Cam and CRKreuger have pretty much covered it, but I wanted to point out that this:

Quote from: PanjumanjuThe game rewards high numbers, literally, and if a player's character does not have a d12s in their design, they will eventually feel stunted.

is very much the opposite of true.  The game is self-balancing; characters with mitts full of D12s won't be earning Plot Points anywhere near as fast as the characters with D8s, and Plot Points are what let you do the really important stuff.  This design characteristic isn't entirely obvious, mind you, and it requires more system mastery to play a "lower-powered" character at the table, but the system doesn't actually reward higher numbers like that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896215Also, the general gist I'm getting so far is that a Narravist game allows a non-GM player to edit the scene, whether by adding, removing or otherwise altering something the GM has already placed, usually by some (and often, in my opinion contrived) mechanic that 'allows' them to do so.

This is pretty much what everyone has either agreed, or said, in this thread that's been consistent.

Does Marvel Heroic role playing met this standard in your opinion?

Quote from: Itachi;896062Yep, I agree.

Makes me think of Ice-T's whole heavy heavy nerd shit schtick, yet not funny and annoying because you have to decipher what people are trying to say as they make up meanings for the words they are using.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896215Also, the general gist I'm getting so far is that a Narravist game allows a non-GM player to edit the scene, whether by adding, removing or otherwise altering something the GM has already placed, usually by some (and often, in my opinion contrived) mechanic that 'allows' them to do so.

This is pretty much what everyone has either agreed, or said, in this thread that's been consistent.

Yes, pretty much. That is why I think that authority is better, as it better defines the situation than narrative.

Quote from: Nexus;896222Does Marvel Heroic role playing met this standard in your opinion?

Yes.  That's what the creation of 'Assets' do, it appears to my untrained mind.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;896244Yes.  That's what the creation of 'Assets' do, it appears to my untrained mind.

I see. Thanks.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;894737I think the first bespoken "Storytelling Game" was Ars Magica (feel free to correct me)

I believe it's actually Stafford's Prince Valiant game. (Predates Ars Magica and has "Storytelling Game" on the cover.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;896313I believe it's actually Stafford's Prince Valiant game. (Predates Ars Magica and has "Storytelling Game" on the cover.)

No. Prince Valiant came out in 1989, while Ars Magica came out in 1987/88 depending on who you ask.

And while games like Pendragon, Toon, Paranoia, James Bond and quite probably a number of games all had elements of 'narrative' mechanics and game design, the first game to explicitly coin itself as a 'storytelling game' was Ars Magica.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;896313I believe it's actually Stafford's Prince Valiant game. (Predates Ars Magica and has "Storytelling Game" on the cover.)

Just because it says X on the cover. Doesnt mean it is X in play. (Vampire)

Quote from: Omega;896325Just because it says X on the cover. Doesnt mean it is X in play. (Vampire)

Meaning, as per the standard trope, that Vampire only plays lip service to storytelling?

Bull.

I was playing in a Vampire session this week that was solidly built on a collaboratively designed story, due to strong character backgrounds and preludes and effective personality mechanics that rewarded good roleplaying. It was a great session. It's all in the game and has always been. The  game introduced lots of new ideas pertaining to creating a good narrative that is often not given credit for.

This thread is kinda confusing to me, because I see people using a term coined by the forge (Narrativism) but rejecting it's original definition (play to address characters' personal dilemmas and create interesting stories) while trying to elect new/different one(s). If the intent is to address games which intended mode of play is authorial/directorial (that is, taking OOC actions and "generating setting on the go" - things that are not mandatory to the original definition), then I think Dragoner has a good point in people trying to come up with a totally new label like "Authorial" RPGs or something. In fact, even in it's original definition "Narrativism" is a bad label because it has little to do with the definition of "narrative" anyway.

*Edit* CRKrueger and Arminius: you have some good points. I will try to address them when my work permit. Tonight, hopefully.

In the threefold story design oriented gameplay was labeled dramatism, so there was already a term to use.
It was just that Narrativism was the next new hot deal and everyone with a vague association tried to jump on the waggon, never minding what was really meant.

(Personally I would sort Forge Narrativism into a semi kind of "focused personal crisis sim" instead into something next to dramatism.)

My high level is this.

#1 Rule, gamers are people and exactly what they are interested in can't be placed in a neat slot. Most gamers have a consistent style of play that you can see over the long term. but when it comes to individual session it really boils down what they find interesting at the moment. For example a gamer who loves the wargaming combat aspect of RPGs may wind up getting into some heavy in-character roleplaying during a session because the situation was really compelling to him.

With that being said, three broad styles elements I seen over the years are

1) There to play the game, mostly are interested in using the rules of the game, and the character's stats to overcome the challenges in the campaign. It unpredictable as to what is the victory condition at but most consider the acquisition of stuff that helps in the game a win(a better starship, more magic items, etc).

2) Into acting as a character with a distinct personality, and unique background.

3) Has a specific story in mind to be played out. Often has no problem with metagame mechanics to make this happen.

4) There because of friends. Understand enough of the game so that it isn't an issue. What important that they ware all working together doing something interesting.

Most gamers are not just one of the above, their personal style consists of a mix with the levels varying over the time.

For example I mostly a mix of #1 and #2. I will use the rules to my advantage but I almost always will get into roleplaying my character.

The whole narrative debate in my opinion is fundamentally flawed in regards to RPGs. The wider world has already "fixed" the issue in the form of fan-fiction/fiction communities that do collaborative writing projects. My experience with most self proclaimed storygamers is that they are just a rules obsessed as the hard core wargamers of #1. That many, but not all, are whiners that feel they don't get their way when they played in somebody's else campaign. A few like Ron Edwards turned their whining into something that sounded good on paper and duped a more than a few people into believing that RPGs were broken and needed a 2.0 version.

If you want to create a collaborative story with a group of friend there are better ways to do it than a RPG. Better in that you get more out of your time spend doing it that way then playing a RPG.

Quote from: Maarzan;896341(Personally I would sort Forge Narrativism into a semi kind of "focused personal crisis sim" instead into something next to dramatism.)

This is the best label for the concept of forge narrativism so far in this thread, IMHO.