Why D&D?

[TJS]

The GoT RPG does have some narrative elements, for sure, but it's not exactly PbtA either, is it. So no, it's not 'not narrative in any way' but neither is it a whole hog narrative game. I'd call it middle ground in the way that a lit of RPGs are that are maybe more traditional in implementation but also include a soupcon of narrative rules so they can hang with the cool kids.

Yes. I probably shouldn't have said "in any way". That's a bit of an unintentional exaggeration (and many traditional rpgs wouldn't meet that standard). But if read in the context of the thread plus in tandem with the line before it you can see what I had in mind when I wrote it.

There are no personality mechanics, or mechanics for redemption or anything like that. It's a traditional rpg system and not narrative in any way.

I was specifically thinking of the kinds of narrative mechanics Silva had been talking about earlier in the thread.

I should probably fire my editor.

 

[T. Foster]

The way I understand it traditional rpgs are (Platonically) focused on the game mechanics recreating the physics of the imagined world while narrative rpgs are focused on using game mechanics to craft better and more compelling stories. This often tends to be expressed in things like trade-offs where a bad roll doesn't mean outright failure but rather accepting some complication that adds to the story ("yes, but..."). Of course most rpgs (from D&D on down) have had a mix of both elements (saving throws and hit points in D&D are both sort of narrative-style mechanics - ways to keep the important characters alive longer - and XP and levels also impose a storyline shape to the campaign) so it's not a hard and fast divide, but some games definitely lean more in one direction than the other. Old school "hardcore simulationist" games like RuneQuest and Traveller and Aftermath and Phoenix Command are at one end of the spectrum; I can't tell you what's at the other because I don't play any of those games.

 

[Faylar]

To me, it seems like Narrative vs SImultionist games are as different as Board Games to D&D.
There is similarities and they two can become hybrids, but in the end, they are two different entities at their core.
The problem we run into is that they are both under the same RPG baner and for some reason, we can't seem to agree that one or the other has aright to exist. Narrative games are not my cup of tea, but I do appreciate narrative elements. I include a few in my Kismet system for my own game. These have a place and can effectively make my own work a hybrid work, but I see it as enhancing a traditional game over being the other way around.
So to me it is very much a spectrum.
That being said, it seems to spawn a lot of tribalism.

My main gripe is not the systems themselves, but the intrusive method in which they are advertised by it's proponents.
In both cases, you can be having a discussion on a game that falls into the other end of the spectrum and someone will inevitably come along like the Kool Aid man and insist that their way is soo much better. Kind of Warhammer 40K on any sci fi site that has nothing to do with 40k... you always get a Waaauuuuugh!

 

[CRKrueger]

Thanks. Without knowing more it sounds like it is a spectrum rather than a binary ON/OFF deal.

Talking generally usually leads to going around and around, so I’ll talk about in this instance. When you’re defeated in ASOIAF RPG, normally the victor decides what to do with you, kill you, maim you, ransom you, etc.

However, if you know you’re going to be defeated, a PC can Yield (name of an action). In Yielding, your character is not saying “I yield“ to the NPC. Instead you are proposing what happens to your character to the GM. You’re suggesting a way to control the narrative of the end of your combat. The GM can then accept that narration, or refuse, giving you a counter offer. If you refuse the counteroffer, you cannot Yield as an action and the combat continues, and if you are defeated, the victor says what happens to you.

However, by spending a Destiny Point, you get to seize the narrative and declare what happens to your character, essentially forcing the NPC to act in the way you narrate.

Such mechanics are textbook forms of what is called Narrative Control, meaning the Player is making decisions and taking actions that affect the reality of the setting beyond the character’s ability to do so. It’s not just a reroll depicting luck, fate or the whimsy of the gods, it is the player authoring OOC what happens to the PC, even dictating what others do, say or think.

To claim such a game isn’t narrative at all, isn’t just objectively incorrect, it’s downright misleading.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'll admit, I think that the attempt to separate games into those two camps is a fool's errand. First, while some game might not have mechanics that are particularly narrativist, many table agreements and play styles will bring that element in regardless. My D&D games, for example, tend to be significantly more narrativist than most. On the other hand, that extent to which a variety of 'narrative' games are actually narrativist, and the methods and mechanics used to realize that are so varied, I don't really think it's a particularly useful tag. Generally useful maybe, but not specifically useful.

