The Forge Archives

It seems that the primary method of explaining Narrativism is in terms of moral and/or ethical decisions. Why is that, and why isn't the style renamed to be less opaque?

 I ask because I have personal issues with the ideas of morality and ethics.  If game X focuses on whether to lose a job or go deal with some crisis, is this an ethical decision, and if so, why? Is integrity or values a better description? Does every campaign/scenario in a narrativist game need to focus on the "moral" of the story? Can't they simply have a prioritized focus on 'issues' instead?

 In the 3-sentence thread, I really like the following equivalencies:

  Gamist: how
  Simulationist: what
  Narrativist: why

 because it leaves morality and moral codes out of the discussion. These terms ("moral", "ethical", etc.) are too vague: they mean too many different things things to be a useful guideline for discussing narr typology.

 Aidan

Moral and ethical mean "too many different things?" You realize that Ron was forced to go to those very specific words because the simple use of terms like story was much more confusing. This is the refined theory.

And how is "why" not about the moral and ethical reasons that something is done? That's precisely what "why" means in that simplified context it seems to me.

Put it this way, what do you read into that "why?" How is that more precise than moral and ethical?

Moral and ethical are terms well defined by philosphers. If you mean to say that people all have very different senses of what constitutes these things, that's fine. When we say moral or ethical, we mean anything that anyone sees as a moral or ethical dilemma.

Because it's about the players decision. A Narrativist decision is about why the character made that decision. What moral or ethical ramifications were there to the decision that the player feels are important. If that's not the basis of the decision, then it's either Sim or Gamist. That is, if the player says that the character made a particular moral choice, not becaue the player thinks it's interesting, but because "that's what the character would do", that's a Sim decision.

So, not just moral and ethical, but "of moral or ethical relevance to the character".

To get quite technical, this all stems from the literary theory of some Egri guy who says that these are what make narratives (and hence the name of the mode) interesting to those experiencing the art form in question. That these sorts of questions are posed and answered. Any other exploration is Simulationism.

Why the distinction? Well, there are those for whom play is not about creating some otherworld "what if" but instead for whom play is about creating just that sort of particular drama.

If that's not interesting to you, well, it doesn't have to be. I think people get caught up in some notion that people think that narrativism is better than other forms. And then they want to know why their style of play that they see as creating story isn't narrativism. Well, what does it matter? If you're satisfied with your style of play then why do you want it to be labled something else to validate that?

More to the point, what's wrong with Simulationism? Dangit if I don't still find Sim to be just as satisfying or even moreso than Nar when I play (can you tell I've been playing too much Nar stuff lately?).

OK, that last part is probably an unwaranted rant. But the theory on narrativism is pretty sound stuff, and greatly misunderstood, I fear. Narrativism is highly specialized, and would be marginal to even discuss if it weren't for the fact that there are a good number of people who apparently really like this mode of play.

Am I helping or hindering?

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesMoral and ethical mean "too many different things?" You realize that Ron was forced to go to those very specific words because the simple use of terms like story was much more confusing. This is the refined theory.

Yeah, I know this is the refined theory. :) I'm just suggesting some more refining.

The terms "moral" and "ethical" mean too many things in this way: what defines any particular event as a moral or ethical dilemma depends entirely on the value-code of the person using one or the other word. What this means is that in discussion, what qualifies as a moral dilemma (and thus narrativist) may not qualify at all to another person with different values.

I understand that story is confusing. I'm also suggesting that moral is just as confusing.

QuoteAnd how is "why" not about the moral and ethical reasons that something is done? That's precisely what "why" means in that simplified context it seems to me.

"Why" certainly can be about moral issues, but a moral focus is not required. All literature (presumably Narrativist, even if not a game) does not depend on moral or ethical dilemmas. It can involve cultural standards and their development (a lot of mythology), the motivations behind a discovery (which may owe more to past experience than to moral dilemmas), or even complicated and byzantine chains of events that lead to some goal.  Any of these themes can be incorporated into a game, even a Narrativist one, without any recourse to behavioral codes of any kind.

In my opinion, Narrativism doesn't have anything to do with the codes (whatever they are) but rather with the reasons and motivations. I think that the division between Narrativism and the Simulationist exploration of Character are nebulous, and possibly not even important. That is, I think that Simulationism might apply only to setting or system, and that what we have called Simulation focused on Character is what we should be calling Narrativism. I say this, because the questions asked in Narrativist modes of play all ultimately depend on the character. Even if a Narr mode is about moral dilemma, it's still the Character's moral dilemma.

Quote
Put it this way, what do you read into that "why?" How is that more precise than moral and ethical?

I think I answered the first question above. Actually, thinking about it, I think I got the second too!

'Why' is more precise because it's more vague (how's that for paradox!). It doesn't restrict application, and opens our understanding to more options, always a good thing.

Understand that I'm not saying "why" is the best word, merely that it's an option that expands choice.

