Quote from: CRKrueger;895958Because you're choosing exactly how you succeeded

This seems like the important difference between systems that get described as outcome oriented vs. task oriented or that feature detailed stake setting. Both seem like methods to allow the player rather than the GM to decide what effect occurs from succeeding at a die roll.

In lots of games a player might say,


But there is a clear difference to me between gaining a situational advantage by using the wall is that has already been established to  existence and that existence is known to the player before their declaration and a game where the player tosses down a poker chip with their declaration to ensure the existence of a handy wall to crouch behind.

Quote from: Itachi;895956Actually, 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:


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

So you're interpreting the result as the results of what she could do by hacking the mansion's security? For instance if uses the Resource while physically sneaking in it might represent her screwing with automated alarms or locks or against automated defense screwing up their targetting systems. Anything the makes sense to be accomplished by compromising/beating their computer security?  So similar to a successful roll (or rolls) in other systems but more open ended in how its defined?

Quote from: CRKrueger;895958Because you're choosing exactly how you succeeded

...inside limits dictated by the situation at hand and by what the group (GM included) considers coherent. In that same example, the Kitty Pride player couldn't declare, say, that he found a super-secret AI that he has befriended and will be helping him from now on. The GM could totally veto that, say, that's a club computer, not an advanced research facility or something. (which should be the case if the game was about "conjuring setting out of thin air", right ?)

QuoteHow do you think Shadowrun hacking works, applying this phrase you keep repeating, "creating situational advantages".

I don't remember the specifics of Shadowrun well, but following a similar example: I could, after a successful hacking attempt, try to keep control of a camera node (slave node ?), and establish (together with the GM) that every NPC watching the camera feeds would have a negative modifier to detect my teammates.

There. Both are examples of "systems getting compromised". What differs is the language that each system use, but the ending result is the same: a mechanical advantage for the player.

Quote from: Itachi;895968(which should be the case if the game was about "conjuring setting out of thin air", right ?)

Allowing the players to conjure setting out of thin air doesn't require allowing them to conjure absolutely anything out of thin air. You seem to be suggesting here that unless there are no limits at all on the players control of the setting that the player isn't controlling the setting. That seems....wrong.

Quote from: Itachi;895968There. Both are examples of "systems getting compromised". What differs is the language that each system use, but the ending result is the same: a mechanical advantage for the player.

Umm, no.  In Shadowrun, depending on version, "decrypting the firewall" would just be getting in, after that, the real hacking begins.  You have to choose to attempt to hack the Slave Node which corresponds to the camera, or make an operation against the Slave rating of the system with the goal of taking control of the cameras, depending on version.

You don't make a generic hacking roll which allows you to declare a Compromised Security effect, which could be used by Colossus to help with the motion sensors which he needs because he's easy to detect, or by Wolverine so mics don't pick up the sound of him slicing through a door, or so Nightcrawler can use the camera feed to see if there's any guards in the next room before he teleports in there.

Shadowrun is character choosing a specific action with specific intent, then going through the hacking process, which returns a result.

MHR is player making a roll based on how they want to pool their dice based on character aspects, then the writing team of players can use those results to decide how the next panel in the comic book is going to play out.  It's actually pretty good as a superhero comic book storytelling game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;895972Shadowrun is character choosing a specific action with specific intent, then going through the hacking process, which returns a result.

And, depending on the situation and whatever variables that are known to the GM but not the player, the result may not achieve the intent of the player.

For example, the PC may have hacked into the camera node, but if the GM had already determined that the cameras were all down for maintenance or if some other characters just shot out all the cameras, hacking the node may not give you the result you were hoping for even though you did succeed.

I think the term 'narrativist' is going to be unavoidably associated with GNS, which is a deeply flawed theory. "Narrativism" according to GNS is known not just for narrative mechanics, but for a particular focus on theme which Edwards placed as central to his vision based on his own personal readings in literary criticism. There is an increasingly small portion of games which meet Edward's definition of "narrativism", which really would have been more aptly referred to as "themism" or even "Edwardsism"... but that ship has sailed.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;895882A 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?

While I think you are on the right track, I would personally rephrase this as, "A narrative rule or mechanic is one which allows a player to directly narrate/author something which is accepted as being true in the gameworld." So, for instance, being able to define setting details like, "There is a shotgun behind the bar," would be something that falls under the category of narrative mechanics, even though it isn't about consequences of character actions. It also gets away from the notion that any game with narrative rules or mechanics is "a narrativist game" in sum, because I think that this is increasingly untrue. Many modern games allow players authorial power in limited situations (often governed by a meta currency) as this can be a fairly effective way of emulating genre, even if that authorial power is simply along the lines of saying, "That isn't what happened. Do-over," and spending a bennie or what have you.

