At the Intersection of Skilled Play, System Intricacy, Prep, and Story Now

[Ovinomancer]

So, you see Story Now as always involving immediate consequences and a tight loop of feedback and increasing tension? I'm not so sure... So, for instance, here's a scenario drawn from past experience: The Space Station is doomed. There is NO way off, everyone on board will perish at the conclusion of the campaign. Now, clearly the main driver of tension is FAR OFF (in relative terms of scale, far off in that it is many many scene frames down the road, IMHO it isn't relevant as to how many hours/days/whatever this represents in fiction).

Now, obviously this game can ALSO feature as tight a loop of ongoing action and feedback/consequences/immediately generated tension. It can also include other medium term considerations, perhaps. The point is, I think the PREMISE ALONE made it a type of Story Now scenario. Everything the PCs did or experienced was always fully in the light of "and now I will die." It colored the whole experience, heavily.

So I would propose that things like DW's fronts/dooms likewise are an element of Story Now. I don't think they necessarily MUST exist, definitionally for it to be Story Now, but I think they may be sufficient to at least imbue a game with a significant element of Story Now character. I think that might play a role in higher level TB2 perhaps going in the SN direction as well, the PCs claw their way towards real success, they reach 7th+ level where they are clearly going to be movers and shakers (albeit perhaps also outsiders). At that point IMHO the most natural path for the game to follow is that the Final Doom of civilization, TB2's 'Ragnarok' (or at least an overwhelming disaster) raises its ugly head over everything. While the ultimately doomed nature of civilization is pretty much backgrounded in normal play, and thus not a big factor, it seems like it is always a tool the GM can turn to in order to really dial up the pressure at a certain point. This also jibes with the observation about the high level BitD game where eventually things inevitably turn to existential threats to Duskvol.

No, you've taken the wrong thing from that observation. This isn't a function of the game working as intended but rather where the game starts to break down and lose cohesion. The premise of scrappy outlaw gangs striving to make it breaks when you're at the same power level as the City Council. This is the system failing, not an example of how the game normally works. Conclusions should keep this in mind.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If there's a pre-planned outcome to play, really hard to call that story now. You've already violated a core tenet here -- play to find out. At least on one major axis, you are no longer doing this. So here, at keast, you've already stepped away, even if the rest of the play is fairly well aligned. I mean, there's no outcome of play that results in a different final end, so the GM is absolutely weilding Force at some junctures of play.

I think when the structure is so absolute, and frames everything in that way it isn't 'force' in any reasonable sense. It is more "this is the structure of the game, what it is meant to do." I mean, there wasn't really, in the actual scenario I'm describing, a sense of fighting against this ultimate doom. It isn't like the PCs could 'try different things' that they 'hoped' would fix it, but the GM just fiated that they would all fail. The end was both inevitable and foreseeable, and it was plain to all what would happen (not to say there wasn't at least one player who elected to have their character refuse to accept the truth, that was obviously their call).

So, I would say that the overall circumstance of that game diverged from 'Zero Myth' (just the nature of the setting being a reasonably limited environment already kind of did that anyway) quite heavily, it was in fact rather quite the opposite. IMHO this created a situation where the Story was everything, it was ALL ABOUT what the PCs went through, NOTHING else. While the game had mechanics (it was run using Traveler as I recall, probably mostly because back in those days there were not a ton of other options for relatively light systems with a good Sci-Fi theme) it was purely about character and thus story. It might even be more 'Character Now' than anything else. Nowadays I might use a different system, though maybe not. Frankly mechanical outcomes weren't generally a big focus.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, you've taken the wrong thing from that observation. This isn't a function of the game working as intended but rather where the game starts to break down and lose cohesion. The premise of scrappy outlaw gangs striving to make it breaks when you're at the same power level as the City Council. This is the system failing, not an example of how the game normally works. Conclusions should keep this in mind.

