I'd be happy to take a stab at parts if its something you'd be interested in seeing.

What I mean by this is that you know intimately what the terms mean to you and how you use them. They've been worked around in your head so long that its second nature to you to associate the meaning you've ascribed to them with the term.

Hello,

I am getting very confused by the multiple dialogues in this thread. It's reading to me like crazed leap-about French farce, when everyone's running in and out of different bedrooms.

Ian,
Concerning your post of May 28, 15:29. With respect, I think you're closer to the point, but you are still floundering. "Intent" is emphatically not a concern of GNS. The words you are looking for include decisions, observable goals, actions, and interactions. GNS is not about murky, internal motives, but about things people really do and say.

I do agree with you about the terminology issue, but I think the issue is actually more tangled than you describe. The distinction between "being in" a story and "making" a story is a whole 'nother variable that enters the picture, as is the very strong commitment, among many role-players, to the ideal of The Impossible Thing.

Ralph,
I have called, several times, for people to contribute their own essays to the Forge. I'd very much like to see your own up there - if you were waiting on edits from me, I apologize and let's try to get that process going again. I'd like to see Jesse's as well. I'd like to see lots of stuff from Fang. I'd really like to see Gareth's "fourfold" idea that creates a new tier including Dramatism (as he defines it) and Narrativism.

I'm currently working with J B on the possibility of a semi-user-driven glossary.

All of these would go a long way toward (a) helping new people and (b) demonstrating that varying and interpretive views are welcome at this site.

Best,
Ron