Narrativism, Narrativist, Narrative, Narration, and Proper Use of the Terms - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cyber-Dave Jan 04, 2012 2:18:01	I have decided to slightly modify a post I made in a thread in another forum in order to turn that post into a standalone thread. I think the topic is important enough that it warrants its own thread. Enjoy. People on this forum often use the terms narrativism, narrativist, narrative and narration. In response, other people on these forums often tell them that they are misusing the terms. Worse still, I have seen people falsely claim that others are misusing the terms and then mischaracterize what the terms actually mean. In celebration of the completion of a semester, I decided to very quickly write a short essay on the subject in the hopes that this community might begin speaking the same language. What and how the term narrative should be used can be discovered by the simple matter of looking the word up in the dictionary. The basic definition is an adjective used to describe something "That narrates or recounts, that tells a story; of or concerned with narration; having the character or form of narration.” The definition of narration is a noun, “A thing narrated or recounted; a story, an account.” There are more contextual definitions, but these definitions are the most commonly used. Narrative used as a noun usually deals with law. When the term is used as a noun not associated with law it means, “An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account.” Anyone who wants to interrogate the terms further can do so with the aid of a dictionary. I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary myself. I now move on to narrativism and narrativist, which are really just a noun and adjective form of the same basic principle. Ron Edwards notes that he “changed [John Kim’s term] Dramatism to Narrativism.” John Kim defined dramatism as “the style which values how well the in-game action creates a satisfying storyline. Different kinds of stories may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes, varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character drama. It is the end result of the story which is important” (Kim qtd. in Henry). Please note that story has an inherent verbal connotation. Stories are not always verbal, it is true, but it is usually an implicit baseline assumption (if anyone needs me to explain why please ask and I will). In essence, a story is a series of connected accounts. So, rules which enforce verbal narration certainly have an element of “dramatism” to them insofar as they are designed to create a storyline through a series of interconnected accounts. Ron Edwards explicitly defines narrativism as “the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).” Theme does play a big role in narrativism. That is true. Rules which deal with theme are definitely narrativist. However, please note the use of terms such as “classic Lit 101 sense,” “co-authors,” and “literary analysis.” Narrativism is once again couched, by Edwards this time, in verbal terminology. In order to even engage in the production of a “story with a recognizable theme” his description suggests that what is required is a verbal, literary element. Once again, rules designed to facilitate that element thus gain a narrativist inflection. Narration is required to engage in narrativist play. Merely creating a story out of the events that transpire after the fact, ie: such as creating a post-game transcript out of the events that transpire while one moves pieces around a grid, does not make something narrativist. Edwards writes that one of the “most difficult aspect[s] of writing” about narratvisim is a category of “Role-players who greatly value the story quality of their transcripts, but don't play Narrativist to make them.” He even mentions that for such players “It's often painful for them to be, as they see it, relegated to” other modes of play. While he specifically mentions simulationism, the statement can be equally applicable to gamism. A fair way to describe techniques designed to foster and divide narration amongst the group is narration apportioning. Edwards explicitly states that narration apportioning is a component of GNS theory. He writes: Creative Agenda is the blanket term for people's demonstrated goals and desired feedback during play. In the past, I called it "GNS." Since all of this is enclosed in Social Contract, GNS-stuff is not only "what I want" but also "what I want from role-playing with this group of people." Since Exploration necessarily includes System, that means, as soon as we start talking about Creative Agenda, real play has begun.
#2 ongorth Jan 04, 2012 3:16:27	Mr. Edwards lacks ownership of the terms "Narrativism, Narrativist, Narrative and Narration". GNS theory lacks any sort of acceptance by the community whereby it could be refered to as the definition of something. There is something ironic to claiming that other people are using a term wrong when your reference for the proper use of that word is at best archaic and at worst openly mocked.
#3 Cyber-Dave Jan 04, 2012 3:45:40	Mr. Edwards lacks ownership of the terms "Narrativism, Narrativist, Narrative and Narration". GNS theory lacks any sort of acceptance by the community whereby it could be refered to as the definition of something. There is something ironic to claiming that other people are using a term wrong when your reference for the proper use of that word is at best archaic and at worst openly mocked. He coined the terms narrativism and narrativist. The terms narrativism and narrativist, plain and simply, would not exist without GNS theory. They are GNS (and now Big Model) theory specific. As such, yes, proper use of those terms has much to do with GNS (and Big Model) theory. Whether you accept GNS (or Big Model) theory is irrelevant; the terms still refer to contexts first outlined by Edwards. As for what is or is not "openly mocked," or "at best archaic," that is a matter of contested debate. Edwards is still one of the more commonly cited game theorists. Personally, I quite enjoy what he has written. I don't agree with all of it, but that is neither here nor there. Of course, others can add additional layers of meaning to a term. Those additional layers will always be tied to the context in which the term was originally coined, but over time enough layers can change its primary meaning. If you are claiming that that has already happened, please, feel free to make that argument allong with supporting evidence. This is a forum, and debate is its purpose. Also, please, feel free to note that my post is not a response to people misusing the term. It is actually a response to others falsely claiming that the terms narrativism and narrativist have been misused followed by a characterizations that are short sighted and overly acute at best, completely inaccurate at worst. My post is not an accusation but a response to posters who have made accusations, and an attempt to create a common language in this forum.
