Nekromanti Karaktärsdrivna spel

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Måns said:
Elmrig said:
Om jag kan få in en premise i stil med "Hur många pjäser är det värt att offra för att förstöra min motståndares kungsställning, detta blir ett centralt tema och tillslut kommer jag fram till att "Det är värt att offra på H7 i given situation" så har jag spelat schack som Story Now?
Nej, det är klockren gamism. Du har ingen premiss som bottnar i ett mänskligt problem, du utmanar inte den premissen och då når således inget tema.

Inga frågor är för dumma! :gremsmile: På riktigt alltså. Jag blir bara glad varje gång någon får en aha-upplevelse.
"Är det värt att offra min älskade för att störta kungen?"

"Är det värt att sätta min framgång på spel för att störta kungen?"

"Är det värt att ta en risk som kan leda till en situation där jag inte kan utnyttja mina kunskaper som schackspelare för en chans att vinna snabbt?"

Visst, det finns stora "hopp" mellan nivåerna men det är inte direkt väsensskilt.

Schack är en dålig jämförelse, det kan jag medge, men det jag vill komma fram till är att det ligger i spelarens ögon huruvida det är Story Now-spel eller inte. Frågar du Genesis skulle jag gissa att han spelade mycket Story Now under LinCon, jag har aldrig varit i närheten av det även om vi suttit vid samma bord och spelat samma spel tre dagar i sträck.
 

Mogger

Hipsteranka
Joined
12 Nov 2001
Messages
18,081
Location
Ereb Altor
Jag förstår din poäng men det är inte ett mänskligt problem att räkna sannolikheter. Schack är siffror. Hade pjäserna varit levande varelser med hopp och drömmar hade det varit en annan sak. Ser du skillnaden?
 

Mogger

Hipsteranka
Joined
12 Nov 2001
Messages
18,081
Location
Ereb Altor
En strävan att vinna ett schack parti kan kvala in. Vad måste du offra för att vinna? Är en seger värt det? Osv
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Elmrig said:
Det finns alltså inget krav på att alla ska vara med och skapa berättelsen för att det ska vara Story Now? Det kan vara här jag går bort mig.
Det är inget system om det inte främjar vad vi vill gemensamt. Visst kan en enskild spelare hitta på saker i spelet, men om det inte tolereras av övriga deltagare och/eller spelledaren beroende på konstallation, har vi alltså inget system som sådant och då kan det inte heller vara Story Now, möjligen Story by Yourself. :gremwink:

Som Ron beskriver det, "Egotism leads to loss of friends".

Med det sagt är det nog många små berättelser som tolereras av gruppen, t.ex. hur rollfiguren ser ut i ansiktet och andra mer exakta detaljer, och som kan förknippas med Story Now.
 

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Måns said:
Jag förstår din poäng men det är inte ett mänskligt problem att räkna sannolikheter. Schack är siffror. Hade pjäserna varit levande varelser med hopp och drömmar hade det varit en annan sak. Ser du skillnaden?
Ja, jag tror det. Jag kan dock inte räkna fram partiets utgång från den position jag är i innan jag offrar, det kan ingen men jag håller med.

Min andra poäng håller jag dock fast vid, jag tycker om att skapa häftiga historier som skapas under spel, uppleva starka ögonblick och ställa folk och mig själv inför svåra val och intressekonflikter. En sådan inställning gör det säkert lätt att delta när andra spelar Story Now men det är inte jag. Gamism med låg Challenge och hög Step on Up socialt att skapa häftiga och gripande berättelser.

Intressant diskussion! Jag tror att jag lärt mig en hel del idag!
 

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Save said:
Elmrig said:
Det finns alltså inget krav på att alla ska vara med och skapa berättelsen för att det ska vara Story Now? Det kan vara här jag går bort mig.
Det är inget system om det inte främjar vad vi vill gemensamt. Visst kan en enskild spelare hitta på saker i spelet, men om det inte tolereras av övriga deltagare och/eller spelledaren beroende på konstallation, har vi alltså inget system som sådant och då kan det inte heller vara Story Now, möjligen Story by Yourself. :gremwink:

Som Ron beskriver det, "Egotism leads to loss of friends".

