NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8628952" data-attributes="member: 82106">Personally I don't see any great need to assume that Story Now is the only form a Narrativist agenda can take. That is, I think that you cannot say a game is really narratively focused unless the narrative has significant dramatic leeway within play. So, the premise and the milieu, and the process of play must allow for things like players who decide how characters react to events within the game. That further implies that the sequence of events is not fully determined beforehand (which I think is pretty much a given for all RPG play to at least some degree). It also implies that whichever participants make decisions about character reactions are able to make EFFECTIVE decisions, at least potentially. By effective I mean they matter dramatically (I guess it is possible they might have very little impact on the direction the plot takes, as in my Doomed Station example).I am not sure to what extent any of the people responsible for developing the whole GNS thing explored non-Story Now Narrativism. Certainly games were produced which have had significant narrativist focus in which the 'recipe' isn't exactly like what was originally presented by Edwards. One might consider those games to be less Narrativist in agenda, but I am not sure that's a very good conclusion. It might be better to consider that some elements are necessary, some are supportive, and some might easily be replaced by something else that works equally well, or were simply misidentified as being core. I think it would also behoove people to look at post-GNS ideas, as it is likely many of these points are ones that have already been addressed, since GNS is an almost 20 year old theory at this point!</blockquote>

Verification