Narrativist mechanics

[Buddha Nature]

Hey all, I am looking for possible "patches" or "house rules" to make a less than narrativist game (D&D 3E for example) more so.  For example one thing I had read was to set a single number of experience points to give - thus limiting the need to be "gamey."  What I would love would be ideas that would give the players good reason to take authorial and director stance through a mechanic.  Examples of this might be set bonuses to dice roles for roleplaying (ala Sorcerer).  These are some of my ideas, but I would love to hear more.

-Shane

[Bankuei]

Unfortunately going with a "set xp" rule doesn't give players any incentive to do anything.  I once awarded based solely on roleplaying, but since I did awards at the end of the session along the normal lines of D&D, players had a hard time recognizing what was considered "good" roleplaying.

My recommendations:
•If characters are created with goals, passions, or other traits, along the lines of spiritual attributes from RoS, or Hero Wars, you can give awards based on characters striving for those goals.  Hence, "Loyalty and Honor" can provide xp whenever the player demonstrates it.
•Reward at the end of the scene, and give a sentence about what they did to earn it.  If it just kicks too much ass, give it to them right away.
•You may want to give the players a "pool" of say, 500 xp each, that they can award to other players at anytime for good roleplaying.  This also encourages folks.

The hardest thing you will have is trying to get them to use director stance.  If you can get one player to do it right, regularly, other folks will get the idea.

Chris

[Victor Gijsbers]

Bankuei, I think giving XP for good role-playing at the end of a session can work. However, you have to tell your players why they get a certain number of XP. With D&D3E, Buddha Nature's example, I would do the following:

Give every player between 0 and 100*Level bonus XP for roleplaying after each session. Announce clearly who gets how much, and why. This will ensure that players (a) know what is and is not considered good role-playing, (b) encourage them to roleplay effectively. (In all this 'good roleplaying' should be read as 'playing a character in a consistent and interesting way- I do not wish to imply that non-Narrative play-styles are unworthy.)

However, don't expect to get much further than letting people behave more 'in character'. They won't suddenly take Director-stance... in fact, you'll encourage Actor-stance more than anything else, at the cost of Pawn-stance.

[Buddha Nature]

Unfortunately going with a "set xp" rule doesn't give players any incentive to do anything.  I once awarded based solely on roleplaying, but since I did awards at the end of the session along the normal lines of D&D, players had a hard time recognizing what was considered "good" roleplaying.

I am not sure if I agree with you 100% here.  What if they are awarded a set amount (no matter what) at the end of the session, but on top of that awarded more for good roleplaying?  The way I see it is that if they know that they are only going to get a set amount of points, they aren't going to focus so much on getting more and more points by killing off more and more monsters.  Instead (hopefully) they will focus more on their characters and the story.

•If characters are created with goals, passions, or other traits, along the lines of spiritual attributes from RoS, or Hero Wars, you can give awards based on characters striving for those goals.  Hence, "Loyalty and Honor" can provide xp whenever the player demonstrates it.

Do you happen to have a good specific mechanic for this?  I have not played either game (though read a bit about both and am intrigued by RoS) so I am unsure about the actual mechanics.  The only things I can think of are just coming up with a few extra "attributes/descriptors" that if they work towards I would award them xp...

•Reward at the end of the scene, and give a sentence about what they did to earn it.  If it just kicks too much ass, give it to them right away.

Yeah, thinking about it this makes sense.  Its like any kind of reward based training - give them the reward and praise as soon as they do the correct behavior.  Thinking about it this could also (if twisted the right way) work towards Narrativist goals - if the whole game has a good agreed upon premise, you could award points for making decisions that point towards the premise.

Now the question becomes, is there some way to promote the use of director or author stance with some kind of similar award system?  What about setting up some system at the offset that says something like this:

•While playing if you use director stance to enhance an action or the scene you can gain bonuses to the actions.

A player's character gets into a fight in a barn, he either does not have his weapon or it has been knocked away.  The player says "I toss some hay in his eyes to distract him as I lunge for the pitchfork lying on the floor."  I then award him some plusses (possibly beyond whatever he might get for the guy being distracted and his now being armed) that he can use for his next action or maybe for the rest of the combat.

•While playing if you use director stance to add something substansial to the world (either a person, place, or thing) you gain xp.

