Rough categories of Narrativist play/design

[Jason Lee]

Walt's got himself an interesting question there.  I'll just pile someting on top of it.

Up at the first post I was fairly confident unintentional Nar fit snuggly into type 1.  Then, somewhere in the middle of the page, I became convinced it was more like type 2.  Now I'm just plain confused.

It may not matter if you're not interested in going into drift, because I cannot think of a specific game designed with that goal in mind (that you couldn't instead say was Sim).  Then again, my game system database is limited.

[Bankuei]

Quick input:

I've found that my 2 year Feng Shui campaign drifted easily into type 1 and later into type 2, as our game built up its own set of relationships and mythos to it.    

I also have found that Legend of the 5 Rings drifts easily into type 2.  The typical NPCs served as an excellent example for the players to follow, and the high drama nature of samurai stories easily drew focus into the relationhips.

All of this is based highly on my personal style of play, so your experience may vary.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

That's a good topic, Walt, although I think it's not going to yield I'm fairly well convinced that drifting to Narrativist play will end up scattered across a wide, wide variety of possible variables. Who knows which feature of a given game gets grabbed and tweaked? Remember, all you need is commitment to seizing the Premise and making it squeal a Theme.

My old games of Champions tended to end up like that second category (let's not call these Types, by the way), when they didn't go all dysfunctional due to railroading.

A more recent game of L5R, run by Mario, definitely "went Narrativist" when he decided to revamp his NPCs into a Sorcerer's Soul type relationship map after the second session of play. However, since we changed no rules, we had to grit our teeth a few times when system issues were at odds with these goals - notably the Honor definition and rules as well as the linear-causal combat. If we'd drifted these rules in particular, I don't doubt that we would have ended up in the second category.

W.D., regarding "unintentional" Narrativism ... I'm not sure what to say, because "intent" is either so intangible as to be meaningless, which is my usual position, or revealed through action - in which case if Narrativist play happens, then it's intended (as would be the case for any other mode).

I think that what you're referring to is non-verbalized Narrativism, which really isn't a big issue. No one expects Gamist play, for instance, to be established through overt negotiatory dialogue, extrinsic to the Gamist interactions and (sets of) decisions. Why expect it for Narrativist play, and why consider Narrativist play without it to be worth special discussion?

Pending your response, and running for the moment with the "non-verbalized" concept, I suggest that play within any of the categories I've listed, or within any Narrativist context at all, may or may not include overt dialogue or internally-constructed (mental) dialogue about Premise and Theme at the abstract level.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Ron,

I've been thinking about these categories since you posted them, and I have a question. What are they useful for? I find GNS to be eminently useful. It helps me make game purchasing decisions. It informs choices I make about who to game with. It helps me make design decisions. It helps me have more fun gaming. The vanilla/pervy categories are useful in the same way. But these...what do I do with them?

Paul

[Matt Snyder]

I think Ron's already "warned" about one use -- avoiding dysfunction and drift. He pointed out the possibility for one of the categories to become prone to gamist drift. Dynsfunction ensues, natch.

I leave the rest to Ron, but I smell other "warnings" in the essay.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I have several goals with these categories, some of which are waiting in the wings for the Narrativism essay.

1. I will be presenting several sets of independent ways to evaluate Narrativist play. This is just one of them. Taking them all into account at once yields astonishing diversity, much like you find in both Gamist and Simulationist play as outlined in the other two essays. Understanding that diversity is a big deal, both in terms of "design toward" and "design outside."

2. On a personal note, I've been frustrated for a while by people assuming that Ron's Play-Preference defines Narrativism, and I want to break that assumption's back.

3. I have a lot to say about the first category, some of which is going to be painful for many. For historical and easily-understood reasons, this category is where many Narrativist-inclined people "fled" during their experiences with a massive shift toward Simulationist play in the published RPG materials in the middle 1980s. However, I think in many ways they jumped from the frying pan into the fire. I'll present more about this in the upcoming weeks.

Best,
Ron

P.S. It was very wrong of me to forget Theatrix for the first category as well. It shouldn't surprise anyone that it occurred to me even as I was typing the words "frying pan into the fire" above. No game exemplifies my point about this category better than Theatrix.

[HMT]

... What are they useful for? ...

As I have a fondness for games in the 2nd category, I find the list of such games useful. Also, I think these categories are bound to be somewhat less useful than the GNS model because they are tailored to a more narrow discussion. The GNS model is a first order categorization of all rpgs while a refined version of this categorization is second order. It already depends on the GNS breakdown. However, such a categorization could prove as useful to a discussion of the theory of narritivism as the GNS model has proved to the general discussion of rpg theory.

[Jason Lee]

W.D., regarding "unintentional" Narrativism ... I'm not sure what to say, because "intent" is either so intangible as to be meaningless, which is my usual position, or revealed through action - in which case if Narrativist play happens, then it's intended (as would be the case for any other mode).

I think that what you're referring to is non-verbalized Narrativism, which really isn't a big issue. No one expects Gamist play, for instance, to be established through overt negotiatory dialogue, extrinsic to the Gamist interactions and (sets of) decisions. Why expect it for Narrativist play, and why consider Narrativist play without it to be worth special discussion?

