The Death of Simulation

[marune]

I think the key is that the player invokes the character traits and not the GM so that it allows the player narrative control.

Yeah, the answer was in the question

 

[pemerton]

Would you say that character traits from Burning Wheel are narravisit-destroying ?

I'd say no because their specific sanctioned (rewarded) usage.

(When you invoke them in a way to put you in trouble, you are rewarded by a metagame ressource)

I had in mind more the HERO system type mechanics, where a personality disadvantage gives bonus points but then dictates how the character is to be played. Another example (which I think you mentioned upthread) is the requirement that Paladins be LG and adhere to a Code - in 1st ed AD&D, especially, this is meant to act as a balancing mechanicism, and again it dictates how the character is to be played.

A system in which character traits (or relationships, or whatever) generate opportunities for protagonism (eg by giving metagame resources anytime the system or the GM invokes them so as to generate adversity for the PC) I wouldn't characterise as narrativist-destroying.

A further issue would be whether or not the player has the power to change these aspects of the character through play (eg TRoS spiritual attributes): if not, then the narrativistic focus of play is necessarily more thematically confined, I think.

Does any of that make sense?

 

[marune]

Does any of that make sense?

Of course, the goal was to make everyone around understand it

The 2E paladin is a narrativist nigthmare IMHO.

 

[apoptosis]

Have a look at the edit to my post and see if that helps any.

Basically I agree with the first clause of your second sentence quoted above (though I don't think the 4e designers are entirely oblivious to narrativist concerns - W&M seems to me to have some awareness of this, and Chris Sims has almost expressly canvassed narrativist concerns on the Healing thread). But I'm more interested in what can be done with a game, than simply what the designers think can be done with it.

From memory, Ron Edwards in one of his essays notes that some designs that support gamism can also support narrativism, because both require that the players have a degree of control over the game that simulationism tends to preclude. Assuming my memory is correct, then I am agreeing with him. If my memory is faulty, then he should have said this!

Still thinking it through.

I am having a hard time thinking that combat options are narrativist and not gamist even though they give the player more control.

The parrying/dodge choices in RM I really dont see as narrativist at all, more of a mixture of sim/gam.

My feeling is that narrativist mechanics should be addressing WHY they are in the combat. Or should allow the player to determine what are the stakes of the combat (though that is also merging narrativism and conflict-resolution)

I am on board with the Second Wind mechanic aiding narrativism, if it allows you to raise the stakes of the conflict. I am not quite sure how Second Wind works though.

Now the metaphor of combat is interesting but does seem to be in disagreement with maybe the earlier ideas that the themes should not be so concrete before the game begins (meaning that it is out of control of the players). Given that though, I am trying to think in looser terms to see if i can align it with your theory. I think though that the choice of combat options should have some meaning to the character besides just winning the combat.

In this manner i feel that that the dropping of alignment is better at not being "narrative"-destroying.

More options in character creation seem to be much more gamist or simulationist unless they are directed to some theme or goal of the character.

I am not giving up on your theory, but it is not coming together for me yet. I will agree that it is less "narrativist"-destroying than earlier versions. Though possibly some of the kits from 2E had some advantages in narrativism if you think that they choice of kits (the ones that were more about the characters history and background) impacted choice of future actions. But this last idea is mostly just armchar theorizing.

 

[pemerton]

Still thinking it through.

I am having a hard time thinking that combat options are narrativist and not gamist even though they give the player more control.

The parrying/dodge choices in RM I really dont see as narrativist at all, more of a mixture of sim/gam.

I'll have another go, starting with the RM combat rules.

Of course these can be interpreted in a Sim way. It can also be interpreted in a Gamist way, as RM combat can be highly competitive both between players (who try to mathematically optimise their performance) and in group play against the GM's monsters/NPCs - and correct parry/dodge choices becomes very important here. Under both interpretations, I would want to stress the difference from RQ, which has Attack and Parry as different skills, and therefore allows no gamism (or narrativism) because there is no meaningful choice to be made - just use your best numbers (more on this below).