QuoteBecause it's about the players decision. A Narrativist decision is about why the character made that decision. What moral or ethical ramifications were there to the decision that the player feels are important. If that's not the basis of the decision, then it's either Sim or Gamist. That is, if the player says that the character made a particular moral choice, not becaue the player thinks it's interesting, but because "that's what the character would do", that's a Sim decision.

But if you're going with player's decision, that's a Stance issue, isn't it. The question then is not Narrativist or not, but Actor or Director or something else?

That aside, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether morals are involved. The essential question, quoting you, "is about why the character made that decision". It could be for a multitude of reasons that don't involve morality at all. Jonas hunts down his parents' killer out of revenge. Plain and simple. If there are moral issues,  they're issues we apply after the fact.

Imagine it like this: an artist creates a painting, who knows why. After it's in a gallery, critics discuss patterns of light and dark, use of colors and brushstroke, subject matter, and so on, none of which was an issue to the artist. Perhaps her issue was only the pattern of light, or a hidden meaning none of the critics have caught on to, or simply an exercise in technique.

Narrativist gaming is the same - to define it in terms of morality only (the current status quo) is to define the experience after the fact, divorced from the event as an entirety in itself.  If Gamism is transparently about in-the-moment drives to win, and Simulationism about in-the-moment exploration, it seems couterintuitive, and on a different logical level, to discuss Narrativism as after-the-fact moral dilemma.

Quote
So, not just moral and ethical, but "of moral or ethical relevance to the character".

I'd say the issue lies purely in the "relevance to the character", and has nothing to do with the moral codes involved.

Of course, that begs the question "Whose moral codes?" If they're the characters (ostensibly what is being discussed), then it seems to me that this falls right in that grey area between Sim-Character and Narr modes.

Quote
To get quite technical, this all stems from the literary theory of some Egri guy who says that these are what make narratives (and hence the name of the mode) interesting to those experiencing the art form in question. That these sorts of questions are posed and answered. Any other exploration is Simulationism.

That's all well and good. Kudos to the Egri guy. But why his definition? There are innumerable definitions of narrative out there, from numerous points of view. Why should we restrict it to his definition - what is it that his ideas offer that make them better than others out there, particularly in terms of game/RPG theory?

Being a comparative mythologer, I have to disagree with him. I'm not sure I can see a moral dilemma in accounts of creation, but they're still engaging.  I'm not denying that issues of values (my preferred term for discussing morals and related issues) can be powerful reasons and motivators, just that they're not the only ones, and to define the Mode by these alone introduces other problems and confusions.

Quote
Why the distinction? Well, there are those for whom play is not about creating some otherworld "what if" but instead for whom play is about creating just that sort of particular drama.

Well, yeah, of course! But the drama can center on lots of things besides "should I kill or not?" that aren't simply "what ifs".

Quote
If that's not interesting to you, well, it doesn't have to be. I think people get caught up in some notion that people think that narrativism is better than other forms. And then they want to know why their style of play that they see as creating story isn't narrativism. Well, what does it matter? If you're satisfied with your style of play then why do you want it to be labled something else to validate that?

I'm not saying that Narrativism is better, and I didn't feel that way (though I have had moments in the past, and a lot of discussion here does seem to tend that way). My issue is that the Mode can encompass lots more that just moral dilemmas. Not believing in morality myself (I go for integrity and congruency instead), maybe I can see this easier than others.

It's not that I want the way I play  to be labeled something else to validate it. It's that I see the Modes as being Universal in scope - they can apply to anyone, regardless of culture, religion, politics, etc., and using morality automatically limits that scope to only those religions or cultures that utilize morality. Further, what is narrative play (with moral dilemma) in one culture may not be narrative elsewhere. Even though the modes are somewhat relative, I think something that fluid doesn't really answer or clarify any questions for us.

Quote
More to the point, what's wrong with Simulationism? Dangit if I don't still find Sim to be just as satisfying or even moreso than Nar when I play (can you tell I've been playing too much Nar stuff lately?).

Hey, I'm a Sim guy myself! though I like my Sim with a good dose of Narr too.

Quote
OK, that last part is probably an unwaranted rant. But the theory on narrativism is pretty sound stuff, and greatly misunderstood, I fear. Narrativism is highly specialized, and would be marginal to even discuss if it weren't for the fact that there are a good number of people who apparently really like this mode of play.

Am I helping or hindering?

I may have misunderstood, I'll state that right up front. But I don't think I have. I'm not challenging the idea that moral codes are characteristic of Narrative play. I'm questioning whether they're the only characteristic features of it, and whether expanding that definition might clarify the model at all. I think it would, obviously, particularly re: Sim-character and Narr.

Aidan
Oh, and I think it's helping!

Quote from: taalynThe terms "moral" and "ethical" mean too many things in this way: what defines any particular event as a moral or ethical dilemma depends entirely on the value-code of the person using one or the other word. What this means is that in discussion, what qualifies as a moral dilemma (and thus narrativist) may not qualify at all to another person with different values.