The characters need some information about a certain rune they found.  One of the players says "my cousin Xanis happens to be a runeforger, lets go see him.  He lives in Davenport on the Sea."  I (the GM) have never heard of his cousin before, nor have I ever marked Davenport on the Sea on my map of the world, but now it is there (the player points out where it is on the map, I make annotation) and it is there they go.  I would ask for some details about the cousin and play the new NPC.

Or maybe they find a village full of dead bodies, all of which have had their internal organs removed.  A character says "I have heard told stories of a tribe of dark elves - the Vions - that at night steal the organs of their victims to perform their dark magics."  Again, I have never head of these guys, but it A) gives me a possible reason for the incident; B) gives me something to use at a later date if I decide they are wrong.

For either of these two I would give additional xp - possibly even enlisting player help after the session to flesh out the backgrounds.

•While playing if you use director stance to do somtheing that adds a plot point/twist you gain xp.

This is a bit fuzzier and I am not 100% sure if I know what it looks like, I will think a bit on it.

•You may want to give the players a "pool" of say, 500 xp each, that they can award to other players at anytime for good roleplaying.  This also encourages folks.

I like this idea.  I think there might have to be a little GM veto power just so they aren't just giving it away for anything though.  Something else that just came to mind was giving players each a set of chips (kinda stolen from Deadlands) which can be used to give bonuses to each other's actions, but through director stance (veto-able by the affected character)

A party member is battling a troll and is preparing to get hit, when another player tosses in a chip (giving the other player a plus of some sort (maybe dependednt of chip color)) saying "but as the troll raises his club it gets caught up in some branches of the tree above him, thus limiting his powerful swing" and the action goes on but the defender now has a few more points.

This would have to be limited I think to one player per action, no ganging up to build up enough points to get a guy out of getting hurt - I think anything would have to come before any numbers and math is spoken of in the action.

I think the above could really encourage the taking of director stance because there is an automatic payoff for doing so.  I think you would have to play with the number of chips to see how many is enough, though it would be nice if they could be weaned off the chips and just learn to take director stance...

Okay, how about some other ideas?

-Shane

[Buddha Nature]

Give every player between 0 and 100*Level bonus XP for roleplaying after each session. Announce clearly who gets how much, and why. This will ensure that players (a) know what is and is not considered good role-playing, (b) encourage them to roleplay effectively. (In all this 'good roleplaying' should be read as 'playing a character in a consistent and interesting way- I do not wish to imply that non-Narrative play-styles are unworthy.)

A fear in this though is that only the proactive players are really going to do well in this regard - they will be perfectly in character and get xp up the wazoo, while the reactive player might get left by the wayside, especially if it is all done at the end of the session.

Now something that did come to mind was what if you gave the xp as soon as you saw the good roleplaying, up to and including allowing level advancement in game.  Would that be something players would move towards.  Specifically in D&D3E the only trouble spot I would see would be with your standard wizard becuase they are supposed to have to study up new spells - though maybe a page magically shows up in a tome they have?  It would be fine for everyone else since they all just get bonuses and Sorcerers could just "make up" a new spell and Clerics would be"gifted by their god" with a new spell.

Now is there a way to get the reactive roleplayers in on this as well?

-Shane

[Bankuei]

Bankuei, I think giving XP for good role-playing at the end of a session can work. However, you have to tell your players why they get a certain number of XP.

But this also means that the players won't be getting direct reinforced feedback until the end of the session, whereas immediate payoff allows players to correct and alter their playing style much faster.  It's the same thing as walking with your eyes closed, the longer you have them closed, the less times you can correct your direction.  

The way I see it is that if they know that they are only going to get a set amount of points, they aren't going to focus so much on getting more and more points by killing off more and more monsters. Instead (hopefully) they will focus more on their characters and the story.

In this case, just tell them they get no xp for fighting, but xp for action.  The difference is, no xp for fighting orcs, killing dragons, but xp for kicking barrels down on them(creative), causing a landslide to hit the dragon, then slashing its throat(cinematic), etc.  Be sure to make the difference clear to them.  

As far as the passions/emotions/belief rules, one of my previous designs, Persona, used a very simple rule; Have each player write down 3 beliefs that are most important to their character.  "More than steel, more than mana, the Gods rule our world", "Healing the body is but the first step, the goal is healing the soul", "No greater transgression than undeath", etc.
Simply award the players anytime they fufill or demonstrate a belief.  

Hero Wars treats passions or personality traits as their own stats that give bonuses to actions, but in this case, anytime your Paladin shows his "Fearless in the face of duty" aspect by charging the oncoming dragon to save the villagers, pour on the points.

