Tactical and Narrative Role-Playing Games

[Cluedrew]

I'm not talking about being "pushed out of character". I'm talking about making decisions for things other than your character's (attempted) actions.

Then let me reframe my point: Making decisions a character makes but not from the character's perspective is no more role-playing then making a decision about the character that is not their decision. Which is to say they are not. However, I think both can be part of the role-playing experience, either through merging them (as mentioned by Vahnavoi) or just accepting that you don't spend every moment in the role-playing "stance". Which I know people are OK with in general. I've seen it happen on the tactical side plenty.

Or to put it shortly: What you say is true, but I don't think it has any more significance to a system's status as a role-playing game than fact D&D combat uses a battle mat.

[Easy e]

Really, talking about rules running anything is misleading - players run the rules, referees run the rules, computers run the rules. Rules themselves never run anything.

This is a key point and an excellent observation.

Rules by themselves do nothing, and really are nothing more than guidelines of play in ALL games. I mean, look at all the "variants" of Chess that are out there. Rules can be changes, modified, interpreted, and implemented by the players as they see fit. Rules are just a starting point for collaboration on playing a game.

As for Narrative vs Tactical, nothing gets this board so excited and worked up as labeling things and putting them in boxes! :)

[Thrudd]

This is a key point and an excellent observation.

Rules by themselves do nothing, and really are nothing more than guidelines of play in ALL games. I mean, look at all the "variants" of Chess that are out there. Rules can be changes, modified, interpreted, and implemented by the players as they see fit. Rules are just a starting point for collaboration on playing a game.

As for Narrative vs Tactical, nothing gets this board so excited and worked up as labeling things and putting them in boxes! :)

That's true, game rules are invented by people. But the rules you choose to use have a lot to do with the experience of playing the game, so they're important. The fact that you can change them if you don't like them doesn't mean you don't need to think about the rules. It's still useful to talk about what effect a rule will have on the playing of the game when you're interested in designing and modifying games.

Beyond specific rules, it's also useful to think about what you actually want the game to be, like what it's purpose and goal are. That's sort of the idea of labeling things and coming up with categories - it's to figure out what it is, exactly, that you want, in more specific terms, so you can design rules that actually create the game experience you want. It's worth addressing people's expectations for what an RPG is/should be vs the experience that is actually created by following the rules of any given game. If your expectation for the game is not matched by the experience that follows from the rules, it's time to modify things, right? But what needs to change, and how can you change it to get what you want? That is the point of this sort of discussion, imo.

Maybe what people get hung up on is the idea that each RPG is primarily one thing, that labeling and thinking about categories of things might put people into a mindset that the one thing they prefer is the only thing the game should do.

[kyoryu]

Apocalypse Word specifically and many PbtA in general
Fate


I can't recall if Burning Wheel / Torchbearer do, but it wouldn't surprise me since it's Luke Crane.

You can play about 90% of Fate in-character. AW, specifically is probably closer to 99%. There's really only a couple of things (that are specific to certain playbooks) that are really, really mandatorially OOC decisions.

I'm not talking about being "pushed out of character". I'm talking about making decisions for things other than your character's (attempted) actions.

Specifically you get to decide on any middle roll if you fail or succeed at a price. That's not a decision for what your character is doing. It's a decision for what happens to your character as a result of prior decision about what they are doing.

This is exactly the thing I was talking about earlier, and it's more a matter of process and framing than it is anything else.

A lot of traditional games use the "shot arrow" model of task resolution - the PC does stuff and can impact, and then at some point, they "release the arrow" and then there's no input. This works decently for arrows, but most tasks are a lot longer in duration and a lot more interactive. And usually there's decision points in the middle, and that's where those things are supposed to happen.

My example from earlier:

Framed poorly:

GM: "Okay, the orc hits you by one, you need to absorb that stress."
Player: "I don't want to, I invoke Orc Hunter."
GM: "Okay, the orc didn't hit you."

Framed better:

GM: "Okay, you try to parry, but it looks like you're just not fast enough..."
Player: "I'm an Orc Hunter, I know this move. I'm fast enough to just slip under the blade."
GM: "Okay, the orc didn't hit you."

I totally agree - the first one would bug the heck out of me. It's also not how I run the game, and it's not how anyone I know runs it.

It should never be a retcon. The choice of "failure, or success at a cost" can almost always be framed as in-character.

