Topic: Okay, Dramatism Again...
Started by: Le Joueur
Started on: 5/27/2002
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 5/27/2002 at 5:39pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Okay, Dramatism Again...
You've brought up three points (I think) that I want to address separately, no offense intended.
Ron Edwards wrote: 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).
The sound of this statement is very close to contradicting yourself. I can understand if you'd like to restate it; for the moment I'd like to address what it seems to say.
Actually, you did "say that" quite clearly in the two threads I attached in my previous article ("I last saw it here and here"). Granted you were talking about specific applications of The Window, but that does not alleviate the fact that you spoke in universals in those cases.
The problem there, as here, is the introduction of the idea that, as Walt put it, "authorial artifices" require Narrativist Premises (however unacknowledged). Granted that, then the overtly stated goal given in every incidence I have seen for Dramatism (that of having the 'story-intent' goal¹) likewise requires all Dramatism to be Narrativism. In the past (and for The Window), the disavowel of Premise led you to categorize The Window as Exploration of Situation. In light of your statement about 'unconscious Premise' pretty much invalidates that.
Unless I'm reading you wrong.
There is no "trap," for I was not saying that 'Ron said all Dramatism is Simulationism.' You are perhaps reacting habitually to those Dramatists who did not like this. My point is that, in the past, you have placed at least one specific example, cited as a Dramatist game, outside of Narrativism and now imply that any nameable style that practices even unconscious Premise is clearly Narrativist without exception.
Please don't take that as an accusation; I am seeking clarification on the implication of unacknowledged Premises.
Ron Edwards wrote: 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.
I find that a very hard statement to make without the caveat of "...in the GNS theory." I would categorically and emphatically state that there is no Dramatism in the GNS for that is clear. Simply saying it does not exist and then insisting that no examples have been given rings of intellectual dishonesty bordering on an ad hoc attack (surely all the dialogue on The Window is clearly about a single clear example). In the situations I researched yesterday, no single description was, by itself, was incompatible. Lumping together examples supplied by individuals who are not working from a unified standpoint is both unfair and unneccesary.
I should hope Dramatism is easily categorizable in the GNS. That speaks well of the robustness of the theory. However, I am hoping that you will have the time to discuss the potential, in the light of the idea of unacknowledged Premises, that Dramatism will not be, as you have implied in the past, some kind of mongrel, pieced together from all over the GNS. I think the frequently stated 'story-intent' goal¹ of Dramatism should bring it all together under the umbrella of Narrativism quite neatly by virtue of the unacknowledged Premise.
Ron Edwards wrote: 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.
Let this be that new thread and for clarity's sake I ask that all proponents of Dramatism (of which I am not) please speak up (please Gareth, if you would). I suggest that the focus of this thread be on the revelations associated with unacknowledged Premises. (By the way, I was thinking about the Richards/Doom conflict; would that not even go so far as fitting old sibling rivalry premises?)
So to avoid "category-errors" (as a courtesy to Ron), let's not discuss the GNS as a whole and attend Dramatism outside of Narrativism only as it relates to unacknowledged Premises. I do not believe this will hamstring the discussion and hand an 'easy victory' to Ron. In fact, keeping out the rest of the GNS might 'balance' the scales.
"What I want to know:" is whether the unacknowledged Premises implicit in any 'story-intent' goal¹ bring Dramatism into a 'single place' under the GNS theory. Clear enough?
Fang Langford
¹ 'Story-intent' as opposed to 'story-result.' 'Story-intent' requires that the parties involved recognize that a 'story' is being made not retroactively, but actively, during play, even if they do not take responsibility for it themselves. (Whether by employing retroactive techniques or not, it can be argued that every game results in a 'story.')
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 11611
Topic 11572
On 5/27/2002 at 7:35pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Okay, Dramatism Again...
Fang,
Due to hassles with the home computer (not the Forge), I just lost my extended reply. I will replace it later, after I go destroy something cute and helpless in order to make myself feel better.
Thanks for your patience.
Best,
Ron
On 5/27/2002 at 11:49pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Okay, Dramatism Again...
Several adorable woodland creatures later ...
Hi Fang,
I think a few things have to be cleared up to address the topic. One is that no, the GNS context cannot be abandoned. This is a discussion about all of GNS, most especially why Narrativism is an equal category with the other two modes, and can't be isolated down to "Narrativist vs. Dramatist."
ONE
I remain staunch in my defense of two serious points.
