The Forge Archives

I just posited these questions to one of my group.  I don't think I got it quite right, but here is what I asked, as an example of starting a GNS discussion with my play group.  (I'm looking for better ways to ask these questions of my group.)

QuoteCreative Agenda (Group): Might sound something like this... as questions from my point of view.

Gamist: To be fulfilled at the table, do you guys want a game which primarily focuses on "winning." To that end, it means, you want me, the GM, to create situations where through charcters and tactics, you try to reach a goal, defeat an opponent... essentially WIN.

or

Narrativist: To be fulfilled at the table, do you guys want a game in which the main point is to explore moral and ethical choices. That the game revolves around your characters being put into situations where they have to choose between equally important actions... that the PLAYER is taking a stand on moral and ethical issues by the actions the character takes..

or

Simulationist: To be fulfilled at the talbe, do you guys want a world where cause and effect and a sense of "this is a world that has a strong existence" is the focus. Questions may come up, actions will be taken, but instead of making a decision based on "I do this because I believe it to be ethically correct" you are instead saying, "I choose this action, because I want to see what happens. I think it's the right decision, but if it isnt', ok let's see what happens."

Immersion into a character... BEING that character and being IN that world... can happen in all three.

Is there a better way to ask these questions?

Hi Neil,

I gotta say, and this is a general point to everyone, that there is no more destructive phrasing toward the body of my theory-stuff than saying "explore moral or ethical issue" regarding Narrativist play.

"Explore" is a terrible word for talking about Premise and themes. Really, it's awful. I know people use it a lot in literary or cinema discussions, and it causes all sorts of trouble there too. It implies a lack of resolution and an unnecessary level of abstraction within the context of the fictional events and characters.

Say "address." It works, it makes sense, and you can always use the breakdown in the Narrativism essay if someone has trouble.  

Second, when you say "moral or ethical issue," apparently people instantly think of some kind of highbrow, high-falutin', art-house kind of content. The kind of thing in which the characters verbalize some kind of abstract quandary. The recent reference to the idea that the philosophical maundering in The Matrix: Reloaded might be similar to Narrativist play horrified me and represents a good example of this misunderstanding.

How's this: The people get pumped about the problem the character faces, because they identify with how it relates to their or others' real-life hassles. And specify that it doesn't require any particular overt recognition by the people in order to happen. Furthermore, that various techniques during the course of play provide the players with the right to have their character act however they want in dealing with them.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHow's this: The people get pumped about the problem the character faces, because they identify with how it relates to their or others' real-life hassles. And specify that it doesn't require any particular overt recognition by the people in order to happen. Furthermore, that various techniques during the course of play provide the players with the right to have their character act however they want in dealing with them.

Further, the stress is on people--everyone at the table is pumped about what each character is doing. It's not a personal, internal wrestling with Big Important Issues. It's everyone at the table expressing interest, excitement, & enthusiasm for the actions & decisions any one player makes--including offering suggestions, hints, encouragement, & so on.

(Actually, that's true for all of the GNS modes. It's not an internal, "Hrm, what do I do know?" It's the whole group high-fiving each other, clapping each other on the back, giving thumbs up, & otherwise expressing support & enjoyment for what everyone else is doing, whether it's Stepping on Up, Sharing the Dream, or addressing Premise Now.)

Wow... just when I think I'm actually Narrativist... this comes along..

Quotethey identify with how it relates to their or others' real-life hassles

Man... I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but when I talk about ethical and moral issues, I have no desire to relate it to REAL LIFE.  What I want to explore is "In a world with super powered beings... or magic.... or various non-human races... what is ethical and moral?  What is the proper use of power by a metahuman?  Should you follow the status quo, or try to change the planet?"

Those ethical and moral questions stem from the setting... not from real life.  I don't have metahuman powers to squash President Bush like a bug... so I don't have to decide whether I'd do it or not.  

To that end, I really think I am SIM... because I want to Simulate the setting, not just in simulating action and movement and causality on a physical level, but also simulating social and ethical and legal systems that would develop in such a world.  

Huh... by bits and pieces I begin to understand.

(And yes... address is a better word that explore.)

