diff -r 624c702e7fec -r 90028d83d4ea references/narr_essay.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/narr_essay.txt Mon Mar 20 13:28:17 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,2848 @@ + 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. + + Jesse: I guess I'm having trouble resolving a couple of things. Either I + can't imagine the items listed above being included in the absence of + Premise or I'm too stuck on the idea that there's nothing new under the + sun. I mean how many romantic comedies are written off the premise, "true + love can only be found by putting aside petty differences." Are you saying + that 90% of romantic comedies are just pastiche? And if you are saying + that, then aren't you putting kind of a tall order up if for something to + be Narrativist it has to say something totally unique that no one has ever + said before? + + Huh, I just noticed that I did shift focus from repetition of elements + that express a Premise to repetition of Premise itself, so maybe that has + something to do with my confusion. + + Me: Yes, it does. With any luck my text above has helped. It's not the + "new-ness" of the Premise or theme, it's its presence and power in the + particular story. Pastiche has no such presence or power, just reminders + of them in other stories through common motifs. Many romantic comedies are + indeed pastiche (some of them quite clever), but a certain number of them + are not - and whether they say the same thing as, say, Gentlemen Prefer + Blondes or The Devil and Miss Jones is irrelevant. The point is whether + they as self-contained stories actually do say it, or anything at all. + + Jesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and + Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems + embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific + outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be + included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they + can't resolve the Situation without doing so. + + Me: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism + and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any. + + My final point for this issue is that creating pastiche is primarily a + form of fandom, pure homage to an existing body of work. Most High Concept + Simulationist play gravitates toward it, and some game texts are + explicitly about nothing else. + +Issues on the table + + I submit that playing in the Narrativist mode is just as intuitive and + instantly understood by most people as Gamist play. Not everyone agrees. + + Two sources of resistance and confusion + + The most difficult aspect of writing this essay is the presence of two + distinct problematic audiences, neither of which I realized existed when I + first wrote System Does Matter ([20]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1). + - Role-players who greatly value the story quality of their transcripts, + but don't play Narrativist to make them. It's often painful for them to + be, as they see it, relegated to Simulationist play (usually Exploration + of Situation). "We create stories too, dammit!" - Role-players who play + Narrativist already, but who think what I'm describing must be harder or + more abstract than it is. Since they can identify Exploration of Character + and Situation in their play preferences, they think they must be playing + Simulationist. "That's Narrativist? But we do that, using a plain old + well-known role-playing game - it can't be Narrativist!" + + The first problem these audiences pose for me is that any point, example, + or clarification I make that's specific to one of them is automatically + misleading for the other. + + The second problem is that, when I say Not Narrativist to the first, and + when the second mistakenly says Not Narrativist to me, then Narrativism as + a label gets misconstrued as "how Ron himself plays." + + I can't afford giving special consideration to these outlooks in this + essay. Otherwise I'd have to write three separate essays, two of them + piece-by-piece dismantling the respective bugaboos, and one "everyone else + essay." I've decided to reserve the customized discussions for the on-line + forums. + + What it ain't + + The following misunderstandings only arise from exposure to the + role-playing subculture, as distinct from the activity. I'll have more to + say about that later in the essay. + + 1. The so-called Storyteller rules-set is not especially, nor even + partly, facilitative toward Narrativist play. Furthermore, I have + observed only a decided minority of White Wolf play that can be called + Narrativist, usually involving considerable rules-Drift. + + 2 (related). Adhering to published metaplot which is intended to surprise + and involve players in tandem with their characters, or any similar + one-hand-on-rudder for the crucial story decisions, will not facilitate + Narrativist play. + + 1. The number of textual rules involved, as well as how much the rules + must be consulted during play, are irrelevant. "Narrativist? Must be + rules-light!" is just one of those little humps to get over. + + 2. Focusing on single Techniques to define Narrativism will not yield + understanding. For instance, Drama resolution is not in and of itself + Narrativist. Nor are the common use of improvisation, trading of + narration, and overt Director stance, in and of themselves, + Narrativist play. + + 3. Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a + complete red herring. People daily address Premise without + self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need + to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing + Narrativist. Laws' term "conscious" and my "mindful" only refer to the + attention to and social reinforcement of the process - not to + self-analytical or abstract discussion about the content. + + 4. Narrativist play doesn't force a "separation" from the imaginative + commitment to the role-playing. As the whole medium of Creative Agenda + is Exploration, you don't have to diminish Exploration at all during + Narrativist play. It is instead focused and heightened as the + mechanism for addressing Premise. + + 5. Depth and profundity of the Premise and/or theme are false variables. + The key issue is whether participants care enough to produce a point, + not whether the point is deep. + +Fundamental Techniques + + People's creative roles: what you do + + Narrativist play makes special use of the general role-playing principle + that the participants are simultaneously authors and audience. The common + metaphor of improvisational jazz applies quite well, better than any other + medium-comparison. "Entertainment," in role-playing in general and in + Narrativist play especially, does not flow from playwright to script to + production team to audience. Instead, the shared-imagining act = the + shared-performance act = the entertainment = the audience feedback. + + Role-playing texts are consistently very confusing about how conflicts and + resolutions are established in play, especially in games whose mechanics + and some features of their instructions suggest Narrativist play. "Prep + and plan carefully! But story never goes as planned, so be ready to change + and improvise!" What's that supposed to mean, from a Narrativist + perspective? + + I grappled with this in my own work - from the chapter "Fantastic + Adventure" in Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, author is Ron Edwards): + + The doctrine for Sorcerer & Sword relies ... on the following idea: - + Playing this game, for all concerned, means creating stories about one or + more heroic protagonists. - The player produces the protagonist's + decisions and thus directly creates the story. - The GM makes it possible + for such play to occur, and therefore has great power over events in the + game world. However, he or she does not determine the protagonists' + actions, and must fully respond to those actions when they do occur. + + Therefore, the GM cannot be considered "the narrator" or "the storyteller" + in any way, shape, or form. Such an entity exists as the outcome of the + GM-player interface and continuing creativity. His or her arbitrative role + in game events, as well as most of the Director power over time and space, + do remain. But the purpose of that role is inspiring and facilitating, not + dictating. + + That text is specific to Sorcerer, so it needs expanding into what the + term "GM" means in the first place, and how the answer is subordinate to + Creative Agenda - and in fact, is nothing more nor less than a Techniques + question for role-playing in general. + + I suggest that considering "the GM" to be either (a) necessarily one + person or (b) a specific and universally-consistent role is badly mistaken + - we are really talking about a set of potential behaviors (roles, tasks, + whatever) which may be independently centralized within or distributed + across a group of people. Here are some of those GM behaviors, roles, and + tasks: - rules-applier and interpreter, as in "referee" - in-game-world + time manager - changer of scenes - color provider - ensurer of protagonist + screen time - regulator of pacing (in real time) - authority over what + information can be acted upon by which characters - authority over + internal plausibility - "where the buck stops" in terms of establishing + the Explorative content - social manager of who gets to speak when + + A given role-playing experience must have these things - there is no such + thing as "GM-less" play. But which of these require(s) enforcing varies + greatly, as does whether they are concentrated into a particular person, + and as does whether that person is openly acknowledged as such. What + matters for Narrativist play, however, isn't any specific point in the + diversity-matrix of these variables - it's about what the person (or + persons) currently in the GM-role is responsible for. + + From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1997, author is Christian Aldridge): + + Narrative Tools + + ... The whole premise of role-playing is the freedom the players have to + take their characters in whatever direction they want. It is important to + maintain this free will, and not lead the players with a heavy hand down a + course only the narrator controls. Though the narrator may tell a good + story, it loses the rich creative spirit of role-playing if the players + have little say in what happens. + + Putting aside the synecdoche ("the whole premise," etc), two key features + show up in this passage as well as in the whole of the Maelstrom game + text. (1) No mention is made whatever of seeming to grant player control - + it's real freedom he's talking about. (2) The freedom is specifically over + what the character thinks is right and decides to do: the goal he or she + brings into the current imaginary situation. The GM ("narrator" in this + case) cannot wield any authority over what the characters are supposed to + want, which therefore extends to a similar lack of authority over how any + conflict during play is supposed to turn out. + + From Christopher Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit series of essays (1995, + originally published in White Wolf Inphobia #50-53): + + So, what are the differences between roleplaying games and Story + Entertainments? Let's start with roleplaying's GM (referee, Storyteller, + or whatever). This is usually the person who works out the plot, the world + and everything that isn't the players'. To a greater or lesser degree, she + is above the other players in importance, depending on the group's + temperament. In a Story Entertainment, she is just another player. + Distinctly different, but no more and no less than any other player. The + terms GM and referee fail to convey this spirit of equality. The term + Storyteller suggests that the players are passive listeners of her tale. + So here's another term for this participant - one that invokes the spirit + of Story Entertainment - Fifth Business. + + Fifth Business is a term that originates from European opera companies. A + character from Robertson Davies' novel, ... Fifth Business, describes the + term this way: + + "You cannot make a plot work without another man, and he is usually a + baritone, and he is called in the profession Fifth Business. You must have + a Fifth Business because he is the one who knows the secret of the hero's + birth, or comes to the assistance of the heroine when she thinks all is + lost, or keeps the hermitess in her cell, or may even be the cause of + someone's death, if that is part of the plot. The prima donna and the + tenor, the contralto and the basso, get all the best music and do all the + spectacular things, but you cannot manage the plot without the Fifth + Business!" + + This certainly sounds like the GM, but it also makes it clear that he's + part of the show, not the show itself. + + Let's call the players Leads. They're not players in the GM's game. + They're participants in a story. The Fifth Business has a lot more work to + do than do the Leads, changing costumes and shaping the story while it's + in progress. But the Leads are equal to the Fifth Business. The Leads must + react to the characters, incidents, and information that the Fifth + Business offers, just as players must react to what the GM offers in a + roleplaying game. But the Fifth Business must always be on his toes and + react to what the Leads offer. + + ... The Fifth Business can't decide what the plot is going to be and then + run the players through it like mice in a maze. The Leads determine the + direction of the story when they create their characters ... What do the + characters want? What are their goals? The story is about their attempt to + gain those goals. The Fifth Business creates obstacles to those goals. + + [From Part 3, "Character, character, character"] + + As the designer of the character you shouldn't simply depend on the Fifth + Business ... to provide you with trouble. You should look for trouble for + your character. ... + + Moreover, you know best of all what kind of problems you want for your + character. ... in a story entertainment you're not the passive passenger + in the gamemaster's roller coaster. You are a co-creator with Fifth + Business and the other players of a story. + + [From Part 4, "Running Story Entertainments"] + + Listen to the players, keep in mind the idea of obstacles, mix up volatile + characters and objects, and remember you don't have to know where you're + going. No roleplaying game ever follows the "path" of the story anyway, so + a story entertainment just dismisses the whole notion of adventure. Rather + than become frustrated when the characters don't do what they're supposed + to, let them lead the story with their Characters' Goals. + + It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing + context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given + player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person + (as in Universalis), it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. + "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another + person's ability to do this. + +Protagonism + + In all role-playing, the