Quote from: Nexus;860051What makes a game "Narrativist" (or a Story game or are they different things in your opinion?) to you? Do you consider it a binary situation or is there a spectrum between "traditional" and narrativist? And what would you consider narrativist mechanics?

A game where the players play individual characters and interact with a setting as through the use of metagame mechanics designed to create a collaborative narrative involving the characters of the campaign.

Quote from: Itachi;892387I noticed some folks here tend associate narrativism with story-games and scene-authorship or something. As the article says, it´s not really the case.

It is the case, the author is just making up a new definition for the term than how it's been used in this discussion

Quote from: TristramEvans;892408It is the case, the author is just making up a new definition for the term than how it's been used in this discussion

Actually, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H728DdvpxtY is pretty much it.

Most power-gamers don't see themselves as power-gamers, but as role-players who play RPGs. And they see role-players as some sort of story-gaming "let's make a story from our shared game session experience here, etc et al" player that doesn't know the fuck about RPGing.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;892410Actually, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H728DdvpxtY is pretty much it.

Most power-gamers don't see themselves as power-gamers, but as role-players who play RPGs. And they see role-players as some sort of story-gaming "let's make a story from our shared game session experience here, etc et al" player that doesn't know the fuck about RPGing.

The difference being that "power-gaming" is a description of a type of player, or the way one plays, whereas when people talk about "narrative games", they are traditionally discussing the focus of and intentions of a rules-set, which are two completely different subjects. The person in the linked article seems to be trying to push a new definition of narrative games as a method or approach to playing instead, which would be comparable to discussions of power gaming, but its just that: a new definition for a term already in common use.

P.S. the person in that video is very weird. I can't put my finger on exactly why, but I don't think I could be in the same room as them for any extended period of time.

P.P.S. I just figured it out...they have all the mannerisms and poise of a human skeksi!

Is anyone else getting tired of various versions of these two statements?

• That's not an RPG because you're not playing a role, you're only playing a game.

• That's not an RPG because you're not playing a game, you're only telling a story.

Quote from: Bren;892467Is anyone else getting tired of various versions of these two statements?

• That's not an RPG because you're not playing a role, you're only playing a game.

• That's not an RPG because you're not playing a game, you're only telling a story.

No - because truth is in it..
Point 1 is about missing the defining point of an RPG, what kind of game it is - i.e. not just any game.
Point 2 is often enough just true in my opinion.

Quote from: TristramEvans;892408It is the case, the author is just making up a new definition for the term than how it's been used in this discussion

Well, don't know who has the "rights" for defining the term really. But if we take, for example, the definition from the forge/wikipedia article, which I understand was one of the earliest instances of the term..

Quote from: wikipediaNarrativism relies on outlining (or developing) character motives, placing characters into situations where those motives conflict and making their decisions the driving force

...then Bankuei article seems spot-on. I'm more or less a novice on the style myself, but so far my play experience has been totally in line with this definition. And no, we never used player-authorship mechanics or things like that. I understand some games may use those mechanics but that seems orthogonal to narrativist games, the same way Shadowrun having Karma Pool / Edge never made it a story-game.

I just wanted to make clear that player-authorship mechanics are not a requisite to narrativist games. Pendragon and Burning Wheel are good examples. Damn, any game could be played narrativist style!

If by narrative or story- one means those forums that out number our elf-game forums on a mean of between five or even ten to one. It's fighting Godzilla, we have lost. Some of them I have seen have talked about have to do multiple purges each time they reach a million posts, a million posts.

A load of BS that people love to peddle without even trying to figure out what any of it actually means.

Quote from: Itachi;892474Well, don't know who has the "rights" for defining the term really. But if we take, for example, the definition from the forge/wikipedia article, which I understand was one of the earliest instances of the term..

Dude, the earliest use of the term is in GNS and Other Matters of Role Playig Theory at the Forge. (Actually I'm sure there was some discussion leading up to that.) However whatever that says, the actual course of Forge theory made plain that Narrativist design overwhelmingly, probably necessarily, requires OOC mechanics or at least OOC consciousness (e.g. acceding to overt GM use of "bangs" instead of finding it jarring to have events thrust on your character not out of in-game logic but because it will force an "interesting" moral choice).

QuoteI just wanted to make clear that player-authorship mechanics are not a requisite to narrativist games. Pendragon and Burning Wheel are good examples. Damn, any game could be played narrativist style!

It's well established that games can be played in different "styles" even by GNS theory, however the theory states that this generally requires "drifting" the game. A "Narrativist" game by definition doesn't need to be drifted because it's designed for Narrativism. Furthermore are you aware that Pendragon is defined in the founding documents of GNS as Simulationist? As for Burning Wheel, it's loaded with OOC elements such as the Artha rules (that draw attention to themselves far more than other games due to their complexity) the fail-to-advance rules, and the explicit conflict resolution rules using stakes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;892483A load of BS that people love to peddle without even trying to figure out what any of it actually means.

Or people don't know what is happening outside of their tiny social group, it sort of gives meaning to the whole 'playing the setting vs the rules' thing. Those major forums that are running a million posts every eight months or so, they don't have the same kind of rules, no mechanics, no dice, etc.. I don't much care for the whole PbtA, Fiasco, type games, which even when described to me sound like some railroad mary sue fest, but if someone else likes them, so what.

Quote from: TristramEvans;892415P.S. the person in that video is very weird. I can't put my finger on exactly why, but I don't think I could be in the same room as them for any extended period of time.

P.P.S. I just figured it out...they have all the mannerisms and poise of a human skeksi!

Hah! I subscribed to her channel for a while but kept finding myself in disagreement with her pronouncements of what makes 'good GMing'. She promotes a style that's not quite 'storygames' but is very 'illusionist', full of 'quantum ogres' and whatever it takes to make a 'great story'.
A viable style, but not something that interests me.

Quote from: Itachi;892474Well, don't know who has the "rights" for defining the term really.

No one, but the context of this conversation can be found in the title of the thread.

ANY RPG can be played in a narrative style of play. A Storygame imposes this style of play through authorial mechanics. Now, I'm not on the big bandwagon to say "storygames aren't RPGs". But they are distinct as a category of game whose mechanics directly interfere with or oppose immersive play.

Quote from: TristramEvans;892506No one, but the context of this conversation can be found in the title of the thread.

ANY RPG can be played in a narrative style of play. A Storygame imposes this style of play through authorial mechanics. Now, I'm not on the big bandwagon to say "storygames aren't RPGs". But they are distinct as a category of game whose mechanics directly interfere with or oppose immersive play.

Tristram, that's my point: you're conflating storygames and narrativist games into the same thing. This is not true. And I told you why: most games I play these days are narrativists, and not a single one has the kind of authorship mechanics commonly associated to story-games.

Fiasco is a story-game. As is Microcosm, My Life with Master, Universalis, etc.

Cortex Drama is a narrativist game. As is PbtA, Hillfolk, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.

Perhaps for people who don't play these games, these two groups may look similar. But for those who actually play them, they are pretty different from each other (and the absence of authorship mechanics in the second group is an important factor).

Quote from: Itachi;892523Tristram, that's my point: you're conflating storygames and narrativist games into the same thing.

There is no such thing as a "narrativist game" except as another way of saying storygame. Otherwise, what you have is just a plain old RPG. The distinction being made on player styles is meaningless, because RPGs are not tied to a style of play.

D&D is not a simulationist game, WEG Ghostbusters is not a gamist game, and Pendragon is not a narrativist game. Those are just (highly suspect) terms for playstyles.