Med det sagt är det nog många små berättelser som tolereras av gruppen, t.ex. hur rollfiguren ser ut i ansiktet och andra mer exakta detaljer, och som kan förknippas med Story Now.
Nu pratar du om "socialt kontrakt" och inte om "system" va?
Berättelser är väl inte "Story Now", de uppstår väl i alla spelstilar?
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Elmrig said:
Save said:
Elmrig said:
Det finns alltså inget krav på att alla ska vara med och skapa berättelsen för att det ska vara Story Now? Det kan vara här jag går bort mig.
Det är inget system om det inte främjar vad vi vill gemensamt. Visst kan en enskild spelare hitta på saker i spelet, men om det inte tolereras av övriga deltagare och/eller spelledaren beroende på konstallation, har vi alltså inget system som sådant och då kan det inte heller vara Story Now, möjligen Story by Yourself. :gremwink:

Som Ron beskriver det, "Egotism leads to loss of friends".

Med det sagt är det nog många små berättelser som tolereras av gruppen, t.ex. hur rollfiguren ser ut i ansiktet och andra mer exakta detaljer, och som kan förknippas med Story Now.
Nu pratar du om "socialt kontrakt" och inte om "system" va?
Berättelser är väl inte "Story Now", de uppstår väl i alla spelstilar?
Jag pratar aldrig om det jag pratar om, enligt dig? :gremwink: Egentligen pratar jag om finska snapsvisor, men det har inte du märkt... eller har du? :gremwink:
 

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Save said:
Jag pratar aldrig om det jag pratar om, enligt dig? :gremwink: Egentligen pratar jag om finska snapsvisor, men det har inte du märkt... eller har du? :gremwink:
Nej, jag trodde den här tråden rörde Story Now. Frågorna är allvarligt menade för att bättre förstå ditt inlägg.
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Elmrig said:
Save said:
Jag pratar aldrig om det jag pratar om, enligt dig? :gremwink: Egentligen pratar jag om finska snapsvisor, men det har inte du märkt... eller har du? :gremwink:
Nej, jag trodde den här tråden rörde Story Now. Frågorna är allvarligt menade för att bättre förstå ditt inlägg.
Men om du förstår att finska snapsvisor är något annat än Story Now, hur kan du då inte förstå att socialt kontrakt är skilt ifrån system?

För övrigt hänvisar jag till denna artikel som nämnts tidigare i tråden.

Edit: Notera att vi pratar om rollspelssystem. Rollspelssystem är, som de normalt är konstruerade, system med fler än en person i, såvida vi inte pratar datorrollspel.
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Elmrig said:
Berättelser är väl inte "Story Now", de uppstår väl i alla spelstilar?
Har jag sagt det? Nej, jag skrev att berättelser är något som förknippas med Story Now och jag skrev inte heller att de endast förknippas med (systemet) Story Now.

I denna artikel står "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play." (författaren erkände dock inte ordet genre, så det ordet får tolkas mera fritt)

Story betyder berättelse. I korthet betyder alltså resten av citatet att en berättelse kan hänvisa till något som är en sekvens av händelser som vi är menade att njuta av när vi spelar.

Om jag säger att jag skjuter dig och du accepterar det, i ett spel med bara oss två, då kan man förknippa den (korta) berättelsen med Story Now.

Ändring enligt färgmarkering ovan.
 

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Save said:
Elmrig said:
Berättelser är väl inte "Story Now", de uppstår väl i alla spelstilar?
Har jag sagt det? Nej, jag skrev att berättelser är något som förknippas med Story Now och jag skrev inte heller att de endast förknippas med (systemet) Story Now.

I denna artikel står "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

Story betyder berättelse. I korthet betyder alltså resten av citatet att en berättelse kan hänvisa till något som är en sekvens av händelser som vi är menade att njuta av när vi spelar.

