Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
How does it compare with Pendragon?
What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
First, by analogy: a film-maker, novelist or playwright addresses their theme. The reader of their work (subject to general caveats about the author being dead etc) explores the theme. For instance, when I read LotR I am presented, by JRRT, with his ideas about the relationship between free will, providence, and resistance to evil. I don't, myself, in the act of reading, address the theme.
Second, directly: when the GM presents a situation with an intended or envisaged "correct" answer - probably the most classic example in D&D play is GM-adjudicated alignment, in which the GM has already decided what counts as good or evil - the players are exploring (in the stipulated sense) that theme. Vincent Baker sets out the contrast with addressing theme in this passage from DitV (pp 143-4):
In most RPGs with religious content, the GM arbitrates the characters’ morality. The GM plays God (or the gods) as an NPC, giving and withholding moral standing — whatever form it takes in the particular game: Faith Points, Alignment Bonuses, whatever — based on the characters’ actions. Not in Dogs.
In Dogs, the GM has no opportunity to pass effective judgment on a PC’s actions. Talk about ’em, sure, but never come down on them as righteous or sinful in a way that’s binding in the game world. The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.
Which is good! Which is, in fact, essential. If you, the GM, can judge my character’s actions, then I won’t tell you what I think. I’ll play to whatever morality you impose on me via your rulings. Instead of posing your players an interesting ethical question and then hearing their answers, you’d be posing the question and then answering it yourself.
In Dogs, the GM has no opportunity to pass effective judgment on a PC’s actions. Talk about ’em, sure, but never come down on them as righteous or sinful in a way that’s binding in the game world. The GM can’t give or withhold dice for the state of a PC’s soul, and thus never needs to judge it.
Which is good! Which is, in fact, essential. If you, the GM, can judge my character’s actions, then I won’t tell you what I think. I’ll play to whatever morality you impose on me via your rulings. Instead of posing your players an interesting ethical question and then hearing their answers, you’d be posing the question and then answering it yourself.
In the same vein, this is why:
There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed [resolution of] theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). . . .
It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character.
It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character.
As well as formal cues like alignment rules, or - again a classic in D&D - the GM playing the gods and telling the cleric player what counts as adhering to or departing from divine requirements, there can also be myriad informal cues or expectations that push play towards exploration of, rather than addressing, theme and its resolution. I would conjecture, based on what I read online, that the two most common of these are (i) expectations that the players will pick up on the GM's hooks and follow along with the GM's material, and (ii) expectations that the players will play an essentially cohesive and cooperative party of characters.
Which ones? Have you actually read his discussion of purist-for-system RPGing? Where is the insult?
If you want to start a thread about RM, HARP or RQ I'll join it.
OK. Why don't you post about it? Or similar RPGs. (Of which no edition of D&D is one!)
OK? What is the Oberoni or Stormwind Fallacy? The peasant rail gun? The Lumpley Principle?
What's the difference between work, force and power?
I don't understand why you would expect every bit of terminology to be self-explanatory without finding out how it was used, and why it was coined for the purposes that it was.
They are both Arthurian RPGs. You can read a review of Prince Valiant here: I think it is spot-on.
EDIT: I also have a lot of actual play posts. You can find them by searching for "Prince Valiant" in the title with "pemerton" as the poster.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
They're quite different. Pendragon relies on a set of virtue/vice pairs, and 'passions'. Any time a character is doing something interesting in game mechanical terms they will need to make a test on one of these. Half of the v/v pair traits are 'good' and the other half are 'negative', a character always has a total of 20 in each pair, so 13/7 brave/cowardly for instance. If you might run away, you test cowardly. If you want to do something really brave, you test bravery. The passions are Love, Family, Hospitality, and Honor, they don't really have opposites, though later they came out with 'classes' that use different ones and more were added.
The main point is, there's no focus on things like 'skills' and such, everything is governed by 13 v/v pairs and the passions. Characters are knights, they adventure once a year, and then there's a 'domain system' kind of thing where you do 'other stuff'. Character marry, have kids, etc. If you get old and die, your son can take over. Early editions used random chargen, but the '90s and later editions are point buy. Earlier editions also had a lot of supplements to run things like vikings and whatever, but most of that was abolished in the last couple of editions, you are a Knight of the Round Table in classic fantasy 5th century Britain, and Arthur is king!
In its newer forms it has almost a neotrad kind of thing going. You make up the personality you want, and then you play to it. Sometimes 'stuff' might happen that isn't quite how you planned it all out, but your character concept strongly defines how you play, within the limitations of the milieu/genre of the game. Situations are meant to represent stuff that might happen in Mallory, basically. Questing after beasts, meeting damsels in distress, warlocks, enchanters, 'black knights', etc. The domain part of things is also fairly involved, though you can get more or less into that. A lot of times the adventures and yearly events may tie in together.
So, one of the things about it is the game is pretty hard and fast locked to its genre. You could, in older editions, play a Pict, a Welshman, a Saxon, or a Viking, but they were still basically landed warriors or similar. Adventures might vary based on the sorts of characters in use, but modern versions stick to stuff that is pretty much Mallory straight up. It isn't a super gritty sort of game, but the GM does pretty much make up the adventures in a rather classic fashion.
Between the two, Pendragon and Prince Valiant, I always thought the later game was the fundamentally stronger design. Pendragon is flirting with some of the more narrativist ideas to a degree, but I think PV's design just does KA stuff better. But for whatever reason PV has not had as much love, though it did get reissued a few years ago (and Pendragon has a fairly current edition too I think).
Tony Vargas
Legend
I have to admit, I never liked it, even back in the day, even when I was unaware of any alternative...
...I just get character ideas...
Or, hopes that they will, ayway...
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
What are the dramatic needs of PC Adventurers?
Tony Vargas
Legend
Oh, I have no problem with abstraction or a vanity label for something... well, not much with the later.
But so much Forge terminology has a seemingly-obvious meaning ... that does not match the forge meaning - GNS is 3-for-3, that way, apparently. It's so marked, it comes off as an almost exoteric/esoteric divide. More about membership than transmitting ideas, or something.
Perplexing.
Similar Threads
