The Forge Archives

In designing Orx (http://www.daegmorgan.net/rpgs/orcs-bw.htm) I hadn't given much thought to the idea of who narrated being important; however, during the playtest sessions I ran, I found that who had the rights to narrate the rolled outcome was a big deal to everyone.

As well, things didn't seem to flow as smoothly with each individual narrating the outcome of each of their own rolls, as things were forgotten or muddled and other players and their actions in the grand scheme were ignored.

Now this may have been due to the nature of on-line gaming, the fact that everyone was new to the game (including me), a few unrealized flaws in the rules, or a combination of the above, but in the interests of attempting to dissect one problem at a time I'm going to ignore questioning the precise cause.

So, the question at hand, what is the best method for deciding on who recieves narrative power? Trollbabe (http://www.adept-press.com/trollbabe) assigns this automatically to the GM, unless the player rolls three successes or is on the last step of a series.

This works for me, except that I find that the GM is then always in the driver's seat; and in the specific case of Orx, given the limited input given to the players, it might make the players into little more than stat-choosing, die-rolling machines.

What other methods might be used for Orx?
What other methods are used in other games, and why are those methods successful or unsuccessful?
Is having narrative power over the results important to you or are you fine with letting the GM declare everything (down to the very methods and behaviors of your character)?

For example, if Orx were to give the GM narrative power, then all the player would state would be an Ability Score, the Conflict and (if desired) a Descriptor (ie: item or quirk that provides a bonus). The rest would be up to the GM, specifically everything about how the orc went about resolving the Conflict using the specific Ability (and Descriptor) and the results or reactions of the orc.

If this is the route chosen, should there be a way for players to take the narrative power over the results away from the GM? What methods are used why do they work or how do they fail?

I wonder if initially Orx should be run with narrative power given completely to the GM, until the players see what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to handle descriptions of the results of rolls (ie: what elements to include, what results of other player's rolls should be narrated, and so forth).

Currently, narration is set-up as follows: if more than one orc is involved in the same conflict, the narration is performed cooperatively between them, with the losers going first.

At this point, the narration and scene/conflict rules seem unfocused to me, if not confusing. To spare you the trouble of clicking over to the game page and scrolling, I've pasted the relevant sections below.

Please read this over, and if you can provide any suggestions to increasing their clarity, or what you might replace them with (and why) pipe right on in.

-------
begin game text
-------

CREATING SCENES
How long is a scene? What compromises a scene?

A scene is as long or as short as it needs to be; it might comprise an entire battle, or just one specific melee in the greater battle. It all depends on how the current place and situation work into the session. Mechanically, I recommend for Orcs that most scenes include at a minimum three rolls, and likely many more.

Scenes are not restricted to specific locations, depending on the needs of the scene, they can occur in wide, generalized locations. A setting could either be a small room in the back of a seedy bar, the entire bar and the street outside, or even all the streets of the city. It all depends on the goal of the scene, and the goal determines when the scene ends.  When the goal is attained or lost, the scene ends and the game moves on to a new scene.

If you're having trouble wrapping your mind around this, great! You're already thinking like an orc...that is to say, barely! Unfortunately, for the gamemaster reading this, you aren't usually playing an orc, so here's some help: split each scene into a number of conflicts that need to be resolved with rolls in order to attain the scene's goal.

For example, to reach the human king in a brawling melee, in order to kill him, the orcs might have to get through the mass of combatants without getting hurt, face off against the king's guards, and finally attack the king himself. Killing the king, or being driven away from him completely results in the end of the scene.

Don't set up a linear series of conflicts and expect that the flow of action will go that way. Simply: don't rely on the orcs achieving their goals (or failing, for that matter)! There are two results for any roll, plan for both.

In the example above, if the orcs are driven back in the first bout of melee, failing to even get anywhere near the king, obviously you'll need more conflicts to have a decent scene and resolve the scene goal definitively. Perhaps the orcs are subjected to a deadly rain of arrow-fire, and after that have to claw their way across a river to avoid being killed (putting the king out of reach for the time)...or perhaps they renew their offensive after the arrows and smash into the cavalry to get to the king, instead.

So what do the rolls resolve in a conflict? They change the situation notably from the situation the orc was just in. That is, the orc has new options available to him (or her), it isn't just a continuation of a task.