Om jag säger att jag skjuter dig och du accepterar det, i ett spel med bara oss två, då kan man förknippa den (korta) berättelsen med Story Now.
Jag håller inte med om den definitionen av "Story Now". Definitionen ges nedan från The Provisional Glossary

Story Now

Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.
Address Premise, to

To establish, develop, and resolve a Premise during play, with emphasis on the decisions made by the protagonist characters. See also Premise, Protagonism, and Story Now.
Premise (adapted from Egri)

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.
Den "korta berättelsen" blir bara Story Now om du har en premise att utgå ifrån och att denna utforskas under historien.
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Premise

How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme.

I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I mentioned. I've taken the term from The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri. In reading what follows, bear in mind that he is discussing the process of writing, not an existing playscript or a performance:

... every good premise is composed of three parts, each of which is essential to a good play. Let us examine "frugality equals waste." The first part of this premise suggest character - a frugal character. The second part, "leads to," suggests conflict, and the third part, "waste," suggests the end of the play. ...

A good premise is a thumbnail synopsis of your play. [examples follow, including "Egotism leads to loss of friends." - RE]

... What is wrong, then? What is missing?

The author's conviction is missing. Until he takes sides, there is no play. Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take? We, the readers or spectators of your play, do not necessarily agree with your convictions. Through your play you must therefore prove to us the validity of your contention.

A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says),constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level.

I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms to Egri's principles. They may seem simplistic: the burning passion of the protagonist directly expresses a burning passion of the author's, who uses the plot as a polemic to demonstrate it. However, "Why Johnny shouldn't smoke dope" is only the starting point. More nuanced, ambiguous, and insightful applications arise insofar as more nuanced, ambiguous, and insightful authors and audiences are involved.

I said earlier that any role-playing can produce a story, and that's so. But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way. Some nuances:

"Character does something" can mean foreshadowing, flashback, and anything in between. It can mean the character is just thinkin' about it, or it can mean the character flat-out does it. As long as the fictional character is brought into the perceptions and possible emotional responses of the other people at the table, then it counts.

It doesn't matter whether the character fictionally "meant" to do the action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot.

In stories (unlike real life), the character's immediate environment is kind of a weird sidekick, who sometimes acts in the character's favor and sometimes against him or her. "Character does something" often includes this sidekick's behavior.

"Identifiable" means assessing how the players treat one another during the process, socially.

From my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing theory" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/):

Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions of all sorts.

Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?

Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?

And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories of all sorts.

Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?

Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

I'm still saying the same thing. But now, I've returned to my earlier usage; it's the only meaning for the term "Premise" in my model.

That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict, so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say, "problematic human issue" instead.

Egri presents his Premises as flat statements, and I state them as questions. Using the question form isn't changing anything about what Egri is saying. Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage anyone.

Egri's statement-construction is very useful for the single author faced with a blank sheet of paper, with the goal at hand being a finished script. The audience will see the play, not the process of creation. However, in the role-playing medium, not only are there multiple authors, but the audience is also composed of these same authors, and their appreciation of the material occurs simultaneously with the significant creative decisions. Therefore, the Premise's imaginary resolution is up for grabs among the group in role-playing, just as it is up for grabs within the author's own head before the play reaches final draft. In the latter case, the jump to "the point" is swift and hopefully certain; in the former case, the new medium, it is anything but. I phrase it as a question for role-playing, to indicate that everyone involved has his or her fair crack at it as one of the authors.

From Robin Laws' essay "The Literary Edge," published in Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1992):

OTE is, among other things, an attempt to further the development of role-playing as art. GMs will find it fruitful to approach decisions as an artist creating a collaborative work with players. The idea of collaboration is important: the GM is not a "storyteller" with the players as audience, but merely a "first among equals" given responsibility for the smooth progress of the developing story.

... The GM is not a movie director, able to order actors to interpret a script a given way. Instead, he should be seeking ways to challenge PCs, to use plot development to highlight aspects of their character, in hopes of being challenged in return.

... For years, role-players have been simulating fictional narratives the way wargamers recreate historical military engagements. They've been making spontaneous, democratized art for their own consumption, even if they haven't seen it in those terms. Making the artistry conscious is a liberating act, making it easier to emulate the classic tales that inspire us. Have fun with it, and enjoy your special role in aesthetic history - it's not everybody who gets to be a pioneer in the development of a new art form.