#4 wrecan Jan 04, 2012 7:42:42	Thanks for this. I too am annoyed with people misusing GNS terms, and, moreover, mis-citing GNS and Big Model theories overall.
#5 DanTracker Jan 04, 2012 8:19:48	I also thank you for the post. I do enjoy the pieces you've cited and have my own divergent ideas about them. I'm more of a narrativist player and prefer other narrativist players around me. I've been feeling that 4e displays too much gamist weight. It burns me out fairly quick.
#6 AbdulAlhazred Jan 04, 2012 11:03:00	"Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other." You might consider the context in which the statement you are objecting to was made, which was a context in which you were objecting to the style of play that was present in your group and which you attributed to certain 'gamist' elements of 4e's combat system. You used the term 'narrativist' as part of an argument that narrativist play was inhibited by those gamist elements. Yet the very quote of Edwards that I've reproduced above seems to indicate that such a contrast is not even possible within the theory from which the term was extracted. Thus IMHO the criticisms of the use of that term in the context of that thread seems quite apt and one that Edwards himself might well point out. Edwards would never say that simply because a mechanical procedure in a game doesn't require narration in "story terms" doesn't make that play non-narrative. As far as I can see that's exactly what that Edwards quote is saying. I'd go a bit further and note that, in my view at least, there are different levels at which RPGs operate. Simply because a player explained the details of the actions their character took in mechanical terms doesn't mean they are not engaging the narrative of the game or 'narrative play'. The actions their character took are part of the story of that character. They may be quite relevant to a narrative involving how the character's personality and story evolve within the game world. This gets to character development and the motivations and reasoning that is either implicit or explicit in the character's described actions. If my character hates orcs because they killed his family and he sees an orc and unleashes his daily power on the orc, motivated by that hatred, that's an action that is rooted in the narrative of that character, part of his story. Maybe the specific action was only described in terms of "I move here and use my X daily power against the orc" but that doesn't make my play of the character non-narrative. It might make it less than colorful and might not be as pleasing to some as a different and more colorful description, but it doesn't change what I'm doing or its significance. I'm just concentrating on a different level of the narrative. This is why the use of narrativist in the previous topic didn't appear to be in keeping with the way the term is used in GNS/etc theory. It was overly narrow and focused entirely on just one aspect of a whole, and then used to support a conclusion that didn't appear to be in keeping with the full technical definition. Again, consider the Edwards quote and compare it to what was stated there. Finally, the point was that an accurate use of the term in a fashion consistent with how it is understood in the theory where it is defined facilitates better communication and discussion. This is the purpose of formal terminology after all, to make it possible for different people to talk about things and convey specific meanings. You may of course use terms in ways divergent from established terminology, but it behooves you to explain your use. As far as I can tell you were just not aware of the difference between your use and the technical term and by using the term in what appeared to be a technical way that difference was causing confusion.
#7 Garthanos Jan 04, 2012 11:15:01	"Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other." You might consider the context in which the statement you are objecting to was made, which was a context in which you were objecting to the style of play that was present in your group and which you attributed to certain 'gamist' elements of 4e's combat system. You used the term 'narrativist' as part of an argument that narrativist play was inhibited by those gamist elements. Yet the very quote of Edwards that I've reproduced above seems to indicate that such a contrast is not even possible within the theory from which the term was extracted. Thus IMHO the criticisms of the use of that term in the context of that thread seems quite apt and one that Edwards himself might well point out. Edwards would never say that simply because a mechanical procedure in a game doesn't require narration in "story terms" doesn't make that play non-narrative. As far as I can see that's exactly what that Edwards quote is saying. QFT When I choose Knockdown assault and describe it as "a head strike which causes a sudden temporary blackout which drops the enemy" the game gave me the power to narrate how that game element is in story terms.. even if I chose to say "I used knockdown assault and it is prone". The system grants the player choses what to do with it.
#42 Garthanos Jan 05, 2012 10:25:02	Games cannot be judged based on how well they conform to their own goals - agree or disagree? I disagree.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Cyber-Dave

