This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...  (Read 13287 times)

Bill White

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • B
  • Posts: 150
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2010, 08:21:14 AM »
Quote from: Settembrini;419889
Jerome Bruner is a moron re: story.

After-the-fact sense making is romanticist-crypto-fascist crap. At least in the muddled version of J. Bruner.



Avoiding or rationalizing the unexpected is pure and simple: Kitsch.

Man what--? Are you okay? The passage you quote seems innocuous, and Bruner doesn't approve of avoiding the unexpected, it's just something he says that we use stories to do.

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2010, 09:48:47 AM »
OK.  If you guys insist...

Quote from: Bill White;419878
The way you've phrased this makes it sound like "narrative authority" is about who's in charge at the table, but the way I've most often seen the phrase used is to suggest the right to introduce things into the fiction (i.e., into the make-believe or imaginary world in which the characters operate). Simply put, when the GM says, "There is a 30 x 30 room here," he is establishing that it is true in the fiction that a 30 x 30 room exists at a given spot in the game-world. By the same token, when the player says, "I swing at the goblin," we all understand that she's really saying "[It is fictional that] I [intend to] swing at the goblin."

And it is that "[intend to]" that means that, in a traditional role-playing game, the player does not really have a right to introduce things directly "into the make-believe or imaginary world in which the characters operate".  The ability to ask, request, suggest, or state intent is not "authority" any more than a child asking their mommy for a cookie has the authority to take cookies if the mommy agrees and hands the child a cookie or even says, "OK, take one."  That's a misuse of the word "authority" started by people looking to justify the exercise real authority over the game as players by getting the camels nose into the tent.  And the idea that players must exercise "narrative authority" or want to is even more absurd.

Quote from: Bill White;419878
So the first thing that "narrative authority" as a concept establishes is that role-playing takes place via fictional (make-believe) statements about what is true or what happens in the game-world.

The concept doesn't "establish" anything (see Proof by Assertion fallacy).  In traditional role-playing games, the players don't make statements about what' is true or what happens in the game world.  They ask, request, suggest, or state intent and the GM has the sole authority to decide what is true or what happens in the game world.  To erase that distinction and to pretend that there isn't (in a traditional role-playing game) or even can't be a separation between the statements of the player and the authority to decide what is true or what happens in the game world is to miss a great deal about the meaning of authority and the relationship between player and GM in a traditional game.  Given that many story-games focus specifically on giving the players that authority by actually giving the players the ability to decide what is true or what happens in the game-world directly and without approval means that the authors of those games somehow know this is the case, even if they are using language that obfuscates it and can't articulate it properly.  In fact, that's also what the whole "Say 'Yes' or roll dice" stuff is all about.  It's designed to take the authority from the GM to say "no", thus giving actual authority over what what is true or what happens in the game-world.

Quote from: Bill White;419878
Both player and GM make such statements--but they do so asymmetrically: "The players plays the character and the GM plays the world." This forces us to recognize that narrative authority is something that's distributed, both around the table (so everybody has something that they're permitted to introduce) and over the game-world (so players and GMs have different things for and about which they may make statements).

I don't recognize that "narrative authority" is "distributed", in a traditional role-playing game, because it isn't.  See the Proof by Assertion fallacy.  The goal of this assertion that "narrative authority" must be distributed to the players in same way, even in traditional role-playing games, is to frame the changes in story games simply as a shifting of authority rather than a fundamental change in how the game is structured.

Even in a traditional role-playing game, the player can make statements about the game world as well as their character because "making statements" doesn't necessarily correspond to what is true or what happens in the game-world, the point that this assertion misses.  A player in a traditional role-playing game, upon entering a town for the first time, can say, "I go to the tavern and look for information," before they know that there is, in fact, a tavern in the town.  This is a statement about the game world but it is not necessarily a statement about what is true or what happens in the game-world.  The GM can always say "no" -- "This town doesn't have a tavern."  And even if the GM says "yes", the GM retains the authority to decide what is true or what happens in the game-world.

Quote from: Bill White;419878
So what? I hear you saying. The fact that you grant this premise requires nothing more on your part--it should not matter in the least that you as a player are exercising your "narrative authority" whenever you make declarations of intent on behalf of your character, whether you're doing so in order to engage the game-mechanics ("I swing at the goblin." "Roll to hit.") or to evoke GM description ("I open the door." "You see a 30 x 30 room.") or to role-play ("I scream, 'Leave me alone, damn you! I'm not your slave!'" "But you owe me, yes yes, by the blood that flows in both our veins--you owe me, and I will have my due!'").