[weerebellie]

The best thing about gaming setups is that you can customize them according to your demand and need. You are the CEO of your gaming setup, and only you have the right to change anything you want. The RGB lights, power, specifications. It all depends on the user and his budget.

[Satinavian]

You can play about 90% of Fate in-character. AW, specifically is probably closer to 99%. There's really only a couple of things (that are specific to certain playbooks) that are really, really mandatorially OOC decisions.



This is exactly the thing I was talking about earlier, and it's more a matter of process and framing than it is anything else.

A lot of traditional games use the "shot arrow" model of task resolution - the PC does stuff and can impact, and then at some point, they "release the arrow" and then there's no input. This works decently for arrows, but most tasks are a lot longer in duration and a lot more interactive. And usually there's decision points in the middle, and that's where those things are supposed to happen.

My example from earlier:

Framed poorly:

GM: "Okay, the orc hits you by one, you need to absorb that stress."
Player: "I don't want to, I invoke Orc Hunter."
GM: "Okay, the orc didn't hit you."

Framed better:

GM: "Okay, you try to parry, but it looks like you're just not fast enough..."
Player: "I'm an Orc Hunter, I know this move. I'm fast enough to just slip under the blade."
GM: "Okay, the orc didn't hit you."

I totally agree - the first one would bug the heck out of me. It's also not how I run the game, and it's not how anyone I know runs it.

It should never be a retcon. The choice of "failure, or success at a cost" can almost always be framed as in-character.

But how is that in any way different from using Edge/karma pool in SR, which generally is regarded as traditional game ?

[kyoryu]

But how is that in any way different from using Edge/karma pool in SR, which generally is regarded as traditional game ?

I'm not sure it is. Lots of traditional systems have things that are every bit as player-facing as anything in any narrative game. (Again, storygames are a different, well, story).

To be clear, there are differences. But as a fan of both types of games, and someone that came to "narrative" games late in the game, I don't find the descriptions of what's so awful about them to particularly ring true.

That "step after the roll" I think is the issue. But I don't necessarily believe that it's out of character, becuase it doesn't have to be. I think the bigger problem is it's just not how traditional games work, and when people expect things to go one way and then there's another, it can slam them out of flow state.

[Tanarii]

Cluedrew I took another look at your OP, it almost reads like an expansion on 'Crunch vs Fluff' philosophy. Was that your intent?

[Cluedrew]

To Tanarii: No, I didn't think about that while making this. That being said the mechanics layer and the fiction layer do probably mean similar things as crunch and fluff. Although "crunch and fluff" are definitely names that were created by someone on the mechanical end of the spectrum.

[Tanarii]

Not only that, crunch and fluff folks generally don't recognize a spectrum. To them it's usually a divide, a rule must be a rule, or else it's not. They have real problems with things like roleplaying rules, rules that directly limit or modify, decisions for the player based on the characters personality. Or define said personality.

[kyoryu]

To Tanarii: No, I didn't think about that while making this. That being said the mechanics layer and the fiction layer do probably mean similar things as crunch and fluff. Although "crunch and fluff" are definitely names that were created by someone on the mechanical end of the spectrum.

"fiction" layer is "the stuff we're imagining and saying". "Mechanics" layer is "the stuff on the sheets and on the map".

One of the things I often use is "can you run this game reasonably using only the mechanics with no input from the fiction?"

For most versions of D&D combat, you can. AW, Fate, and even D&D skills fail pretty hard at that.

Another thing I look at as a differentiator is "is it reasonable that things that don't have a mechanical representation can limit or modify things in some way?" For instance, in a Fate game, someone defended against a ghoul-like creature by grabbing it - but ghouls cause paralysis on touch. So the defense failed, and instead he got some partial paralysis instead. That wasn't a mechanical rule - the rule is "defend against an attack". However, the description of what he actually did mattered and overrode the base mechanics layer. Or, to put it differently, the mechanics only get used in a situation where the fiction indicates that they should be.

Note that a lot of "broken" things in D&D skills, especially in the 3.x era, come from scenarios where people ignore the fiction layer as irrelevant. See: Diplomancers. A trivial solution for the Diplomancer problem is "you can't just trigger Diplomancy as a skill. You have to be in a situation where diplomancy is already occurring, and two parties have come together to negotiate." I mean, that's not a complete solution, to be sure, but it's at least a start.