To take the example of combat in most other games: every rolled sword swing or gunshot is an attempt to ultimately resolve the same conflict. There's little notable change in situation from round to round, unless one of the opponents is seriously injured, knocked down or disarmed (etc). That isn't the case with Orcs: every roll results in notable change.

CONFLICT
As already stated, and now repeated for the confused reader (myself included), scenes are based around goals. Once the goal of a scene is set, the orcs go about trying to reach it.

To do this, they must suffer through conflicts. Base conflicts on impediments to the goal, and create a number of them.

As an example, if the orcs are waylaying hapless travelers in the wood in hopes of gaining coin, some of the conflicts can be: remaining hidden long enough to get the drop on someone, getting through the wood itself with all its brambles and brush, avoiding being spotted by their mark, if the bandits are spotted and their mark runs, bludgeoning their inferiors into assaulting the mark first, and overcoming or merely surviving the magic of the wizard they unknowingly end up jumping.

Thus a scene is run from conflict-to-conflict, in an order as follows:

1. Name the Conflict

The specific conflict is named, usually by the gamemaster, though players can feel free to suggest conflicts that seem appropriate for their orcs and what they are planning. Those involved in the conflict are named. Those not involved in the resolution of that conflict stay out of the way, unless they are going to add a complication to their companion's attempts.

2. Declare Complications

Next, the players decide if they are going to add complications to anyone else's rolls.

3. Borrow Fate Dice

The players may borrow Fate dice from the gamemaster's Fate pool.

4. Declare and Roll

Stats and appropriate descriptors (if desired) are stated and their dice rolled, along with any borrowed Fate dice. The effects of any complications to the player's roll should be applied before the roll (removing or adding dice).

5. Second Chance for Fate Dice

Any Fate dice borrowed before the roll are returned to the gamemaster. Any player who did not choose to borrow Fate dice before can do so now, rolling it as a sort of second chance.

6. Narration

The conflict is resolved with cooperative narration on the part of all involved. The use of the stat rolled, along with any descriptors, must be prominent in the resolution of the conflict.[/list:u]
Note that not all the orcs have to participate in a specific conflict, or the same conflict. Some of them may be involved in one conflict at the same time another is involved in another conflict.

Frex, if one orc is busy prying the lock off an ancient chest while his companion battles the horrendous demon-thing guarding the chamber and ancient chest from exactly such defilement, each orc is engaged in a separate conflict.

Normally, those orcs losing the conflict narrate first, describing how they get their butts whipped, though it is possible they narrate after the succeeding orc(s), describing their failure as due to another orc stealing their spotlight, or the successful actions interfering with their own such that it causes them to fail their own attempt.

Frex, Tharg-or and Nurn are fighting a horde of pesky half-men. Tharg-or is whirling his huge axe around, slicing the little pests in half by the handful and manages to crack Nurn -- who is crouched nearby, stabbing madly with a broken spear and dagger -- in the skull without realizing it.

-------
end game text
-------

Quote from: greyormWhat other methods are used in other games, and why are those methods successful or unsuccessful?

One method, and I'm not sure if it would work for Orx- it might take some serious rewriting to make it work, is found in the Bullwinkle and Rocky game from TSR*. The game included quite a few props including a series of cardboard stad ups with the characters on them. One of these stand ups was the narrator's microphone so you could do your best Robert Conrad impression. The basic game had the players passing the microphone around round robin narrating the story.

For Orx (or possibly some other game), I can see some kind of physical prop that represents narrative power being passed around the table. It would start with the GM and through dice rolling it would get passed to the players and back. I'm not entirely sure how it would work, but I can see dice contests with this totem being the prize so the primary motivation for the players is to win this totem but since it is easily lost, they will have to defend it to retain the power it gives.

I hope this at least give you an idea.



* strange how after all that has been said and all I have said about TSR that I continue to find loads of good ideas in their product line. I guess you can't judge a company by their one big thing.

Hi there,

Can I ask for one terminological shift in this topic, from Narrative Power to Rights of Narration? This is because we're really talking about narration, not narrative (they are vastly different things and I wish people would look that up), and also because "power" concerns issues of agreement with what is said, not only who says what is said.

For example, in our games of Sorcerer, we let rights of narration bop around the table in an unconstructed fashion, but I as GM maintain "buck stops here" narrative power. (This is just one way to play; Trollbabe, as Raven points out, formalizes the process in a different way, although not quite as he described it.)

