The Forge Archives

It's time for yet another half-baked Jason idea.

Considering your traditional randomizer aided resolution system from a Nar perspective, success or failure of resolution should not be the concern.  As the protagonist, successful resolution of conflict is a foregone conclusion - unless failure either moves the character into another conflict or deeper into the current one, thereby extending the conflict.  For the story to be satisfactory the conflict must either be resolved or retroactively rendered irrelevant.

This still requires risk, but the story does not fork because of success or failure, it forks because of the cost of success.

A glitch I see in my hypothesis is the tragic ending - I'm not certain how tragedy works into this.

Tragedy is not always failure.  Many Greek and Sakespearean plays are tragedies, but not failures.  They set out to explore a question and do so quite well.  The survival or happiness o the protagonsit is not the point.

Personal anecdote: Many times in my recent D&D-playing years, I've tried to maneuver my character into a "You escape, I'll hold the bridge" type of scenario, or some other heroic, idiomatically-appropriate death scene, only to be foiled by my friends leaping in to save me at the last moment, aided by a DM who presents challenges but doesn't really want to kill the PCs.  How weird is it to feel deprotagonized by being saved?

I don't know Jason.  I can see the potential in story variation from success or failure.  The conflict will always resolve yes, but not necessarily to the protagonists desires.  The story asks a question, the protagonist gives one answer, the forces of antagonism another, then they duke it out.  The meaning or message is determined by who wins.

Yeah, Brendan's got it. Failure can be just as "protagonizing" as success. Charcters fail in Sorcerer a lot, about half the time I'd say. But it doesn't matter. Because success is not what makes a protagonist - it's the decisions that lead to the conflict that matter.

I brought this up to Ron a long time ago, and his response is that, for narrativism, the use of a randomized resolution system is merely a springboard for creativity. That is, it gives you some structure to play around. But it doesn't direct play. Unlike in a Gamist game, where player manipulation of the resolution system is ususally what the game is all about.

Mike

Hello,

In hopes of forestalling a common misunderstanding, what I mean (as Mike cites me) is this: either failure or success of a given conflict makes for good story. Fortune resolutions in Narrativist play are typically about conflict, and even in task-based systems, they are often upgraded to conflict status through a variety of informal cues traded among participants.

In case anyone needs to hear this again, I do not consider "oh we'll just decide" or any other kind of unstructured verbal means of deciding outcomes to be very helpful for Narrativist play. In fact, I think it's often extremely destructive toward it - going so-called "system-less" or permitting anyone to ignore Fortune outcomes have never, in my experience or observation, facilitated Narrativist play. At most, they have only prevented Simulationist techniques-combinations from interfering too much, and in some cases they actually facilitate Force (which is anathema to Narrativism).

I'd also like to nip another mis-reading in the bud: that Narrativist play is aided by systems which do not resolve in-game conflicts, but merely pass about the right to say what happens. The Pool is an aggressively Narrativist-facilitating system when the dice decide conflict outcomes (as written); it is merely consensual storytelling when the dice only trade about who gets to talk.

So: the in-game results of Fortune systems are springboards for creativity during Narrativist play, via their constraints on what must be honored in the next creative moment.

Best,
Ron

So are you saying that in conflict res success or failure determines speaking authority?  Or just that looking at success vs failure as a speaking authority issue, rather than a character action issue, is more facilitating of narritivist play?

I don't see a fortune based resolution to necessarily focus on who has narrative control.  Why does the dice roll have to indicate narrative control?  Why can't it simply represent success or failure?

I think that a simple success or failure resolution could still inspire a creative outcome from whomever was narrating.  A system of degrees of success or failure could be interesting in challenging narrators to greater granularity in narrating outcomes.  I think who has narrative rights is a separate issue.  Who, how, why, and when a participant gets narrative control seems like a big variable in the minds of different Narrativist players.