I'd say with the encouraging director stance, give the players both bonuses to succeed and xp.  Do let them know that using it isn't about tactical advantage, as much as what would be cool(at least if you're looking for an action story).

As far as concerns regarding level advancement, I always saw D&D as a fantasy action movie, so of course you can play it like most other action movies where the hero makes some major breakthrough in understanding in the midst of battle..."Of course, the 9 Dragon Fist was meant to complement 7 Holy Pheonix...that means....together,the techniques form Holy Dragon Storm!!!"

Regarding getting reactive players to hop more into the game...check out scene framing and bangs in various threads here on the Forge, you'll get a lot of good ideas.

Chris

[Victor Gijsbers]

A fear in this though is that only the proactive players are really going to do well in this regard - they will be perfectly in character and get xp up the wazoo, while the reactive player might get left by the wayside, especially if it is all done at the end of the session.

True, true - yet maybe it's a good thing. I prefer proactive playing above reactive playing, and if a mechanism like this can encourage reactie players to become more proactive, all the better. But more importantly, as a GM you know which players are reactive and which are proactive, and you can compensate for that. No problem; you just give the passive guys a bit more XP than they 'have a right to'.

Now something that did come to mind was what if you gave the xp as soon as you saw the good roleplaying, up to and including allowing level advancement in game.  Would that be something players would move towards.

Thing is, I don't really believe this kind of reward is the best kind of reward. As long as you're striving to 'get better', you won't come into a Narrative kind of play. In my opinion, you should reward people for good roleplaying by letting their plans have more success; if some gets into trouble by good roleplaying, let him get out of it more easily than normal; things like that. If people are encouraged to role-play better because it will make thei characters stronger, you're just using narration as a tool in what by all standards is 'powerplay'.

Specifically in D&D3E the only trouble spot I would see would be with your standard wizard becuase they are supposed to have to study up new spells - though maybe a page magically shows up in a tome they have?  It would be fine for everyone else since they all just get bonuses and Sorcerers could just "make up" a new spell and Clerics would be"gifted by their god" with a new spell.

Rules are there to be broken - and D&D-rules doubly so. ;) Make up a convincing mechanism and don't worry about the books, that's my opinion. The alternatives you gave sound quite good.

[Victor Gijsbers]

But this also means that the players won't be getting direct reinforced feedback until the end of the session, whereas immediate payoff allows players to correct and alter their playing style much faster.  It's the same thing as walking with your eyes closed, the longer you have them closed, the less times you can correct your direction

When walking with your eyes closed, you need to change your direction often. But once you understand what makes good roleplaying, you don't have to change direction very often anymore. So your metaphore is a bit misleading: walking with your eyes closed needs continuous adjustment, whereas good roleplaying needs only to be set in the right direction once - as it were. So I don't think you need all that many occasions to talk about roleplaying; once after every session should be more than enough.

Furthermore, giving XP detracts from the game. I prefer meta-game actions such as that taking place before or after a session.

[Buddha Nature]

In this case, just tell them they get no xp for fighting, but xp for action.  The difference is, no xp for fighting orcs, killing dragons, but xp for kicking barrels down on them(creative), causing a landslide to hit the dragon, then slashing its throat(cinematic), etc.  Be sure to make the difference clear to them.

This is kind of a good idea - especially if you like cinematic action.  Hmm, maybe combats would have a set amount of awardable experience and would be awarded through action instead of who killed what and how many.  Though you could also figure this pool of points based on the baddies involved in the combat...  I'll have to think on this a bit more.

As far as the passions/emotions/belief rules, one of my previous designs, Persona, used a very simple rule; Have each player write down 3 beliefs that are most important to their character.  "More than steel, more than mana, the Gods rule our world", "Healing the body is but the first step, the goal is healing the soul", "No greater transgression than undeath", etc.
Simply award the players anytime they fufill or demonstrate a belief.

This is a cool idea.  I was kind of thinking of riffing on the Unknown Armies Passions, Rages, and Fears too.  This could be good too because they are personal beliefs and such...

Hero Wars treats passions or personality traits as their own stats that give bonuses to actions, but in this case, anytime your Paladin shows his "Fearless in the face of duty" aspect by charging the oncoming dragon to save the villagers, pour on the points.

Yeah, I hear ya.

