NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6180074" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Very close to my way of thinking. To my thinking, the two modes of viewing/analyzing a story (action arc or dialectic) give us two methods of attempting to create "story" through mechanical invention. Narrative doesn't need to be created, folks are good with that. We can even do that fairly well with quite primitive mechanics like old-school D&D. I see a parallel with professional sports. During play, some kind of narrative will be produced. Whether that narrative is a good engaging story is rather haphazard. Although, at least the NFL in the US seems very interesting in making sure that all teams in the league are fairly balanced, as that leads to the best opportunity for dramatic games and tensions approaching playoffs. However, no sports league has (to my knowledge) enacted rules to ensure that good drama happens on the field ("If you're winning by 15, you must bench your first-string QB."). But I digress...So for a game to be story-oriented, it probably takes one of those two tacks. The way I see it: your type (i) games saw "story" through the "action arc" eye. At that time, the only way game designers had to really view producing a story lead them to think they needed to railroad. I'll give a special shout out to a little game called Whispering Vault (1993). Which had a structure that produced an action arc as its "default" session without a lot of railroading. However, the structure was not generalizable beyond its particular horror genre. (The game also featured a proto-thesis engine, but I found its implementation very suspect.) More recently, the Gumshoe engine also manages this for the particular type of investigative scenario that it handles. The GM can set up all the clue scenes ahead of time, the players kind of work their way through them. When they have collected enough clues, climax usually happens. Again, though, difficult to generalize beyond investigation. I've actually considered using something like 13th Age's escalation die across an entire session. The PCs would be hard-pressed at the beginning, but at some point triumph as the odds switch to their favor. I think this might well create the sort of thing some action heroes go through where it seems like they only lose for the first half, get their bearings and stomp all over everybody by the end. Fiasco also has this structure built in for its particular sorts of scenarios. I'm not sure if Fiasco counts as an rpg, though I suspect a similar engine might be more generalizable for an rpg-like experience. Capes, as well, has been accused of leaving the rpg realm, but I can say with certainty that its resolution engine could be applied to almost any genre I can imagine. So that's all for the Action Arc, what about dialectic? Enter the Forge, et al. I think your characterizations of their primary methods and modes is pretty spot on. If there's a problem with that method, its that it doesn't usually provide any form of mechanical feedback on your progress (how could it?) That means that the sections on how to resolve the story are almost universally vague, which leads to that oh-so common phenomenon of "you have to learn it by playing it with the author at a convention" that seems rife for Forge games.Very much how I see it. I'm more squeamish about they way 4e did it, to me that's how Gamism can interfere with Narrativism (but that's arguable). My hesitation to calling classic D&D "fiction oriented" would be a lack of standardized/unified...or even stated... mechanics for accomplishing that. So, if the DM/author is including some new feature in the dungeon, they often have to invent rules for it. Often (IME), classic DMs might even have to come up with new mechanics/rulings on-the-fly to deal with the fiction. Otherwise I'd agree. Of course, that flexibility is often a strength of Classic D&D, permitting a skilled DM to adjust to his group. Unfortunately, it requires a skilled DM to pull it off.It can, and we seem to be in agreement on the rest.I'm not as familiar with BW, but Marvel and FATE share a similar quirk in this regard. Namely, they have mechanics that can drive "story" (either dialectic or action arc, I would think) but the success of doing so would depend greatly (IMO) on the player's choices for open-descriptor traits (milestones, distinctions, or aspects.) I tend to suspect that that is a very good thing, as it allows one player to push a dramatic arc for his character and another to "ride-along" while still being integral and prominent in play. I haven't had the opportunity to play Dungeon World for long enough to see how its relationships work in this arena.They make sense to me. I think my hesitancy with your impression of 4e combat is due to my feeling that dialectic can "bottom out". By that I mean that I think the gravitas(closest word I can think of) of the thesis and antithesis matter. I mean, we don't view a game of checkers as two players coming at it with opposite and equal theses of "I will win!", although we technically could in the theory's view. Of course, as I say that, I must admit that I didn't approach 4e that way when I was running it, and I doubt that any of the DMs who I (briefly) played under viewed it that way either.I think very much so. Even ratcheting an appropriate foe up or down a few levels is relatively trivial to my thinking. Now, I don't think off-the-cuff encounter design produces the best encounters, but I'd imagine one could get better at it with practice. From my limited experience, though, were I to DM 4e now, I'd probably just prepare a wide variety of encounters to start with...attempt a limited sandbox type of thing.First let me say that Capes' mechanics are so outré that it can be hard to describe (I honestly have no idea how it was invented). It is heavily steeped in conflict resolution and the dialectic model and has two separate economies going on to manage play. Capes is also very fluid: there can be multiple versions of the same character, characters can change hands, new Conflicts are invented, etc. all while the players are competing for control of the narrative. So, if this makes little sense...I'm trying my best to avoid writing the whole book out! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Inspirations are created when a Conflict is resolved. They come with a number and narrative value: "Flash stole my date!:3" "Vincent has the key.:1" Bigger number means bigger impact when used.To answer your questions:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Why does referencing the source of the Inspiration in play, so as to  build it up, create tensions?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Because you need to use a turn to get the ratchet up effect. This conveys a strong signal to other players about what kind of things will distract you from their goals, and what sorts of things you are intending to accomplish narratively. (Unless you're bluffing...but let's not get into that.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To use the Inspiration also requires the fictional  positioning. So you don't want to let contentions drop....which means  that more Conflicts will revolve around it....which means that more  Inspirations will be created...etc. Eventually that comes to a climactic head within the fiction and somebody (at the player level) loses enough control of the fiction that their resources are basically voided.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Does referencing the source of an  Inspiration require fictional positioning of the PC in relation to that  source, or just the player making some sort of allusion in the course of  narrating a PC's action.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Yes, although its very loose. Its perfectly legit (if not default) to narrate a despondent character monologue-ing on the Inspiration's source and finding greater heroic inspiration therein.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To ratchet up the Inspiration, the player has very wide berth on what they narrate: anything from simple speech to destroying a building, and whatever they say is "true." (The game imposes other limits which are fluid depending on the table state at the moment. You can't, for instance, narrate anything that effectively resolves an open conflict.) However, it must somehow still relate to the source of the inspiration, even if loosely. (I dunno how "Mary Jane turned me down.:3" relates to a building being destroyed, but hey! If you can make it work.)</li> </ul></li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification