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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8629668" data-attributes="member: 42582">Let's not forget Prince Valiant (1989) and Maelstrom Storytelling (1997) and HeroWars (2000). OtE is 1992, but the others you mention are all post-2000.I tend to agree with Edwards that while "story now"/narrativism was never mainstream, it existed from early in the hobby. So that Edwards and friend are not inventing it, but are pulling it out from the simulationist shadow and really thinking about what techniques, and what principles, will or won't make it work better or worse.Of course this involved reversing, or at least questioning, many ideas in RPGing that had become largely received by the mid-80s, like the importance of world-building, the importance of GM fidelity to their world and the established fiction, the need for the GM to keep a "lid" on pushy players, etc.On prestige, Edwards in his story now essay clearly identifies social status/prestige as something that might be implicated in "story now" play, in the same way that it is an obvious factor in author's circles and artistic salons.In more than one of his essays he discusses circumstances in which "the system" often becomes a group-specific cultural artefact, often with the GM playing a leading role in that respect. Clearly notions of prestige are in play here too.As far as "risk" is concerned, <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">here</a> is how he talks about "risk" in the context of "story now":The potential for personal risk and disclosure among the real people involved. * High risk play is best represented by playing Sorcerer, Le Mon Mouri, InSpectres, Zero, or Violence Future. You're putting your ego on the line with this stuff, as genre conventions cannot help you; the other people in play are going to learn a lot about who you are. It's clear that he is referring to the sort of "risk" involved in any artistic endeavour. He's aware that there is also a type of "risk" in playing to win (ie you can lose, and perhaps look like an idiot in the process) but the risk is different - it's rare that anyone is going to judge your values or personality based on whether or not you're a good wargamer, or a good unraveller of mysteries, in the way they will judge you based on what you think is worthwhile from an artistic/thematic/dramatic point of view.Which just brings us back to the fact that Edwards, in his work on GNS, is analysing creative agendas as these are apt to be expressed via the medium of RPGing. It's not a general theory of games, nor a general theory of fiction, nor a general theory of life.</blockquote>

Verification