 

[Faylar]

So what then of a Hand of god in Shadowrun?
Does it's presence automatically make it a Narrative game? I would argue that it doesn't but it is a narrative element.
It basically is a one time Get out of death but be put into a bad situation anyway card. If you are going to die, you can call on your hand of god and the GM then needs to reorder events to leave you alive, but in any state that they wish, so long as that state does not put you back into immediate jeopardy.

 

[CRKrueger]

Thanks. Without knowing more it sounds like it is a spectrum rather than a binary ON/OFF deal.

Narrative vs. Simulation isn’t a very good dichotomy, because narrative games are simulating too. The question is what are they simulating.

RPGs began as Physics Engines. The characters want to do A, there needs to be a method for the Referee to determine the success or failure of A. This frame of mind was due to them all being wargamers.

So when people say Traditional, they usually meaning a game where the mechanics function as Physics Engines, intending to model what should happen as if the setting were real.

”Narrative” could be the game itself, it could be mechanics...it’s a conceptual framework that basically is concerned not with the simulation of a setting as if it were real, but the simulation of a setting as if it were a shared collaborative story.

So Narrative Mechanics can be optional rules, minor rules, or fundamental core mechanics.

 

[under_score]

I'll admit, I think that the attempt to separate games into those two camps is a fool's errand. First, while some game might not have mechanics that are particularly narrativist, many table agreements and play styles will bring that element in regardless. My D&D games, for example, tend to be significantly more narrativist than most. On the other hand, that extent to which a variety of 'narrative' games are actually narrativist, and the methods and mechanics used to realize that are so varied, I don't really think it's a particularly useful tag. Generally useful maybe, but not specifically useful.

This is where I always find myself agreeing with Kreuger and appreciating his clear deliniations. This separation may be useless to you, but it's like the peanut butter in chocolate reference to someone with a peanut allergy.

 

[Fenris-77]

And the adjective 'narrative' covers so much ground it borders on meaningless.

 

[Ladybird]

To claim such a game isn’t narrative at all, isn’t just objectively incorrect, it’s downright misleading.

And while this is true, just how narrative this means the game is, and how much it interferes with the experience a given player wants to get out of the game, is a regular point of debate in internet RPG circles.

 

[Fenris-77]

And while this is true, just how narrative this means the game is, and how much it interferes with the experience a given player wants to get out of the game, is a regular point of debate in internet RPG circles.

It a spectrum, not a label. I shake my head sometimes at how bent out of shape people get about it.

 

[CRKrueger]

So what then of a Hand of god in Shadowrun?
Does it's presence automatically make it a Narrative game? I would argue that it doesn't but it is a narrative element.
It basically is a one time Get out of death but be put into a bad situation anyway card. If you are going to die, you can call on your hand of god and the GM then needs to reorder events to leave you alive, but in any state that they wish, so long as that state does not put you back into immediate jeopardy.

Hand of God mechanic in Shadowrun or Fate Points in WFRP1 are both examples of this Get Out of Jail Free card.

Are they OOC? Sure, the player isn’t making the decision to use them.

Are they Narrative Control? It depends on how they were used. If they are invoked automatically at the time of death, then no, because the player is making no decision and exerting no control. If the player can choose to use them, then yes, they are Narrative Control, because the player decides whether to use them and have the character live, or not use them and have the character die.

Does that make Shadowrun and WFRP1 Narrative RPGs? No. The core mechanics of either aren’t very Narrative although Shadowrun contains other such mechanics, where WFRP1 does not.

 

[CRKrueger]

And while this is true, just how narrative this means the game is, and how much it interferes with the experience a given player wants to get out of the game, is a regular point of debate in internet RPG circles.

Right, but I didn’t say it will interfere with your Roleplaying, I said calling it “not Narrative in any way” was patently false.

 

[Fenris-77]

No one said it interferes with roleplaying.

 

[CRKrueger]

It a spectrum, not a label. I shake my head sometimes at how bent out of shape people get about it.

Do some research on threads, you’ll usually find they start over things like this, claims of “totally Traditional” or “not Narrative“ when the games contain multiple easily demonstrated examples of Narrative Control.