Best,
Ron

Quote from: greyorm
So, the question at hand, what is the best method for deciding on who recieves narrative power?

There's an Answer to this question. One True Answer. One Answer to Rule them all, an Answer to Defeat All Answers. The Answer is....

Whichever one you like best! (Hah! That was helpful wasn't it?)

There is no *best* way to do it. There are just ways to do it. You have to pick one you like, or come up with one of your own. I know you haven't been able to attend many of the Indie-netgaming sessions, so I don't know if you've seen many of these systems in action (have you tried running them with your D&D group, frex?) but I'd suggest checking out James V. West's "The Pool," Zak Arntson's "Shadows," Mike and Ralph's "Universalis," Clinton's "Donjon" and (hmm, lessee, any more?) for different ways of handling narrative distribution.

Donjon's is pretty cool if you ask me. If the player wins the roll, he determines the outcome, and the GM narrates it. If the player loses the roll, the GM determines the outcome and the player narrates it.

Universalis is GMless, so all the participants take turns narrating. You can narrate until you're finished, in which case the next narrator is the next person around the table. Or, another player can pay a coin to interrupt you and start his own turn.

In Shadows, the players always narrate, regardless. The rolls determine *what* outcome they narrate, nothing more.

In The Pool, a won roll gives the player a choice of narrating, or of improving his effectiveness.

Quote
Is having narrative power over the results important to you or are you fine with letting the GM declare everything (down to the very methods and behaviors of your character)?

I really like using director stance. Therefore, I'm a big fan of games that give players lots of power. Universalis has lots and lots of director stance (because it's GM-less), which is one reason I really like it. Donjon has director stance in that successes you roll allow you to determine facts about the game world (similar to spending coins in Universalis, but you have to participate in some sort of conflict to generate facts.) Shadows and Universalis are my two favorite games. They're completely different - I wouldn't want to try using Shadows for the same things I use Universalis for - but they both have lots o' player input.

Hey Raven,

Here's a radical thought, how about instead of tying 'who narrates' to either success of a resolution system or their own outcomes, make 'who narrates' a matter of 'what gets affected.'  Thus it doesn't matter who's acting or who succeeds, but who gets affected.

You attack & you miss = you narrate (the miss affects you)

You attack & you hit = your target narrates (the hit affects them)

You perform another action & you succeed = the 'owner' of that subject narrates (see how this often becomes the gamemaster?)[/list:u]I find this usually keeps the game from deprotagonizing either the players involved (their things can't be "forgotten or muddled" by other players) or the gamemaster's "grand scheme."  The person calling for an action describes what leads up to the 'decisive point' of the occurance and the 'owner' of the thing which is affected describes the outcome based on the output of the resolution system.  Since this is often the gamemaster, it just seems like they do most of the declarations.

How does that work for you?

Fang Langford

Ron's suggestion of the term "right of narration" works better for me, and I see the difference he is describing between the terms (and you'll have to forgive my description of Trollbabe's narration mechanic, I haven't yet played; the above is only what I recall from my reading of it over the holidays).

Quote from: PaganiniIn Shadows, the players always narrate, regardless. The rolls determine *what* outcome they narrate, nothing more.

I'm curious about this: that is the exact description of the way Orx works right now, but in play the group seemed to have trouble working with this method. Since you were a part of the playtest group, do you have any ideas why that was so?

Are there any specific reasons why it works in Shadows but doesn't appear to in Orx, or rather, why a group that reads/plays Shadows gets what they are supposed to do? Or do you think I am reading too much into the playtests?

Let me ask everyone this:
Could you run a game of Orx using the text on the webpage? Particularly: does it adequately explain the concepts of Scene and Conflict? Does it clearly delineate what a Conflict is and who and what is involved in one?

Quote from: Le JoueurHow does that work for you?

Not sure, since I haven't tried it in play yet, but it sounds feasible.

Quote from: greyorm
I'm curious about this: that is the exact description of the way Orx works right now, but in play the group seemed to have trouble working with this method. Since you were a part of the playtest group, do you have any ideas why that was so?

I think the main reason, at least for me, was that I wasn't sure what an Orx game session was supposed to look like. With Shadows, Zak was very careful to communicate at each stage *exactly* how a game session should proceed. Shadows as a game has almost *no* mechanics [1], but IIRC, Zak devoted about 2 and a half pages explaining how the game should really work.

