Hello All,

I've had one of those weekends where I had a lot of ideas that generated nothing but questions. Some of these ideas and questions are a bit unfocused so I'm going to just throw them all into one post and if anyone feels they warrent a seperate thread feel free to start it. Oh and as usual for me they deal with Narrativist Techniques.

This is sort of how my thinking has evolved. Narrativism is about producing a story of litterary merit through role-playing. It achieves this by placing thematic resolution to a given Premise as its goal of play. A lot of us have been experimenting with relationship maps mainly because relationship maps are a great way to push common human Premises such as love, sibiling rivalry, parnent-child relations and so on.

First of all relationship maps certainly aren't the be all end all of Narrativist planning techniques and certainly they're not very usefull for addressing more abstract Premises. Allow me to use an example to illustrate what I mean.

I love the game SLA Industries but unfortunately it's one of those games that suffers from GNS breakdown. In my opinion it has a brilliantly Narrativist setting that just oozes Premise. Unfortunately that great setting isn't backed up AT ALL by it's rather simulationist system. And finally to make matters worse the game kind of places very gamist priorities as it's recommended playing style.

All that aside I REALLY want to run a SLA Industries game that brings all that great setting meat to the forefront. However, I'm not really sure how to plan such a scenario for two reasons.

The first is that the Premises inherint in that setting are a bit abstract. They are things like Job Security, Gross Abuses of Comercialism, Media Sensationalism. These more abstract Premises just don't feel like relationship map material. Now obviously these abstractions eventually have to impact individual humans and their relationships, so a relationship map might still be in order but this is further compounded by the second problem.

The second problem is the way the game is set up to be played. The idea is that all the players work for this company called SLA Industries. They are basically corporate troubleshooters and they get sent out in missions that range from breaking up a bar brawl to investigating serial killers to assassinating corporate rivals. The more loyal to the company you are the higher in security clearance you rise the more dangerous and sensitive your missions become. This provides an easy way to get the players together, they're all part of the same troubleshooting team. So this lead me to the second thought.

Certainly, a team/mission game set up is not by its nature antithetical to Narrativist play. There must be fantasy novels of litterary merit that involve characters on quests. There must be science fiction novels of litterary merit that involve characters working towards an objective. And certainly there must be spy thrillers of litterary merit that involve a team of characters carrying out a mission handed to them by a superior official source.

So to sum up here are my two questions:

1) What are some good planning techniques for pushing more abstract Narrativist Premises such as those found in SLA Industries. Particularly when the Premise comes from the setting rather than the characters.

2) How do you set up and run a Narrativist mission/team centric game? Note: I'm more concerned about the mission elements than the team elements becuase I realized that I could always send each player out on their own personal missions that all somehow feed back into a greater picture.

Thanks.

Jesse

I'm going to suggest that structure might be your friend here. As in InSpectres where the players have a framework for missions (and similarly Paranoia; off to R&D!). Have a briefing, planning session, equipment procurement, travel/recon, execution, recovery, debrief, denoument. Something like that. Then the players can know where to go instead of being led through the elements. The GM can agressively scene frame based on these requirements and it will never be unexpected by the players.

A cool idea would be to allow each player one scene out of the normal framework where they can protagonize their character. Have them come up with a general concept, and then roll against some stat related to the nature of the scene, and then they can narrate that scene based on how well the roll went.

Mike

Hello,

The Whispering Vault is my top pick for Narrativist priorities embedded in a "mission" framework.

I would also point out the role of missions in the 1960s Star Trek series, in which the actual mission was almost always secondary to whatever personal or ethical concerns arose. (This could be done well, in which the mission itself yielded powerful conundrums, as in "A Private Little War" or "The Trouble with Tribbles," or badly, when a mission simply put the principals into danger and the episode degenerated into chases, as in "The Gamesters of Triskelion.")

Best,
Ron

You could build a relationship map around the people in the "home office" -- the backstabbing, favor-grubbing, and ladder-climbing that goes on among the PCs' own co-workers and supervisors. The missions themselves simply emerge as a product of the shifting power structures in their own division of the corporation.

The first is that the Premises inherint in that setting are a bit abstract. They are things like Job Security, Gross Abuses of Comercialism, Media Sensationalism. These more abstract Premises just don't feel like relationship map material.

