Proviamo per un paio di giorni a riaprire le iscrizioni. Abbiamo inserito delle contromisure contro la registrazione massiccia degli spammer. Vediamo chi la spunta
Visualizza post
Questa sezione ti permette di visualizzare tutti i post inviati da questo utente. N.B: puoi vedere solo i post relativi alle aree dove hai l'accesso.
[cite] D&D 4th - Players Handbook - A Roleplaying Game:[/cite]The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is a roleplaying game. In fact, D&D invented the roleplaying game and started an industry.
A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children. However, a roleplaying game such as D&D provides form and structure, with robust gameplay and endless possibilities.
[cite] Polaris - Ben Lehman:[/cite]FIRST, THE INTRODUCTION
Polaris is a game, but it is more like a game you would play with a small child and her toys than a competitive game like monopoly, chess or soccer. The goals of playing Polaris are no more and no less than the goals of a child's play-pretend - to create a good story, to explore an imaginary world, and to have fun doing it.
But Polaris also differs form pretend play in a few key ways. We are adults now and the story that drew us as children will not necessarily hold the same joy for us now. Adults story demand more structure, more action, and more compelling quandaries for the protagonists. To this end, Polaris has a set background and a set of rules to help you structure the story that you'll be developing, to make sure that it is satisfying, interesting and fun.
[cite] D&D 4th - DM Guide - Getting Started:[/cite] Settle In: D&D is a social activity, and taking a while to get settled and socialize is a time-honored ritual. Don’t try to fight it. A game group works better together when the people in it have had time to talk, joke, and catch up before jumping into the dungeon. If that time coincides with a meal, so much the better—neither conversation nor dinner plates will get in the way of the game once you get in gear.
Over time, many game groups develop a signal to indicate when it’s time to begin play in earnest. One player might say, “Game on!”, everyone might put their dice on the table, or the DM might set up the Dungeon Master’s screen.
[cite] Polaris - Ben Lehman:[/cite]You begin with a key phrase
Just as any other time when a group of friends gathers together, you will want to do other things than just play a game - eat a meal, catch up on each other's lives, talk about the events of the day, chat about creative projects, put the kids to bed, schedule other social events, etc. But, at some point in the evening, you will want to start playing the game and shift the focus toward that activity.
For this reason there is a specific way set aside to mark that you are starting the game. When you are ready to start [...] say the key phrase LONG AGO, THE PEOPLE WERE DYING AT THE END OF THE WORLD
[cite] Narrativism: Story Now - Ron Edwards:[/cite]Say it yourself
I receive a lot of emails like this one from Landon Darkwood:
I think I may have had a revelation.
... In your Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."
Is this the key to distinguishing the [Narrativist vs. Simulationist] play modes? My intepretation of this statement is that 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.
Am I on this now?
"In a word," I replied, "Yes."
Narrativism has a single definition, but it's difficult to articulate for people grappling with muddled RPG terminology. As far as I was concerned, not only had I presented what Landon said in "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), I'd repeated it dozens of times in forum discussions. In fact, I'd said it in the message to Landon that immediately preceded this reply. But he had to say it himself, with his own use of words like "just" and "genre." I am now convinced, after many such exchanges, that an "experienced" role-player comes to this conclusion only by working it out in his or her own terms and examples.
[cite] Narrativism: Story Now - Ron Edwards:[/cite]Here's a little dialogue between me and one of the first-draft readers of this essay:
Jesse: Now we come to a point of personal confusion. Pastiche. I still don't get it, in any medium. If the Situation involves "...class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance..." and the GM lets the players resolve it anyway they like, then how is that not Narrativist?
Me: It is Narrativist. What you're describing is not pastiche, or more clearly, it typically does not produce pastiche. The key is the "resolve it any way they like" part.
Jesse: Similarly if I'm writing a story and I make a check-list of items I feel like I "need" to include to tell the "kind of" story I want to tell, and I have a character experience and resolve those things, then how have I not written a new story?
Me: You have. What you're missing is that pastiche does not do this at all - instead, it references existing works in order to re-invoke what they, originally, provided for the reader/viewer, rather than doing it on its own. Die Hard is an outstanding movie. Passenger 57 stinks on ice. Why? Because Passenger 57 is only enjoyable if it reminds you, successfully, of Die Hard. Same goes for Broken Arrow, Con Air, and a slew of similar films. [Disclosure: I do enjoy many of these films, on the basis of the "reminder" alone. - RE]
And it's not a matter of "who does it first." Die Hard works because it nails its Premise, with the explosions and one-liners all being supportive of that goal. The other movies fail to provide Premise of their own, merely using the explosions and one-liners to remind you of Die Hard, and by (putative) extension, tapping into Die Hard's Premise through association alone.
Jesse: I guess I'm having trouble resolving a couple of things. Either I can't imagine the items listed above being included in the absence of Premise or I'm too stuck on the idea that there's nothing new under the sun. I mean how many romantic comedies are written off the premise, "true love can only be found by putting aside petty differences." Are you saying that 90% of romantic comedies are just pastiche? And if you are saying that, then aren't you putting kind of a tall order up if for something to be Narrativist it has to say something totally unique that no one has ever said before?
Huh, I just noticed that I did shift focus from repetition of elements that express a Premise to repetition of Premise itself, so maybe that has something to do with my confusion.
Me: Yes, it does. With any luck my text above has helped. It's not the "new-ness" of the Premise or theme, it's its presence and power in the particular story. Pastiche has no such presence or power, just reminders of them in other stories through common motifs. Many romantic comedies are indeed pastiche (some of them quite clever), but a certain number of them are not - and whether they say the same thing as, say, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or The Devil and Miss Jones is irrelevant. The point is whether they as self-contained stories actually do say it, or anything at all.
Jesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they can't resolve the Situation without doing so.
Me: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any.
My final point for this issue is that creating pastiche is primarily a form of fandom, pure homage to an existing body of work. Most High Concept Simulationist play gravitates toward it, and some game texts are explicitly about nothing else.
[cite] Moreno Roncucci:[/cite]... nel gioco narrativo (narrativista? Questi neologismi..)
