Yes, I have read the glossary and many of the articles in the articles section in addition to looking through the past several months worth of topics in the GNS Discussion Forum.

And I've encountered confusion, with the hopes that someone can explain in clear terms (Since it might be subtle flavors of the jargon that is leading to my confusion) What are the defining features of Narrativism, and what criteria is used to segregate narrativist games from non-narrativist games.

Narrativism (Narrativist play)
One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See Story Now.
Story Now
Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.

Check the definition of Premise.  Its being used in a very specific way.  That distinction should highlight for you what makes it unique from other forms of roleplaying.

Hello There,

What you're missing is that Premise and Story are more narrowly defined than you suggest.

Examples:

A really fun an exciting adventure might be about the characters going to retrieve a powerful magic item from the haunted castle so that they can defeat the evil horde that's about to invade the country.

The game is "about something" but the above is not a Premise as is defined for Story Now play.

Here's a transcript of events.

I went to the store to buy some milk.  While I was there I saw an interesting article in time magazine, so I bought that too.  On the way home, I met my neighbor and we talked briefly about the bad weather we've been having.  Upon returning to my home I put the magazine down on the front table and then used the milk I bought to make some cookies.

The above is a "narrative of events" but it is not a Story as defined for Story Now play.

What's missing in both is meaningful choices in terms of unreconcilliable human conflict.  A lot of people get tripped on "conflict" because they think it simply means "danger" or "hardship."  Fighting the evil dragon is not a conflict.  Surviving a snow storm is not a conflict.  Those things can be cool and exciting and important "stressors" on conflicts but they are not in and unto themselves conflicts.

This is the example I've been using lately to illustrate this point.

John and Ralph have been best friends since childhood.  They both love Elizabeth but Elizabeth favors John.  The elders of their village have conveened and decided that John is the "chosen knight" who must go and slay the dragon that been terrorizing the village.

Let's assume that John is a PC and everyone else is an NPC for simplicity.  Do you see how John must make serious "real world" decisions.  What's more important John's duty to the village or his individual love for Elizabeth?  (That's a Premise).  Can he trust to leave Elizabeth alone with Ralph while he's off fighting the dragon? (That's another angle on Premise).  Is his love for Elizabeth worth jeopardizing his long term friendship with Ralph? (Yet another Premise).

Whatever John decides to do (maybe he runs away with Elizabeth and Ralph dies when the village is destroyed by the dragon or maybe he goes off to slay the dragon and then magnamously bows out when he returns to discover that Elizabeth and Ralph got married or maybe he flies into a jealous rage and kills Ralph, or whatever else may happen) that's John's Theme relative to the Premise and the result is a Story.

Story Now (Narrativism) is predicated on getting these kinds of choices into play and giving the players the freedom to address them as they see fit.  Note: Success and failure are not part of this which is why the best Narrativist facillitating games are heavily dice driven.

Does that help?

Jesse

First of all, please note that I am not an authority on this and am struggling towards understanding just like you are. Still, I'd like to try. The regulars will correct us, I'm sure.

I'll quote the most relevant part of Ron's essay, but as you've probably read it, I'll elaborate some more below:

[Quote="Ron"]All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.

Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.

Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. [rest of example snipped]

The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing.

A story can be arrived at by different means. Maybe one participant determines it (e.g. a GM running a typical module in a heavy handed-fashion), maybe all participants collaborate. The result could be indistinguishable, but the process isn't. Hence, Narrativism is called "Story Now" - it cares about process, not results.

Tobaselly wrote: "The transcript of the game will be a story" which I take to mean that something will happen during the game through discussion. So there has to be some sort of narration it can't all be game rules.

If I break this down I get "A commitment to addressing the premise of the story through play itself" which I gather to mean  that a narrativism game is about something, and that something will will be a focal point of the game.

ok, so the game has to be about something

So if i'm getting this right, a premise isn't simply an about something, it's a focal point for a choice focusing around internal conflict?

Does a premise need to be consistant throughout an game, or can it be constantly changing from scene to scene from player to player? Does it always need to revolve around a particlar theme?

Hi,

Let's say you and I had a conversation about something meaningful.  "Meaningful" might be political, it might be about ethics, morality, passions, art, whatever.  We have a topic.  For the conversation to hold, you and I might talk about different aspects of that topic, even if we more-or-less agree.  That "topic", that's the premise.

In play, let's say the big issue the characters are dealing with is "Do we kill an innocent person to save the world?", and the choices and portrayals of the characters, are the means by which you and I exchange that conversation.  We might not even personally hold those beliefs or feelings that our characters are going through, but we're using them as a way to illustrate some ideas about that topic- not unlike most movies, books, or any form of fiction.

The topic might be internal, it might not.  It does deal with human nature on some level- individually, relationships, or as a whole with society.

Just like a real conversation- we may have a couple of related topics we talk about, connect, and look at.  We might even find out that "main topic" is very different than what we started out talking about.  We might find that the "big thing" for you, is not the same "big thing" for me.  But, for that topic to hold meaning, you or I have to have had a chance to come to a full statement about it- to have fully had some input on it. 

So, yeah, you might have a couple of premises floating about, or you might find the premise isn't what you thought it was going to be.  But- just like in a conversation- the topic is shared, so that means you can't have a premise just "in your head", alone.  Different characters might be addressing different premise issues entirely, but the group as a whole is witness to that in action.

