I have just finished a fairly in-depth essay about the relation of story in static narratives (i.e. books and film) versus story in RPGs. It's a sort of formalist approach complete with diagrams. My conclusion is that there isn't a definitely relation, and I present two different paradigms for understanding what story is. The essay is at:

Story and Narrative Paradigms in RPGs

I'd certainly be interested in any comments. I haven't related it to GNS or the Threefold yet, though I'd be open to discussion of how the concepts defined relates to either.

BL> Uh... wow.

This will take a while to digest. On first read, it looks like a good start.

I would not call your essay either in-depth or finished. To me, it seems more like the premise of a work to follow, or the abstract for a research paper. While you defined many things, you failed to express any insights regarding them. Upon completion of reading it, I felt compelled to ask, and not necessarily rhetorically, "Yes, and..?" Very unsatisfying, but very promising all the same. Expand upon the beginning you have made, and it should eventually make for a very impressive piece.

Hi John. Good work!
I think it's a cognizant examination of some stuff that comes up for me in Sim/Nar game discussions and a good look at is inferred in the process for "generation of story" (or "expression of story") in an RPG.

I found some interesting stuff in there. I looked hard for a discussion of how broad or "mutable" the story was in the Static Narrative--and decied your description of it as potentially a model was reasonable (although I suspect that for at least some people the concept of the static model is what I would see as railroading).

Also: The virtual vs. experiential model as the point of paradigmn clash is, perhaps, a broader expression of what happens--but if I understand you correctly the modes (and section headers) are Static vs. Collaberative (which I think might be weaker terminology than Virtual Experience vs. Collaberative Storytelling).

Finally, I think there's usually some gradient involved.

For instance, the model or "static story" is, necessiarily, incomplete as a model (and perhaps contaning paradoxical logic holes if envisioned as an immutable linear narrative)--it is therefore often subject to revision on the part of the players.

This makes the exercise almost always a gradient of some sort rather than a boolean state (i.e. players are *always* collaberating with the GM in creating story--even if only by being there to play in a super-railroaded game).

-Marco

Marco wrote: Also: The virtual vs. experiential model as the point of paradigmn clash is, perhaps, a broader expression of what happens--but if I understand you correctly the modes (and section headers) are Static vs. Collaberative (which I think might be weaker terminology than Virtual Experience vs. Collaberative Storytelling).

Marco wrote: For instance, the model or "static story" is, necessiarily, incomplete as a model (and perhaps contaning paradoxical logic holes if envisioned as an immutable linear narrative)--it is therefore often subject to revision on the part of the players.

This makes the exercise almost always a gradient of some sort rather than a boolean state (i.e. players are *always* collaberating with the GM in creating story--even if only by being there to play in a super-railroaded game).

Okay, I can agree with that. I very much agree that all gaming is collaberative (one of the reasons I disagree with the term 'creation of story'--and maybe 'story now' in Nar discussions).

And if you say that a game can be railroaded under either paradigm I agree even more.

-Marco

Great analysis, John.

The connection of the two paradigms with perceived vs. conceived story is brilliant. The difference is where the text exists--what is defined as the "true" text of the game (the shared, in-play material; or the conceptual, pre-play-created material + in-character reactions to that). In the first case, all participants are seen as authors in equal share, and in the second, "authorship" per se is segmented and primarily allotted to one party (the gm), with other participants given a single agency to with which to author (character). This seems to match very real differences in approach commonly seen between self-identified "narrativists" and traditional-style players whom I find hard to classify. Genre-/real-world causality verisimilitude requiring gamists?

Virtual experience roleplaying, as seen by those who see role-playing as intended to be collaborative story-telling, might look like rampant "my guy would do such-and-such"-ism: ie over-prioritizing narrow verisimilitude of character, over narrative concerns, or pure pawn play, with no consciousness of shared story.

And in like manner, collaborative story-telling roleplaying could end up breaking engagement for someone who looks at the experience as something with external reality (ie that has been created by someone else) that must be experienced via through an avatar that "actually" exists in the game world. Does sounds like sim vs. nar priority conflict.

That's what I see in it, anyway. Thanks for sharing it.

Regards,
Emily Care

Emily Care wrote: Virtual experience roleplaying, as seen by those who see role-playing as intended to be collaborative story-telling, might look like rampant "my guy would do such-and-such"-ism: ie over-prioritizing narrow verisimilitude of character, over narrative concerns, or pure pawn play, with no consciousness of shared story.

