From Ron's spiffy new GNS essay:

They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players’ interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

I was struck by how nicely the quote is scoped to include something I'd never experienced prior to my group's recently completed Theatrix scenario. The game produced an interesting and rare variation on pre-planning.

The GM was very motivated for the PCs' subplots to eclipse the main plot in significance, the way the rulebook says it should happen. He directly solicited the players for input into how they wanted their subplots to go.

And one player took him up on it. He basically worked with the GM to script out how the scenes of his subplot would play out.

And it was stale to behold.

It covered all the necessary ground. The character dealt with adversity and antagonism. From the content, you'd have expected it to be really protagonizing for the character. And the other players didn't know it was pre-scripted. But somehow it was really boring.

The character's most compelling and protagonizing scene took place while the other characters were searching the back rooms of a crack house for an informant who'd often worked with a superhero who'd been murdered. The player found his character sitting on one of the sofas in the living room, in full costume, talking about his relationship problems with the addicts, as a firefight raged in the back.

It was a great scene for him.

So, I guess this entire post is one big wholehearted agreement with the quote from the essay, protagonism is not produced through GM-side pre-planning (railroading), nor through player-side pre-planning, but from "answering" the Premise via play.

Paul

I think that a good point is being made here; it regards what one of the big appeals of role-playing is. Essentially, what I'm speaking of is the idea of events being created spontaneously as a result of play. RPGs allow for something collaborative to be created in a fashion that is similar to how things actually happen in life. Things are cause and effect, events flow from the results of the actions of the characters just as they do in RL. I'm not saying that the portrayals are accurate necessarily, just that the idea of making decisions and having outcomes is what makes all RPGs like life. This distinguishes RPGs from all forms of literature, film, and non-improvisational theatre. In these forms of fiction all is planned. In RPGs elements are left to be discovered during the course of play (which elements is a matter for the particular game).

The fact that players make decisions on the spot as to how to proceed in play is, itself, very exciting. And I think that this is what Ron refers to in the essay as "Exploration". It is the improvisational creation of events in game that is the basically exciting thing about all RPGs. When this freedom to create is removed, for example in the case of extreme and obvious railroading, this is very dissapointing for most players. The same goes for Paul's overscripting example.

To what particular end this creation is directed determines GNS. Effort directed towards challenges is Gamist, effort directed towards story is narrativist, and effort directed towards nothing but other than basic exploration is Simulationist. Dysfunction of exploration occurs in Gamism when the game is not fair, in Narrativism when the story is overscripted, or in simulation where all events are predetermined. More simply stated, in all these cases pre-determination of the results such that player input is unnecessary or pointless is the cause of dysfunction.

This is an interesting perspective, because you can see motivations better with this model. To take a pet example, Simulationists don't do Gamism or Nararativism to the extent that those efforts interfere with their enjoyment of exploration. For these individuals, OOC talk predestines events in a non-satisfactory way. Focus on gamist issues, for these sorts, may direct the game in ways that have nothing to do with exploration.

In the spirit of gaming ecumenicism, I will say that I like all three modes. I think that most people's disaffection with one or more modes is due to having experienced dysfunctional versions of each. I was prevented from enjoying story oriented play for a long while because of a couple of encounters with GMs who just toldd stories and dragged the players along for the ride. When I realized that narrativist play did not mean this sort of play, it suddenly became fun again.

On an entirely additional note, the idea that the above examples of dysfunction are indeed dysfunctional may be challenged as well. The argument would be made that particular players might actually (though it may be hard for me to concieve) not enjoy exploration. Or at least that they may not need it at all. In this case, games that are highly railroaded, or otherwise predetermined might actually be enjoyed by these sorts of participants. This would be the argument that one would put up against my recent review of The Belltower, which seems to ascribe to this notion. It might also be the result of playing certain Cthulhu adventures as writtten, or the example I gave above of the GM creating a story and the players additions being just window dressing.

