Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

[Autumnal]

Aiming to make the next Zardoz implies that there is something incomplete about, or less-than-perfection in, Sean Connery in a diaper.

All attempts to recapture or reinvent that lightning in a bottle are doomed to be self-mockery.

It is known.

And this century, we’ve had Primer, A Scanner Darkly, Coherence, The Endless, Beyond the Black Rainbow, Moon, Donnie Darko, Inception, Hard to Be a God, Children of Men…sf filmmaking is in great shape at all levels of budget from $7.000 to $150+ million, even though there’s a fair amount of junk. That was true before Star Wars, too.

Much like RPGs that way.

 

[Emerikol]

I think if you are going to introduce a new style of play with a new game for the group it would be good to have at least one experienced player to model normal behavior. Now I've played a tiny amount of the Star Wars game you cite and it seems to straddle the line moreso than D&D. Meaning you can play as you desire but if a group didn't know better they could play it without those elements. The game has hooks but they aren't claws. And yes maybe the game as intended is lessened by not focusing on those elements. I'd agree as I didn't find my itch scratched.

Don't let anyone fool you. Roleplaying games became super popular because of the sense of progression and advancement. Games the hide that fact or bury it usually aren't as popular. It's an extremely popular motif. It's not the only thing by any means but it is central to roleplaying's success. This is why leveled class based games still dominate the marketplace.

My advice to the GURPS of the world, and I like GURPS but it could be so much better and if better it would have been more popular, is to put some manner of level concept into the game. Even if each level all that happens is you get more points to buy skills with and maybe a few more hit points. (I know GURPS doesn't have hit points but you get the idea).

And I just used GURPS because around here no one seems to care if you beat on it a little. Again I like it for some things. Just slide other games with nebulous advancement concepts in for GURPS in this argument.

 

[aramis erak]

Star Wars may be the worst thing that happened to George Lucas, but it is definitely the worst thing that happened to science fiction film. We'll never get another Silent Running or Rollerball or Zardoz.

We don't need another Zardoz...
(which trips off a desire to filk T. Turner's We Don't Need Another Hero)
We do get the occasional movie from other places making a splash...
Iron Sky comes to mind. (been a few years, that...)

But truly innovative Sci Fi isn't an all the time thing, and for every good one (Silent Running, Brazil) we get a dozen or more low-return junk, a few decent eye-candy with bad plot, and a bunch of doesn't even break-even until reruns on cable or streaming. And an array of poor to excellent additions to various franchises.
In a word pair: Sturgeon's Law. (90% of Everything is Crap)
Personally, I think Sturgeon was 9% too optimistic.

 

[Umbran]

Wanting to get stronger isn't the dark side, giving into your negative emotions to achieve that power, and using it for selfish ends is

Power for the sake of power is a selfish end.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it is one of the hardest things to do when it comes to playing RPGs (and D&D in particular)... change people's ideas of what "improvement" is. For huge numbers of games (with D&D at the forefront)... mechanical improvement is front and center. Whether that be "gaining levels" and seeing your natural character numbers bump, or "gaining treasure and equipment" and seeing your bonus numbers bump... erasing and then writing in new numbers on your character sheet every couple of sessions is very much an easy indicator and benny of playing the game.

What is harder to get across as a GM, and harder for players to internalize if they are not used to it... is "in-game narrative progression". A character's "status" or "reputation" or "place" in the game world. Because that almost always has no real indicator on a character sheet that a player can look at and see "Oh yes, my PC is becoming somebody. Sure, there might be the occasional game that has a "Reputation" statistic to give a numeric placement of that character on some scale... but more often that not it's purely GM narration and action that gets across where a PC stands in the world.

The GM has to go out of their way to truly indicate just how important a PC has become. Making sure that as the characters and their heroic actions become more well-known that other NPCs are more likely to stop and listen to them. That higher-status NPCs are more willing to listen to them and take their concerns seriously. To be placed in higher and higher positions of authority or status within the game world and having NPCs react positively to them as those authority or high-status figures. All the stuff that doesn't come from the dice, but how the GM chooses their NPCs to react. Because remember... dice never have to be thrown. In most RPG tomes it says quite clearly that don't use the dice when there's no chance of failure... and thus it is imperative on the GMs part to know when their NPCs just give the PCs what they want without a chance for failure-- including listening, respect, acknowledgement and agreeance.

At a certain point... Han Solo achieved a status within the Rebellion where people just listened to him. He could ask for things and others would do it. He never had to cajole, never have to threaten, never had to make a 'Diplomacy check' or 'Intimidation check' to get what he wanted... he had just earned a certain status within the game world and thus people treated him with the respect he was due. There are so many other times when a GM can ask for dice throwing, that this should be one of those times when they don't and instead just treat the PCs as the high-status figures they are within the world. But trying to translate that into a roleplaying game such that the players pick up on it through the roleplay and description without needing to be told out-of-game that this is what they've "earned" is not easy to do. The GM really will have to work at it to make it clear, and the players will have to work on realizing just how much earning their place "within the story of the world" is the true reward.

