thread: 2005-07-05 : Setting and Source Material
On 2005-07-14, Emily Care wrote:
Is fetishistic adherence to setting indeed pervasive among gaming groups? How common an experience is it for people to have the players quoting chapter and verse of published world material and characters in a way that undermines the individual group's creativity? My impression is that what happens commonly is for any given gm to cook up (yes I've been reading the ongoing judgements from the Iron Game Chef competition : ) an appropriate section/version of the game world for the particular campaign they are running. Customization of rules and mechanics by game groups is so rampant, I would imagine the same would be the case wrt setting. That has been the case in the trad campaigns I have taken part in, but such experience of mine is negligible.Does anyone have some nice extensive anecdotal evidence to confirm either my version or what V., Sailor et al are saying? Ben? Ron?
If rigid adherence to the detriment of creativity is indeed the norm, then the rpg community might have a lot to learn from the narrative rp community's relationship with canon. It is much more sophisticated. There is no doubt for me that this is because specific texts as canon occupy such a central place in fanfic rp. "AU"'s, alternative universes, are de rigeur and explicitly noted in the introductory materials to any given fanfic rp. But also, the common understanding of the shared canon is not just fetishization, but is an intrinsic part of the system of play. Uninteresting interactions with it are discouraged by the community through social pressure, but all play springs directly from the parent source.
However, the differences in design, play style and social context between nar rp and tabletop rpg are glaring. In trpg, the negotiations between players are done in-game via resolution and other mechanics. In narrative rp, there are strict rules about the proprietary nature of how things are established as having happened. For example, strict concensus is practiced wrt what a given character does, or that happens to it: if I narrate my character punching your character in the face you narrate whether it lands or not, and if you fall down or get a concussion etc. Also, much pre- and out of character plotting goes on, so all the players are on the same page about where the story and larger events are going. Narrative rp has an elaborately detailed social contract, established in the application to play and other intro stuff. Although more cross-form knowledge is sure to be beneficial, I'm not sure how portable the techniques are between these incredibly different animals.
This is the longest thread in the universe, isn't it? I'm sorry to keep harping on nar rp, but there is a lot there to be delved into, perhaps I should do so in another venue.
best,
Em
