What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[pemerton]

Lets use Powered by the Apocalypse vs. D&D. They use narrative mechanics differently and in frequency in my experience. I can certainly be wrong this is my understanding as the OP asked for it.

Apocalypse World uses PC action declarations just like D&D - I look around, I punch them, I put a gun to their head, I offer them a deal, I open my brain to the psychic maelstrom. In what sense are these "narrative mechanics"?

That's a pretty good summary, actually.

Not really, in my view.

"Story now" is a term that was coined by Ron Edwards. In the acknowledgement page for Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker says (somewhat self-effacingly) that the whole of the game flows from Edwards's essay "Story now". But the mechanics in AW are just action resolution mechanics, built around a particular probability pattern.

The reason that Apocalypse World, played by the book, will turn out differently from Gygax's AD&D, played by the book, is mostly because of things the GM does, not things the player's do.

I honestly (still) don't really understand what Story Now means

From here:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​

Generally it is the players who do the addressing; the GM is the one who provides the incitement/provocation. From the same essay,

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist (=, by definition, "story now") play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).​

It also needs to be added that we are talking here about RPGing. So whereas a novelist might address a premise/theme by writing a story about it, a RPGer addresses a premise/theme by declaring actions for their PC. Thus, from the same essay,

a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character.​

(The reason for the inverted commas around "player" is to distinguish the player (cf GM) role from the more general notion of player of/participant in a game.)

There are three main ways I'm aware of for "story now" play to establish opportunities for players to make the sorts of action declarations that address "engaging/problematic issues":

*The issues and opportunities flow from the characters (eg Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel);

*The issues and opportunities flow from the setting (eg HeroWars/Quest played in Glorantha, 4e D&D played in the default setting);

*The issues and opportunities flow from situations that speak to well-known tropes (eg Prince Valiant, where the situations and tropes are those of Arthurian knight errantry; Agon 2e, where the situations and tropes are those of pop Greek heroes; Marvel Heroic RP, where the situations and tropes are those of superhero comics).​

Generally the last of those dot points produces the emotionally and thematically lightest sort of play; while the first of them will tend to produce the emotionally and thematically most serious. The RPG form reinforces this, because of the strong identity of player and character which therefore makes character driven premise/theme pretty intense. (At least in my experience.)

The way to tell that play is not "story now" is if there is a "correct" or expedient answer that (i) has its parameters established by the GM's prep and/or adjudicative decision-making, and (ii) that the players are expected, if they are good players, to identify. As a simple example, every time you see a GM say "The players should have worked out that they need to have their PCs retreat" we can tell that the play in question was not "story now".

Notice how "story now" has nothing to do with metagame mechanics, or the players having the ability to affect the fiction otherwise than by declaring actions for their PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is again just about the level of zoom. Though personally I just don't get what's the big deal with the component pouches. It is basically the same as with tracking arrows. Yes, we could track individual expendables, but as they are so cheap, and the characters visit places where they can purchase them often enough, it in practice it isn't worth the effort. Chalk it up to the life style expenses or something.

But I still wouldn't treat the component pouch as having every component imaginable. Like it just has "reasonable amount" for the spells the caster knows. So let's say that a wizard finds a spell scroll from an abandoned tomb in a middle of the desert and learns the spell there. Then I'd say that, no, their component pouch doesn't have components for that spell until they've visited a place from which they could have reasonably purchased them.

But that's not how the rules work, your player could be justifiably irritated with that. That's why I don't care for the pouch at all.

 

[pemerton]

But if it is a class ability, it IS the character doing it.

Why?

I mean, every ability on a D&D player's sheet flows from either class, race/ancestry or gear, and the last two are clearly elements of the fiction and the first is at least somewhat expressed in the fiction. But that doesn't mean that, by definition, there can be no metagame mechanics in D&D.

In 4e, Come and Get It is a fighter ability. But I don't think that tells us that, per se, it's not metagame. That's a further question (and in my view the answer can be different on different occasions of use of the ability).

 

[pemerton]

From this I'm learning that Fate seems to have fewer narrative mechanics than GURPS and I need to think on whether Apocalypse World has none or lots.

<snip>

Also these two from the Driver playbook in Apocalypse World. And does it make a difference that they are both class-specific?

Eye on the door: name your escape route and roll+cool. On a 10+, you’re gone. On a 7–9, you can go or stay, but if you go it costs you: leave something behind or take something with you, the MC will tell you what. On a miss, you’re caught vulnerable, half in and half out.​

​

Reputation: when you meet someone important (your call), roll+cool. On a hit, they’ve heard of you, and you say what they’ve heard; the MC has them respond accordingly. On a 10+, you take +1forward for dealing with them as well. On a miss, they’ve heard of you, but the MC decides what they’ve heard​

The only strictly metagame mechanic I can think of in the original AW rulebook is the Battlebabe one about someone living of dying (Vision of Death?).

