Doug, thanks for the responses (can't XP you yet).
I think Edwards has in mind a more tightly focused sort of game then the traditional, sprawling, ongoing D&D campaign. One thing I'm trying to get across in this thread is that you don't have to go to funky games or avant-garde play to play narrativist - it's completely viable in classic gonzo fantasy!This seems to be the major difference between your play style and the 'standard narrativistic model' in the article. If I read it right, then in that model the player, during char gen, specifically and clearly chooses the crux of the ensuing conflict.
True. But a bit of preplay conversation, plus what the player reveals through play in the first session or two, can go a long way to sorting this out.In a typical D&D game it's not clear what a player is communicating by choosing the paladin class. Maybe he just likes the idea of being a knight in shining armour and is looking forward to jousting and damsel rescuing, rather than having to choose between his church and his faith, or whatever.
Yep.Interesting quote from Dogs In The Vineyard, which corresponds strongly with what pemerton has being saying
That makes sense.In another thread you talked about Pendragon being drifted towards narrativism and I see now how that could easily happen, by using Passions.
Yep.I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means Exploration as defined in the Big Model.