More Questions For Narrativists

[jburneko]

Hello Again,

As I go around sharing the results of my research into Narrativism I find that I get two replies pretty universally and I was wondering what the Narrativists around here have to say.

1) Narrativism is not role-playing.

The reasons they give for saying this is that the purpose of role-playing is to try and understand your character well enough that you learn to react the way your character would react in a given situation.  

If the player has access to Out-Of-Character Information or has the ability to effect the world other than through character actions then it ceases to be ROLE-playing because you're no longer playing a role.  

When I ask what it is they say, "It's a collaborative storytelling game."  I ask them what they think that means and they say, "Well, you know how when people say RPGs are like Cops 'n' Robbers with rules?  Well what you're describing sounds like round-robin storytelling with rules."

I tell them that the consequences of their character's actions are still unknown.  That they still act as their character would act.  The only difference is that sometimes they think about things from a slightly higher perspective.

The response is, "Well, the GM acts as a sort of head author and each player is authoring only the part of a single character.  But as soon as the players start being able to control anything other than their character's actions and have access to information of anything other than what their character knows then it ceases to be role-playing it becomes collaborative storytelling."

Then I say fine, it might be matter of semantics but what would you think of these Story Telling Games?

And then I get my second common answer:

2) It's too much work.

The reason I get goes something like this: "If I were interested in putting in the effort to collaborate on telling a story I'd want a return on it.  I'd want to go out and get my storytelling partners and write a novel or short story collection or a film script and try to sell it.  There's no point in going through all that effort of creating intense engaging characters if only you me and three of our friends are going to be the only ones who see it.  

"That's why GMs are rare and wonderful people.  They're the ones who are willing to keep writing all these adventures and stories with zero return on the investment of effort."

So what do the Narrativists here have to say to that because I'm generally dumb struck at this point in the conversation and don't know what to say.

Thanks.

Jesse

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi, Jesse

I can't help but notice a similar vein here as in your "what should I say" thread on Actual Play.  I'll try to stay focused here.

As far as narrativism not being role-playing, this is a very myopic view of the hobby of role-playing.  In truth a role-playing game requires a player to take a role, the hows and why are left up to the individual.

Director and author stances are legitamate ways to play.  It doesn't matter if they're called "role-playing" or "Michael"  but those who do this call it role-playing, so it is called such.

"That's why GMs are rare and wonderful people. They're the ones who are willing to keep writing all these adventures and stories with zero return on the investment of effort."

translation: I'm too lazy to do the work.  Aren't I lucky to find a sucker willing to do that work for me for free.

If I'm reading this right.  The thing to keep in mind is that the GM do not get zero return on their investment.  SOme enjoy the high amount of control they can exert over their friends in the game situation.  Actually, some really really get off on this power trip refering to it as "my game" and excluding people from it as they see fit like a petty tyrant.  They might even consult the group before kicking out a trouble-maker to show their superiority as a democratic ruler, but in the end they are in complete control.

Well, that's the extreme case, but it does happen.  I've heard horror stories of GMs who kill PCs because of an unrelated out-of-game arguement with the players.  (This sort of behavior isn't limited to GMs, but I digress again)

Personally, if someone I was GMing for said something to the effect of "I wouldn't do all that work without getting paid for it" I'd immediately exclaim "you're right!" end the game and pursue a writing career.

Television has eaten the brain away.

[jburneko]

On 2001-08-06 14:47, pblock wrote:

I can't help but notice a similar vein here as in your "what should I say" thread on Actual Play.  I'll try to stay focused here.

You're right.  I noticed the similarity AFTER I put up the post.  However, where's the "What should I say" thread was inspired by one specific attack, this post is generated from the fact that these are the responses I've been hearing from almost EVERYONE I talk to.

Even when the conversation has remained friendly and not accusatory or argumentative this is what I hear.  So, I think really I'm probing here to find out what inspires narrativits to come together and create essencially 'disposable' art.

