"Narrative Options" mechanical?

[pemerton]

The key is in approaching the scenario from within the assumed role or not. If the DM says " the orc leader Grok demands tribute of 100 gold" then there is a narration going on. If the DM says (as Grok) "give us 100 gold and we might let you puny humans live" there is roleplaying happening.

<snip>

Likewise when a player says " Black Dougal tells everyone that he is scouting for traps and moves on ahead" there is a narration of action. If the player says " Think I'm going to scout ahead for traps" he is doing so from the assumed role of Black Dougal, thus roleplaying.

I'm still very puzzled by this, for the same sort of reason as [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] gives in the post above this one.

The difference between 1st and 3rd person is very superficial. As a GM or a player, I might sometimes use 3rd person ("Grok says XYZ" or "Black Dougal does ABC") and sometimes 1st person (As Grok "XYZ"; as Black Dougal "I do ABC"). It's a rhetorical choice that is often made on the spur of the moment.

The decision about what Grok says, or what Black Dougal does, can be motivated for exactly the same reason: I decide, as GM, that Grok says XYZ because I think that will push the players' buttons; I decide, as the player of Black Dougal, that Black Dougal does ABC because I think that fits best with the character that has been established, through play, for Black Dougal. There is no particular connection between this non-superifical decision, and the superficial decision about 3rd vs 1st person description of a character's speech or action.

So unless I am badly misunderstanding you, you are saying that the difference between "narrating" and "roleplaying" is nothing but a superficial rhetorical difference in 3rd vs 1st person, that in no way corresponds to any deep difference in play purpose or playstyle. If I've got you right, that's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't seem a very interesting sense in which roleplaying is not narrating, because your stipulative definitions aren't capturing anything but a superficial rhetorical matter.

But it seemed to me that you were trying to say something more substantial. In which case, I'm definitely failing to work out what that is.

 

[Tuft]

The decision about what Grok says, or what Black Dougal does, can be motivated for exactly the same reason: I decide, as GM, that Grok says XYZ because I think that will push the players' buttons; I decide, as the player of Black Dougal, that Black Dougal does ABC because I think that fits best with the character that has been established, through play, for Black Dougal. There is no particular connection between this non-superifical decision, and the superficial decision about 3rd vs 1st person description of a character's speech or action.

A number of years ago, I changed gaming groups, and by doing this I suddenly became able to play the characters I *wanted* to play, rather than the characters my previous DM thought I *ought* to play.

In one of the first campaigns with the new group, I suddenly ran into a conflict between the wants of me as a player and those of my character.

Excuse me for the sin of anecdoting:

We were visiting a pseudo-Aztec city, where my druid made friends with the local children, playing with them and learning their language. The city had a sacrificial pit which we investigated and slew the monsters that lived down there. Climbing up again, depleted on spells and HP, we found out that the city had been overrun by hobgoblins. We hid just under mouth the sacrificial pit, discussing what to do, when the Hobgoblins started throwing the very children my character had been playing with into the pit...

Now, this was a new group, and I did *not* want to rock the boat. Several other players were very much "optimal tactics, no rash moves, play it as chess" players, and had warned me about how other players' impulsive, chaotic moves had gotten them kicked from the group. So, my desirs as a player was very much to follow the lead of the others, stay put, and recover. But my character just did not allow me to do that... so I, low on HP and without spells, charged the Hobgoblin chieftain.

I had been playing RPGs for a decade before that, but it was the first time I really, really experienced deep immersion - and what a powerful feeling it was to me!

To me, that anecdote summarizes the difference between immersive roleplaying and "merely" constructing a narrative.

(And yes, after a nailbiting fight we *did* defeat the hobgoblin leaders and save the children. With the help of the survivors from that city we later cornered the market on chocolate in the local kingdom...)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Meanwhile, the idea of roleplaying is to play the role of a character. Nothing about roleplaying requires that you take on that role from "inside" the character. You simply take on his/her/its role. Which means you make decisions for your character. Preferably while taking into account your character's personality before deciding...but there is definitely a grey area where you are supposed to take on the role of that character but not necessarily BECOME that character.

Becoming a character is essentially method acting and not a requirement of roleplay. Acting and speaking from within the role of that character is sufficient.

Lets say you were playing yourself in an emergency exit roleplaying exercise. Would it be of any benefit if you remained at your desk and narrated how you walked, not ran, toward the closest exit and moved a safe distance from the building?

In this case becoming the character is a non-issue since you are roleplaying yourself.

 

[Imaro]

A number of years ago, I changed gaming groups, and by doing this I suddenly became able to play the characters I *wanted* to play, rather than the characters my previous DM thought I *ought* to play.

In one of the first campaigns with the new group, I suddenly ran into a conflict between the wants of me as a player and those of my character.

Excuse me for the sin of anecdoting:

We were visiting a pseudo-Aztec city, where my druid made friends with the local children, playing with them and learning their language. The city had a sacrificial pit which we investigated and slew the monsters that lived down there. Climbing up again, depleted on spells and HP, we found out that the city had been overrun by hobgoblins. We hid just under mouth the sacrificial pit, discussing what to do, when the Hobgoblins started throwing the very children my character had been playing with into the pit...

Now, this was a new group, and I did *not* want to rock the boat. Several other players were very much "optimal tactics, no rash moves, play it as chess" players, and had warned me about how other players' impulsive, chaotic moves had gotten them kicked from the group. So, my desirs as a player was very much to follow the lead of the others, stay put, and recover. But my character just did not allow me to do that... so I, low on HP and without spells, charged the Hobgoblin chieftain.

