Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6619783" data-attributes="member: 42582">You hardcore narrativists never have much sympathy for we humble vanilla narrativists!I think you're right that resolution mechanics would need to be robust, but (given my vanilla proclivities) I don't think the mechanics in question have to involve the sort of reward-for-theme you describe with Inspiration (though nor would your suggestion do any harm!). I'm envisaging a game in which the GM throws out challenge that raise the whole question of wellbeing in connection to social order or its absence, and the players (via their PCs) make action declarations whose resolution pushes things one way or another, both towards or away from wellbeing, and with or without respect for social order.The main mechanics that D&D has tended to lack, or be a bit wobbly on, that would be needed, are social mechanics. Though if you were doing this in 1st ed AD&D you could use the reaction and loyalty system, which is surprisingly detailed, but has the oddity that chances of player success are divorced from PC level (unlike combat and at least those parts of the exporation system that hang of spells and thieves' skills).As far as D&D alignment mechanics are concerned, in the sort of game I'm envisaging they all have to be dropped. The mechanics, and even moreso the cosmology, and even moreso the cosmology as read through the lens of Planescape, tend to assume that both law and chaos are compatible with good (and so both Olympus and the Seven Heavens are equally good; and both a dwarf and an elf will register to Detect Good; etc), and hence to assume away the very conflict that I am positing as the focus of the game.A unilateral GM power to change PC alignments based on the players' play of their characters would also be at odds with a narrativist game.When I talk about using 9-point alignment I'm certainly talking about the descriptions, not the traditional mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification