I don't know about some of what you've said. Is the Once Upon A Time card game not a game because the cards are prompts for a story? How about parlor games where one person builds on whatever another person writes or says? I think that it's tough to draw a line.

How about people who dungeon crawl or hexcrawl by themselves? What is that (other than odd, lol)?

Quote from: Hybridartifacts;861200Oh my. This takes me back to the days when the Forge was still going big time. The whole narrativist vs simulationist thing was such a big issue for many people.

Again, we have a lot of words, but no definition. It would really help if you explained what you mean by "narrativism" without being self-referential. Because after reading what you wrote, I have no idea if your version of "narrative" is the same as what Ron Edwards meant or not.

Quote from: Bren;860780... a Narrativist Premise is a moral or ethical question in the game that engages the players' interest.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;861032A player narrates, in a few sentences, what their character is doing and/or saying. Then another player narrates what they're doing in a few sentences. And so on. No pausing. No stalling. There is always a player narrating during a game. And it's all in-character.

That looks a "pure ideal type" kind of semantics, not a relationship with the prominent trends at present.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;861207I don't know about some of what you've said. Is the Once Upon A Time card game not a game because the cards are prompts for a story? How about parlor games where one person builds on whatever another person writes or says? I think that it's tough to draw a line.

How about people who dungeon crawl or hexcrawl by themselves? What is that (other than odd, lol)?

Hmmm... it is something that kinda subjective. Where do you draw a line between something being a game and a way of telling a story? I would suggest a game has rules of play. If there are no rules of play - so Storyworld for instance has no rules and is not really a game, its a storytelling aid (and it doesnt really pretend to be a game either).

As I said though - its a range with extremes at the end though - some things are more story and less game than others but may still have a bit of game in them. Other things may be more game than story but still have a bit of story in them.

I have been chatting with some solo gamers lately - I suspect some similar differences of opinion exist amongst them as well.

Quote from: Bren;861214Again, we have a lot of words, but no definition. It would really help if you explained what you mean by "narrativism" without being self-referential. Because after reading what you wrote, I have no idea if your version of "narrative" is the same as what Ron Edwards meant or not.

Thats half the problem of discussions on the subject - to be honest I think Ron Edwards took the whole thing into a level of abstraction that made it essentially nonsensical.

To me, as I said, its about story focus (playing 'in character', creating narratives and story goals that you explore through story) vs simulation rules focus (trying to represent real world physics in game, getting accurate probabilities etc) - best shown by putting storytelling at one end of the spectrum and wargaming at the other with 'game' sitting in between. Thats the spectrum that has always been there in RPGs, and to be honest its the only ones thats really relevant in regards to play styles. Anything else is missing the point imo.

My idea of 'narrative' may not be what Ron Edwards meant - but people on the forge discussed endlessly what Ron Edwards meant and it never really seemed to get any clearer.

Personally I find "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." to be a pretty good definition - its good enough for dictionaries and most people on the planet.

Quote from: Hybridartifacts;861421To me, as I said, its about story focus (playing 'in character', creating narratives and story goals that you explore through story) vs simulation rules focus (trying to represent real world physics in game, getting accurate probabilities etc) - best shown by putting storytelling at one end of the spectrum and wargaming at the other with 'game' sitting in between. Thats the spectrum that has always been there in RPGs, and to be honest its the only ones thats really relevant in regards to play styles. Anything else is missing the point imo.

Truth!

QuoteMy idea of 'narrative' may not be what Ron Edwards meant - but people on the forge discussed endlessly what Ron Edwards meant and it never really seemed to get any clearer.

I don't think it ever will. Can we just let the dude fade into obscurity already? It's really annoying when people dismiss games I like out of hand or miscategorize them because they have some elements that remind them of something tangentially related to this dude who hasn't been relevant to the hobby for years now.

Quote from: Hybridartifacts;861421To me, as I said, its about story focus (playing 'in character', creating narratives and story goals that you explore through story) vs simulation rules focus (trying to represent real world physics in game, getting accurate probabilities etc) - best shown by putting storytelling at one end of the spectrum and wargaming at the other with 'game' sitting in between. Thats the spectrum that has always been there in RPGs, and to be honest its the only ones thats really relevant in regards to play styles. Anything else is missing the point imo.

Whereas I see story as something that inevitably occurs when we retell or describe what occurred in play after the fact. And I see playing in character as simulating the character which is in sharp contrast to making a choice not from an in character perspective but from an authorial perspective of trying to push the character in a particular direction to create or explore a particular kind of story or narrative.

QuoteMy idea of 'narrative' may not be what Ron Edwards meant - but people on the forge discussed endlessly what Ron Edwards meant and it never really seemed to get any clearer.

That's a consequence of Ron being really poor at formulating and communicating defined terms. Either Ron just plain sucked at creating meaningful and coherent definitions (a definite possibility) or Ron intentionally created vague and obscure definitions (also a possibility).

