"Narrative Options" mechanical?

[pemerton]

I say a player can creatively use a polymorph spell to his benefit, but if he starts changing into a giant squid every time for the ten attacks, we might have to have a talk. You say a player can survive brutal challenges due to high hp, but if he starts jumping off cliffs just to see what happens, you'll have to have a talk. This is the exact same thing, whether you call it "GM fiat" or not.

To an extent. One difference, important to my playstyle at least, is that the "jumping off cliffs just to see what happens" won't come up when the stakes are high - by definition, it can't. Whereas the squid issue is likely to arise at exactly such a moment.

I certainly don't object to "gentelmen's agreements" as a way of handling odd bits of rules interaction at the margins of play - using False Scrying type spells to circumvent the limits of Sending type spells (via careful choice of the false image plus exploiting low-level long-ish range diviniation spells that weren't statted out with this sort of issue in mind) is one I remember from an old Rolemaster game. Everyone can just agree to ignore that possibility and pretend it's not there without putting much pressure on the mechanics at the core of action resolution.

On the other hand, Polymorph type effects were something that had to be revised for balance on multiple occasions, because one of the PCs in the game had shapechanging as central to his PC's abilities.

Because I was introduced to D&D, have a bunch of D&D books, and a very workable set of houserules. Because D&D (at least, in its best iteration) is available for free while any other rpg likely costs me money. Because D&D is easy to work with, especially for those of us who learned on it.

Here is a free RQ SRD, in case you've not come across it: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_runic/.

(It is the Mongoose version, released under the OGL in 2006, and so similar to but not identical to the classic game.)

That's fine. I'm merely asserting that inhabitation has value, and some people like that as well.

Sure. I'm just asserting in reply that it has no special privilege on or monoploy of what RPGing, or "playing a character", is about.

The rules set limits on the fiction to be narrated when the PCs are on stage, not limits on the causal capacities of entities within the gameworld.

D&D seems astonishingly ill-suited to that kind of approach. Given your opinions on "indie rpgs" I find myself wondering why you don't just play MHRP or some other game that isn't bogged down with all the sim-elements of D&D.

I don't agree that D&D is astonishingly ill-suited to that sort of play. I mean, I don't play a "houseruled" version of D&D; I play D&D 4e from the books. The only house rules I can think of pertain to CaGI (pre-errata, thanks), to dazing (the rules leave it unclear how in-turn dazing works, and we have a table agreement to handle this) and to a handful of magic items.

The sim-baggage of 4e D&D is fairly modest in rules terms (and you may have noticed that some people don't like it much for that reason!): weapon damage and combat positioning. (Non-combat resolution is not sim at all: it's skill challenges, which are straight down the line "indie" resolution.)

What it offers that a more abstract resolution system like MHRP or HeroWars/Quest lacks is crunchy combat mechanics. What it offers that Burning Wheel - a very crunchy game - lacks is gonzo fantasy heroics. (BW is pretty gritty by 4e standards.)

But play 4e with sim expectations and I think you'll be disappointed. Play it with the idea that "the rules set limits on the fiction to be narrated when the PCs are on stage, not limits on the causal capacities of entities within the gameworld" and in my experience at least - provided you enjoy crunchy combat - it's a pretty good system that delivers pretty well on what it promises on the box.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I certainly don't object to "gentelmen's agreements" as a way of handling odd bits of rules interaction at the margins of play
...
Everyone can just agree to ignore that possibility and pretend it's not there without putting much pressure on the mechanics at the core of action resolution.

I do believe you've just debunked the entire "CoDzilla" and "God wizard" phenomena. Thanks!

On the other hand, Polymorph type effects were something that had to be revised for balance on multiple occasions, because one of the PCs in the game had shapechanging as central to his PC's abilities.

True. It's been problematic, which is why some discretion at the table is needed.

Then again, hp have been revised substantially as well. Over the course of the last two editions, the rate of hp acquisition has changed (triple at 1st level in particular), the Con modifier has been added, the random component (hit dice) has been removed, the rate of natural healing has changed radically (twice, if you count healing surges), the death threshold has changed, the bloodied state has been added, and that's before you even consider how all the other mechanics that interact with hp have changed. I mean, they still haven't fixed the jumping off a cliff issue. Clearly, people at ENW are not the only ones debating what an hp can or should mean. Which is why you asserted a need to (drastically) modify the rules as written to deal with a situation in which you think they don't work.

