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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Hard disagree. There's a difference between situation and outcome that is crucial here. You can set up a situation where a station is dying but not fix the outcome as the station dies. The situation would support Story Now, the outcome pivots away from it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hard disagree. There's a difference between situation and outcome that is crucial here. You can set up a situation where a station is dying but not fix the outcome as the station dies. The situation would support Story Now, the outcome pivots away from it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, my apologies. I did mean that you would specifically have to avoid predetermining the ending. The notion of 'doomed space station' works fine as the context understood by the characters but doesn't obviate the possibility that the station might be saved. The possibility of saving the station, faint though it might be, does need to at least be admitted to the conversation in order to make your definition of SN workable. Personally, I think you are being somewhat uncharitable in reading the idea generally, but that might be a failure of understanding on my part.

 

[Campbell]

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.

This is like core Right To Dream stuff. Scenario focused design meant to evoke a particular feel. Dynamic scenario design does not make a game Story Now. The Now is imperative as is a focus on framing that is focused on the dramatic needs of the characters. What makes Apocalypse World and the better PbtA games Story Now isn't fronts (which in various forms feature of many Right To Dream games). It's core structure of escalating GM moves that are focused on these specific characters.

Don't place a value judgement on this score. My group's own play is very focused on a specific character centric sort of Right To Dream that borrows some techniques from Nordic LARP and others from games like Blades, but is very much not Story Now in my opinion because it is focused on naturalistic setting interpretation, slice of life character exploration and delivering on specific predefined themes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, my apologies. I did mean that you would specifically have to avoid predetermining the ending. The notion of 'doomed space station' works fine as the context understood by the characters but doesn't obviate the possibility that the station might be saved. The possibility of saving the station, faint though it might be, does need to at least be admitted to the conversation in order to make your definition of SN workable. Personally, I think you are being somewhat uncharitable in reading the idea generally, but that might be a failure of understanding on my part.

Not my definition. Working off Ron still. For Story Now to work, the story has to be now. If you've already got parts of it mapped out, it's not now. I don't see how that's uncharitable. I'm not saying the station game is bad in any way. I love Fiasco, but it's also not story now. If you pitched me a story now game about a station in dire peril and then used Force to make sure the station ended, I'd be upset because you didn't deliver the pitch. If you pitched it clean I'd quibble internally that's not Story Now but probably enjoy it. We aren't talking about the fuzzy point at which we accept a game premise and play it because that's always going to be a trade off point -- is it worth it on that moment to put your foot down about nomenclature? I'd say no. But we're looking at design here, and pointing out details of resolution. This is exactly the place that such distinctions matter.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't actually care about the nomenclature at all. I was just looking at the premise and suggesting ways to make Story Now possible. By which I mean something that looks at the table more or less like what SN is described as looking like. When I said 'uncharitable' I was specifically indexing the acknowledgement that minor changes make a big difference, not that you were hacking on the premise, or as an attempt to describe you in a more general way.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don’t have time to dig too deeply into the various topics here. I’ll get to that tomorrow/this weekend.

However, one thought occurred to me and I wanted to offer it.

I ran a Cult game of Blades in the Dark for @darkbard and @Nephis . That game was about 10 sessions or so and probably 7ish play loops?

It ended in an inferno of cult-insanity. Darkbard’s PC lured Nephis’s PC to a Spirit Well and shoved her in to “liberate” her from the Demon possessing her. Of course this killed her in the process! He was then summarily arrested (6 result on Entanglements at 7+ Heat) and thrown into Ironhook Prison for life into the criminally insane ward (which he clearly was).

That_game_was_awesome.

They “lost” but we “won” in the experience and resolution of going for the ride of these characters deranged spiral. It was as Story Now as a Blades in the Dark game could possibly be. It kind of felt like a game of Sorcerer or a game of My Life With Master where we end up asking “wait…are we the baddies?”

So I think there is a large component of this that hasn’t been mentioned yet. That part is this:

* How clear and explicit are the Player Best Practices laid out in a particular game?

* How well are they integrated into the actual edifice of play such that, if you do what those PBPs say, you’ll invariably experience a coherent, riveting Story Now ride?


So I think that is another, extremely important angle to consider.

EDIT -


That game was awesome and it was as Story Now as it gets. Fedallah and N'er "lost", but we (the participants) "won."

I'd say that is one of the necessary preconditions for a game to be Story Now capable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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."

