What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[clearstream]

We did. And when we were infiltrating we had to decide how to get rid of the guards. There were several options, which required different equipment. We needed to discuss our options.


You really can't have a conversation about whether you should have decided earlier to bring item X or not in character.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the BitD equipment mechanics is extra- or para-diegetic. Aside from matters of taste, is that really a problem? That is, to my reading of this conversation we're not saying that there is anything inevitably good or bad about a game aspect not being diegetic. It's neutral, right? Just descriptive.

 

[clearstream]

I have no desire to invalidate your experience, but I will say that coming into games like Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark from D&D that my experience was almost the opposite. Out-of-character meta discussion of optimal strategies occurred far more frequently per session in my games of D&D than in Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark. If I had not been following the discussion, I would have personally assumed based on my own experiences with roleplaying that you were talking about D&D here and not Blades in the Dark!

Having just invented the term, I'm going to use it to describe @Crimson Longinus' discombobulation: it's that it was para-diegetic

Ah, I see what you mean. Such conversations would obviously be highly unimmersive too. But in the game our characters literally were hiding and discussing what to do, but the mechanics forced the discussion to be weirdly meta rather than properly in character.

Notionally then, there are straightforwardly diegetic and extra-diegetic equipment discussions in some games such as D&D as it is often played. What I'm discerning as (potentially) distinct is that in this reported experience of BitD they became mixed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah, I see what you mean. Such conversations would obviously be highly unimmersive too. But in the game our characters literally were hiding and discussing what to do, but the mechanics forced the discussion to be weirdly meta rather than properly in character.

Except they didn't force that any more than you'd be forced to have the spell conversation in D&D. They might have encouraged it because having a limited use set of equipment inspired you to have it ... exactly as the same spell conversation would have been encouraged by D&D rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except they didn't force that any more than you'd be forced to have the spell conversation in D&D. They might have encouraged it because having a limited use set of equipment inspired you to have it ... exactly as the same spell conversation would have been encouraged by D&D rules.

In a sense that we can opt to not disguss at all. But the difference regarding D&D is that whilst in D&D it is indeed possible to have meta disgussion, it is also possible to have in chracter strategy disgussion, as the chracter gear and capabilities are diegetic. In Blades you really cannot in the same way, as many of the options are meta.

I don't know, to me the distinction is perfectly clear, and I experienced it. Like I said, I didn't hate the game or anything, and I hope that in the future we get into groove of more spontaneous play, so the issue is less frequent. But I don't see how what I say wouldn't be inevitable result of having these sort of mechanics, and I find it weird that people here are so hard trying to deny this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the BitD equipment mechanics is extra- or para-diegetic. Aside from matters of taste, is that really a problem? That is, to my reading of this conversation we're not saying that there is anything inevitably good or bad about a game aspect not being diegetic. It's neutral, right? Just descriptive.

Well, I think it puts the player more on the author's seat, than on n the head of the character. And that sort of cooperative storytelling can be fun too. It is just matter of taste and what you happen to want at the moment. I don't need every game to play same way anyway, we have different games for a reason. That being said, immersion is pretty high on my personal priorities for roleplaying, so a method which is not good with that will never be my favourite. Also how people immerse and how easy it is to disturb varies.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In a sense that we can opt to not disguss at all. But the difference regarding D&D is that whilst in D&D it is indeed possible to have meta disgussion, it is also possible to have in chracter strategy disgussion, as the chracter gear and capabilities are diegetic. In Blades you really cannot in the same way, as many of the options are meta.

Except you can. I know because I have. You start off with the plans and work from there.

The only difference between the conversation in my experience is that the D&D one gets far more meta as people look up the exact description of spells because the fiddly details such as exact shapes and components matter, and you need to check the exact equipment you have put on your character sheet while Blades has little that needs talking about with respect to the game rules.

I don't know, to me the distinction is perfectly clear, and I experienced it.

