Hello,

This thread presents my response to some points raised in the Shadows in the Fog playtest discussion in Actual Play.

John, this is me, rolling my eyes.

You are inserting precisely the wrong meaning into Mike's words regarding "conscious" consideration of issues like plot an theme. No, that is not required for Narrativist play. I've explained that many times.

Regarding your Water Uphill thread, what you described, when pinned on it, was Narrativist play because you identified "character" as a term with the working-out of a theme, ipso facto.

Let me make this perfectly clear: this quote ...

I always try to play out just what the character feels currently. Now, sometimes this involves change, simply because sometimes what character feels currently involves change. On the other hand, often it doesn't -- my PCs tend to be pretty stubborn and set in their ways. If it occurs, the change may not fit with anyone's plan for the theme or plot. In my preferred style, plot and theme need to bend to fit character, not the other way around.

I think that much of the problem is my fault, because I often ask leading questions that I think will get a certain sort of response, but many times do not. So people conflate the issues I ask about as being definitive of some GNS ism. I asked about change and exposition, and several other things that don't have any direct relevance to GNS, so we ought to expect responses on those matters, even ones that aren't enlightening.

So, if I've caused any confusion, I apollogize.

Mike

If the player-characters embody a clear metaphor for a question of moral weight, such that any character decision (made on whatever basis) can be interpreted as addressing that question, is Narrativist play inevitable?

I may be misinterpreting, but that seems to me to be the argument here.

- Walt

Hi Walt,

The answer is "yes" ... but that begs the questions of the following.

1. The clarity of the "moral weight." When is it or isn't it clear? This question applies to narrative in any medium; I don't expect any quick answer to be offered by anyone, but it does exist as an issue.

2. Interpretation by whom? Without learning that the participants of play, during play, were emotionally invested in the question, tagging play as Narrativist can lapse into projection.

Also, you refer to characters, which is reasonable given the title of this thread and the text which prompted me to write it, but I also want to emphasize that setting can itself provide such issues. Glorantha is a powerful setting not merely because it's awfully colorful, but because any given spot in it is rife with such questions. Living there means addressing them. The setting for Castle Falkenstein is similar.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Walt,

The answer is "yes" ... but that begs the questions of the following.

1. The clarity of the "moral weight." When is it or isn't it clear? This question applies to narrative in any medium; I don't expect any quick answer to be offered by anyone, but it does exist as an issue.

2. Interpretation by whom? Without learning that the participants of play, during play, were emotionally invested in the question, tagging play as Narrativist can lapse into projection.

Also, you refer to characters, which is reasonable given the title of this thread and the text which prompted me to write it, but I also want to emphasize that setting can itself provide such issues. Glorantha is a powerful setting not merely because it's awfully colorful, but because any given spot in it is rife with such questions. Living there means addressing them. The setting for Castle Falkenstein is similar.

Best,
Ron

Hi Marco,

My issue with the #2 concept is that the terms "conscious" and "aware" have no definitions. I speak with some authority on this matter; dictionary quotes won't sway me, for those whose fingers are straying toward them even now.

In other words, yes, when a person says, "I was conscious of [fill-in-the-blank] when I had my character assassinate the king," it means very little to me in terms of Narrativist play or not. Similarly, if he or she was to say, "I was not conscious of [fill-in-the-blank] when etc etc," it would also mean very little to me in terms of Narrativist play or not.

In either case, I'd have to ask questions about other parts of play before and after that scene, and I'd have to get a better idea of what was being appreciated and reinforced socially in that group, both at the time and over the long term.

By doing so, I'd get a better idea of what that person was referring to when they said "conscious." I have no doubt they were referring to something, but as I say, the word itself isn't going to tell me what.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Marco,

My issue with the #2 concept is that the terms "conscious" and "aware" have no definitions. I speak with some authority on this matter; dictionary quotes won't sway me, for those whose fingers are straying toward them even now.

In other words, yes, when a person says, "I was conscious of [fill-in-the-blank] when I had my character assassinate the king," it means very little to me in terms of Narrativist play or not. Similarly, if he or she was to say, "I was not conscious of [fill-in-the-blank] when etc etc," it would also mean very little to me in terms of Narrativist play or not.