I don't accept the premise because I think it is flawed and leads to flawed thinking about how role-playing games work.  For example, assuming that players in traditional role-playing games in traditional role-playing games are exercising "narrative authority" over their own character seems to lead people to not only assume that they want to exercise "narrative authority" in the first place but that narrating a bit more about their character alone, such as whether they succeed or fail or how they fumble and so on is something that a player that accepts and expects to make choices and state intent for their character should have no problem accepting these other things.  It's sloppy and inaccurate thinking that confuses authority and perspective.

Quote from: Bill White;419878
What it does do, I think, is open up a design space for games where narrative authority is distributed differently in order to simulate different kinds of game-worlds.

That "design space" was always open.  The first time I used role-playing rules to play, the games had no GM and the players played groups of characters.  People in my hometown also played what they called "solo games" using role-playing rules and random tables to make up adventures for their characters when nobody else was around to play with.  Ars Magica had players create multiple characters.  Various games had hero points of some sort.  There were diceless games.  Theatrix predated Forge ideas of "narrative authority", too.  Instead, what the concept of "narrative authority" does is allow game theorists to suggest that all that story games are doing is "redistributing authority" rather than changing more fundamental aspects of the game.  In other words, under the concept of "narrative authority" that you are proposing, asking a player how their character fumbles when they fumble or what they see in a tavern that they just answered is simply a shifting of authority when, in fact, it's asking the player to do something that they might not be doing at all and have no interest in doing.  Remember, at least part of why we are talking about this is an inability to accept the idea that a player might not want any narrative authority because of the flawed thinking about traditional role-playing games the idea of "narrative authority" promotes.

(To be honest, this whole idea of needing some sort of permission to experiment or open up the design space always baffled me when, for example, people praised Fudge for giving them the right to tinker with the rules.  If I'm not mistaken, I had that right from the moment I started playing role-playing games, created my own rules from the very beginning, and used homebrew or heavily modified rules for most the games that I've played over the years.  I needed someone else to tell me it was OK to do that?)

When I play, I don't want "narrative authority" in any meaningful sense.  I want the GM to have the real authority over what true or what actually happens in the game-world, expect and want the GM to say "no" (forget the "Say 'yes' or roll" nonsense, and want to confine my input into the game world to the set-up and, during play, to statements of intent and appeals to the GM.  In other words, if I say, "My character heads to the tavern to look for information," I expect that I might hear, "No, there isn't a tavern in this town."  If I think that sounds wrong, I might appeal to the GM about why I think there should be a tavern in the town but the GM can still say "No".  The GM has the authority, not me, and I like it that way because the GM may have a very good reason for why there isn't a tavern in that town that I'm not aware of, and as others have been saying, mystery is one of the huge draws of the traditional player and GM structure.

That any of this is controversial or seems false to people who buy into the idea of "narrative authority" and that I have to actually explain and defend it illustrates exactly what's wrong with the idea of "narrative authority".  It makes it impossible for people who buy into it to really understand what people are doing in traditional games and make all sorts of false assumptions about what they like and should be able to do.  It's a bad theory because it doesn't match reality.

Quote from: Bill White;419878
Suppose in one game you played a powerful enchanter, with the ability to cloud men's minds. It might be the case, then, that rules stipulated that you could, by expending some sort of in-game resource (like, "Magical Power") change other players' (including the GM) declarations of intention for their characters. ("I swing at the goblin." "No, you don't." "I stroke the goblin gently." "Okay, good.")

Yes, that's a change in the actual "narrative authority" in a game if it takes the right to say "no" away from the GM.  It's not a change in the degree of authority that a player already has but a shift from "no authority" to "some authority".  

Quote from: Bill White;419878
Given that, I'm not sure that it's necessary to stipulate either that narrative authority is granted to the GM from the players, or that RPGs can create stories. In terms of where narrative authority derives, I'd argue that it's like any other "speech genre": the conventions for how it operates are derived from prior experience of participants, and being conventions are thus open to innovation, variation, and change. In terms of RPGs and story creation, I've seen a lot of arguing here that "no story exists" because play is experiential rather than narrative, but there are lots of traditional gamers who think that what they are doing is creating story.

More logical fallacies and post-modern nonsense?  A lot of role-players also think that they are experts about combat but that doesn't mean that they actually are.  And is the point to use "story" in a meaningless, technological, and tautological sense or in a meaningful sense where there is such a thing as a "good story" or a "bad story"?  If I watch a movie or read a book for the story, then the quality of the story matters to me, yet the quality of the story, as a story, doesn't matter to me when I role-play or ride an amusement park ride or when I take a vacation.  

