The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games

   [1]The [2]About the Forge | [3]Support The Forge | [4]Articles |

   Forge  [5]Reviews | [6]Resource Library | [7]Forums

                             Narrativism: Story Now

   by Ron Edwards <[8]sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>

   Copyright 2003 Adept Press

   Acknowledgments are due to Mike Holmes, Ralph Mazza, Christopher Kubasik,

   Jesse Burneko, Paul Czege, Clinton R. Nixon, Vincent Baker, Seth Ben-Ezra,

   M. J. Young, Chris Chinn, Pete Darby, Gordon C. Landis, Walt Freitag, and

   Matt Snyder for comments on the first draft of this essay. All mistakes or

   misattributions should be considered my responsibility.

   This is the third of three essays building upon the topics addressed in

   "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory"

   ([9]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). The previous two essays were

   "Simulationism: The Right to Dream"

   ([10]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/), and "Gamism: Step On Up"

   ([11]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/). This series' purposes are to

   clarify the original essay and to develop and incorporate insights from

   discussions at the Forge.

   This one is about Narrativist play, which is simultaneously the least and

   most problematic of the Creative Agendas I've described. It's incredibly

   easy in application, and the most difficult for discussion. I think that

   this difficulty lies mainly in some of the peculiarities of

   role-player/gamer culture, entrenched in the history of the hobby, rather

   than any particular logical or cognitive hitches in the mode of play

   itself.

   In the first two essays, I began presenting an overall model of

   role-playing, but piecemeal and in stumbling verbal form. As of this

   writing, I've finished that model, and it is included here as well. It's a

   bit out of place, being more of a capstone or umbrella to the three essays

   rather than an intrinsic piece of the Narrativist one. More complete

   discussions about it may also be found in "The whole model - this is it"

   ([12]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655).

History of the term

   The Threefold Model for role-playing included the term Dramatism, as

   presented by John Kim at his Threefold Model

   ([13]http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/) webpage. When I learned

   about the Threefold, I'd already been thinking about stuff I'd later call

   Currency and also about Jonathan Tweet's discussion of resolution

   presented in Everway. The basic notion of the Threefold impressed me: it

   was time to talk about goals and priorities independently of everything

   else, then to see whether everything else flowed to and from them. This

   was at the time that Sorcerer was making its small way into commerce, so

   the mailing list was the place for our first discussions; most of them are

   archived at the Sorcerer website ([14]http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com).

   At this point, since "Drama" as a resolution category in Tweet's schema

   and "Dramatism" as a goals-category in the Threefold referred to two

   different things, I decided that the names were confusing. Going by which

   set of ideas was first presented (Tweet's), I changed Dramatism to

   Narrativism. This terminological change was limited to discussions on the

   Sorcerer mailing list and later at the Gaming Outpost.

   However, our use of the terms and ideas on the Sorcerer mailing list took

   on its own character almost immediately, such that in my first essay

   "System Does Matter" ([15]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/), "story"

   was already its own distinct, process-oriented term.

   The biggest change in my thinking about role-playing is represented in the

   essay "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory"

   ([16]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), in which the concept of

   Exploration becomes the underlying foundation for the three modes or goals

   of play. This new picture was startling: (1) potential story elements were

   now considered present for all three modes play, and (2)Narrativism now

   appeared to be a mirror image or twin sibling of Gamism, counter to older

   impressions shared by me and anyone else who ever wrote about role-playing

   that Gamism was the odd man out.

   I've tried to emphasize this new outlook throughout these three supportive

   essays. Whereas I think most people think of Gamism with (or synonymous

   with) its Hard Core variant over in one ballpark, with Simulationism

   containing an internal "story" variant in another ballpark, my concepts

   are radically different. I hope to make this picture, and its

   implications, entirely clear in this essay.

The foundation: Exploration and more

   Here's the big ol' model for role-playing that the previous two essays

   sort of fumbled at. Notice that "rules" are absent; I now consider "rules"

   simply to mean text, which may be about anything you find in the model.

   The brackets are very important: if B relates to A as [A[B]], then B is

   considered a part, application, version, or expression of A.

   [Social Contract]. Social Contract encompasses everything else about

   role-playing. If these people happen to be role-playing together, then

   Social Contract crucially includes "Let's play this game." This crucial

   element is what's further subdivided throughout the rest of this model.

   [Social Contract [Exploration]]. Exploration means "shared imaginings."