As to the idea of it being completely a spectrum, you’re incorrect. Some mechanics and decisions are clearly OOC, even by the loosest definition, and some are clearly not.

If you don’t thing things can be classified, go to storygame s.com, they’ll tell you exactly how much Narrative Authority and Collaborative Storytelling different games have.

 

[Faylar]

Hand of God mechanic in Shadowrun or Fate Points in WFRP1 are both examples of this Get Out of Jail Free card.

Are they OOC? Sure, the player isn’t making the decision to use them.

Are they Narrative Control? It depends on how they were used. If they are invoked automatically at the time of death, then no, because the player is making no decision and exerting no control. If the player can choose to use them, then yes, they are Narrative Control, because the player decides whether to use them and have the character live, or not use them and have the character die.

Does that make Shadowrun and WFRP1 Narrative RPGs? No. The core mechanics of either aren’t very Narrative although Shadowrun contains other such mechanics, where WFRP1 does not.

Yeah, Shadowrun has a trap of it's own that I haven't seen in many other games. They do not make definitive rules. there is always an open endedness to all rules and they seem to avoid hard line... at least in pre 4th.
For example, you CAN use magic to turn the moon to Blue Cheese, but the doing so will probably fail because of the power curve to do so and the drain would probably kill you in the attempt. So while that may be a restriction, it is not a hard... "No, you cannot do that".

 

[CRKrueger]

I'll admit, I think that the attempt to separate games into those two camps is a fool's errand. First, while some game might not have mechanics that are particularly narrativist, many table agreements and play styles will bring that element in regardless. My D&D games, for example, tend to be significantly more narrativist than most. On the other hand, that extent to which a variety of 'narrative' games are actually narrativist, and the methods and mechanics used to realize that are so varied, I don't really think it's a particularly useful tag. Generally useful maybe, but not specifically useful.

That’s the thing...you like it, therefore you don’t see any borders or lines, and don’t consider it important.

To people who don’t like it, believe me, the lines are drawn in neon, and they’re pretty important.

 

[Ladybird]

Right, but I didn’t say it will interfere with your Roleplaying, I said calling it “not Narrative in any way” was patently false.

Sorry, I should have made clearer that I was using your post to elaborate something to Brock Savage .

 

[Fenris-77]

Do some research on threads, you’ll usually find they start over things like this, claims of “totally Traditional” or “not Narrative“ when the games contain multiple easily demonstrated examples of Narrative Control.

As to the idea of it being completely a spectrum, you’re incorrect. Some mechanics and decisions are clearly OOC, even by the loosest definition, and some are clearly not.

If you don’t thing things can be classified, go to storygame s.com, they’ll tell you exactly how much Narrative Authority and Collaborative Storytelling different games have.

It's not at all that things cant be classified. Of course they can. But the range of mechanics in question here defies easy categorization.

As for it being a spectrum I am 100% correct. There's a huge range of mechanics that support more of less narrative approaches to gaming, and game tend to line up on a line, not in two discrete camps. That's what a spectrum means, theres range in the middle.

As for research, I will quite happily throw down about the underlying mechanics of RPGs and what they mean. If you want to get granular about how game X defines the diagetic frame versus game Y, or how those two games apportion narrative authority, or even how the general conventions of gaming apportion that narrative authority as a matter of course, I am very much your huckleberry.

 

[Fenris-77]

That’s the thing...you like it, therefore you don’t see any borders or lines, and don’t consider it important.

To people who don’t like it, believe me, the lines are drawn in neon, and they’re pretty important.

Nope. A huge flaming canard. That's a shit argument and you know it. I'm a student of RPG design and of course I think its important. You can rage all you like about neon, but it doesn't make it true. Your tastes arent the same as definitional certainty.

 

[CRKrueger]

It's not at all that things cant be classified. Of course they can. But the range of mechanics in question here defies easy categorization.

As for it being a spectrum I am 100% correct. There's a huge range of mechanics that support more of less narrative approaches to gaming, and game tend to line up on a line, not in two discrete camps. That's what a spectrum means, theres range in the middle.

As for research, I will quite happily throw down about the underlying mechanics of RPGs and what they mean. If you want to get granular about how game X defines the diagetic frame versus game Y, or how those two games apportion narrative authority, or even how the general conventions of gaming apportion that narrative authority as a matter of course, I am very much your huckleberry.

