On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Karen Cravens wrote:
> See, though, that's what I can't figure out. I can't put my finger on
> *why* (or even *if*) the process is fundamentally different for me, and
> why I want the process to work more like writing a story but feel more
> like reading one.
I think the main difference is the process of discovery. It's like
coming to a bend in the path through the woods... what's just around
the bend?
In a traditional roleplaying approach, the characters will round the
bend, and the GM will narrate for them they discover... "Look, a
cougar, crouching on a rock, ready to spring! What do you do?"
In a forgite-narrativist approach, there are going to be rules to
group-negotiate or contest for the right to narrate what's around the
bend... if Karen wins the right to narrate, there's a cougar, ready
to spring. If Bill wins the right to narrate, there's a pixie, ready
to offer aid. (This is a bad example because it's not really a
conflict.)
There's no discovery there... there's a negotation of events, in which
someone decides an outcome _before_ it actually happens in the story.
It's the whole negotiation of Stakes... instead of there being a range
of possible outcomes, Stakes are boiled down to just two. If Karen
wins, we get a cougar; if Bill wins, we get a pixie.
So when we actually get to the part of _narrating_ what's around the
corner, it's already been decided... there's no surprise. There's no
_discovery_. And because the Stakes were negotiated, neither side can
get a result that they find undesirable. _This_ part appeals to me
to some extent, but the negotiation part seems to take all the fun out
of it. Back to that discovery aspect... if I get to negotiate all the
outcomes, so that even if I lose, the outcome is still acceptable,
there's no unexpected outcome that pushes me out of my comfort zone a
little and stretches me somehow.
Hm. The negotiated story-telling takes power away from the GM and
puts it in the hands of the players. And in doing so, it takes away
the GMs ability to _surprise_ the players.
Everybody around me seems more creative than I am. Because their
ideas are _cool_, while the ideas I thought up are mundane? Because
my ideas are _known_, while their ideas are _unexpected_. My ideas
(often) follow a logical progression of thought... _their_ ideas
spring into my consciousness out of nothingness, to surprise me with
the sudden shock of creative power. (Yo, I'm channelling John Wick
here.)
In traditional roleplaying, we are constantly being surprised. In
negotiated story-telling, we control the surprise factor by
negotiating outcomes. We might be surprised by a creative suggestion
for a Stake, (Player of a Demon Lord to a Angelic Champion of Light:
"If you win, I am banished from this world forever. If _I_ win, you
become my apprentice.") but we are never surprised by the _process_
itself.
I think that's what killed _Dogs In the Vineyard_ for me... I didn't
find the process to have any elements of surprise in it. (That and it
turned roleplaying into a stilted, mechanical give-and-take.)
> This is kind of it. I can't figure out why a collaborative
> story-telling session (which doesn't sound at all bad to me) feels
> like cheating at a game: yay, I got the results I wanted, but boo,
> the *process* wasn't as much fun. Why does it have to be a game?
> Or more correctly: Why do I feel like I should play a game? *Some*
> people are perfectly happy with the collaborative story-telling
> session... why am *I* not? It seems like I ought to be.
I think collaborative story-telling could be fun, but it's not the
same thing as the discovery of roleplaying.
Some of it may be that we're just not used to it. It feels a lot like
what the GM does when he fudges the dice, and roleplaying in general
has had a strong tradition of fudging being "wrong."
Also, I think some of it is the "now" vs the "future". In negotiated
story-telling, you are working on _future_ events. In traditional
roleplaying, you are working on events _as they happen_. This is
highlighted by _With Great Power..._'s "Pencilling" and "Inking."
When you're Pencilling, everyone in the group is giving input into the
scene... what they think would be cool, what _your_ character might do
or feel, and so on. Then once you've decided all of the details, you
"Ink" it by narrating the final version.
There's a lack of "letting the dice stand" here... there was no chance
for things to go weird or unexpectedly that wasn't deliberately
introduced by a player. While the dice might be capable of
introducing things I find undesirable through extreme results, there's
a range of "the unexpected" somewhere between "extreme" and "average"
that I desire from them.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ]
And old UNIX programmers never die, they just lose their grep.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
