Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now

[TwoSix]

You can play narrativist with Rolemaster or AD&D (I know, I've done it). This doesn't require anything fancy on the player side (though as @Fenris-77 said, it requires a type of effort from the players) - no "narrative mechanics". It does require the GM to adopt a different approach to framing and consequences from what is set out in classic D&D rulebooks or in 2nd ed AD&D.

Hmm. So does that represent an evolution in thought over the past 15-20 years, with narrativism becoming more defined as a set of techniques and less as a concept animating game design?

I definitely still feel like specific game designs foster narrativism techniques, and others dissuade them. But this does feel like a shift from older conversations that were primarily focused on design intent for specific games.

 

[darkbard]

I think what you're saying here is close to @Fenris-77.

I was making a different point: that a lot of commentary on "narrative" RPGing from those who seem not to be especially into it emphasise (so called) "narrative" mechanics - roughly, player-side fiat (either for situation, or for consequence). Whereas I was saying that the key difference between narrativist play and more "trad" or conventional play is what the GM does - especially, how the GM frames scenes/establishes situation; and how, as part of the resolution system, consequences are established and what those consequences are.

You can play narrativist with Rolemaster or AD&D (I know, I've done it). This doesn't require anything fancy on the player side (though as @Fenris-77 said, it requires a type of effort from the players) - no "narrative mechanics". It does require the GM to adopt a different approach to framing and consequences from what is set out in classic D&D rulebooks or in 2nd ed AD&D.

Sure, I agree the emphasis in both passages is on technique and mindset (one might say principles and agenda) over mechanics. The more recent passage, however, doesn't have a lot to say about the GM, whereas it does address the players of PCs in narrativist play rather directly.

 

[pemerton]

Hmm. So does that represent an evolution in thought over the past 15-20 years, with narrativism becoming more defined as a set of techniques and less as a concept animating game design?

I definitely still feel like specific game designs foster narrativism techniques, and others dissuade them. But this does feel like a shift from older conversations that were primarily focused on design intent for specific games.

I think there are some accounts of old conversations that exaggerate some of what was said. As an example, Edwards, in his "story now" essay, observed that

Techniques do not map 1:1 to Creative Agenda, but combinations of Techniques do support or obstruct Creative Agendas. . . .

For Narrativist play, the key is to focus on conflicts rather than tasks. A conflict statement is, "I'm trying to kill him," or, "I'm trying to humiliate him," whereas a task statement is, "I swing my sword at him." (It doesn't matter, by the way, how much in-game time and space are involved; conflict resolution can be "very small" and task resolution can be "very big." We can discuss this more on-line.) I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing Narrativist protagonism. . . .

Does Fortune-in-the-Middle define Narrativism? No, nor does it even facilitate it in isolation. It's merely a strong component of many Narrativist-facilitating combinations of Techniques . . .

"El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp.​

So there's no doubt that it's possible to design for narrativist play. I would never, now, try and play narrativist AD&D or narrativist RM, as I have better systems available - particularly Burning Wheel, which has nearly all the mechanical intricacy of RM, and which provides very strong exploration as its chassis, but has few elements that reinforce "simulationism" and impede the focus on rising conflict across a moral line.

And Apocalypse World is an incredibly sophisticated example of design, because rather than using Beliefs (like BW) or Best Interets (like In A Wicked Age), it puts all the conflict and rising action and moral lines into the playbooks and the moves. It's pretty intricate!

But while RM or AD&D will get in the way of your narrativist play (again, I can report this from experience!) they don't make it impossible. They still give the GM quite a bit of leeway in framing, and where those systems yield task outcomes rather than conflict outcomes, the GM can use the authority those systems provide to help maintain the connection between outcomes and rising action/conflict. This will reduce the degree of play authorship - another impediment to narrativist play with those systems - but needn't kill it stone dead, especially if the GM's authority is being used in collaboration with the players and following their cues.

 

[zakael19]

I think there might be a question of how “fit” a character out of certain conventional games is to pursue passionate goals, at least early on?

 

[Breaking Star Games]

Yeah, I agree, narrativist play and 'narrative mechanics' aren't the same thing.

100%, Vincent Baker often details how he had played Ars Magica and OD&D (I think) in this style even when they are ignoring a lot of the rules - mostly using them for their fictional positioning.

