Quote from: Omega;860366Its the norm at any table where only the DM knows for certain the players HP. Seen it a few times here and there since at least the late 80s.

It's the norm where it's the norm, eh?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860426Moving from the theoretical to how discussions usually go,

If you like "narrative" games, any game you like you will find "narrativist" elements in.

If you don't like "narrative" games, any game you like you will be able to prove has no "narrative" elements in it.

Baloney. You can speak for yourself, but not for everyone else.

Quote from: Phillip;860428Baloney. You can speak for yourself, but not for everyone else.

I speak from 10 years of watching people argue over this.  When the day ends, 99% of the time that's what it boils down to.

Quote from: Phillip;860427It's the norm where it's the norm, eh?

0.1% of the time it happens 100% of the time.

Quote from: Phillip;860428

QuoteIf you don't like "narrative" games, any game you like you will be able to prove has no "narrative" elements in it.

Baloney. You can speak for yourself, but not for everyone else.

What he's describing is behavior that occurs whenever you have people pushing  for some sort of absolute purity test when they aren't actually willing to live with the consequences of applying that purity test: They come up with all kinds of rationalizations for why things that obviously violate their purity test aren't "really" violations.

This isn't limited to RPG discussions. For example, I was talking to someone the other day who declared that any film which fails the Bechdel Test is misogynstic. I offered the counterexample of Gravity and I was told that the film "really" passed the Bechdel Test because Sandra Bullock's character is in an "unspoken dialogue" with her dead daughter.

Similarly, when it comes to purity-test RPG discussions the most typical get-out-of-purity-free dodge is to toss out some house rules to rewrite the game until it passes your purity test. You might not believe that this sort of thing happens, but there really are threads out there where will people will try to explain why a Karma Point mechanic in their favorite game isn't REALLY the same thing as an identical Karma Point mechanic in a game they don't care for.

(Yes, that was snark.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;860446You might not believe that this sort of thing happens, but there really are threads out there where will people will try to explain why a Karma Point mechanic in their favorite game isn't REALLY the same thing as an identical Karma Point mechanic in a game they don't care for.

(Yes, that was snark.)

Justin snarky? Nah, really?

Seriously though, are you really contending that the use of Karma or Edge is the same in all 5 versions of Shadowrun or do you know it's really not, which is that why you're being uncharacteristically vague and non-specific, leaving a drive-by instead of an argument?  Or is the "identical Karma Point mechanic" referring to something else?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860434I speak from 10 years of watching people argue over this.  When the day ends, 99% of the time that's what it boils down to.

If that's what anyone in this thread is specifically doing, than say so.

Well, I am in a position to know myself, what games I like, and what I'm inclined to say about them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;860466If that's what anyone in this thread is specifically doing, than say so.

The OP was asking my opinion, and my opinion is that most of the time it is an undefined term or poorly defined term that people use to either praise or damn a game.

Quote from: Phillip;860427It's the norm where it's the norm, eh?

No. Its the norm where the PCs dont know their HP.

Quote from: Omega;860562No. Its the norm where the PCs dont know their HP.

That makes more sense than what you wrote before.

Re: "Theme" and "StoryNow"

Note that while the Storygaming (as in the forum name) definition has been trotted out, there is a very peculiar intent that has not been mentioned. This peculiar intent was driving a LOT of the "Narrativist's" efforts.

The peculiar intent:
To use the method of roleplaying to elucidate moral responses from the players. That is what is "fun" and "story" and "theme" for Ron and the gang. Getting the people around the table to reveal something about their morality.
Note also, that the morality plays (pun intended) they were/are interested in are very firmly those of white middle-class/petit-bourgois origins, i.e. vulgar-Freudian schlock.

Ok, here are some more quotes from the father of the OSR:

Narrativism Essay

QuoteNarrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions of all sorts.

QuoteNarrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

QuoteA possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?

Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

I'm still saying the same thing. But now, I've returned to my earlier usage; it's the only meaning for the term "Premise" in my model.

That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict, so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say, "problematic human issue" instead.

Egri presents his Premises as flat statements, and I state them as questions. Using the question form isn't changing anything about what Egri is saying. Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage anyone.

what's narrativist about zero rpg

QuoteAll that shit about Plot Points, narration, funky counters you trade around, anything like that, whatever, that people describe variously as "Forge games" or (ugh) "story games" and so on ... all of that is mere Technique. It's not trivial, as I'll explain in a minute, but no Technique is an Agenda, in and of itself.

