Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

[DEFCON 1]

I also never played the everyone is 0 level approach so town guards were not trivial adversaries until the group was above 7th.

This is oftentimes the biggest stumbling block I have seen for many players new to my table-- the idea that having "levels" does not make your character "better" than everyone else. And this is exactly the sort of idea where my gentle prodding to think of the game we are playing as a movie can get those players to stop thinking that way. Of "game first" for lack of a better term.

Newer players might learn or discover early in a campaign that "civilians" have the game stats of Commoners and the like. These 1st and 2nd level PCs that have a run-in with the town guard are fairly evenly matched. So far so good. But then however many number of months later, these PCs are now 5th, 6th level... and they think town guards are still merely equivalent to 1st and 2nd level PCs. And thus when they do something illegal in view of a guardsman, they think "That doesn't matter. They are not a threat. I'm 5th level, he's got Commoner or CR 1/4 guard stats, my PC can do whatever they want and the guard can't stop me. I'll stomp him into the ground if necessary." And that's when I ask them "If this was a movie or a novel, would there really be such a wide gap between the abilities of the protagonist and the police officer trying to arrest him? This idea that the PCs are the only ones who see this huuuuuuuuuuge bump in ability week-after-week, month-after-month just because of "earning XP" and "leveling up" and the like?"

Now granted, reminding them of this can take a little bit of wind out of their sails when they think that as they level up everyone around them is also leveling up (and thus everyone remains equal to each other, and so then what's the point of leveling?)... but that's where the emphasis on "narrative leveling" can come into play and allow them the feelings of heightened status. If the PCs can "get their way" when dealing with the town guard, it should be because they've earned the guard's respect within the story and have proven themselves to the town such that they are granted more leeway with the guards than some other Tom, Dick, or Harry in town-- as opposed to getting their way because "they're 5th level and the guards a CR 1/4 and thus mechanically they can beat the guards up".

It's a difference that does tend to widen the scope of ideas the players come up with, when they now realize that every problem isn't and shouldn't be solved just by carrying the bigger stick. Which kind of goes against the grain of D&D in particular, but does make the results more interesting and less repetitive.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I hope you can understand how unintentionally insulting this can be.

Nope, unlike you (evidently) I don't consider playing RPGs or players in George Lucas Stance instead of Han Stance to be some kind of intrinsically invalid concept, or to not be an RPG or something, and I'd appreciate if you didn't demean yourself further by suggesting that kind of roleplaying which I occasionally enjoy is somehow so wrong as to be an insult.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Power for the sake of power is a selfish end.

So what, training to be the best lightsaber duelist in the jedi order is a surefire path to the dark side?

 

[Emerikol]

Now granted, reminding them of this can take a little bit of wind out of their sails when they think that as they level up everyone around them is also leveling up (and thus everyone remains equal to each other, and so then what's the point of leveling?)... but that's where the emphasis on "narrative leveling" can come into play and allow them the feelings of heightened status. If the PCs can "get their way" when dealing with the town guard, it should be because they've earned the guard's respect within the story and have proven themselves to the town such that they are granted more leeway with the guards than some other Tom, Dick, or Harry in town-- as opposed to getting their way because "they're 5th level and the guards a CR 1/4 and thus mechanically they can beat the guards up".

I don't do that. The local constables are 1st to 5th level with most being 1 to 3. But if they just wipe those people up, word will go out and a better group will be sent to deal with this higher level threat. What do the PCs think when they are called upon to fight some evil? They are not unique in all the world.

 

[Umbran]

This is nonsense.

No, it isn't. Below is why...

Every other field of analysis - literary criticism, cinema reviews, motoring magazines - has its own specialised terminology ("jargon").

Yeah, but pemerton, EN World isn't made up of analysts. The bulk of us are hobbyists.

I'm a physicist, we've got jargon enough to stuff a library and more. We have entire mathematical languages that aren't used by anyone else! But, we can't communicate to non-physicists with that jargon. They lose comprehension, their eyes glaze over, and the result is gobbledigook to them. There is a reason the smartest man in physics wrote a book for laymen, and used only one equation (E=mc^2) in the entire book.

Jargon is typically only useful within the specialist community. If you've become a specialist/analyst in a field, you generally have to code switch (use different language) if you want to communicate the same concepts to folks outside it.

The community here is not specialists, but hobbyists. They have some jargon of the general field, but not the deep specifics you are using. Nor do they generally have the time or inclination to spend the same time you did pouring over the Forge to get those words down pat, nevermind embracing all the changes in language in the decades since the Forge was a big deal.

If a specialist posts in a hobbyist space insisting on using the academic, jargon-filled language, the effect is to dominate discussion and exclude those who aren't up on the language.

When I need to learn how to do something plumbing related, and watch a youtube video, I have to learn the terminology that is needed to describe the tools, the components, the processes etc. RPGing is no different.

First, no, you don't typically need to learn the jargon for specific, focused tasks. I replaced a faucet. I had to get a special wrench to reach under and around the sink basin in the cramped cabinet. I have no idea what the thing is called.

Also, I think you mistake your position. Plumbers are not analysts - they are technicians. And when they speak to a homeowner, or make a video, they keep the language in as much common speech as possible, because if they become hard to follow, the viewers go to another video.

If one self-styles as an analyst, in this analogy they are a fluid-dynamics engineer, trying to explain how to unclog a drain using viscous flow differential equations. Great for talking about details and techniques with other fluid-dynamics engineers, kinda junk for an instructional video.