 

[Emerikol]

<snip>
What is harder to get across as a GM, and harder for players to internalize if they are not used to it... is "in-game narrative progression". A character's "status" or "reputation" or "place" in the game world. Because that almost always has no real indicator of on a character sheet that a player can look at and see "Oh yes, my PC is becoming somebody. Sure, there might be the occasional game that has a "Reputation" statistic to give a numeric placement of that character on some scale... but more often that not it's purely GM narration and action that gets across where a PC stands in the world.

The GM has to go out of their way to truly indicate just how important a PC has become. Making sure that as the characters and their heroic actions become more well-known that other NPCs are more likely to stop and listen to them. That higher-status NPCs are more willing to listen to them and take their concerns seriously. To be placed in higher and higher positions of authority or status within the game world and having NPCs react positively to them as those authority or high-status figures. All the stuff that doesn't come from the dice, but how the GM chooses their NPCs to react. Because remember... dice never have to be thrown. In most RPG tomes it says quite clearly that don't use the dice when there's no chance of failure... and thus it is imperative on the GMs part to know when their NPCs just give the PCs what they want without a chance for failure-- including listening, respect, acknowledgement and agreeance.
<snip>

This is a great insight. It is hard. As DM you want players to value those intangibles.

One way I've found, though I struggle like many, is to lay out subtle clues that the world is becoming aware of them. Suppose they go to a nearby town and enter the tavern. Then someone just asks, "Are you all the ones that slew the Gnoll King on the weathered heights?" Provide a little awe from the community.

There is also the other side of the coin where the players think they are world beaters at seventh level and have little regard for the niceties of diplomacy. This usually also requires a world like response.

The key I think is good narration and having a verisimilitudinous world. For example, a guide bringing the group to see the King after a successful quest on the King's behalf, their guide might whisper, "Oh that is Sir Trawnley, his armor is worth more than the Duchy of Unstol". You want to make your NPCs really good and you can provide information narratively via the NPC.

Still it is a delicate balancing act. You want the PCs to feel their growing respect.

I've toyed with a reputation score that only I kept. I might also have a list of allies and enemies. Maybe each one has a note on the strength of their feeling and why.

 

[pemerton]

I think the whole focus on jargon in discussing game styles is a huge problem. A lot of the folks promulgating this stuff were intentionally doing so as gatekeepers

I don't think this is true at all. The best-known terminology still seems to be that that moved out of rec.games and into the Forge; and the purpose of that was to create a language (i) for designers, and (ii) to help characterise the various things we're doing when we play RPGs.

The single biggest issue I see, again and again, in trying to discuss RPGing is people describing stuff by reference to the fiction - the imaginary stuff - rather than what actually happens at the table. To me, @innerdude's OP is interesting because it shows an attempt to actually describe how the play in that game is supposed to work.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't think this is true at all. The best-known terminology still seems to be that that moved out of rec.games and into the Forge; and the purpose of that was to create a language (i) for designers, and (ii) to help characterise the various things we're doing when we play RPGs.

You should pay attention to how few people, overall, participate in those threads. They are aggressively dense with jargon, as are the blog posts that discuss the core concepts. There is zero interest in bringing in new people to talk about these issues. It's insiders talking to insiders inside the clubhouse.

Even relatively straightforward ideas like "in-world" and "out of world" gets stupid terms like "Doylest" laid on top of them, just to make sure that outsiders don't participate.

It's an aggressively gatekeeping scene, intended to keep filthy casuals out of these spaces.

If there was a desire to make this a broader RPG community discussion, the jargon would get translated into normal English immediately and there'd be a movement within the community to not use the jargon terms. Instead, exactly the opposite happens.

 

[payn]

Not knowing the player... I'd not go to that point yet.

Because, the real question becomes... what does improvement look like?

Every Star Wars story is a story of ever-rising stakes. If you are surviving ever-rising stakes, of course you are getting better, improving, in some sense. So, how do you do that?

Luke clearly improves in power over the course of Episodes IV - VI. But he doesn't do it "to be more powerful" - that's literally the Dark Side. He does it because it is his legacy. And he does it to save the gorram galaxy from oppression! He does it by becoming his better self over time.

And, the OP already notes that Han and Lando both started as money-grubbing scoundrels. They improve by becoming better people.

So, a character so mercenary as to loot bodies for tech for a few credits is a fine starting point for a character. The question is where he goes from there.

Wanting to get stronger isn't the dark side, giving into your negative emotions to achieve that power, and using it for selfish ends is, you can train to be more powerful all you like, most of what Luke does on Dagobah is work out. Though that said, he is riding the line by Return of the Jedi, what with the black outfit and all that. Han and Lando meanwhile, become commissioned Generals over the course of their stories and end up commanding soldiers and ships at the Battle of Endor, which I suppose is pretty much the "old school" high level progression experience.

I think these posts demonstrate how difficult it is to marry mechanical power to the narrative in RPGs. Often, the narrative bit is left up to folks to decide, but has no real impact on the game. At least not like the tangible mechanical impact. If you take a bad feat, or place a stat bump ineffectively, you'll know in play. There isnt really any penalty in the narrative in many RPGs that inform you one way or the other if you are doing it correctly.

