Delta Green Investigations - Different Methods

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

CRKrueger

Eläytyminatör
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
9,102
Reaction score
20,623
Found this interesting article by John Scott Tynes, one of the creators of Delta Green. He talks about Sandboxing in Delta Green/CoC and draws specific distinctions between his method and Laws’ Gumshoe method. He explains the key differences between a simulative sandbox approach and the Gumshoe approach, and phrases it in a way I’ve never seen before.

Since the term sandbox brings out a lot of confusion for some, here’s a good breakdown. He also explains how in The Labyrinth he wanted to provide some plot beat structure to the sandbox approach. For people that find the sandbox idea intimidating or frustrating, this may be a good place to start.

Narrative Sandboxes in Delta Green: The Labyrinth, CoC, and Gumshoe

JULY 21, 2018

Chaosium’s Call of Cthulhu was the first investigative roleplaying game and arguably the first to really expect and deliver a recognizable plot for every adventure. By the time I launched The Unspeakable Oath magazine and started Pagan Publishing in 1990, Chaosium’s published adventures were increasingly plot-driven. They were typically composed as a linear series of canned scenes which the players were expected to progress through in order. The transition from one scene to the next was frequently triggered by some kind of investigative skill check such as Spot Hidden or Library Use. You played through the scene, you hopefully acquired the clue through the skill check, and the clue led you to the next scene.

The more I played and ran Call of Cthulhu and the more I wrote and edited adventures at Pagan, the clearer it became that this linear series of scenes had a lot of problems. While they initially appeared to make the Keeper’s job easier, since you could run the adventure scene by scene, they frequently broke down whenever an investigative skill check failed. This then made the Keeper’s job substantially harder as they were required to improvise new scenes or discoveries on the fly and stitch the investigative thread back together.

Introducing Narrative Sandboxes

Pagan staffer John Crowe was instrumental in recognizing this issue and pushing for a better approach. His landmark campaign Walker in the Wastes was our first big attempt at what I’ve come to think of as a narrative sandbox where the adventure consists primarily of character agendas and location descriptions. Because when you know what the NPCs want, and you know the relevant locations, the actual scenes of the story can emerge organically from the actions of the players. If the players took an unexpected action, good or bad, the story could continue because the Keeper understood the agendas and timetables of the NPCs.

Our approach to narrative sandboxes was focused on giving the Keeper more information and giving the players more freedom. And it worked, but it was in its own way very demanding. We expected players to actually solve mysteries through investigation, interviewing NPCs, and making intuitive leaps. Our own playtest sessions were quite lengthy and much of the time was spent in discussing the investigation and coming up with theories for what was happening. It was an intense intellectual exercise interspersed with violent action when we’d succeed in disrupting the villains’ plan. We had far fewer investigative die rolls but required the players to be much more thoughtful and thorough in their exploration of the mystery. We relied on clear character agendas for the NPCs to drive the action at the table.

Gumshoe and What to Emulate

Game designer Robin Laws took a different approach in 2007’s Gumshoe. He kept Chaosium’s more plot-driven style but ensured that all crucial clues could be discovered without die rolls. As long as the players are in the right place and are generally asking the right questions, they will get the right clues. Instead, Robin puts the emphasis on interpreting the clues so that the players get the fun of solving the mystery without the random pass/fail that skill checks enforce.

Robin’s approach is based on his long-time interest in translating the audience’s experience of genre entertainment into RPGs. I would argue that before Robin, RPGs took the basic D&D model and wedged in genre elements such as spaceships or detectives or whatever. But with his 1995 Feng Shui RPG Robin bent the entire game design and adventures around replicating the experience of watching a Hong Kong action movie. When he did Gumshoe years later, he wanted to give players the fun of solving a mystery within the framework of a tidy, dramatic narrative with ready-to-run scenes that looked and played just like scenes from mystery movies or novels.

Our two approaches to investigative scenarios are fundamentally different, even though both set out to solve the same basic problem. At Pagan we wanted to simulate the experience of conducting an investigation. Robin, I believe, wanted to translate the experience of watching or reading investigation-themed entertainment.

I think both approaches are great. I believe it’s fair to say that our approach is more cognitively challenging for the gamemaster and for the players, while Robin’s approach is likely more reliably satisfying as a group storytelling experience. Neither is better or worse and it comes down to what a group of players and the GM want to do with their time.

