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

[FrogReaver]

Narrativist play is not hard to achieve. All the table has to do is (i) establish a moral line,

Okay. How does the table establish a moral line? Even a typical method would be acceptable here.

and (ii) allow the players to establish and resolve conflicts that cross that line.

Okay so in the runes example, what was the player established moral line, what was the conflict, how was that conflict established and what was the resolution of that conflict? It's been a while since I've read the original example, so if those details were there I apologize. I don't think they were though.

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.)

That seems like an arbitrary cut off point? It's not clear why 1st level D&D PC's (excluding 4e) aren't competent and able 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.​

This seems to focus on techniques and ruling out quite a few that aren't inherently contradictory with the definition.

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.

Narrativist gm and player principles also subject themselves to the material - they just leave open alot of material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except in combat? When everything - the time sequence of actions ("stop motion" initiative), the nature and consequences of actions (what is an "attack"? what is a "hit" or a "miss" (eg are some "misses" really "hits" that just fail to penetrate or hurt through armour)? what is damage? where are the characters (whose space is measured in 5' squares)? etc).

Some of us who enjoy playing RPGs where these things are not abstracted away find it odd to read advocates of standard D&D play denouncing abstraction!

Combat is abstracted differently in different games. I'm not especially happy with all those points of abstraction in D&D's combat, but its the system my players are familiar with and I like it alright, for the most part. As I've said many times, abstractions and gamisms are done for practical reasons at the table. One of those reasons is the comfort of the players I have. I use a variety of D&D 5e, combined with houserules, that is more granular than the official game because I want to get more sim out of my game while also leaving it close enough for comfort to the game my players want to play. I say this a lot too.

Please stop calling me a hypocrite. It's insulting. You want to play your very different game from mine? By all means. All I said is that I prefer to abstract very little, and that's all I meant. I often have to abstract more.

 

[FrogReaver]

So right now I’m of the opinion that either my d&d living world sandbox play is very nearly narrativist or that my blades in the dark play was very simulationist.

I look at my blades in the dark play, there wasn’t any strong moral lines, the players were in a gang doing whatever they wanted while trying to advance the gangs power and influence.

The mechanics ensured that during scores there were often success with consequences escalating the conflict in the score, but it wasn’t usually across a moral line and it wasn’t any kind of escalating conflict that would have been impossible with solid prep. Outside of Scores it was much more Freeform and unfocused, meaning conflicts didn’t usually play out to resolution before the players began another score.

Then as to player authored, the players would choose what scores to go and and what to do in downtime, but very little else about a particular score was player authored, which is also very similar to living world sandbox play.

Now it’s certainly possible we didnt follow all the principles appropriately, but that was the experience.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That seems like an arbitrary cut off point? It's not clear why 1st level D&D PC's (excluding 4e) aren't competent and able to establish and resolve conflicts.

I think it maybe because the math of 4e is fairly consistent across all its levels.
Earlier editions had a different world outlook, your level 1 character was NOT that competent across the board.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it maybe because the math of 4e is fairly consistent across all its levels.
Earlier editions had a different world outlook, your level 1 character was NOT that competent across the board.

I don’t know what that has to do with them not being competent or their ability to establish and resolve conflicts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it maybe because the math of 4e is fairly consistent across all its levels.
Earlier editions had a different world outlook, your level 1 character was NOT that competent across the board.

Go back far enough and you could question whether they were competent at all. OD&D MUs, clerics and thieves were often of really questionable value at first level.

 

[FrogReaver]

Go back far enough and you could question whether they were competent at all. OD&D MUs, clerics and thieves were often of really questionable value at first level.

Saying Fighter is better doesn't mean the others are incompetent?

 

[The Firebird]

I don’t know what that has to do with them not being competent or their ability to establish and resolve conflicts.

They clearly are effective enough for the many low level modules, so I'm also confused by the criteria. @Campbell's take on fit, as in "sufficiently connected to the narrative the game is trying to create", seems better.

 

[FrogReaver]

They clearly are effective enough for the many low level modules, so I'm also confused by the criteria. @Campbell's take on fit, as in "sufficiently connected to the narrative the game is trying to create", seems better.

I like that better, but sufficient connection seems quite subjective (unless we are also going to define what is and isnt sufficient). And I also thought the whole point was that story now games don’t try and create narratives which seems to be in conflict with that meaning.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Saying Fighter is better doesn't mean the others are incompetent?

To be honest, even the OD&D's FM was only marginally competent; too easily killed by one hit from even the monsters you expected at the bottom end there, and this was the guy you expected to fend off things from everyone else. He wasn't even automatically that good in AC given the variance in starting money.\

He only looked good in comparison to the class with terrible hit points and weak skills (the thief), or the ones with few spells (the MU) or none (the cleric, who at first level might have been a substandard fighter with some additional function if undead showed up).