I've explained that this doesn't matter. As long as it's engaging to the player, it counts.

QuoteIt can involve cultural standards and their development (a lot of mythology), the motivations behind a discovery (which may owe more to past experience than to moral dilemmas), or even complicated and byzantine chains of events that lead to some goal.

The first two examples are Sim, if the player doesn't have a personal investment in them from a moral or eithical standpoint. The last one is pure Sim. Narrativism doesn't mean simply "interesting". That would cover all RPGs. Narrativism is a specific subset. By your definitions I can describe how all play is Narrativist.

QuoteIn my opinion, Narrativism doesn't have anything to do with the codes (whatever they are) but rather with the reasons and motivations. I think that the division between Narrativism and the Simulationist exploration of Character are nebulous, and possibly not even important. That is, I think that Simulationism might apply only to setting or system, and that what we have called Simulation focused on Character is what we should be calling Narrativism. I say this, because the questions asked in Narrativist modes of play all ultimately depend on the character. Even if a Narr mode is about moral dilemma, it's still the Character's moral dilemma.

Have you read the original Threefold? Gamism, Simulationism, and Dramatism? This sounds like what you're describing.

Quote'Why' is more precise because it's more vague (how's that for paradox!). It doesn't restrict application, and opens our understanding to more options, always a good thing.

C'mon, what kind of logic is that. If I say an apple is an orange because it's a good thing to have more options in what an orange is, does that actually improve the definition?

Quote

QuoteBecause it's about the players decision.

But if you're going with player's decision, that's a Stance issue, isn't it. The question then is not Narrativist or not, but Actor or Director or something else?

Read the essay again. GNS is all, all, all about player decisions. It's not about anything else. To say that someone is a "Simulationist" is shorthand for saying that they prefer to make decisons in that mode. A "simulationist" game is one in which the system best supports Sim play, that being making decisions in the Sim mode.

Stance is about how the player relates to the character. Very different.

QuoteThat aside, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether morals are involved. The essential question, quoting you, "is about why the character made that decision". It could be for a multitude of reasons that don't involve morality at all. Jonas hunts down his parents' killer out of revenge. Plain and simple. If there are moral issues,  they're issues we apply after the fact.

You're not reading my context. The decisions are about the character, but what has to me morally interesting, is something to the player. The character doesn't exist, so we don't care about if it's important to him, only if it's important to the player. And what's not a moral conundrum about revenge? The "narrativist premise" in that case would be locally defined as something like, "is it better to get revenge or turn the other cheek?". As long as the player thinks that's an important question, and bases his answer off it either way, it's narrativism. One doesn't have to create a moral or ethical outcome. On the contrary, the player must simply percieve it before the act. Now, does that make it seem more common than you than previously?

QuoteNarrativist gaming is the same - to define it in terms of morality only (the current status quo) is to define the experience after the fact, divorced from the event as an entirety in itself.  If Gamism is transparently about in-the-moment drives to win, and Simulationism about in-the-moment exploration, it seems couterintuitive, and on a different logical level, to discuss Narrativism as after-the-fact moral dilemma.

Quite the contrary. It's the presence of a percieved moral dilemma before the fact that makes Narrativism possible at all. Only in that context can one make a Narrativist decision. This is why it's not possiblke to make Narrativist decisions when the GM is determining the outcome of a plot. He's making thise decisions for you. This is key.

QuoteOf course, that begs the question "Whose moral codes?" If they're the characters (ostensibly what is being discussed), then it seems to me that this falls right in that grey area between Sim-Character and Narr modes.

Not the character's at all, the player's. Now, the player may not be interested unless there's moral implications to the character. But that's coincidental. Hence it's narrativist to play a serial killer. The killer doesn't care about his victims, he's a sociopath. But the player's deciison to kill is very much a moral conundrum to the player.

QuoteThat's all well and good. Kudos to the Egri guy. But why his definition? There are innumerable definitions of narrative out there, from numerous points of view.

Actually, he's considered a top authority. But you'd have to ask a lit major about that. In any case, there's a more pertinent RPG reason.

QuoteWhy should we restrict it to his definition - what is it that his ideas offer that make them better than others out there, particularly in terms of game/RPG theory?

Because Egri's definition seems to coincide with a noted phenomenon. Namely a lot of players who say that this is how they prefer to make their decisions. As I said, if it weren't for the fact that these three modes were mutually exclusive, and that they were all three peopled, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What's the practical application? Well, there are several. But take this example. Say I have on Sim player Sam and one Nar player Norm. Whenever a decision comes up, Norm makes decisions that have litle to do with believablility, and everything to do with upping the moral ante. This bugs Sam because he notes that Norm is imposing his own feelings of what should happen on the game world. To Sam, good play is all about doing "what would happen". So these players collide. This is where GNS comes in and helps you sort it all out. And, though I've changed the names to protect the innocent, Sam and Norm both exist in one of my game groups.

