Rights of Narration

[Le Joueur]

Hey Ron, Vincent,

Fang, you're making it a little too hard by confounding "success/failure" with "player wants/doesn't want," which isn't part of the issue.

Think in terms of stated actions or immediate goals for the character, and you're all set. As I understand it, Scattershot falls firmly in the Outcome-Based category just as Vincent says.

Scattershot does fall into an Outcome-Based 'way of looking at it,' but it isn't as simple as "player narrates successes, GM narrates failures, or vice versa."  The recipient isn't always the player or always the gamemaster.  Certainly the target, 'who gets to narrate,' is determined by the outcome; I've no question there.

Hmm, how to simplify?

Scattershot: non-player character successfully acts against player character = player narrates[/list:u]Now that sounds like option 1: "player narrates successes, GM narrates failures."
Scattershot: player character successfully acts against setting = gamemaster narrates.[/list:u]That's pretty much option 2: "...or vice versa" ('GM narrates successes, player narrates failures').

So Scattershot has it both ways.  Not this

or that, but both; that's why I'm confused.  If it's this or that, a 'both' response doesn't fit.  And what I am trying to find out is how that relates to:

(1) Player narrates when the fortune mechanic results in success, GM narrates otherwise.  E.g., InSpectres, The Pool.

(2) Player narrates failures, and GM successes.   E.g., Trollbabe, Donjon, where player or GM may add facts into the other's narration.

(3) Narration is determined by a separate mechanic from success/failure.  E.g., Dust Devils.

(4) Player always narrates. E.g., Shadows, World/Flesh/Devil (almost).

And not:

Most Easy and Straightforward: anyone narrates a given outcome...

Outcome-based Rules: player narrates successes, GM narrates failures, or vice versa.

Fortune/Independent-of-Outcome Rules: A separate Fortune element determines who narrates, integrated in some way with the resolution system.

Quite Derived: GM always narrates; conversely, player always narrates.

I'm not conflating success and player desire.  I'm pointing out that in Scattershot, 'who narrates' is dependant neither upon their role as gamemaster or player nor their motivations.

And please let's not start with 'it is both player narrates successes, GM narrates failures,

and vice versa,' because that would be no different compared to "Most Easy and Straightforward: anyone narrates a given outcome...perhaps via suggestions at first."  In that case Scattershot becomes firmly, "The actual outcome may depend...on the buck stopping at the proprietor of the character in question...."[/list:u]The 'which is it?' is starting to make my head throb; I'm gonna go lay down.

Fang Langford

[bowlingm]

Fang,

It sounds like "owner of what is affected by an action narrates the outcome".  The thing that's affected is the thing that is changing because of the action, maybe a PC, NPC, or part of the setting.  

Or maybe just the owner of the failing entity narrates, since, for the most part, things resist change.  Change implies to some degree failure.

So we now have...

(1) Free-Form (Sorcerer)
(2) Player Narrates Failures, GM Success (Trollbabe)
(3) GM Narrates Failures, Player Successes (InSpectres)
(4) Narration mechanic separate from resolution mechanic (Dust Devils)
(5) Affected party (or its owner) narrates (Scattershot)
(6) GM always narrates (Common Mode), Player always narrates (Shadows)

So, I'm still left wondering does it matter?  For example, suppose I want to run a pulp, mystery-man-battles-nefarious-villain game similar to the original Shadow pulp novels mixing action and mystery.  Like Jared's goals in InSpectres I don't want the GM creating a mystery and the players trying to follow the GM's clues to solve it.  I want the players to be a part of creating the mystery and ultimately defeating the dastardly plot.  Which of the above techniques might be best suited for these goals?

Maybe the above example isn't deep enough to answer the question?

Maybe nobody has any good answers to the question at this point?

Maybe this is a dumb question?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Mike's response covers it for me, Fang. Or if you'd like, just make that or that's causing so much trouble into an and/or - what matters is that the resolution roll, itself, determines who narrates on the basis of who succeeds.

Now, Mike, you're making sense - let's get out of "What about Scattershot?" and into the more general picture.

My answer is, Yes, who-narrates matters immensely. It matters most fundamentally in that who-narrates should not be controversial during play. Ever.

Please note that even the "consensual/group/whoever" category, if overt, meets this criterion. What does not meet the criterion is a game which cannot explain who establishes what's going on, and how. I also think that a game which does meet this criterion suddenly finds that many, many procedural rules found in many games can suddenly be jettisoned. This very principle is why I was, and am, so jazzed about The Pool.

Please also note that I think all six of your listed categories are 100% functional, given certain goals of play.

Now let's take it to a more applied level. How does who-narrates relate to goals of play?

