GNS - works as description, but I don't buy the prescription
Chris_Chinn:
Well, yeah, if your definition of rpgs doesn't include those other goals, naturally CA aspects of Big Model theory won't be very useful, and there really isn't much to discuss here.
It's good to note, that, as far as the Big Model is concerned, those other types of play DO count as valid roleplaying, and it's important to note how they work in order to make sure you are clear to others in your designs/organizing games that you are not playing in those methods so you don't end up with 5 people trying to play 5 different games together (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/a-way-out/ ).
As far as mechanics interfacing with CA - you have to remember it's how ALL the mechanics work together to create a Creative Agenda.
An Actual Play example was me playing Dogs in the Vineyard with a GM used to Illusionism, who flatly avoided the advice in the game to throw the conflicts and problems of the Town at the players.
Though there's a lot of mechanics that make DitV a Narrativist game, that simple bit of stonewalling completely blocked the flow of play of dealing with the primary moral issues.
You can have 90% of the same mechanics support completely different CAs based on that last little bit. (Interesting enough, that last little bit doesn't always produce the same things if you slap it on a variety of games...)
Some common games that see this shift include - when people ignore Sorcerer's Humanity & Kickers, ignore Beliefs in Burning Wheel, ignore Spiritual Attributes in Riddle of Steel, whether the role of characters are to be "within" the setting or to shape it in Hero Quest, etc.
Obviously, though, if you don't consider other forms of play as "roleplaying" Big Model is going to be of very limited use to you anyway.
If you are interested, try looking up some of those games in the Archive forums and looking at some of the discussions that ensued - a lot of people ended up talking past each other because of that little bit ignored or applied - but they're talking about two completely different ways to play, under the same game name.
Chris
jburneko:
Quote from: Bloomfield on November 03, 2010, 10:11:38 AM
Does assigning narrative rights ever make sense if the agenda is G or S?
Yes. You have to realize that "competition" is a social phenomenon and does not require explicit articulated or even acknowledged win conditions. I've seen Primetime Adventure games turn competitive. The game stopped being about addressing the Issues on the character sheet and started being about "one upping" each other.in terms of "cool factor." Drama wasn't expressed through a genuine investment in the characters but instead became the currency by which the game was being "won." Play was about out "Drama-ing" each other. This happens in many LARP environments as well.
Jesse
Caldis:
I think you are mistaking creating a story together for narrativism and it's understandable because they do have some similarities but they dont mean exactly the same thing. It's entirely possible to create a story as a group and not be playing in a narrativist fashion, Frank Tarcikowski has an example a few posts down of a sim game that was group created story but features no narrativism. Likewise there are several examples of gamist play that include solid story and there's no guarantee that nar play is going to give you a great story.
So what's the big difference then? What sets narrativism apart from story creation with any other agenda? If we look back to the example you gave in your first post with the character discovering her lost past and we see that you are creating story as a group but what you arent doing is allowing the player to reveal the depths of what the characters is about, what they stand for and what they are willing to do and what that says about the character. Mechanics in play are the least significant thing when it comes to those decisions and actions the player has the character take.
So if resolution mechanics are so unimportant when it comes to CA then how does system matter? It's in the bigger things, in creating situation and propelling characters into premise rich environments. Look at things like Kickers in Sorceror or town creation mixed with the position of authority the dogs take on in Dogs in the Vineyard.
Abkajud:
Caldis, what do you mean by "system"?
When folks say "system does matter", they mean more than just what's typically called "mechanics" - the way you are told to use mechanics is another part of system, dubbed "procedures", and the very act of playing the game together involves a whole slew of agreements, i.e. the social contract.
To truly interact with a system, you have to use ALL the rules, unless certain rules are tagged as explicitly optional. If you pick and choose rules, that's Drifting, and it will change what the system can actually support. To go a little deeper: Dogs mechanics, taken one by one, are not explicitly "Narrativist". You have to be doing the whole thing, all at once, to get effective support for Nar play. Step-dice, for instance, could be used for anything; they aren't inherently Narrativist.
A given Agenda is a package deal - it doesn't have to be complicated, but Nar play needs player authorship for thematic content. It's gotta be in the rules, or you just don't have a Nar-supportive system. So, with Dogs, if you removed the escalation system... no, wait, if you just removed the player's choice to escalate/not escalate a situation, you would lose the Nar support. If players can't meaningfully give input on the themes of the game, it ain't Nar. Does that help at all?
Caldis:
I think we're pretty much in agreement Abkajud, I believe the Dogs system is very much a nar-facilitating system. However even with its system you wont necessarily get Nar play. You could easily take the system as written and play it in a gamist or sim fashion, it might not be the most compelling play but it would be possible. To get Nar play out of any system you need the intent to use it to address the premise rich material the game gives you, a recognition between the players and the gm that what you are doing is adressing the premise, and the freedom to do so.
I think the best description for what the rules of the game do, and things like conflict resolution mechanics are an excellent example, is give the game bounce. Ron used it recently (I think) when talking about the energy in a game and comparing it to throwing a ball back and forth. With the right ball when you throw it back and forth it has some bounce, it adds energy and life to the game you may be able to bounce it off something and get it moving in an entirely different direction. A different ball however can just be a weight to toss around, it can be light and easy to throw about or it can be a dead weight dragging things down, either way they dont add anything to the game on their own.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page