If the phenomenon weren't so noted, it wouldn't have it's own category.

QuoteNot believing in morality myself (I go for integrity and congruency instead), maybe I can see this easier than others.

You dismiss morality while then mentioning two ethical standards. As long as values like this are the basis for your decisions, you're playing narrativist. They just have to touch you on that same level that a good book does.

Can you list one good book that isn't about some conflict of a moral or ethical nature? If you can, then you've discovered the Sim equivalent of Literature. And there's no reason that can't be engaging. It's just not to the Narrativist.

Quoteand using morality automatically limits that scope to only those religions or cultures that utilize morality. Further, what is narrative play (with moral dilemma) in one culture may not be narrative elsewhere.

No, no, no. It doesn't matter that you or I think it's a moral conundrum, only that the player in question does. And it doesn't have to be moral, ethical counts too. Or any value, really, so long as its not "doing it right", or "competing well". That's quite broad.

Quotere: Sim-character and Narr.

Player makes a decsion because he thinks, "Bob is a good guy, and wouldn't hurt that cat." That's Sim. If the player makes a decision because he thinks, "I like cats, so I don't want Bob to hurt that cat. Besides, it's not unrealistic for him to refrain." That's Nar.

Mike

Quote from: taalynThe terms "moral" and "ethical" mean too many things in this way: what defines any particular event as a moral or ethical dilemma depends entirely on the value-code of the person using one or the other word. What this means is that in discussion, what qualifies as a moral dilemma (and thus narrativist) may not qualify at all to another person with different values.

maybe this will help: you are using the term "moral" to mean the opposite of "immoral", and "ethical" to mean the opposite of "unethical", so when you see the phrase "moral decisions", it appears to you to be about leading a player to Do The Right Thing.

but when people here discuss Narrativism, they mean a style of play where the player has the character choose something, which could be Right or Wrong (moral or immoral.) it is players making a statement about what they feel is moral or immoral, through the characters.

it's not even necessarily a dilemma, although dilemmas can be interesting. the moral choice could be "show compassion for others, or be a greedy bastard?" and the player may choose to have the character sell out, causing harm to others, then eventually getting a come-uppance. this is the player's way of saying "in *my* moral code, greedy people deserve the same thing my character got, because greed is wrong."

Hello,

Mike wrote,

QuotePlayer makes a decsion because he thinks, "Bob is a good guy, and wouldn't hurt that cat." That's Sim. If the player makes a decision because he thinks, "I like cats, so I don't want Bob to hurt that cat. Besides, it's not unrealistic for him to refrain." That's Nar.

Sooner or later, we're all going to have to find a different way to make this distinction, because ultimately this statement isn't practically useful. The trouble is that it's literally impossible to distinguish between author-motivation and character-motivation in experiential terms, because the character is a fictional creation of the author. Furthermore, bringing in "motivation" at all (the use of "because" in Mike's phrasing) moves the discussion into intangibles.

I have to emphasize beyond any shadow of a doubt that having a character do X "because the character would do that" is consistent with Narrativist play, Gamist play, or Simulationist play. We need a hell of a lot more context before that particular instance of character-consistent play is identifiable in GNS terms.

Best,
Ron

Mike,

I think one of the major problems in this debate is that terms like moral and ethical, especially in how you use them, end up being answers, rather than questions. They can be, but it's not certain that all ethical and moral questions (and especially not all Aesthetic questions) have answers, even for a given individual. Most of what taalyn seems to be bringing up centers on cultural and personal distinctions causing a severe limitations on the scope of Narrativist play.

I have to agree with him, as you describe it, there seems to be a significant limitation, but one I don't see as being indicative of actual Narrative play. The problem, I feel, stems from the implication that the moral or ethical investigations must stem from the player. This is clearly not the case from the perspective of fiction, so why need it be so from the perspective of RPGs?

As an example, Ayn Rand and I disagree significantly on the moral and ethical elements of greed. Yet I can still find The Fountainhead engaging and interested in a way that is consistent with your descriptions of Narrativist fiction. (Albeit more than a bit polemical.)

This is the reason I prefer such terms as themes and the question "why". It leaves it open ended, permitting the reader to develop examples which will, almost certainly, fit what Narrativist decisions are intended to be.


As an aside, is there any significant reason why the only player decisions which can be Narrativist are those which directly affect the characters? I'd been led to believe quite the opposite. Thematic development is an art in itself, and it seems odd to limit this to just characters.

  -Mendel S.

Hi Aidan,

Perhaps some clarifications will help ...

1. I don't know why the issue of "codes" has been included in the discussion. I'm speaking of theme as a construct built by one or more real persons upon viewing (experiencing, etc) fictional events. The "code" of the fictional characters may be instrumental in those events, broken or violated by those events, or completely absent as such.

