I play a lot of different types of games. Well, I run a lot of different kinds of games. I mean, I barely ever get to actually play, but that is another story (which looks like its going to change soon, yay).

I had ventured more into the narrative style, but played mostly hybrids.

But I had an epiphany running 5e D&D. About what it was I missed from running 2e AD&D, or Cyberpunk 2020, or L5R, or any of the other traditional RPGs that I hadn't played in a while.

I MISSED not having to think about meta-stuff. Not because it dragged me out of the immersion (because it never did), but because I would regularly forget to do it at all. I had run Fate the campaign before doing 5e, and I found I was a bit dissatisfied with how the game went. I felt like I was forgetting to compel, I was forgetting to award fate points, etc. And that is so much of that game.

But when I ran 5e, it just didn't matter. I didn't have to think about those things, it was just "what is happening right now". It let me focus on the game, and my brain didn't have to keep on two tracks at once.

I'm not saying I don't still like narrative style games. I still like Fate, even if I don't want to run it now, I still like FFG Star Wars, even if thinking up the advantage/threat can be a pain. And even with this trad conversion I doubt I will get into any of the OSR style games, I'm still a bit for more universal mechanics (I love 5e proficiency mechanic).

I just find that with my busy schedule, my brain being half fried most of the time from my work, a traditional game lets me be lazier while still providing a good game for my players. Maybe if I'm feeling ambitious, I'll come back to some narrative games, but for now, I just feel burnt out on THINKING about all that stuff.

Anyone else feel this way, rather than the immersion ruining, it just makes you have to do more mental paperwork than you would like?

I don't know if it's specifically narrative, but this is my frequent complaint about games that do cute stuff with game flow.
So, yeah, agreed.

Here, here. Mental paperwork is something I avoid in systems.

//Panjumanju

I had this epiphany years ago after a long 2+ year trial of various story games in various flavors. It causes headaches. I prefer RPGs, where the GM is the GM, the players play characters, the GM "runs the game" and the players "play it".

Perhaps if someone had framed the story game experience in a different manner vs. trying to tell me I was playing my games wrong, I may have taken to them better. As an organized story creation method, or an improv practice method, or a theme exploration method I may have enjoyed the experience. Instead, I was trying to game a story as a band-aid to the issues I was having with "trad" RPGs which frankly had FUCK all to do with mechanics.

Most of the stuff I thought was missing from my games regarding emotional context, or mental/emotional response, or concern or activity outside the common frame of "kill, pillage, plunder, rest" was because I had players who wanted to "kill, pillage, plunder, rest". I've learned to frame my games better. Set expectations and guide players to create characters I want to see explore the world vs. crossing my fingers and hoping shit magically goes the way I want.

You can run Witchcraft with as much shiny coolness flare on it as you can Dread, with less confusion about what your actually doing. "Laser Focus" was a buzzword cover for Lazy. GMs and Players need options. They thrive on them. Those options don't have to be a long catalog of numerical balanced thingies to optimize. Setting options, GMing advice, random tables, NPCs, personality types, adventure hooks...

After playing some "Laser Focused" games, I came away feeling like I just finished an amusement park ride. I looked back at it and thought "that was fun, I might try that again". The games I'm enamored with always give me a sense of wonder. Like I haven't finished exploring them yet. That there are more possibilities awaiting me between the covers.

I don't think this is just a matter of simple perception. The good games inspire creativity. The bad ones entice rote procedure masked as play.

Just my two cents (of course)...

Oddly, the thing I love most about Savage Worlds is the lack of book keeping. Everything is on the table: Cards, bennies, minis...I'm not tracking monster hit points, most of the time my players don't need to change anything on their sheets until after the adventure, etc. The extra bits actually make my job easier as a GM.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;805242Oddly, the thing I love most about Savage Worlds is the lack of book keeping. Everything is on the table: Cards, bennies, minis...I'm not tracking monster hit points, most of the time my players don't need to change anything on their sheets until after the adventure, etc. The extra bits actually make my job easier as a GM.