Designing Delta Green: The Labyrinth

So how does this get expressed in my new book Delta Green: The Labyrinth? It’s definitely not a collection of adventures, but I have tried to bring this narrative sandbox approach to how I design the organizations profiled in this book. Primarily this manifests as a three-stage progression for each org.

The bulk of each org’s text sets out their history, agenda, resources, and important individuals. But once the org starts to interact with Delta Green, it begins to change. Whether an ally or an enemy, no org stays static. Each one begins to corrode in some ways and strengthen in others, either becoming more focused on its mission or being diverted towards a new agenda. I wanted to ensure these orgs were not targets in a shooting gallery, maintaining a looping state until disrupted, but that they would instead react, change, and even instigate new events in the campaign.

Once an org gets into your campaign, it has a life of its own. As you continue running adventures, the org is doing its own thing and reaching back into the campaign. The Agents will find themselves getting phone calls from an org they met two adventures ago, dangling some new opportunity or challenge before them. They may suddenly find themselves attacked mid-adventure by a third party completely unconnected to current events all because of agendas set in motion earlier. And the more they connect with these orgs, the more the rewards for doing so are balanced by new and increasing risks of exposure, moral failure, madness, and death.

My overall approach for this book is still very much rooted in Pagan’s style. I want to challenge players to investigate mysteries and make intuitive leaps. I want to keep the emphasis on character agendas rather than on plot. But to take a page from Gumshoeand from Chaosium’s now-classic adventures, I want to provide clear dramatic beats for each org that will drive new scenes and surprises.

It’s been great to come back to designing mysteries for players to investigate after so many years away. And I can’t wait for this book to reach Handlers worldwide so they can lead their players through dramatic journeys rife with strong characters, dynamic agendas, and spectacular action.
 
Last edited:
The Labyrinth has arguably been the best supplement for the Delta Green supplement so far (and there is a lot of hot competition!). I only picked up the PDF unfortunately, although there is an upcoming 25th Anniversary Kickstarter coming up soon, so hopefully they may include it as an add-on then.
 
So the point he makes is not about different systems, but different types of scenarios, isn't it?
 
...what I’ve come to think of as a narrative sandbox where the adventure consists primarily of character agendas and location descriptions. Because when you know what the NPCs want, and you know the relevant locations, the actual scenes of the story can emerge organically from the actions of the players. If the players took an unexpected action, good or bad, the story could continue because the Keeper understood the agendas and timetables of the NPCs.
Not a great fan of the word "scene" but sounds exactly what I do/have done since almost the beginning...and not alone in it. To me, this was the original way games were run. Good to have a name for it :smile:

The whole idea of plotted adventure paths with fixed goals and "box text," basically people that took the rails necessary for a tournament module and thought you had to make every adventure that way was the new fangled way...and people for many years seemed to think it would work better if we just bot the lot more and more refined, better rails with illusionary scenery.

I am not a big investigation type adventure, but not sure if it was Robin Laws or some other piece of advice about secret doors and the necessity to find them for an adventure to go forward, but recalling the mid-80s it was a simple idea if you had clues PC needed to find have at least three ways for them to find them. Now I guess I was more like Robin, if the clues were essential they would be found and would have the difficulty elsewhere than in the finding.

But I do not tend to have such adventures where clues must be found for adventure to be had or progress, especially not a chain of them. Not that I don't include such things, think of them more as Easter eggs. Or more some complex web of radiating and intersecting threads leading here and there.
 
Not a great fan of the word "scene" but sounds exactly what I do/have done since almost the beginning...and not alone in it. To me, this was the original way games were run. Good to have a name for it :smile:
Yeah, with all the games coming out deliberately designed for storytelling, or simulating genre, or even an actual media form like a TV show, it would be helpful if people who weren't talking about that would stop using the terminology of specific art forms.
I am not a big investigation type adventure, but not sure if it was Robin Laws or some other piece of advice about secret doors and the necessity to find them for an adventure to go forward, but recalling the mid-80s it was a simple idea if you had clues PC needed to find have at least three ways for them to find them. Now I guess I was more like Robin, if the clues were essential they would be found and would have the difficulty elsewhere than in the finding.
Yeah, the "one skill roll or adventure derails" was handled by GMs like Alexander discusses, the "Three Clue Rule", or how Laws does it, "Just find the clue." way before the Alexandrian or Gumshoe. They were hardly revelatory.
But I do not tend to have such adventures where clues must be found for adventure to be had or progress, especially not a chain of them. Not that I don't include such things, think of them more as Easter eggs. Or more some complex web of radiating and intersecting threads leading here and there.
Which is what The Labyrinth is all about, giving these organizations a life of their own, so the PCs can come across them multiple ways.
 