If the system is going to include some strong roles for narration rights or even a system of assigning them, I would suggest clearly stating such in the text.  We shouldn't assume it is an "inferred" or "natural" state of a Narrativist fortune based resolution system.

Just my two cents...

Aaarrrghhh ...

Neither of those is what I'm saying. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Fortune systems do better in Narrativist play when they are used to dictate in-game events, not when their sole role is to apportion speaking.

Let me clarify a couple of terms which seem to get boggled a lot.

Narrative = fictional characters in a situation, which reaches a crisis point and becomes resolved, in such a way that real people get emotionally engaged in what's going on. That's a narrative.

Narration = speaking, specifically, describing fictional events.

I am saying that Fortune systems may be employed to facilitate Narrativist play - the resolutions of conflict. They may do so at a large scale (one roll = one fight) or a small one (one roll = one punch).

I am also saying that if you lose this element of a Fortune system, and only let it apportion narration rights, then the system loses an immense amount of positive contribution to Narrativist play. That contribution is specifically the dice's (or whatever's) ability to constrain what happens next. It is extraordinarily useful for building rising action, a feature of narrative, without having to interject such rising action wholly through

That's why Narrativist play which employs a Fortune system is badly hampered by the techniques of fudging, whereas Simulationist play (directed toward story creation) which employs a Fortune system is facilitated by such techniques.

If there is one, single principle that every word I've written about role-playing is focused on, it is this: Drama-driven resolution systems are very poor for Narrativist play unless they have extremely high degrees of constraint built into accompanying parts.

Zero at the Bone represents an attempt of mine to demonstrate that the latter is possible. However, many, many games which purport to facilitate "story creation" through ignoring dice and focusing on "just talking" are accomplishing precisely the opposite of Narrativist play.

It strikes me that I am being mis-understood to an astonishing degree about this issue. Let me be clear:

Theatrix is extremely poorly suited to Narrativist play. So is octaNe. So is any resolution system in which (1) adversity arises because "someone says so," and (2) that someone gets to determine how and where and when and how much, and (3) that same someone gets to say, when all is said and done how the resolution of that adversity turns out.

Does that make any sense at all?

Best,
Ron

Hi guys,

To reiterate, and hopefully clarify what Ron is saying:

Fortune systems(Dice, Cards, whatever) in Nar games work best when they say what happens(success or failure).  Who gets to say it, is irrelevant to Nar play happening.  

So, as an example, in Riddle of Steel, the dice say if you succeed or fail, live or die.  The GM always narrates, just like most traditional rpgs.  What makes Riddle of Steel a great Nar game has nothing to do with who narrates.  Sorcerer operates in the exact same fashion in that regard.

octaNe, is NOT a Nar game, because it doesn't(by itself) support Nar play.  It does involve trading narration rights back and forth, although there is no other incentive to push for addressing Premise.

Chris

Hello,

I'll clarify a few more things.

1. The "aarrghh" was directed toward Bpetroff93's post.

2. Chris (Bankuei) is correct except for leaving the door open for a possible mistaken inference in this sentence:

QuoteoctaNe, is NOT a Nar game, because it doesn't(by itself) support Nar play. It does involve trading narration rights back and forth, although there is no other incentive to push for addressing Premise.

"Other" incentive? I'll be blunt: there is no incentive, at all, for Narrativist play using the octaNe rules. This is not a criticism of the game; it is a clarifier for those who insist on mistaking narration for narrative. The narration rules in octaNe serve a particular ultimate purpose in that game,* but that purpose began at right angles to Narrativist play and shoots off in that direction without pause.

3. Some of you are probably wondering why The Pool, Dust Devils, and Trollbabe, all of which are included among the most aggressive Narrativist designs known to date, have rules for trading narration around. They each do so for small-scale purposes related to their particular quirks - but not as a defining or even necessary feature for their overall Narrativist bent.