If you don't think those Premises are relationship map material, you haven't worked in the offices I have. Gentrification's idea is sound, tho it should be extended beyond the "home office".

Job Security: It's easy to make a relationship map based on this Premise. Have all the PCs and NPC agents and their relations with their bosses and all the support staff, with the different techniques people use in nasty office-politics situations to acquire job security: Seniority, Indispensibility (only Bob knows how to do this), Performance (Bob is the best, we can't fire him), and... "Unprofessional" Factors. The last category includes all sorts of things, including "traditional" relationship-map material, like Who's Sleeping With Who, Blackmail, and Errors in the System.

Gross Abuses of Commercialism: People develop realtionships with people they do business with regularly. Who sells you your guns? As far as abuses go, if they're the only people who can supply you with stuff you need, well, it doesn't matter how annoying the person is, does it? In fact, people may result to Unprofessional Methods (like above) to get what they need at a reasonable price. This is serious relationship map material, and the relations wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Gross Abuses.

Media Sensationalism: People who are under media scrutiny develop relationships with the reporters. These reporters are concerned with their own Job Security and Media Sensationalism is really just another form of Gross Abuse of Commercialism.

Also, don't discount the idea of including abstract entities in one's map, which could be useful for all three of the above Premises, but especially Media Sensationalism. Consider having a relationship map with abstract entities on it that the PCs don't interact with directly that much, but who have a relationship with people close to the PCs, like "The Public" or "Upper Management" or "Disenfranchised Losers". Where these entities are on the relationship map affects how, say, Joe Shmoe on the street relates to the PCs.

This, combined with the "scene" method mentioned by others, should give one plenty of Narrativist grist. Think about a James Bond movie: There's the briefing scene and the "visit to Q division" (i.e. visit to R&D) scene in nearly every movie, but it's the people who re-occur in those scenes -- like Moneypenny, M, and Q -- that make those scenes interesting. That's definitely relationship map material. It's just that in a mission-oriented game, the map isn't your only tool, like it tends to be in more Sorcerer-style "human desires" games... tho it is arguable that the Premises you mention are driven by underlying human desires, in this case the desires of the people at the top.

Quick aside: I'm not very familiar with SLA Industries at all, so I'm mostly talking in general from what's been said in this thread. Also, I'm not so much a Narrativist fan as a big fan of relationship maps. ;-)

On 2001-12-10 15:54, gentrification wrote:
You could build a relationship map around the people in the "home office" -- the backstabbing, favor-grubbing, and ladder-climbing that goes on among the PCs' own co-workers and supervisors.

I totally agree with the analysis of SLA, its a GREAT game with a sucky system except for the gunbunnies.

What might be a more interesting exercise for the Forge is to rewrite the mechanics as an experiment. Lets crack open capital-letter bearing ideas like Media Sensationalism and turn them into mechnics that prompt responses, rather than just backdrop. Up for it? I'd be happy to provide a setting precis for those not familiar with it.

That actually was my first impression, Gareth. Why try and force a narrative premise with a Sim system? But I've noted Jesse's tendency to shy away from using narrative systems despite wanting to play narrative games. Is this need to drift systems a comfort level thing, Jesse?

I'd be interested in trying to come up with an appropriately narrativist system, but easier would be just to use a currently available one. Like The Pool, for instance, or InSpectres. I'd think that the latter could be used almost perfectly (consider Jared's GigantoCorp). The Window, or Story Engine might be good as well, or OTE.

Heck, you could even do a Sorcerer thing where your humanity stat would be based on how given over to the company you were. The demons would all be other personnel from the company or something.

Mike

On 2001-12-13 11:51, Mike Holmes wrote:
That actually was my first impression, Gareth. Why try and force a narrative premise with a Sim system? But I've noted Jesse's tendency to shy away from using narrative systems despite wanting to play narrative games. Is this need to drift systems a comfort level thing, Jesse?

Basically I want to have the human techniques down pat so that when I drop in a Narrativist engine, my games will run like well-oiled machines.

On 2001-12-13 14:57, Mike Holmes wrote:

So, you're going to use the hammer to pound in screws until you're good at it, because it'll make you better with the screwdriver when you switch over to it?

