What's narrativist about Zero RPG?
JB:
I can't offer much help in regards to answering the question posed in the title of this thread, as I also know less than zero about Zero.
McV did mention Serenity RPG as a possible example of a narrativist game though, and I can say a little something about why/how Serenity isn't narrativist. Seems like we've likely moved beyond that on this thread though, and I don't want to threadjack, so I'll refrain unless it'd help to clarify what narrativeist/Story Now is for the OP.
-------
As an aside, I'll say this: At some point after reading Ron's GNS essays, I too went, "It's all Sim, man." I wrote a little essay and everything. 'Story Now' really is it's own thing though, and not a subset of 'The Right to Dream'. Keep bashing at it, you'll get there.
Cheers,
Jim
FredGarber:
Well, in the words of Rorshach, hrrmm. A lot to post about.
I do agree, swapping out "Premise" for "moral dilemma" is a wise move. 'Moral' is a word loaded with connotations, and it's confusing the issue.
I think the hypothetical Star Wars game is a little too hypothetical right now, and it's also confusing things. If I played a Star Wars game where the Premise to be addressed is something like "Is a Neo-Budhhist Faith or a Technological Materialism a surer road to personal happiness?", then a conflict where the Hit on the Death Star is never in doubt might be an appropriate conflict. In fact, Han is far happier when he receives his monetary reward, answering the Premise differently than Luke does. If the Premise is something very similar, like "Can I protect my friends and family with my Faith and Will and Positive Outlook, or do I need to depend on Weapons and Strength of Arms?", then whether or not the Death Star is blown up might be in doubt: Not blowing up the Death Star by depending upon Faith is a surefire answer to that Premise! So what Premise is chosen to address in that hypothetical Star Wars game will definitely affect the gameplay.
So I think you can get by without #3.
1. Dilemmas are about the Premise
2. Everybody makes decisions around what makes the best story.
That said, you can go WAYYY deep down the rabbit hole and get to Vanilla Narrativism, and Constructivist Sim Play, and I'm pretty sure 3:16 has a strong Story Now aspect tied right into the characters competing for Kills and Cooperating to Frag the Alien Menace, a very Gamist setup.
I believe Too Much Analysis Kills the Fun. At some point, GMs and Players need to step away from the theory and say "knowing what I have learned, can I make my game session deliver more Moments of Awesome?" and try it out. RPGs can be like any sport hobby: the fun is in the doing of them, not necessarily in the training to do it better next time. Running wind sprints and practicing layups is not nearly as fun as actually playing basketball, so I've been told.
-Fred
BTW: I think you nailed the important part of my hypothetical Serenity build: The challenge is directly about how the Story/Plot goes. Note that that's just an example of how to use System Mechanics to push a game into Story Now mode, instead of using the current Serenity Mechanics, which push the game into Step Up or Support the Dream category. You certainly can play any type of game with any System: But some Systems have a lot more pain and work on the part of the GM to reward different agendas.
mcv:
One short issue before I tackle the moral dilemma dilemma:
Quote from: lumpley on February 11, 2009, 01:31:50 PM
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.
But in this case I'm basing my decisions on the personality I established for my character. The character was designed with story in mind, so I'd argue that character design was Story Now, but if in actual play, I'm not focusing on that story anymore, but hoping it will emerge automatically from the well-designed personality of the character (which it probably won't if the game, setting or other characters aren't what I expected), isn't that closer to The Right To Dream?
Now on towards a very real problem: the meaning of the term "moral dilemma". Unlike many of the other words you're using on the Forge, including Premise, Adressing Premise, Narrativism, etc, "moral dilemma" has a very old and very well established meaning. I know what premise means in logic and in movies, but your usage of the word is clearly different, and I don't quite grasp the concept yet. But I know what a moral dilemma is. It's a well known concept that most people can deal with, so when I'm given the option to use that instead of a vague term like Premise, I prefer moral dilemma. But now I'm getting the impression that even for that phrase, The Forge is using a completely different meaning than the rest of humanity, which, if true, would be really unfortunate, because moral dilemmas already have a very valuable place in RPGs.
