PDA

View Full Version : Striking the middle ground between narrativist and gamist



RFLS
2017-12-11, 09:08 PM
Little bit of a roundabout leadup to the question, so here we go: My group started on Pathfinder, had a brief affair with FATE, and most of them have settled on 5e. I'm looking for a new system to try out for the next game I DM. I like FATE, but I'm not comfortable running it for this group - many of them have the DM/player adversarial mindset that D&D and Co. foment, which is antithetical to FATE. On the other hand, many of them find even 5e to be a bit of a mechanical struggle.

So, I'm a bit stuck. I want a narrative game, I want it to be rules-lite, and unfortunately it needs to not rely on narrative input from the players beyond what their characters do. And, to top it off, two of them have explicitly expressed dislike of PbtA games.

I'm lost. Thoughts?

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-12, 02:45 AM
If your players like D&D but find 5e too complex, then play a simpler version of D&D, such as Basic, or a retroclone like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

"Narrativism" is a red herring. You explicitly state you don't actually want players to have higher level input than character actions. Any GM-led game can be made to suit your purposes. The question is what you want your players to do in the game?

ImNotTrevor
2017-12-12, 06:58 AM
I'm having some thoughts, but you'll have to judge for your own group:

1. Try to influence the GM/Player paradigm to shift away from adversarial. Maybe something GMless like Fall of Magic will help if words haven't?

2. Stars Without Number is fairly simple except that it uses To-hit armor class which is confusing for a little while. Could work fairly well if they're into Sci-fi

3. Change groups, since this will likely be an ongoing problem. If your preferred style and theirs are clashing really hard, it might be best to part amicably.

Airk
2017-12-12, 11:53 AM
"Narrativism" is a red herring. You explicitly state you don't actually want players to have higher level input than character actions. Any GM-led game can be made to suit your purposes. The question is what you want your players to do in the game?

Yeah, I agree; I'm honestly a little confused by the OP here - "I want a narrative game" and "It can't rely on any narrative input from the players beyond what their characters do" are pretty much mutually exclusive. ANY game can be "narrative" from the GM's perspective. :P

Maybe you mean you are looking for something more genre-simulationist than physics simulationist or gamist?

RFLS
2017-12-12, 12:34 PM
Yeah, I agree; I'm honestly a little confused by the OP here - "I want a narrative game" and "It can't rely on any narrative input from the players beyond what their characters do" are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I want it to have narrativist mechanics available. However, it needs to function without relying on them because my players are not great at using mechanics like that (which is why FATE was a flop).

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-12, 01:02 PM
All the more reason to scrap the idea of using a "narrativist" system. Use LotFP or similar which has zero such elements on the player's side, and introduce the narrative elements via work on the GM's side, such as scenario design.

Airk
2017-12-12, 01:29 PM
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I want it to have narrativist mechanics available. However, it needs to function without relying on them because my players are not great at using mechanics like that (which is why FATE was a flop).

What do you think of as "narrativist mechanics" exactly? I mean, if the players aren't going to use them, why do you need/want to have them?

kyoryu
2017-12-12, 01:52 PM
Yes, please define what you mean by "narrative". It's a fuzzy word that people use without having a strict definition.

The Forge's definition - where the term came from - is almost universally *not* what is meant by "narrative".

LibraryOgre
2017-12-12, 05:32 PM
I'd lean towards Savage Worlds... it's pretty straightforward as a basic system, and the metamechanics of Bennies are pretty straightforward.

To me, I interpret "narrativist mechanics" as being metagame mechanics... things the PLAYERS can do to affect the narrative. It can be rerolling a bad roll, adding a story element, or gaining more metagame resources by invoking flaws. "Well, normally I'd be all for this, but I'm invoking Coward, and running away. Gimmee my benny." Most players understand things on this level, even if they're pretty hardcore gamists... this is part of the game.

Tanarii
2017-12-12, 10:13 PM
The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.

Causal: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on likely outcomes (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes likely outcomes.

Narrative: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on necessary narrative outcomes* (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes narratively necessary outcomes.

(Note in some narrative systems, players can directly determine the narrative and use mechanics to affect it. Ie I also agree with Mark above.)

*sometimes called "what would be most fun to happen here".

Talakeal
2017-12-12, 10:24 PM
The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.[/SIZE]

Them's fighin' words!

