So, after roughly eighteen months of fairly intensive Narrativist play, I find myself recently thinking an awful lot about Sim. And quite surprisingly, I find myself increasingly convinced that the social contract of a Narrativist group needs to support Sim-like play.

What the hell?! Somebody hold him down. Where's Nurse Ratched?

Seriously though, I don't often start threads in RPG Theory, but I've been thinking about this long enough that I'm getting curious whether the whole thing is a figment of my fevered imagination, and figured I'd better post about it.

What I'm realizing is that a Narrativist-inclined player actually has two authorial interests: 1) character with a payload of conflict/situation, and 2) setting with a payload of conflict/situation. And yes, I'm definitely talking Narrativism. Both of these authorial interests are in service of character protagonism.

Consider that the unspoken request of a player acting on behalf of type1 interests is, GM, please take this character and conflict/situation and use it as the substrate for your handling of adversity and setting on behalf of character protagonism, and the request of a GM acting on behalf of type2 interests is, player, please apprehend this setting and conflict/situation and use it as the substrate for your architecting of character and work demonstrating character protagonism.

This line of thinking has precipitated a disordered mess of notions for me:

1. I'm coming to believe that type1 and type2 authorial interests, were they to be combined, would map exactly to the authorial interests of a novelist. But within RPGs, they are distributed. And I might even go so far as to define Narrativist RPGs as an interesting apportionment of authoring powers, supported by social contract, in service to collaborative creation of story.

2. I'm thinking a proto-Narrativist with a history of frustrating and dysfunctional gaming experiences typically responds with great enthusiasm to game mechanics that make a big show of delivering Authorial/Directorial to the player. This, I think, is because the proto-Narrativist's frustrations are likely to be associated with the deprotagonization of player characters, and because it's difficult to mentally separate type2 interests from oppressive gamemastering. And so type1 authorial interests burn brightly and generate a lot of heat, and seem almost to comprise the entirety of Narrativism, almost entirely obfuscating legitimate Narrativist type2 interests.

3. There are Narrativist games that make some effort to address the type2 authorial interests of the players, in that they provide a formalized method for the whole player group to create setting and conflict. My Life with Master is one. You'll have to trust me on this, until I finish writing the game. I think Alyria might qualify as well. And use of player created Kickers and backstories show GM and designer awareness of type2 interests. But despite how fun these games and techniques are, it's unrealistic to expect them to truly scratch the type2 itch. When you've got that itch, you need to GM, and have sole ownership of setting and conflict/situation.

4. Of the two, it seems to me, Type2 is the fragile sibling. It relies much more heavily on social contract. With type1 play, each player's type1 interests are addressed by gameplay. With type2 play, only the GM is getting satisfaction of his type2 interests; the other players are trusting that their type2 interests will be accommodated by the group at another time, and perhaps even subordinating type1 interests they might be addressing via authorial powers, so as not to compromise the type2 interests of the GM. It takes a social fabric of great trust, that doesn't come easily to scarred gamers with a history of frustration, to enable type2.

5. The whole thing hinges on players developing a sophisticated understanding of protagonism and audience. In type1 play, the audience for character protagonism is the rest of the play group. In type2 play, the primary audience is the GM; if the rest of the play group finds itself interested, that's fine and good, but not of primary concern. (As an aside, if at any time a player finds that he is authoring the character without regard for audience interest, solely in service to personal relevance, he is no longer playing Narrativist.)

So...bring out Nurse Ratched?

Paul

I'm not sure I understand why Type2 interests are attributed to the GM only; can the players not also have an interest in the Type2 activity?

contracycle wrote: I'm not sure I understand why Type2 interests are attributed to the GM only; can the players not also have an interest in the Type2 activity?

Hey Gareth, Andrew,

I'm not sure I understand why Type2 interests are attributed to the GM only; can the players not also have an interest in the Type2 activity?

I'm not suggesting that players don't have type2 interests; on the contrary, I think all Narrativist-inclined players have type2 interests to some degree. What I'm suggesting is that type2 interests are not well satisfied outside the context of sole ownership of setting and conflict/situation you get with more traditional GMing.

Let me see if I can give an example...

