I extracted this from the RPGnet thread, 'cos it caught my eye:

Joshua Neff wrote:

Basic Lit 101 stuff: if there isn't some sort of moral/ethical/emotional question being addressed, the audience isn't going to really care about the characters.

Gah, I hate actually debating this stuff. I'll probably just wilt. BUT...

There may be first person identification between the player and their character, but that player is serving as the audience for *another* character.

A protagonised character is a character everyone at the table is rooting for. Someone everyone present can identify with.

I may play a really interesting character in a game, where most of the meaty, thematic churning is going on inside my own head. If I can't demonstrate that to the other players through exploration and implementation of premise, then I'm wasting my time. There's nothing for them to see, or identify with.

Joe.

Hey,

Gareth is right, and I think Josh's statement is best taken in the context of overtly Narrativist play - in that context, it makes sense.

One of the problems with that current RPG.net thread is that people have been cunningly diverted into a discussion of Narrativism instead of GNS, and hence are forced to explain G and 22 without discussing alphabets and numbers. It doesn't help that "premise" as a term is doing triple-duty in the essay, which is no one's fault but mine.

Best,
Ron

And another problem with that thread is when I decide to post at 3 in the morning. Ack.

But yeah, that's exactly the context I was speaking of. In every post on narrativism in that thread, I've only been speaking of narrativist gaming, not gaming as a whole.

Ron Edwards wrote: . It doesn't help that "premise" as a term is doing triple-duty in the essay, which is no one's fault but mine.

...its without a doubt my single least favorite part of that essay

I have to agree.

Paul

Hi everyone,

Although I've politely bowed out of the RPG.net thread, I now have question from a point Ron just raised:

One can talk about Narratist play independent of G adn S, can't one? I mean, aren't there threads that do just that with G, N and S all over these boards?

I would have thought the anology would have been talking about a line, without discussing all of geometry, rather than G and 22 and no discussion of the alphabet or numbers. Lines have unique properties worthy of discussion in an of themselves, and are useful without having to add circles into the mix.

And, let me add, I think 22 is often given short shrift in terms of its complexity, and should recieve more individualized and specialized attention. G on the other hand speaks for itself (too often if you ask me), and needs no more than a nod as a consonant, if that, for some years to come.

Christopher

Yeah, that G is always hogging the limelight "Great", "Gargantuan", "Giant", who does he think he is.

But poor 22 is often left out in the cold. We should spend more time on 22. I mean when was the last time we pointed out that 22 is 11 doubled. I mean that should be recognized. ;-)

Hi folks,

A new thread about the RPG.net thread has begun in Site Discussion.

Christopher, diverting the GNS discussion into Narravist this-and-that is the primary tactic for GNS-attackers. It's tantamount to "Ignore the little man behind the curtain," which is to understand the relationship among Exploration, GNS, and a wide variety of technique combinations. The goal of the attackers is to make sure that the little man is hidden. It works wonderfully to get a Narrativist going about his favorite mode of play - it's like asking an aikido practitioner about "ki," so as he launches into a Blah Blah Blah, you can kick him in the knee.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: Yeah, that G is always hogging the limelight "Great", "Gargantuan", "Giant", who does he think he is.

But poor 22 is often left out in the cold. We should spend more time on 22. I mean when was the last time we pointed out that 22 is 11 doubled. I mean that should be recognized. ;-)

It works wonderfully to get a Narrativist going about his favorite mode of play - it's like asking an aikido practitioner about "ki," so as he launches into a Blah Blah Blah, you can kick him in the knee.

its without a doubt my single least favorite part of that essay