My experience is that most RPGers are not that interested in analysing their play. They know what they like, and that's that.

Are they not interested in analyzing their play, or are they not interested in wading through the language barrier, or your style of presentation, to do it? The two cases would look the same.

Lots of specialists, with a bunch of knowledge in their head, think they are primed to also be able to teach. But teaching is a different skillset form analysis. Most of my department were brilliant physicists, but only a few were actually good at teaching physics.

 

[Blue]

Star Wars may be the worst thing that happened to George Lucas, but it is definitely the worst thing that happened to science fiction film. We'll never get another Silent Running or Rollerball or Zardoz.

Rollerball (1975) ⭐ 6.5 | Action, Sci-Fi, Sport

2h 5m | R

www.imdb.com

Rollerball (2002) ⭐ 3.1 | Action, Sci-Fi, Sport

1h 38m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

Ummm...

 

[innerdude]

As far as character and player motivations and goals, I'd highly recommend reading Game Master's Handbook of Proactive Roleplaying. There's lots of great advice on motivations and goals and how to make sure they're fun at the table. It could help a lot in taking the vague notion of "have a character arc" and turning it into something actionable for both of you.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look!

I have zero experience with FFG Star Wars, so take this question with a grain of salt. If, as you say, the gear basically makes little difference...what does it matter if the player wants to go after the gear? Letting him play as a pack rat isn't going to unbalance anything, you said as much yourself.

This is a good question. It wasn't so much the desire to improve gear, accrue funds, etc. that was problematic. It was definitely more the manner and attitude towards it. I, in most cases as a GM, am more than willing to let characters spend money to improve their gear. It was the underlying motivation and sense of extreme urgency around it that led to the conflict with the player.

Frankly, part of me as GM basically stopped caring about player gear at some point, since I know full well, it doesn't matter what gear I give them, I can upscale the enemies accordingly. So sure, they can have awesome starting gear or upgraded gear, what do I care? It makes the players feel good, and I get to be seen as a wise, benevolent GM (or something).

They want to feel like Han Solo, not George Lucas, and you're asking them to feel like George Lucas-- someone who is interested in Han Solo's life only insofar as it gets him into the plot.

So to put it bluntly --- yes. Yes, I want them to invest in their character at a level that delivers higher emotional stakes. And I as a GM am willing to bend over backward to accommodate them in delivering stuff that plays to those emotional stakes if they'll actually do the work to get there with me.

And this feels like you are telling me (or more appropriately @innerdude) that we are feeling like George Lucas and not Han when we play narrative-style games and that we are not doing so in a way in which we are aligned with the characters emotionally. I hope you can understand how unintentionally insulting this can be.

So this is interesting, because this very point was brought up in an article about the Last of Us TV show adaptation vis-a-vis the video game --- The Last of Us Is Not a Video-Game Adaptation

The article makes the point that to have narrative, in a game sense, you as a player have to allow for a sense of caring about the character narratively separately from caring for the character as an avatar ---

"One may care about a character on television, but one must care for a character in a video game. In fact, The Last of Us suggested that care, by definition, means choosing to have no choice, holding onto another person so tightly their survival becomes an inescapable necessity."

Playing a narrative-style game naturally posits this effect; places it front and center. You have to choose to have no choice if you want to implement elements of character narrative arcs. In most cases, narrativist-style games push their chips all-in on this. The premise of a "Story Now" game naturally intersects with character positioning in ways that the exploration of the premise will happen. As a player, you're supposed to just accept this.

Ironsworn's core mechanic of the "Iron Vow" literally wills this exigency into play.

 

[Umbran]

So what, training to be the best lightsaber duelist in the jedi order is a surefire path to the dark side?

The question is - Why you want to be "the best" lightsaber duelist in the Order?

Are you fighting other members of the Order? If so, you are probably already on the Dark Side. Is it for prestige/status, or to prove that you are "better" than other members of the Order? That's pride, vanity or jealously - totally roads to the Dark Side.

Is it because you fear the Sith so much? Well, fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. There we are, back at the Dark Side.

Which, ultimately, isn't actually about Star Wars - this is using a commonly-understood example to look at theme in play with narrative bent.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I will add that a character's in-game narrative progression isn't all about relationship with the larger world.

That is also exceedingly true, and is one of my favorite things to think about as a player. It's also one of the few mechanically-based things in the game I actually enjoy... trying to figure out if there is an existing mechanical function to take for my PC that plays into their internal identity as a character that I've established via playing it.

My current Pathfinder PC is like that... there's just so many really small mechanical so-called "benefits" that a PC gets just from leveling up that more often that not my eyes will glaze over going through these lists of mechanics (like Feats) that are just nothing more than just number bumps-- but not actually related to anything about the internal growth of the character. But on occasion after I reach a certain level and my PC has done enough things in the game and story to warrant it, there will be that one odd mechanical feature to take that can really exemplify the growth the character has undergone. And that's when the process can be very enjoyable.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Every other field of analysis - literary criticism, cinema reviews, motoring magazines - has its own specialised terminology ("jargon"). When I need to learn how to do something plumbing related, and watch a youtube video, I have to learn the terminology that is needed to describe the tools, the components, the processes etc. RPGing is no different.

That a problem is widespread doesn't make it not a problem.

Jargon is hot garbage and is often a signalling technique to show who's in the circle and who's out of the circle. That you are in the circle and doesn't understand this is an issue doesn't make it not one.

Note that the OP is struggling to turn jargon into language that his player can understand.

If the goal of these discussions was to improve gaming it would be using English.