Wanna try it out in a "safe" environment? I'm willing to do a game online with you (man, I'm like a crack addict, always looking for a game), where you can get a safe analysis at slow speed. We could even try to recruit some real Narrativists to get better feedback.

Whaddaya say?

Tools help or hinder, but true artistic achievement has to come from within.

Hello Again,

I'm not shooting for perfect. I'm shooting for my own comfortablility level. But all this has drifited away from my original point. My point is I really like the inherent Premises built into the setting of SLA Industires. The system isn't going to support me so I have to do it all by scenario design and GM technique alone. I was inquiring about advice on how to construct a scenario where the Premise is mainly embeded in the setting and how to keep the mission centric feel of the game but have it still be strongly Narrativist in style so that it doesn't just turn into gun bunny battles in an effort to achieve some company objective. In other words I don't want the nature of the game to just be an excuse for sociopathic behaviors.

One of the suggestions given was, why not change the system? I appreciate the suggestion but it goes against my RPG Ethics. Mainly, that I don't support the idea that setting is everything and players will ultimately ignore the system anyway. I refuse to encourage that thinking by engaging in that very activity. That, and I've never actually PLAYED SLA Industries and the system may be surprisingly more interesting than it is on paper. I'd like to at least give it a fair chance.

Jesse


[ This Message was edited by: jburneko on 2001-12-13 16:54 ]

Well, I don't see where ethics comes in. You bought the product, it's now yours to use in any fashion that you desire. You've done about as big a service to the designers as you can.

But, what about the other suggestions so far? Home office relationship map, structured mission play? Any comments on those ideas?

Howabout inseting a "Debriefing" mechanic like the confessional from InSpectres? That would be a really slick way to interject player power that wouldn't have to interfere with the normal resolution mechanics.

Mike

Hey Jesse,

I gotta agree with Mike on this one. I tried for years to make story a priority with what I now recognize were systems with primarily gamist or simulationist mechanics. And I was undermined by system at every turn. I know it can be done. From all accounts, Pete Seckler does it. But I've never been able to do it. And I know others who've staged heroic attempts and failed as well. It's because it's not just GM technique that's important. System reinforces a player's approach. A detailed combat system focuses players on the details of combat. To be blunt, it's not that I, as a GM, can't create and run a scenario that prioritizes story using a system that features levelling up, and experience point rewards for collecting coins and killing beasts. It's that players have histories with such systems that are far stronger than all the story-related priority-setting I can deliver. I've never been able to do it. And it's not like I didn't have the will.

Paul

Mike Holmes wrote:

jburneko wrote:

Tools help or hinder, but true artistic achievement has to come from within.

You sound like Fang who can't publish his game because it's not perfect yet. I got news, perfect will never come. Try "as good as you can do". Try now.

Paul and Mike I get what you're saying. It's like the difference between combat in 7th Sea and combat in D&D. 7th Sea combat is meant to be descriptive and over-the-top and the system backs that up 100%. D&D is far more tactical and wargamey and it backs that up. When I play 7th Sea my imagination goes wild and I'm bouncing off the walls and swinging on the chandeliers. When I play D&D I'm hard pressed to even think of those things because my mind's too busy working out what is tactically feasible.

As such I HAVE considered converting SLA Industries to Story Engine. It gets me no closer to supporting the Premise but at least it would down play the gun bunny emphasis of the system.

As far as the home office relationship map idea, I kind of like it. I would have to think a little bit about how to make it work. For SLA Industries it's almost perfect because there's almost such a relationship map provided in the core rulebook.

I've read InSpectres but I admit not very thuroughly nor did I understand it very well. However, you're right in that it's worth taking a look at and mining ideas from it since it's sort of in the same vein as SLA Industries.

One thing I've been thinking about since Ron's mention of Three Musketeers and my recent analysis of Raiders of the Lost Arc is that I've been mistaking the prioritization of Premise with 'looseness' of scenario design. So I've kind of come up with these ideas of Points of Premise.

The idea is that you basically design your game using more traditional methods. Scene structures, flow charts, location encounters and so on. But you go over those elements and make sure you identify Points of Premise that is points were the conflict in the scene invokes the Premise or not. If it does the definitely insure that the 'adventure' as you've planned it does not require some specific addressing of that Premise. This is how you design your missions.