[1] Only one kind of roll, and a simple token economy. You can describe the whole system in a single paragraph.

In your next playtest draft, I suggest including examples that demonstrate exactly what you want to happen during an Orx session, rather than examples that merely showcase the mechanics. (Actually, it's been a while since I've looked at Orx. It could be that you've done this since our playtest... :)

Another thing about Shadows is, that "what happens if you fail" is specifically decided beforehand.
I don't really remember if that is decided beforehand in Orx... I remember deciding what happens if you succeed.

Ok, Nathan, I'm not sure if something like this is what you mean, and I haven't had time to reread "Shadows" due to work and the insanity that is post-holiday life here, but this is what I have in the current draft:

Narration can be a tricky thing to handle, so here are some tips:

Write down what ability (and descriptor) you rolled and whether you succeeded or failed. Include any complications that affected the roll.
Using the ability you rolled as the basic action undertaken (ie: Brute = physical force; Nasty = intimidation or command; Grok = mental prowess or ), describe how you achieved your success or failure, including any complications.

The narration phase can and likely will have to mix things up to create a satisfying explanation for the result of the conflict indicated by the roll.

Frex, three orcs are involved in a conflict with an opponent, a wizard. The first thing to be done is for each orc's player, or the gamemaster, to define each orc's conflict. All the players declare the same conflict: they are confronting the wizard and attempting to brain him.

For the moment, we will ignore the overall scene and its goal. So, the conflict is set: Tharg, Bark, and Three-finger are accosting a wizard and Three-finger ends up in an extended contest with him.

Beyond this vague statement, nothing about how this is to be done is yet declared. Now the players of the orcs choose which ability they will approach the conflict with: The players of Three-finger and Tharg decide to use Brute against the wizard's mojo while Bark's player declares he will use Grok.

Three-finger rolls and ends up in an extended contest with the wizard; the result of this is that the other orcs may drift in and out of the extended conflict, noting their additions to the event. Their actual actions do not necessarily occur at a single time or place during the conflict. That is handled by narration.

Tharg and Bark have already rolled for the conflict and found their results, the former failing his Brute roll and the latter succeeding with his Grok roll. Three-finger has to roll a few more times yet. However, no one knows yet precisely what events have occurred during the conflict, only the ultimate results. Eventually, we find Three-finger loses the contest by one success.

Now narration is used to reveal how Tharg's Brute fares against the wizard's mojo. Tharg's player exclaims that the orc was magically frozen by the wizard (and thus taken out of the fight) the moment he rushed from the trees with an orcish battle cry on his lips.

Three-finger's player then explains how his Brute fared against the wizard -- his charge is more successful, the wizard unable to freeze both orcs at the same time, allowing Three-fingers to wrestle with the wizard until ultimately the orc is zapped into unconsciouness with thunderous lightning magic.

Finally, Bark's player states his orc, using Grok, played it smart by hiding in the nearby bushes and used the struggle and the wizard's ensuing gloating as a distraction to sneak up behind him and bash him over the skull (in the proper orcish manner of dealing with wizards); the wizard crumples unconscious to the ground -- conflict resolved.

Note that none of the players are "done" at any specific point, they may alter their actions and the narrative (though not the end result) at any time they wish during the narration phase of play.

For example, Tharg's player decides he doesn't like the whole "magically frozen" thing after all, and after Three-finger's actions have been narrated, changes the story so that Tharg held the surprised wizard immobile so that Three-finger could punch him in the kidneys a few times (until the angry wizard blasted them both with a freezing spell). Note that the statement about Three-finger's action can only be a suggestion, it is not true unless the player acquiesces.

Since this change affects how the other players might have narrated the event, either player can pipe in and change anything they like about their own actions.
[/list:u]
There are more examples in half-written stages which detail conflicts with complications being added, descriptors being utilized and the other funky roll-alterations that exist. I do plan on writing up an example scene, or even scenario-with-"This is how we played it"-dialogue for the reader.

Is something like the above helpful?
Does something like I'm describing adding sound helpful?

Quote from: Bob McNameeAnother thing about Shadows is, that "what happens if you fail" is specifically decided beforehand.

Ok, apparently I need to reread "Shadows."
Of course, I don't know if "what happens if you fail" would work with Orx, since what happens to a given orc all depends on what ability the player chooses to use and if any other players add complications.