Hey all,

I'm trying to understand Narrativism. I think I understand G and S fairly ok now, but N is beginning to bug me. I've had a look at Ron'sAbout Terminology thread but it didn't really address my concerns (it seemed more focused on whether or not any terminology should be changed, as opposed to the appropriateness of any given term).

I'm not a master of GNS by any stretch of the imagination. This thread is me "testing the waters" of this topic and forum, so I pre-empt that my posts will be full of misunderstandings and false notions. But this is ok, because hopefully I'll learn something from this.

Ok, so we have narrativism. Right now, I don't know what it is. According to Jack Spencer Jr in this thread, Narrativism is: "the creative agenda where the agenda is to produce a story in the literary sense". This, to me, seems to mesh fairly well with my notions and helps me conceptualise "concrete" examples.

On the other hand, M.J. Young in this thread has said that narrativism requires moral considerations. He also noted that narration is neither necessary nor sufficient for narrativism, being that a game can employ narration techniques without being narrative, or avoid narration techniques and rely on other mechanics to address moral issues and thus be narrative.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your words M.J.

But assuming I am not misinterpreting, if moral issues are the defining feature of narrativism, then would not "Moralism" or somesuch word better represent the meaning of this mode of play?

Alternatively, if moral issues are not the defining feature of narrativism, then what is? Apparently it isn't narration, nor narrative focus (the term from which the mode acquired it's name). I say this because if narration or narrative were the defining feature of narrativism, then Scarlet Wake should be narrativist (as well as gamist). But as M. J. has pointed out, it isn't.

I understand that a term can have new meanings attached to it, beyond the scope of the originally intent, and this is how language evolves. But by that same token, words lose meanings as well. Consider "aweful", which in its original incarnation meant, literally, "full of awe", and "terrible", which could be used to describe the beauty of angels and perfection of God. I also note that context can play a strong role in moderating the intended meaning of a word, such as Greyorm's example in this thread again of the modern computer monitor, which of course, does not monitor anything. However, I would argue that the context provides sufficient information to make the necessary distinctions. In reference to roleplaying, I suggest no such clearly seperate context exists for the term "narrativism" to allow it's percieved meaning (as obtained by the constituent words and modifiers) to be altered much beyond the common interpretation.



Can a game be narrativist without addressing moral issues? That is, are moral issues necessary for narrativism?

Are moral issues sufficient to make a narrativist game? That is, will a game with mechanical focus on resolving moral issues be narrativist regardless of those mechanics?

What role (if any) does narration or narrative play in narrativism? How is this role distinct in narrativism from simulationism and gamism?

If narration and narrative are neither necessary nor sufficient for narrativism, why does the term carry the connotative baggage of those constituent words? Would not this creative agenda be better served by terminology refering to the primary identifier, namely morality? Furthermore, would not such a change in terminology serve to reflect the evolution of the understanding of this CA mode, as well as aiding comprehension through creating a clear meaning by which the detailed definition can be embellished?

-Ben

P.S. Sorry if I've made any gross errors in my understanding, interpretations, or attempts to convey what I mean.

I'm not the best person to answer this, but I'll give it a try. I will venture to say that Nar play often focuses on moral issues, but it's not neccessary. I mean, certainly "what's worth killing for" carries moral implications, but is "what's family worth?" a moral issue? Is "Trust" a moralistic theme?

Also, though 'story' is the goal of Nar play, the moment-to-moment substance of Nar play is about making meaningful choices relevent to the current issue/theme. That's why you don't need narrative to play narativist.

For example, let's say you are playing a game about 'Family.' You're a knight. Your Lord orders you to attack a neighboring clan (for a good reason). However, your daughter's engaged to a man from that clan. What do you do? That moment of choice is what Nar play is about. Also notice how that situation says nothing about mechanics or narration.

I understand your frustration with how the word "narravism" carries with it certain connotations. But personally, I don't think the word is a problem, I just think it takes a little time to grasp the concept behind. It took me a couple months of contemplation and a couple of specific play experiences before I felt I 'got it.'

Ron's said this a lot: for "moral issue" you can substitute "ethical question" or "problematic human issue" if it makes more sense to you. I personally say "Narrativism is about saying something interesting about people" - where "saying something interesting about people" means just exactly the same thing as "addressing Premise," "taking on a moral problem," "confronting an ethical question," or Tim's "making meaningful choices relevent to the current issue/theme." Find the overlap between those phrases and you can express it in your own words.

-Vincent

Just to back up what others have been saying, Narativism is about addressing Premise. What is Premise about? For the answer to that question, I turn to William Faulkner.

In his Nobel Prize Speech, Faulkner wrote:
...the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself ... [which] alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

Let me touch on your other questions too.

Is play about "the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself" definitively Narrativist?