Tanarii
2017-12-12, 10:30 PM
Them's fighin' words!
Are you sure? :smallbiggrin:
(Maybe I should have just made my own thread.)

kyoryu
2017-12-12, 10:42 PM
The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.

Causal: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on likely outcomes (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes likely outcomes.

Narrative: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on necessary narrative outcomes* (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes narratively necessary outcomes.

(Note in some narrative systems, players can directly determine the narrative and use mechanics to affect it. Ie I also agree with Mark above.)

*sometimes called "what would be most fun to happen here".

According to the Forge, it's actually about exploration of theme.

But, you know, nobody uses the definition of the people that invented the term.

2D8HP
2017-12-12, 11:08 PM
According to the Forge, it's actually about exploration of theme.


According to the Forge glossary (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html)

Narrativism (Narrativist play) is:

"One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See Story Now."

Story Now is:

"Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play"


Um, yeah?


...But, you know, nobody uses the definition of the people that invented the term..
Well, you explain it way better than they did themselves @kyoryu so...

Lorsa
2017-12-13, 05:28 AM
According to the Forge, it's actually about exploration of theme.

But, you know, nobody uses the definition of the people that invented the term.

I also think that, according to the Forge, there IS no middle ground. You can only ever have one creative agenda (why does no one ever use the word agendum?), and trying to mix them will only result in failure.

JellyPooga
2017-12-13, 06:05 AM
Whenever someone asks for a new system to try, my answer is almost always the same because it seems to fit a lot of bills.

The One Ring sounds almost exactly what you're looking for. It's mildly crunchy and character development is interesting from a mechanical standpoint. The system is also "narrative" in the GM-led sense, but player characters also have hooks and abilities that either they or the GM can tug on to tell a bit more story or otherwise advance the plot, which allows the GM to keep the players involved in that narrative sense and not just as a bunch of numbers rolling through encounters, even if the players don't, though they can and are encouraged to do so in TOR.

kyoryu
2017-12-13, 12:36 PM
Well, you explain it way better than they did themselves @kyoryu so...

I'm reasonably sure you're being serious here :D


I also think that, according to the Forge, there IS no middle ground. You can only ever have one creative agenda (why does no one ever use the word agendum?), and trying to mix them will only result in failure.

Well, yes. Anything that doesn't strictly pigeonhole play is, according to Forge theory, "incoherent."

Which is part of why I reject Forge theory :D

But still, that's where the definition came from, and it's interesting that the only rigorous definition has almost nothing to do with how the term is used "in the wild".

2D8HP
2017-12-13, 12:53 PM
Which is part of why I reject Forge theory :D..
While I actually liked Ron Edwards Sorcerer & Sword supplement and I find his game biography interesting (I have no memory of meeting him, but I see that he played similar games at the same time [late 1970's and early 80's] and same area as I did), but too much of The Forge's theories read like gibberish to me ("epiphenomenal outcome"??? WTH?), to be of any use.

Your own "Types" I find much easier to understand and useful @[B]kyoryu.

Talakeal
2017-12-13, 01:10 PM
Are you sure? :smallbiggrin:
(Maybe I should have just made my own thread.)

In video game circles "casual" usually refers to someone who is bad at the game and just doesn't care enough to get better.

When I hear it applied to a certain style of RPGs I can't help but feel that it means anyone who is labeled casual isn't a "real" RPer.


But yeah, narrativist is a stupid word because as defined by Ron Edwards it doesn't mean what people think it means. I much prefer the GDS theory to GNS and Drama is much closer to what people think of when they hear "narrativist elements".

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 01:16 PM
"Narrativist" is confusing as heck as a term used in the wild versus the Forge definition vs the "fiction writer's" usage vs whatever... see my posting history related to the term since I joined here.

As for The Forge, keep in mind that there's a lot of postmodernist obscurantism going on in what you read from Edwards and his closest adherents; and most of it is driven by a very specific agenda, with an end-goal in mind, rather than as honest analysis.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 01:19 PM
The opposite of narrativist gaming isn't gamist. It's causal gaming.

Causal: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on likely outcomes (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes likely outcomes.

Narrative: players describe what they attempt do, then GM determines how to resolve based on necessary narrative outcomes* (possibly using dice), and describes resolution. Attempting actions causes narratively necessary outcomes.

(Note in some narrative systems, players can directly determine the narrative and use mechanics to affect it. Ie I also agree with Mark above.)

*sometimes called "what would be most fun to happen here".