But the full definition of 'story' seems to be more than simply 'plot', doesn't it! If I accept that your response is prima facie a correct interpretation of the RE's intent, then some very classic Story Now games are excluded! I mean, there's no doubt how My Life With Master will end, is there? I would still call it a story now game. I think in this case 'story' is more than 'plot', it is also all the questions that are asked and answered along the way, and how the game unfolds in character terms (drama). Also we start to run up against the problems with the whole RE GNS conception of things (and apparently he'd be the first to point this out, though I have certainly never talked to him, nor even followed his writing all that closely).

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

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.

That is IMHO not a good argument. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a story with a fixed element of plot, and one in which every single aspect of play is fixed. I would say that these are OPPOSITE sorts of situations, and thus totally different! Honestly, I don't think any freedom of character development and drama are lost between the alternatives of a fixed endpoint and a completely open-ended endpoint. Sure, my 'the space station burns up' ending does put a peg in things, there won't be any sequel to THAT game, but that is really all it did. I'd suggest running a scenario of that type, you'll see what I mean pretty quickly, it is VASTLY less limiting than you think! More the opposite even. It certainly unburdened the players from the usual mentality of 'keeping my character healthy' (or rich, or whatever). In fact it was the whole 'Run your character like a stolen car' remark that brought this scenario to mind, because it was definitely a good description of that game! In fact that was one of the themes that falls out of it is "what if there really are no consequences..."

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.

Here I think we can agree entirely, even if we might quibble about the lines between agendas.

 

[pemerton]

I'm just starting in this thread, but here are some thoughts.

where does Story Now end and Fiction First begin?

I think those two things are largely orthogonal. Fiction first is an approach to action declaration and resolution. Moldvay Basic is, to a significant extent, fiction first (though not in combat), but a poor "story now" vehicle in my view. Marvel Heroic RP is a good "story now" vehicle but not really fiction first. The fiction has to be mechanised - mostly via Scene Distinctions or via Effects that result from action resolution - before it can feed into action resolution.

are Skilled Play and System Mastery the same thing?

"Skilled play" is an activity. "System mastery" is a capacity. Moldvay Basic encourages skilled play but does not really permit system mastery in the way I tend to see that used, because it's system is not very complicated.

Story Now principles, like "play your PC like driving a stolen car"

I think that can be a principle for some "story now" play but not all of it. Not all story now play is focused on the vulnerability of the PC to change. For instance, imagine playing a DL-ish or LotR-ish "story now" RPG - while the characters do evolve, the focus is probably more on the engagement of the PCs with the broader themes and issues that are at work in the (imagined) world. Sometimes this idea is expressed in the phrase "letting the players trash the setting" - ie it is the setting, not the PCs, which get treated as vulnerable and expendable like a stolen car.

EDIT:

I would call all SN games FF, myself.

I don't agree. See my example above. Burning Wheel, too, has boxes-to-boxes in places.

I think if we use "fiction first" too broadly - to mean that those at the table care about the fiction - it loses utility as a descriptor.

 

[pemerton]

This actually make me wonder if trad and OC/trad are not Step On Up because play is about experiencing the negotiated story beats (or as I noted with regards to combat in another thread: challenge is performative). I would almost call that Right to Dream, but the system is subordinate to the experience (not just set in motion and allowed to operate).

At least within Edwards's framework set in motion and allowed to operate is a sub-set of "right to dream", namely, "purist for system". Trad and OC/trad would also count as "right to dream", but within the "high concept" sub-set rather than the purist-for-system sub-set.

 

[pemerton]

From where I stand Story Now isn't about character development or dramatic arcs. It's about immediacy, putting the characters through the crucible, and seeing what comes out. That level of tension pretty much requires fiction first mechanics. Mechanics first play promotes a sort emotional distance or safety valve that helps remove the sense of immediacy and tension.

That being said of course not all fiction first games are Story Now games. Every successful Story Now game that I have ever come across is Fiction First though.

This is a good post.

But I don't agree. I find Burning Wheel to be a successful "story now" game, but it's not always fiction first. In Fight!, for instance, the fiction matters but there are also mechanical elements set up around it (boxes-to-boxes, in Baker's framework).

I think the fiction needs to be visible in order to generate the immediacy you refer to. But I don't think everything has to be clouds-to-boxes-to clouds without any boxes-to-boxes mediation.