For the sake of argument I will call this theoretical mode Experiencism (a better term may be determined; please suggest such if you can think of something better). Essentially the theoretical Experiencist player does not really want to participate in a fashion that would determine the flow of the game, instead being content merely to add occasional dialog, and just experience the outcome of the GMs plot.

This adds a layer to Ron's model where you begin with experience, move on to add exploration, and then move on to add either gamism or narrativism.

Game..Story.
.|......|...
.\...../....
..\.../.....
Exploration.
.....|......
.....|......
.Experience.

The above shows that I have gone over to what is essentially Jared's "Beeg Horseshoe Theory" if not in all particulars. Added to that, though, is the root of the tree, experience, and thus I will call my model the "RPG tree" model. For some people just hugging the tree at ground level Experience may be enough. For others, they will climb up to Explore and stay there. Still others though will ascend the tree further and go for more gamelike elements, or add methods that promote story.

As Ron points out, such models are just for elucidation and do not actually hold much truth to them. But does the above make intuitive sense to anyone?


Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-15 10:55 ]

I guess the root question Mike, is whether "Experienceism" is a very top level concern or whether it is simply a manifestation of Audience or Dude Stance...

Hey,

I have quoted Mike's paragraph in full in order to bask in its content.

"In the spirit of gaming ecumenicism, I will say that I like all three modes. I think that most people's disaffection with one or more modes is due to having experienced dysfunctional versions of each. I was prevented from enjoying story oriented play for a long while because of a couple of encounters with GMs who just toldd stories and dragged the players along for the ride. When I realized that narrativist play did not mean this sort of play, it suddenly became fun again."

In the last year or so, regarding GNS preferences, I have undergone what traditional psychotherapists would approve of - identifying the source of my discontent and thereby diminishing or even eliminating it from my personal profile. I now adore certain brands of Gamist and Simulationist play, and my only requirement for ANY play is that we simply have a grasp of what we're doing (what we're there for).

Thus, a wildly bizarre and Gamist session of Pantheon or Ninja Burger is fine by me, because I know that we are competing in a fun way. (I confess I'll probably not enjoy low-Fortune Gamism, though, because I'm a terrible strategist.) Similarly, the extreme setup of an Unknown Armies session, which is close to railroading, is fine by me, because I know that as player we're all about Character Exploration, revelling in the obsessions and their wackiness. (I confess I'll probably not be good at or enjoy Situation Exploration, though, because I like authoring too much.)

So, in response to Mike, hear hear.

Best,
Ron

No, Ralph, I think that "Audience stance", if such exists, is simply the preferred stance for Experiencism. For example, Cthulhu scenario designs that don't really allow for player detours would be Experiencist design meant to enforce Experiencist play. A player could shift out of the audience mode to suggest something about his character's background, momentarily using Author mode. But the design in such a scenario does nothing to support this stance particularly. Anyhow, this demonstrates that stance relates to Eperiencism just as it would to Simulationism, for example. Thus, if it exists, I'd say it's an Ism.

Note that I am not convinced that this is a valid mode of play at all, yet. And even if it is, I'd say that it's rare. The obsevation that it exists may simply be a misconstruing of the appearance of "Audience" stance or the appearance of such designs as being indicative of some sort of other mode. The question is whether or not there are actually people who prefer not to Explore, just as there are people who prefer not to Game or Narrate (Simulatiuonists). I'd venture a guess that people who have fun with this sort of game do so despite the fact that they aren't getting to do even basic Exploration. But that would be my bias showing through, and would be similar to earlier objections to the validity of Simulationism, which I reject.

I am therefore at this point prone to say that it exists, and is valid, though I will hazard that actual educated preference for it may be extremely rare. OTOH, I like to watch TV...

Mike

Hey,

One of the basic observations from the early 90s is that many role-players "decamped" to focus on and, apparently, enjoy CCGs far more than they ever did role-playing.

