first of all sorry for my grama nad spelling ..i got more ocasions for read in english then actualy write so .....

second. this forum and gns theory is for me like apple for newton or swiming in dunne - erection for wittegnstine
thx

main

my point

i disegree in your wod (storyteller) interpretation and i guess there is something very personal in yor point
and
i think that best storyteller system wraithe is whot you would call el dorado

for me main point in wod games is that you cannot and you are not your game character
that was main point of vampire (i guess till second edition main rule book only i consider)
main narration in all wod gAMes from narrativist point of view is based on points where persona (your game charcter) is not you
basics cames from that that archetype from which you build your character (clan , disciplines) let you build only rebel without the clue or rebel teenager
thts all
in most cases vampire-persona its just player with powers
its if "i rule the world story" or "bloody revenge on parents"
and only way to survive is to grow up (or sociolize)
your main problem with wod clasification is that player have no way to define describe in game "reality"
but
first of all there is prelude structure which from some point goes to whot player writes in his character sheet
and that describe and generates gm chracter realtion
second real story is based on whot character feel,
so in most importnat aspect of game player has all control i mean psychic (i meant mind) of his character

so player tells the storry of opresed mind an gm tells the story of opresing reality , evrything narrativist right?
why narrativist mean thaht all have to tell same story ?
i always played wod in drama mode and it was simply natural
that was my and my friends interpretation of "no rule" rule
probly cous description of characteristis is so visual and clear
dices just kill the fun
(and we were something whot you called turku palyers candles onlyy, in that kind of enviroment you simply cant see the numbers on dice)

And Wraithe

with all harrownig rules and players role playing another shadow
passion fetter stuff
i cant simply imagine how this can be inconherent
i guess you used some of similar ideas in sorcerer

and that emotions is something that game character lost and can only play it to survive ,imitate them to hook up to real world
its main stuff in wraith

this is something that character and mg finds through play
and main narrativist task is to let it go


my main point is not that you completly mistaken
iam saying that there is no -one normal reading
and you interpretation is just your interpretation
and this is alweys important in creativ writing
that there is no way to seciure one true reading

respect
and sorry for my english

Welcome to the Forge, Karnov.

I'm not going to address your points at present; I'm going to attempt to be certain I understand them--lest I find I'm objecting to something you haven't said.

Somewhere you read a statement regarding the World of Darkness games which said that the game system was not at all conducive to narrativist play, and you think that this statement is incorrect: World of Darkness games are, you suggest, very narrativist in their design.

You suggest that this comes in part from a player/character distinction, that the character is not the player given game presence, but a character written by the player. The player then uses that character to wrestle with personal issues through the fiction of the game.

Citing whatever source stated World of Darkness was not narrativist, you say that it based that position on the lack of any means for the player to define the reality in the game world. You object that the player does have the power to define the character, which is part of the game world, and since the character is central to play, it is the most important part of the game world.

You see World of Darkness as a game in which the player is telling the story of a character with an oppressed mind, while the referee places that in the context of an oppressive reality, which you claim makes it fully narrativist.

You don't understand why anyone would claim it was incoherent. "Incoherent" in game design, of course, means that the system tries to encourage too many things, and that the only way to successfully play the game is to ignore parts of it (e.g., playing without dice because the dice don't give the kind of results the game suggests should happen). I mention that just to be certain that we're talking about the same thing when we say "incoherent".

Finally, you say that it is possible to read the rules in a manner that eliminates all such conflicts, and that this demonstrates that the rules are not incoherent. To this, I would ask whether the rules are written in such a fashion that it would be difficult to play some other way and think you were playing correctly. It appears to me that many groups play these games in ways that are incompatible with each other, and all think they are playing by the book. I don't play World of Darkness games, save once as a player in a Multiverser crossover experimentally, and I have not read the texts, so I'm really asking whether the books clearly spell out one way to play the game that everyone follows closely enough that they could all play together, or whether this coherence you perceive comes from reading it in such a way that you're using the rules that work for you and ignoring those which do not, and that a group that used all the rules you ignored and ignored some of the rules you used would be playing a very different but possibly coherent game.

