Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9336065" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Are you using mechanics and system interchangeably here?&nbsp; If so, there is the problem.System includes ethos &amp; principles (which necessarily entail goals/meta of play), structure, authority distribution, techniques, and mechanics (resolution, advancement, etc).&nbsp; Mechanics are the portion of a game engine that deals with (a) building characters and opposition, (b) resolving disputes over how situation-states and game-states transition to new ones, (c) how characters advance/evolve/ablate/perish/retire (etc), (d) and everything else that interacts with those particulars (build, resolution, advancement/retirement/etc) such as currencies.So no, you can't talk about Narrativism without mentioning system.&nbsp; Because each system will tell you the goals/meta of play (including how, or if, they are a novel instantiation of Narrativist priorities/play) while mechanics do not.&nbsp; This is why &quot;going mechanics-hunting&quot; is not an effective way (or at least, not in isolation) to discern what a game is about/trying to do.&nbsp; I mean, routinely in these conversations you see the same people see metacurrencies and related economies and mistakenly predict or think &quot;oh, this is a Narrativist game.&quot;&nbsp; Then those same people will see basically the D&amp;D equivalent of Bangs (player-authored situations which generate conflict to be dealt with/pursued right now, investing play with both an immediate moment of thematic or evocative or ethos-cementing decision-points and an evolving, cascading situation-state as a result) in the form of the 4e Quest system (which marries seminal indie techniques to advancement) and see &quot;meh.&quot;Now finding the technique of player-authored situations (or by-proxy) like the above is not going to guarantee &quot;oh, this is an expression of Narrativist priorities so this is surely a Narrativist system.&quot;&nbsp; You'll find some of that tech in Neotrad games so there is subtlety there.&nbsp; That subtlety is the pivot point of &quot;is there actually a crucible of conflict here...is there actual threat/duress/meaty consequences which can dynamically change the situation-state...or is this basically a fait accompli and tantamount to player-side railroading?&quot;&nbsp; Nonetheless, finding the technique (and possibly married advancement) of Bangs and kindred in a system is an infinitely better proxy for Narrativism than a benny, hero, drama (etc) economy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9336065, member: 6696971"] Are you using [I]mechanics [/I]and [I]system [/I]interchangeably here? If so, there is the problem. [I]System [/I]includes ethos & principles (which necessarily entail goals/meta of play), structure, authority distribution, techniques, and mechanics (resolution, advancement, etc). [I]Mechanics [/I]are the portion of a game engine that deals with (a) building characters and opposition, (b) resolving disputes over how situation-states and game-states transition to new ones, (c) how characters advance/evolve/ablate/perish/retire (etc), (d) and everything else that interacts with those particulars (build, resolution, advancement/retirement/etc) such as currencies. So no, you can't talk about Narrativism without mentioning [I]system[/I]. Because each [I]system [/I]will tell you the goals/meta of play (including how, or if, they are a novel instantiation of Narrativist priorities/play) while [I]mechanics [/I]do not. This is why "going mechanics-hunting" is not an effective way (or at least, not in isolation) to discern what a game is about/trying to do. I mean, routinely in these conversations you see the same people see metacurrencies and related economies and mistakenly predict or think "oh, this is a Narrativist game." Then those same people will see basically the D&D equivalent of Bangs (player-authored situations which generate conflict to be dealt with/pursued right now, investing play with both an immediate moment of thematic or evocative or ethos-cementing decision-points and an evolving, cascading situation-state as a result) in the form of the 4e Quest system (which marries seminal indie techniques to advancement) and see "meh." Now finding the technique of player-authored situations (or by-proxy) like the above is not going to guarantee "oh, this is an expression of Narrativist priorities so this is surely a Narrativist system." You'll find some of that tech in Neotrad games so there is subtlety there. That subtlety is the pivot point of "is there actually a crucible of conflict here...is there actual threat/duress/meaty consequences which can dynamically change the situation-state...or is this basically a fait accompli and tantamount to player-side railroading?" Nonetheless, finding the technique (and possibly married advancement) of Bangs and kindred in a system is an infinitely better proxy for Narrativism than a benny, hero, drama (etc) economy. [/QUOTE]

Verification