Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8588185" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So I've been chatting with some friends lately about this subject.  Some friends I diverge with a little, some I diverge with a lot, some I diverge with not at all.  These are all thoughtful people with a lot of consideration on the subject so, that means, there is a lot of stuff that goes into forming an opinion (and then possibly course-correcting).I think the way I'm going to approach this public conversation is (a) link Ron Edwards' essay on the subject of Story Now (for anyone interested), (b) pull out some parts that I feel are extremely important to this conversation, and then (c) Steelman the position that I (at least presently) disagree with.  I'll get to my own opinion later.  First I want to cover the ground that I consider most a problem to my position.  <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">Here is the Story Now essay</a>I invite anyone to read it in its totality, but if you're not interested, the stuff I'm snipping from it below is a good TLDR for this conversation.  Further, at its core, much of these concepts aren't complex and don't require a The Forge PHD TM.  Anyone interested who feels they have something to say that intersects with the topic under discussion is appreciated.  1)  So what is Story Now.  Its core elements are here:[HR][/HR]Story NowStory Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.</li> </ul>Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.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.[HR][/HR]2)  Given the above (and my experience running these games), when it comes to Story Now play in particular (take a look at the final sentence in the Story Now entry above), there are probably three tendencies that will tell you how unmoored the game and table experience is from what Story Now sets out to do.  Those things are:* When the participants orientation to, and experience of, play hews toward "strategy and guts" (which includes not just reward system and IIEE but also the intensity of the simple demands of play) to any degree such that it renders resolving problematic features of human existence and finding out what themes and character emerge from the crucible of this continuous conflict (until its fully resolved) "the bridesmaid and never the bride."* When play is either effectively a fait accompli because the NOW turns into BEFORE (play is not about the decision of the players of the protagonists during play because important matters have either already been decided or will be decided for them).* When PC conception (by a player or by the GM) and/or situation/conflict resolution conception is insufficiently volatile and/or not put under the kind of duress required such that any given participant (even or especially the player of a particular PC) will have their orientation to a PC, to setting, to the premise of play evolve appreciably from start to finish.  Volatile and duress are essential factors here.  They do necessary work.  For example, I'm not talking about having such complete control over Player Character (particularly internal wiring) that any changes to your conception of PC are entirely within your purview and subject to your veto.  There is going to be say by the other participants and system say that obviates your personal purview and veto.  They may not be prolific (that depens on the nuts and bolts of the game), but they will be present and therefore "you will be on the PC conception ride too."This conversation is going to focus overwhelmingly on the first asterisk above.  While I will talk about prep and the nuance of "BEFORE vs NOW", the 2nd asterisk isn't really in play here.  So mostly, I'm focusing on the first asterisk.3)  "The panoply of Techniques being employed over time either satisfy or fail to satisfy one or more Creative Agendas.  <snip range of potential play methods>  I consider the two most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE."This is a very important component of Ron Edwards' essays and you can perform a pretty rigorous system diagnostic to see how amenable it is to one form of play or another just by looking at a particular game's reward system and IIEE.  <a href="http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html" target="_blank">You can find these definitions here</a>, but I'll go ahead and put them below for quick reference:Reward System - (a) The personal and social gratification derived from role-playing, a feature of Creative Agenda. (b) In-game changes, usually to a player-character, a feature of System and Character. (c) As a subset to (b), improvement to one or more of the character's Components. Typically, the term refers to how (a) is facilitated by (b).IIEE - Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events in the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of (1) real-world announcement and (2) imaginary order of occurrence. See The four steps of action and What is IIEC? A necessary feature of System during play, usually represented by several Techniques and many Ephemera.So, anyone who has engaged with my posts over the last decade might notice that IIEE looks like the GM/system version of the player-side OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act).  In my opinion, this is a key relationship of a game and a key way that one game might be delineated from another:What sort of OODA is the IIEE facilitating?Further, how does the Reward System intersect with those two features of play/conversation?  Does (b) facilitate (a) (definition above) and is the IIEE + OODA integration coherent with respect to that?[HR][/HR]Alright, with that out of the way...below are a few statements that are each quite defendable in my estimation (though I presently have some disagreement to one degree or another with either (i) the intersection of one of them with another or (ii) the actual tipping point).  Before getting into Torchbearer 2 (that is ultimately the system that will be under scrutiny here!), I think having a conversation about the below contention and then qualitatively discussing the margins, edge-cases, and other relevant constituent parts (see above 1-3).* There is a tipping point whereby the paradigm of Skilled Play within a system is so intensive (any/all of the actual cognitive preoccupation with, overabundance of handling time on a significant cross-section of play, the emotional feedback of play overall being preoccupied with, etc) that it impedes Story Now play.* There is a tipping point whereby system intricacy is so intensive that it impedes Story Now play.* There is a type/kind and amount of prep that impedes Story Now play.* There is a IIEE + OODA relationship that foregrounds and orients content that impedes Story Now play.* There are Reward Systems that incentivize/perpetuate the exploration of premise/character evolution/volatility that is inherent to Story Now play and Reward Systems that distract from, disincentivize, or impede these things.So, the below statement (though it requires a certain level of rigor within the scrutiny) may very well be true:System x is not a Story Now experience because the demands of Skilled Play are far too intensive, the IIEE + OODA relationship foregrounds challenge-based content far too much, and the system is intricate to such a degree that participants invariably are preoccupied by system architecture/mechanical interaction rather than engaging with and addressing premise/thematic conflict duress and the nature of its fallout on PC.</blockquote>

Verification