Narrativist Catalyst

[joe_llama]

There is something I really think all Narrativists should check out. It's an interesting theory of story called Dramatica, freely available at www.dramatica.com . Using my own words will only make things worse so here's a quote of the central idea behind the theory:

The one unique concept that sets Dramatica apart from all other theories is the concept that every complete story is a model of the mind's problem solving process. To fully explore any issue, an author has to examine all possible solutions to that issue and make an argument to prove to an audience that the author's way is best.

If you leave out a part of that argument or diverge from the point, your story will have plot holes or inconsistencies. Once you have covered every angle in your argument, you've mapped all the ways an audience might look at that problem and, therefore, all the ways anyone might look at that problem. In short, you have created a map of the mind's problem solving process.

Characters, Plot, and Theme are the thoughts of this Story Mind made tangible. An audience can see them and learn. When a story fully develops this model of the mind, we call it a Grand Argument Story because it addresses the problem from all sides.

After going through the theory once (a 340 page manual!), I believe it has a lot to offer to the Narrativist community, in both theory and practice. I'm still learning it so the best I could give right now is just this gut feeling. I hope that some of you will read it (or at least take a look at it) so we could start a discussion about gaming applications.

As a bonus, the creators of this theory provided a nice map of the story structure as it appears in their manual. It is simply swarming with material for creating Premises and with great ease, I might add.

It could turn out bogus in the end. I'm not a professional writer and my education in this field is minimal so my apologies in advance if I wasted your time.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[lumpley]

I'm just skimming it at lunch, but don't the Action Characteristics and Decision Characteristics and so on have gaming written all over them?  ("Okay, Thurgar, make your Consideration roll vs. Rolthan's Hinder...")

Actually it looks pretty potent.  

-Vincent

[joe_llama]

You know, that's the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it. If these guys aren't gamers then this is one bizzare (and very fortunate) incident.

Joe Llama

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Now, I know perfectly well that this is just prejudice talking, but my first reaction upon visiting www.dramatica.com was "If an abominable hack like Hickman uses it, it can't be that good."

{edited bcuz the link didn't work}

[joe_llama]

Now, I know perfectly well that this is just prejudice talking, but my first reaction upon visiting www.dramatica.com was "If an abominable hack like Hickman uses it, it can't be that good."

Even so, I think I'll use Ron's words from another thread:

Brilliant musicians exist with and without technical training. Brilliant directors exist who pre-script and pre-frame shots, and who don't. Brilliant authors exist who outline carefully and draw circles & arrows, and who scribble frantically and tear it all up every night.

In the same spirit, crappy artists exist with and without professional help. Nuff said.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Seth L. Blumberg]

All right, I've read most of the way through the book. (It's been a busy week, or I would have finished it by now.)

I don't think Dramatica is likely to be very helpful for a Narrativist gamer. The theoretical structures are intimately tied to a specific methodology, and the execution of that methodology pretty much requires that you shell out $269 for the computer program. Furthermore, the methodology demands that there be a single author with complete control over the story: one is supposed to create a "Storyform," basically a souped-up outline, which covers the entire story from beginning to end. Lastly, the theory presupposes that a story must have one (and only one) Main Character.

Some of the theoretical concepts might be marginally useful in analyzing an existing game to figure out "what's missing"; aside from that, I do not perceive a great deal of utility for gamers.

On the other hand, I'm tempted to shell out the dough and see whether the program improves my fictional writing. To be brutally honest, Tracy Hickman would be a step up.

[Blake Hutchins]

Hello,

For what it's worth, I've looked at some of the story-creation/assistance software out there.  My opinion is that most of it is worthless to the creative process, but that the formatting and organizational features are quite useful.  In my test drive of a friend's program, I decided what I really needed was a database to keep track of characters, setting, and plotlines.  The creative models tend to be somewhat formulaic, however.

Best,

Blake

[joe_llama]

I don't think Dramatica is likely to be very helpful for a Narrativist gamer. The theoretical structures are intimately tied to a specific methodology, and the execution of that methodology pretty much requires that you shell out $269 for the computer program.

