Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9140037" data-attributes="member: 71699">In reading this thread I have had similar feelings (without agreeing point-for-point necessarily)! While I liked [USER=6690965]@Pedantic[/USER]'s rather neat "nexus of causality" definition, and [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER]'s discussion of diagetic/non-diagetic distinctions, I don't think that can be all there is to it. That is, I don't think a mechanic can be called a narrative mechanic just because it is - one way or another - insufficiently explained. Reflection on Vancian spells confirms that. As does the necessity of admitting inadequately explained elements to narrative in all kinds of ways (or even drawing the line as to what counts as sufficient explanation, e.g. what described character act is sufficient to explain proposed narrative.)Of course we want a definition that is meaningful to those using it, tied to something they want to talk about. On those grounds, perphaps calling a fuzzily defined category of fiat mechanics may be okay, however...I think what counts as a narrative mechanic is a mechanic that governs the form of the narrative itself, not its content. Thus the snowballing fail-forward, soft-move, hard-move arrangements of PbtA are narrative mechanics. Mechanics that distribute authorship are narrative mechanics (it doesn't matter what the content is going to be or whether it is explained by the existing game state, it matters where its authorship lies). And so on. No-myth mechanics are narrative mechanics because they determine the timing of the formation of narrative.I can see the appeal of saying that narrative mechanics are in essence about what is demanded as explanation for proposed narrative. (A character act, expenditure of a currency, a spell, etc.) One can say that when there is apparently no explanation in current-state, but a mechanic provides for it anyway, said mechanic is a narrative mechanic. But I think, when really scrutinised, it's over-productive or at least extremely hard to define reliable norms. It's mostly a statement about required justifications for plausibility.Whereas if we say that narrative mechanics are those addressing the form of narrative, that seems closer to right to me.</blockquote>

Verification