[Quertus]

4.)Fun: "Will this slow/stall the game?" or "Will the players like this/think it's fun/cool?"
4a.)Challenge "Is this an appropriate challenge/task for the players?"

These can be (and IMO 4 should be) player stances, as well.

Character Creation: Every system has some mechanical base to fill in some numbers (some exceptions may apply). On the mechanics side, there is generally only more mechanical options which opens up a lot of room for optimization. On the fiction side, there are systems that actually give you character prompts above and beyond what the mechanical options represent.

Character creation is interesting, because it’s one area where most RPGs involve a default 0 roleplaying.

I mean, sure, I could build a 20th level Wizard who picked spells that “looked pretty” (color spray, the “Prismatic” line, probably some summons) and took… Sense Shifting (is that the 3e metamagic feat, or the 2e metamagic spell?).

But, IME, most systems default to 0 RP in character creation.

I've played some Powered by the Apocalypse games and I've found they push me out of character about as much as D&D does. In different directions than D&D does mind you, and so some people might notice it more, but it is still there.

Oh good, the battle mat comes out. Now suddenly I've got a birds eye view of things around a corner and a lot of groups would expect me to take that into account. Leads to the same question, to you play your character or the tactical mini-game. (And no, playing a tactical mini-game with a unit that has the abilities as your character is not playing your character. They can be mixed together, but in the same way that playing the character and the story can be.)

Providing the Player with information that the Character doesn’t have is bad form wrt anyone who cares about Roleplaying. So putting minis on the map for things that are around the corner, that the PCs should be unaware of? That’s the point where your example has something to “push me out of character“, not when “the battle mat comes out”. Just FYI.

I'm not talking about being "pushed out of character". I'm talking about making decisions for things other than your character's (attempted) actions.

Specifically you get to decide on any middle roll if you fail or succeed at a price. That's not a decision for what your character is doing. It's a decision for what happens to your character as a result of prior decision about what they are doing.

I disagree? I try to retrieve the letter, but realize that the fire is hotter than I thought. I can choose to take the burn, and salvage what I can of the letter, or not take the burn, and fail to retrieve the letter.

That… sounds perfectly like the real world (TM) to me.

So, if your GM has the Blatancy Adept merit, and you can’t tell the difference between the choices they offer you, and the choices you make irl, then they’re doing it right.

Framed poorly:

GM: "Okay, the orc hits you by one, you need to absorb that stress."
Player: "I don't want to, I invoke Orc Hunter."
GM: "Okay, the orc didn't hit you."

Framed better:

GM: "Okay, you try to parry, but it looks like you're just not fast enough..."
Player: "I'm an Orc Hunter, I know this move. I'm fast enough to just slip under the blade."
GM: "Okay, the orc didn't hit you."

I totally agree - the first one would bug the heck out of me. It's also not how I run the game, and it's not how anyone I know runs it.

It should never be a retcon. The choice of "failure, or success at a cost" can almost always be framed as in-character.

Eh, someone can swing a (padded) sword at me irl, and I can kinda judge “how good” of a hit it will be, and choose my reaction accordingly. So, although you see it as a retcon, I don’t have a problem translating “he hit you by one” “ok, I use foo to avoid the hit” as a linear timeline.

(It probably helps that I’m used to “I Lightning Bolt your Kurd Ape for 3; it dies.” “In response, I Giant Growth my Kurd Ape.” And other such poor wording.)

Not only that, crunch and fluff folks generally don't recognize a spectrum. To them it's usually a divide, a rule must be a rule, or else it's not. They have real problems with things like roleplaying rules, rules that directly limit or modify, decisions for the player based on the characters personality. Or define said personality.

I must be a crunch/fluff guy (a Crunchy Fluffist?) then.

Rules should state very clearly their scope; abstractions intended to be overruled should be worded like “this usually results in the vampire attacking the nearest living target” (was that from this thread?). The fluff and the crunch should match; if they don’t, one or both should be fixed.

One of the things I often use is "can you run this game reasonably using only the mechanics with no input from the fiction?"

For most versions of D&D combat, you can. AW, Fate, and even D&D skills fail pretty hard at that.

