Ciao! Prima di tutto: mi sa che un po' di confusione è giustificata dal fatto che non sono stato chiaro e completo quando avrei voluto.
E già mi sarei accontentato di fare un sunto sommario rimandando agli articoli originali per approfondimenti, ma mi sa che già quelli erano ristretti al limite, cercando di riassumere ancora di più ho lasciato fuori dei pezzi. Sono passato direttamente dal concetto di Premise ai giochi. E mi rendo conto che ho saltato quel pezzo proprio perchè era il più vario e lungo da spiegare...
Comunque, stavolta prima rispondo brevemente, e poi per le spiegazioni passo a citare direttamente gli articoli...
Quindi: nella prima parte del tuo post spieghi, con rimandi, il discorso della premessa e leghi la cosa al discorso del narrativismo che è l'oggetto principale del post.
Quello che però non capisco bene è: un gioco (coerente) può non avere una premessa?
Il GIOCO può non avere una premessa "fissa" anche se coerente. Anzi, direi che quasi tutti non ce l'hanno (con una premessa fissa forse si dovrebbe definire più come "scenario" che "gioco")
Sorcerer non ha una premessa finchè...
1) non dici perchè hai evocato il demone e come
2) non viene definita l'umanità
3) non viene scelto il kicker
4) il GM non assembra da questi elementi un opposizione.
E già qui siamo a livello nemmeno di gruppo e tavolo, ma proprio di
singole partite. A questo aggiungi che qual era davvero la premise lo schiarisci in gioco e non è chiaro subito...
Tutti i "pezzi" che servono vengono elencati nell'articolo di Baker, e se vedi, sono tutti molto "sul momento":
questi personaggi in
questa situazione
"Given a character in a dynamic situation, you can identify the issue: what does the character have stakes in? Given a character with stake in an issue, you can create a dynamic situation: put the stakes at risk! Given a situation and an issue, you can figure out just what character is called for: upon whose decisions does the situation hang? The three, character issue and situation, are intimates. They create one another.
They're easy to see in your own play, once you've seen one once. They're hard to see if you're used to looking for other things. Also, before you know what you're looking at, it's easy to do a close but no cigar: create a stable situation, a character with no stake in the issue, or a non-issue instead.
D) But no, you've done it, you've created a character with a stake at issue in a dynamic situation. You've wound it up. Now turn it loose![/quote]
Infatti da quel che dici mi pare di capire che il discorso di avere una premessa, ed ovviamente poi strumenti per realizzarla, sia una condizione necessaria per avere un gioco di ruolo che non incappi nella cosa impossibile prima di colazione. Quindi anche un right to dream o step on up hanno bisogno di premesse... o no? o hanno bisogno di premesse diverse, magari nei contenuti?
No. Prima di tutto torna sempre alla base: se c'è una storia c'è una premessa. Quindi se il GM è venuto con una bella storiellina pronta da farvi "giocare" su dei binari prestabiliti, lui ha già una premessa e cercherà di farvela giocare. "La vita non ha senso, poi arriva Cthulhu" non è una gran premessa ma ci sono parecchi che vogliono fartela giocare. Magari voi con quello che fate davvero in gioco ve ne fregate totalmente (e cercate di far fuori Cthulhu con la dinamite) ma la storia è del GM, la decide lui, e se lui dice che la premessa è quella la premessa sarà quella,
qualunque cosa voi facciate per rovinargli la storia!. Ovvio che tutto questo non è narrativismo, non ci somiglia nemmeno! il fatto che ci sia una "storia" è totalmente irrilevante!
Potrebbe anche non esserci. Magari fate un dungeon crawl. Colpisco, ammazzo, colpisco, manco, cade, cade, non cade, scappo, fallisco il tito salvezza, rifaccio personaggio, bla bla bla.... che premise vuoi che ci sia? Ma è ovvio, non c'è una storia, chissenefrega della storia?
Non è assolutamente un discorso di "gamismo contro simulazionismo", puoi tranquillamente rovesciare la cosa: giocare a fare i cavalieri di re artù senza nessuna storia prefissata o puoi fare gamismo dentro le guidelines di una storia già scritta (1001 nights).
La risposta non può essere "c'è una premise" o "non c'è una premise" perchè... ricordi? Stiamo parlando di PRIORITÀ. Non di PRESENZA O ASSENZA.
La premise è prioritaria SOLO nello story now. E lo story now è quel tipo di set di PRIORITÀ che dà la PRIORITÀ alla premise. Se la priorità (la creative agenda) è diversa, OVVIAMENTE la premise non è prioritaria.
Quando giochi a scacchi, è prioritario vincere o portare i calzini abbinati ai pantaloni? Se stai facendo un servizio di moda e sei in posa per una foto su Vogue, il calzino è prioritario, e la partita è finta. O magari è anche vera, la giochi nelle pause con l'assistente del fotografo, ma non è la priorità e anche se è brutta non gliene frega nulla a nessuno. Se invece sei a un torneo di scacchi... chi se ne frega dei calzini?
Chiedere "ma nei giochi dove la premise non conta niente, c'è la premise" è come chiedere "ma nei tornei di scacchi, i calzini devono essere abbinati o no?".
È irrilevante. Tanto non conta niente. Le priorità sono altre.
Alcuni quote: dall'articolo di Edwards:
"Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in for several different processes and goals, some of which were incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.
All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.
Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.
Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home.
The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is,
absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue."
[...]
"Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be
addressed in the
process of role-playing. "Address" means:
* Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
* Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
* Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.
Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.
There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts. [/i]
[...]
"in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. i.e., a Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.
In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a by-product. "
[...]
"
PremiseHow 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."
[...]
"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. "
E insomma... leggiti tutto l'articolo. Considero il mio (presuntuoso) tentativo di "riassumerlo" sostanzialmente fallito...
