D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[The Firebird]

But at the table they don't change. They become more precisely specified.

The comment you were replying to says:

because the runes shouldn't change depending on who reads them, what they want them to say, or how skilled they are at reading them.

This doesn't just encompass a change from A --> B; i.e., the runes were a guacamole recipe, and now are a map. It also includes changes based on which player declares the action. i.e., if Bob reads them they become a guacamole recipe, if Alice does they become a map.

The second case, we as players all know to be the case, assuming a roll of 10+. So if Alice declares an action for her character, rolls 10+, and they become a map, we know they would have turned out differently if Bob instead declared the action for his character. (especially if they both say it beforehand. A: My character hopes it is a map. B: My character hopes it is guacamole. A: Hmm, a map is more helpful. B: Ok, have your character give it a try.)

OK. I'm not familiar with that usage of the phrase.

Now you are. Are we in agreement, then?

 

[pemerton]

Narrativist play is not hard to achieve. All the table has to do is (i) establish a moral line, and (ii) allow the players to establish and resolve conflicts that cross that line.

The minimum requirement that this places on the PCs is that they be competent, within the rules of the game, to establish and resolve conflicts. In RPGs like classic D&D, 3E or 5e, that will rule out 1st and perhaps even 2nd or 3rd level PCs. (But in 4e D&D, 1st level PCs are sufficiently competent to establish and resolve conflicts.)

When it comes to framing and resolution procedures, mechanics and principles that (i) downplay the moral stakes of a conflict, and (ii) establish a focus on details of time, position, logistics, etc, will not be ideal. This is what Eero Tuovinen is getting at when he says that

the truth of the matter is that some Simmy games are just more easily drifted towards Narrativism, while others are easier for Gamism. Sure, Fate can do Narrativism, but if you think that proves that Sim and Nar are similar, you should try playing Battletech and see how Narrativist you’ll feel yourself. The fundamental issue is that a true Sim play will never, ever care about you the person, and your self-expression; they don’t want your self-expression, they want your subjugation to this material.​

As well as pointing to the example of Battletech, this passage points to another way in which the approach to framing and resolution can impede narrativist play: if it subjugates you to the material. This is why Pendragon is better suited for simulationist than narrativist play. And why classic D&D-style GM adjudication of alignment is not well-suited to narrativist play.

But there are many RPGs, and many ways of approach those RPGs, that won't have these problems.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Why not read what has been said by one of the greatest designers of RPGs intended to support narrativist play? I quoted it upthread, but here it is again:

If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate no more.​

Out of interest what is the relevance of (c) - are we talking like healthy characters? I'm not understanding the connection here for the word fit specifically.

 

[Campbell]

Out of interest what is the relevance of (c) - are we talking like healthy characters? I'm not understanding the connection here for the word fit specifically.

It means the characters fit the situations - they have a stake in them, care about how they turn out, have some internal conflicts connected to them and are capable of having an impact on them.

A good example are the Dogs in Dogs in the Vineyard. They are capable of rooting out the sin in town, are motivated by their faith to do so, and are not sure what counts as sin or not. Your traits and initiation point to your own conflicts around sin and salvation. They are fit to have play be about the moral lines of the sins the towns go to are ravaged by.

It's fit like a puzzle piece fits. The situation would not nearly be as compelling with characters with different values, world views or who had less skin in the game.

 

[AlViking]

Narrativist play is not hard to achieve. All the table has to do is (i) establish a moral line, and (ii) allow the players to establish and resolve conflicts that cross that line.

The minimum requirement that this places on the PCs is that they be competent, within the rules of the game, to establish and resolve conflicts. In RPGs like classic D&D, 3E or 5e, that will rule out 1st and perhaps even 2nd or 3rd level PCs. (But in 4e D&D, 1st level PCs are sufficiently competent to establish and resolve conflicts.)