QuotePersonally I find "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." to be a pretty good definition - its good enough for dictionaries and most people on the planet.

It works for me, but that means that every game (as well as every real life sequence of events) when retold is a connected series of events and thus a story, which makes story an after the fact property of all games and of all life experiences. Which means that story is a property that is always true in a tautological or trivial sense.

Quote from: Bren;861511It works for me, but that means that every game (as well as every real life sequence of events) when retold is a connected series of events and thus a story, which makes story an after the fact property of all games and of all life experiences. Which means that story is a property that is always true in a tautological or trivial sense.

That's my view of things. Whether you're closer to the traditional end of the spectrum, or closer to the storygame section of the spectrum, story(or narrative) is an inescapable result of simply playing the game. I'm obviously a person who loves me some storygames, but when I see rules meant to "force" or "ensure" a story, I have to roll my eyes. And when I see people who should damn well know better spouting such nonsense, I have to wonder if they're being pretentious/disingenuous/seemingly ignorant/etc. on purpose. Or if they're the kind of person who likes to theorize and stuff, but has never actually played an RPG before.

It's very simple. Play the game; get a story. As you say, it's tautological. This is how it's always been. It's not something new that some special people introduced to the hobby some 20+ years after it began.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;861498Truth!

I don't think it ever will. Can we just let the dude fade into obscurity already? It's really annoying when people dismiss games I like out of hand or miscategorize them because they have some elements that remind them of something tangentially related to this dude who hasn't been relevant to the hobby for years now.

I am never happy when people dismiss a game based on what is essentially a preference. While it may not be their 'cup of tea' it can still be other peoples and have value in that.

There are games I dont enjoy and will not bother playing (Warhammer for instance) but others love - and more power to them! Part of this is accepting difference - that our ideas of what is 'worthy' are not universal.

Its really all about having fun doing something you like and can share with others who also like what you do. End of.

Quote from: Bren;861511Whereas I see story as something that inevitably occurs when we retell or describe what occurred in play after the fact. And I see playing in character as simulating the character which is in sharp contrast to making a choice not from an in character perspective but from an authorial perspective of trying to push the character in a particular direction to create or explore a particular kind of story or narrative.

That's a consequence of Ron being really poor at formulating and communicating defined terms. Either Ron just plain sucked at creating meaningful and coherent definitions (a definite possibility) or Ron intentionally created vague and obscure definitions (also a possibility).

It works for me, but that means that every game (as well as every real life sequence of events) when retold is a connected series of events and thus a story, which makes story an after the fact property of all games and of all life experiences. Which means that story is a property that is always true in a tautological or trivial sense.

You don't see a narrative as something that also occurs as it happens or is experienced? How then can we talk about an 'unfolding narrative'? Is not the experience of hearing or reading a telling of a story also 'unfolding' as it goes? experientially the difference is around interactivity. How can such a things as an 'interactive story' exist if not in process?

RPGs introduced a very interactive form into what for many is a very fixed literary form - but stories and narratives go back much further than the novel does and oral storytelling has always involved aspects of collaboration, interaction and discovery. That's something RPGs re-introduced and reconfigured to highlight that interactivity - but they still concern sequences of events in play, dynamically as you go that adhere strictly to most normal understandings of the word 'narrative'. An account can be 'spoken' by a group as well as well as by an individual and does not have to be fixed in the past, it can be in process. I can give you an account of what I am doing right now as I am doing it and speak or type it as I go, relating each part of what is happening together in a sequence in time...

Or is that what you mean when you talks about "an authorial perspective of trying to push the character in a particular direction" that sense of of an evolving narrative in process?

I agree Ron was never really clear, nor for that matter do I think anyone I have read actually achieved much if any real clarity on the subject based on anything Ron wrote.

Quote from: Bren;861511It works for me, but that means that every game (as well as every real life sequence of events) when retold is a connected series of events and thus a story, which makes story an after the fact property of all games and of all life experiences. Which means that story is a property that is always true in a tautological or trivial sense.

I tend to subscribe to the dictionary definition and I agree that it's tautological that you get a story as the end result of the game, when you look back on (and potentially retell) it.

Where I see the arguments mostly taking place is over the question of whether the act of playing the game is also inherently the act of telling a story.  That is to say, everyone agrees that an RPG produces a story after the fact, but not everyone agrees on whether it already is a story during play.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;861551That's my view of things. Whether you're closer to the traditional end of the spectrum, or closer to the storygame section of the spectrum, story(or narrative) is an inescapable result of simply playing the game. I'm obviously a person who loves me some storygames, but when I see rules meant to "force" or "ensure" a story, I have to roll my eyes. And when I see people who should damn well know better spouting such nonsense, I have to wonder if they're being pretentious/disingenuous/seemingly ignorant/etc. on purpose. Or if they're the kind of person who likes to theorize and stuff, but has never actually played an RPG before.

