GNS & Inclusiveness?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Fatalist, cyclical and teleological visions of history/narrative, in my view, can qualify as premises for narrativist play.

All of those count as moral/ethical issues. They are fall into the category of answers to Premise-type questions. I think you might consider the profound difference between a Premise and a Theme, in that the former is both an audience and an author "if" until the story hits some form of climax point, again, from either audience or author perspective. The "then" following from that "if" is the Theme.

I also think you might be seeing a much more narrow meaning of morality/ethics than I am. See Narrativism and morality? for some good discussion about my use of those terms.

Finally, your final paragraph is full of difficulties. I'm not even sure where to address them, except with these two non-related points.

1. I think that all role-playing satisfies the concept of "the character's actions serving the narrative," if by "narrative" all we mean is "what happens."

2. I emphatically do not support the definition of narrativism that a character's actions must be chosen to meet some plot or event criterion to be acceptable.

Best,
Ron

[fusangite]

Thanks for these responses Ron.

Fatalist, cyclical and teleological visions of history/narrative, in my view, can qualify as premises for narrativist play.

All of those count as moral/ethical issues. They are fall into the category of answers to Premise-type questions.

I'm not meaning to be obtuse here but... how? What premise-type question is being answered by the understanding that your character should slay the dragon because you have realized they are "in" Beowulf and this is what Beowulf does?

I also think you might be seeing a much more narrow meaning of morality/ethics than I am. See Narrativism and morality? for some good discussion about my use of those terms.

I'll check this out to see if it answers my question above.

1. I think that all role-playing satisfies the concept of "the character's actions serving the narrative," if by "narrative" all we mean is "what happens."

OK -- I mean narrative in a teleological sense. Your actions serve the development of a narrative in which you have discovered yourself to be situated. For example, the character is in a civil war; a guy rides by on a red horse; the logical thing to do is identify and locate the next two horsemen.

2. I emphatically do not support the definition of narrativism that a character's actions must be chosen to meet some plot or event criterion to be acceptable.

It's your terminology system so that's your perogative. I'm just surprised here at my apparent incomprehension. I do not usually have difficulty assimilating new theories and methods of categorizing things, especially about things I am very familiar with.

[fusangite]

Sorry to be so obtuse but I have read the thread you pointed me to. I still do not understand where to situate the way I play in certain campaigns in your model. I have trouble seeing an implicit ethics/morality in simply conforming to tropes.

[John Kim]

I would argue that pre-modern heroes are typically not conflicted characters and that it is only modern and post-modern readings and reinterpretations that attempt to turn pre-modern heroes into conflicted people. I think that we would be pretty whiggish to argue that Beowulf, for instance, is a conflicted character. But even if you want to argue that Beowulf, specifically, is a conflicted character based on some portion of the text, can we not agree that some pre-modern heroes are not conflicted?  

I would agree with you about the particular example of Beowulf lacking conflict -- but I'm not sure it is typical of pre-modern heroes in general.  As Matt Snyder pointed out, Achilles, Oedipus, and plenty of other pre-modern heroes are all conflicted.  What you call the "modern" drama of conflicted characters hasn't changed very much since Aristotle codified it two thousand years ago.  

At the same time, your broader point is just that there do exist good stories with non-conflicted characters, i.e. which aren't about difficult moral choices that the main character is faced with.  Huckleberry Finn is sometimes cited as a modern example, and I would agree that Beowulf is a pre-modern one.  The character never experiences any moral doubt about what to do.  Although the audience might reflect on moral implications, the character does not.  

I'm not sure where this falls under dramatic theory of Egri, which is where much of the definition of Narrativism comes from.  Narrativism is definitely intended to have a narrow definition of what it is trying for (Egrian Premise), rather than a broad idea of "any good story" -- so these might well be outside of Narrativism.  

Most gaming and fantasy literature bugs me because it is about modern people wandering around worlds with non-modern technology. What I like in gaming is actually taking a break from the modern narrative and wandering around in a pre-modern story where modern ideas of the nature of consciousness are a given.  

I can certainly sympathize with that, although I would note that there are two separate contrasts here: (1) the difference between how modern and pre-modern people think, (2) the difference between the conventions of modern and pre-modern stories.  The campaign I am currently GMing is based on the genre of the Icelandic historical sagas.  

One of the big parts of my game, and many other historical games I think, is reflecting on the difference of historical life as portrayed compared to our modern values and ideals.  In addition, I am also trying to reflect at least a bit of the conventions of the saga narratives.

[Ian Charvill]

Moral/ethical hierarchies are not a precondition of intentional narrative. If one finds oneself situated in the Oedipus myth, the point is to make the myth unfold in the way that it is fated to do, not to impose a moral structure on it. Moving around in existing mythic tropes is not an exercise in exploration (ie. simulationist); it is a narrativist experience by all other standards of the GNS division.

Moving around pre-existing narrative systems in a way where the only choice (or only choice that can lead to a 'succesful' outcome) is pretty obviously an exercise in exploration: no other meaningful choice exists except to find out how this myth turns out.

