Rich wrote:

He's a smart guy. You should game Narrativist with him.

I've seen a couple of Sorcerer One sheets around here. I'm getting the impression that GMs are putting them together (but leaving some flexibility). Shouldn't the Sorcerer One sheet be at least as collaborative (see, I'm on topic, I am) as character creation?

Rich

Hi Christopher,

These are good questions. I'm still getting started on figuring out narrativism, particularly from a practical, "implementation" standpoint. I wish I could have conceived of these questions clearly enough to ask them as well as you did. As it is, some parts of narrativist approaches are still too unclear in my head. Probably the ones I think I understand the most...

a) It's got to start somewhere, and I've always found one person starting is easier than getting a committee to start.

But in general, is the breach of the Narrativist/Author Stance faith when the GM comes up with ideas and presents them for approval? Organizes material? Gets things going?

Rich,

To be honest, I don't think trying to jurry-rig a one sheet off a lot of different one sheets would not work. You can see a blow by blow of my logic on this on this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1620 . But in brief, a one sheet, especially the "Humanity Matrix," as I've come to think of it, needs to have every element touching off every element, weighing each other out and related to each other with thematic and narrative sensibility. By the time you re-work all the components to "line up" you wouldn't have anything left over anyway. A lot of talk would enuse, but you'd have so much changed, for all practical purposes everyone's "say in the matter" would alredy be lost.

Also, *someone's* going to have to make decisions if it's going to be coherent. To go off and do it on your own means people can "no" to your idea, but saves you the responsibility of saying "no" to the players -- and I'm more comfortable with that.

At this point, I think the One Sheet is best served by single vision, with suggestions for revisions made by other players. However, I don't think the GM has to be the one to *make* it. Anyone could make one. A group could have several on file, and someone might read one and go, "My God, that I want to run."

The only justification I have for any of this is that I tend to prefer movies that were written by/developed by the director, rather than the chop-shop version of movie assembly. In both cases lots of people are involved. But in the first everything just seems to hang together better.

Christopher

Here's my take on it:

I think Christopher's right--it's easier to for one person to start. That's what I do, too, & if the players don't share my enthusiasm, I try something else.

But Ron made a point back in one of the Art Deco Melodrama threads that I'm really seeing in my Sorcerer run: Players look for a strong GM who's in control. Even if it's a loosey-goosey narrativist group, when the game actually starts, few Players are just going to jump right in & grab the story reins. Everyone's kind of nervous & unsure, especially if it's a game they haven't played before. And as a GM, I feel my role is to facilitate the creation of a kickass story. The best way to do that is to start out firm with lots of direction & over the course of play, give that direction over to the players. When I'm going to be starting up a game, I write up some notes for myself that get turned into the Players Guide. I'm pretty focused about what kinds of characters I want to see & what kinds I don't, & what I want the group of PCs to look like overall. But with the Players contributing Kickers, the story really starts out about them, not about my own NPCs or the cool stuff I want to happen. My stuff all becomes backstory & complications for the Players' stories. After a few sessions, I'm preparing less & less & just following where the Players want to go.

A couple of notes:

1) It doesn't have to be like this, of course. Some groups work very easily by committee, & having everyone collaborate from the outset can not only work, but be pretty cool.

2) This isn't particular to narrativism. ALL gaming would benefit from greater discussion of GM/Player relationships & responsibilities.

Hi Christopher,

I see what you're getting at with the interconnectedness of the elements of the one sheet. There is a need for them to work together, and you're right that the easiest way (perhaps even the only practical way) is for one person to come up with it.

By the time you re-work all the components to "line up" you wouldn't have anything left over anyway. A lot of talk would enuse, but you'd have so much changed, for all practical purposes everyone's "say in the matter" would alredy be lost.

Rich,

The "real world."

As I get older, more and more that's simply my measuring stick on which actions to take and which to discard even before I go down that path.

Joshua,

Thanks for reminding me of those comments about a stong GM being a help rather than a hinderence.


Christopher

Hey,

I can't believe you guys are making this so hard. It's really, really simple.

1) A person takes leadership in suggesting what to do.

1a) It sounds good? Cool. The group now invests in transforming it to taste with some suggestions.

1b) However, it doesn't sound so good? Also cool. That person or another person takes leadership in suggesting what to do. (repeat)

2) New phase of leadership begins: all right, "this" is indeed what we're doing, so the non-leaders now get to work with filling in the areas of their responsibility (usually characters, but sometimes more depending on the game).

3) The "leader" now also gets to work in treating the others' contributions, as they arrive, as hard-and-fast, equal-author contributions. In other words, the "leader" status is organizational and inspirational, not dictatorial.

4) Actual play begins.

All of this is demonstrated in the Art Deco Melodrama threads in the Sorcerer forum. Again, I'm not sure where the difficulty lies.

Groups who are starting to work out their habits of play in this regard ought to cut out #1 and start with #2, perhaps with just a small bit of discussion to start. Is this hypocritical in some way? No more than learning to swim in the shallow end is hypocritical, which it's not. It's smart.

Does anyone out there play rock-and-roll or jazz music? I am very serious about the Narrativist GM being the bass player. The singer gets to "say" something, but without the bass being there and incontrovertible, nothing can be sung, said, or soloed.

(For those non-musicians out there, no, the drums do not "keep the beat." They, with the rhythm guitar, rely on the bass to produce a "rhythm section." The soloing and "speaking" instruments such as lead guitar or vocals rely heavily on the rhythm section - and everyone listens to the bass, all the time.)

The plain old rock-and-roll song has a leading, driving bass. More eclectic songs begin with (and are even structured by, in parts) vocals or rhythm or drums, and the bass comes in only occasionally, or is otherwise quite subtle. Please note that these latter songs are only possible for groups whose members know one another's style and idiom intimately.

If you can see that Vanilla Narrativism is the former, and Funky Monkey Narrativism is the latter, then we're getting somewhere.

Best,
Ron

P.S. As usual, I remind everyone who thinks I have some sort of extremist-Narrativist agenda that I personally prefer Vanilla Narrativism. It shouldn't surprise you that I prefer basic rockin' rhythm-and-blues over art-rock, too.

It strikes me (given some gentle Private Message encouragement) that my above post was awful rude ...

My apologies, folks. Continue with the discussion, no further cranky interference is forthcoming.

Sometimes moderators need moderation, so thanks, You Know Who.

Best,
Ron

Ron's right,

In any group effort there has to be at least one person with a vision. Or nothing happens. That isn't to say that said vision can't be influenced by the others in the group. It can be, it should be occasionally. And somethimes the vision is created or carried by a part, most, or all of the group from the start. But as long as the group agrees, everything is right as rain.

Mike

And to use a different but related musical analogy: in a drum circle almost everyone (depending on the instrument you are playing) can take a turn holding that bass and base rhythm, allowing others to take a turn "speaking", so too can players who agree on the premise etc. hold it for one another. Doesn't have to be just one person at the helm.


--Emily Care

Very apt, Em. Explains how you're group's troup style of play occurs while still employing the Band metaphor. Nifty.

Universalis is like improv chamber music or something. There is no single performer keeping time, the system is a metronome.

Mike