When our group playtested The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, I was the GM. In one scene, I introduced a group of armed revolutionaries in such a way as to provoke a fairly tense Mexican standoff situation. The game delivers some Directorial power to the players. After the session, Scott told me how hard it was for him to keep from using his Directorial power to have a horde of cannibalistic humanoids burst into the hut, which would have been an event fairly far removed from the kinds of conflicts I personally would have wanted to see for the setting.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that from game standpoint. It isn't dysfunctional or anything, if Scott's maintaining an awareness of audience and operating in service to character protagonism. It's collaborative play. What I'm saying is that the type2 itch isn't well scratched by the kinds of games we see a lot of at The Forge, that apportion Authorial and Directorial power in this way. That may seem like I'm arguing for traditional Sim games that largely deliver Authorial and Directorial power to the GM. But I'm not. I used "Sim-like" in the thread title out of intent. I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that I'd like to see some games that, in addition to re-envisioning the traditional division of Authorial and Directorial power also re-envision notions of audience and responsibility, out of an awareness that perfectly legitimate type2 Narrativist interests might thereby be better met.

Does that make more sense?

Paul

First I'd relable Type 1 as Narativism: expolration of Character (Nar: Char to use the evolved shorthand), and Type 2 as Narativism: exploration of Setting (Nar: Setting).

I think there are two player types, then that prefer Narrativism. The Nar: Char focused player is what Paul describes as players. The Nar: Setting focused player is what Paul describes as the GM. But, for example, when Ron and I play Sorcerer, with him as GM, these roles are reversed. I personally am more interested in how my charcter's issues relate to the setting as a whole, while Ron tends to be more interested solely in the action created by the PCs.

This seems to be a straightforward correlation with my Sim leanings. I like settings to be deep, and provide issues from within to make the world seem more "complete". Whereas Ron probably realizes that this is not a neccesary part of the process to create a story (he wouldn't shy away from it, but neither do I think that he'd go out of his way for it as I might). Apologies to Ron for using him as a (possibly inaccurate) example.

This is why we Sim/Narr types prefer a combination of both styles of play over time. Note how close to the border it all skirts when you are considering "what's realistic" only in terms of what might be important to the character. So a combination of Sim: Char, Sim: Setting, Nar: Char, Nar: Setting (while a lot of style mixing) seems to me to work out alright.

Indeed, I personally haven't experienced pure Nar play, IMO. That is, even in games I've played run by Ron, occasionally decisions are made that are just pure Sim. The reunion crowd is moving into the gym? Well, we'll just mosey on in with the rest. Not a big, or important decision, but one that gets made, and one that's Sim, and reflects the surrounding reality.

As such, I think that most play that's described as functionally Narrativist is actually a mix that includes substantial amounts of Sim. I can imagine pure Narrativist play, and it would probably be heavily, heavily framed right up to only "important conflicts", and not have any other decision makeing. And that would be fine.

But what I've seen is a series like: unimportant Sim decision, unimportant Sim decision, unimportant Sim decision, BIG IMPORTANT NARRATIVIST DECISION, unimportant Sim decision, etc. These, "unimportant" decisions are actually anything but unimportant, really, as they help to sorta randomly frame the nature of the big important decisions. In addition to the other sorts of benefits they might provide. Note that none of the Sim play is neccessarily problematic. It can be. But, just as a Fortune based resolution system can be used as a springboard for creativity, so too can the Sim play in the interstices. "Abuse" of either will lead away from Narrativism. But as part of a Narrativist agenda, it's quite functional.

At least that's how I see it. As such, all I see in what you've written, Paul, is an acknowledgement of what most Narrativist play actually looks like, and why. Consider that few people may run as purely Narrativist games as you tend to of late. Not even Ron does, IMO. Hence his announced preference for Vanilla Narrativism, I'd hazzard.

Mike

Ahoy, :)

Not a real point, just a request for clarification. I was under the impression that GNS and instances of play wouldn't quite apply here:

Mike Holmes wrote: But what I've seen is a series like: unimportant Sim decision, unimportant Sim decision, unimportant Sim decision, BIG IMPORTANT NARRATIVIST DECISION, unimportant Sim decision, etc.

Trying to understand...

I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that I'd like to see some games that, in addition to re-envisioning the traditional division of Authorial and Directorial power also re-envision notions of audience and responsibility, out of an awareness that perfectly legitimate type2 Narrativist interests might thereby be better met.

2) setting with a payload of conflict/situation ... in service of character protagonism.

...it's difficult to mentally separate type2 interests from oppressive gamemastering... With type2 play, only the GM is getting satisfaction of his type2 interests; the other players are trusting that their type2 interests will be accommodated by the group at another time... It takes a social fabric of great trust ... to enable type2.

Vincent,

You are the ballpark.