   The sharing has to be explicit and agreed upon, usually through the spoken

   word although any form of communication counts. The imaginings have to be

   the subject that is shared, which is why me reading aloud to my wife does

   not constitute Exploration. We are independently imagining based on the

   spoken word, but neither she nor I is telling the other what we imagine

   from that point. Exploration means that such communication is occurring.

   The five elements of Exploration are interdependent: Character + Setting

   make Situation, System permits Situation to "move," and Color affects all

   the others. This concept applies only to the imaginary causes among the

   elements; the real people's actual priority or cause among these things,

   in social and creative terms, varies widely. See my essay "GNS and other

   matters of role-playing theory"

   ([17]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/) for more about these elements.

   [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda]]]. Creative Agenda is the

   blanket term for people's demonstrated goals and desired feedback during

   play. In the past, I called it "GNS." Since all of this is enclosed in

   Social Contract, GNS-stuff is not only "what I want" but also "what I want

   from role-playing with this group of people." Since Exploration

   necessarily includes System, that means, as soon as we start talking about

   Creative Agenda, real play has begun.

   On paper, I draw this term as an arrow, because this "step" or "level" in

   my model shifts out of the abstract and solidly into this group, playing

   this game, this way, at this time. The model instantly ceases to be a

   broad overview and becomes a diagnostic or description of a real

   play-experience among real people. Unless you are thinking of such a case,

   you will be left flailing at this point in the discussion.

   [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques]]]]. The

   panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to

   satisfy one or more Creative Agendas. Techniques include IIEE,

   Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling time, narration apportioning,

   reward system, points of contact, character components, scene framing,

   currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these

   terms represents a range of potential play-methods. I consider the two

   most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE (see glossary).

   Techniques may be thought of as directly expressing the more abstract

   concept of System (way up in Exploration), except that System doesn't

   exist all by itself - it's fully integrated with the other components of

   Exploration. But if you keep that in mind, then yes, the arrow represented

   by Creative Agenda can indeed be "shot" from the bow of System.

   Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of

   Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas.

   [Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques

   [Ephemera]]]]]. Ephemera refers to the smallest-scale interactions and

   activities of role-playing: anything that gets factored into or is

   expressed by play in the space of a few seconds. As with every level/box

   so far, fairly extensive combinations of Ephemera express or apply to one

   or more Techniques. They are the internal anatomy, if you will, of

   Techniques and hence (conceptualizing upward) of System.

   Ephemera include individual Stances, in-character vs. out-of-character

   diction and dialogue, referring to texts, sound effects, taking or

   referring to notes, kibitzing, laughing, praise or disapproval, showing

   pictures, and anything similar.

   Understanding any Creative Agenda, in this case Narrativism, means

   examining its potential roles and expressions in the whole model.

   Narrativism's little code phrase for that purpose is "Story Now."

  Story

   Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in

   for several different processes and goals, some of which were

   incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.

   All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go

   ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where

   they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the

   "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little

   something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a

   certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript

   has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.

   Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story,

   arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.

   Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage

   the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying

   to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also

   meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at

   times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon

   are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically

   in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her.

   Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to

   quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he

   goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and

   trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse

   is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay

   the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's

   now all old, to his home.

   The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a

   story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during

   the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether

   people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination

   of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The

   mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based

   issue.

Story Now

   Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature

   of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address"

   means:

     * Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world,

       "fixing" them into imaginary place.

     * Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps

       changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being

       taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the

       antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.

     * Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the

       protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the

       circumstances.

   Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers

   to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create

   those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying

   attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the

   story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays,

   and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of

   the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of

   input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to

   it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of

   elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

   There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have

   such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole

   point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a

   great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social

   expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is

   directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than

   toward strategy and guts.

Say it yourself

   I receive a lot of emails like this one from Landon Darkwood:

   I think I may have had a revelation.

   ... In your Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context,

   refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of

   recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

   Is this the key to distinguishing the [Narrativist vs. Simulationist] play

   modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming,

   a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only

   for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre

   elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream.

   i.e., a Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might

   have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped

   by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and

   his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their

   inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't

   Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there.

   In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the

   Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a

   kind of intricacy involved.

   In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that

   are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless

   of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are

   created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are

   already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a

   by-product.

   Am I on this now?

   "In a word," I replied, "Yes."

