Hi guys,

I've been reading my new copy of HQ, and really, really thinking about mythology, and with it, our good friend Meaningful Decision. I'm sure that most of this is probably old news to you hardcore narrativists, but I've never had the words to really articulate this concept until now, so here it is:

Meaningful Decision=Thematic Statement=fundamental point of play for Narrativists

In other words, meaningful decision is the point where you can take any of the themes in play(whether they have been explicitly stated or not) and transform any thematic questions or ambiguities, into a solid statement. So we start play with a thematic question, "What will you do for power?" and a thematic statement is some version of "I will do THIS for power!", or "I'll do everything but THIS!" etc.

Narrativists are all about that point of transformation, where the Egri style thematic statement gets made. And the last, or biggest thematic statement made is the climax of play.

This is why stuff like static character traits don't fly for Narrativists, whether we're talking Heavy Drinker disadvantage, or Lawful Good. When its static, its already decided, there's no room for a thematic statement. On the other hand, when there's room to decide between the trait or not, we can make all kinds of statements:

-"Joseph's weakness for alcolhol destroyed everything he loved, including himself"
-"Joseph's love for his family overcame his weakness."
-"I will stick to my moral code, no matter the situation!"
-"Sometimes you have to turn your back on the laws for what is right!"
-"The law is the law, and sometimes it seems to be wrong in the short run, but without it, we wouldn't even have any good at all!"
etc.

A character for whom all thematic statements are already decided, is boring, is done, finished, nothing more to really say or do in the Narrativist sense.

Again, probably old news to many of you.

Thoughts? Comments?

Chris

Hi Chris,

I suppose it would be good to stamp This thread is pro-Narrativist-biased real big about right here.

After all, "done," "useless," and so on aren't accurate adjectives to describe a character for someone who wants to be the character or to experience the story in the sense of a genre fan. The desire to author stories isn't universal, in terms of the role-playing activity.

But hey! Let's just hop, conceptually, into a discussion of Narrativist play and let all the others just take care of themselves (and leave some of the judgment of them, even tacitly or by implication, behind).

In which case, the answer is pretty much, "Yes." This is the centerpiece of Narrativist play, which is to say "Story Now." The "Now" refers to the direct link between a character's decision, outcomes of situations involving the character, and our inferred Theme.

Don't mistake the "Now" to mean "all the time" or "frenetically." It means, when a decision occurs, Theme happens. Bam.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

I suppose it would be good to stamp This thread is pro-Narrativist-biased real big about right here.

Hi folks,

Ron Edwards wrote: Don't mistake the "Now" to mean "all the time" or "frenetically." It means, when a decision occurs, Theme happens. Bam.

Hi W.D.,

I'd hate to add to the lexicon unnecessarily ... "Bam" is merely a verbal device in that particular post, not a term that carries any special theory-based meaning. As a device, it indicates the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when the player-character's decision is brought into play in some fashion.

Nuance #1: "Brought into play" can mean anything from foreshadowing to flashback, and anything in between. It can mean the character is just thinkin' about it, or it can mean the character flat-out does it. Whatever - by "brought into play," I mean, brought into the perceptions and possible emotional responses of the other people at the table.

Nuance #2: I expect that the word "decision" is going to throw people as well, especially because it's often used in reference to GNS categories. In this thread, I'm talking about what characters do (or more accurately, are authored or "played" to do). I especially want to emphasize that it doesn't matter whether the character "meant" to do the action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot.

Nuance #3: I should also clarify that in all stories (unlike real life), the character's immediate environment is kind of a weird sidekick, who sometimes acts in the character's favor and sometimes against him or her, and that "character decisions" often include this sidekick's behavior. When the player (the real person) is able to affect that to any degree at all, whether lesser or greater (Sorcerer vs. Universalis), it's a powerful technique for Narrativist play, albeit not confined to it.

Given all that, then yes, what you say is certainly the case: in such a game, quite a few of the decisions will carry the weight we're talking about, or if they don't, they provide set-up or material for future decisions. They may be paced rapidly or maybe show up only once a session or two; that depends on the group.

You might be thinking of the term "Bang," which is much more specific and technical. A Bang is a set of circumstances in the game-world which demand that a player-character, or more than one, make some sort of decision. An ideal Narrativist Bang provides emotional "grab" even before the decisions are made.

Best,
Ron

As is often the case, I realise what I'm trying to say after I say it. Which, of course, is me blinking right back at me. Thanks for the overview of nuances, Ron. Clears up things and adds to the stuff I'm chewing on.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'd hate to add to the lexicon unnecessarily ... "Bam" is merely a verbal device in that particular post...

Given all that, then yes, what you say is certainly the case: in such a game, quite a few of the decisions will carry the weight we're talking about, or if they don't, they provide set-up or material for future decisions. They may be paced rapidly or maybe show up only once a session or two; that depends on the group.

You might be thinking of the term "Bang," which is much more specific and technical...

Hello,

Excellent! Great dialogue.

Chris, how is all this working for you?

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Pretty much everything I've been thinking, just better articulated. I'm still rolling related thoughts in my head, but if anyone else cares to comment, feel free.

Chris