Now basically once you've basically removed the Premise from the 'adventure' portion of your campaign or at least insured that the nature of adventure doesn't interfere with the Premise, you then chain the adventure's together with Points of Premise.

For example for SLA Industries I see a sort of escalating sense of moral confusion as the source of horror in the game. In the beginning the missions would be fairly straight forward with a very black and white morality. But as the players achieve this missions they gain both noteriety in the eye of the media as well as recognition for their loyalty to the company. Soon the company starts entrusting the playes with missions that are increasingly 'grey' in morality. These are effectively the first Points of Premise. How strong is your loyalty to the company?

At this point the game may shift directions, the party may split up. It doesn't matter. This is the point of co-authoring. Hell, members of the party may become enemies. Those who remain loyal to the company may be asked to hunt down those who have gone renegade.

And so on....

Just my latest set of ideas on the matter.

Jesse

Hey, you know the idea of using Company people as demons is both quite cunning and TOTALLY appropriate to SLA. There are hints in the text that Mr Slayer, CEO of SLA Industries, is indeed the devil after all (trust me, it is not as crap as this sounds by a LONG way).

As for thoughts that the system may be less sucky than it looks... I'm afraid you are in for bitter disappointment. This is D&D length of combat turn stuff; for any given fire action you will need to know:
- the kick rating of the round (including suppression)
- how many rounds are actually fired
- how many rounds strike the target
- calculation of the penetration of each round
- determination of actual damage thresholds.

I can't advise against it strongly enough; I think you're going to have a REALLy uphill struggle trying to get player noses out of the ammo + armour trough.

Muahahahaha!!! It's all coming together .
I think I can really see how to do SLA with sorceror - bear with me.

OK. This borrows some string from Conspiracy X's bow.

Briefly, I will break down the elements of the setting which can be realised as demons to semi-duplicate the basic class structure of SLA character design.

Ebons, Brain Wasters and Necanthropes should have the Ebb as a combo Inconspicuous/Parasite demon with TellTales surrounding grisly organic stuff, and powers involving Boosts, Armour, Hint and the like. The DeathSuit IS the demon, no question about it. Needs and Desires will be suitably grisly and arcane; good opportunity to play mind games about the White.

Frothers should have their drug addiction(s) as Parasite or Possessor "demons", also mostly in the Boost line but possibly also Cover (for UltraViolence). Telltales would be OD's, bloodshot eyes, and well frothing at the mouth. Their Needs and desires are those of the addictive agent.

WraithRaiders could have their tribal culture fleshed out a bit; they could have totem spirits and the like which never manifest physically and observably but act as Boosts and Cover (worshipping the hunter-god type stuff). Their telltales would be rituals, talismans, etc. Needs and Desires would arise from similarly obscure alien culture.

Stormers (all varieties) have their own BODY as a demon. Stormers are too thick to be fully in control of their own emotions and so on; the "demons" they will deal with will arise from their own biology and perhaps their handlers (as Passers/Agents, see below). The telltales are the obvious: musculature, claws, punk hair. The Needs and Desires are the stormers own suppressed/truncated emotions.

Lastly, we get the mundane humans. For them we have "structure as demon" and turn the divisions of SLA, bureacratic procedures, and manufactured articles as demons. These will be their boss or contacts as SLOPs, contacts in the Shiver Units or Cloak Division, that sort of thing. Articles would be things like the funky vehicles and battle suits - something like the DogeyBone armour could have technical telltales (like the "AK clack") and Needs and Desires based on fuel consumption and so on, weird engineering, and so forth (which might neatly take care of ammo - have to think about it). Hmm, Domino Dogs... The finance chip would also make a good Parasite, as a "smart object".

Further, humans have Inconspicuous (?) or Passer demons which are contacts, agents, informers, that sort of thing called Strings. A String is a thing you Pull to make shit happen. The kinda shit that can happen when you Pull a String depends on the nature of the string and its individual properties; however most of them will indicate personal contacts in the heirarchy of SLA Industries. TellTales would be things like, oh, bureucratic records, unusual expenses, etc. Needs and Desires would be the kind stuff the PC needs to do to keept their String sweet. You might take Cloak Division as a String and be required to go out and whack some folk at their request, no questions asked.

