RPG Narrative: Theory as Style
Apologies to those of you who have also studied literary theory and are offended by my simplifications or shortcuts.
After various discussions here on RPG theory, it occurred to me that one could loosely group the styles of GM narration and gaming into categories based on literary theory. To begin, let me first explain the categories: Romantic, Modern, and Post-Modern. Their capitalization is on purpose. I mean all three as a specific literary theory rather than their more general uses. Below is brief explanation of each one.
Romanticism, as an artistic movement, is generally considered to have existed from around 1800 to around 1900 in Europe and the U.S. In most places, Romanticism was characterized by a search for truth, reality, and our connection to it as individuals. Good and evil exist as polar opposites, and there is a position from which one can view the ultimate truth of events. Storytelling in this theory gives that position to the author. When Alexandre Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, he held the whole story in his hands. There is mystery and intrigue, but his characters observe the truth, and the author presents events exactly as they happen.
Fast-forward a hundred or so years. Modernism, as an artistic movement, is generally considered to have existed between 1900 to around 1940 (though this is still debated). It differs from Romanticism in that there is suddenly no position from which one can see the truth. Every event, every observation is only a piece of the truth; we cannot escape our own biased perspective. Storytelling in this theory is partially subjective. The author makes clear the characters’ bias but gives the reader a true account of events. Remember that scene where Luke complains to Obi Wan that he lied about Luke’s father being dead? Obi Wan responds, “Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to greatly depend of our point of view.” That’s Modernism. For a more literary example, take Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury. In it, the same story is told from four perspectives, three of which are obviously insane. Only in the final retelling of the story (which is about a character whose perspective you never read) does the reader get an understandable version of the events.
Fast-forward again to now (Spaceballs reference intended). Postmodernism, as an artistic movement, is a controversial one because it’s going on as we type, and we don’t have comforting hindsight from the face of what happens next. Nonetheless, Postmodernism seems to differ from Modernism in that the truth is gone. There will never be a way to see from an unbiased perspective. Storytelling in this theory is entirely subjective -- the author has no more authority over events than his or her readers. Take, as a literary example, Don Delillo’s Libra, a book that examines the assassination of JFK from the perspective of Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other fictional characters. The story is fragmented in time order and focuses on specific places and characters rather than the history of what happened. The truth of the assassination and the events leading up to it can never be fully known, as the occasional narrator, a novelist named Nicholas Branch, discovers to his despair.
Back to roleplayers. Here’s how I think these three terms relate to narrative in gaming:
Romantic-style gaming (I know, it’s a fruity sounding label. Sorry!) is characterized by high adventure. The GM creates the setting, the plot, and many of the major characters. The PCs’ goal is to interact with the plot, figure out puzzles, engage in colourful high-jinks. No matter how success in the game is defined, the right answer or the best course exists. Details and setting are presented to the PCs as a group, and the group decides what to do. The GM drives the narrative based on the party’s decisions or vice versa. Group cohesion and the turn of events are most important.
Modernist gaming differs from this in that the GM creates the setting and some major characters, but plot exists within the actions of individuals. The PCs’ goal is to live in the world. The GM presents some information to characters separately and alters or expands the setting to accommodate players’ ongoing contributions to their characters’ stories. Events as plot do exist, but they move independently of the PCs’ actions. It is up to the player to determine when, where, how, or if at all to get involved with the narrative. Detailed settings and the lives of the characters are most important.
The last category is where my notion gets a little shaky, as I haven’t actually done much of this, but I speculate all the same! In Postmodernist gaming, the GM and the PCs have nearly equal authority over the narrative. The players create characters, agree upon a setting, and choose a system mechanic together. The plot is shared by the GM and PCs alike; no one person has a privileged perspective on events. Free-form, diceless, and many LARP systems seem to fall in this category, as well as indie games in which players can change the plot or setting to suit a preferred outcome. Social interaction, individual creativity, and the mechanics of the game are most important.
