Quote from: Itachi;892523Cortex Drama is a narrativist game. As is PbtA, Hillfolk, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.

Ja what? In what universe do Cortex, Burning Wheel, and Dogs in the Vineyard not have narrative control mechanics?

(I'm unfamiliar with Hillfolk and PbtA is a contentious subject around here, so I'm just going to steer clear of it.)

Quote from: Itachi;892523Fiasco is a story-game. As is Microcosm, My Life with Master, Universalis, etc.

Cortex Drama is a narrativist game. As is PbtA, Hillfolk, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.

Perhaps for people who don't play these games, these two groups may look similar. But for those who actually play them, they are pretty different from each other (and the absence of authorship mechanics in the second group is an important factor).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;892532Ja what? In what universe do Cortex, Burning Wheel, and Dogs in the Vineyard not have narrative control mechanics?

(I'm unfamiliar with Hillfolk and PbtA is a contentious subject around here, so I'm just going to steer clear of it.)

So, I partly agree with Itachi that the two sets of games are significantly different - but they're also significantly different from more in-character mechanical games like D&D and GURPS. The latter have many abstract and/or out-of-character mechanics, but not necessarily mechanics where the player can definitely write background details - like spending a drama point for a plot twist in Cinematic Unisystem or James Bond 007.

For example, in a fight or conflict in Burning Wheel, there is no declaring of background. (There is authorial power in some informational skills - like being able to say what the weather is from Weather Sense. So it does have authorship, but one could see it as not being a core of the system.)

Dogs in the Vineyard has no explicit authorial rules - when you Push in a conflict, you say what your character attempts. I've seen some interpretations that a Push can be used more broadly, but that's a controversial reading, in my opinion.

As far as I recall, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying is similar - though it's been a while since I played. There are a lot of abstract, non-simulationist rules. However, there are not explicit mechanics for authoring background, though some of the moves in conflicts can be interpreted more broadly.

DitV allows you to declare a relationship with an NPC as long as you have the dice. It lets you narrate your own damage and choose in some cases whether it should increase your trait dice or decrease them. It has a two-track social conflict system where what you say is less important than the dice you choose to push forward when you say it; conversely the factual strength of an argument doesn't modify the outcome in any way unless the opponent's player/GM decides to ignore the dice. Important questions of fact (such as the tenets of faith) are completely plastic and can be brought into existence via player declaration backed by the dice.

It's a massively OOC game.

Edited to add: one of the first "stakes-setting" games.

Nexus, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???

Quote from: Bren;892467Is anyone else getting tired of various versions of these two statements?

• That's not an RPG because you're not playing a role, you're only playing a game.

• That's not an RPG because you're not playing a game, you're only telling a story.

The first is one point of the problem. You can claim theres role play all you want when playing Chess. But the rest of the world is going to look at you like you are a complete moron because they have more common sense. And it is for some reason usually a storygamer who makes this claim or even more crackheaded ones.

The second one is the other big point of the problem. If there is no G in the RP then it is not an RPG. And usually its the non-storygamers that will point at something obviously not an RPG like acting on a stage or narration and claim solemnly that it is a really real RPG.

And then a storygamer comes along and makes a similar claim. Rinse, repeat ad nausium.

What else is new.

QuoteWhat defines a narrativist game?

Mostly pretentiousness.

I think the first bespoken "Storytelling Game" was Ars Magica (feel free to correct me) which did indeed support it's narrativist goals through troupe play - alternating the 'storyguide' from one scenario to the next - story cards (certainly a novelty back in the 80s) and general advice about narrative structure and techniques. Other notable games of the era that pushed 'story' themes, were Greg Stafford's Pendragon and Prince Valiant, Amber Diceless (developed during the 80s but only published in 1993) and comedy games like Paranoia, Toon and Ghostbusters. Of course, one could argue that people were always interested in story from the get go of the hobby - although game theorists suggest that games like RuneQuest were more interested in 'simulation' rather than 'narration', which is the view argued in Robin D. Laws' HeroQuest, incidentally.

Indeed, the name of the referee for different games give a sort of indication as to what the intent is. In Ars Magica it was the "Storyguide", in previous games the title was "Dungeon Master", "Game Master" or "Keeper" (CoC). These titles denote an element of mastery of the gameworld and an antagonism towards the players - the so called 'gamist' aspect being reinforced by players needing to overcome the challenges presented by the gamemaster. "Storyguide" denotes the crafting of a story in a less directly antagonist way.

One of Ars Magica's creators went on to create the 'Storytelling system' (Mark Rein-Hagen; Vampire: The Masquerade, et al.) and treated the idea as a sort of social movement - Power to the People to create their own stories rather than be spoon-fed Hollywood scripts by a creative oligarchy! Right on!

The other (Jonathan Tweet; Over The Edge, Everway, D&D 3e) sought to explore the narrative structures of game design. GNS Theory has roots in his work in Everway (1995), wherein a somewhat vague diceless system that used Tarot-esque cards highlighted three types of resolution - Karma, Drama and Fate. 'Karma' simply had conflict outcomes determined by a comparison of stats, 'Drama' was GM-fiat in the name of the story and Fate was reading the cards drawn. For Fate read Game, Karma read Simulation and for Drama read....well, you get the idea.

The so called 'story-game' movement, through The Forge and other groups, were taken with these ideas along with ideas from literary criticism.  I do think that there is an element of pretension in a number of games, particularly in some fans who take the rallying cry of 'narrativist' as a conflation towards their own prejudicial tastes of new games vs old.