In either case, I'd have to ask questions about other parts of play before and after that scene, and I'd have to get a better idea of what was being appreciated and reinforced socially in that group, both at the time and over the long term.

By doing so, I'd get a better idea of what that person was referring to when they said "conscious." I have no doubt they were referring to something, but as I say, the word itself isn't going to tell me what.

Best,
Ron

Hey Marco,

Depends on the players, depends on the game, depends on the questions, depends on sunspots, for all I know.

The question's not answerable, really. How would I know I'd come to the right conclusion? You're talking to a scientist, after all; that sort of certainty is denied to my sort of inquiry and mindset.

What I'd shoot for is more like a court of inquiry or a hypothesis test - the goal is a rigorous, defensible conclusion, not Truth or Knowledge.

If I hadn't been at the table, then questions might be good enough. Again, it depends. Defensiveness can be an effective barrier, or it might be illuminating. Forthcoming assertions can be an open door, or they might be obfuscating (like the ones that prompted this thread).

If I had been at the table, I'd probably not need questions (and bear in mind that "at the table" doesn't mean for thirty seconds or, perhaps, even for a whole session, but more).

In both cases, if I were to ask some questions, they'd be highly specific to that group and those people. I can't give you a generic list.

I hope people understand that none of these qualifiers is restricted to Narrativist play as a topic. They refer to any "goals" oriented discussion of play, whether GNS modes, the Threefold, Robin's Laws, or whatever.

As of today, I'm becoming extremely picky about topic drift in this forum. Marco, if you're angling toward a particular question or conclusion, do it now. Also, unless it directly concerns my points about John's discussion with Mike, then please let it go or start another thread.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

I think that I'm done. My questions were due my reading that this:

Regarding your Water Uphill thread, what you described, when pinned on it, was Narrativist play because you identified "character" as a term with the working-out of a theme, ipso facto.

"Conscious" or "aware" perspective on the part of the real person is a red herring.

Hi Marco,

I'll stand by my critique.

In both described instances of play, John was extremely clear that "he just plays his character," and doesn't concern himself with thinkin' about theme or whatever in any particular verbalized way at the time. But upon interrogation by Mike, he then stated that a character (and hence playing a character) must address such things, just by being in action or present in play at all.

That means, to me, "Narrativist." It's that easy. Characters do not exist; they are fictional expressions of interactions among real people, during role-playing. John cannot be told what to do by a character. The question is what he does with it, whether he's observing himself do so at the time or not being irrelevant.

To be absolutely clear about this, this inference on my part is not the defining feature of Narrativist play. People are always mistaking a particular indicator for a defining feature, so I'd appreciate not having this post referenced as "how Ron says you peg a Narrativist."

As an important secondary point, John's presentation also illustrates synecdoche, as I see a big "to him" embedded in that statement, and I know from much painful experience that many people do not make the some inference from the words "character" or "playing my character."

So I don't see any particular contradiction between the texts you quote. John is apparently not "aware" of his thematic-address during play, or to put it in real words instead of meaningless terms, he doesn't verbalize those issues during play but rather simply utilizes the medium of play itself to express them, without self-observation. When forced to self-observe (by Mike, in the Water Uphill example), he provides me with the insight that his concept of "character" is not a general one, but rather one of the concepts that's highly specific to Narrativist play.

For the Water Uphill example alone, of course. The example of play being discussed in the Shadows and Fog thread remains obscure. It will continue to remain obscure until John realizes that this concern with "playing according to plot" as some kind of defining feature of Narrativist play is misplaced.

Oh, and incidentally, I play my characters in games very similarly to the way John apparently does (or did in the Water Uphill game), most of the time. I rarely self-critique regarding the themes and issues in question (i.e. Premise), while playing.

Best,
Ron

Agreed. My last post wasn't a parting shot. It seemed like providing you with clarification would be a good idea (your last paragraph specifically addressing me by name, and all).

The idea that on self-observation as guided by Mike he's able to provide some insight on what he means was what I was looking for (what I thought would be the link between the two statements for me).

-Marco
[FWIW, I often play my characters that way too. Since coming here, I've been periodically more cognizant of cases where I think I am making a lucid decision one way or the other--and that *has* led to a beneficial effect on my play (or at least insight during the after action report). ]

Cool! Thanks, Marco.

