Narrativism IS about story!!

[Caldis]

In this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9773

anonymouse stated the following

Wanting to "tell a story" does not necessarily have anything to do with Narrativist decisions.

While this statement it true when talking about specific Narrativist decisions it doesnt change the fact that wanting to tell a story is what Narrativism is about.

I know this may seem to fly in the face of several recent discussions and Ron's narrativism essay specifically this portion.

The real question: reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved in the production of these events during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. Making a story can be accomplished through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue.

The subtle difference between this statement and what I'm saying is that the presence of story does not require narrativism however to get narrativism you do require story.  To actually explore what interests the narrativist you need setting, situations, characters and plot, all those elements that make up story.  By itself though the story is not narrativist it's simply a story and can belong in any mode.

So what more does story need to become Narrativism?  The first thing that's trotted out is premise and yes it's an important element but does story plus premise equal narrativism?  I'm afraid not.  Even the most simplistic gamist dungeon hack can have a premise, "disparate force of good must ovecome their differences in order to overcome evil".  Is it a strong premise, no.  Does it say much about the human condition, probably not but it is still premise.  

So what then makes Narrativism?  The defining element is the ability to address the premise.  You have to be able to make a statement about the premise, to prove it true or cause it to fail.  

Narrativism is something more that telling a story but at it's heart equating "wanting to tell a story" with narrativism is a good form of short hand.

[james_west]

Even the most simplistic gamist dungeon hack can have a premise, "disparate force of good must ovecome their differences in order to overcome evil".

Aha! You're confusing premise and theme. What you've stated is a theme. The premise version would be something like, "Is the fight against evil more important than our differences?"

Well, it depends on your differences; if the players have a genuine choice to make, and are allowed to make it, then that's narrativism.

The essential point to premise is that, to paraphrase Ron, you're asking a difficult human question. The players get to answer it, through the course of play. If you've already answered it before play begins, it's not premise.

- James

[Caldis]

Even the most simplistic gamist dungeon hack can have a premise, "disparate force of good must ovecome their differences in order to overcome evil".

Aha! You're confusing premise and theme. What you've stated is a theme. The premise version would be something like, "Is the fight against evil more important than our differences?"

Well, it depends on your differences; if the players have a genuine choice to make, and are allowed to make it, then that's narrativism.

The essential point to premise is that, to paraphrase Ron, you're asking a difficult human question. The players get to answer it, through the course of play. If you've already answered it before play begins, it's not premise.

- James

Which is the point I was making, addressing the premise defines narrativism.  However premise does not require being addressed, premise is simply a statement about the human condition.  When talking about Narrativism Ron changed premise from a statement into a question so that it specifically can be addressed.  In literary terms premise is the statement that the literary work makes.

[james_west]

premise does not require being addressed, premise is simply a statement about the human condition.  When talking about Narrativism Ron changed premise from a statement into a question so that it specifically can be addressed.  In literary terms premise is the statement that the literary work makes.

We're clearly having a word definition problem here. The problem arises from the fact that literature is static; it's already been written. Since it's inherently not interactive, there is no word from literature to mean a question that gets answered in the course of play, because, of course, there's no play.

When using premise in the context of narrativism, it is understood to mean a difficult human question, answered by the players through the course of play. Like I said, if you've got that, it's narrativism.

Which actually brings up the interesting question of, who gets to ask the question? Well, Ron has spent several years and more than a few rule books trying to convince us that the players will be a lot more interested in the question, if they asked it in the first place.

- James

[Caldis]

premise does not require being addressed, premise is simply a statement about the human condition.  When talking about Narrativism Ron changed premise from a statement into a question so that it specifically can be addressed.  In literary terms premise is the statement that the literary work makes.

We're clearly having a word definition problem here. The problem arises from the fact that literature is static; it's already been written. Since it's inherently not interactive, there is no word from literature to mean a question that gets answered in the course of play, because, of course, there's no play.

When using premise in the context of narrativism, it is understood to mean a difficult human question, answered by the players through the course of play. Like I said, if you've got that, it's narrativism.

Which actually brings up the interesting question of, who gets to ask the question? Well, Ron has spent several years and more than a few rule books trying to convince us that the players will be a lot more interested in the question, if they asked it in the first place.

- James

Hey I'm in agreement we're arguing semantics but Ron Quotes Lajos Egri in the Narrativism essay

A good premise is a thumbnail synopsis of your play. [examples follow, including "Egotism leads to loss of friends." - RE]

There's no question involved in the premise, it is a statement.  But he does go on to say..

... What is wrong, then? What is missing?

The author's conviction is missing. Until he takes sides, there is no play. Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take? We, the readers or spectators of your play, do not necessarily agree with your convictions. Through your play you must therefore prove to us the validity of your contention.

So Egri when talking of writing a play suggests that you have to address the premise.  If we decide to role play based upon the suggestions of someone who is trying to describe what is necessary for writing an interesting play (or story) does that not suggest that our goals are very similar to those of someone who is trying to tell a story, and that narrativism is therefore about telling stories?  That's the point I was trying to make.