If you introduce to the players the option of subverting the narrative - of coming up with a new mythic structure (e.g. Oedipus realizes he's sleeping with his mother and decides, well, that's not the end of the world*) then you might have narrativism.

-----

* see John Sayles's Lone Star for an example of characters in a relatively mainstream film dealing with an incestious relationship in an unexpected way.

[Alan]

Fusangite,

I too had difficulty comprehending what exactly narrativist premise was.  I think it's a natural thing to take some weeks or months for the concept to sink in.  When it hits bottom, it's a profound realization.  

I must say, playing an RPG that supported narrativist preferences was a great aid to my understanding.  Simple, inexpensive games are available, like http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html" >The Pool , or http://adept-press.com/trollbabe/" >Trollbabe (my favorite).  

As others have said, one difficulty with understanding Narrativism is the baggage of meaning the root term itself carries with it.  We have groped for a better term, but so far have not agreed on one.  

Discard any idea that narrativism merely requires a narrative.  Every RPG session involves the creation of fantasy events ("Exploration") which can be interpreted as a narrative (or story) by the players.  

What narrativism does require is one or more moral questions that interest the players.  As events unfold in the fantasy, each player gets to choose a moral question as their dance partner, improvising moves and expressions  in relation to the question.  

If you introduce to the players the option of subverting the narrative - of coming up with a new mythic structure (e.g. Oedipus realizes he's sleeping with his mother and decides, well, that's not the end of the world*) then you might have narrativism.

This is well said.  Freedom to choose an answer that the player finds interesting is an important - I would say necessary - element of narrativist play.  If a player's job is only to realize what myth pattern he is playing and satisfy the forms of that myth, he is not making narrativist decisions.


Premise in Fiction

Be cautious of comparing narrativIST premise in an RPG with the thematic premise in a work of fiction.  In an RPG, the player gets to choose their response to the premise question.  In fiction, it is a common device to have each character represent a particular answer.  

So, if the premise question of Beowulf is "In a world where only fame endures, how far will you go to defend a flawed kingdom?" the characters each represent an answer:

Beowulf: I will die defending it and live on in fame.
Unferth: I will take what power I can have now and live in infamy.
Hrothgar: I dispair for my kingdom and do nothing.
etc.

So while in an RPG a player in Beowulf's position might choose not to face Grendel's mother alone, the fictional Beowulf always will, because he is that particular answer personified.


Conclusion

The very best way to understand the concepts of narrativist decisions and premise questions is to play an RPG designed to support such elements.  To understand how the players choose premise partners and play out that dance will take several sessions.  I urge you to try such a game and stiick with it for 3 or 4 game sessions of two or three hours.

The second best way to understand these concepts is to absorb Ron's essays and the clarifying discussions on these message boards.

The essay http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/" >GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory is a bit cryptic but makes a good starting point, and also a good place to come back to periodically.

The essays http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" >Gamism: Step On Up and  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" >Simulationism: The Right to Dream both have valuable clarifications of the overall theory, as well as of their particular subject.

Ron is working on a third essay, dealing with narrativism, which I hope to see soon.  (We should all start stomping our feet and chanting "Why are we waiting?")

[fusangite]

As I've stated in other threads, I'm now convinced my approach is broadly gamist.

EDIT: Lone Star was indeed a great film!

[John Kim]

Be cautious of comparing narrativIST premise in an RPG with the thematic premise in a work of fiction.  In an RPG, the player gets to choose their response to the premise question.  In fiction, it is a common device to have each character represent a particular answer.  
...
So while in an RPG a player in Beowulf's position might choose not to face Grendel's mother alone, the fictional Beowulf always will, because he is that particular answer personified.  

I would agree with this, but I think it mostly reinforces what Fusangite said about Beowulf being non-conflicted.  This is I think what he called a fatalist narrative, which is unlike most modern dramatic narratives.  Played out in an RPG, it does involve choice on the player's part, assuming that the player designed the PC.  The player decides what sort of answer the character personifies at the start of the campaign.  However, this isn't choice at the time of the action.  

I had a character like this in a Theatrix variant campaign (entitled Immortal Tales) that I played/GMed in.  My PC was Harkel, a man with a dragon inside of him.  However, being immortal like all of the PCs, he long ago resolved the duality and throughout the campaign acted in a non-conflicted manner.  I made him in deliberate contrast to angst-ridden werewolf stereotypes.  He never showed any doubt or human wavering during the campaign over moral issues.   And yet I thought he was very interesting morally, because he represented a true immortal viewpoint: someone who has cut himself off from mortal life and cares only about himself and about immortal things ("culture").

(NOTE: Editted to add that this cross-posted with Fusangite's analysis of his games as Gamist, though I don't think that particularly relates to this.  I guess fatalist play with characters like these can be either Gamist or Simulationist -- I don't think the Immortal Tales game was at all Gamist, for example.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread is ready to be closed, I think. Thanks to all.

Best,
Ron