Should this be fixed

[pemerton]

OTOH, I don't think you have identified a relevant difference between simulationist and narrativist playstyles here, either.

I still don't think I follow.

Upthread I've described a certain bundle of approaches:

(i) to how a GM sets up ingame situations that the players then engage via their PCs (namely, with heavy consideration being given to how they relate to the established thematic direction of the game);

(ii) to how a player engages with those situations via his/her PC (namely, with heavy consideration being given to the thematic material that s/he has built into his/her PC, both via background and over the course of play); and

(iii) to how a GM determines the consequences that flow from what the PCs do (namely, with heavy consideration being given to the thematic point that the players have made in deciding what their PC's do, and being careful to build on that without crushing or invalidating it - as per my concerns about whether it would be a mistake to render serious something which the player has treated in a humorous and light-hearted fashion).

I regard this bundle of approaches as characteristic of the sort of narrativist play that I engage in, that Ron Edwards describes in the passages I quoted upthread, and that LostSoul's blogger (Eero Tuovinen) is talking about in the passage I quoted upthread.

This - and, in particular (iii) - which draws its rationale from (i) and (ii) - is a fairly elaborate gloss on my earlier phrase "the GM is not going to 'gotcha' the player". It makes fairly clear, I think, why the notion of "natural consequences" (whether understood as meaning "natural given the causal logic of the gameworld" or "natural given genre") is not the principal concern in GMing a narrativist game. As is indicated (for example) in the HeroQuest rulebook, and as mentioned upthread by myself and others, natural consequences set an outer limit on where the GM and players can go. But within that limit, choices in narrativist play are made primarily as per my (i) to (iii) outlined above.

Are you saying that you don't think (i) to (iii) mark a significant difference between narrativist and simulationist play? If so, I'm puzzled as to what you think narrativist play is, given that (i) to (iii) are pretty much a summary of what the standard texts on narrativism (Forge essays, rulebooks for Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroQuest, Burning Wheel etc) say in characterising that particular way of RPGing.

See The Shaman's many postings about how he uses random encounters to simulate the common trope of coincidence within a genre framework.

I'm familiar with those posts (and noted the possibility of a die roll in my post to which you replied). That is almost the exact opposite of how narrativist play approaches the issue - given that the point of play is to bring out and address the salient thematic material, it would make no sense to leave the question to a random table.

(I would only roll dice if I thought the reasons telling in favour of going one way and the reasons telling in favour of going the other way were equally balanced, such that decision by lot was the only rational decision procedure. But this is pretty rare, and certainly doesn't apply in this case - because the episode can certainly stand on its own as a humorous one, that is the clear default unless the reasons for pushing it in a serious direction instead are clearly countervailing ones.)

 

[Hussar]

I'm familiar with those posts (and noted the possibility of a die roll in my post to which you replied). That is almost the exact opposite of how narrativist play approaches the issue - given that the point of play is to bring out and address the salient thematic material, it would make no sense to leave the question to a random table.

(I would only roll dice if I thought the reasons telling in favour of going one way and the reasons telling in favour of going the other way were equally balanced, such that decision by lot was the only rational decision procedure. But this is pretty rare, and certainly doesn't apply in this case - because the episode can certainly stand on its own as a humorous one, that is the clear default unless the reasons for pushing it in a serious direction instead are clearly countervailing ones.)

I think this gets right to the heart of why someone would choose a more narrative approach to the game. If you leave things up to random chance - either purely from PC actions, or some sort of table, then there is a chance that the play you are looking for simply won't occur.

It gets back to the example of Keep on the Borderlands as a narrative game about using force to take the land from indiginous peoples. Certainly an interesting way to go (and I actually did have a DM once do precisely this, although not with KotB). If you go the pure Sim approach, and the PC's get killed by stirges in the second encounter, well, you're not actually going to play the game you want to play.

Not that it's a bad game mind you. Just not what the group is looking for.

You shouldn't have to play and replay scenarios multiple times just to get the game that you want to play.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], slightly tangential to my agreement with your post just above - did my explanation upthread of the thematic content of dwarf-PC-deals-with-former-tormentors make sense?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I still don't think I follow.

