Marco, in GNS Sim thread wrote: However: That technique, the technique of choosing the most-likely choice, can apply just as easily to Narrativist or Gamist play and will be applied successfully with proper front-loading of initial situation and character.

I read this, and became puzzled and confused. I have been thinking for some time that my understanding of narrativism might be faulty, so I'd like to sort a few things out, specifically the front-loading issue. Is creation of theme through front-loading really compatible with the aesthetic of narrativism?

I'll take the chance of getting a bit personal. When I first came to the Forge, I thought that narrativism was exactly that. Writing up a good story with interesting themes, front-loading the situation and characters with it, and firing the whole thing off. One of my main concerns was making sure everyone got a piece of the action, something that usually does not happen when larps are created this way, for obvious reasons related to size and such. Since that, I have reconsidered a lot of my positions. In the larp-thinking and writing I do, I am now very much opposed to the use of larps to «transmit» a precreated story. In my opinion, it usually happens because people haven't got the guts to let their story loose in a medium made for stories, or they realize it's not good enough for writing a book, or a stageplay or script. Anyway, my opinions have changed, and my understanding of narrativism with it.

That understanding is rather strict. I accept as definition of narrativism neither «play with theme», «emotionally charged play» or »game involving serious issues». Of course, I might add. But when you change your mind about something, there's always a danger of changing it too far. In a way, I've sometimes wondered «am I really a narratifundamentalist»?

So I thought I'd have a look in the relevant essay, to see what Ron had been thinking.

Ron, in Narrativism: Story Now! wrote: Over time, as I see it, many practitioners and designers correctly realized they were playing and promoting Simulationist-becomes-"Narrativist," in quotes. Those quotes mean, producing stories mainly through front-loading or post-editing, not through protagonist decision-making as run by the players. They mean focusing on story as product as opposed to Narrativist play.

To me that seems to rule out the conception of «exploration of themed situation/setting» as narrativism.
Might this in fact be a subset of simulationism often mistaken for narrativism? I could see that confusion being caused by the theme becoming apparent, or surfacing, over the course of play and therefore taken to be developed and created in play. Marco and I have been discussing this issue, although we didn't reach any concurrent understanding.

I have been talking and thinking for some time about point of reference for choice of crucial character action as one indicator, or symptom, of CA. By some, this has been seen as confusing agenda and technique. Yet, I think that this is not really a technique. Rather, I see it as a direct expression of creative agenda at work.

If creative agenda is a matter of aesthetic priorities, it's reasonable to think that when players make choices about how their character acts they will take quite different things into consideration when their creative agendas differ. These differences really show up when the characters are making important choices, choices that pertain to conflict, as one might put it.

As I've written before, I think the points of reference might be maximally effective given the rules of the Game for gamism and maximally appropriate given the nature of the Dream for simulationism. In the case of narrativism, I think no such point of reference can be accepted to exist within the SIS.

If the choices characters make in conflict-related situations are extrapolated from intra-SIS factors, there is no Story Now! It is by making choices without reference to anything but yourself and what you choose your character to be doing, that story is actually created in play, and not just acted out and improvised upon. This perspective is why I disagree with the opening quote. The techniques of «most-likely choice» and front-loading are not compatible with a narrativistic agenda because the story will then already be there, and there is no creation.

Now, the question remains: Does that make me a narratifundamentalist?

-Erling

(And yeah, Ron, I'd like hear from the «what-you-think-today» version of you. The guy who wrote the essays seems to be not entirely up to date about the model... )

Erling Rognli wrote: <snip>The techniques of «most-likely choice» and front-loading are not compatible with a narrativistic agenda because then the story will then already be there, and there is no creation.
<snip>

Based on my understanding of the current model, this is correct. But, only if you include in your definition of "front-loading" some sort of system (in the lumpey sense) that forces a player with a narrativist agenda to be concerned about issues another than the Premise that he wants to explore.

Here's an example of what I mean:

I create a character who is a slave to some Confederate general during the American Civil War. His master has always treated him with love and he believes that he is helping in the fight for his homeland. There are a lot of Premises that I could address with this character. But, if the GM or system forces me to think tactically most of time or my character dies, then I have an issue.

Of course, this is just my take....

Cheers
Jonathan