2. I think that your term "values" is fully acceptable. The realization (in the classic sense of the word, not in the modern sense of "comprehension") of values is what a conflict resolution achieves, regarding a fictional character. Furthermore, the viewing or experiencing of such a resolution prompts, in the mind of a viewer, one or more possible themes.

3. I also think that you may be reading "fixed answer" or "irrefutable" into my use of theme and/or morality as terms, much in the same way that Jesse Burneko has struggled with in the past. The theme that's produced by the viewer/experiencer's mind is his or her own thing; for it to be more than mere projection, the art form must present something novel or "clear" for the person's mind to work with. Two people may come up with different themes, but to do it at all, they had to wrestle with the same Premise.

4. None of the above occurs at a particularly accessible level, cognitively speaking. A person constructs a theme (which now becomes "what the story means" in their mind) and has a powerful reaction to it, whether of rejection, confirmation, or perhaps intriguing unease. The degree of necessary reflective, verbal parsing varies all the way from absent to full-bore. I could be speaking of The Brothers Karamazov or the latest episode of All My Children.

Narrativist role-playing is defined by prioritizing this process, whether slowly or quickly, subtly or unsubtly. The power or quality of such play is not judged on the specific theme or "point" being made, but rather on how engaging and arresting it was throughout the process.

By contrast, Simulationist role-playing which emphasizes Character Exploration is earmarked by shying away from this process when the opportunity arises, and by focusing on finished themes which were established during character creation rather than by decisions during Situation-based play.

Best,
Ron

Mike, if it doesn't matter whether an act is moral or ethical, but whether it's engaging to the player, then why use moral and ethical at all? How is engaging to the player a characteristic of Narr modes? To a Gamist, winning is engaging. Okay, I just answered my question, but the fact that Narrative can be defined outside of morality at all indicates to me that it's not the moral dilemma that's defining it.
I think providing examples doesn't work, because you can look at any example and describe it in any of the Modes. So I won't provide them any more, and I'll try to keep my discussion at a metagame level.

I can't find the original Threefold, but I suck at using the search engine here. What I did see basically came down saying that Dramatism is merely a weak form of Narrativism.

As to my paradox definition thingy, I'm saying that the definition got collapsed to a small point that I don't think works, and I'm suggesting we expand the definition again, to find a better point to collapse on.

QuoteAnd what's not a moral conundrum about revenge? The "narrativist premise" in that case would be locally defined as something like, "is it better to get revenge or turn the other cheek?". As long as the player thinks that's an important question, and bases his answer off it either way, it's narrativism.

 And if that's not the issue at all? If I don't care whether revenge is moral or not, but am interested in why the character takes revenge. Are you saying that Sim because it's not morally driven? It may be, but I don't think so - it is about the Theme and it's development, even if that theme is not about moral codes.

Quote

QuoteNarrativism as after-the-fact moral dilemma.

Quite the contrary. It's the presence of a percieved moral dilemma before the fact that makes Narrativism possible at all. Only in that context can one make a Narrativist decision. This is why it's not possiblke to make Narrativist decisions when the GM is determining the outcome of a plot. He's making thise decisions for you. This is key.

But does before-the-fact moral consideration actually happen? Certainly"why" is an issue, and for you at least, morality plays an important part in that why, but does anyone go with a choice simply because it's a moral conundrum? I don't think I've explained this point well - I may have to think and rephrase later.

I disagree that Narr styles of play can't exist in a GM-defined plot outcome. The question is not about what actually happens, but why the player makes the decisions they do. It doesn't matter if the outcome of the plot is decided - 1) players always screw with the GMs plans (a well known gamer aphorism), 2) there are still choices to be made (otherwise it's simply railroading), and how and why the player decides what they do is what can potentially make it Narrativist.

If the player's goal is winning, however they define it, it's Gamism. Morality  can be an issue here too, if the player defines moral behavior as a condition of winning. If the player's goal is exploration (of setting or whatever), it's Sim. Morality can be an issue here too - if the moral dilemma allows the player to explore the setting/rules/character more fully. If the player decides based on the story being created, it's Narr. Morality has it's place here.

The point is that morality is so intensely personal (what moral dilemmas engage a player is unique to the player, and rather than defining Narr, it simply defines a facet of the context of the setting/game), using it as a buzzword for defining Narr creates problems. If you folks arguing for a moral definition are right, then there are more Modes than we've been discussing, and the GNS issues apply to a different logical level than is being argued.

As to distinction between player's vs. character's moral codes - I don't see the distinction so clearly as you, Mike. In both cases, morality can be used to forward the story (Narr). But they can also be used to forward winning (Gamism) or exploration (Sim). In terms of the serial killer, it's not clearly Narr to me. The player who plays a seial killer in order to rack up huge body count (a condition of winning to the player) - that's gamism. If they play it out of a desire to see what being a serial killer is like - that's Sim. If they do it because of the effects on the story - that's Narr.

Approaching Narr via the moral conundrum is simply another aspect of exploration of character, as I see it. That would make it Sim. But as I hope I've demonstrated, nothing is so clear cut. Examples don't work, and the line between Narr and Sim(Char) is still blurry.