   Narrativism has a single definition, but it's difficult to articulate for

   people grappling with muddled RPG terminology. As far as I was concerned,

   not only had I presented what Landon said in "GNS and other matters of

   role-playing theory" ([18]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), I'd

   repeated it dozens of times in forum discussions. In fact, I'd said it in

   the message to Landon that immediately preceded this reply. But he had to

   say it himself, with his own use of words like "just" and "genre." I am

   now convinced, after many such exchanges, that an "experienced"

   role-player comes to this conclusion only by working it out in his or her

   own terms and examples.

  Premise

   How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something

   called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme.

   I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I

   mentioned. I've taken the term from The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos

   Egri. In reading what follows, bear in mind that he is discussing the

   process of writing, not an existing playscript or a performance:

   ... every good premise is composed of three parts, each of which is

   essential to a good play. Let us examine "frugality equals waste." The

   first part of this premise suggest character - a frugal character. The

   second part, "leads to," suggests conflict, and the third part, "waste,"

   suggests the end of the play. ...

   A good premise is a thumbnail synopsis of your play. [examples follow,

   including "Egotism leads to loss of friends." - RE]

   ... What is wrong, then? What is missing?

   The author's conviction is missing. Until he takes sides, there is no

   play. Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take? We,

   the readers or spectators of your play, do not necessarily agree with your

   convictions. Through your play you must therefore prove to us the validity

   of your contention.

   A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and

   does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not

   created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are

   brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of

   being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the

   conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says),constitutes

   theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have

   been moved to do so at an emotional level.

   I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms

   to Egri's principles. They may seem simplistic: the burning passion of the

   protagonist directly expresses a burning passion of the author's, who uses

   the plot as a polemic to demonstrate it. However, "Why Johnny shouldn't

   smoke dope" is only the starting point. More nuanced, ambiguous, and

   insightful applications arise insofar as more nuanced, ambiguous, and

   insightful authors and audiences are involved.

   I said earlier that any role-playing can produce a story, and that's so.

   But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing

   their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its

   child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable

   is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a

   player-character does something. If that emotional connection is

   identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and

   developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is

   under way. Some nuances:

     * "Character does something" can mean foreshadowing, 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. As long as the

       fictional character is brought into the perceptions and possible

       emotional responses of the other people at the table, then it counts.

     * It doesn't matter whether the character fictionally "meant" to do the

       action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot.

     * In 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. "Character does something"

       often includes this sidekick's behavior.

     * "Identifiable" means assessing how the players treat one another

       during the process, socially.

   From my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing theory"

   ([19]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/):

   Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play.

   Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from

   the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from

   the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his

   emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions of

   all sorts.

     * Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?

     * Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?

     * And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories

       of all sorts.

   Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven

   Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great

   deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to

   Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that

   engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is

   produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by

   pre-planning.

     * A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise,

       with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain

       one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification

       break down?

     * Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are

       divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living

       people, and which side are you on?

   I'm still saying the same thing. But now, I've returned to my earlier

   usage; it's the only meaning for the term "Premise" in my model.

   That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those

   personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to

   distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict,

   so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say,

   "problematic human issue" instead.

   Egri presents his Premises as flat statements, and I state them as

   questions. Using the question form isn't changing anything about what Egri

   is saying. Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and

   audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like

   "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it

   really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage

   anyone.

   Egri's statement-construction is very useful for the single author faced

   with a blank sheet of paper, with the goal at hand being a finished

   script. The audience will see the play, not the process of creation.

   However, in the role-playing medium, not only are there multiple authors,

   but the audience is also composed of these same authors, and their

   appreciation of the material occurs simultaneously with the significant

   creative decisions. Therefore, the Premise's imaginary resolution is up

   for grabs among the group in role-playing, just as it is up for grabs

   within the author's own head before the play reaches final draft. In the

   latter case, the jump to "the point" is swift and hopefully certain; in

   the former case, the new medium, it is anything but. I phrase it as a

   question for role-playing, to indicate that everyone involved has his or

   her fair crack at it as one of the authors.

   From Robin Laws' essay "The Literary Edge," published in Over the Edge

   (Atlas Games, 1992):

   OTE is, among other things, an attempt to further the development of

   role-playing as art. GMs will find it fruitful to approach decisions as an

   artist creating a collaborative work with players. The idea of

   collaboration is important: the GM is not a "storyteller" with the players

   as audience, but merely a "first among equals" given responsibility for

   the smooth progress of the developing story.