Now some may argue thats working as intended because the narrative should be flexible to player choice which is what ambiguity offers. Though, a lot of folks struggle with that becasue they have no visible path to indicate where the game is taking their character. Some efforts have been controversial, to say the least (cough---alignment--cough---).

One interesting thing is when the narrative impacts the mechanics. I play a lot of Battletech and there is a faction in the game world that has an honor bound code. The faction has some very advanced tech and is powerful, but this is offset by their challenge one foe at a time and must follow a strict rules of combat code. This power gamer I know named Sandy, told us he uses a lot of smaller units to flood the field on purpose. The reason is that if his opponent strikes the wrong unit, they have broken the code for them. After that, they are free to act as they see fit. That is just one of the pitfalls of marrying mechanics to narrative, particularly in the face of balanced options.

I think it is one of the hardest things to do when it comes to playing RPGs (and D&D in particular)... change people's ideas of what "improvement" is. For huge numbers of games (with D&D at the forefront)... mechanical improvement is front and center. Whether that be "gaining levels" and seeing your natural character numbers bump, or "gaining treasure and equipment" and seeing your bonus numbers bump... erasing and then writing in new numbers on your character sheet every couple of sessions is very much an easy indicator and benny of playing the game.

What is harder to get across as a GM, and harder for players to internalize if they are not used to it... is "in-game narrative progression". A character's "status" or "reputation" or "place" in the game world. Because that almost always has no real indicator of on a character sheet that a player can look at and see "Oh yes, my PC is becoming somebody. Sure, there might be the occasional game that has a "Reputation" statistic to give a numeric placement of that character on some scale... but more often that not it's purely GM narration and action that gets across where a PC stands in the world.

The GM has to go out of their way to truly indicate just how important a PC has become. Making sure that as the characters and their heroic actions become more well-known that other NPCs are more likely to stop and listen to them. That higher-status NPCs are more willing to listen to them and take their concerns seriously. To be placed in higher and higher positions of authority or status within the game world and having NPCs react positively to them as those authority or high-status figures. All the stuff that doesn't come from the dice, but how the GM chooses their NPCs to react. Because remember... dice never have to be thrown. In most RPG tomes it says quite clearly that don't use the dice when there's no chance of failure... and thus it is imperative on the GMs part to know when their NPCs just give the PCs what they want without a chance for failure-- including listening, respect, acknowledgement and agreeance.

At a certain point... Han Solo achieved a status within the Rebellion where people just listened to him. He could ask for things and others would do it. He never had to cajole, never have to threaten, never had to make a 'Diplomacy check' or 'Intimidation check' to get what he wanted... he had just earned a certain status within the game world and thus people treated him with the respect he was due. There are so many other times when a GM can ask for dice throwing, that this should be one of those times when they don't and instead just treat the PCs as the high-status figures they are within the world. But trying to translate that into a roleplaying game such that the players pick up on it through the roleplay and description without needing to be told out-of-game that this is what they've "earned" is not easy to do. The GM really will have to work at it to make it clear, and the players will have to work on realizing just how much earning their place "within the story of the world" is the true reward.

I was going to post something similar. This is one of the reasons I have gotten very invested in campaign player's guides. I think highlighting not just the mechanics, but how they relate to the narrative that is going to be included in the campaign aids better play amongst the concepts. It's also why I often include faction scores to represent the players interacting with groups of the setting. As the PCs gain reputation, they will get increased authority, influence, and aid. Though, as they gain more and more referential power amongst one faction, they are likely plummeting in another. The Dynamic changes play as the PCs go from neutral no bodies to allies and enemies.

 

[pemerton]

You should pay attention to how few people, overall, participate in those threads. They are aggressively dense with jargon, as are the blog posts that discuss the core concepts. There is zero interest in bringing in new people to talk about these issues. It's insiders talking to insiders inside the clubhouse.

This is nonsense. The Forge is still archived, as best I'm aware, and you can read thread after thread stepping people through problems in their games, and offering solutions.

It was from reading those threads that I learned how to analyse my own play, and - as a result - how to systematically improve certain aspects of it.

Every other field of analysis - literary criticism, cinema reviews, motoring magazines - has its own specialised terminology ("jargon"). When I need to learn how to do something plumbing related, and watch a youtube video, I have to learn the terminology that is needed to describe the tools, the components, the processes etc. RPGing is no different.

Even relatively straightforward ideas like "in-world" and "out of world" gets stupid terms like "Doylest" laid on top of them, just to make sure that outsiders don't participate.

I don't think that even comes from RPG analysis. And Google makes it trivial to find this page: Watsonian versus Doylist - TV Tropes

If there was a desire to make this a broader RPG community discussion, the jargon would get translated into normal English immediately and there'd be a movement within the community to not use the jargon terms. Instead, exactly the opposite happens.

My experience is that most RPGers are not that interested in analysing their play. They know what they like, and that's that.