Egri: top authority in Lit. But what about top authorities in Mythology, or Religious Studies, or Anthropology? Any of those fields would apply just as well to the matter at hand. For me, seeing a game as mythmaking of a sort, the Mythologers' definitions are just as important as some Lit guy's.
I'm not contradicting the idea of Narr Modes of play (which is what you seem to think I am saying). I agree that there is such a thing. I just disagree that defining it by moral dilemmas is the best way to do so.

I don't see Norm (in your example from RL) as necessarily upping moral ante (though he may do that - I don't know him, I'm not there). Instead, it could be that he's upping the intensity by challenging values and introducing themes which make for good stories.

If you have good pointers to the 'story' argument in GNS, I'd love to see them. As I said, my and the search engine don't get along very well. I'd like to see why story was dropped.

QuoteYou dismiss morality while then mentioning two ethical standards.

Ooh, no that's not true. I might as well answer Ron's question of why I bring up codes here too. Morality (and ethics) both depend on a code. Morals are the code, and ethics are how the code is used and what effect the code has on the ultimate goal (being a good person, salvation, release from Samsara, etc.). For example, the 10 Commandments define requirements for entry into Heaven. Buddhist ideas about Maya and desire (the morals) define how a person should live (ethics) as well as what is required to escape the wheel of rebirth (ethics and the salvatory drive).

So, when you define Narrativism in terms of morality, you're actually basing a description of player choice-making procedures on a huge set of assumptions that may or may not apply to the player at all. In particular, me! :) Values and morals are not the same - values aren't codified, morality is. If my values are integrity and congruency, violations of the values aren't "sin", and don't lead me down a path of being a bad person, or exile me from salvation of some kind. This is all intensely personal, and probably not relevant here, except to the degree that it indicates why I think using moral dilemma as the defining feature (or keyword) of Narrativism isn't appropriate.

So if it's the player that defines what is a moral dilemma, then it seems that rephrasing the keyword to account for that is a good idea, since I don't have moral dilemmas and can still play Narrativistically. Value seems to be an agreed upon, culturally neutral term - I say go with that.

I don't get your cat analogy. Here are some reasons for not hurting the cat, and what i think they are. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Bob values animals, and wouldn't hurt the cat - Narr

I like cats, so Bob won't hurt them, because I wouldn't play a character that would hurt a cat - Sim(Char)

I like cats, so Bob won't hurt them because I don't want him to, whether he would normally or not - Narr

Bob won't hurt cats because then he can score with the chicks - Gamist

Do you see what I mean when I see plenty of blurring aroung the lines between Sim(Char) and Narr?

Aidan

Quote from: talysmanmaybe this will help: you are using the term "moral" to mean the opposite of "immoral", and "ethical" to mean the opposite of "unethical", so when you see the phrase "moral decisions", it appears to you to be about leading a player to Do The Right Thing.

Not true. A moral dilemma is about two events whose moral coding are both explicit and contradictory. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Honor thy parents" when your parents are serial killers, as an extreme example. I object to the codes implied (see above), not to "doing the right thing", which is even vaguer. Right for whom? In what context? Judging right and wrong introduces dilemma, and I don't play that.

Quotebut when people here discuss Narrativism, they mean a style of play where the player has the character choose something, which could be Right or Wrong (moral or immoral.) it is players making a statement about what they feel is moral or immoral, through the characters.

it's not even necessarily a dilemma, although dilemmas can be interesting. the moral choice could be "show compassion for others, or be a greedy bastard?" and the player may choose to have the character sell out, causing harm to others, then eventually getting a come-uppance. this is the player's way of saying "in *my* moral code, greedy people deserve the same thing my character got, because greed is wrong."

See, how can I argue this when everyone automatically goes to issues of right and wrong? I'm saying that the Mode is about Values, which have nothing to do with right or wrong except in the mind of a player who plays that game. If greedy is automatically wrong (and you went there), then that's biased to a particular code. If you say instead Values, then my greedy character can be totally appropriate without resorting to right or wrong. Greedy player sells out. He wins! (in a gamist perspective).  Afterwards, he sells out someone else, and the player is obviously exploring what greed is like, and what it's consequences are (Sim).

The Narr player with a greedy character, on the other hand, might make choices based on why he's greedy (having stuff means safety, having tools to utilize when in danger). If he gets a come-uppance, this is usually more likely to be the result of GM or other players enforcing their ideas of what is right and moral and good on the greedy character. His values (greed) are judged by other players - but for the player interested in exploring this issue ("why are people greedy, and why do people think less of you if you are?" Not a moral dilemma) - is this Sim or Narr, and why?

Aidan

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Aidan,

Perhaps some clarifications will help ...

