Over in another thread, Brian wrote:
*****
Hi guys,
Name's Brian and I'm fairly new around these cyber-parts. Your discussion really twigged my interest cos I'm developing a game of my own and while I come from a gamist background, I really want to add a narrativst element to my game.

Anywho, the point/question is this:
What about overlap? While D&D is definately gamist it does nod its head in the direction of story? I've also seen more than I want of inter-party conflict (not arrising from group immaturity but because everybody was feeling more than a little cut throat-ish that day). I guess what I'm saying is players vs situation and players vs players is fine but look at the D&D example...you can pretty much kill what ever you want...

Another thing, I've read a lot interesting theory here at the forge (very interesting) BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN PRACTICE? I'm not asking for hard and fast (if your wrong i'll kill you) answers. Just a discussion of the practical aspects. because, if I know my players, and I do, they're are going to consistently find the borders between these genres.

So anyway, just my two bob's worth, happy gaming to y'all.
Brian.
*****

Brian,

Hello again.

One:
Around here story means something more than a series of incidients with characters. Does the session have thematic content? Are the players making choices as writers of a story (not a people wanting to win the adventure; not as people who are exploring the world as if they were moving across the beautifully rendered pixels of a computer game)? If the answer to these questions are "Yes," there's probably a story. If "No" it might be something very much like a story -- but isn't. The basic line for me is this: Are the players playing with the concerns of a Lit 101 one class or actors making a great, cohessive performance. If not, they're having fun, and doing what they're doing well, but it's not a story.

(For the record, for anyone who's interested, acting is not about immersion on a film set or stage -- or people would actually get killed. Acting is about reading the script, discovering what the script and the character is about -- and interpreting the thematic and narrative elements of the script through body and voice -- and that -- ta-da! -- is Author stance. I know why Actor stance is called actor stance, but in my book it would be called Bad Actor Stance -- the kind of actor who thinks that by feeling something on stage, but not manifesting it with body or voice, he's doing his job; or worse yet, by simply have an opion about the material, but not working to bring the script, as written to life, he's somehow being creative. An actor is like a violin -- he "plays" the script as the violin plays the symphony, as players in a Narrativist game play the Premise. We now leave this rant.)

If you want more information on this you'll find a lot of threads talking about this in one form or another. (Be aware that your questions are good ones -- so they've already been covered at length. Do some digging around and you'll find a lot of gems scattered the back half of the threads.)

Here's one to get you going:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93&highlight=story


Two:
There are always always overlappings between the G, N, and S modes. None of this is about building a Berlin Wall. It's about preferences and priorities.

You might want to check out the first post on this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1578

Three:
I love the fact that you capped IN PRACTICE.

To know something in practice is to know it in play. To understand why a Narrativist focused game (and I'm bringing them up because you asked about the matter of "story") you should really play one. The act of *doing* something a different way with rules that shape actions in different ways than most RPGs *will produce a different effect.*

If you want t know get more of the difference of Narrative focused games in practice, play The Questing Beast, Sorcerer or Hero Wars.

If you're not ready to take that on, check out the gazillion threads about these games either in Sorcerer, Random Order (TQB), or Hero Wars boards below -- or look for discussions about these games on the Actual Play board.

Fourth
I know it will take a bit of leg work to dig all this stuff up -- but it will be worth it. (I had to do it, too, by the way.) Everyone who knows the answers to these questions have already posted the discussions. They're ready to talk about something else. But the conversations are still here, and you can read them -- like I did -- as if you were getting answers to your questions right in the moment.

Take care, and again, welcome,
Christopher

Oops. One more thing.

If you've come up with a question when reading the old posts, don't post to the old posts. Around here, when a thread wraps up, it moves into the filing system.

Either post onto this thread -- or, if it's a whole new topic, start another thread.

(My first post here I dragged back a post from eight months ago... Didn't go over very well.... ; )

Take care,
Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Acting is about reading the script, discovering what the script and the character is about -- and interpreting the thematic and narrative elements of the script through body and voice -- and that -- ta-da! -- is Author stance. I know why Actor stance is called actor stance, but in my book it would be called Bad Actor Stance -- the kind of actor who thinks that by feeling something on stage, but not manifesting it with body or voice, he's doing his job; or worse yet, by simply have an opion about the material, but not working to bring the script, as written to life, he's somehow being creative. An actor is like a violin -- he "plays" the script as the violin plays the symphony, as players in a Narrativist game play the Premise. We now leave this rant.)

