Greetings and salutations.

I've been reading the Forge discussions for some time and have had my eyes opened to a larger world of gaming, so I'd like to start by saying thank you.

My group has a problem. One of the semi-regular GMs is looking to run a game using a setting that has been designed for D&D. Without wanting to spark off an argument about systems, let's just say that he is uncomfortable with D&D but really likes this particular setting which he has bought. He desperately wants to run some games but doesn't know what system to use. To help you out I'll give you a quick run-down of the group:

Me: I GM 90% of the time but now want a rest. I enjoy narrativism and a degree of simulationism but don't have much time for gamism.
Astrid: My wife. Adores a deep narrativist game with lots of actor stance play. She is bored rigid by rules and munchkinism.
Marcus: The guy who wants to GM. Like me he enjoys narrativism and a sprinkling of simulationism, but can't abide gamism and crunchy rules systems.
Tim: He loves to game and will play anything. He does enjoy munchkinism but recognises that it isn't appropriate in all games.
Matty: Along with me he's the most experienced member of the group. He is happy to play anything but will show his munchkin tendencies if allowed.

So, 3 out of the 5 people prefer a narrativist game above all. The GM wants to run an heroic fantasy game but doesn't want to get bogged down by mechanics. Do any of you wonderful people out there in Forge land have any recommendations for a good rule system to use in this instance?

Many thanks in advance.

Sacha

The Pool handles narrative play well, that might be one to check out, it's rather good.

Story Engine (is that still in print?)

The Shadow of Yesterday (though this would take some work to adapt)

I was going to suggest the Shadow of Yesterday too. There's a Creative Commons version here.

Hero Wars is said to be narrativistish but I'm not massively convinced and it is quite rules involved. Mind you most narrative systems involve rules for things that would not be resolved by the system in Sim games. So you probably need a clearer idea of what you want the game to do. For example, the system used in Dogs in the Vineyard works fine for conflict resolution where there is some moral element but is possibly too much for just a bit of tracking.

If you want light rules then Over the Edge (free in it's Thundarr variant) is pretty good.

If the focus is on humanity (or equivalent) and relationships then Sorcerer (Sorcerer and Sword) is a good way to go. There's plenty of examples of the Actual Play here. Mu's Bed is the S&S variant.

And for sheer narritivy freedom, octaNe is easily adaptable to Heroic Fantasy from post apocalyptic.

Thanks for the help guys.

Marcus is looking at TSoY and is talking about picking up a copy of Sorcerer and Sword.

My quest to bring some indie games to our group may just be working!

I'll post something when we've played our first session.

Once again, thanks for the help, you Forge types are the best.

Cheers,

Sacha

Hi Sacha,

I see a possible problem here. If you use a game like, say, The Pool, you inevitably get player narration. That clashes with the concept of a GM who “knows” the setting and introduces the players to it. The latter style of play is, imho, better fitted for a classical GM role, and it is also most probably Simulationist.

I hate to say this, but in my experience, most people don’t get the concept of Narrativism at first take. So if you say your wife likes Narrativism with lots of Actor Stance play, what I guess (please correct me) you really mean is: She likes getting into her character, playing good scenes which include a lot of acting, not bothering about rules. Without wanting to get into detail about GNS, which I’m definitely the wrong person for: That kind of play is not generally featured by the typical Narrativist Forge design. A game like Dogs in the Vineyard, for example, makes that style of play impossible, because you don’t just “act it out”: An argument is a conflict, and each line is a Raise or See, so the scene is dominated heavily by the rules.

I really don’t know about TSoY, maybe that might be something for you. So please have a look at it. I would recommend Primetime Adventures for a TV-style version of a fantasy campaign, but then again, PtA wouldn’t work with the “GM knows the setting and shows it to the players” approach. If you want to do that, you might be better off with FATE or something of the like. Or if you want to play one of the aforementioned Forge games, you might consider taking your GM’s setting only as an inspiration and creating your own setting while you play.

- Frank

Frank, I see the same challenge you do.

How's about this: have your GM introduce everyone to what he thinks is cool, maybe lending out some books. Then put the books down and have a PTA pitch session and figure out what you want to do, and expect that it will deviate wildly.

... see, the thing is, if the Narrativist tendencies are really present and active, the GM won't know more about the setting, because the setting is what the players make happen in play, not what it says in the book. My guess is, everyone would be superhappy developing a new setting using anything at all fun as inspiration.

