Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now

[kenada]

I tried to run Dread as a long-running ...well several session anyway... campaign using the Oregon Trail.

It works well for a Series of Unfortunate Events, if you know what I mean...

Tower falls "You get dysentery!"
Tower falls "Your oxen died!"
Tower falls "You die of gout"

We played it as "who made it alive to Oregon" with only 3 tower falls allowed before you died of whatever it fell from. (there is a bit more to it than that, but still, the idea is here...)

If you did die, you can write your tombstone epitaph and then the players that come along to play the game later, can read the tombstones for great hilarity.

When the players killed every animal in a five mile radius for food, were they still only able to carry 100 lbs of meat back to the wagon?

 

[Lanefan]

I tried to run Dread as a long-running ...well several session anyway... campaign using the Oregon Trail.

To me, "long-running" means several years.

It works well for a Series of Unfortunate Events, if you know what I mean...

Tower falls "You get dysentery!"
Tower falls "Your oxen died!"
Tower falls "You die of gout"

We played it as "who made it alive to Oregon" with only 3 tower falls allowed before you died of whatever it fell from. (there is a bit more to it than that, but still, the idea is here...)

If you did die, you can write your tombstone epitaph and then the players that come along to play the game later, can read the tombstones for great hilarity.

Gotta say, that does sound like it was fun!

 

[zakael19]

I'm struggling to equate a player who commits to a "long term ongoing multi-year campaign" with "casual."

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I'm struggling to equate a player who commits to a "long term ongoing multi-year campaign" with "casual."

Oh prinny dooood!

Almost all the folks I know who play years long games are beer and pretzels buddies. It's what makes the game easy to come back to month after month. No stress. No exertion. No crazy plot to agonize over.

Show up, throw dice, make merry and repeat for ages!

 

[RenleyRenfield]

When the players killed every animal in a five mile radius for food, were they still only able to carry 100 lbs of meat back to the wagon?

hehehe... Hey, you can shoot and carry all you want, its just a "pull of the tile"
each..time... hehehe

To me, "long-running" means several years.

Gotta say, that does sound like it was fun!

For sure! I am not sure I was try to run Dread for 2 years... but hey, I can't count out what people like in rules. Personally, it is not a system I would go to for that.

On a side thought though... maybe it would be fun to use as a mini-game in whatever other system/campaign someone was running to give a better narrative moment?

like, some systems can be hard to predict or make a combat 'deadly; or feel 'intense and risky'.. so if the jenga tower does that for ya, it might make for fun min-game moments?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh prinny dooood!

Almost all the folks I know who play years long games are beer and pretzels buddies. It's what makes the game easy to come back to month after month. No stress. No exertion. No crazy plot to agonize over.

Show up, throw dice, make merry and repeat for ages!

Agreed for the game but not the players. When playing with more invested players I expect the setting to be on fire within six months at the outside and the characters to have been through narrative arcs. And we'll be starting the next game with the same players.

 

[thefutilist]

Here is something Vincent Baker wrote a bit more than twenty years ago <lumpley games: Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore>:

After setup, what a game's rules do is control how you resolve one situation into the next. If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate no more.​

​

Character creation in a Narrativist game might work by creating characters who, in some key way, have nowhere else to go. Life o' Crime, the rpg: create a character who owes somebody more money than he can repay.​

​

Setting in a Narrativist game might work by applying pressure to that key point in the characters. Life o' Crime: there's recession, few jobs, no way up or out, but worse class difference than ever before anywhere. You see wealth but no opportunity.​

​

Situation in a Narrativist game works by increasing the pressure. Life o' Crime: Someone depends on your character to bring home groceries and pay rent. Someone else has just been evicted and is facing homelessness. Someone else asks you if you know where to get drugs. Someone else just got beaten by the authorities. Someone else just got beaten by the guy you owe money to. Someone else offers to cut you in on a job. Someone else wants the whole take for himself. Someone else knew you'd never amount to anything. Someone else can't be trusted. Someone else can be.​

​

System in a Narrativist game works, again, by resolving one situation into the next. Life o' Crime: what do you do? How does it work out for you? Does it a) hurt? b) give you breathing room? c) piss someone else off? d) hurt someone else? and/or e) set you back? How does it increase the pressure? Remember the moral line defined by your Premise, and remember that the players are the authors!​

​

And Color permeates a Narrativist game same as any other. Life o' Crime: is it Thatcher's England? Victoria's England? Shakespeare's England? Bush's US? Hoover's US? Colonial Massachussetts? Mars? The Kingdom of Thringbora? The details change, but the core of character situated in setting - the fit characters locked into conflict defined by a moral line - doesn't.​

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.​

In the more recent passage, rather than rising conflict across a moral line we have passionate characters whose passions place them into conflict with, and provokes passionate reaction, from others. That's pretty similar, but a bit more "relaxed" about what might underlie interesting conflict. Fit characters, without pre-authorship/pre-planning, remain the same.

