Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by lumpley, June 30, 2004, 10:34:31 AM
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIt's also related to mis-presenting the difference/relationship between author and audience in role-playing.
Quote from: In an old thread, IBut see, that means that a Narrativist game needn't depend on its resolution mechanics. All the resolution mechanics have to do (at minimum) is foster consensus among the players, so the game happens. It's the game's characters, including opposition, who make it happen -- and thus, potentially, the game's character creation system can do all the work.
Quote from: MarcoVincent,It leaves me wondering why Call of Cthulhu with it's Nar-rich game world isn't considered Nar-facilitating.
Quote from: SilmenumeA Narrativist puts more stake (prioritizes) in addressing Premise than reacting to Situation in a fashion that highlights Character mediated response. IOW the Narrativist in this case is willing to ignore what is normally an issue for a person, acting in a fashion that appears to be illogical (ignoring a potential threat to one?s life) in order to prioritize addressing premise rather than address the conflict in a manner that a player who is prioritizing exploring Character would be....But in Sim limiting our actions and responses to the circumstances of our created characters is a priority. Not so in Gamism where Character is a tool whereby Challenge is addressed and the players are rewarded for successfully addressing the fictional conflict. Not so in Narrativism where character integrity can be sacrificed in order to address Premise. Premise addressing has priority or Character integrity. This is not to imply that character is not important to either agenda, but rather character integrity is not the prioritized element. By prioritized I am speaking of that element of play which is the choke point of player action. A Gamist is bound by player integrity ? no cheating is allowed via breaking or bypassing the agreed upon parameters of the Challenge. A Narrativist is bound by player integrity ? a player must address the agreed upon Premise and do so without impinging upon the protagonism (I think that is right word) of the other players. A Simulationist is bound by Character integrity. If a Simulationist player breaks character integrity then he is sometimes accused of cheating but is actually starting to pursue other Creative Agendas.
QuoteSimulationism is better served by high definition and high internal consistency in most of the elements, but can have low definition in all of them and low internal consistency in some. Narrativism is better served if some of the elements have low definition, but internal consistency will still have to be high in some elements at least sometimes.
Quote from: lumpleyThe two variables - CA, standards for internal consistency - are absolutely independent. That is, your group will set standards for internal consistency based on your tastes*, and then your CA, whatever it is, will depend on you meeting those standards. High, low, it doesn't matter at all from your CA's point of view, what matters is that you're meeting them.In order to fulfill a CA you have to be functionally Exploring, is all I'm saying. What counts as "functionally Exploring" will vary from group to group, but doing it is a rock-minimum for fulfilling a Creative Agenda.*Tastes: this is where I'd put the "technical approaches" I've talked about. RGFA Sim, Virtuality, is a taste - it sets a standard for internal consistency in your game. Your group might then go on to fulfill any of the CAs.
QuoteFor my two cents, this goes back to structure. Strongly pre-defined characters and Virtuality will lead to an unstructured narrative which will have at best mixed messages.
QuoteHowever, while unstructured there are still plenty of moral issues being addressed.
Quote from: MarcoI wanted to look at the case where the character declines to address the premise in the players optimal way (saving the family) because the player feels fidelity to their internal concept of character.From the players stndpoint the gm has exercised force--creating a my-way-or-the-highway situation.From the gms perspective they are keeping continuity. Either the player could decided her PC is sterner stuff (less vulnerable or afraid) or the gm could create clues for her to follow.
QuoteI think in this case the conflict is due to conflicting arenas of contunity: both parties see thing their way and its at odds with the most rewarding flow of story generation.
Quote from: contracycleIf the player has declined to address premise, that player is clearly not playing Narr.
QuoteStrongly pre-defined characters and Virtuality will lead to an unstructured narrative which will have at best mixed messages.
Quote from: YouA Sim-facilitating technique here is to run the function over again, with closer scrutiny to the details of the character's psyche; or in a traditional game simply to punt, and ask the GM questions like 'well, what would a person of my character's sex/race/social class do in this situation', etc.
Quote from: lumpleyTony: In Narrativist play, everybody's going to be grooving on everybody else's Premise-addressage, as Gareth says. Disagreements of the "that's not relevant to the Premise!" sort might come up, but the group will resolve them or the game will crash. The GM certainly doesn't have any power to say "address Premise differently! Address Premise MY WAY!" in functional Narrativist play. I'm not sure I'm getting your concern, though.