Chris

Tobaselly wrote: So if i'm getting this right, a premise isn't simply an about something, it's a focal point for a choice focusing around internal conflict?

Tobaselly wrote:
So if i'm getting this right, a premise isn't simply an about something, it's a focal point for a choice focusing around internal conflict?

Does a premise need to be consistant throughout an game, or can it be constantly changing from scene to scene from player to player? Does it always need to revolve around a particlar theme?

Bankuei wrote:

So, yeah, you might have a couple of premises floating about, or you might find the premise isn't what you thought it was going to be.  But- just like in a conversation- the topic is shared, so that means you can't have a premise just "in your head", alone.  Different characters might be addressing different premise issues entirely, but the group as a whole is witness to that in action.

Chris

On the issue of maleability and visibility of premise, I recently posted my thoughts in this current thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16982.0

This should answer both Marco and the original poster's issues. Basically mode is only important to the extent that it can be discerned. That is, if you have an agenda, and I have an agenda, and we can never tell that they're different, then what's the importance of discussing agenda? Agenda is only important to the extent that it's either shared or not shared.

Mike

Story Now (Narrativism) is predicated on getting these kinds of choices into play and giving the players the freedom to address them as they see fit.  Note: Success and failure are not part of this which is why the best Narrativist facillitating games are heavily dice driven.

Brightstar,

Before I begin, I should point out that it's considered bad ettiquette to reply to old threads. (Not sure if you noticed or not, but the last reply was a month ago.) Oh well, live and learn, don't worry about it. Usually, the thing to do here at the Forge is start a new thread that's linked to the old one. The moderator may come along and break off your post into a new thread.

That said, I understand the frustration you feel with traditional games, whose rules only get in the way or hinder the player's ability to create theme. But I would encourage you to check out some of the great Narrativist games that have come out of the Forge, such as My Life with Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, and if I may, my own game, The Mountain Witch. I think you may be surprised at how the mechanics of these games actually *support* the creation of theme, rather than get in the way. These games, among others, have rules that force the players to make the types of thematic decisions that have been discussed in this thread.

For example, in Sorcerer, characters have the option of using the power of demons to acheive their goals, but if they choose to do so, they risk lowering their "Humanity" score. Is the alure of power and success worth risking your very personhood? In My Life with Master, you are the minion of an evil mastermind, but only by building Love with others can you hope to break free of the Master's  twisted control. In Dogs in the Vineyard, you play God's Watchdogs in a pseudo-Morman Utah, charged with keeping the Faithful, well, faithful--by force if neccessary. With mechanics that grant you power for escalating conflicts, the player must decide just far he's willing to go to enforce "justice". And in The Mountain Witch, you play ronin samurai trying to kill the mythical Mountai Witch of Mt Fuji. In my game, you actually rate how much your character trusts teh other memeber of the party, knowing that they can use that trust to either help or betray you. You must decide when its worth putting your life in the hands of others, as well as if its worth sacrificing your own goals for the well-being of others.

I hope you can see how these rules support the creation of theme and not just get in the way.

Hello,

Brightstar, I invite you to check out the articles by me in the Forge's "Articles" section. You may discover some parallels to the ideas you've posted so far, as well as some alternate views regarding the conclusions.

This forum is dedicated specifically to the discussion of those articles.

Best,
Ron

Brightstar, I'm going to apologize for not reading your rant in its entirety, but hope you'll attend to a few points.

You suggest early in the rant that narrativist games are impeded by die rolls because the characters are likely to fail multiple times. This viewpoint comes from experiences using gamist or simulationist-facilitating designs to drive narrativist play.

Most fundamentally, you are viewing all dice rolls as task resolution. While any agendum can use dice for task resolution, that is only one way to use dice in play. Conflict resolution, scene resolution, and event resolution (three phrases that have some overlap with each other and with task resolution) are also perfectly legitimate means of using dice.

Narrativist games such as Sorcerer and Legends of Alyria use die rolls in ways which drive story, because the die roll is not really about whether the character succeeded in doing X, but much more about the outcome of a situation generally.

I'll use the General Effects Roll in Multiverser as an example, mostly because I am most familiar with it. When the dice are rolled, they tell you nothing about whether the character succeeded in doing what the player wanted him to do. Instead, the general effects roll is all about whether events move in the direction desired by the player or in the opposite direction. Using your example of the situation in which the guy going to war will mean that the girl will die, the player might announce that his character is going to head home to try to save her. The GE roll then tells us things like whether his commander orders transport to take him or sends the MPs to bring him back, whether the roads are clear or he has to pass through an active combat zone, and similar aspects of play. The dice drive that, but they don't tell us whether the guy makes the trip--they only tell us how tough it will be to do so, and leave it to the player to find ways to make it happen.

Your experience with role playing games seems too narrow. I speak as one with narrow experience--there are many truly innovative games I know by reputation only--but at least I've recognized that there's a lot out there that is completely outside my expectations and experience. What you describe as standard gameplay is something most people here abandoned years ago.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

Hello,

1. A bunch of "experts" dogpiled on the new guy.

2. A ranty newcomer threadjack.

Thread's closed.

Ron