Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs

the "Vying for story control paradigm"

A topic by DeReel created Jun 23, 2021 Views: 143 Replies: 2
Viewing posts 1 to 3

Hello,

A question **haunts** me these days : why can't I believe in "vying for narrative control" games anymore ? and I hope you can help me with it. 

Is it just a matter of taste (age, trend ?) or is there - as I suppose - a problem with player conflict in collaborative storytelling ? Which excellent games live in "the space between" where players "vye for story control" ? Have you heard / read interesting discussions about this precisely ? can you give me some key words to them ? What can I do to help you understand my original question ?

Thank you.

What is "vying" in this context? "Trying to win over other players"? Also, are you talking about traditional RPGs, with a narrator and all that (and generally metagaming-averse), other kinds of games, or for all storytelling games?

Also, what prompted this? Are there recent games I'm unaware of that push for this model?

(4 edits) (+1)

Hello, I mean a specific sort of storytelling games where the main mechanical interaction between players is about determining who gets to narrate a segment of the story, usually a dramatic/conflictual question, AND this mechanic is a strategy game. Like Capes (Lower-Basch).

A fellow game crafter, Demiurge, has got a game like this, Muse, and we're talking about it. Also, I've come upon some such games these last two weeks, reading contributions for a jam.

I could let that go, but my inutition tells me I can learn something about me and my own past self here. I worked a lot on such games when I began crafting, and it sort of always felt moot. I am now convinced that nobody cares "who gets to narrate ?" This question feels like an OK mix of good ingredients. Ab absurdo ; I win the right to narrate, so what do I do with the other players' suggestions, turn them down ? As a side mechanic ? a'right. But the game of determining who narrates (dice, cards, nomination) is always more interesting and the prize seems dull.

Why would I get into strategical thinking for 0 stakes ? I know the idea is that players attach themselves to fictional stakes. But they do without having to fight for it, and I don't want to encourage the illusion that fight or sacrifice are what gives value to things IRL, when it's just a way to show value IN A STORY. To me, the prize is there as a sort of merry-go-round brass ring, distracting from the collaborative effort with the people right in front of you. But it's fun ! I remember that much now !

This topic has been auto-archived and can no longer be posted in because there haven't been any posts in a while.