Egri's Premise, meet role-playing. Oh, I can quibble ... instead of the word "conscious," I prefer "mindful," and I think that "emulate the classic tales" is a bit simplistic, but never mind. The point is, if you want a Narrativist Manifesto from one of the great minds of role-playing, then there you go.

Here's a bit more about that theme business. Think of it as the conclusive "uh!" that may accompany the climax and resolution of a story. It's uttered by the playwright as he hits a certain key or scribes a certain sentence, by the audience members at a certain point as they view the play, and by role-players in both capacities during the session, often simultaneously.

From the discussion of themes in the chapter "The Art of Storytelling" in Demon's Lair: the "God" Guide (Lasalion Games, 2002):

The theme is the idea that you wish to explore in the story. It brings unity to the story and is explored throughout the story by the actions of the players and the main characters. Even the obstacle or conflict that forms the plot usually resonates with the theme. It is the thread that ties everything together and usually teaches the players something.

Substitute Premise for theme, and theme for the "something," and that's just about right. I especially like the implied causality: (1) the actions of the players (2) teach the players something, which becomes non-circular when play actually addresses Premise. Unfortunately, few other features of Demon's Lair, including the example which follows the above text, are consistent with this point, and most are wildly at odds with it.

More insights about theme are available in Chris Chinn's article "The power of myth" in Daedalus #1, in which the word "theme" may be substituted for "myth" throughout.

På vilket sätt emotsäger detta det som jag skrev tidigare?
 

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Save said:
Om jag säger att jag skjuter dig och du accepterar det, i ett spel med bara oss två, då kan man förknippa den (korta) berättelsen med Story Now.
Där pratar du om Story Now. Den definition som tycks ligga bakom håller jag inte med om. Jag tycker att det låter som dramaresolution oberoende av GNS snarare än något som skulle vara förknippat med Story Now. Se mitt inlägg ovan om hur det skulle kunna bli Story Now.
 

RasmusL

Champion
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
9,965
Location
Stockholm
Save said:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Klicka för att visa.. <input type="button" class="form-button" value="Visa dolt innehåll" onclick="toggle_spoiler(this, 'Dölj innehåll', 'Visa dolt innehåll')" /></div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div style="display: none;">Premise

How is this done, actually, in play? It relies on the concept of something called Premise and its relationship to an emergent theme.

I already snuck Premise past you: it's that "problematic issue" I mentioned. I've taken the term from The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri. In reading what follows, bear in mind that he is discussing the process of writing, not an existing playscript or a performance:

... every good premise is composed of three parts, each of which is essential to a good play. Let us examine "frugality equals waste." The first part of this premise suggest character - a frugal character. The second part, "leads to," suggests conflict, and the third part, "waste," suggests the end of the play. ...

A good premise is a thumbnail synopsis of your play. [examples follow, including "Egotism leads to loss of friends." - RE]

... What is wrong, then? What is missing?

The author's conviction is missing. Until he takes sides, there is no play. Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take? We, the readers or spectators of your play, do not necessarily agree with your convictions. Through your play you must therefore prove to us the validity of your contention.

A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "the guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to us (as Egri says),constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level.

I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms to Egri's principles. They may seem simplistic: the burning passion of the protagonist directly expresses a burning passion of the author's, who uses the plot as a polemic to demonstrate it. However, "Why Johnny shouldn't smoke dope" is only the starting point. More nuanced, ambiguous, and insightful applications arise insofar as more nuanced, ambiguous, and insightful authors and audiences are involved.

I said earlier that any role-playing can produce a story, and that's so. But Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way. Some nuances:

"Character does something" can mean foreshadowing, flashback, and anything in between. It can mean the character is just thinkin' about it, or it can mean the character flat-out does it. As long as the fictional character is brought into the perceptions and possible emotional responses of the other people at the table, then it counts.

It doesn't matter whether the character fictionally "meant" to do the action, premeditated it, or acted on-the-spot.

