"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

[Emberashh]

Narrativist games attend to staying in the moment, preoccupied with resolving the blow-by continuously until the game is over.

Do they? The rub with that is that having to drop out of what these games call "the fiction" to then argue, negotiate, and debate over what happens next is intended as part of the game.

When stuff like that happens in, say, DND, it's usually because of badly written or inconsistent rules than it is anything intentional. If you had a game of DND that just ran as smoothly as possible (eg nobody got hung up on a rule or a ruling), that's going to be more accurately described as blow by blow than any narrative game I've ever played, seen played, or read.

And emergent narrative is a recognized phrase. It specifically refers to the ability of a game to convey a conventional narrative as we'd recognize it purely through the interaction of game mechanics, and without any preauthoring.

Eg, Romeo and Juliet spawns as the organic interaction between this, that, and the other thing, and at no point was any element of that narrative prescribed in any way.

The improv game is an example of a game that does this (so every RPG ever is capable of it to some degree, even if you reduce it down to FKR), and with systemic design you can push it farther.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A big reason why Narrativist games don't appeal to everyone. It's narrative-pushing mechanics can interfere with emergent narrative, which some prefer.

I'm not sure what that means. So, we're playing Stonetop now, and my character is 'The Fox', he's got moves like 'ambush', 'perceptive', and 'irresistible' (the rest of Stonetop's moves are pretty much just refinements of Dungeon World moves, or relate to the village itself). So, I don't know that there are mechanics, per-se, which are 'pushing' any particular narrative. That is, all RPGs will end up with some sort of transcript of play, which is, or includes, a narrative describing the events experienced by the PCs (and possibly a bit beyond that, Yorath the Fox's follower did some stuff on his own last session). Now, the whole process of play centers the construction of that narrative in Stonetop on NOW, the moment of play, and thus necessarily embeds the players deeply in its establishment. Since there's nobody except players deciding what the goals and aims of the characters are going to be, it is THEIR story to create. However, all the rules as such establish is that when certain things are narrated, certain rules are engaged, and those rules commonly call for the GM to describe threats, obstacles, complications, or setbacks. That WILL naturally tend to produce momentum in narrative terms, but it's the structure of the game rather than a certain specific mechanic which does this, contrary to what many people seem to think.

Now, you might consider some games like TB2 to be closer to 'mechanics for narrative' in some sense, but even there I think it isn't the most productive way to think about it. Yes, the game encourages you to have your character act in certain ways in order to acquire 'currency' of several types, but in general it is more about moving towards pivotal narrative moments vs doing some certain things. Like if I act in accordance with, or against my nature in TB2 both will produce personality points (IIRC, there's also a couple other types). It isn't doing X gives you a point, its 'Confronting your nature' that gives you that, and the same with instincts, etc.

 

[niklinna]

Well the issue with emergent story in Narrativist terms, is that it’s a form of ‘story after’. Narrativists basically don’t care about emergent narratives. As you say, all games produce an emergent narrative.

Huh? All games produce some emergent narrative. But, I thought Narrativism (Story Now) was concerned exclusively with emergent narrative, completely eschewing any pre-plotting of future events, and sometimes advocating minimal pre-plotting of past events as well (No Myth).

 

[Manbearcat]

Do they? The rub with that is that having to drop out of what these games call "the fiction" to then argue, negotiate, and debate over what happens next is intended as part of the game.

When stuff like that happens in, say, DND, it's usually because of badly written or inconsistent rules than it is anything intentional. If you had a game of DND that just ran as smoothly as possible (eg nobody got hung up on a rule or a ruling), that's going to be more accurately described as blow by blow than any narrative game I've ever played, seen played, or read.

And emergent narrative is a recognized phrase. It specifically refers to the ability of a game to convey a conventional narrative as we'd recognize it purely through the interaction of game mechanics, and without any preauthoring.

Eg, Romeo and Juliet spawns as the organic interaction between this, that, and the other thing, and at no point was any element of that narrative prescribed in any way.

