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: 9833628" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there are some accounts of old conversations that exaggerate some of what was said. As an example, Edwards, in his "story now" essay, observed thatTechniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas. . . . For Narrativist play, the key is to focus on conflicts rather than tasks. A conflict statement is, "I'm trying to kill him," or, "I'm trying to humiliate him," whereas a task statement is, "I swing my sword at him." (It doesn't matter, by the way, how much in-game time and space are involved; conflict resolution can be "very small" and task resolution can be "very big." We can discuss this more on-line.) I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing Narrativist protagonism. . . . Does Fortune-in-the-Middle define Narrativism? No, nor does it even facilitate it in isolation. It's merely a strong component of many Narrativist-facilitating combinations of Techniques . . . "El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp.So there's no doubt that it's possible to design for narrativist play. I would never, now, try and play narrativist AD&D or narrativist RM, as I have better systems available - particularly Burning Wheel, which has nearly all the mechanical intricacy of RM, and which provides very strong exploration as its chassis, but has few elements that reinforce "simulationism" and impede the focus on rising conflict across a moral line.And Apocalypse World is an incredibly sophisticated example of design, because rather than using Beliefs (like BW) or Best Interets (like In A Wicked Age), it puts all the conflict and rising action and moral lines into the playbooks and the moves. It's pretty intricate!But while RM or AD&D will get in the way of your narrativist play (again, I can report this from experience!) they don't make it impossible. They still give the GM quite a bit of leeway in framing, and where those systems yield task outcomes rather than conflict outcomes, the GM can use the authority those systems provide to help maintain the connection between outcomes and rising action/conflict. This will reduce the degree of play authorship - another impediment to narrativist play with those systems - but needn't kill it stone dead, especially if the GM's authority is being used in collaboration with the players and following their cues.</blockquote>

Verification