Narrativism as spice

[coxcomb]

After reading through the essays and doing many months worth of thinking, I am feeling like I have a fairly clear understanding of my own creative agenda.

Thing is, it's complicated. As, I'm sure, are the needs of most folks.

What trips me up is this: I want and need to address premise. Without thematic meat to chew on, I find play a bit hollow. But after trying to digest the concept of "driving bangs", I find that notion to be more than I want.

I want play in which a story is built and developed, and at the climax of the story (from my character's point of view) I want to address premise. I don't want every scene to be framed around a premise-related issue.

Maybe I totally misunderstand Ron's use of the term "bang". But it seems to me that the play that I enjoy the most is Sim with Nar as spice (or, more appropriately, salt): I don't want the game without the Nar, but the Nar by itself is too much for my senses.

Am I making sense? Are there other folks who have this preference? Am I hugely off the mark?

[Mike Holmes]

I think you have the wrong view of "bang driven" play. Bangs aren't for every scene. That would just be impractical. Bangs are for when the players seem to not have an idea of what sort of trouble to get into. Really, it's probably not too different than what you're used to.

That is, I think people get the impression that every scene is framed like a game of Scrupples. "Your character sees that the house is on fire, who does he save, the dog or the cat?"

That's just not how it is at all. The action does rise to a climax in this sort of play, it's just that when the climax arrives is a matter of the character issues, and how the players play it out.

Bangs are just a technique, and don't represent the totality of narrativist play. As long as, overall, your play is headed towards addressing character issues - even if it only occurs in one scene with the rest being build up - that's definitely narrativist play.

I wish more people would lurk on my HQ game to see just how "normal" it really is.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Mike's got it, but I'm going to try to say it even more strongly:

Bangs are a technique, not a diagnostic feature. It is incorrect, for instance, to say, "You're not playing Narrativist, because you're not using Bangs."

Also, driving with Bangs is yet another technique, suited best for extremely fast-paced and rapidly-shifting play. It fits well with pulp sword-and-sorcery, as well as episodic pop/hip adventure like Cowboy Bebop.

The point is not to mix up techniques with Creative Agendas. It is perfectly reasonable to say, "I like to play Narrativist, but I'm not big on Bangs - especially a rapid slew of them." In fact, it is perfectly all right for the GM to back off on Bangs and simply let them arise from the players' own actions toward (e.g.) NPCs. Such play may have a drifting, perhaps eery feel; I like to think of the GM's input as the bass line in much of Pink Floyd's music.

I think that John Kim has developed some subtle and useful techniques as alternatives to Bangs, especially GM-provided ones. Maybe you'd find some similarities to your preferred approach in his Actual Play threads.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

I think that John Kim has developed some subtle and useful techniques as alternatives to Bangs, especially GM-provided ones. Maybe you'd find some similarities to your preferred approach in his Actual Play threads.

I don't really have a good, coherent talk on techniques -- though I should, given all the talk that I do.  I would suggest starting with the old thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6178">"Plotless but Background-based Games" from last April.  I'm working on a rewrite/expansion of these ideas as an essay.