Odd Narrative Habits
Trevis Martin:
I have a suggestion from experience. Don't have a big theory talk. What I would do is something like The Same Page Tool that Chris Chinn has on his blog.
David Shockley:
Quote from: Cliff H on January 03, 2011, 08:56:30 AM
However, the players absolutely love Lovecraft, and have been begging me to include something mythos in a campaign for the better part of a year.
....
Additionally, the verve with which this same player has launched himself at any text that seems heretical, all in an attempt to pump his Mythos lore in the game, and has wholly embraced the madness mechanic I wrote to deal with the side effects of such study, says that he's quite into it.
It's odd. When I think about it, the group is perfectly capable of recognizing when things are taking that turn for the horrid. I deliberately change my language to use some of Lovecraft's phraseology when it happens. With that cue, they often respond "in atmosphere" the whole way through.
The above sounds like it might be a CA, even if its not fully functioning.
When the enthusiastic player is launching himself at this stuff, do the other players respond positively? Do any of the other players initiate this sort of content themselves (Including via character creation/advancement options)?
Callan S.:
Quote
People were arriving, pulling out characters, assembling dice, and spending xp from last session. While doing so, we usually chat until everyone's ready. I remarked that there were countless times when I tried to run something like Lord of the Rings but wound up with Royal Highness instead. There were nods and agreement all around.
I don't know what royal highness is. But really this doesn't sound like a creative agenda issue at all. You could shoot for narrativist lord of the rings but end up with a bunch of clowning around, perhaps at a princess bride level and...it'd still be narrativist. You might be holding onto the idea that perfect (until it's almost tangible) genre emulation is critical to CA. Well, in a simulationist CA it's pretty critical. Otherwise, it's not vital or indicative of CA issues.
Cliff H:
Quote from: David Shockley on January 08, 2011, 03:55:46 PM
When the enthusiastic player is launching himself at this stuff, do the other players respond positively? Do any of the other players initiate this sort of content themselves (Including via character creation/advancement options)?
There are three other players in the game. One never heard of Lovecraft before this campaign, which shocks me not only because I've known him for over a decade and never heard this, but most basically because I didn't think you could be a gamer and not know who Cthulhu is. Isn't that knowledge requisite for your membership card into the gaming community? Obviously, he can only react to what he sees in game, and there's only been a light touch of mythos stuff so far because we've only played a few times. He clearly understands that somethings not right when these things crop up, and not right in the big sense, but he doesn't share the otherwise collective titter that comes up when things that should not be are spotted in the shadows. He's asked to be kept in the dark about it, though, and wants to only learn through his character. He feels it makes for a more genuine experience, and everyone at the table has been very good about respecting his wishes.
As for the remaining two, they don't jump on the available knowledge, instead acknowledging the danger and doing everything they can to stay alive and safe. This amounts to burning books, slaying beasts, and running away when necessary. They studiously avoid corrupting contact with the material, in a way rejecting it, but doing so because they believe that's the smart/sensible thing to do, not because they hate the material. While they've not said so, I know them well enough to know what they're doing. When they see themselves in a horror movie, they take the most pragmatic action without thought to genre, staying well away from those things that get your typical cast member killed. They see it as playing smart more than anything else.
Quote
I don't know what royal highness is.
Fantasy comedy coming out in April. Compared to Princess Bride, it looks sillier and more low-brow. It also looks quite funny, and when I showed the trailer to my group, they all looked at one of my players and asked if he was paid a consulting fee, since the comedic lead was pretty much a carbon copy of his character.
Quote
But really this doesn't sound like a creative agenda issue at all. You could shoot for narrativist lord of the rings but end up with a bunch of clowning around, perhaps at a princess bride level and...it'd still be narrativist.
I apologize, but this leaves me thoroughly confused, so please bear with me. I thought creative agenda was more than agreeing on a game, regardless of its GNS approach. My understanding was that it established communally held boundaries of behavior and tone so that everyone was playing not only the same game (as in title) using the same approach (as in GNS), but that they were viewing it through the same tonal lens.
I had a conversation with a different group about this just today as part of setting up a playtest campaign. I did in fact use a buffed up version of the Same Page Tool (thanks to Chris Chinn for creating it and to Trevis for pointing me to it), but I started off the discussion with a general, non-theory explanation of its purpose. As we'd all played Shadowrun relatively recently, I pointed to that game, and said we could all agree to play that. We could take it and use any system out there, since porting SR to other mechanical systems is a thing of mine (I like the setting, but have never found an engine that works for me). Even so, with all that agreement, Mark could make Mr. White from Reservoir Dogs, John could make Jules from Pulp Fiction, and Gary would come in with the character Lou Diamond Phillips played in The Big Hit. All are perfectly valid ways of interpreting the setting, but they can't all exist in the same game. We need to pick one version and all of us make characters and play according to that specific tone.
That said, your point above leaves me confused, Callan. It sounds like CA has much more to do with the GNS model than my interpretation lead me to believe. What am I missing here?
Quote
You might be holding onto the idea that perfect (until it's almost tangible) genre emulation is critical to CA. Well, in a simulationist CA it's pretty critical. Otherwise, it's not vital or indicative of CA issues.
But consistency of tone is important to CA, is it not? As in, it's fine to have clowning around as long as everyone has the same expectations as to what level of ridiculousness is appropriate to what we're trying to do. A difference in expectation among players would suggest a lack of commonly held creative agenda, yes? Or am I still missing something?
Callan S.:
Hi Cliff,
Taking this from the glossary, which is in the articles section.
Quote
Creative Agenda (CA)
The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing. Three distinct Creative Agendas are currently recognized: Step On Up (Gamist), The Right to Dream (Simulationist), and Story Now (Narrativist). This definition replaces all uses of "Premise" in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory aside from the specific Creative Agenda of Narrativist play. Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.
As I'd put it, for narrativism (and gamism), what you enjoy doesn't come directly from tone. Narrativism is like eating a meal off a table - if someone suddenly switches your mahogony table for a plastic one, yet your meal is still sitting there...it doesn't really matter. You are there for the meal - the table is simply a means to an end. However, if your admiring tables (sim?), it matters a great deal to switch them around.
Eg
Quote
All are perfectly valid ways of interpreting the setting, but they can't all exist in the same game. We need to pick one version and all of us make characters and play according to that specific tone.
To me, your showing a sim inclination, because it's not that you'd like one version, or enjoy one version - you need it.
Presumably you need it otherwise the whole thing is a steaming mess, right? A trainwreck? Nothing left? Or without coherant tone, there's nothing to start with - just emptyness unless it's coherant?
Except if your playing for nar enjoyment, you toss in say a choice between an easy job robbing a little old lady or a hard job robbing some nasty stock broker and suddenly all these utterly tone broken characters are arguing with each other over which to do (if not both). And that arguements fun...but how can it be fun, eh? Surely tone is all there is and it's wrecked? Well in sim, yeah, tone is all there is. But in nar, there's that argument fun, still fit, fat and functional. That argument fun sits on top of the tone. Sure it's nice to have coherant tone, but it's not needed. Unless your playing sim.
Have you ever had a bit in a game session where the characters argue about what job to pull, based not (just) on fiscal profit, but their own (the characters) senses of right and wrong? That, except the whole session is about stuff like that.
That's my estimate - get second opinions and different evaluations from other people as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page