Paul

I've been listening closely to what has been said here and I can't help thinking that it reads very much like you're using "Sim" (which I take to mean Simulationist) interchangeably with concepts of causality and emulation. You may not be, but the text doesn't convey that at all (so you may wish to take a moment to clarify).

Secondarily, there seems to also be a usage, perhaps, of "Sim" to mean 'anything which isn't Narrativism.' I could see that provided that Narrativism were a 'box' within Simulationism, but last time I heard they were competing priorities.

What it sounds like this thread started out as was 'I find that when I am not making clearly Narrativist decisions, I emulate the setting (or such).' That doesn't sound at all like 'when I am not making dedicated Narrativist choices, I like to aggressively explore the Setting (or Character or Color or System or Situation).'

I agree with a lot of what Mike has said except I'm not sure how it applies in this light. Paul, are you actually switching between "'Exploring' an Edwardian Premise is less important than 'following the causality for its own sake'" and "focusing on the 'Exploration' of (Setting, Character, Color, System, or Situation) isn't as important as the Edwardian Premise" from time to time within the game? Or the more likely case (suggested somewhat by Mike) where you make frequent emulation-based decisions to support, frame, empower, and give relevance to the Edwardian Premise being 'Explored?'

I'm intrigued by the whole Type1 and Type2 thing; I think play focusing on Type2 is rather new in intentional design and play that doesn't show roots of Type1 is just newborn (would that be Universalis?). I don't really have any intuition to offer, just keep up the good conversation!

Fang Langford

JMendes wrote:
Not a real point, just a request for clarification. I was under the impression that GNS and instances of play wouldn't quite apply here:

JMendes wrote:
In other words, the unimportant decisions aren't GNS instances of play, and as such, do not qualify for G, N or S. Only the important decision counts.

Again, this is not a rant, just a question. A simple yes or no (with backing arguments ;) will suffice.

Cheers,

J.

Hey Fang,

You're right. I wasn't very clear. My use of "Sim" means Simulationism, as understood on The Forge. My use of "Sim-like" is a reference to the distribution of power strongly associated with Simulationist play, such that a GM has ownership of setting and situation. So, when I wrote that I was "thinking an awful lot about Sim," what I meant was that I was thinking an awful lot about satisfactions associated with Sim play having that power distribution, and what it would take in terms of social contract to achieve those satisfactions in the context of Narrativism.

Paul

Well okay. How's your desired type2 strong-GMed game different from (say) strong-GMed, limited Director-stance Sorcerer? (I'm not saying it's not, I'm asking.)

How on earth do we re-envision notions of audience and responsibility, at the drop of a hat like this? Should we start by examining our notions of audience and responsibility as they exist now?

-Vincent

OK, here's what I'd call a "classic" GNS response to this issue (Hah! Me taking a "classic" angle on Nar issues when responding to PAUL CZEGE - that's funny. But if there's no hole in this reasoning, it might help prevent some side tracks, so . . . ):

Paul has ever-so-slightly mischaracterized what constitutes Nar. Nar is "the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme." His two authorial interests in the service of character protagonism are perfectly sound, but they aren't the Priorities that identify Narrativism. If you are Prioritizing Setting over shared-group creation of a meaningful story, you're not doing Nar any more. If you are Prioritizing Character over shared-group creation of a meaningful story, you're not doing Nar any more. Doing . . . whatever . . . even though it's in service of character protagonism, and for the benefit of the other participants (audience) - ceases (it seems to me) to be Nar if it ends up Prioritizing the explored element itself over the Nar-Story goal. Insert your favorite focus-on-part vs. focus-on-whole analogy, if analogies are useful to ya.

This is why G, N, and S are seperate, and why we talk about having one ultimate priority. If you're Nar, at some point Sim-Setting and Sim-Character et al. will fall by the wayside. Even though they are part of what allows you to create Nar. You must be willing to perform this sacrifice if you want Nar game play.

Yes, Paul's authorial interests are a tool to enhance Nar, but only in so far as they are not Prioritized. And if anyone can tell me how to precisely identify this Prioritization boundry, I'd really appreciate it :-)

That theory discussion out of the way, I see the substance of Paul's question to be "how can we USE the explorative elements of Char and Setting in Nar play WITHOUT Prioritizing them - since Prioritizing 'em will override our Nar." I suspect that there're a variety of answers depending on taste, but I'm wondering if there might not be some firm boundries . . . time for some thinking in that area.