I'd say with the encouraging director stance, give the players both bonuses to succeed and xp.  Do let them know that using it isn't about tactical advantage, as much as what would be cool(at least if you're looking for an action story).

Yeah, I guess that isn't too bad of an idea - especially for the gamists who are hungry for the points, it might be enough incentive to be altruistic (giving the bonuses to others) or to take a personal director stance.  Yeah I think both might be the way to go, both on the giving to others and the using it yourself...

Regarding getting reactive players to hop more into the game...check out scene framing and bangs in various threads here on the Forge, you'll get a lot of good ideas.

Oh don't worry about that I was planning on working onmy Scene Framing and judicious use of Bangs.

-Shane

[Buddha Nature]

When walking with your eyes closed, you need to change your direction often. But once you understand what makes good roleplaying, you don't have to change direction very often anymore. So your metaphore is a bit misleading: walking with your eyes closed needs continuous adjustment, whereas good roleplaying needs only to be set in the right direction once - as it were. So I don't think you need all that many occasions to talk about roleplaying; once after every session should be more than enough.

I think in this regard taking the middle way would be best.  Start out by giving the bonuses and such immedietly to start training the players on what you want then, when you see it taking hold, maybe wean them onto waiting until the end of the session.

To be honest though my players are going to need constant encouragement. =)

Furthermore, giving XP detracts from the game. I prefer meta-game actions such as that taking place before or after a session.

When you say "detracts from the game" do you mean giving it as they finish the awardable action screws with the flow of the action or do you mean just in general the logistics of it puts a stop in the flow of the game as a whole and as such should wait until the end of the session?

I like meta-game stuff as well, but what I think we are looking into are in-game ways (whether they be game or meta-game mechanics) to encourage Director stance and Author stance and Narrativist play as a whole.  If this is true, then if you are trying to drift your sim/gam game towards N, I think you need to be constantly encouraging it.

-Shane

[Ron Edwards]

Shane,

Reading through this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be balking at the idea of rewarding the players right then and there during play. I can't understand this at all. It's really what you're looking for,  as long as we're talking about reward systems.

I think the idea of setting a standard amount of XPs is quite wrong - sure, standardize the amount per character (ie even split), but f'God'sake dont' say, "Just because you play, you get XPs." That communicates the idea that the content of play is irrelevant.

Also, I'm not contributing much, because you're talking about patch rules and I don't think in terms of patch rules.

The big question you're asking also seem a little off to me.

You see, your concerns seem to be more about Director stance and in-character stuff, perhaps a little Author stance regarding tactics, and definitely a lot more about Drama resolution (ie not "rolling to hit" to see whether the soup cauldron turns over, just saying it does, etc). These are fine things, but in and of themselves, they aren't "Narrativism." They are techniques/standards of play that permit shared narration, shared input, shared power, and that sort of thing.

So I think you should review what you're really asking for. If you want Narrativist play, that's a pretty big deal, and includes a wide variety of possible standards & practics. If you want a specific set of standards and practices of play, that's another issue.

Best,
Ron

[Buddha Nature]

Reading through this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be balking at the idea of rewarding the players right then and there during play. I can't understand this at all. It's really what you're looking for,  as long as we're talking about reward systems.

No, I think you are getting mixed up in all the back and forth.  I think "right then and there" is the way to go.

I think the idea of setting a standard amount of XPs is quite wrong - sure, standardize the amount per character (ie even split), but f'God'sake dont' say, "Just because you play, you get XPs." That communicates the idea that the content of play is irrelevant.

Okay, so what about going this way:

X "just for playing" + Y "plot stuff" + Z "roleplaying bonuses (maybe voted on by the players)" + whatever they got in game

This is kind of how we already do things, but not the voting part.

Also, I'm not contributing much, because you're talking about patch rules and I don't think in terms of patch rules.

Yeah, I usually don't either but when your player base is chomping at the bit to do D&D3E and you (the GM) are chomping at the bit to do something Narrativist leaning, full of shared narration and such, I think patches are the best thing you can do for all parties.

The big question you're asking also seem a little off to me.

You see, your concerns seem to be more about Director stance and in-character stuff, perhaps a little Author stance regarding tactics, and definitely a lot more about Drama resolution (ie not "rolling to hit" to see whether the soup cauldron turns over, just saying it does, etc). These are fine things, but in and of themselves, they aren't "Narrativism." They are techniques/standards of play that permit shared narration, shared input, shared power, and that sort of thing.

