Topic: Exploration of "Genre"
Started by: Christopher Kubasik
Started on: 5/28/2002
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 5/28/2002 at 5:04am, Christopher Kubasik wrote:
Exploration of "Genre"
Hi Everybody,
I normally don't jump into the theory threads -- cause a) my academic lingo just doesn't exist and b) I usually have nothing more interesting to add than what's on the board.
But Fang's "Dramatism Again" thread sparked my thoughts with something that I haven't yet seen adressed around here. (Though I might have missed it.)
[Oh, and when I say Genre, I'm using it in the utterly incorrect but common usage. Those bothered by this should make like the Shadow, cloud their own mind, and substitute the word Genre with Tropes. Thanks.]
In talking about CoC, he mentioned the game's "Dramatism" is found in the drift toward the Genre conventions of Lovecraft's work.
I just wanted to mention that during my "Chicago phase" of gaming, that was the kind of Sim play we played. We were influenced by Greg Gorden and Ray Winninger (DC Heroes -- which, with it's open ended system, Hero Points and point doubling attributes built a system that scaled both Jimmy Olson and a planet juggling Superman, as well as last minute rescues), and Aaron Allston's essays and genre think for Hero sub-games (Justice, Inc., Lands of Mystery, and the like).
When we played, we played to recreate styles of fiction and author: CoC, Pendragon, Justice, Inc., Star Wars, DC Heroes, the Hero system toward many ends (70's cop show and the like). Also, playtesting Vampire and Whispering Vault we were trying to get the right feel for specific worlds. (And my desperate, but ulimately failed, attempts to get the AD&D Al Qadim setting to feel like the Arabian Nights and not a dressed up Grey Hawk.)
Whether or not the rules supported all this wasn't the point. We knew it was our responsibility to fill in the genre blanks. The better each player at the table did it, the better the game. That was one of the points of playing: Do you know the genre? Are you adding to the genre? Bravo for doing it well.
I bring this all up because this key experience made GNS accessible to me. When I realized Narrativism wasn't about reacreating a type of story (which is what we'd been doing) but in fact creating story I could see where our best intentions led us astray. We always wanted more story, but were stuck simulating and exploring "genre" in our games, and so they always felt a little flat.
From this, I can see why sometimes people get a kind of "Dramatist" play (which obviously I'm actually classifying under Sim) mixed up with Narrativist play. All the tropes are there, so it looks and smells like a story. But the fact is, it isn't a story. A story has all those internal working parts (thematic exploration, active protagonists), that many people *touch* on, but never make explicit. And the lack of explicit is what makes such games kind of wobbly. (We're recreating Mallory's Le MorteD'Arthur, but unlike the ready-to-rumble-passion-driven-story-makers of the tales, we went up against plots created by the GM... and so on.)
So, the key thing I wanted to offer is that many game systems offer elements that help create and explore the "feel" of the story being modelled (Passions, Hero Points, Insanity), but actually don't help build an actual story. To build an actual story you need Narrativism.
Take care,
Christopher
On 5/28/2002 at 6:03am, Le Joueur wrote:
Exploration of "Genre Expectations"
Christopher Kubasik wrote: Fang's "Dramatism Again" thread sparked my thoughts with something that I haven't yet seen adressed around here. (Though I might have missed it.)
[Oh, and when I say Genre, I'm using it in the utterly incorrect but common usage. Those bothered by this should make like the Shadow, cloud their own mind, and substitute the word Genre with Tropes. Thanks.]
Okay, I'm not sure how tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony) work in this usage or what the "common usage" of genre is (if it isn't "kind; genus; class; form; or style, esp. in literature"). Can you elaborate?
Christopher Kubasik wrote: In talking about CoC, he mentioned the game's "Dramatism" is found in the drift toward the Genre conventions of Lovecraft's work.
Whoa! Waitaminute! I am not any kind of expert on Call of Cthulhu or Lovecraft, I was speaking in terms of what I had gathered in listening to other's comments on such. I was also using it as a springboard to discussing Scattershot's Genre Expectations Technique down in the Scattershot forum.
Christopher Kubasik wrote: I just wanted to mention that during my "Chicago phase" of gaming, that was the kind of Sim play we played. We were influenced by Greg Gorden and Ray Winninger (DC Heroes -- which, with it's open ended system, Hero Points and point doubling attributes built a system that scaled both Jimmy Olson and a planet juggling Superman, as well as last minute rescues), and Aaron Allston's essays and genre think for Hero sub-games (Justice, Inc., Lands of Mystery, and the like).
When we played, we played to recreate styles of fiction and author: CoC, Pendragon, Justice, Inc., Star Wars, DC Heroes, the Hero system toward many ends (70's cop show and the like). Also, playtesting Vampire and Whispering Vault we were trying to get the right feel for specific worlds. (And my desperate, but ultimately failed, attempts to get the AD&D Al Qadim setting to feel like the Arabian Nights and not a dressed up Greyhawk.)
That's applying oneself to the Genre Expectations alright. Especially the part about Al Qadim; wouldn't you have loved to have had a list of those Genre Expectations before you got into that?