None of which has particularly convinced me that fighter types require metagame powers in order to exert an appropriate amount of influence on the game.

 

[Bagpuss]

Mainly because actively playing a roleplaying game is not in any way constructing a narrative.

Really? It fits the definition of one pretty well.

A narrative being a spoken or written account of events.

Surely a roleplaying game constructs a spoken account of the events in that game.

Sure you aren't creating some great work of fiction that will be spoken about and retold to your grandchildren's grandchildren, but you are constructing a narrative.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Really? It fits the definition of one pretty well.

A narrative being a spoken or written account of events.

Surely a roleplaying game constructs a spoken account of the events in that game.

Sure you aren't creating some great work of fiction that will be spoken about and retold to your grandchildren's grandchildren, but you are constructing a narrative.

It is certainly possible to construct narratives of varying quality based on events that occured in actual play. During that actual play, characters are living the events of the game, and not constructing a narrative.

When you get up in the morning and go to work, are you getting up and going to work or constructing a narrative about doing so? People don't generally go about thier lives narrating thier actions or referring to themselves in the third person (there are exceptions and yes, they are funny).

A player can narrate a combat that his/her character took part in but will not in most cases be doing that while roleplaying in the actual game.

The DM changes perspective often during a game swiching from narrator to roleplayer as the situation demands. While describing a room, the DM is narrating the setting. In that room are orcs with whom the PCs may interact. When this interaction begins the DM shifts to roleplaying the part of the orcs. While doing so the DM is no longer narrating.

During the encounter, the DM may need to switch back and forth between narration and roleplay. The players generally don't need to do this.


After the encounter is over, the bard player may certainly want to construct a narrative about it to add to the epic saga of the group's exploits. At that point the encounter becomes a narrative.

 

[Balesir]

So I ask, why go the metagame route, when there's clearly a number of 100% non-metagame ways of revising rules elements to accomplish the same goal (i.e. giving a nonmagical character opportunities to do something that changes the flow of the game)?

On the other hand, why go the non-metagame route when there are clearly a number of 100% metagame ways of revising rule elements to accomplish the same goal? Just as there are plenty of metagame-heavy games around these days, there are plenty of process sim ones around, too - D&D has always been initially conceived as sort-of the former but with seams of the latter running through it. I think it's because it came from wargames roots, but since those days even wargames have recognised the value of "metagame" rules in some cases where D&D hasn't.

To an extent. One difference, important to my playstyle at least, is that the "jumping off cliffs just to see what happens" won't come up when the stakes are high - by definition, it can't. Whereas the squid issue is likely to arise at exactly such a moment.

I think this is a key point.

One interpretation, here, requires that characters in the world go around jumping off of cliffs in their spare time in order to test the "non-sensicality" of game-world physics, whereas the other requires that some characters deliberately select suboptimal tactics and learning selections in life-or-death situations (that frequently, oddly, seem to be constructed deliberately to make any optimal selections they make less useful) in order to conform to some sort of extra-worldly concept of "fairness". One of these possibilities seems to me to strain belief more than the other.

It is certainly possible to construct narratives of varying quality based on events that occured in actual play. During that actual play, characters are living the events of the game, and not constructing a narrative.

When you get up in the morning and go to work, are you getting up and going to work or constructing a narrative about doing so? People don't generally go about thier lives narrating thier actions or referring to themselves in the third person (there are exceptions and yes, they are funny).

I see your point, but when I play RPGs I don't nornally cast spells or kill fantastic creatures with medieval weaponry. Normally we just talk about doing this sort of stuff - id est, we construct a narrative about it.

Where I agree with you is that the narrative does not neccessarily constitute a "story" - although a story may be made out of it. The narrative is commonly more of a technical account*, using technical terms defined in a game manual (the rulebook). This technical account is frequently condensed down into one or more 'stories' after the fact.

* Charles Tilly wrote an excellent book about Technical Accounts, Stories, Appeals to Authority and Formalities as the four classifications of answer to the question "Why?", which is well worth reading. It's called, simply, "Why?".

 

[Mike Eagling]

It is certainly possible to construct narratives of varying quality based on events that occured in actual play. During that actual play, characters are living the events of the game, and not constructing a narrative.

When you get up in the morning and go to work, are you getting up and going to work or constructing a narrative about doing so? People don't generally go about thier lives narrating thier actions or referring to themselves in the third person (there are exceptions and yes, they are funny).

