Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="imurphy943" data-source="post: 5832757" data-attributes="member: 6672709">The general assumption is that old-school gamers are entirely Gamist and Simulationist in the GNS typology, but I think that there is definitely something to be gained by injecting a bit of Narrativism into the game. Simulationism teaches that people like to believe the game, and that in order for this to happen the game must be internally consistent. Gamism teaches that people like to do cool things in the game, and that in order for this to happen, you must sometimes bend the laws of virtual physics. Narrativism teaches that people like be cool people in the game. What’s wrong with that? The POV is that in order for this to happen, you have to strain the suspension of disbelief (wouldn’t a normal person just die?), or make it less like a game by having it follow a predictable pattern (I’m betting the kindly priest did it. Again?). But this doesn’t have to be true. Narrativism gets a bad rep because so many bad modules and worse DMs try to force it on the game, which always ends up feeling flat because it doesn’t evolve based on who the players are or what they want. A module could be anti-Gamist or anti-Simulationist, but it’s hard to shove a philosophy into a module. Narrativism is also largely assumed to imply letting the PCs live because it wouldn’t be dramatic for them to die now. This also doesn’t have to be the case. Every time something happens, it makes a story. If somebody dies an ignoble death, it’s not an unsatisfying ending- protagonists don’t have unsatisfying endings! He was just a red shirt! If a TPK, they’re the people who die in the first act to demonstrate how tough the monsters are. Narrativism is largely about creating tension, which is exactly what we’re trying to do with tough-love DMing. As I see it, if a character stops to fight the man who cut off his hand, in spite of all reason, he’s going to die. And any old-school player ought to be able to judge a fight and know that usually, the best thing to do is run away and slip poison into his drink later. If he does make that choice, though, think about it- how much dramatic tension would a simple +1 to hit for that encounter add? I’m thinking a lot.  And if he was too stupid to judge the situation before engaging, he’s going to die anyway. This seems extremely similar to the concept of heroism in real life. You only do it if you are an idiot, OR if you believe that you will be rewarded after death. In this case, a player is risking everything for virtual revenge on a virtual antagonist, but it is still virtual everything that is being risked.A simple +1 to hit gives an affirmation that somebody thinks that what he is doing is awesome, and creates what is almost an obligation to follow through with his foolish decision.  If he backs down, the knowledge that the DM thought it was cool enough to give a bonus to, however slight, will cause a deep regret if he chickens out, and transform a foolish death to a noble death if die he does. I don’t think that this clashes with old-school philosophy; it can be done on any system, it puts an emphasis on player choice, and it doesn’t really have much effect on the outcome. It definitely doesn’t clash with Gamism or Simulationism, either.  It inspires players to care about what happens and to take the risk to do cool things- it doesn’t matter that much if you die, it’s just a game. Try that simple +1 the next couple times someone does something dramatic, and see how long it takes your players to become just a little bit more awesome than before.</blockquote>

Verification