That probably makes two of us.

I do not think that your (i) to (iii) mark a significant difference between narrativist and simulationist play.....possibly not a difference at all.

Perhaps there is no such thing as a difference between the two, apart from the degree to which the GM mitigates against consequences for the PCs (not "Gotcha!" the players). Indeed, this mitigation against consquences seems to fly in the face of bringing out and addressing "the salient thematic material", and you are under a misaprehension when you suggest that simulationist play requires leaving "the question to a random table".

In The Shaman's posts, the random table doesn't determine how the thematic material is addressed. Rather, the random table is a prompt to the GM's creativity, to which the thematic material is then appropriately applied by the GM.


RC

 

[pemerton]

RC, I don't know where your notion of "mitigation against consequences" is coming from, or what you take it to encompass. Can you give an example from actual play - whether your own experience, or one of the actual play examples I mentioned upthread?

In The Shaman's posts, the random table doesn't determine how the thematic material is addressed. Rather, the random table is a prompt to the GM's creativity, to which the thematic material is then appropriately applied by the GM.

It seems to me that the random table doesn't determine how the thematic material is addressed - it seems to me to determine whether or not it is addressed.

Example: In an episode involving escape from a goblin fortress, the PCs in my game encounterd a slave held by the goblins. It was the mother of one of the PCs, who was himself a refugee from a sacked city who believed all his immediate family to be dead. As I understand The Shaman's approach, whether or not any given slave is a parent of a PC would be determined via the table. In my approach, it is determined by my deliberate choice as a GM - and what motivates that choice is that it will push the player to engage with the gameworld along the sorts of thematic lines that the player has indicated to me via his PC's backstory and his prior play of his PC.

Example: As I've mentioned a couple of times now, it will make a big difference to the thematic significance of the dwarf PC in my game having led one of his former-tormentors- turned-followers into a confrontation with a behemoth which resulted in that NPC being squashed, whether or not that squashed former tormentor, while a dwarven soldier in good standing, saved the life of one of the PC's family members. As I understand The Shaman's approach, whether or not any given dwarven soldier was responsible for such a feat would be determined via the table. In my approach, it will again be determined by my deliberate choice as a GM. What pushes in favour of going that way is that would increase the pressure on the player (via the honour of his PC, who is after all a Warpriest of Moradin) quite a bit. What pushes against it is that it would escalate an episode which the player had approached in a light-hearted and humorous fashion into something much more serious, thus potentially punishing the player for not anticipating the change of tone (and therefore not having his PC do more to keep the NPC from being squashed).

A random table will not help with this. I don't need a prompt to my creativity. I already know what the relevant game elements (actual and potential) are. What I have to decide is what exactly should be done with them in order to frame a suitable situation for that player to enage with (via the medium of his dwarf PC).

Another way of putting it would be this: I am wondering what the consequences should be for the dwarf PC who let his former-tormentors-now-followers be squashed by a behemoth. Should those consequences include having permitted the death of someone to whom he owed a deep debt of familial gratitude (although he did not know of that debt at the time)?

This is about consequences, but the notion of mitigation plays no role that I can see. I hadn't even thought of the possibility of such a consequence until I started discussing the episode with Hussar upthread.

Nor does the notion of "naturalness" play much of a role. It is neither natural nor unnatural that one of the squashed dwarf NPCs should also be a former saviour of the PC's family.

What is guiding my decision about this issue are the competing metagame considerations I've stated above (pushing the player vs invalidating/"gotcha-ing" the players' prior engagement with the situation). This is certainly not simulationist play - I'm not simulating anything (a world, a genre, a causal process). If you're saying that you GM your game in this fashion, then you're fessing up to narrativism.

But I'm pretty sure that that's not what you're saying, and that you don't GM a narrativist game. It certainly wouldn't fit with the general trend of your posting history.

