combat without the crunch

[timfire]

On the minus side, they also tend to lead to a degree of dissociation between the player and the character. This is because if I don't win narration rights, somebody else gets to narrate what my character does, what choices the character makes, etc.

I just wanted to say that this issue has a pretty easy fix. Narration is a big deal in The Mountain Witch, and the above is definitely a potential issue (for example, Aiding characters never narrate, only the conflict frontman does). What I advice is that players ask each other what their character's intentions are before they begin narrating. Then (obviously) I advice players to incorporate these intentions into the narration.

For example, I'm fighting a monster and another PC is helping me. I ask the player, "How is your character helping mine?"  They say that they are going to flank the monster. I then narrate how the other PC flanks the monster, forcing it into a corner, which allows me to deliver the killing blow.

That way, even though they aren't narrating, they still maintain control over their character.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

A useful term that arose from discussions of narration here is "the Buck," meaning that everyone can participate in the narration of an event in the game, but that one person is the acknowledged "fixer" of or has "final say" over what happens.

This term arose from observations that narration in most role-playing is often highly collaborative even though most participants would swear, afterwards, that a single person had narrated the whole thing.

In games like HeroQuest, The Mountain Witch, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, etc, rules which state "X narrates the outcome" are usually stating where the Buck stops, not that everyone has to shut up like window store dummies while X talks alone.

Best,
Ro

[Ben Lehman]

In games like HeroQuest, The Mountain Witch, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, etc, rules which state "X narrates the outcome" are usually stating where the Buck stops, not that everyone has to shut up like window store dummies while X talks alone.

BL>  I've found that this varies wildly from group to group.  Some groups jump in and all take turns, other groups -- when confronted with narration mechanics -- will very patiently sit and wait for the person to finish their narrative part.

This has led me to believe that it might be a good idea to be more specific about what "narration" means, or just come right out and talk about "buck-passing."

But your mileage may (and, apparently, does) vary.

yrs--
--Ben

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I have decided that the topic has drifted, in part due to my own post.

Let's take all discussions of narration per se to other threads, if there's anything substantive to bring up.

Calvin, you seem pretty comfortable with the idea that there is something to gain from checking out the various titles people have recommended, so if you'd like to call the thread closed, feel free. Or if you want more input, that's cool too. Just say the word whenever.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Getting back to that combined resolution thing:
I find I really, really like what Clinton did in the Shadow of Yesterday. The thing he did in that game that I thought was most interesting was the "Bring Down the Pain" mechanic. Where, if the outcome of a simple one roll conflict resolution was for some reason unpalatable, it is possible to sort of zoom in... and go to a round by round resolution. What was cool is that even in the round by round, there is no real requirement for the sort of traditional combat I'm used to because "damage" is not necessarily injury, "weapons" and "armor" are really only advantages, and the outcome of each round is still abstracted around the intentions of the characters. Suddenly there's this slow-motion detailed unfolding of the events (enhancing the drama) without all the baggage of traditional mechanics, and it can be zoomed back out to the speedy task resolution style at any moment where the slow motion style is dragging out more than necessary. You're not trapped into a long, drawn-out and pointless exercise in going through the motions to determine the outcome of the combat. It's only slow when it matters.

Calvin,

I'll jump in and say "thanks!" here. I wish that the game wasn't being printed right now. I'd use some of the above quote in the "Bringing Down the Pain" section.

Really, it's just HeroQuest. The major difference lies in "the Buck" Ron's talking about. In TSOY, you state what the outcome will be if you win upfront, and then compete to get that outcome in Bringing Down the Pain. Damage is really just how far you'll push your character to get that outcome. And, of course, you can change what that outcome will be throughout the conflict, so someone trying really hard to avoid your persuasion attempt is in serious trouble when you change your intention to kill them.

But, yes, I wrote it because traditional combat where everything is slow bores me to tears. If some guy is just a dude, and he's in my way, and I'm playing the sort of character who cuts down dudes in the street, then it really shouldn't take more than a roll to do that.

Edit: I should have hit "Preview" before posting. Apologies, Ron.

[madelf]

Ron:
I'm pretty comfortable with what I've got to work with for now. Certainly it's going to take time to digest even a portion of what has been recommended. Without digesting it, anything else I might be able to say is probably not going to be terribly meaningful. (And I can always start a new discussion later, once I have my head wrapped around this stuff better)
While I'd be interested to hear some more about shared narration, as you say, that's not really the topic I started.

So I'd say the thread has done it's job.



Thanks to everybody who commented!