But the question of type1 and type2 - at a fundamental level, there's no issue. If you go so far as to Prioritize EITHER over the Nar goal, you ain't Nar no more. So another way of approaching the type2 question - "How far can we stretch the building, primarily by the GM, of a consistent and dramatically useful Explorative Setting without trumping our Nar goal? What techniques, mechanics, or other tools help us perform this stretch?"

Again, I'm gonna think on that one a bit. Hope this is useful,

Gordon

Hey Gordon,

Paul has ever-so-slightly mischaracterized what constitutes Nar. Nar is "the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme." His two authorial interests in the service of character protagonism are perfectly sound, but they aren't the Priorities that identify Narrativism.

I'm not talking about priorities at all. The priority of what I'm talking about is still collaborative creation of story with a recognizable theme. What I'm talking about is reapportioning responsibility for the components in interesting and productive ways -- productive in the sense that a player's interest in having ownership of setting and conflict is accommodated, and respected by the rest of the mechanics.
Think about the post-Elfs/post-Pool mechanics for player Authorial/Directorial power that have come to characterize Narrativist game designs baked at The Forge. These mechanics basically render unto the player a firehose of unregulated creative power over setting and conflict. The player is largely unconstrained in his ability to introduce new NPC's, locations, relationships, historical details, animosities, and power structures. It's not surprising to me that designers often gravitate to known genres in creating these games (like Matt Snyder did with Dust Devils) because a genre-inspired game carries an implicit requirement that players respect the genre in using their powers. Scott's struggle to not introduce the cannibalistic humanoids occurred in a game without a known genre context. The firehose of creative power is less of a problem within the context of genre.

So, I find myself writing stuff like, "I can't come up with any satisfying reason why players must be allocated equal portions of each kind of creative power provided by a game," and still don't think I'm getting my point across. How about an example:

A few weeks ago our group had an EPICS chargen session; Tom is going to run a superheroes game using the rules. Chargen for the game is basically making a list of ten items, some of which are chosen from pick lists and some of which are numeric ratings: name, role, motivation, personality, trademark, specialty, influence, power, survival points, and inhuman forces. You end up with a quite sketchy character. The game has mechanics for embellishing the character through decisions made during play. Survival Points are basically a combination of GM reward points and hit points and currency, so essentially, the more interesting you are in your handling of the character, as adjudicated by the GM, the more significant the character becomes to the story.

Look at that power breakdown. You have Authorial power relative to your character, adjudicated closely by the GM, and no Directorial power whatsoever. That's what I call a recipe for player respect of setting.

Yet, when we had our chargen session we went 'round and 'round, each of us struggling with a lack of a sense of direction, until we ultimately somehow came up with the notion that all the player characters would be sidekicks to more experienced heroes. And then it clicked for everyone, and there was enthusiasm from the players at having ownership of defining the hero/sidekick relationship. And don't read this as disparagement, because I'm incredibly excited about this forthcoming game, but with that sidekick notion we totally drifted EPICS. The game reserves control of conflicts for the GM. We stole it and gave it to the players. Influenced by Kickers, baked at The Forge games give players power over conflict creation as a matter of course. We drifted that same thing into EPICS, without even thinking about it, in service to player type1 interests, and at the expense of Tom's potential type2 interests. If you look at EPICS as written it very clearly prioritizes collaborative creation of story with delivered Authorial power to players, while at the same time putting the GM in a nice position relative to type2 interests he might have.

Vincent, that's why I think limited Director-stance Sorcerer isn't what I'm talking about. Although it doesn't preclude respect for type2 interests, it wouldn't deliver any support to such a social contract. Even if you gut Kickers from it, there's no mechanic that provokes respect for setting, there's nothing that aids the GM in making the player, please apprehend this setting and conflict/situation... request, and there's no redefinition of audience.

Paul

You gotta make everythig so godamn complicated, Paul (then again, I'm like that, too). :-)

What are you looking for? Validation that unrestrained Narrative power might not be the best mechanics in the world? Especially with regard to certain areas of interest?

I'm with ya.

For how long now have we been saying that limiting narration to certain boxes, or rewarding certain kinds of narration are important parts of good Director Stance design?

But that can't be all that you're saying. So what am I missing? What's new here?

Mike

Hey Mike,

But that can't be all that you're saying.

Well...that's a lot of what I'm saying. All the stuff about consciously defining audience and responsibility is in service to it. If you've been saying this for a while, I'd like to see some links.