E: like Talakeal, I read that as "casual". Perplexed reaction retracted.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-13, 01:23 PM
"Epiphenomenal" means "above a phenomenom" means "viewed from a higher level, thing leads to another thing."

The "epiphenomenal outcome" of me tapping my fingers against a table is rhythm, and done with the specific intent of playing a tune, the outcome of that is music.

In the same way, the transcript of a game played to explore a theme is a story.

But at the same time, this just shows how demand of a "narrativist system" is a red herring. You don't need any special mechanics on the players' side to create, explore and resolve themes. Just have the GM set up scenarios that would be conductive to doing that.

Tanarii
2017-12-13, 02:17 PM
In video game circles "casual" usually refers to someone who is bad at the game and just doesn't care enough to get better.Causal, not casual.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 02:26 PM
Causal, not casual.

Causal -- OK, that makes a lot more sense.

And in that way it does hit on how I'd been looking at "narrativist" before discussions here, based on how games like FFG's Star Wars and fans thereof use it, where things happen for narrative reasons rather than in-setting reasons (example, the "talent" that allows the player to decide that some mechanical thing just happens to break or malfunction because it makes for "good story", and is not required to connect this to any character actions within the setting in any way). That sort of "narrative causality" (it happens because The Plot needed it to) is pretty much anathema to my enjoyment of both fiction and RPGs.

Tanarii
2017-12-13, 02:32 PM
That sort of "narrative causality" (it happens because The Plot needed it to) is pretty much anathema to my enjoyment of both fiction and RPGs.Yeah, there you go. Narrative Causality is what I'm talking about. I have a knee jerk negative reaction to it if either the GM doesn't tell me in advance that's what they'll be doing, or the game rules itself don't either spell it out or heavily imply it. (For example any game calling itself "storytelling" generally implies it.)

On the other hand, if it's rephrased as the Rule of Fun or the Rule of Cool, all of a sudden I'm way more cool with it. It's all about how it's presented. :smallamused:

ImNotTrevor
2017-12-13, 03:45 PM
I'm still confused about why we're rehashing Edwards' triumvirate and the Forge stuff when all of the following is true:
1. The Forge no longer operates
2. Edwards himself doesn't really use it anymore
3. Game designers don't use the theory except in rare cases
4. Nobody on this thread is using it in that way
5. According to everyone in this thread, almost no one uses the term "Narrative" to mean that anymore.


It feels like I'm going on a videogames forum in 2017 and seeing people bringing up ps2 games as evidence of modern problems. It's weird.

2D8HP
2017-12-13, 06:00 PM
I'm reasonably sure you're being serious here :D..
Yes.

Yes I was.


It feels like I'm going on a videogames forum in 2017 and seeing people bringing up ps2 games as evidence of modern problems. It's weird..
Well to some of us (okay me) the PS2 still counts as newfangled.

Airk
2017-12-13, 07:54 PM
As for The Forge, keep in mind that there's a lot of postmodernist obscurantism going on in what you read from Edwards and his closest adherents; and most of it is driven by a very specific agenda, with an end-goal in mind, rather than as honest analysis.

Whoa there. First of all, this is wild speculation. Second of all, LITERALLY everything written on the Forge is over a decade old, so using it as any sort of indication of what people think nowadays is more than a bit misguided.

ImNotTrevor has it right. It's fine if someone wants to mention this stuff as a historical footnote, but for bob's sake, stop trying to debate it or act like anyone ACTUALLY uses that stuff at this point, whether they are part of some postulated cult of "adherents" or not.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 08:13 PM
Oh come on. First of all, this is wild speculation. Second of all, LITERALLY everything written on the Forge is over a decade old, so using it as any sort of indication of what people think nowadays is more than a bit misguided.

ImNotTrevor has it right. It's fine if someone wants to mention this stuff as a historical footnote, but for bob's sake, stop trying to debate it or act like anyone ACTUALLY uses that stuff at this point, whether they are part of some postulated cult of "adherents" or not.

The Forge came up, and someone reacted to their terminology.

In the context of The Forge, I absolutely stand by my comments, both regarding the cultish nature of the place and their use of postmodernist obscurantism.

As for applicability to the present, the opening post of this thread and its title specifically use the terminology of GNS... are we supposed to fastidiously ignore the subject because you and ImNotTrevor have deemed it "out of date"?

Talakeal
2017-12-13, 09:25 PM
Causal -- OK, that makes a lot more sense.

