Drifting toward Narrativism

[John Adams]

This is my first post, so I'll start with hello all and a big, big thank you to the creators, moderators and posters of this forum. In particular many thanks to Ron Edwards for his essays. I don't want to comtemplate the blood, sweat and tears that went into creating them but if one of your goals was to get people thinking in new directions then Mission Accomplished.

I'm specifically looking for feedback on a new mechanic I want to introduce to my existing home-brew. (Context to follow.)


THE IDEA:

GM roles: Nar with strong Sim slant (or maybe vice versa?). Players can create/introduce/suggest Setting elements, Characters, Color, and Situations at any time. The GM is facilitator and Editor-in-Chief. He has final authority over what enters the SIS and edits any player input so that it "fits" the Setting and story. The GM also introduces these elements, filling in necessary bits the players didn't contribute. The GM might have an overall story in mind, but it is either background or subordinate to the PC's stories. Expect the players to take the GM's story in unexpected directions.

Each PC's should have his own Premise. (Premise derived from Character.) The Setting may have its own Premise too, and the Character Premises can synergize or contrast with the Setting Premise. PC's also have Goals which describe how the player wants his character to develop over time. Simple Goals like improved effectiveness are handled by existing Sim and Gamist oriented techniques. Story Points apply to complex Goals which resonate with your character's Premise. Maybe you want to marry the Princess, become the most famous story-teller in the land or become King.

You earn Story Points by driving the story forward and addressing Premise. You then stake those Story Points in a Challenge in order to move the character closer to a Goal.

1. You need Situation, a Challenge to overcome. You can suggest this as a story idea, the GM might present it as part of a larger plan or the Situation might just present itself during play; but you can only face one Challenge per play session. This gives the other players have a chance to move their character's stories forward. The Challenge will always involve at least one skill check or opposed test but it might involve a huge battle (resolved by the Combat and Magic rules) or a social conflict (Social Resolution techniques, not just dialog).

2. Negotiate the Stakes. You must stake 1-5 Story points to move toward a particular goal. The GM will edit the Situation to fit the Setting and make sure the Challenge fits the goal you seek. He will offer a certain concrete advancement toward your goal based on your Stake, the more Story Points you stake, the closer you will get to your goal. Weigh your chances in the Challenge and haggle a little bit until you both agree on the Stakes and the nature of the Challenge.

3. Resolve the Challenge. If you win, every effect described by the GM's stake becomes part of the story and you lose the Story Points in your Stake. If you lose the challenge you get 1 Story Point for your trouble but move no closer to your Goal.


THE GOALS:

• Add a modular set of new techniques to our existing game. The group can try them out and accept or reject them.
• Add a "reward system" or feedback loop which encourages players to identify and address Premise.
• Formalize a system of conflict resolution specific to realizing a PC's long-term goals in the SIS.
• Conflict Resolution needs to encapsulate or extend the Sim-heavy task resolution already in the game.
• Keep a strong Sim base with centralized GM roles but give players more input into Situation.
• Maintain the existing systems, basically Sim but some are Gamist.

THE GROUP AND SYSTEM:

I think we fall pretty well into the Sim-by-Habit Ouija Board template. My home-brew system might qualify as a Fantasy Heartbreaker, right down to the winged men and cat people. (I really had no idea we were such a cliche!) Most of us have been playing variations of this system for 20+ years so I and my beleaguered playtesters are *heavily* invested in this system. I don't see us dropping it. On the other hand, it should be Drift-able, in the sense that the most important aspects of Social Contract, GM roles and System are not addressed by the rules at all. Adding new techniques should work as long as they don't conflict with traditional Sim techniques.

I had a serious and fruitful discussion with our group last night. I determined as best I could what their GNS goals are. I think we have 1 Gamist (not hard core), 2 are Nar inclined but have never had the chance to play in such a premeditated fashion, and 1 I can't quite pin down ... maybe Sim. I am strongly inclined to help the players drive the story actively and address Premise but I didn't get the feeling that GM-full play would work for us. Our story could use a strong dose of dramatic theme, I always put it out there but surprise! it always seems to get buried because the players have no guidelines or incentive to address it. When it happens it's either pulling teeth or completely by accident. Those moments when Character, Premise and Situation come together are treasured by most of the players.