I don't think I understand why he calls that "a narrative sandbox". Because of the "narrative beats"? What are those, again?

Yeah, I need to read the Labyrinth, I know. But anyone got a hint for me in the meantime? Because it might be a couple months before I get to it, what with Mythic Babylon and WFRP4 in the line!
 
I don't think I understand why he calls that "a narrative sandbox". Because of the "narrative beats"? What are those, again?

Yeah, I need to read the Labyrinth, I know. But anyone got a hint for me in the meantime? Because it might be a couple months before I get to it, what with Mythic Babylon and WFRP4 in the line!
He means a plain old sandbox with players staying in character and actually solving things rather than relying on skill rolls or metacurrencies or whatever.

He frames everything in narrative-speak because he probably is in the “RPGs create stories” camp, but what he describes is more simulative than narrative.
 
He means a plain old sandbox with players staying in character and actually solving things rather than relying on skill rolls or metacurrencies or whatever.

He frames everything in narrative-speak because he probably is in the “RPGs create stories” camp, but what he describes is more simulative than narrative.
Yeah, that's my impression as well. "Narrative beats" or "shit happened which prompted a development", same thing to me...:thumbsup:

But wait, so you think someone from the "RPGs create stories" camp can create something that's more useful to simulative gamers? Am I getting you right there:shock:?

Because if that's what you mean, I'll admit I didn't expect such an opinion from you:shade:!
 
I liked Tynes' explanation of his and Laws' different approaches. His way of describing it -- simulation as opposed to translation -- helped me put into concrete terms why I am not much of a fan of Gumshoe. I don't think it's a bad game or anything like that, because I do think it nails the genre translation quite well. It's just that for me, I want to be an investigator, and think and act like an investigator would, rather than just experiencing things that happen.
 
I liked Tynes' explanation of his and Laws' different approaches. His way of describing it -- simulation as opposed to translation -- helped me put into concrete terms why I am not much of a fan of Gumshoe. I don't think it's a bad game or anything like that, because I do think it nails the genre translation quite well. It's just that for me, I want to be an investigator, and think and act like an investigator would, rather than just experiencing things that happen.
Same here...except I discovered I like Delta Green and CoC's approach better after purchasing a lot of GUMSHOE, courtesy of Bundle of Holding:grin:!
 
Same here...except I discovered I like Delta Green and CoC's approach better after purchasing a lot of GUMSHOE, courtesy of Bundle of Holding:grin:!
I'd happily use my original Delta Green plus the Big Gold Book and be on with myself. 90s gaming, here we come!
 
He means a plain old sandbox with players staying in character and actually solving things rather than relying on skill rolls or metacurrencies or whatever.

He frames everything in narrative-speak because he probably is in the “RPGs create stories” camp, but what he describes is more simulative than narrative.


Yeah his language is....confusing, to say the least.
 
Yeah his language is....confusing, to say the least.
I wondet if he’s realized yet that if the PCs don’t do as they’re expected in The Labyrinth they’ll inadvertently stop a major Mythos entity from ever existing?
 
Yeah, that's my impression as well. "Narrative beats" or "shit happened which prompted a development", same thing to me...:thumbsup:

But wait, so you think someone from the "RPGs create stories" camp can create something that's more useful to simulative gamers? Am I getting you right there:shock:?
My view is people forgot the "simulation" camp (as in the original ways people developed settings, worlds) was about created a living setting, a living setting has a "heartbeat" and they forget that a sandbox was not just a map with locations dotted about it. This whole "narrative sandbox" is just a living, breathing setting, where the NPCs have goals, agenda and plans so there is no need to script things. As an aside, using "simulation" very loosely and not in the way meant by the Forge to obfuscate and denigrate.

In a living, breathing setting, no need to say (or worse design and preplan) the PCs will go here and do x, and the NPCs react y. Then because of y, the PCs go here and do z....keep stringing that along until they reach level 20 ...and be sure to straightjacket the whole thing into the narrative structure of a computer game (e.g. Boss fights) because that is where the designers creativity ends.