[james_west]

OK, sorry, I was being dense. I think we're in agreement, and always were.

- James

[Ian Charvill]

The problem being all three modes inevitably produce story, narrativism doesn't produce story any more or less reliably that gamism.

Furthermore, any roleplaying game that involves even a single conflict will involve a premise - because every conflict can be expressed as a premise-type question.  If that conflict is resolved, the premise will inevitably be resolved into a theme.

Similarly, all three modes will always involve competition if there is conflict; and all three modes will involve exploration if that conflict moves forward by a single foot's space.

So, James, I don't buy

When using premise in the context of narrativism, it is understood to mean a difficult human question, answered by the players through the course of play. Like I said, if you've got that, it's narrativism.

without the qualifier as a priority of play.

To bring that back to Caldis's original point, equating wanting to tell a story with narrativism is a understandable but unfortunately some way off base.  Say the story I want to tell is 'a day in the life of a Chicago cop' or 'a day in the life of a Rivendel elf' that you could just as easily say that wanting to tell a story is the starting place for simulationism.

I would suggest generally that equating story with narrativism is a tar baby - and one that Ron only narrowly avoids by adding the qualifier 'Now!'.

[Lxndr]

The catchphrase I've seen used somewhere (or maybe I made it up) is that Narrativism is Story NOW.  The other modes are, to a greater or lesser extent, Story AFTER.  I.e. you make a story out of the elements in the game, as opposed to Narrativism where Story is being made at the time.

Not sure how accurate that is, but... it's a thought.

[greyorm]

the qualifier as a priority of play

Ian nails it, and I would add the details that: to be Narrativist requires making decisions in light of consciously Exploring the issues embedded in play, not just an after-effect of decisions. That is, one makes the decision in the full knowledge that one is doing so specifically for no other reason than to comment upon that issue.

This, of course, is also why the "NOW" is so important. You can retro-fit any decisions in play to work, though your choices at the moment they were made, may have had nothing to do with exploration and commentary upon an issue, rather, they may have been:

"What would my character really do here?" (Sim)
"What would be most dramatically appropriate?" (Sim)
"How do I best survive this?" (Gam)
"This provides the maximum benefit to me." (Gam or Sim)
Etc.

And yet theme/premise will still emerge from the events that occur -- yet this does not Narrativism or a Narrativist Premise make; and this is also why "making a story" is not Narrativism.

[greyorm]

EDIT: ack...double-post

[Caldis]

the qualifier as a priority of play

Ian nails it, and I would add the details that: to be Narrativist requires making decisions in light of consciously Exploring the issues embedded in play, not just an after-effect of decisions. That is, one makes the decision in the full knowledge that one is doing so specifically for no other reason than to comment upon that issue.

But this conflicts with the ideas presented in this thread.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9395

The premise does not have to be known and the comment you are making about it doesnt have to be concious for it still to be narrativism.  You dont have to be thinking about it as trying to address a premise for it to actually be doing so.

In another recent thread I postulated that when you imbue a character with a moral outlook during character creation that you are already engaging in narrativism.  I initially backed off of that stand but I'm beginning to think my instincts were right.  The moral outlook combined with the essence of the character is the premise statement for that character, when questions of what would my character do come up in play that is addressing premise.

So for example if I'm playing a swashbuckling roguish con man out to make money I can boil down his essence to a premise statement like "wits, charm and a sense of adventure can overcome the bureaucratic snobs that run the world".  Play is narrativist if the inherent conflict in that statement is explored, i.e. we come into conflict with the bureaucratic snobs and see if wits and charm are enough to overcome them.  I do not have to choose to succeed or fail in any given task to prove the statement, the whether it proves true or false can be determined randomly by the dice however the issue is addressed.

Conversely the play is not narrativist if during play the premise inherent in character creation is ignored for some other priority, such as solving a murder mystery that has no connection to the premise.

[greyorm]

Caldis,

Unfortunately, you're still confusing theme with premise -- and note, there are clear distinctions drawn in the Narrativist essay. To clarify that there, it is as simple as the difference between a statement and a question.

If you have determined that "wits, charm and a sense of adventure can overcome the bureaucratic snobs that run the world" then you have a theme, not a premise.

The Narrativist game sees what happens when wits, charm, and a sense of adventure encounter the bureaucratic snobs who run the world. What happens is specifically left up in the air -- otherwise you have Simulationism.

Regardless of this (and you may or may not get this) the premise does not need to be consciously stated in order to be addressed as the point of decision.

[Jason Lee]

I see that GNS draws a distinction between theme and premise, but I don't think it's relevant.  Ok, so premise is a question, theme is an answer.  Theme could be said to emerge in play as the premise is addressed.  The premise could be abandoned at any point, though a theme must still emerge for it to be Nar.  So we have premise being theme unrealized in play, and theme being premise realized in play.  I don't think I care about theme outside of play, because how can something outside of play be Nar?