Taking on the probs of the human heart is Story. The other half of Narrativism is Now. The "Now" in Story Now means that we're doing it right this minute, in play, and we all have a stake in it.

That's why Narrativism-supporting game designs have tended to mechanically give the non-GM players lots of power and input. If a game cuts its players out of the actual meat of addressing Premise, it's not Narrativism. It's Story Some Other Time, Some Other Place. Instead of each of us tackling the issues, only the GM is, or only one player is, or the game designer, or the author of the scenario.

The game rules can't play Narrativist, just the people can. The job of a Narrativist game design is to provoke us into collaboratively, right now, saying something interesting about people and their problematic hearts.

(I think "provoke" is a far better word for what Narrativist games do than "support" or "encourage.")

I can't really comment on why we use the word "Narrativism" instead of any other, except that that's just how it's worked out. Any alternative name would require just as much explanation.

So Ben: is this working for you? How's testing the waters going?

-Vincent

Ben,

I think 'Narrativism' came from the use of 'narrative' as a synonym for story. As you noted about MJ's post it doesn't require any sort of non traditional narration rights which are another thing entirely, but the narrative is vitally important. The central issue of narrtivism (or primary identifier as you call it), is 'Story NOW.' Not it might add up to a story later with tweaking, or it'll make a story if we do what the GM wants us to.

Story Now is the central issue. That is story created right there in play. (We tend not to use the word story here very much because it is a very wiggly word in the culture and can be stretched in odd ways.)

From the dictionary entry you linked to I think this is the closest to explaining why the term Narrativism is used.

Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story: narrative poetry.

That's an excellent point Vincent. If the GM beats the players over the head with the Premise stick, it ain't Narativist. I'm not sure what it is. I hesitate to slap the Sim label on it by default. I guess you could say it is incoherent play, since the GM probably wants to play Narativist, but isn't going about it the right way. The CA of the players could be anything in this situation.

Hello,

Ben, I'm not sure whether you know about the various articles available at the Forge. From your posts, I'm getting the idea, possibly mistaken, that you're been hunting down threads in the forums. If this is correct, then check out the essays in the Articles section (see the link at the top of the page), especially Narrativism: Story Now.

Best,
Ron

Thanks everyone for your comments thus far. They have been quite helpful.

Ron, I read that article just now (goddamn it is long!), and I still can't see why the current definition of Narrativism is called Narrativism. But it did clear up the definition of the mode after the explanations given here by Vincent Trevis and Timfire.

Let me just see if I'm understanding it in relation to my initial questions...

--Narration and narrative are both neither necessary nor sufficient for Narrativist play.

--The creation of a story is necessary, but not sufficient.

--A theme of personal conflict is necessary, but not sufficient.

--The on-the-fly-right-at-this-moment creation of a story is necessary, but not sufficient.

--The last three things are all necessary, and collectively sufficient for narrativism. Take out any one of those, and you are no longer dealing with narrativism.

--Regardless of what else exists in the game, a game is narrativist when these conditions are present. In other words, the presence of gamist or simulationist conditions does not affect narrativism.

Is this rudimentary understanding correct?

-Ben

I had several things to say, but most of them have been said. Vincent nailed the thing about "moral issue". In the other thread I kept it simple by using one phrase that works for me; ethical concerns and deeply personal problems are moral issues, by a name that expresses different facets of them that sometimes are easier to recognize for certain problems.

Long ago there was a thread in which someone was expounding about a game they had played that they were sure was simulationist, because it didn't deal with any moral issues--it just had a lot of stuff about relationships and betrayals and fidelity in which all the players were really involved. My point was that these were all moral issues, and it seemed that this was what his game was about in most cases. Even the way play proceeded, it was clear that character actions often happened "out of the blue" so that the players could put their characters on the scene of whatever was happening and so give them the opportunity to be involved in these issues. I think that sometimes when I say "moral issue" people start thinking in very narrow and high concept terms, and frankly I think moral issues are a lot more integrated into life than that. But whatever term carries the concept of the premise for you is fine.

Regarding why the word is "narrativism" instead of "moralism", well, there's no perfect word. Let me point out that the words "narrativist" and "narrativism" don't exist in English, but the worlds "moralism" and "moralist" certainly do. I'm sure many would take the word "moralist" to mean a game in which the referee is trying to preach to the players through the design of his game world and situations. So while on the surface it seems a better word, it leads to the same kinds of problems (that we have to explain what it means and why it doesn't mean what you think it means), further complicated by the fact that we can't say it's a word Ron invented for this concept.

Historically, the word is "narrativist" because Ron needed a word to replace "dramatist" in the three-fold model when he brought it across in System Does Matter probably seven years ago now. That article explains why the word needed to be replaced. Although the basics of the three agenda (then generally called goals) were there, they have developed a great deal since then. There was a lot less clarity regarding what these three "things" were, beyond some very basic distinctions many of which have been challenged and redefined since then. At that time, no one would have said that narrativism was about addressing premise to create theme where premise is a moral, ethical, or personal question answered through play. None of us understood it so well then (not even, I dare say, Ron). Understandings of the three agenda have moved forward by leaps and bounds since then. The content has been clarified immensely, but the terms have remained the same as they have been established.