The RM mechanic's contribution to narrativism is this: a player is both empowered and obliged to split between attack and defence every round, and by so doing is able to impose a thematic significance on a combat (by dragging it out, by approaching it in a risky fashion, by relying on allies - ganging up can be very vicious in RM because of the way parrying multiple foes is handled). There is a marked contrast with RQ (my mainstay purist-for-system comparitor): RQ contains risky fights, safe fights, collaboration with allies, etc, but all this is determined by the GM's choice of adversary. RQ has no mechanic which allows the player to make choices that determine whether a combat is safe or risky, or one in which co-operation is necessary or redundant. D&D 3E has a few such mechanics (eg the Combat Expertise feat) but they have nothing like the same scope or ubiquity as OB vs parry in RM.

Now, as I cheerfully concede the range of thematic payoff that can emerge from this sort of play is narrow: but honour, courage, loyalty and so on are there, and more themes can be present also if the combat is allowed to be interpreted at all metaphorically (eg the player of a Paladin making meanignful mechanical decisions in relation to a combat with a demon, which therefore determine the shape of the ensuing combat, is easily seen as addressing at least simple moral or religious themes).

I will also cheefully concede that not all RM combat has the potential I describe above. It is mostly a feature of mid-to-high level play, in which PC skill numbers relative to typical adversary skill numbers are sufficiently high that the players have a range of meaningful choices to make of the sort I am trying to describe. Once you get to a situation where (for example) the only realistic option is to parry all out and hope for an open-ended high roll, narrativism by way of combat choice is gone.

I am on board with the Second Wind mechanic aiding narrativism, if it allows you to raise the stakes of the conflict. I am not quite sure how Second Wind works though.

Again, only in certain circumstances or contexts, but I suspect ones that will come up fairly often. As I understand it, Second Wind will be a swift action (ie a free action, but one which precludes taking another such action in the same turn), able to be taken only when bloodied, which restores (half?) one's hit points taken.

Thus, prior to using one's Second Wind one has a strong buffer against PC death. Once it's taken, PC death is definitely put on the table. But equally, choosing to forego using Second Wind when one could, in order to perform some other swift action is a way of putting death on the table. Of course this all feeds into gamist goodness, but (similarly to what I was trying to explain about RM's combat mechanics) I think it also has the potential to support a type of (again, thematically somewhat narrow) narrativism via meaningful choices which constitute a statement, by the player, about thematically important matters such as courage, loyalty, honour, sacrifice, selfishness (do I Second Wind, or use a swift action that would aid my ally?), etc. Core 3E really has no mechanics that support this sort of play.

Now the metaphor of combat is interesting but does seem to be in disagreement with maybe the earlier ideas that the themes should not be so concrete before the game begins (meaning that it is out of control of the players).

Well, most RPGs introduce a finite set of themes to be explored (eg The Dying Earth isn't really going to explore the same themes as HeroQuest, is it? It's far more whimsical).

Perhaps we're not using "theme" in exactly the same way, but it seems to me that as long as the game leaves it up to the players how they resolve the themes, or leaves them free to make their own statements bout those themes in the course of play, we're talking about (again, perhaps "low concept") narrativist play.

I think though that the choice of combat options should have some meaning to the character besides just winning the combat.

<snip upwards>

My feeling is that narrativist mechanics should be addressing WHY they are in the combat. Or should allow the player to determine what are the stakes of the combat (though that is also merging narrativism and conflict-resolution)

I agree with your first sentence, and have tried to explain how I think this is the case. As to the second sentence, I think in a game like D&D there isn't really a WHY to combat, anymore than there is a WHY to the X-Men getting into a punchup every issue. Combat is the default situation, if you like (I'm simplifying a little bit, because as my earlier post noted I think social challenges might be an important addition to 4e and its narrativist potential - in this case conflict is inevitable, but part of the WHY might be the choice of social challenge rather than combat challenge - but bear with me).