If you want to draw some kind of distinction between premise and theme in play, I'll listen, but I'm skeptical that I'm going to see the relevance of that either.  The theme is the statement the player is making, the question is irrelevant.

Now, maybe premise is supposed to be different that theme so you can say that Nar is open-ended as to how the story develops, because it's phrased in the form of a question.  Then you can use the word theme for anything interpreted after the fact.  Theme becomes post-play, so you can say 'Sim/Gam can have a theme just as Nar because I can point to the transcript of play and interpret one.  I'd consider that the difference between addressing theme/premise and theme/premise interpreted from a transcript.

Anyway, I see no functional difference between addressing theme and addressing premise (prioritizing Nar).

*****

As for Nar being about story, I think you're right on target Caldis.  I think, instead of saying Nar is about story, we say Nar is about 'fill in technical definition of story'.  Like theme, story could be interpreted from a transcript.  Addressing/prioritizing story in play is Nar.  

*****

We don't want to argue about what the words 'story' and 'theme' mean so we replace them with 'character + Premise -> conflict -> resolution' and 'the answer to Premise', respectively.  I think these fine distinctions are like the rules-bloat by home-brew is currently suffering from - I should really trim, but I fear gamist-creep.

[Caldis]

Caldis,

Unfortunately, you're still confusing theme with premise -- and note, there are clear distinctions drawn in the Narrativist essay. To clarify that there, it is as simple as the difference between a statement and a question.

If you have determined that "wits, charm and a sense of adventure can overcome the bureaucratic snobs that run the world" then you have a theme, not a premise.

You're falling into the same loop that James and I addressed earlier, we're saying the same thing just in a different manner.

Egri calls that statement a premise, to write a good play (or story) you have to address that premise which is what narrativism is an attempt to do.  Premise in Narrativism is phrased as a question so that it may be addressed because the game is in action just as the script the playwright is working on has to treat it as a question in order to prove his premise.

The Narrativist game sees what happens when wits, charm, and a sense of adventure encounter the bureaucratic snobs who run the world. What happens is specifically left up in the air -- otherwise you have Simulationism.

Yes exactly as I said, in play it may not turn out that my premise holds true the dice may go against me and wits and charm fail the character.  It doesnt change the fact that the character was an attempt to prove that statement true.

Regardless of this (and you may or may not get this) the premise does not need to be consciously stated in order to be addressed as the point of decision.

I dont seem to be getting your point here because to me it sounds directly opposed to the point you made earlier,

to be Narrativist requires making decisions in light of consciously Exploring the issues embedded in play, not just an after-effect of decisions. That is, one makes the decision in the full knowledge that one is doing so specifically for no other reason than to comment upon that issue.

Perhaps you could rephrase it, or provide an example of what you mean?
I hope that doesnt sound snarky, as much as I think I've grasped something here I'm constantly in a state of arguement with myself whether I'm right or not so I am looking for holes in my logic.

A bit of background on where I'm coming from and how my views on this were formed.  I'd read all of the GNS articles and many of the forum threads trying to resolve the whole theory and it made my head swim in a daze though lots of it was sinking in.  One point that kept causing me problems was trying to find the difference between Sim and Nar.

 I ran into several post both here and at rpg.net that postulated that Narrativism was all about premise and treated it as if that meant the entire point of the games was to run around spouting philosophy and reading out Shakespearean soliloquys.  One post in particular talked about story oriented simulationist play and how that could could use all the same tools of narrativism (story now, empowering players).  This caused me to shake my and really wonder what was this all about.  

In the end it was a simple statement by Ron in a thread about simulationism here that cleared things up for me.  Someone described to him a setting where several internal conflicts were built up in town and the characters all had their own conflicts that meshed with the town, the players were free to do anything they wanted, the poster felt it was simulationist.  I dont remember Rons specific response, nor unfortunately the thread it was in, but he basically said that he was almost certain that the game would become narrativist because the players would address their internal conflicts.

It all clicked together for me and made sense.  Narrativism isnt a game where everybody is trying to discover the meaning of life it's a game where people are able to persue the things that are important to them, where they make a character that says something about the world and then go out and try and prove it in play.  

It's not something totally different from the normal gaming experience it's the same thing but with more focus on what the players want, more exploration of what makes a character unique and what that says about the world.

Hope this makes sense and doesnt just come of as some crazed ranting lunacy.[/quote]

[Paganini]

Have you guys read Ron's actual Narrativism essay? Cos I'm not seeing it here.

From the ground up:

A Transcript is an account of play. A transcript is a Story if it includes Theme. Theme is the product of specific Situations in which a Character makes a decision regarding a humanly interesting conflict (i.e., a Premise). Any play *may* produce Story, but does not *necessarily* do so. Narrativist play must *always* produce Story, because Story Now means that, right now, at this moment, we are producing Theme. Non-narrativist play *may* produce Story, but does so only as a by-product of whatever else is going on - not as an overriding goal of play.