digital futures of literature, theory, criticism, and the arts

narrativist vs. ludologist debate

Games, Storytelling, and Breaking the String

Greg Costikyan revisits the narrative versus game-play debate that continues to be a staple of both Game Studies and Game Design. He presents a spectrum that ranges from game-focused forms to narrative-centric models, and suggests that free-form role-playing may be the most desireable marriage of narrative and game-play.

►

For more on My Life with Master, see Paul Czege’s discussion of protagonism, which he sees as an engine for story creation.

For more on My Life with Master, see Paul Czege’s discussion of protagonism, which he sees as an engine for story creation.

‐ Jan Van Looy

►

Costikyan’s contention that some games aren’t enhanced by the addition of story relies on the difference between play and narrative. In other words games don’t necessarily require stories.

Costikyan’s contention that some games aren’t enhanced by the addition of story relies on the difference between play and narrative. In other words games don’t necessarily require stories. Walter Benn Michaels, in The Shape of the Signifier, argues that games also don’t rely on the subject position of the players, or on their beliefs: “In chess, for example, the person playing white doesn’t think the person playing black is mistaken; the conflict between them is not about who is right but about who will win: what matters in a game is not what you believe to be true but which side you’re on” (32). Michaels’s claim becomes thorny, however, in a discussion of role-playing games in which the subject positions of the players and characters are, at least in part, the object of the game, and the game itself consists of what the players believe.

‐ Ben Underwood

narrativist vs. ludologist debate

Footer