How come? The theory is all there in the free PDF's. The program is only an organizer (albeit an innovative one) that is supposed to help writers.

]Furthermore, the methodology demands that there be a single author with complete control over the story: one is supposed to create a "Storyform," basically a souped-up outline, which covers the entire story from beginning to end.

The methodology was obviously created for people who want to write stories. What I'm asking is whether it's possible to use the ideas in this book and apply them in both theoretical and practical ways with gaming?
 

]Lastly, the theory presupposes that a story must have one (and only one) Main Character.

Well, this is somewhat arguable, but stories (see below for story type) do tend to have one main character. Even in TV series like ER, you have two or more stories running at the same time with each story having one main character. If you read further in the book, any other character in the story is "supporting cast", no matter how much air time they have, with a special role known as Impact character forcing the Protagonist to change his path or maintain his original course.

Take a look at X-files: Scully and Mulder are the two main chracters each episode dealing with a conflict (Premise) which bothers only one character, while the other serves as an Impact character (or Sidekick, or Mentor) but there really is one chracter who will go through the significant change (or resist it) and will show the resolution of the Premise.  

]Some of the theoretical concepts might be marginally useful in analyzing an existing game to figure out "what's missing"; aside from that, I do not perceive a great deal of utility for gamers.

You call this marginally useful? If this book can help Nar designers 'plug holes' in their systems and improve it, this is something that should be highly valuable in every Nar's toolkit.

I think my major interest in Dramatica is due to its compatability with the concept of Narrative Premises. They just call it "Grand Argument Story". Let me quote something here:

What's In A Grand Argument Story?

A Grand Argument Story is a conceptually complete story with
both an emotional and logical comprehensiveness. There are a
number of qualities which determine whether a story is a Grand
Argument or not. These are seen in the story's Structure, Dynamics,
Character, Theme, Plot, and Genre.

These parts of a Grand Argument Story combine in complex
relationships to create its Storyform. A Storyform is like a blueprint
which describes how these parts shall relate in a particular story ,
regardless of how they are symbolized for the audience. It is such a
Storyform which allows such different stories as West Side Story
and Romeo and Juliet, or Cyrano de Bergerac and Roxanne to
share the same meaning while bearing little resemblance to each
other. What these two pairs of stories share is virtually the same
Storyform.

The similarity is astounding. Storyform is simply a Premise that has already been resolved by the author. It is finished. That's because the author creates a finished product. Storyform is like what's left of a Premise after you finish a game - you have an Answer. However, the Nar gamer could just as well use all these elements without ending the conflict with a specific answer and let the game process do it instead - this uses Storyform as Premise.

To further support the similarity, Dramtica speaks of four Throughlines through which the story reaches its audience. The four Throughlines cover both logical and emotional aspects of a story. here's a familiar example:

Star Wars

Overall Story Throughline: The Overall view of Star Wars sees
a civil war in the galaxy between the Rebels and the evil Empire.
The Empire has built a Death Star which will destroy the Rebels if it
isn't destroyed first. To even hope for a successful attack, the
Rebels need the plans to the Death Star which are in the possession
of a farm boy and an old Jedi master. These two encounter
many other characters while delivering the plans, ultimately leading
to a climactic space-battle on the surface of the Death Star.

Main Character Throughline: The Main Character of Star Wars
is Luke Skywalker. This throughline follows his personal growth
over the course of this story. Luke is a farm boy who dreams of
being a star pilot, but he can't allow himself to leave his foster
parents to pursue his dreams. He learns that he is the son of a
great Jedi Knight. When his foster parents are killed, he begins
studying the religion of the Jedi: the Force. Surviving many dangerous
situations, Luke learns to trust himself more and more. Ultimately
he makes a leap of faith to trust his feelings over his computer
technology while flying into battle as the Rebel's last hope of
destroying the Death Star. It turns out well, and Luke is changed by
the experience.