I will say, though, that it's not all about Directorial power. It's about accommodating unmet authorial interests. Your contributions to Paul Elliott's development of The Kap are a good non-Directorial example of mechanics that provoke respect for setting, and that I think would offer exciting support for type2 interests; player, attend to this setting and these conflicts and you will be rewarded. As such, The Kap is possibly the one languishing game development project I'm most eager to see completed.

Paul

Hi Paul,

OK, I think I got it - allowing myself some sloppy language, you're not talking about MORE Sim (like I thought), you're talking about reaportioning the "right amount" that already exists more towards the GM. And having mechanics (rather than just social contract) that make that work smoothly.

You mention genre - Scattershot's Genre Expectations would seem to be in the area you're looking at. And any mechanics that help define details about what folks get to narrate could help.

I have some ideas about managing the whole "flow" of narration that I hope to post before the end of the year - not sure how much they apply to your issue, but they might. Beyond that . . . maybe Mike can provide some of those pointers to other threads in this area? I'm just not certain where to focus discussion

Gordon

Paul,

let me make sure I got this right?

Consider that the unspoken request of a player acting on behalf of type1 interests is, GM, please take this character and conflict/situation and use it as the substrate for your handling of adversity and setting on behalf of character protagonism, and the request of a GM acting on behalf of type2 interests is, player, please apprehend this setting and conflict/situation and use it as the substrate for your architecting of character and work demonstrating character protagonism.

Influenced by Kickers, baked at The Forge games give players power over conflict creation as a matter of course. We drifted that same thing into EPICS, without even thinking about it, in service to player type1 interests, and at the expense of Tom's potential type2 interests

Hey Chris,

So assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, is what you're looking for a manner of encouraging the Type 2 Nar interests without stepping on type 1's?

I think you've got it...although it's not so much the type1 interests I'm concerned with stepping on as it is collaboration in general. It seems to me that game-specific retooling of a play group's concepts of audience (from all other players are the audience to one or specific other players are the audience) and responsibility (from primarily personal character protagonism and personal type1 interests to collaboration overall and type2 interests) is the social contract package required to support play that satisfies type2 interests. The trick isn't that you need to concurrently satisfy the type1 interests of players; the trick is that you need to have a strong enough social contract that players are comfortable suspending type1 interests out of recognition and awareness that the objective is to address type2 interests that are otherwise going unmet. Mike's solution for players getting satisfaction of type2 interests is for them to GM a Sim game. My suggestion is that a Narrativist group with a consciousness of social contract should still be able to achieve collaborative creation of story, particularly if the game mechanics in question reward the apprehension of delivered conflicts and respect for setting.¹

Paul

¹ The most superficial comparison of EPICS and The Kap suggests a vast, exciting range of unexplored mechanics that could potentially service this objective.

Ok, gotcha.

So in the concern is maintaining player protagonization, without having the GM's constructed (world/organizations/npc/ setting structure) getting obliterated in the process. In the case of genres, certain rules or expectations form that inviolate area that the players can't just trample at will.

I'll also go with you that Narr Type 1 interests can be fufilled without having to massively redistribute power. I'd say the Riddle of Steel is an excellent example as one way of doing it.

Secondly, I'd say for Narr play to work, you need to keep driving players and the GM towards a premise, whether specifically in rules or simply in social contract. ROS does it by linking the reward system with its Spiritual Attributes, which are basically a means of making each player declare a Premise for their character.

I'd say that the reason you've seen the massive push for player power is because its a simple means of opening the door for players to get that type 1 thing going on. The hard part about doing the type 2 stuff, is that its a thin line between a detailed and roiling setting, and railroad central. I think the desire for type 2 play, poorly communicated may be the cause of a lot of railroading in gaming.

Chris

I've been chatting with some folks about themes in RPGs and there was this convergent conversation thing.

So Narrativism a la Ron isn't just addressing the Premise, it's the players addressing the Premise via the actions of their characters. In this other convo one of us was expressing concern about the GM's feelings about the Premise spilling over into event resolution, the way the GM's attachment to a front-ended plot so often does. Like, Meg's and Emily's and my Ars Magica game, the premise is all about using power wisely or not wisely in power-unbalanced relationships, especially: what makes a good parent? When I'm the GM, I have opinions about what makes a good parent, for sure, but so what? Absolutely can't-overstress-it critical is: it's not my job to answer. When I'm the GM, my job is to put the PCs in situations where THEY answer. If I adjudicate conflicts based on what I think makes a good parent, we're not addressing the Premise at all, we're just giving ourselves an opportunity to listen to me to preach.