If I've understood you aright, I think that's the question that has to be asked.

I hope this is clear enough.

--M. J. Young

1.my post i stricly related to Ron Edwards articles about main gms theory

2.my final point is that some of incoherency problems and no hybrid issue are based (maybe) on interpretation problems

that there is no way that you can be sure about final reception and that you alweys should have that in mind
you can write somethin but you will never know whot ppl will read in there

for me (i read as) wraith is coherent narrativist game

and vampire whitout the problems (no dice and dram for resolving conflicts) is equaly symulationist narativist hybrid



3.and in game design i guess its equal improtant to do "whot is this rpg game " "system" (mechanics) chapter as art, story addon to get whot ya realy expect of game

thats all i meant i guess

respect

Hello Karnov,

Welcome! I greatly appreciate your input, and I think I understand your points clearly.

To clarify for you, M.J., Karnov is absolutely right in his reading of my essay regarding Vampire. "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" is highly critical of the game; it nets me plenty of indignant replies by private email as well as a general response from the White Wolf freelancer community.

Karnov, I suggest that your reading of Vampire (first edition especially) is the same as mine was upon first acquiring the game over ten years ago - I was excited and ready to play, intent on powerful thematic questions that vampirism raised, and eager to forge new myths for our time using this ancient idea. The key issues for me were the human ties that a vampire character would still react to, especially in terms of the double-layered character descriptions, of his inner and outer selves.

But to read Vampire in that way, one must set aside the emphasis on the elaborate setting; in fact, after reading the book, I noted immediately in order to play as the text initially inspired me, that the group should revise the setting to include only Tremere, Nosferatu, and Caitiff, at most, and to abandon nearly all setting information.

Even then, I would have claimed that we would still have been playing Vampire - it was well within the modifications of game texts that I was used to at the time, and indeed considered necessary for successful play. However, two things shocked me out of this mindset: (1) the astounding insistence and fascination of many others with the setting itself, to the extent of ignoring exactly those features of character creation which interested me; and (2) the reinforcement of this approach to play, which relied very heavily on GM control of events, via metaplot-heavy game support.

I realized that the text of Vampire could be read successfully to support this other way of playing too, and that it was ... grossly incompatible with my own. I realized that neither of these ways were actually what the text was saying, but rather only pieces and parts were compatible to the readers who were filling in the gaps with their own minds. And to do this, both kinds of readers were forced to ignore other parts of the text.

I do not suggest that your proposed way to play Vampire was incoherent - far from it. I do suggest that in order to read the text this way, you were practicing a sophisticated form of mental editing.

As far as Wraith is concerned, I hope you notice that I do not mention it in my essay. However, I have not yet managed to find a first-edition copy of Wraith, and am still hunting for one. When I get it, I intend to play it very, very thoroughly - everything I've read or heard about the game interests me greatly, for (as you suggest) it sounds full of tremendous Narrativist potential to me.

Best,
Ron

1.thx for unswers

2.wod is nuisance and that niussance can blend the idea so i try to clear it
to get hole GNS conception right

3.i have wraith 1 ed both in book and scaned so Ron if you wont to test it i can borrow you scan its about 80 mg and you will have to give me the word that you delete it after tests

respect

1. for me is main problem in rpg is that incoherency is build in structure
you got character , setting , mechanic part
you get three difrent language of narrating
so for example munchikinism or power gaming is orientated on thing outside explorotion fild
rules of mechanics are something outside the world "reality" of story
same with sim-narration dychotomy
if exploration is action with words like in comix book
you have no way to bring narration to importan level - mind of game character
you see we have three levels of using language
1. action
2. words of in game character
3. mechanics part
if you add felings narration level incoherency rise

karnov wrote: ...vampire whitout the problems (no dice and dram for resolving conflicts) is equaly symulationist narativist hybrid....