And in like manner, collaborative story-telling roleplaying could end up breaking engagement for someone who looks at the experience as something with external reality (ie that has been created by someone else) that must be experienced via through an avatar that "actually" exists in the game world. Does sounds like sim vs. nar priority conflict.

Very cool. I now feel that it's safe to go back in the water to discuss story.

Mike

Well, here is my first post on this board...

I'm impressed by the quality of the essay. I agree that this is a legitimate twofold division of gaming. There are, after all, many ways to divide and categorize the experience.

Buying your model, though, I have some pretty immediate visceral reactions. The "virtual experience" approach strikes me more as a pathology than as a style of play. I cannot imagine actually wanting to run or participate in a game in which boundaries between players and their characters are blurred because I cannot really imagining this producing a healthy social dynamic. Am I out to lunch here or do people actually find that "virtual experience" play can function without devolving into interpersonal ugliness?

fusangite wrote: I'm impressed by the quality of the essay. I agree that this is a legitimate twofold division of gaming. There are, after all, many ways to divide and categorize the experience.

Buying your model, though, I have some pretty immediate visceral reactions. The "virtual experience" approach strikes me more as a pathology than as a style of play. I cannot imagine actually wanting to run or participate in a game in which boundaries between players and their characters are blurred because I cannot really imagining this producing a healthy social dynamic. Am I out to lunch here or do people actually find that "virtual experience" play can function without devolving into interpersonal ugliness?

Hello,

Actually, fusangite's comment illustrates something important, which has been discussed before (similarities of highly committed Simulationist play to clinical psychological conditions), and he/she admits that it's a visceral reaction. As such, it's not really a point of debate at all. "That's your visceral reaction? How interesting," is about as far as the discussion can go.

Best,
Ron

John Kim says,

You're right that there are ramifications to this. On the other hand, I don't think that they need to turn into interpersonal ugliness. It is perfectly possible to identify during a game, but afterwards be able to distinguish it as just a game -- just as one might feel excited during a film even though afterwards one knows it was just an illusion. This blurring of real person and character is behind most, if not all, traditional narratives. That said, it is valid to object to it. For example, Roland Barthes (a very influential figure in modern narrative theory) decries it as dishonest and authoritarian. Also, the closer dynamics of RPGs might have deeper ramifications than static narrative.

Ron Edwards wrote: Actually, fusangite's comment illustrates something important, which has been discussed before (similarities of highly committed Simulationist play to clinical psychological conditions), and he/she admits that it's a visceral reaction. As such, it's not really a point of debate at all. "That's your visceral reaction? How interesting," is about as far as the discussion can go.

fusangite wrote: I guess I have a problem with the film analogy because (a) the individual did not create the character (b) the individual did not invest components of the self in the character and (c) the character does not have a continuing existence in time contingent upon its creator. I would agree that what I am talking about is a difference of degree but it seems an enormous one.

I accept that, from a theoretical standpoint, virtual experience need not create uncomfortable interpersonal dynamics. I guess my question is, how often does it create this discomfort?

Hi there,

Quick clarification, John - all role-playing is defined in part by the presence of Exploration. That quality is not sufficient to define Simulationist play.

The threads I'm thinking of, which I'm having a little trouble locating, were I believe mainly contributed to by Clinton. He found too many parallels between certain aspects of Simulationist play and "reality/fantasy" pathologies to ignore. Not everyone agreed.

Best,
Ron

Hi John,

At first scan it looks like an interesting exploration of the area. I will need time to peruse further in order to do it justice.

As a fairly new member here at the Forge I am not sure if the following has been covered elsewhere or not but ...

It might be interesting to explore issues of collaborative, implied and perceived narratives in RPG's with reference to the work that has been done on Narrative Therapies and Systems Theory (particularly Social Constructionist models) in the mental health/counselling fields. Much of my work in my old job was working with families (or a 'group' in the RPG sense) where each member has their own perceived 'narrative' that overlaps but differs with others. It's a fairly large field of interesting insights that IMHO might have some input into your own work.

Cheers,
Peejay

peejay wrote: It might be interesting to explore issues of collaborative, implied and perceived narratives in RPG's with reference to the work that has been done on Narrative Therapies and Systems Theory (particularly Social Constructionist models) in the mental health/counselling fields. Much of my work in my old job was working with families (or a 'group' in the RPG sense) where each member has their own perceived 'narrative' that overlaps but differs with others. It's a fairly large field of interesting insights that IMHO might have some input into your own work.