I'm willing to let play become a little incoherent in the short term. I expect that Nar focus will either be rejected and we're back to the same-ol', same-ol' or we will quickly identify which of the older Sim rules clash and modify or replace them. The system should be drift-able, but if it isn't this experiment could give the group the swift kick in the rear it needs to try new systems.

[John Adams]

Wow, no responses? Not even a "Hi, welcome to the forum"? C'mon folks!

It bears mentioning that according to the definition in the Forge glossary our current play is coherent. We do have an agreed on Creative Agenda and the rules and our actual practices in the game even support it. The evil twist is that it isn't the Creative Agenda any of the players would prefer is given a choice! We're just playing by habit, that way we we taught it was "supposed to be done."

I'm pretty sure we can converge on one new CA for the group (Nar with some Gamist support) even though that might not be ideal for all of the players. We've been together for a looooong time, so our desire to play together should trump an individual Creative Agenda to a certain extent. At least we can move to a CA that pleases most of the players, most of the time.

I just sent an email proposing a shift to Fortune in the Middle and Shared Narration. I'll post the fallout in Actual Play once we have a chance to try it out.

[Anders Larsen]

Well, Hi, and welcome to The Forge!

I can really only speak for myself, but I think the reason you don't have got any response is that you don't have ask any question, so it is hard to know what it is you want help with.

So please tell us, what can we help you with!

- Anders

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hi John. Getting "duds" (messages with no or little replies) is something one has to get used to at the Forge; it's a corollary of the high-content no-frills posting culture. Nothing to be done about it, even if it is personally annoying to post something and not get lots of attention. I should know, I have a knack for starting dud threads ;)

That being said, no reason not to comment on a thing or two in your post:

For your suggested system overlay, it seems like a fine basic set of narrativism-supporting techniques. "You earn Story Points by driving the story forward and addressing Premise." is the only vague part: how do you drive the story forward and who decides if you're addressing Premise? Apart from that, though, it seems like it'll work fine.

Theory-wise: while what you're doing should work as described, the terminology you use probably isn't quite right. There is no such thing as Sim-supported Narrativism or the other combinations you mention in your post, or at least their existence is highly contested. Most of the time, when somebody mentions a Hybrid creative agenda, it's because they're mixing up techniques with agenda in their analysis. Using a GM doesn't mean a whit GNS-wise, for instance, so merely retaining a strong GM role doesn't mean that a game is a Nar-Sim hybrid.

More significantly, most efforts at genuinely reconsiling two separate creative agendas in the same game end up falling into Incoherence, which is when the players stop trying to communicate their creative interests to each other and acquiesce to communicating on the techniques level only. This is where many long-term rpg groups find themselves eventually, as the players get into the rut of arguing IC against OOC or other similar technique questions in lieu of the heavy matters of motivation and agenda. Some of your notions seems like they might breed Incoherence; if you try to encourage players to go Narrativist while accomodating Simulationistic thinking, for instance, the end result could be that the players who are inclined to Nar go that way, while the rest stay where they are. Then you have an openly Incoherent group instead of an ill-fitting creative agenda. Whether that's an improvement depends on your viewpoint, I guess.

But, as I said, I think your factual rules-changes seem pretty solid. I suggest forgetting the fine points of theory for now and focusing on finding out what kind of play your group wants. Specifically, a piece of advice: most experiences seem to suggest that talking about abstract Forge-theory with your roleplaying group is not a socially beneficial way of getting new kind of play going. It seems that people despise new ideas when they're brought as an evangelical set of pre-thought dogma. A much better course is to act your own self and talk about the stuff in the same way you'd talk about any new techniques. For example, I myself won't even try to classify play in GNS terms before or during play - I just play games in their own terms and see which ones the people I play with like.

As for your plan: as I understand you, what you're doing is "sneaking up on a mode" as Mike Holmes put it a couple of years ago. By which I mean, you're trying to introduce a new creative agenda with gradual changes in techniques. There are many older discussions about that which you might want to check out. There are several folks who think that it is a difficult way to accomplish something that comes about very naturally by talking about it openly and switching games. However, you seem to have a clear vision of what you're doing, so perhaps it's best to go about it the way you've planned out.