So much more sense.

ImNotTrevor
2017-12-13, 10:46 PM
The Forge came up, and someone reacted to their terminology.

In the context of The Forge, I absolutely stand by my comments, both regarding the cultish nature of the place and their use of postmodernist obscurantism.

As for applicability to the present, the opening post of this thread and its title specifically use the terminology of GNS... are we supposed to fastidiously ignore the subject because you and ImNotTrevor have deemed it "out of date"?

The only word from GNS used is "Narrative."

A word everyone here admits is not used in the GNS sense by hardly anyone.

As for the cult:
It's gone. Not even EDWARDS is a member of it. Let those old bones rest, dangit! GNS's corpse barely has time to let the dirt settle on its grave before getting dug up to be paraded about as a present threat in some kind of weird "Weekend at Burnie's" parody.

I'm fairly sure Edwards also used the word "the." We gonna start going into GNS over conjunctions next? Gimme a break. It makes no sense to have a thread where on the one hand there is agreement that nobody uses GNS terminology anymore and on the other hand one (very common, btw) word in common means GNS is suddenly returning to destroy gaming.

It's still very dead, despite this poster using a very common alternative to the terms "story-focused" or "fiction-first."

kyoryu
2017-12-13, 10:50 PM
I'm still confused about why we're rehashing Edwards' triumvirate and the Forge stuff when all of the following is true:
1. The Forge no longer operates
2. Edwards himself doesn't really use it anymore
3. Game designers don't use the theory except in rare cases
4. Nobody on this thread is using it in that way
5. According to everyone in this thread, almost no one uses the term "Narrative" to mean that anymore.


It feels like I'm going on a videogames forum in 2017 and seeing people bringing up ps2 games as evidence of modern problems. It's weird.

Well, because nobody has a clear definition of "narrative".

Tanarii
2017-12-13, 11:05 PM
The only word from GNS used is "Narrative."
The OP posited a middle ground between narrativist and gamist. It's a huge stretch to think that's not a direct reference to GNs theory terms.

ImNotTrevor
2017-12-13, 11:51 PM
The OP posited a middle ground between narrativist and gamist. It's a huge stretch to think that's not a direct reference to GNs theory terms.

Yes and even after OP clarified and is clearly not using the GNS words in the way GNS does, we're still rattling those old bones around. And this is COMMON.

People use one of the GNS terms and suddenly we have to endure the conga line of people complaining about the mere existence of a theory nobody uses anymore, even if it did give us 3 handy-dandy words to vaguely point in the directions of preferences.

So allow me to let y'all know how most people use the terms A DECADE LATER:

Narrative: focused kinda more on the story bits than other bits.
Gamist: focused kinda more on the mechanical game bits than other bits.
Simulation: focused kinda more on the setting and verisimilitude than other bits.

Thats what most people understand of it this far down the line. Kinda like how when I say "spicy food" you have a general idea of things I may like, even if you don't know EXACTLY which spicy foods I happen to be thinking of

Does that make any sense?

DrMartin
2017-12-14, 02:18 AM
One the groups I am playing with went through something similar. Our solution has been overlaying Fate most recognizable mechanical elements over 5e inspiration mechanics. So the DM can compel the characters based on their ideals, bonds and flaws, rewarding them with inspiration, and the characters can spend inspiration to "bend" or add elements to a scene as if they were creating an aspect. Or you can get advantage on a roll as per normal inspiration rules.

No player at the table is forced to use the system, since it's entirely possible to just use 5e mechanics. But it definitely adds an element of fun for those comfortable with player contributing to the narratives not directly through the resolution of their character's action.

As a corollary, we raised the maximum amount of inspiration one can "hoard", to 3 +1 per tier of play (o 4 at 6th, 5 at 11th, etc).

Airk
2017-12-14, 10:26 AM
People seem to be struggling with the idea that you can use GNS "terms" without GNS definitions, and that without using the GNS definitions, they're not actually GNS terms, they're just WORDS. Words that have, if not rigorously defined meanings, at least vague popular conceptions of what they mean which have nothing to do with GNS at all.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 11:04 AM
People seem to be struggling with the idea that you can use GNS terms without GNS definitions, and that without using the GNS definitions, they're not actually GNS terms, they're just WORDS.

Not really -- it's more that these words get tossed into the discussion, and even in the specific context of gaming, we rarely know exactly what that particular person might mean.