Christopher Kubasik wrote: Whether or not the rules supported all this wasn't the point. We knew it was our responsibility to fill in the genre blanks. The better each player at the table did it, the better the game. That was one of the points of playing: Do you know the genre? Are you adding to the genre? Bravo for doing it well.
I bring this all up because this key experience made GNS accessible to me. When I realized Narrativism wasn't about recreating a type of story (which is what we'd been doing) but in fact creating story I could see where our best intentions led us astray. We always wanted more story, but were stuck simulating and exploring "genre" in our games, and so they always felt a little flat.
That is well and true (although I would like to add that if the Genre Expectations aren't out there on the table, then the story created can go in some potentially disappointing directions). Can I ask how this relates GNS, Narrativism, and Genre Expectations? I'd like to know what you want to get out of this thread.
Christopher Kubasik wrote: So, the key thing I wanted to offer is that many game systems offer elements that help create and explore the "feel" of the story being modeled (Passions, Hero Points, Insanity), but actually don't help build an actual story. To build an actual story you need Narrativism.
While that may be true, it wasn't until Narrativist Premises were being explored as a concept that I noticed a need to support the Genre Expectations as well as the 'story-intent¹.' It may also be true that an "actual story" may be essayed without overt attention to the Premise (which until recently was what I thought Narrativism was). I felt that the Genre Expectations could be a tacit agreement where the story might go without forcing it into a specific fixed state.
Fang Langford
¹ 'Story-intent' is as opposed to 'story-result.' 'Story-intent' requires that the parties involved recognize that a 'story' is being made not retroactively ('story-massaging' techniques), but actively during play (and not prior to play to be railroaded through). It can be argued that every game results in a 'story.'
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 2043
Board 22
On 5/28/2002 at 6:07am, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
Re: Exploration of "Genre"
Christopher Kubasik wrote:
From this, I can see why sometimes people get a kind of "Dramatist" play (which obviously I'm actually classifying under Sim) mixed up with Narrativist play. All the tropes are there, so it looks and smells like a story. But the fact is, it isn't a story. A story has all those internal working parts (thematic exploration, active protagonists), that many people *touch* on, but never make explicit. And the lack of explicit is what makes such games kind of wobbly.
I'd only add to this that sometimes, folks actually do wobble on in to a form of Narrativism.
That said . . . Feng Shui was the cannonical example of Sim/Exploration of "Genre" (sorry, Ron) around here for a while - as I mentioned in some other thread, Robin Laws indicates (in "Robin's Laws") that he considers "Tone" to be the area in which Feng Shui shines. I'd say neither Tone nor Genre (if you're avoiding Color/Setting/etc.) invoke creation of story . . . this is an area that seems very clear to me. A large amount of what gets labeled as "Dramatist" play is Sim/Exploration of X for all players. In some cases, there's a degree of Narrativism on the part of the GM. In even fewer cases that Narrativism seems to "wobble" on down to the players as well.
All of these variations may be enjoyable for a particular group. And I've probably done little more than repeat Christopher's point . . .
Gordon
On 5/28/2002 at 6:52am, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Exploration of "Genre"
Oh, fer cryin' out loud!
I generally think of myself as a fairly smart chap. Not brilliant by any stretch, maybe not even smarter than the average bear, but not stupid. But it took this long to really get it, one of those 1:30 in the morning revelations. And now I understand why the folks on RPGnet have been having a hard time "getting" narrativism, & seeing why "dramatism" isn't necessarily the same thing as narrativism. It's because we Forge folks were explaining that "Premise is necessary for narrativism to end up with a story created by all the players". And that's so completely wrong. Narrativism isn't about ending up with a story at all--it's all about creating a story right now! It's as Fang puts it: story-intent vs. story-result.
I mean, I knew this in the back of my head. Narrativism's my thing, right? But I've been unable to really verbalize it & explain it. Until now.
Man, I feel thick. I feel like Homer Simpson. Sheesh.
On 5/28/2002 at 9:15am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Exploration of "Genre"
Christopher Kubasik wrote:
I bring this all up because this key experience made GNS accessible to me. When I realized Narrativism wasn't about reacreating a type of story (which is what we'd been doing) but in fact creating story I could see where our best intentions led us astray. We always wanted more story, but were stuck simulating and exploring "genre" in our games, and so they always felt a little flat.
I disagree - the discussion of genre expectations and the like is an aid to the players in support of the a GM AUTHORED story. Player creativity restricted to reinforcement rather than creation is IMO a correct analysis; concluding that someone should read this as a frustrated cry for narrativism is not. Genre reinforcement is a viable and constructive play behaviour that IMO implies nothing about a desire for full-blown narrativism.
On 5/28/2002 at 1:43pm, Christopher Kubasik wrote:
RE: Exploration of "Genre"
Fang,
Strange as this may seem, I'm posted this neither to put you on the spot about CoC, nor to provide more links to your concerns about Scattershot.
You'll note I went on a bit about my own experiences in this area. You'll note too I started a whole new thread.