When it comes to framing and resolution procedures, mechanics and principles that (i) downplay the moral stakes of a conflict, and (ii) establish a focus on details of time, position, logistics, etc, will not be ideal. This is what Eero Tuovinen is getting at when he says that

the truth of the matter is that some Simmy games are just more easily drifted towards Narrativism, while others are easier for Gamism. Sure, Fate can do Narrativism, but if you think that proves that Sim and Nar are similar, you should try playing Battletech and see how Narrativist you’ll feel yourself. The fundamental issue is that a true Sim play will never, ever care about you the person, and your self-expression; they don’t want your self-expression, they want your subjugation to this material.​

As well as pointing to the example of Battletech, this passage points to another way in which the approach to framing and resolution can impede narrativist play: if it subjugates you to the material. This is why Pendragon is better suited for simulationist than narrativist play. And why classic D&D-style GM adjudication of alignment is not well-suited to narrativist play.

But there are many RPGs, and many ways of approach those RPGs, that won't have these problems.

I don't know who Eero is and don't really care but the quote is rather demeaning to anyone who doesn't play the game their way. With some groups I don't care about the character and their self-expression, with some I do. It depends on the group and what the players enjoy.

I use simulation style to describe how the player interacts with the world in which the characters exist which has little to do with challenging the ethos of the characters. If the players at the table enjoy it, I challenge their morals and beliefs on a pretty regular basis. I don't need, nor do I want, rules to do that because I don't personally care for that kind of structure. That doesn't mean that we're playing a glorified board game. If it works better for you to focus solely on a different aspect of RPGs, if you don't need or care for the simulation side of things there are games that are designed for that. Nobody gets to tell me that I never care about the goals, beliefs or desires of the characters being played.

 

[FrogReaver]

*Note: I am willing to engage with the jargon, but quoting me a definition with a bunch of not clearly defined terms is a starting point that's going to require substantial followup.

Why not read what has been said by one of the greatest designers of RPGs intended to support narrativist play? I quoted it upthread, but here it is again:

If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict​

Okay check. IMO all RPG's create rising conflict, unless 'rising conflict' is being used as technical jargon.

b) across a moral line​

I don't feel like we even define what a moral line is the same.

c) between fit characters​

As previously asked by another, what the heck is a fit character? Feels like undefined jargon. Let's define it!

d) according to the authorship of the players.​

Is this saying the rising conflict is according to the authorship of the players? Or that something else is according to the authorship of the players?

Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution.​

I feel like situation here means something really specific and jargony.

It also seems to me like any RPG play can be described as 'all situations' being a step toward a climax or resolution of a conflict.

Your rules need to provoke the players, collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate no more.​

It's not clear why this escalation must be rules prompted as opposed to that being a single method of implementation.

It's also not clear to me why a success doesn't result in descalating the conflict instead of escalating it. It seems to be taking an overly broad view of the shape of the conflict in some parts of the definition and in others to construe conflict really narrowly.

Your definition doesn't capture setting or situation-oriented narrativist play (eg HeroWars, 4e D&D, The Dying Earth, Prince Valiant).

I'm not sure how setting/situation oriented play hinges on rising conflict across a moral line.

Nor does it capture even most character-oriented narrativist pay that I'm aware of (eg in Burning Wheel, as I've already pointed out upthread, a player can rewrite a Belief or Instinct at any time; in Torchbearer 2e a player can rewrite a Belief or Instinct at the start of the session).

Sure, add rewrites are acceptable.

Whereas Vincent Baker doesn't define where the moral line comes from: it can come from the character, or the situation, or the setting.

This part doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can elaborate.

Your definition also leaves it quite possible that the revolving of play around the player-defined character aspect might not be player-authored.

Which seems to be the case for consequences in the typical success with consequence framework. I'm not sure how you count the consequences there as player authored.

For instance, a Pendragon-type RPG where the player gets to set, at PC build, the ratings of their traits, would satisfy your definition. But that game would support simulationist play better than narrativist play (as per posts I've made upthread about Pendragon).

I don't doubt you, but it's not clear to me what it's lacking from the definition given for narrativist.

I've used D&D style modules for narrativist play, based around setting or situation.

Some examples of how your 4e play meets this particular definition would be helpful.

Normally the module needs a bit of reworking, mostly to get rid of prescribed consequences or evolutions in situation that prevent the players from escalating conflict across the moral line established by the module.