Another thing I look at as a differentiator is "is it reasonable that things that don't have a mechanical representation can limit or modify things in some way?" For instance, in a Fate game, someone defended against a ghoul-like creature by grabbing it - but ghouls cause paralysis on touch. So the defense failed, and instead he got some partial paralysis instead. That wasn't a mechanical rule - the rule is "defend against an attack". However, the description of what he actually did mattered and overrode the base mechanics layer. Or, to put it differently, the mechanics only get used in a situation where the fiction indicates that they should be.

I’m… definitely of the mindset that… being able to run the game entirely “inside the box” is a good thing. As is the existence of an “outside the box”.

The ghoul is… not a good example of what I mean by that, but it is a good example of what I would consider “incomplete rules” if the game didn’t define what happens when you initiate contact with the ghoul rather than vice versa.

Note that a lot of "broken" things in D&D skills, especially in the 3.x era, come from scenarios where people ignore the fiction layer as irrelevant. See: Diplomancers. A trivial solution for the Diplomancer problem is "you can't just trigger Diplomancy as a skill. You have to be in a situation where diplomancy is already occurring, and two parties have come together to negotiate." I mean, that's not a complete solution, to be sure, but it's at least a start.

Um… that “fix” to Diplomacy utterly destroys the point of Diplomacy, as inferred from the “Reaction Roll” / Reaction Adjustment” rules it replaces.

The orcs / adventurers coming to kill you, and you yelling “don’t shoot!” / “let’s talk!” / some longer speech that somehow not only fits into 6 seconds but happens before anyone pulls the trigger? Resolving whether they’re willing to negotiate (and with what “attitude”) or just run you through is probably the primary kind of scenario that it’s supposed to be for.

“Yousa no tinken yousa greater den da Gungans? Mesa like dis. Maybe wesa... bein' friends.”

That was where the Diplomacy roll was, to set the initial attitude of the talks. (EDIT: the talks themselves are a (completely undefined) tactical minigame.)

[Vahnavoi]

Regarding "crunch" and "fluff" - those are inexact terms that in practical use typically conflate a number of different things such as:

1) format of the rules - namely if they are mathematical-logical or other game jargon ("crunch") versus natural language ("fluff")
2) how easy it is to change the rules - typically with the assumption that "crunch" is hard and "fluff" is easy.
3) rule priority - typically with the assumption that "crunch" has priority over "fluff"

In truth these have little to do with each other. A game rule is any statement about the game that is enforced as true for it - this does not care about format or how easy it is to imagine an alternate ruling. Priority can be given to natural language statements just as well as other kinds, when you're making rules for actual humans to use and interprete. So in the example of defending against a ghoul, there isn't any problem saying that the natural language statements "touching a ghoul causes paralysis" and "I grab the ghoul to defend myself" take priority over abstract die roll (or whatever) of "defend against an attack". Indeed, there wouldn't be any problem denying the abstract mechanic if the player's specific action is "I grab the ghoul", because you don't need the abstract rule for anything in this equation.

For contrast, if the player's specific action was "I invoke defend against an attack" and the die roll (or whatever) had priority over the player's natural language description, a sane game master would annul the description of grabbing the ghoul, saying "no, you can't grab the ghoul - that would cause your defense to fail, and we already determined you successfully defended yourself. You dodge the ghoul instead". It's worth noting that in this version, "touching ghouls causes paralysis" is still enforced as true, it is a game rule that the other rules aren't allowed to contradict.

[Quertus]

Regarding "crunch" and "fluff" - those are inexact terms that in practical use typically conflate a number of different things such as:

1) format of the rules - namely if they are mathematical-logical or other game jargon ("crunch") versus natural language ("fluff")
2) how easy it is to change the rules - typically with the assumption that "crunch" is hard and "fluff" is easy.
3) rule priority - typically with the assumption that "crunch" has priority over "fluff"

In truth these have little to do with each other. A game rule is any statement about the game that is enforced as true for it - this does not care about format or how easy it is to imagine an alternate ruling. Priority can be given to natural language statements just as well as other kinds, when you're making rules for actual humans to use and interprete. So in the example of defending against a ghoul, there isn't any problem saying that the natural language statements "touching a ghoul causes paralysis" and "I grab the ghoul to defend myself" take priority over abstract die roll (or whatever) of "defend against an attack". Indeed, there wouldn't be any problem denying the abstract mechanic if the player's specific action is "I grab the ghoul", because you don't need the abstract rule for anything in this equation.

