Over in Writing Style, Detail, and Simulationism

Vincent wrote: Ian, can you come up with a case where pursuing Story Now might damage the Dream? I can't. Story Now depends on consistent, plausible, faithful Exploration, same as the Dream does. (It's easy to come up with cases where pursuing the Dream doesn't live up to Story Now, because Story Now depends on Exploration + Addressing Premise, not Exploration alone.) Maybe a new thread, if you feel like it?

How will sticking around in Rohan and leaving the fate of the Dwarves unexamined damage the Dream?

Ditching out of Rohan and chasing some other part of the Dream might very well mess up the Story Now, that's obvious. But if we stay in Rohan, will somebody go, "dude, that wouldn't happen, you're totally messing up my in-game"?

-Vincent

I think that, generally, you're right, Ian. That is, there do come times where the game goes generally one way or another, and conflcit between the styles occurs. And your example could be one - but there's always a problem with these sorts of examples. Which is that someone will come along and point out that "what happened to the dwarves?" could mutate into lots of narrativist premises at any time. So, then we say, "But in the example we meant that they decided to go Sim." But then that's tautological, isn't it? Your example shows an exception to Vincent's supposition only if it's defined as an exception.

The real question comes back, IMO, to the idea of Instances of Play. That is, I agree that you can characterize play in blocks that are Sim or Nar. But when you look at smaller parts, you see that there are those fluctuations where the players are actually going back and forth on a smaller scale. Which is why I say that the idea that these things must conflict is irrelevant.

Because, the conflicts, when they occur, seem to me to only occur in the short term. That is, you can easily, IMO, decide on a "nearly-Hybrid" CA that works in all cases as long as players agree to it. Which is to say, "Play with X level of Sim Dream, and play with Y level of dedication to Story Now, and if/when they conflict, do ABC." Where ABC is to either Go Sim or go Nar in those cases. It can even be to discuss it in some cases.

Now, I think that Ron would say that the ABC that you decide upon edges the game into the territory of either S or N. Hence why I call it "nearly-Hybrid", and not truely Hybrid. The point, however, is that you can get "close enough" in play to really satisfy both urges over the long run for a group of players who really want both.

This has been my understanding of things for a while now. I've tried to put it out there in many different ways. It really doesn't change anything with GNS, other than to point out that I think that "pure play" is actually rare, and only suitable for those who really, really dislike some element in their play. For others, near-hybrids can be perfectly coherent.

So, yes, technically I side with Ian. But in spirit I'm with Vincent.

Mike

Hello,

And let's not forget that ditching Rohan doesn't automatically mean that people will not do Story Now somewhere else (i.e. as they see fit), with that "somewhere else" having a solid basis in Exploration too.

I'm not seeing the dichotomy you're trying to portray, Ian. Not at all. Either the people want to address Premise, or they don't, and where they do it is irrelevant.

You're trying to contrast Narrativism and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any.

Vincent was absolutely right when he stated how Exploration relates to Narrativism. I'll summarize:

[Exploration] in isolation = not role-playing yet

[Exploration]-squared, to the exclusion of other priorities = Simulationism

[Exploration [address Premise]] = Narrativism

[Exploration [Step On Up]] = Gamism

So trying to dichotomize Exploration with Narrativism is meaningless.

Conclusion #1: hey, wait, we play Narrativist already! Right. It's more common than people think.

Conclusion #2: hey, wait, we make stories but don't play Narrativist! Right. That happens too.

Best,
Ron

I should make clear:

There's conventional wisdom here at the Forge that sometimes you have to compromise your character or your setting or your situation in order to effectively address Premise. That is, sometimes pursuing Story Now means you damage the Dream.

My position is that no Story Now was ever served by compromising the integrity of the Dream. In fact, damaging the Dream is a sure way to block Story Now. Any Star Trek TNG fan can tell you: the sucky episodes are the ones where they didn't handle the characters or the setting or the in-world history with integrity. Egri'd say the same.

So what I'm asking Ian for is a case where addressing Premise would be both a) satisfying and b) "unrealistic". I can't think of one. Lots of cases where doing something "realistic" wouldn't address Premise, but none where addressing Premise could violate the Dream.