To finish: I went through a very similar phase in my own play some three years ago. That included one D&D campaign that lasted several years and where I specifically had an accomodating GMing strategy: the content and focus of play would be negotiated on the run based on who happens to be playing, and everybody and anybody is welcome to join the game anytime they please. I was aware of GNS at the time, for example, but didn't try to enforce one agenda only. In hindsight what we got was a surprisingly strongly Explored gamist campaign; it was, however, riddled with agenda clashes with both sim and nar players who usually didn't stick with the game for long. An illustrative example of the difficulties of applying GNS is that during all that play I was pretty certain that the dominant agenda in the group was simulationistic. I didn't let that conception interfere with my chosen techniques of GMing, though, so I managed not to mess up play with some well-meaning interference.

[John Adams]

Anders:

* Are there any contradictions between my rules-as-stated and my goals-as-stated?
* Any landmines in this approach that I'm not seeing?
* Has anyone played with a system similar to this one? What worked well and what didn't?
* If you've been through a similar transitional period, any suggestions or insights would be appreciated.


Eero seems to have read my mind ...

... falling into Incoherence, which is when the players stop trying to communicate their creative interests to each other and acquiesce to communicating on the techniques level only.

This doesn't mesh with what's in the glossary. Is this the general understanding? or maybe this is the typical result of incoherence but not the definitional essence of it?

In any case, before I dove into the Forge no one in my group even had the tools to productively discuss Creative Agendas. As a newbie here it looks like this community spent a great deal of time and effort just cutting through the typical confusion and assumptions before you arrived at a common vocabulary and could discuss what really matters. There must be many groups like mine still mired it fruitless discussions about "balance" and "fun" without ever addressing what those words mean, if anything. So I would say groups outside the Forge community have trouble dealing with CA not because they are unwilling to compromise but because they simply can't effectively communicate those ideas. By default, we discuss techniques because they are more concrete and easier to grasp, but productive discussion always depends, if only implicitly, on understanding Creative Agenda.

I agree that dropping GNS theory on your group isn't the best way to go. After reading Ron's essays I was able to direct the discussion much more effectively without explaining the theory itself. It was enough that I knew what I wanted and how to get it and I could direct the discussion that way.

Thanks for posting your similar experience. If you're "shopping around" for a game you can run only your favorite Creative Agenda. In my case the pool of players is more-or-less fixed. We're a group of long-time friends and the main reason for playing is to see each other on a regular basis. (Our version of poker night.) So some compromise seems inevitable. We're not going to drop a player because he's Gamist or Sim for instance, there will need to be some give-and-take on all sides. I suspect we will alternate at times, stop addressing Premise to focus on Step on Up for example.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Incoherence: huh, I had to specifically drag up the ol' glossary and see what Ron says. I fear that I (and others whose participation predate the glossary) tend to use these terms any which way after learning them organically. In this case I'm solid, though; what I described is the immediate long-term consequence of a prolonged agenda clash, as demonstrated by many gaming groups all over. Prolonged agenda clash = Incoherence of play. (I emphasize the prolonged nature of Incoherence vs. a mere momentary agenda clash, because while the glossary doesn't mention it, Incoherence specifically is a feature of play only existing over a period of time.) So yeah, communication being limited to the technique level is more properly an immediate consequence of Incoherence. A very useful empirical sign, though.

Other than that, I think your understanding of Creative Agenda and its place in a group's cooperation is spot on. A point to consider is that when a group of players is aware of the mere existence of creative agenda (by that name or not), it becomes much easier to coordinate; nowadays I can switch from Great Orc Gods (a purely gamist game) to The Shadow of Yesterday (a strongly narrativist game) with most any people I play with regularly in a confident and directed manner. Lately I've been playing mostly with teenagers around this small town here in central Finland, and the great majority of them have little problem with shifting their expectations from game to game, at least after they play a couple of sessions with me. Usually we call narrativism "playing to create a story" and gamism "playing against challenge", which is a good example of how you don't need the GNS terminology in negotiating CA.

