Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by clehrich, December 03, 2004, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: Christopher KubasikI have some thoughts, Chris. And, really, they're questions. However, I seems to have lost the ability to phrase things as questions these days, and everything's coming out as strong statements.
Quote....Couldn't that same desire condition and desire be applied to players who gather for a Nar session. I'll refer you again to the "Moose in the City" game I mentioned upthread. I don't think anyone reading the actual play thread of that game could believe it didn't deliver on the goods you describe here. I believe, again, that in either Sim or Nar play, a "community" is formed that answers the needs you desribe. The methods differ, but I'm not seeing much difference in need and outcome. Thoughts?
QuoteHow much do the methods really differ? Yes, there are differences. But let's be careful.You suggest a Sim game works from a world different than our own. But remember the Sorcerer One Sheet -- where the basic structure of a purposefully unique world, with rules and a thematic agenda are laid out for the players to riff on. Nar players are also notorious for getting together for a session before actual play for character creation. While they may not be drawing on previously established "worlds" they are drawing on materials and mixing them up to their own end (no matter how original), to create a "world" with the bare bones of rules to "immerse" themselves in. (Again, as you point out, not "Immersion.")The use of Premise, whether named or not, also provides focus. If I set up a HeroQuest character with torn loyalties between faith and a god, and make avenging my priest's death my goal while my family wishes I didn't puruse this (for 800 available reasons that'll make a good "story") I've set up a "focus" -- just like the Sim world. It's all going to be right there on the Character Sheet. It's what the game, and the attention of the players, will revovle around. Same with Kickers, Mountain Witch Fates and so on.I understand the specific of the "focus" objects are different. But how different are they in Kind when it comes to actual effect?
QuoteWhat about non-subculture play? (And, again, I'm truly asking a question here.) ....Ron make sure to point out he sometimes plays in public places. In sunlight even! Clearly, part of his agenda is to move this beyond sub-culture round up the wagons status. And yet, as noted in my points above, there's still the a) creation of a unique world, b) rules of world and logic and story (including premise issues) to focus on, c) to create a little community that d) in turn creates a "deep, intricate, rich, and intellectually and emotionally satisfying" story [not "world" as for Sim, but "story."]
Quote from: clehrichConsider Narrativism for a second. The bricolage procedure here is pre-constrained by an aesthetic criterion of structure: the manipulation of mythemes (gamemes?) must produce a particular kind of structure, which is any structure that is constitutive of Story. Story is going to be defined locally, in reference to the kind of Story we want to tell and the sort of Premise and so forth we have in mind. But not every sort of structure will serve this end, because we in a sense already have a larger structure into which the substructures must fit, and that larger structure is called Story.
Quote from: clehrichI'm not exactly sure how Gamism works in this context; any suggestions would be very welcome.
Quote from: clehrich...ritualization imputes an ontological certainty to what it demarcates. The Simulationist's world becomes real....But what I do mean is that the Simulationist provides himself with two universes, both real, both valid. One is meaningful in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying sense, and is controllable to some degree through the ongoing process of bricolage; like the Hidatsa hunter, the Simulationist can perform an action, however mundane or peculiar, and have it "work" within a coherent system of meaning. And the Simulationist has the challenge and excitement of making that work, which is much the same attractive quality that makes myth valuable to actual myth-making peoples.
Quote from: Mark WoodhouseYes, I've read your article, although not in the immediate past. A re-read is on my list before I delve into this much more. (I feel like I should go back and dig into L-S again (and maybe Berger), too, but then it would be 2008 by the time I got back).
QuoteMy notion on Nar=Mysticism leans more heavily on the Now in Story Now than the Story, if that makes any sense. The Nar player wants the meat, the Premise, the direct access to the juice. Aggressive scene-framing. Stripped mechanics. Kickers & Bangs. All techniques that can work in any mode, but they're lifeblood to Narr play, because they get you straight to the Story.
Quote from: clehrichI presume we're talking about mystical (ritual) techniques, more than the theological underpinnings, yes?
Quote from: Mike HolmesNarrativism is about making a certain kind of decision. I think it's interesting that Ron has had trouble getting the definion of the qualities of that sort of decision out. But generally it's something like a decision that creates theme by answering a morally or ethically or emotionally interesting question. Kinda like myths do. No?
QuoteWhat I think you've discovered here, Mr. Lehrich, is precisely the correct definition of what narrativism seeks, which is creation of myth. From all that I've read in this thread it sound so correct that I'm surprised it took me to note it.
QuoteIs it "Myth" per se, or per Levi-Strauss? I'm no expert. But it's something with such a similar goal that I can't imagine a reason to create a dichotomy.