Dramatism as RPG´s socialism

[Maarzan]

The idea occurred to me that Dramatism could be an earlier stage of narratism like socialism is thought of as a phase of dictatorship before true equality can be reached.
I can´t see dramatism as related to simulatism. I´ve seen groups dominated by a player or a coalition of players dominating the game with the stated intend to the realize the right story and using terms like script immunity and player sovereignity over his character. This doesn´t support that the master-player dichometry is the same like in simulation and the used tools and phrases are incompatible too.
It rather looks like a state where someone sees the need to enforce (his) story and wants to go narrative and the style hasn´t found the balance between all participiants to contribute.

Other styles of the GNS have this ideal state probably too, perfect simulation of whatever atrgeted or the totally balanced and objective game for gamists but are even wider distant to reach these (most likely inaccessible) states.
I also think that true narrativsm with everybody able to realize his story is probalbly impossible too because being human we all have different views on many things and so we have to come to arrangements which aren´t totally equal and just too, leading to someone getting the most input.

PS: Where would you put Monty Haul style of playing with rotating GM´s: If you give me the magical steed, plate+5 and make me king of the empire slaying these goblins I will give you in the next adventure the artifact of Kudgel and make you pope for turning these skeletons?

[greyorm]

Hi Maarzan,

Welcome to the Forge!

I just wanted to point out a couple stumbling blocks you appear to have tripped over in your theorizing:

"Narrativism" has nothing to do with everyone being able to realize their own story or any such thing. The three -isms are not about what you get or achieve, but how you play: the reason for decisions, not the outcomes. When the mechanics and outcomes support the reasons, play is functional.

In regards to Narrativism, this simply means that play addresses an Egri-style premise and creates meaningful, immediately relevant and interesting events. The too-vaguely defined "Story" has nothing to do with it.

May I ask: have you read through the Articles section of the Forge yet? Especially the GNS document and System Does Matter?

Where would you put Monty Haul style of playing with rotating GM

Can you tell me why you believe it does not fit in Gamism?

Also, I'm wondering if you are thinking of this as a "dysfunctional" form of gaming? If so, note that if all the participants are enjoying themselves in the exercise, play can not be called dysfunctional.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Welcome to the Forge!

Raven has stated the issues relative to Narrativist play well, I think. One thing you might consider is that Dramatism isn't defined - or rather, it has been assigned many different definitions over the years. At least one is very close to Narrativism, but others are very different.

I think Raven might have mis-read your question about the Monte-Haul switching-GMs play. I don't see that you did or didn't think it was a form of Gamist play. I definitely think it is (Gamism includes many different ways to play).

Best,
Ron

[Maarzan]

I read some of the GNS thread but not all of it and not in straight order. Probably something got mixed with other GNS-theories too. The first post was motivated by reading "Where did dramatism go".

Trying to order my infos:
DNS-Forge is about the reasons of play and decisions.

Gamist is about challenge and you decide by estimating your best chance to improve or what gives a tackling but fair challenge from GM´s Side.

Sim is about explorating and you decide by estimating what would your character do from his point of view and by giving results that fit the natural laws of the games scope best for the GM.

from the article about GNS:
Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

from system does matter
Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session results in a good story


Narrativism is about creating a story in teamwork which fulfills some points like literaric structure (theme, main conflict...) and heroes (meaning it is a good story then?)?

Decisions seem to be based on their ability to support structure, continuity of the story and protagonist status of the character?

Narrativism is also talked about to be about making a poltical/ethical decision and forwarding it in play (narrativist premise) which sound a bit queer to me.

Egri style like gaming is all about have a mental map of your characters likes and dislikes and live them out to look what happens? This sounds rather like sim player.

Probably something got lost/muddled by internal translation. English is not my first language. Please correct me and explain. Thanks :)


The Mounty-Haul example didn´t fit anywhere. It isn´t gamist because there is no challenge if you deal about risk and profit out of game and out of the rules.

It is not simulation because the results are predefined and strain plausibility in game to the extreme.

It seemed narrativistic because of shared authorship and protagonist emphasis. But it seems a little bit unfair to put everything into the box "In the end everything is a kind of story" so I asked.

If everybody in this group is fine with the game they play more fun to them but I´ve got thoughts about it because it will get problems with most other styles if they try to mix with other peoples. You know the M-word will come pretty fast.

[Bob McNamee]

The Mounty-Haul example didn´t fit anywhere. It isn´t gamist because there is no challenge if you deal about risk and profit out of game and out of the rules.

The Gamism in the Monty Haul example comes from the participants having a focus on mechanical improvement (making your character better at getting better). In the example, they aren't competing against one another, and its not exactly a GM-player competition, but it is a case of the players (GM included) focusing on the improvement of their characters, regardless of story concerns (nar),  or in-world believablity (sim). They are just doing their Gamist actions in the medium of metagame negotiation.
Hope this helps,

[Maarzan]

The prearranged improvements were all inworld - items and social status , nothing about EP or levels. It could have been a proper story if they hadn´t choose to cut it short and to drop risk as well as push the gain in ludricious heights. A able public relations bard could have made a story of this king and his high priest just taking start and end and take dramatic licence to push the risks and deeds in between.
It reminds me of a wrestling match with much color but manipulated and prearragned non the less.  

Is "I want to be king, the greatest mage, swordmaster .." and looking to reach this goal by metagaming and ooc deals narrativist proper narrativist mode?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Is "I want to be king, the greatest mage, swordmaster .." and looking to reach this goal by metagaming and ooc deals narrativist proper narrativist mode?

Well, the thing I'm seeing is you seem to thing there is an ideal form of Narrativism, Gamism and Simulationism. There isn't, I'm afraid. The three modes are varied in how they pursue their own goal. I understand, really. I know I had wasted much of my time trying to think of the ideal Narrativism et al. But I now realise that it doesn't exist. It's like the perfect pasta dish. It's a matter of personal preference.

For portion quoted above, is it Narrativism? I suppose. I'm not real sure of what you're saying. Use of the term metagame is a little confusing.

You are using the term metagame in the traditional sense, which generally means using out-of-character motivation and information to effect in-game events. We at the Forge call that Author Stance if the effect is limited to the player's character or Director Stance if the player can influence things outside of their characters. So for us metagame has been slightly redefined to mean the players desires when playing the game. A player who prefers a Narrativist mode of play has a metagame desire for an interesting or satisfying story to be created through play. becoming "king, the greatest mage, swordmaster .." can make an interesting story. If it's done purely in Actor Stance, fine. If it's done in Author or Director Stance, that works too. It is a matter of personal preference as-to which Stance is used in play.

[Mike Holmes]

On the subject of Monty Haul play, the term usually refers to a GM who gives everything away without sufficient challenge. The point being that it is, in fact, potentially dysfunctional Gamist play. It's only functional until players realize that there's no challenge to getting the rewards they are getting, and become bored with the solely color effect of the rewards.

"Oh, cool, Wand of Orcus. Not like we weren't able to kill gods already..."

Mike