Hi Neil,

You know, I think you might be better off not trying to slap labels on your forehead just yet.

So while you're in limbo/musing mode (which is much better than label-stuck and wondering is-it-right), try this:

There is no such thing as a fictional "ethical quandary" which does not relate, in metaphorical or exaggerated sense, to a real-life one.

QuoteWhat is the proper use of power by a metahuman? Should you follow the status quo, or try to change the planet?

... is a real-life, problematic human issue. The super-powers merely dramatize it, in the sense of providing a lot of "power" and making the question more important to that particular protagonist - and hence more attention-grabbing, potentially, to a real person. (tastes vary in that last phrase)

Another example: in Die Hard, the character John McClane is attempting to patch up his rocky marriage. This entails many hand-to-hand and bullet-ridden conflicts, few or none of which, I'll presume, apply to your or my life. The conflict of the movie, however, always remains about one thing: his rocky marriage and his eventual reconciliation with his wife. That's something people (you, me, etc) relate to with not a shred of effort or sense of disconnection.

Final point: bear in mind that "story" and even "theme" can be observed in role-playing of any of the three Creative Agendas. Narrativist play is about the right to address a Premise and thus to create theme.

Best,
Ron

Neil,

I think you may be missing the power of metaphore.  Sure, none of us have been metahumans with the power to dissintegrate the president with a look.  BUT we've all been in positions of power to drastically affect the course of events at, say, our jobs or with our families and hell, military and political assassinations DO happen in reality just with guns and not summoned lightening bolts.  In a Narrativist superhero game the SCALE of conflict is unrealisitic but not the NATURE of the conflict.

Another example,

There's this british miniseries called Ultraviolet that's kind of an ultra-realistic take on vampires (if anything with vampires can be described as realistic).  In one of the episodes there's this woman who really really really wants a baby but has had trouble conceiving.  Finally she does get pregnant but it turns out the child is an attempt to have a vampire born from a human in the hopes that the child will be kind of like Blade (all the powers of a vampire with none of their weaknesses).  Now, because of all the secrecy behind the vampire stuff no one is giving this woman any straight answers.  They just keep telling her that there's a problem and for her own safety she should have an abortion.

Now, no one in reality has ever and most likely never will be pregnant with what amounts to a vampire secret weapon.  BUT women DO have complicated pregnancies where carrying the child to term may be unhealthy for the mother.  But such women have no independent confirmation of that risk outside of what others tell them.  Should she trust the judgement of others and have an abortion?  Or does she decide to take the risk and how does she deal with outside pressure to have the abortion?

The conflict is real and recognizable even if the circumstances from which the conflict arrises are fantastic.  The TV Show Buffy The Vampire Slayer was a MASTER at this technique.   It used demons as a constant metaphore for the increasing complexity of very real world teenage conflicts about growing up and taking on ever increasing loads of responsibility.

Jesse

Oh I understand metaphor, and I was a big fan of Buffy for it's subtext and raw undercurrents... but for me, for that kind of thing to be effective, it has to be scripted.  Dialogue has to be perfectly tweaked to give just the right humor and pathos and innuendo... events have to perfectly dove tail in a effective theme without being heavy handed.

RPGs are not scripted.  They are fast paced and spontaneous, the events spawn out of each other, most often unexpected and rarely following even the most flexible outline by the GM.  Metaphor may happen, but only organically, and often only for the individual... rarely for the group.  To have the focus of the game be constant metaphor and consciously driving such pretentious notions... well, I just don't see it working for me.

This is good to know.  I really am what I thought I was... a Sim gamer (from a GM point of view... I rarely play) and I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen" as long as it is causal within the world, grows organically out of the internally consistent world creation going on.  

It will be interesting to see what my other players think.

Quoteand I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen"

Sure.  Its perfectly acceptable to enjoy theme and to wind up your initial situation so that you have a rich potential for theme "just happening".  I'd say that's a fairly common way to play Simulationist actually.

I'd guess that alot of what folks like Marco (who hasn't been around much recently) and John Kim (John pipe up if I'm off base here) is exactly this.

The dividing line between Simulationism and Exploration Heavy Nar then becomes the degree to which you're willing to let theme "just happen" vs. your desire to nudge it when necessary to make sure it happens.