I've had people tell me that Narrativism sounds like a group getting together and writing a novel.  Then once they've finished the novel, they burn it and start over.  If you're going to work that hard to create something 'meaningful' and 'deep' and that resembles a well constructed novel or film then why would you want it to be such a private local affair?  It seems like a waste to these people.

So, I'm wondering why it isn't a waste to Narrativists.  I know why it wouldn't be a waste to me so I'm wondering why it isn't a waste to others.

Jesse

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Odd how I come back after work and eight hours later the only person who commented on this thread is Jesse again.

Oh wait, GenCon, right?
Anyway...

On 2001-08-06 15:06, jburneko wrote:
... So, I think really I'm probing here to find out what inspires narrativits to come together and create essencially 'disposable' art.

Well, I think it works somewhat like this, and I'll no doubt be corrected on this.

For narrativists, the story is the Point of role-playing. Capitol-P Point, you see.  These people are not interested (or, more accurately perhaps, AS interested) in gaining or exercising skill with the rules or experiencing vicariously through play other places or being other people.  People who do focus on such things create a story as a side effect.  To the narrativist, the story is not a side-effect but the raison d'etre (appologies to the French).

The idea behind playing in the narrativist style or playing a game designed with narrativist concerns is it eliminates anything that would get in the way of the story making.

Much like if I knew someone interested in dungeon crawl adventuring and only dungeon crawl adventuring I would recommend Warhammer Quest or a similar game since it has little beyond mucking about in underground passages and killing monsters.

I suppose it's a matter of "turning up the volume" of the story aspect of role-playing.  And, yeah it's lost afterwards save for the memories of the players, but so is my trip to Europe.

OK I've never been to Europe, but you get the point.  Question this, you may as well question having any experience if you're not recording it somehow.

[Uncle Dark]

Narritivist play is not role-playing?  Bugger that.

Narrativism calls for conscious and intentional shifts between player stances- actor (playing a role), author, and (sometimes) director.  The idea is not to get away from role playing (or  from skill rolls and even dungeon hacking, theoretically), the idea is to step outside the roles as commonly defined in non-narrativist play to make the game more fun for everyone involved.

It's just that for narrativists, story is what's the most fun about the game.  Players have more fun because they have greater control over their characters and what happens to them (I, personally, always hated it when my uber-competent character was embarrassed by a critical fumble on a minor roll).  GMs have more fun because some of the burden of world-building and world-maintaining is lifted by sharing it with the players.

Lon

[Ron Edwards]

Jesse,

What puzzles me about these conversations that you are referring to is this:

Why are you justifying your position at all? There is absolutely no need to convince anyone else to be a (say) Narrativist, or even to convince them that it's OK for YOU to play in that fashion.

From a distance (and thus perhaps utterly unjustified), it smacks of bullying. You want to do X. They can do X with you or not, no obligation. They then bullyrag you to justify X, mainly to influence you not to do it and return to the situation with which they are most comfortable.

Screw it! This is the band metaphor all over again. Find people who are interested in the same direction or style of play, or who are at least interested in checking it out, and have a good time.

One of the first questions I'm asking people lately is whether anyone in the game group is doing anyone else a favor by being there. Is the GM grandiosely bestowing his skill and prep on hish suitably humble players? Or are the players allowing the GM's game to exist by magnanimously showing up? In any such situation, I claim that the social circumstances are so dysfunctional that NO brand of play is going to yield aesthetic fun of any kind, in any sort of GNS fashion.

Again, I might be spinning off Jesse's specific concerns into my own little rant, but it is as follows.

The primary, shared, equal obligation of anyone in a role-playing group is to say: "I came to play." It's like a band - sooner or later, if there is to be a real band, the hangers-on, the best-buddies, and the power-trippers have to be eliminated from the activity.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

All too true. I'm having some problems with my current group based on differing player goals and varying degrees of open-mindedness to more narrativistic play. I've concluded that I'll wrap up this Mage game rather soon and venture into a new game with those players who share my interest in exploring new styles of play. I'm done justifying why I want to move away from the gameplay conventions we're used to.

Best,

Blake