Yggdrasil: Impossible to get cool narration?

[Christoffer Lernö]

Is it possible to have cool narration in a game within the framework of more or less traditional mechanics?

I'm asking because I was suggested that this might indeed be impossible (not to do it, but to do it well).

For my game, in it's combat system, the approach I'm working with is to have a fairly traditional mechanic which instead of determining results just determines the extent of effects that can be narrated. Or simpler put: the system determines the effect, the player determines the color.

Summarized it goes like this:

1. The player rolls to hit the opponent.
2. If the hit is a success, the player determines the type of effect desired  (make the opponent fall over, damage, disarm etc). The effect in turn determines what stats and skills goes into the effect test.
3. The result of the effect test gives the maximum effect limit of narration for the action.
4. Player narrates the outcome.[/list:u]

In this scheme the player has influence at three points:

* Before 1 (the player could choose to run away and stuff in which case there wouldn't be a roll)
* At 2, determining type of action
* At 4, narrating the details of the action

What I want is play which would look something like this:

Player: "The orc is coming this way? Well taste my shurikens!" I throw 3 shurikens at once at him!
<roll>
GM: Ok, that's a hit. Roll effect.
Player: Ok, such-and-such effect. [rolling a simple damage effect]
GM: Narrate away.
Player: "The shuriken bites deep into his flesh making him ooze green blood!"
GM: The orc is staggers back, you have the action again.
Player: Oh, I have a kewl move.
GM: Roll to hit.
Player: <roll>
GM: Yeah that's a hit, roll effect.
Player: I'm gonna make him fall down and injure him! <roll> [rolling two separate effect rolls, one for damage and one for the "fall down" effect, probably with some penalty for trying several effects at once]
GM: Oh, you only get the fall down, no damage. Narrate.
Player: As he's still reeling from the pain, I go into a low sweep knocking him off his feet and he only narrowly manages roll away from my heel stomp.

I think it seems like it could work, but maybe I'm overlooking something? Are there flaws in this scheme?

[Valamir]

I definitely think it can work...however, each point of contact where you have to check with the rules first makes it that much more difficult.

In your summary above you have 2 chack points.  First what you call "to-hit"  From the sounds of it, if I fail this roll, I don't get to narrate anything.  Theres a huge range of possible cool narrative failures that don't happen.

Then you have to declare a certain type of effect FIRST, and roll again for effect.  Here's a tripping point.  My narration for "a little bity effect" might be totally different from my narration for a "big whoping effect"...but I don't know which I'll get until AFTER I decide the form of the effect.

This may well still work (not saying it won't) but I think you are putting unnecessary (IMO) obstacles in the way which make it more difficult.

Why not eliminate the two rolls and the announcing in advance.  Just have an Effect Roll.  Then allow those "effect points" to purchase whatever...i.e. build your own effect.

[ThreeGee]

Hey Christoffer,

The best way I know of to encourage colorful narration is to reward it. Color first, then roll; roll first, then color -- it is irrelevant. Give people effectiveness for providing color and they fall over each other competing for the most colorful descriptions.

Exalted grants bonus dice depending on the description. I do not have the core book, but it was explained that a cool description grants one die, something that incorporates the environment grants two, and something singularly cool grants three.

Other games, of course, use different mechanics, but the idea is to give metagame currency or some other immediately useful reward as encouragement.

Later,
Grant

[Christoffer Lernö]

Understandable concerns, Ralph.

Let me see if I can address them:

1. Failing "to-hit" still gives you narration, narration of your own failure. You can't narrate any hit or other permanent effect on your opponent, but otherwise free to narrate. You always get to narrate your own actions. That's the basic idea I'm sticking to.

2. Declaring effect first: Yeah, this is a "painful necessity" in my eyes. I'd be happy to do it the way you suggest, but the thing is that I want stats and skills to make a difference for the characters. The characters are supposed to get their characteristics reinforced through the system. E.g. if my character is strong, my successful effects are more likely to involve strength. My narration is therefore more likely to show off my strenght.

A way to do that with a simplified system like the one you suggest would be to let effect cost depend on stats. E.g. "I am strong so lifting him over my head will only cost me 2 points while it costs you 4 because you're weaker"

I'm concerned such a system would be lack the momentum I want for combat and might turn out even more complicated. But maybe I'm overlooking something?

[C. Edwards]

Hey Christoffer,

Ralph pretty much repeated some of my comments from the conversation you and I had over irc.  Grant's feedback is spot on too as far as I'm concerned.  

I think you may have reached a point of diminishing returns on the tweaking you're doing to Ygg's existing mechanics.  My advice is to look at games like Inspectres, Trollbabe, The Questing Beast, and Shadows to see the various ways in which they promote 'cool narration' that is entertwined with 'who the character is' and character effectiveness.  

Like I said before though, none of those are meant to be run using Illusionism, which is how you see Ygg being run.  Hopefully there are aspects of those excellent games that you can take ideas from.

-Chris

[Jonathan Walton]

Hey Christoffer,

I agree with everything that's been said, especially Ralph's thing about having 2 seperate rolls (which I was going to say, but he got there first).  I also think there are other ways to make your effect roll relate to attributes without making it overly complex.