The dividing line between Simulationism and Exploration Heavy Gamism then becomes the degree to which you're willing to let the chips fall where they may vs. your desire to actively begin playing harder when the GM starts ramping up the difficulty to "prove you can take it".


Clearly that line is going to get pretty blurry at times...and that blur is both a good thing...in that to the extent it remains blurry it allows a true Simulationist to sit down at the same table with a ExHvy Gamist and both enjoy themselves.

...and a bad thing, because inevitably there's going to be a time where the blurryness goes away and it becomes clearly obvious what the players are up to and *thats* when the ugly arguements about Munchiny behavior crop up.

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: RDU Neiland I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen"

Sure.  Its perfectly acceptable to enjoy theme and to wind up your initial situation so that you have a rich potential for theme "just happening".  I'd say that's a fairly common way to play Simulationist actually.

I'd guess that alot of what folks like Marco (who hasn't been around much recently) and John Kim (John pipe up if I'm off base here) is exactly this.

The dividing line between Simulationism and Exploration Heavy Nar then becomes the degree to which you're willing to let theme "just happen" vs. your desire to nudge it when necessary to make sure it happens.

It seems fair enough.  I would point Neil to my essay http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html">Threefold Simulationism Explained if he hasn't seen it yet.  Just remember that Threefold Simulationism isn't the same thing as GNS Simulationism.  

Your point about pushing seems like a funny line, though.  Because if you as GM push it hard so that you make sure that theme happens, then it becomes GNS Simulationist again -- specifically Illusionism and/or High Concept Simulationism.  

For a while, I've felt uncomfortable with this.  It doesn't feel right to lump the "what if" no-pushing Threefold Simulationists with the match-the-genre hard-pushing Illusionists.  It seems like such a deep split to me that it is very strange to say that they are in the same mode.

Quote from: RDU NeilOh I understand metaphor, and I was a big fan of Buffy for it's subtext and raw undercurrents... but for me, for that kind of thing to be effective, it has to be scripted.  Dialogue has to be perfectly tweaked to give just the right humor and pathos and innuendo... events have to perfectly dove tail in a effective theme without being heavy handed.

RPGs are not scripted.  They are fast paced and spontaneous, the events spawn out of each other, most often unexpected and rarely following even the most flexible outline by the GM.  Metaphor may happen, but only organically, and often only for the individual... rarely for the group.  To have the focus of the game be constant metaphor and consciously driving such pretentious notions... well, I just don't see it working for me.

But the metaphor is the whole game itself, the whole power question.  As Ron put it above it is the right of the players to address premise, not be confined to a solution or a particular point of view or a right answer.  Theme is generated by play, not by any set thing.  When it  has happened for me, it emerges not as a completely self concious thing but rather naturally from me positioning a character from the beginning to face issues that are important to him (and that I can sympathize with) and to make choices about them.  The metaphor is already a part of the background it isn't something that has to be pushed.  Many of the best narrativist games design it that way: Sorcerer, MLWM, Inspectres.  The basic premise and metaphor is assumed by the game, designed into it, and requires perhaps only a little tweaking and doesn't require concious pushing or 'focus' in the sense that you are talking about.  It just takes play.  But instead of playing totally for plausability or consistancy or totally for some kind of win condition I am playing for the chance to generate drama by making a character make some tough choices about an ethical delimma.  The choices themselves aren't right or wrong for the player, and the entertainment value comes from making them.

What I'm trying to say is that I percieve in your post, perhaps incorrectly, an idea that for address of a premise to work out the answer has to be fixed or consistant across a group of players.  All I can say is that it doesn't work that way in real life, and yet the act of addressing premise does work and can be very satisfying.

As Ron said, don't slap a label on just yet.  There's a lot of gaming stuff out there.  I've enjoyed emphasis in all three modes at one time or another.  Its at least worth trying.

regards,

Trevis[/quote]

First, a side point:

Quote from: John KimFor a while, I've felt uncomfortable with this.  It doesn't feel right to lump the "what if" no-pushing Threefold Simulationists with the match-the-genre hard-pushing Illusionists.  It seems like such a deep split to me that it is very strange to say that they are in the same mode.