Well, I now realize that I've posted a whole bunch more before waiting for John, and that isn't fair or right. So folks, for now, let's leave this thread alone until John feels like joining in.

Unless you come up with something really relevant, that is. Surprise me.

Best,
Ron

[Edit to note: cross-posted with the last several posts. After careful consideration, I've decided to let it stand.]

Ron,

I completely agree in every respect with your point 1.

It appears possible to me that point 2 is the hidden crux of John and Mike's conversation. Was John, in the paragraph you quoted, trying to say that he resists emotional investment in the theme by "playing the character" in a relatively dispassionate way? Is the possibility of a diagnosis of Narrativism based mistakenly on projection -- which I interpret (in this context) as the critical observer becoming more emotionally invested in the question than the participants -- what John is trying to avoid by throwing up smoke-screen issues like conscious perspective and change in the character?

I suppose it's silly to speculate further as John should have a chance to answer those questions and cut me off if I'm on the wrong track. The point is, if the important issue is emotional investment, let's talk about emotional investment.

- Walt

What I think John is refering to are those sim moments where you have a character do something, and then the outcome of the decision seems to create theme "accidentally". For an extreme example, a player might not be aware that another character is his brother, and kill him. Then upon revealing the fact of the nature of the brother, you get a theme of ignorant betrayal or something.

This would be Sim play on the player's part (maybe the GM is playing Narrativist, and set this up). The real question is whether or not theme ever gets created by accident when the player is aware of the potential to do so. If the player is aware of the fact that it's his brother that he's up against, can a Sim decision be made? And if so, does theme get created if the result is the same as if the Narrativist decision had been made?

I believe that it's Ron's belief that one can accidentally create theme, but that it's rare. In any case, if this is what John is actually doing, and his "must" means "eventually, as a result of enough play that it will statistically happen", then he's talking about Sim play it seems to me.

Mike

Ron Edwards wrote: In both described instances of play, John was extremely clear that "he just plays his character," and doesn't concern himself with thinkin' about theme or whatever in any particular verbalized way at the time. But upon interrogation by Mike, he then stated that a character (and hence playing a character) must address such things, just by being in action or present in play at all.

That means, to me, "Narrativist." It's that easy. Characters do not exist; they are fictional expressions of interactions among real people, during role-playing. John cannot be told what to do by a character. The question is what he does with it, whether he's observing himself do so at the time or not being irrelevant.

Ron Edwards wrote: John is apparently not "aware" of his thematic-address during play, or to put it in real words instead of meaningless terms, he doesn't verbalize those issues during play but rather simply utilizes the medium of play itself to express them, without self-observation. When forced to self-observe (by Mike, in the Water Uphill example), he provides me with the insight that his concept of "character" is not a general one, but rather one of the concepts that's highly specific to Narrativist play.

Hello,

John, I disagree with you regarding the omnipresent existence of theme in terms that make any sense to the GNS level or bracket of analysis. Remember, we are talking about the process and activities of play, not merely subject matter. The question is whether the behaviors and interactions of the real people, while playing, are investments in producing those themes.

Playing Tunnels & Trolls, at the moment, has no shred of such activity for me and my group. I'm thoroughly enjoying throwing awful and funny threats at them, both in terms of the underlying "secrets" that they don't know, and in terms of set-piece challenges. They seem to be enjoying the heights and depths of performing well or badly, both in terms of dice outcomes and in terms of tactics (Julie will never again let her character forget to picked up her dropped staff ...).

Theme? This is Tunnels & Trolls; theme can kiss my pink ass, as far as play is concerned. If someone wants to wander up with goggles and a guide-book, and maybe find some "theme" outcome in terms of Man Vs. Monster or some shit like that, he can. It would be maybe valid in terms of pure content/subject ... but not in terms of actual play and interactions.

Now let's take a look at a hefty Call of Cthulhu game I was in a while ago, run by Terry Gant (the Forge's Doc Midnite). I believe I played the obnoxious journalist sort; a few scenes in, it was clear that my character would be one of the first to go whackoo-oo. Backing up, looking at the whole run, Elder Dark Horror did indeed descend on the luxury ocean liner, and horrible existential despire reigned supreme over all.

