Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2004-06-19 22:54:30
Converted from Phorums BB System



JRM wrote:
-------------------------------
<i>There's obviously a wide difference in opinion on what terms like "Story" or "Narrative" mean in a RPG.</i>
-------------------------------

It's worse than that. There's a wide difference of opinion on what terms like "story" mean in general. A simple dictionary definition gives us (from dictionary.com):

<blockquote><pre>
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events,
either true or fictitious, as:
a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or
group of events: <i>The witness changed her story under
questioning.</i>
b. An anecdote: <i>came back from the trip with some good
stories.</i>
c. A lie: <i>told us a story about the dog eating the
cookies.</i>
</pre></blockquote>

Most people go well beyond this simple definition, bringing along a whole bunch of unexamined assumptions about what constitutes a "good story" or a "real story". Since I don't agree with some of these assumptions, I dissent with statements founded on them and try to turn the discussion back to the assumptions rather than their consequences.

By way of example, I went to the Forge site and found a definition of Premise:

<blockquote><pre>
A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early
in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is
best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological
challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions.
Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story
transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about
how to act, behave, or believe. In role-playing, "protagonist"
typically indicates a character mainly controlled by one person.
A defining feature of Story Now.
</pre></blockquote>

This sounds pretty close to my "I'm guessing that "Premise" would be a question or issue that has moral weight and which characters have to make a choice about" . This suggests to me that I do understand at least some of what is being said; I just don't agree with it.

If people want to argue that a "story" must be about a "problematic aspect of human interactions" or that every "story" must have a moral -- which is what the description of theme in the above definition of Premise sounds like to me: "a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe" -- that's fine. Let them argue it. I don't agree, but I'm willing to discuss it and, perhaps, have my mind changed.

However, rather than discussing such things, those supporting certain positions just assume that the only reason someone may not agree with them is because they don't understand the idea being presented. Apart from being annoyingly patronising, this attitude doesn't advance the conversation one whit. The underlying assumptions never get addressed. Instead, the conversation is stuck on an endless merry-go-around of "You don't understand." - "Yes I do, I just don't agree." - "No, you don't understand." - "Yes I do. I just Disagree." - "No you don't!" - etc.


JRM wrote:
-------------------------------
<i>In my experience, a far more common problem is player dilettantism, when players don't invest any commitment in the game and just view it as casual entertainment.</i>
-------------------------------

I've had this experience as well. That's why I tend to describe the GM-player relationship in terms of Chair-of-the-meeting rather than Host-of-the-party. The idea is to suggest -- perhaps on a subliminal level -- that participating in a game involves more than just showing up and expecting to have a good time.

Regards,

Zoran