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

[Umbran]

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.

I'd suggest a slight correction: Jargon outside of specialist spaces is hot garbage. It can be absolutely essential within those spaces to communicate clearly, collaborate, and get work done.

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

And, I'd like to commend @innerdude, because to my eye they did a pretty solid job of it! Yes, it took more verbiage than if jargon was used, but it was clear and understandable to anyone who plays RPGs.

 

[Aldarc]

I could see a skill play expectation at issue here. If the game portion is essentially survival, in that the dungeon is nothing more than a single challenge. It doesn't really matter why you are delving, or what happens after, you just go one challenge to the next. The focus isnt on the why, just that you survive the game. Obviously, the best way to do that is to get top of the line gear and level. The IP/setting is just window dressing.

I'm reminded of how the creators of Diablo did not intend to create the ARPG. They said that they designed Diablo so they could play a "CRPG" in the manner that they played D&D when they were kids that just focused on dangerous dungeons, killing monsters, taking their loot so they could do more of the same.

 

[Umbran]

Absolutely no shade!!! But that is how I see it. The best explanation in the world won’t un-wargame me.

As I hope was shown by my wizard upthread, though, you don't have to unwargame to also make narratively-interesting choices.

Like, the wargamer in me looks at the choice and says, "Hey, my wizard will usually be adventuring wearing no armor, but with an 18 armor class, that I can boost to 23 with a shield spell". That's pretty solid protection for a wizard.

But narrative arc wise, I get to play with, "I try to get out, and then they drag me back in" theme, which is as narratively cool as a 23 AC is tactically cool.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

As I hope was shown by my wizard upthread, though, you don't have to unwargame to also make narratively-interesting choices.

Like, the wargamer in me looks at the choice and says, "Hey, my wizard will usually be adventuring wearing no armor, but with an 18 armor class, that I can boost to 23 with a shield spell". That's pretty solid protection for a wizard.

But narrative arc wise, I get to play with, "I try to get out, and then they drag me back in" theme, which is as narratively cool as a 23 AC is tactically cool.

No and we don’t. But…if my goals are to wargame, I won’t accept the OPs explanation no matter how artful. Its just a mismatch in desired style and approach and it’s ok.

 

[Umbran]

What I'm picking up here is that a sense of competition is being folded automatically into pride, vanity, or jealousy, or that needing to be prepared for the threats one might face is folded fear, rather than a discreet sensibility of vigilance.

No, the "need to be THE BEST" is indication of those things.

The language used matters. So let's not allow it so elide from one to the other. If you walk back the emphasis on being the best, then of course the narrative theme changes. But then, so does the need to focus character mechanical development on that aspect.

If you don't need to be the best, you just want to improve, then you probably aren't doing the equivalent of dismembering dead bodies for money to drive that improvement.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Nor do I. It is not that the George Lucas Stance is invalid. Where the disagreement lies comes from the experiences that you associate with the "Han Stance," such as aligning with the character emotionally, are what I get from playing narrative-style games, which you seem to associate with playing the "George Lucas Stance," at least per my reading of your post. So it is less about what is valid or not, but about what "stances" engender particular play experiences.


I would hope that we could have this conversation without resorting to making personal barbs that needlessly heat up the discussion.

Then don't wield the concept of insulting you as a bludgeon to win an argument, its like the civility equivalent of insurance fraud.

OP was pretty clear about the alignment they were looking for being a greater sense of distance towards Han's own intentions and incentives in favor of greater emotional investment in sculpting a star wars esque narrative, and having their character behave accordingly to prioritize that goal. That means they want the player's goal for the character, and the character's goal to unalign. The character wants a faster ship and to be out of debt, but the desired player wants a specific diegetic arc where the ship and the debt aren't important, only that they function as initial calls to adventure. Op is demanding that the character stop caring about those things once the princess comes along, because "hey, that's star wars right?"

Arguably, OP isn't even quite in the category you're discussing or the set of grievances being raised, because they want to have the desired arc in mind. They don't want the player to play to find out, they want the player to play to parallel the OT's themes and plot, and execute a specific set of creative visions, it's a permutation on Trad (this campaign is about joining the rebellion) or OC (you should have some kind of arc in mind for me to work into the campaign).

