Oh, my. A huge comment I made just got deleted. Ah, well, it was half-raving anyhow. Here's a more lucid rehash:
I think the particular depth with which RPG narratives are constructed are not well represented by just one kind of dialectic. What makes RPG storytelling so fascinating is how the thesis/antithesis relationship can shift between players and GM, when the GM prompts, or the players act along new lines.
For example, when Cray decided to make a pact with evil spirits, kill good spirits, torture his best friend and kidnap a child, that was certainly a problem, a thesis to which other had to respond, both GM and. That's players just going crazy and plotting new multifemic routes for the story.
GMs can also prompt solutions, such as when a band of adventurers frees a keep from tyrrany, but is surrounded by an enemy encampment. The players are forced to plot the next multifemic route. Do they battle? Decieve? Flee? Make peace? The players must choose the next multifemic route, then the GM will pose new problems to be resolved.
I think there are two different processes at work here, in other words. One is a GM/Player dialectic Problem/Resolution process, but the larger process is multifemic, and alternates dialectic roles.
What else could be said of the participation of players in charting out the multifemic 'path' that the story follows? I remember asking Midnight players what kind of story they want their charcters to have, making sure that the multifemic process suited them. I know, though, that players in certain scenarios, less 'driven' ones, are forced to chart the process by the relative inactivity of the GM.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Fascinating
Date: 2005-10-18 05:11 am (UTC)I think the particular depth with which RPG narratives are constructed are not well represented by just one kind of dialectic. What makes RPG storytelling so fascinating is how the thesis/antithesis relationship can shift between players and GM, when the GM prompts, or the players act along new lines.
For example, when Cray decided to make a pact with evil spirits, kill good spirits, torture his best friend and kidnap a child, that was certainly a problem, a thesis to which other had to respond, both GM and. That's players just going crazy and plotting new multifemic routes for the story.
GMs can also prompt solutions, such as when a band of adventurers frees a keep from tyrrany, but is surrounded by an enemy encampment. The players are forced to plot the next multifemic route. Do they battle? Decieve? Flee? Make peace? The players must choose the next multifemic route, then the GM will pose new problems to be resolved.
I think there are two different processes at work here, in other words. One is a GM/Player dialectic Problem/Resolution process, but the larger process is multifemic, and alternates dialectic roles.
What else could be said of the participation of players in charting out the multifemic 'path' that the story follows? I remember asking Midnight players what kind of story they want their charcters to have, making sure that the multifemic process suited them. I know, though, that players in certain scenarios, less 'driven' ones, are forced to chart the process by the relative inactivity of the GM.
This is really fascinating.