I'm seeing a lot of recent discussion of Narrativism in which people are just plain missing the premise in action (or so it seems to me). Several people have recently described play in which player characters faced some moral question, did something (sort of), but "It wasn't Narrativism!"

Really? Sounds like it was to me. It fits the definition. Are people saying things aren't Narrativism because they can't articulate the premise as a question? Or, do the participants just not acknowledge what constitutes an "answer" the "question" of the premise (i.e. can't figure out "address")? What's going on here?

I do have much sympathy. For example, I couldn't define the premise of HeroQuest for the life of me, until Ron explained it indirectly in his Narrativism essay. But, I had no problem identifying it in TRoS, for example. It can be hard to confront (even unconsciously), and hence Address.

Folks, Narratism is not some arcane mumbo-jumbo that, when applied "correctly" opens the heavens to a chorus of "AHA! HALLELUJA! THIS IS THE PREMISE, THUSLY ADDRESSED! (does Narrativist dance of joy)"

It's much more natural and, often, uneventful than all that. It only requires that someone answer the darned Premise.

If the premise is "Is loyalty more important than love?" then anything the player does to decide that question is addressing the premise. Love is? You're going to leave the army for your lover in a foreign land? Ok, great, you've got something there (and it's Narrativism!). Loyalty is? You mean you should stay fighting with your friends, despite your hate for the war and your love for the woman behind enemy lines? Fine, you've learned something different about your character here and now (still Narrativism). Remain loyal, but whine about your lover anyway? Well, it may seem like a non-decision, but it IS a decision. You're loyal, and are torn about that fact. All of these are addressing the premise. If people are doing this stuff at the table, then its likely that is the Creative Agenda.

You are not going to build up to some heart-thumping climax every third game session and go "FUCKING EUREKA! A STORY!" The vast majority of the time, this stuff seems quite normal. It may be fun, but not necessarily an earth-shattering event.

Are people "feeling" like their games aren't "cool" or "literary" enough to qualify as this murky art that is Narrativism? Or what? What do you think? Am I even right to bring this up?

Another thing -- are people confusing the specific application of a broader premise with the premise itself, then saying other specific applications are a different premise?

For example:

We have two situations. First, we have Gentleman Jim who has to decide whether to get out of town before he's hanged, too, OR whether to make the people who hanged that other guy PAY. So, in that instance, Player 1 says, "Ok, cool. The premise is 'Should I avenge the innocent or save my skin?' I decide to stay and fight. I addressed that premise. Neat!"

Second, we have another situation. Gentleman Jim is now on a train that is being robbed. If he does anything to help, the cavalry officers protecting the payroll will recognize him and think he has a hand in it. They'll shoot him! If he stays quiet, though, the robbers might kill everyone, including him. Player 2 says, "Ok, cool. The premise is 'What are you willing to risk to save people.' I risk it! Premise rockin' all the way. Neat."

So, here we have two "different" premises. Both are actually the same premise: "Will you use violence for redemption?" (aka "Shoot or give up the gun?" Hey! What?!?)

You are not going to build up to some heart-thumping climax every third game session and go "FUCKING EUREKA! A STORY!" The vast majority of the time, this stuff seems quite normal. It may be fun, but not necessarily an earth-shattering event.

Are people "feeling" like their games aren't "cool" or "literary" enough to qualify as this murky art that is Narrativism? Or what?

I think there are a lot of built in assumptions that Narr play is this obscure rare form of play. Among those familiar with theorizing about RPGs I suspect that's because Narr play was totally absent from the three fold and thus seemed like it was a "new invention" when GNS came around. And also because in the early days of GNS there was alot of erroneous assumptions about Sim being the dumping ground where most games were found.

In reality, I think Narr play is and has been quite common, including among "self identified" simists (I've long since come to the conclusion that "self identified" is about the most unreliable diagnosis available).