Eye on the Door (and the Gunlugger has the same ability with a different name) seems straighforward action declaration to me. Reputation is on the cusp: that they've heard of the PC is straightforward action resolution in my view (like a reaction roll) but saying what they've heard has metagame elements to it.

I find it very difficult to parse the language of AW abilities. "Half in and half out" could mean just about anything, and "name your escape route" may or may not involve a narrative component, depending what it actually entails. I can imagine say, a social situation that a player escapes through the timely intervention of another party showing up to interrupt things, which is entirely narrative, or they might literally run away, which is not at all narrative.

There are general rules in the game that govern these issues. Players can't declare NPC's actions, so the escape route can't be another person turning up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that's not how the rules work, your player could be justifiably irritated with that. That's why I don't care for the pouch at all.

D&D is a game where the GM is expected to step in when the rules make no sense and this is obviously such a situation. But I also have told my players that this is how I'll be handling this, so there are no surprises.

 

[payn]

Apocalypse World uses PC action declarations just like D&D - I look around, I punch them, I put a gun to their head, I offer them a deal, I open my brain to the psychic maelstrom. In what sense are these "narrative mechanics"?

Maybe they are not? Im not all that familiar with Apocalypse World. I am more familiar with Masks, Monster of the week, etc.. They do have the typical character actions of punching, gun to head, psychic whatever, I never said they didnt. However, they also have playbook moves that certainly allow a player to jump into the GM seat for a moment and drive the narrative. Much more so than D&D and in fact its pretty much expected.

 

[Reynard]

Having the pool isn't a narrative mechanic - but using it most certainly is.

this sentence does not make any coherent sense.

And hero is, generally, one of the more narrative focused old school games. (as it predates Cook's D&D Expert Set. Which is often the cutoff date for Old School - summer '82)

I'm going to demand any explanation for what is on its face is a radical claim.

 

[Reynard]

ETA: I have been thinking about this since I posted it and I don't like it. I don't actually want this to be a GNS discussion but I am struggling with the right language. I'll leave this here for posterity but on reflection I am not happy with myself for turning the discussion in this direction.

Rather than start a new thread, I will ask here as a tool to potentially differentiate and solidify:

How would you define a "gamist" mechanic?

How would you define a "simulation" mechanic?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not seeing it.
The main difference here is Well Prepared is essentially quantum-state equipment with the presence (or absence) of an item only being determined at point of need (and only once per day).

It’s not quantum equipment any more than anything else that gets established “retroactively” during play.

There’s a chance the PC has an item that is handy. The situation comes up, and they say “I may have a crowbar” and they make the roll and we see if they have it.

The D&D magic system isn't really like that given how much effort it goes into making sure prepared/known spells are defined before the need for them occurs. If the D&D magic system were more freeform in its magic like a variable pool in a number of superhero-based RPGs, then I might see the similarity.

Consider the characters inventory to be the equivalent of their spell loadout, and the Prepared feat as a use of Arcane Recovery.

There is for the characters!

So if your character sees a flag in the course of adventuring, and makes a Heraldry or Lore check or whatever, are they traveling to the past to learn about the flag? Or are we establishing in that moment of play that they’ve previously learned about it?

Yes, but the character presumably did! That we are reasoning from some audience/author perspective rather than from the perspective of the character is exactly what makes it a narrative mechanic.

Something like the Prepared feat tells us something about the character. Having a player manage every item of the character’s inventory tells us about the player.

Thus being meta. Your decision to use it is not made from character perspective nor based on character knowledge.

I disagree based on the above.

Um, no... Why would you think that? I for one assume that the characters know what spells they have prepared and how many times they can use them. That all can be character knowledge just fine, no retrocausality or meta decisions required.

Spell levels and slots per level and all that is about as artificial as it gets, was my point. It’s totally a game structure imposed onto the fiction.

Except you memorize a spell in advance, or you have access to your whole list all the time and decide what to cast in the moment. Not the same thing at all from where I sit.

Access to all, and used in the moment.

Not at all the same, huh?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not quantum equipment any more than anything else that gets established “retroactively” during play.

There’s a chance the PC has an item that is handy. The situation comes up, and they say “I may have a crowbar” and they make the roll and we see if they have it.


Consider the characters inventory to be the equivalent of their spell loadout, and the Prepared feat as a use of Arcane Recovery.



So if your character sees a flag in the course of adventuring, and makes a Heraldry or Lore check or whatever, are they traveling to the past to learn about the flag? Or are we establishing in that moment of play that they’ve previously learned about it?



Something like the Prepared feat tells us something about the character. Having a player manage every item of the character’s inventory tells us about the player.



I disagree based on the above.



Spell levels and slots per level and all that is about as artificial as it gets, was my point. It’s totally a game structure imposed onto the fiction.



Access to all, and used in the moment.

Not at all the same, huh?

No, it isn't. Not to me. But as I said to you in the other thread: if you say so.