In stories (unlike real life), the character's immediate environment is kind of a weird sidekick, who sometimes acts in the character's favor and sometimes against him or her. "Character does something" often includes this sidekick's behavior.

"Identifiable" means assessing how the players treat one another during the process, socially.

From my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing theory" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/):

Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions of all sorts.

Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?

Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?

And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and stories of all sorts.

Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.

A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?

Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

I'm still saying the same thing. But now, I've returned to my earlier usage; it's the only meaning for the term "Premise" in my model.

That bit about moral and ethical content is merely one of those personalized clincher-phrasings that some people find helpful. It helps to distinguish a Premise from "my guy fought a dragon, so that's a conflict, so that's a Premise" thinking. However, if these terms bug you, then say, "problematic human issue" instead.

Egri presents his Premises as flat statements, and I state them as questions. Using the question form isn't changing anything about what Egri is saying. Premise must pose a question to the real people, creator and audience alike. The fictional character's belief in something like "Freedom is worth any price" is already an implicit question: "Is it really? Even when [insert Situation]?" Otherwise it will fail to engage anyone.

Egri's statement-construction is very useful for the single author faced with a blank sheet of paper, with the goal at hand being a finished script. The audience will see the play, not the process of creation. However, in the role-playing medium, not only are there multiple authors, but the audience is also composed of these same authors, and their appreciation of the material occurs simultaneously with the significant creative decisions. Therefore, the Premise's imaginary resolution is up for grabs among the group in role-playing, just as it is up for grabs within the author's own head before the play reaches final draft. In the latter case, the jump to "the point" is swift and hopefully certain; in the former case, the new medium, it is anything but. I phrase it as a question for role-playing, to indicate that everyone involved has his or her fair crack at it as one of the authors.

From Robin Laws' essay "The Literary Edge," published in Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1992):

OTE is, among other things, an attempt to further the development of role-playing as art. GMs will find it fruitful to approach decisions as an artist creating a collaborative work with players. The idea of collaboration is important: the GM is not a "storyteller" with the players as audience, but merely a "first among equals" given responsibility for the smooth progress of the developing story.

... The GM is not a movie director, able to order actors to interpret a script a given way. Instead, he should be seeking ways to challenge PCs, to use plot development to highlight aspects of their character, in hopes of being challenged in return.

... For years, role-players have been simulating fictional narratives the way wargamers recreate historical military engagements. They've been making spontaneous, democratized art for their own consumption, even if they haven't seen it in those terms. Making the artistry conscious is a liberating act, making it easier to emulate the classic tales that inspire us. Have fun with it, and enjoy your special role in aesthetic history - it's not everybody who gets to be a pioneer in the development of a new art form.

Egri's Premise, meet role-playing. Oh, I can quibble ... instead of the word "conscious," I prefer "mindful," and I think that "emulate the classic tales" is a bit simplistic, but never mind. The point is, if you want a Narrativist Manifesto from one of the great minds of role-playing, then there you go.

Here's a bit more about that theme business. Think of it as the conclusive "uh!" that may accompany the climax and resolution of a story. It's uttered by the playwright as he hits a certain key or scribes a certain sentence, by the audience members at a certain point as they view the play, and by role-players in both capacities during the session, often simultaneously.

From the discussion of themes in the chapter "The Art of Storytelling" in Demon's Lair: the "God" Guide (Lasalion Games, 2002):

The theme is the idea that you wish to explore in the story. It brings unity to the story and is explored throughout the story by the actions of the players and the main characters. Even the obstacle or conflict that forms the plot usually resonates with the theme. It is the thread that ties everything together and usually teaches the players something.

Substitute Premise for theme, and theme for the "something," and that's just about right. I especially like the implied causality: (1) the actions of the players (2) teach the players something, which becomes non-circular when play actually addresses Premise. Unfortunately, few other features of Demon's Lair, including the example which follows the above text, are consistent with this point, and most are wildly at odds with it.

More insights about theme are available in Chris Chinn's article "The power of myth" in Daedalus #1, in which the word "theme" may be substituted for "myth" throughout.
</div>
På vilket sätt emotsäger detta det som jag skrev tidigare? </div></div>
Texten du citerar ger en bra beskrivning av vad Premise och Theme är och i det du skrev identifierade du ingen Premise.