The narrativist play therefore has to take place within a presupposition of combat (just as, in The Dying Earth, it takes place within a presupposition of wandering from wierd township to wierd township). The thematic content has to emerge within the context of the combat - ie what answer to the thematic questions is the player able to give by the way they resolve the combat? Hence the need for multiple approaches to combat resolution, by way of sophisticated mechanics.

In this manner i feel that that the dropping of alignment is better at not being "narrative"-destroying.

In terms of D&D, I see this as a really big step. Given that the sort of themes I think can be put into play in the game are themes like courage, loyalty, etc, alignment is completely fatal to narrativist play in respect of them, because it already answers all the interesting questions.

possibly some of the kits from 2E had some advantages in narrativism if you think that they choice of kits (the ones that were more about the characters history and background) impacted choice of future actions. But this last idea is mostly just armchar theorizing.

I'm a bit of a kit skeptic, because in many cases they seemed to either give HERO/Paladin style personality limitations, and/or licence GM use of force against the character (or at least this was how I tended to experience them). I can see how they could be used to provide a built-in bang, though - do you know if many 2nd ed players/GMs used them in that way?

More options in character creation seem to be much more gamist or simulationist unless they are directed to some theme or goal of the character.

Which they can be, if what those options do is give the player the tools to offer different sorts of thematic answers to questions posed in combat. Not having seen the 4e power suites yet, I can't judge - but if at character build you get to choose between a power that only works when flanking (eg some sort of sneak attack variant), and a power that only works when you are in melee with a foe but no ally is likewise (eg a pointblank cone that would scorch your allies were they there), then character creation is empowering the player to make choices which will then be relevant to addressing such thematic questions as whether self-reliance (and perhaps, ultimately, selfishness) and heroism are consistent or at odds.

I am not giving up on your theory, but it is not coming together for me yet.

If none of the above helps, maybe it's just a bad theory. But I must confess, the more I try to explain it the more my belief in it is being reinforced, because it does gel with experiences I have had in my own gaming.

There's also the question of whether 4e will really satisfy the sorts of design constraints my theory imposes (eg what will the final power suites look like?). Reading W&M made me midlly optimistic, as have some remarks from some of the designers, but I can't say anything stronger than that.

 

[marune]

nice theory

Even if I may begin to acknowledge some part of it, there is a fundamental issue here.

The reward loop won't support narrativist play : XP is given for overcoming challenges regardless of the "theme choices". If the theme make you don't use ranged power because they are for cowards and you lose the challenge, you won't level up (and maybe die).

However, gaining levels = more power choices, so more possible answers in your "tell me how do you fight and I'll tell you who you are" theory. (Take that last one with a grain of salt).

 

[pemerton]

Even if I may begin to acknowledge some part of it, there is a fundamental issue here.

The reward loop won't support narrativist play : XP is given for overcoming challenges regardless of the "theme choices".

I think you're partially right about the XP issue - but this is where the Quest rules may come in, as they do provide an alternative XP mechanic. I think it will be very interesting to see what is said in the DMG about who gets to determine what counts as a Quest (players, GM or both?). But Quests will still link to overcoming challenges, which leaves your main issue of the disconnect between rewards and thematic choices untouched:

If the theme make you don't use ranged power because they are for cowards and you lose the challenge, you won't level up (and maybe die).

I don't know that you're fully right, because if (as the designers have suggested) all builds are equally viable then it may be that not using ranged powers won't necessarily inhibit one's ability to overcome the challenge (provided that you do effectively use the powers you do have - I never denied that my theory draws only a pretty thin line between narrativism and gamism).

However, gaining levels = more power choices, so more possible answers in your "tell me how do you fight and I'll tell you who you are" theory. (Take that last one with a grain of salt).