Yes, you can pedantically claim that in some technical sense that riding a roller-coaster generates a story but the story would be pretty awful and it's totally not the point of most people going on a roller-coaster.  Focusing on the story could not only cause one to miss the point of why most people ride roller-coasters but also miss the point of what someone who does ride for the story value (e.g., a person looking for bragging rights or to break a record) is actually trying to get out of the ride.  When a person does want a story, then story quality matters.

As for "granting authority", the GM in a traditional role-playing game does not do that, which I think you should know, since you just mentioned a theoretical point-based mechanic that would actually give the player real authority.  Non-interference is not a transfer of authority unless the GM gives up their ability to say "no" at any time to the players, and that doesn't happen in traditional games.  To frame it as a granting of authority, again, obfuscates the actual authority structure of a traditional game.  

And saying that an RPG can create stories does not mean that RPGs must create stories, that they players are playing because they want a story, or that the stories they create are good.  One can generally use a screwdriver as a hammer (I've done it) but that does not mean that a screwdriver is a hammer or is a good hammer when used as one.

This whole point you are making is evidence of just how poisonous all of this theory really is.  Rather than simply accepting that a lot of role-players don't care about stories and don't create stories in any meaningful sense when they play, you are using this crappy agenda-ridden theory to insist that, no, people really are creating stories even if they don't care about them and don't want to.  The whole point of this theory is to promote the agenda that story is the reason for playing.  For plenty of people, if not most people, it's not the reason for playing.

Quote from: Bill White;419878
Ironically, in her book The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games, the author Jennifer Cover talks about her own gaming experience as both immersive and story-producing. In any event, I think it's a separate issue from narrative authority, which is simply a way of describing what's going on at the table. A simplification, to be sure, but a useful one from a design perspective in my opinion.

What do you mean by "immersive" and what do you mean by "story"?  If you aren't talking about thinking in character to the point where the character takes on a life of their own, then you aren't using "immersive" in the sense that matters to me.  And if your definition of "story" is a tautological definition so broad that it happens whenever anyone does something and doesn't consider or address the quality of the story being generated, then you are using "story" in a sense that only a person suffering from university-induced post-modernism poisoning could appreciate and love.  Most normal human beings concerned with story are concerned with "good stories" and "bad stories".  

Yes, your trip to the grocery store might be a "story" in some technical academic sense just like what happens in all role-playing games might be a "story" in some technical academic sense but it's not the point of going to the grocery store and the quality of the "story" is going to be so awful that few people would have any interest in it as a story unless something exciting happened along the way.  What's the point of calling it a "story" if nobody is interested in it as a "story"?  Why is it so important that people agree to look at their games that way?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 09:52:22 AM by John Morrow »
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

John Morrow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2010, 09:57:33 AM »
Quote from: CRKrueger;419882
"Ryan(2006) explains that "the trend today is to detach narrative from language and literature and regard it instead as a cognitive template with transmedial and transdisciplinary applicability."

...then I'm going to have to dismiss the book as a postmodernist stroke-fest.


Yup.  Let's take a perfectly good word that many people understand, has had a particular meaning for years or in some other discipline, and which can be used to assess quality and apply it so broadly that it becomes meaningless and impossible to use to make distinctions.  University-induced post-modernism poisoning at it's best.
Robin Laws' Game Styles Quiz Results:
Method Actor 100%, Butt-Kicker 75%, Tactician 42%, Storyteller 33%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 33%, Specialist 17%

jibbajibba

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9098
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2010, 10:11:05 AM »
How is this different fromt eh other thread?

Wasn't the OP asking for some ideas of how the game would look rather than just asking everyone to post the same stuff they had in the other thread?

Now I have never played a 'storygame' no interest for me. I played WW but I can't see any way that has has 'story' elements except at Char gen and experience when you can spend dots on backgrounds.

So if I were designing a game where hte PCs had some sort of Narrative authority I am guessing I would take a standard RPG and add 3 elements

i) Some sort of Fate point system where players are allowed to make minor Plot changes from a rolling pool of point that they gain for good roleplay/GM whim/rolling a critical etc etc

ii) Some sort of Meta-plot point system where each player gets a very limited option once per session to make a major narrative change. Could be introducing an new NPC, coudl be changing the mind of an NPC on a topic

iii) Some of way in which the GM accepts they have ceded the narrative control noted above. This coudl be as simple as the GM being unabel to revoke any changes made throught eh above actions or perhaps a GM pool of points they have to spend to make their narrative changes. I favour the latter because its simpler.