All this breaks down so fast and leads to a feeling of a complete lack of agency by players and confusion by GMs. What if the players don't do x? What happens then? You string together enough of these and do x and then y happens, it is guaranteed to fail unless you take away player agency in some way, either by forcing them to do x, and ensuring that x always succeeds (so the players actions succeed or fail really don't matter) let alone the plot protection for the NPCs...you know the ones that must survive to appear latter.

Like the Boss battle, something I found from tournament modules, but not necessarily even then...not set up as some finale. I believe the boss battle came from arcade games...it was then end point after you put in all those quarters. I personally look askance at adventures that build in boss battles, breaks the immersion for me. It also beaks genre for me, much of what I like in the fantasy genre doesn't have an actual battle with the "boss", even LOTR there is never a slug-o-thon with Sauron.

My view is the designers who rebelled against "sandbox" and went more "narrative" are reacting more to the prevalent Adventure Path/Box Text/Railroad mentality of TSR (then Wizards) of the late 80s and early 90s.

My view is that all that type of design arose from the young age of most players, most 12 year olds just can't do a living setting, this way of doing a world was never taught to them, rather tournament modules people loved and TSR thought, heck let's go that route for sales...then it just evolved. Instead of seeing that the flaw in their gaming expereince wasn't "simulation" but the exact opposite, and attempt to write the adventure before it was played, an attempt to force players into a pre-defined script and narrative. They didn't see that the fundamental problem (to me) is the very idea of a script of deciding what the story the narrative will be by fiat, instead of emergence. They just doubled down on "narrative" and shifted issue from adventure box-text to everyone at the table. Fine if that is really what one is after, but I find it even more constraining and yet requiring even more work from everyone than a "narrative sandbox"="old school living, breathing, setting."

After that diversion, I believe that it is just a rediscovery of living, breathing setting, and that such approach does produce the best story and one most in accord with genre....and older players can certainly handle making and refereeing such settings.
 
I wondet if he’s realized yet that if the PCs don’t do as they’re expected in The Labyrinth they’ll inadvertently stop a major Mythos entity from ever existing?
As player I rarely do what is expected or act in ways planned. I hope so and if so that would be cool, true narrative sandbox...otherwise if a certain PC action must be taken for the adventure to hang together...blah...railroad. One thing for the PCs to fail and not reach their goal, another that the players must act in a certain way for the whole adventure you bought to be useful.
 
Our approach to narrative sandboxes was focused on giving the Keeper more information and giving the players more freedom. And it worked, but it was in its own way very demanding. We expected players to actually solve mysteries through investigation, interviewing NPCs, and making intuitive leaps. Our own playtest sessions were quite lengthy and much of the time was spent in discussing the investigation and coming up with theories for what was happening. It was an intense intellectual exercise interspersed with violent action when we’d succeed in disrupting the villains’ plan. We had far fewer investigative die rolls but required the players to be much more thoughtful and thorough in their exploration of the mystery. We relied on clear character agendas for the NPCs to drive the action at the table.

I'm' curious to know if they also tossed out rolling the dice for searching, perception, and the like. It would require players to more thoughtful and thorough in exploration as well. A bit of reinventing the wheel and calling it by another name but more power to them.
 
My view is people forgot the "simulation" camp (as in the original ways people developed settings, worlds) was about created a living setting, a living setting has a "heartbeat" and they forget that a sandbox was not just a map with locations dotted about it. This whole "narrative sandbox" is just a living, breathing setting, where the NPCs have goals, agenda and plans so there is no need to script things. As an aside, using "simulation" very loosely and not in the way meant by the Forge to obfuscate and denigrate.

In a living, breathing setting, no need to say (or worse design and preplan) the PCs will go here and do x, and the NPCs react y. Then because of y, the PCs go here and do z....keep stringing that along until they reach level 20 ...and be sure to straightjacket the whole thing into the narrative structure of a computer game (e.g. Boss fights) because that is where the designers creativity ends.

All this breaks down so fast and leads to a feeling of a complete lack of agency by players and confusion by GMs. What if the players don't do x? What happens then? You string together enough of these and do x and then y happens, it is guaranteed to fail unless you take away player agency in some way, either by forcing them to do x, and ensuring that x always succeeds (so the players actions succeed or fail really don't matter) let alone the plot protection for the NPCs...you know the ones that must survive to appear latter.

Like the Boss battle, something I found from tournament modules, but not necessarily even then...not set up as some finale. I believe the boss battle came from arcade games...it was then end point after you put in all those quarters. I personally look askance at adventures that build in boss battles, breaks the immersion for me. It also beaks genre for me, much of what I like in the fantasy genre doesn't have an actual battle with the "boss", even LOTR there is never a slug-o-thon with Sauron.