player-character is the lens of the Creative + Agenda at work. That's right, I said all role-playing. + + * Simulationist = the character "fits" - its setting, capabilities, + outcomes, behavior patterns, and so on, all reinforce the Dream for + everyone. + + * Gamist = the character is a direct opportunity for player-strategy. + Its construction doesn't hamstring the player (except with agreed-upon + handicaps) and permits him or her to Step On Up. + + * Narrativist = the character's predicament is how Premise is seen/felt + in full, and what he does, and what happens is how a theme is + realized. + + By definition, a character faces "relevant stress" for the Creative + Agenda. The term used most often for that is "adversity," and it is + required in all three modes of play. Without it, there is no Situation. + Without Situation, there's no role-playing, just sitting around and + diddling. You can tell when this happens: everyone stops paying attention + to one another, and quite likely the one person talking is only paying + attention to himself or herself. Adversity, which may come from any + participant during play, is the key. + + Now we run into a conceptual tangle. In literary terms, if there's a + story, there's one or more protagonists. Since story can arise from any + sort of role-playing, then protagonism of the relevant character comes + with that, part and parcel. However, "protagonism" at the Forge as + discussed most frequently by Paul Czege, tends to focus on very specific + processes of play: those which prompt Premise-addressing interest in a + given character among all of the real-person participants; in other words, + a specifically Narrativist process. + + That's a real terminological conundrum. I shudder at the thought of + co-opting the term "protagonist" into anything besides the fictional + context of a story, regardless of how it was produced. However, I also + want to preserve Paul's point that people may establish emotional, + relatively high-stakes connections to other people's player-characters. + But neither are restricted to Narrativist play. + + Fortunately, for discussing Narrativist play by itself, the two things are + one and the same. Which means I shall happily relegate debate about the + term in a larger (all of role-playing) sense to the forums and neatly + dodge it for purposes of the essay. + + So let's talk about Narrativist protagonism and how it's established, + starting with the adversity. From Sorcerer (Adept Press, 2001, author is + Ron Edwards): + + GET TO THE BANGS! + + Bangs are those moments when the characters realize they have a problem + right now and have to get moving to deal with it. It can be as simple as a + hellacious demon crashing through the skylight and attacking the + characters or as subtle as the voice of the long-dead murder victim + answering when they call the number they found in the new murder victim's + pockets. + + But that needed clarifying, so from Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, + author is Ron Edwards): + + Driving with Bangs ... how is the poor GM able to assure any happenings + when he or she is no longer the primary author? + + ... It is the GM's job to present and, for lack of a better word, drive + Bangs, in the sense of driving a nail or driving something home. In + narrative terms, Bangs tend to come as one of the following: [list follows + with details; to summarize: crisis to crisis, twist to twist, link to + link, locale to locale - RE] + + Ultimately, all of these elements provided by the GM are the same thing: a + means for moving from decision to decision on the part of the players. + Bangs are always about player-character responses. + + This is why Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues + in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters + is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next + room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next + clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his + or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops + the player-character as a hero. + + In Sex & Sorcery (2003), I presented some further terms to represent + multiple-person input and some other nuances into the Bang concept: Bobs, + Weavings, Crosses, and Openings; all are listed in the glossary following + this essay. + + Aside from a lack of adversity, the other issue regarding protagonism is + the problem of de-protagonizing, a term coined by Paul Czege. + Deprotagonizing literally means to deprive a person of the means to + express one of the bulleted points above (depending on the Creative Agenda + at hand; Paul is usually discussing Narrativist play). There are dozens of + ways to do that, and all of them are grounds for instant breaking of the + Social Contract for that play-experience. No one accepts deprotagonization + willingly; those bulleted points are heartfelt priorities at the very core + of Creative Agenda. As a minor but thought-provoking point, character + death is not deprotagonizing if it satisfies the Creative Agenda for that + person and group. + + Nearly all of the dysfunctional issues described later in the essay + concern deprotagonizing in the context of Narrativist play, which is best + defined as Force: the final authority that any person who is not playing a + particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that + player-character. This is distinct from information that the GM imparts or + chooses not to impart to play; I'm talking about the protagonists' + decisions and actions. In Narrativist play, using Force by definition + disrupts the Creative Agenda. + + Force techniques include IIEE manipulation, fudged/ignored rolls, + perception management, clue moving, scene framing as a form of reducing + options, directions as to character's actions using voiced and unvoiced + signals, modifying features of various NPCs during play, and authority + over using textual rules. The Golden Rule of White Wolf games is, in + application, a mandate for Force. + + Force Techniques often include permitting pseudo-decisions, which we can + discuss at the Forge if necessary. Also, Force Techniques do vary in how + flexible a scene's outcome is permitted to be. Some GMs (to use the + classic single-GM context) might do anything up to actually picking up + your dice for you in order for you to talk to "that guy," or he might let + the characters miss the clue, either 'porting it to another character or + letting its absence go ahead and affect the outcome. + +System - "it does matter" all over again + + Remember the System "bow" which shoots the Creative Agenda arrow? It must + be an active tool. The Explorative Situation must change with verve - + anything that introduces ebbs, flows, and unpredictable elements into the + real-person decision-making process. That's what System does, whether it's + composed entirely of dialogue or relies on pages and pages of probability + charts. How does it do it? Through the combinations of Techniques being + employed. + + I'll focus on one bit of System: resolution. I'll break it up into + Techniques regarding what exactly is being resolved. For Narrativist play, + the key is to focus on conflicts rather than tasks. A conflict statement + is, "I'm trying to kill him," or, "I'm trying to humiliate him," whereas a + task statement is, "I swing my sword at him." (It doesn't matter, by the + way, how much in-game time and space are involved; conflict resolution can + be "very small" and task resolution can be "very big." We can discuss this + more on-line.) I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that + the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, + is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing + Narrativist protagonism. + + How does this relate to game mechanics? I'll take the most-common example + of Fortune systems. The big distinction I want to make is between + Fortune-in-the-Middle and the more commonly-understood Fortune-at-the-End. + For the record, I think both go back to the very beginning of + role-playing; I didn't invent anything by naming them. + + Fortune-at-the-End: all variables, descriptions, and in-game actions are + known, accounted for, and fixed before the Fortune system is brought into + action. It acts as a "closer" of whatever deal was struck that called for + resolution. A "miss" in such a system indicates, literally, a miss. The + announced blow was attempted, which is to say, it was also perceived to + have had a chance to hit by the character, was aimed, and was put into + motion. It just didn't connect at the last micro-second. + + Fortune-in-the-Middle: the Fortune system is brought in partway through + figuring out "what happens," to the extent that specific actions may be + left completely unknown until after we see how they worked out. Let's say + a character with a sword attacks some guy with a spear. The point is to + announce the character's basic approach and intent, and then to roll. A + missed roll in this situation tells us the goal failed. Now the group is + open to discussing just how it happened from the beginning of the action + being initiated. Usually, instead of the typical description that you + "swing and miss," because the "swing" was assumed to be in action before + the dice could be rolled at all, the narration now can be anything from + "the guy holds you off from striking range with the spearpoint" to "your + swing is dead-on but you slip a bit." Or it could be a plain vanilla miss + because the guy's better than you. The point is that the narration of what + happens "reaches back" to the initation of the action, not just the + action's final micro-second. + + There's a whole spectrum of extreme connect/disconnect between conflict + and task. At one end, the task does fail, but the goal fails too, perhaps + with a nuance or two. The other end is much wider in interpretative scope: + we know the character's goal (killing some guy) doesn't happen, but with + those in place, narration takes over to provide all the events involved. + Applying different judgments along this spectrum, for different parts of + play, is a big deal in games like Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Sorcerer, and + HeroQuest. In Sorcerer, failing a dice roll means failing the goal, almost + always due to failing at the task; in Dust Devils, certain card outcomes + dictate that you fail at the goal, but whether the task failed or + succeeded within that context is entirely up for grabs and determined by + that scene's designated narrator. HeroQuest and Trollbabe permit the group + to customize between these extremes as they see fit for that scene. + + Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates + Narrativist play in a number of ways. + + * It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the + moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent + goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel + fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too. + + * It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from + scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene + B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same + in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience + of the action. + + * It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or + whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens + in tandem with the real-people statements. + + Not all versions of this principle are alike. Some of them involve + scene-scale resolution (Story Engine), some involve narration-trading + (Dust Devils), some are heavily integrated with tactics (The Riddle of + Steel), and some of them require role-playing "bits" to justify + incorporating system features (The Dying Earth). + + Some Fortune-in-the-Middle applications give opportunities for tweaking + after the roll: usually, spending points of some kind after the dice have + hit the table to alter the effects. Some games have this feature and some + don't; Forge jargon calls such things "FitM with teeth" because such a + system forces the group to acknowledge that the dice do not "finish" the + job of resolution. + + Does Fortune-in-the-Middle define Narrativism? No, nor does it even + facilitate it in isolation. It's merely a strong component of many + Narrativist-facilitating combinations of Techniques; I've left its + potential integration with reward and behavioral mechanics out of this + discussion. + + Is there such a thing as Fortune-at-the-beginning? Playtesting so far + indicates that it's not very satisfying for Narrativist play; see + discussions at the Forge of Human Wreckage and The World the Flesh and the + Devil. + + Is Fortune the only resolution method for conflict resolution? The answer + is emphatically no. The two main alternatives are apparently Karma + + Resource management, which I consider to be underdeveloped at this point, + and highly-structured Drama, which may be investigated through Puppetland, + Soap, and to a lesser extent Universalis. + + The game world + + Since Exploration is best understood as a medium and tool in Narrativist + play, rather than a product itself, the role of "in game reality" needs + some review - not so much about who has authority over it (the usual + concern in Simulationist play), but what the heck it is. The answer is, + it's a medium and tool for addressing Premise, and nothing more at all. + + From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1994, author is Christian Aldridge): + + Literal vs. Conceptual + + A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the + scene, instead of literalisms. ... focus on the intent behind the scene + and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the + task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in + terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm + spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the + danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates + the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It + is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how + hard the feat is for the character. ... If the players enjoy the challenge + of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed + the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the + narrative flow and enjoyment of the game. + + The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the + character's abilities ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table + and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump + over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story. + + The "doesn't interfere" matches to my "prioritization." The "narrative + flow and enjoyment" matches to addressing Premise. The "whole point of the + story" and "intent behind the scene" are Premise itself, expressed in this + scene as a Bang. More topically, I can think of no better text to explain + the vast difference between playing the games RuneQuest and HeroQuest. + + Stance + + A lot of mental sweat has been shed to try to link Stances with modes and + goals of play. I think most of that discussion was misguided by an overly + 1:1 approach. In my big model as currently