Players ALWAYS given narration

[Garbanzo]

I'll also note that Pretender has narration completely independent from success of failure -- any participant, even the GM, can narrate a given conflict, regardless of the results.

...and in what ways does the game differ as a result?

-Matt

[xiombarg]

...and in what ways does the game differ as a result?

There's more creativity and more player control. Elements come into the game from unexpected directions. The result, in my experience, is a pretty wild ride.

If you dig around the Actual Play forum, you can find accounts of the early playtesting.

[Mike Holmes]

I should know the answer to this, but I can't remember, Kirt. When two players disagree on a narration in Pretender, what happens?

The way I see it, all narrations are to some extent, negotiated between everyone at the table. The real question is who has final say if there are disagreements.

Mike

[xiombarg]

I should know the answer to this, but I can't remember, Kirt. When two players disagree on a narration in Pretender, what happens?

There really shouldn't be any disagreement. The dice determine who chooses the narrator, and that chosen narrator clearly has the power at that point, though limited somewhat by the other parameters set by the dice (success/failure, style, etc.)

I guess if there was a dispute about how someone was narrating, it would default to majority vote, with GM breaking ties, assuming it couldn't be negotiated out between all present without resorting to that default rule. But in my experience the dice clearly delineate everything well enough that everyone knows who's narrating and approxomately WHAT is being narrated (i.e. where it's going), tho there is always room for surprises, especially with the "optional" categories like Discovery.

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, I see. When you say independent, you mean determined independently. I had gotten a vision of a game where the dice are rolled, and everybody just starts offering suggestions. Basically everybody can narrate every result. Which, you'll admit, would tend to lead to people coming up with multiple interpretations, which would further have to have some way of deciding who has final say.

It's been implied by some that people are collaborative enough creatures that it doesn't matter who narrates an event. But even those people agree that in the end it's important to say who has final say. That's the basic principle here, I think. Narration is, in fact, given to everyone to negotiate in all cases, I believe. I mean even if you say, "Player X narrates this, and nobody else can interfere," there are social pressures in the group that make all narrations negotiated, IMO. What's important is that, if these negotiations cannot be successfully concluded, that there be somebody empowered to have final say and move the game on.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Mike has nailed it. The term "the Buck" in the vocabulary is extremely valuable; games which assign specific narration are really talking about the Buck ... and hence are promoting group narration rather than circumscribing it.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Damn! I just discovered that "the Buck" isn't in the Glossary.

It comes from the phrase "the buck stops here," meaning that someone needs to have the role of rubber-stamping or finalizing the conclusive content of everyone's input into narration.

It differs very greatly from "the Conch," which refers to everyone else shutting up while someone takes sole rights of narration.

See also Why I can't say "I had fun playing Trollbabe". Michael was under the impression we were using the Conch when the rest of us were using the Buck.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

A little etymology on the "buck": http://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm

The difference between the conch and a buck-knife is pretty appropriate, symbolically, no?

Mike