In Thanks to the Forge for Helping Me Enjoy D&D nipfipgip...dip said

AD&D cannot function other than (very silly) gamism

Have you seen the big thread about this in RPG Theory? You make my point exactly.

-Marco

Hi there,

I think the old-timers need to cut people slack for enthusiasm. Raven, Marco, and everyone, it's OK to give people some slack when they say "can only" and "can never" and things like that. Or at least to recognize that that kind of phrasing can't be literally correct, so let's edit our own reactions to its extremism.

Or maybe you don't agree. Maybe everyone, always, has to say exactly the right thing exactly the way we want them to say it. If not - ut!! "Time to correct that, let me tell you."

It's a personal call. I tend toward the former outlook, and permit some give in the discussion, let enthusiasm and over-stated judgments bubble a little once in a while. Marco tends to want the dialogue to be purer and more fair at every single phrase. However, as moderator, what I don't want to see is another jackass thread like the one between Zak and Peter, so long ago - one off-the-cuff remark about D&D and hack-and-slash led to one person freaking out like a wolverine, and the other one digging in his heels because he didn't want to be bullied. For something like 50 posts of semi-hysterical bullshit on all sides.

So: sure, "can never" and "will always" and that sort of thing is over-statement. When you see someone talk like that, your reaction can lead to some good points, and the stuff Raven's posted about is an excellent Actual Play post, exactly what the forum is for.

However, leaping on it at first blush, like a college philosophy student, to correct it, to root out the evil of judgment and over-generalization, typically results in no discussion at all - just posts and posts of people typing on an anger high.

And that ain't happening here.

Best,
Ron

Well, Ron, I'll take the criticism for what it's worth, if you'll chalk my statements up to my usual bluntness. Mostly, I've been thinking about posting my latest play experiences with D&D and this just happened to give me an excuse to sit down and write it all out.

So ng(er, whatever)...dip, just FYI, I'm not trying start a conflict of wills here with you or anything, and if I came off as "talking down" or anything similar, forgive me. And BTW, ...dip, is there another name we can call you, a different nick or your actual name? It's really hard to attribute stuff to you with the current one :)

Finally, Marco, no I haven't read that discussion.
What's the thread name?

Well, I'm not Marco, but the thread is "A Theory: System doesn't matter during RP moments" over in the RPG Theory forum. I must warn you though, the thread is mostly a morass of semantic crossfire.

-Chris

Hi Raven,

Excellent. Let's go to the Actual Play, then. As I see it, my friend, you have shifted strongly over to Narrativist play, and it works for you - story now, protagonism as an experience to be appreciated by everyone right during play ... these are Narrativism.

This is a fine example of how system is one element within the concept of the People and How They Act, which is the biggest and most inclusive category of my model.

Are there any rules or (more accurately) "spheres of play" that are explicit in the rules text that you find yourself minimizing? (Bearing in mind that since you play on-line, there are many rules and so forth that cannot be used as indicated.)

Best,
Ron

Here's the link to my and Peter's thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=238. Ron, you're exaggerating a bit, but that thread certainly does present the unproductive "never/always" statement and some sour debate.

Also, People and How They Act is a biggie and one that hadn't sunk in until I read this thread and reread that older one. Thanks for pointing that out.

---

I'm with Ron on seeing what "spheres" you concentrate on or minimize. I'm considering getting back into D&D in the future, and your Narrativist take interests me. Is it a general consensus on the group's part to start creating this story? For example:

The dwarven clan in need of help, the ancient city? Yes, I created that. The player decided this was the lost city her clan had been searching for for a thousand years, that her character was dedicated to finding, looting and leading the rest of her clan back to.

greyorm wrote:
Quote:
AD&D cannot function other than (very silly) gamism

"Whoa, nelly!" I say.
I mostly play D&D. Rather, that is, D&D of the non-silly variety.

greyorm wrote:
So ng(er, whatever)...dip, just FYI, I'm not trying start a conflict of wills here with you or anything, and if I came off as "talking down" or anything similar, forgive me.

Good questions...ones I started thinking about myself after I read and responded to Marco's post over in the indicated thread. What Gamist principles have been diluted to provide for Narrativist ones, if any...that is, have I minimized any aspects of the system in favor of producing protaganism?

I realized I have...but only if you view my methods in a certain light and really stretch the concept of "system."

I've wholly abandoned the "scripted module/scenario" approach to D&D; the "there's a story here...just wait!" preplotting and campaign designing that plagued my last campaign with this same group. That's part of where the answer lies, I think, but I don't see it as a change to the actual rules of the game (the social rules, yes, but not the mechanical rules).