A) I have not identified Dramatism (so-called) with Simulationist play. All of my examples in previous threads were either (a) qualified with "probablys" and "perhapses," specifically due to the possibility of Narrativism being involved, and (b) focused on an example that had irrefutable Simulationist elements. I can't help it if people can't distinguish between a definite statement directed toward a specific example or question from a generalized statement.
B) Most of Dramatist play - which historically, if I'm not mistaken, is expressed by Call of Cthulhu, The Window, and Theatrix - conforms to the Simulationist mode. That's why most of my discussion of Dramatism has been about how so much of it (using the examples flung at me) ends up being a discussion of Simulationism.
In my comments to Walt, I am not changing one iota from the position I've held all along.
TWO
I want to distinguish very distinctly between a Narrativist decision or instance of play and Narrativist play in group/achievement terms. The GM in Walt's example did make a Narrativist decision/act. Can the group be said to be "playing Narrativist" now? No. Its instances of Narrativist play are individual and sporadic. Whether it's a GM who inserts occasional decisions of this sort to tweak or shove play in various ways, or whether it's a player whose interest in Premise for his character and the character's circumstances is kept mainly to himself, these instances do not go beyond the individual experience during play itself.
This is a big deal in my essay. I distinguish sharply between a given individualized mode or goal of play and whatever the group is acknowledging and reinforcing. Both can be characterized in GNS terms. The latter results from compatibility among the former (which is easiest through the former being all alike, but it doesn't have to be like that).
I just know people are going to mis-read this section to assume that I'm saying the group "must be" playing Simulationist, then. That is not accurate either, although some/most of the players (excluded from the story process) may well be doing so. The group is best described as GNS-incoherent, or at most, a kind of seesaw between coherent-something and incoherence.
THREE
The term Dramatism, from the GNS perspective, is what we call in my biz a "paraphyletic taxon." This means that the category itself has become superceded and phased out of existence, because it's recognized as based on no conclusive or exclusive variables.
I'll give an example: "reptile." Most people don't know that this term no longer technically exists. There are no reptiles. The reason why not is that a system of classification has been widely adopted that uses specific criteria for identifying biological groups, and those criteria end up creating (a) a bunch of "former reptiles + mammals, (b) a bunch of "former reptiles" + birds, (c) snakes and lizards as a group, and (d) turtles on their own. [OK, it's more complicated than this, but bugger to that and let's stick with accuracy, not precision or completeness.] Hence, no reptiles left, as they are all accounted for under the new schema and what used to be called Reptilia cannot be considered an exclusive group.
When this idea was proposed, oh you should have seen the cries of outrage. The biologists could not have proposed anything more awful, apparently, according to other biologists. "New-fangled tripe!" "Disrespect!" "If it can't account for the old category, it's no good!" Dressed up in suitable pompous Dr. Poop language, of course.
To draw the analogy to Dramatism, what I see are a whole ton of different ways to play that are now all accounted for in different ways by my framework. No more Dramatism, just like no more Reptilia.
FOUR
Now for your big main point: "Dramatism is necessarily Narrativism." I disagree. I think that you have done exactly what Walt did in his post: specified certain variables of play that do place what you're describing into Narrativism, but that also exclude a bunch of play-modes that have, in the past, been called Dramatism.
As soon as you specify that we are talking about decisions of play, within play, then you have thrown out a vast series of possible modes of play that in the past have been identified with "story intent" but are not based on in-play decisions. They fall into two general categories: front-loaded pre-play planning, which relies on specific hooks and planned encounters and outcomes; and post-hoc tweaking, which relies on assembling elements of what was just played with changes in the back-story, creating story where there wasn't one during play. Both of these, historically, are called "story-intent" and are also included in Dramatism, by the Threefold. Whether it's a Call of Cthulhu or Feng Shui scenario ("What, it's a story, right? You play the story, right?"), or a Champions game that gets post-hoc tweaked into an Avengers-like story arc, it would be Dramatist, because "story" is someone's priority, at sometime relative to play.
Now, if we reject that notion and take your description of story-intent, then whammo! It's Narrativism. You and I agree, in this case, but it's because your position is now indistinguishable from what mine always has been. By making the argument you've presented, you have excluded the same modes of play that I don't let into "story creation during play" either.
Best,
Ron
On 5/28/2002 at 4:12am, Le Joueur wrote:
Thank You for the Clarification
Ron Edwards wrote: Now, if we reject that notion and take your description of story-intent, then whammo! It's Narrativism. You and I agree, in this case, but it's because your position is now indistinguishable from what mine always has been. By making the argument you've presented, you have excluded the same modes of play that I don't let into "story creation during play" either.
