Lots of people like to say that the Riddle of Steel is a Narrativist game with Simulationist elements. Heck, even the designers claim it's a story-first kind of game. Then again, the Vampire designers also claimed that for their game, and system-wise that just ain't the case.
If you look at the actual rules - and heck, the bits where they are talking about their statement of intent - the Riddle of Steel is all about realism, realism, realism. It's an old-school RPG with a highly realistic and well thought-out combat system, a mediocre magic system and gameworld, and a few "spiritual attributes" which seem to be the game's main claim to being narrativist.
The way I see it, War...
Narrativist isn't a well defined term. And given that the Riddle uses an essay from Ron Edwards in their magic chapter, I'd say the designer took advantage of that fuzzy term to drink a bit more coolaide.
It's shadowrun with d10's.
Other than that, yeah, the spiritual attributes probably are the key to the whole 'nar' idea of it all...
Splitting RPGs into distinct "Game" "Narrative" and "Simulation" is stupid. It's fairly obvious that RPGs are combinations of those 3 things. Even when Forge theorists build games based on their theories and try to make a game only about G, N, or S... they can't. They're about all 3.
Yes, to digress briefly into what the GNS authorities say (even though I'm not very keen on GNS): "realism--yes or no?" has nothing to do with narrativism.
It's the SA's that allegedly make the game narrativist by allowing the players to define "what the game's about" in a character-centric fashion. On top of that there's a bunch of interpretation (and probably wishful thinking) with respect to the intent of the rules and the quality of the GMing advice; otherwise the game would probably be "incoherent". In fact Ron Edwards has basically said that the game ultimately failed to fully communicate its Nar-ness to its actual audience, though characteristically he blamed the audience for that.
Its amusingly revelatory of what is really valued by the "indie" crowd. The only reason it calls itself "narrativist" is because that will give it more "indie" cred.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditIts amusingly revelatory of what is really valued by the "indie" crowd. The only reason it calls itself "narrativist" is because that will give it more "indie" cred.
RPGPundit
I think the first part of your post is correct. Or rather the term has meaning to some folks. If the game, does have mechanics that wanders of the reservation in terms of what more mainstream rpgs do, than I don't see a problem (I've only briefly run through the game - and besides rules does not mean much to me), even though I don't find much use in the term myself.
Regards,
David R
Having gone round and round on this a few times, I can speak from experience ...
1. The Spiritual Attributes are "what make it Narrativist." The argument goes something like this: an SA puts front-and-center what you are willing to fight/die for and that's what shapes the game so that's what the game is about.
2. Note that in a lot of the 'Narrativist Play':
SAs are added to split pools. The 1st ed rules are silent on this but it makes a player with SA's in play far for effective.
3. In some of the discussions I've been in I have had it stated to me that SAs should be such a prevalent part of play that a PC won't be in a conflict unless not only are they active--but they are overwhelming to the opposition. This is a form of drift, IMO.
4. The GM advice in TROS is pretty good--but isn't hard-core Narrativist by a long stretch. It does not make SAs the key point in development of scenarios (important, yes--but so are Flaws). Note that of two or three examples of combat, none have SAs involved.
However, that said, you could have a cracking, thematic, player-driven game of TROS which is all anyone's really after (for the most part). The presence of SA's at all does mean that a player can highlight what they want to see in the game.
What I think is problematic is the use of Narrativist-facilitating as a descriptor for mechanics. It opens the door to all kinds of questions that don't have good answers (just how important is GM advice).
-Marco
Dude, the reality is that Forge terms, especially GNS, are bullshit terms, and there's no such thing as a "narrativist" game.
RPGPundit
Quote from: WarthurIt's an old-school RPG with a highly realistic and well thought-out combat system,
That's comedy gold right there. Their combat systems is neither highly realistic nor well thought out. It's terribly broken (just judging on the core rule book I don't know or care what they've done past that now). It's not well thought out and the only model of reality it possibly simulates is that of SCA, which is hardly reality at all.
Well, the system has some historical terms for combat maneuvers. That's about all there is for the realistic part.
I would agree that it has some nice ideas, though. Splitting your pools is a nice way to get some tactical bits for the players into the game. The implementation is a bit awkward, though. Too many factors and subsystems.
Maybe the next edition will clean that up. Along with the mediocre art and the horrible typesetting.
Quote from: kryystThat's comedy gold right there. Their combat systems is neither highly realistic nor well thought out. It's terribly broken (just judging on the core rule book I don't know or care what they've done past that now). It's not well thought out and the only model of reality it possibly simulates is that of SCA, which is hardly reality at all.
Well, true; I suppose I should have said "highly realistic
by the standards of tabletop RPGs".
Quote from: SosthenesMaybe the next edition will clean that up. Along with the mediocre art and the horrible typesetting.
I actually found the art worse than the typesetting - most of it is average but forgivable, but there's a few pieces which make me angry just looking at them. There is no excuse for anyone to put the abomination on page 232 (revised edition) in a book - the thing looks half-finished.
But its narrativist because of the Spiritual Attributes and how they reward players for going after their character's goals. If you have the book, read the SA's and how they contribute to rolls and its nar tenedencies will be clear.
My biggest beef with TRoS is the layout...oof and the world always left me fairly cold.
Quote from: WarthurThere is no excuse for anyone to put the abomination on page 232 (revised edition) in a book - the thing looks half-finished.
Half-finished, perhaps, but at least it shows some skill in composition, proportion, and draftsmanship. As well as a tasteful choice of subject.
You want crap? Look at page 142. Who is that, Michael Jackson as an out of proportion elf in a still suit?
Then there's the Ren-faire fetish lady on p. 15. Fair execution, icky subject.
Dude in a sport coat looking like he's about to chop some wood on p. 18 is at least...interesting. You wonder if he's got a story behind him.