I'm not getting this part at all.

Indefinitely many. "Narrativism" isn't a set of techniques. It's a type of pleasure to be found in RPGing.

Then why does it seem so many 'techniques' are included in the definition?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only reason to roll in D&D is to resolve uncertainty. If it's a high level rogue and a cheap lock, no roll. Story, pacing, "stakes" don't matter.

Doing that action is quite literally choosing pacing over realism.

Like that's the exact thing you're doing. "We know you'll succeed, forcing you to roll would be dull and boring, we're just going to skip past it and move on." That thing IS pacing!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If there is no time pressure, I generally don't ask for a check to see if a lock can be opened if it's standard quality but there are exceptions. In today's world locks are mass manufactured and most locks we encounter day to day are relatively low quality. In the past certain types of locks likely followed a very similar pattern but they were all hand made so any two locks could require different techniques. In addition not all locks use standard keyways and tumblers, there are some locks that can't be picked 4 Locks That Cannot Be Picked – 4 Unpickable Locks. I particularly like the chain key myself.

Am quite tired, but I'll check out that link later. Always cool to see new tech. Though many have promised "unpickable" locks and....been found wanting, shall we say.

In my game if the character can't get the lock opened quickly but I think it is possible (depends on how much they miss the target DC by) they have the option to continue but it will take 2d10 minutes to open the lock. If they're in a threatening area something may happen while they're working on the lock.

The only direct result of a sleight of hand to open a lock will be whether or not the lock is opened. Other things can happen while the rogue is opening the lock. Other things can happen depending on whether or not they are able to open the lock. Other things will not happen because of the the check itself.

Why need that always be the case? Sincerely. I'm dead certain you will have some rolls, some of the time, where you invoke proximate-cause type reasoning (as I've mentioned several times from an actual legal case, meaning this isn't theoretical, it is very literally a matter of law in the United States and most other nations), where we don't look at the absolute most directly physically related things.

Like, would you say that asphyxiation was the cause of the king's death, if that asphyxiation were itself caused by another person choking him to death or poisoning him? Surely you would agree that the killer caused the death--even though, by your "it must be THE SINGLE closest thing" that could not possibly be true. Just as with my previous example, of how no one could ever kill anyone else with a gun, because all they did was actuate a machine. What actually caused the death was a bullet which just happened to be flying through the air and pierced some essential part of their anatomy.

 

[AlViking]

Doing that action is quite literally choosing pacing over realism.

Like that's the exact thing you're doing. "We know you'll succeed, forcing you to roll would be dull and boring, we're just going to skip past it and move on." That thing IS pacing!

There would be no point to rolling if it's always going to succeed. If the outcome of a declared action is uncertain I ask for a roll and pacing is not taken into consideration.

 

[AlViking]

Am quite tired, but I'll check out that link later. Always cool to see new tech. Though many have promised "unpickable" locks and....been found wanting, shall we say.


Why need that always be the case? Sincerely. I'm dead certain you will have some rolls, some of the time, where you invoke proximate-cause type reasoning (as I've mentioned several times from an actual legal case, meaning this isn't theoretical, it is very literally a matter of law in the United States and most other nations), where we don't look at the absolute most directly physically related things.

Like, would you say that asphyxiation was the cause of the king's death, if that asphyxiation were itself caused by another person choking him to death or poisoning him? Surely you would agree that the killer caused the death--even though, by your "it must be THE SINGLE closest thing" that could not possibly be true. Just as with my previous example, of how no one could ever kill anyone else with a gun, because all they did was actuate a machine. What actually caused the death was a bullet which just happened to be flying through the air and pierced some essential part of their anatomy.

More false equivalences. As far as being a referee in a game, the only thing I care about for any specific declared action is whether the declared action is successful or not. I do not care about what the success or failure will cause.

It's the same as if the character attacks the evil cultist and attempts to kill them before they finish the ritual of doom. I am not going to change whether or not the character hits, how much damage they do, how many hit points the cultist has left based on what will happen if the ritual will be completed if the cultist survives. Stopping or not stopping the cultists could have a great deal of impact but the specified action is still resolved independent of the results.