A dilemma is a hard or impossible choice (Scylla and Charibdys). A moral dilemma, is a hard or impossible choice related to moral (or ethical) issues. Often the idealised ethical choice conflicts with practical considerations, so it boils down to "does the end justify the means?", although it's not strictly limited to that.
Since an example is worth a thousand words, here's a link with a fine selection of moral dilemmas: http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm
For a long time, "moral dilemma" had been my only hand hold while trying to understand Story Now, and Ron's insistence that that's basically all there is to it was a real comfort to me, although it did make me wonder what all the fuss was about. Now my new insight that instead of addressing the story, theme, dilemmas, through my character, I could also address my character through the story, theme, dilemmas, gives me the impression I've discovered a new way of roleplaying, but that insight has nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of moral dillemmas an sich. (You got me so confused I can't think of an English of a German phrase.) And your usage of "moral dilemma" in this thread gives me the impression you don't really mean moral dilemmas.
Quote from: lumpley on February 11, 2009, 02:32:52 PM
Does your roleplaying have something to say about human beings (sometimes shortened to "moral dilemma")?
While moral dilemmas usually do say something about the person making the decision, not everything that says something about people is automatically a moral dilemma.
Quote from: greyorm on February 11, 2009, 02:47:19 PM
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.
It may be a premise, but it's definitely not a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma really is a hard choice (but usually wrong/wrong; right/wrong wouldn't be hard at all).
Quote
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.)
I'm probably not familiar with authorial terminology, but I am familiar with philosophy, ethics, and the common and philosophic use of "moral dilemma". If you're using "moral dilemma" to mean something else entirely, then all the places in this thread where I thought I understood based on that phrase, I didn't. On the other hand, when it all started to make sense, except for the tacked-on moral dilemma part, the confusion is caused by a misunderstanding, which perhaps I should ignore, so I can just stick with the part that does make sense.
Quote from: greyorm on February 11, 2009, 02:47:19 PM
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."
And that, I think, is also the case with moral dilemmas. You can have tough choices between two wrongs in any Agenda. Only when that choice is tied to the theme or premise that's central to your game, is it Story Now.
If I understand The Forge's usage of "moral dilemma", it's that usage, that drift of meaning, that's causing a lot of confusion. I've noticed a lot of words here have drifted quite a lot in meaning. Simulationism in GNS isn't quite the same as simulationism in the Threefold Model (but it's always been a vague term in RPG theory), premise here is neither the premise of logic, nor the premise of movies (but since premise has two totally different meanings already, so at least there's a precedent), and I'm sure there are other words that mean something diifferent on The Forge than in the outside world. But "moral dilemma" is where I draw the line. It has an old, well established meaning that most people already know, and it is a useful concept in RPGs already. If you mean something different, then use a different word. Leave "moral dilemma" alone, because fiddling with its meaning will only create confusion and misunderstandings.
I'll handle Luke and the Deathstar in another post.
mcv:
Quote from: JB on February 11, 2009, 04:43:18 PM
McV did mention Serenity RPG as a possible example of a narrativist game though, and I can say a little something about why/how Serenity isn't narrativist. Seems like we've likely moved beyond that on this thread though, and I don't want to threadjack, so I'll refrain unless it'd help to clarify what narrativeist/Story Now is for the OP.
I'm very interested in how it isn't Narrativist/Story Now, but I'm even more interested in how it could be. For that purpose, I've started a new thread: Establishing Premise in Serenity RPG. (What a terribly pompous title, now that I think of it. I'm getting infected by those GNS articles.)
lumpley:
Quote from: mcv on February 12, 2009, 01:20:50 AM
But in this case I'm basing my decisions on the personality I established for my character. The character was designed with story in mind, so I'd argue that character design was Story Now, but if in actual play, I'm not focusing on that story anymore, but hoping it will emerge automatically from the well-designed personality of the character (which it probably won't if the game, setting or other characters aren't what I expected), isn't that closer to The Right To Dream?
This is so good! This is so smart! Your boldface is the key, the capstone to the whole endeavor.
Okay. Ready?
IF, in actual play, the story emerges automatically from the well-designed personality of the character, because the game, setting, and other characters (and their players) work to make it so, that's Story Now. If it doesn't, it isn't.
Your attitude toward your own character isn't the point. Whether you create story, actively, as a group, in play, is the only point.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page