The main thing that is puzzling me about this conversation, therefore, is your apparent reluctance to distinguish your approach from my (i) to (iii) upthread. I am assuming that you think something is at stake here - that (i) to (iii) capture something that you think is important to play, even though - earlier in this very thread, if I recall correctly - you seemed to be insisting that your approach to GMing is very different from mine (to the extent of suggesting that I don't understand classic D&D play).

I guess it would help me if you said something about how you see your (simulationist? or Gygaxian-style gamist with a very heavy simulationist substrate?) play as incorporating/reflecting (i) to (iii) above.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, I don't know where your notion of "mitigation against consequences" is coming from

(1) The idea that the GM was "wrong" in the OP to follow through on the obvious consequences of the dwarf PC's actions.

(2) "the GM is not going to 'gotcha' the player".

(3) Mitigation occurs any time you say "X is okay, but not Y" as a consequence. That is what the term means. That you do not mitigate X doesn't mean that no mitigation is occurring.

It seems to me that the random table doesn't determine how the thematic material is addressed - it seems to me to determine whether or not it is addressed.

I don't think you are understanding [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION]. From what I have read of his posts on the topic, a random roll might determine that there are prisoners there, but the GM determines who they are.

Again, the random roll acts as a spur to, rather than a limiter of creative content.

Again, I am not seeing why you are hung up on random tables re: simulationism. Simulationism =/= random.


RC

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], slightly tangential to my agreement with your post just above - did my explanation upthread of the thematic content of dwarf-PC-deals-with-former-tormentors make sense?

Pretty much.

How about a slightly different take. Say you want to play a redemption theme. Your character is a substance abusing individual that has recently gotten on the wagon, but is struggling with all the issues of substance abuse.

In a Sim game, tables will determine if and when this will enter play. In most Sim style games, I would make rolls (some sort of saving throw, or something similar) from time to time (possibly provoked by various triggers) to determine whether or not I fall off the wagon. As a player, I have little control over the timing. It might work out fantastic or it might completely flop, pretty much entirely dependent on how the dice gods smile that day.

Now, step away from that for a second and head towards something like Spirit of the Century. The substance abuse issue becomes an Aspect of the character. That Aspect can be triggered by either the player or the GM. At least two involved sets of eyeballs can shape and control when and how this theme comes up in play.

And, as an added benefit, when the issue does come up, by invoking the Aspect, the player gains some authorial power over how things roll out in the game. It's not all dumped onto the dice gods.

Now, that being said, I've had fantastic sessions come out of letting the dice gods decide. Totally get that. But, it's not the only way of doing things.

 

[pemerton]

Pretty much.

Cool.

Say you want to play a redemption theme. Your character is a substance abusing individual that has recently gotten on the wagon, but is struggling with all the issues of substance abuse.

In a Sim game, tables will determine if and when this will enter play. In most Sim style games, I would make rolls (some sort of saving throw, or something similar) from time to time (possibly provoked by various triggers) to determine whether or not I fall off the wagon. As a player, I have little control over the timing. It might work out fantastic or it might completely flop, pretty much entirely dependent on how the dice gods smile that day.

A good example.

Not wanting to derail your example too much, but I've actually GMed the game you describe. In a narrativist fashion. Using that paradigm of purist-for-system play, namely, Rolemaster.

How did it work?

Well, the drug in question was a trance-inducing intoxicant that greatly enhanced spell point recovery, so the player always had a reason to have his PC fall off the wagon.

And the Rolemaster spell+ritual system (the latter from RMC3) means that a typical mid-to-high level party has sufficient magical capability to exercise control over the results of those random rolls if they really want to, so when the player decided that he would have his PC fall off the wagon (either because he needed some spell points now!, to do some important thing, or because he decided that his PC couldn't cope anymore with the emptiness of his existence) and then eventually failed an addiction check, the players could still, between them, exercise control over how this played out. (In the end, another PC took control of the drug-using one and got him magically cleaned up - this was the culmination of a sort of drug-induced-decrepitude-meets-complete-subordination-to-the-will-of-my-wizardly-better-companion plot line, and was the springboard for a new approach to the redemption issue as the now-sober PC had to try and rebuild a dignified life beginning from such an unpromising position.)

