Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4020249" data-attributes="member: 42582">Again, I would want to point out that the key rights-holders in narrativistic play are not the PCs, but the players. Their PCs are simply one element of the gameworld that we can imagine the players  having the power to affect. Their PCs also provide a conduit through which they can affect other parts of the gameworld. But the players might also have the power to affect parts of the gameworld that are neither their PCs, nor causallly connected in the gameworld to their PCs. Apoptosis has given an example of the players having the ability to spend Plot Points (or whatever you want to call them) in order to (for example) decide that a certain sort of NPC lives in a particular example. Another would be the ability of the players to make it the case that incriminating evidence exists in a safe, by deciding to have their PCs look for such evidence in the safe, and then having their PCs succeed in the ensuing conflict (this example was given upthread, I think, in relation to conflict resolution mechanics).Not in the sort of simulationism you are describing, which seems roughly to be what Ron Edwards calls "purist for system", and what some others call "sandbox play". But a lot of high-concept simulationism (eg CoC, or any D&D play in which alignment figures prominently) can have strong railroading elements (eg failed San checks in CoC, or alignment imperatives in D&D).As Skeptic's reply implies, "narrativism" is a bit of an unhappy term. But the idea is not that there is a single narrator, but rather that the players as well as the GM have narrative control (ie can determine what happens in the gameworld).Most mainstream RPGs allow players to do this only in very special cases. Thus, most allow the players to choose their profession (there are some exceptions even to this, like RQ, classic Traveller, and arguably D&D rolling 3d6 6 times in order). But once they have built their characters, the players have no other power to change the gameworld except by declaring actions for their PCs, and using the action resolution mechanics (which are understood as modelling the ingame reality), and/or relying on GM fiat, to resolve those actions. So most of the time ingame outcomes are dictated by the dice rolls &/or GM adjudication. The players can't simply declare that the gameworld is a certain way. Furthermore, in many games the players do not even have an unfettered right to decide what their PCs think or intend (eg my PC has the "Sullen" disadvantage, so I have to RP her in that way or else I'll lose XP).Games designed to support narrativist play tryto get rid of mechanics that limit the players' narrative control (this would mean getting rid of personality trait mechanics, alignment mechanics etc), and also to introduce mechanics that enhance that control. One common one is Fate Point mechanics, which in various ways allow players to override dice rolls or change the results of dice rolls. Another different narrativist mechanic is one suggested by the 4e designers in a sidebar on p 20 of W&M: if the players go to one of the PoL, then unless they stick their nose into someone's dirty business they won't get attacked. A gameworld that follows this logic is one in which the players have a limited power to choose when their PCs are exposed to adversity, as they can avoid that risk by having their PCs go to a PoL. This contrasts with more traditional D&D, which assumes that the GM has a prerogative to start an encounter with the PCs at any time.(There is a thread on DM-proofing 4th edition where I am arguing that 4e has a lot of features that seem likely to increase players' narrative control - for me this is an attractive feature of 4e, but I think it is part of what is making some others, like Reynard for example, more doubtful about it.)What you are describing is not narrativism, because so far from being play aimed at giving the players narrative control, it seems to have deprived them of any. It sounds to me like poorly-executed high-concept simulationism.I'm happy with the definition. And I agree railroading doesn't really make sense. But if one has to locate it in the GNS framework it can only count as simulationist, with the game mechanics being drama and the GM being empowered to override any counter-drama with his or her own.Not a fun playstyle, but quite a few 2nd ed AD&D modules went pretty close to it, if not all the way. And many more RPGs encourage it, by telling the GM to override the action-resolution mechanics if necessary to keep the story on the rails.</blockquote>

Verification