To use the examples from Chapter Four of the DMG, which describes how to create "Adventures," foremost, I am specifically avoiding all the "Bad Structure" detailed.

Further, my adventures are not about world-events and happenings around the characters (and their reactions to them), they are specifically about the characters and their reactions to those events...I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but having run adventures of the former style for years, I can see the clear differences between it and the latter.

The sites where the adventures occur fluctuate, based on the needs of the game...on what's INTERESTING. That is, I no longer let the PCs wander aimlessly if they don't "get" the clue or head down the "wrong" tunnel, something always happens to make things interesting and move things -- not towards a specified goal or conclusion -- but a relevant, interesting conflict.

Thus, as stated, I'm not certain this really qualifies as an affirmative reply the question about marginalization of one aspect to enhance another, since module design isn't a core part of the mechanics, more of a metagame issue.

To switch gears into a related topic, the main problem folks have with the above idea is the worry or preconception that, "How can you do that? Something interesting might occur if you just let it happen!" Which is (frankly) bunkum. Yes, something might, anything is possible, but why wait around to find out?

That's what the thread Get to the Point is all about.

Further, I do use published modules or adventure notes, but only to provide the loose framework and setting-color necessary to play. I'll move parts of the adventure site around and change room contents dependent upon the needs of the game. Simply, if it isn't previously established, it's fair game. I don't care what it says should be in that room in the module, unless the contents of that room have somehow been previously established in play, they ain't there.

And, obviously, this all ties into Zak's question and concerns about consistency.

But before I get to the specific question, a quick overview of the situation: I used "Forge of Fury" as my framework. Things were changed as necessary, the orcs and troglodytes became demons (though I altered their stats not a whit), the halls were buried deep in the earth (not in a mountain), the prisoners found at one point in the module were part of the lost clan of dwarves (not a pair of human merchants) and thus kin to the two dwarves in the party (direct kin in one place), the interiors were not exact...that is, I described things to seem as though the actual city took up much more space than the halls described in the module.

Mechanically, everything remained the same, the encounters were of the specified difficulty and level (even if exact locations changed in a few instances), the amount of treasures found were all of the same value (though I altered a few items into similar but more character-relevant or story-now-relevant items), etc.

A specific example of this follows:
In one room, there is a magical rapier which is unused by the ogrish occupant. The occupant in this case became the ruler of the demons of the city, and the rapier became an ancient sword of the empire -- a magical bastard sword, discarded and forgotten among piles of other weaponry and junk the demon had forced the dwarves to craft for him over the years.

Encounter-wise, at one point the characters can enter an ancient barracks where undead skeletons lie in wait. Nearby, in another room, there was a hidden treasure of gold coin and gems. I combined the two into one and placed this as the second encounter the party made in the long-sealed, spirit-haunted sections of the city, to showcase the haunting and the dangers of which led to it being sealed, and to make it more interesting than going from room-to-room fighting and searching.

Initially, I had planned they would encounter the Dragon Goddess in the first chamber they entered, but changed my mind as one of the players wasn't available for that session. I felt the situation with the goddess was too important for her character to miss out on. The skeletons made a great color-encounter, plus the treasure in the room added a bit of personal conflict/relevancy to the situation, as the dwarf greedily refused to give up on getting the treasure, despite the undead horror.

So, yes, I do some preplanning, but it isn't set-in-stone-this-must-happen-or-my-adventure-is-ruined sort of planning. Had the player been out for longer, or had to drop my game completely, I could have scrapped every bit of it and moved on very easily, focusing on the other players' characters and their conflicts, reactions to events and choices.

The game's entire direction would have changed, since that player would not have been available to focus on her relevant conflicts (such as saving her family and her empire) and I wouldn't force the other players to follow her path (ie: returning to the empire, confronting the sorcerer controlling the royal family, etc).

I suddenly just realized what was different between my first adventure, when I ran "The Sunless Citadel," and this adventure...

Despite my having carefully tied the original adventure personally to each of the characters (ie: a self-created test of manhood for one and show up his disapproving father, a chance to restore family fortune for another, etc.) the game fell apart once one of the players decided they actually hated like their character and with the top-down (ie: plot-down) view I was using to run it.

Yes, I based campaign-structure and events on the characters, weaving them into the campaign's story and yes, I'm doing that still, but now I'm doing it in a much different way...the difference between top-down and bottom-up...this is the splitting hairs I mention above, and it leads to two very different results in play.