I'll try and draw a general corollary - when ProfCirno, and Kamikaze Midget, and others, in those various wizards vs warrior threads a few months ago, were talking about high level spells conferring narrative power on a player, they were right. The existence of that sort of magic is what allowed my group to drift Rolemaster into narrativist play. I think it would be much harder, for example, in a system like Runequest, which doesn't provide players with the same sort of resources to take control of the narrative and override the random rolls.

(I think that RM has some other features that support drifting to narrativism also, but that would derail your example even more. And of course, as you say, you could just use a system that doesn't require drifting at all!)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Re: Fantasy Narcotics

The biggest flaw in the BoVD drugs was that there was little reason for a PC to actually make use of those substances. That is a real limitation on what is likely in a simulation-based game, and I note that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] resolves the problem the same way I did -- drugs that balance an in-game benefit with in-game consequences.

However, I have some problems with the "As a player, I have little control over the timing" idea.

(1) As a player, you always have the choice to fail a save, and you always have the choice to simply have the PC indulge the vice, save or no save.

(2) A thematic exploration of "a substance abusing individual that has recently gotten on the wagon, but is struggling with all the issues of substance abuse" is enhanced, not damaged, by the player not having full control over how addicting the addicting substance is.

(3) This is, once again, mitigating against consequences. You can explore the theme; you do not wish to explore the theme so thoroughly as to deal with the obvious potential consequence of your fictional character's life spinning outside your control.

In my opinion, the sim game provides the superior (not inferior) exploration of the theme!

EDIT: Take a look at the beta rules for the DCC RPG (free download), specifically patron magic and spellburn. Would you claim that these rules are narrative or sim?


RC

 

[LostSoul]

A while back the PCs in my game captured a kobold. A day or two later on they came across a town that was being raided by a nearby wight lair. They were short on time so they decided to throw up an Undead Ward around the town, then come back later on.

In order to get the components for the Undead Ward the Wizard sacrificed the kobold.

That was just something that happened, not a "Sit up, pay attention now" moment. We were more concerned with the allocation of resources than the morality of the issue.

In a more recent game the PCs were in a gaming den/whorehouse. One of the PCs engaged a well-connected NPC in a game of skill and lost; he had to buy the NPC time with a haughty courtesan. One of the PCs had reason to speak with the prostitute, and when the PC went to see her, she discovered that the NPC was abusing her.

The PC attacked the NPC to protect the haughty courtesan, even though the consequences were dire.

That was just something that happened, not a "Sit up, pay attention now" moment. We were more concerned with the possible consequences of the PC's actions than any moral stance taken by the PC.

It should be noted in this situation that I, as DM, decided on the fly that the haughty courtesan was the NPC that the PC was looking for. This made sense; the PC was looking for an Eladrin to sacrifice (again, a moral issue we give only passing thought to), and who else but a haughty courtesan would an Eladrin spend time with? I was using AD&D's harlot table, so it's unlikely that there was another more suitable prostitute.

That being said - I made the decision because I knew the player gets invested in exactly that kind of situation. While it's easy to say, "That makes sense", that wasn't the reason I made the decision. I did it to press the player's buttons and to see what kind of decision she would make. Would she risk upsetting this NPC - who represents a powerful guild the PCs were dependent on - to stand up for a prostitute she doesn't even know?

I broke my own rules by making that the basis for my decision! I was no longer being impartial; I was guiding play toward that theme, even if it was in a way that made perfect sense in the game world. If I used that same criteria to make all my decisions about the game - things that make perfect sense but also push specific player buttons - the game would be totally different.​

It's a matter of why you are playing the game; what kinds of decisions - both your own and those of the other players - do you want to focus on?

*

As for the DCC game's spellburn and patron rules, out of context they can fit any creative agenda. As a part of a greater whole I'm not sure, I've only skimmed the document. It's similar to my Warlock Pact stuff; that could easily be drifted to Story Now play, but in the context of the game as a whole it's Step on Up.