Audience Thrills & Creator Thrills

[Michael S. Miller]

In thinking about ways to explain Narrativism to folks unfamiliar with the Forge & Ron's essays, I've hit upon something which might be useful to others ... or it might just be me restating Narrativism in my own words. Tough to tell from inside my own head.

Okay, we have these things called "stories." Everyone knows what they are. Furthermore, everyone has read a book or watched a film and enjoyed the experience--there was a little rush of pleasure, a buzz up and down the central nervous system. Reading/hearing/watching this story was a postive, high-quality experience.* Let's call this the "audience thrill."

However, stories don't come from nowhere. Someone has to write them. And, as anyone who has ever written a story can tell you, there's a little rush of pleasure during the act of writing. Similar to experiencing a story, crafting a story is a positive, high-quality experience. Let's call this the "creator thrill."

While the audience thrill and the creator thrill have certain similarities (e.g., they're both thrills, they both concern stories), I don't believe that they are the same thing. If they were, it wouldn't really matter if you wrote a story or read a story, they'd both be the same flavor of fun.

So, it seems to me that Narrativist role-playing is all about maximizing the creator thrill of the participants. Sure, audience thrill will happen as well, but it's not the focus. The widespread encouragement of author-stance, the often dispersed nature of GM-duties, the fundamental need for player choice all serve to make that creator thrill happen.

To extend this just a bit further, it seems that much High-Concept Simulationist play is all about maximizing the audience thrill of the players. These games almost always say that "the GM controls the story" because it's assumed that the point of play is for the players receive the story--that is, get audience thrills. Now, the GM, if he's writing his own stuff, will get creator thrills, but that's an unintended consequence of providing story for the players.    

Thoughts?
______________
* For purposes of this thread, I'm not interested in why certain stories produce these thrills in certain people. I'm just trying to identify the phenomenon.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Michael,

I see this as a case of "having to say it for yourself."

My only quibbles are ...

1: that the audience thrills during Narrativist play can be extremely powerful and profound, although they do not include awe at how "well-prepped" or "subtly-delivered" the story is.

2: that the actual authoring may include collaborative effort to whatever extent is comfortable/desired in a particular moment of play; in other words, although the creator thrill might be felt by only one person at certain times, it can also be felt by more than one person (concerning a single in-game event) at other times.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

For explaining to those unfamiliar with GNS, I wrote a post called 'GNS one liners', where funnily enough I gave one sentence descriptions for each. They designed more to inform people who don't RP, though.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10501

Downside to it: No one responded to it.
Upside: 97 views and no one responded to it/argued with it.

[Mike Holmes]

This sounds like just a restatement of John Kim's essays covering the dividing lines involved. Have you read those, Mike? Do you see some difference between his portrayal and yours?

Mike