My view is the designers who rebelled against "sandbox" and went more "narrative" are reacting more to the prevalent Adventure Path/Box Text/Railroad mentality of TSR (then Wizards) of the late 80s and early 90s.

My view is that all that type of design arose from the young age of most players, most 12 year olds just can't do a living setting, this way of doing a world was never taught to them, rather tournament modules people loved and TSR thought, heck let's go that route for sales...then it just evolved. Instead of seeing that the flaw in their gaming expereince wasn't "simulation" but the exact opposite, and attempt to write the adventure before it was played, an attempt to force players into a pre-defined script and narrative. They didn't see that the fundamental problem (to me) is the very idea of a script of deciding what the story the narrative will be by fiat, instead of emergence. They just doubled down on "narrative" and shifted issue from adventure box-text to everyone at the table. Fine if that is really what one is after, but I find it even more constraining and yet requiring even more work from everyone than a "narrative sandbox"="old school living, breathing, setting."

After that diversion, I believe that it is just a rediscovery of living, breathing setting, and that such approach does produce the best story and one most in accord with genre....and older players can certainly handle making and refereeing such settings.
Yeah, it’s like a ”Narrative Wargame” in 40k terms, just means you’re playing a scenario in a verisimilar way, and usually have some progression which gives characters differentiation and a tendency to add roleplay into the mix.

Also, the Living World approach creates no stories, but it does make for satisfying experiences and outcomes. :devil:
 
I'd happily use my original Delta Green plus the Big Gold Book and be on with myself. 90s gaming, here we come!
Sure you can do that...but why? The new edition is really good:thumbsup:!

My view is people forgot the "simulation" camp (as in the original ways people developed settings, worlds) was about created a living setting, a living setting has a "heartbeat" and they forget that a sandbox was not just a map with locations dotted about it. This whole "narrative sandbox" is just a living, breathing setting, where the NPCs have goals, agenda and plans so there is no need to script things. As an aside, using "simulation" very loosely and not in the way meant by the Forge to obfuscate and denigrate.

In a living, breathing setting, no need to say (or worse design and preplan) the PCs will go here and do x, and the NPCs react y. Then because of y, the PCs go here and do z....keep stringing that along until they reach level 20 ...and be sure to straightjacket the whole thing into the narrative structure of a computer game (e.g. Boss fights) because that is where the designers creativity ends.

All this breaks down so fast and leads to a feeling of a complete lack of agency by players and confusion by GMs. What if the players don't do x? What happens then? You string together enough of these and do x and then y happens, it is guaranteed to fail unless you take away player agency in some way, either by forcing them to do x, and ensuring that x always succeeds (so the players actions succeed or fail really don't matter) let alone the plot protection for the NPCs...you know the ones that must survive to appear latter.

Like the Boss battle, something I found from tournament modules, but not necessarily even then...not set up as some finale. I believe the boss battle came from arcade games...it was then end point after you put in all those quarters. I personally look askance at adventures that build in boss battles, breaks the immersion for me. It also beaks genre for me, much of what I like in the fantasy genre doesn't have an actual battle with the "boss", even LOTR there is never a slug-o-thon with Sauron.

My view is the designers who rebelled against "sandbox" and went more "narrative" are reacting more to the prevalent Adventure Path/Box Text/Railroad mentality of TSR (then Wizards) of the late 80s and early 90s.

My view is that all that type of design arose from the young age of most players, most 12 year olds just can't do a living setting, this way of doing a world was never taught to them, rather tournament modules people loved and TSR thought, heck let's go that route for sales...then it just evolved. Instead of seeing that the flaw in their gaming expereince wasn't "simulation" but the exact opposite, and attempt to write the adventure before it was played, an attempt to force players into a pre-defined script and narrative. They didn't see that the fundamental problem (to me) is the very idea of a script of deciding what the story the narrative will be by fiat, instead of emergence. They just doubled down on "narrative" and shifted issue from adventure box-text to everyone at the table. Fine if that is really what one is after, but I find it even more constraining and yet requiring even more work from everyone than a "narrative sandbox"="old school living, breathing, setting."

After that diversion, I believe that it is just a rediscovery of living, breathing setting, and that such approach does produce the best story and one most in accord with genre....and older players can certainly handle making and refereeing such settings.
Makes sense to me.
Also, CRKrueger CRKrueger mind answering my question?
 