I think you're suggesting this as something consistent with my theory - assuming that is so, I'm in full agreement. In the sort of play I'm trying to describe highly metagamed character build is a big part of it. The new magic item rules also fit in here (magic items being a core part of D&D character build) as the end of the "Big 6" leaves much more room for players to use magic item choices as thematic statements.

I should finish by adding - part of why I'm interested in my theory (besides intellectual vanity) is that where D&D goes, so goes the bulk of the RPG world (players, that is, not necessarily designers). If D&D finally offers the potential for narrativist play (either as written, or with easily undertaken drfit), I think this could have a big impact on the future of RPGing.

 

[Lanefan]

Even if I may begin to acknowledge some part of it, there is a fundamental issue here.

The reward loop won't support narrativist play : XP is given for overcoming challenges regardless of the "theme choices". If the theme make you don't use ranged power because they are for cowards and you lose the challenge, you won't level up (and maybe die).

However, gaining levels = more power choices, so more possible answers in your "tell me how do you fight and I'll tell you who you are" theory. (Take that last one with a grain of salt).

Well, that's where the DM needs to tweak the reward loop, as you call it. If the challenge requires you to use ranged power but you choose instead to hold your theme and find another way around (stealth, withdrawal, diplomacy, whatever) then ExP should still be awarded for the challenge. Also, keep in mind that not every challenge is going to fit in with everyone's theme; sometimes your theme will take precedence, leading you to essentially sit that one out and lose out on some ExP - so be it, and it'll all balance out in the end.

Lanefan

 

[marune]

I think you're partially right about the XP issue - but this is where the Quest rules may come in, as they do provide an alternative XP mechanic. I think it will be very interesting to see what is said in the DMG about who gets to determine what counts as a Quest (players, GM or both?). But Quests will still link to overcoming challenges, which leaves your main issue of the disconnect between rewards and thematic choices untouched:

I don't know that you're fully right, because if (as the designers have suggested) all builds are equally viable then it may be that not using ranged powers won't necessarily inhibit one's ability to overcome the challenge (provided that you do effectively use the powers you do have - I never denied that my theory draws only a pretty thin line between narrativism and gamism).

Quest/Goal rewards and details about ranged weapons are irrelevant, the problem is still there. If you make decisions not according to the best strategy/guts decision available but according to the theme you want to develop, you are penalyzing yourself vs the challenge to overcome. Doing so, your chance to succeed at the quest/goal are reduced, the next level is further away, etc.

I think you're suggesting this as something consistent with my theory - assuming that is so, I'm in full agreement. In the sort of play I'm trying to describe highly metagamed character build is a big part of it. The new magic item rules also fit in here (magic items being a core part of D&D character build) as the end of the "Big 6" leaves much more room for players to use magic item choices as thematic statements.

I should finish by adding - part of why I'm interested in my theory (besides intellectual vanity) is that where D&D goes, so goes the bulk of the RPG world (players, that is, not necessarily designers). If D&D finally offers the potential for narrativist play (either as written, or with easily undertaken drfit), I think this could have a big impact on the future of RPGing.

I understand your dream to have a narratavist layer on top of D&D gamist character progression / combat rules, I had the same some years ago.

 

[marune]

Well, that's where the DM needs to tweak the reward loop, as you call it. If the challenge requires you to use ranged power but you choose instead to hold your theme and find another way around (stealth, withdrawal, diplomacy, whatever) then ExP should still be awarded for the challenge. Also, keep in mind that not every challenge is going to fit in with everyone's theme; sometimes your theme will take precedence, leading you to essentially sit that one out and lose out on some ExP - so be it, and it'll all balance out in the end.

Lanefan

The reward loop idea is simple : reward players when their actions are helping them reach the goal of the game and be sure that the reward will help them pursue that goal further.

D&D : you get XP when overcoming challenges, with XP you get levels that make you able to overcome bigger challenges up to the final ones (the campaign finale).

That is one of the most basic assumption of D&D since it's beginning, not a easy thing to change.