I think it's interesting that his thinking about this has remained so consistent over two decades of designing RPGs.

I would add, group understanding and appreciation of the conflicts/stakes in play. Which could be considered a given but I want to make a case that it’s not.

I often argue, here and everywhere else, about certain Narrativist resolution mechanics. Until recently I’d put a lot of emphasis on the mechanics themselves but I found, in discussion, that the real points of difference were how we (me and the people I was arguing with) viewed stories. How plot and conflicts were created and resolved and what the stakes were at any given point.

This is most common when talking about failure. I’ll be like, failure is great, he asks his brother for help and his brother says no. To which I’ll often get a response like ‘boooring, how about a man walks through the door with a gun, or his brother says he’ll only help if he breaks up with his girlfriend or something.’

What’s happening here, is we’re reading the fiction differently Not necessarily in terms of our understanding but where we attribute meaning, theme, answering premise and what moral lines actually are.

 

[pemerton]

I would add, group understanding and appreciation of the conflicts/stakes in play. Which could be considered a given but I want to make a case that it’s not.

I often argue, here and everywhere else, about certain Narrativist resolution mechanics. Until recently I’d put a lot of emphasis on the mechanics themselves but I found, in discussion, that the real points of difference were how we (me and the people I was arguing with) viewed stories. How plot and conflicts were created and resolved and what the stakes were at any given point.

This is most common when talking about failure. I’ll be like, failure is great, he asks his brother for help and his brother says no. To which I’ll often get a response like ‘boooring, how about a man walks through the door with a gun, or his brother says he’ll only help if he breaks up with his girlfriend or something.’

What’s happening here, is we’re reading the fiction differently Not necessarily in terms of our understanding but where we attribute meaning, theme, answering premise and what moral lines actually are.

Not to disagree - but the first thought I had, reading your post, is that maybe there is always a degree of risk that what one participant finds compelling, another will find either (in one direction) a bit flat, or (in the other direction) a bit over the top?

The second thing I thought of, because it involves a brother refusing to help, was this from a Burning Wheel game where I was the player:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

Friedrich took them as far as the next tributary's inflow - at that point the river turns north-east, and the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Relationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but your, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

The backstory that was already established prior to this episode of play included that Rufus, my PC's brother, was still living at the ancestral estate:

Thurgon’s father is deceased, but his mother Xanthippe (now 61 years old) still lives on the estate. So does his older brother Rufus (40 years old)., the 9th Count of Adir (although for the past 66 years that title has counted for little, having been usurped by others).​

It was the GM who put an overlay on this of Rufus being cowed by a "master", as a type of elaboration on the state of things in Auxol. That didn't raise any issues for me - it's probably not the only thing that the GM might have done (and I don't know if he was drawing on some prep here, or just extemporising), but it definitely worked.

As you can read, the upshot of events was that Rufus said no to requests for aid - both large (from Thurgon) and more prosaic (from Aramina). He didn't insist that Thurgon "break up with" Aramina (I use scare quotes because they're companions but not a couple), nor did anyone turn up armed and looking for a fight!

Part of what made it work, I think, is that the refusal of aid from Rufus didn't impede the trajectory of play, including the escalation of stakes between Thurgon and his family. The session went on like this:

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

And it's apparent, from this outcome, that the episode with Rufus did not just affirm a status quo, even though it ended with Rufus saying "no". It serves to establish that one part of liberating Auxol is going to have to be either liberating Rufus from "the master", or else dealing with him in some other way.

In this way, even though the scene ended with a "no", it contributed fully, and with some complexity, to the rising conflict across a moral line.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not familiar with the first three of those, but while Dread works for a beer-and-pretzels one-off (I've played it that way and it was grand fun) I'd be curious to see whether it could support a long-term ongoing campaign.

For Masks and MotW it depends on what you mean by long-term. You certainly can play ongoing campaigns with both those systems, but it's also true that most PbtA games aren't designed to facilitate a really long zero to hero character progression, so they aren't going to manage a 1st to 20th D&D style 'longness'. That's a vanishingly rare length of campaign anyway though, IMO anyway.

 

[John Lloyd1]

For Masks and MotW it depends on what you mean by long-term. You certainly can play ongoing campaigns with both those systems, but it's also true that most PbtA games aren't designed to facilitate a really long zero to hero character progression, so they aren't going to manage a 1st to 20th D&D style 'longness'. That's a vanishingly rare length of campaign anyway though, IMO anyway.

How many sessions do you think can done before the systems run out of headroom? Or is that a nonsensical question?