Hi all,

One of the things that's interested me most about all of the indie games I've just recently discovered is the rules for who narrates when. As just being exposed to this concept and not having played these games, it leaves me wondering how do different methods for distributing the rights of narration affect the player's involvement in a game?

For example, InSpectres gives narration rights to the player on success (to the GM on failure); does this encourage a particular style of play? Does this contribute to Jared's stated goal of allowing the players to direct the nature of the mystery as well as uncovering it? Or does it achieve some other goal? Or is it innovation for innovation's sake?

I don't mean to have a debate on the merits of player narration or GM-only narration. But rather accepting some form of player narration, does anyone have any theory or experience on how different methods promote different styles of play or design goals? Also I'm assuming there is some Fortune mechanic that determines the outcome of the conflict and narration rights are meant to flesh out that outcome and drive the story along.

Here are some examples I've been reading recently...

(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).

So, does the system matter? :-) Or are these techniques still new enough that their effect is unknown relative to the rest of a game's mechanics.

Mike

EDITED: Moved Trollbabe into the proper category, as per Jared's correction below.

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

(2) Player narrates failures, and GM successes. E.g., 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).

Hi there,

To add to the list, Otherkind is #3, like Dust Devils.

I also think one more category is absolutely necessary to acknowledge, because it's central: narration is handled by whoever feels like it at the moment, without formalizing the process. Players usually get a certain proprietary ownership over outcomes involving their characters, and GMs might get similar over certain larger-scale outcomes, but these only modify the basic principle that anyone can hop and say "what happens" and at least have it be considered by the group.

Sorcerer works that way - or more accurately, the Sorcerer rules do not specify who narrates, in hopes that the group works the issue out as they see fit.

I think this category is central because it's actually the default mode of role-playing. I think that "GM always narrates" is a fairly derived technique, and in fact even more derived than any of the other categories aside from the hypothetical "players always narrate."

So to lay out the spectrum:

Most Easy and Straightforward: anyone narrates a given outcome, regardless of who owns the characters involved, perhaps via suggestions at first. The actual outcome may depend on arriving at a consensus, or perhaps on the buck stopping at the proprietor of the character in question or at the GM. Who narrates varies all 'round the table throughout play.

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.

This spectrum implies something that I think is correct: that many people are introduced to the hobby as using a very Derived narration-assumption as the default technique. I think this definitely represents a barrier toward enjoying the potential of the hobby for many people.

Best,
Ron

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: Actually, Trolbabe uses "Player narrates failure / GM narrates success."

bowlingm wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: Actually, Trolbabe uses "Player narrates failure / GM narrates success."

Yes! Thanks for the correction.

So, do you have any thoughts from this from your design of InSpectres? Do you think the game would change much if you inverted the rights of narration a la Trollbabe?

Mike

Ron,

Thanks for your improved delineation of the spectrum.

As an aside, I wonder if the role of GM-only narration might stem from the combination of a simulationism approach with the fact tha the GM often owns the game and is the only one to have read the simulation-oriented rules. This combination results in the rules saying what happens, GM knows the rules, GM says what happens.

Now to my question, does it matter? Is this a play style thing, and so would vary from group to group (independent of the game), or is this really a game issue where the mechanics used can promote the premise of the game? Let's forget the way-out-there GM-only and player-only narration, and focus on the four other options: InSpectres, Donjon, Dust Devils, Free-Form (Sorcerer)?

Mike

Hey Mike,

I think you raise a very interesting topic. For a long time, I've been struggling with how to bring this up, but you've done a great job. (Welcome to the Forge!)

Scattershot raises yet another dimension that doesn't seem to immediately fit your list. More-or-less fortune determines the relative success of an action, the 'recipient' narrates the result; if it goes 'against' the background then the gamemaster narrates, if it goes against a player then the player narrates (if it is a failure, the die-roller narrates).

The most practical result is the severe reduction of those 'I was robbed' results. This tends to empower the players to be more 'aggressive' in play and following whatever goals or agendas they have in a more engaged fashion (no more 'sitting out cuz I'm dead' syndrome). This also includes empowering gamemasters who are 'up to something' (their prize 'pieces' don't get slammed).

I've been curious for some time how this relates to the more direct - success = narration rights, for example - forms you've listed, I just haven't known how to ask.

Fang Langford

Hi Fang,

Could you re-phrase this?

More-or-less fortune determines the relative success of an action, the 'recipient' narrates the result; if it goes 'against' the background then the gamemaster narrates, if it goes against a player then the player narrates (if it is a failure, the die-roller narrates).

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: If the players got to choose how they were wrong about the source of a mystery, then I'm back to the problem of "GM gives players clues, players must figure out solution" that I sought to avoid when writing InSpectres. So I don't think that it would work too well.

bowlingm wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: For example, a player can narrate the failure in a way that reveals more mystery or potential solutions. "I shove the stake into the vampire's heart! But my hand goes straight through. This vampire's made of jello! Now I just have to find its heart."

