This is very frustrating for me. I'm not talking about theory here. I'm not asking what Narativism *IS* or anything like that. I'm talking about practical application. I'm talking about actual technique employed before, during and after play.

Maybe part of the problem is that I don't think on my feet very well. I have to very carefully think things through for a long while before I spot a serious hole and then a little while longer before I can fill it in.

Example: My players were looking for a hidden cave and were told that if they stood on a certain hill at dawn the morning rays would strike a spot on a nearby mountain and reveal the entrance. I made this up on the fly; cliche but workable. The players started asking around about such a hill and what the hill was called. I HATE it when my players ask for names. But I suddenly remembered that there's a trap that beheads people in the cave and I thought I'd add a little creepiness to the situation be telling my players that people call it 'Headless Hill' because decapitated bodies were found there. They then go there and wait until dawn and sure enough the rays of morning light strike a spot on a mountain about 200 yards away. They disarm the trap yadda yadda yadda. Now, AFTER the game a very clever player asked how the decapitated bodies got from the cave all the way over to 'headless hill.' I of course didn't have an answer because I was making all of this up as I was going along and couldn't really think of a good reason for it.

When I make up things off the top of my head knowing ALL the details of what's going on I create inconsistencies, misleading clues, and plain old holes. I can't imagine what happens when you allow the PLAYERS to ALSO make stuff up off the top of their head NOT knowing all the details.

Mostly I'm interested in all this from the GMs perspective. So here's the situation. The GM plans on running a campaign of game X. I'm cool with that. There are two directions to plan in: backwards and forwards.

Backwards planning is when you write up the details of everything that has come BEFORE the game actually starts. Basically the back-story for the NPCs. Forwards planning is when you sketch out events that will happen DURING the game. I usually do both but forwards planning is dangerous because it might turn into railroading.

Backwards Planning: Okay this is the one I thought I got in terms of Narativist play but then I lost it. Backwards planning can be very detailed because it's the one place where the GM has total control. The player's CAN'T interfer with it because their not there and the events described have already transpired. Part of the fun for me in an RPG is the slow revelation of the back story and watching the light dawn on my players as they 'get it.'

I'm not very concerned with HOW the backstory is revealed or in what order. The advantage to only backwards planning is you never have to railroad. You can go with the flow of the player's decisions. But going with the flow of the players decisions is NOT the same thing as letting them author part of the story (or is it?). Now here comes the problem. If you allow the players authorial control, and maybe I just don't understand what player authorial control is, then it MIGHT be possible that a player introduces something that creates an inconsistency with your backstory. Something that doesn't fit or worse directly contradicts what has come before. I don't understand how to get around that without ruining that sense of mystery and revelation as the pieces are revealed.

Forward Planning: I used to do this in an X happens then Y happens then Z happens fashion but I gave a large part of that up mainly because it would become to railroady. I now do it in two alternative fashions. 1) I plan out the villain's plan. The villain has X objective and I, J, K must happen for his plan to come to fruitation. For example the villain might have to rob a train so the train robbery scene becomes incorporated into the game. The players can choose to stop it or not. If the they don't try the villain succeeds automatically. If they try then there are two options, they stop the villain or they don't and I plan contingencies for both cases. I try to reduce forward planning scene to yes/no situations so I can branch off from there. 2) I plan 'trigger' scenes. That is IF the players do something I'm anticipating then this scene will transpire. These are generally stated in the form of: If the players visit location X then Y will happen or If the players start delving too deeplying into character Zs backround then Z will do Y about it.

The above two types of forward planning avoid railroading because they are if-then statements. If the IF portion happens great you're prepared for it, if not, no bigy because it wasn't 'Manditory' for the plot anyways.

Does my foward planning technique conflict with Narativist gaming? I don't know. I'd like to hear your comments.

Your feedback is always welcome.

Jesse

Jesse:

Going "on the fly" is not so much a necessity of narrativism, as it is a useful tool. Lock 'em in if you want, we all know the PCs will break your box somehow.

Forward thinking is fine, in fact, that is the method I use. Half the time, I throw out bones on the first run, and see what I get bites on. That is the stuff I actually try to then create a plotline out of. For those who have been in my games, you know that it is mainly "So, what do you do on the average day?" From there, I make damn certain that the average day is coming nowhere near the horizon line.

Forward thinking.

I admit, I had little experience with author or director stances in gaming. Then I ran a game with Ron in it. At first it was weird, with him moving about my mental landscape to accomplish what he wanted. Then I realized that it made things right nice, what with him doing some of the mental decorating.

I think for a lot of people, entering into the alternate stances world requires just running or playing a game with people of that mindset interacting within them. I had no idea what the hell stances were... then Ron played in my game. Damn near broke my whole mindset while running a game. Hell, now I find it a pain to actually run a game for those who play "dry" (actor).


Anyway, back to the point. I think the Narrativism is not necessarily what is getting you, it is the stances. Don't worry, a lot of that, in my mind, is more a function of experiencing rather than reading. Hang in there!

Dav

I don't really have time to write a detailed reply now, and I'm sure someone will oblige and put it better than me, but following a narrativist track does not mean you have to make everything up as you go along, and expect your players to totally fool you at every turn.

It comes down to the cooperation angle. While players can and should drive the story by making up new elements and challenging their characters to grow and make the story more interesting - this does not mean you can't be 99% sure what they'll do.

The main way to get around it is Out of Character discussion. Between games we regularly discuss stuff over mail. We will hash out what we want to do next, where we want out characters to go, and so on.

This means that when the session comes along we are not sitting with blank faces waiting to catch the GM out.

Dav,

Thanks for the kind words. I return them in full.

Ian,

And that was dead-on. Absolutely dead-on target.