Not sure how Ron has tackled "monsters" in ...Sword; whatever, thats how would treat the carnivorous pigs, Carriens, Manchines and the various psychos. Probably. A number, like the Psychos, might be better represented as passer demons - their Needs and Desires hit the fucked up psychology of the World of Progress nicely.

Hey... maybe the TV itself could be a demon... hmmm....

"OrangeKrush - its the only thing.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming on the Alien Sex Channel..."

... and it could be called "demonSLAer" :wink:

http://www.nightfall.co.uk/ for anyone interested and unfamiliar.

On 2001-12-13 17:49, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Jesse,

I gotta agree with Mike on this one. I tried for years to make story a priority with what I now recognize were systems with primarily gamist or simulationist mechanics. ...
Paul

Hey Marco,

Systems like, let's say, Hero don't have a lot of player-motivating mechanics (especially after character generation). If you just fix Xp at a certian set amount per session you'll never have to worry about players stepping out of character in pursuit of 'more points.' There also aren't forced alignments or specific character types to worry about (usually).

I'll admit, I never thought to fix experience points to a flat amount. It's an interesting idea. And I can see it as a step in a productive direction. I think you're right, if I were to gut a game of reward mechanics that conflict with story as a priority, I could probably accomplish it, especially now that I've run and played games using narrativist systems, and come to understand the linkage between adversity and character protagonism, and how to control story through scene framing, without railroading or having pre-conceived the outcomes of scenes, and how to drive story through re-inventing and re-justifying the actions of NPC's during play, rather than trying to maintain them according to some preconceived notion of who they are. But I have to think, if it took experience with narrativist systems to teach me that, and I'd have to gut a system like AD&D or Hero of reward mechanics that conflict with story, and scale down the over-wrought detailness of the combat system to keep it from manifesting as the focus of play, which I wouldn't have to do with a narrativist system, like Story Engine perhaps, then why would I bother, when I could use a narrativist system? I think my point to Jesse still stands, use the right tool for the job, you don't learn anything from using the wrong tool.

Paul

Marco,

First, Jesse has stated that he wants Narrativist play. I don't think this is in dispute. The systems that you cite (as well as JAGS) are distinctly Simulationist. We can argue that all you want, but what it means is that there is nothing in those systems that actively promote story. If you can cite some mechanic that I'm unaware of I'll recant that (and be very surprised). I made an argument similar to yours a while ago where I said that such Simulationist games are Premise neutral. What I meant was that such Sim games do not go too far out of their way to interfere with a Narrativist Premise, but they do nothing to aid it either.

But even having made the argument, I realize that it is a tad shakey. What we're advocating here is a drift. The Simulationist details will inform the players that they're supposed to be paying more attention to bullets than plot. Now, you as the GM and the players can agree to ignore these details and play more Narratively, but that begs the question why use that system in the first place. Especially when there are other systems that do Narrativism primarily and actively promote this style of play.

In your case, I think that you like Simulationism first, and Narrativism second. Which is pretty much where I stand, BTW. So we can see that it can be fun to play that way. But I don't think that this is what Jesse is really looking for. For him I believe that he'd have more fun with a purely Narrativist system as that would cater directly to the style that he is looking for. And be easier to contend with as well.


Fang, I understand the idea of wanting to do a good job and immerse oneself slowly. Lets put it this way, though. Jesse is smart, and, I believe, a better GM than he thinks he is. And he's been researching Narrativism for quite a while now. Months at least, and probably more than a year. I think that he is far more ready than I was when I first forayed into Narrativism, and he has the direct support of the people who are doing the leading edge research into the field. I'd say that he's passed basic training a long time ago, and he's moved on to advanced degrees (to mix my metaphors).

If he's not ready, who is? He's about as ready as he can get until he has more actual experience under his belt. Nothing, and I mean nothing, teaches like doing.

Go for it, man!