constructed, only combinations + of Ephemera comprise a Technique, so we're not talking about one Stance in + a given moment, but the distribution of Stances through multiple character + actions, decisions, and scenes. And that's only one Technique, which is + not enough to dictate or identify Creative Agenda. + + Bearing all that in mind, Author Stance may be considered the default for + Narrativist play only in the sense that it needs to be in there somewhere. + Narrativist play doesn't have to be exclusively in this Stance, nor does + it even have to be employed more often than the others. The only + requirement is that it be present in a significant way. Narrativist play + is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the + player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for + what that character does. + + Narration the non-issue + + Before going on, I'll take a quick break to discuss "narration," which is + no more and no less than saying what happens in the imaginary events. I + want to distinguish saying what happens (narrating) from establishing what + happens (currently a non-named concept), because they are often confused. + I'm taking the + + I'll break it down. + + * Narration is not a Drama mechanic unless it is literally the means of + resolution. + + * Narration is in practice shared among members of a role-playing group + and far less centralized than most people think. + + The only concern about narration per se is that its relationship to + establishing-what-happens must be clear. That entails that how things are + established is itself clear: is it ad-lib? is the GM where the buck stops? + is it traded about, organized in any way? or what? Those are good + questions, but once they're established, narration is a no-brainer. + + Game texts are typically astonishingly bad at explaining this issue. + Positive exceptions for Narrativist-leaning games include Soap, The Pool, + and Universalis, and other recent games like InSpectres, Otherkind, Dust + Devils, Trollbabe, and Donjon, which all distribute narration around the + group as a means of distributing who establishes what. + +Historical diversity of Narrativist play + + Narrativist play-procedures are pretty scattered in terms of actual game + books. I suggest that titles and texts are really just rustles in the + bushes, such that one has to infer the actual play that either informed + them or might have proceeded from them. For most of what follows, I've + spoken with game designers and many, many play-groups about these issues. + + I think that Narrativist play goes back to the beginning of role-playing. + Yes, a "non-Narrativism" shroud descended over role-playing design and + publishing, but I think that dates from the mid-late 1980s. In other + words, the "Narrativist revolution" of 2000-2003 is not an innovation, but + a return to a lost art. + + Looking at earlier games from a Techniques perspective, a shift to + Narrativist play within the larger Gamist context is apparent in some + Tunnels & Trolls, as discusssed in "Gamism: Step On Up". I also recommend + reading and playing Marvel Super Heroes, reviewing the entire Strike Force + text in light of the 1st and 2nd editions of Champions being used by that + group, reviewing the extensive documentation of Champions play presented + in the APA-zine The Clobberin Times', and giving Toon, Ghostbusters, and + James Bond a try. I am not saying "These are Narrativist games," but + rather, evidence supports the claim that these rules-sets supported some + Narrativist play back then. + + I do not think that the strong minority trend beginning in the very late + 1980s toward Drama-heavy role-playing represented by Amber, Theatrix, and + The Window was especially Narrativist in application, although that mode + of play was probably found in some groups playing these games. This trend + is better understood in combination with games like Fudge and Risus, and + most especially in terms of the Mind's Eye Theatre approach to LARPs. + + During the early 1990s, however, a certain approach to numbers and Fortune + became apparent across a number of games: Prince Valiant, Over the Edge + (especially in light of Laws' essay), Castle Falkenstein, Everway, + Maelstrom/Story Engine, Zero, and The Whispering Vault. Later, similar + games include Sorcerer, Orkworld, and The Riddle of Steel. All of these + texts demonstrate an internal struggle to articulate means of addressing + Premise, littered with trip-ups based on assumptions of GM-power and the + utter lack of precedent in explaining the whole idea. Some of them slammed + toward Simulationist texts upon second-edition revision and via + supplements, probably to make it "more like an RPG." + + The internet revealed something vastly more startling: in-your-nose + Narrativist designs like Ghost Light, Soap, InSpectres, and The Pool, as + well as their Gamist cousin Elfs. These games' influence was vast at the + Forge, including but not limited to Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Otherkind, + Paladin, Violence Future, My Life with Master, and Universalis, along with + further Gamist cousins like Donjon. The internet also revealed active + play-communities that had previously been invisible to store-centered + commerce, including Marvel Super Heroes among others. + + Since the historical trends are so textually diffuse, I think that this + section will do better to focus on procedural diversity, small point by + small point. Each point presents a separate and independent spectrum of + variation. As always, game titles are used only to refer to the actual + play that they best seem to facilitate. + +Basic diversity of Narrativist play + + Making it up in play vs. setting it up beforehand + + A lot of people have mistakenly interpreted the word "Narrativist" for + "making it up as we go." Neither this nor anything like it is definitional + for Narrativist play, but it is indeed an important issue for role-playing + of any kind. So it's not a bad idea simply to ask, for a given group or + session, when and how is the Explorative context (setting, situation, + whatever) established? + + * High improvisation during play: e.g., Universalis, InSpectres, Extreme + Vengeance + + * Rock steady based on preparation - Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein, + HeroQuest, Sorcerer + + * In between - Trollbabe, The Pool, Dust Devils, My Life with Master + + Many people get unnecessarily hung up on this issue ... playing + Universalis is not "more Narrativist" than playing Orkworld, for instance. + Also, this issue is not at all correlated with centralizing vs. + distributing the various GM-tasks discussed previously. + + Where little Premises come from + + Given that Explorative content for Narrativist play exists to provide meat + for addressing a Premise, it shouldn't be surprising that differing + starting points for the process can be found depending on what kind of + details and efforts are involved in preparing for play. + + Just as in Gamist play, the big gorilla of the five Explorative elements + is Situation. What I'm contrasting here is which elements begin detailed + enough to yield Situation relatively quickly during play, as opposed to + which ones can be "relaxed" in terms of detail and depth at the start, to + be developed later. + + * Character-based Premise: Characters begin play with at least one + significant Premise-based decision in their backgrounds. + + * Setting-based Premise: External adversity swarms upon the characters + based on unavoidable, often large-scale elements of the overall + setting. + + * Situation-based Premise: The immediate conflict at hand is already + under way and rich with Premise; fill in Character goals and Setting + justification as needed during play. + + I suggest that it's useful to reduce the pre-play effort on the other + elements involved. Loading too many of them with Premise prior to play + yields a messy and unworkable play-situation in Narrativist terms, in + which characters' drives and external adversity are too full to develop + off of or to reinforce one another. More discussion and debate about this + issue may be taken up at the Forge. + + Character-based Premise is the easiest to implement, and unsurprisingly it + reflects Egri's ideas in full. Games whose design relies on this approach + include Zero, Sorcerer, Dust Devils, and The Riddle of Steel, among many + others. I think this form of Premise-building is probably the most common + form of Drifting to Narrativist play. From the "Campaigning" chapter and + "The Developing Campaign" section in Strike Force (Hero Games, 1988, + author is Aaron Allston): + + THE "CHARACTER STORY" + + One thing that each Champions GM needs to learn to do is to spot, + carefully nurture, and eventually play out the "Character Story." + + Each player-character has a Story above and beyond the ordinary adventures + encountered during the course of the campaign. This Character Story + usually involves the resolution of the most important desires of the + character. + + Phosphene - Discovery of and Acceptance by Family. Raised by a single + parent and knowing of no other relatives, Phos started his career cynical + and alone. Learning that he had a family, the enigmatic Brood, he + discovered that he had a tremendous need to become one of them. Eventually + he met all his surviving relatives and earned the affection of most of + them. Now married and a family man himself, his personal story is + resolved. + + Lorelei - Growth into Womanhood. In the course of her years of playing, + Lorelei grew from a 15-year-old innocent into a mature woman and team + leader; the most important elements of transition (other than the years + involved) were her romance with Commodore and her eventual rescue of and + reunion with her father. + + Take a look at your own character - or at all the PCs if you're the GM - + and try to root out the Character Story of each one. [examples follow - + RE] In short, try to figure out what element of the character's + background, relations, or psychology make him interesting but will + eventually make him (or his player) frustrated and unhappy if not + ultimately resolved. That's the Character Story. + + An interesting qualifier shows up in the final paragraph of this section: + + Of course, no campaign lasts long enough for every Character Story to be + discovered and exploited ... + + ... which I think is a bizarre statement, possibly related to the idea + (which I remember all too well) that Champions players should all + cooperate to preserve the group regardless of their differing goals during + play. + + The final section in this chapter indicates, I think the key point - which + is only presented parenthetically in the earlier text (above - "or his + player"). + + LISTENING TO YOUR PLAYERS + + Always listen to your players' discussion of the ongoing adventure. + They'll constantly be analyzing, theorizing, and commenting on the + adventure. Often, their discussion will give you even better ideas than + those you've been implementing. + + Also, pay attention to the recurring phrase, "It might be neat if ..." The + player who is saying this, whether he realizes it or not, is expressing a + desire about a future storyline or character development. Usually it's + easy to accomodate him, and gives him a more personal interest in that + specific plotline. + + I consider this important because it acknowledges that the developing + Premise is best recognized by the people who play the protagonists. + + Setting-based Premise is a bit more developmental, usually involving + "someone else's problem" or an overriding external adversity of some kind + - zombie attack being perhaps the most basic example. It might actually be + a bit better for introducing Simulationist-by-habit players to Narrativist + play, as they can start with sketchy characters and grow into addressing a + pretty-well-defined Premise over time. From HeroQuest (Issaries Inc, 2003, + primary text author is Greg Stafford): + + Make Your Own Part + + All heroes are extraordinary and destined for some fame in the world of + Glorantha. This is guaranteed, since they are individually guided by a + higher power: you, the player. + + Your heroes will have the chance to be involved in the great events of the + Hero Wars, such as [several colorful examples - RE]. Such events are not + only for the super-powerful; they require the participation of your hero + at whatever level of power he has achieved. + + [just past halfway through the book - RE] + + Drama + + Drama in Glorantha often comes from the conflict between what is and what + ought to be. Living up to expectations of cult behavior, for instance, is + meant to be difficult and limiting. After all, religious requirements are + not human ideals. [Wow! Talk about an Egri Premise! - RE] The intensity of + the plot comes from the hero trying to fulfil these expectations while + living with the everyday temptations and complications of life: a cow is + missing, some of your clan died in a raid, your children are ominously + ill, or neighbors are poaching the hunting lands. Add to this the + imperative of the Hero Wars, where some things will happen no matter what + the heroes do, and the heroes have to make difficult choices about what to + do and who [sic] to aid. + + [and near the end - RE] + + Politics, Always Politics + + Glorantha may be a world of magic and myth, but there are some human + constants that remain, not the least of which is politics. [examples + follow of politics both as rivalries and means to social authority and + respect - RE] + + The Hero Wars are breaking upon Glorantha. On the one hand, they are + throwing old alliances into question, tearing established communities + apart, and raising new dilemmas for leaders and led alike. But they are + also creating new and unexpected communities, as rivals are forced into + partnership by new threats or novel opportunities. + + I don't think I've ever seen a more challenging Premise in a role-playing + text than "religious requirements are not human ideals." That is HeroQuest + in a nutshell, and there is no avoiding it during play. A character may + begin as just another goat-herder, but he isn't going to stay that way. + Other games with similar origins of Premise include Castle Falkenstein and + My Life with Master, in which the Master is, for all intents and purposes, + the setting. + + Situation-based Premise is perhaps the easiest to manage as GM, as + player-characters are well-defined and shallow, and the setting is vague + although potentially quite colorful. The Premise has little to do with + either in the long-term; it's localized to a given moment of conflict. + Play often proceeds from one small-scale conflict to another, + episodically. Good examples of games based on this idea include Prince + Valiant, The Dying Earth, and InSpectres. From The Dying Earth (2001, + Pelgrane Press, authors are Robin Laws, John Snead, and Peter Freeman): + + Many Dying Earth stories revolve around a closed community, which may be + either a small settlement or an isolated workplace. In its isolation, it + has developed its own highly-structured, sometimes legalistic, always + peculiar rules. Without outside influence, and with the stout enforcement + of its codes, the group has survived for a long time. When the protagonist + arrives, the locals try to enforce the rules on him, assimilating him into + their bizarre system. Instead, the hero ... takes action which utterly + disrupts the delicately-balanced harmony of the community. ... the + community, the basis of its rules destroyed, collapses. + + [now for play] + + When creating an adventure, dream up a bizarre rule or activity on which a + community's existence depends. Figure out at least one way in which the + PCs could wreak havoc on the community by disrupting the activity or + subverting the rule. + + Then create a reason for the PCs to do so ... [actually, the entire + character creation process for this game takes care of this detail - RE] + + The point is that the Situation doesn't have any particular role or + importance to the Setting, either in terms of where it comes from or what + happens later. The setting can be quite vague and might even just be a + gray haze that characters are presumed to have travelled through in order + to have encountered this new Situation. + + This type of Premise does carry some risks: (1) the possibility of a + certain repetition from event to event, but probably nothing that you + wouldn't find in other situation-first narrative media, which is to say + serial fiction of any kind; (2) the heightened possibility of producing + pastiche; and (3) the heightened possibility of shifting to Gamist play. + +Deep diversity + + Who gets the GM jobs + + Earlier, I listed some of the various roles and tasks usually associated + with the term "GM." As I said, the question is not whether there is a GM + (there is always one or more for any scene during play), but rather how + the GMing tasks are distributed. The potential range of diversity is + staggering. The most important variables include: - Which of these roles + are most important to be formalized for this game - Whether the roles are + centralized in one person - The concept of "the buck" - in the event that + different people suggest different things, who says what goes + + In the interest of space and keeping the complexity of these sections + limited, I'll only provide examples for the centralization-issue. - + Centralized: The Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, Orkworld, Castle Falkenstein, + HeroQuest, The Dying Earth - Widely distributed: Universalis, Soap - In + between: Trollbabe, The Pool, InSpectres, Dust Devils, Violence Future + + Story structure + + Classically, a story has the following structure: (a) introduce character + and situation, (b) introduce conflict, (c) rising conflict, (d) climax, + and (e) resolution, of which (a, b, d) are the key pieces. Most stories + indeed follow this model regardless of their chronological presentation, + point-of-view, or any other details. There's usually no particular worry + that Narrativist play will fail to produce a story (of whatever quality), + without any overt effort to force it. However, it is also at least + possible for overall story structure to be part of System. + + Sorcerer presented the Kicker Technique, which is to say, a + player-authored Bang included in character creation, giving the GM + responsibility to make it central to play. It may be considered the + precise opposite of the "character hook" concept presented in many + adventure scenarios and role-playing games. + + Some recent games feature the Endgame concept: a status for a character + (and sometimes all characters) that signals "Now is really Now," and it's + time for Premise to become theme without dilly-dallying. I suppose it can + first be seen in Soap and Puppetland based on these games' explicit + real-time constraints, but it's also embedded in the Guts/Coincidence + mechanics in Extreme Vengeance, the "Schism" version of Humanity in + Sorcerer, and the Insight mechanics in The Riddle of Steel. It's most + explicitly present in Violence Future and My Life with Master. + + A similar structural issue is to decide how much Premise-addressing + (story, if you will) has already occurred before in-play decision-making + begins. At one extreme, you have "Blood Opera," which is to say, several + characters already engaged in serious committed effort to do + something-or-other, usually contradictory. Such play, regardless of how + many sessions are involved, tends to end up with several dead protagonists + and plenty of tragedy due to conflicting obligations and/or + misunderstandings; it's quite cathartic. Typically it's more satisfying + when all of the participants are enlisted in scenario preparation. At the + other extreme, you have play in which the Premise is introduced very + slowly and piecemeal, through a variety of scenes and events. + + Here are some interesting trends which crop up along this spectrum: + + * When the character's judgmental and active presence is established and + already in action as play begins, that beginning point is usually the + crisis-point for the story in general. Playing Legends of Alyria, + Prince Valiant, My Life with Master, and Soap tends toward this end; + all of them carry a slight danger of "over before they begin," but + they are also the most reliable for immediate Premise-consensus. + + * When the Situation is well-established prior to play and essentially + independent of the player-characters, then how they encounter it and + become enlisted in its hassles is up for grabs, including when they + arrive. The protagonists usually play a catalytic role toward everyone + and everything else. Playing Everway, The Dying Earth, InSpectres, + Orkworld, The Whispering Vault, and Trollbabe is a lot like this. + + * When the Situation must slowly develop into Premise, play is + necessarily extended into multiple sessions. Playing Sorcerer, + HeroQuest, Dust Devils, Violence Future, and Over the Edge often + proceeds in this fashion, to the extent that the first couple of + sessions resemble the first sections of a classical novel rather than + a movie or play, and they tend not to show off all of their most + satisfying features during single-session demonstration play. + + Not all game designs must fall onto this spectrum explicitly, although + play does - I leave the different ways to place playing The Pool, + Universalis, and The Riddle of Steel onto the spectrum as an exercise for + the reader (hint: there are three answers, one for each game). + + Finally, another subtle enforcer of story structure is the range of + possible focus, or specification, for player-characters' abilities. It + doesn't surprise me that many Narrativist-facilitating game designs don't + distinguish very much among player-characters' abilities (Sorcerer, The + Dying Earth, and My Life with Master characters are all pretty much alike + within each game, mechanically); when they are so distinguished, however, + the differences tend to lock down the range of the potential Premise(s) + during play. + + So the most constrained story-structure game design would include Endgame + mechanics, an almost-over Situation, and strongly-distinguished abilties + (and hence story-roles) among the protagonists; interestingly, I can think + of no RPG design which features all three. + + Resolution and reward mechanics + + For Narrativist play, character creation may be considered the first step + in or the chassis for the reward and character-change systems. It differs + from the similar principle in Gamism in that personal strategy is not an + issue, but rather personal emotional agenda about the Premise. What's + interesting is that when play includes a focused reward system in + Narrativist terms, its numbers and effects are always integrated directly + into the event-resolution system. + + One whole category of play, however, does not provide any special + connection between the two and usually doesn't include much of a reward + system at all. Earlier games of this sort include The Window (partly), + Theatrix, Over the Edge, Castle Falkenstein, The World the Flesh and the + Devil, and possibly Puppetland. I think Soap, InSpectres, and Universalis + represent a development in this category of stronger IIEE-structure, as + well as providing a very abstract resolution + reward mechanic, but + retaining the Drama emphasis for resolution. These games also feature + pronounced GM-sharing as distinct from the earlier ones. + + The other category includes very strong reward mechanics design based on + character decisions, with resolution based on Fortune in the Middle in + order to preserve Author Stance during those decisions. Example games + include Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, Zero, The Pool, Sorcerer, + Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Legends of Alyria, My Life with Master, HeroQuest, + and Orkworld, as well as The Riddle of Steel in a cunning fashion. + + A recent development in both categories is to bring relationships into the + game mechanics to a very high degree, as in HeroQuest, Trollbabe, and My + Life with Master. Earlier versions of this idea may be seen in Albedo, + Lace & Steel, and Pendragon, but its primarily-Narrativist application is + recent and very significant. + + Character behavior mechanics + + This topic is potentially rather a sore point among role-players, unless + they have experienced play which shows the diverse strong points along the + entire spectrum. It concerns how limited characters' behavior may be. + + At one end of this spectrum, there's nothing of the kind: just contextual + material that prompts the issues and perhaps a character descriptor here + or there. The primary engine for Narrativist play is purely personal + fascination with the issues at hand and with working them out. Castle + Falkenstein, The Whispering Vault, and Over the Edge are good examples. + + Moving just a little over, characters' behavioral descriptors are + required, but they don't have any special role in determining what the + character does - except for providing secondary bonuses to some resolution + events, as in The Pool and HeroQuest. + + Moving well toward the other end of the spectrum, specific behaviors have + generalized consequence mechanics. Sorcerer, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, The + Riddle of Steel, and Orkworld are all examples - the characters have free + will regarding what to do, but immediate mechanics provide significant + effects. + + Far at the other end of the spectrum, behavior is heavily structured, for + either or both character-creation and scenario-play. This kind of game + often entails playing "against yourself" for the character, and the GM is + potentially semi-adversarial, even ruthless, playing both external and + internal adversity. Examples include Wuthering Heights, Extreme Vengeance, + Violence Future, My Life with Master, Le Mon Mouri, InSpectres, Otherkind, + and The Dying Earth. "Schism", "Urge", and other sorcerer/demon + combination versions of Sorcerer effectively shift the game's play into + this category. + + Procedural diversity: thematic content + + Given that theme arises during Narrativist play, what does it look like, + and how limited or well-defined is it? This breaks down into three + independent issues, all of which are pretty subtle and deserve more + discussion. + + 1. The potential for personal risk and disclosure among the real people + involved. + + * High risk play is best represented by playing Sorcerer, Le Mon + Mouri, InSpectres, Zero, or Violence Future. You're putting your + ego on the line with this stuff, as genre conventions cannot help + you; the other people in play are going to learn a lot about who + you are. + + * Low risk play is best represented by playing Castle Falkenstein, + Wuthering Heights, The Dying Earth, or Prince Valiant. These + games are, for lack of a better word, "lighter" or perhaps more + whimsical - they do raise issues and may include extreme content, + but play-decisions tend to be less self-revealing. + + 2. The depth and profundity of the resulting themes. Counter to my lousy + phrasing in GNS and related matters of role-playing theory + ([21]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), "literary merit" of a + theme is irrelevant. Themes are indeed important, and I suggest that + two broad categories are available: cathartic vs. deconstructive, with + the former splitting up into happy-ending, sad-ending, and ambiguous. + A related point concerns the range of the possible themes for a given + play-instance, from narrow to broad. I'll forego providing game + examples as the depth and range of theme rely very greatly on the + given play-group's use of the game. + + 3. The humorous content. This is, in many ways, a red herring. I consider + "funny" always to be a secondary phenomenon, perhaps modifying theme, + or modifying something else entirely. For GNS or other theory + purposes, you have to look at the something else and discuss that + first. Still, there are a couple of points worth mentioning for + role-playing. + + * Is play itself funny, or is the topic of play funny? This is a + very complex issue, fully analogous to the endless discussions of + fear and suspense in horror role-playing. + + * Is the humor acting to bring participants' emotions closer to the + Premise, or to distance them? + +GNS crossover issues + + I suggest that historically, two basic Creative Agendas have been + perceived for role-playing: 1. Gamist, with the sub-set of Hard Core + Gamism; 2. Simulationist, with a sub-set of + Simulationist-becomes-Narrativist. + + Oh, I know, people never used the GNS terms for this purpose. But this is + how newcomers to the theory often read the terms, indicating their current + understanding, and those readings are fully consistent with the + explanations of play found in hundreds of game texts. I consider this + dichotomy, sub-sets and all, to be badly mistaken, but before I get to + that, let's take a look at its cultural results. + + Over time, as I see it, many practitioners and designers correctly + realized they were playing and promoting + Simulationist-becomes-"Narrativist," in quotes. Those quotes mean, + producing stories mainly through front-loading or post-editing, not + through protagonist decision-making as run by the players. They mean + focusing on story as product as opposed to Narrativist play. Reactions to + this latter insight have varied widely, and they include: + + * Abandon the perceived overall mode (Simulationism) entirely for Gamist + pastures; + + * Embrace the Simulationism and drop any pretense at story-creation + through play, such that story is at most an epiphenomenon to the + Exploration, usually of Setting; + + * Embrace the quotes in the "Narrativist" with verve, putting as much + effort and sophistication toward metaplot and GM-driven-story as + possible; + + * Give up role-playing in disgust with the inability to produce + Narrativist play without the quotes; + + * Mute down any particular Creative Agenda, making sure to provide a + little Gamist candy, in the interests of group harmony; + + * Drop the quotes around the "Narrativist," which means abandoning + Simulationism as a starting