Impact Character Throughline: The Impact Character of Star
Wars is Obi Wan Kenobi and this throughline describes his impact
(especially on Luke Skywalker) over the course of the story. Obi
Wan is a wizened old Jedi who sees everything as being under the
mystic control of the Force. He amazes people with his resiliency
and ability, all of which he credits to the Force.

Subjective Story Throughline: The Subjective Story throughline
of Star Wars describes the relationship between Luke and Obi Wan.
Obi Wan needs Luke to help him and he knows Luke has incredible
potential as a Jedi. Luke, however, needs to be guided carefully
because his desires are so strong and his abilities so new. Obi
Wan sets about the manipulations which will help Luke see the true
nature of the Force and learn to trust himself.

You see what I'm talking about? This specifically addresses the demands of Nar designers. While most dysfunctional gamers are used to cover only the objective and logical aspects of the game auch as plot and setting (speaking only of Nar gamers here - no relation to Sim), this model can help them see the emotional and human sides of a story. And this is exactly the point where it ties in with Nar games and the notion of Premise.

This post is somewhat a mess but I hope it will draw enough attention from the big sharks (hint hint Ron) to check out the theory and come up with something a bit more coherent and useful than my ramblings. There are many other ways that I think Dramatica can help a Nar but I mentioned just one as a Kicker for the rest :)

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Seth L. Blumberg]

How come? The theory is all there in the free PDF's.

Actually, the theory is not all there. While the book describes the highest levels of the theory (Classes and Types) fairly well, the theory presupposes certain relationships between Classes and Types that are not documented anywhere; they are simply built into the program.

Have you played around with the downloadable demo at all? Check it out, you'll see what I mean.

The methodology was obviously created for people who want to write stories. What I'm asking is whether it's possible to use the ideas in this book and apply them in both theoretical and practical ways with gaming?

And what I'm saying is, very few of them.

Well, this is somewhat arguable, but stories (see below for story type) do tend to have one main character.

Huh? We're talking about games here. An N-player Narrativist game has exactly N main characters, no more, no less. There is no room in the Dramatica theory for multiple Main Character Throughlines (and you can't make one of the PCs the Impact Character--it radically deprotagonizes them).

[Valamir]

Well, this is somewhat arguable, but stories (see below for story type) do tend to have one main character.

Huh? We're talking about games here. An N-player Narrativist game has exactly N main characters, no more, no less. There is no room in the Dramatica theory for multiple Main Character Throughlines (and you can't make one of the PCs the Impact Character--it radically deprotagonizes them).

Actually I think Narrativist gaming works quite well in a main character / supporting cast fashion.  Since the point is to jointly craft an effective story you shouldn't have any worries about "my guy not being as important as your guy".  Besides, I don't know anyone who wouldn't rather play Obi Wan than that pansy ass Luke any day ;-)

The main character can switch between sessions (just as Muldar and Scully switch off the lead) as well.

Narrativist play requires effective characters and effective characterization.  I don't think that's the same things as requireing everyone to be a main character.  In fact, Sorcerer for one specifically denies the "party mentality" of equally balanced characters being a requirement.

Now I haven't read Dramatica, and in truth Joe, if its that sizeable an investment in time I doubt I'll be able to get around to it, so I can't speak directly as to how effective a tool it is.  I have my doubts about computer aided creativity, and just from your excerpt there seems to be a large amount of jargon (though I guess the same could be said of the Forge).  

But anything that gets people to think and ponder and sparks ideas and discussions based off of those ideas is a Good Thing(tm) regardless of what the eventual merit of the thing is determined to be.

Here's hoping some more folks out there have the patience to wade through it all and join you two in some good discussion on it.

[joe_llama]

Have you played around with the downloadable demo at all? Check it out, you'll see what I mean.

I admit I only looked at the documentation. I'll check it out. Thanks for pointing this out.

Well, this is somewhat arguable, but stories (see below for story type) do tend to have one main character.  

Huh? We're talking about games here. An N-player Narrativist game has exactly N main characters, no more, no less. There is no room in the Dramatica theory for multiple Main Character Throughlines (and you can't make one of the PCs the Impact Character--it radically deprotagonizes them).

