Well hi every one, it's one of my first post so i want to tanks all of you for being very inspirational and every thing ...(well you'll only get this once ;-)

After long hours of reading posts, i'm wondering if it is at least possible to run pre-made scenarii if you run an overtly Narrativist game, and if the players create the characters and the kickers.

Well IMO, you can't. But my experience flows from a self made diceless resolution system that focuses strongly on the enjoyment of creating a story through play.

To be more specific, the only overtly narrativist mechanism is the existance of bad and good karma point that yhe player can use to narrate the resolution of an action. More often than not, the bad karma is used by the GM to make hapen VERY BAD THINGS to the character. The creation of a story is more of an agrement between me and my players.

These days, i would like to run a game in the line of Jaccob's ladder, 6th sens, The Others or Memento. The kind of game that reserve a BIG surprise at the end of the story. Thus i need to plan this major reversal and i need to keep it secret from the players, but (and this is yhe whole point of this thread) do you think it is possible with a narrative approch ?
How would you do it ? (or how have you done it)?

Thanks,
Fabrice

I would argue that there is no mechanic that overtly supports G, N or S. It's just that many S games tend to use one mechanic and the more recent N games use another.

For your game, you should think about where you want "the Unknown Factor" and the best method to make it unknown.

I also believe it is possible to have a Narrativist scenario, as long as the characters fit the scenario. You could present your players with a scenario where the intent is to "When does freedom give for the good of society?" and have approriate characters created, then.

As for your game, I think it would be tough to do a "shocker" to the players. Think of the audiences of the movies you mentioned. Different people will "get it" at different times. I knew someone who figured out Sixth Sense right away. I didn't know until the very end.

I'm not sure it's possible to provide a gigantic shocker ending, and count on no one figuring it out.

Fabrice,

When running Narrativist stuff, I always have a bit held back from the players. How long I keep it secret varries depending on what kind of game I'm running, but there's usually something in reserve.

I rely quite a bit on player contributions to the plot, but I always have some backstory that links the PCs in some way in order to bring them together (whether this is in cooperation or competition is up to them). If I want to hide something, it's usually the spider at the center of the web, so to speak.

Fer instance, I might create a handful of NPCs caught in this web, and have every one of them be (basically) wrong about what's really going on. There is a key NPC who is at the center of it all, who is revealed only after the PCs either reach the point of almost figuring it out on their own or finally decide they don't want anything to do with it.

So, it's the revelation of who this key NPC is and what they're about that makes the big surprise.

See, no pre-ordained story, no uberplot. But still the surprise.

Of course, there's always the risk that the PCs will look at it and go, "So what?" but that risk is always there, isn't it?

Lon

Hum...well you've both made me think...

I'll take an exemple, to see if what i get from you is what you did want to tell me.

Zak, do you men it's all a premise thing ?
I think this could work. Taking my exemple from Memento, the premise would be "Is vengance worth everything ?", then i could want to see the players create their characters AND THEN give them liberty but decide for myself that their taking it on the wrong man. Et voilà ! This way i let them make the story all along, but i keep to decide some of it (i'm a player too!).

Lon, this is my adaptation from your suggestion, everybody think that it's someone's fault, and then, well, surprise !!, it's not and you realise that you were wrong all the time (and maybe they did awfull things to him, but i won't go so far as decide that before the game).

What do you think ?

BTW, i'm a bit uneasy with premise, do you think this is an Edwardsian Premise (as Mike tends to put it ;-) ?

Keep to input coming guys, it really does help !

Fabrice.

I would have said, on the basis of prior exchanges, that no you cannot retain this surprise, and that the examples given are not examples of narrativism. This is based on the Railroading and BobbyG arguments; if the GM is holding back the The Truth and recquriring that the players jump through a particular hoop, then they are denying the freedom of the players to themselevs create the story. It would be,as I understand it, largely up to the players to decide whether the NPC's were right or wrong in their understanding or whatever.

Hi folks,
And hello too to Fabrice (little nicky) who has so far stayed safe (?!) in the Little Fears forum.

I think that some of the responses have been too extreme. Nothing about Narrativist play dictates that all back-story is placed openly on the table, for instance.

What we are talking about is not whether a revelation may be reserved, but about the pacing, availability, and timing of that revelation. My points regarding these issues are as follows.

1) Revelations to players are not the same as revelations to characters. Think about the Sixth Sense. The character realizes "the truth" late in the story, but audience members realize it at various points during the movie; I too was one of the people who figured it out only when the character did, and I don't suggest that my experience was any less or more valid or enjoyable than someone who did so earlier. I suggest that the GM (in the kind of play that Fabrice is asking about) merely let players come to their own conclusions about such things at their own time and in their own way; his or her role is simply to provide, provide, provide, and provide some more.