You've know about Nobilis' diceless system right?  Well throw in Fortune and here's how it might work:

You have a chart for each attribute, with a list of the various things that can be done at various levels of umph.  You attribute gives you a base amount of umph, but, after your dice roll, you have the option of making a selection from the list up to stat+roll level.  So people have a base and can go up if they want.  You could even have failures subtract from your umph and give you negative results (in a semi-Fudge like range of good and bad results).

Perhaps there could even be an option to narrate a result several levels WORSE than what you actually rolled in order to gain some kind of "dramatic currency" that could be spent later to power special abilities or add to rolls in times of crisis.  Just something to think about.

A couple unrelated issues:

You say you always get to narrate for yourself, but what about when two characters come into conflict?  Maybe you've answered this on another thread (you probably have), in which case you might just want to point me towards a discussion.

Just a feeling I've got, but it feels like you're at a crossroads with Ygg.  It started out as something close to a Heartbreaker and is in the middle of making a shirt towards a fully progressive game system.  Perhaps you need to make a clear choice about whether supporting traditional styles of play is really what you want or not.  If so, stick to a more traditional design with cool bonus features, like Donjon, which has great crossover potential (and sales probaby).  On the other hand, if you want a more progressive design, don't worry too much about supporting traditional game styles.  Just kick loose and go where you want to.

[Valamir]

You know....

Christoffer, have you concidered taking the world of Ygg and making a Donjon Mini Supplement out of it?  As I recall, one of the prime motivations behind your design was finding a system to articulate the cool world you'd envisioned...I still remember that Demon Lantern spell...

Perhaps, somewhere along the line that goal got bumped into the assumption that you had to create a new system from the ground up?  I think you could probably tweak Donjon (and not even all that radically) into something that fits the bill.

...say, tone down the Facts give the player the ability to rewrite the world and invent stuff rule, and replace with Facts give the ability to describe colorful narration about the roll they just made.  Keep the same "narrate the successes, GM narrates the rest" split.  

Change the choice from being +1 effect OR a fact, to being +1 effect AND a statement of what that +1 represents.  The GM then determines whether to apply teh +1 as a bump to another roll, or as damage, or whatever.

Might be worth playing with...get you back into the swing of creating the setting and might actually wind up being a good exercise for opening those creative doors...

Truthfully that's how the project i'm working on now started.

That hold any interest for you at all?

[Mike Holmes]

I really don't have much to add other than to echo some sentiments passed before.

Just because you offer a player the opportunity to Narrate, doesn't mean that he'll take full advantage of it. I can see a player going through all the motions you list, and then narrating, "I hit it." You have to give the player a reason to narrate.

How about something as simple as Metagame reward points for good narration. The GM hands them out as a "candy" reward for good efforts.

On the subject of how much effort it takes to get to the desired effect, either the mechanics produce some effect that's desireable, in which case you keep them, or they don't in which case you pitch them. Simple as that. In any case, only playtesting can really tell you if an effect is onerous in play. I'd keep more rules, and then jettison them as they are proven to be less than worthwhile in play.

So when are you playtesting?

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I really don't have much to add other than to echo some sentiments passed before.

Just because you offer a player the opportunity to Narrate, doesn't mean that he'll take full advantage of it. I can see a player going through all the motions you list, and then narrating, "I hit it." You have to give the player a reason to narrate.

How about something as simple as Metagame reward points for good narration. The GM hands them out as a "candy" reward for good efforts.

On the subject of how much effort it takes to get to the desired effect, either the mechanics produce some effect that's desireable, in which case you keep them, or they don't in which case you pitch them. Simple as that. In any case, only playtesting can really tell you if an effect is onerous in play. I'd keep more rules, and then jettison them as they are proven to be less than worthwhile in play.

So when are you playtesting?

Mike

[Mark Johnson]

This may fly totally in the face of the idea of "system does matter" but I will propose it anyway:

good narration is its own reward.

Count me in for the playtest!

[Christoffer Lernö]

Grant, Chris & Mike:
I'm already onto the "reward colour" bit. Mainly because I've been told before and I guess it finally hammered it's way into my thick skull. It's only in the magic mechanics yet, but it should worm itself in the other parts eventually, thanks for reminding me though.
I have a whole bunch of supportive mechanics lined up once I have the settled on the basics. (These have been discussed one time or another in the various Ygg threads)

Jonathan:
1. Cool I have to check Nobilis again.
2. The player taking action narrates his/her results. GM is narrates the actions of his/her creatures. In general ownership is quite clear. There are a few threads discussing what happens in the situations when you have collisions. I could provide links if this is interesting.
3. I am firmly dedicated to create an functional illusionist game, changing that would be making quite a different game. I want to finish Ygg before I venture into something else.

Ralph:
"Donjon Ygg" has been suggested before, but I have no such plans. On the other hand, I think it might be possible to plug my setting straight into Donjon, because the solution to the more setting-specific stuff (like magic and things) relies on player and GM narrative more than mechanics. Or so I see it anyway.
I think what Ygg is gravitating towards is a game which works very much like what you suggest Ralph... a Donjon without story-rewrites.


As for now... I'm gonna take all these suggestions to heart and - actually start writing down some more stuff for the world. Playtest? When do you have time? :)