LostSoul said:
I don't see how else you can interpret it, honestly.
I have a hard time believing that you
honestly mean that, as you've already admitted that reading several Forge essays is a requirement to interpret the phrase as you have. In short, it's pretty easy to interpret the definition given by Vincent as a meaning lot of other things, provided that one doesn't first go do a lot of research (indeed, at least one person on this thread has already supposed that Narrativism has something to do with narrative or literature, neither of which is necessarily true according to Forge canon).
I could be wrong when I relate an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence" to moral or ethical issues, but I don't think so.
Well, according to the Glossary definition, that isn't a qualifier of Story Now. So one Forge founder says X and one says Y. According to the Glossary, the only qualifier of Story Now is that it address premise through actual play, and premise, while it
may be an engaging issue (that's an extremely vague qualifier, but I digress) is not necessarily engaging. Likewise, premise is not necesssarily a "problematic feature of human existence" (which, again, is quite vague and not necessarily a moral or ethical dilemma).
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about where the lack of definititive explanation of terms is concerned. Clinton's Glossary states one thing whereas Ron's essay states another thing entirely (it adds a qualifier absent from the Glossary definition). Which is odd... given that the Glossary definition post-dates the essay. So, perhaps, it's that the official Glossary drops a qualifier? Either way, the two definitions (each issued by a Forge founder) are in conflict on a fundamental level.
Narrativism is Story Now. Story Now is defined in the quote above (from the Narrativist essay). I'm just not seeing the disconnect here.
Story Now is
also defined by the
other Forge founder in the glossary - and what's more, therein it is defined differently. The definition of Narrativism in the Forge Glossary refers the reader to the entry for Story Now (which, BTW, didn't come into being until three or more years after 'Narrativism' did) that, in turn, explains Story Now as being only one
feature of Narrativism and cites the entry for Creative Agenda as a qualifier.
Now, if you choose to ignore the existence of one definition and embrace another as the only one that matters, that's certainly a choice open to you - but making that choice doesn't mean that the contradictory definitions cease to exist, nor does it address the basic logic flaws that assert themselves as a result of these tenuous defintions. So, what
is Narrativism? Ron, Clinton, Vincent, and Yourself all provide a different answer to the question insofar as qualifiers are concerned:
- Ron Says: Narrativism is Story Now, a Creative Agenda that addresses an engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence.
- Clinton Says: Narrativism is a Creative Agenda whose primary feature is Story Now, a Creative Agenda* that addresses premise (a thing that, by basic literary definition, is not necessarily tied to either of the two things that Ron suggests it is).
- Vincent Says: Narrativism is people who want to Say Something (in a Lit 101 sense), a definition that neither quantifies Narrativism or Story Now in and of itself - instead it only draws a vague comparision to basic Literature courses as taught by a Univiersity.
- You Say: Narrativism is Story Now, a Creative Agenda that specifically addresses moral or ethical issues.
Now, if one is to objectively evaluate all of those answers, they'll see that they're all quite different. Ron's defintion presents only vague qualifiers that are completely open to interpretation, Clinton's definition specifically defines
a qualifier but differentiates between that qualifier and the thing that it qualifies in addition to suggesting that more qualifier exist, Vincent's definition addresses
no qualifiers, and your definition specifically defines a qualifier that neither Ron nor Clinton do
Of the 4 definitions, I think that Clinton's comes the closest to being objective as it utilizes terms that it attempts to objectively define via external reference and, in doing so, actually attempts to answer the question 'What is Narrativism?' definitively (sadly, it stops short of telling the reader what Narrativism is, other than a Creative Agenda characterized by Story Now*). As to which definition is the most worthwhile...
At the present time, I'm going to say
none of them - Ron's is entirely subjective, Clinton's is incomplete, Vincent's doesn't define anything in and of itself, and yours is extremely narrow, holding out one qualifier as the 'be all, end all' (e.g., moral and ethical dilemma). As they stand, I'm not convinced that any of those definitions are useful when applied to the Big Picture (i.e., the hobby as a whole). I think that Clinton's definition has the
potential to be useful (ditto yours, if you widen the scope), but Ron and Vincent's definitions only seem to facilitate the need to sound important, as they stop short of defining anything in objective terms (well, and again, Vincent's doesn't even
try).
Sincerely,
James D. Hargrove
*This might be viewed as a logic error if one asserts that a Creative Agenda cannot inform another Creative Agenda or that Narratvism and Story Now are the same thing (Clinton asserts that the latter is not true in his definition).
). And I believe there are as many CAs out there as there are gamers and combination of group of gamers among these gamers (a lot). GNS is the the "most obvious" ones or caricatures. The G and S have strong historical example ie most RPGs out there on the market. All the others are the gazillions of house ruled RPG out there.
) and nobody you would go condescending about "good" roleplaying vs "bad" roleplaying. Most paladin and alignement issues would also vanish. Etc. And the OGL license would certainly be more fruitful. If and only if those snobs at the forge could put their stuff in order.
