What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[pemerton]

Nah. You’ve spent a lot of time talking about the same type of mechanics in other games.

I don't agree with this at all. Prince Valiant has no such mechanics. Burning Wheel doesn't. Apocalypse World has very few, and they are options that a given table can just ignore.

What mechanics in Blades in the Dark would you categorize as non-diegetic?

Good question!

 

[pemerton]

I think the use in this thread of several different terms to talk about the same ideas is perhaps confusing the issue.

<snip>

I also think that the issues some gamers have with those mechanics aren't actually anything to do with diegetic or not. As we are primarily discussing this at the theory level I think mechanics like flashbacks are different enough in important ways that they should probably have their own descriptor.

I provided the description not far upthread:

Now you seem to be adding some additional constraint - eg that the resolution only have regard to elements of the fiction that, in the fiction, matter causally to how the attempted thing would unfold. That is a much stronger constraint than the one I responded to!

The above is the description in question.

There's actually a terrific essay about it, more than 20 years old now: The Forge :: Simulationism: The Right to Dream

We don't have to reinvent the conceptual and terminological wheel if we don't want to!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On these boards the divisions are actually very clear. See eg this post: https://www.enworld.org/threads/supposing-d-d-is-gamist-what-does-that-mean.687974/post-8623492

No, that's your confirmation bias. You see some people that fit your stereotype and assume that the rest will too. But that's not most people. And frankly, I have often seen you to make bizarre assumptions about how people (including me) run and play games, based on these Edwardsian strawmen. At this point it seems to me that they hamper your understanding of how games are actually being played more than they help.

 

[pemerton]

How does Prince Valiant work compared to Pendragon, and how does it play? Please.

I linked to a review upthread.

Here are some posts of mine:

Character build is pretty simple - choose an occupation and give your character a name and description. Then assign 7 points across Brawn and Presence (max 6 to any one), then assign 9 points to six skills. You start with a base 500 fame.

The default occuption, as you say, is knight. Knights need at least 1 rank in each of Arms and Riding; start with a coat of arms; and start with a standard set of equipment (arms and armour, horses, fine clothes, some coins). Because being knighted is worth 300 fame, a knight PC starts with 800 fame.

The "advanced" rules add skills to the list, and allow other archetypes. A squire or man-at-arms also must start with Arms and Riding, starts with lighter armour, no fine clothes and less coin. One of the knight PCs in my game started as a squire before being knighted by Sir Lionheart - the player wanted a backstory (being the son of a wealthy town family hoping to get ahead by marrying into the nobility) which didn't suit being a knight.

Other "advanced" archetypes are vikings (similar gear to a squre, must have Arms and Shiphandling), monks (little gear, must have Oratory and Read/Write Latin), merchants (modest gear including some pack animals and their load, must have Bargaining and Money Handling), and hunters (simple gear, must have Hunting and Naturalitie). Further possibilities that are flagged but are said (p 58) to be "not always appropriate" include peasants (very little gear, must have Crafting and Farming, may not have Riding or Arms at start), slaves and thieves (GM left to work out the details).

Because PC build is so straightforward, it's easy to come up with other archetypes. When one player wanted to play an itinerant performer, I could easily indicate Poetry/Song and Dexterity as two require skills, leaving the player to sort out the rest; and come up with some starting equipment (a little bit of money, a suit of colourful clothes and some juggling knives).

Page 58 has the following advice: "Pick an occupation that you think will be amusing to play, but pick something reasonable and appropriate for your Chief Storyteller’s campaign setting." Page 59 goes on to discuss playing "exotic" characters (eg "a Chinese martial artist, an African witch doctor, an Aztec maiden, and a Mohawk warrior") and gives advice on how to handle female characters within the context of a pseudo-historical game (the player of the performer was motivated to play a gender-ambiguous character in part because of irritation at the book's approach to female PCs).

So anyway, as you've probably worked out by now, the system limit on archetype comes out of the skill list (which in turn reflects setting and genre). In particular, there are no sorcerous skills - Alchemie (p 60, "[a]lchemical creations never violate the laws of science as we know them, though the alchemist and the user of the creation may firmly believe that they do"), Lore and Mathematics are as close to a D&D-type sage/wizard as the system gets.

Pages 50 and 52 say the following about magic in the game:

Storytellers must determine how much magic will exist in their campaign. Always reserve the right to use both real and pseudo-supernatural creatures, spells, and charms. Consistency is not necessarily absolute: Fake magicians would certainly exist in a realm where real magicians thrived. . . .

[T]he existence of powerful magic ought to be a rare and unusual event, concentrated in the hands of specialists like Morgan le Fay and Merlin the Magician. Note that there is no magical skill available in the Adventurer creation process. This ensures that only you, the Storyteller, have access to effective magic in the game, should you want it. . . .