You ask why I want from this thread. Actually, I didn't want anything from it. I wanted to offer something: A point of view of coming to terms with some confusion about a playing a sesssion that looks like a story because of certain window dressing (with attendent rules to help build that window dressing) and actual Narrativism. And to add that there's such a thing as exploring genre for its own fun (a Sim event), that ultimately might lead to confusion or frustration if people are expecting to move into Narrativism (whether they know that is or not.)
I started the thread so that someone might get some moment of fresh understanding on the issue. Josh did. Ta da. Mission accomplished.
Having said all that, from your reaction I suspect I might have made a Forge mistake. Perhaps one arrive only with knives drawn. Again, I don't post on the north side of town that often.
Gareth,
In my group it was a cry of frustrated narrativism. All I stated that this was the circumstance in my group.
To go further, we had a mix of G intent as well, which added to the confusion. Since we were all reinforcing genre convention, we got confused when the tug of war between Narrativism and Gamism got laid bare.
For example, a creepy, moody CoC run by Mike Nystul: I played a simple dock worker desperate to find out what had happened to his little girl no matter what (Premise: Is knowledge worth the risk of madness), and pushed that has hard as I could in active choices for building scenes. Some of the other players were playing to survive the scenarior while still couching it in CoC genre language and bits there was tension at the table because I was going to "get the party killed" (to me a viable option for a CoC story) and they, to me seemed to be agreeing to play like a mixed group of human, elf, and dwarf armed with a ten foot pole. Again, Genre conventions in place... But different expectations of instances of actual play.
In no way am I saying everyone who pursues genre conventions is desperate for Narrativism. I am saying in our group there were many who were -- and the confusion often led to disappointment. (Not always. As noted in the first post, the point of the games was often "playing" the genre -- and that was entertaining enough -- most of the time. But every so often it fell flat... And that happened more and more as genre seemed more and more not enough.)
If, in any way, I offended, demeaned, or cause anguish or despair on the part of those who love genre convention and don't want narrativism I apologize forthwith.
Gordon,
Yes. And since I hadn't played Feng Shui I couldn't comment on it. But I wanted to point out a whole half a dozen games that actually reinforce genre conventions, but don't nescesarily lead to Narrativism. We thought they did. We were wrong. There were issues because of it.
On the other hand, the reason Al Qadim failed was not because I didn't know the genre conventions. I knew them cold. (And the most successful session I ran for the setting worked because I got the players to hit the notes perfectly for four hours.) It failed because the rules for AD&D were the rules for AD&D and not only did they not support the genre, but they didn't particularly support thinking of "creating a story right now" -- which is exactly what the Arabian Nights is all about! Unless I had a system that encouraged *that* kind of thinking we were just going to be stuck.
Joshua,
Yes.
Take care,
Christopher
On 5/28/2002 at 3:05pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Re: Exploration of "Genre"
contracycle wrote:Christopher Kubasik wrote: I bring this all up because this key experience made GNS accessible to me. When I realized Narrativism wasn't about recreating a type of story (which is what we'd been doing) but in fact creating story I could see where our best intentions led us astray. We always wanted more story, but were stuck simulating and exploring "genre" in our games, and so they always felt a little flat.
I disagree - the discussion of genre expectations and the like is an aid to the players in support of a GM AUTHORED story. Player creativity restricted to reinforcement rather than creation is IMO a correct analysis; concluding that someone should read this as a frustrated cry for Narrativism, [which it] is not. Genre reinforcement is a viable and constructive play behaviour that IMO implies nothing about a desire for full-blown Narrativism.
I think you sell the players short if you think that they can't play under genre expectations (outside of the Dramatism that sounds implied here). I'm inclined to agree with you that "genre reinforcement" is a workable play style, but if the group desires a story (in terms of story-intent, see above), they must 'play for more.' However, I also agree that simply wanting story-intent with their "genre reinforcement," I think still does not rise to the level of Narrativism. With the inclusion of 'unacknowledged Premise,' Ron makes this quite unclear; it depends upon whether all story-intent (as I described above) requires Premise, however unconscious, in the GNS.
Basically, there's playing to support genre expectations, then there's wanting a game that has explicit story-intent; that's what Chris has said they had wanted. The question here is whether this rises to the threshold of being Narrativism. It would if all story-intent carried enough Premise, even when unacknowledged, to meet Narrativism's requirement of the exploration of Premise.
Separately, I do think that genre expectations can be used in a gamemaster lead story-intent style. I also think that genre expectations are even better when used in a shared story-intent style. This is because it enforces a certain 'thread' of story-intent (as the particular genre expects) thus no one will 'hijack' the direction of the story-intent to the point that it becomes unsatisfying to the rest of the group (at least insofar as the social contract allows others to register complaints about potential 'story-intent hijacking').
That's why I made Genre Expectations one of the central features of the Scattershot Techniques. Soon too, will I add explicit leadership and group conflict resolution materials; these work together to make the above happen whether or not it rises to the definition of Narrativism. And that's why I don't think that Genre Expectations are only the purview of gamemaster lead story-intent games.
Fang Langford
p. s. For the record, I chimed in on this thread because it brings up Genre Expectations and it explores the realm of story-intent play (and whether that implies unconscious Premise or not). There is no 'Forge Mistake,' implied Premise is a whole new fish and I believe will probably drag it into everything for a while.