Exactly. We're talking about games here. What I'm suggesting is that maybe every storyline in the Narrative game will have only one Main Character and one Impact Character with all other characters as support cast. This is said regardless of air time each player gets with his character during the game. In the Star Wars example, Han Solo functions as the Skeptic and his air time is almost equal to Luke Skywalker. In addition, the non-expendable and highly important Impact character (Obi Wan) has minimal air time.

In my vision, all players will have equal air time during the game but each character will have a different role in the resolution of the Premise. No player will receive less attention from the game. All characters are important to the process. Does this mean characters will be created to fit into the roles of Sidekick, Skeptic, Antagonist etc ? Not necesserily. They might find themslves fit into these roles during the game. These roles may change when another game is started. Scully and Mulder play different roles in each episode and so does the entire cast of ER.  

I realize this is a very different view of things and maybe a bit forcing Dramatica into the lines of game design, but it feels useful in a way. Maybe the application is just in actual play. It could help a GM see the big picture and help advance the game in a productive way. I don't know, and I wish others would voice their opinions on this one. Nothing personal, I just think we need more than two perspectives on the subject.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[joe_llama]

Metal Fatigue:

Well, I d/l the demo and went through it. As far as I can tell, the book includes everything you need to know about Dramatica. As I said before, the software only helps you organize your writing stuff according to the theory. Maybe I'm missing something here. Could you please point out where the software gives you something the book doesn't?

Now I haven't read Dramatica, and in truth Joe, if its that sizeable an investment in time I doubt I'll be able to get around to it, so I can't speak directly as to how effective a tool it is. I have my doubts about computer aided creativity, and just from your excerpt there seems to be a large amount of jargon (though I guess the same could be said of the Forge).

Fortunately, the designers supplied a nice story map for (almost) the entire theory. Just looking at it would be enough to show every person it's oozing Nar and Pemise.

http://www.dramatica.com/downloads/structure_chart.pdf
 
I suggest you check it out - only one page (44kb). In addtion if you can spare the time, read this short intrduction to Dramatica:

  http://www.dramatica.com/theory/what_is_dramatica/index.html

Now if that ain't enough, they also made a comic book (although a very strange one) that explains the basics of the theory in more visual ways (available at the website).

I wish that a few other key members of the Forge would go through this material - your thoughts would be most helpful.

Oh yeah, I do not work for the people who made Dramatica and no one is paying me in any way to post these messages. I'm just a curious gamer who ran across Dramatica at the same time he realized what Nar is all about.

Respect,

Joe Llama

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Could you please point out where the software gives you something the book doesn't?

Hit Control+E. Play with the Story Engine a bit. Notice how there are lots and lots and lots of Storyform combinations that ought to be acceptable according to the book that it will not let you enter.

An example: Where in the book does it say "If the Main Character is a Do-er, then the Main Character Throughline must be either Situation or Activity; if s/he is a Be-er, it must be Manipulation or Fixed Attitude"? The software enforces that rule, among many others.

[joe_llama]

Hit Control+E. Play with the Story Engine a bit. Notice how there are lots and lots and lots of Storyform combinations that ought to be acceptable according to the book that it will not let you enter.

All these "relationships" are implied in the textbook. If you read through the theory, you'll see that some combinations are not "valid" as a quality of their meaning, just like Main and Impact chracters can never be in the same player at the same time.

Well, this thread is about what Dramatica has to offer to RPG theory and not a discussion about the software package. If you wish, we can continue this discussion in PM.

Joe Llama

[Paul Czege]

Actually I think Narrativist gaming works quite well in a main character / supporting cast fashion. Since the point is to jointly craft an effective story you shouldn't have any worries about "my guy not being as important as your guy".

Whoah...I completely disagree. Metal Fatigue (real name unknown) is right. Each and every player character is a protagonist in a Narrativist game. And by that I mean, each player authors through gameplay a thematic statement on the game's Premise with their character. Sidekicks and other supporting cast character types don't do that.

