What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Micah Sweet]

Lots of games get called narrative games for a variety of reasons. The only real unifying principle is that they structured differently than trad games. Night's Black Agents, John Carter of Mars and Apocalypse World have fig all to do with one another. They are prepped differently, they are structured differently, their resolution systems have nothing to do with each other and most importantly their play loops could not be more different.

A failure to acknowledge that and flatten them for purposes of discussion, especially when you have been briefed on the differences feels less and less like ignorance and more and more like a deliberate attempt to confuse and shutdown a discussion of differences because you think they all have cooties.

It's precisely this sort of flattening that leads people to have the wrong idea about how Apocalypse World structure and assume it has anything like FATE points.

In general, I'm just not a fan of categorizing things by what they don't do instead of what they actually do.

You can't deny, however, that despite how different those games are from each other (and I'm not denying that), they all make moderate to high use of narrative tools compared to many traditional games. Since that's what I have a problem with, that's what matters to me in these discussions. And clearly I'm not an army of one here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, yeah, if you mean specific mechanics then sure, there's lots of room for incompatible.

This seems to mostly be about how certain elements of the setting are generated. I'd agree that games often called narrative are probably the most likely to have some portion of authorial control for the setting shifted from the GM either to player-adjacent mechanics or in some fashion to the players themselves. That said, there is an awful lot of space on the spectrum for a whole lot of different degrees and approaches, and that maybe isn't a fact that is captured by calling a game narrative or not. I prefer the term (or better yet a different term, deployed at the mechanic and subsystem level to describe game elements.

Specific mechanics are a major way playstyles are deliniated, as they affect "the conversation", as you call it.

And different ways to move authorial control away from the GM and towards the players are all still doing that, regardless of how, so if that's the part you want to discuss than creating a rough category for games that do that more prominently seems fair to me.

 

[Fenris-77]

Specific mechanics are a major way playstyles are deliniated, as they affect "the conversation", as you call it.

I think you'd need to expand this train of thought a little if you want it carry any water. I suspect that you'll run into trouble when it comes time to try the experiment with 'traditional'. RPG mechanics do all kinds of things, not all of which directly influence the conversation as such - there is also the setting and the player avatars.

While you can certainly identify some mechanics with a narrativist playstyle, I'm not sure you could find one that defines the style. Or even a few that do so. Perhaps a list of types of mechanics might do that job though.

And different ways to move authorial control away from the GM and towards the players are all still doing that, regardless of how, so if that's the part you want to discuss than creating a rough category for games that do that more prominently seems fair to me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'doing that' there. In addition, this happens in a lot of different parts of the game, and in many kinds of games, and to many degrees. I don't think you can point to category of games that do it. For example, The Black Hack uses player background pretty significant to build out the setting, but it not a narrative game. In fact, lots of OSR-adjacent games have added mechanics of this sort but without changing the overall telos of the game. It simply isn't a useful binary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you'd need to expand this train of thought a little if you want it carry any water. I suspect that you'll run into trouble when it comes time to try the experiment with 'traditional'. RPG mechanics do all kinds of things, not all of which directly influence the conversation as such - there is also the setting and the player avatars.

While you can certainly identify some mechanics with a narrativist playstyle, I'm not sure you could find one that defines the style. Or even a few that do so. Perhaps a list of types of mechanics might do that job though.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'doing that' there. In addition, this happens in a lot of different parts of the game, and in many kinds of games, and to many degrees. I don't think you can point to category of games that do it. For example, The Black Hack uses player background pretty significant to build out the setting, but it not a narrative game. In fact, lots of OSR-adjacent games have added mechanics of this sort but without changing the overall telos of the game. It simply isn't a useful binary.

What I mean is that, regardless of how they do it, mechanics that all shift authorial control from the GM to the players to some degree (and I'm talking about control beyond their PCs here) have that in common, and can this be discussed as a group by that metric. This is particularly important if that kind of authorial control is important to you, as it is to me.

