All narrative mechanics do is give people the indication to change-up their improv. Change up the description of what is happening in the world in a way that is slightly different than how they otherwise would describe it.
If a game mechanic says a player is disarmed, then the narrative from the DM would normally be something along the lines of "the weapon is knocked from your hand and clatters against the stone floor at your feet." After which the player would narrate on their turn that they reach down to pick it back up (while using whatever action game mechanic is designated in the rules for picking up an object.)
But if the disarm came about because of a '1' or a '20' (depending on who was rolling the disarm mechanic)... the DM might narrate it as "the weapon is forcefully hit out of your hand and bounces a few times before falling into the firepit to your right." Now the player on their turn has to decide via their improv choices whether or not they want to reach over "into the fire" and grab their weapon. Now there's been no indication from the DM that there would be or will be a game mechanic attached to this action... the player has been given no indication whether they will be able to pick up their hot weapon without any issue, or whether the DM will charge them a small amount of "fire damage" if they do so... but in either event, the player goes through the mental process in their mind's eye of what their character might do in this scenario that ends up being different than what they would have done on a normal disarm.
And it is this change in a player's motivations and decision-making that gives roleplaying games their juice. They actually take their imaginary world into account when making choices of what they have their characters do, rather than just follow the flow-chart of game mechanics they would have if they were playing a board game.
This is no different than any use of flavor-text within the game... I mean one could say that ALL flavor-text are 'Narrative Mechanics'. A successful Strength (Intimidation) check will be described and narrated differently within the world of the characters than a successful Charisma (Intimidation) check would be, and the monster/character who had that intimidation check made against them will be narrated to behave differently because of it. And THAT reaction will cause the DM or player to have their intimidating monster/character react differently off of that reaction as well. And that back-and-forth of the improv between the two will result in two different narratives-- one if the intimidation was due to a Strength check, and the other was due to Charisma.
Narrative mechanics are nothing to be afraid of or want to avoid. They are just green flags that get waved to indicate that this is a moment where the description of what has happened in-world is potentially different than it might otherwise normally be. They certainly aren't necessary to play (as all of us have improv'd our reactions and descriptions like we always have done over the years)... but they ARE a way to give us permission to occasionally go further out-there with our description than we otherwise might.
If a game mechanic says a player is disarmed, then the narrative from the DM would normally be something along the lines of "the weapon is knocked from your hand and clatters against the stone floor at your feet." After which the player would narrate on their turn that they reach down to pick it back up (while using whatever action game mechanic is designated in the rules for picking up an object.)
But if the disarm came about because of a '1' or a '20' (depending on who was rolling the disarm mechanic)... the DM might narrate it as "the weapon is forcefully hit out of your hand and bounces a few times before falling into the firepit to your right." Now the player on their turn has to decide via their improv choices whether or not they want to reach over "into the fire" and grab their weapon. Now there's been no indication from the DM that there would be or will be a game mechanic attached to this action... the player has been given no indication whether they will be able to pick up their hot weapon without any issue, or whether the DM will charge them a small amount of "fire damage" if they do so... but in either event, the player goes through the mental process in their mind's eye of what their character might do in this scenario that ends up being different than what they would have done on a normal disarm.
And it is this change in a player's motivations and decision-making that gives roleplaying games their juice. They actually take their imaginary world into account when making choices of what they have their characters do, rather than just follow the flow-chart of game mechanics they would have if they were playing a board game.
This is no different than any use of flavor-text within the game... I mean one could say that ALL flavor-text are 'Narrative Mechanics'. A successful Strength (Intimidation) check will be described and narrated differently within the world of the characters than a successful Charisma (Intimidation) check would be, and the monster/character who had that intimidation check made against them will be narrated to behave differently because of it. And THAT reaction will cause the DM or player to have their intimidating monster/character react differently off of that reaction as well. And that back-and-forth of the improv between the two will result in two different narratives-- one if the intimidation was due to a Strength check, and the other was due to Charisma.
Narrative mechanics are nothing to be afraid of or want to avoid. They are just green flags that get waved to indicate that this is a moment where the description of what has happened in-world is potentially different than it might otherwise normally be. They certainly aren't necessary to play (as all of us have improv'd our reactions and descriptions like we always have done over the years)... but they ARE a way to give us permission to occasionally go further out-there with our description than we otherwise might.
Last edited:
