Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ilbranteloth]

OK, so here's a new question, and I've been reading through the various forum posts on the Forge but I'm not satisfied with the answers.

Ron's assertion is that Narrativism and Simulationalism can't be part of the same game.

The discussion that I'm seeing on Forge implies that Narrativism (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1072.0) really seems to be arguing about shared-authoring - and while it's not spelled out there, they seem to be objecting to what Eero did - shared authoring of backstory and setting during the game. The implication being it's an inherent part of narrativism.

Does narrativism require (extensive) shared-authoring of backstory and setting during the game? Eero certainly seems to argue against that very thing.

If that's the case, why would a simulationist approach be incompatible with a narrativist approach? Because it seems to be that's what my game tends to be, a combination of the two.

The only place I can see that is drastically different is that I don't regularly challenge the character's motivations or premise during conflict resolution. But is it really necessary for every die roll, every scene or every conflict to relate directly to the motivations and premise of the characters? At the very least, if there are multiple characters, it's probably very difficult for every conflict/scene to relate directly to the motivations of all of them.

If narrativism is concerned with the quality of the story, that it relate to the character's motives, etc. why does every scene, or even every action have to relate to that? Isn't that just a preference of story style rather than content? What if every session does? Is that enough? Does that make it a hybrid?

On the other hand, in order for actions, events, etc. to relate to the character's motives, then the DM has to introduce story elements. I do, and I think they should, but there are some simulationist sandbox purists that feel that any DM input in regards to setting and story once the game has begun to be off-limits and infringing on player/character agency. If it's not in place on the map before the session, or determined randomly, it's not acceptable. I won't get into the paradox that the DM can still exert as much control as they'd like via preparation (or lack of preparation) of material.

I disagree with this anyway, but it highlights once again how any time that the DM takes control of the story via framing, preparation, or spur of the moment whim, that it takes away agency from the players, if for a brief moment.

Again, I agree this is true, but I don't agree it's a bad thing.

It seems to me that there is a pretty wide middle ground where simulationists can utilize tools and techniques of narrativism to provide the quality of story that narrativism is supposed to provide. And likewise, a narrative game can utilize rules that maintain the integrity and consistency of the setting while still focusing heavily on the characters and their motivations. That's certainly where I like to live. Perhaps my real objection to narrative rules is that they are hyper-focused on ensuring that every moment relate to the motivations and premise of the characters, instead of allowing a bit of a wider view of the action?

 

[hawkeyefan]

OK, so here's a new question, and I've been reading through the various forum posts on the Forge but I'm not satisfied with the answers.

Ron's assertion is that Narrativism and Simulationalism can't be part of the same game.

The discussion that I'm seeing on Forge implies that Narrativism (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1072.0) really seems to be arguing about shared-authoring - and while it's not spelled out there, they seem to be objecting to what Eero did - shared authoring of backstory and setting during the game. The implication being it's an inherent part of narrativism.

Does narrativism require (extensive) shared-authoring of backstory and setting during the game? Eero certainly seems to argue against that very thing.

If that's the case, why would a simulationist approach be incompatible with a narrativist approach? Because it seems to be that's what my game tends to be, a combination of the two.

The only place I can see that is drastically different is that I don't regularly challenge the character's motivations or premise during conflict resolution. But is it really necessary for every die roll, every scene or every conflict to relate directly to the motivations and premise of the characters? At the very least, if there are multiple characters, it's probably very difficult for every conflict/scene to relate directly to the motivations of all of them.

If narrativism is concerned with the quality of the story, that it relate to the character's motives, etc. why does every scene, or even every action have to relate to that? Isn't that just a preference of story style rather than content? What if every session does? Is that enough? Does that make it a hybrid?

On the other hand, in order for actions, events, etc. to relate to the character's motives, then the DM has to introduce story elements. I do, and I think they should, but there are some simulationist sandbox purists that feel that any DM input in regards to setting and story once the game has begun to be off-limits and infringing on player/character agency. If it's not in place on the map before the session, or determined randomly, it's not acceptable. I won't get into the paradox that the DM can still exert as much control as they'd like via preparation (or lack of preparation) of material.

I disagree with this anyway, but it highlights once again how any time that the DM takes control of the story via framing, preparation, or spur of the moment whim, that it takes away agency from the players, if for a brief moment.

Again, I agree this is true, but I don't agree it's a bad thing.

It seems to me that there is a pretty wide middle ground where simulationists can utilize tools and techniques of narrativism to provide the quality of story that narrativism is supposed to provide. And likewise, a narrative game can utilize rules that maintain the integrity and consistency of the setting while still focusing heavily on the characters and their motivations. That's certainly where I like to live. Perhaps my real objection to narrative rules is that they are hyper-focused on ensuring that every moment relate to the motivations and premise of the characters, instead of allowing a bit of a wider view of the action?

