Boundaries of narrativism ?

[AndyGuest]

Probably not the right topic but I'll fire away anyway.

A game is narrativist (or at least narrativist supporting) if it's focus is on the story right ? A lot of games/discussion here seems to take for granted the importance of the emotional involvement in such games but is that required for narrativism or simply a good way of (hopefully) improving the quality of the narrative/experience ?

I was thinking last night about a (theoretical) game which has a bunch of random tables that can be used to create a bunch of character concepts, events, objects, etc. I'm sure everyone has seen these things around. The idea in my head was to come up with x random characters, y random events, etc. The game would then be to weave a story that incorporates all the events, characters, etc.

Now, allowing for the focus being on the story and the players have full control in all stances, etc, etc, what type of game would that be ?

[AndyGuest]

Or I guess, to put it another way, is there a whole heap of different styles of RPGs out there that would be considered narrative and that work in different ways to those we already have ?

[Valamir]

Narrativism is not about creating story.  That is one of the short cut phrases that veteran Forgers tend to sling about casually because we know what we mean, and I have ranted against before.  

With all of the new members of the Forge around these days its a dangerously misleading shortcut.  There are folks down in the RoS forum for instance slinging around "we played narrativist" in a way that I just know means "we made a cool story".

Narrativist gaming is about Premise.  Story is the means by which Premise gets addressed, but having a cool story does not narrativism make.

Having an entertaining sequence of events may make for a story, but if those events aren't focused on Premise it is not narrativist play.

You may find my Primer thread of interest.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Andy,

(Quick high-five slap to Ralph, good call, well-put, lemme try now.)

You wrote,
"A game is narrativist (or at least narrativist supporting) if it's focus is on the story right ?"

Well, ya see, ya see, that's the problem. Check out my big crunchy essay, and you'll see a whole page, with lots of references and connections through the essay, devoted to the idea that "story" isn't a very useful term. Role-players use it to mean nearly anything.

Some people think it means "GM talks a hell of a lot." Some people think it means "pre-planned changes in the setting." Some people think it means "develop your character's internal world." Some people think it means "anything that happens during play." And on, and on, and on.

So, no, a game is not Narrativist because its "focus is on story." A game is Narrativist (ie, as you say, supports Narrativist play) when playing it demands a focus on Premise. By "Premise," I mean a specialized concept: an ethical, moral, or otherwise troubling situation, which one or more fictional characters care about passionately.

In other words, when you look at the fictional situation, you see a conflict, straight out of Lit 101. When you look at the author's and audience's situation (which in role-playing are the same people), you see a Premise.

Conflict: Sir Mordred, the nasty little creature, is spreading cruel rumors about Queen Guinevere again.

Premise: Is a cuckolded king/leader worth following? What value does Virtue have when its two most obvious proponents are betraying it?

When the elements of role-playing in the game text are directed primarily toward addressing that Premise, Narrativist play is encouraged. There are many, many different ways to "direct" a game text this way, some of which are incompatible. Not all Narrativist play or design looks alike.

Now, back to the "story" thing. Yes, such play will very likely produce a story, most especially a story that tends to accord with the shared aesthetic standards of myth, folklore, literature, and cinema. Yes, getting such a thing into existence is probably the primary "goal" for the people in play.

But structurally, Ralph is right - the definition of Narrativist play is when the Premise (reason to play, thing which is most interesting) looks like what I've described.

Best,
Ron

[Balbinus]

Just to chime in on why considering narrativism to be telling a story is not quite right, but this time from a different perspective.

I prefer simulationist games.  "Realism" is frequently a high priority for me in play.  When I gm, I hope to see a collective story arise out of the actions of the group.  But, this is not a narrativist style of play.

Why?  Because story is a byproduct of the core activity which is exploration of setting and character.  Living in that world.  Story arises incidentally just as in real life we each have a story of our life.

This is where the focus on premise is important.  The kind of premise Ron describes (narrativist premise) is something I would generally view as a bad thing to have in my game.  The real world does not have that kind of premise, so, ideally nor do my games.

So, story is important, but that is not the same thing as narrativism.

Hopefully this makes a little sense.

[Ron Edwards]

Well put, Max - that's an excellent example of what "story" means to two different people.

To me, "story" doesn't exist unless Premise as I described it is the priority. I don't see lives as stories, and I don't see play that is "like life" in that sense to be creating stories.

Max, by contrast, uses the term "story" to indicate the series of events that his group generates in play. To him, people make stories out of their lives, so play that is "like life" (ie lacking Premise) does indeed make stories.

So, say that Max and I didn't know each other at all, but we were members together in a newly-organized role-playing group. Say that we had chatted a bit to determine whether we'd, individually, participate. Say that we'd both cited "story" as our primary reason for role-playing, and been happy that the other guy seemed to share our priority.

Then we start playing. Say that both Max and I were very intense about our priorities in play (certainly the case for me, in reality). Can anyone see that a horrible, horrible disaster would very likely ensue?

That's why GNS helps people, once they understand it. Max and I might decide to play together after all, but be careful to support one another's divergent priorities. Or we might decide not to play together at all. Either option is better than playing together in the mistaken belief that our priorities were the same.

Best,
Ron