Striking the middle ground between narrativist and gamist

[RFLS]

Little bit of a roundabout leadup to the question, so here we go: My group started on Pathfinder, had a brief affair with FATE, and most of them have settled on 5e. I'm looking for a new system to try out for the next game I DM. I like FATE, but I'm not comfortable running it for this group - many of them have the DM/player adversarial mindset that D&D and Co. foment, which is antithetical to FATE. On the other hand, many of them find even 5e to be a bit of a mechanical struggle.

So, I'm a bit stuck. I want a narrative game, I want it to be rules-lite, and unfortunately it needs to not rely on narrative input from the players beyond what their characters do. And, to top it off, two of them have explicitly expressed dislike of PbtA games.

I'm lost. Thoughts?

[Frozen_Feet]

If your players like D&D but find 5e too complex, then play a simpler version of D&D, such as Basic, or a retroclone like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

"Narrativism" is a red herring. You explicitly state you don't actually want players to have higher level input than character actions. Any GM-led game can be made to suit your purposes. The question is what you want your players to do in the game?

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm having some thoughts, but you'll have to judge for your own group:

1. Try to influence the GM/Player paradigm to shift away from adversarial. Maybe something GMless like Fall of Magic will help if words haven't?

2. Stars Without Number is fairly simple except that it uses To-hit armor class which is confusing for a little while. Could work fairly well if they're into Sci-fi

3. Change groups, since this will likely be an ongoing problem. If your preferred style and theirs are clashing really hard, it might be best to part amicably.

[Airk]

"Narrativism" is a red herring. You explicitly state you don't actually want players to have higher level input than character actions. Any GM-led game can be made to suit your purposes. The question is what you want your players to do in the game?

Yeah, I agree; I'm honestly a little confused by the OP here - "I want a narrative game" and "It can't rely on any narrative input from the players beyond what their characters do" are pretty much mutually exclusive. ANY game can be "narrative" from the GM's perspective. :P

Maybe you mean you are looking for something more genre-simulationist than physics simulationist or gamist?

[RFLS]

Yeah, I agree; I'm honestly a little confused by the OP here - "I want a narrative game" and "It can't rely on any narrative input from the players beyond what their characters do" are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I want it to have narrativist mechanics available. However, it needs to function without relying on them because my players are not great at using mechanics like that (which is why FATE was a flop).

[Frozen_Feet]

All the more reason to scrap the idea of using a "narrativist" system. Use LotFP or similar which has zero such elements on the player's side, and introduce the narrative elements via work on the GM's side, such as scenario design.

[Airk]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I want it to have narrativist mechanics available. However, it needs to function without relying on them because my players are not great at using mechanics like that (which is why FATE was a flop).

What do you think of as "narrativist mechanics" exactly? I mean, if the players aren't going to use them, why do you need/want to have them?

[kyoryu]

Yes, please define what you mean by "narrative". It's a fuzzy word that people use without having a strict definition.

The Forge's definition - where the term came from - is almost universally *not* what is meant by "narrative".

[LibraryOgre]

I'd lean towards Savage Worlds... it's pretty straightforward as a basic system, and the metamechanics of Bennies are pretty straightforward.

To me, I interpret "narrativist mechanics" as being metagame mechanics... things the PLAYERS can do to affect the narrative. It can be rerolling a bad roll, adding a story element, or gaining more metagame resources by invoking flaws. "Well, normally I'd be all for this, but I'm invoking Coward, and running away. Gimmee my benny." Most players understand things on this level, even if they're pretty hardcore gamists... this is part of the game.

[Tanarii]

The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.

Causal: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on likely outcomes (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes likely outcomes.

Narrative: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on necessary narrative outcomes* (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes narratively necessary outcomes.

(Note in some narrative systems, players can directly determine the narrative and use mechanics to affect it. Ie I also agree with Mark above.)

*sometimes called "what would be most fun to happen here".

[Talakeal]

The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.[/SIZE]

Them's fighin' words!

[Tanarii]

Them's fighin' words!

Are you sure?
(Maybe I should have just made my own thread.)