Yeah, that's my impression as well. "Narrative beats" or "shit happened which prompted a development", same thing to me...:thumbsup:

But wait, so you think someone from the "RPGs create stories" camp can create something that's more useful to simulative gamers? Am I getting you right there:shock:?

Because if that's what you mean, I'll admit I didn't expect such an opinion from you:shade:!
This the question you mean? I’d say mechanically almost anything Tynes has done is more useful to Living World gamers, even if he uses narrative terms in the general sense, than almost anything mechanically Laws has done since he believes RPGs are a type of art form and uses narrative terms in the narrative sense.

That’s why I really liked the idea of Translating the experience of watching or reading investigative-based entertainment. It perfectly describes the meta approach of so many narrative RPGs, specifically Laws’ stuff.

Lots of people use the term “Scene” or “Setting the Stage” and they’re just referring to the characters being in a certain place at a certain time and doing stuff.

It’s possible Tynes and his players actually have meta-discussions about starting the scene, with it almost literally being “Action” and “Cut”, and everything outside the roleplaying scene is everyone talking about the characters and the story in Author/Director mode...but it doesn’t sound like it to me. Who knows.

The original Delta Green had really no new mechanics, it was just CoC supplements with an incredibly detailed setting.

The new Delta Green has the whole Bonds thing, ie. Cthulhu ruined my marriage, but it does do a good job of simulating the personal toll Delta Green agents go through. Remove the OOC choice and it’s even better.

So yeah, ”RPGs create stories (in the general sense)“ people like Tynes can create mechanics useful to Living World gamers. “RPGs create stories (in the literal sense)” people like Laws, not so much. Trail of Cthulhu still has great supplements and adventures, though.
 
This the question you mean? I’d say mechanically almost anything Tynes has done is more useful to Living World gamers, even if he uses narrative terms in the general sense, than almost anything mechanically Laws has done since he believes RPGs are a type of art form and uses narrative terms in the narrative sense.

That’s why I really liked the idea of Translating the experience of watching or reading investigative-based entertainment. It perfectly describes the meta approach of so many narrative RPGs, specifically Laws’ stuff.

Lots of people use the term “Scene” or “Setting the Stage” and they’re just referring to the characters being in a certain place at a certain time and doing stuff.

It’s possible Tynes and his players actually have meta-discussions about starting the scene, with it almost literally being “Action” and “Cut”, and everything outside the roleplaying scene is everyone talking about the characters and the story in Author/Director mode...but it doesn’t sound like it to me. Who knows.

The original Delta Green had really no new mechanics, it was just CoC supplements with an incredibly detailed setting.

The new Delta Green has the whole Bonds thing, ie. Cthulhu ruined my marriage, but it does do a good job of simulating the personal toll Delta Green agents go through. Remove the OOC choice and it’s even better.

So yeah, ”RPGs create stories (in the general sense)“ people like Tynes can create mechanics useful to Living World gamers. “RPGs create stories (in the literal sense)” people like Laws, not so much. Trail of Cthulhu still has great supplements and adventures, though.
'Tis the the question I meant, yeah:thumbsup:!
And that's how I understood you the first time as well. I was just surprised because of some past discussions...but let's not go there in this thread!
I don't have the new one, but I have the original.
Well, makes sense. But I'd recommend checking the new one as well, FWIW. And we've proven on this forum and others that gamers are prone to get even games they don't exactly need...:grin:
 
I've only been dipping my toes into wargaming proper, but the term "narrative wargaming" I found absolutely confusing :grin:
 
I've only been dipping my toes into wargaming proper, but the term "narrative wargaming" I found absolutely confusing :grin:
:smile: I think it must be like when we imported an "expereince system" for leaders in Squad Leader (this was before w knew of D&D);so you can tell we were ripe for the allure of D&D, we also listened to rock n roll so our moral fiber was already corrupted. Also a little narration as my Russians charged across open ground: "For the Motherland!" One could say it arises from asymmetric victory conditions
 
I'm' curious to know if they also tossed out rolling the dice for searching, perception, and the like. It would require players to more thoughtful and thorough in exploration as well. A bit of reinventing the wheel and calling it by another name but more power to them.
Exactly! We have come full circle, from when you had to describe in detail how you touched a wall to find a secret door, to players saying enough of that...can we just abstract into something my PC knows and I just roll..to lets get rid of the rolls.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top