First, this is an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed it. We may be the only two, but hey,
suum cuique...
It's clear I did have a misunderstanding of exactly how you were using the GNS terms as types. I thought you were defining narrativism specifically as conflict that arises because of story, as if story was a separate element from the other two. I felt that you were redefining all three terms a bit as examples of what you were talking about, but it seems you are using them as intended, so I think we are on the same page, now. The mutual exclusivity of playtypes is primarily why I don't agree with GNS theory in the first place and why I responded to your original post.
A successful game, for me, necessarily blends and weaves elements as tools to advance the game by advancing the characters, both in a gamist sense (gaining levels) and as characters (achieving goals, resolving conflicts, etc). For example, my current game is a Savage Worlds game set in the Firefly 'Verse. The primary elements of the game are very much a blend of the elements under discussion (as was the show). The game is fairly action packed, the characters constantly come into conflict with each other, the setting, and their own ethics as they work on that shady gray line, and they, obviously, are constantly dealing with the realities of the familiar setting (crappy ships liable to break down at any minute, avoiding or manipulating the bureaucracy of the Alliance, exploring the various worlds etc.) Conflict arises from all these elements and often more than one at a time.
Right, but this "ethical content" is hotly disputed by Tolkien fans and the supposed thoughts and beliefs of the man himself - did he deliberately set out to create a paen against industry, and associate industry with the fascists becoming prevalent at the time he wrote the tale, or not?
Its a bit of a tangent, but I think the green = good, industry = bad, was a purposeful element. And I don't think he was equating Sauron and co. to real world fascism anymore than I buy the Christian allegory argument. I could argue that all day, as I have before, with lots of examples, being one of those Tolkien fan/scholars who likes to go on about it
ad nauseam. But, that's a discussion for another time, thread, and forum.
And here lies the key difference between reading, or watching (or listening to) a story and roleplaying. With a story, we are witnessing the finished work, the tale complete, after the act of creation is done. With roleplaying, though, we are in the midst of the act of creation. The story is being made at the table. The analogue, then, is not with the finished tale of LotR, but with JRR Tolkien's focus as he wrote it.
Yes, that's what many of us love so much about this hobby. Writing is not an accidental act and while things can be interpreted that weren't there intentionally, when you have a consistent theme returning time and time again as a constant thread throughout the story, it's usually no accident. But that doesn't mean it's the focus, or sole focus. I don't think a writer switches anymore than I think we switch between modes at the game table. That's why I keep using the word weaves, as that is what I see going on. Weaving elements together specifically because they do cause conflict is the essence of storytelling.
They say nothing about the nature of the game/story within its general class. Of course there will be a "shared imaginary space", and of course there will be an emergent story - those are fundamental, necessary elements for the whole endeavour to work. It's a bit like saying that a car is like a bicycle, because they both have wheels; of course they both have wheels - but it's the other things they have or don't have that makes them different.
Different, both both will get you where you need to go. They are more similar than different. I could explain a car to man who has only ever seen bicycles much easier than I could explain, say, a computer. This may be at the center of our discussion. While the three elements of GNS are different, they are also similar in that they are all sources of conflict, and conflict is story. Since they are all sources of conflict, they are all tools to create conflict, and I like to use tools. I don't like limiting myself to a single focus. I like for the game to be fun, the system playable, the characters to be developed and to grow, conflicts to come from varied sources, etc. And I feel that great stories often do the same.
Movies are an interesting case. Here, the story is almost created multiple times - first by the screenwriter, then by the director, the cameraman and so forth. It may be that the screenwriter had one focus and the film makers another. The Matrix almost pulled this off, I think. Avatar, less so.
It's collaborative, and more broken down into a series of significant encounters/scenes, so I think moviemaking is much more similar to RPGs than literature.
Absolutely, it's all the game. But, in play, the game group will be focussing on something - they will be "doing" something specific. Maybe the group you play with focus on a melange of overcoming the immediate in-game obstacle, figuring out the most interesting moral line to adopt in the current situation and assessing how the game world and characters "work" in the current situation - but I find that I generally focus on just one of those, and I find games I GM work better when I focus on just one of them, too. Your experience may be different - if so, good luck to you!
I agree that the players will face a particular focus, an overriding concern in any conflict, and that focus will likely arise from one or another element. But, multiple elements can be in play inside a single encounter, and should be, IMO.
The PCs get in a fight due to a misunderstanding of local customs, they vastly overpower the locals, who have drawn weapons, and are intent on killing rather than brawling. The PCs have one clear goal that is easily achieved - survive - but how and at what costs? The ethics of the group and the realities of the setting will come into play. Should these locals die because of a misunderstanding, what are the legal and social ramifications, are they skilled enough to maybe talk their way out, do they just blast anyone that stands in their way? Depending on the answers to these questions, their actions and secondary goals are heavily influenced by the friction between all these elements and you have a deeper conflict than just 4 HD of locals to beat down.