Best,
Ron

Okay, so perhaps my confusion DOES come down to the Stances issue. G/N/S I have a fair handle on and I'm pretty good at identifying the different styles both in players and systems. However, I seem to have missed the whole Stances thing. There seem to be three that I've come across Actor, Author and Director. I think for a while now I've been confusing Author and Director but given the conversation in the Sorcerer forum I'm begining to understand that they are different.

So perhaps someone here could give me a run down on the Stances and how they differ. I learn best by example so if you could provide a definition followed by a concrete example that would be most helpful. Thanks again for all this wonderful input.

Jesse

Jesse,

You may have sorted this out by now, but a comment:

The best acting class I was ever in started like this:

The teacher had the class break into two lines, facing each other in pairs.

He said, "This line, turn around so your back is to line two."

Everyone on line two then had to alter a detail on their clothing. Line One then turns around and tries to spot the untied shoe lace or the undone cuff.

Then the lines switch sides, same thing.

Then he says, "Line One, turn around again. And this time, Line Two, alter *two* items, without reusing the anything you've done already."

And so it went back and forth. Until we had to alter up to six things in our appearance, without repeats, in a room full of strangers... Sometimes it seemed the only choice was to start removing clothes... But we always found one more thing.

And that was the point. The teacher said. "Did you notice that you didn't have to take off any clothes? Remember that. You always found one more option. When you are stuck in a part, when the director needs something different, when you can't see the solultion and you need one, remember, there's one more choice."

That's been with me from that night.

When a player asks, "How did the bodies get from the cave to the hill," it's not a problem. It's an opportunity. You didn't fail. The solution simply hadn't manifested itself yet, because during the game, no protagonist had bothered to pursue this matter. (I'm assuming it didn't matter -- at least not at the time.)

But let's say the protagonists did.

Well, how did they get there. Well, someone carried them there. Why would someone leave beheaded bodies all over a hill that is crucial to finding a secret door? Well, I'd go with: to scare the hell everyone from the hill. (But that's just me.)

You didn't have anyone?

Well, now you do. I don't know circumstances past that point in you scenario, but I'll bet you the minute you opened yourself to the possibility there was more *story* to be found by having someone who wanted the secret door to herself, (instead of seeing it as a logistical problem to be patched), you'd instantly come up with someone.

Really.

There's always one more answers. Always.

Side note: I think this is one of the things that freaks people out about Narrativistic games: the idea that *we* can't think fast enough to find an answer, and so choose instead to manipulate quantifiables given in a rules set. While we all have our strengths and latent talents (I, for example, am much better at making up answers off the fly than I am at manipulating mechanics), I truly believe anybody is capable of such action.

(I read fairy tales and myths at a local elementary school. Afterward I ask the students questions. They want to talk about their feelings and opinions about the stories, but the moment they open their mouths, they freeze up. They are so afraid of being *wrong*. I say to them, "Just keep talking. You'll find the words you want." Whenever they keep talking, they do. Try it, you'll like it.)

Theory aside, you might consider trying Donjon Krawl. It has very well-delineated uses of Author and Director stances, so it's not quite so scary, plus its default mode is very light-hearted, which means you can just say "consistency, shmonsistency." Note it's not Narrativist, but rather quite Gamist--it just uses the stance tools associated with Narrativism, and introduces the terribly groovy idea of "fact currency." If you haven't read about it yet, here's some links:


Valamir's session of Donjon Krawl
Big ol' discussion of rules & development
The game itself



And, if the players' use of Author & Director stance mess you up too much in a given situation, you can flip the dial--it's there in the rules.

As for my own play (haven't played DK yet, but I will, ohhh yesss, I will), I play Sorcerer in pretty straight Vanilla mode. I, too, used to quiver in terror of the Clever Players that would destroy my beautifully crafted plans and mythology. And there was friction--I have had to be careful to lay down the law about how much stupid punnery is allowed (near none), and my players have helpfully let me know what kinds of stuff the never want to see (including the one, who, having suffered a rather serious softball-in-the-face incident that has led to months of painful dental treatments, really does mean it that she wants never to see any tooth torture), what kind of things excite them, etc.

If a play group doesn't respect limits you've explicitly set out in your social contract negotiation, well, why are you playing with them? That said, I think most of us Survivors of GM-as-Dictator Syndrome can recover nicely, enduring just a bit of nervousness. The abject humiliation you fear as a result of players running all over you is probably illusory. Note the example in the Donjon Krawl example from Valamir where the thiefy guys run off and do their own thing--then, allowed to narrate their own failure, zip right back on track! Players want to play--only assholes are there just to bust the GM's balls. Unless it's their acknowledged and preferred mode of play, players-vs.-GM is a pathological mode of play brought on by mutual paranoia and boredom.

As they say, Hope This Helps.

--TQuid

-

Hello,

Everybody please take a look at the date on Jesse's opening post for this thread - June 2001, over eight months ago.

Quite a lot has happened since then, and if you're feeling the need to jump in with helpful advice about Narrativism, be advised that Jesse is now probably better qualified to give it than nearly anyone here.

To all, the best policy for resurrecting older threads is to begin a new thread, including a link to the older one for people to check up on. There is no crucial time-lapse cutoff- ie resurrecting a week-old thread seems reasonable, resurrecting a months-old thread has a disruptive quality, but who knows what the cutoff is between these.

To Christopher, welcome! I greatly appreciate your presence and look forward to your input. To all, Christopher authored the "Interactive Toolkit" for role-playing a few years ago, which is one of the foundational readings of the hobby - both in its hope and goals, and also in the raging frustration which underlay its writing. Make sure to check it out.

Best,
Ron

Here we go - boy, this Search function in the new Forge format is cool.

In Timing is everything, Josh and I do some talking about Christopher's essays.

Best,
Ron