A player can narrate a combat that his/her character took part in but will not in most cases be doing that while roleplaying in the actual game.

The DM changes perspective often during a game swiching from narrator to roleplayer as the situation demands. While describing a room, the DM is narrating the setting. In that room are orcs with whom the PCs may interact. When this interaction begins the DM shifts to roleplaying the part of the orcs. While doing so the DM is no longer narrating.

During the encounter, the DM may need to switch back and forth between narration and roleplay. The players generally don't need to do this.


After the encounter is over, the bard player may certainly want to construct a narrative about it to add to the epic saga of the group's exploits. At that point the encounter becomes a narrative.

I think you're confusing players with characters and narrative with narration. The very act of playing an RPG is a process of constructing a narrative. Whether or not that is important to the players is, of course, debatable.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I do believe you've just debunked the entire "CoDzilla" and "God wizard" phenomena. Thanks!

I don't believe this debunks it. To assume it does is to invoke the Stormwind Fallacy. Simply because it is POSSIBLE for a group or DM to change or ignore rules in order to fix flaws in the rules does not give the rules permission to be bad enough to create the problem in the first place.

And when one group decides to fix the issue by ignoring certain aspects of the rules it doesn't mean every other group out there has done the same thing. This especially doesn't work in things likely Living Campaigns where players can take the same character from DM to DM and expect the game to work almost precisely the same(which is to say as close to 100% RAW as possible).

I believe the rules should strive to be as close to perfect as possible without having to change a single word.

I always imagine combat in most tactical games(like 3e D&D and 4e D&D) to be a lot like American Football. Everyone has their positions, they have their preplanned tactics and roles in the overall combat. Then I imagine what would happen to actual football if Wizard-like powers were introduced into Football. Imagine if the quarterback could say "You! Stop!" 3 times per game and point at an opposing player and they weren't allowed to move for 30 seconds. While also being able to yell out "You are all Blind" 3 times a game and have the whole enemy team close their eyes for 30 seconds. While ALSO being able to call out "I am now teleporting to the endzone" and just get a touchdown 3 times per game. The only way to stop them from using any of these powers, is of course to tackle them before they finish saying the words. Of course, they have an entire team whose job it is to stop anyone from interfering with the quarterback. The only real way to stop them from dominating the entire game would be to introduce a person on the opposing team who had the ability to yell out "NO!" and stop any of those powers. But then the game would end up being about these 2 players only.

It would probably be a very boring sport.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I see your point, but when I play RPGs I don't nornally cast spells or kill fantastic creatures with medieval weaponry. Normally we just talk about doing this sort of stuff - id est, we construct a narrative about it.

Where I agree with you is that the narrative does not neccessarily constitute a "story" - although a story may be made out of it. The narrative is commonly more of a technical account*, using technical terms defined in a game manual (the rulebook). This technical account is frequently condensed down into one or more 'stories' after the fact.

* Charles Tilly wrote an excellent book about Technical Accounts, Stories, Appeals to Authority and Formalities as the four classifications of answer to the question "Why?", which is well worth reading. It's called, simply, "Why?".

You as a player don't cast spells or use weaponry but the character you are playing the role of probably will. You ARE your character as far as the game world is concerned. My point is that while actively roleplaying you are not constructing a narrative. Instead you are playing out the events that a narrative can be based on. Actual play is not narrative- it is like cotton, the fabric of our characters' lives.

When the news comes on and you see footage of rebel troops fighting government regieme soldiers during the broadcast, are these people in the process of constructing a narrative or fighting a civil war? Meanwhile, the brave reporter broadcasting from the scene IS constructing a narrative about the battle. In this analogy your character during play is a soldier, not the reporter.

I think you're confusing players with characters and narrative with narration. The very act of playing an RPG is a process of constructing a narrative. Whether or not that is important to the players is, of course, debatable.

The act of playing an rpg being the process of creating a narrative is itself debatable. While a narrative or even a full blown story can be a byproduct of actual play, it does not have to be the purpose of it.

 

[pemerton]

I do believe you've just debunked the entire "CoDzilla" and "God wizard" phenomena. Thanks!

I certainly don't object to "gentelmen's agreements" as a way of handling odd bits of rules interaction at the margins of play

<snip>

Everyone can just agree to ignore that possibility and pretend it's not there without putting much pressure on the mechanics at the core of action resolution.