Don't read this as saying that Simulationism doesn't exist. It does. It's where you're not supposed to address Premise or Step Up. That's what Ron's "[Exploration]-squared, to the exclusion of other priorities" means, right?

-Vincent

Oh, and here I thought that Ian was talking about the Sim/Nar dichotomy.

Still, the point almost makes sense in this context. :-)

Mike

Hmmm

I was looking at the impact on addressing premise on the broad priority of the right to dream - i.e. the right to follow up on whatever aspects of the dream that are compelling to you. So Mike was reading me right about the Sim/Nar dichotomy, and I was misreading Vincent's point.

In which case I don't think there's any disagreement here, just crossed wires. My example was just "a gaming group choses sim priorities over narrativist ones" rather than about the dream being broken per se.

Addendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it? Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

[Which as I type it, in the interests of full disclosure, may be a nagging doubt of mine vis-a-vis narrativism, being from the if-you-want-to-send-a-message-send-it-western-union school of thought]

Okay, lemme start by saying that I agree fully with Vincent in both this and his post that this thread was spawned from. Well, I may have to wrestle him over whether Sim exists or not, but that depends on what is implied by "exists" and isn't germane to this thread.

Enter Evil Jason (do you like my goatee?):

Sacrificing the dream for the sake of theme is quite common in media. Star Trek has already been brought up, and I think it's a great example so I'll stick with it. How many episodes of Star Trek have you seen where they had some sort of crisis down on the planet that they could have easily solved with some sort of gadget you know they have? The transporter and the comms spring to mind as the most common candidates. Alas, no. Every backwater planet has froonium in the cave walls, or electrostatic interference that doesn't cause anything to cease functioning except the device in question (plus this interference never gives anyone a headache? or cancer?). Or, why do aliens all speak fluent english - even if they don't have space flight?

Because, in order to address the theme, and keep highlighting it, sacrifices in consistency must sometimes be made. The crisis on the planet is the theme. Just ending the problem via wizardry doesn't require the characters to make difficult decisions, even if it would be the most consistent and sensible thing for the characters to do.

That's how addressing the premise can damage the dream.

Enter Good Jason (clean shaven and dashing):

All the things Evil Jason mentioned are kludgey hacks to make a given premise fit into a setting it was not meant to. Those things may have been necessary to make a TV show work, but they actually serve to hinder the addressment of theme, as Vincent has already mentioned. Premise is always served by the explored elements, because theme is imbedded in exploration [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]. Pulling the audience away from exploration also severs their link to the theme. Evil Jason puts the cart before the horse.

Enter Everyday Jason (scruffy and kind of a jackass):

Well, that's the best I could come up with right now.

Jasons, exactly right. Ever notice how bad Star Trek sucks? Ever notice how froonium just drains the ever-loving life out of whatever it touches, especially theme? After those episodes, instead of us being all like "yeah! Didja see how much ass Worf kicks, especially when he said that thing? And how gripping Troi's scene with the Troohovians was?" we're all like "that was ass! How come they didn't just refangle the tricorders like last week? And who writes Troi's dialogue, a misanthrope?"

Ian, interesting addendum. Can you say more about it?

-Vincent

Ian Charvill wrote: Addendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it? Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

Hello,

Ian, you wrote,

Addendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it? Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

lumpley wrote: My position is that no Story Now was ever served by compromising the integrity of the Dream. In fact, damaging the Dream is a sure way to block Story Now. Any Star Trek TNG fan can tell you: the sucky episodes are the ones where they didn't handle the characters or the setting or the in-world history with integrity. Egri'd say the same.

So what I'm asking Ian for is a case where addressing Premise would be both a) satisfying and b) "unrealistic". I can't think of one. Lots of cases where doing something "realistic" wouldn't address Premise, but none where addressing Premise could violate the Dream.

Don't read this as saying that Simulationism doesn't exist. It does. It's where you're not supposed to address Premise or Step Up. That's what Ron's "[Exploration]-squared, to the exclusion of other priorities" means, right?

John Kim wrote: Even if no single action is grossly wrong, play as a whole can seem unrealistic because it shows clearly-visible signs of choreographed story (which is certainly true in Theatrix).