It seemed apparent to me, when viewing those who remained primarily role-players, although this was necessarily a local perception rather than any kind of broad thing, that the degree of Gamism had dropped sharply. I didn't use that term then, of course, as I didn't know about the terminology.

So, to interpret that event a bit, I'd suggest that many people who'd been INVOLVED in role-playing, and who liked the fantasy-setting for its color and imagery, really weren't very interested in the role-playing at the Exploratory level - i.e., at all. They were Gamists in role-playing terms, but only to the reluctant degree that they had to role-play in order to participate.

When given a chance to (a) compete in a game-game, (b) enjoy various fantasy art and terminology, and (c) not have to role-play at all, they went for it like starving weasels. And why should they not?

I think that during the 1980s, fantasy wargamers had to put up or shut up regarding role-playing if they wanted to play at all. Then, when these pocket-wargames came out, they went, "Spoo!" and the rest is history.

To conclude, I am not sure that we need a term to describe their situation, because the extent that they are recognizable in role-playing is exactly the extent that they are NOT DOING IT. Thus, I think they fall outside the sphere of the terminology altogether.

Best,
Ron

Wait, so could we say that the exploration bit is what differntiates a gamist rpg from a board-game (or a card game)?
-Tor

If I understand Ron's theory correctly, "Exploration" is what defines roleplaying. Without it, gamism is a wargame and narrativism is collaborative writing.

The concern I'd have with that definition is: so why are we using dice then? Clearly, "the game" is mediated by a variety of mechanical constructs, and it is this arena that the RPG activity occurs. The pseudo-impartial resolution of conflict is part of what is or has come to be RPG, and the exodus to CCG's has not observably decreased the presence of game devices in RPG to date, to the best of my knowledge.

Contracycle wrote:

The concern I'd have with that definition is: so why are we using dice then? Clearly, "the game" is mediated by a variety of mechanical constructs, and it is this arena that the RPG activity occurs. The pseudo-impartial resolution of conflict is part of what is or has come to be RPG, and the exodus to CCG's has not observably decreased the presence of game devices in RPG to date, to the best of my knowledge.

On 2001-10-15 21:29, Epoch wrote:
If I understand Ron's theory correctly, "Exploration" is what defines roleplaying. Without it, gamism is a wargame and narrativism is collaborative writing.

---

Or a simulationist game from a pantomime. But still...

---

This thread is way bonkers. What are we talking about? Is there a question extant? A topic under discussion?

Those were rhetorical questions. It seems to me that the pre-planning issue has gone awry. Every post so far has an identifiable jumping-off point from a previous one, but the DISCUSSION is a horrible, humpbacked, peeping thing. I suggest that we leave it to die on a hilltop and pick up the ... what, five? six? different sub-topics in threads of their own, preferably in RPG Theory.

Best,
Ron

Yes, there is a basic topic. I has gotten cloudy, but it's in there. Essentially it is "What is the relationship of non-explorationary play (if such exist) to what we refer to as RPGs (defined by Ron as Exploratory play)?" This is, in fact, the exact topic that Paul brought up. He says he's seen it and didn't like it. I agreed, but said it might represent something valid, even if not strictly spaking RPGs. Then we sarted looking into the nature of the connection. Some seem to see it as overdone gamism or narrativism.

My most recent point is that it also exists without gamism or narrativism (which is simulationism). My point Mr. Sullivan is not that I'm imagining some "non-exploratory Simulationist game" but a non-exploratory game that is niether gamist nor narrativist (which would give it something in common with simulationism). This might be hard for some to imagine, but it would look very much like a play with no story. The GM would decide events based on verisimilitude, and the players would perform them.

Probably best suited to solo drama-mechanic-only play, at which point it would be daydreaming. :smile:

This is, in fact the style of play that got me going on this topic originally. It is what I believe Marco has created in his scenario The Belltower. Actually, to be accurate that would be off of the narrativist spur (as it is a story). But since his game is Simulationist, that got me thinking that a person could do this wierd style if they wanted to.

Mike