[kyoryu]

The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.

Causal: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on likely outcomes (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes likely outcomes.

Narrative: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on necessary narrative outcomes* (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes narratively necessary outcomes.

(Note in some narrative systems, players can directly determine the narrative and use mechanics to affect it. Ie I also agree with Mark above.)

*sometimes called "what would be most fun to happen here".

According to the Forge, it's actually about exploration of theme.

But, you know, nobody uses the definition of the people that invented the term.

[2D8HP]

According to the Forge, it's actually about exploration of theme.

According to the Forge glossary

Narrativism (Narrativist play) is:

"One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See Story Now."

Story Now is:

"Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play"


Um, yeah?

...But, you know, nobody uses the definition of the people that invented the term.

.
Well, you explain it way better than they did themselves @kyoryu so...

[Lorsa]

According to the Forge, it's actually about exploration of theme.

But, you know, nobody uses the definition of the people that invented the term.

I also think that, according to the Forge, there IS no middle ground. You can only ever have one creative agenda (why does no one ever use the word agendum?), and trying to mix them will only result in failure.

[JellyPooga]

Whenever someone asks for a new system to try, my answer is almost always the same because it seems to fit a lot of bills.

The One Ring sounds almost exactly what you're looking for. It's mildly crunchy and character development is interesting from a mechanical standpoint. The system is also "narrative" in the GM-led sense, but player characters also have hooks and abilities that either they or the GM can tug on to tell a bit more story or otherwise advance the plot, which allows the GM to keep the players involved in that narrative sense and not just as a bunch of numbers rolling through encounters, even if the players don't, though they can and are encouraged to do so in TOR.

[kyoryu]

Well, you explain it way better than they did themselves @kyoryu so...

I'm reasonably sure you're being serious here :D

I also think that, according to the Forge, there IS no middle ground. You can only ever have one creative agenda (why does no one ever use the word agendum?), and trying to mix them will only result in failure.

Well, yes. Anything that doesn't strictly pigeonhole play is, according to Forge theory, "incoherent."

Which is part of why I reject Forge theory :D

But still, that's where the definition came from, and it's interesting that the only rigorous definition has almost nothing to do with how the term is used "in the wild".

[2D8HP]

Which is part of why I reject Forge theory :D.

.
While I actually liked Ron Edwards Sorcerer & Sword supplement and I find his game biography interesting (I have no memory of meeting him, but I see that he played similar games at the same time [late 1970's and early 80's] and same area [Berkeley, California] as I did), but too much of The Forge's theories read like gibberish to me ("epiphenomenal outcome"??? WTH?), to be of any use.

Your own "Types" I find much easier to understand and useful @kyoryu.

[Talakeal]

Are you sure?
(Maybe I should have just made my own thread.)

In video game circles "casual" usually refers to someone who is bad at the game and just doesn't care enough to get better.

When I hear it applied to a certain style of RPGs I can't help but feel that it means anyone who is labeled casual isn't a "real" RPer.


But yeah, narrativist is a stupid word because as defined by Ron Edwards it doesn't mean what people think it means. I much prefer the GDS theory to GNS and Drama is much closer to what people think of when they hear "narrativist elements".

[Max_Killjoy]

"Narrativist" is confusing as heck as a term used in the wild versus the Forge definition vs the "fiction writer's" usage vs whatever... see my posting history related to the term since I joined here.

As for The Forge, keep in mind that there's a lot of postmodernist obscurantism going on in what you read from Edwards and his closest adherents; and most of it is driven by a very specific agenda, with an end-goal in mind, rather than as honest analysis.

[Max_Killjoy]

The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.

Causal: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on likely outcomes (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes likely outcomes.

Narrative: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on necessary narrative outcomes* (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes narratively necessary outcomes.

(Note in some narrative systems, players can directly determine the narrative and use mechanics to affect it. Ie I also agree with Mark above.)

*sometimes called "what would be most fun to happen here".

E: like Talakeal, I read that as "casual". Perplexed reaction retracted.

[Frozen_Feet]

"Epiphenomenal" means "above a phenomenom" means "viewed from a higher level, thing leads to another thing."

