"storia" in italiano può voler dire, a seconda del contesto, un sacco di cose. Troppe. Tanto che il rischio è di incasinare qualunque thread in cui si discuta di "storia".
Io sto in genere con i termini forgiti. Non perché "storia" voglia dire solo la cosa che si definisce nel glossario come "storia", ma perchè se si prende l'abitudine di usare termini diversi per cose diverse, ne guadagna la chiarezza e la comprensibilità de discorsi.
Quindi, vediamo l differenza fra Transcript, Story e Story Now:
Dall'articolo
Narrativism: Story Now di Ron Edwards (2003):
----------------------------------
[size=18]
Story[/size]
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.
[size=18]
Story Now[/size]
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cioè, per chiarezza, non usiamo il termine "storia" per la tracrizione degli eventi di gioco che si sono succeduti nella fiction: quello è il
Transcript, la TRASCRIZIONE dei vari eventi.
La trascrizione degli eventi è una
Storia se... ha senso come storia! Cioè se affronta qualcosa, se dice qualcosa, se esprime qualcosa, se ha un senso come espressione umana (a dirla così sembra terribilmente altisonante, ma tenete presente che Stanlio e Ollio ci riuscivano in ogni singola comica. Sono cose pratiche e normali in ogni singola storia che avete letto in via vostra che non fosse un mero esercizio citazionistico. E' solo a parlarne e a cercare di definirle che sembrano diventate di colpo altisonanti e difficili. Pensate a descrivere in termini di fisica come funziona una bicicletta, e dite se non sembra una cosa difficilissima...
Ora, il fatto che la trascrizione degli eventi di gioco abbia, una volta letta A POSTERIORI, un senso come storia, non implica nessuna creative agenda. La storia potrebbe essere stata prefissata dal GM con un railroad terrificante. Avrebbe potuto essere la base per sfide. Non lo sapete e non lo potete stabilire da un trascript (il motivo principale per cui quando si parla di Actual Play non si deve solo scrivere il transcript della fiction, ma bisogna dire cosa è successo fra i giocatori al tavolo. Sennò la Creative Agenda è invisibile.
Ho messo in corsivo un passaggio, nel brano qui sopra: "Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed
in the process of role-playing. ".
Cipè, nel narrativismo quel "qualcosa" che rende un transcript una storia, non deve essere stato fissato prima, e non deve essere stato ricavato dopo, e non deve risultare per caso: non si guarda a quel "qualcosa" come al prodotto del gioco (storia) ma come ad un processo. La premise viene affrontata non solo "nella storia", ma "nell'atto del giocare".
L'articolo originale prosegue cercando di definire meglio cos'è che separa una storia da un semplice transcript, basandosi sui concetti espressi in "The Art of Dramatic Writing" by Lajos Egri.
[size=18]
Premise[/size]
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.
--------------------------
Spero sia chiaro, adesso, perché in quest'altro thread:
Il Barone di Munchausen ho sostenuto che quelle che si creano in On Stage, Baron Munchousen e Once Upon a Time non sono storie.
Quando descrivo la Perpetua di Don Abbondio che, con la musica di mission impossible sotto (magari canticchiata dagli altri al tavolo) supera le trappole diaboliche dell'Inbnominato e sgomina a colpi di Kung Fu la resistenza dei bravi, non sto dicendo nulla. Sto semplicemente affastellando situazioni divertenti sfruttando la sovrapposizione di personaggi noti in un contesto (la Perpetua) con comportamenti incongrui (il Kung Fu) per ottenere un effetto umoristico. Ma qual è il senso del farlo? Cosa dovrebbe comunicarmi?
Non è una storia, è una gag.
Questa differenza sfugge, purtroppo, non solo a molti giocatori ma pure a troppi GM. Ce ne sono troppi che credono che l'affastellamento di cose "cool" e di citazioni o di cose "divertenti" è comunque un fatto positivo per una storia, perché misurano la storia dalla presenza di quelle cose. Niente di male se l'effetto voluto è, appunto, umoristico, o comunque non ha niente a che vedere con la creazione condivisa di una storia. Ma ci sono pure quelli che vorrebbero ottenere storie appassionanti come quelle che hanno letto in un libro o visto in un film, e credono che la strada per riuscirci sia citare il più possibile elementi da quel film o da quel libro... :roll:
Ricapitolando, citiamo le definizioni del
glossario, ricavate dall'articolo di cui sopra:
Story: An imaginary series of events which includes at least one protagonist, at least one conflict, and events which may be construed as a resolution of the conflict. A Story is a subset of Transcript distinguished by its thematic content. Role-playing may produce a Story regardless of which Creative Agenda is employed.
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.
Transcript An account of the imaginary events of play without reference to role-playing procedures. A Transcript may or may not be a Story.
Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination) The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also
Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).
Theme The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an audience member, about a fictional series of events. The presence of a theme is the defining feature of Story as opposed to Transcript. See Narrativism: 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
---------
Imparando ad usare questi termini, si riesce finalmente a parlare di "storia" in un gdr senza avere la solita confusione.