4. Oops, another quibble, Chris. The narration rules for Sorcerer are as follows: no one is empowered specifically to narrate. Everyone and anyone may contribute to narrating the outcome of any conflict or scene, in terms of describing the specific actions and events. Every group must work out their own Social Contract about that; that was a very deliberate design/writing feature. So citing the game as an example of "GM narrates" is inaccurate.

Best,
Ron

* The ultimate purpose I'm talking about is to eliminate the GM. Jared rightly recognizes that on-the-table Simulationist play, without Illusionism of any kind, is best served by empowering every player equally, both for proposing adversity and for resolving it.

Watch me everyone, I'm probably gunna miss understand even more and Ron will explode! ;)

Anyway, to Ron or anyone, some side questions: In a movie or such, when someone fails or suceeds at a task, it isn't in a documentary style 'this is what ended up happening' way, but in a 'pass or fail, this addresses premise'.

So does something like fortune in the middle (as I understand it) support narrative play better? I may have the idea of fortune in the middle way wrong, but its more like rolling to see what resources you have to narrate with, then using them. Ie, if your holding off orcs at the bridge (premise of 'what will you give up for your friends', perhaps) and you use fortune in the middle and find your kicking ass ability is at max, you as a player could say 'Well, I have lots of kicking ass resources, but I'll only apply the amount I need to address premise'. The dice tell you, documentary style, how many resources there ended up being. But the player then goes on to address premise by applying the resources granted by the dice. He might want to show his PC is willing to give up his life, and so doesn't use all ass kicking resources (otherwise it would screw up his premise address).

Or am I way wrong? It's just that I don't believe (currently) that dice generated results address premise, they can only focus your creativity.

Though having said that, fortune at the end (again, as I understand it) can be used toward a narrative goal, because although it resolves everything itself (and gives a documentary style 'that's how it ended up' result), the resources your left with after that result can still be applied in a way that addresses premise (sort of the old 'fight on for the life of my kingdom while I'm on one hit point because that's what I'll do when it comes to my kingdom or me' stuff). But as the dice control the resolution which controls resources, and as they have no clue when it comes to addressing premise, it doesn't seem a satisfactory method.

I'm basically trying to get my bearings here, so I'm putting forward ideas to see how much they fit.

Hi Ron

QuoteI'll be blunt: there is no incentive, at all, for Narrativist play using the octaNe rules.

Oops, that's what I meant.

Chris

Quote from: cruciel
Considering your traditional randomizer aided resolution system from a Nar perspective, success or failure of resolution should not be the concern.  As the protagonist, successful resolution of conflict is a foregone conclusion - unless failure either moves the character into another conflict or deeper into the current one, thereby extending the conflict.  For the story to be satisfactory the conflict must either be resolved or retroactively rendered irrelevant.

I was thinking about Fortune resollution in relation to Matt's game PrimeTime Adventures, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10906" >[PTA] spacehunter, pilot episode and playtesting errata, and a question came to mind:

When we talk about conflict resolution in design that supports narrativist play, are we talking about resolving conflicts within the shared fantasy or between the players?  Is one or the other required, or better at supporting narrativist play?

Hi, Alan

QuoteWhen we talk about conflict resolution in design that supports narrativist play, are we talking about resolving conflicts within the shared fantasy or between the players? Is one or the other required, or better at supporting narrativist play?

That's a little like asking if a guitar or bass is better for playing in a rock band. Truth is, either one can be used to play rock n roll. Furthermore, you can use them both to play country music, so neither the instrument nor the style of music are indicitive of each other. It's more like what Ron said above. Like the hooker told the sailor, it ain't what you've got but how you use it.

QuoteWhen we talk about conflict resolution in design that supports narrativist play, are we talking about resolving conflicts within the shared fantasy or between the players? Is one or the other required, or better at supporting narrativist play?

It was suggested to me -- and our last couple games will support it -- that conflicts between players are too easily resolved with negotiation, so you can't rely on that as the focus of excitement. How often in the last game did anyone refuse a suggestion? I don't think it's a matter of supporting narrativist play. It's more about what's better at facilitating exciting play.