Narrativism and Bobby G

[contracycle]

On 2001-11-01 12:07, pblock wrote:
The difference is that needing to meet Bobby G is predetermined and nothing can happen unless the characters go see Bobby G.

Thats the circular argument again.

Let me try this:  the whole example is wrong.  Bobby G CANNOT EXIST in a narratavist game, because the mandated power required to *oblige* the characters to see Bobby G does not exist.  Its a straw man;he same way that Ron applied my reference to illusion, to even propose that Baobby G and narratavism can coexist, as Ron does, is nonsensical.  Therefore this whole argument has been utterly, utterly pointless.

This is the sort of thing we're talking about with Bobby G.  Forcing behaviors and forcing actions, sometimes to the point that the players may as well be watching a movie.  It's not quite that bad, but it's fairly close if you look at it from the angle of how little control or effect on the story the PC's have.

Right - so what your basically saying is "games where all the power is invested in the GM are not the same as games where the power is distributed amongst all participants".

What a revelation that is.  In fact the entire initial question depended on arguing this conclusion.

[joshua neff]

Contracyclical Gareth--

Quote:
On 2001-11-01 12:07, pblock wrote:
The difference is that needing to meet Bobby G is predetermined and nothing can happen unless the characters go see Bobby G.

Thats the circular argument again.

With all due respect, I don't see a circular argument so much as people (me, Ron, pblock, Mike Holmes) explaining that the Bobby G scenario as Ron described it is railroading, & railroading is counter to narrativism. You ask why that's counter to narrativism, we explain why, & you declare it a circular argument. I disagree, it hasn't been circular at all. You may not be happy with the explanation, but that doesn't make it circular.

I'm tempted to express one more time why the Bobby G scenario is anti-narrativist, but I'm afraid you'll just once more declare it a "circular argument".

to even propose that Baobby G and narratavism can coexist, as Ron does, is nonsensical. Therefore this whole argument has been utterly, utterly pointless.

Actually, what Ron's been saying since the beginning is that the Bobby G scenario & narrativism aren't compatible. Has this argument been pointless? I don't know. I certainly feel like I've gotten something out of it.

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

I am convinced that you and I should have taken the Bobby G issue to private email many, many posts ago.

Given what both you and I have written on this thread alone, it is clear that we are having two different conversations, neither with the other person. I'd like to have ONE conversation with YOU, by which I mean I am listening to you and vice versa. Please oblige if you're inclined.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Actually, what Ron's been saying since the beginning is that the Bobby G scenario & narrativism aren't compatible. Has this argument been pointless? I don't know. I certainly feel like I've gotten something out of it.

Its not the SCENARIO thats incompatible, its the railroading.  So all Ron said is: non-narrativist play is non-narrativist.

[James Holloway]

On 2001-11-07 10:42, contracycle wrote:
Its not the SCENARIO thats incompatible, its the railroading.  So all Ron said is: non-narrativist play is non-narrativist.

The only reason this is a silly assertion is in light of the dozens of posts which have followed it. As far as I can tell, the original purpose of the post was just to point out a common thread in annoying scenario design. Ron happened to mention that it wasn't narrativist and then it all just went right to hell.

The main point of the post, at least as I got it, was "here's what I've observed in lots of scenario designs."

[Ron Edwards]

Folks,

This thread is over.

That does not mean I am stifling the topic - and most especially not stifling Gareth, who I utterly trust to present fair-minded argument, and who is NOT a troll.

It does mean that specific questions or concerns about the topic need to go either to private email or to threads of their own.

For instance, the specific concern that "Ron did not present a worthwhile point" may be dealt with very nicely through private means.

Or, for instance, discussions of specific Bobby G instances in a given game session might go to a thread for just that purpose. (I am inclined to do that myself soon.)

I'd prefer not to lock the thread. Please oblige me by simply not responding to this one.

Best,
Ron