What GNS has done for Narr play is not to invent it, but to demonstrate the many ways in which certain traditional assumptions about RPGs hinder it and get in the way. I think for years you've had alot of Narr play going on that was basically swimming up stream against Narr hindering rules and non mechanical system assumptions.

The rash of unusual stripped down Forge games that are Narrativist facilitators are not so because being unusual and stripped down is a defining characteristic of narr play. Rather they are represent the chassis that is left after you purge all of the old school hindrances and get to the core of what a narr player needs.

I've no doubt that soon we'll be seeing more and more narr facilitating games that aren't unusual and stripped down, but more "heavy" and fleshed out. But they'll be heavy and fleshed out in ways that don't hinder the CA.


But until then there are still a fair number of people who think that Narr play is obscure and requires wierd bits. And since they're play style is hardly obscure and doesn't contain weird bits, its hard for them to recognize they've been playing Nar all along.

Matt Snyder wrote: Are people "feeling" like their games aren't "cool" or "literary" enough to qualify as this murky art that is Narrativism? Or what? What do you think? Am I even right to bring this up?

Valamir wrote: I think there are a lot of built in assumptions that Narr play is this obscure rare form of play. Among those familiar with theorizing about RPGs I suspect that's because Narr play was totally absent from the three fold and thus seemed like it was a "new invention" when GNS came around. And also because in the early days of GNS there was alot of erroneous assumptions about Sim being the dumping ground where most games were found.

Valamir wrote: I've no doubt that soon we'll be seeing more and more narr facilitating games that aren't unusual and stripped down, but more "heavy" and fleshed out. But they'll be heavy and fleshed out in ways that don't hinder the CA.

But until then there are still a fair number of people who think that Narr play is obscure and requires wierd bits. And since they're play style is hardly obscure and doesn't contain weird bits, its hard for them to recognize they've been playing Nar all along.

Hey John, that's not fair! Me and Ralph resolved our disagreement soon thereafter.

-Vincent

Er, Vincent, how did that resolve your differences? As far as I can see, this is a bunch of open questions. Quoting Ralph's full article that you linked to, and your response:

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: For my two cents, this goes back to structure. Strongly pre-defined characters and Virtuality will lead to an unstructured narrative which will have at best mixed messages.

That idea is still very much just simmering gently on the stove, I'm not yet committed to it. But I do think that as we reach a level of understanding with the core concepts of the big model we should be able to make more concrete judgements about techniques and combinations of techniques as they point towards a specific CA.

I think there is something central to the difference between Simulationism and Narrativism that can be found in different assumptions about game reality and the shared imaginary space and whether something is real even if its not entered that space, vs. only if it has. Right now I'm just sniffing around the edges of that concept, but so far, it seems to me, to fit.

John Kim wrote: However, while unstructured there are still plenty of moral issues being addressed.

This, however, I do disagree with. I think "there are still plenty of moral issues present." would be a correct sentence.

But I think there is a big and crucial difference between moral issues being present (possible in any CA) and moral issues being addressed (the defining feature of Narrativism).

This concept is what is represented by "Story Now". Or my prefered turn of phrase "Story on Purpose". Or as Ron has called it being "mindful".

Currently I don't know of any better way to take that concept and pin it down with more precise language.

lumpley wrote: Ralph: Cool. How much flexibility does creating a fit character demand of me, its creator? More than creating just, y'know, a made-up person? Could be, could be not! I'm happy to leave it an open question. Certainly it deserves its own thread, at least.

I agree with Ralph that understanding core concepts will let us discuss techniques more concretely. I agree with Ralph that if there's something between Narrativism and Simulationism about when the players' ideas become "real," he and I and all of us are just sniffing around the edges of it. We resolved (if I may, Ralph) that it wasn't a deal-breaker with regard to my point in that thread.

It deserves its own thread. This thread isn't it either. I'll launch one, hang on a sec...

-Vincent

Kesher wrote: This is why Narr/Sim hybrid play is possible. At least, this is how I'm beginning to undestand all of this...