I agree. I feel like my current game has many aspects, and that at any point there is a certain approach that I am using as the DM, and that approach changes based on what the game seems to call for. I've had moments that were as predetermined as the most railroady of games, and other moments where what happened next was entirely in the players' hands, and points in between.

I think perhaps it's safe to say that at any specific point, perhaps a game must be either player driven or GM driven and not both, but that over the course of time, like an entire campaign, a game certainly can be both.

 

[pemerton]

a player's dramatic goals can be frustrated by softpedalling failure, as already discussed. This is exactly the kind of Illusionism discussed

There's no illusion - the player can tell!

you responded with quoting that you were looking forward to play-acting your prayers in game

No. I responded by saying that I'm looking forward to being obliged to speak the prayers. You may not think the difference between permission and obligation matters here. I do - the obligation, and the demands that go with that, are what I am looking forward to.

forcing someone to playact is generally a bad call for a game in general.

Why?

Monopoly forces you to count (squares). Chess forces you to remember and anticipate (sequences and combinations of moves). Crosswords for you to spell. Pictionary requires you to draw.

Games require players to do things. What is so bad about requiring people to speak for their characters?

this is a hidden gotcha

Who is it hidden from?

I posted a whole chunk of rules extracts from the books upthread, in reply to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]. The book says that task as well as intent has to be established. The rules for Duel of Wits state that arguments must be spoken. The rules for Faith say that prayers must be spoken.

You don't have to play act anything else in the game except prayers, songs, rhymes, and social encounters.

<snip>

for a game system to force that kind of interaction without putting it up front on the tin is a bad deal.

How do you know what it says on the tin? Have you ever read the BW rulebooks - or even the free extracts that can be downloaded?

Is anyone who buys a game whose slogan is "Fight for what you believe" and that, in the prologue by Jake Norwood, is said to "demand more-than-usual attention from the player." and promises "player-driven stories of white-knuckled action, heart-rending decisions and triumph against the odds" going to be shocked to read rules saying that, when your character speaks, you have to establish the task by speaking as your character?

Where are the queues of people who bought BW and thought they had been lied to? It's the most honest RPG I've ever encountered.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok that makes things clearer, I wasn't aware the stakes were set with total transparency... but how does setting these stakes beforehand like this not lead to some constraint on creativity.

Apocalypse World systems have at their core bell curves in two ways:

1) The % of outcomes with the 10 + being on one side, the 6- on the other, and the very heavy dose of 7-9s in the big fat middle.

2) The potential variance in outcomes also follows the curve. The 10+ and 6- are constrained (with the 10+ being completely constrained and the 6- being mostly constrained) while the 7-9 is extraordinarily unconstrained with a deep pool of possibilities.

The 7-9 is where the magic happens. This is (obviously) by design. Put them both together and you get the significant majority of move results yielding (a) the player gets some of what they want while (b) their characters gets some stuff they don't want (a hard bargain, a difficult choice, a worse outcome, a new danger, a latent danger made manifest, etc).

So, yes a 6- is (generally across the breadth of 6- outcomes) less constrained than the 10+ result (which is utterly constrained - "that thing happens"). Both of them are massively more constrained than the 7-9 results which are bounded only by Agenda, Principles, and the fictional positioning. Now you will have the stray move where you have to close down all prospects for results on a 6- except for one because that is what the situation calls for. Sometimes it is implicit, but in those cases, the stakes are so high that you still want to make sure everyone is on the same page. Examples of this would be things like:

* Defy Danger (Cha) to convince the undecided, but teetering 5th vote on an issue right before the vote occurs
* A massive fall/sufficiently threatening scenario killing a PC or hireling/companion
* A significantly costly scenario destroying precious equipment or perhaps damaging Hireling/Companion Loyalty enough (if against their nature) that they leave you.


So does preemptively, explicitly constraining a 6- outcome on a move constrain creativity if the 25ish% chance for that move is realized? Yes, but I would say that is just going to be an inevitable outgrowth of certain high stakes situations where the fictional positioning is aligned against you (Blades in the Dark gives fictional positioning the formal qualities of Controlled, Risky, and Desperate...Desperate being the kind of situation we're talking about here where severity of, and attendant constraints on, outcome would come to pass). I would also say that such situations are significant outliers (both in terms of total moves made and in % chance of manifesting in a given period of play...in all the PBtA sessions I've GMed, I've had probably 40ish such moves, out of over 1000 moves made, and about 8-10ish realized) in a game such that their input on any "relative constraint formula" one might try to derive would be borderline irrelevant.

 

[Lanefan]

And, yes, I know the rejoinder: but that's not playing the game with integrity. Well, neither is offering a choice that doesn't matter in "traditional" gaming, so I don't see how that's a valid counter. All forms of Illusionism are not playing with integrity, no matter what system you play.

Not sure I'd go this far, but...

And then comes the next question: does the end (a fun enjoyable immersive consistent game) justify the means (illusionism and sleight-of-hand on the DM's part)? Personally, I say yes it does.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Games require players to do things. What is so bad about requiring people to speak for their characters?