If I have misunderstoood and hte OP was just saying okay so we can chose to include some story stuff so what difference does it actually make.
To that I would say none because you did it already you just called it something else you are just at one extreme of the spectrum.
No longer living in Singapore
Method Actor-92% :Tactician-75% :Storyteller-67%:
Specialist-67% :Power Gamer-42% :Butt-Kicker-33% :
Casual Gamer-8%


GAMERS Profile
Jibbajibba
9AA788 -- Age 45 -- Academia 1 term, civilian 4 terms -- $15,000

Cult&Hist-1 (Anthropology); Computing-1; Admin-1; Research-1;
Diplomacy-1; Speech-2; Writing-1; Deceit-1;
Brawl-1 (martial Arts); Wrestling-1; Edged-1;

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2010, 10:22:35 AM »
Quote from: CRKrueger;419817
Ok, so lets say I stipulate that players do have narrative authority, they do grant that authority to the GM, RPGs can create stories.

Now what?


Well, for starters, your thread gets moved to "other games" for making fundamental assumptions that are in clear violation of the basic Landmarks of Regular Roleplaying.

In other words, you're not talking about RPGs anymore. You're talking about Storygames.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Bill White

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • B
  • Posts: 150
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2010, 10:55:48 AM »
John -- Wait a minute. The OP said, "What happens if I grant that narrative authority exists?" My reply was based on that presumption. You can't accuse me of arguing by assertion or begging the question when the discussion starts with the premise that "narrative authority" exists. Treat it as a counter-factual, if you like. I realize that your position on what role-playing is demands that you stomp down hard on any notion that what happens at the table is collaborative, but you're shooting off half-cocked in this instance. I know that you're never going to concede that saying, "I [intend to] swing at the goblin" introduces something into the fiction (perhaps better called the "diegesis" or the "make-believe world"), but I'm never going to concede that it doesn't. Certainly it's possible to read this interaction:

GM: You enter the village.

PC: I [intend to] go to the tavern to get some information.

GM: [You quickly realize that] There's no tavern in this village.

as consistent with the notion of "narrative authority" being asymmetrically distributed between the player and the GM, once you've stipulated (however provisionally, theoretically, or counter-factually) that narrative authority is a thing that exists.

Now, the point that I want to emphasize right here is that the thing you're worried about, that conceding the existence of narrative authority requires that it then be distributed among the players more symmetrically, is not a thing that I'm interested in arguing: I don't believe it. The "emulationist" position advocated by many folks here strikes me as an entirely coherent and self-consistent philosophy of play and design. But I see it as conceptually continuous with other approaches to play -- a little further along the scale, I mean -- where you see it as sharply discontinuous. That doesn't bother me; I see our respective strategies as ways of bounding off our play preferences within wider or narrower ranges.

But I do want to note what strikes me as an inconsistency in your response to my post. When you say, "The 'design space' was always open," and then catalog all the different ways people used to play, that doesn't prove there's no such thing as "narrative authority," nor even that the concept of narrative authority is not useful--arguably, by giving a name to something that people had been doing un-systematically, it helped some designers figure out what else they could do. I mean, Universalis is nothing if not an experiment in how to distribute narrative authority more symmetrically among players, and it is a product of Forge theorizing, as I understand.

But given the existence of all these techniques for letting players contribute to the game-world that predate Forge, the one thing that you have to concede is that there are in fact some players who want to contribute things to the game-world other than their character intentions--and there would be even if the Forge never existed. And so it shouldn't be surprising that some games exist to satisfy that desire.

My position is that narrative authority as a concept helps me as a designer think about what's possible to do, and so it's useful in that respect. If other people have pissed you off by pushing their vision of "how you should play" in your face, then I apologize on their behalf. But in this specific instance, I think the shoe is on the other foot.

-- Bill

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2010, 11:06:51 AM »
Quote from: CRKrueger;419817
Ok, so lets say I stipulate that players do have narrative authority, they do grant that authority to the GM, RPGs can create stories.

Now what?


Now, I think the question is "what are the implications for that on my enjoyment of the game?" and more generally, "is this model in any way superior to the traditional model, where the GM is the only one who can narrate?"

My answer would be: "I haven't seen a set of rules that gives players narrative authority that would be in any way superior -- or even as fun -- as the traditional model. I'm not interested."

Note: I think saying RPGs can create stories is a fine thing to say depending on what one means by the words. If I were to say it, I would mean that if I wrote up the action in the game as a story, it would be a good story in its own right. I think this happens quite a bit with traditional RPGs.

Cheers,
-E.
 