The improv game is an example of a game that does this (so every RPG ever is capable of it to some degree, even if you reduce it down to FKR), and with systemic design you can push it farther.

Whether what I've written is what @thefutilist means is TBD (I'll let them agree, disagree, clarify). Its my best inference.

However, yes, that is what Narrativist games attend to in their design and their play; focusing on and resolving the game's premise & theme-based collisions of the opposing parties in the shared imagined space now (hence Story Now).

* Alternative Model 1: Someone might have prepped a metaplot (player-side railroading or GM-side railroading doesn't matter) that is expected to be mapped onto play via meticulous or subtle curation; Story Before.

* Alternative Model 2: A game might entail "writer's room" dynamics whereby the collective (players, GM, possibly even system) conspire to ensure a preconceived arc/metaplot maps onto play with both specific beats and outcomes (definitely macro-outcome, but possibly even micro-outcomes); Story Before.

EDIT: @kenada just linked this older statement from Vincent Baker. This sums up the above:

​

​

Ron Edwards brought Egri’s theory of story to his game Sorcerer, then to the Forge. His innovation is the leap from playwriting to gameplay and game design. My paraphrase, from the designer’s point of view: Create your game to feature fit, passionate characters locked into moral or ethical conflict, unable to set it aside. Create rules for pursuing conflict, developing it, escalating it, and bringing it to crisis and resolution. Put decision-making live into the players’ hands — nobody gets to pre-decide how it’ll turn out — and turn them loose. That’s the game.​

​

Ron called it “Story Now” (earlier, “Narrativism”). It’s inspired a ton of games, including all of mine from Dogs in the Vineyard to Apocalypse World. It’s a fun thing that rpgs can do, and we’ve made a bunch of fun rpgs that do it. You can too if you want​

---

But yeah, again, that is a pretty idiosyncratic deployment of "emergent narrative" here and requires a fair amount of inference and/or context to divine its meaning and application (and I may not be correct...pending thefutilist head not or head shake at what I've written)...which is why I overburden my posts with parentheticals!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can you talk a bit about why you think this is so required? I've seen lots of designers/creatives say the exact opposite on top of successful games and careers, so I'm struggling to figure out why you think this is so important - outside of shareholder responsibility type requirements to get market share.

I have to agree with Umbran on this one. All design of functional things starts with the stakeholders, primary amongst which are the users. Any design which isn't constructed in reference to them and with some kind of iterative interaction with them, is incredibly unlikely to succeed. Every single work on UI/UX in existence, and their are 1000's of them out there, will tell you exactly the same thing, give or take, START with the users, LISTEN to the users, ENGAGE the users, or you WILL fail.

Now, you can trot out the statements of Ford or Jobs, as is commonly done, to try to refute this, but the fact is that's an apples and oranges discussion. Jobs might have envisaged (roughly) the modern smart phone, but that vision didn't start from nowhere, it was responding to elements of existing design, and when its fundamental parts were conceived, they were then actualized into prototypes that were tested, and iterated heavily with users. Yes, great designers DO make leaps sometimes beyond what the user community has envisaged, but even those leaps are not into outer space, they're aimed at articulated and understood unmet needs and challenges in existing design.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This all assumes that the developer/designer is not the (or a) user, of course. But yeah, in general, feedback/testing is vital, and that means iteration.

Well... you can engage in that sort of 'self-design' of course. Up to a point it could be somewhat successful, but you will at least (using the example of RPGs) have to test it at your own table! I mean, yes, I have seen RPGs that appear to have been simply written by a geek in his bedroom and fobbed on the world. I am pretty sure zero of those went anywhere much, though I guess if it was a really really light mini-game you wrote one evening and dropped on the world the next day, yes you could pull that off (there are examples). But in terms of substantive things, you just can't get it all right working in a box like that, you have to experiment at the very least.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah I kinda have to point out the incongruence of insisting on listening to one's audience but then also saying you don't strictly need to iterate.