Continuing from that, it seems to me that if you limit yourself to pursuing a competently negotiated creative agenda with your friends (as opposed to Hybrid play), you will find great success. While I've consistently failed myself in producing genuinely Hybrid play (and read of several failed attempts), I've found it very rewarding and fun to play with different agendas, to compel people to try games outside their normal agendas, and to coordinate creative agenda across the group in an aware manner. (A very useful tool in this agenda changing is to also change the game you play at the same time, because it's very natural to check your assumptions when you switch games; in principle you could do this "within" the same game, too, if the game itself doesn't hamper the new agenda.) This in opposition to trying to compromise between agendas during one instance of play, which I find problematic.

What I'm trying to say above is that if your group can accept the idea of playing a bit of nar today and gam tomorrow, instead of trying to get everything, all the time, you have good chances of making play enjoyable for all. I've met only few people who are so shell-shocked that they can't switch agenda, so no reason to think it wouldn't work.

The main worrying point is the homebrew system you describe, where all players seem to have great investment. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but generally speaking it is unnecessarily difficult to switch agendas while retaining characters, plot and rules. Switching games gives great and instinctive signals for everybody to take on a new perspective; if I play Sorcerer today and D&D tomorrow, I'd be outright moronic to approach my role as a player the same in both games. (Yeah, there are people who are in such a rut, and indeed do play all games the same way, but we don't need to be that scarred.) On the other hand, if we're playing Monopoly, it takes a bit more than just saying it to shift between the mental modes of prolonging play and trying to win (to pick two agendas common at the Monopoly table), especially in the middle of the game. This might sound childish, but you might want to consider using different character sheets or a funny hat or something to delineate separate ritual spaces for playing in different agendas, if you really want to do it all with the same rules. But, that's a problem for the future. First try one agenda succesfully and then you can think up plans with your players.

[Adam Dray]

Welcome to the Forge, John.

A couple things jump out at me, but let me say that I think you might be better served by posting a bit of Actual Play and discussing your game that way. It seems that you're writing some new rules to stop a gap in the rules as you see them functioning now. I'd like to better understand what you're not getting out of the game as written and why you feel a need to patch it with new rules. If it's not broken, why fix it?

That said, let me toss out some comments that, by necessity of not knowing your group like you do, have to be wild-ass guesses. =)

First, I think you're way too caught up in the GNS stuff. Before you start playing around with Creative Agenda, sit down with your friends and figure out what kind of game they all want. If you don't get everyone's cylinders firing in sequence, you're not gonna get the motor running, and that motor is CA. Without having group consensus, it might be pushing things a bit to change the rules. Maybe they all like the Simulationist-type game you have. If so, trying to shoehorn in a bunch of Premise-Addressing stuff will just distract from their fun. The "swift kick in the rear" language makes me feel like you're trying to trick them or "correct" them. Maybe you're the odd man out and they're having fun as-is.

Second, I'm concerned with your very strong GM controls butting up against all this alleged player authority you're handing out. If I say something you think is wrong, let me know and try not to take it personally. Here's what I'm seeing:

1. The GM has ultimate authority over the fiction. What goes in. What doesn't go in.
2. Further, the GM owns the setting and "the story."
3. Oh, but the GM's story is subordinate to the players' stories. Right.
4. Oh, but the GM should expect the players to take the GM's story in unexpected directions. If he lets them, since he has ultimate authority over what goes in.

See where I'm going with that? It seems like you're afraid to really hand over the steering wheel to the players, as much as you want to do it. Is there any place where a player has final authority over the fiction, even over the GM?  Do you guys share the GM role from week to week, or are you always the GM?

[John Adams]

Lots of great feedback! The Forge denizens have zeroed in on the key issues immediately. The Forge crew exceeds expectations! Many thanks.

We game tonight! I will post fallout in the Actual Play forum. We have many adjustments to deal with tonight, so I will not be introducing the techniques from the OP tonight. I'm not sure they are fully baked yet anyway. Your continued help is this thread will be greatly appreciated, let's stick with the techniques in the OP which may not hit the gaming table for several weeks yet.