There you have the real short version of my idea. Thoughts, criticisms, questions, and feedback are most welcome!
After various discussions here on RPG theory, it occurred to me that one could loosely group the styles of GM narration and gaming into categories based on literary theory. To begin, let me first explain the categories: Romantic, Modern, and Post-Modern. Their capitalization is on purpose. I mean all three as a specific literary theory rather than their more general uses. Below is brief explanation of each one.
Romanticism, as an artistic movement, is generally considered to have existed from around 1800 to around 1900 in Europe and the U.S. In most places, Romanticism was characterized by a search for truth, reality, and our connection to it as individuals. Good and evil exist as polar opposites, and there is a position from which one can view the ultimate truth of events. Storytelling in this theory gives that position to the author. When Alexandre Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, he held the whole story in his hands. There is mystery and intrigue, but his characters observe the truth, and the author presents events exactly as they happen.
Fast-forward a hundred or so years. Modernism, as an artistic movement, is generally considered to have existed between 1900 to around 1940 (though this is still debated). It differs from Romanticism in that there is suddenly no position from which one can see the truth. Every event, every observation is only a piece of the truth; we cannot escape our own biased perspective. Storytelling in this theory is partially subjective. The author makes clear the characters’ bias but gives the reader a true account of events. Remember that scene where Luke complains to Obi Wan that he lied about Luke’s father being dead? Obi Wan responds, “Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to greatly depend of our point of view.” That’s Modernism. For a more literary example, take Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury. In it, the same story is told from four perspectives, three of which are obviously insane. Only in the final retelling of the story (which is about a character whose perspective you never read) does the reader get an understandable version of the events.
Fast-forward again to now (Spaceballs reference intended). Postmodernism, as an artistic movement, is a controversial one because it’s going on as we type, and we don’t have comforting hindsight from the face of what happens next. Nonetheless, Postmodernism seems to differ from Modernism in that the truth is gone. There will never be a way to see from an unbiased perspective. Storytelling in this theory is entirely subjective -- the author has no more authority over events than his or her readers. Take, as a literary example, Don Delillo’s Libra, a book that examines the assassination of JFK from the perspective of Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other fictional characters. The story is fragmented in time order and focuses on specific places and characters rather than the history of what happened. The truth of the assassination and the events leading up to it can never be fully known, as the occasional narrator, a novelist named Nicholas Branch, discovers to his despair.
Back to roleplayers. Here’s how I think these three terms relate to narrative in gaming:
Romantic-style gaming (I know, it’s a fruity sounding label. Sorry!) is characterized by high adventure. The GM creates the setting, the plot, and many of the major characters. The PCs’ goal is to interact with the plot, figure out puzzles, engage in colourful high-jinks. No matter how success in the game is defined, the right answer or the best course exists. Details and setting are presented to the PCs as a group, and the group decides what to do. The GM drives the narrative based on the party’s decisions or vice versa. Group cohesion and the turn of events are most important.
Modernist gaming differs from this in that the GM creates the setting and some major characters, but plot exists within the actions of individuals. The PCs’ goal is to live in the world. The GM presents some information to characters separately and alters or expands the setting to accommodate players’ ongoing contributions to their characters’ stories. Events as plot do exist, but they move independently of the PCs’ actions. It is up to the player to determine when, where, how, or if at all to get involved with the narrative. Detailed settings and the lives of the characters are most important.
The last category is where my notion gets a little shaky, as I haven’t actually done much of this, but I speculate all the same! In Postmodernist gaming, the GM and the PCs have nearly equal authority over the narrative. The players create characters, agree upon a setting, and choose a system mechanic together. The plot is shared by the GM and PCs alike; no one person has a privileged perspective on events. Free-form, diceless, and many LARP systems seem to fall in this category, as well as indie games in which players can change the plot or setting to suit a preferred outcome. Social interaction, individual creativity, and the mechanics of the game are most important.
There you have the real short version of my idea. Thoughts, criticisms, questions, and feedback are most welcome!