"Narrative Options" mechanical?

[Majoru Oakheart]

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

I'm going to disagree. You are using First or Third Person Narrative in order to roleplay your character. We've established that roleplaying is when you decide what your character does. Narrative is when you describe something. When you describe what your character does, you are both roleplaying and narrating.

 

[Imaro]

Any action a character takes is a result of player choice. The player may be attempting to play a consistent character, but it still comes down to what the player chooses to do. These actions can be justified however the player wants, but it's still a choice made by the player. A player can freely say, "It's what my character would do," and they would be entirely correct. It's still a choice by the player. Immersive roleplaying is simply agreeing that "it's what my character would do," is the only acceptable justification for the choices the player makes. It's nothing more than that. It's also no different than agreeing that HP is the only justification for the choices the player makes. They're the same thing, an explanation for why a player chose any particular action for their character. None of these things provide any insight into whether the player has any narrative influence, only that they are involved in the narrative as established by the DM.

So why again are we on this tangent?

You missed the point, it's not about player choice...

 

[sheadunne]

You missed the point, it's not about player choice...

I got the point. I just disagree.

 

[Imaro]

I got the point. I just disagree.

Disagree with what?? You're discussing something totally different...

 

[sheadunne]

Disagree with what?? You're discussing something totally different...

I'm discussing the same thing. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether someone is making decisions based on meta game or in game knowledge because it's still a player making a choice on what justification they're using to make character decisions. It's only relevant to which method the group as a whole is using to justify character actions.

If a player is saying they're doing what their character would do based on some character concept (I'm going to ignore my meta data on my character sheet and make a decision based on how i feel my character would act) but the rest of the group is making decisions based on survivability odds of remaining HP, there's a conflict of justification, not on narration, since all player narration is a result of player choice and the method of justification doesn't change whether an action is narrative or not. It only makes an impact on group dynamics, which was what tuft's post was about whether or not that was the intention.

His decision to choose to have his character act a certain way was both informed by meta game components, knowing his character had low HP and by what he felt was the logical action for the character. He chose to ignore the meta game components, which was the groups method for justification of character action, and focus on gut feeling. Just because a player chooses not to place importance on a piece of information he is aware of does not negate it from the decision making process, it simply ranks lower on the priority list. It was still a factor.

Now to tie it back to the purpose of the thread, otherwise the purpose of the discussion is not important to the overall theme of the thread; It doesn't matter. Narration is still happening. It doesn't influence the narrative any more than any other justification for character action.

 

[Imaro]

I'm discussing the same thing. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether someone is making decisions based on meta game or in game knowledge because it's still a player making a choice on what justification they're using to make character decisions. It's only relevant to which method the group as a whole is using to justify character actions.

We're not discussing whether it matters or not... and as far as our discussion being a tangent that isn't important to the thread, first...you sure have contributed quite the word count to your own tangent that doesn't have anything to do with the thread. Second... all threads go off on tangents if you don't want to talk about it cool, ignore it but don't try to contribute multiple paragraphs about it while simultaneously admonishing others for going off on a tangent.

 

[sheadunne]

We're not discussing whether it matters or not... and as far as our discussion being a tangent that isn't important to the thread, first...you sure have contributed quite the word count to your own tangent that doesn't have anything to do with the thread. Second... all threads go off on tangents if you don't want to talk about it cool, ignore it but don't try to contribute multiple paragraphs about it while simultaneously admonishing others for going off on a tangent.

I'm not sure why you're choosing to make this personal, since we're discussing ideas. I never said it was a tangent, I was saying that in order to further the discussion of narrative I needed to tie my post back into it. After all, isn't that what we're here to discuss and why the sub-topic got started? Since the entire sub topic spawned from a statement about whether describing actions in 1st person or 3rd person counted as narration and I was responding to that sub topic (as I assume others were as well), player choice in which method to use is irrelevant to whether narration is happening or not. My argument was that the voice of the action didn't matter to that narrative. I was not responding to any particular person's post in my original post because it was a general reply and not to any particular person's post.

 

[pemerton]

Again, I disagree... If I am playing a cowardly character, and choose to play him in a consistent way then the number of hit points on my sheet has very little to do with his "nerve"

OK, but then that would not be adopting the idea that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] put forward. What I said was that if you adopt that idea (ie on Balesir's suggested take on hp), then you can't disregard hp numbers in playing your PC. (Anymore than, presumably, you can disregard attribute scores.)

I think you are totally disregarding context and characterization here. You are taking a single incident of the characters behavior with low hit points instead of looking at the behavior patterns of the character.

I think you have misunderstood my post.

I am pointing out that a player can play his/her PC as a coward, or a happy-go-lucky fool, but not be a cowardly or happy-go-lucky player. Ie there need be no particularly tight correlation between player pesonality and PC personality.

Nor is there any particularly gith correlation between player personality and stance. A player can play resolutely in pawn stance (think a certain sort of hardcore wargamer) or play flippantly in actor stance (think of the thespian player who is always ready to pick up the new role if the current one comes to an end).

 

[MJS]

Through Death's Eyes (Fighter)
When you go into battle, roll + WIS. On a 10+ name someone who will live and someone who will die. On a 7-9 name someone who will live or someone who will die. Name only NPCs, not player characters. The GM will make it happen if even remotely possible. On a 6- you forsee your own death and take -1 ongoing for the battle.

Wealth and Taste (Thief)
When you make a show of flashing around your most valuable possession, choose someone present. They will do anything they can to obtain your item or one like it.

Two examples which support both the player describing their actions and mechanics which provide narrative options.

Sorry for the Necro-quoting. I moved, lacked interwebs for a good while.
I'd support a thief trying to provoke a theft of their valuable possession. From there, the DM rolls a reaction die, and goes from there. Any character can do this however, no need to be a thief, and no need to make it a special feat, and again, you have to describe what you're doing - thats where "narrative option" comes in. The thief will probably also attract attention he/she didn't intend, tis the nature of what they are attempting.
Then, the fighter example....no, just no. Fighter players need to be imaginative, not hide behind spell powers their class shouldn't have. And again, no description. How about I point my sword at the Chieftain, and declare the spirits say he will die this day? The DM can improv an effect, if any, from there. Probably more of an intimidation situation, but you don't need Intimidation as a feat. Just do it.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=6747144]MJS[/MENTION]

So if its all DM interpretation of narrative (which is what you get without mechanical support) why does the fighter have to roll to hit or indeed the DM to damage him in return, or the rogue to pick a lock or avoid the consequences of triggering a trap?

Whether eloquent or not ("I challenge the scoundrel and let him know that on this day he will be held accountable for his actions through the justice of a blade that has never been defeated in combat. I hold aloft my blade and him see its brightness and its sharpness" or "I hit him with my sword") is still narrative, resolution, outcome/consequence.

For many players, they want control over the outcome and mechanical interaction with the resolution (as opposed to DM fiat), or put it another way they tell that part of the story.

Re using imagination, this mechanical approach again and again creates more creative interaction (and places the burden to do so on he player) than relying on table arbitration, it is not a magic card power tap that you worry it is.