Started by Alfryd, March 24, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
QuoteJesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they can't resolve the Situation without doing so.Me: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any.
Quote from: Roger on March 24, 2011, 05:20:17 PMThis feels all a bit vague without some actual Actual Play to sink my teeth into, but I've come to realize that a request like "Please barf forth all the Actual Play you can physically recall" can be less than helpful. So I'll structure it like this:Can you please provide a recap of a scene or scenes and point out: - What the Premise is, and - How the players are addressing the Premise within the scene.
Quote from: Roger on March 24, 2011, 06:25:12 PMNow, I'm personally not entirely sold on this whole "yeah, but what are you feeling, man?" vibe I sometimes get from this approach to Story Now, but that's probably a discussion for a different thread. As it stands as defined, Story Now deals a lot with the emotional connections of the players at the table.So: what was your (you, the player) emotional connection to the woman outside the door? What was the other player's emotional connection to her, the one who wanted to let her in? How did you feel about condemning her to die? How did the other players around the table feel about you condemning her to die, and about their own decision to let you condemn her to die?
Quote from: Alfryd on March 24, 2011, 05:04:32 PMI feel, for example, that so many fantasy yarns gravitate toward feudal settings because it helps to satisfy these conditions: the nobility's decision-making has a disproportionate impact on events regardless of individual competency, while political stability is cemented by kinship ties that frequently conflict with large-scale social priorities. This combines to ensure that a privileged handful of characters- and only those handful- make really big choices with really big consequences. (It makes for, at one and the same time, a wonderful dramatic premise and a truly shitty system of government.)
Quote from: contracycle on March 24, 2011, 08:08:24 PMWell, just as a quibble, I don't think that RPG's do gravitate to Feudal settings at all. None of them, or at least none that I have ever seen, have ever done anything remotely like it. Sure there is a sort of nominal genuflection to it, but the texture of the world is actually very modern, such as for example having highly flexible, overproductive economies, countries with strong nationalist sentiments and identities, and yet an ethnic melting pot. Makes me shake my fists at the sky and yell "this is all wrong!".
Quote from: Roger on March 25, 2011, 01:29:57 PMNope, no traps here. "Fun" isn't anything worth talking about in this context, but that again is a whole other thread.
QuoteIn a Right to Dream game, answering the Premise is essentially an exercise in the scientific method. You've got characters who require a certain amount of food each day and who can grow a certain amount of food in a month. What are the minimum and maximum size of a viable group? It's simply a matter of crunching the numbers, rolling the dice, and finding out what the System tells you. The answer to the Premise is already in there, within the parameters and models of the System, waiting to be discovered. It becomes a matter of objective fact.
QuoteIn my own experience, I think I've seen this come to light most obviously with Vampire: the Masquerade. When I was a bright-eyed naïve new player, I thought, wow, this'll be great -- let's address what it means to be a monster, what it means to be driven by an insatiable hunger. Then I discovered it means that you get three extra dots in Stamina and you need to test versus Willpower to not bite some dude. The theme that I was hoping to personally address was already sitting there, fixed and naked, in the Simulation.
Quote from: stefoid on March 25, 2011, 09:33:00 AMNot that it really matters so much the label you stick on your gaming, but isnt it about the agenda of the players rather than what happens? Two groups playing a survival horror game with different agendas might produce the same scenarios occasionally, by different means. The first group is trying to be as true to in-game cause and effect as possible, whilst the second group is actively pursuing opportunities to confront the characters with interesting decisions -- they both end up barricaded in a stronghold with a hungry person outside.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on March 25, 2011, 09:31:15 AMAlfryd, I totally get this. When I was in the thick of trying to figure out GNS, looking at some of my favourite game sessions, one day I thought they were Sim and the next day I thought they were Nar. One day I read some comments about Nar that seemed just alien to me, considerations on a seamingly abstract level of "statements" and "meaning" and, worst of all, "premise" that I never could relate to, and I thought, these guys are playing a totally different game than me. Another day, I read some account of a supposedly Nar game and I thought, hey, that sounds fun, that's the kind of thing I like to play, too....At some point I decided I just don't need to know.
Quote from: stefoid on March 26, 2011, 03:38:17 PMWhats improv got to do with GNS?