I'd like to better understand what you're not getting out of the game as written and why you feel a need to patch it with new rules. If it's not broken, why fix it?

We are a Sim-by-habit group. We enjoy Sim, but I don't think it's the preferred mode of play for anyone at the table. We just "knew" that "traditional" Sim was "the right way to Role-Play." So I had a good heart-to-heart discussion with the players and asked what makes the game fun for YOU? Result: I think we will all have more fun if we shift to a Nar mode as our primary focus.

System-wise, Nar support boils down to "the GM wings it." I want a more formalized system to encourage the players to take the plunge and try a new mode of play, to reward them for doing something different. We need formal techniques to manage story progression and how-intent-becomes-fact if I am going to shift some of the balance of power to the players. The technique above handles the first goal but not the second.

The "swift kick in the rear" language makes me feel like you're trying to trick them or "correct" them. Maybe you're the odd man out and they're having fun as-is.

Nope. Pretty sure I have a good read on the group after our discussion. I will put some Nar play on the table and ...

1) the group will reject it, "not fun" and we go back to our old patterns
2) the group finds Nar play fun and the rules tweaks sufficient so we run with the modified System
3) the group finds Nar play fun but the System insufficient and we switch to a new System.

Whichever way we go I want to let the players drive that decision. My input will be minimal. In all cases I think we will keep the plot, Characters and Setting. We are committed to that, even if it's more difficult in the long run. This shift MAY generate interest in other games, so we may take a break months from now to try something new. Heck, if they want to change to a comletely new game right away I'll run with it, I just don't think that's what they want. That's all I was trying to say.

Second, I'm concerned with your very strong GM controls butting up against all this alleged player authority you're handing out.

1. The GM has ultimate authority over the fiction. What goes in. What doesn't go in.
2. Further, the GM owns the setting and "the story."
3. Oh, but the GM's story is subordinate to the players' stories. Right.
4. Oh, but the GM should expect the players to take the GM's story in unexpected directions. If he lets them, since he has ultimate authority over what goes in.

See where I'm going with that? It seems like you're afraid to really hand over the steering wheel to the players, as much as you want to do it. Is there any place where a player has final authority over the fiction, even over the GM?  Do you guys share the GM role from week to week, or are you always the GM?

Spot on, as is Eero's perception that I left the Balance of Power quite vague. Maybe old habits die hard, maybe my ego is in the way, I hope both of those issues will ease once we get some experience with Nar play.

At least some of my is concern for the Dream as such. We have a Setting built over 300+ sessions and 12 years of play. That's a LOT of History and backstory and is one of the main draws to play this setting. I read through the public demo of Capes and had a blast; it looks like a really fun Nar centered game with a Balance of Power totally on the player's side and no specific GM. But I also read on these Forums (somewhere) comments the there is no such thing as an established fact in Capes (which makes sense to me given that system). Our Setting has 12 years of established facts to deal with, how do I reconcile that with real player authority? How do we decide "no, you can't change that -- it's an established part of the setting" and how does a new player idea become an established part of the setting? For now, my only answer is to have the Buck Stop at the GM. Ideas?

[Eero Tuovinen]

I think that you have a very right-headed attitude on you about investigating new playstyles. I hope it goes well. And do write that AP account of your fresh session, it will no doubt enlighten us about the play. You might also want to send the link to your players after posting it; I've found that reading other people's accounts of how the game goes is rather enlightening communications-wise, and perhaps your players would feel the same.

At least some of my is concern for the Dream as such. We have a Setting built over 300+ sessions and 12 years of play. That's a LOT of History and backstory and is one of the main draws to play this setting. I read through the public demo of Capes and had a blast; it looks like a really fun Nar centered game with a Balance of Power totally on the player's side and no specific GM. But I also read on these Forums (somewhere) comments the there is no such thing as an established fact in Capes (which makes sense to me given that system). Our Setting has 12 years of established facts to deal with, how do I reconcile that with real player authority? How do we decide "no, you can't change that -- it's an established part of the setting" and how does a new player idea become an established part of the setting? For now, my only answer is to have the Buck Stop at the GM. Ideas?

