Hi Ron, as James pointed to your new article over in his actual play thread, I figured I'd just start talking about it here. When I was reading your step-by-step instructions, I kept thinking, "hey, this is exactly how I've been running my Gothic Fantasy Sorcerer game". So, it's still good ol' Bass Playing, isn't it? But what's different about it, to me, seems to boil down to the following two important points:

1) "Local" characters who have the inherent conflicts of their region built into them, and
2) Transformation of Setting instead of transformation of Character.

In particular the second point strikes me as an interesting aspect of Narrativist play, and one that, as you also point out, has not been addressed very much in terms of innovative designs. I was thinking about the Reign Company rules but they're not really a Narrativist design, I'd say.

Your point about TSoY is quite interesting comparing my actual play experiences with the game. I played the game in four distinct set-ups, two of them being more or less classical "travelling party" set-ups and two being "locally embedded" set-ups, and the latter really worked out much better end ended up escalating all by themselves until several characters made really huge decisions (some backed up by buying off Keys) and also transforming the balance of power in that spot, though I'd say that was Situation and not Setting. Whereas the former played more or less like a classic "adventure", only the characters had a little bit more personality than your average lvl 1 fighter.

I posted a link to the essay to tanelorn.net and one of the German posters was surprised that Railroading and Illusionism should be such a big topic in American discourse. Apart from Dragonlance, he had thought this was more of a German thing due to the dominance of Das Schwarze Auge and the crowd of pretentious "Besserspieler" (aka ROLEplayers, not ROLLplayers) who essentially proclaimed the almighty GM as the guardian over what was "appropriate" and "atmospheric". I pointed out that the entire "impossible thing" discussion was actually quite important and formative to the Forge. I might even go as far as to say that Railroading and the Impossible Thing have been the main antagonist for you, personally, throughout your work as an RPG publisher. Would you agree?

- Frank

Hi Frank!

You're right that I'm directly calling attention to two specific techniques, in combination, and otherwise not saying anything different than Story Now oriented material I've written so much about in the past. The essay is definitely aimed at people who've either begun or become quite skilled at games like The Riddle of Steel or Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer, yet are frequently baffled by, for instance, The Shadow of Yesterday, who perceive the extensive setting material of Glorantha as a deterrent, and who would probably not go near DeGenesis with a three-meter pole.
Let's take a look at the two techniques you've spotted:

1) "Local" characters who have the inherent conflicts of their region built into them,

2) Transformation of Setting instead of transformation of Character.

the latter really worked out much better end ended up escalating all by themselves until several characters made really huge decisions (some backed up by buying off Keys) and also transforming the balance of power in that spot, though I'd say that was Situation and not Setting.

... one of the German posters was surprised that Railroading and Illusionism should be such a big topic in American discourse. Apart from Dragonlance, he had thought this was more of a German thing due to the dominance of Das Schwarze Auge and the crowd of pretentious "Besserspieler"

I might even go as far as to say that Railroading and the Impossible Thing have been the main antagonist for you, personally, throughout your work as an RPG publisher. Would you agree?

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the reply! I'm following you, obviously with your elaboration of the two core ideas and also concerning my TSoY games. The “local set-up” games were both convention games, and most of the players had not read any setting material before we played, but if we had continued and they had gotten into the setting, before long we might have had a ruthless word-thief elf with an army of Ammeni thugs set up an outpost in the middle of Khale to exploit a large moon silver deposit, and the Sons of Hanish might have joined forces with the Panther Clan in order to stop him. So, yeah.

You make an interesting point about Shadowrun, in particular because it remains one of the most popular RPGs in Germany, along with Vampire and of course DSA. There's a reason 4th edition DSA was turned into a point-buy system (and an awful one at that) as Fantasy Productions was behind both DSA and the German Shadowrun at the time. Personally I have only very limited experience with Shadowrun and Shadowrun players at the actual gaming table (the little I have is disastrous), so I'd love to hear some of your thoughts about it. (Also, I do think that your setting-driven Story Now recipe could do wonders combined with the Shadowrun setting, and maybe some decent rules-set.)