Gareth,

You're right. I apologize. In terms of manifesting the character's internal life, there's good actor stance, and there's bad. We've all seen both. My bad.

But, just so there's no confusion about my concern, the other half of good acting, as mentioned, is working within the concerns of the entire production.

Here's the definition of Actor Stance in GNS: "a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have."

I've seen people actually try to act like that. I've worked with them, it's wrong. My point that real acting requires what we call Author Stance. The Actor must shape his or her performance according to the needs of the entire script and awareness of what the scene is about.

I brought this up because Brian wanted to know how different GNS nodes were actually different. For me, this is one of those differences. In N play, as far as I'm concerned, even the Acting Stance is like Author stance, because that's what good acting is like, and Narrativism seeks to emulate the best of whatever arts are at hand to create the moment -- because that's what's going to bring it into line most with a thematically coherent dramatic narrative.

That all said, after all the notes about Forge habits I gave to Brian, if anyone want to continue this discussion, let's crack open a new thread.

Thanks for the good call Gareth.

Take care,
Christopher

Hi guys,

Thanks for your replies. I'd like to make acouple of points in rebuttal then move my last point to a new thread. I'm a net-newbie and I have no idea about how to create links so I'll just tell you that if your interested I'll call the topic "objective/super-objective and the role." but more about that later.

1) I believe that D&D does nod its head in the direction of story. But it does so in the tiresome manner of every bad B-grade action flick ever made. Plot is the essence and the direction of a story. Many people confuse shallow plot with no plot. If there is dialogue and an objective then there is plot. Two elements which exist in every published D&D adventure. Still...D&D is pretty much all about smash the monster, grab the goodies and advance your character as fast as possible. Its fun as far as it goes.

2) D&D does not reward inter-party conflict but neither does it really do anything to discourage it. My gut feeling is anyone who designs a game with both a paladin and an assassin character is betting on a little friction.

3) Mr Kubasik are you the same Chris Kubasik who wrote "Changeling", shadowrun novel #6? Just curious.

Anywho, I'm off to start brushing up on previous discussions (my good God, there are so many...).

Be cool, be happy, and good gaming to y'all,
Brian.

Brian Hose wrote:
2) D&D does not reward inter-party conflict but neither does it really do anything to discourage it. My gut feeling is anyone who designs a game with both a paladin and an assassin character is betting on a little friction.

Hi,

Yes, In general I agree with you. All good points, especially the one about competition for rewards and the lack of such in games with broader criteria for Reward.

However, I think that my point about paladins and assassins still stands. But then that is an admittedly minor point for contention. Thanks very much for the staightest answer I've seen at the forge.

Brian

Brian Hose wrote:
1) I believe that D&D does nod its head in the direction of story. But it does so in the tiresome manner of every bad B-grade action flick ever made. Plot is the essence and the direction of a story. Many people confuse shallow plot with no plot. If there is dialogue and an objective then there is plot. Two elements which exist in every published D&D adventure. Still...D&D is pretty much all about smash the monster, grab the goodies and advance your character as fast as possible. Its fun as far as it goes.

HI,

Thanks Mike, that's advice I'll remember. But one question:

What in god's creation does "FWIW" mean.

I ask because one of the biggest problems I'm having around here is sorting out all the abreviations! It took me about and hour and half's reading before I even figured out what GNS meant. Remeber, I'm an Aussie.

If you can think of any other abbr.'s I'd love to hear 'em.

Anywho, thanks muchly!
And may the schwartz be with you,
Brian.

Heh, FWIW isn't a Forge abbreviation, its internet jargon meaning:
For what its worth.
Also commonly found are IMO, or IMHO meaning In my (humble) opinion.
and IIRC meaning If I recall correctly.

You'll find them used less often
here than on most internet sites...but there are dozens of them out there. You can probably find an "internet" dictionary out there somewhere with pages of these.

Valamir,

THANKYOU. You just addressed the ones that were bugging me the most. I owe you a wookie life-debt.

May the schwartz be with you,
Brian.

Brian,

If it took you a while to figure out what GNS means, I'm assuming you actually haven't read the GNS article over the "Articles" Section. I really recomend you check it out. It's the springwell for all the GNS discussions.

Christopher