[EDITED to add the phrase "one part of" regarding Exploration and the human mind]

John (and all),

I *think* your rgfa problem does not actually apply here - because the claim is not that Nar does Sim as well as Sim does, it is that *any* roleplaying can do Exploration as well as any other roleplaying. Sim (Exploration Squared) does not equal Exploration. Vincent is wrong to say the integrity of The Dream is vital to Nar play - integrity of the Exploration is what's required. It's a subtle distinction, but (I think) a VITAL one to GNS, without which the model falls apart.

This is why *totally* caring about the integrity of the Exploration (Immersion?) isn't in and of itself a GNS priority. "To the exclusion of other priorities" is a very important component in Ron's analysis a few posts back.

I do find Vincent's claim (reworded and "downgraded" by me) that a lapse in the integrity of Exploration *never* helps the prioritization of Story Now (or Step On Up?) to be a bit broad. My cut at it is that the integrity of the Exploration is NEVER a 100% thing, there is always SOME sort of acceptance of "this is just what we are imagining," and the degree to which you need to approach 100% will vary by situation and by taste across individuals/groups. Sometimes, being willing to let the gap between your Exploration and that imaginary 100% integrity stretch a bit - but still be good enough to get the job done - can be useful in pursing Nar. To the extent that Vincent means "you still care - deeply, and importantly - about Exploration when you're doing Nar," I agree, but I think that's a different thing than saying every compromise to the integrity of the Exploration is going to hurt your Nar. Particularly if you're talking about a particular, practical situation that actual play has brought you to, as opposed to an ideal goal to strive for.

Perhaps obviously, plainly prioritizing the Exploration - doing Sim - can interfere with Nar. I point this out here to make it clear that this integrity of the Exploration is NOT directly a GNS isssue. Again, the distinction - Prioritization of Exploration (to the exclusion of other priorities) is a GNS CA. Maintining (in various manners, and to various degrees) the integrity of Exploration is not.

I think what we are getting into here is one part of the nature of the human mind's engagement with Exploration - what people often speak of as "suspension of disbelief." As I recall (from earlier discussion here, and literature studies way back when), that's from Coleridge (and is more fully "willing suspension of disbelief"). If I remember right, Keats called it our "Negative Capacity" - to what degree are we able to prevent the unavoidable unreality of a creation from interfering with our apprehension of capital-A-Art.

I'm not sure if either term is really appropriate to RPGs. I think Ron disliked "suspension of disbelief" intensely, and I recall his arguments as fairly compelling. But after the Nar essay was out, I was thinking of starting a thread about those issues - maybe "what are the various factors, no doubt varying by situation and individual/group taste, that determine whether or not 'enough' engagement with Exploration is happening?" Because (consistent with a trend in my posting of late) my guess is that one of the best ways to keep people from bringing inappropriate issues inside of GNS CA is to clearly discuss them as important issues - which they are - seperately from CA. We'll have to acknowldge where they touch CA, but that doesn't make 'em part of one.

Hope that makes sense to folks,

Gordon

Exactly John. That's the "on purpose" part of Narrativism. Story on Purpose contradicts the very point of Simulationism.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: This is why *totally* caring about the integrity of the Exploration (Immersion?) isn't in and of itself a GNS priority. "To the exclusion of other priorities" is a very important component in Ron's analysis a few posts back.

Valamir wrote: Exactly John. That's the "on purpose" part of Narrativism. Story on Purpose contradicts the very point of Simulationism.

Jack -

I think - Yes.

"For me" confused me a bit, as it sounded like a sign of selfish a "make me happy, dammit!" attitude that has nothing to do with GNS, but I think it could also be a constructive acknowledgement that what is a problem for me ain't neccessarily a problem for you, so . . .

Yes.

Gordon

PS - That "problem for me ain't neccessarily one for you" thing? That's why just knowing you all like Sim doesn't mean all the work needed to get enjoyable play is done. One man's tiny intrusion of non-prioritized story into The Dream is one woman's unforgiveable trespass against it.

I think it might be worth it to throw out a few qualifiers.

Good Jason in his reply to Evil Jason (who I think is in fact, simply misunderstood - not Evil) overstates the value of realism, and is overly harsh of Star Trek for not adhering to it. It would require superhuman ability to truly remain consistent, especially during the collaborative authoring found in RPGs. This does not however prevent you from committing to the explored elements, just from being perfect at it.