Were it up to me, in a perfect game every word said by any player* at the table would be said in character (or be directly describing a character's actions) except when game mechanics interrupted e.g. dice rolls. That said, I wouldn't expect players who may not themselves have prayed in 30 years to be able to come up with a prayer-in-8-syllables on the spot: slack would certainly be cut.

* - as opposed to the DM, who would still have to jump back and forth between narration, mechanics, and speaking in character as the NPCs.

In other words, instead of speaking for their character I'd rather they speak as their character. Getting players to do this, however, when they'd rather talk about snacks or football or gossip is about as effective as herding cats.

Where are the queues of people who bought BW

Good question. I don't think I know anyone who has it, bought or otherwise, beyond ENWorlders.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

So does preemptively, explicitly constraining a 6- outcome on a move constrain creativity if the 25ish% chance for that move is realized?

Minor nitpick, but relevant here:

On 2d6 the chance of getting a 6 or less is 40% (15 outcomes of the 36 possible)
The chance of getting 7, 8 or 9 is also 40% (also 15 out of 36)
The chance of getting 10 or higher is 20%. (only 6 out of 36)

Lan-"carry on"-efan

 

[pemerton]

In, I guess, the 'Story Never' style, you investigate the skulker, find out he has nothing to do even tangentially with anything you're concerned with, shrug, and never get that game time back. Then, you proceed to go searching for things that don't exist and uncovering things you don't care about.

This made me want to "laugh" with your post, but I went for XP instead as I thought that was a better overall summary of my response.

You can't play a character too different from yourself. Because it's essentially imbalanced (it favors players who have the talents the resolution system requires), and even innately unfair (because evaluating the player's performance generally rests entirely on the GM, inviting bias).

I don't agree with this.

It's not unbalanced, in the sense that no one is forced to play a Faithful character. And it's not anymore unfair than other mechanics - the detailed melee resolution system for BW is a complex system of blind declaration over approx 3 to 6 actions (depending on stats) and then simultaneous resolution, with a limited ability to redeclare actions at a cost. So predicting and bluffing are crucial skills; and my character, who is a knight, is likely to suffer in melee because I'm not especially good at those things, whereas my GM is excellent at them! I'm hoping that my armour and my faith will carry me through!

But I don't agree that it precludes playing a character very different from oneself - depending, I guess, on the dimensions of difference. It's against board rules for me to say too much about the ways I do or don't resemble my Faithful PC, but I'm certainly not a Knight Templar or very much like one, and nor am I sworn to cleanse my ancestral homeland of evil, so I certainly feel I will be playing a character who is very different from me.

 

[Manbearcat]

Minor nitpick, but relevant here:

On 2d6 the chance of getting a 6 or less is 40% (15 outcomes of the 36 possible)
The chance of getting 7, 8 or 9 is also 40% (also 15 out of 36)
The chance of getting 10 or higher is 20%. (only 6 out of 36)

Lan-"carry on"-efan

The average PBtA move is made at right around (but ever so slightly better than) 2d6+1, so a a little bit less than 27.78 %. You get modest vertical growth in power in the course of play, so that will decrease modestly with time. It also decreases modestly due to horizontal power growth giving players more options to make moves that don't leverage PC weakness.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Were it up to me, in a perfect game every word said by any player* at the table would be said in character (or be directly describing a character's actions) except when game mechanics interrupted e.g. dice rolls. That said, I wouldn't expect players who may not themselves have prayed in 30 years to be able to come up with a prayer-in-8-syllables on the spot: slack would certainly be cut.

* - as opposed to the DM, who would still have to jump back and forth between narration, mechanics, and speaking in character as the NPCs.

In other words, instead of speaking for their character I'd rather they speak as their character. Getting players to do this, however, when they'd rather talk about snacks or football or gossip is about as effective as herding cats.

Lanefan

I've had the best luck with players remaining in character for the highest percentage of time when the percentage of players at the table buy into it. And it's not always because more players "police" the table. A lot of it has to do with the percentage of time the table as a whole remains in that mode.

Oddly enough, it also seems to be more likely when the players at the table aren't close friends. If the group is coming together primarily to play the game without as many shared outside interests, it tends to stay focused on the game itself.

However, as a "non-actor" type myself, I consider the distinction of "as" and "for" to be irrelevant. "I will talk to the guard to get a sense as to whether he can be bribed - to see if he's got a family, debts, is he greedy, is he more concerned about keeping his job, or making quick coin, etc." to be functionally and fundamentally the same immersion as him striking up a conversation in character, with me responding in character as the guard.

Yes, there can be subtleties at play if you're good at creating dialogue, but a descriptive approach can also be faster. Particularly if the situation involves multiple NPCs at a given time (which brings its own oddities when there is but a single DM producing dialogue for the NPCs).

The immersion is different, perhaps similar to the difference between a novel written in first person vs third person.

The point, though, is the less they talk about anything other than what their character is saying/doing, the less immersive the experience is.