No, not really. The Forge is the best place to go to understand GNS however. I agree with Graham that the terms are being thrown around a bit loosely here.
For purposes of our discussion though while all gamers tend to tell stories the theory suggests that games tend to have different directions. Gamist games for example D&D, give a lot more rule-space to 'in-game sucess' (going up levels, getting new spells or magic items). The dungeon adventure is a classic 'gamist' session, because it focuses on defeating obstacles and thereby increasing in power to face greater obstacles. Simulationist systems take a lot of rule space to try and make results as lifelike as possible, so they tend to have hosts of charts for accruately describing a sword swing, or complex rules for fatigue. Scenarios often focus on exploring and surviving in the world. A lot of RQ Gloranthan play focused on this kind of scenario. GUPRS play if oten simulationist. Narratavist games tend to focus on co-operative storytelling, so for example the system encourages you to describe your bids, what feats do, have abilites that represent emotional feelings being just as important as your skill with a sword. (Historical note: A lot of narratavist designers point to Greg's Prince Valiant as being a primary inspiration). Narratavist games are trying to draw as much on the systemless techniques of role-playing you might see on say a Star Trek of Buffy web site by people who have never played a roleplaying game, than the traditional 'wargame' heritage D&D evolved through. A lot more emphasis is placed on the narrator and player's both 'narrating' events.
Important: No one is saying X is better than Y, or that one type of system cannot be used for another type of play. No one is saying RQ is bad. They are just saying HW is something different.
>>Nothing on them can be compared with anything, even with the same words and numbers on another player's sheet, let alone those on THE NARRATOR's sheet, except by the will of THE NARRATOR.<<
Here is how it happens in our game. The player tells me he wants to use an ability,and how it relates to the situation. I gauge how appropriate I think it is to the circumstance. He tells me why he thinkks it is appropriate. We horsetrade a bit for a modifier. He describes his action. We roll. Then we determine the narrative from the outcome. It takes longer to describe than do and has become instinctive.
> The point of a narrativist game is for the players to provide an
admiring audience for THE NARRATOR. He has already decided
everything of importance that is going to happen in the game. <<
No this is the problem of railroading i.e. the linear scenario, not a narratavist game. If you want to advice on non-linear gaming I would recommend reading Robin's Laws or the Actual Play column at the Forge and asking questions there.
> Not surprisingly, "narrativist games" are popular with potential
narrators, but considerably less so with potential players.
Narratavist games require co-operative play. If you cannot cooperate to tell a story, taking good results as well as ill then yes, you would be better of playing a RPG with stronger game elements that adjudicate every decision. Please understand, that is meant constructively. If someone wrote a *good enough* D20 or GURPS Glorantha supplement I'm sure Issaries would be happy to talk about a licencing deal, though the devil is always in the details.
Ian Cooper
Powered by hypermail