 

[Fenris-77]

What I mean is that, regardless of how they do it, mechanics that all shift authorial control from the GM to the players to some degree (and I'm talking about control beyond their PCs here) have that in common, and can this be discussed as a group by that metric. This is particularly important if that kind of authorial control is important to you, as it is to me.

I don't see any reason why authorial control mechanics couldn't be a kind of mechanic to discuss. I don't think they define narrativist play though, although they are often associated with it. It's also the case that some games don't reapportion authorial control via mechanics but rather by use of things like GM and Player agendas or lists of responsibilities, and these things do actually speak directly to the nature of the conversation.

That's the other issue, the identification of games that scaffold playstyle X can't be defined entirely in terms of mechanics.

 

[zakael19]

@Fenris-77 just want to say I appreciate your thoughtful contributions, especially since I know you’re adding in an appreciation for the “OSR/NSR” philosophy of play in addition to everything else.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Fenris-77 just want to say I appreciate your thoughtful contributions, especially since I know you’re adding in an appreciation for the “OSR/NSR” philosophy of play in addition to everything else.

Thanks! RPG theory is a part of our hobby I get a lot of enjoyment out of. Since I also design and sell RPG stuff I get to actually try to walk the walk occasionally too.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't see any reason why authorial control mechanics couldn't be a kind of mechanic to discuss. I don't think they define narrativist play though, although they are often associated with it. It's also the case that some games don't reapportion authorial control via mechanics but rather by use of things like GM and Player agendas or lists of responsibilities, and these things do actually speak directly to the nature of the conversation.

That's the other issue, the identification of games that scaffold playstyle X can't be defined entirely in terms of mechanics.

What are the categories you're saying can't be distinguished between? As I read you, it sounds like you have one called "trad" and one called "narrative". The 'trad' label puts in my mind the six cultures of play idea; you also say it is "like early D&D", but narrative is not one of those (story games is). You also don't want the GNS definition of narrative.

Maybe it is just that I'm late to the discussion, but I think the disconnect you and @Micah Sweet have may just be about unstated definitions.

When I say there is a hard boundary, I mean: there are some games (which @Micah Sweet and I enjoy) in which the DM takes authorial control of the world and the players control only their characters. Any mechanic which gives the players authorial control is incompatible with this, definitionally.

Based on that, we have two, binary types of games: "players have nonzero authorial control" games" and "players have no authorial control" games, right? That's a clear division. In my posts I have in mind "more authorial control = narrative", so I'm happy labeling these as "narrative" and "trad" games, respectively. Maybe that doesn't map perfectly, although I'm curious what games you'd call narrative where the DM retains all the authorial control. And cases where there is a hint of narrative control (especially limited in scope, like only prior to play) we may want to say more about.

But i think those details are details which don't contradict the core division.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see any reason why authorial control mechanics couldn't be a kind of mechanic to discuss. I don't think they define narrativist play though, although they are often associated with it. It's also the case that some games don't reapportion authorial control via mechanics but rather by use of things like GM and Player agendas or lists of responsibilities, and these things do actually speak directly to the nature of the conversation.

That's the other issue, the identification of games that scaffold playstyle X can't be defined entirely in terms of mechanics.

If the game tells you how to apportion authorial control, I don't see how that is effectively different than mechanics in the game doing it.

 

[zakael19]

One reason I don't personally use the term "trad" is because the actual table play between a linear adventure using milestone leveling and heroic characters and the actual table play in a group playing "xp for gold" dungeon delving within a pre-populated sandbox, picking and choosing rumors and wandering in hexes off a map is like, radically different. Yet neither is "narrative" in any way.

You can have a pretty linear conventional game which, as I said in the "player driven play" thread, allows quite a bit of player collaborative input on color and edge details of the world without really giving them much actual narrative control apart from the outcome of rolls and encounters.

You can run AW with near 0 player world-building additions after session 0, apart from maybe naming an NPC or two if they get a gang or something. Everything comes from the position of their characters - the "authorial control" they have is entirely bounded by their actions and outcomes.