point and turning to explicit Narrativism. + + My construction of the modes of play is extremely different. As I see it, + one starts with [Exploration]. Now, either prioritize the intensity of + imagining some specific content as the agenda of play, which gives you + [E[Simulationism]], or develop the Exploration into a further-derived + agenda, which gives the choice of [E[Narrativism]] or [E[Gamism]]. + + Gamism and Narrativism + + As I've tried to show at various points so far, Gamist and Narrativist + play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same + range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ + primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated + socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, + therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come + into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other. + + From the Introduction section of The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game + (Marvel Entertainment Group, 2003, "Direct Edition," authors not credited, + editor is Mark D. Beazley): + + Style of Play + + You can play Marvel in a variety of styles, based on whatever you're + interested in. Most roleplaying games tend to fall somewhere between two + styles of play that we call "Clobberin' Time" and "Power and + Responsibility." And for one-on-one play, there's always "Brawling," a + style unique to this game. + + Power and Responsibility + + ... players spend a great deal of time on things like character + development, morality, thoughts and goals ... They care about the other + people in their lives, like girlfriends or boyfriends, aunts, sidekicks, + and non-Super Hero friends. ... there's more to this style of play than + busting things up. + + Clobberin' Time + + ... players don't spend much time on their characters' lifestyles. They + concentrate on action and plenty of it. + + Together, the players and the GamesMaster decide what style of game they + want to play. There is nothing more frustrating than a GamesMaster who + runs a "Power and Responsibility" style game for a bunch of "Clobberin' + Times" players. ... + + Brawling + + ... allows players to answer age-old questions: who would win in a fight, + the Thing or the Hulk? [further examples] ... two players can sit down + with their characters and fight against each other without needing a + GamesMaster. + + I can always quibble. I think the above text adheres a little too closely + to the mistaken dichotomies presented earlier, with the concomitant red + herring of combat vs. no combat. But it's flawless in terms of caring + together about what's up, and about socially constructing and reinforcing + what's up. And the key point for me is that the same game system is usable + alternatively for Narrativist or Gamist (or Hard Core Gamist) play, rather + than simultaneously. Also, the text includes very little mention of or + attention to Simulationist play per se. Enjoying "being a Marvel hero" in + this game is not Simulationist at all, but merely the foundational + Explorative expectation for either of the two focused options. + + Whether the Gamist and Narrativist modes may be played "congruently" is + controversial (see Congruence in the glossary). I remain skeptical. + + The grim epiphany: Narrativism and Simulationism + + This section supercedes the section "El Dorado and Drift" in my essay + "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" + ([22]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/). + + I'll begin by identifying a very common misconception: that if enjoyable + Exploration is identifiable during play, then play must be Simulationist + or at least partly so. This is profoundly mistaken: if you address + Premise, it's Narrativist play. Period. If the Exploration involved, no + matter how intensive, hones and focuses that addressing-Premise process, + then that Exploration is still Narrativist, not Simulationist. + + That's why Feng Shui and Hong Kong Action Theater are hard-core, + no-ambiguity Simulationist-facilitating games including their explicit + homage to specific cinematic stories, and that's why The Dying Earth + facilitates Narrativist play, because its Situations are loaded with the + requirement for satirical, judgmental input on the part of the players. + + "El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a + 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by + others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who + claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism + with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive + at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The + key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. + Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as + "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing + ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn + around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp. + + However, what about subordinate hybrids? Simulationist play works as an + underpinning to Narrativist play, insofar as bits or sub-scenes of play + can shift into extensive set-up or reinforcers for upcoming Bang-oriented + moments. It differs from the Explorative chassis for Narrativist play, + even an extensive one, in that one really has to stop addressing Premise + and focus on in-game causality per se. Such scenes or details can take on + an interest of their own, as with the many pages describing military + hardware in a Tom Clancy novel. It's a bit risky, as one can attract + (e.g.) hardware-nuts who care very little for Premise as well as + Premise-nuts who get bored by one too many hardware-pages, and end up + pleasing neither enough to attract them further. + + Historically, this approach has been poorly implemented in role-playing + texts, which swing into Simulationist phrasing extremely easily, for the + reasons I describe in "Simulationism: the Right to Dream". You cannot get + emergent Narrativist play specifically through putting more and more + effort into perfecting the Simulationism (which requires that the + Narrativism cease), no matter how "genre-faithful" or "character-faithful" + it may be. I consider most efforts in this direction to become reasonably + successful High-Concept Simulationism with a strong slant toward + Situation, mainly useful for enjoyable pastiche but not particularly for + Narrativist play at all. + + The key issue is System. Narrativist play is best understood as a powerful + integration and feedback between character creation and the reward system, + however they may work, in that the former is merely the first step of the + latter in terms of addressing Premise. Whereas the usual effect in + High-Concept Simulationist play is to "fix" player-characters + appropriately into the Situation for purposes of affirming the + story-as-conceived, especially in terms of varying effectiveness at + specific task-categories, and reward systems in these games are usually + diminished and delayed to the point of absence. Games which stumbled over + this issue include Fading Suns and Legend of the Five Rings, both of which + require extensive Drifting to achieve even halting Narrativist play + despite considerable thematic content. + + The more successful primarily-Narrativist, secondarily-Simulationist + hybrid designs include Obsidian, to some extent, possibly Continuum if I'm + reading it right, and The Riddle of Steel as the current shining light; I + also call attention to Robots & Rapiers, currently in development. + + How about the reverse? Can Narrativist play underlie and reinforce a + primarily Simulationist approach? I consider this to be a very interesting + question, because it's not like Gamism in this regard at all. What happens + when Premise is addressed sporadically, or develops so slowly that the + majority of play is like those hardware-pages? Whether this is "slow + Narrativism" or "S-N-S" or just plain dysfunctional play is a matter of + specific instances, I think. But I do want to stress that it's not the + "N/S blend" as commonly construed, which is to say, both priorities firing + as equal pals. + +Dysfunctional Narrativist play + + GNS incompatibility + + It is very easy to spot players who are disinclined toward Narrativist + play, but nevertheless want a story to be produced, in a group that favors + Narrativist-oriented play. They write up rich and intense characters on + paper, but in play, they're paralyzed. They can posture towards one + another, and they can defend against attack, and they can spot clues, beat + up mooks, and band together against a common threat like nobody's + business, but only on the basis of GM cues. In an otherwise Narrativist + group, they are black hole voids for addressing Premise, and typically + they don't continue playing with that group for long. + + More subtle and more likely to be sustained are Narrativist-oriented + participants in largely non-Narrativist games. They practice "stealth" + play to get what they want, usually through making suggestions to the + authority in the group, often practicing a lot of trade-off negotiation. A + skilled stealther can sometimes become a significant co-GM as long as he + or she doesn't call attention to the influence. Stealthers tend to do a + lot of waiting. + + Less happily, such a player in a game with a strong + Simulationist/Situation bent is in big trouble and vice versa, especially + when the group is committed to Illusionist Techniques. Illusionism is a + widespread technique of play and arguably, textually, the most supported + approach to the hobby, as testified most recently by the publication + Secrets of Game-mastering (2002, Atlas Games). It relies on Force, as + defined earlier in the essay. GMing with lots of covert Force is called + Illusionism. I call that the Black Curtain; if the Curtain is drawn, then + the players aren't immediately clued in about the presence and extent of + the Force itself. + + Force (Illusionist or not) isn't necessarily dyfunctional: it works well + when the GM's main role is to make sure that the transcript ends up being + a story, with little pressure or expectation for the players to do so + beyond accepting the GM's Techniques. I think that a shared "agreement to + be deceived" is typically involved, i.e., the players agree not to look + behind the Black Curtain. I suggest that people who like Illusionist play + are very good at establishing and abiding by their tolerable degree of + Force, and Secrets of Gamemastering seems to bear that out as the + perceived main issue of satisfactory role-playing per se. + + Producing a story via Force Techniques means that play must shift fully to + Simulationist play. "Story" becomes Explored Situation, the character + "works" insofar as he or she fits in, and the player's enjoyment arises + from contributing to that fitting-in. However, for the Narrativist player, + the issue is not the Curtain at all, but the Force. Force-based Techniques + are pure poison for Narrativist play and vice versa. The GM (or a person + currently in that role) can provide substantial input, notably adversity + and Weaving, but not specific protagonist decisions and actions; that is + the very essence of deprotagonizing Narrativist play. + + Get just one Story Now player into an Illusionist group, and the game + becomes a battlefield for control and story creation. I consider this to + be one of the worst instances of high-level GNS incompatibility, because + it typically doesn't resolve itself through a clean parting of the ways. + As long as the people involved buy into the false notion that Narrativist + play is a subset of the Simulationist aesthetic, then the war will not + end, as they wave their "integrity of the story" flags at one another in + the mistaken belief that they share aesthetic goals. + + It all becomes much clearer when the Gamism-Narrativism similarity is + acknowledged. No one in their right mind permits a fully-committed Gamist + into a Simulationist-Situation role-playing group, and the same goes for + fully-committed Narrativist participants, for the same reasons. + + Ouija-board role-playing + + Here's another outcome for the faulty Simulationist-makes-Narrativism + approach. Actually, it's the same phenomenon as + Simulationism-makes-Gamism, which I discussed in "Gamism: Step On Up" + ([23]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) as "the bitterest role-player + in the world." I consider the Narrativist version to be the "most deluded + role-player in the world." + + How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and + numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on + the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette + around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment, + someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the + planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own + power. + + Taking this idea to role-playing, the deluded notion is that Simulationist + play will yield Story Now play without any specific attention on anyone's + part to do so. The primary issue is to maintain the facade that "No one + guides the planchette!" The participants must be devoted to the notion + that stories don't need authors; they emerge from some ineffable + confluence of Exploration per se. It's kind of a weird Illusionism + perpetrated on one another, with everyone putting enormous value on + maintaining the Black Curtain between them and everyone else. Typically, + groups who play this way have been together for a very long time. + + My call is, you get what you play for. Can you address Premise this way? + Sure, on the monkeys-might-fly-out-my-butt principle. But the key to + un-premeditated artistry of this sort (cutup fiction, splatter painting, + cinema verite) is to know what to throw out, and role-playing does not + include that option, at least not very easily. Participants in Ouija-board + play do so through selective remembering. I have observed many such + role-players to refer to hours of unequivocally bored and contentious play + as "awesome!" given a week or two for mental editing. + + What I see from such groups is the following: + + * They use a highly customized house-version of a given rules-set, + usually AD&D, BRP, or an early edition of Champions; many of the + customized details are unrecorded. + + * They employ a personalized set of subtle cues and expectations that + arise out of their long-term friendships and habits of play. + + * The satisfaction-moments are rare to the extent of being perhaps a + yearly event. "Nothing happened tonight" is typical, but the group + believes that you don't legitimately get the cherished moments any + other way. Such moments are treasured and carefully repeated among + them. + + * Rarely, another person participates and (horrors!) actually overtly + moves the planchette, or discusses how it's being moved. That person + is instantly ejected, with cries of "powergamer!" and "pushy bastard!" + + * They're socially isolated from other role-players, as their play is so + arcane and impenetrable that no one else can easily participate. If + they go to cons, they go together, stay together, and leave