So I think you should review what you're really asking for. If you want Narrativist play, that's a pretty big deal, and includes a wide variety of possible standards & practics. If you want a specific set of standards and practices of play, that's another issue.

No, I think you are right here.  I unfortunately do want both and should have said so from the outset.  I understand that the shared narration and Directors stance isn't Narrative (pointing all actions toward an overarching Premise).

I guess what I am really looking for are two things:

1) Additional mechanics to promote and encourage Director and Author stance

2) Suggestions on drifting Sim/Gam games toward Nar - possibly using mechanics from 1.

-Shane

[Victor Gijsbers]

To be honest though my players are going to need constant encouragement. =)

Ok, that's your own decision to make. Mine don't need constant encouragement, so I guess we have different needs. :)

When you say "detracts from the game" do you mean giving it as they finish the awardable action screws with the flow of the action or do you mean just in general the logistics of it puts a stop in the flow of the game as a whole and as such should wait until the end of the session?

I prefer players to stay 'in character' as much as possible. Giving such an abstract thing as 'experience' - which in most systems is something the players can, but the characters can't, understand - detracts from that, in my experience. Of course, this is purely a matter of personal preference - and frankly, D&D3E doesn't suit my wants very well; since you've chosen it, you probably want different things from your session than I do.

I like meta-game stuff as well, but what I think we are looking into are in-game ways (whether they be game or meta-game mechanics) to encourage Director stance and Author stance and Narrativist play as a whole.  If this is true, then if you are trying to drift your sim/gam game towards N, I think you need to be constantly encouraging it.

Ah, wait. I thought you wanted you players to behave more 'in character', since that is what your proposed methodes can do. I severly doubt they can accomplish any of the goals you mentioned here. If you wish a Narrativist game, you can do either one of two things: a) incorporate a morality-based Premise into your campaign, and making sure your players face the ethical dillema's following from this, b) go talk to your players and decide upon such a Premise. Since your players don't seem to be very narratively inclined, I'd choose the first option. Find out if they like it; if they don't, you can forget about Narrativism. If they do, you can go further. (And I really advise taking another system. D&D3E is Gamist to the core.)

On the other hand, you claim you want more Author/Director-stance. This is not the same as wanting more Narrativism, so let's treat it as a seperate goal. As a matter of a fact, I'd be rather impresses if your players really take the Actor stance all the time! In my experience, the kind of people who - to use your own words - 'need constant encouragement', are players who mostly use Pawn/Author stance. Are you sure you don't want them to take the Actor stand more often, instead of the Author stand?[/i]

[Victor Gijsbers]

[I guess what I am really looking for are two things:

1) Additional mechanics to promote and encourage Director and Author stance

2) Suggestions on drifting Sim/Gam games toward Nar - possibly using mechanics from 1.

I think I covered the 2) in my last post - you need to decide on a morality-based Premise, and you need to incorporate it into your story and confront your characters with it.

As for 1), I'm afraid I have too little experience with this kind of thing... but I'd suggest that you tell your players that you give them a limited form of freedom in shaping the world around them, as long as they use it for enhancing the story. Make this utterly clear - if it's not clear, they won't make us of it. What about rewards? Well, telling them that Direction-stance actions on their side are good when they make them should be enough. Most players like influencing the world, and when you show them they can do it, they will start doing it more.

[damion]

Here's my suggestions: Most of these are relative to DnD, but could be used for other things.

Unfortunatly, true Simulationists or Gamists can foil just about any system. I think an important part is talking to everyone about it, the 'Social Contract' side.  Also, I think this works better than trying to imply your prefrences through a style of play and handing out rewards in a specific way.
This way you avoid gamists becoming proactive because it gives better results.

One would be to say you are gonna keep track of all XP. Only tell players when they level up. This way you can just do a story arc and when you get to a stopping point, level everyone up.
Maybe have people who's roleplaying lagged a bit need one extra scene to level up. (Basicly, do a one-shot scene). This requires you to give feed back during play(Hey,that was cool), so people can make the connection.

Maybe talk to players who who seem to be reactive("Instead of asking me if there's a pitchfork, just go for one and I'll tell you if your  wrong"). Additionally, you could reward good stances with additional rewards. Maybe those barrels you knocked over contain fine wine and one of them is still intact. You wouldn't have noticed that if you hadn't knocked them over.

Another key thing is Never Tell Anyone Any Numbers. Just ask them to roll and explain the results.