Story-Weaver: A "pure" narrativist game?

Hi folks,

I have been posting here and there for about 2 months on these forums, but this is my first serious offering in terms of rules. Lately I've have been on an indie-RPG binge and I have been trying to distill the narrativist elements that I love about these games. Through a rather tortured line of reasoning, I decided to attempt to create a "pure" narrative game, in the sense that the game rules addresses nothing except for the narrative itself.

To keep myself from sounding ridiculously arrogant, let me elaborate on what I mean by that.

Any story has both characters and plot. Many traditional RPGs have lots rules for character creation and management but few or no rules for plot creation and management. I want to create a game that is the polar opposite: a game that has no mechanical representation of characters, but whose central game construct are plotlines.

The kernel of the idea is that the players and the GM would create various plotlines: main plots, subplots, etc. Game play would be broken down into scenes framed by either a player or the GM, each of which advances a plotline. Plotlines have a definite number of steps before they end, at which point you would have a climax scene that resolves that plotline.

One of my motives for creating the rules is that they could be used as a set of meta-rules that could be layered on top of another, existing RPG, to give it a narrativist structure.

I have a draft of the rules here:

http://www.learninggain.com/downloads/sw/SW-Draft.pdf

What I would like to know is:

1) Are there other games out there with similar mechanics and goals? I have looked over a lot games that have game mechanics for regulating the beginning, flow and end of plots, including Polaris, With Great Power, My Life with Master, InSpecters and others. I would love to know if there are others that I should be looking at, and whether I am re-inventing the wheel here.

2) I'd also like some feedback on the game idea itself. Good, bad, brilliant, inherently flawed?

Hi Paul,

It would definitely be worth looking at the story-based entries for Game Chef this year. I particularly recommend The Glass Bead Game and perhaps Play Right as well.

Oh, and have you read Universalis?

Graham

Graham wrote:
It would definitely be worth looking at the story-based entries for Game Chef this year. I particularly recommend The Glass Bead Game and perhaps Play Right as well.

Graham wrote:
Oh, and have you read Universalis?

Paul

There are some similarities with Engle Matrix Games - thought they are superficial.

Both games have characters that are described by a name and a short written description (rather than as a set of numbers). both games rules focus on how players make the story happen rather than on a statistical model of the world. Both have a relatively strong GM who shares power with the players. Both have a focus on plot line.

As to characters - I stole the idea of written characters from Ned Zuparko and Paddy Griffith (both wargamers active in the 1980's so you've probably never heard of them.) The difference is that I provide a full cast of characters and while the players control one character, they can make any character act (even another player's character.) Your players look like they are all on the same side while EMG players can be and often are opposed to one another.

Making the story happen - You are using a version of the shared narrative idea. Very forge like, very solid. This is certainly the next big trend in role playing. It makes the GM as powerful as the characters. EMGs give the players more power. Each turn the player makes an argument for what happens next. This is a short statement of some action and result, and possible some reason why it happens (thought reasons are not required - actions speak for themselves.) The GM is just a referee. They decide what the player has to roll for their argument to succeed. The GM is the editor to the player's author, rather than a co author.

Controlling the flow of the plot - You use a plot track/victory point track to monitor the flow of the plot. EMG's use a "Plot track" that describes the types of actions that have to happen for a particular story to happen. So for a murder mystery it looks like this: A murder occurs - a body is found, find clues that show who had means motive and opportunity, arrest the subject or do a man hunt, hold a trial.  My plot track doesn't tell players what to do (they can ignore it if they wish) or measure who is winning. It just educates players about what happens in different genres of story. The EMG referee has more control on the flow of the plot by employing a variety of argument tools. They can allow players to make counter-arguments, decide an argument triggers a conflict round that will settle the outcome of the conflict, give players trouble arguments to mitigate the effect of primary arguments, and speed up the game by having all the players make arguments about important points. In these ways the GM can speed up or slow down play to squeeze the maximum drama out of a story.

The rules I have up on my web page are rather old now - I've streamlined the writing since then - but they give an idea of what EMGs can do.

http://www.io.com/~hamster

One thing about narrativist games. The dictionary definition of premise is what I use in EMGs. This is not the meaning that narrativist focused gamers mean with the word. For them the act of grappling with a moral (or immoral) delima is what is fun in play. I think your game could do that (as indeed EMGs can) but I don't see a built in premise - though I could be wrong here - you have player's with subplots and a main plot. It would depend on the specific scenario to provide the premise.

Chris Engle

MatrixGamer wrote:
The rules I have up on my web page are rather old now - I've streamlined the writing since then - but they give an idea of what EMGs can do.