The Storyteller should determine how real monsters are in his campaign. As with other supernatural events, the line may be crossed back and forth with different stories. The existence of both real and fake trolls, for instance, will keep Adventurers cautious until they determine whether the monster can be defeated by simple force of arms, as in the case of fake trolls, or whether they must resort to trickery. Trickery is the only solution against magical monsters which are too tough to combat directly.​

I would say that my game has been at the more magic-heavy end - in the first session there was the Wild Hunt, in the third session the somewhat supernatural abilities of the crowmaster, and in the fifth session the evil spirit bound into the crimson bull and then the ghost, and the blessing of St Sigobert that helped in both situations. The only pseudo-magic has been the trial of Lady Violette's young brother for sorcery in the second session, which had the cat being called as a witness (it had been said to speak the boy's name, "Hugh" - as the player of the squire commented, it was lucky for the accusers that the boy's name was not Reginald).

The system is a simple dice pool (like Torchbearer or BW at its most basic), with obstacles either being opposed, or set on a difficulty scale from Easy (1) to Normal (3) to Very Difficult (5+).

The mass combat system is the only complicated bit - there are opposed command checks between the two commanders, and then each participant has to make a check to determine their courage and their physical survival. This goes on for a number of rounds set by the GM - normally we use two or three, as that tends to give a nice sense of the initial impact, then how things unfold, then some sort of resolution. (Much as in the example in the OP.)

The Advanced game (as it is labelled in the book) differs from the Basic game in four ways: PCs can start as something other than knights (in our game we had a squire, now knighted, and a travelling performer and tale-teller); there are more skills (which we use in our game); and each player can have a turn at being "storyteller" (= GM) under the superintendence of a chief storyteller; and there is the system of Storyteller Certificates and Gold Stars which are this RPG's version of player-side metagame/fiat abilities.

In the book itself, taking a turn as a subordinate storyteller earns you a certificate, and the chief storyteller can also award certificates when the mood strikes, and any storyteller can award a Gold Star. I've attached a copy of the Certificate that I use, that as I said melds the two systems.

I award a certificate when the mood strikes, probably once every two sessions or so. From memory Sir Justin's player has had one (Gold Star), Sir Gerran's two (he brought a hostile village over to the PCs' side, and made Sir Gerran's wife fall in love with him), Sir Morgoth's two (he killed Sir Lionheart in a joust, and he might still have his second) and Twillany's one (used to find the Bone Laird's old home). And another one that might also have been Twillany's (used to bring peasants onto the PCs' sdie in their assault on the Duke of Burgundy's castle). So that's seven that I remember in 12 sessions.

EDIT: I was looking at an older session report for another reason and saw two more used of Kill a Foe in Combat. So that's at least nine, making it closer to 1 per session.

Provided you've got players who are prepared to buy into the whole knightly/mediaeval/romance thing, then there really is no need for prep. You can just pick up one of the episodes that strikes your fancy and run with it.

In terms of playable structure I've so far found all of Greg Stafford's ones - in the core book - excellent. The ones in the Episode Book aren't universally quite as strong - as I've mentioned, Jeff Grubb's Mare's Lamp is somewhat shaky in story structure, and Rein* Hagen's is pretty railroad-y as presented. Also some of the NPCs in the Episode Book are a bit overdone in their stats and need some judicious trimming. But the Crimson Bull, Bilgewater Brigands, A Wild Hunt (the one with the crowmaster), the Wild Hunt (the one by Kenneth Hite), the Blue Cloak, and others in the Episode Book are all first-rate.

 

[Fenris-77]

Now you seem to be adding some additional constraint - eg that the resolution only have regard to elements of the fiction that, in the fiction, matter causally to how the attempted thing would unfold. That is a much stronger constraint than the one I responded to!

Hmm. That's more or less what I was driving at, the second bit. Elsewhere that was more or less where people decided to draw the line for what might count as a narrative mechanic (although I strongly dislike that term for that usage). I've read Edwards and, setting aside the wearisome baggage he comes packaged with, I've found that he doesn't really address some of the things I'm trying to come to grips to when it comes to framing theory ideas about TTRPG design. I think there are some elements of simulationist design/desire in the difference between the BitD mechanics mentioned and a 'standard' action resolution cycle.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the use in this thread of several different terms to talk about the same ideas is perhaps confusing the issue. If we change adiegetic there to narrative (as I defined it upstream as mechanics that aren't based on possible character decisions in the moment) then those BitD mechanics do seem a little different from the basic attack mechanics or whatever in most games. Personally, I would agree that all three are primarily diegetic for much the same reasons as you outline but I also think that the issues some gamers have with those mechanics aren't actually anything to do with diegetic or not. As we are primarily discussing this at the theory level I think mechanics like flashbacks are different enough in important ways that they should probably have their own descriptor.

Oh Flashbacks are different in ways, I just don’t really consider them non-diegetic. They’re not subject to the same linear chronology that’s applied to the characters… that’s the primary difference.

And although I think it’s a significnat difference worth mentioning, it isn’t all that different from the way Knowledge/Lore checks in D&D and similar games work. We get to a point of play where something from the past matters, and then we use the mechanics to see how that goes. In that sense, “did I bring my crowbar” and “did I learn of the Whispering Tower during my academic days” don’t seem all that different.