Adhering to the integrity of Exploration, for me, refers to the integrity of whatever abstract concepts are being explored. A tricorter isn't a scientific instrument. It is a box with blinking lights the character can point at something, it makes sounds, and yields some fancy sounding information; oh, and it may also lose its properties if the key phrase 'electrostatic interference' occurs. Most often this is used as an excuse to justify the character knowing something or deciding to do something. (I've been asked in our game, "What does a scanner do anyway?". This was my reply.) So, maintaining integrity with the fictional concept 'tricorter' means not breaking the above rules. If you've got a tricorter, and you need some fancy sounding information to get through the situation, it'd be internally consistent to use it, right?

Remaining consistent with Character (or whatever element you fancy) doesn't necessarily mean everything about the character, just the character elements that contribute to the premise (little 'p'). Let's say your character says he's from Omaha one week and two months later says he's from Boise. You knew you said Omaha to begin with, but just liked Boise better for whatever crazy reason floated to the top of your brain. If there is no meaningful change (Omaha doesn't carry thematic weight), then you aren't really violating the integrity of the element, because that detail isn't part of the premise (little 'p'). However, in my experience, the actually amount of the thematic weight an element carries can be very small for it to qualify for integrity violation. I don't imagine alleged Sim play has to remain perfectly consistent with all elements, or pieces thereof, either - just with the Exploration focus.

The way I see it, yes it does break the model. But, that's not a valid argument. I've been trying to find a way, that makes sense to me, for it not to, and haven't gotten there. Because consistency is valid and necessary for Nar, all 'Exploration to exclusion of other priorities' says to me that you're just driving by the Creative Agenda layer and flipping it off. MJ Young in particular, but others as well, deserve credit for providing consistently convincing examples of the existence of the play Sim is meant to define. So I've got this style of play I know exists, and a definition for it I know doesn't (both 'knows' being non-absolute). I'm sure I'll be back to beat this horse, after the Nar essay comes out, and the vultures have picked the flesh from its bones. I've surely spent too much time in a place that isn't the point of the thread already, it's just hard not to end up there.

Lastly, wow... that's a lot of commas.

John and Ralph, you're reading me exactly the way I asked you not to. Which I'll try again, but hey, please.

Simulationism is where you're not supposed to address Premise or Step On Up. If you reliably, consistently address Premise (as in the parent thread), you're playing wrong. You're breaking the game. Exactly as you're saying, John, when you talk about patterns over time.

Anyhow you can stop trying to defend to me that Simulationism exists. You can't play Narrativist and Simulationist at the same time, I get that.

Gordon, I thought hard before using "the Dream" to mean Exploration, and I decided to, and here's why: Simulationism is "the Right to Dream." Dream=Exploration, the Right to=squared.

Otherwise I agree with you and Jason that tolerance for Star Trekitude is set locally, and is a separate issue. The willingness of a Tolkeinesque group to accept inconsistencies in character and setting will be less than the willingness of a group emulating Star Trek, for instance, whether either group is playing Narrativist, Simulationist or Gamist.

-Vincent

I wrote: Addendum - is it possible within narrativist play for the premise to strike people so clearly that play breaks from the shared imagined space to discuss real world issues relating to it? Which is to say could the subtext become the text, and thus the metaphors lose their potency because of excessive transparancy?

Hi Ian,

Sure. That's part of the diversity of Narrativist play which shouldn't surprise anyone.

You might think of it as analogous to different degrees and types of Step On Up "reward variables" in Gamist play.

Given that play involves decision-making "about stuff," people are certainly going to be interested in different kinds and depths of "stuff" at different times. I can't see that as either controversial or difficult.

Editing in: Unsurprisingly, this issue sees a lot of dissection in the Adept Press forum. Here are some handy threads, with some useful links in them as well.
Premise in S&Sword
Let's talk about "meaningful" choice
Obvious choices
Why should the Narrativist Premise be pre-set in Sorcerer?

Best,
Ron

Ian,

I think I see where you're going...

Good Jason, being the pretensious sort that he is, would likely say that that's another example of poorly addressed theme. Answering the theme requires supporting arguements, supporting arguements that the audience can relate to. If it's too forced, then it's more like 'Did not! Did to! Did not! Did to!', instead of 'Did to, and here's why...'. So, the theme isn't really addressed - it's more of a setting element (anti-semitism is wrong, them's the rules here).