For example, I've never used "Narrativism" or "Narrativist" in exactly the way that The Cult of Edwards wanted them used, regarding "exploration of theme / premise". To me, it's always been about Narrative Causality ("things happen because The Plot demands they happen") and Narrative Mechanics (specific rules/systems exist to allow players to manipulate the setting or NPCs outside their characters' actions and influence, which screams "metagaming" to me). That's taken from the broader usage of the word in both the writing and gaming contexts; see also, I never use "incoherent" in the way Edwards wanted to, either.

Other people do still mean "narratavist" in a very specifically Edwardian way.

Other people mean "anything to do with a good story", going so far as to include character, setting, etc.


That's the problem with "words mean whatever we want them to" linguistics and proliferating terms of art.

Tanarii
2017-12-14, 11:24 AM
Yes and even after OP clarified and is clearly not using the GNS words in the way GNS does, we're still rattling those old bones around. And this is COMMON.For sure. I made several posts based on a very hazy understanding of GNS, basically no more than the three terms and my assumption of what they meant, less than two years ago on these very forums. After several other posters called me out on it, and it being both a dead theory and a stupid one in the first place, I went and researched it and found that was correct.

GNS is a dead theory, and was BS in the first place.

So to answer your question, no, it doesn't make sense to talk about GNS.

However, I think the term Narrative is useful, just not in the commonly-misinterpreted-from-GNS way of "describing stuff", or the BS people throw around about RPGs being "cooperative storytelling".

That's why I gave my interpretation of what narrative play means, and what it's 'opposite' is. Because emergent storytelling (recounting the story of the game after the fact), narrative resolution (GM determine resolution based on what's needed for the plot), and narrative mechanics (mechanics that allow the player to affect the plot) are not BS.

kyoryu
2017-12-14, 11:47 AM
So allow me to let y'all know how most people use the terms A DECADE LATER:

Narrative: focused kinda more on the story bits than other bits.
Gamist: focused kinda more on the mechanical game bits than other bits.
Simulation: focused kinda more on the setting and verisimilitude than other bits.

I really wish we'd go back to using GDS and getting rid of the Forge baggage.

That said, what you've described is a good summary of GDS. It is not, however, how I often see people use narrative. As an example: By that definition, a D&D game could be "narrativist", but I've never heard D&D described as so, even in terms of a specific game.

That's really all I said about Forge theory - that it was the origin of the term, and I found it ironic that very few people use it in anywhere near that context, especially given the lack of anything near a common definition.

Which is why my first post was literally just "define what you mean by narrativist". Because if I know what it means to the OP, then I can help them.


People seem to be struggling with the idea that you can use GNS "terms" without GNS definitions, and that without using the GNS definitions, they're not actually GNS terms, they're just WORDS. Words that have, if not rigorously defined meanings, at least vague popular conceptions of what they mean which have nothing to do with GNS at all.

I don't think that I agree with the bolded part. I think people often mean *very different* things when they say narrativism.

Like, when I say "gamist," I kinda get what that means. And I think if you took me and a random gamer, and asked if ten things were gamist or not, we'd probably be in 90% agreement.

If you said "narrativist", I wouldn't presume that we were over 60% or so.

That's the problem I've found with terms like this - people *think* that there's more agreement on what they mean than there actually is, and so they can nod along, not realizing that the two people are actually having different conversations.

Here's some things I've found to be common in what people mean by "narrative":

1) A moderate to high amount of Type 3 interactions
2) A game that is structurally closer to a movie or novel, or is more likely to contain the mix of activities of a movie or a novel.
3) A game that comes out of the game design thought process of the key contributors at the Forge
4) A game that allows some level of player authorship (arguably redundant with the first point)
5) Not using common, often wargame-derived, structures

Apocalypse World, for instance, is almost entirely Point 3 by definition (though it often includes a high amount of Type 4 by cultural assumption).

Fate is all about Point 2 and 4, though it really has pretty limited player authorship.

The real common ground is Point 5, though Fate hews closer to them than many other "narrative" games.

Yet they're both called narrative.


Not really -- it's more that these words get tossed into the discussion, and even in the specific context of gaming, we rarely know exactly what that particular person might mean.

....

That's the problem with "words mean whatever we want them to" linguistics and proliferating terms of art.

Yup. I have similar issues with words like "gritty". Everybody has a vague idea of what they mean, and assumes everyone else means the same thing, but all too often they don't mean the same thing at all.