That's right - you can have a game with all kinds of these wild and non-standard rules where you get to narrate the outcome of a roll if it's Tuesday, but on Wednesday you don't roll dice but bark at the moon to resolve combat ... whatever. And that doesn't make it Narrativist. That game, or more accurately, the way it runs most fun, could be facilitating any one of the Agendas.

Creative Agenda is definitely facilitated by System (best understood as how the various Techniques work synergistically) ... or rather, a given System might be good or bad at doing so ... but the point is that Creative Agenda is something the people playing want to do, not any intrinsic quality of any of the Techniques being employed.

QuoteSo to start with the Narrativism thing ... A lot of people say that Narrativism has "nothing to do with narrative." They are flatly incorrect. I often don't know what they mean when they say that. Sometimes it seems they're confusing narrative with narration, sometimes something else, whatever. With just you and me, here, I say that Narrativist play concerns the core emotional motor of experiencing and creative a narrative. So when you say, "its about moral dilemma or about addressing premise," (which happen to be the same thing, so the "or" makes no sense), that is about making a narrative through play itself.

Narrativism and Morality?

QuoteI also think that you may be reading "fixed answer" or "irrefutable" into my use of theme and/or morality as terms, much in the same way that Jesse Burneko has struggled with in the past. The theme that's produced by the viewer/experiencer's mind is his or her own thing; for it to be more than mere projection, the art form must present something novel or "clear" for the person's mind to work with. Two people may come up with different themes, but to do it at all, they had to wrestle with the same Premise.

QuoteThink of Premise as an unstable, intriguing, values-charged issue which a fictional situation has invoked. At this point, the situation is not resolved. The emotional attention is focused and ready. Upon resolution, wham-bo, a Theme gets constructed on the spot. Its content relies wholly on (a) the nature and circumstances of the resolution, which must involve character decisions; and (b) the actual values of the real person constructing the Theme.

Narrativist play absolutely relies upon establishing such a Premise and upon hitting those decision/resolution points during play. That is why its tagline is Story Now, just as the one for Gamism is Step On Up and the one for Simulationism is The Right to Dream. However, I must emphasize the "Now," rather the "Story." That's the key element.

Final points:

1. Your use of "values-charged" and my use of "moral and ethical" are synonymous. I'd rather not get into a tangle about who's right in that regard, but will concede to "values" in gentlemanly fashion.

2. All of the above stuff about Narrativism applies to Gamist play if you switch out the "issues/values" for "competence-based challenge to esteem." The Gamist essay is almost out, I swear, just waiting on a couple more readers' comments.

3. In role-playing, the people involved are simultaneously author and audience, unlike theater, movies, novels, etc. Therefore when I talk about a person "constructing" a theme, I am not talking only about the person who's playing the character - I'm talking about everyone who's participating in play.

Quote from: Settembrini;860732The peculiar intent:
To use the method of roleplaying to elucidate moral responses from the players. That is what is "fun" and "story" and "theme" for Ron and the gang. Getting the people around the table to reveal something about their morality.

Interesting take.

QuoteNote also, that the morality plays[ (pun intended) they were/are interested in are very firmly those of white middle-class/petit-bourgois origins, i.e. vulgar-Freudian schlock.

As opposed to say European poseur faux intellectual origins?

Quote from: Settembrini;860732The peculiar intent:
To use the method of roleplaying to elucidate moral responses from the players. That is what is "fun" and "story" and "theme" for Ron and the gang. Getting the people around the table to reveal something about their morality.

Interesting take.

QuoteNote also, that the morality plays[ (pun intended) they were/are interested in are very firmly those of white middle-class/petit-bourgois origins, i.e. vulgar-Freudian schlock.

As opposed to say European poseur faux intellectual origins?

Quote from: Bren;860776Interesting take.
As opposed to say European poseur faux intellectual origins?

Am I the only person who finds the 21st century un-ironic use of the term "petit-bourgois" hysterical?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;860773Ok, here are some more quotes from the father of the OSR:

What a fucking windbag!

All those words as a roundabout way to say a Narrativist Premise is a moral or ethical question in the game that engages the players' interest. Of course if he'd made clear, direct statements instead of writing pages of obfuscating, pseudo intellectual drivel, people could have clearly understood his arguments and underlying premises and then clearly stated their refutations or their agreement.