Narrativism IS about story!!

[Caldis]

Have you guys read Ron's actual Narrativism essay? Cos I'm not seeing it here.

If you are addressing me then yes indeed I have, and I have no illusions that what I have said is anything ground breaking.  I'm at that stage he mentions in the essay where I have to put the theory into my own words and that's what I've done here.

As for Nar being about story, I think you're right on target Caldis. I think, instead of saying Nar is about story, we say Nar is about 'fill in technical definition of story'. Like theme, story could be interpreted from a transcript. Addressing/prioritizing story in play is Nar.

Missed this earlier but had to comment.  I think this is the base of why I phrased my post as I did, and my choice of title.  We use the "technical definition of story" instead of the word story and we lose many people.  They get hung up on words like premise and theme and dont see that it is saying the same thing but in a way designed to avoid the pit traps of the word story.

I'm not suggesting that the theory should be rewritten so that people who have a hard time can graps I'm simply saying that it's understandable for people who do get it to express narrativism as trying to create story.

[Paganini]

Have you guys read Ron's actual Narrativism essay? Cos I'm not seeing it here.

If you are addressing me then yes indeed I have, and I have no illusions that what I have said is anything ground breaking.  I'm at that stage he mentions in the essay where I have to put the theory into my own words and that's what I've done here.

Not just you Caldis, but also others, especially Raven who is a long time buddy of mine, and who should know better. :)

[Jason Lee]

Hey Caldis,

Have you seen this thread: Is this really Nar?.  I love to point out this thread is response to, "What's the difference between Sim and Nar?".  Attitudes have evolved since then, but it's my personal epiphany thread about Nar (full of me flopping around, trying to figure things out).

I think you're correct, so maybe you don't need the thread, but...

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Nathan, you went and found the very piece of the essay I was planning on quoting as I read the first few posts on the thread. So I don't have to!

Caldis, this is interesting stuff. I hope you won't feel pushed if I try to bring what you've said already into the form of a dialogue between us.

First, to paraphrase that quote from the essay:

- Any role-playing might produce a story.
- Plenty of different approaches will produce a story (e.g. Illusionism).
- Narrativist play will produce a story, and a specific process of doing so defines this mode of play.

So just to forestall misunderstanding on anyone else's part (because I think you get this), sure, Narrativist play is "about story." But that's not what defines it. What defines it is a process of play which (a) is about story yet (b) cannot include a story as a starting or externally-imposed feature.

I think that the most important line in my essay about Egri's work is this one:

bear in mind that he is discussing the process of writing, not an existing playscript or a performance

Egri is not saying that stories have Premises. In fact, I think he would say "absolutely not." He is saying that conceiving of a Premise is what makes creating a story possible. When he says "Premise is a synopsis of your play," he is not talking about a finished play, he is talking about the one that is amorphously waving its 'pods in your head, and which needs help.

I will go farther and present my paraphrase of his ideas: "People can write stories without articulating Premise. But they cannot write stories without conceiving of those Premises at some level. Some people do this without ever articulating the Premises, and more power to them - the Premise and resultant theme are communicated from 'author gut' to 'audience gut' with no verbal intermediary, just raw 'character does stuff.' But others get stuck when creating stories because they hare off into weird bogus processes that don't help them. If you're in that position, and given that you're trying to verbalize something that will help you out of your rut, then Premise is it."

Hence, Narrativist play = addressing Premise. It doesn't matter when you got fired up about the Premise (before, early-during, after-during play), and it doesn't matter whether you articulate/verbalize it (soon, later, afterwards, never). What does matter is that some aspect of that Premise is being communicated among one another at the table, perhaps just in terms of pure emotional attention and reinforcement as the character does stuff. When that does happen, it's absolutely recognizable.

Anyway, those are the points that seem to me to be the most relevant to your "articulating it myself" process. Does that help at all?

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Nathan, I don't see what you're meaning...as far as I'm aware, what I've said here in the thread is spot-on Narrativism. Heck, I'm just nodding my head in regards to what Ron says in his post -- and particularly as a response to Caldis' question about what I was saying in stating the (apparent) contradiction of a player knowingly addressing an issue as the point of decision in play and yet not consciously knowing what that issue is. So, I'm not sure where you think my mistake is...clarify?

Also, Caldis -- sorry, we did go around in a circle, I misread what your meaning was. My apologies!

[Paganini]

Hey Raven,

Mostly it seemed to me that you were muddying the waters with this:

To be Narrativist requires making decisions in light of consciously Exploring the issues embedded in play, not just an after-effect of decisions. That is, one makes the decision in the full knowledge that one is doing so specifically for no other reason than to comment upon that issue.

Especially given that you seemed to contradict it in your second post:

Regardless of this (and you may or may not get this) the premise does not need to be consciously stated in order to be addressed as the point of decision.