There's no way to talk about this without the understanding that they are in fact, writers, in a room, discussing how each character should be written for the sake of alignment with a desired vision, editing the participants understanding of their character motivations until it produces that specific creative vision, in other words, "George Lucas Stance."

Edits: elaboration, sorry I know the thread is moving fast.

 

[payn]

I'm reminded of how the creators of Diablo did not intend to create the ARPG. They said that they designed Diablo so they could play a "CRPG" in the manner that they played D&D when they were kids that just focused on dangerous dungeons, killing monsters, taking their loot so they could do more of the same.

Yeap, not to beat the videa games drum, but they certainly pushed the inventory management game in the last 30 or so years. Its obvious why, at the table the kill and loot game loop isnt so gonzo. Though, if you have a computer doing all the math, which can be played for infinite amount of time, clearly the need to parse hundreds and thousands of items becomes not only possible, but necessary.

Again, im not saying thats a bad thing, I am after all, a PF1 guy. I find the mini games of chargen and item inventory to be interesting on their own. Also, they are often a bit of insurance against boring GMs (which is why im not that into 5E the insurance coverage isnt so good). However, I am also a bit of a code switcher. What I mean by that is when im playing games that have a more narrative bend, I dont miss/demand the chargen and inventory mini game.

When I roll with DCC im a skill play BAMF. When I play PF2/4E, im a tactical wargamer. When I play Fiasco im a junior woodchuck screen play writer. Not everybody has a code switch. I know many folks that have a default setting like the BR guy that wants wargaming in the bladerunner universe. When it comes to games like Traveller and FFG gensys SW, its often a maze of these play style design types that makes them even more difficult for a defaulter to enage the parts as they are intended/desired. YMMV.

 

[FrogReaver]

@innerdude

My take is that you are much too worried whether the player is playing the character in a more narrativist manner that you are missing alot of opportunities to test such a character and deliver them a good narrativist experience despite how they are trying to play.

Put some complications between them and their method of obtaining loot. A few major decision points with good results and bad then move on. If successful i might turn their loot lust into a perk called bad reputation that gives them coin passively for background opportunistic loot hunting while making them less liked/trusted by people that spend any kind of time around the PC.

Lots of ways to keep things fun and on track. IMO.

 

[TwoSix]

When I roll with DCC im a skill play BAMF. When I play PF2/4E, im a tactical wargamer. When I play Fiasco im a junior woodchuck screen play writer. Not everybody has a code switch. I know many folks that have a default setting like the BR guy that wants wargaming in the bladerunner universe. When it comes to games like Traveller and FFG gensys SW, its often a maze of these play style design types that makes them even more difficult for a defaulter to enage the parts as they are intended/desired. YMMV.

Exactly! The point of these different discussions, for me, is that I can walk into different types of games and realize "Oh, in this game I have to focus on X and not worry about Y."

Learning ideas like "I don't always have to inhabit my character" or "the point of the game might not be getting stronger" or "the roll might determine the result, not the process" made me a better roleplayer because I can evaluate games with a more critical eye.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Exactly! The point of these different discussions, for me, is that I can walk into different types of games and realize "Oh, in this game I have to focus on X and not worry about Y."

Learning ideas like "I don't always have to inhabit my character" or "the point of the game might not be getting stronger" or "the roll might determine the result, not the process" made me a better roleplayer because I can evaluate games with a more critical eye.

The catch I think, is that not everybody plays games for reasons that are compatible with every form of game, and when OP (who I'm seeming tougher on than I am, but they're standing in for everyone with the expectations they expressed, sorry about that) says "let's play a Star Wars Roleplaying Game" that doesn't really communicate any of this other stuff about the stance you should be in, and the player might've stopped OP up front and adjusted expectations had they known it was coming.

Op thought it meant "we'll emulate a star wars narrative!"

and the player thought it meant "oh I can make a skilled X-Wing Pilot and live in that universe for a bit"