together. + One of them buys a new game that "looks good," and they rarely if ever + try it, always rejecting it when they do. + + * They're socially isolated not only from gamers, but from everyone, + insofar as their hobby is concerned. Forget social context; it's just + these guys, aging, playing their tweaked versions of the game they + discovered in high school, reminiscing about that one awesome time + when character X did that awesome thing. + + Ouija-board groups vary in terms of how much fun they have, and I'll leave + further discussion of the phenomenon to the forums. + + Minor issues within Narrativist play + + The first minor issue is not really a big deal - simply, not everyone is + necessarily a whiz at addressing Premise even when they try. If they were, + we'd see a hell of a lot more great novels, comics, movies, and plays than + we do. Signs of "hack Narrativism" include backing off from unexpected + opportunities to address Premise or consistently swinging play into parody + versions of the issues involved. I don't see any particular reason to + bemoan or criticize this bit of dysfunction; all art forms have their + Sunday practitioners. + + The second is a recent phenomenon: the "do it right" purists, often + recently made aware of GNS or other theories, who then get on their fellow + participants' cases during play to accord with some theoretical ideal. + It's usually accompanied by the fallacy of focusing on one or more + Techniques as the "real" Narrativism. + + The third was mentioned earlier, based on the tendency for pre-game + preparation to develop Situation so far along the process of addressing + Premise, that the participants' input during play essentially delivers + only the final moments. I call such play "96%-ing," which can be + functional, but it tends to play safe to a degree that undercuts the + process. + + The fourth is maintaining privacy among the participants about what's + important to each one, whether about one's own character or the characters + of others. Such play might be thought of as keeping Premise personal and + close to the vest. That privacy may detract from others' enjoyment, + although see Ouija-board role-playing below for some further thoughts. + + The final minor problem is to resolve play-Situations rapidly and without + developing them much beyond the initial preparatory circumstances: "over + before it begins." This typically occurs when people are so floored by the + possibility of actually addressing a Premise through play, that they hare + off to do so before some RPG god notices and intervenes to stop them. + Usually, this sort of play is a short-lived phase as the group builds + trust with one another. + + Bad apple Narrativists + + All of this section concerns Narrativist play which is practically + guaranteed to be dysfunctional. It's really one thing, but it comes in two + versions depending on whether the person in question is acting as GM. + + The non-GM version is the Prima Donna, a devoted Premise-addresser - but + what he can't do is share. If a given scene is not about the issue that he + cares about, he disrupts things until it is. If his character is present + in a scene, then he'll demand center stage until forcibly stopped. He + understands protagonism, but won't permit anyone else to have it. + Essentially, he's the equivalent of the Hard Core Gamist, but with a + significant difference: only one person can do it successfully; it can't + even spread through the group. Prima Donnas are obnoxious, selfish, and + pushy. Their typical fate is to be removed from a group or to become its + GM (often to the present GM's consternation), in which latter case to + become a Typhoid Mary. + + What's a Typhoid Mary? Well may you ask. It's a would-be Narrativist GM + who uses tons of Force upon the player-characters. He introduces the + Premise and is emotionally invested in how the players are supposed to + address it, to the extent that he makes their characters' significant + decisions for them. Effectively, this means the other people are present + only to praise and reflect the GM's ego. Play amounts to "we tell the + story, but I'm writing it" - he continually demands that the players + appreciate his Narrativist aesthetic, but suppresses the same aesthetic in + their behavior. He prioritizes and insists upon Premise-addressing input + yet makes it subject to his approval. + + Such play is appallingly unrewarding and is rightly labeled railroading. + To sustain it, the Typhoid Mary must exert primary dominance over all + aspects of the Social Contract, which is usually not possible among + adults. I can think of no more effective means of ensuring that other + people never role-play again, than encountering a Typhoid Mary. Also, + unsurprisingly, get one Narrativist player with a spine in that game, and + it's root hog or die, the worst Force-vs.-Narrativist duel possible - such + conflicts have been known to disrupt romances, friendships, and even jobs + and marriages. + +Narrativist game design + + One reason I presented the big model of role-playing in this essay is to + say, game texts are no more nor less than recommendations, manuals, and + inspirational materials for play. For such texts to be effective, they + need to be clear and inspiring for all the levels in the model. I think + that Social Contract always comes first. Most especially for Narrativist + play, which has been textually marginalized throughout the hobby's + history, the game-rules' focus must expand to social and procedural + behavior at the table, not merely the Techniques subsets of scene and + conflict resolution. + + What to do + + I wrote a pretty sketchy little game in the early 1990s called "BSL," or + Bullshit-Less. You know what my friends said? "You can't read this like + you read a game book. To enjoy it, you'd have to play!" Much to my + surprise, that was a stone-wall stopping point for them. I had a terrible + time coming up with what they'd need to know in order to make that step + easily and quickly. I think that whatever a role-player is best at is the + last thing on earth that occurs to him or her to write about, and + Narrativist-oriented authors are especially in a jam, as they lack + precedents and examples. + + Looking over the diversity I listed earlier, I realize that an effective + manual or teaching text was Terra Incognita for Narrativist play until + very recently. Sorcerer, for example, was not written as a teaching text + for a general role-playing audience, although its supplements were. Now, + however, we have InSpectres, Dust Devils, My Life with Master, the three + Sorcerer supplements, Universalis, Trollbabe, Legends of Alyria, + HeroQuest, and more, all representing individual attempts. (I will leave + the very interesting question of why Everway failed in this regard to + future discussions.) + + So, the goal is to work through the big model, probably from the top down. + For a Narrativist-oriented game, the touchpoint throughout should always + be, what's the Premise? I think stating it right out in front of everybody + is the best way to go, or a version which is easily customized further. An + alternative might be to inspire the Premise through + Exploration-discussion, but it's risky - doing that usually works only for + Situation-based Premise games, like The Dying Earth. + + Let's look at that diversity again. Where does Premise come from? How much + do you have to work with, and how much improvisation is involved during + play itself? Is the story underway yet, and how close are the + decision/crisis points? Where's the spin in the System? Dice? Others' + input? Any negotiation/trading? IIEE must be dead bang center with what + you're driving at; does the reward system feed back into protagonism? + Prompt Endgame? Shift GMing roles? Or what? What does actual play look + like, in terms of Ephemera-combinations clustering to create and/or + support Techniques? + +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + Basic Source of GM Jobs: Story Resolution Behavior Thematic Content*: + Content: Premise Distribution Structure: and Reward: Mechanics: Risk factor; + Improv among Endings, See spectrum See depth; humor + vs. rock participants e.g. in essay spectrum + steady in essay + Sorcerer Steady Character Spread in Encouraged Connected: Middle High risk High + prep, by reward Short term depth Occasional + centralized system bonuses humor + in play Destiny and + goals in + Sorc & Sword + TROS Steady Character Centralized Varies by Connected: Middle Potential/variable + prep Spiritual risk Mild to + Attributes medium depth + Low/absent humor + Universalis Improv Varies Fully spread Varies by Fully Mild to Varies by group in + out prep identical none all three + (coins) + MLWM In Setting Mostly Fixed Connected: Extreme High risk Fixed + between centralized endgame Net medium depth Humor + consequences as defense + = Epilogue + HeroQuest Steady Setting Centralized None Fully Mild to Medium risk + identical middle Extreme depth Mild + but inescapable + humor + The Steady Situation Centralized Fixed Almost no Mild to High risk + Whispering conflict connection none Medium-low depth + Vault Low/absent humor + The Pool In Varies Mostly Varies by Fully Mild to Low risk, usually + between centralized prep identical none Mild if any depth + (dice) Humor varies by + group + InSpectres Improv Situation Partly Fixed Extremely Middle to High risk + centralized, conflict connected: strong Medium/fixed depth + with Stress and High humor + specific resources + non-GM input + moments + Castle Steady Setting Centralized None Almost no Mild to Low risk + Falkenstein connection none Low/variable depth + Occasional humor +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + * Yes, this column is highly personal. Please feel free to fill it in + with your own assessments based on your play-experiences. + + Some food for thought: constraints + + A whole critique of the role of constraint in creativity is probably + beyond my powers, but I can't over-emphasize how important it's been in my + experiences of design, preparation, and satisfaction in any creative + endeavor. For role-playing, I think a designer should consider constraints + to be his or her most important ally: elements which, once established, + remain fixed and actively inform a whole suite of possibilities for the + future. Whether they concern Currency (e.g. Universalis), outcomes of + resolution (e.g. Sorcerer, The Riddle of Steel), character creation + options, behavioral choices, Setting, or whatever, strikes me as the + primary issue for designing games of any kind, and Narrativist goals need + them desperately. + + I foresee a whole slew of threads discussing the difference between + "restraint" and "constraint," so here I'll only bring up how effective + Paul Czege's decision to constrain Setting is for My Life with Master. + Once you know "about 1805, central Europe, isolated village," the doors + are thrown open to bring maximum creativity to bear on the key issues of + the game. For whatever reason, I think that this aspect of the game text + makes the rest, especially the tricky wide-open parts like "More Than + Human," much easier. By comparison, the designs of Dust Devils and + Sorcerer are currently a bit hampered by their wide-open settings, which I + now think require a little too much group-based customizing. Or, at the + opposite extreme, Trollbabe does provide the Setting constraint, but it's + so subculturally focused (you get it or you don't) as to limit access to + the game. My Life with Master provides not only the focus, but also a + topic which raises the same issues for practically anyone who encounters + it. Furthermore, as Paul says, if someone wants to change the setting, + they'll do it - but they're able to do so all the better because the + textual setting made sense to them. + + Pitfalls of Narrativist game design + + 1. The Timid Virgin. The reasonably successful Narrativist-leaning GM is + writing a game, and suddenly experiences a loss of nerve - he visualizes + all those other players out there who obviously don't play in this + fashion. One result is a kind of "but-but" motorboat effect scattered + through the generally Simulationist-reading text: admonishments to keep + non-GM participants from screwing up the apparently-Narrativist goals, + usually by pleading, scolding, or imposing sudden and apparently + out-of-place limits on the players' authority to provide input. Good + examples include Little Fears, The Burning Wheel, Fvlminata, and The Dying + Earth. + + Another sort of Timid Virgin effect is a full spin toward Force Techniques + in isolated spots, which is less schizoid in terms of the reading + experience, but perhaps more confusing in the long run. Sorcerer, Everway, + Zero, Prince Valiant, and The Whispering Vault all have this bi-polar + problem, which I think characterizes many early-to-mid-90s game texts. + + 2. Karaoke. This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell + thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's + say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a + few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a + hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters. + Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme + in the text, in detail. + + From Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1994; author is Jonathan Tweet): + + How to Use the Setting + + When I first played OTE, it was on about ten minutes' notice. I had some + notes on major background conspiracies, a few images of various scenes, + and a primitive version of the current mechanics. No map, no descriptions + of businesses, people, places, or any of the other useful tidbits that are + crammed into the previous two chapters. [He ain't kidding, and actually + it's the previous four chapters, 152 pages total, in the second edition - + RE] Naturally I winged it. + + That night were born Total Taxi, Giovanni's Cab's [sic], Cesar's Hotel, + and Sad Mary's, all now landmarks in the Edge. Things just happened. I + faked it. Since there's nothing that couldn't happen, anything I dreamt up + was OK. + + Now, however, you have a background explaining who, what, where, and when. + You're in a completely different situation from where I was back on that + first manic evening. + + [The rest of the section concerns converting the reader-GM's in-play + mistakes about the canonical setting into opportunities, as well as + altering it to taste; the suggestion that he may instead put himself + directly into Tweet's improvisational shoes at the outset is, to my eyes, + vividly absent - RE] + + [several pages later] Could vs. Should + + ... The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the + background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not + having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination + loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background + prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard + for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to + what I've dreamed up, it's a curse. + + All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" + and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 + extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that + improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. + I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so + wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming + during play ... and since the players were a core source during this + event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play + ... then why present the results of the play-experience as the material + for another person's experience? + + 3. Metaplot. From Sorcerer & Sword (Adept Press, 2001, author is Ron + Edwards): + + Metaplot. The solution most offered by role-playing games is a + supplement-driven metaplot: a sequence of events in the game-world which + are published chronologically, revealing "the story" to all GMs and + expecting everyone to apply these events in their individual sessions. + These published events include the outcomes of world-shaking conflicts as + well as individual relationships among the company-provided NPCs involved + in these conflicts. + + Metaplot of this sort, whether generated by a GM or a game publisher, is + antithetical to the entire purpose of Sorcerer & Sword. Almost inevitably, + it creates a series of game products that pretend to be supplements for + play but are really a series of short stories and novels starring the + authors' beloved and central NPCs. The role of the individual play group + in those stories is much like that of karaoke singers, rather than + creative musicians. + + Metaplot is central to the design of several White Wolf games, especially + Mage; all AEG games; post-first-edition Traveller; AD&D'2, beginning with + the Forgotten Realms series; as well as others. Nearly all of them are + perceived as setting-focused games, and to many role-players, they 'define + role-playing with strong Setting. + + However, neither Setting-based Premise nor a complex Setting history + necessarily entails metaplot, as I'm using the term anyway. The best + example is afforded by Glorantha: an extremely rich setting with history + in place not only for the past, but for the future of play. The magical + world of Glorantha will be destroyed and reborn into a relatively mundane + new existence, because of the Hero Wars. Many key events during the + process are fixed, such as the Dragonrise of 1625. Why isn't this + metaplot? + + Because none of the above represent decisions made by player-characters; + they only provide context for them. The players know all about the + upcoming events prior to play. The key issue is this: in playing in (say) + a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended + to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only + through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a + crucial message from one NPC to another), the less they provide + theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. Whereas in playing HeroQuest, + there's no secret: the Hero Wars are here, and the more everyone enjoys + and knows the canonical future events, the more they can provide theme + through their characters' decisions during those events. + + In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest + following the full-disclosure lead of HeroQuest and abandoning the + metaplot "revelation" approach immediately. + + 4. Sole reliance on deepening and detailing any aspects of Exploration is + misguided. The vast majority of attempted Narrativist design is a hunt for + the perfect Simulationist design that will ostensibly permit the + Narrativist play to emerge, leading to abashedness at best. It's often + combined with mistaking an effectiveness-improvement mechanic for a reward + system - at this point, the game text simply facilitates High-Concept + Simulationist play, and the Narrativist goal is left to Social Contract + alone. Various publishing practices, especially a long string of scenario + and setting supplememnts, provide the coffin nails. + + 5. Going "no system," especially for IIEE aspects of play, combines the + undermining aspects of both of the above two approaches, especially when + the author idealizes story as a product rather than Narrativist play as a + process. Don't forget, all role-playing has a system; turning it over to + "oh, just decide and have fun" merely makes the system crappy and prone to + bullying. + + Frankly, un-structured Drama turns out to be ill-suited to Narrativist + play. It's clear why people turn to it so consistently; years of suffering + through task-resolution systems that fail to resolve conflict, with the + attendant Simulationist creep of rules-revisions during the 1980s, is + enough to put any aspirant Narrativist off of "rules" and "systems." + + The Window (latest version 1997, author is Scott Lininger) makes a brave + attempt at this approach to play: + + You see, after trying what seems like a million different systems during + our own series of roleplaying games (perhaps you've seen this, too), we + slowly realized that no matter what rules we were using, the interaction + between the characters essentially ran the same. No matter what rules we + were using, the combat always moved along with the same ultimate effects: + it was just a question of how long it took to get there. Even the + character creation worked in the same way, or at least was visualized in + the same way. + + As it was, our style had become more important to us than the system. We + spent many times the creative energy developing the world and our + characters than we did figuring up percentages, regardless of the genre we + chose. It wasn't the individual stats and skills that made us love our + characters, rather it was their actions and their personalities and how + they fit into the overall story. + + The only time we really noticed which rules were being used was when they + somehow got in the way, as they inevitably did! That was the seed. We + decided that it was time for a system that would stay in the background... + be invisible as a pane of glass... + + There are plenty of explicit Narrativist goals stated in The Window, + especially its Third Precept: + + This is a big idea, though a simple one. It starts with the realization + that the actors and the Storyteller are all cooperating toward the same + goal: If everyone takes equal responsibility for the quality of the story + then all will benefit when it really starts working. + + There are times when a good actor will let go of their own ego and let the + story take precedence over their character. There are times when a good + Storyteller will allow the actors to narrate scenes. The days of rival + camps delineated by a GM screen are over. Though obviously the + Storyteller's vision is what creates the seeds of roleplaying, nothing + much will grow without the actors' input. An open, out of character dialog + about the direction of the story should be maintained so that the + Storyteller knows what's working and what's not. + + Strive for originality in all things. Your characters, their actions, and + their contribution to the narrative are totally up to you to decide, and + the essence of roleplaying is a creative one. Don't allow yourself to fall + back on stereotypes, and remember that what you create when you sit down + to roleplay is totally unique to you and your group of friends. The story + you mutually envision should be your own. + + The Window includes a dice-rolling mechanic, but most of its resolution is + handled through Drama, with or without the rolls. Unfortunately, the + unstructured-Drama system of the game is anything but invisible - it must + be redefined and "referenced" at every moment of play. Contrary to popular + belief, it demonstrates the highest Points of Contact of any sort of + role-playing. Furthermore, it's the one mode of attempted Narrativist play + which fails to prioritize or organize protagonism. It mistakenly asssumes + that narration yields Narrativism, and that constraints on narration are + necessarily restraints on Narrativist play. + + What's the problem with this? Why am I being so harshly critical? It all + goes back to Force - if establishing the IIEE circumstances is under one + person's control, without reference to any System features, then scenes' + outcomes become the province of that person. Which in turn means that the + decisions and actions of player-characters are now details of this one + person's decisions. Narrativist de-protagonism is the near-inevitable + result. + + 6. Fleeing to Social Contract to solve everything. Some designers, + enthralled by the idea that input does not have to be restricted to or + filtered through a central person, rely on the hope that everyone feels + like contributing extra-protagonist content at any given moment. + Unfortunately, this creates a "dead ball" effect in which one must create, + on the spot, both adversity and its resolution from whole cloth. People + apparently prefer a fair amount of context and constraint in order to + provide input instead. + + A related tendency is to rely on restraint, stating or implying that "good + players wouldn't do that!" I suggest two alternative approaches: (1) that + System provide "rebound" or consequences to make the variety of choices + interesting, and (2) stating explict Creative Agenda expectations up + front. + + The biggest pitfall of all, though, needs a section of its own. + + The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast + + All right, here we go. This section represents a different angle of attack + for me - I'm not discussing System or mechanics design at all, just the + "how to role-play" texts. Some of the following games have, in my view, + very focused Creative Agenda content in contrast to these sections; other + games, not listed or discussed, are comparatively muddled in procedural + terms but have crystal-clear "how-to" sections. So this is entirely about + the "how-to" text, nothing else. + + From Space: 1889 (1988, GDW Inc, author is Frank Chadwick): + + Each adventure is a story, and the player characters are its heroes, but + with an important distinction: Their actions are not determined by an + author, but rather by the players themselves. + + [From the chapter "The Referee"] + + ... it is a good idea to conduct as many of the event resolution die rolls + as possible yourself and then announce the results. This makes the game + seem less mechanical to the players and enables you [to] add a secret die + roll modifier here or there to make things come out right without anyone + being the wiser. [Elsewhere in the text it is specified that this section + applies to critical events for the story - RE] + + From Traveller (1996, Imperium Games Inc., authors are Marc Miller, Lester + Smith, Tony Lee) + + The Players + + Like a novel author or an actor in a drama, each player in a role-playing + game creates a persona, or character, to portray in the game ... the + player responds to the situation of the adventure as it unfolds, deciding + what the character would say or do in that situation. They don't just + watch the character, they choose the character's options. + + The Referee + + Management of the game is performed by a special player known as the + referee. ... Like the director of a movie, the referee judges what can and + cannot be accomplished in a particular scene. + + From Tsyk (1996, Propaganda Publishing, author is Serge Stelmack): + + Number Two: The personas are the property of the players. + + Tsyk is not about players versus the GM. It is about the cooperative + weaving of a tale that everybody can enjoy. It does not make sense to use + the powers of gamemastery to try and dominate the personas, or to be + spiteful over their successes in the game. + + Though it is the job of the GM to guide the characters through the + adventure, it is always the decisions of the players that dictate the + actions of the personas. + + From Agone (2001, Multisim Publishing, authors include Sebatian Celerin, + Mathieu Gaborin, Stephane Marsan, Frederic Weil, and others): + + ADVICE TO THE EG + + The role of the Eminence Grise is crucial. He is the balance-keeper of the + game. He must prepare - and often create from scratch - thrilling plots + and describe the settings and their inhabitants ... In short, he enables + the players to live a good heroic-fantasy adventure. He must create a tale + in which the players' characters have the lead roles, in which they can, + through their actions, bring the story to one end or another. + + In our world, the EG would be called a director or storyteller. Indeed, he + is simultaneously writer, director, and actor in a play or movie, which + improvises itself as hours of gameplay fly by. + + From Undiscovered (2001, Eilfin Publishing, authors include Adam D. + Theriault, Antonio da Rosa, Philip Theriault): + + Guiding Your Adventures + + Let the players control their own fate. Although it is your story, you + must follow the whims of the characters. It is, after all, their lives + they are playing out. The characters must have the freedom to choose their + own fates, not just do what the AG tells them to do. It is your job, + however, to guide the characters through the story you have created. + + What could any of this be saying? How is Entity A creating the tale, + guiding characters through the adventure, judging what can be accomplished + in a scene, making things come out right, and "your story" to be + reconciled with Entity B being "like a novel author," determining + characters' actions, bringing a story to an end, and having the lead + roles? As plain explanation, all such text is unmitigated nonsense. It's + such nonsense, that personalized readings that themselves make sense are + often projected onto it, as what the authors "must obviously" have meant. + Two such projections include: + + 1. Players of the protagonists always provide those characters' + decisions, especially climactic ones that drive the resolving scenes; + the GM-role is there to provide relevant adversity for everyone else, + e.g. managing scene framing, Bangs, and pacing. + + 2. The GM has the story decisions, i.e., wields substantial Force. + "Story" isn't coming from player decisions at all and may be + considered, itself, a piece of Explorative-material input from the GM. + Everyone else is providing color and material through + pseudo-decisions. + + Both of these are perfectly reasonable approaches to play. Don't mistake + your solution as justification for Impossible Thing game text. If a person + is stuck in the rhetoric of The Impossible Thing, he tends to seize his + personal solution and embrace it like a life-raft, rejecting any + examination of the Thing itself. + + No one is safe, apparently. From Maelstrom (Hubris Games, 1994, author is + Christian Aldridge): + + What happens in a game + + Characters will have goals they want to attain, and obstacles to overcome. + The story that the narrator creates will provide the setting and the plot. + In that plot the characters might stumble into adventure accidentally, or + become embroiled in international espionage, or choose to seek out fame + and fortune as tomb-robbers or pirates. The important point is that the + players author the tale through