Sure, this is leaving the game's 'Sweet Spot', I'm not disputing that. My point was only that these sorts of longer-ranged threat scenarios, or 'framing tensions' can be powerful long-range shapers of tension. Thus 'Story Now' may not be always forced to depend on "You go from the frying pan into the fire" sort of immediate consequence loops as its only paradigm.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think when the structure is so absolute, and frames everything in that way it isn't 'force' in any reasonable sense. It is more "this is the structure of the game, what it is meant to do." I mean, there wasn't really, in the actual scenario I'm describing, a sense of fighting against this ultimate doom. It isn't like the PCs could 'try different things' that they 'hoped' would fix it, but the GM just fiated that they would all fail. The end was both inevitable and foreseeable, and it was plain to all what would happen (not to say there wasn't at least one player who elected to have their character refuse to accept the truth, that was obviously their call).

So, I would say that the overall circumstance of that game diverged from 'Zero Myth' (just the nature of the setting being a reasonably limited environment already kind of did that anyway) quite heavily, it was in fact rather quite the opposite. IMHO this created a situation where the Story was everything, it was ALL ABOUT what the PCs went through, NOTHING else. While the game had mechanics (it was run using Traveler as I recall, probably mostly because back in those days there were not a ton of other options for relatively light systems with a good Sci-Fi theme) it was purely about character and thus story. It might even be more 'Character Now' than anything else. Nowadays I might use a different system, though maybe not. Frankly mechanical outcomes weren't generally a big focus.

That players didn't push against the Force doesn't mean it wasn't present. It absolutely was -- any action taken to save the station would fail. Again, even if the rest of the game centers on exploring character, that doesn't mean it's story now. This feels more like a pure storygame, which can absolutely feature exploration of theme and character but isn't Story Now. Look at Fiasco, a great storygame but one that is also not a Story Now game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, this is leaving the game's 'Sweet Spot', I'm not disputing that. My point was only that these sorts of longer-ranged threat scenarios, or 'framing tensions' can be powerful long-range shapers of tension. Thus 'Story Now' may not be always forced to depend on "You go from the frying pan into the fire" sort of immediate consequence loops as its only paradigm.

You're still taking a failure point of a game as somehow supporting the idea that a Story Now game includes such failure points as intended play! It's like saying that under excessive wind conditions a Ferris Wheel falls shows that excessive wind can be a preferred condition for amusement rides!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That players didn't push against the Force doesn't mean it wasn't present. It absolutely was -- any action taken to save the station would fail. Again, even if the rest of the game centers on exploring character, that doesn't mean it's story now. This feels more like a pure storygame, which can absolutely feature exploration of theme and character but isn't Story Now. Look at Fiasco, a great storygame but one that is also not a Story Now game.

I would certainly have to understand how you draw these lines before I would be able to comment on that. I will just end with this: I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER in Ron's essay defining the term 'Story Now' which demands there be some open plot! It isn't even relevant. OBVIOUSLY there has to be some variety of possible trajectories, some 'degree of dramatic freedom' in some sense for their to be a story AT ALL, but beyond that the existence of a likely or preordained outcome for the ultimate fate of the characters appears to be irrelevant.

So, I think we'll have to have a minor point of disagreement as to whether my 'doomed space station' scenario was Story Now or not. There were social and internal character issues and motivations present which played out during the game. I think their occurrence and effects meet Ron's three criteria (which I believe MBC quoted in the OP).

Getting back to TB2, character's have a lot of traits which bear on their personalities, and they use them in a fairly mechanically defined way to generate resources for themselves (IE checks) and avoid conditions and such. It does seem less focused on the emotional/dramatic/social consequences and character evolution in a personal sense than just on pure survival. It is definitely there though, you can go against a belief, you get a reward too! You can then shed a belief (or instinct, or credo even though that one seems meant to be more 'bedrock' or overall character thematic).