That's about what I thought and I'm glad to have given you the opportunity to clarify the 'loose fibers' from the thread with Walt.
For the record, I've always considered post hoc 'story massaging' anything but 'story-intent' except in only the most degenerative way. Likewise, since I consider 'sharing' the most important component of play, I will always believe that "front-loaded pre-play planning" is definitely a degenerative method of play¹.
Since I resist any model that tries to account for degenerative play as being valid, I must conclude that to me Dramatism is under Narrativism (or as I wrote the reverse), since we agree.
This in no way implies that you must.
Now, I'd like to take a moment and address some of your other (unquoted) comments:
• But you did follow my suggestion (and it wasn't to go "Narrativism vs. Dramatism"), you only indexed Simulationism insofar as it means to be 'not Narrativist.' And well done of you; my compliments.
• In regards to ONE B) the problem I have always had with these as examples of Dramatist games is that:
• Call of Cthulhu, as written, is an Exploration of Situation. In order that it becomes Dramatism, I have always seen the participants lean on what I call the Genre Expectations inherited from Lovecraft; as the Exploration nears its conclusion, tension increases and is let out in a sudden climax, often a confrontation. I haven't seen this implicit in the game, meaning to 'play it Dramatist' you'd have to drift to the goal of 'story-intent' based on the collective unspoken Genre Expectation.
• Both The Window and Theatrix for all of their 'story-intent' hand-waving fail to deliver a comprehensive set of tools to bring this out (from what I've heard, depending significantly on the devices of the consumer).
• I never meant to suggest that you'd changed your stance, merely that 'new evidence' needed to be explained for the 'usual suspects.'
• TWO represents the problem inherent with undiagnosible GNS decisions. If all playing submit first and foremost to a 'story-intent' goal and yet thrust the responsibility for such upon one member with heavy expectations, I predict much of the play will be impossible to parse out in GNS terms (largely because these ideas don't form the core of the decisions made; like deciding what you're gonna do tonight, you don't think in terms of which laws you plan to abide by).
• If I am going to use your analogy for THREE, I must point out that I have relegated "front-loaded pre-play planning" and "post-hoc tweaking" to the realms of the worst of cryptozoology, leaving only the "'former reptiles' + birds" category for the dinosaur which is Dramatism. (Okay, that was a little harsh; I can't say that Dramatism is extinct, but it made a good analogy otherwise, didn't it?)
• As far as FOUR goes, it should be clear that your disagreement isn't valid with my concepts because I refute what I have described as degenerative play. If Dramatism is required to support both legitimate play and degenerative play, than the term is useless. If it does not, as you said, we are in agreement.
In the light of this, I am going to have to go on record agreeing with you that too many people ascribe too much to Dramatism, thereby making it impossible to accept as a functional category. Cut away the degenerate material and voila! a useful term. Unfortunately the definition of Dramatism is a community property and therefore never likely to undergo concise revision or definition.
Personally all probably know that I think the idea of 'story-intent' is, of itself, alone worthy of extraction and I dispose of any attempt to create a category 'under' it. I believe that it, like all forms of Self-Conscious narrative (including attention to premise, theme, or other 'outside the narrative' unifying concepts), apply to so many different playing styles that it isn't worthy of an orthagonal grouping.
Fang Langford
¹ This has to be separated from 'dynamic settings.' The confusion afforded by discussion of company-sold 'meta-plots' brings up many examples of both railroading (in the negative sense) via 'forced events' resulting from the company 'meta-plot' and what I'm calling 'dynamic setting.'
As has been cited elsewhere, you don't go see Titanic to see whether the boat sinks or not; that's a foregone conclusion, a classic example of a 'dynamic setting.' The setting changes in a fashion that surprises no one (and thus falls under what I call Genre Expectations) and can be affected by no one (although sometimes this is by prior agreement).
In 'forced event' 'meta-plots,' the changes in the settings do fall under the possibility for player interaction without any prior agreement. I read somewhere that "nothing is fool proof, because idiots are ingenius about messing things up," or some such. Based on my agreement with that, I'd have to say that 'forced event' 'meta-plots' are therefore not sharing and thus degenerative play.
p. s. I like the fact that 'reptiles' no longer exists. Now I can laugh whenever I hear someone passing themselves off as a serious biologist saying that dinosaurs are reptiles.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 15014
Topic 2043
Topic 1662
On 5/28/2002 at 12:32pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Okay, Dramatism Again...
Fang,
We agree! Yay! I was pretty sure of it, and now I'm certain.
Whew ... do we, at long last, have a thread to direct people to when the Big D Word arises? I hope so.
Best,
Ron