Save said:
Om jag säger att jag skjuter dig och du accepterar det, i ett spel med bara oss två, då kan man förknippa den (korta) berättelsen med Story Now.
Att jag accepterar det låter som Dramaresolution, det har inget med Premise att göra. Om du ställt upp en Premise och utforskat om du ska skjuta mig eller utforskat situationen som uppstår efteråt med moraliska ställningstaganden etc hade jag varit med på noterna.
 

Mogger

Hipsteranka
Joined
12 Nov 2001
Messages
18,081
Location
Ereb Altor
På vilket sätt emotsäger detta det som jag skrev tidigare?
När du försöker sätta egna ord på det blir det tydligt att du inte har någon insikt om hur det här funkar i faktiskt spel, vilket i sin tur innebär att du saknar praktisk erfarenhet av spel som stödjer en story now-agenda. Du vill gärna visa att du kan, att du vet vad du pratar om, men det du gör är att analysera texter och inlägg. Jag undrar vad ditt syfte med det är. Har du någon fråga du vill ha svar på? Kort sagt, vad vill du? Jag upplever den här diskussionen som oerhört destruktiv och förvirrad (från din sida), vilket är olyckligt för ämnet är redan omgärdat av en hel del förvirring.

Så, vad vill du ha ut av tråden? Varför intresserar du dig för story now?
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Jag tror att många fel uppstår när vissa "definitioner" tas från en engelsk sida som inte är menad att fungera som något läromedel och som inte innehåller den fullständiga text som sajten i övrigt innehåller och där (på den senare platsen) termerna diskuteras.

Om "definitionerna" (glossary):

"this is a provisional version"
"The purpose for the Glossary is solely to provide help to people as they enter into discussions at the Forge. It is not supposed to be the primary teaching instrument for any concept" (Källa)

De "definitioner" som nämndes, var alltså bara provisoriska kortbeskrivningar som inte var menade som läromedel överhuvudtaget.

Vidare har Ron själv skrivit att hans beskrivningar i artiklarna inte är något som vi måste ta för givet.

Han skriver "Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge. It is not a consensus view of members of the Forge, nor is it a committee effort of any kind. It is most especially not an expectation for what you're supposed to think or believe." (Källa)

Sen har vi också engelskan som skapar problem i sig om den inte översätts. Till sist har vi det problemet som uppstår när rollspelaren själv inte sätter sig in i materialet och formulerar sina uppfattningar utifrån egna termer och exempel (se denna postning, särskilt näst sista stycket). Endast då kan förståelse nås.
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Elmrig said:
Save said:
Om jag säger att jag skjuter dig och du accepterar det, i ett spel med bara oss två, då kan man förknippa den (korta) berättelsen med Story Now.
Där pratar du om Story Now. Den definition som tycks ligga bakom håller jag inte med om.
Vilken definition har du av Story Now?
 

Save

Veteran
Joined
24 Jun 2012
Messages
151
Elmrig said:
Texten du citerar ger en bra beskrivning av vad Premise och Theme är och i det du skrev identifierade du ingen Premise.
Vad menar du med "identifiera"?

Elmrig said:
Save said:
Om jag säger att jag skjuter dig och du accepterar det, i ett spel med bara oss två, då kan man förknippa den (korta) berättelsen med Story Now.
Att jag accepterar det låter som Dramaresolution, det har inget med Premise att göra. Om du ställt upp en Premise och utforskat om du ska skjuta mig eller utforskat situationen som uppstår efteråt med moraliska ställningstaganden etc hade jag varit med på noterna.
Vet du vad en Premise är? Låt mig då höra det i klartext med dina egna ord.

Premissen i det jag skrev kommer av ordet "om". Ordet om i det sammanhanget innebär ungefär "antag att". Ett antagande är en premiss. Att du accepterar att jag skjuter dig är tillräckligt för mig. Är det inte ett moraliskt ställningstagande att skjuta någon?
 
Top