2) I think that many GMs suffer from a serious and unnecessary need not only for players to appreciate their "big surprise," but also for them to realize and appreciate it exactly when, how, and to the degree that the GM would like them to. I think that the former desire is functional but the latter is not.

3) Unlike the Sixth Sense or any other non-role-playing example, the players are authors too. They may well like to know the secret/surprise (having come to it in their own way), and then enjoy role-playing the characters' reactions and decisions about it, later.

My overall point is that Narrativist scenario design may well be chock-full of the Unknown and even Everything You Know is Wrong. My entire supplement The Sorcerer's Soul is about this very thing. What people who'd like to play this way need to consider is that micro-managing the details of the evidence, the clues, the revelations, the emotional reactions, and the resulting decisions is not the effective method.

Best,
Ron

I'll reiterate what Ron said, because he hit my concerns spot on:

Players and Characters are two separate things. If you read the Count of Monte Cristo, you'll know everything that's going to happen a mile away. It's getting there that's the fun part. In a roleplaying experience, the Players could forsee all the events and the fun is how they transpire.

If you have the chance, grab Ron's Sorcerer & Sword supplement. It talks about this aspect of gaming, where you shift the in-game time back, or know the events beforehand. The interesting part is "how exactly did [interesting events] come to pass?"

Oh, yeah, and there is an awfully common thought that GMs should know the secrets and dole them out to Players, and then expect the Players to be ecstatic to finally figure things out. I think it's because the basic D&D adventure (since forever) consists of: Explore area, survive, confront antagonists. It was then thought, "Heck, we could make adventures more interesting," and turned into: Explore area, survive, confront antagonists, twist in the climactic ending to surprise Players and Characters alike.

Not that it's an invalid way of doing things, but like many aspects of roleplaying, it's one of those "We need to put this in the scenario" items without designers wondering why they feel that need. (Just like rolling dice to get over a target number ... it's not required of a game, but it's certainly everywhere!)

Fabrice,

What game are you talking about playing, in this case? It will be a lot easier to address the concerns you raise if we understand more context, and if we have a mechanics-base to work from.

Best,
Ron

Which position is valid?

Position 1: (CONTRACYCLE). Narritivism = players have total freedom as protagonists. Therefore, NO backstory, truth, etc. outside whatever the players decide is possible.

if the GM is holding back the The Truth and recquriring that the players jump through a particular hoop, then they are denying the freedom of the players to themselevs create the story. It would be,as I understand it, largely up to the players to decide whether the NPC's were right or wrong in their understanding or whatever.

My overall point is that Narrativist scenario design may well be chock-full of the Unknown and even Everything You Know is Wrong.

Hi Gary,

I shall clarify my position. Narrativism as defined in my essay is only about creating stories through the course of play, specifically, that input via role-playing is responsible for said creation. It follows that just about any way to slice this process, and any way to prep for it, and any degree to which this process occurs, is Narrativist.

Gareth's statement, to me, is very puzzling. The wide-open, high-Director-stance, highly improvisational design of Soap (for instance) does not define Narrativism, it is simply one possible application and "intensity" of Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

Well, my position on this topic is close to yours ron.

I'm an horror anthusiast. I've played in game where you know what's going to hapen, those where great because you actualy could focus on the HOW things went that way. On the other hand; I've played and GMed games where all the horror, the fear, was about not knowing WHAT would hapen next.

I think both approches are rigth, it all depend on what you (and i mean the GM AND the players) want to play.

For this game, I'm all for the "unknown and the Every Thing You Know Is Wrong" as Ron put it.

Why ? Not because of some absolute need to Know what the players don't, but because it perfectly fit the theme (or premise) I want to set up.
I was thinking of something inspired by Lynch's movie, as well as Jacob's Ladder and a few others like that. The premise could be:
" Is reality coming appart or are you loosing your mind?"
in my terms, it would be a game about the incertitude between insanity and surrealism.

Well it's not perfectly acurate, but that's the way I intend to play it.

IMO, with such a thème, the players NEED to ignore some facts, ie are those strange things for real or just a product of their madness ?

I don't say i'll decide all for myself, I think I would improvise upon what they come with. But the one thing i don't want is the player perfectly aware of what's going on and then just "pretend".
I would really like having too phases:
1- the players don't know shit, this would be my WHAT'S NEXT mode
2- the players begin to know what's up (and this up will be heavily influenced by the story and the kicker the player come with), and then we switch to the HOW will it hapen mode.

It's still sketchy for now, but i think that migth work just fine.

I'm still wondering how to produce the REVERSAL EFFECT. The kind of stuff that subtly alter the angle of perception and that reveals that all the story was biased in the characters mind.

Well, need to think more about that.