Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9658521" data-attributes="member: 13383">At its core, a story is simply an account of events. However, that’s not what is meant by “story” in Narrativism. In that context, “story” refers to a thematic structure shaped intentionally by character decisions and their consequences.That kind of thematic structuring doesn’t exist in my Living World Sandbox campaigns. The world exists independently of the players, and while meaningful outcomes may emerge, they aren’t designed to support a particular theme or narrative arc. They’re the byproduct of player choices interacting with a consistent world.Take your example of the beggar leader seeking revenge. You said:Yes, the beggars were in danger if the Demon Wolf turned its attention to them. But even in your reductive example, that danger wasn’t constructed to generate a moral dilemma. The beggars were there because, a few weeks prior, it was plausible for them to be fencing loot for the local bandits. It was bad luck that they happened to be present during the Demon Wolf’s attacks, which led to the chief’s son being killed. The leader then chose to stay and seek revenge, and the clan agreed to support him.The outcomes you listed are all plausible:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He leaves, the beggars are safe, and they flourish.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He leaves, but the lack of justice causes internal conflict.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He stays, fails, and the beggars are slain.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He stays, succeeds, and the beggars survive.</li> </ul>If the players chose not to engage with that situation, I would still resolve it, because the clan’s decision to hunt the Demon Wolf had already been made. I’d roll to determine the outcome of that hunt. Based on that result, I’d then roll or judge which of the possible consequences occurred, and update my notes accordingly.Again, the point isn’t to create a narrative but to maintain a coherent and reactive setting. The focus is on how time and events unfold whether or not the players intervene. That’s a fundamentally different procedure and design goal than what Narrativism is concerned with.Narrativism isn’t emergent, it’s authored through play. Ron Edwards is clear: story is the point. Thematic structure arises because the system is designed to foreground premise and character choice. That’s a different goal than simulating a world and letting consequences unfold without regard for theme, and primarily considering plausibility.The Living World sandbox offers a world you survive, change, or leave behind, while Narrativism offers a story you shape, wrestle with, and resolve. Both are powerful, and both speak to different creative instincts. Each delivers a distinct kind of payoff, and both deserve respect for how well they serve their goals.Yes, Narrativism is a type of fun. But that fun doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s built on procedures and structures designed to foreground premise, character choice, and thematic resolution.  Living World has its own set of procedures and structures designed to foreground visiting a setting with a life of its own as a character having adventures.</blockquote>

Verification