Hi Nick,
I agree, we don't need to get into theory at all to really deal with this subject. As far as historically, my point is that this style of play has been around, even if people have lacked a formal language for it. Just looking at the responses to "How do I improvise" we got 4 or 5 totally valid answers, without diving deep into theory, many from folks who haven't necessarily been involved with the theory stuff we associate with Narrativism.
The thing is, anyone who plays enough develops some regular techniques for play. Those techniques can be shared, and described to other people without getting way deep into abstractions. Granted, some folks are going to be better at explaining their techniques than others- but the fact is the same- whatever techniques you are using, you can write down. If HQ can have that many quotes about the idea of improv- there is one or more authors involved who have been using improvisational techniques for some time and are comfortable with it. It would have been nice to see more of those techniques shared and/ or used in examples.
Personally, I believe there are two factors that must be considered with any technique and non-preplotted scenarios. Both revolve around conflict.
First, rules wise, it must be easy to generate conflict with little effort. If all you need to do is think up a single resistance number, a target number, etc. then that's pretty easy. If the rules have 3 different types of resolution, all with various crunchy sub systems, then you're probably going to want to prepare conflicts and not have to crunch through play to make them up. Obviously HQ's system makes this very easy.
Second, the question becomes "How do I generate interesting and fun conflict for play?" on the part of the Narrator. For people accustomed to predetermined plots- the conflicts are already prepared and loaded- the only problem is making sure that the players follow the necessary cues and such and don't go off track with it.
The key to improvisation is to change the focus from "How do I get these prepared conflicts in play?" to "What should conflicts be about?" As you might notice, almost all the advice folks have given involves a focal point of conflict. This focal point could be set up specifically as a scenario("Your family's ancestral statue has been stolen! Catch those thieves") or it could be a scenario crafted from a detailed setting("Heortlings vs. Lunars... what shall they fight over today?") If you have a good focal point for conflict, it's very easy to keep throwing out new conflicts from it, and keep things going during play.
The Premise as described in the scenario section is exactly a good beginning for conflict type issues. But then you have stuff like,
"...you can either try to yank the story back to your plan or abandon it for a new story suggested by the players' impulse. The latter choice is usually best." pg. 231
with no back up techniques or examples of the latter choice. Again, we have folks recommending styles of play and giving no real techniques to make it happen. Yet we also have several (not-Forge) folks who are giving solid and concrete techniques on a random question!
I'm not criticizing in order to put down the book or its authors- I'm pointing out the contradictions as a source of confusion. I recognize that there are many ways to play, and a strength of the HQ system is that it can support those methods. I simply hope that in future publications that those methods that are advocated are also backed up with appropriate techniques and examples for the benefit of people who might be interested, but unaware of how to achieve them.
Chris
Powered by hypermail