As it is to me - and I have vastly more Blades experience to you and vastly more D&D experience than I do Blades. D&D is a game where you spend a lot of time on meta conversations about game rules and game mechanics - and where you spend time pouring over rulebooks and character sheets. And you never truly stop doing this

Blades, by contrast, lets you jump into the game world and where you never need to look much up in play outside downtime. And it takes a few sessions for a D&D veteran to change over their mindset. But your meta conversation feels like a D&D import of the sort I have only ever seen from experienced D&D players who hadn't switched their mindset from that needed for a rules-bound system like D&D where you are expected to play the character sheet and into a more immersive and less meta system where the character sheet comfortably fits on a single side.

Like I said, I didn't hate the game or anything, and I hope that in the future we get into groove of more spontaneous play, so the issue is less frequent. But I don't see how what I say wouldn't be inevitable result of having these sort of mechanics, and I find it weird that people here are so hard trying to deny this.

Because your "inevitable result" goes contrary to the experience of many and as such is empiricaly not inevitable. Which means the analysis is flawed. And I believe it to be flawed due to your interpreting the game through the rules bound meta-laden lens of D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Neonchameleon please explain to me how you discuss strategy in Blades in character, when the potential plan might require several items that are in quantum superpositions and possibly having done something previously via flashback. I simply do not see that this can be comfortably done. Even if you could in some wink-wink-nudge-nudge way, you are constantly dancing around the issue that the characters and player are making decisions about different things.

Also, we tend not to have long meta discussions in D&D. Though I can see how one could.

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon please explain to me how you discuss strategy in Blades in character, when the potential plan might require several items that are in quantum superpositions and possibly having done something previously via flashback. I simply do not see that this can be comfortably done.

The same way we do in D&D - come up with the plan and suggest it, or just dive in head virst. But with less planning in Blades because you start in media res, and flashbacks are normally used on the spur of the moment.

Also, we tend not to have long meta discussions in D&D. Though I can see how one could.

There are far, far moving parts in D&D to discuss these things about. Such as spell slots. And you're expected to start D&D at the beginning rather than with a lightly cooked plan and then jump to where it goes off the rails.

What you're describing is a level of planning that goes beyond making all characters' spell slots the subject of discussion by the whole party in TSR era D&D every in game morning. Rather than mostly using them on the fly in character. But you're only doing this level of planning and control of each others' characters in the game you are unfamiliar with (for reasons of unfamiliarity; I'm not accusing you of bad faith).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The same way we do in D&D - come up with the plan and suggest it, or just dive in head virst. But with less planning in Blades because you start in media res, and flashbacks are normally used on the spur of the moment.

So the answer simply is "do not discus the details and the options." Which is fine, I get that we probably didn't play the game as spontaneously as intended. But you also must recognise how this is different from a game where you can discuss such details in character.

There are far, far moving parts in D&D to discuss these things about. Such as spell slots. And you're expected to start D&D at the beginning rather than with a lightly cooked plan and then jump to where it goes off the rails.

What you're describing is a level of planning that goes beyond making all characters' spell slots the subject of discussion by the whole party in TSR era D&D every in game morning. Rather than mostly using them on the fly in character. But you're only doing this level of planning and control of each others' characters in the game you are unfamiliar with (for reasons of unfamiliarity; I'm not accusing you of bad faith).

I mean you can discuss spells in character in D&D. You really cannot do same with flashbacks and quantum gear. I think this is a clear difference. You might not care, and perhaps it doesn't come up as often as I'd imagine, but I don't thing there is denying that the difference exists.

 

[Aldarc]

@Neonchameleon please explain to me how you discuss strategy in Blades in character, when the potential plan might require several items that are in quantum superpositions and possibly having done something previously via flashback. I simply do not see that this can be comfortably done. Even if you could in some wink-wink-nudge-nudge way, you are constantly dancing around the issue that the characters and player are making decisions about different things.

I think one solution for your preferences would be for everyone to check everything that you think that you need in advance and do away with the "quantum gear." So you remove the possibility of checking gear in the middle of play. If you have it, then you have it. If you don't, you don't. Simple as that. Would that work for you?

Also, we tend not to have long meta discussions in D&D. Though I can see how one could.

So imagine your characters in the thick of battle but the players are discussing their tactics at the table, such as who should the wizard buff, what the player should do to set up success for the next player, who should be the one to heal the downed player, etc. I'm not sure if I have ever played at a D&D table where this wasn't being discussed out of character at some point in the battle.