1. Who-narrates is not going to tag a game as Narrativist or not. Narration and Narrativism are two different things, based on very different words.

2. Who-narrates often carries with it some Director stance. Even if its scope is very limited, if I get to narrate my character's success in (say) our local version of Champions, then I can say, "My roundhouse punch connects! He goes crashing into the Volkswagon beetle!" [all of which was determined by the system] "The impact turns on the car stereo and the radio's playing 'Dazed and Confused'!" [that's the Director stance]

That was an example of very limited Director stance. In a game like The Pool, however, the Monologue of Victory would have covered the crash into the car, the extent of damage to all and sundry, and the radio as well.

The extent of this Director stance is something that has to be established for narration in any game, any time. This issue is usually tacitly squashed into a set of unstated assumptions about (a) the GM being the only one with narration-rights and (b) what a GM can or cannot provide during the actual play of a situation.

3. The narrator of the moment clearly has a fair amount of power to affect the protagonist/antagonist "value" of the characters involved. If the GM's NPC Slaphappy hits my superhero Dark-Angst Crime-Buster Man, and if he narrates that D-A C-B Man, in response to the blow, displays crossed eyes and his tongue sticking out sideways, I'll be pissed. He just de-protagonized my character, which (in my opinion) is rotten at any time but especially in a superhero example. I don't mind D-A C-B Man getting hit; that's actually spot-on great for my Dark Angst suffering. I mind him looking silly.

Any narrating person wields enormous power toward the enjoyment of the game for this one, specific reason. Reluctance to share this power speaks of two interesting, simultaneous things: (a) acknowledging its importance, and (b) distrust of others at the Social Contract and GNS levels of play.

4. Given #2 and #3 above, who-narrates is going to play a big role on the construction and procedure of Situation (whether one calls Situation "encounters," "scenarios," or "story" or anything else isn't important).

Those are my first thoughts about narration-rights relative to the goals of play. I hope people can see that we are dealing with more generalized issues than GNS stuff - or rather, that these concerns are going to provide some of the fundamental units (Director stance powers, protagonism, immediate implications of Situations) of which GNS concerns are made.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

[list=1][*]Free-Form (Sorcerer)
[*]Player Narrates Failures, GM Success (Trollbabe)
[*]GM Narrates Failures, Player Successes (InSpectres)
[*]Narration mechanic separate from resolution mechanic (Dust Devils)
[*]Affected party (or its owner) narrates (Scattershot)
[*]GM always narrates (Common Mode), Player always narrates (Shadows)[/list:o]So, I'm still left wondering does it matter?  For example, suppose I want to run a pulp, mystery-man-battles-nefarious-villain game similar to the original Shadow pulp novels mixing action and mystery.  Like Jared's goals in InSpectres, I don't want the GM creating a mystery and the players trying to follow the GM's clues to solve it.  I want the players to be a part of creating the mystery and ultimately defeating the dastardly plot.  Which of the above techniques might be best suited for these goals?

Maybe the above example isn't deep enough to answer the question?

Maybe nobody has any good answers to the question at this point?

Maybe this is a dumb question?

The only "dumb question" is the one left unasked; it is a good question, I'm just not sure you'll be entirely happy with the answer.

I can't think of any reason all six of your categories would each create a distinctive game based upon your example.  I also don't think any one of them is better than any of the others.  (Well, that's not precisely true; however I am trying to limit my personal bias for my creation.)

Of them all, #6 might be the least obvious.  The first half of #6 depends heavily on how the gamemaster is instructed to narrate; if he simply 'rubber stamps' what would happen in the second half of #6 (ostensibly for 'continuity's sake'), then it too works just as well.

However...

Now let's take it to a more applied level. How does who-narrates relate to goals of play?

2. Who-narrates often carries with it some Director stance. Even if its scope is very limited....

The extent of this Director stance is something that has to be established for narration in any game, any time. This issue is usually tacitly squashed into a set of unstated assumptions about (a) the GM being the only one with narration-rights and (b) what a GM can or cannot provide during the actual play of a situation.

3. The narrator of the moment clearly has a fair amount of power to affect the protagonist/antagonist "value" of the characters involved....

Any narrating person wields enormous power toward the enjoyment of the game for this one, specific reason. Reluctance to share this power speaks of two interesting, simultaneous things: (a) acknowledging its importance, and (b) distrust of others at the Social Contract and GNS levels of play.

Given these two points (and the removed examples), I should think that "affected party" should be highly important in such an "original Shadow pulp" adventure game.  'Kicking the mystery loose' from the gamemaster doesn't alleviate the need for non-player character 'with secrets' (though they may be 'open secrets' that remain unknown or unknowable until more of 'the plot' is known from the players).