They did, Ron, Thanks. I reread the GNS FAQ-thingy (that's a technical term, you know), and it seems I'm focusing on one particular sentence (emphasis mine):

QuoteNarrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. 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 can agree with everything else you (in particular) have said, here or in the article, with the exception of that sentence. I don't think it's the key to the definition - it's merely one kind of Narrativism.

QuoteNarrativist role-playing is defined by prioritizing this process, whether slowly or quickly, subtly or unsubtly. The power or quality of such play is not judged on the specific theme or "point" being made, but rather on how engaging and arresting it was throughout the process.

By contrast, Simulationist role-playing which emphasizes Character Exploration is earmarked by shying away from this process when the opportunity arises, and by focusing on finished themes which were established during character creation rather than by decisions during Situation-based play.

How can themes established at character creation be distinguished from game themes? It seems to me that whether opportunities for elaborating on character themes are presented in game or not, they'd still be a factor in how the player decides their course of action, and thus still Narrativist priorities.

Aidan

Hi Aidan,

After reading my post above, now's a perfect time to review my Simulationist essay, specifically the section called "Oh shit! I'm playing Narrativist!" and the contrast among some game designs there. (The designs are of course playing proxy for the actual play consistent with them, as usual.)

You wrote,

QuoteHow can themes established at character creation be distinguished from game themes?

Um, first of all, I never said "game themes." I identified a process of creating a theme out of the raw material of Premise and Situations of play, using the System.

Since we're talking about a process which is only possible during play itself, that, I think, distinguishes it from a theme (all done, finito) that is established on paper, prior to play.

Think of Premise as an unstable, intriguing, values-charged issue which a fictional situation has invoked. At this point, the situation is not resolved. The emotional attention is focused and ready. Upon resolution, wham-bo, a Theme gets constructed on the spot. Its content relies wholly on (a) the nature and circumstances of the resolution, which must involve character decisions; and (b) the actual values of the real person constructing the Theme.

Narrativist play absolutely relies upon establishing such a Premise and upon hitting those decision/resolution points during play. That is why its tagline is Story Now, just as the one for Gamism is Step On Up and the one for Simulationism is The Right to Dream. However, I must emphasize the "Now," rather the "Story." That's the key element.

Final points:

1. Your use of "values-charged" and my use of "moral and ethical" are synonymous. I'd rather not get into a tangle about who's right in that regard, but will concede to "values" in gentlemanly fashion.

2. All of the above stuff about Narrativism applies to Gamist play if you switch out the "issues/values" for "competence-based challenge to esteem." The Gamist essay is almost out, I swear, just waiting on a couple more readers' comments.

3. In role-playing, the people involved are simultaneously author and audience, unlike theater, movies, novels, etc. Therefore when I talk about a person "constructing" a theme, I am not talking only about the person who's playing the character - I'm talking about everyone who's participating in play.

Best,
Ron

{edited to note that a lot of this crosses with Ron's post}

QuoteI can't find the original Threefold, but I suck at using the search engine here. What I did see basically came down saying that Dramatism is merely a weak form of Narrativism.

Basically threefold says that there are three "goals" in play. Winning, Versimilitude, and Story. The problem with this model is that all play creates something that someone is willing to call story. Did we kill the Dragon and get 1000 EXP? That's story according to some people.

QuoteBut does before-the-fact moral consideration actually happen? Certainly"why" is an issue, and for you at least, morality plays an important part in that why, but does anyone go with a choice simply because it's a moral conundrum?

No, it's a decision made in the context of that moral conundrum (or ethical dilemma, or otherwise personally emotionally engaging criteria) that takes that circumstance into consideration that makes it Narrativist. In fact, for it to be a real decision, the circumstances can't prejudice the player unduly either way. That is, if there's no real decision to be made, then Narrativism cannot happen. It's the ability to make that choice (or at least feel that one has made the choice) that is key.

QuoteI disagree that Narr styles of play can't exist in a GM-defined plot outcome. The question is not about what actually happens, but why the player makes the decisions they do. It doesn't matter if the outcome of the plot is decided - 1) players always screw with the GMs plans (a well known gamer aphorism), 2) there are still choices to be made (otherwise it's simply railroading), and how and why the player decides what they do is what can potentially make it Narrativist.

"Impossible Thing" in action. Number one allows narrativism because, well, the GM doesn't really have control, right? Number two is narrativist if there isn't control bordering on railroading going on. It's Sim if there is. Basically that's all I've said, that Narrativism can't happen in a railroaded game. See the thread on that term for a better understanding of what I'm saying here. Essentially railroading is dysfunctional, but some players want some level of GM control. This level of control is a spectrum. But at some point when a decision becomes apparent, either the player will have real power, or he won't. If he doesn't (or at least doesn't feel that he has power) then Narrativism can't happen. Or dysfunction occurs.

QuoteIf the player's goal is winning, however they define it, it's Gamism. Morality  can be an issue here too, if the player defines moral behavior as a condition of winning. If the player's goal is exploration (of setting or whatever), it's Sim. Morality can be an issue here too - if the moral dilemma allows the player to explore the setting/rules/character more fully.

