Removing the Incentive for Narrativism

[Jason Lee]

This is a followup/companion thread to Removing the Incentive for Gamism

This time I'd like to look a how one might fail to support to Nar.  This one is much harder for me.  The only things that have occurred to me are:

• Not providing character differentiation.  ("You all get a thief.  His name is Bob and he's evil.")
• Failure to provide variations in cost.  ("You have only two options, complete success and utter failure.")

Others?  Thoughts?

DISCLAIMERS:

Like the other thread, I don't mean actively discourage/punish/control Nar, I mean not provide the necessary opportunities.  Also like the other thread, I think absolute elimination of Nar is only a theoretical construct.  And one more, of course people can still play Nar no matter what the system is.

[Caldis]

Totally random character generation would be the first step followed by personality mechanics that force the player to roll to see what action the character will take.  

Removing choice for the player in character creation gives them little to no say in deciding what premise they will try to address, and allowing mechanics to decide how the character reacts to situations removes any ability to address whatever premise has come up.

[sirogit]

I would disagree that later two options would nessecarily degrade Narrativist potential.

In that I have expiereinced a few good narrativist con games, I'd say it isn't nessecary to pick the character or resulting premise you want to address.

Also, My Life With Master does an excellant narrativist game with the scipted character actions that it has.

On the first two: I don't see where character differention is nessecary for narrativism. I mean, you could run a good Univeralis game I'd imagine with just one protagonist that everyone controls.

But differences in cost? Well, I myself simplify alot of narrativists conflicts into "What's more important to you? A or B?" So I'd say it's extremely important. Would others differ?

[sirogit]

I would disagree that later two options would nessecarily degrade Narrativist potential.

In that I have expiereinced a few good narrativist con games, I'd say it isn't nessecary to pick the character or resulting premise you want to address.

Also, My Life With Master does an excellant narrativist game with the scipted character actions that it has.

On the first two: I don't see where character differention is nessecary for narrativism. I mean, you could run a good Univeralis game I'd imagine with just one protagonist that everyone controls.

But differences in cost? Well, I myself simplify alot of narrativists conflicts into "What's more important to you? A or B?" So I'd say it's extremely important. Would others differ?[/code]

[Bankuei]

Hi Jason,

I think both of your suggestions are mistaking smaller issues for what is really necessary for Nar play.  Nar play is built on two pillars:

-Player input(beyond Color)
-Addressing Premise

The easiest, and most common method of eliminating Nar play is to eliminate player input, such as Illusionist play.  Without that, addressing Premise cannot even happen.  In fact, I'd go as far as to say that you can't have player input AND negate the possibility of addressing Premise, which is why it pops up all the time.

Chris

[Jason Lee]

I think both of your suggestions are mistaking smaller issues for what is really necessary for Nar play.  Nar play is built on two pillars:

-Player input(beyond Color)
-Addressing Premise

The easiest, and most common method of eliminating Nar play is to eliminate player input, such as Illusionist play.  Without that, addressing Premise cannot even happen.  In fact, I'd go as far as to say that you can't have player input AND negate the possibility of addressing Premise, which is why it pops up all the time.

Hmmm... this is even harder than I thought.

If I'm looking for how to make Nar unappealing without using forceful (active discouragement) methods, then I don't see how to make player input unappealing without just taking it away.  Illusionism and Caldis' suggestion of controlling personality mechanics I think are both valid, but they're also both forceful.

(BTW - I did read and acknowledge all the posts in this thread.  I'm just so stumped I can't think of much to say in return.)

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't think methods to discourage narrativism are necessary for the most part. Narrativism requires the players to use their creativity, and for the most part, people need to be encouraged to use it and put it into effect. Just don't encourage it, and you'll have it for the most part.

[clehrich]

I think both of your suggestions are mistaking smaller issues for what is really necessary for Nar play.  Nar play is built on two pillars:

-Player input(beyond Color)
-Addressing Premise

The second is easy enough to break.  All that is necessary is to provide an apparent Premise and then bait-and-switch.  Every time someone starts addressing Premise, shift the ground such that the Premise addressed is invalid.  If you simply don't provide any Premise, a player might construct one (consciously or otherwise) and address it whether you like it or not.

Following from that, I think that player input is not limited to Narrativism.  What's important is player input with respect to Premise.  If you make a concerted effort to undercut any Premise-addressing, say by cutting away from any scene in which a player is doing so, or alternatively by breaking into any such moment with an extraneous event (such as a fight scene), you can eliminate Premise-addressing entirely.

Jack's point is well taken: all you really have to do is remove the incentive.  If rewards, in the form of narrative control of whatever kind, are offered solely for non-Premise material, you remove the incentive to address Premise.  If you then undermine Premise-addressing during play, you ensure that Narrativist play is exceedingly unlikely.