Tanarii
2017-12-14, 11:58 AM
Yup. I have similar issues with words like "gritty". Everybody has a vague idea of what they mean, and assumes everyone else means the same thing, but all too often they don't mean the same thing at all.
Oh, gritty is easy. It means easy to die. Except when it means careful attention to resource expenditure, of course. Or noir. Or hard to gain levels. Or horror.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 12:01 PM
Oh, gritty is easy. It means easy to die. Except when it means careful attention to resource expenditure, of course. Or noir. Or hard to gain levels. Or horror.

Or "everything is dirty and worn down".

Or "dung ages".

kyoryu
2017-12-14, 12:11 PM
Oh, gritty is easy. It means easy to die. Except when it means careful attention to resource expenditure, of course. Or noir. Or hard to gain levels. Or horror.


Or "everything is dirty and worn down".

Or "dung ages".

I personally prefer "human, not superhuman" and "pain". But, hey, that's the point, right? :D

Talakeal
2017-12-14, 12:33 PM
I really wish we'd go back to using GDS and getting rid of the Forge baggage.

Seconded.

Its weird, most people seem to use the GNS terminology but with the GDS descriptions.

Psyren
2017-12-14, 12:42 PM
If 5e is too "mechanically complex" then I dunno. It sounds like your group would be better off with something really light, if not freeform entirely.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 12:49 PM
I really wish we'd go back to using GDS and getting rid of the Forge baggage.



Seconded.

Its weird, most people seem to use the GNS terminology but with the GDS descriptions.


I'd love to get rid of the Forge baggage.

Even without it, though, I've seen disagreements over what goes where. Does "Character" go with D or S? Is "Genre Emulation" a D or S concern?

RFLS
2017-12-16, 02:26 AM
Woah, hey, so, it sounds like I owe an apology. I started the post, went away, did some reading, and came back to a lot of people trying to figure out what I meant when I hadn't paid serious attention to TTRPG theory in five years. So. Let's ditch the GNS terminology I used. And yes, that was the source of the wording for the title.

So. I'm looking for a game that is mechanically simple. The base mechanics of FATE are about where it should rest, give or take. I am looking for a game that steers its players (and GM/MC/DM/w/e) away from an adversarial playstyle. Finally, I am looking for a game that has mechanics that encourage players to make choices based on creating an interesting story, rather than entirely trusting that an interesting story will fall out of playing in an adversarial manner.

For clarification: When I use the word "adversarial," I am referring to the mindset that the game is GM vs. players.


If 5e is too "mechanically complex" then I dunno. It sounds like your group would be better off with something really light, if not freeform entirely.

Yeah. That's what prompted FATE, tbh. I'm tempted to just force PbtA at this point.

DrMartin
2017-12-16, 05:33 AM
Mouseguard (a simpler adaptation of Burning Wheel) fits some of the bill. The system is really easy, conflict is abstract and narrative rather than turn-by-turn, and the game pretty much expects the players to state their goals and the GM to adapt and bend the session to those stated goals. It is a game though, where the GM is explicitly encouraged to go hard on the players and throw even the kitchen sink at them, challenge-wise - so I don't know where it stands on your "non adversarial" clause.

the games suggest a rather formulaic session structure that I find quite interesting, that goes like this:
1- GM introduces the current mission / task
2- each players declares a Goal tied to the session task
3- a GM turn, in which challenges are thrown at the players, and ends either with the resolution of the mission, or in a place where the characters can "slow down" and rest. The game assumes the GM will tailor the challenges to the Goals the players stated in step 2 above
4- a player's turn, in which the players get a number of "scenes" to either recover from consequences accrued during the GM turn, or to pursue personal goals.

plus, you are playing anthropomorphic, intelligent mice. It can be enough to sell the game to some audiences :D

Knaight
2017-12-16, 10:41 AM
So. I'm looking for a game that is mechanically simple. The base mechanics of FATE are about where it should rest, give or take. I am looking for a game that steers its players (and GM/MC/DM/w/e) away from an adversarial playstyle. Finally, I am looking for a game that has mechanics that encourage players to make choices based on creating an interesting story, rather than entirely trusting that an interesting story will fall out of playing in an adversarial manner.

Have I recommended Ubiquity yet? It's simple, it encourages players to make choices that are character based (which works just as well as plot based decisions for story crafting), and it has a couple key mechanics that make it largely non-adversarial.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-16, 11:37 AM
Have I recommended Ubiquity yet? It's simple, it encourages players to make choices that are character based (which works just as well as plot based decisions for story crafting), and it has a couple key mechanics that make it largely non-adversarial.