If you want to rank games in order of amount of Narrative Mechanics, sure, there a spectrum going from None to Every.

In most cases, however, whether a mechanic can be considered to grant Narrative Authority or not isn’t nebulous. Usually they can be identified quite easily.

 

[Faylar]

Nope. A huge flaming canard. That's a shit argument and you know it. I'm a student of RPG design and of course I think its important. You can rage all you like about neon, but it doesn't make it true. Your tastes arent the same as definitional certainty.

Seems like there is no definitional certainty tbh. I cant see how your opinion is more correct than his.

 

[Fenris-77]

If you want to rank games in order of amount of Narrative Mechanics, sure, there a spectrum going from None to Every.

In most cases, however, whether a mechanic can be considered to grant Narrative Authority or not isn’t nebulous. Usually they can be identified quite easily.

Of course the discrete mechanics can be identified easily, I completely agree. However, where I suspect we dont agree is what the presence of even one of those mechanics in a given system means.

 

[CRKrueger]

Of course the discrete mechanics can be identified easily, I completely agree. However, where I suspect we dont agree is what the presence of even one of those mechanics in a given system means.

Well, I think we also agree that if a game contains some Narrative Control mechanics, that certainly doesn’t make a game “not Narrative in any way”.

 

[Fenris-77]

Seems like there is no definitional certainty tbh. I cant see how your opinion is more correct than his.

Well, allow me to expand on my point then. I'm not offering a definition. Games exist on a spectrum of exactly how narrative their sum total mechanics are. The nature of those mechaics is significantly wide. What I'm suggesting is that theres no easy definitional work to be done. His position needs easy definitions, mine doesnt.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, I think we also agree that if a game contains some Narrative Control mechanics, that certainly doesn’t make a game “not Narrative in any way”.

I agree completely, and said as much upstream

 

[robertsconley]

I'll admit, I think that the attempt to separate games into those two camps is a fool's errand.

Because it is a matter of focus not mechanics and focus is inherently nebulous full of shades of meaning.

What the difference between wargaming and rpgs? Melee and the The Fantasy Trip. Mechwarrior and Battletech. Freedom in the Galaxy and Stars War the RPG. The same difference between narrative RPG and traditional RPG. It not the mechanics but how you use them.

 

[AsenRG]

You are speaking of metagaming, which is something that should not influence your role play experience.

No, I'm very much not!
Metagaming is "using information and skills the character doesn't have".
I'm not speaking about anything like it. Usually the players that play social characters give them stats that would match or exceed their own, so they're not metagaming - the character is expected to know that much or more.
I'm speaking of "to do it, you gotta (at least have an idea of how to) do it, or your attempts will suffer no matter how much the mechanics are on your side".
It's about the inverse problem to metagaming: the player NOT using the skills or info the character has in anything approaching a reasonable manner...
So the question is "how to allow the character to metagame the player", if you wish!

And I've found no good way of doing that short of giving the player tips or letting other players do that. But how long can you do that before you start feeling like you're playing their character for them?
IME, "not for long" is the unfortunate answer.

Why? Because the players have to at least give you a general approach for a social encounter to work. It's called "making in-character decisions".
A character with social competences would know to isolate an NPC and gang up on him or her to influence his opinions, to go through underlings, to check his own underlings, to use alcohol and what to expect once spirits are running high - to list a few strategies I just found listed on Black Vulmea 's blog!
Actually, once you know to do that, you can use less impressive social skills to greater effect.
However, with some players, thinking of any of those would be a tall order, IME. And if you give them a hint, they end up misconstruing it.
True Example: A player of a social character is looking for a way to get a key NPC to his side.
"Go to his confidante first and gain them on your side", is one suggestion.
So the player has his PC go to the NPC's second-in-command and offers to bribe the gal so she'd speak well of the party and their plans...but then balks on the first offer (which was meant to be negotiated down) and quits the negotiation without making a counter-offer.
Sure, I do point out that it seems like she's expecting to negotiate about it. And when the tip remains unnoticed? Do I get the player by the neck and scream "haggle, the fuck, nobody ever does anything here without haggling"?
For the record, the suggestion was to go for the confidante. The second-in-command wasn't that to begin with, the player just stated "her PC believes that the NPC would want a trusted person for second-in-command".
The other player thought of this. She even suggested speaking with the townspeople about the NPC first.
Reaction: "Eh, how much can you trust gossip?"