So, I think you can play TB2 perhaps in more and less Story Now modes. It is partly appealing to Gamist play in GNS terms, I think, but definitely doesn't exclude Narrativist play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thinking about it more, in Narrativist terms it could be that something like the 'Space Station Scenario' might be considered closer to a Simulationist kind of agenda, but I actually don't know a lot about the 'S' part of GNS, relatively. I mean, I've always heard it discussed in terms of producing a story with all the trappings of a particular genre, but what if the 'genre' isn't particularly heavily elaborated? I mean, there are actually a few sci-fi stories about hopeless situations, but I hardly think they form a 'genre' exactly. There was the broader Sci-Fi genre, and certainly Traveler's overall milieu, rules, etc. provides plenty of that, and it was amply present. I reject that overall though, as I don't perceive that was the AGENDA of play here. Its like BitD, Duskvol is basically atmosphere. You could probably recreate the basic paradigm in a Classic Western genre, Science Fiction, etc. Not to say they would be absolutely identical, but the core agenda of the game could be had while transposing it to a new genre, so I wouldn't call it 'Simulationist' in thrust, even though it certainly falls within a specific established (albeit niche) genre.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would certainly have to understand how you draw these lines before I would be able to comment on that. I will just end with this: I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER in Ron's essay defining the term 'Story Now' which demands there be some open plot! It isn't even relevant. OBVIOUSLY there has to be some variety of possible trajectories, some 'degree of dramatic freedom' in some sense for their to be a story AT ALL, but beyond that the existence of a likely or preordained outcome for the ultimate fate of the characters appears to be irrelevant.

From the Edward's essay:

"There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts."

If you already know how the story ends, you've already stepped out.

So, I think we'll have to have a minor point of disagreement as to whether my 'doomed space station' scenario was Story Now or not. There were social and internal character issues and motivations present which played out during the game. I think their occurrence and effects meet Ron's three criteria (which I believe MBC quoted in the OP).

That is an excerpt to highlight a point MBC was making, not the only factors needed. I'm not sure the disagreement is minor, as it attached to a fundamental precept. If we accept your premise that a fixed conclusion is Story Now, then we can walk that reasoning back to a point where a fully plotted game can also be Story Now. That fails because Story Now does not exist on a spectrum with Trad play.

Getting back to TB2, character's have a lot of traits which bear on their personalities, and they use them in a fairly mechanically defined way to generate resources for themselves (IE checks) and avoid conditions and such. It does seem less focused on the emotional/dramatic/social consequences and character evolution in a personal sense than just on pure survival. It is definitely there though, you can go against a belief, you get a reward too! You can then shed a belief (or instinct, or credo even though that one seems meant to be more 'bedrock' or overall character thematic).

So, I think you can play TB2 perhaps in more and less Story Now modes. It is partly appealing to Gamist play in GNS terms, I think, but definitely doesn't exclude Narrativist play.

This is the thrust on the contended concepts in the OP (although @Manbearcat's position must be inferred because he's been horribly lazy and not stated it yet). I think the system and skilled play axes put pressure on and hinder Story Now play. There are clearly modes of play in TB2 that aren't Story Now. Effort and lots of system familiarity need to be present to steer into Story Now play and I'm not convinced it's achievable even then except in short bursts. It looks to me as though the system will toggle at best, and that's it's own set of problems.

 

[chaochou]

Broadly speaking then, I'd see the primary drivers of play in the three creative agenda as:

• Right to Dream: The gm
• Story Now: The players
• Step on up: The system

And the key outputs for each are:

• Right to Dream: in-game - immersion in the imagination / living worldness
• Story Now: out-of-game - appreciation of other your own and other players' thematic concerns
• Step on up: out-of-game - desire to show your chops and appreciation of other players' chutzpah

So Story Now can - in theory - co-exist with skilled play: because no-one is fighting for control of the game and the key aesthetic judgements are not made while inhabiting the character.

While Story Now and Step on Up don't naturally repel, the systems are quite rare where they sit comfortably. TB2e may be an exception, but my group generally drinks far too heavily on game nights for the required system mastery to be overcome, so I'm not likely to find out.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think a game set on a doomed space station necessarily obviates the possibility of Story Now play. That's just the set of circumstances that set the diegetic frame. It might be an issue if the stated goal of the game was to save the station and the GM had decided that X was going to happen no matter what (then there is 'the story'). It's not really much different that saying that a game is going to be set in a city on the losing end of a siege. In both cases, unless the GM decides that under no circumstances can 'doomed' or 'losing', respectively, be changed or altered, then Story Now play is still very much on the table. To suggest otherwise is, IMO, to suggest that setting makes Story Now play impossible generally.