There's also some fairly good original art but a lot of that stuff is awful.
Quote from: PakaBut its narrativist because of the Spiritual Attributes and how they reward players for going after their character's goals. If you have the book, read the SA's and how they contribute to rolls and its nar tenedencies will be clear.
My biggest beef with TRoS is the layout...oof and the world always left me fairly cold.
So, honestly just so I can be clear, a game is Nar if it has non-task(combat)-oriented attributes that reward a character? Or is it just explaining the character's goals and then rewarding them for chasing them? Or is it that attributes other than strictly physical ones can influence the task-oriented rolls?
I'm honestly asking, because I've never seen it put that way before. I usually equate Nar with having "story" as a goal as opposed to a by-product.
Ugh.
You're stepping into a minefield, Jim.
There are no narrativist games. There are games which support, more or less, a narrativist agenda.
Like that, Elliot?
Quote from: Elliot WilenUgh.
You're stepping into a minefield, Jim.
I know, Elliot - I appreciate your concern. However, I anticipate jargony responses like droog's.
I'm trying to draw out the real distinctions and, if i can't get a committment to a distinction, point out that there's no distinction. It's a herculean task - with which I will likely become bored and give up for the next butterfly that floats by.
Actually, droog's answer is completely lucid, compared to the inevitable followup on "what is narrativism?"
I think it's easier to just cut straight to the chase and look at the things that put a game in the "narrativist" genre.
Quotea game is Nar if it has non-task(combat)-oriented attributes that reward a character?
Nah, too general.
QuoteOr is it just explaining the character's goals and then rewarding them for chasing them?
That's a type of Nar design, but you can easily get tangled up over defining "reward". Also, it's not enough to define the character's goals; to be properly Nar, they'd need to be goals of interest to the player. And then you need to ask whether it's enough to chase the goals or if the goals need to be "challenged" in some sense.
QuoteOr is it that attributes other than strictly physical ones can influence the task-oriented rolls?
Nah, just giving somebody hero points or whatever won't do the trick.
I think the best way to identify a Nar game (in the eyes of people who believe in GNS), even if it doesn't flow directly from the theory, is to look at how the mechanics interact with the GMing advice/rules. Basically, if the GM is told to either design scenarios or improvise in play, in such a manner that the player's mechanical resources will allow him, nay
empower him, to engage some "plot-like" problem which the player has defined in relation to the character, then the game is Narrativist-facilitating.
So TRoS is Nar because the GM is told (in one paragraph) to look at the PCs' Spiritual Attributes (and other characteristics such as faults) and design scenarios around them. That means the players will be able to "do stuff of interest to them" in the scenarios since PCs are powerful when it comes to stuff that concerns their SAs.
The missing link in this analysis (unless I'm overlooking something in the text) is that "designing scenarios to the PCs' SAs" doesn't necessarily mean confronting them with "hard choices", which is a common gloss of Nar. So either TRoS can be played equally well to more than one CA, or Nar really just means that the players get a strong say in writing the adventure--rather than angsty questions of moral import.
Quote from: Elliot WilenSo TRoS is Nar because the GM is told (in one paragraph) to look at the PCs' Spiritual Attributes (and other characteristics such as faults) and design scenarios around them. That means the players will be able to "do stuff of interest to them" in the scenarios since PCs are powerful when it comes to stuff that concerns their SAs.
The missing link in this analysis (unless I'm overlooking something in the text) is that "designing scenarios to the PCs' SAs" doesn't necessarily mean confronting them with "hard choices", which is a common gloss of Nar. So either TRoS can be played equally well to more than one CA, or Nar really just means that the players get a strong say in writing the adventure--rather than angsty questions of moral import.
It also says to look at the player's Flaws. There's a sample adventure where PCs are press-ganged onto a boat. The game's really pretty traditional (and I mean that in a good way).
The Nar-facilitating-part comes in that *if* the GM keys on the SA's,
and they appear in a mechanically dominant way during the game,
and that leads to the player making a thematic statement absent GM-railroading
then the SA's are "facilitating Nar play" by making the PC more effective in that context.
Hero and GURPS do this too with disads if the GM uses them in the same way. The character doesn't become
more effective when he's saving his DNPC--he's
always a little more effective because he has a DNPC--but the
negative application of SA's (the fact that they
don't help if you aren't playing to them) doesn't facilitate Nar-play.
And, really, look at the SA's ...
Destiny? and
Luck? (IIRC--don't have the book handy). They're not all Narrativist goodness.
Now, none of this means that TRoS is a bad game. IMO, it's a very good one. It also doesn't mean (per-se) that GNS dialog is all bunk (that is, this bit of analysis in and of itself shouldn't be taken as an indictment of the dialog as a whole). What it does mean, though, is that the exacting, painstaking analysis of the text that gets applied to games that aren't as well received (Vampire up first ... but also GURPS) gets
glossed over when it comes to a game that people like.
That's something that should be acknowledged when looking at the "analysis part" of GNS. At least some (perhaps most) of what passes for system-analysis with regard to CA-Facilitation is pretty questionable (IMO/IME).
-Marco
QuoteLots of people like to say that the Riddle of Steel is a Narrativist game with Simulationist elements.
No they don't. ;)
Quote from: WarthurWell, true; I suppose I should have said "highly realistic by the standards of tabletop RPGs".
That's still a stretch. Just because they've added in a degree of complexity and various ways of defining what an attack is. I have yet to see how that's making the game more realistic. It's more simy perhaps and clunky definitely but the end result isn't any more realistic. The combat system is no more realistic then most other games it's just more defined. If anything it's a very realistic system if you want to model an RPG off of a video game. I'm not saying it can't be fun and it is in certain situations where you want to run lots of 1 on 1 duel style combats.