It's very simple. Play the game; get a story. As you say, it's tautological. This is how it's always been. It's not something new that some special people introduced to the hobby some 20+ years after it began.

I would agree with much of that. I dont think that rules ever really force a story or narrative (not quite the same thing btw) some do help one to form in particular ways though. They can affect the pattern and form of the narrative and make it more of a story form (that is with more recognisable aspects of story forms such as dramatic resolutions, character development, plot twists etc).

If what we have is 'see orc, attack orc, hit orc, hurt orc, orc hits back, hurts character,...blah blah blah...orc dies, character takes treasure' it is a narrative - but its a very unsatisfying and shitty story. That's why adventures add goals and have things like introductions, back story and plot points/events in them - they start to give it all more shape and transform a narrative into a story. You can add things to do just that and traditionally adventures tend to do that to one degree or another. This is precisely using something to force a story (though its more contextual than rules based). You can do that through rules as well though.

Quote from: nDervish;861593I tend to subscribe to the dictionary definition and I agree that it's tautological that you get a story as the end result of the game, when you look back on (and potentially retell) it.

Where I see the arguments mostly taking place is over the question of whether the act of playing the game is also inherently the act of telling a story.  That is to say, everyone agrees that an RPG produces a story after the fact, but not everyone agrees on whether it already is a story during play.

Essentially the question is if a story has to be a final shaped thing or can it occur in process.

I would suggest that this idea that it has to be a shaped complete thing is a by-product of the arrival of the novel and mass literacy. As such its an unusual and atypical form of story historically and culturally - a blip in storytelling. It is however one that has exerted a very powerful influence over people living in a particular culture in a particular moment in time - but I think rpgs were actually a step in disrupting and disturbing that influence. I think we are actually entering a post-novel era of storytelling where stories are no longer fixed things that have a sense of single authorship.

Quote from: Hybridartifacts;861595Essentially the question is if a story has to be a final shaped thing or can it occur in process.

I would suggest that this idea that it has to be a shaped complete thing is a by-product of the arrival of the novel and mass literacy. As such its an unusual and atypical form of story historically and culturally - a blip in storytelling. It is however one that has exerted a very powerful influence over people living in a particular culture in a particular moment in time - but I think rpgs were actually a step in disrupting and disturbing that influence. I think we are actually entering a post-novel era of storytelling where stories are no longer fixed things that have a sense of single authorship.

I disagree, and note that I did not say that it has to be a final state to be "story".  My personal position is that playing an RPG can be an act of telling a story, but it doesn't have to be.

If I am playing in-character, then I am not telling a story.  I am (through my character) engaged in an activity, and experiencing that activity, while describing the events for the benefit of others present.  Think of it like a bomb disposal technician on the radio to his support team:  "I'm 25 meters from the device...  10 meters...  5 meters...  It's a red metal toolbox, approximately 30cm long by 10cm high and deep.  I'm preparing to release the catch..."  Etc.  He's not telling the support team a story about disarming a bomb, he's disarming a bomb.

If, on the other hand, I'm playing in a style which is conscious of narrative flow, exercising established tropes, etc., then I am telling a story, even though the story is being built as I speak and may not have single authorship.

And, yes, there's a continuum between those two poles, it's not a bright line division.  And, also yes, it's absolutely possible (probably even common) for some people at the table to be playing an in-character role while others are telling a story.  But neither of these mean that playing an in-character role and telling a story are one and the same thing.

GEORGE: Yeah, but nothing happens on the show. You see, it's just like life. You know, you eat, you go shopping, you read.. You eat, you read, You go shopping.

RUSSELL: You read? You read on the show?

JERRY: Well, I don't know about the reading.. We didn't discuss the reading.

RUSSELL: All right, tell me, tell me about the stories. What kind of stories?

GEORGE: Oh, no. No stories.

RUSSELL: No stories? So, what is it?

GEORGE: (Showing an example) What'd you do today?

RUSSELL: I got up and came to work.

GEORGE: There's a show. That's a show.

RUSSELL: (Confused) How is that a show?

JERRY: Well, uh, maybe something happens on the way to work.

GEORGE: No, no, no. Nothing happens.

JERRY: Well, something happens.

RUSSELL: Well, why am I watching it?

GEORGE: Because it's on TV.

RUSSELL: (Threatening) Not yet.

I think that story is being confused with plot here. A story can literally be: "on the way to work, the train took a sharp turn and a dude hit his head with the door."

http://www2.anglistik.uni-freiburg.de/intranet/englishbasics/Plot01.htm

Likewise, in the act of acting on the game, you do have a Story as a byproduct. Maybe you did not set out to tell one, just like I don't as I set out to go about my life, but a story is always in the making.