Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8628218" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Why? Why is it "narrower" to want play to be about authoring fiction with a "point", rather than to want it to be about "winning"? I don't even know how one would begin to judge what is broad or narrow here.</p><p></p><p>Well, there seem to be a number of people posting in this thread who knew nothing of the theory, and then read it and understood all three. I know that I was such a person, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago.</p><p></p><p>Simulationism means <em>enjoying the fiction for its own sake</em>. This is not the goal of story now play.</p><p></p><p>And high-concept sim may have a point. But that point is not authored via play. It is introduced prior to play, as [USER=71235]@niklinna[/USER] (I think I'm remembering right) has posted about already in this thread.</p><p></p><p>Edwards has used various sorts of descriptions.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/" target="_blank">Here's one</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Narrativism</strong> is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements [character, system, setting, situation, colour] provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).</p><p></p><p>A year or two later he tried it <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">this way</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be <em>addressed</em> in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <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> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The <em>Now</em> 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.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">There cannot be any "<em>the</em> 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. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way. </p><p></p><p>In the same essay, he also endorses this drawing of the contrast between high-concept sim and narrativism:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. . . . their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that <em>isn't already there</em>. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, <em>reinforced</em> by the play, and kind of a by-product.</p><p></p><p>And that fits with his earlier remark that </p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world . . . </p><p></p><p>Story now play involves the participants, in the moment of play and via the processes of play, <em>conveying something</em> that bears upon theme or dramatic premise. It locates the point of RPGing as being the same as most authoring in other media, ie having something to say and saying it. And doing that <em>in the moment of play</em>. </p><p></p><p>That's why freedom of the player to <em>choose what their PC does, at the moment of crisis</em> and <em>to adopt an evaluative stance towards that</em> is key. As Edwards says, there is no "the story", no pre-determination of what the "proper" or "correct" thing to do is. That's why, if I had to identify a single D&D system element that is hostile to "story now" RPGing, it would be GM adjudication of alignment and associated practices like telling players of clerics (via "roleplay" of the gods) what religion demands of their PCs. Getting rid of alignment was, for me, a crucial preliminary step to playing "story now" AD&D.</p><p></p><p>If you're asking for examples of "points", well here are some (from my RPGing experiences): what/who will I sacrifice for my brother?; will I save my brother even though he is evil?; what will I do to get revenge?; what will I do to keep the Elven ways?; it's worth setting myself back to show up my rival!; I will destroy the evidence that shows I'm descended from an evil mage, even my mother's childhood letters; I will risk death to defend Aramina; I won't set aside my principles to reach accommodation with my brother; I will give up my own chaos-sourced power to seal the Abyss; I will marry to keep the peace and make an ally; I will choose my marriage over my love; I will redeem the Celtic undead; I will wield my power to defeat the Nazgul!; when forced to choose, I choose the Raven Queen over Vecna, even at cost to myself; "I feel really good about not having killed that bear", said after the PCs tamed it instead.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8628218, member: 42582"] Why? Why is it "narrower" to want play to be about authoring fiction with a "point", rather than to want it to be about "winning"? I don't even know how one would begin to judge what is broad or narrow here. Well, there seem to be a number of people posting in this thread who knew nothing of the theory, and then read it and understood all three. I know that I was such a person, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago. Simulationism means [I]enjoying the fiction for its own sake[/I]. This is not the goal of story now play. And high-concept sim may have a point. But that point is not authored via play. It is introduced prior to play, as [USER=71235]@niklinna[/USER] (I think I'm remembering right) has posted about already in this thread. Edwards has used various sorts of descriptions. [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/']Here's one[/URL]: [INDENT][B]Narrativism[/B] is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements [character, system, setting, situation, colour] provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).[/INDENT] A year or two later he tried it [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html']this way[/URL]: [INDENT]Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be [I]addressed[/I] in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT][LIST] [*]Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place. [*]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. [*]Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances. [/LIST][/INDENT] [INDENT]Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The [I]Now[/I] 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.[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]There cannot be any "[I]the[/I] 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. . . . Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way. [/INDENT] In the same essay, he also endorses this drawing of the contrast between high-concept sim and narrativism: [indent]in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. . . . their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that [I]isn't already there[/I]. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved. In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, [I]reinforced[/I] by the play, and kind of a by-product.[/indent] And that fits with his earlier remark that [indent]In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world . . . [/indent] Story now play involves the participants, in the moment of play and via the processes of play, [i]conveying something[/i] that bears upon theme or dramatic premise. It locates the point of RPGing as being the same as most authoring in other media, ie having something to say and saying it. And doing that [i]in the moment of play[/i]. That's why freedom of the player to [i]choose what their PC does, at the moment of crisis[/i] and [i]to adopt an evaluative stance towards that[/i] is key. As Edwards says, there is no "the story", no pre-determination of what the "proper" or "correct" thing to do is. That's why, if I had to identify a single D&D system element that is hostile to "story now" RPGing, it would be GM adjudication of alignment and associated practices like telling players of clerics (via "roleplay" of the gods) what religion demands of their PCs. Getting rid of alignment was, for me, a crucial preliminary step to playing "story now" AD&D. If you're asking for examples of "points", well here are some (from my RPGing experiences): what/who will I sacrifice for my brother?; will I save my brother even though he is evil?; what will I do to get revenge?; what will I do to keep the Elven ways?; it's worth setting myself back to show up my rival!; I will destroy the evidence that shows I'm descended from an evil mage, even my mother's childhood letters; I will risk death to defend Aramina; I won't set aside my principles to reach accommodation with my brother; I will give up my own chaos-sourced power to seal the Abyss; I will marry to keep the peace and make an ally; I will choose my marriage over my love; I will redeem the Celtic undead; I will wield my power to defeat the Nazgul!; when forced to choose, I choose the Raven Queen over Vecna, even at cost to myself; "I feel really good about not having killed that bear", said after the PCs tamed it instead. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top