What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[Umbran]

I guess I'll report this in this thread.

I just came back from my first session of playing Blades in the Dark. It was fun. However, the narrative mechanics were unimmersive exactly the way I assumed they would. A lot of discussions were very meta like "if we had this or that item we could try this thing" or "what if we did this as a flashback?" It was quite engaging, but it was more about problem solving via collaborative storytelling than inhabiting a character.

I personally find that the first sessions of play in a new system are often very rough, and things I am not used to about it are fairly obtrusive. Like riding a bike, the first few times the mechanics of staying up took a lot of extra attention, but after more rides they became more automatic, and took less attention. Playing a game involves various skills, too, so it can take some time to develop them.

If you continue to play, it might be interesting to know how you feel about it after another five or ten sessions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My guess is that it just seems more pronounced because it's a new way of doing things. I don't know why everyone has to discuss it... though I don't see why they can't. Typically, when I've played, and we run into a situation where a dangerous climb comes into play, I either declare that I've brought climbing gear or not, and then we move on.

Do you mean that it was something like the below?

Player1: Okay, so there's this massive wall we need to climb. I only have two inventory slots left, so I don't know if I can spare it on climbing gear. What about you guys?

Player2: I'm planning on needing armor once we get inside, so I've been saving my inventory for that.

Player3: I have four slots left, and nothing else urgent I think I'll need, so I can bring the climbing gear.

Is that the type of discussion you mean?

There was some of "maybe you should have brought this (common item) I have already brought many items" which is pretty similar.

But also like I said in the previous post, there was more. We were hiding from the guards, and needed to get rid of them. There were several options, which required different equipment. Does one of us perhaps have a disguise with them so that they can pretend to be a servant to bring the guards a drink which is laced with a sleeping potion, which one of us might have? Or do we perhaps lure them into an empty room by using a smoke bomb we might have and to jam the door with... some item I don't remember, assuming we have it? Stuff like that. Furthermore, flashbacks also caused some "but what if one of us did thing X before."

 

[pemerton]

I think its trivially obvious that die rolls (by themselves) are adiegetic (or whatever term we want to use). However, mechanics and rules in TTRPGs are not simply die rolls by themselves and I'm pretty sure we're discussing those mechanics, not die rolls. If we take as a standard base for comparison the usual declare-decide-describe cycle of an action declaration I think a couple of things become obvious. One, the possible use of die rolls to stand in for fortune isn't really germane to the idea of diegetic or 'in fiction' or whatever. The cycle works both with and without die rolls and the use of a die in cases where the system calls for it doesn't change whether the mechanic in questions indexes something in the fiction or not. When I declare that my rogue will attempt to scale the castle wall we are dealing with an action 'in the fiction' that my avatar could have decided to do. This is the common ground for enthusiasts of immersion and theorists who use words like diegetic as a label to identify actions and mechanics that occur in the rough present of the diegetic frame. Two, this standard declare-decide-define cycle also does a reasonable job highlighting mechanics that seem to escape this notion of 'something the avatar could decide to do'. This second set of possible mechanics is enormously fuzzy but that doesn't mean that people don't recognize them when they see them. I also think it's the case that the idea of 'the conversation' is key to this idea.

The clean diegetic lines of the standard action declaration can become, if you'll forgive a muddy phrase, less diegetic feeling, based on the conversation at the table. Two good examples are Fate points and the Devil's Bargain from Blades - both commonly identified as 'meta' in some way. Both of those mechanics alter the telos of an action declaration by introducing multiple and competing narrative moments within the adjudication cycle. With Fate points I'm specifically talking about the GM proffer version which essentially reads I'll give you this piece of meta currency is you accept X into the resolution cycle. We now have two competing possible realities existing at once that the player (very much not the character) must decide between. The Devil's Bargain is quite similar - an additional die is proffered, increasing the chances of success, with multiple possible realities existing during a short period of negotiation. Again the choice rests with the player and generally escapes the idea of 'something the avatar could decide'. Setting aside for a moment the slippery notion of immersion and what may or may not scaffold it, I think this is a pretty clear moment of difference, a moment where the game pulls back from the avatar to the player and then dives back in after a secondary and interior moment of resolution. I'm not sure exactly how to best capture this definitionally but I think it's one place that words like meta and narrative start to be used in an attempt to grasp the difference.