Don't take my word for it.

Quote from: Marvel Heroic Roleplaying IntroductionAs a player, it's your job to make decisions for your super hero, using your knowledge of his motivation and personality as a guide to how he uses his amazing powers and abilities. Players are like comic book writers and artists - they bring these super heroes to life, making big and small choices for them, and that's what you'll do at the game table.

(...) Everyone shares their ideas, describes what their heroes (or villains!) are doing, and reveals an ongoing story. You might even describe what you're imagining in terms of panels and pages in a comic book - establishing shots, splash pages, extreme close-ups, huge sound effects.

Quote from: Panjumanju;569250I played and ran 8 or so sessions of this game.
I want to champion it, but it has a few problems.
When you get used to the game mecahnic, the rules and the proper pacing of the game, it's actually a really great game. You just have to get over the fact that you're not playing a superhero, you're playing a comic book artist writing the part of one superhero.
Where it all falls down really is in characters. You really need to pick one of the pregenerated characters. While it is easy to make your own character because you just slap them together out of guesses, not every player is a comic author. Players usually felt too dissasociated with their character. The game rewards high numbers, literally, and if a player's character does not have a d12s in their design, they will eventually feel stunted. The way its structured leads to a complete lack of immersion.
In the way that I felt FASERIP's character creation was inspiring and by the end of it you love your character...but the game mecahincs aren't that fun to play...MHR is the exact opposite.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Silverlion;569051It's a beautiful book. My experience as a playtester is that its very "Story" games based, and for my use, not in a good way. It has a problem with the gap between character and player being wide enough to sink a battleship.
It has asynchronous play. That is the action of the character are somewhat divorced from the players perceptions. In short the mechanics get in the way of playing the person. It becomes more like moving a monopoly piece around the board. Its still "your guy," but it is not essentially connecting your guy to you the player.
Its a beautiful game, and it can play.
I guess for me I want the player to talk in character, do things in character, and decide actions in character that fit the mechanics.
The game seems like it might generate great storyboards, but the action has no personal impact.

Quote from: Skywalker;583608I had a short conversation with them and the standout feature for them seems to be the way the system encouraged them to think outside their characters and allow them to make fun for themselves and the other players direct. They referred specifically to a scene where the whole table co-ordinated to create the kind of dramatic antics that you are perhaps more likely to see onscreen or in a comic than in the other RPGs we have played.

Quote from: Itachi;895953If it's dead, why the hell are we having a thread about Narrativism ?

Because the concept didn't originate with and doesn't belong to Forge theory.

The definition of "narrative" is used wrong, so nothing really defines it, I think the term "authority" works better by definition, in that the players have the right or power to do things, or change outcomes that is more the domain of the GM in traditional games.

Quote from: Arminius;895959I'd like to know specifically what "creating a situational advantage in D&D" refers to.

Piling a wall of corpses between you and the enemy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;896000Because the concept didn't originate with and doesn't belong to Forge theory.

Can you elaborate? If we aren't talking about Narrativist (note the "-ist") games in the Forge sense, then this thread is just a bunch of "what it means to me."

Quote from: dragoner;896010The definition of "narrative" is used wrong, so nothing really defines it, I think the term "authority" works better by definition, in that the players have the right or power to do things, or change outcomes that is more the domain of the GM in traditional games.

Yep, I agree.

Quote from: Arminius;896061Can you elaborate? If we aren't talking about Narrativist (note the "-ist") games in the Forge sense, then this thread is just a bunch of "what it means to me."

I've never heard the term outside of forge theory, so color me curious too.

Quote from: Arminius;895959I'd like to know specifically what "creating a situational advantage in D&D" refers to.

Player: I'll roll to convince the guard to let me in.
GM: Ok, the target number is 14.
Player: But remember I've paid him some beers yesterday at the tavern and we became more acquainted after that.
GM: Hmmm, right. Because of this (perfectly justifiable situational advantage), I'll give you a bonus +2 to the roll.

Or...

Player: Since there is this rift in the ceiling and the sunlight is passin through, could I try to reflect it with my shield to blind the goblin ? And if I do that, could it count as a situational advantage/bonus to my next rolls against him ?
GM: Oh totally. Nice idea, by the way.