Hi John - I know what you mean.  But - the same thing exists within Game (player's "against" the GM vs. team-play focus) and Nar (Vanilla vs. Pervy).  The GNS "angle" on RPG issues is just different - it's really OK for those things to be lumped together.  But you do ALSO need the other tools to deal with the inter-mode stuff.  I think that all the attemntion on GNS loses that fact, sometimes.

On the main subject - I'll just say I think everyone's over-estimating a bit just how hard and/or intentional it is to be "in" a GNS mode.  We're good at it - we do it automatically.  You don't have to force metaphor - it just happens, if that's what the group cares about.  You don't have to manage challenge extensively - if folks want to Step On Up, they will.

I'm with Ron - hold off on the label.  Knowing where to look is (for many long-time gamers, anyway) not an easy thing to do.  And whatever one you end up with is cool, so it sure isn't something to lose sleep over . . .

Gordon

Quote from: Valamir

Quoteand I'm perfectly willing to have theme "just happen" as I am to have competing to win "just happen"

Sure.  Its perfectly acceptable to enjoy theme and to wind up your initial situation so that you have a rich potential for theme "just happening".  I'd say that's a fairly common way to play Simulationist actually.

BL>  Just for reference, most of my play is like this (front-loaded premise Nar) and I consider it, after a lot of wrangling, a form of narrativism proper.  So there is some disagreement about this (even if it is just me vs. the rest of the universe.)

I would argue that, if you lay out the situation right, you don't *have* to nudge it to get your Premise.

And, perhaps, the real dividing line here is whether you are willing to set up an implausible *situation* in order to better nail your premise.

yrs--
--Ben

Front-loaded narrativism troubled me for a while - to the extent of whether that didn't turn a huge amount of what I'd been thinking of sim into narrativism.

If the players are primarily motivated to address premise, then front-loading will support narrativism.  If not, then it won't.

[It strikes me as an aside, that because so much emphasis is placed on freedom in a narrativist context a large proportion of narrativist supporting techniques enable narrativism without promoting it.]

Hi Ian,

In many ways, this sentence:

QuoteIf the players are primarily motivated to address premise, then front-loading will support narrativism. If not, then it won't.

... is tautological. Any Creative Agenda is automatically "what the players are primarily motivated" to do, at least if I'm assuming correctly what you mean by "motivation."

I don't want to get into the "what is a motive" debate; what I'm pointing out is that I think what you're calling a condition ("if ...") is actually a requirement. If the real people are doing X, then whether a certain technique supports X is a secondary question. To say "the technique won't work unless the real people want it to and take steps to make it work" is definitional.

Best,
Ron

Ron, my post was essentially a response to Ben's (and could probably have been helped by quoting it originally)

QuoteJust for reference, most of my play is like this (front-loaded premise Nar) and I consider it, after a lot of wrangling, a form of narrativism proper. So there is some disagreement about this (even if it is just me vs. the rest of the universe.)

I was aiming to say I didn't think front-loaded Premise narrativism was controversial just that front-loading by itself wasn't going to get you narrativism, which I think is uncontroversial: front-load premise and then play narrativist, then you have narrativism; front-load premise and then play simulationist, then you have simulationism (simulationism with, I'd expect, strong thematic content); ditto gamism.

I think the above is a vestigial response to a couple of threads we had along the lines of "if you front-load premise and then play 'sim' would you still get narrativism".  I think this is the controversy Ben's referencing in his post.

But, for me, the controversy there is a non-starter.  Much as you don't need any kind of explicit statement of premise during narrativist play, you do need overt social attention to it.  If you have that, regardless of technique, you have narrativism.  If you don't have it, regardless of technique, you don't have narrativism.

So, to try to clarify:

Ben, I don't think there is any problem with front-loading premise as a technique to support narrativism BUT Ralph's right in that Neil.

To find out, talking about 'what I'm trying to do' The starting point should be: what does the group reinforce socially during actual play?  And also what concrete examples of play would you like to see the group reinforce?

Abstract desires to 'explore ethical issues and ideas' are close to impossible to classify in terms of GNS mode; only patterns of concrete social interactions can be classified.