Mike

Hi Paul,
Well, I certianly wouldn't stand in anybody's way of using the system they choose to--but with Hero and GURPS both (and remember, I'm suggesting using these systems) the reward mechaic is merely "you get points for playing." Sure, they suggest that the GM give out *a few more* points if the players as a group went up against a really tough foe--or fewer points for bad roleplaying--but ultimately the player gets about 1 to 4 points for adventure (which is like 1 to 3 play sessions) so just handing out 2pts a session isn't *gutting* the reward system (in fact, the reward system for one of those games suggests that more points be given out for 'good roleplaying' while it's entirely subjective, how can you argue with rewarding that?)

For what it's worth, I've always sort of assigned experience (in these games) based on how I and the players want the characters to progress--not on how well anyone played. And I always give the same amount to the whole group. As I recal reading the rules there's nothing in there that makes this unusual.

As for being the wrong tool? Not at all. If none of your players enjoy tactical combat and you *have* to have combat in the game then yeah--you're going to want to change something (like using mass-battle rules or quick-kill NPC rules or whatever). But in all the GURPS/Hero gaming I've done I've played in many games where there was no combat at all--so it obviously didn't become the focus of the game: that's clearly up to the partcipants.

As for relationship maps, re-assigning NPC motivations, or whatever--those are GM techniques--not system rules.

Whether a game is the right tool for the job is a matter for *everyone* invovled to decide on--not simply the GM. I consider myself primarily 'story oriented' (I'm often bored by long stretches of combat if there's drama or story advancement involved) and I'm not playing to 'simulate reality' (or whatever) or for the 'experience of being-there' per se, but the system mechanics of The Window, for example (and I consider it a very interestingly designed system) wouldn't suit me as a player despite the fact that it tries to get out of the way and focus on story.

-Marco
[ Full Disclosure: I wrote a generic gaming system. It's called JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) and it's here:
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org ]

On 2001-12-14 11:38, Mike Holmes wrote:
Marco,

First, Jesse has stated that he wants Narrativist play. I don't think this is in dispute. The systems that you cite (as well as JAGS) are distinctly Simulationist. We can argue that all you want, but what it means is that there is nothing in those systems that actively promote story. If you can cite some mechanic that I'm unaware of I'll recant that (and be very surprised). I made an argument similar to yours a while ago where I said that such Simulationist games are Premise neutral. What I meant was that such Sim games do not go too far out of their way to interfere with a Narrativist Premise, but they do nothing to aid it either.

But even having made the argument, I realize that it is a tad shakey. What we're advocating here is a drift. The Simulationist details will inform the players that they're supposed to be paying more attention to bullets than plot. Now, you as the GM and the players can agree to ignore these details and play more Narratively, but that begs the question why use that system in the first place. Especially when there are other systems that do Narrativism primarily and actively promote this style of play.

In your case, I think that you like Simulationism first, and Narrativism second. Which is pretty much where I stand, BTW. So we can see that it can be fun to play that way. But I don't think that this is what Jesse is really looking for. For him I believe that he'd have more fun with a purely Narrativist system as that would cater directly to the style that he is looking for. And be easier to contend with as well.


Fang, I understand the idea of wanting to do a good job and immerse oneself slowly. Lets put it this way, though. Jesse is smart, and, I believe, a better GM than he thinks he is. And he's been researching Narrativism for quite a while now. Months at least, and probably more than a year. I think that he is far more ready than I was when I first forayed into Narrativism, and he has the direct support of the people who are doing the leading edge research into the field. I'd say that he's passed basic training a long time ago, and he's moved on to advanced degrees (to mix my metaphors).

If he's not ready, who is? He's about as ready as he can get until he has more actual experience under his belt. Nothing, and I mean nothing, teaches like doing.

Go for it, man!

Mike

Hey Contra,

Your conversion of SLA -> Sorcerer was very impressive. I think that with myabe the exception of Ebons and Frother's you'd have eleminiate the actual Sorcerery rules. That is, these people have their demons pretty much fixed. But maybe not I'd have to think about it. I will definitely keep your conversion notes on hand should I decide to go in that direction.

Jesse

Well Jesse will have to decide whether or not he agrees with your analysis, Marco. BTW, I have always agreed with you that neutralizing point systems goes a long way towards making a Sim game more Premise neutral. It's something that I would suggest under any circumstances. But I do see a difference. That's a debate for another thread, however.