But a game designer has only so many tools to influence the experience at the table, so my perspective is that leaving it at just GM Techniques is leaving a lot left in the toolbox. Incentives and mechanical resources that help align to genre conventions like: XP for Stress (Mothership) or Stress that requires you to fulfill a Vice and get into Trouble (Blades in the Dark, Cartel) or cause panic (Alien) can really be a huge help to allow players to optimally play but still fit the genre conventions.

 

[Umbran]

You can play narrativist with Rolemaster or AD&D (I know, I've done it). This doesn't require anything fancy on the player side (though as @Fenris-77 said, it requires a type of effort from the players) - no "narrative mechanics".

I agree that most games can be played in a narrativist manner. But I also know you can drive a nail with a screwdriver, if you really need to.

Which is to say that there is a difference between a narrativist game design, and a game played in a narrativist manner.

A narrativist game design would be one in which the natural form of interacting with the rules generates, rewards, and supports the work you need the players and GM to do.

 

[mearls]

And here's something he wrote about 9 months ago <Revisiting GNS – lumpley games>:

Here’s the dynamic that narrativism refers to:​

1. The PCs have vision, self-interests, best interests, passion, an ideological commitment: something they want and care about. Lajos Egri says “passionate.”
2. Their passions put them in conflict with others — other PCs or other NPCs, it doesn’t matter. Their passions oppose others’, threaten others’ interests, provoke others into passionate reaction.
3. Both the PCs and their counterparts are equipped to pursue their passions in conflict. Egri says “fit.” They’re physically equipped, emotionally equipped, morally equipped; they have skills, tools, initiative, stamina, followthrough, staying power.
4. Nobody pre-plans how it’s going to turn out. The characters are passionate, conflicted, and fit; now turn them loose. Play to let them pursue their passions. Play to find out how far they go, how they escalate, who comes out on top, who compromises, what they win, what it costs, what they prioritize, what they abandon. The only way to know how it plays out, is to play it out!

That’s narrativism, nothing else.​

What I find interesting about breaking games up into -isms or factions is that his break down of narrativism points to a lot of good practice for dungeon crawls and D&D-style play. You could argue that a good D&D game hits those four notes and also has tactical combat layered, particularly around point 2.

Games might differ in style or intent, but I've found reading and playing a wide variety of games has helped improve my skills across all TTRPG types.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

What I find interesting about breaking games up into -isms or factions is that his break down of narrativism points to a lot of good practice for dungeon crawls and D&D-style play. You could argue that a good D&D game hits those four notes and also has tactical combat layered, particularly around point 2.

Games might differ in style or intent, but I've found reading and playing a wide variety of games has helped improve my skills across all TTRPG types.

It definitely can be. His Majesty the Worm certainly isn't afraid with Bonds metacurrency and personal quests and relationships while being an amazing dungeon crawl game with OSR conventions. Though at one of my tables, we'd probably prefer just doing some beer and pretzel monster killing and looting rooms without moral dilemmas for most campaigns.

I definitely agree that everyone aiming to improve their playing, GMing or designing should be learning from many resources. As Uncle Iroh said: "It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If you only take it from one place, it becomes rigid and stale. Understanding others will help you become whole.” And I definitely agree that these categories can leave people into their own isolated factions. In many ways, that is the roughest aspect of a lot of RPG discussion moving to Discord communities - unsearchable from the general internet.

But I also don't think categorization/taxonomy is necessarily all bad. It's part of how we make sense of the world - linking past experiences with new ones. It gives us words to better communicate as if we only talked about specific RPGs, we would all have had to experience it to share that understanding. We really couldn't have this post without an easy way to talk about style, design goals, influence and cultural meanings. And it controls the chaos that is life - If you don't use folder management or some organization for documents, you will become inundated and likely unable to find what you are looking for.

 

[TwoSix]

I definitely agree that everyone aiming to improve their playing, GMing or designing should be learning from many resources. As Uncle Iroh said: "It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If you only take it from one place, it becomes rigid and stale. Understanding others will help you become whole.” And I definitely agree that these categories can leave people into their own isolated factions. In many ways, that is the roughest aspect of a lot of RPG discussion moving to Discord communities - unsearchable from the general internet.

Totally agree. All games have strong points and weak points; having a larger list of gaming techniques that you're familiar and comfortable with makes it easier to leverage a specific game's strengths and hopefully glide over its weaknesses.

 

[Umbran]

But I also don't think categorization/taxonomy is necessarily all bad. It's part of how we make sense of the world

Really. Like, language itself ceases to function without categorization. Every non-proper noun is a category!