Decoupling "Story Now" from "Narrativism," and rethinking Creative Agendas.
Callan S.:
I'm inclined to think story refers to some sort of morally problematic issue that's actually uncomfortable for the audience/players and wont just confirm their prior beliefs/the status quo (and so is probably the very opposite of cathartic). Once you remove that, it becomes 'entertainment'. Sure, stories contain entertainment, but that something is entertaining doesn't make it a story (atleast 'story' by the above definition). The tentacle city set up seems no more story before than prepping bangs before a game is story before. The ultimate reaction to the set up still only happens in the very moment of play.
'Entertainment before' and 'entertainment now' could stand to be seperated from 'story now/before', as it has no particular monopoly on spontanious generation of entertaining stuff.
Willow:
Hi Gordon-
That's a facet I hadn't considered: regardless of the prep happening before play, Nar requires that Premise be actively addressed at the table. This certainly is something that allows, say, Dogs in the Vineyard to still fall firmly in the Narrativist camp.
I think we're all more or less agreeing more than we're disagreeing: the Big Model definition of 'story' is wrong at worst and problematic at best, since it is unlikely to be what people think of when you say 'story' to them.
Ron Edwards:
I'm not seeing it, Willow.
I've always defined "story" as a description of a particular kind of fiction regardless of its origin or (in role-playing) whatever sort of process produced it. Whereas I've also been careful to define Narrativism, or Story Now (a synonym), as a creative priority that governs preferred processes of play.
I do not understand how you think Gordon's point supports yours. Gordon nailed the key error of your argument, which is to focus on where conflict comes from, because that is totally not mandated by either of my definitions. Effectively, he evaporated your entire first post. Your entire Before/Now/After construction is empty, because I'm not talking about, nor ever was, the origins of the adversity, but of the ability to address it through protagonist actions. Story Before and Story After prevent that ability from existing at the table. Story Now occurs when it is the primary expressed creative force at the table.
To continue.
1. You accept my definition of story in your first post.
Quote
Let's start with Story. I think Ron's definition here is pretty apt, so I'm going to stick with it. Story has a protagonist (the player characters), a conflict (you know it when you see it), and surrounding events (“plot”).
How you can turn around and call that definition "wrong at worst and problematic at best" in your latest post is beyond me.
2. You have not refuted or changed my definition of Narrativism.
Quote
Narrativism is simply Deep Exploration of Premise, with the emotional goal of Catharsis
and
Quote
I argue that Narrativism is exploration for the sake of emotional and moral revelation and catharsis. One plays Narravisitically to find out more about one's self. It involves exploring and addressing a Premise in such a way that difficult topics and ideas are floated, and forces difficult thought. That is the payout of Narrativist play, a shared, deep, intense, possibly spiritual experience.
That's not an alternate definition at all. That's my definition as long as by "deep," you mean "doing it with the freedom really to do it." By saying this, you're refuting your original claim. I can only imagine that you perceive some un-simple definition that you think I'm using.
3. You've brought up a red herring by hanging your judgment upon what people automatically think when they see a word. That wasn't even mentioned in your first post, nor would I accept it as a criterion for assessing an argument under any circumstances.
Well, that's me being polite. Say what you like from here.
Best, Ron
Willow:
Hey Ron:
Here's where I feel I'm getting tripped up:
I completely, 100% agree with this definition of Story: "Story has a protagonist (the player characters), a conflict (you know it when you see it), and surrounding events (“plot”)."
What I disagree with is the definition of 'Story Now'. The Spirit of the Century/Awesome Adventures example I cited is a clear case of all of that arising at the table, but clearly in a Simulationist mode of play. I see Story happening at the table in all sorts of play.
We are agreed, you and I, on what Narrativism is. My struggle with Narrativism is not understanding what it is; but rather explaining it to others, since it's fundamentally not about Narratives or Narration. This is not a red herring; the usefulness of a jargon is based on its being understood.
Gordon C. Landis:
On the problematic understanding of Story, I recognize that a lot of people are not very rigorous about the word; one common thought pattern, e.g., is to think of "the story" and "the plot" as essentially the same thing. I wish that, and other variations, wouldn't happen, but they do. It'd be nice if there were a better way of dealing with this than explaining to people that they're "not thinking about Story right," 'cause that tends to get people riled up. But . . .
"Story has a protagonist (the player characters), a conflict (you know it when you see it), and surrounding events (“plot”)."
"A conflict" need not neccesarily equate to "a Premise." If it does, than yes, that's an OK definition of Story. If it doesn't, then it's not. The Spirit of the Century/Awesome Adventures example is Simulationist as long as "conflict" rather than "Premise" is what is being generated at the table.
The jargon I used to use for myself (and it did NOT catch on) was to talk about little-s-story and big-S-Story. Little-s-story can indeed happen at the table ("Now") in all sorts of play, as can little-c-competition and little-d-dream. But big-S-Story is defined as more than just events and conflicts and stuff - Story includes address of Premise. That's why (at least as I remember Ron saying at the time) it's "Story Now", in an attempt to have that key, important point driven home. We're not talking about story in some vague, plot-ish descriptive way, but Story creation (including by neccessity address of Premise) that's happening right there in play.
Story creation (with the understanding of Story to include address of Premise), by the group as a whole, at the time of play, is Nar play. Sim and Game play might include plenty o' story creation (absent address of Premise as a priority) by the group as a whole, at the time of play. But that's always the case - the little-lettter version of all agendawords can be present in the other agendas.
Maybe "Premise Now" would be better jargon, but - is explaining "Premise" really better/easier than explaining "Story"? Willow, if your argument is that you'd like a better jargon-word, I can't disagree. Years of internet agita indicate the current formulation isn't perfect. But your post (to me) didn't nail the real key identifier of active address of Premise (and some version of story vs. Story) that I'd want to be sure any new formulation covered - and that, when understood, make the current formulation (again, to me) quite clear.
So - identifying that little-s-story creation techniques can be used "Now" in many kinds of play is quite true, insightfull, and many productive follow-ups can be generated from there. But I don't see that as an indictment of "Story Now" for Nar. In fact, understanding WHY it isn't was a key part of my finally understanding what Ron was trying to say all those years ago.
Again, hope this is helpful.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page