Striking the middle ground between narrativist and gamist

[Max_Killjoy]

People seem to be struggling with the idea that you can use GNS terms without GNS definitions, and that without using the GNS definitions, they're not actually GNS terms, they're just WORDS.

Not really -- it's more that these words get tossed into the discussion, and even in the specific context of gaming, we rarely know exactly what that particular person might mean.

For example, I've never used "Narrativism" or "Narrativist" in exactly the way that The Cult of Edwards wanted them used, regarding "exploration of theme / premise". To me, it's always been about Narrative Causality ("things happen because The Plot demands they happen") and Narrative Mechanics (specific rules/systems exist to allow players to manipulate the setting or NPCs outside their characters' actions and influence, which screams "metagaming" to me). That's taken from the broader usage of the word in both the writing and gaming contexts; see also, I never use "incoherent" in the way Edwards wanted to, either.

Other people do still mean "narratavist" in a very specifically Edwardian way.

Other people mean "anything to do with a good story", going so far as to include character, setting, etc.


That's the problem with "words mean whatever we want them to" linguistics and proliferating terms of art.