His confidante was his barber, BTW. The second-in-command was looking to replace the commander and the commander knew that.
Did I have to change that, too, if the player had agreed to the bribe? I'm not going to engage in Schroedinger's Confidantes, thank you! Hint: the setting is there to explore, not to be fudged because someone has no idea how to use his high stats and still doesn't want to even read a basic book on social interactions.

 

[CRKrueger]

I agree completely, and said as much upstream

So what would you call a game that had zero Narrative Control Mechanics vs. a game whose core mechanics were Narrative Control Mechanics? You have to call them something...and be able to describe them to people.

You wouldn’t want to tell a player who loves Narrative Control to buy the game without them any more than you’d want to tell the player who dislikes them to play the game where that’s the focus.

 

[Fenris-77]

Because it is a matter of focus not mechanics and focus is inherently nebulous full of shades of meaning.

What the difference between wargaming and rpgs? Melee and the The Fantasy Trip. Mechwarrior and Battletech. Freedom in the Galaxy and Stars War the RPG. The same difference between narrative RPG and traditional RPG. It not the mechanics but how you use them.

That sounds right. I dont feel a buring need to categorize my games anyway. Some people do though, and that's fine, it gives us something to argue about.

 

[Faylar]

Well, allow me to expand on my point then. I'm not offering a definition. Games exist on a spectrum of exactly how narrative their sum total mechanics are. The nature of those mechaics is significantly wide. What I'm suggesting is that theres no easy definitional work to be done. His position needs easy definitions, mine doesnt.

That's a far cry from calling his position BS though.
Sorry it just struck a nerve.
You are an RPG expert on a forum full of RPG experts. When something is not easily defined, all opinions are valid, and we all have the credentials to back our opinions.

 

[Fenris-77]

So what would you call a game that had zero Narrative Control Mechanics vs. a game whose core mechanics were Narrative Control Mechanics? You have to call them something...and be able to describe them to people.

You wouldn’t want to tell a player who loves Narrative Control to buy the game without them any more than you’d want to tell the player who dislikes them to play the game where that’s the focus.

Sure, theres nothing wrong with the labels, just so long as you realize that they are enormously general. It's not a black and white thing at all.

 

[CRKrueger]

Sure, theres nothing wrong with the labels, just so long as you realize that they are enormously general. It's not a black and white thing at all.

Right, but if I say “Traditional” or “Narrative” you’re expecting the relative scarcity or frequency of Narrative Mechanics respectively.

Many games may be blurred, but no one is ever going to say Traveller is a Narrative RPG or that Cortex+ is a Traditional one, except if by Traditional, they mean it uses dice.

 

[Fenris-77]

That’s the thing...you like it, therefore you don’t see any borders or lines, and don’t consider it important.

To people who don’t like it, believe me, the lines are drawn in neon, and they’re pretty important.

That's a far cry from calling his position BS though.
Sorry it just struck a nerve.
You are an RPG expert on a forum full of RPG experts. When something is not easily defined, all opinions are valid, and we all have the credentials to back our opinions.

You'll see above his quote. Because I like the thing he doesnt like I apparently can't see the difference. I'll stand by my comment, it's a shit argument, and also pretty obviously untrue. Its textbook ad hominem shenanigans.

 

[Fenris-77]

Right, but if I say “Traditional” or “Narrative” you’re expecting the relative scarcity or frequency of Narrative Mechanics respectively.

Many games may be blurred, but no one is ever going to say Traveller is a Narrative RPG or that Cortex+ is a Traditional One, except if by Traditional, they mean it uses dice.

You say that because you want there to be a divide or a difference between the two. You want there to be two camps. That allows you to take a side and for other people to be incorrect. I'm here to tell you that shit won't fly. Lots of games exist in the middle

 

[Faylar]

No, I'm very much not!
Metagaming is "using information and skills the character doesn't have".
I'm not speaking about anything like it. Usually the players that play social characters give them stats that would match or exceed their own, so they're not metagaming - the character is expected to know that much or more.
I'm speaking of "to do it, you gotta (at least have an idea of how to) do it, or your attempts will suffer no matter how much the mechanics are on your side".
It's about the inverse problem to metagaming: the player NOT using the skills or info the character has in anything approaching a reasonable manner...
So the question is "how to allow the character to metagame the player", if you wish!