Then what I've been thinking about this afternoon is: how do you prevent the GM from preaching? Answer: redistribute power. (Maybe all power, maybe just certain key powers, maybe via Director Stance, maybe via GM-sharing, maybe just via the game's reward system like the Riddle of Steel, whatever and ever. We have lots of example solutions.)

So I think that there's your type1 Narrativism, tidily accounted for.

But now the type2 question is: how do you allow the players to address the Premise via the actions of their characters, and keep the GM from preaching, without redistributing power?

Which looks tougher to me now than it did at the start of the thread.

-Vincent

EDIT: Or else maybe I'm not the ballpark anymore. Also a possibility.

Hey Vincent,

I think we're mixing three concepts around and maybe using them interchangeably to confusing effect, and that we maybe should take a step back and clarify that we're understanding the terms the same way.

Power and Ownership aren't the same thing. EPICS delivers some traditional GM Power to the player, notably the ability to attach facets (traits) to other characters. But it doesn't give the player Ownership of the other character.

But now the type2 question is: how do you allow the players to address the Premise via the actions of their characters, and keep the GM from preaching, without redistributing power?

See...I don't think you need to preserve the traditional Simulationist Power distribution to satisfy Narrativist type2 interests. I think you need to preserve the traditional Ownership distribution. EPICS reserves unto the GM the Ownership of setting and the nature of conflict, despite delivering authorial Power to players that allow them to create new character facets (traits) through play. It seems to me that what you're bringing to the discussion is the notion that problems arise when a game's unspecified Ownership distribution is presumed to parallel its mechanical Power distribution. And I completely agree.

What I'm seeing is that there are two possible solutions:
1. a game needs to be explicit about its distribution of Ownership, or
2. the social contract must take up the slack, protecting unspecified Ownership by provoking Respect in the usage of redistributed Power¹

Paul

¹ This is why a game like Dust Devils has fewer issues associated with the delivery of Director Power than games like The Pool and The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. It comes packaged with a genre that unconsciously provokes Respect in the usage of the redistributed Power.

what if... there were a large number of pre-approved events or what have you that the players could invoke? That is, they are set up as relevant and aligned with the colour and GM premise, but their actual entry into play occurred at the character players discretion?

Two immediate problems I see are the amount of work and a means of communicating the options. But assuming these were overcome, how would that play?

Ah! I get it.

So, cool. So is it just a matter of Fang-esque proprietorship? Do you need mechanics to make ownership explicit, or can the game text just say Hey, players, the setting's the GM's, don't be messin'?

-Vincent

contracycle wrote: what if... there were a large number of pre-approved events or what have you that the players could invoke?

Paul Czege wrote:
Power and Ownership aren't the same thing. EPICS delivers some traditional GM Power to the player, notably the ability to attach facets (traits) to other characters. But it doesn't give the player Ownership of the other character.

Hey Gordon,

Sorry for the delayed response; six fewer shopping days this holiday season...and I got the flu.

So - maybe your point 2 (social contract taking up the slack) is all there is, with more explict Ownership at BEST a tool that makes the social contract a little easier to manage.

You've got it exactly right. In real life, I have the power to enter your back yard and piss in your swimming pool. It's social structure that constrains me from exercising that power. Genre, in a game like Dust Devils, is an example of a social structure that reigns in the use of directorial power. The purpose of this thread is twofold: 1. to argue that there are legitimate reasons for Narrativist game designs to provide other than full-bore Authorial/Directorial power, and 2. to inquire how the goal might be accomplished, through mechanical or social means, recognizing that genre doesn't work for every game.

Paul

Paul,

Sick over the holidays - yuck. My condolences. I think I'm finally right on-track with your question. I guess limiting the use of power could be handled as a classic limited Resource of some kind - only attach Traits to something/one Owned by another person once per session, but no (or different) limit on stuff you/no one Owns.

Maybe this can only be approached productively in a specific design . . .

Gordon

Paul Czege wrote: Genre, in a game like Dust Devils, is an example of a social structure that reigns in the use of directorial power.

Paul Czege wrote: The purpose of this thread is twofold: 1. to argue that there are legitimate reasons for Narrativist game designs to provide other than full-bore Authorial/Directorial power,

Paul Czege wrote: and 2. to inquire how the goal might be accomplished, through mechanical or social means, recognizing that genre doesn't work for every game.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Maybe this can only be approached productively in a specific design....

If you've been saying this for a while, I'd like to see some links.