Long-running narrativist games?

[sirogit]

Has anyone here ever played a narrativist game that went on for more than one year? Are their inherent limitations on running length of a Narrativist game that still addresses a single premise? If a narrativist game does not have a concrete end, than does it lose alot of dramatical power? Does a narrativist game, for the most part, have to "end when it ends", meaning when the premise-driving conflict is resolved, as opposed to other styles of play which may be more easily scheduled towards running sessions and can end at pretty much any point and be just as satisfying?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

My Hero Wars game ran for fourteen months, and I submit that more happened per session than some groups experience in say, three or four sessions. I have run extensive Sorcerer games and, to go back a ways, my extremely-Narrativst Champions games often ran for several years.

The widely-held perception that Narrativist play is limited in scope, and thus in time, is badly mistaken.

Best,
Ron

[james_west]

I'm not sure it would work well to run a very long-running game with the same premise. For the past year or so I've been running a game in which the characters have a long range goal, but the individual situations they encounter along the way each have their own moral challenges.

Thus, continuing characters, long-range connecting plot, but each session (or group of 2-3 sessions) is a story unto itself.

I think that it wouldn't work well to try to have one premise hold your attention for more then 3-4 sessions.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi James,

I tend to think of Premise as being a very complex and multiply-layered thing.

General: Family vs. community?

A bit more specific: Siblings vs. church-reinforced power structure?

A lot more specific: my brother the rake-hell is disrupting the good works carried out by this particular parish.

And that specific version could itself break up into many possible, linear scenarios, each with a Situation (conflict) worth plenty of attention.

Now, say some time later, the brother-issue is resolved. Well now, it's you and your brother as a team (assuming it went this way), perhaps exiled or something.

General: Family vs. community?

A bit more specific: Siblings vs. fragmented, outlaw-corrupted power structure?

A lot more specific: my brother objects when I fall in love with the vicious and idealistic bandit chief lady.

To my way of thinking, this could go on quite a while unless or until I grow tired of dealing with the general Premise. And if my character has more family members, that could go on for quite a while.

Best,
Ron

[Brennan Taylor]

I have had Narrativist games that run for quite some time. We had an almost three-year Vampire game that ran on the same basic premise (how can you remain moral in a morally corrupt society?). The answer to that question differed from character to character, but the exploration was always interesting, and the premise naturally provides plenty of possible ways to test morality during play. It really was pretty open-ended, and I think any Narrativist game can be run this way if the premise is wide-ranging enough. (In other words, I agree with Ron.)

[greyorm]

Has anyone here ever played a narrativist game that went on for more than one year?

You can check the Actual Play forum for notes about my (on-going) Narrativist 3E game. It, in its Narrativist form, has lasted for over a year at this point, and we're about to pick it back up after taking a break from gaming for the last few months.

If a narrativist game does not have a concrete end, than does it lose alot of dramatical power?

No. The discrete events within the Narrativist game are what makes it Narrativist (ie: Story NOW) and interesting. It is those events which players are interested in at that moment, rather than what those events might lead to (though what those events lead to can also be of interest, such is not the point). Thus, unlike other forms of play, the Narrativist game does not require a concrete ending or finale in order to provide emotional impact and drama, as those occur at each turn along the road.

Does a narrativist game, for the most part, have to "end when it ends", meaning when the premise-driving conflict is resolved, as opposed to other styles of play which may be more easily scheduled towards running sessions and can end at pretty much any point and be just as satisfying?

I don't believe the question is accurate, as I believe it is certain other more traditional and "typical" forms of play which lack a greater amount of satisfaction without a concrete ending to their structure.

However, even once the premise-driving conflict is resolved, a new situation can be created to take its place: a new premise altogether, or a new situation which asks the question again to see if the same answer is arrived at in a different situation.

It occurs to me this is a great deal like writing fiction, or more specifically, fantasy. Does a story have to end when it ends? Does one put the world away, its story told? I wrestled with that regarding a novel I have on occassion been writing, as I could not see a future to the world: future events and plots and stories, past the conclusion of the current one.

But I came to the realization only recently that such is not the case, because it is not the events which matter in the story -- it is the people, and people always produce many, many stories by virtue of their being.

[sirogit]

My Hero Wars game ran for fourteen months, and I submit that more happened per session than some groups experience in say, three or four sessions. I have run extensive Sorcerer games and, to go back a ways, my extremely-Narrativst Champions games often ran for several years.

