Setting and emergent stories
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi Ron,
Quote
I want to step back and verify, first, that we are talking only about Story Before, setting-centric play, specifically the second part. Because your later phrase "monster of the week" is not compatible with that model, at least not if the monster and its associated set-piece arrangement are the central material. If that phrase was thrown in for spice, then I can address your question, but if it really represents the take-home, what-we-did, "the story" material, then all I can say is that your question doesn't apply to any of my points in the essay.
Right. Many of the examples I had in mind were not, actually, setting-centric. They're still interesting to discuss, but if you'd like to stay with setting-centric stuff for now, I have an example for you: This game of The Pool, set in the Potterverse. There was a "main plot" that was Story Before (some Death-Eaters' scheme going down in Hogwarts, obviously). There where riddles, things to discover, some "scripted" scenes like a Death-Eater attack on new year's eve, and a dramatic final which I initiated by applying Force. But there were also teenage quarrels, romance and personal issues that played a pretty large role, some of the greatest scenes in that game had nothing to do with the "main plot" but were character scenes, totally not scripted, totally open-ended, personal development and all.
Interesting perspective on Shadowrun. I guess you're right about the production value thing, too. Have you seen the stuff the French make, though? Damn, it's pretty.
- Frank
Ron Edwards:
Hi Frank,
The issue you're raising all boils down to two things.
1. Whether the Force you applied resulted in the story.
2. whether "some of the greatest scenes we played" were actually the story.
I must define very carefully what I mean by story. I mean this: acknowledgment of relevant conflict, focus upon that conflict, rising action, unavoidable climax, resolution of conflict, final perspective; all of which result in emergent theme. For #1, I am especially interested in whether focus upon the conflict ("this is what the story is about"), and resolution of conflict ("this ") were induced, introduced, or otherwise simply dictated through Force. For #2, to the extent that the answer is "yes," I am especially interested in what the story might be.
So here's the most Narrativist possible version of what you're saying: The GM provided a chain of imposed events, yes, often involving scene framing and hence the placement of the player-characters in space and time. Many of those events demanded direct response, yes. And in the eyes of a fictional observer (i.e., within the fiction), those events would be thought of as the most important, yes. However: the engaging conflicts remained, for us as authors and audience, the emotional obligations and responses of the characters among one another.
For example: Although a dark lord's identity has been shockingly revealed, although the dark lord's plan has come to fruition, although the dark lord is rearing his nightmarish steed over two of the heroes, although the minions have beaten the other heroes away and prevented them from helping, and although this last moment of confrontation will make or break the dark lord's success in his vile plan ... what matters to us is whether the two heroes, in the shadow of imminent death at this very second, kiss or not. Because that kiss will speak volumes about each character's actual heartfelt commitment regarding every single other character. It may even be that the kiss is so powerfully moving that we as authors or audience more-or-less hope they die in the context of framing its forlorn beauty in external catastrophe, or alternately, it may even be the act which damns one of the heroes irrevocably in our eyes. Or anything like that, of a thousand possibilities depending on what has happened so far. Among those possibilities, one of the most important and flexible is whether until that moment, no one at the table had even dreamed of "whether they kiss" was going to happen; or alternately, that it has come up before in a variety of ways, who knows. *
And here's the least Narrativist possible version of what you're saying: The GM provided a chain of imposed events, involving scene framing, and hence the placement of the characters in space and time. And what was imposed set up and established the relevant context - as well as outcomes - regarding our story's drama and theme. Along the way, the enjoyable interactions among characters added tremendous "watchability" for all of us, as well as adding to the sense of tension and satisfaction to the rising action, climax, and resolution of the conflict. We therefore had a better story due to those character interactions.
For example: The revelation of the dark lord's identity, the tension of the way his plan has come to fruition, the circumstances of the fight such that two of our heroes are directly threatened by him without the aid of their friends, and the question of whether their efforts will indeed defeat him and/or save their own lives ... all of that was a great story, to be in and to remember. And for them to kiss right there at that moment, it made us all go "Yeah!" because it underscored their determination to value their defiance of him no matter what else happened.
I really hope that no one misunderstands me to think that opposing the dark lord couldn't itself be the story in a Narrativist context. Of course it could. I will begin another thread, I hope, soon, to explain how things change around us can facilitate Narrativist play. For this thread, however, both of these examples should be heavily underscored by the line I included to introduce each one: version of what you're saying, referring to Frank's precise phrasing regarding that particular Potter-U game.
Best, Ron
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi Ron, thanks for the reply! I get what you are saying. So, in our Pool game, we were leaning more towards your "most Narrativist possible version", but still the "main plot" as forced by the GM (me, as it were) was much appreciated and enjoyed by all participants, to the degree that the players complimented me on creating a genuinely "Potter-ish" story for us all to enjoy. There were certainly many "yes, of course" moments in play, but also real "you do what?!" moments in the personal interactions between the characters, with relationships changing through play, in neither planned nor expected ways.
This combination is really one of my favorite modes of play, and to this date I don't really know whether it's Sim, or Nar, or a Hybrid. Not that I really need to define it, as long as I know how to do it.
- Frank
Ron Edwards:
Narrativist.
I've been battling the confusion over "is it Narrativist when the GM introduces adverse changes into the setting?" since before the Forge was founded. It's a much simpler question than people make it, probably due to the agonizing history Moreno outlined so well in the other thread.
I'll be addressing it (again) in the "discontents" thread I have going presently.
Best, Ron
Frank Tarcikowski:
Yeah, I guess I expected that answer by now. Just out of curiosity: Is the Hybrid still a thing? Because to my current understanding of GNS, it's more of a relic.
- Frank
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page