Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[LurkAway]

HOWEVER!, there is one big caveat. For many groups, you're going to want some specificity about your character's abilities beyond "whatever the DM deems appropriate." For me, for example, I would want a Fireball spell that had a specific effect ("creates a ball of fire") and a standard baseline costing/potency (say, it's a Daily), rather than a broadly defined "U DO MAJIK! DM SAYS WHAT HAPPENS" effect.

That requires more rules, which I, personally, am OK with. I'd rather have rules than be forced to make a hundred judgement calls in a night. Not every group falls into that camp, of course, which is why I'd still love for this to be an option.

Ya, according to this survey about 22% of gamers are Storytellers, or perhaps "narrativists", who enjoy shaping the story. But 22% of gamers are Character Actors, who enjoy inhabiting the story, and to do that, you need a somewhat predefined world in which to explore.

I was wondering how "gritty" fireball rules would work, without being too complicated. I thought:

1) As a general rule of thumb, if a power reduces a PC to 0 hp, the PC suffers the full physical/biological effects ie., acid burns that require magical healing, burnt clothing and scorched armor from fire, etc.

2) If such a power does not reduce the PC to 0 hp, the PC has evaded the brunt of the damage (player may narrate accordingly) and takes no collateral damage.

3) If a PC is caught in an area effect with no partial cover and cannot evade with a 5' step (or move action by spending an action point), the PC cannot save for 1/2 damage, and takes collateral damage as if reduced to 0 hp (yet miraculously alive).

#1 models the "realism" baseline that fireballs, etc. kill and burn anyone and everything caught in the blast. #2 is based on the "realistic" genre convention that protagonists always manage to evade or find cover against fiery magic, dragon fire, etc. #3 is based on the "realistic" genre convention that I've never seen a protagonist take the full force of a fire blast and survive unscathed. #3 also makes pre-combat strategy vitally important, ie., never face a dragon on an open field, try to fight a dragon in an area with lots of partial cover (ruins, boulders, etc).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ya, according to this survey about 22% of gamers are Storytellers, or perhaps "narrativists", who enjoy shaping the story...

Just so you know, "storytellers" are about as far from "narrativists" as one can get. I can understand why they would appear superficially the same, and it is a testament to how screwed up those words have been narrowly applied that they are polar opposite definitions. This gets back to defining what you mean by "story" before you can talk about it meaningfully.

Roughly, "storytellers" are in the camp of, "DM tells a story with the adventure, which the players inhabit--and if run well, tweak and characterize." Handled poorly, it is pure railroad. Whereas, "narrativists" are in the camp of, "DM pushes situation via the adventure, which the players react to--and if run well, proactively drive." Handled poorly, it is pure players making up the description of how they look cool.

The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most. The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just so you know, "storytellers" are about as far from "narrativists" as one can get. I can understand why they would appear superficially the same, and it is a testament to how screwed up those words have been narrowly applied that they are polar opposite definitions. This gets back to defining what you mean by "story" before you can talk about it meaningfully.

Roughly, "storytellers" are in the camp of, "DM tells a story with the adventure, which the players inhabit--and if run well, tweak and characterize." Handled poorly, it is pure railroad. Whereas, "narrativists" are in the camp of, "DM pushes situation via the adventure, which the players react to--and if run well, proactively drive." Handled poorly, it is pure players making up the description of how they look cool.

The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most. The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.

We should probably keep in mind these are just models different people use to talk about games. These terms are going to be treated a lot more casually by poll respondents and players out there. To many storyteller doesn't necessarily mean what you indicate here (and even narrativism has splintered with there being a somewhat strict definition adopted by people on the forge but a much looser definition used by the wider gaming community).

 

[Greg K]

Crazy Jerome,

Based upon your descriptions of storyteller and narrativist, most people I know are the latter. We still very much want a simulated world.

Just so you know, "storytellers" are about as far from "narrativists" as one can get. I can understand why they would appear superficially the same, and it is a testament to how screwed up those words have been narrowly applied that they are polar opposite definitions. This gets back to defining what you mean by "story" before you can talk about it meaningfully.

Roughly, "storytellers" are in the camp of, "DM tells a story with the adventure, which the players inhabit--and if run well, tweak and characterize." Handled poorly, it is pure railroad. Whereas, "narrativists" are in the camp of, "DM pushes situation via the adventure, which the players react to--and if run well, proactively drive." Handled poorly, it is pure players making up the description of how they look cool.

The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most. The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, I said they were "rough" definitions.

Does anyone see "storyteller" now and not think D&D 2E, White Wolf, and the kind of adventures that were spawned for them?

I'll grant that in the 1E days, I thought of myself as a "storyteller" DM. But the actual practice was more like what I described as "narrativist". Also, the Forge "narratisvism" is, of course, a fairly extreme version. But it is also a reaction against the style characterized and centered on White Wolf mehanics (e.g. mechanics that roughly simulate a world if you don't think about them too much, but if followed halfway faithfully in that manner lead to all kinds of situations that in no way match the story.) One can share the reaction against that style without going full Forge.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

We should probably keep in mind these are just models different people use to talk about games. These terms are going to be treated a lot more casually by poll respondents and players out there. To many storyteller doesn't necessarily mean what you indicate here (and even narrativism has splintered with there being a somewhat strict definition adopted by people on the forge but a much looser definition used by the wider gaming community).

Right, which is the key points. You can't use that survey to say anything meaningful about people who want or don't want a simulated world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, which is the key points. You can't use that survey to say anything meaningful about people who want or don't want a simulated world.

Sure, but that isn't something the survey is intended to answer. That is the downside of models (including models like GNS, threefold, etc), how you divide things up will produce blindspots. This one is no different.

 

[LurkAway]

Alright, forget the survey, I'll try again...

With an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset alone, nodding to "realism" is a tricky beast, because there's almost no reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group. It's as challenging as acting in front of a blue screen.

With a very crunchy simulationist ruleset (or crunchy modular/optional rules over the ultra-light core ruleset), the rules themselves can act as reference points for what is "realistic". Those reference points, however, can be imperfect or mismatched like with fireballs that don't do collateral damage or jumping off 100" cliffs and surviving.

Alternatively, with an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset combined with a comprehensive default campaign setting, then you can instead nod to "realism" by referencing the in-game/fictional "rules". For example, if you combine Page 42 with a Star Wars setting, then you don't need rules to tell that you light sabres and wookies are "realistic" for that campaign.

I find that with D&D, the rules are a major way to determine what is "realistic", instead of referencing the fluff to learn what is "realistic". Probably because D&D fluff (in novels or supplements) isn't quite cohesive or reliable or dependable enough to understand what is "realistic" for PC behavior and world building.

 

[Mark CMG]

With an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset alone, nodding to "realism" is a tricky beast, because there's almost no reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group.

Do you mean to say, "because there's almost no Rules-Oriented reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group." From my perspective, reference points are what a setting, GM instruction, and group discussion are meant to engender.

 

[LurkAway]

Do you mean to say, "because there's almost no Rules-Oriented reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group."

Yes. Did you read the next few paragraphs, where I specifically contrasted rules-oriented reference points vs setting-oriented reference points? I think you somehow missed it