And as far as the usefulness of Dramatica to Narrativist play is concerned, I'm not yet ready to write it off. In reading only the first 75 pages, I was struck with a notion of how it could be really useful. Let me see if I can describe what I'm thinking.

I've http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1095">written before how I think players creating the same characters over and over is evidence of unconscious preferences for certain kinds of stories. I also think people in general have an intuitive understanding of how stories work, an understanding that's good enough to recognize when a movie fails to have thematic impact, and perhaps even which scenes were responsible, and maybe what was missing from the movie, but an understanding that perhaps isn't conscious enough for the person to be able to articulate more than, "I didn't like it," or "It was okay, but there should have been a fight with the daughter at the end, and the trial scenes were too long." And that's probably not a good enough conscious understanding for a person to be able to craft compelling story from whole cloth, the way some Narrativist games (like, cough, http://www.123.net/~czege/WFD.html">The World, the Flesh, and the Devil) actually require.

But what if a game scenario reacted to a player character the way a structure of supporting cast characters reacts to a protagonist in a story? Forgive me for using my own game design, but this is what my reading of Dramatica has me thinking. Mike and Vincent have http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1535">written that Premise emerges from character creation in The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. Having yet to playtest the game, I can't say whether that's true, but even if it's not, let's presume players created characters around a Premise. Because of the way the Trial and Annotations are created, some NPC's, and character relationships with NPC's would also be on the table. I'm thinking a GM might be able to take those NPC's and map them provisionally onto the Dramatica character types, creating a full set of candidates for the Impact, Antagonist, Contagonist, Reason, Emotion, Sidekick and Skeptic roles for each player character protagonist, informed in this decisionmaking by the conflict exposed in the player character's Trial and Annotations. I can't envision how this would be an exact science. NPC's would need to be invented when there wasn't a suitable candidate among the ones created by the players. Some NPC's in the scenario would presumably fulfill dual roles, Sidekick for one PC and Contagonist for another, for instance. And it would probably be a good idea to have more than one candidate for each of the roles for each protagonist, to give yourself options.

Given that setup the key question seems to be, will a player armed with unconscious preferences for a story, and a protagonist created with that in mind, recognize the roles being played by the NPC's and make use of that understanding in authoring the protagonist? And if so, will player handling of the protagonist within that setup, informed by understanding of the roles being played by NPC's, dramatically facilitate story formation, the way dropping a grain of sand into a supersaturated solution delivers rapid crystal formation? I don't know. But I'm sorely tempted to try when I playtest The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. My only hesitation is that I don't want to risk an absolute collapse of functional Narrativism and end up not getting valuable playtesting insight into my game mechanics.

I think there's some potentially valuable stuff in Dramatica. The contradictory relationships between the roles could be used by the GM to inform scene framing decisions. Would a scene involving a character's Skeptic be a dramatic follow-up to a scene involving the character's Sidekick? Does the book get into this kind of thing after where I left off reading? Is it more compelling to put the Skeptic and the Sidekick into the same scene with the protagonist, or would that make for a muddled scene? I think that if the theory is taken at face value, the GM would need to cycle through framing scenes between the player character and the role characters supporting the character's protagonism, so the theorist's concept of scenes as "story argument" would be satisfied, but if it worked, it could be tres cool.

But even if story creation happens as theorized, it still brings up another question, one related to the fundamental issue in http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1484">Matt's recent thread about his current D&D game. Will the audience (the other players) be interested? A player character isn't a protagonist if his story isn't delivered to the audience. Ron's relationship-map method works to secure audience engagement by delivering stories about matters of significance to them. The setup I'm talking about here won't necessarily have that at such a visceral-brain level. Imagine a player who creates a soon-to-retire cop character struggling with graft and corruption in his department. Absent a son character following in his father's footsteps or something, there isn't any kinship or sex in that story. So the question is, is the presence of story creation in their peripheral vision enough to secure the interest of the audience? And I don't know the answer to that.

What do you think?

Paul