MatrixGamer wrote:
One thing about narrativist games. The dictionary definition of premise is what I use in EMGs. This is not the meaning that narrativist focused gamers mean with the word. For them the act of grappling with a moral (or immoral) delima is what is fun in play. I think your game could do that (as indeed EMGs can) but I don't see a built in premise - though I could be wrong here - you have player's with subplots and a main plot. It would depend on the specific scenario to provide the premise.

Hello,

Chris is absolutely correct. I think it's now clear that the answer to your question in the thread title is No. You are not talking about Narrativist play or Narrativist design in any sense.

What you're talking about is imposing or including a particular structure and plan to scenario design. Which is fine, it's a usable technique, and certainly has been a functional piece of role-playing for a long time.

It can be useful in the pursuit of any of the Creative Agendas, depending on the other techniques used. It can also, like other high-level techniques, be mis-used toward several different sorts of dysfunctional outcomes.

So let's put aside all Narrativism talk entirely. It's just not relevant to your project. Instead, let's focus on the project and see how it could be most successful. What comes to mind, Paul, as your first main issue toward that end?

Best, Ron

Wow! I'm gratified. Having bumped heads for months with GNS terminology I am finally getting it. I have learned that I'm not primarily a narrativist focused player but I see what one is.

I can also see an interesting mechanism (that probably serves a gamist agenda nicely).

What is next in developming it?

The model exists - looks like it is ready for initial play testing. Lots of problems will pop up in these runs that can be looked at here. I'm interested to see how players actually behave when playing the game. By which I mean behavior, like in psychology, rather than behave, like in nice manners. Does the plot track spur people on to get to the finish line first? Do players compete or conflict with one another? How many points of contact does the game end up having and does that work (or does the game grind to a halt?)

Any one of these topic might make a good next thread - or other topics I didn't think of.

Chris Engle

Ron wrote:
Chris is absolutely correct. I think it's now clear that the answer to your question in the thread title is No. You are not talking about Narrativist play or Narrativist design in any sense.

Story-Weaver, a "pure" plotline-focused game?

MatrixGamer wrote:
What is next in developming it?

MatrixGamer wrote:
The model exists - looks like it is ready for initial play testing. Lots of problems will pop up in these runs that can be looked at here. I'm interested to see how players actually behave when playing the game. By which I mean behavior, like in psychology, rather than behave, like in nice manners. Does the plot track spur people on to get to the finish line first? Do players compete or conflict with one another? How many points of contact does the game end up having and does that work (or does the game grind to a halt?)

Whither it will work will only be know once it is play tested.

I've been there, having trouble finding play testers. I started working on Engle Matrix Games in 1988, at which time giving players more power than the GM was seen as being real weird. I found I had the best luck finding players for my weird game at conventions. I ran my first game at a small con in Southern Illinois, that first year. You might try looking up local cons. Another venue for play testers is the game room of local stores. You need to get permision from the store owner to do this - but if you use props that they sell (figures, paints, maps etc.) they are usually happy to ablige.

If push come to shove, you can always do what I did - Solo gaming.

There is a group in England called "The Solo Wargamers Association" that puts out a nice journal on the subject. To do solo RPGs it might be helpful to write a story about a game. This way you know what has happened and can delve into the thoughts and impressions of your "players." This may sound silly, but literature is often very predictive. HG Wells (the great grand dad of our hobby) wrote a description of nuclear war in 1914 that was erie in it's accuracy. It even correctly predicted when scientists would figure out how to make the bomb!

Chris Engle

MatrixGamer wrote:
I've been there, having trouble finding play testers. I started working on Engle Matrix Games in 1988, at which time giving players more power than the GM was seen as being real weird. I found I had the best luck finding players for my weird game at conventions. I ran my first game at a small con in Southern Illinois, that first year. You might try looking up local cons. Another venue for play testers is the game room of local stores. You need to get permision from the store owner to do this - but if you use props that they sell (figures, paints, maps etc.) they are usually happy to ablige.

MatrixGamer wrote:
If push come to shove, you can always do what I did - Solo gaming.

There is a group in England called "The Solo Wargamers Association" that puts out a nice journal on the subject. To do solo RPGs it might be helpful to write a story about a game. This way you know what has happened and can delve into the thoughts and impressions of your "players." This may sound silly, but literature is often very predictive. HG Wells (the great grand dad of our hobby) wrote a description of nuclear war in 1914 that was erie in it's accuracy. It even correctly predicted when scientists would figure out how to make the bomb!