The Return of Meaningful Decision

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I've been reading my new copy of HQ, and really, really thinking about mythology, and with it, our good friend Meaningful Decision.  I'm sure that most of this is probably old news to you hardcore narrativists, but I've never had the words to really articulate this concept until now, so here it is:

Meaningful Decision=Thematic Statement=fundamental point of play for Narrativists

In other words, meaningful decision is the point where you can take any of the themes in play(whether they have been explicitly stated or not) and transform any thematic questions or ambiguities, into a solid statement.  So we start play with a thematic question, "What will you do for power?" and a thematic statement is some version of "I will do THIS for power!", or "I'll do everything but THIS!" etc.

Narrativists are all about that point of transformation, where the Egri style thematic statement gets made.  And the last, or biggest thematic statement made is the climax of play.  

This is why stuff like static character traits don't fly for Narrativists, whether we're talking Heavy Drinker disadvantage, or Lawful Good.  When its static, its already decided, there's no room for a thematic statement.  On the other hand, when there's room to decide between the trait or not, we can make all kinds of statements:

-"Joseph's weakness for alcolhol destroyed everything he loved, including himself"
-"Joseph's love for his family overcame his weakness."
-"I will stick to my moral code, no matter the situation!"
-"Sometimes you have to turn your back on the laws for what is right!"
-"The law is the law, and sometimes it seems to be wrong in the short run, but without it, we wouldn't even have any good at all!"
etc.

A character for whom all thematic statements are already decided, is boring, is done, finished, nothing more to really say or do in the Narrativist sense.  

Again, probably old news to many of you.

Thoughts? Comments?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

I suppose it would be good to stamp This thread is pro-Narrativist-biased real big about right here.

After all, "done," "useless," and so on aren't accurate adjectives to describe a character for someone who wants to be the character or to experience the story in the sense of a genre fan. The desire to author stories isn't universal, in terms of the role-playing activity.

But hey! Let's just hop, conceptually, into a discussion of Narrativist play and let all the others just take care of themselves (and leave some of the judgment of them, even tacitly or by implication, behind).

In which case, the answer is pretty much, "Yes." This is the centerpiece of Narrativist play, which is to say "Story Now." The "Now" refers to the direct link between a character's decision, outcomes of situations involving the character, and our inferred Theme.

Don't mistake the "Now" to mean "all the time" or "frenetically." It means, when a decision occurs, Theme happens. Bam.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi Ron,

I suppose it would be good to stamp This thread is pro-Narrativist-biased real big about right here.

Oops, sorry!  Forgot to add the usual extensive disclaimer... Object Y is "useless" for purpose X!   Folks, please don't take the above words as derogatory for other modes of play!  That said, the floor is still open for discussion.

Chris

[W. Don]

Hi folks,

Don't mistake the "Now" to mean "all the time" or "frenetically." It means, when a decision occurs, Theme happens. Bam.

I'm still actually in the process of wrapping my head around Nar games. So I'm asking this for clarification.

Would it make sense to say this: In strongly built Nar games, each significant player decision is either (a) the "Bam" itself; or (b) building up to the "Bam".

- W.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi W.D.,

I'd hate to add to the lexicon unnecessarily ... "Bam" is merely a verbal device in that particular post, not a term that carries any special theory-based meaning. As a device, it indicates the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when the player-character's decision is brought into play in some fashion.

Nuance #1: "Brought into play" can mean anything from foreshadowing to flashback, and anything in between. It can mean the character is just thinkin' about it, or it can mean the character flat-out does it. Whatever - by "brought into play," I mean, brought into the perceptions and possible emotional responses of the other people at the table.

Nuance #2: I expect that the word "decision" is going to throw people as well, especially because it's often used in reference to GNS categories. In this thread, I'm talking about what characters do (or more accurately, are authored or "played" to do). I especially want to emphasize that it doesn't matter whether the character "meant" to do the action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot.

Nuance #3: I should also clarify that in all stories (unlike real life), the character's immediate environment is kind of a weird sidekick, who sometimes acts in the character's favor and sometimes against him or her, and that "character decisions" often include this sidekick's behavior. When the player (the real person) is able to affect that to any degree at all, whether lesser or greater (Sorcerer vs. Universalis), it's a powerful technique for Narrativist play, albeit not confined to it.

Given all that, then yes, what you say is certainly the case: in such a game, quite a few of the decisions will carry the weight we're talking about, or if they don't, they provide set-up or material for future decisions. They may be paced rapidly or maybe show up only once a session or two; that depends on the group.

You might be thinking of the term "Bang," which is much more specific and technical. A Bang is a set of circumstances in the game-world which demand that a player-character, or more than one, make some sort of decision. An ideal Narrativist Bang provides emotional "grab" even before the decisions are made.

Best,
Ron

[W. Don]

As is often the case, I realise what I'm trying to say after I say it.  Which, of course, is me blinking right back at me. Thanks for the overview of nuances, Ron.  Clears up things and adds to the stuff I'm chewing on.

I'd hate to add to the lexicon unnecessarily ... "Bam" is merely a verbal device in that particular post...

Gotcha. I agree. Let's not go there.

Given all that, then yes, what you say is certainly the case: in such a game, quite a few of the decisions will carry the weight we're talking about, or if they don't, they provide set-up or material for future decisions. They may be paced rapidly or maybe show up only once a session or two; that depends on the group.

That articulates what I've been aiming at, and also neatly answers my question. Thus far, apart from heavily drifting non-indie games, my only experience with straight up Nar is InSpectres (about 3 months now into our campaign). I and my group have been noticing from actual play that everything that happens is either setting up Stress or Stress itself. (Assuming that I've got it correctly that dealing with on-the-job stress encapsulates the Egri premise of the game.)

You might be thinking of the term "Bang," which is much more specific and technical...

That wasn't what I was thinking of, actually. The nuances you've provided have cleared that up for me. I meant for "bam" (note: now in small caps; just another word)  to be the Thematic Statement that Chris was refering to.

Thus to more clearly restate what I've said (and which seems to make sense): In strongly built Nar games, each significant decision a player makes is either (a) building up to a Thematic Statement; or (b) the Thematic Statement itself.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm actually looking forward to observing this when we pick up Dust Devils next month.

- W.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Excellent! Great dialogue.

Chris, how is all this working for you?

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi Ron,

Pretty much everything I've been thinking, just better articulated.  I'm still rolling related thoughts in my head, but if anyone else cares to comment, feel free.

Chris