the actions of their characters. + + Gaaaahh! Right there in a book studded with some of the finest applied + Narrativist techniques known to role-playing, there it squats, pulsing! + Based on the rest of the text as well as my discussions with Aldridge, I + know the first "provide the story" in this excerpt indicates adversity; + the second ("author the tale") indicates Narrativist protagonism. But + without that distinction in mind, reading such explanations is agonizing; + one can see the author filling in phrases he is accustomed to seeing in + role-playing texts, then, clearly realizing he's written something he + didn't mean, correcting himself mid-paragraph, resulting in a + contradictory hash. + + As discussed earlier, the issue hinges on the super-big red herring called + "the plot, the story." It can mean so many things: - the NPCs' plan to do + something, which is irrelevant in GNS terms, as that's merely in-game + adversity, a staple of any role-playing. - given the definite article and + given a pre-player-decision context, it's absolutely anathema to + Narrativist play. - stripped of that article and given a purely post-play + context, it means nothing more than story, and is irrelevant for prep for + Narrativist play. + + It's also easy to get distracted by the word "GM." A person may have a + mental tautology going between "GM" and "power," with a corresponding + death-grip on his or her perceived responsibility to perform and + entertain. Once the term is understood to be a set of independent roles + which may be distributed differently across the participants, then the + whole thing becomes a lot easier. + + As far as game design and text is concerned, The Impossible Thing is easy + to avoid. All you have to do is be up-front about where and how those + GM-roles are distributed. If you're doing a solid Simulationist game with + a strong story emphasis via Force, say so and don't bleat about "players + control their characters' decisions" (see Call of Cthulhu and + Arrowflight). If you're doing a solid Narrativist game, keep Force out of + it entirely (see Dust Devils, InSpectres, and My Life with Master). + +The hard question + + I suggest that both Gamist and Narrativist priorities are clear and + automatic, with easy-to-see parallels in other activities and apparently + founded upon a lot of hardwiring in the human mind (or "psyche" or + "spirit" or whatever you want to call it). Whereas I think Simulationist + priorities must be trained - it is highly derived play, based mainly on + canonical fandom and focus on pastiche, and requires a great deal of + contextualized knowledge and stern social reinforcement. This training is + characterized by teaching people not to do what they're inclined to. No + one needs to learn how to role-play, but most do need to learn to play + Simulationist, by stifling their Gamist and/or Narrativist proclivities. + Such training is often quite harsh and may involve rewards and punishments + such as whether the person is "worthy" to be friends with the group + members. + + If the typical role-playing preferences among humans are Gamist and + Narrativist, then play based on these modes should be easy to pick up, + easy to spread, and easy to sell, and I think it is all three. However, + since the typical role-playing text and typical training is Simulationist, + the net effect is to bump the majority of interested people away from the + hobby after first contact, and to consolidate the Simulationist primacy in + all evident features of the hobby, as opposed to the potential ones. This + is one of several reasons why the hobby remains decidedly fringe. + + So the first question is, how about you? Are you Simulationist-by-habit, + which is to say, well-trained to this mode by the first group you + encountered? If so, is that what you really want? If so, then excellent. + But! If not, if you'd rather be addressing Premise, then you have a lot of + habits to break - perhaps even those which, in your mind, originally + defined the activity. + + The second, larger question is much like the Gamist one: why role-play for + this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium + like writing comics or novels or screenplays? Addressing Premise can be + done in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of artistic media. To play Narrativist, + you must be seizing role-playing, seeing some essential feature in the + medium itself, which demands that Premise be addressed in this way for you + and not another. What is that feature? If you can't see one, then maybe, + just maybe, you are slumming in this hobby because you're afraid you can't + hack it in a commercial artistic environment. Maybe you even hang with a + primarily-Simulationist group, with the minimal levels of satisfaction to + be gained among them, because it's safe there. + + But let's say you do answer that question, and hold your head up as a + Narrativist role-playing practitioner, addresser of Premise. Fine - now + you have to ask yourself whether you can handle artistic rejection. That's + right, no one might be interested in you. This is exactly what all + aspiring directors, screenwriters, novelists, and other practitioners of + narrative artistry face. In which case, you'll have to decide whether it's + because your worthy vision is unappreciated and should seek new + collaborators, or because your vision is simply lacking. It's not an easy + thing to deal with. + + But let's say that's all resolved too, and you are holding the brass ring: + successful and fulfilling Narrativist play with a great bunch of fellow + participants, fine and exciting content from your and the others' work, + and the sense of worthy artistry. Now for the final conundrum: what will + you sacrifice to sustain it? Maybe your spouse is tired of the time you + spend on this; maybe you and a fellow group member get a little too close; + maybe you decide your art would be even better if your best friend's sorry + ass was no longer gumming up the group's work. Can you make those sorts of + choices? Can you live with the results? + + Good luck with it. No one ever claimed that balls-to-the-wall artists were + necessarily easy to live with. + +Glossary + + The following terms continue the lists at the end of the essays + "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" + ([24]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/) and "Gamism: Step On Up" + ([25]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/), which themselves are + additions to the definitions given in "GNS and other matters of + role-playing theory" ([26]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/). Which is + a polite way of saying go look at all of them, for now. A complete + glossary is under way. + + Bangs + + Introducing events into the game which make a + thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary + for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer. + + Black Curtain + + My term for the techniques a GM may employ to keep his use of + Force hidden from the other participants in the game, such that + they are at least somewhat under the impression that their + characters' significant decisions are under their control. See + Illusionism. + + Blood Opera + + Play in which character generation focuses on potentially + irreconcilable differences among at least some of the characters, + and in which scenario generation is designed to put as much + pressure on these differences (and therefore on unexpected + alliances as possible). Notable for high mortality rates among + characters, in the manner of Reservoir Dogs. The term was coined + by Ralph Mazza, Jake Norwood, and myself after playing an + especially masochistic session of The Riddle of Steel during + Origins 2003. + + Bob (from Sex & Sorcery) + + Withholding response or otherwise mandating a "rest" in the + Premise-addressing action of play. + + Conflict resolution + + A technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on + conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within + that conflict. When using this technique, inanimate objects are + conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if + necessary. Contrast with Task resolution. + + Congruence + + Term coined by Walt Freitag to describe the theoretical + possibility of simultaneous play of different Creative Agendas + which, although fulfilling very different needs for their + employers, are also mutually supportive between those employers. + The existence of sustained congruence remains controversial. + + Cross (from Sex & Sorcery) + + Introducing effects from previous scenes into current scenes, + although the scenes do not contain the same protagonists. + + Deprotagonize (Paul Czege) + + To limit or devalue another person's opportunity to establish + their character as a protagonist during Narrativist play. Note + that this is specific to Paul's use of Protagonism strictly in the + limited Narrativist context. + + Egri, Lajos + + the author of The Art of Dramatic Writing (1946); see Premise. + + El Dorado + + Coined by Paul Czege, a term for the unrealizable ideal of + consistently addressing Premise through explicitly Simulationist + play. + + Force + + Originally called "GM-oomph" (Ron Edwards), then "GM-Force" (Mike + Holmes) - Control over the protagonist characters' + thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the + character's player. The Force is an especially good term for this + phenomenon, due to (1) its sense of imposed mandate and + strength-in-control (not just input), and (2) its parodic Star + Wars connotation - whatever you want the plot to be, "use the + Force!" + + Ouija-board role-playing + + Coined by me in this essay, a form of Illusionism practiced among + all the participants upon one another to conceal both Step On Up + and Story Now priorities from one another. + + Pastiche + + An artistic production which relies on invoking pre-existing + productions' features for its primary effect; at worst, a simple + imitation, but at best, potentially a strong secondary commentator + on the original text. Often associated with "fanfic" or other + forms of homage. + + Premise (adapted from Egri) + + A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early + in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is + best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological + challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. + Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story + transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how + to act, behave, or believe. + + Prima Donna + + A Narrativist player who engages in Premise-addressing, but will + not share screen time or Premise-significant decision-making time + with other participants. An extremely dysfunctional subset of + Narrativist play. + + Protagonism + + A problematic term with two possible meanings. (A) A + characteristic of the main characters of stories, regardless of + who produced the stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set + of behaviors among people during role-playing, associated with + Narrativist play, with a necessary equivalent in Gamist play and + possible and Simulationist play. + + Railroading + + Control of a player-character's decisions by the GM, or + opportunities for decisions, in any way which breaks the Social + Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player. + + Simulationist-by-habit (Jesse Burneko) + + A form of synecdoche which defines "role-playing" according to + certain historically-widespread Simulationist approaches to play." + The system's job is to provide the physics of the game-world" is a + good example. + + Story + + an imaginary series of events which includes at least one + protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be + construed as a resolution of the conflict. + + Story Now + + a mode, or Creative Agenda, in which Premise is addressed through + play. The epiphenomenal outcome for the transcript is almost + always a story. + + Task resolution + + a technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on + within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the + acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with + Conflict resolution. + + Transcript + + an account of the imaginary events of play without reference to + any role-playing procedures. A transcript may or may not be a + story. + + Transition (coined by Fang Langford) + + Changing from one Creative Agenda to another through the course of + play using rules designed to make that process easy. + + Typhoid Mary + + A GM who employs Force in the interests of "a better story," + usually identifiable as addressing Premise; however, in doing so, + the GM automatically de-protagonizes Narrativist players and + therefore undercuts his or her own priorities of play, as well as + being perceived as a railroader by the players. An extremely + dysfunctional subset of Narrativist play. + + Vanilla Narrativism: Narrativist play without notable use of the following + techniques + + Director Stance, atypical distribution of GM tasks, verbalizing + the Premise in abstract terms, overt rules concerning narration, + and improvised additions to the setting or situations. People who + typically play in this fashion often fail to recognize themselves + as Narrativists. + + Weave (from Sex & Sorcery) + + A GM technique of bringing NPC activities closer to the + player-characters and to introduce multiple responses among NPC + and player-character actions. + + -------------------------------------------------------------------------- + + Last updated 29-Jan-2004 09:56:35 CDT + + The Forge created and administrated by [27]Clinton R. Nixon and [28]Ron + Edwards. + All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their + designated author. + +References + + Visible links + 1. file:/// + 2. file:///about/ + 3. file:///donate.php + 4. file:///articles/ + 5. file:///reviews/ + 6. file:///resources/ + 7. file:/// + 8. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com + 9. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 10. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 11. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ + 12. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8655 + 13. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/ + 14. http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/ + 15. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/ + 16. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 17. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 18. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 19. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 20. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1 + 21. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 22. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 23. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ + 24. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/ + 25. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ + 26. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/ + 27. mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com + 28. mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com