So, on this account, why is Come and Get It "adiegetic"? Why is a flashback "adiegetic"?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is pretty common. One of two things is likely to be true. It's possible that Blades simply won't click for you and your table. It's also possible that this is simply an artifact of a new system. Your account squares with my recollections of my first couple of Blades sessions so it's quite possible. I found that as I played and especially within a stable group that we learned to trust the system and just dive in recklessly as is the general intent. That took a couple of sessions but most of the planning talk went away and people played those quantum options in a much more diegetic and naturalistic way. I'm sure this isn't everyone's experience, but it was mine and it's a fairly common thing in my experience.

Well, like I said, I had fun in any case, but yeah, the sort of development you describe would still be welcome. We'll see.

 

[Fenris-77]

So, on this account, why is Come and Get It "adiegetic"? Why is a flashback "adiegetic"?

Well, lets start by deep-sixing the quoted term, shall we, or at least setting it aside? I use the term diegetic a lot, but adiegetic only in this thread since it was already in use. I'll also point out that I didn't use either of your specific examples. That said my contention was that there are mechanics which are different than a standard action declaration in most games. The difference I identified was that there is an additional loop mid-adjudication that takes place entirely in the conversation but that is also unavoidably player-indexed rather than avatar-indexed. I would probably say that the Blades flashback is similar to the two examples I outlined, but I don't recall the exact shape of Come and Get It, so I have nothing to say there for the moment. My general thought was that the additional player-indexed loop is at least part of the reason those mechanics get labelled differently, with adiegetic being one way, but narrative and meta also get used quite frequently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There was some of "maybe you should have brought this (common item) I have already brought many items" which is pretty similar.

But also like I said in the previous post, there was more. We were hiding from the guards, and needed to get rid of them. There were several options, which required different equipment. Does one of us perhaps have a disguise with them so that they can pretend to be a servant to bring the guards a drink which is laced with a sleeping potion, which one of us might have? Or do we perhaps lure them into an empty room by using a smoke bomb we might have and to jam the door with... some item I don't remember, assuming we have it? Stuff like that. Furthermore, flashbacks also caused some "but what if one of us did thing X before."

Gotcha. I expect most of this is just growing pains with a new system. Beyond that, I'd say that the player conversation about gear represents previous preparations by the characters... not a current conversation in the game's timeline, but an earlier one. I know this was something that took a little adjustment for my group. Eventually, players get to the point where they know if they need to deploy a specific bit of gear or not without a massive deliberation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gotcha. I expect most of this is just growing pains with a new system. Beyond that, I'd say that the player conversation about gear represents previous preparations by the characters... not a current conversation in the game's timeline, but an earlier one.

It can't be, as it is in response to a situation they were unaware until they were at the location.

I know this was something that took a little adjustment for my group. Eventually, players get to the point where they know if they need to deploy a specific bit of gear or not without a massive deliberation.

I don't know that would work with any more complicated cooperative idea.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We did. And when we were infiltrating we had to decide how to get rid of the guards. There were several options, which required different equipment. We needed to discuss our options.

And that at every table I've played in would be an in character discussion if you discussed it. It's something the party needs to do and can discuss.

You really can't have a conversation about whether you should have decided earlier to bring item X or not in character.

You can however assume you have it with you and that the option is open. The question is which option is best for the party.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And that at every table I've played in would be an in character discussion if you discussed it. It's something the party needs to do and can discuss.

You can however assume you have it with you and that the option is open. The question is which option is best for the party.

Right. You effectively have to discuss it like you had all the items you could possibly choose with you. Except you don't, and later might not be able to choose them as you have used all your gear slots!

 

[hawkeyefan]

It can't be, as it is in response to a situation they were unaware until they were at the location.

You just abstract it a bit.

The conversation between the players and the one between the characters (if there even is one) is different.

Is this all that different from a player in a D&D game saying something like “Should I cast Invisibility and sneak past this guy or try and charm person him?”