The "epiphenomenal outcome" of me tapping my fingers against a table is rhythm, and done with the specific intent of playing a tune, the outcome of that is music.

In the same way, the transcript of a game played to explore a theme is a story.

But at the same time, this just shows how demand of a "narrativist system" is a red herring. You don't need any special mechanics on the players' side to create, explore and resolve themes. Just have the GM set up scenarios that would be conductive to doing that.

[Tanarii]

In video game circles "casual" usually refers to someone who is bad at the game and just doesn't care enough to get better.

Causal, not casual.

[Max_Killjoy]

Causal, not casual.

Causal -- OK, that makes a lot more sense.

And in that way it does hit on how I'd been looking at "narrativist" before discussions here, based on how games like FFG's Star Wars and fans thereof use it, where things happen for narrative reasons rather than in-setting reasons (example, the "talent" that allows the player to decide that some mechanical thing just happens to break or malfunction because it makes for "good story", and is not required to connect this to any character actions within the setting in any way). That sort of "narrative causality" (it happens because The Plot needed it to) is pretty much anathema to my enjoyment of both fiction and RPGs.

[Tanarii]

That sort of "narrative causality" (it happens because The Plot needed it to) is pretty much anathema to my enjoyment of both fiction and RPGs.

Yeah, there you go. Narrative Causality is what I'm talking about. I have a knee jerk negative reaction to it if either the GM doesn't tell me in advance that's what they'll be doing, or the game rules itself don't either spell it out or heavily imply it. (For example any game calling itself "storytelling" generally implies it.)

On the other hand, if it's rephrased as the Rule of Fun or the Rule of Cool, all of a sudden I'm way more cool with it. It's all about how it's presented.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm still confused about why we're rehashing Edwards' triumvirate and the Forge stuff when all of the following is true:
1. The Forge no longer operates
2. Edwards himself doesn't really use it anymore
3. Game designers don't use the theory except in rare cases
4. Nobody on this thread is using it in that way
5. According to everyone in this thread, almost no one uses the term "Narrative" to mean that anymore.


It feels like I'm going on a videogames forum in 2017 and seeing people bringing up ps2 games as evidence of modern problems. It's weird.

[2D8HP]

I'm reasonably sure you're being serious here :D.

.
Yes.

Yes I was.

It feels like I'm going on a videogames forum in 2017 and seeing people bringing up ps2 games as evidence of modern problems. It's weird.

.
Well to some of us (okay me) the PS2 still counts as newfangled.

[Airk]

As for The Forge, keep in mind that there's a lot of postmodernist obscurantism going on in what you read from Edwards and his closest adherents; and most of it is driven by a very specific agenda, with an end-goal in mind, rather than as honest analysis.

Whoa there. First of all, this is wild speculation. Second of all, LITERALLY everything written on the Forge is over a decade old, so using it as any sort of indication of what people think nowadays is more than a bit misguided.

ImNotTrevor has it right. It's fine if someone wants to mention this stuff as a historical footnote, but for bob's sake, stop trying to debate it or act like anyone ACTUALLY uses that stuff at this point, whether they are part of some postulated cult of "adherents" or not.

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh come on. First of all, this is wild speculation. Second of all, LITERALLY everything written on the Forge is over a decade old, so using it as any sort of indication of what people think nowadays is more than a bit misguided.

ImNotTrevor has it right. It's fine if someone wants to mention this stuff as a historical footnote, but for bob's sake, stop trying to debate it or act like anyone ACTUALLY uses that stuff at this point, whether they are part of some postulated cult of "adherents" or not.

The Forge came up, and someone reacted to their terminology.

In the context of The Forge, I absolutely stand by my comments, both regarding the cultish nature of the place and their use of postmodernist obscurantism.

As for applicability to the present, the opening post of this thread and its title specifically use the terminology of GNS... are we supposed to fastidiously ignore the subject because you and ImNotTrevor have deemed it "out of date"?

[Talakeal]

Causal -- OK, that makes a lot more sense.

So much more sense.