"My character is important because they are tied to the plot."
"My character is important because they ARE the plot."

Take some time to think about that, especially as it relates to what else I mention about losing a player messing up a game, and how that doesn't happen in the case of the latter despite that the character is the plot.

Zak Arntson wrote: You presented the city to the group. When and how did the player decide it was her PC's lost city?

Ron Edwards wrote: This is a fine example of how system is one element within the concept of the People and How They Act, which is the biggest and most inclusive category of my model.

Are there any rules or (more accurately) "spheres of play" that are explicit in the rules text that you find yourself minimizing? (Bearing in mind that since you play on-line, there are many rules and so forth that cannot be used as indicated.)

Ron Edwards wrote: ...these are Narrativism.

Hi Raven,

Amazing post. This is great stuff. I do agree that GNS-mode shifting can occur with little or no system change, theoretically. But I think that your claim that you are changing "nothing but" the social system and GM-interactions is clearly not correct; you are, I think, too close to the process of Drift to be perceiving it.

You wrote,
... the following have less importance: Carrying Capacity (I ignore the whole STR & Lbs Carried deal to save time...if someone is carrying alot of gear, I'll make a ruling about any effects it has on their movement or Dexterity), Vision & Light (for obvious reasons, this is marginalized like miniatures) and Movement (again).

I'm trying very hard to find something here of more immediate import to play style than the above, which don't have any notable effect on protagonism that I can see, but coming up short.

Imagine what play would be like if you put the same attention and energy into reinforcing and enacting Carrying Capacity, Vision & Light (which is a big freakin' deal in a lot of D&D play!), and Movement (ditto!). Imagine retaining precisely the written guidelines which reinforce the miniatures-association, notably the way Carrying Capacity and Movement interact.

My point is that it doesn't seem like much to you to de-emphasize and evidently ignore that stuff (and yes, you are ignoring the rules, even if you do maintain attention to weight/load plausibility in-game) because that very stuff does is not important to you. That's the essence of Drift. It never seems like "changing the rules" to the person doing it, because it feels instead like "using the rules to their maximum fun."

Imagine a group which latches onto the Exploration of System and Situation inherent in the rules for movement and weight, specifically the combat-relevant interactions between the two. Imagine how to them, character survival and levels-advancement rely heavily on the players' and GM's ability to manage these exact things most effectively. (These guys are not hypothetical, but represent quite a few D&D players I know, especially notably-older ones and notably-younger ones). To them, you have "free-formed" play and quite likely "ruined" the game.

Add to this your changes to the reward system, with the consequence of the rate of level-gain changing as you describe, and man! You're playing Raven-and-pals D&D, my friend, and it's certainly going to terrify and upset any number of other people who've taken pains not to Drift at all, or to Drift the game their way.

Many, many experiences of mine of playing across groups of D&D and also of Champions have clarified to me that one man's Drift is another man's abominable gutting of the crucial elements of play. They've also clarified to me that each group doing so is astonished by (a) one another's practices and (b) any implication that they've tweaked the system themselves.

Last point, regarding Narrativism: protagonists can exist in non-Narrativist play, but the concept of Story Now via player decisions, and the GM-as-facilitator, and the shared aesthetic (overt or covert) of an Egri-style Premise are features of Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Amazing post. This is great stuff.

I do agree that GNS-mode shifting can occur with little or no system change, theoretically. But I think that your claim that you are changing "nothing but" the social system and GM-interactions is clearly not correct; you are, I think, too close to the process of Drift to be perceiving it.

Bearing in mind that since you play on-line, there are many rules and so forth that cannot be used as indicated.)

Imagine retaining precisely the written guidelines which reinforce the miniatures-association, notably the way Carrying Capacity and Movement interact.

Add to this your changes to the reward system, with the consequence of the rate of level-gain changing as you describe

Last point, regarding Narrativism: protagonists can exist in non-Narrativist play, but the concept of Story Now via player decisions, and the GM-as-facilitator, and the shared aesthetic (overt or covert) of an Egri-style Premise are features of Narrativist play.

greyorm wrote: Is this what is known as "Vanilla Narrativism"?

Raven wrote: Question then: we don't have an Egri-style premise, spoken or unspoken, there isn't really a "theme" to it all, or a moral/philosophical question that the games and the conflicts used and choices made can be boiled down to.

Is this what is known as "Vanilla Narrativism"?

Hi guys,

Unspoken Premises can be very sneaky. Given (a) everything else Raven's described and (b) goin' on five years that he and I have been nearly-constantly engaged in dialogue about role-playing, I'm 99% sure that we're dealing with exactly that.

Best,
Ron

Ok, let's say we're dealing with an unspoken premise, then.
I thought about it quite a bit...what could the unspoken premise be?

I couldn't come up with anything until I compared what all the decisions recently had been about, and I realized that all of them were about family.

The initial game started with one character attempting to redeem himself in his parents' eyes and another striking forth hoping to restore the lost fortunes of her family. More recently, the really intense decisions have been about the importance of clan and family and what you will do or sacrifice to protect and save them.

One of the currently unresolved issues is that of an elven warrior cast out from his people for daring to spare the life of a human intruder in their domain. Again, this is a family issue, and perhaps a redemption one: What would you sacrifice to regain your family's acceptance?

Another unresolved issue is that of the royal princess, the black sheep of the emperor's family, and her quest for acceptance in a male dominated society, especially as it relates to her political station/use and relationship with her father (the Emperor).

(By unresolved, I mean it's there in the background, but has never really been approached in the game, through decisions and choices made in play.)

This is all...very odd. Odd because I hadn't noticed it at all up until now.
And something else, as well, every character with this theme at work has survived (with the exception of one, and then he was only slain at the player's request, which, even so, actually resolved the family issue). Those characters who failed to have this as a theme died, often rather quickly.

Hrm...now that's just weird!

(This, however, is why I like the Forge so much!)

I have a question about VN / N / S in the context of greyorm's game (this may be OT--but it's to him and Ron so I'm asking it here):

1. Judging from the other discussions (Intent) it seems that:
a) Narrativist play is indicated by more decisions made that prioritize "story" than those that prioritize "exploration" or "winning."
b) To prioritize "story" that must mean they

Answer/Address the Premise

or

Direct the game towards a satisfying story for the player(s) involved

Now, is it one or the other ... or both? I believe that (a) implies (b) but (b) doesn't imply (a) (if there is no specific premise there can still be a prioritization of story ... but not "Story" in the Narrativist sense).

To put a finer point on it: if there's no premise consciously at work then it's Sim play, yes? The players have emphasis on story but are not consciously supporting a premise.

I mean, if they're playing a good deal in Actor Stance but not addressing any unifying Premise, it's Sim with story prioritized? Or is that a VN mode?

-Marco

It's both Marco. As defined "Story" in the Narrativist sense means an addressed premise. Your analysis above has a messed up tangle of terms, I hope my response is making sense.

And no, Premise does not have to consciously be present. It just has to be present. Yes, this means that occasionally people will be making these decisions subconciously. And no, you can't tell these occasions from Sim play. Not even the player can. Too bad.

Also, both you and Greyorm keep making a common mistake. You say that the players have to "address the Premise". Not true. They have to "address a premise". Subtle difference. Everyone assumes that the Premise must be the sme for all characters. But it does not. In a game like Sorcerer, the game gives you a single nifty premise to riff on. But a VN game does not. Players each make their own in this case (or they do not in which case they are playing Sim or Gam).

Yes, a player making his own premise up, and addressing it, is Narrativist. So, while it's interesting that Raven sees some commonality in the Premises being addressed in his game, it may just be coincidence (or maybe not, one could speculate on themes being transfered from player to player). Note that even in Sorcerer, each play group refines the premise (by figuring out what humanity is) and then each player willfurther refine that premise in play. Rarely will you find players adressig the exact same theme. And this is a good thing. Otherwise you'd have too many similarities in the stories. The more varied the Premise, the more varied the stories told.

Does this clear anything up?

Anyhow, to predict your next question, Marco, is this very similar to playing a character very closely? Yes, it is very similar. And given that players shift back and forth all the time in mode, a Sim/Char player may also be a Narr player part of the time. In fact they almost certainly are. Remember, these things are not absolute. But they are not the same thing.

Mike

Hi Marco,

I'm not sure why your second boldfaced sentence is present in your post. It strikes me as a universal goal, not anything specific to Narrativism.

Also, I remain worried about any phrase like "prioritize story." Any role-playing which emphasizes Situation by definition prioritizes story, regardless of GNS mode. Saying "prioritize story" is basically saying "story-oriented," and it carries all the ambiguities and multifarious applications that I laid out in the essay.