   ... The GM is not a movie director, able to order actors to interpret a

   script a given way. Instead, he should be seeking ways to challenge PCs,

   to use plot development to highlight aspects of their character, in hopes

   of being challenged in return.

   ... For years, role-players have been simulating fictional narratives the

   way wargamers recreate historical military engagements. They've been

   making spontaneous, democratized art for their own consumption, even if

   they haven't seen it in those terms. Making the artistry conscious is a

   liberating act, making it easier to emulate the classic tales that inspire

   us. Have fun with it, and enjoy your special role in aesthetic history -

   it's not everybody who gets to be a pioneer in the development of a new

   art form.

   Egri's Premise, meet role-playing. Oh, I can quibble ... instead of the

   word "conscious," I prefer "mindful," and I think that "emulate the

   classic tales" is a bit simplistic, but never mind. The point is, if you

   want a Narrativist Manifesto from one of the great minds of role-playing,

   then there you go.

   Here's a bit more about that theme business. Think of it as the conclusive

   "uh!" that may accompany the climax and resolution of a story. It's

   uttered by the playwright as he hits a certain key or scribes a certain

   sentence, by the audience members at a certain point as they view the

   play, and by role-players in both capacities during the session, often

   simultaneously.

   From the discussion of themes in the chapter "The Art of Storytelling" in

   Demon's Lair: the "God" Guide (Lasalion Games, 2002):

   The theme is the idea that you wish to explore in the story. It brings

   unity to the story and is explored throughout the story by the actions of

   the players and the main characters. Even the obstacle or conflict that

   forms the plot usually resonates with the theme. It is the thread that

   ties everything together and usually teaches the players something.

   Substitute Premise for theme, and theme for the "something," and that's

   just about right. I especially like the implied causality: (1) the actions

   of the players (2) teach the players something, which becomes non-circular

   when play actually addresses Premise. Unfortunately, few other features of

   Demon's Lair, including the example which follows the above text, are

   consistent with this point, and most are wildly at odds with it.

   More insights about theme are available in Chris Chinn's article "The

   power of myth" in Daedalus #1, in which the word "theme" may be

   substituted for "myth" throughout.

  The other way: pastiche

   What happens when you want a story but don't want to play with Story Now?

   Then the story becomes a feature of Exploration with the process of play

   being devoted to how to make it happen as expected. The participation of

   more than one person in the process is usually a matter of providing

   improvisational additions to be filtered through the primary

   story-person's judgment, or of providing extensive Color to the story.

   Under these circumstances, the typical result is pastiche: a story which

   recapitulates an already-existing story's theme, with many explicit

   references to that story.

   Is pastiche necessarily bad and evil? No. Is non-pastiche necessarily

   incredibly good? No.

   Here's a little dialogue between me and one of the first-draft readers of

   this essay:

   Jesse: Now we come to a point of personal confusion. Pastiche. I still

   don't get it, in any medium. If the Situation involves "...class conflict,

   people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance..." and

   the GM lets the players resolve it anyway they like, then how is that not

   Narrativist?

   Me: It is Narrativist. What you're describing is not pastiche, or more

   clearly, it typically does not produce pastiche. The key is the "resolve

   it any way they like" part.

   Jesse: Similarly if I'm writing a story and I make a check-list of items I

   feel like I "need" to include to tell the "kind of" story I want to tell,

   and I have a character experience and resolve those things, then how have

   I not written a new story?

   Me: You have. What you're missing is that pastiche does not do this at all

   - instead, it references existing works in order to re-invoke what they,

   originally, provided for the reader/viewer, rather than doing it on its

   own. Die Hard is an outstanding movie. Passenger 57 stinks on ice. Why?

   Because Passenger 57 is only enjoyable if it reminds you, successfully, of

   Die Hard. Same goes for Broken Arrow, Con Air, and a slew of similar

   films. [Disclosure: I do enjoy many of these films, on the basis of the

   "reminder" alone. - RE]

   And it's not a matter of "who does it first." Die Hard works because it

   nails its Premise, with the explosions and one-liners all being supportive

   of that goal. The other movies fail to provide Premise of their own,

   merely using the explosions and one-liners to remind you of Die Hard, and

   by (putative) extension, tapping into Die Hard's Premise through

   association alone.