Theme? Sure. But not theme generated through play. It was theme embedded, rock-solid and immobile, in the Lovecraft/Derleth source material and prior assumptions of play. It was theme as a given piece of the picture, set just as firmly as our characters' starting SAN levels.

Again, the outside observer can come in and say, "Ooh, theme, everyone!" And again, the Narrativist-detector would give a funky raspberry noise for a "Negative on that trajectory, Houston."

The key is whether the people, while playing, are addressing Premise through their activities and interactions. Is that "what they're doing," is the question. Awareness, consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant. But so is the presence of Premise/Theme as interjected by an outside viewer who is considering topical subject matter only, independently or aside from the actual interactions and demonstrable priorities of the real people.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I disagree with you regarding the omnipresent existence of theme in terms that make any sense to the GNS level or bracket of analysis. Remember, we are talking about the process and activities of play, not merely subject matter. The question is whether the behaviors and interactions of the real people, while playing, are investments in producing those themes.

Ron Edwards wrote: The key is whether the people, while playing, are addressing Premise through their activities and interactions. Is that "what they're doing," is the question. Awareness, consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant. But so is the presence of Premise/Theme as interjected by an outside viewer who is considering topical subject matter only, independently or aside from the actual interactions and demonstrable priorities of the real people.

Hi John,

Nope. To my way of thinking, you're going deeper into obscure depths, rather than stepping out of the eddies and swirls onto dry land. "Subconscious?" Pfeh.

Never mind what's going on 'way inside one's head. I'm talking about interactions, communications, and shared imaginings among people. Talking, looks, gestures, dice-rolling (or whatever), and stuff like that: actual play.

Chris Chinn (bankuei) is absolutely right when he says that people's ability actually to recount what they did, during role-playing, is incredibly limited. It's a skill I've been trying to develop, and others have been trying to develop, mainly in the Actual Play forum.

I'll put it as clearly as I can for the topic of this thread ("playing one's character"). Getting into one's character, emotionally speaking, is Exploration. I'm not talking in an acting sense, which has to do with depiction, but rather in the sense of really enjoying this fictional construct and communicating that enjoyment through play.

Now the question is, what is the Exploration for?

Is that the priority of the person's play (or the person's play in the context of this particular group)? Can it be observed to override options such as addressing a Premise or entering into a social pressure/performance situation? If so, then we're talking about Simulationist play.

Note that if the Explorative Situation and the venue of its outcome are fixed (as is often the case in, say, playing Call of Cthulhu or many other games), then we're still talking about Simulationist play, because the Character Exploration follows fixed paths as a form of enjoyable pastiche.

Or, as is I think often very likely the case, is the Explorative enjoyment of one's character a tool or means ... fast or slow, loudly or quietly ... to get into one of those metagame priorities? Specifically, the only two I can think of or can speak to having observed, namely Step On Up or Story Now.

In practice, I consider both the experience of these priorities, and the observation of them in those actual interactions, to be extremely easy to spot, once you clear out certain cobwebs about "story," "plot," and similar distractions, and once you get away from talking about characters as if they were Entities instead of fictional constructs who exist in a communicative medium.

Best,
Ron

John Kim wrote: Boy, this seems very imponderable to me. So the question between Simulationism and Narrativism play as a player would be: Is my role-playing subconsciously focussed on addressing a moral Premise, or is it more focussed on exploring a psychologically deep Character? Does that seem right as a question?

Hi cruciel,

Looks like we cross-posted, but that's OK. Here's my thoughts on your point.

1. What you describe is exactly the case for how Gamist play relates to Simulationist play. It's the thin end of the wedge. As I discuss in the Gamism and Simulationism essays, the outcomes are pretty simple - the group "goes Gamist," or the offending party separates out relatively painlessly, or they all limp along with kind of a Grendel-member who gets tolerated.

2. It is potentially the case for Narrativist play as well, and in fact, my reading of John's accounts of play lead me to think that his group likes what might be called "muted" Narrativism. This isn't abashed or low-yield or anything weird, it's just ... well, quiet. To use my bass metaphor, we're talking about Pink Floyd, in which the bass (GM) produces long, sustained, held notes for a long time, providing a signficant platform upon which the solo instruments wander and interact as they will.