All else aside, character-based decisions make for far better stories than plot-based decisions (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality).

ImNotTrevor
2017-12-16, 12:07 PM
All else aside, I think that character-based decisions make for far better stories than plot-based decisions.

Fixed that errant opinion-as-fact wording. We've had enough fight in this thread before going off on trying to determine which of these is objectively better.

Psyren
2017-12-16, 12:23 PM
Why do those have to be mutually exclusive anyway? Actors in stories make decisions based on plot and character simultaneously all the time.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-16, 12:42 PM
I am looking for a game that steers its players (and GM/MC/DM/w/e) away from an adversarial playstyle.

Again, you can do this in any system with a GM, by not playing adversarially as a GM.


Finally, I am looking for a game that has mechanics that encourage players to make choices based on creating an interesting story, rather than entirely trusting that an interesting story will fall out of playing in an adversarial manner.

And you can do that without special mechanics on the players' side, by playing co-operatively as a GM and creating your scenario so that it has such choices for the players to make.

But what is this interesting story you wish to make, what are these interesting choices you want your players to make?


For clarification: When I use the word "adversarial," I am referring to the mindset that the game is GM vs players.

Yes, yes, I'm fairly sure everyone got that. You solve most of the problem by choosing to not play adversarially. The rest is making it obvious to your players, which is best done by actually playing co-operatively untill they get it. Choice of system borders on tangential.

If that does not help, break it down: what are the things that your players would consider adversarial? By contrast, what would be the things they'd consider co-operative?

kyoryu
2017-12-16, 06:39 PM
Woah, hey, so, it sounds like I owe an apology. I started the post, went away, did some reading, and came back to a lot of people trying to figure out what I meant when I hadn't paid serious attention to TTRPG theory in five years. So. Let's ditch the GNS terminology I used. And yes, that was the source of the wording for the title.

So. I'm looking for a game that is mechanically simple. The base mechanics of FATE are about where it should rest, give or take. I am looking for a game that steers its players (and GM/MC/DM/w/e) away from an adversarial playstyle. Finally, I am looking for a game that has mechanics that encourage players to make choices based on creating an interesting story, rather than entirely trusting that an interesting story will fall out of playing in an adversarial manner.

For clarification: When I use the word "adversarial," I am referring to the mindset that the game is GM vs. players.

Yeah. That's what prompted FATE, tbh. I'm tempted to just force PbtA at this point.

Why not just run Fate slightly more traditionally? I guarantee it can be done. I've done it.

Heck, based on our conversations, I think most people probably play Fate closer to "traditional' gaming than you think it needs to be played.


All else aside, character-based decisions make for far better stories than plot-based decisions (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality).

I totally agree. Characters pursuing their goals makes for great stories!

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-16, 10:49 PM
Why do those have to be mutually exclusive anyway? Actors in stories make decisions based on plot and character simultaneously all the time.

They don't have to be.

The problem is when they are, and "because the plot said so" is chosen over "this is what the character would do in this situation".

georgie_leech
2017-12-17, 01:23 AM
They don't have to be.

The problem is when they are, and "because the plot said so" is chosen over "this is what the character would do in this situation".

Where does "I want the plot to go this way, so the character should have traits that lead to them doing this" fall? Like, it would be far more sensible for any given Horror Protagonist to NOPE right on out of whatever scenario is presented, but they're almost always curious enough to take the first peek that sends them down the rabbit hole, or have some person/macguffin they need to get back.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-17, 09:42 AM
Where does "I want the plot to go this way, so the character should have traits that lead to them doing this" fall?


What's one the tricks of getting it right -- matching the character to the story.




Like, it would be far more sensible for any given Horror Protagonist to NOPE right on out of whatever scenario is presented, but they're almost always curious enough to take the first peek that sends them down the rabbit hole, or have some person/macguffin they need to get back.


Depends on what kind of horror story. The stereotypical slasher flick requires a collection of blithering idiots from an alternate universe where slasher movies don't exist.

Frozen_Feet
2017-12-17, 09:57 AM
Not really. The most annoying characters in horror fiction act idiotically even for people who have never heard of horror.

Others end up in a horrifying position because they act like people who do not believe themselves to be in a horror story, which is far more tolerable.