And I've found no good way of doing that short of giving the player tips or letting other players do that. But how long can you do that before you start feeling like you're playing their character for them?
IME, "not for long" is the unfortunate answer.

Why? Because the players have to at least give you a general approach for a social encounter to work. It's called "making in-character decisions".
A character with social competences would know to isolate an NPC and gang up on him or her to influence his opinions, to go through underlings, to check his own underlings, to use alcohol and what to expect once spirits are running high - to list a few strategies I just found listed on Black Vulmea 's blog!
Actually, once you know to do that, you can use less impressive social skills to greater effect.
However, with some players, thinking of any of those would be a tall order, IME. And if you give them a hint, they end up misconstruing it.
True Example: A player of a social character is looking for a way to get a key NPC to his side.
"Go to his confidante first and gain them on your side", is one suggestion.
So the player has his PC go to the NPC's second-in-command and offers to bribe the gal so she'd speak well of the party and their plans...but then balks on the first offer (which was meant to be negotiated down) and quits the negotiation without making a counter-offer.
Sure, I do point out that it seems like she's expecting to negotiate about it. And when the tip remains unnoticed? Do I get the player by the neck and scream "haggle, the fuck, nobody ever does anything here without haggling"?
For the record, the suggestion was to go for the confidante. The second-in-command wasn't that to begin with, the player just stated "her PC believes that the NPC would want a trusted person for second-in-command".
The other player thought of this. She even suggested speaking with the townspeople about the NPC first.
Reaction: "Eh, how much can you trust gossip?"

His confidante was his barber, BTW. The second-in-command was looking to replace the commander and the commander knew that.
Did I have to change that, too, if the player had agreed to the bribe? I'm not going to engage in Schroedinger's Confidantes, thank you! Hint: the setting is there to explore, not to be fudged because someone has no idea how to use his high stats and still doesn't want to even read a basic book on social interactions.

If we take metagaming out of the equation, then we all stand on the same footing and can all use the same characters or skills equally. That is what I am getting at. So, you are a tactical genius, but if your character has the intelligence of a post, it has no business running group tactics. If you do so, you are metagaming. I have no problem with players playing to their skills, but we should not set them up for failure if they decide to do otherwise.

My argument is that we can easily gatekeep non social players from ever expanding into something they are naturally not because we hold social interactions and experiences to a higher standard than other valid life experiences.

I've been a GM for decades too, and I've found the best approach was to always be aware of everyone at the table and give each person a chance to engage without judgement on ability. I've seen the most antisocial player come full on into their character simply because they were given the chance to do so. Were they a better bard role player than others at the table, no, but the framework of the rules and the dynamic of the group let them still be a good bard and still roleplay a character of their choice with fun.

 

[Fenris-77]

Wheeee! This is fun.

 

[Faylar]

You'll see above his quote. Because I like the thing he doesnt like I apparently can't see the difference. I'll stand by my comment, it's a shit argument, and also pretty obviously untrue. Its textbook ad hominem shenanigans.

Uh-huh... okay then

 

[David Johansen]

I think it just depends what you want. I don't even like story structure in stories. I certainly don't want it in rpgs. That might seem like a broad claim but why the hell are we rolling the dice?

 

[CRKrueger]

That's a far cry from calling his position BS though.
Sorry it just struck a nerve.
You are an RPG expert on a forum full of RPG experts. When something is not easily defined, all opinions are valid, and we all have the credentials to back our opinions.

You'll see above his quote. Because I like the thing he doesnt like I apparently can't see the difference. I'll stand by my comment, it's a shit argument, and also pretty obviously untrue. Its textbook ad hominem shenanigans.

I’m in the room you two.
I’ll admit I ”filled in the thought process” in saying Fenris didn’t think the distinctions were important. I’ve run across literally dozens of people online who love Narrative Control Mechanics and thus conveniently don’t believe they exist or can’t be classified as such. Fenris isn’t such a person, I jumped the gun on that one.