And that would be really cool, except that control issues can arise that are far more subtle and play out in, if you can believe it, even uglier forms, than in Sim/Gamist mixes.

For instance, if play-policy is constructed such that one person wields far more control over outcomes than anyone else, then that person becomes the focus of terrifying social problems among the group. That's where railroading GMs come from, and where a form of powergaming that has nothing to do with Gamism comes from.

Oh, I should emphasize that the above two paragraphs apply to all Sim/Narr conflicts, not just to the form of play I'm inferring (perhaps wrongly) from John's accounts. But the problem I'm describing is very, very common in Drama-heavy system play.

So, to sum up, yes, you're right - if the group goes with the ripples, once they're introduced.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Agreed.

I think a group that heavily weights Char all around the table seems to help avoid the Sit/Char doom ("I must explore Sit, therefore Char shall be a variable that is controlled" versus "Screw you hippy, I can't explore crap without decision making power).

Also, I was just going to post an edit stating my use of the word 'conflict' was unclear. I meant conflict in the 'make a decision about what to do about this' sense, not conflict in the 'ogres leap from the trees' sense. So, using the Gamist bent definition of the word I could definitely see the same thing happening as a Gamist ripple. Though, I think Sit or System would be a much better candidate for people going with the ripple (as a generalization only). But, now I'm drifting off topic, so I'm going to shut up.

EDIT: The use of the word conflict is still unclear. I suppose we have terms for what I meant: Nar conflict, not Gam conflict. I probably should've just said that to begin with. (also, minor tweaks for clarity)

Ron Edwards wrote: Getting into one's character, emotionally speaking, is Exploration. I'm not talking in an acting sense, which has to do with depiction, but rather in the sense of really enjoying this fictional construct and communicating that enjoyment through play.

Now the question is, what is the Exploration for?

Is that the priority of the person's play (or the person's play in the context of this particular group)? Can it be observed to override options such as addressing a Premise or entering into a social pressure/performance situation? If so, then we're talking about Simulationist play.

Hi John,

Can you suggest circumstances where acting in-character would be contrary to addressing Premise? If not, then how does the clash of priorities occur?

A little belatedly, we had an excellent thread related to the idea of consciously addressing premise a while back. My recollection is that Gareth (contracycle) described his game, which he thought was simulationist because the characters just did what they would do without anyone intentionally addressing theme; but that I and several others pointed out that it was rife with theme--the entire game revolved around personal commitments and relationship issues, and people did very improbable things to be involved in scenes in which these were being explored.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to find it right now....

--M. J. Young

Hello,

The thread that comes to my mind is 7th Sea: Illusionism in practice. I just re-read it and consider it foundational text for understanding my points in this one.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Therefore the fear or perception of "I must act against my character in order to 'do the story right'" is utterly unfounded in reference to successful play of any GNS stripe. It is a red herring that amounts to creating word salad, then fearing what the sentence "says."

The only sense in which this fear makes sense is when the outcomes of play are under disproportionate control by one player (often the GM), and the other players are being railroaded - which is to say, we are now talking about the realm of dysfunction rife with catch-phrases, code-phrases, and power-trips, rather then the realm of successful role-playing and having fun in the first place.

Best,
Ron

Marco,

Bluntly? No. Or rather, not uniquely. This is no more than what any creative author deals with in any instance of story creation.

You're talking about alternate sources of satisfaction. The only answer is, "Pick which one you want most."

If so many thousands of script-writers, novelists, short-story writers, song-writers in many cases, comics writers, cartoonists, bards, raconteurs, and joke-tellers can deal with it, I think that the role-player can too.

Here's the part that might trip people up. The social circumstances of play, as opposed to solo authorship, do act as a context and possible constraint, just as any medium operates in some kind of context and set of constraints. Which is to say, who says? Who has authority over these choices? Most role-players' experiences have led them to dysfunctional answers as well as to functional non-Narrativist answers (i.e. some of the people get no authority and thus cannot themselves address Premise in play). For functional Narrativist play, the social circumstances follow the band metaphor: do your thing, but it's our thing too, and we're listening to you, and you're up - don't suck. People who can do this can play Narrativist, just as people who can Step On Up without whining or cringing can play Gamist.