Another point that occurred to me reading your article, kind of a tangent, was about the distinction between “Story Before” and “Story Now” as you outline it. As you know, I've been working a lot with Participationist techniques in many of my earlier games and my current design project, Danger Zone, is bound to be my “final tackle” of that particular mode of play. These games are certainly centered around a “Story Before” kind of GM-prep and set-up, but in my experience many groups like to add some personal issues and conflicts for their characters into the mix which are cooking “on the side” and working more along the lines of the character-centered “Story Now” approach as described in your article, and tend to outlast the typical “monster of the week” main plot. So how'd you describe that mode of play? Primarily Story Before with a little supportive Story-Now-ish fun? Or real Hybrid?

I've played that way with a number of very diverse game systems, with more or (mostly) less support by the rules, but it would seem to me that FATE is particularly aimed in that very direction. A few people over at tanelorn.net wondered why you did not mention FATE in your article. Was there a particular reason for that?

- Frank

Frank,

I am not going to speak for Ron but I'll say that my experience with FATE games is that there is no real mechanic for the characters changing through play.  Aspects can be re-written but it feels like a ham-handed eraser rather than the organic way beliefs change in Burning Wheel or how a character can be torn up and re-born through a Humanity 0 event in Sorcerer, or how conflict changes characters in DitV.  These things happen through play in a way that does not occur in FATE and is my main problem with aspects, not even getting into my frequent problems with the way the dice feel flat to me at the table.

Thanks, Frank, for pointing out the link to the article.  I had no read it yet and it was neat stuff, very much a reflection of my experience in the past year playing Burning Wheel with friends using the grey Forgotten Realms boxed set.  There is no doubt an AP thread in that.

Hi Frank,

I'll answer your last question first: it didn't occur to me. FATE doesn't enter my thinking very much, for examples or for interest in play, or any other way. I'm not exactly sure what those other people are asking, for instance, why (in detail) does FATE occur to them in the context of my essay? We can pursue this after clarification, if it has something to do with the topic. I sense a drastic thread-drift, however, so everyone, I ask that we wait until or if that happens.

... These games are certainly centered around a “Story Before” kind of GM-prep and set-up, but in my experience many groups like to add some personal issues and conflicts for their characters into the mix which are cooking “on the side” and working more along the lines of the character-centered “Story Now” approach as described in your article, and tend to outlast the typical “monster of the week” main plot. So how'd you describe that mode of play? Primarily Story Before with a little supportive Story-Now-ish fun? Or real Hybrid?

You make an interesting point about Shadowrun, in particular because it remains one of the most popular RPGs in Germany, along with Vampire and of course DSA. There's a reason 4th edition DSA was turned into a point-buy system (and an awful one at that) as Fantasy Productions was behind both DSA and the German Shadowrun at the time. Personally I have only very limited experience with Shadowrun and Shadowrun players at the actual gaming table (the little I have is disastrous), so I'd love to hear some of your thoughts about it.

(Also, I do think that your setting-driven Story Now recipe could do wonders combined with the Shadowrun setting, and maybe some decent rules-set.)

Hi Ron,

I want to step back and verify, first, that we are talking only about Story Before, setting-centric play, specifically the second part. Because your later phrase "monster of the week" is not compatible with that model, at least not if the monster and its associated set-piece arrangement are the central material. If that phrase was thrown in for spice, then I can address your question, but if it really represents the take-home, what-we-did, "the story" material, then all I can say is that your question doesn't apply to any of my points in the essay.

Hi Frank,

The issue you're raising all boils down to two things.

1. Whether the Force you applied resulted in the story.

2. whether "some of the greatest scenes we played" were actually the story.

I must define very carefully what I mean by story. I mean this: acknowledgment of relevant conflict, focus upon that conflict, rising action, unavoidable climax, resolution of conflict, final perspective; all of which result in emergent theme. For #1, I am especially interested in whether focus upon the conflict ("this is what the story is about"), and resolution of conflict ("this ") were induced, introduced, or otherwise simply dictated through Force. For #2, to the extent that the answer is "yes," I am especially interested in what the story might be.