The totemic Sorcerer (Ron Edwards) does nothing more than reduce the number of statistics, make the mechanics simple and neat and increase a bit of jargon in comparison to the much hated Vampire: The Masquerade which apparently caused brain damage due to the "incoherence" of not being a true storytelling game. There is also something of an obsession with dividing games into type and designing games so that they only fulfill a specific aspect of game design theory. I do think, even though it may be denied, that much of the design behind D&D4e was informed by a desire to be a 'pure' game, divorcing aspects of simulationism and narrativism from the design brief.

Some games, like FATE or Apocalypse World have also made neat systems but make a big play on their 'revolutionary' mechanics. It's a marketing gimmic, flatly, as is the notion that they are 'indie' - how many spinoffs have they had each as generic systems? Other games like Fiasco do admittedly take the RPG hobby in a different direction - GM-less and increasingly divorced from their wargaming roots, with a strict narrative structure that doesn't deviate through player agency. How successful these games will be in comparison to 'traditional' games like D&D remains to be seen.

Quote from: jhkim;892621However, there are not explicit mechanics for authoring background [in Marvel Heroic], though some of the moves in conflicts can be interpreted more broadly.

Yes, there are.  Players can create Complications on opponents and Assets for themselves, and those can be anything that the table agrees is reasonable given the fiction.  It is trivial and expected for Spider-Man's player to create the Complication This is New York, you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us D8 to distract the Green Goblin.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;894737I think the first bespoken "Storytelling Game" was Ars Magica (feel free to correct me)

Victory Games' James Bond 007 RPG, 1983.  First appearance of rules for players using a metagame currency to control the narrative.

A narrativist game is a game in which the players are authors of the consequences of their character's actions rather than actors of their character's actions. Does that sound right?

Quote from: daniel_ream;895861Yes, there are.  Players can create Complications on opponents and Assets for themselves, and those can be anything that the table agrees is reasonable given the fiction.

..the same way I can create situational advantages in D&D or Vampire or Shadowrun for getting a bonus to my rolls.

QuoteIt is trivial and expected for Spider-Man's player to create the Complication This is New York, you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us D8 to distract the Green Goblin.

How is this any different than using the "Home Turf" advantage in GURPS to distract an opponent ?

Quote from: Nihilistic MindA narrativist game is a game in which the players are authors of the consequences of their character's actions rather than actors of their character's actions. Does that sound right?

I wouldn't say that's a good definition. Lots of narrativist games also assumes in-character decisions (aka Actor stance, as opposed to Director stance). In fact, Narrativism doesn't requires Director stance at all. I suggest (again) that the actual definition from the GNS, as described by wikipedia, is a good enough one:

"Narrativism relies on outlining (or developing) character motives, placing characters into situations where those motives conflict and making their decisions the driving force."

Interesting discussion where Ron explains that Director stance is not required for Narrativism: Narrativism vs Director Stance

*Edit* Btw, the game Sorcerer demonstrates this well through it's Kickers and Bangs concepts, while assuming a fairly traditional Actor stance for players.

Quote from: Itachi;895942I wouldn't say that's a good definition. Lots of narrativist games also assumes in-character decisions (aka Actor stance, as opposed to Director stance). In fact, Narrativism doesn't requires Director stance at all. I suggest (again) that the actual definition from the GNS, as described by wikipedia, is a good enough one:

Except again, that definition is of a playstyle, not of a type of game, and doesn't meaningfully describe a game system in any way.


An Forge theory is not only long since dead, but was thoroughly rejected by the majority of the hobby; it seems very odd to base any argument around a failed theory.

Quote from: daniel_ream;895861Yes, there are.  Players can create Complications on opponents and Assets for themselves, and those can be anything that the table agrees is reasonable given the fiction.  It is trivial and expected for Spider-Man's player to create the Complication This is New York, you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us D8 to distract the Green Goblin.



Victory Games' James Bond 007 RPG, 1983.  First appearance of rules for players using a metagame currency to control the narrative.

Quote from: Itachi;895940..the same way I can create situational advantages in D&D or Vampire or Shadowrun for getting a bonus to my rolls.


How is this any different than using the "Home Turf" advantage in GURPS to distract an opponent ?

These posts both need more detail. Itachi, are you saying that getting a positive modifier is the same as conjuring setting out of thin air?

Quote from: TristramEvans;895946Except again, that definition is of a playstyle, not of a type of game, and doesn't meaningfully describe a game system in any way.

Sure it's about playstyles, but it's pretty easy to identify the main styles facilitated by most games: PbtA, Cortex+, Hillfolk, etc. are strongly narrativist; D&D, Shadowrun are strongly gamist; Runequest and GURPS are strongly sim, etc, etc, etc.

QuoteAnd Forge theory is not only long since dead, but was thoroughly rejected by the majority of the hobby; it seems very odd to base any argument around a failed theory.

If it's dead, why the hell are we having a thread about Narrativism ?

Quote from: Arminius;895952These posts both need more detail. Itachi, are you saying that getting a positive modifier is the same as conjuring setting out of thin air?

Actually, what I'm saying is that creating Assets and Complications in Marvel Heroic has nothing to do with "conjuring setting out of thin air". Here, an example straight from the book:

Quote from: Marvel Heroic CorebookI'm playing Kitty Pryde and I'm trying to decrypt a firewall so that the rest of the X-Men can break into the Hellfire Club's mansion. Putting together my dice pool from Distinctions, Specialties, and so on, I have a total pool of...... Turns out I succeed, so Kitty breaks through the encryption. I want to use the effect die to create an asset, so I declare Compromised Security d6 and can either give that to one of the other players or save it for another roll against the Hellfire Club's computer system.

How is that any different from creating situational advantages in, say, Shadowrun or Gurps ?