What's narrativist about Zero RPG?
lumpley:
Quote from: mcv on February 11, 2009, 01:02:25 PM
I sometimes do have some theme or engaging question in mind when I design a character, but once designed, I play him (almost) entirely from the character's own motivation, rather than mine. If I did my work right, the theme or question will come out. But what I'm doing is still mostly Sim, I think.
Nope! No sim at all. That's a perfectly good, easy, common, and natural way to do Story Now.
Deep in-character roleplaying is fully compatible with all of the creative agendas.
Hey, I have a request for you. I'm not the content mod, that's Ron, so just take this as the friendly request of a guy who's had this conversation a lot before. Please, if you can, use the current correct names for the creative agendas: Step on Up, Story Now and the Right to Dream. I think you'll find, especially, that "the Right to Dream" won't actively mislead you and others the way "simulationism" is doing.
-Vincent
mcv:
You know what's really frustrating? I just explained to my wife what counterintuitive concept I just grasped, and before I finish talking, she finishes my sentence. What took me weeks, she understands in seconds, despite her having no roleplay experience whatsoever and wanting to have nothing to do with it.
She did come with some management theory and psychology, and from that point of view, she's extremely Simulationist and would send Narrativists on a training program.
Just thought I'd share that bit with you.
Anyway, back to my original question: what's narrativist about Zero? Allow me to make a guess:
The characters' history and personality in Zero is just too weird and freaky. You can't roleplay someone with no identity, no sense of self. There is no personality on which to base decisions. Instead, you address the issue of what makes a personality, what shapes your individuality, and you have the problems, dilemmas and decisions in the game shape your character's personality.
Of course that's not necessarily about moral dilemmas. I mean, you can still approach moral dilemmas from the viewpoint of your character, and that's still simulationist, not narrativist. You can have simulationism with moral dilemmas. What makes it narrativist is instead of tackling the dillemma's through your character, you're tackling your character through the dilemmas.
Is that it? Or is it close, at least?
lumpley:
I know absolutely nothing about Zero, so I can't answer about that. All I can answer about is narrativism.
Quote from: mcv on February 11, 2009, 02:20:45 PM
I mean, you can still approach moral dilemmas from the viewpoint of your character, and that's still simulationist, not narrativist.
Nope! Approaching things - anything, including moral dilemmas - from the viewpoint of your character is perfectly compatible with both Story Now play and the Right to Dream play.
Does your roleplaying have something to say about human beings (sometimes shortened to "moral dilemma")? Do you take on the question actively in play? Then it's Story Now. If you take on the question actively in play but limit yourself only to the viewpoint of your character, that's fine - you've still got the thing, and you're still taking it on. Thus: Story Now.
-Vincent
greyorm:
Greetings, MCV. Welcome to the Forge! Let me interject quick with an observation of two of the underlying issues that are making this difficult.
One of the problems is your use of the "moral dilemma" idea -- I know where you're coming from, and the problem is your idea of what that encompasses is too narrow, I'm betting tied to a right/wrong or "hard choice" conception. "What does individuality mean?" is a premise/moral dilemma. That those are the same thing may not make sense unless you're familiar with authorial terminology and usage/understanding, so how about you stick with "premise" and forget "moral dilemma" for the moment. (In fact, you might go back through all your answers and swap out "moral dilemma" for "premise" then see if your questions still make sense or if your own answers/ideas change.)
Another problem I've noticed is a consistent confusion between Technique and Agenda -- and while it has been explained a couple times, I don't think what that really means has come through for you. Simply: ALL Techniques can be used for ANY Agenda. So when you say, "If I do this thing, say deep character immersion, is that Narrativism, or is that Simulationism?" the answer is "Might be." When you ask "Does rolling the dice this way make that Simulationist or Gamist?" the answer is "Might be."
The very same thing goes for "Is this game a Narrativist game? Is this a Simulationist game?" It COULD be. If it supports that Agenda. You know that premise I just mentioned? That's built into Zero. The game is literally ABOUT that...but that doesn't necessarily have to be explored in play. You could play Zero as a big old survivalist dungeon-crawl. This is because games aren't X-type game, they're X-facilitating games.
Quote
3. Luke needs to hit that deathstar
Is exactly the opposite of Narrativism. Whether or not Luke hits that Deathstar can not be a given. If he fails to do it, THAT has to say something about the premise as well. Otherwise, who cares if he hits or not? Also Star Wars is FULL of premise (this ties back to problem #1 above).
Per Fischer:
Quote from: greyorm on February 11, 2009, 02:47:19 PM
Quote
3. Luke needs to hit that deathstar
Is exactly the opposite of Narrativism. Whether or not Luke hits that Deathstar can not be a given. If he fails to do it, THAT has to say something about the premise as well. Otherwise, who cares if he hits or not? Also Star Wars is FULL of premise (this ties back to problem #1 above).
This is important - I think Fred said quite the opposite earlier on in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, Fred. But this, THIS, is addressing premise right there and of course we don't know the outcome, that's the whole point. If I played with a "right to dream" I'd know m character would succeed, even if he turned of the targeting computer.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page