I think this is a key point.

As Balesir notes, a key point to my comment was the contrast between "odd bits of rules interaction at the margins of play" and "putting pressure on the mechanics at the core of resolution".

I have debunked "CoDzilla" and "God wizard" only if one disregards that point. Objections to 3E casters aren't based on the effects of odd bits of rules interaction at the margins of play. They based on concerns about the effect of those characters at the core of action resolution.

Which is why you asserted a need to (drastically) modify the rules as written to deal with a situation in which you think they don't work.

What bit of drastic modification did I assert a need for? If you mean "not treating hit points as a mechanic for resolving situations in which players of fighters have their PCs jump of cliffs to conduct ingame experiments about their PCs' luck and durability", I don't see deciding to treat that in accordance with the rules written on p 40 of the DMG is a "drastic modification". I'm not even sure it's much of a modification. Given that the game nowhere promises to be a game of "characters who perform ingame experiments to test their luck and durability", I'm not sure I even concede that it has mechancis for resolving such events. Just as p 40 of the DMG indicates that, whatever the combat mechanics are for, they're not for resolving combat between massed opposing forces.

 

[pemerton]

When you get up in the morning and go to work, are you getting up and going to work or constructing a narrative about doing so? People don't generally go about thier lives narrating thier actions or referring to themselves in the third person (there are exceptions and yes, they are funny).

You as a player don't cast spells or use weaponry but the character you are playing the role of probably will. You ARE your character as far as the game world is concerned.

When the news comes on and you see footage of rebel troops fighting government regieme soldiers during the broadcast, are these people in the process of constructing a narrative or fighting a civil war? Meanwhile, the brave reporter broadcasting from the scene IS constructing a narrative about the battle. In this analogy your character during play is a soldier, not the reporter.

This tells me what I think is not all that controversial - namely, that the typical D&D PC is not constructing a narrative. But it doesn't seem to tell me whether or not the players of typical D&D PCs are constructing narratives. Whatever exactly they're doing, it doesn't inovlve casting spells or using weaponry (as you note) but it does involve making assertions about, including intersubjectively reasoned and justified assertions about, a series of fictional events. One reasonably standard way of describing such activity in English is as the construction of a narrative.

A player can narrate a combat that his/her character took part in but will not in most cases be doing that while roleplaying in the actual game.

The DM changes perspective often during a game swiching from narrator to roleplayer as the situation demands. While describing a room, the DM is narrating the setting. In that room are orcs with whom the PCs may interact. When this interaction begins the DM shifts to roleplaying the part of the orcs. While doing so the DM is no longer narrating.

During the encounter, the DM may need to switch back and forth between narration and roleplay. The players generally don't need to do this.

I don't see the difference between "narrating the setting" by saying things like "The room is very dark" and "narrating the setting inhabitants" by saying things like "The orcs greet you with the words "Please give us some pie." They look like hungry orcs." Some players also describe their PCs' actions in this sort of 3rd person way.

Even if a player or GM moves into 1st person dialogue, that is still the production of a shared fiction (and hence, in some tenable sense of the word, of a narrative). Many novels, for instance, contain direct speech as well as indirect speech. They are still narratives. The move from 3rd to 1st person has aesthetic significance in some (maybe many) contexts, but doesn't change the fundamental nature of the activity.

My point is that while actively roleplaying you are not constructing a narrative. Instead you are playing out the events that a narrative can be based on. Actual play is not narrative- it is like cotton, the fabric of our characters' lives.

The events are fictional. The fiction has to be created by authors. In a typical D&D session those authors are both the GM and the players, and their authorship consists in many spoken and some written words. "Narration" is as handy a word as any to characterise this act of collecitvely producing those words and thereby authoring the shared fiction.

The act of playing an rpg being the process of creating a narrative is itself debatable. While a narrative or even a full blown story can be a byproduct of actual play, it does not have to be the purpose of it.

I don't think anyone said that producing a narrative must be the ultimate goal of play. For some players, at least, it is clearly an instrumental goal. For instance, in a traditional D&D group playing Tomb of Horrors, the point of play is not to enjoy the aesthetics of the fiction generated, but rather for the players to make permissible moves according to the rules that constrain the fiction generation (which in ToH are often quite loose, as the module depends at key points on freeform resolution) so as to defeat the challenge that is posed to them. The fiction is a medium for posing challenge, not an end in itself.