I'm pretty happy with the Narrativist mode being defined as "priority = address Premise, in which Premise is an Egri-style protagonist/passion question." The result of such play will ipso facto produce a story, but it's not the only kind of role-playing which can do so.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: And no, Premise does not have to consciously be present. It just has to be present. Yes, this means that occasionally people will be making these decisions subconciously. And no, you can't tell these occasions from Sim play. Not even the player can. Too bad.

Mike

Hey Ron,

The second sentence was there because if the player is primarily making decisions that are supposed to "improve the story" (whatever he thinks that means) as opposed to "acting in character" or "winning."

Is that considered Narrativist or is it just sim-play exploring situation? If at a cross roads of decision the player chooses something that may be a definitive loss, and uses out of character knowledge, to have something he thinks is cool but not related to a Lit 101 style Premise, is that a Narrativist decision? If that happens a lot, is that Narrativist play?

-Marco

Hi Marco,

I think the thread topic's been hijacked, so brace yourself for some possible splitting. Not sure yet, though.

Anyway, most of your questions are revealing some basic difficulties that should be addressed as such.

1) I'm not too concerned with what the player did because it was "supposed to" do something. A lot of your GNS musings from other Actual Play threads have this difficulty: "I did X, and I did it because of Y.
So it was [whatever]." I'd rather focus on the X, and a series of X's over the course of the session, rather than delve into the Y.

2) "Improve" the story is still another of those difficult story-oriented phrases. I can't do much with it except to suggest, "Address Egri-style Premise" instead. Furthermore, to combine this with #1, I'm not speaking in terms of verbalized-to-self, internal intent, but rather with what the player actually said and did over the course of the session.

"I threw my dice at Billy, giggled incessantly through the session, and told all those ass-lick jokes because I wanted to improve the story." That's an extreme example, but it really is the case that someone can do anything and feel/claim that it was "for the story."

3) You asked,
"If at a cross roads of decision the player chooses something that may be a definitive loss, and uses out of character knowledge, to have something he thinks is cool but not related to a Lit 101 style Premise, is that a Narrativist decision?"

The answer: I don't know, because I'm not getting the information I need to hazard even the beginnings of a judgment. All I have is the loss, the OOC knowledge, the cool, and the lack of a Premise.

You suggest extending it to multiple moments of play. OK, then I can say, definite lack of Premise throughout multiple moments ... h'm, I'll take that series of moments as an "instance" and surmise "not Narrativist," anyway.

(I remain uncertain, by the way, whether by Lit-101 style Premise you are really according with my description of an Egri-style Premise. All of this post assumes that it does - but don't take that as me endorsing your terminology. If you turn out to mean something else by Lit-101 style Premise, later, then this all becomes dishwater.)

The "loss" and the OOC stuff really doesn't have a thing to do with that surmise at all. Bear in mind that the Sim-mode doesn't require "in-character" play, and that losses during Gamist play may occur for all sorts of reasons, some of them strategic.

Best,
Ron

"Durn Topic Bandits! I'll git em and learn em a lesson er two!!"

Ron, would I be correct if I were to say, "A Kicker is an Egri-style Premise." ?

Hi Raven,

It can be. Depends on how explicit it is. I think it doesn't really "mature" into an Egri-style Premise until at least halfway through the first session, maybe not until the second. It takes that long for the Kicker to be "rounded out" in terms of how it relates to everything else going on in the game (to whatever extent it does) and also for everyone to see what the player-character's emotional take on the matter is. Once these are more established, then an Egri-style Premise is at work.

In Sorcerer, some Kickers are pretty lightweight as written and that's not always a bad thing; it may indicate that the player is willing to let lots "come to light" about it during play and doesn't want to pre-play. The more I trust a player to act on the Kicker, the more lightweight the Kicker that I'm comfortable with.

Best,
Ron

Hey, :)

What is a kicker?

What is Egri?

Cheers,

J.

Hi there,

A Kicker is a rules-technique from my game Sorcerer, in which part of character creation requires a scene or situation which has recently changed the character's life/decisions dramatically. Players write the Kickers, not the GM. Play begins with the character dealing with the Kicker. There are many, many threads on the Forge discussing Kickers; the most recent example is in Actual Play from Jake Norwood's Fvlminata game, in which he used the Kicker technique.

Lajos Egri is the author of a book called The Art of Dramatic Writing, which is referenced in my essay and was highly influential on my ideas about Narrativist role-playing (or more accurately, provided some vocabulary that helped me articulate my long-standing ideas). If you haven't read my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing design," I think you'll find it very interesting.

Best,
Ron