Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8623415" data-attributes="member: 42582">This has already been answered in the thread, by [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] and maybe also [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER]. I'll try again!Edwards inherited a three-fold distinction from earlier discussion. He changed the label "dramatism" to "narrativism" because the word "drama" already had a different meaning - Jonathan Tweet (the same one who designed 3E D&D) had used it, in his game Everway, to describe a type of resolution process (drama, karma, fortune - ie talking; comparing fixed values; rolling dice or drawing cards). From <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">here</a>:The Threefold Model for role-playing included the term Dramatism, as presented by John Kim at his Threefold Model (<a href="http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/" target="_blank">http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/</a>) webpage. When I learned about the Threefold, I'd already been thinking about stuff I'd later call Currency and also about Jonathan Tweet's discussion of resolution presented in Everway. The basic notion of the Threefold impressed me: it was time to talk about goals and priorities independently of everything else, then to see whether everything else flowed to and from them. This was at the time that Sorcerer was making its small way into commerce, so the mailing list was the place for our first discussions; most of them are archived at the Sorcerer website (<a href="http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/" target="_blank">http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com</a>). At this point, since "Drama" as a resolution category in Tweet's schema and "Dramatism" as a goals-category in the Threefold referred to two different things, I decided that the names were confusing. Going by which set of ideas was first presented (Tweet's), I changed Dramatism to Narrativism. This terminological change was limited to discussions on the Sorcerer mailing list and later at the Gaming Outpost. However, our use of the terms and ideas on the Sorcerer mailing list took on its own character almost immediatelyAs Edwards says, he is talking about goals and priorities. And as per [USER=67338]@GMforPowergamers[/USER]'s query upthread, these are creative priorities - what is the aesthetic experience the RPGers are hoping to obtain? (Edwards also often uses the term "creative agenda" - in this usage, someone's "agenda" is the same as what someone prioritises - as in the phrase "hidden agenda", which means a hidden goal.)Edwards identifies four main creative priorities in RPGing:* Experiencing a metagame-free system in operation, unfolding an imagined world before your eyes ("purist for system simulation") - RuneQuest as presented and as typically played is the paradigm of this; * Experiencing a GM's presentation of a setting and/or story ("high concept simulation") - early WoD is the paradigm of this; 2nd ed AD&D had a lot of it too; I think that a lot of adventure path play is like this; * Playing well and/or testing your luck - "winning" the game, beating the dungeon, showing off your skill as a player - classic (Gygaxian) D&D is a paradigm of this; Tunnels & Trolls has a lot of this too; I think 3E had a lot of this too, in its approach to PC build ("optimisation") and combat resolution (finding and deploying "I win" buttons); * Addressing a theme/premise via play, the idea being to "challenge" the participants in relation to values or emotions, and to find out how they react and enjoy sharing those responses, in something like the way other "high" art forms do - Apocalypse World is a paradigm of this; so is Edwards's game Sorcerer; Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant is a much "lighter" example (melodrama rather than genuine drama).Because the first two are both about prioritising what the participants experience rather than what they bring to the process of play, Edwards puts them both in one of his three baskets - the simulationist one. But obviously they use very different techniques - RQ-type RPGing is all about the purity and robustness of the mechanics, and how they reveal the fiction without the need for curation or participant intervention; whereas "storytelling"-type RPGing often downplays mechanics and focuses on the GM's role as a curator and presenter of the fiction.Edwards notes that the third and fourth priorities often use very similar techniques - fortune-in-the-middle resolution, for instance - but he keeps them separate because they are different in terms of creative priority.A lot of discussion of RPGing on these boards runs together techniques - eg the use of metacurrency - and creative priorities: you can see this, for instance, in [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER]'s post equating metacurrency with "narrativism". Edwards is fairly determined to keep these things separate, for analytical purposes, and his GNS labels are focused on creative priorities, not techniques.Edwards is well aware that "GM decides" is a powerful technique, but he is interested in other techniques that can also reliably deliver particular sorts of RPGing. On these boards there is often an assumption that "GM decides" is the go-to solution for any tension between  resolution mechanics, or PC build mechanics, and the desired play experience. That's fine as far as it goes, but within that context of discussion an analytical scheme that is interested in other possible techniques, and in the way participants other than the GM can generate the fundamentals of play, will of course not seem very useful.</blockquote>

Verification