In medicine, as knowledge advances, words change. I used to joke that doctors just changed the words they used so laymen wouldn't know what they were talking about. One example is that the term AIDS, known to everyone, is no longer a proper medical term--the "S" stands for syndrome, and in medical terminology a syndrome is a collection of symptoms commonly occurring together with no known cause. Since the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was discovered, the condition is no longer a syndrome--it is a disease or condition, symptoms of an infection. AIDS technically no longer exists. Yet the name is retained in common parlance, because people recognize it (and yes, medical people will use it, for much the same reason, even though it is incorrect).

We could in theory attempt to update our terminology every time we advance our understanding. That would mean that everyone would have to stay current on the present state of the theory and the terminological updates that have occurred. We choose otherwise for many reasons. Not the least of these is that the terms being used aren't real words, and so they mean whatever we define them to mean by community consensus (not to mention Ron's authority over the meaning of narrativism, a word he coined to cover something he identified).

Ben wrote: --The last three things are all necessary, and collectively sufficient for narrativism. Take out any one of those, and you are no longer dealing with narrativism.

--Regardless of what else exists in the game, a game is narrativist when these conditions are present. In other words, the presence of gamist or simulationist conditions does not affect narrativism.

Is this rudimentary understanding correct?

The whole "why is it called narrativism" thing is sort of a red herring. It's called that because when Ron invented Narrativism, it was a new concept, and he needed some tag to describe it with. Maybe Ron can explain what his reasons were for picking that specific term, but it really doesn't make much difference. He could have called it "woddlyism" and it would have meant the same thing. ;)

As to what it actually *is,* Ron says that you everyone has to find a way to describe it in their own words, but maybe my words will help.

Basically, Narrativism is about value and thematic choice. Not all decision-points are necessarily thematic ones. A thematic decision point is one where, by making the choice, the character says something about value. I don't mean value in the monetary sense; I mean value in the sense of "what one values." For example: "loyalty to family is more important than honesty." The production of theme by characters making choices (i.e., the character chooses to lie for his family, or chooese to tell the truth and betray them) is the central point of Narrativism.

That's not all you need, though. For one thing, the players (not the characters) have to be interested in the how the characters choose. If the players don't care, then the character could choose either way, or just walk away and not make the choice, and it would make no difference. Theme is still present in the game, but it's not Narrativism.

Furthermore, the choice the character makes has to be a *real* choice, decided by the player. If the choice is forced by the system or the GM, then it's not a real choice. This is where the concept of player authorship comes in. The players, by determining the choices their characters make, are determining what happens. The GM can't just run them through a prepared plot, or set of encounters.

So, that's basically it. Premise is the question (the decision point... what do I value?) Theme is the answer to the question (I choose to lie for m family!). When Theme is produced by the players (as opposed to being hardcoded by the GM or system) then you have Narrativism.

M.J. says we have to "care" about addressing Premise to be playing Narrativist. Ron says "mindfully." Nathan says "interested." Ralph's said "on purpose," others have said "intentionally," "self-consciously" or "prioritize." Others still point out that we don't have to articulate our Premise or think of it that way a'tall to address it, and they're clearly right too.

I say that if we're consistently and reliably addressing Premise, it shows that we care about it and we're doing it on purpose - even if we don't notice ourselves what we're up to. We're sneaky like that.

Anyhow we're all saying it differently, but we're talking about the same thing. Figure out where what we're saying overlaps, and put it in your own words!

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: M.J. says we have to "care" about addressing Premise to be playing Narrativist. Ron says "mindfully." Nathan says "interested." Ralph's said "on purpose," others have said "intentionally," "self-consciously" or "prioritize." Others still point out that we don't have to articulate our Premise or think of it that way a'tall to address it, and they're clearly right too.

Hey all,

Thanks for all your input, it's been great in helping me understand narrativism.

I guess I just come from disciplines (psychology and philosophy primarily) where terminology is constantly refined to meet the needs of the intended meaning and avoid confusion. This refinement is necessary mainly because there are so many words which could be confused, and a great many words are simply "made-up" when necessary to define a new meaning.

But I think I can set aside my problems with the term "narrativism" for now. At least, until RPGs become much more popular as a theoretical discipline and new and competing terms are being flung all over the place :)

I'm still struggling with how Story Now is compromised by conditions of Step On Up and/or The Right to The Dream... and how these multiple conditions can be additive/subtractive and still hold the potential for coherent play, but I can't articulate what I mean yet so I'll sit on that for a while.

-Ben