Can the written rules make N G?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I had been thinking about this and am wondering how the GNS supporters will respond.

It occured to me like this:

Gamist is defined as playing the game to win, as per the FAQ

Narrativism is about the group creating a story adhering to a high aesthetic standard.

But some of these narrativist games create rules to create a story of a higher aesthetic standard with this as the stated object of the game.

Does this suddenly turn a narrativist player into a gamist since they are now playing a game where to "win" they must create a good story?

This is similar to an old axiom for software manual writing "If it's documented it's not a bug it's a feature."

Does writing down the narrativist goals as the rules of the game make a gamist concern out of a narrativist concern?

I've been trying to figure this out but can't get around it.  Maybe the people here at The Forge will have a better idea.

[ This Message was edited by: pblock on 2001-08-07 12:01 ]

[Jared A. Sorensen]

> Does this suddenly turn a narrativist player into a
> gamist since they are now playing a game where to "win"
> they must create a good story?

Well, who are they playing against?

[Ron Edwards]

Sigh. Jack, you're tying yourself into knots for no reason.

First of all, saying "to win" is about as useful as saying "for story," that is, not at all. It's time, past time, to give Gamism its fair shake. I am preparing for a big push into discussing Gamism soon, especially given a recent thread which illustrates some serious misconceptions. No one has understood what I've written about it so far and their interpretations are haring off in the most absurd directions.

Second, I think you are mistaking success for winning. Success in role-playing is easily defined - everyone comes away without feeling like they wasted their time, and having enjoyed themselves. Fun.

So to say, "My goal was to contribute to and shape this great story, and I did it, so I won!" is incorrect. No, you were successful. There was no competition at hand, so winning is an impossibility.

It's that simple - G is G, and N is N.

Now all this does NOT preclude the possibility of functional combinations. Pantheon, Once Upon a Time, and a couple of other games illustrate such combinations (all toward the G side, if you ask me, but still in that gray border zone between the two). But that's a different issue.

Best,
Ron