Jan 04, 2012 2:18:01

I have decided to slightly modify a post I made in a thread in another forum in order to turn that post into a standalone thread. I think the topic is important enough that it warrants its own thread. Enjoy.

People on this forum often use the terms narrativism, narrativist, narrative and narration. In response, other people on these forums often tell them that they are misusing the terms. Worse still, I have seen people falsely claim that others are misusing the terms and then mischaracterize what the terms actually mean. In celebration of the completion of a semester, I decided to very quickly write a short essay on the subject in the hopes that this community might begin speaking the same language.

What and how the term narrative should be used can be discovered by the simple matter of looking the word up in the dictionary. The basic definition is an adjective used to describe something "That narrates or recounts, that tells a story; of or concerned with narration; having the character or form of narration.” The definition of narration is a noun, “A thing narrated or recounted; a story, an account.” There are more contextual definitions, but these definitions are the most commonly used. Narrative used as a noun usually deals with law. When the term is used as a noun not associated with law it means, “An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account.” Anyone who wants to interrogate the terms further can do so with the aid of a dictionary. I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary myself. I now move on to narrativism and narrativist, which are really just a noun and adjective form of the same basic principle.

Ron Edwards notes that he “changed [John Kim’s term] Dramatism to Narrativism.” John Kim defined dramatism as “the style which values how well the in-game action creates a satisfying storyline. Different kinds of stories may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes, varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character drama. It is the end result of the story which is important” (Kim qtd. in Henry). Please note that story has an inherent verbal connotation. Stories are not always verbal, it is true, but it is usually an implicit baseline assumption (if anyone needs me to explain why please ask and I will). In essence, a story is a series of connected accounts. So, rules which enforce verbal narration certainly have an element of “dramatism” to them insofar as they are designed to create a storyline through a series of interconnected accounts.

Ron Edwards explicitly defines narrativism as “the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).” Theme does play a big role in narrativism. That is true. Rules which deal with theme are definitely narrativist. However, please note the use of terms such as “classic Lit 101 sense,” “co-authors,” and “literary analysis.” Narrativism is once again couched, by Edwards this time, in verbal terminology. In order to even engage in the production of a “story with a recognizable theme” his description suggests that what is required is a verbal, literary element. Once again, rules designed to facilitate that element thus gain a narrativist inflection.

Narration is required to engage in narrativist play. Merely creating a story out of the events that transpire after the fact, ie: such as creating a post-game transcript out of the events that transpire while one moves pieces around a grid, does not make something narrativist. Edwards writes that one of the “most difficult aspect[s] of writing” about narratvisim is a category of “Role-players who greatly value the story quality of their transcripts, but don't play Narrativist to make them.” He even mentions that for such players “It's often painful for them to be, as they see it, relegated to” other modes of play. While he specifically mentions simulationism, the statement can be equally applicable to gamism.

A fair way to describe techniques designed to foster and divide narration amongst the group is narration apportioning. Edwards explicitly states that narration apportioning is a component of GNS theory. He writes:

Creative Agenda is the blanket term for people's demonstrated goals and desired feedback during play. In the past, I called it "GNS." Since all of this is enclosed in Social Contract, GNS-stuff is not only "what I want" but also "what I want from role-playing with this group of people." Since Exploration necessarily includes System, that means, as soon as we start talking about Creative Agenda, real play has begun.

ongorth

Jan 04, 2012 3:16:27

Mr. Edwards lacks ownership of the terms "Narrativism, Narrativist, Narrative and Narration". GNS theory lacks any sort of acceptance by the community whereby it could be refered to as the definition of something.

There is something ironic to claiming that other people are using a term wrong when your reference for the proper use of that word is at best archaic and at worst openly mocked.

Cyber-Dave

Jan 04, 2012 3:45:40

Mr. Edwards lacks ownership of the terms "Narrativism, Narrativist, Narrative and Narration". GNS theory lacks any sort of acceptance by the community whereby it could be refered to as the definition of something.

There is something ironic to claiming that other people are using a term wrong when your reference for the proper use of that word is at best archaic and at worst openly mocked.

He coined the terms narrativism and narrativist. The terms narrativism and narrativist, plain and simply, would not exist without GNS theory. They are GNS (and now Big Model) theory specific. As such, yes, proper use of those terms has much to do with GNS (and Big Model) theory. Whether you accept GNS (or Big Model) theory is irrelevant; the terms still refer to contexts first outlined by Edwards. As for what is or is not "openly mocked," or "at best archaic," that is a matter of contested debate. Edwards is still one of the more commonly cited game theorists. Personally, I quite enjoy what he has written. I don't agree with all of it, but that is neither here nor there.