Right, The modes of play are about prioritizing one thing over another. Narrativism is about prioritizing making decisions based on their moral, ethical, yadda, yadda.

QuoteIf the player decides based on the story being created, it's Narr.

This is precisely why we don't use story. See, if a player makes a bunch of decisions based on something like "maintaining a simulation of the game world", then he may get some interesting series of events. But it's precisely this definition of story, and way of creating it, that's unsatisfying to the player craving Narrativism. He wants to know that he has had a hand in authoring (don't confuse with the stance) the outcome of the story in terms of things that are important to the player himself (as long as those things aren't Gamist or Sim driven).

QuoteIf you folks arguing for a moral definition are right, then there are more Modes than we've been discussing, and the GNS issues apply to a different logical level than is being argued.

How does this stipulation follow?

QuoteAs to distinction between player's vs. character's moral codes - I don't see the distinction so clearly as you, Mike. In both cases, morality can be used to forward the story (Narr). But they can also be used to forward winning (Gamism) or exploration (Sim).

Uh, no. Only prioritizing "winning" in decision making makes a decision makes it Gamist, the context does not matter. Only prioritizing Exploration over anything else makes it Sim, the context does not matter. So, yes, "moral" elements can exist. The player just can't be making his decision based on them for the decision to be other than Nar. The presence of these elements does not eliminate the possibility of other sorts of play. They only enable it.

QuoteIn terms of the serial killer, it's not clearly Narr to me. The player who plays a seial killer in order to rack up huge body count (a condition of winning to the player) - that's gamism. If they play it out of a desire to see what being a serial killer is like - that's Sim. If they do it because of the effects on the story - that's Narr.

No, that's not mutually exclusive unless you use Ron's old definition for Story. Which amounts to a series of events that are relevant to the player in terms of "morals" et al. Do you see the problem with the older definition? Because everyone want's "Story" to be what they do, it means nothing in describing play behavior. It's only once we define that third goal as personal player investment that comes from certain conditions, does it become mutually exclusive.

QuoteFor me, seeing a game as mythmaking of a sort, the Mythologers' definitions are just as important as some Lit guy's.

This is a straw man. It's not Egri that's important. It's that the definition fits. The definition is actually radically altered from Egri, and is all Ron's.

QuoteI don't see Norm (in your example from RL) as necessarily upping moral ante (though he may do that - I don't know him, I'm not there). Instead, it could be that he's upping the intensity by challenging values and introducing themes which make for good stories.

You did see that Ron has said that Values work just fine for him? Me too. As we see it this is exactly the sort of thing that Egri is talking about. By our definitions of the terms in question (moral, ethical), you're describing the same things.

The problem is that you are describing other elements that may not be Nar using your description. Exploring what a character might do is only Narrativist if the Values you mention are being prioritized. If instead the player's priority is just to "play out the character" or something, and the player's Values are not the priority, then it's not Nar.

QuoteIf you have good pointers to the 'story' argument in GNS, I'd love to see them.

Try threads that involve Marco. He's probably most responsible for getting Ron to change his mind by arguing that Sim play (by our definition) produces Story (by his definition). Hopefully some of the above clarifies.

QuoteValue seems to be an agreed upon, culturally neutral term - I say go with that.

Cool.

QuoteBob values animals, and wouldn't hurt the cat - Narr

And this is why I'm still worried. This is Sim unless the player too feels the value in question. It's all about player values. The character's values only matter in terms of whether the player's values are touched by the characters. Hence the sociopath example.

QuoteI like cats, so Bob won't hurt them, because I wouldn't play a character that would hurt a cat - Sim(Char)

Sounds like a player value to me. That's Nar.

QuoteI like cats, so Bob won't hurt them because I don't want him to, whether he would normally or not - Narr

Very Nar (pawn stance as well).

QuoteBob won't hurt cats because then he can score with the chicks - Gamist

Of course Gamist. He's making winning the priority. This might coincide with his personal values, but unless that's the primary reason he did it, it's Gamist.

QuoteDo you see what I mean when I see plenty of blurring aroung the lines between Sim(Char) and Narr?

Nope. :-)
I can't even see what criteria you're using.

Mike

You know, Mike, when I reread my own examples about Bob and the cat, before I read your reply, I realized I got them exactly backwards. Oops.

I think I understand what Narr is now, and I'll just have to remember that when someone says "moral dilemma", I need to insert "player's values in contention" or somesuch. I guess a lot of this comes down to the fact that I really dislike the whole morality issue. I just need to get over it and recognize that something different is meant, though no one has proposed a better, clearer way to explain what it meant by "moral dilemma".

I see what you mean by Sim(Char) and Narr being different now too. I've got that the difference is in character values vs. player values.

Thanks to you too Ron - I think I'm finally clear on this all.

Aidan

Yay!

This has been an excellent helpful thread for purposes of notes for my Narrativism essay.

Best,
Ron