If you want to have a situation where the GM reveals the setting to the players - irrespective of what the characters know about it - you'll wind up playing "Guess What The GM Wants", and a lot of - if not all - Narrativist games are written to directly avoid that game. Dogs in the Vineyard has a gnarly situation set up, but the world emerges as players play. PTA has no setting but what comes out of scenes. Under The Bed meanders wildly as players build bits of setting. Mountain Witch is the same story and setting every time, but for the protagonists, who are the core of the story.

It seems like Burning Wheel or Shadow of Yesterday might be good gateways for your folks - the rules are actually fun and, you know, let you do cool stuff with your character, but don't look that different on the surface from mainstream games. Then they slip you little bits of Narrativist confectionery while you're busy playing the game. Before you know it, you're all creating the story! And Clinton and Luke are chuckling to themselves as they chant "One of us! One of us!" in their dark caverns deep below the world.

Have you looked at The Riddle of Steel?

It's a little crunchier than some folks like, but is worlds simpler than D&D.  It's also written very directly towards heroic fantasy.  I'm playing in a pair of Riddle games right now, in very different settings (Norse Vikings, French courtiers) and it handles them both quite well.

James

Wait a minute, folks! You have just committed synecdoche. A loose or open setting does not (help) define Narrativism, co-gamemastering players do not define Narrativism. Narrativism is solely about ability to address premise. One can do that within an established setting, because ability to define or control the setting has nothing to do with addressing a premise, even though it is a common technique used in Narrativist games.

Sacha is equally mistaken when stating Astrid's preference is Narrativism. From the description, Astrid enjoys Drama (character acting, and light or no outside resolution mechanics): and Drama is also not Narrativism. While Narrativism can be achieved in Actor Stance, it is more difficult to pull off because Actor Stance does not include the metagame thinking about plot, premise and theme that often goes into decisions regarding "What's the best choice/result for the STORY here?" (contrasted with "What would my character do?") that occur in Narrativism as it is commonly played.

Again, this is not to say that Narrativism cannot be achieved by such, only that it becomes more difficult as the player may battle with confused priorities (ie: "What would my character do?" versus "What would be most thematic?").

Now, given Sacha's definition of "Narrativism" for their group -- a defintion that sounds closer to Simulationist Character -Exploration without further input regarding how these folks actually behave in play -- I would suggest what they would really enjoy would be something more akin to Amber, possibly Everyway, or another rules-light character-heavy game. I am unfamiliar with such things, though, so I'm not the guy to ask for suggestions about them.

I'm going to disagree with some of the others about the Pool.  My suggestion would be to actually use that system at least on a trial basis.  I had a group of standard D&D players and used the Pool with success.  People get rather worried about Monologues of Victory (or player narration) taking over the game and completely decentralizing the GMs role.  I've found this to be a non-issue.  The Pool has a GM.  His job is much like the GM in most traditional RPGs.  He's perfectly capable of introducing setting effectively.  He's perfectly capable of most GM jobs in other games.  The only thing MoV's and the Conflict Resolution system in the Pool do is make it difficult for the GM to use Force without being rather overt about it.

Here's why I think you should give the Pool a shot.

1) It's lite on the rules, which seems to be a preference for your group in general.
2) The GM's jobs are similar to traditional games so not as much learning curve there.
3) People can still enjoy Actor Stance ( a whole lot of it) without the rules forcing them into something else.

Try it out.  I think you might like it.  If it doesn't seem to work and doesn't have enough structure, FATE is an excellent choice.

greyorm wrote: Wait a minute, folks! You have just committed synecdoche.

GB wrote: Although "addressing premise" is a GNS definition of narrativism, it's not the only one, even if it is common round these parts. But I'd agree with you, as do several others that what our poster is after is probably not the narrow definition of Nar. Probably why we posted all those other suggestion.

My point was actually that the only person who was into this setting was the GM. Other players are unlikely to be as excited as the GM about it, and want to do their own stuff with it. Removing the abilities of the players to effect the setting removes potential for Narrativist play. Addressing Premise can only happen if the characters can have effect on the world.

What exactly about D&D makes the would-be GM uncomfortable--that is to say, what doesn't he like about it? It's tough to recommend anything without knowing what his deal is.

Also, I'd like to know more about the setting. What is the setting, and what makes it specific to D&D and/or hard to use with a different system?

God damn it ...

This is not an actual play post. No one is discussing actual play. And that's why a whole bunch of noise seemed to appear.

Folks, this forum is for actual play.

Sacha, I recommend that you start a new thread which describes, in easy and jargon-free prose, some prior experience really role-playing with this group. That is the only way in which this site can help you.

The rest of you, go soak your heads.

Best,
Ron