Of course, others can add additional layers of meaning to a term. Those additional layers will always be tied to the context in which the term was originally coined, but over time enough layers can change its primary meaning. If you are claiming that that has already happened, please, feel free to make that argument allong with supporting evidence. This is a forum, and debate is its purpose.

Also, please, feel free to note that my post is not a response to people misusing the term. It is actually a response to others falsely claiming that the terms narrativism and narrativist have been misused followed by a characterizations that are short sighted and overly acute at best, completely inaccurate at worst. My post is not an accusation but a response to posters who have made accusations, and an attempt to create a common language in this forum.

wrecan

Jan 04, 2012 7:42:42

Thanks for this. I too am annoyed with people misusing GNS terms, and, moreover, mis-citing GNS and Big Model theories overall.

DanTracker

Jan 04, 2012 8:19:48

I also thank you for the post. I do enjoy the pieces you've cited and have my own divergent ideas about them.

I'm more of a narrativist player and prefer other narrativist players around me. I've been feeling that 4e displays too much gamist weight. It burns me out fairly quick.

AbdulAlhazred

Jan 04, 2012 11:03:00

"Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other."

You might consider the context in which the statement you are objecting to was made, which was a context in which you were objecting to the style of play that was present in your group and which you attributed to certain 'gamist' elements of 4e's combat system. You used the term 'narrativist' as part of an argument that narrativist play was inhibited by those gamist elements. Yet the very quote of Edwards that I've reproduced above seems to indicate that such a contrast is not even possible within the theory from which the term was extracted. Thus IMHO the criticisms of the use of that term in the context of that thread seems quite apt and one that Edwards himself might well point out. Edwards would never say that simply because a mechanical procedure in a game doesn't require narration in "story terms" doesn't make that play non-narrative. As far as I can see that's exactly what that Edwards quote is saying.

I'd go a bit further and note that, in my view at least, there are different levels at which RPGs operate. Simply because a player explained the details of the actions their character took in mechanical terms doesn't mean they are not engaging the narrative of the game or 'narrative play'. The actions their character took are part of the story of that character. They may be quite relevant to a narrative involving how the character's personality and story evolve within the game world. This gets to character development and the motivations and reasoning that is either implicit or explicit in the character's described actions. If my character hates orcs because they killed his family and he sees an orc and unleashes his daily power on the orc, motivated by that hatred, that's an action that is rooted in the narrative of that character, part of his story. Maybe the specific action was only described in terms of "I move here and use my X daily power against the orc" but that doesn't make my play of the character non-narrative. It might make it less than colorful and might not be as pleasing to some as a different and more colorful description, but it doesn't change what I'm doing or its significance. I'm just concentrating on a different level of the narrative.

This is why the use of narrativist in the previous topic didn't appear to be in keeping with the way the term is used in GNS/etc theory. It was overly narrow and focused entirely on just one aspect of a whole, and then used to support a conclusion that didn't appear to be in keeping with the full technical definition. Again, consider the Edwards quote and compare it to what was stated there. Finally, the point was that an accurate use of the term in a fashion consistent with how it is understood in the theory where it is defined facilitates better communication and discussion. This is the purpose of formal terminology after all, to make it possible for different people to talk about things and convey specific meanings. You may of course use terms in ways divergent from established terminology, but it behooves you to explain your use. As far as I can tell you were just not aware of the difference between your use and the technical term and by using the term in what appeared to be a technical way that difference was causing confusion.

Garthanos

Jan 04, 2012 11:15:01

"Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other."

You might consider the context in which the statement you are objecting to was made, which was a context in which you were objecting to the style of play that was present in your group and which you attributed to certain 'gamist' elements of 4e's combat system. You used the term 'narrativist' as part of an argument that narrativist play was inhibited by those gamist elements. Yet the very quote of Edwards that I've reproduced above seems to indicate that such a contrast is not even possible within the theory from which the term was extracted. Thus IMHO the criticisms of the use of that term in the context of that thread seems quite apt and one that Edwards himself might well point out. Edwards would never say that simply because a mechanical procedure in a game doesn't require narration in "story terms" doesn't make that play non-narrative. As far as I can see that's exactly what that Edwards quote is saying.

QFT
When I choose Knockdown assault and describe it as "a head strike which causes a sudden temporary blackout which drops the enemy" the game gave me the power to narrate how that game element is in story terms.. even if I chose to say "I used knockdown assault and it is prone". The system grants the player choses what to do with it.

#42

Garthanos

Jan 05, 2012 10:25:02

Games cannot be judged based on how well they conform to their own goals - agree or disagree?

I disagree.