I think Good Jason is probably right. What do you think?

Good Jason might say it, I might say it, David Mamet might write essays railing against it - hey, even you might say it - but some people actually like that kind of thing. I think it's a very marginal case of story now impacting negatively on the dream, but I think it is one.

It's like I might argue that on the whole gamism doesn't permit the GM to screw the players over - that there's nothing inderent in gamism to encourage that. But the fact would remain that gamism can lead to unfair GM player balances of power.

I think as long as it's kept in perspective as a marginal case, the exception much more than the rule, I don't think there's anything too contentious about it.

(if all you want to say is: it doesn't sound like very good narrativism, well, I'd agree with you there)

Edited to correct spelling and add an afterthought -

Typically plays don't require supporting arguments, they require supporting actions - arguments would be very much the kind of thing that would lift you out of the shared imagined space.

What I'd want to say is: it sounds like the same kind of thing as Star Trekitude. One group's Capital-I Issue is another group's Western Union. In other words: how overt should addressing the Premise be? Depends on your tastes. Some Narrativist play will be too overt for you or me, but that's cool, we don't have to play in those games. In other other words: I agree with Ron.

I'm having trouble making it into a case of "successfully addressing Premise but violating in-game integrity," though. That's because as soon as you cross that line, as soon as the thing you describe happens where -

From then on you can't engage with the characters because they're just thinly veiled metaphors, not 'real' people; and you can't engage with the scenes because they're just thinly veiled arguments - and arguments that have been stacked to prove the author's point.

Ian Charvill wrote: Typically plays don't require supporting arguments, they require supporting actions - arguments would be very much the kind of thing that would lift you out of the shared imagined space.

Vincent -

Ah, Dream vs. Right to Dream - sure, that can fully replace my subtle distinction between Exploration and Dream as a subtle distinction of its own. All points are still valid with that substitution, I think.

Jason -

Yup, once the Narrativist essay is out, we should talk more about "all 'Exploration to exclusion of other priorities' says to me [is] that you're just driving by the Creative Agenda layer and flipping it off." I think the Creative Agenda layer essentially *is* prioritization, so . . . future discusion.

Gordon

lumpley wrote:

From then on you can't engage with the characters because they're just thinly veiled metaphors, not 'real' people; and you can't engage with the scenes because they're just thinly veiled arguments - and arguments that have been stacked to prove the author's point.

- as soon as that happens, you stop caring about the issues too, don't you? I'm not successfully addressing Premise any more because my whole audience is going "blah blah blah" in their heads instead of listening to me. I've messed up both the Dream and the Story Now.

Hi Ian,

Does that mean this thread has now rung its bell?

It's such a clean discussion that I'd hate to see it linger past its purpose. Let me know if you want it to stay open.

Best,
Ron

Ian Charvill wrote: Absolutely Vincent - I'm not arguing that functional narrativist play would disrupt the dream. I guess all I'm doing is suggesting a source of possible narrativist dysfunction where over-prioritizing the premise might disrupt the dream.

It's a challenge to "Story Now can't disrupt the dream!" but it's a challenge that rests on a technicality - and I see it very much as a marginal issue. I think it demonstrates the point you were making: if you have to go to this kind of extreme case to show Story Now disrupting the dream - a plain old case of dysfunctional play - then on the whole Story Now doesn't disrupt the dream.

Hello,

John, that means we're in agreement as well. I suggest that the distinction between your #1 and #2 isn't something that can be rigorously addressed, but rather a personal judgment that reflects one's aesthetic preferences.

Best,
Ron

I'm in agreement with John too. However, I do think conclusions can be drawn from discussing options one and two, but as Gordon pointed out, not in this thread (heh. hey look, I did forget my 'is').

Looks like I'm in agreement with Ian as well, if we're talking about marginal case play that may tend towards dysfunction.

John - I think it's an important point. I think there are answers to your number 2 - and very strong answers - and so I don't see any futility at all.

I do think this thread has run it's course though - unless someone can think of more far reaching examples of Story Now disrupting the dream.

So John, new thread?

Hi there,

Actually, I'll answer that one, Ian. New thread indeed.

Thanks everyone,
Ron