I guess this goes to show the complexity of the issue; I like my gaming to be eventfull, my observation is that the games I run/like tend to be atleast four or five times as eventfull as the games I observe at the local club.

Time isn't as accurate a measure I was looking for as much as Time-contrasted-with-eventfullness. But nonetheless, if those games that you cited ran for 2+ hours evey week or near it, than it is certainly possible to run a long-running narrativist game, long defined by 100 hours put into it.

I don't believe the question is accurate, as I believe it is certain other more traditional and "typical" forms of play which lack a greater amount of satisfaction without a concrete ending to their structure.

The assumptions I was working with were:

My typical brand of gamist is meet challenges with the intention to surmount them, but with no ulimate goal in mind. I tangentcly get into competition with the GM or other players for fun within the game, but I don't have an ultimate goal of winning over either of them. Because there isn't really anything I've been building up to, when the game ends wouldn't really have much of an impact on me besides how much I wanted to continue playing the game/try something else that day.

My typical brand of simulationist is to explore my character/setting/other characters haphazardly, treating situations like a lemon to squeeze exploration out of. I often see a strong element of pastiche. How effectively the expiereince works for me towards enjoymeny of immersion and such typically goes up and down, but usually it's somewhat consistant. If the game suddenly ended while I was in the middle of exploring a paticular nuisence, than it feels abit strange, but there isn't really a single event that I'm waiting for as a player that will make all of the stuff leading up to it worthwhile.

But with my typical brand of Narrativism I feel different. I like stories that are leading up to something. There's only a handfull of serialized fiction that I care for. I'm a large proponent for the "2 and a half hours or less, tell me something meaningfull" standard of film making. So these thoughts expand towards my assumptions of narrativists play. But maybe because I like that handfull of serialized fiction so much, I think that I should broaden my expectations abit and try longer-term narrativist affairs.

I think that a reason that I feel this way is that when playing narrativist, I like to construct characters thet are extremely viable for the current situation and the currernt situation's premise, after the current situation is over, the characters lose alot of viability.

It doesn't usually occur to me to try to construct characters for the immediate situation in Gamist or Simulation. While in gamist that has loads of possibilities for the character's capability in that immediately situation, it's usually assumed that you construct characters without knowing what the situation is as part of the challenge.

In simulationist, I have made a few characters that were paticularly designed for the immediate situation, but after the immediate situation, the question "What does he do now?" is significantly intereasting to me for the purpose of exploration of the shared reality, wheras for if my intentions are to address premise and that is what the game is set up to do, than the question isn't nearly as intereasting.

[brainwipe]

I run Icar as a narrativist game. At any one time there are several simultaneous plot-lines. Some of these plots are higher level and long running, some are short running. Plotlines come and go much without the players noticing, so it is quite possible to keep a narrative over a long period of time.

My current group is 2 1/2 years old, the one prior was closer to 3 on close.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Sirogit, this phrasing puzzles the bejeezus out of me:

after the immediate situation, the question "What does he do now?" is significantly intereasting to me for the purpose of exploration of the shared reality, wheras for if my intentions are to address premise and that is what the game is set up to do, than the question isn't nearly as intereasting.

I see no reason why the question "What does he do now" is being presented as anything different from addressing Premise. In other words, you may be playing Narrativist already.

This is a common error - to think that because one does not say to oneself, "Oh, this is the Premise, and how shall I address it?" that one is not playing Narrativist.

Nowhere in my model, at any point, do I say that articulating the Premise explicitly is necessary to play in this mode. In fact, I repeatedly have stated that doing so is not necessary.

Rob, you may be confounding "Narrativist" with "our play/game produces a story." I've tried to be extra clear in the latest essay to point out that any mode of play can produce a story. Narrativist play is characterized by something more specific than that, which happens to be very good at producing stories, but is not the only way to do it.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I think, basically, this is a preference issue. You like stories that come to tidy conclusions, so, unremarkably, you like your narrativism to come to a close similarly. Is this a problem?

Myself, I prefer serial stuff. Doctor Who was always one of may favorite shows because the plots went on and on. And I can't stand chick films, but I sure can watch soap operas for some reason.

I think that last is the easiest parallel to see. Soaps are all about the sort of emotional theme creation that's the hallmark of narrativism (sometimes sacrificing all sorts of plausibility to make the story happen). Think of a game that's like a Soap. Characters linger on and on forever, one storyling ending only to start another. More importantly, storylines of different characters are on their own schedule. We don't all start at once, and stop at the same time. Each story comes up and then dies down in the context of the overall action at it's own pace.

