Two Questions for Narrativism

[Daredevil]

There are two questions being posed in this thread.

1) Is an overt, clear statement of Premise before play a prerequisite for Narrativist play?

2) When does a GM's positive story direction become dysfunctional application of Force techniques?

Consider the following example:

A hodge podge group of adventurers journey in a land where a powerful evil sorcerer is rising to dominate the lands. The characters go on about their own business at first, but event by event, the gamemaster brings the rising evil to their attention, depending on each character's circumstances. The heir to the throne sees his father come under the spell of an evil advisor sent by the sorcerer. The retired soldier has his farmstead burnt by the sorcerer's troops.

No matter what they do, they're called into action against the sorcerer. However, in no way does the GM directly force their hand. The soldier, after his farmstead is burnt down, is free to still refrain from taking up arms. But soon he will hear news from other, more distant places, or perhaps from his daughter from the besieged capital ...

Now, to address question number one, (let us assume) there is no overt statement of Premise anywhere to be found, but there is an implied one in game events: "When will you step up and fight?" Does the resulting type of game fit into the category of Narrativism?

I suggest that it is an example of what Ron describes in the "Narrativism: Story Now" article, here:

* Setting-based Premise: External adversity swarms upon the characters based on unavoidable, often large-scale elements of the overall setting.

Let us consider question number two and the example offered above. when are these GM presented events (frex. "your farmstead is burned down by the evil sorcerer's forces") considered just "smart direction" by the GM, eg Bangs, and when do they transform into dysfunctional examples of Force application?

Are the two question I posed related directly/indirectly? Ie. are they Bangs when the premise is stated and misapplied Force when it is unstated?

Any thoughts on any of these questions?

Thanks,

- Joachim Buchert -

[Bankuei]

Hi Joachim,

1) No.

In fact, you can take a look at Dogs in the Vineyard and Riddle of Steel as two clear examples of games that do not overtly state premise, but it fires all the time in their play.  In fact, if you've never heard of GNS, or premise, or any of that, you could run these games and provided you're not drifting the rules, most likely hit premise on a regular basis.

2) Is the GM overriding the player's ability to input?

No matter what they do, they're called into action against the sorcerer. However, in no way does the GM directly force their hand. The soldier, after his farmstead is burnt down, is free to still refrain from taking up arms. But soon he will hear news from other, more distant places, or perhaps from his daughter from the besieged capital ...

Now, question, is "they" the players or the characters?  And who at the table is responsible for "them" being called into action?  

If the players are pushing away from being called into action, but the GM is throwing all these things back at them to connive(and yes, that's the word) them into conforming- then that is railroading.  That is overstepping the players' rights to input- "No, we don't want to do that"

Now, if the players are playing characters who are reluctant heroes, but inputting and authoring things to draw the characters in themselves(the players that is), then that's Narrativism in full effect.  "My character doesn't want to, but I want to drag him or her into it!"  That's narrativism.

Notice that the key point is player input.

Thoughts?

Chris

[Simon Kamber]

2) When does a GM's positive story direction become dysfunctional application of Force techniques?

The way I see it, this is purely determined by the social contract of the given game. If it's generally accepted that the GM has set up a set of events and circumstances that are to provide the backdrop for the game, such as the sorcerer and the war in this case, and the GM is merely pushing the game in that direction. Then it's acceptable force since it only applies during a sort of "prologue", and the real narrativist game takes place once the characters DO take up arms.

However, if the premise, stated or unstated, revolves around, say, whether or not the characters take up arms, then such use of force is dysfunctional.

The grey area between the two is resolved through the social contract, where some might think that they have a right to have control of everything, others might accept that the GM is gently nudging them in the direction of an interesting conflict. However, I'd say that real narrativism only takes place in areas that are force-free. That is to say, if the game did in any way revolve around the sorcerer and his war, then the game would not really have begun, in the narrativist sense, until the GM had pushed them into the war and it was time to deal with that fact.

[JMendes]

Hoy, :)

I'll add my voice in support to what was already said.

To question 1, my answer is an emphatic and uncompromising No.

To question 2, my answer is that it depends on the social contract. Crapfully enough, the social contract itself is often unstated and many times inconsistent among the players, leading to incoherent play.

Cheers,

J.

[timfire]

Question #2: People are right on about the Social Contract. But I'll add this - in most games, it is the GM's required role to create adversity for the player. No matter what the player decides to do, its the GM's job to make it hard for them.

Do they want to keep a quiet and normal life? Shake them up. Do they want to fight the sorcerer? Tell them why it's better not to.

Adversity goes both ways. If there's only one reasonable course of action, then it's not much of a question.