Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5641462" data-attributes="member: 85870">Based on the discussion of narrative, I've given some thought to how I see narrative working within RPGs. Others may have their own take, but I see there being three levels of &quot;narrative&quot; that coincide with in-game activity: <ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Meta-narrative</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Indirect Character Narrative</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Direct Character Narrative</li>
</ol>Interestingly, depending on the circumstance, any of the three can be&nbsp; &quot;dissociative,&quot; in the sense of breaking subjectively acceptable&nbsp; verisimilitude, as Yesway Jose kindly stated. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />1. Meta-narrative is solely the domain of the GM. This is the&nbsp; &quot;backstory&quot; of the world, its population, nations, economy, and so on.&nbsp; All NPCs fall into this category, at least until they come in contact&nbsp; with the party. Meta-narrative is typically causally associated to world physics,&nbsp; historical events, biology/naturalism, or anything else that constitutes&nbsp; &quot;why things exist in the state they are.&quot; Meta-narrative is the least-engaged narrative element for players; typically they only interact with it when indirect or direct narrative presents a conflict--for example, the&nbsp; player thinks their character background should be one thing, but the&nbsp; player's desire conflicts with the GM's &quot;vision.&quot; The overall story &quot;arc&quot; of any campaign is usually played out in&nbsp; indirect and direct narrative, but ultimately the &quot;story&quot; becomes&nbsp; meta-narrative as well. Long-running campaigns and long-term PCs/NPCs&nbsp; very much become part of the meta-narrative fabric. 2. Indirect Character Narrative is negotiated between the player&nbsp; and the GM. It's the bridge between direct narrative and meta-narrative,&nbsp; typically related to individual player/character's decisions about who their character is. This includes negotiating race, class, powers/feats/magical abilities,&nbsp; skills, where the character is from, hobbies/professions, and so on. Indirect character narrative can be engaged somewhat by players,&nbsp; especially when questions of &quot;How would my character react to this?&quot;&nbsp; come up. Indirect narrative can be influenced both backwards and forwards by mechanics, and the meta-narrative. For example, we probably generally expect a paladin to have a much different&nbsp; emotional/personal reaction to a starving orphan on the street than a&nbsp; rogue. Why? Because the rules generally point players to some common&nbsp; elements that make up a paladin character's indirect narrative. Does this mean that a rogue couldn't have the same reaction? No, not at all; there's just no mechanical impetus for the rogue character to feel the same way. Some games even provide specific indirect narrative elements as part of&nbsp; character creation. For example, GURPS has the option to use the Enemy&nbsp; disadvantage, where it's generally assumed that the GM and player will&nbsp; create a narratively acceptable recurring villain that meets the&nbsp; requirements of the mechanic. 3. Direct Character Narrative—This is where most RPG sessions&nbsp; operate in a moment-to-moment basis; it's anything the character does&nbsp; while participating in an actual session. Meta-narrative, indirect narrative, and mechanics all influence how the&nbsp; player approaches direct character actions--&quot;My paladin character would&nbsp; feel the need to help that ragged orphan on the street&quot; (indirect); &quot;My&nbsp; sorcerer wants to find out the history of the Chancellor's magic ring&quot;&nbsp; (meta-narrative)&quot;; &quot;My fighter wants to climb that wall. Tell me if I&nbsp; succeed&quot; (mechanics).&nbsp; Many times the narrative elements will overlap&nbsp; and interconnect. There's more that I want to touch on regarding the ways the three&nbsp; narrative elements connect to mechanical association/dissociation, but&nbsp; I'll have to come back to it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 5641462, member: 85870"] Based on the discussion of narrative, I've given some thought to how I see narrative working within RPGs. Others may have their own take, but I see there being three levels of "narrative" that coincide with in-game activity: [LIST=1] [*]Meta-narrative [*]Indirect Character Narrative [*]Direct Character Narrative [/LIST] Interestingly, depending on the circumstance, any of the three can be "dissociative," in the sense of breaking subjectively acceptable verisimilitude, as Yesway Jose kindly stated. :) 1. [B]Meta-narrative[/B] is solely the domain of the GM. This is the "backstory" of the world, its population, nations, economy, and so on. All NPCs fall into this category, at least until they come in contact with the party. Meta-narrative is typically causally associated to world physics, historical events, biology/naturalism, or anything else that constitutes "why things exist in the state they are." Meta-narrative is the least-engaged narrative element for players; typically they only interact with it when indirect or direct narrative presents a conflict--for example, the player thinks their character background should be one thing, but the player's desire conflicts with the GM's "vision." The overall story "arc" of any campaign is usually played out in indirect and direct narrative, but ultimately the "story" becomes meta-narrative as well. Long-running campaigns and long-term PCs/NPCs very much become part of the meta-narrative fabric. 2. [B]Indirect Character Narrative [/B]is negotiated between the player and the GM. It's the bridge between direct narrative and meta-narrative, typically related to individual player/character's decisions about [I]who their character is[/I]. This includes negotiating race, class, powers/feats/magical abilities, skills, where the character is from, hobbies/professions, and so on. Indirect character narrative can be engaged somewhat by players, especially when questions of "How would my character react to this?" come up. Indirect narrative can be influenced both backwards and forwards by mechanics, and the meta-narrative. For example, we probably generally expect a paladin to have a much different emotional/personal reaction to a starving orphan on the street than a rogue. Why? Because the rules generally point players to some common elements that make up a paladin character's indirect narrative. Does this mean that a rogue couldn't have the same reaction? No, not at all; there's just no mechanical impetus for the rogue character to feel the same way. Some games even provide specific indirect narrative elements as part of character creation. For example, GURPS has the option to use the Enemy disadvantage, where it's generally assumed that the GM and player will create a narratively acceptable recurring villain that meets the requirements of the mechanic. 3. [B]Direct Character Narrative[/B]—This is where most RPG sessions operate in a moment-to-moment basis; it's anything the character does while participating in an actual session. Meta-narrative, indirect narrative, and mechanics all influence how the player approaches direct character actions--"My paladin character would feel the need to help that ragged orphan on the street" (indirect); "My sorcerer wants to find out the history of the Chancellor's magic ring" (meta-narrative)"; "My fighter wants to climb that wall. Tell me if I succeed" (mechanics). Many times the narrative elements will overlap and interconnect. There's more that I want to touch on regarding the ways the three narrative elements connect to mechanical association/dissociation, but I'll have to come back to it. [/QUOTE]

Verification