BWA

  • Non-RPGer
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • B
  • Posts: 291
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2010, 11:39:32 AM »
I don't want to derail this conversation, since it seems far more productive and less pointlessly-cotentious than the other "narrative authority" thread, but this struck a chord with me:

Quote from: Bill White;419945
. The "emulationist" position advocated by many folks here strikes me as an entirely coherent and self-consistent philosophy of play and design. But I see it as conceptually continuous with other approaches to play -- a little further along the scale, I mean -- where you see it as sharply discontinuous.


I agree completely that the idea of "total immersion" is a valid and fun way to play, and that some new-school narrative mechanics might mess with that fun, and are thus to be avoided. To each their own.

What baffles (and sometimes frustrates) me in conversations on this forum is the idea that these things are "sharply discontinuous", as Bill puts it; differences of kind rather than degree. I just can't get my head around how one could look at RPGs and come away with that idea. I see it, repeatedly, so it's obviously there, but I can't quite understand it.

Anyway, as you were.
"In the end, my strategy worked. And the strategy was simple: Truth. Bringing the poisons out to the surface, again and again. Never once letting the fucker get away with it, never once letting one of his lies go unchallenged." -- RPGPundit

Settembrini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6797
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2010, 05:10:35 PM »
Quote from: Bill White;419903
Man what--? Are you okay? The passage you quote seems innocuous, and Bruner doesn't approve of avoiding the unexpected, it's just something he says that we use stories to do.

Let's say you are right. In any case, narratives are Kitsch. The evil in Bruner and Strauss is harder to prove, so let's just agree on the fact that avoiding the unexpected is the heart of any "narrative" and kitsch at the same time.
If there can't be a TPK against the will of the players it's not an RPG.- Pierce Inverarity

two_fishes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • t
  • Posts: 1364
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2010, 05:37:26 PM »
Quote from: -E.;419949
Now, I think the question is "what are the implications for that on my enjoyment of the game?" and more generally, "is this model in any way superior to the traditional model, where the GM is the only one who can narrate?"



Why does it have to be a question of what is superior or inferior? Sometimes difference for the sake of variety is enjoyable. It is, after all, the spice of life.

Bill White

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • B
  • Posts: 150
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2010, 05:49:13 PM »
Quote from: Settembrini;420006
Let's say you are right. In any case, narratives are Kitsch. The evil in Bruner and Strauss is harder to prove, so let's just agree on the fact that avoiding the unexpected is the heart of any "narrative" and kitsch at the same time.


I don't know that avoiding the unexpected is the heart of any and all narratives; I took the passage you quoted as suggesting that it is the what we sometimes use narratives to do, just like we use narratives sometimes to confront the unexpected. I'd also note that to call something kitsch is to suggest that it aspires to being art, which is not always the case with the narratives we use in life (nor those we concoct in play at the table). I'd agree, however, that the  avoidance of the unexpected--i.e., rationalizing and turning the wondrous or challenging into the banal or comforting--in any narrative form that aspires to the artistic is indeed kitsch.

Settembrini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6797
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2010, 05:55:03 PM »
Okay, enough agreement for the medium: So why would anyone want to force a narrative into a game?

Why turn something that supposedly is about "the human condition" (the NARR mindset) willfully into schlock & kitsch?
If there can't be a TPK against the will of the players it's not an RPG.- Pierce Inverarity

crkrueger

  • Hulk in the Vineyard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12559
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2010, 06:09:20 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit;419935
Well, for starters, your thread gets moved to "other games" for making fundamental assumptions that are in clear violation of the basic Landmarks of Regular Roleplaying.

In other words, you're not talking about RPGs anymore. You're talking about Storygames.

RPGPundit


Fair enough.
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery's thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

crkrueger

  • Hulk in the Vineyard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12559
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2010, 06:12:06 PM »
Quote from: BWA;419963
Anyway, as you were.


I created this thread so you could continue what you started in the other one.  It seemed like once we agreed on definitions, you had somewhere to go with it, so I'm letting the definitions go, so where did you want to take the thread?
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery's thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

Benoist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22049
Narrative: Just for the sake of discussion...
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2010, 06:39:06 PM »
Quote from: CRKrueger;420015
I created this thread so you could continue what you started in the other one.  It seemed like once we agreed on definitions, you had somewhere to go with it, so I'm letting the definitions go, so where did you want to take the thread?
Agreed. I'd like to understand what the whole fucking point of this is. Let's say RPGs create stories. There is shared narrative authority, some of it granted to the GM.

Where do you want to go with this now, BWA?