I'm extremely disinclined to enter into a long string of Socratic back-and-forth on this topic. Everyone, please think about cutting to the chase when making a point.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: No. Or rather, not uniquely. This is no more than what any creative author deals with in any instance of story creation.

You're talking about alternate sources of satisfaction. The only answer is, "Pick which one you want most."

If so many thousands of script-writers, novelists, short-story writers, song-writers in many cases, comics writers, cartoonists, bards, raconteurs, and joke-tellers can deal with it, I think that the role-player can too.

Ron Edwards wrote: Marco,

Bluntly? No. Or rather, not uniquely. This is no more than what any creative author deals with in any instance of story creation.

You're talking about alternate sources of satisfaction. The only answer is, "Pick which one you want most."

Best,
Ron

Hello,

I sense the potential for a tennis match. Speaker A says something. Speaker B says something else. Speaker A says something else. Repeat. Repeat. I've seen a few threads get into this mode recently, and this isn't going to be one of them. Why? Because the previous two posts aren't bringing up new points, but repeating old ones and muddying who's claiming what.

Marco, your paragraph about how RPGs are unlike other media was dealt with by me already in my paragraph beginning "Here's the part that might trip people up." Which is to say, yes, role-playing is more like playing in a band and less like writing a novel or movie script, when talking about this variable.

John, I've said this before: whether the writer feels like the character is autonomous from him is an over-rated issue. That sensation may or may not accompany the actual phenomenon, which never changes, that the real person writes the fictional character. I consider the topic profoundly uninteresting.

You wrote,

I don't think that Marco is saying that he can't deal with the choice -- only that it is a choice, and that role-players (like all other creators) can go either way.

I agree with the point, in character play can accompany or underlie a vast array of goals/modes.

However, I would suggest that in-character play is more frequently used where exploration of character is a player’s goal. Reacting to game stimulus in character is the most oft used vehicle to drive this sort of simulationist play. I don’t want to open the old immersion debate – save to say that in character play is a powerful device for operating in the imaginary space that is the character.

Players will use archetypes, character notes, stats etc. to generate the character’s response to in game stimuli in order to explore the character.

So, perhaps like stances, in-character play is a tool from the gaming toolbox that may be used in support of many play goals. While it is not a specialist tool, it does have a tendency to be associated with Simulationist goals, particularly exploration of character play. Without in character play, exploration of character would rely on what? A program of sorts made up of ‘if then' statements dictating game interactions.

Alan

Hello,

I fully agree with you, Alan.

In the interest of keeping threads in this forum shorter and more to the point, I'm closing this - with the exception of John or anyone else objecting to the basic concept that I've laid out above.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Furthermore, I provided several strong examples of how one can play "in character" and yet not address a Premise, as you requested. I'd like some acknowledgment of that.

Thus far, I see no challenge to my basic point: playing "in character" can accompany or underlie a vast array of goals/modes of role-playing, and is not confined either to Narrativist or non-Narrativist play.

Hi John,

I agree with your last paragraph in full. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty complete paraphrase of my first post or two in this thread.

I raised that point to refute the widely-repeated inference that playing Narrativist must put "my character" at odds with "the story." As I say, and as you have now said, that's an oxymoron for this sort of play.

Best,
Ron

I think I may see something interesting here. I think that it's the term "decision" that's getting people messed up. It's not what decision you make that's determinate at all, really. It's in what context you make the decision. If the decision was made with power, then it's Narrativist. If it was made to follow another's dictates on theme, then it's Simulationist.

Mike

Let me add to that. It's a matter of creating themes. That is, if the player has or obtains the power to make a new theme, one not decided upon by another player, then he's playing Narrativist. If he has the power, and still plays to an already determined theme, or to no theme in particular, then he's playing Sim. If the player has no power, he cannot decide to play Narrativist. Power here being somewhat circularly defined and refined particularly as it pertains to the ability to create new themes.

Mike

We've reached the point at which we're all saying the same things to one another.

Time to close the thread. Thanks. If anyone wants to spin off some implication or whatnot from it, please start a new one.

Best,
Ron