I had been playing RPGs for a decade before that, but it was the first time I really, really experienced deep immersion - and what a powerful feeling it was to me!

To me, that anecdote summarizes the difference between immersive roleplaying and "merely" constructing a narrative.

(And yes, after a nailbiting fight we *did* defeat the hobgoblin leaders and save the children. With the help of the survivors from that city we later cornered the market on chocolate in the local kingdom...)

I couldn't XP you but nice example. I have been in previous discussions with pemerton where, while not outright claiming this type of roleplaying in D&D (where one ignores the meta-game aspects of the numbers on one's sheet and plays the character as the character would react) was impossible, highly implied that it rarely if ever could happen. Maybe my group are just a passionate (or foolhardy) lot, but I've seen these types of things go down numerous times... especially when it's a villain they have grown to hate or an NPC they have taken on as one of their own.

 

[chaochou]

Now, this was a new group, and I did *not* want to rock the boat. Several other players were very much "optimal tactics, no rash moves, play it as chess" players, and had warned me about how other players' impulsive, chaotic moves had gotten them kicked from the group. So, my desirs as a player was very much to follow the lead of the others, stay put, and recover. But my character just did not allow me to do that... so I, low on HP and without spells, charged the Hobgoblin chieftain.

I had been playing RPGs for a decade before that, but it was the first time I really, really experienced deep immersion - and what a powerful feeling it was to me!

To me, that anecdote summarizes the difference between immersive roleplaying and "merely" constructing a narrative.

And that's fine. You know what type of play provides 'immersion' for you.

But what you can't say is what provides me with 'immersion'.

There seems to be a movement in roleplaying - heavily tied to actor-stance sim play - that wants to try and claim a monopoly on the immersion experience. And it's completely bogus. My friends and I can immerse just fine playing or MC-ing Apocalypse World, Diaspora or Shab-al-hiri-Roach.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Becoming a character is essentially method acting and not a requirement of roleplay. Acting and speaking from within the role of that character is sufficient.

I agree.

Lets say you were playing yourself in an emergency exit roleplaying exercise. Would it be of any benefit if you remained at your desk and narrated how you walked, not ran, toward the closest exit and moved a safe distance from the building?

*shrugs* Probably. You still go over the procedure in your mind and therefore will remember it better next time. Not that it really matters for this discussion.

In this case becoming the character is a non-issue since you are roleplaying yourself.

True. Though I'm still not sure what this has to do with what I said. I already said you don't have to become the character. Which means you can either become them or not and still be roleplaying. Narrating what they do or saying things from a first person point of view doesn't change whether one is narrating or roleplaying. You're doing both.

 

[Tuft]

And that's fine. You know what type of play provides 'immersion' for you.

But what you can't say is what provides me with 'immersion'.

Um, that is why I used the words "To me, that [...] summarizes" above.

 

[pemerton]

To me, that anecdote summarizes the difference between immersive roleplaying and "merely" constructing a narrative.

That's fine, but doesn't really address the points I mentioned to [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION].

(1) In your example, I can't tell whether you said "I charge the hobgoblin - I've got no real choice" or "My guy charges the hobgoblin - that's just the kind of guy he(?) is". Either form of words could have been used to convey the outcome of the "deep immersionist" play experience.

(2) I don't see how you were not narrating an episode in a shared fiction. Your example tells me something about the process whereby you formed the content of your narration, including the motives that underpinned it. But you conveyed all that by using words that you spoke to your friends at the table. Those words conveyed the occurence of certain events in a shared fiction. How is that not narration?

Lets say you were playing yourself in an emergency exit roleplaying exercise. Would it be of any benefit if you remained at your desk and narrated how you walked, not ran, toward the closest exit and moved a safe distance from the building?

That depends. Is the exercise a "live" one - in which case I woudn't narrate, I would get up and leave the building? Or is the exercise a "thought experiment" planning one, in which case I might narrate the steps I would have to go through, and then we all sit around the table and work out how those steps are going to play out in a real emergency with many people trying to go through them all (eg work out where the nearest fire stairs are).

To relate that to RPGing. LARPing involves a lot more than narration. You don't narrate your movements or attacks, for instance - rather, you perform them.

Table top RPGing not so much.

I have been in previous discussions with pemerton where, while not outright claiming this type of roleplaying in D&D (where one ignores the meta-game aspects of the numbers on one's sheet and plays the character as the character would react) was impossible, highly implied that it rarely if ever could happen.

I'd like to see some quotes.

I have been in discussions in which I've been told that metagame ("dissasociated") mechanics make immesive play impossible and I have posted counterexamples from my own game. So far from thinking immersion is impossible, I think (i) that it occurs, and (ii) that metagame mechanics and director stance decision-making are no special obstacle to it.

 

[Balesir]

where one ignores the meta-game aspects of the numbers on one's sheet and plays the character as the character would react

I'm confused as to how these two things can possibly be compatible. If you ignore the character attributes, how can you possibly have a clear idea "how the character would react"? Surely, the nature and personality of the character is informed by what is on the sheet, and what goes onto the sheet is informed by the nature and personality of the character, no? The lifelong pacifist and charity worker who cannot aid the poor, sick or dying but who has trained to master level with a range of weapons just isn't a very plausible character. What a person learns and what they are good at says a lot about who they are, typically, I find.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Narrating what they do or saying things from a first person point of view doesn't change whether one is narrating or roleplaying. You're doing both.

At the gaming table you may end up doing quite a bit of both (especially the DM), just not at the same time.