Specifically on the issue of dice pools I think a lot depends on the specifics. Stress in BitD, for example, I quite like because it is fairly easy to explain diegetically. Anyone who's ever played sports or done anything, really, that is stressful knows the feeling of being able to summon up reserves of energy and also completely running out of gas. That's not a scientific answer but it makes enough diegetic sense that it doesn't bother me from, say, an immersion standpoint.

Absolutely. I think Stress is very clearly diegetic. It’s a character resource that the player spends as needed. But it’svery much something related to the character. Just as hit points or spell slots or Second Wind or Ki would be to a character.

EDITED TO ADD: I meant to mention the most non-diegetic/meta/narrative/whatever mechanic in Blades in the Dark. That’s the Devil’s Bargain. While it’s thematically on point given the state of the setting, the character is not actually making a bargain with a devil; it’s the player making a bargain with the GM. Take consequence X regardless of the outcome of the pending roll, and you can have an extra die on that roll.

That’s the non-diegetic mechanic in the game. Often overlooked because it’s not as sleek as inventory or Flashbacks.

 

[Campbell]

I view adiegetic/diegetic mechanics as a different consideration from personal comfort with playing with obviating time and space and willingness to establish details about the fiction in a nonlinear way. Comfort with one is not necessarily related to comfort with the other. GM directed flashbacks, time skips and a willingness to go back to define gaps in time we haven't had time to deal with previously was always a big part of my experience playing trad games like Vampire and L5R where characters have very active lives. Blue booking and play by post for things we did not have time to cover at the table was pretty common.

 

[pemerton]

I think there are some elements of simulationist design/desire in the difference between the BitD mechanics mentioned and a 'standard' action resolution cycle.

This is picked up in @Neonchameleon's "fudge" mechanics, or informal equivalents, when these are regulated on the GM side. The GM permitting a player to retrospectively update their PC sheet ("I would have remembered to bring some rope!") is consistent with overall simulationist sensibilities, provided it doesn't become the norm, because it is still the GM "playing" or mediating the world. We could almost say that, in this situation, the player lets the GM temporarily play their PC, and the GM plays the PC as having remembered rope.

If we formalise that sort of system into "fate tokens" or whatever - the player gets so many do-overs or retries or retrofits - but the GM maintains an overall veto over outcomes, again provided it doesn't become the norm it can be accommodated within many simulationist sensibilities.

But flashbacks in BitD abandon any pretence that it is the GM who is playing the world. That's what marks the line, in my view.

EDIT to address this too:

Oh Flashbacks are different in ways, I just don’t really consider them non-diegetic. They’re not subject to the same linear chronology that’s applied to the characters… that’s the primary difference.

And although I think it’s a significnat difference worth mentioning, it isn’t all that different from the way Knowledge/Lore checks in D&D and similar games work.

The difference from knowledge checks in typical D&D (cf Wises in Burning Wheel) is that those knowledge checks still have the GM playing the world.

 

[Fenris-77]

Oh Flashbacks are different in ways, I just don’t really consider them non-diegetic. They’re not subject to the same linear chronology that’s applied to the characters… that’s the primary difference.

And although I think it’s a significnat difference worth mentioning, it isn’t all that different from the way Knowledge/Lore checks in D&D and similar games work. We get to a point of play where something from the past matters, and then we use the mechanics to see how that goes. In that sense, “did I bring my crowbar” and “did I learn of the Whispering Tower during my academic days” don’t seem all that different.

This is very true. That said, I cordially detest rolling to know as an idea in RPGs. Different games deal with this idea in lots of ways though, some of which I like more than others. For BitD I think the quantum equipment is perfect, it does exactly what the game needs thematically and in terms of genre emulation. I also get why some players don't like it and in a different game designed with different goals it would be quite out of place, IMO.

Absolutely. I think Stress is very clearly diegetic. It’s a character resource that the player spends as needed. But it’svery much something related to the character. Just as hit points or spell slots or Second Wind or Ki would be to a character.

EDITED TO ADD: I meant to mention the most non-diegetic/meta/narrative/whatever mechanic in Blades in the Dark. That’s the Devil’s Bargain. While it’s thematically on point given the state of the setting, the character is not actually making a bargain with a devil; it’s the player making a bargain with the GM. Take consequence X regardless of the outcome of the pending roll, and you can have an extra die on that roll.

That’s the non-diegetic mechanic in the game. Often overlooked because it’s not as sleek as inventory or Flashbacks.

Yeah, the DB is very adiegetic. If the negotiation were limited to the GM and the acting player it would feel less so I think, but when the whole table can chime in it is what it is.

 

[pemerton]

I meant to mention the most non-diegetic/meta/narrative/whatever mechanic in Blades in the Dark. That’s the Devil’s Bargain. While it’s thematically on point given the state of the setting, the character is not actually making a bargain with a devil; it’s the player making a bargain with the GM. Take consequence X regardless of the outcome of the pending roll, and you can have an extra die on that roll.

That’s the non-diegetic mechanic in the game. Often overlooked because it’s not as sleek as inventory or Flashbacks.

Interestingly, because this doesn't actually change the "traditional" allocation of authority, I would expect it to be less controversial.