What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[clearstream]

Look, by any defensible definition of 'diegetic' there can be NO game mechanics who's operation by a player fits that bill. That's my conclusion. Rolling dice is not diegetic (aside from your peculiar case, perhaps), marking off hit points of damage is not diegetic, no forms of manipulation of a currency are diegetic, etc.

In a videogame, a crate that character models can collide with is presumably diegetic. It's of course physically an arrangement of micro-switches. When imagining what characters know, it is open to imagine that they are aware of crates, but not bits; and it is open to imagine they are aware that crates are ultimately made up of bits. Just as we are aware of sub-atomic particles.

Defining "diegetic" is straightforward. What will be counted diegetic at a particular table is a matter of norms, including norms established by design. It's limited only by what can be imagined.

All that is required for a mechanic to be diegetic is for participants in the game to act as if it is.

But I have said this already, above.

 

[pemerton]

All that is required for a mechanic to be diegetic is for participants in the game to act as if it is.

And as I've said, this is exceedingly rare in RPGing, because it breaks the 4th wall.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In a videogame, a crate that character models can collide with is presumably diegetic. It's of course physically an arrangement of micro-switches. When imagining what characters know, it is open to imagine that they are aware of crates, but not bits; and it is open to imagine they are aware that crates are ultimately made up of bits. Just as we are aware of sub-atomic particles.

Defining "diegetic" is straightforward. What will be counted diegetic at a particular table is a matter of norms, including norms established by design. It's limited only by what can be imagined.

All that is required for a mechanic to be diegetic is for participants in the game to act as if it is.

But I have said this already, above.

So, it means whatever you want it to mean. lol. I guess words that just mean 'whatever' may well be useful in SOME context...

As I have also pointed out, its hard to say what characters in an imaginary fantasy world are 'aware of', we could rationalize most things, so my preference would be to limit it to things which are fictional, that is they appear in a straightforward narrative description of the action in play. That's still going to be fuzzy, but presumably the existing norms, as you say, will tend to indicate what is outside that range. Still, you can simply claim any interpretation in a forum like this (not necessarily meaning 'Clearstream specifically' by 'you').

So, no I think there needs to be a bit more than people just would like to think so, but then again if all we use it for is to flag what people are thinking about what they bring into the game, I guess it has some utility in analyzing their preference maybe? Overall I'm highly unlikely to lean on any of this in any discussion that I think is worth going anywhere with.

 

[Umbran]

I’d say you’re more guilty of absolutism. I’m saying that though there may be instances that we can attribute to recall, others must be about what the character has learned, not just if they can recall it.

For their own tables, folks can call it about whatever they want.

But we don't get to assert that for anyone else's, or more precisely everyone else's games. It isn't, and doesn't need to be, a universal requirement.

I just don’t get why that’s the stance you’d want to take, except for the sake of arguing.

Please don't make this personal. It isn't about me, or you.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, I reviewed the rule, it isn't explained AT ALL...

Yep. Exactly my point! The rule doesn't explain itself in terms of the narrative. There is no address of story inherent in the mechanic, as written.

 

[Umbran]

See my post 481 upthread. I think more progress might be made by discussing what seems to me to be the actual issue, which is who exercises "ownership" over which bits of the fiction.

sigh.

So, you seem to have missed why I introduced the word. It was exactly for the point of being able to set aside whether the mechanical event was in-story or not as a separate question, so that we could talk about narrative control!

I continue to take the view that "diegetic" is not a useful adjective applied to mechanics, because none of them are experienced by the characters in the fiction.

Then don't use it! I'm not trying to make you use it.

 

[pemerton]

Then don't use it! I'm not trying to make you use it.

I don't find it useful when used by others, because it's being used in some metaphorical sense - given that no mechanic is literally experienced by the characters in the fiction - and the metaphor is very obscure to me.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Rules designed to address the caster martial divide? It seems half the objections in that thread are due to the suggested changed also affecting the narrative of the game!

Also, how NPCs/monsters are created? Lots of people believe PCs and NPCs should share the same creation so that it creates the narrative that they're all the same basic type of entity.

 

[clearstream]

So, it means whatever you want it to mean. lol. I guess words that just mean 'whatever' may well be useful in SOME context...

That potentially mistakes my posts: "diegetic" is given a concrete meaning... one that is not at all unusual. What I add is simply that which is necessitated by the voluntarily established nature of facts inside the magic circle. Here I will restate it more completely

A roleplaying game fact F is diegetic if participants are normally permitted to act as if their characters know that F.

As I have also pointed out, its hard to say what characters in an imaginary fantasy world are 'aware of', we could rationalize most things, so my preference would be to limit it to things which are fictional, that is they appear in a straightforward narrative description of the action in play. That's still going to be fuzzy, but presumably the existing norms, as you say, will tend to indicate what is outside that range. Still, you can simply claim any interpretation in a forum like this (not necessarily meaning 'Clearstream specifically' by 'you').

As your first sentence here accurately implies, we should avoid mixing up what it looks like for F to be diegetic, with what Fs are normally accepted as diegetic. The former yields an entirely unexceptional and quite useful definition. It's easy to say what it looks like for a game fact to be diegetic. The latter is as you say, fuzzy. It's down to norms.

All that is required for a roleplaying game mechanic to be diegetic is for participants to act as if it is.

And as I've said, this is exceedingly rare in RPGing, because it breaks the 4th wall.

I once again concede your point. It's rare in my experience too. One form of play in which it has most appeared is humour. When we are entertaining parody or just plain silliness we'll sometimes permit ourselves to act as if (for e.g.) our characters know their hit points. It's a useful concept to have: for instance a game designer could reflect on and conclusively rule in or out certain game facts as diegetic in order to foster a distinctive experience. Perhaps something like Prime Time Adventures.

 

[pemerton]

@clearstream, I don't think your suggested usage of diegetic, as a property of mechanics, is very close to that suggested by other participants in this thread. I don't think they had in mind corner cases of the sort your usage captures.