There's this "free will" thing we ought to recognize exists, and is relevant here - so there's a difference between "should" and "must". People who are creating stuff have many choices as to what kind of process they want to use. Iterative design is one choice, but not the only choice.

And despite what some may think, I am not so arrogant as to claim that one cannot ever make good product without following a particular method. I'll allow that it is possible to just wing it and get to a great result. I just wouldn't bet money on it.

 

[zakael19]

Well... you can engage in that sort of 'self-design' of course. Up to a point it could be somewhat successful, but you will at least (using the example of RPGs) have to test it at your own table! I mean, yes, I have seen RPGs that appear to have been simply written by a geek in his bedroom and fobbed on the world. I am pretty sure zero of those went anywhere much, though I guess if it was a really really light mini-game you wrote one evening and dropped on the world the next day, yes you could pull that off (there are examples). But in terms of substantive things, you just can't get it all right working in a box like that, you have to experiment at the very least.

I honestly think you've missed the thrust of the argument here, which was more around creative vision and impulses, and less about say beta testing. Most of the indie game sector at most has a small amount of testing done to ensure mechanics aren't horribly broken, but the creative thrust is not being pulse checked off some sort of market or user. We've gotten genre defining games from that sort of single developer / vision first process, that have upended the industry and won awards.

 

[thefutilist]

I think that is what you're getting at? If so, I (obviously as I've attested to it a million times!) agree. However, it does rely upon a rather idiosyncratic usage of "emergent narrative" here and an inference of relationships to all of (a) time (when story actually aggregates), (b) labors (all three of the design phase of games, the play phase of games, and the post-play reflections), and (c) the cognitive & emotional space of the participants during the actual play of a game.

I was attempting to use the phrase in the way I think Emberash is using it. I regret doing so because I don’t think video games or their design have anything at all to do with RPG’s.

Buy yeah I agree with all your points.

 

[Emberashh]

Alternative Model 1: Someone might have prepped a metaplot (player-side railroading or GM-side railroading doesn't matter) that is expected to be mapped onto play via meticulous or subtle curation; Story Before.

Which is how I'd describe narratavist games.

This is why I pointed out that the phrase "emergent narrative" is not some idiosyncrasy; it has a specific meaning.

The story doesn't have to exist as a coherent narrative in the game's text to still be curated and enforced.

That, for the record, is also just a part and parcel aspect of all games. The moment you make your game "about" something, you're curating a specific set of possible narratives. That's where people into the OSR, and those that eventually boil the whole thing down to FKR, are coming from when they reject the need for any robust systems or theming of any kind.

When you get into narrativist games, these systems you can play with are leveraged for hyper focus, further narrowing the possibility space. And its necessary for those kinds of games, because they invariably collapse much of if not all of the gameplay out of the experience aside from the inherent improv game. Its why PBTA isn't a system.

The only thing they can do to sell themselves as X experience is to force the narrative beats of that experience.

An emergent experience doesn't work like that, however.

* Alternative Model 2: A game might entail "writer's room" dynamics whereby the collective (players, GM, possibly even system) conspire to ensure a preconceived arc/metaplot maps onto play with both specific beats and outcomes (definitely macro-outcome, but possibly even micro-outcomes); Story Before.

Not at all. You don't need a preconceived or meta plot to have a writers room. That's actually contradictory to both what the term refers to and what it implies in a colloquial sense.

You get into writers room dynamics when you position play as a story and then have players having to negotiate over the next game state. If you've ever played a narrativist game and had to stop and decide what move was gonna get invoked or how a given scene was gonna play out, you were in a writers room.

The writers room isn't about plotting, it's about telling a story. And that is a big difference.

Iterative design is one choice, but not the only choice.

Your post doesn't really address the contention at hand, however.

You previously said you cannot Design without listening. Iteration is the only way you can actually incorporate feedback on what you designed.