Savage Worlds is a game I can definitely still run. Bennies are the only part of it that makes me have to kind of "keep track" of extra bits.

The cards are really just kind of smart to me honestly. Very easy to read, and using visual items for wounds and stuff is nice.

Actually, I've taken to using poker chips for HP in D&D. I can glance around the table and easily see about where everyone is. You just need a 1hp, 3hp, and 10hp color, and you can track pretty easily (honestly until you start getting up there, you don't even need the 10hp color). (I like when I don't even need a pencil at the table except to take notes on what is going on in game).

Isn't that the same as with some narrative systems like basic roleplaying, unisystem and the storytelling system (new wod)? Those systems kinda fade into the background while playing, so you are not really aware of them anymore. I like that a lot. I think savage world does the same thing, only in a more traditional, combat/wargame focused way.

I would never consider those narrative systems. When people talk about narrative systems, they mean games that have narrative MECHANICS.

Things like Fate Points, or the FFG Star Wars Threat/Advantage thing (which I still like, but is extra work), MHRP plot points. Stuff like that.

WoD, BRP, and Unisystem are all pretty trad.

I have come to see narrative ideas as good spices to the dish, rather than the entire meal.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;805246I would never consider those narrative systems. When people talk about narrative systems, they mean games that have narrative MECHANICS.

Things like Fate Points, or the FFG Star Wars Threat/Advantage thing (which I still like, but is extra work), MHRP plot points. Stuff like that.

WoD, BRP, and Unisystem are all pretty trad.

Cinematic Unisystem has Drama Points which function about like MHRP Plot Points.

As I get older I simply go for systems that are easier to do.  Mainly because I am tired of clunky systems that take up my time and designing that perfect character that takes hours to do.  I want systems that get right to the point, easy to understand, and just fade to the background when being played.

I prefer to use systems that are almost automatic, so narrative role-playing can go uninterrupted.

I've played and GM'd a variety of rpgs. I personally like Earthdawn as my goto setting/system, but have GM'd a couple of 'narrative' games. The clunky ones fell apart and I've had more fun at a murder mystery dinner.

One of the better ones was The Mountain Witch. I especially liked how the system pits the GM vs the players AND the players vs each other. The group conflict resolution means ronin working together and spending Trust on each other tend to eventually overcome GM opposition. Tack onto that the Betrayal side of the Trust mechanic, and the fact that each player has a 'Dark Fate' card (allows players free narration as long as it's on topic), and the very weird mythological Japanese setting, and you get a good game indeed. Since everyone is tasked at the beginning with the specific goal of climbing Mt Fuji and killing the sorcerer at the peak citadel, that serves to drive the Stakes of the game. The Dark Fate cards modify this, of course, and it's the story that comes out and the feel of why the characters succeeded or failed that made it interesting to run. Also, running swordfights with Tengu through the forest into pitched battles between early smuggled gunpowder armed Shogun troops and iron club wielding oni. Having the party consistently flee the sorcerer's lieutenant, a forest cat in Portuguese boots wielding two wakizashi, was also quite fun.

Once I got how the mechanical interaction w/ the narrative worked and studied the 'adventure' material, I was able to get into that 'flow' state while running the game. Then it was just glancing and the props and notes.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;805244Isn't that the same as with some narrative systems like basic roleplaying, unisystem

These two are not narrativist systems, in fact they are more old skool than most games out there.

Quote from: trechriron;805240I had this epiphany years ago after a long 2+ year trial of various story games in various flavors. It causes headaches. I prefer RPGs, where the GM is the GM, the players play characters, the GM "runs the game" and the players "play it".

Agreed, and what amazed me was that it was 5e D&D that reminded me after decades of D&D hate!

Mind you, it applies just as well to RuneQuest, Traveller and Savage Worlds.

Now, where is my copy of Witchcraft?