This is the model that I'm going to be trying in my current HQ game.

Now, Ron's model is different, more like War and Peace, many small stories told under the overall arc of the larger drama. Both valid, but both potentially something that you wouldn't prefer to play.

Vive le difference!

OTOH, maybe Ron is right, and you do play a more soap-style game than you imagine. Maybe more plausible than a soap, but nonetheless serial.

Mike

[sirogit]

Hello,


I see no reason why the question "What does he do now" is being presented as anything different from addressing Premise. In other words, you may be playing Narrativist already.

Never meant to give off the impression that Narrativist games have to intentionally address Premise, quite the oppisite, I think it's best when the game, situation, whatever, makes you think in a way that addreses premise without being aware of it.

The games I define as Sim are so because they were focused on creating this consistant reality.The games I defined as Nar were so because they were focused on protagonist-story-decision-making. For example, there was once an modern-occult game I played in I would define as heavily sim. The GM gave us a situation about some lizard thing seen rampaging on a highway. I decided that my character would be from South America, where legends of the creature come from, my character's father was killed by it and his family felt that he had the responsability to kill it. So after investigation/etc, the creature was killed, which sort've fufilled/closed off alot of the issues I wanted to explore with the character.

Sometimes afterwards, another character asked if my character showed up for the regular meeting of the agency. I figured, that the players want to know where my character is as he was a large element in their characters' lives a few days ago and they'd wonder if he dissappeared. I decided that the character would elect to stay in the city for his job with the agency. Everything after the creature was killed, I was just immersing myself what would it be like in the life of the character, and I never felt that it was in any way creating a coherent story, neither was the game designed to allow for much protagonist decision, so I'd define the environment and my choices very Sim.

If it was a Narrativist game, I don't know, I'd know that I had packed all of the narrativist things into the character at the front end, and I'd have to re-design the character in order to give him significant *punch* in his new situation.

If my expiereince is consistant with what I've heard, I think the reason I tend to do short-running Nar is not exactly about my preference, but because my characters tend to be designed for quick bursts of exploration. That and perhaps I don't feel attached enough to any one character or setting to feel that they 're more intereasting to continue than anything new. But I would like to give the whole longer-running thing a go, so I'd try to break those habits somewhat.

[Mike Holmes]

I think a lot of the "problems" with long term play that you're talking about are system limits. That is, I think often systems make characters who are "one issue" characters. Take Sorcerer for example: you make a character with a kicker, and you resolve it. Then if, and only if, you see another kicker, do you continue play. After the catharsis of the first being resolved, it may seem like further kickers would be making bad "sequels".

Hero Quest, OTOH, just makes up complicated human beings. As such, I think they have much longer legs in terms of long term narrativist play. I'm about to see if that's true with my current game, but we have Ron's example to fall back on.

Mike

[greyorm]

Sirogit,

This is me nodding my head in agreement. I see your side of the issue completely, and it makes me think there are two different types of play that can occur in any mode, depending on various factors, which might be called (for lack of better terms) conclusive play and inconclusive play.

One relies on getting something out of a session in the long term, coming to a conclusion, solidifying an idea. The other relies on gratification during the session, the points of the journey, rather than the destination.

[newsalor]

I think that Star Trek series can be used as a model of one way to play a long narrativistic game. The series have strong status quos, but still manage to address moral and ethical dilemmas in each episode (with variable success) . The Federation is always caught up in situations where the commanding officers have to use their judgement and listen to their hearth. More often than not the external problems that the crew is dealing with is reflected by the inner struggle fought by important characters.

In a television show the "right" answers seem to be easy to come up with, but when the issues are viewed from a roleplayers perspective they aren't that easy. Often real world issues are behind facade of aliens and subspace-phenomenon and they sure as hell are ambigious. Besides, in the TV shows the "answers" are given. This is not true with RPGs.

Anyway, the idea is to construct the background in such way that it allows a multitude of different premises to be issued.

Star Trek may not be a good model for every game, but for some games it can work.

PS. TNG is the best. ;)

[Mike Holmes]

I'd buy that, but I'm not sure that we've seen much episodic narrativist play. What it would require is a system that somehow made the players adopt the issues of the episode, rather than those of the characters or setting. Like a situation comedy or sitcom, these situation dramas rely on the theme arising directly from the situation.

I'm sure I haven't seen that, but it would be interesting. I think some mission based games approach this, but I'm not sure how good they do. Inspectres? Whispering Vault? Re-Coil?

Mike