rpg theory
xechnao:
Quote from: mcv on February 18, 2009, 11:54:03 PM
But story by itself doesn't mean it's narrativism. From what I've been told on this forum, you can have strong, powerful stories in simulationist or gamist play. But usually those stories are either mostly predetermined by the GM, or they emerge by accident (which is amazingly cool when it happens). In Narrativism, you focus directly on creating a story through play by focusing directly on dramatic decisions and moral dilemmas.
I think the premise of this thread is to look for some mechanic that tells how these cool "accidents" may happen -but leaving choice of what happens as far as PC behavior is concerned to the players.
mcv:
I think the point of Narrativism/Story Now is to force those accidents to happen by making some of the elements that lead to those accidents the central focus of the game. Some new RPGs developed here assist in this process by providing specific mechanisms to enhance that focus, and to give the players tools with which to make those tough choices and dramatic decisions that should lead to good story.
In fact, I think Narrativism/Story Now basically boils down to:
A desire for engaging story developing naturally through play (rather than following a story by a single player (usually the GM))A willingness to make it the central focus of the game, at the cost of other things you might want from playMechanisms that assist in focusing on the elements that might produce engaging storyNote that you can have some of these without having them all. Is that Story Now? In some ways it is, in some ways it's not. You can play Nar without a system that supports it, but you'll have to work harder at it. It's like simulationism in D&D, I suppose.
Opinions may differ on what elements of play usually result in engaging story and how to call those elements, but terms bandied about include "premise", "moral dilemma", "tough choices that may cost you something", "finding answers to a question about the human condition", etc. Not all of these are the same, but they can overlap. Exactly what works best for a specific group may vary, I suppose.
Note that I've only recently learned about narrativism, and it was pretty vague at first because everything written about it failed to get to the point. I'm secretly hoping that the above contains the central point I was looking for.
Callan S.:
Hi Martijn,
Yeah, as I'd put it, Nar is rigged. Deliberately pushing the planchette towards stuff. Morally ambiguous/shocking/cool stuff.
Which, on a side point, is why I can never understand why people think the SIS decides anything in terms of game options. Once you know the planchette can be moved, how can you ever go back to thinking no one moves it? Though I've considered that like you might know your character might decide to do something, that same principle might be applicable to the inanimate matter in an imagined world. So the dirt and the rocks and the trees, etc are like some big character and their physics are one big characters expression or something (but this really does involve adding some animus to all inanimate objects). But I've gone overboard on this side point!
Luke:
Xen,
I feel like an old man saying this, but you seem to be questing for mechanics that have already been thoroughly explored in roleplaying games, both new and old. Rewarding players for engaging with the system in a manner satisfying to them is pretty standard fare.
Check out games like Prince Valiant, Inspectres, Dogs in the Vineyard, Primetime Adventures and even Mouse Guard if you're feeling daring.
D&D rewards a specific type of play. You are correct in that analysis. D&D is a good game because of its focus, but D&D is not the only way to play.
-Luke
mcv:
Quote from: Callan S. on February 19, 2009, 01:20:20 PM
Yeah, as I'd put it, Nar is rigged. Deliberately pushing the planchette towards stuff. Morally ambiguous/shocking/cool stuff.
Which, on a side point, is why I can never understand why people think the SIS decides anything in terms of game options. Once you know the planchette can be moved, how can you ever go back to thinking no one moves it?
That's a good point, and now that I think about it, I think I enjoy the illusion that nobody is moving the planchette, even when they are.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page