Anyhow, there is yet another argument for going over to the Narrativist systems that Jesse is interested in playing now; and argument that has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the systems vis a vis stories. And that is that if he intends to use such systems, he would be better off getting practical use employing them now as a form of practice. He'll never get adept with using the specific mechanics of The Pool, for example, playing GURPS. If he plays some other system, that's time that he could have used learning the system that he actually wants to be playing.

Jesse, if The Pool were the only RPG that you had possession of, how long would you wait to play it? Would you study it a lot first to be sure you had everything right before jumping in and actually playing? Well, I sure wouldn't.

Mike

On 2001-12-14 13:02, jburneko wrote:
I think that with myabe the exception of Ebons and Frother's you'd have eleminiate the actual Sorcerery rules. That is, these people have their demons pretty much fixed. But maybe not I'd have to think about it. I will definitely keep your conversion notes on hand should I decide to go in that direction.

Mike Holmes wrote:

I understand the idea of wanting to do a good job and immerse oneself slowly. Lets put it this way, though. Jesse is smart, and, I believe, a better GM than he thinks he is. And he's been researching Narrativism for quite a while now. Months at least, and probably more than a year. I think that he is far more ready than I was when I first forayed into Narrativism, and he has the direct support of the people who are doing the leading edge research into the field. I'd say that he's passed basic training a long time ago, and he's moved on to advanced degrees (to mix my metaphors).

If he's not ready, who is? He's about as ready as he can get until he has more actual experience under his belt. Nothing, and I mean nothing, teaches like doing.

Fang has a good point - that one GM does not a group make. I cannot agree more strongly.

It so happens that over the last months, some of us (me more than anyone, via private email) have gained quite the clear picture of The Saga of Jesse's Group, and I'm pretty sure that we're talking about Narrativists-by-any-other-name at this point. And I was originally the most skeptical of all about that, based on some old threads here.

Since that information isn't available on this thread, though, I agree with Fang, as I said, that we shouldn't forget that we're not talking about The Esteemed Mr. Burneko so much as TEMB and Those Inimitable Players of His.

Um, am I correct in concluding that this thread has pretty much brought us all to the point of seeing and acknowledging one another's positions?

Best,
Ron

Hello Again,

Ron and Fang are absolutely right. I have a very strange group of players. And also my descriptions of my players can often be misleading and confusing because I really am talking about three groups of people with three different dynamics but with some overlapp between them.

One day I'm praising my group the next day I'm condemning them usually because I'm talking about two different SUBSETS of the group of people I game with. Perhaps it would make things clearer if I explained that I have a gaming group of about 15 people of whom I am playing with 6 to 8 at a time with about 4 to 6 of them being fixed at all times.

I don't know what subset I will be playing with when I get around to running SLA Industries. So, I really can't make a judgement on what effect the system will have on them or how they'll react to the system. The best I can do is just start thinking about what I want to acomplish with the game and how to acomplish it.

I definitely think everyone has made themselves quite clear. This thread has gone in directions I never intended it to.

Jess

Your conversion of SLA -> Sorcerer was very impressive. I think that with myabe the exception of Ebons and Frother's you'd have eleminiate the actual Sorcerery rules. That is, these people have their demons pretty much fixed. But

How is a mission structure, when used as mechanistically as in InSpectres, not railroading? A structure that makes every mission have the same general form (like starting with a client interview, proceeding to r&d, as in InSpectres) is limiting player options.

I hope this isn't constituted as an attack of any sort. I'm just curious about how people (esp. with narrativist leanings) see this situation. I don't personally think all railroading is necessarily bad railroading.

On 2001-12-25 22:25, Daredevil wrote:
How is a mission structure, when used as mechanistically as in InSpectres, not railroading?

Well said, Marco.

Additionally, agressive framing and element introductions are all fine by Narrativists, it would seem. Only taking away the players ability to drive the plot (read as "events that are important to the premise) is important. As a GM if you want to set a scene in a certain place, or if you want to decorate that place a certain way (including NPCs), these things are all fine by the Narrativists unless they somehow reduce the player's ability to drive what the plot is about.

If you'd like to call these things railroading, then these are forms of railroading that are inoffensive to Narrativists. Note how agressive scene framing is probably much more irritating to a Simulationist ("Wait, how'd we get here?!?") than a Narrativist.

Mike