pawsplay
Hero
Again, the word "narrate" as you use it here is horribly ambiguous with double meaning, most of which are inappropriate to discussing RPGs. I am not "narrating" my PC. I am roleplaying it. I may describe how I behave, but it's better if I actually behave that way.
But we don't "see" the action until you've described it. And you may try to describe something that doesn't work. For instance, you might try to describe an action that is not logically possible because you didn't understand what they characters were doing or where people were standing. So you propose a narration.
Actually making the decision of what happens is exactly as you describe it. You make a decision and just do it. But the way you introduce this action into the game world is to narrate it. I don't say describe because that's so general. A to-hit roll roll "describes" an attack but it doesnt mean anything to someone unfamiliar with the game system. But if we narrate the result, it's intelligible to essentially anyone. To narrate is indeed "to tell a story" but I am definitely not talking about the GM telling a story of fixed events or future events. The story we are telling is of the actions that have just been resolved and other kinds of decisions. If a four year old walks into the room and says, "There is a dog outside," that's a description but nothing happens. But if a novelist says, "The weather became cooler," the state of the weather has changed. "I attack with my axe," is that kind of narration; if the action is possible, it results in changes.
Playing an RPG is, in effect, telling a story, but the process is different than in a novel. You are correct, RPGs are not just spinning a tale. But the players are not simply sitting around, imagining a journey in the imaginary world. They have to share their experiences with each other. Only when the decisions they make and the consequences of decisions are described, and those descriptions are accepted by everyone, does the game really move forward.
But we don't "see" the action until you've described it. And you may try to describe something that doesn't work. For instance, you might try to describe an action that is not logically possible because you didn't understand what they characters were doing or where people were standing. So you propose a narration.
Actually making the decision of what happens is exactly as you describe it. You make a decision and just do it. But the way you introduce this action into the game world is to narrate it. I don't say describe because that's so general. A to-hit roll roll "describes" an attack but it doesnt mean anything to someone unfamiliar with the game system. But if we narrate the result, it's intelligible to essentially anyone. To narrate is indeed "to tell a story" but I am definitely not talking about the GM telling a story of fixed events or future events. The story we are telling is of the actions that have just been resolved and other kinds of decisions. If a four year old walks into the room and says, "There is a dog outside," that's a description but nothing happens. But if a novelist says, "The weather became cooler," the state of the weather has changed. "I attack with my axe," is that kind of narration; if the action is possible, it results in changes.
Playing an RPG is, in effect, telling a story, but the process is different than in a novel. You are correct, RPGs are not just spinning a tale. But the players are not simply sitting around, imagining a journey in the imaginary world. They have to share their experiences with each other. Only when the decisions they make and the consequences of decisions are described, and those descriptions are accepted by everyone, does the game really move forward.
