The Forge Archives

Hello,

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

John, this is me, rolling my eyes.

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

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

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

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

... tells us precisely nothing about GNS goals. The most it can tell us is perhaps a bit about Stances, and nothing too definite even then. Bluntly, you give no information that permits any inferences about GNS, unless it's dragged out of you by intensive dialogue. In the Water Uphill thread, Mike did that.

In the Shadows and Fog thread, here are the difficulties you've imposed to such a dialogue.

"Change" in the character is a red herring.

"What my character feels" is a red herring.

"Plot" is a red herring.

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

Confronted with all of these, my response is a shrug. I simply don't have time to clear out the underbrush for someone who's assiduously fertilizing it at every opportunity.

Best,
Ron

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

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

Mike

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

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

- Walt

Hi Walt,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Walt,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron?
I had the same question as Walt and saw your stated problem 1.

As for your second question, isn't that were "conscious" or "aware" could come into play?

(or would you find players saying they were consciously engaged in addressing the question meaningless to the determination even if you couldn't be sure you weren't projecting otherwise?)

Or am I misreading entirely?

-Marco

Hi Marco,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Marco,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Well, sure--the "what is the nature of consciousness" debate has raged forever--but my question was more aiming towards this:

To determine whether or not you thought there was 'Narrativist play' (which, as your point 1 points out is about as meaningless as 'consciousnes' or 'aware' if you get right down to it) would you be able to make that determination for yourself by asking the players questions?

Or would you *have* to have been at the table itself?

-Marco

Hey Marco,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

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

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

Seemed out of line with this:

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

Which, if I were John, and I'd gone "well, my say-so was good enough last time" I might've been a bit surprised at your rolly-eyes.

-Marco

Hi Marco,

I'll stand by my critique.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

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

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

Cool! Thanks, Marco.

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

Ron,

I completely agree in every respect with your point 1.

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

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

- Walt

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

Well, let me clarify this a little.  What I said about "character" was just a definition of the term within the context of dramatic theory.  I don't think that says a whole lot about the particular campaign.  All RPG play and in fact all narrative can be analyzed in dramatic terms, regardless of whether it is Gamist or Simulationist or Narrativist.  Say, if a character goes through a dungeon killing and looting, that has dramatic meaning.  John Tynes made his meta-RPG "Power Kill" to illustrate this.   I could do an analysis of a video game -- for example, a feminist analysis of Tomb Raider (the game, not the movie) -- and I think it might have some interesting things to say.  

As you say, being aware of what one is doing isn't relevant.  A character can address a theme even if the player isn't aware of this.   In my Vinland campaign, I highlighted this at one point using an ex-PC.  Ken was playing a Lagakin shaman named Kitgari, and his focus was on overcoming what he perceived as challenge.  He relied on his totem spirit Wolf as a power and a guide.  He left the campaign at one point.  Later, Kitgari made a reappearance.  Rather than contradicting Ken's portrayal, though, I did my best to keep it.  From the new perspective of having him not be a PC, though, the dangerous fanaticism of his spirit belief was more apparent.  

On the one hand, this just reinforces the point that self-awareness isn't necessary.  On the other hand, it suggests that all play has dramatic character and meaning.  What varies isn't the existance of character and theme, but rather how aware the participants are of it.  

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

Really, Mike didn't force me to self-observe there -- I had already done a fair bit of thinking about Water-Uphill.  It's just that no one asked me what my concept of the term "character" was.  Like a lot of people, I think, I didn't realize that it was important for determining the GNS classification of that campaign.  My understanding of the term is mostly from drama theory at this point (theater and to some degree film).  Also, I've been reading some broader stuff on narrative theory recently.