So here's the most Narrativist possible version of what you're saying: The GM provided a chain of imposed events, yes, often involving scene framing and hence the placement of the player-characters in space and time. Many of those events demanded direct response, yes. And in the eyes of a fictional observer (i.e., within the fiction), those events would be thought of as the most important, yes. However: the engaging conflicts remained, for us as authors and audience, the emotional obligations and responses of the characters among one another.

For example: Although a dark lord's identity has been shockingly revealed, although the dark lord's plan has come to fruition, although the dark lord is rearing his nightmarish steed over two of the heroes, although the minions have beaten the other heroes away and prevented them from helping, and although this last moment of confrontation will make or break the dark lord's success in his vile plan ... what matters to us is whether the two heroes, in the shadow of imminent death at this very second, kiss or not. Because that kiss will speak volumes about each character's actual heartfelt commitment regarding every single other character. It may even be that the kiss is so powerfully moving that we as authors or audience more-or-less hope they die in the context of framing its forlorn beauty in external catastrophe, or alternately, it may even be the act which damns one of the heroes irrevocably in our eyes. Or anything like that, of a thousand possibilities depending on what has happened so far. Among those possibilities, one of the most important and flexible is whether until that moment, no one at the table had even dreamed of "whether they kiss" was going to happen; or alternately, that it has come up before in a variety of ways, who knows. *

And here's the least Narrativist possible version of what you're saying: The GM provided a chain of imposed events, involving scene framing, and hence the placement of the characters in space and time. And what was imposed set up and established the relevant context - as well as outcomes - regarding our story's drama and theme. Along the way, the enjoyable interactions among characters added tremendous "watchability" for all of us, as well as adding to the sense of tension and satisfaction to the rising action, climax, and resolution of the conflict. We therefore had a better story due to those character interactions.

For example: The revelation of the dark lord's identity, the tension of the way his plan has come to fruition, the circumstances of the fight such that two of our heroes are directly threatened by him without the aid of their friends, and the question of whether their efforts will indeed defeat him and/or save their own lives ... all of that was a great story, to be in and to remember. And for them to kiss right there at that moment, it made us all go "Yeah!" because it underscored their determination to value their defiance of him no matter what else happened.

I really hope that no one misunderstands me to think that opposing the dark lord couldn't itself be the story in a Narrativist context. Of course it could. I will begin another thread, I hope, soon, to explain how things change around us can facilitate Narrativist play. For this thread, however, both of these examples should be heavily underscored by the line I included to introduce each one: version of what you're saying, referring to Frank's precise phrasing regarding that particular Potter-U game.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron, thanks for the reply! I get what you are saying. So, in our Pool game, we were leaning more towards your "most Narrativist possible version", but still the "main plot" as forced by the GM (me, as it were) was much appreciated and enjoyed by all participants, to the degree that the players complimented me on creating a genuinely "Potter-ish" story for us all to enjoy. There were certainly many "yes, of course" moments in play, but also real "you do what?!" moments in the personal interactions between the characters, with relationships changing through play, in neither planned nor expected ways.

This combination is really one of my favorite modes of play, and to this date I don't really know whether it's Sim, or Nar, or a Hybrid. Not that I really need to define it, as long as I know how to do it.

- Frank

Narrativist.

I've been battling the confusion over "is it Narrativist when the GM introduces adverse changes into the setting?" since before the Forge was founded. It's a much simpler question than people make it, probably due to the agonizing history Moreno outlined so well in the other thread.

I'll be addressing it (again) in the "discontents" thread I have going presently.

Best, Ron

Yeah, I guess I expected that answer by now. Just out of curiosity: Is the Hybrid still a thing? Because to my current understanding of GNS, it's more of a relic.

- Frank

Hi Frank,

No hybrids.

I described my position on that issue in Gamism and Narrativism: mutually exclusive, especially on page 3. The fellow who started the thread took a while to read my posts and thread references, so maybe the best way to understand the thread is to read his final posts in it.

There's more to talk about for us, particularly the apparently innocent but actually quite deadly phrase "the main plot." It turns out that the brief time I had for posting has turned into no time, so it will have to wait.

Best, Ron