I suppose that's why I'd think that #5 might have things a little more stacked in its favor (in simplicity).  You could easily add "affected party" rules to all of them and solve the problem Ron clearly illuminates.

Overall, I think that each number would create a very intriguing and very different game as you describe; it's all a matter of how you (the designer) want it to go.  (My old adage: "pick one.")

Fang Langford

p. s. Ron has pretty much identified my purpose in Scattershot's design...even though we're away from that in this discussion.

[bowlingm]

Actually the discussion on Scattershot got me thinking...

Part of the decision of narration mechanics is "whose got secrets?"  If the GM has secrets then she'd better have the right to narrate when something threatens that secret.  On the other hand if the players have secrets, then they'd better have narration rights at the appropriate time.  Player secrets could be some details on where they want a character's subplot going, for example.

In all games both players and GMs have secrets, i.e. unannounced desires or plans for the story, but the mechanics may have a strong emphasis on whose hold sway.

My attempt to understand the possibilities...

Scattershot tries to encourage everyone to have secrets.  You have narration rights when it comes to your "creations".

InSpectres specifically allows players to have secrets, at least in areas where they're capable and can succeed.  The GM is not encouraged to have secrets, since a player's success could just narrate away the GM's plans.

Dust Devils is a little strange.  Players have to weigh success with their idea of the story in choosing between high card and good hands.  Also there's the bidding of chips.  GM's thrown in the same boat.  It's almost like the inverse of Scattershot.  No one's secrets are safe.

That would mean, though, that Trollbabe emphasizes GM plans over player plans.  Which may make it close to Ron's goal of Vanilla Narrativism.  Or maybe I'm way off.

</BrainDump>

Mike

ps... my notion of secrets evolved as I wrote that.  I think by the end I'm thinking of secrets as simply unannounced perceptions of the future, i.e., where they see the story going, or in a simulationist approach their view of reality, or in a gamist approach plans for winning.

[Le Joueur]

Actually the discussion on Scattershot got me thinking....

Part of the decision of narration mechanics is "whose got secrets?"  If the GM has secrets then she'd better have the right to narrate when something threatens that secret.  On the other hand if the players have secrets, then they'd better have narration rights at the appropriate time.  Player secrets could be some details on where they want a character's subplot going, for example.

In all games both players and GMs have secrets, i.e. unannounced desires or plans for the story, but the mechanics may have a strong emphasis on whose hold sway.

My attempt to understand the possibilities...Scattershot tries to encourage everyone to have secrets.  You have narration rights when it comes to your "creations".

Well separately, there are four basic components to our thinking on Mystiques right now.[list=1][*]A restricted number of people must 'oversee' a Mystique.  (If it isn't a secret from somebody, is it a secret?)
[*]Everyone else is expected to 'play along' when the 'overseer' indicates that the Mystique affects the situation, without any requirement to reveal it.  (This also works 'both ways;' you must trust that the 'oversight' won't abuse their 'power' in the situation - turning a flirt into a tease.)
[*]The source of the Mystique must be chosen for the amount of intrigue and suspense it creates.  (An unrelated unknown is almost pointless unless it masquerades as relevant.)
[*]Whether belonging to player, gamemaster, or whim of the dice (for example, the pages of a 'choose your path' book), these Mystiques can actually be 'blank,' meaning they do not contain anything when first 'put into play.'  (InSpectres and Donjon work this way.)[/list:o]Scattershot is trying to encourage people to 'think outside the box' of traditionalism; getting beyond 'only the gamemaster has secrets.'  Go ahead, let the 'dark mysterious' hero have his secrets even from the gamemaster.

p. s. My notion of secrets evolved as I wrote that.  I think by the end I'm thinking of secrets as simply unannounced perceptions of the future, i.e., where they see the story going, or in a Simulationist approach their view of reality, or in a Gamist approach plans for winning.

Not as far as Scattershot goes.  A Mystique may result in things playing out a certain way when revealed ('...when you open the arc of the covenant, this is what happens...').  It might cause predictable 'detours' around certain expectable plots.  But Scattershot doesn't work on participants holding pieces of narrative hostage as Mystiques; besides, if that's the Narrativist use of Mystiques, you confuse narrative with Narrativist.  One way a Narrativist could use a Mystique is choosing one whose revelation radically changes their character's relationship to the Edwardian Premise.

All that said, let's get back to the topic of the thread.  Consider the 'Scattershot digression' closed.  (Need more info?  Open up a thread down in the Scattershot Forum.)

Fang Langford