Better/worse Narrativist (split)

[Eric J-D]

You wrote:

Well, for the Gamist it's the sense that the challenge was fair, and that there was a chance of loss. This will really pay off on the next play as the player will feel the heat.

For the Sim player, it's the sense that the world is arbitrary. That it works "like it's supposed to".

For the Nar player, it's the story outcome. If the death made a good ending, then it's all worthwhile.

I like how you broke this down according to the three models.  On the issue of what makes a good Narrativist, I agree with your (and Chris's) assessment that it involves shared-group prioritization.  In my previous post I was initially tempted to flesh out my cryptic statement about wishing these tools had been available to me twenty years ago by relating an incident in which (in hidsight) it is clear that my unarticulated Narrativist interest served to derail the game at one point because this was not a shared priority of play.  I won't bore you with the details, but I can see now how the GNS model would have really helped our group to diagnose the conflicting priorities that were sometimes in operation.

Is it too salacious to offer the following comparison?  One should strive to be as generous as a narativist as one is as a lover.  Of course, this presumes that one already is or has aspirations to be the latter.

Cheers,

zhlubb

[Ron Edwards]

Hi zhlubb,

I often use sex as an analogy with role-playing, in addition to my more usually-offered music analogy. I agree with you entirely.

Minor addition to Mike's point: "the" XYZ player, stated as you do, is perhaps a little strong. I'd specify that each of your examples represents one common application of a respective GNS mode, rather than the archetypal or definitional application.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

...each of your examples represents one common application of a respective GNS mode, rather than the archetypal or definitional application..

Yeah, I'm thinking of putting that caveat in my signature.

Everyone reading this thread realizes that no amount of theoretical talk about theoretical players in hypothetical situations can do other than teach about these things, right? They are in no way definitive descriptions.

I just assume smart readers and hope it all takes care of itself. :-)

Mike "irresponsible associator" Holmes