[Bankuei]

Hi Chris,

I agree that player input is not solely limited to Nar play, which is, in fact, how octaNe or Universalis can easily go into Sim or Nar play depending on the group's decision to drift towards addressing Premise or not.

Jack's point is well taken: all you really have to do is remove the incentive. If rewards, in the form of narrative control of whatever kind, are offered solely for non-Premise material, you remove the incentive to address Premise.

Actually, at that point, all you have done is restrict the player to Color based input, which, as I mentioned, effectively removes the ability to address premise at all in the first place.

Although another way to junk Narrativism is to actively reward another CA.  Donjon is a perfect example of a game loaded with player input, but not aimed at Nar play in any way, and the reward system plays a big role in that.

Chris

[Callan S.]

Totally random character generation would be the first step followed by personality mechanics that force the player to roll to see what action the character will take.  
*snip*

Oh, and stipulate that it isn't like being hit with a fear spell, where after the duration your character just feels annoyed/embarresed about being manipulated. It actually was the characters emotion!

Then again, in a somewhat recent post on how to make a system that supports all CA, I suggested a system that, for certain reasons, did indeed control actions and some emotions even for narrativist play. The idea was more that you were playing a concience of a vulnerable and reactive human being (PC's were supposed to be vietnam soldiers). You addressed premise by what you wanted to do, not what you ended up doing. Indeed such a game, by having mechanics that get in the way of direct control, it instills the premise of 'how do you handle it when you want to be good, but your just not spiritually strong enough to do so?'. Anyway, it was addressing premise by intent rather than by directly controlled action.

[DannyK]

I wonder if an intensely gamist, intensely competitive game (I've never seen Rune, but it was described as such on the RPG.Net forums) would be naturally anti-narrativist?  

After all, if there is one way that is clearly most effective to handle each situation, and if the game penalizes addressing premise by treating individualized approaches as ineffective gaming, then the would-be Narrativist player will just look like a munchkin who doesn't understand the rules well enough.

[Ben Lehman]

I will say the same thing I said in the Gamist thread:  Narrativism is simply the act of addressing the human condition.  Given that all systems entail humans sharing an imagined space, there is not a system in the world that cannot be played Narrativist.

yrs--
--Ben

[contracycle]

A game with S&G but no N would seem to me to be a wargame.

[Alan]

So Jason, will there be a third thread on removing the incentive for simulationism?

[Jason Lee]

So Jason, will there be a third thread on removing the incentive for simulationism?

Given my bias on the subject of Sim, probably not.  Maybe if I can think of a way to address the topic without discussing Exploration, causality, immersion, or Actor stance.  If I really want to be consistent I should think of an accompanying thread on Sim resolution.

I will say the same thing I said in the Gamist thread: Narrativism is simply the act of addressing the human condition. Given that all systems entail humans sharing an imagined space, there is not a system in the world that cannot be played Narrativist.

I'll agree with you on that.  You can play any game however you want, but not every game supports every mode of play.  What I'd like to identify is how to not support Nar, as opposed to how to impede Nar.  That's sort of a brain twister, for me anyway.

If I'm reading him right, Jack's got this covered here:

I don't think methods to discourage narrativism are necessary for the most part. Narrativism requires the players to use their creativity, and for the most part, people need to be encouraged to use it and put it into effect. Just don't encourage it, and you'll have it for the most part.

A game with S&G but no N would seem to me to be a wargame.

I think you're right.  That's an awesome place to start from.  From that angle, what can be removed from your standard RPG to make it a wargame?

Well, to develop a theme you need a consistent serious of events related to the theme.  The character enters the story with a certain perspective, and by the end of the story that perspective has been challenged.

The second is easy enough to break. All that is necessary is to provide an apparent Premise and then bait-and-switch. Every time someone starts addressing Premise, shift the ground such that the Premise addressed is invalid. If you simply don't provide any Premise, a player might construct one (consciously or otherwise) and address it whether you like it or not.

Maybe to expand on this concept, one un-Nar thing is to have Situation pre-configured independent of the characters that will be involved; such as conflict that does not birth from previous events (random encounter tables, for example), and repetitive conflicts (every time you play it's the battle of Fort Henry or goblins kidnapping a new princess).

Although another way to junk Narrativism is to actively reward another CA. Donjon is a perfect example of a game loaded with player input, but not aimed at Nar play in any way, and the reward system plays a big role in that.

I wonder if an intensely gamist, intensely competitive game (I've never seen Rune, but it was described as such on the RPG.Net forums) would be naturally anti-narrativist?

After all, if there is one way that is clearly most effective to handle each situation, and if the game penalizes addressing premise by treating individualized approaches as ineffective gaming, then the would-be Narrativist player will just look like a munchkin who doesn't understand the rules well enough.

I was originally going to say that these suggestions were active penalization of Nar.  However, I reconsidered and I now agree.  You needn't penalize an agenda to reward another, but it does make the unrewarded agenda less appealing.