The "issues imbedded in play" that you refer to in the first part... that's premise! So, I agree with the second part. You don't have to sit down and decide "well, hey, this game is gonna be about whether or not family is more important than religion" in order to produce theme based on that concept.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan and Raven,

Can you guys sort of back off a little, in this thread? Just until Caldis and I manage to have a direct exchange.

This isn't a moderator post, merely a request from me-fellow-poster.

Best,
Ron

[Caldis]

Hiya,

Nathan, you went and found the very piece of the essay I was planning on quoting as I read the first few posts on the thread. So I don't have to!

Caldis, this is interesting stuff. I hope you won't feel pushed if I try to bring what you've said already into the form of a dialogue between us.

First, to paraphrase that quote from the essay:

- Any role-playing might produce a story.
- Plenty of different approaches will produce a story (e.g. Illusionism).
- Narrativist play will produce a story, and a specific process of doing so defines this mode of play.

So just to forestall misunderstanding on anyone else's part (because I think you get this), sure, Narrativist play is "about story." But that's not what defines it. What defines it is a process of play which (a) is about story yet (b) cannot include a story as a starting or externally-imposed feature.

Right, it's about the process of creating a story not of telling one that already exists.   The difference is the same as that of putting on a play compared to writing it, you are not acting on the script you are deciding what goes into the script.  

Following on the same lines it's not a attempt to write a list of events that happened, "A day in the life of a Chicago Cop" as Ian put it earlier, but an attempt to choose events that should occur during that day in order to make a point, address a premise.

Furthermore it means that everyone at the table is trying to create story.  It is not narrativism if the GM is trying to create story by forcing player actions into situations that prove his points.  

Egri is not saying that stories have Premises. In fact, I think he would say "absolutely not." He is saying that conceiving of a Premise is what makes creating a story possible. When he says "Premise is a synopsis of your play," he is not talking about a finished play, he is talking about the one that is amorphously waving its 'pods in your head, and which needs help.  

Right it's the idea stuck in your head that needs to be expressed, even if not directly.  Be it a cool character concept that has something to say about human existance or a comment on the state of society, it's something that you want to get out.

I will go farther and present my paraphrase of his ideas: "People can write stories without articulating Premise. But they cannot write stories without conceiving of those Premises at some level. Some people do this without ever articulating the Premises, and more power to them - the Premise and resultant theme are communicated from 'author gut' to 'audience gut' with no verbal intermediary, just raw 'character does stuff.' But others get stuck when creating stories because they hare off into weird bogus processes that don't help them. If you're in that position, and given that you're trying to verbalize something that will help you out of your rut, then Premise is it."

This really speaks to me, especially the part about veering off into bogus processes.  Wanting to create story is natural, knowing how to do it is not.  So someone who wants to create story but is unsure of how trys things like throwing in extra colour, crafting intricate plotlines, trying to make really interesting characters and settings, yet they never fully succeed in achieving their desired affect because they dont relate back to what's important, the premise.

It really clarifies another statement I've seen you make on a few occasions, something along the lines of most people are gamist or narrativist very few are simulationist but many think they are.   I see a lot of what is taken as simulationism as attempts to create story that dont get around to the point.  They dont recognize the premise 'waving it's pod in your head' as you say and so they confuse the trappings of story or the exploratory elements for what story is about.

Hence, Narrativist play = addressing Premise. It doesn't matter when you got fired up about the Premise (before, early-during, after-during play), and it doesn't matter whether you articulate/verbalize it (soon, later, afterwards, never). What does matter is that some aspect of that Premise is being communicated among one another at the table, perhaps just in terms of pure emotional attention and reinforcement as the character does stuff. When that does happen, it's absolutely recognizable.

Right, and it because it's a group activity everyone is bringing their own premises to the table.  They may all be different comments on the same premise or they may each have a seperate premise, which the gm may hope to tie into a central premise.  This part I'm a little shaky on yet, does what I've stated sound right?

Anyway, those are the points that seem to me to be the most relevant to your "articulating it myself" process. Does that help at all?

Best,
Ron

Wow sure does, some of these points are hard shots to the gut that kind a make you suck it right in.  

Thanks

p.s.

Thanks also to Cruciel the 'Is this really Nar?'  thread is a great read with lots of ideas flying around.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Right, and it because it's a group activity everyone is bringing their own premises to the table. They may all be different comments on the same premise or they may each have a seperate premise, which the gm may hope to tie into a central premise. This part I'm a little shaky on yet, does what I've stated sound right?

Almost a slam dunk. The way I see it is that everyone arrives willing to get a Premise going (again, without necessarily having it pre-formed or "ready" yet), and the key is not "tying it together" in some GM-y way, but rather simply for everyone to get simultaneously interested in one another's thing. Often that involves a convergence of Premise-creation, but that can still be fairly diverse.

It looks like we're getting there! Raven, Nathan, thanks for giving some space.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

No problem! Looks like this thread has a happey ending. :)