Do you think that this is uncommon in narrating failure, and players are more likely to feel empowered to create the mystery/solution when they succeed in their action? I can certainly see the psychology of this, but wanted to know if this is what you meant.

Well, the mystery aspect of InSpectres is incidental to what the game is about. As for player empowerment, I'm not really qualified to guess what the player feels (and I don't much care).

- J

Before I list out the ranges of options, I need to point out that this is all relative. Y'see, in Scattershot's playtest, when the results are low numbers (minimal to minor results), there was a lot of 'hand-waving.' A player who's Persona is hit for 1 usually just takes 1 point of damage; at this point the narration rules are optional. What I'm going to illustrate only becomes compulsory when the results pass a certain threshold.


Straight Roll:

Addison's Persona successfully picks the lock to Broadway's (another Persona) flat - the 'owner' of the flat, Broadway's player (who made everything in it up) - says what happens.


Contested Roll:

Chamberlain (Addison's Persona) successfully fools Broadway into thinking he was invited to the high security meeting (his 'Confidence Man' versus Broadway's 'Security Systems' - both roll). David (Broadway's player) narrates being fooled.


'Uncontested' Roll:

When Broadway turns, Chamberlain successfully hits him over the head with a 'rabbit punch.' In this Genre Expectation, a 'rabbit punch' is supposed to render an opponent unconscious in one blow, silently, without any chance of retaliation. Even though he does not roll, David narrates the results.


Delayed Contested Roll:

When Elaine's Persona discovers Broadway's unconscious form, she succeeds in her roll against Addison's attempt to 'pose' Broadway to look 'passed out' (which was made earlier and is now a static penalty to any roll to 'pierce the disguise'). Addison narrates the discovery as it was his handiwork.


Failed Straight Roll:

Elaine's Persona, Francine, tries to awaken Broadway with her first aid skills, but with no props, fails. She narrates the attempt (David would have in the success).


Failed Contested Roll:

Francine attempts to sweet talk an acquaintance from down the hall, an EMT, into reviving Broadway without involving the police. He didn't find her that interesting on the elevator earlier that night (that roll providing a latent penalty now) and it doesn't work now either. Even though the EMT is the gamemaster's character, Elaine narrates the action.


I'll skip ahead a bit....

Self-Imposed Straight Roll:

Addison activates his new invention (which he had to jury-rig from kitchen appliances) and succeeds. He created it, he narrates it (unless he decides he yearns the 'fickle hand of fate' and turns his product over to the gamemaster - or any other player - to 'run').


Self-Imposed Failed Straight Roll:

On second use the device goes haywire and, as both the 'failure' and the 'owner' of the target, Addison narrates no matter what. That's fine, everyone likes Addison's failures more than his successes anyway and he garners Experience Dice rewards from three of the other players with his performance 'making a cake of himself' (which almost make up for those he used creating the device).

Each time a roll is made, with a 'success' whoever 'owns' the target becomes the narrator, even if it is that same player. Failures result in the 'owner' of the 'failure' rather than the target narrating (most time failures are meant to 'come back to haunt you'). The hand-waving comes when nothing more than the 'expected' happens.

Fang Langford

bowlingm wrote: Do you think that this is uncommon in narrating failure, and players are more likely to feel empowered to create the mystery/solution when they succeed in their action? I can certainly see the psychology of this, but wanted to know if this is what you meant.

I think the secret, really, is to realize that any failed roll, no matter how bad, is simply an hindrance. The player can always 'find another way' through play. Putting the exact nature of a failure into the hands of 'he who failed' lets that player remain seeming 'in control of their (character's) fate' without making everything as bland as 'always succeeds.'

However, I always felt there was the sound of a bit of pessimism in the description 'the player narrates all failures.' So we work it like this:

Proprietor of the entity performing the action describes 'what they launch into doing' + The dice rate the success =

• The Proprietor of the recipient builds upon this description based on the degree of success
• The Proprietor of the failure builds upon this description based upon the degree of failure

You could say that whoever 'gets it' describes it in the end. There are also some Mechanix that let whoever makes this description 'divide up' what happens a little like to Donjon's 1 success = 1 fact, except more like a 'point-based system.' Overall, this keeps whoever is 'transgressed against' from feeling like the tide of events has 'taken over their character.'

But remember, failure is only a hindrance, success is only a step; both lead to whatever the player wants.

I'm still scratching my head over how this relates to the original list of 'who gets to narrate.' Can anyone help me out here? I'm simply too close to the source material.

Fang Langford

Fang, it looks to me like it fits in Ron's

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

Hi there,

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.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron, Vincent,

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

bowlingm wrote: (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).

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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

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

bowlingm wrote:

• 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)

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?

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

bowlingm wrote: 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".

bowlingm wrote: 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.