Pending your response, and running for the moment with the "non-verbalized" concept, I suggest that play within any of the categories I've listed, or within any Narrativist context at all, may or may not include overt dialogue or internally-constructed (mental) dialogue about Premise and Theme at the abstract level.

Not quite, I've been calling it unintentional Nar just because I can't think of anything else to call it other than Hi-Fi|Theme...neither Vanilla Nar or El Dorado sits well with me for a definition.  It's the sort of play designed to be Sim|Char that turns out to be Nar.  Mostly played in Actor stance or relatively quiet Author stance, characters with lots of built in conflicts (possible connected to setting, possibly not), with conflicts generated by either PC belief collisions or introduced from an outside source (the GM, for example).

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason (not W.D., sorry about that),

It doesn't need a special name. It's just Narrativist play.

The "designed to be Sim/Char" part of your description is irrelevant. We're talking about play, which is whatever it is when it's played.

The presence of techniques like Director Stance to any degree, frequent or very overt Author Stance, metagame mechanics, shared narration, or lots of other things are not necessary for Narrativist play. They are often found there as reinforcers or useful techniques, but that's all. Narrativist play without them needs no particular name.

I can't emphasize this enough; although no matter how many times I say it, many people seem unable to get it. Can someone else manage to articulate the idea better, please?

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

To tail on to what Ron is saying:

Narrativism has 2 requirements-
-Player input
-Premise

These things can happen with mechanics reinforcing them, or they can happen because the group agrees to play that way(whether it has been explicitly mentioned or not).   That's why folks can find themselves playing Nar style and never knowing it, provided that Player Input is happening, and Premise is forming, whether it was "intended" or not.

Chris

[Jason Lee]

Hi Jason (not W.D., sorry about that),

It doesn't need a special name. It's just Narrativist play.

The "designed to be Sim/Char" part of your description is irrelevant. We're talking about play, which is whatever it is when it's played.

The presence of techniques like Director Stance to any degree, frequent or very overt Author Stance, metagame mechanics, shared narration, or lots of other things are not necessary for Narrativist play. They are often found there as reinforcers or useful techniques, but that's all. Narrativist play without them needs no particular name.

I can't emphasize this enough; although no matter how many times I say it, many people seem unable to get it. Can someone else manage to articulate the idea better, please?

I think I got it as good as I'm going to get it for the time being...my understanding of Sim is currently broken, most likely beyond repair.  Which means I'm having helluva time trying to piece the GNS model back together in my head.  But, I'm not giving up hope just yet ;).

But that aside, I didn't think we were trying to define Nar here - just filling in any holes in your categories of Nar game designs.  I may have missed the boat entirely if stance and conflict source weren't in your criteria list for the categories.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason,

That's an important point - I'm glad you brought it up.

These categories (perhaps in quotes, they're just notions at the moment) aren't about stance at all. They're about source of conflict, to some extent, but not in the sense of being based on it. Paul's post shows how conflict is related to them, but I don't think it's the defining feature.

I see the categories as mainly being about the role of System. In the first category, contact with the System is constant. (Big gasp from the gallery: "But that's System-less play, isn't it?" My response: "No. Drama-based resolution requires more points-of-contact, not less.") In the second, that contact focused very tightly on the reward-resolution connection, with anything else being handled relatively casually or at least "effects-first." In the third, the contact is again constant, but highly quantified, unlike the first.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

In the first category, contact with the System is constant. (Big gasp from the gallery: "But that's System-less play, isn't it?" My response: "No. Drama-based resolution requires more points-of-contact, not less.")

That was actually one of the design goals for the final version.  At no time during play should there be anything happening in Universalis that isn't based on a rule...even if that rule has to be created on the fly as a Gimmick.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ralph,

Spot-on. That's where Universalis shines and Theatrix stumbles.

The game I'm considering building for the Narrativism essay is an attempt at this category in which player Actor + subtle-Author Stances and full GM/player distinction are preserved, like Theatrix and The Window, unlike Universalis, but with very formal IIEE and reward mechanisms.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

I see the categories as mainly being about the role of System. In the first category, contact with the System is constant. (Big gasp from the gallery: "But that's System-less play, isn't it?" My response: "No. Drama-based resolution requires more points-of-contact, not less.") In the second, that contact focused very tightly on the reward-resolution connection, with anything else being handled relatively casually or at least "effects-first." In the third, the contact is again constant, but highly quantified, unlike the first.

I'm not sure where this leaves my typical campaign (though this is unsurprising based on previous GNS discussions).  The systems I prefer tend towards Hero System, Ars Magica, RuneQuest, and now Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  I've tried some of the systems you list under type #1 (The Window, OtE, Theatrix) and #2 (Prince Valiant, Hero Quest), but they aren't my typical preference.  

On the one hand, you tend to classify these as Simulationist systems.  On the other hand, I have been told at various times that my games sound Narrativist.  I really wouldn't want to be lumped together with #1, since I think there is a significant difference.