I think you're very right to worry about this, and quite keen to note that Capes is not the model to follow. There are plenty of different kinds of narrativist-enabling games, not having a GM or having totally system-accessible setting facts (two Capes features) are just two possible solutions. For games in the other end of the spectrum, but still fully narrativist, check out Sorcerer, The Shadow of Yesterday (available for free in the internet now and then) and Dust Devils, to name a few. They all have GM roles very similar to traditional models, as well as firm methods for dealing with real or play-created setting.

A central idea to realize is that while we describe narrativism as "creating story cooperatively" this needs not have anything to do with a no-holds-barred storytelling fest. It is quite possible to "create story cooperatively" with players only controlling their characters and not having a whit of say over the NPCs, Setting or anything else. The narrativism comes from allowing player protagonism through the actions of their characters, not from some vaguely egalitarian freeform idea of "respecting other players' input" or whatever pussyfooting might be on the table. For example, when I play TSOY in an established setting, you can bet your boots that the setting will be kept straight. If a player suggests that there be a tavern here, (note, suggests; there is no power of tavern declaration in that rules set) I am fully within my rights to tell him yea or nay. On the other hand, if the tavern indeed is there, I have no way of stopping the character from entering the tavern; the existence of the tavern is my problem, the actions of the character are his. What genuine player input power means is that you do not undermine the actions of his character, not that you get into a knot over a random suggestion about the setting. Just like you can and should make suggestions as to how his character could act, he can make suggestions about your domain of play.

I'm giving the above viewpoint to make sure that we're on the same page about this: everything you write in your suggested rules mods about GM power seems fine and dandy nar-wise, although in your stead I would say that "the GM creates setting and backstory as he pleases, but shall not override character stories that emerge" or something like that. I think that what you write is just an old-fashioned way of saying that the GM controls the setting and you want to have part in narrating character actions (why wouldn't you?) with some muddled stuff about story that you'll discard on your own when you feel ready; if I'm mistaken and there's actually some substance in that part, I'm sure you'll tell us.

[John Adams]

A central idea to realize is that while we describe narrativism as "creating story cooperatively" this needs not have anything to do with a no-holds-barred storytelling fest. It is quite possible to "create story cooperatively" with players only controlling their characters and not having a whit of say over the NPCs, Setting or anything else. The narrativism comes from allowing player protagonism through the actions of their characters, not from some vaguely egalitarian freeform idea of "respecting other players' input" or whatever pussyfooting might be on the table ... What genuine player input power means is that you do not undermine the actions of his character ...

While I take your point, the devil is in the details. To me, this is Protagonism: that the player is given a meaningful choice which fulfills his Creative Agenda.

The player must understand the choice and its consequences. The choice must be meaningful to the player in question, not just the GM or other players. It really must be a choice, not just the appearance of a choice; it must generate clearly different outcomes and ideally you should think hard about those possible outcomes. (If the choice is a no-brain-er it loses most of its value.) For Gamists, the choice leads to a well defined win/loss condition via well defined techniques; for Narrativists the choice addresses Premise.

None of this emerges specifically from the Balance of Power, but hosing your Balance of Power could easily de-protagonize your players. It isn't so much about "can you enter the Tavern" but rather what is the player trying to accomplish? What challenge, what interesting, meaningful choice does that situation generate and did you let the player make that choice? Entering the tavern might be utterly meaningless, but if the character is an alcoholic facing his personal demons it's a whole different story.

I think that what you write is just an old-fashioned way of saying that the GM controls the setting and you want to have part in narrating character actions (why wouldn't you?) with some muddled stuff about story that you'll discard on your own when you feel ready; if I'm mistaken and there's actually some substance in that part, I'm sure you'll tell us.

Actually, I want to go much further. I want players to generate Situation, Setting, Character and Color, before, during and after play. I just want to make sure all of that new content fits with the established facts of the game and keep us focused on things which matter. I want them to adopt Director Stance and narrate whole scenes but I want to veto if things go pear-shaped. As Adam pointed out, I'm not giving players absolute authority over anything, rather a collaborative role in almost everything. What I am keeping all to myself is the Big Picture Plot ... the mysteries and twists that really can't be shared. See the AP thread for good examples of this.