For contrast, if the player's specific action was "I invoke defend against an attack" and the die roll (or whatever) had priority over the player's natural language description, a sane game master would annul the description of grabbing the ghoul, saying "no, you can't grab the ghoul - that would cause your defense to fail, and we already determined you successfully defended yourself. You dodge the ghoul instead". It's worth noting that in this version, "touching ghouls causes paralysis" is still enforced as true, it is a game rule that the other rules aren't allowed to contradict.

My personal problem with the ghoul isn’t about priority, but ambiguity. For example, if I can get paralyzed by touching a ghoul, can I get healed by grappling a Paladin? The “rule” is missing the underlying logic, the underlying mechanics. It would not be unreasonable for that question to be answered differently at different tables. Whereas “the ghoul is surrounded by a phlebotomist field, causing living matter it touches to become paralyzed” or “the ghoul can empower its strikes with a phlebotomist effect, causing living creatures it touches to become paralyzed” (hopefully) lack that ambiguity.

EDIT: “rule of cool” says that a ghoul attacking or grappling a Paladin should be hilarious!

[Vahnavoi]

"Touching a ghoul causes paralysis" and "I grab the ghoul" are not particularly ambiguous statements, logic and context of natural language provide very straight-forward meaning. For contrast, the abstract "defend against attack" is extremely ambiguous and needs interpreting to tell how a character actually achieves the effect suggested by the rule.

There is no connection to grappling with paladins. Nothing is missing from the ghoul situation that would ever logically lead to the musing about grappling paladins, and the actual context for paladins is that laying of hands requires intentional effort on part of the paladin.

What would get at the point you wanted to discuss without being a blatant non-sequitur, would be to ask if a person still gets paralyzed if they touch a ghoul with a stick, or if they are wearing heavy protective clothing. These kind of details are indeed left unestablished in the example, but this does not mean there would be ambiguity about them in a real game. F.ex., everyone might be able to gather from context that only skin-on-skin contact fulfills the clause of "touching a ghoul". However it goes, settling priority also settles ambiguity. Ambiguity is only a problem when the different interpretations are contradictory and there is no process for deciding which to follow.

[gbaji]

I think the ghoul scenario works either way. You just have to play it out based on what type of game you've chosen to play. I'm not familiar with the specifics of that creature in that game system, but if the rules merely say that a successful touch attack by the ghoul causes the drain, then that's all the causes the drain. Presumably, somewhere in the rules, it says what happens if someone make an unarmed attack against the ghoul (touches the ghoul). If that drains them, then that drains them and maybe they should rethink that action.


By sheer game mechanics, the player is taking a defensive action. If he succeeds, he is not hit by the ghoul and doesn't suffer the drain effect. We don't care what the actual method of defense is. He was neither hit by the ghouls touch (didn't suffer a touch attack from the ghoul), nor hit the ghoul with his own hands (didn't make a touch attack himself on the ghoul), so he doesn't suffer anything.

Narratively, the character is describing exactly how he is defending himself from the ghoul. This is where it does depend on how the ghoul's life draining effect is described. If touching the ghoul also causes the drain, and the player specifies that "I'm going to grab the ghoul by the shoulders and redirect him to my side so his attack misses", then yes, he's chosen to touch the ghoul and suffers whatever effect that would normally cause if you walked up to a ghoul and touched it.

Assuming you and your players agreed to this narrative rules methodology, then that's what the player chose to do. I might have him make some sort of knowledge check to realize that touching the ghoul in this manner would be a bad idea and maybe he will instead describe himself rolling to the side while avoiding any contact with the ghoul as his defensive action instead. You get the same benefits of narrative play, while also avoiding "gotcha" rules lawyering.

I tend towards a middle of the road approach. if a player wants to just roll the dice in combat, that's fine. If he wants to describe exactly what he's doing with that action, and it makes sense, is clever, and takes advantage of the situation or terrain or whatever, then I'll allow it. I have found, however, that some players will attempt to use narrative descriptions to do things beyond what the rules allow and will do it every time to gain advantage. You have to find a way to balance that and not let players steamroll over you.

Finding the right balance between "it makes sense that this should work", and "but the rules say X" is tricky, and there is no 100% right answer. It's going to very much depend on the playstyle of the players at the table, what they expect out of the game, and how much flexibility they are looking for in terms of interaction and resolution of actions.

And for the record, I'm also not a fan of post action decisions in gaming. Just my alignment on that, I guess. I prefer to have the NPCs have specific actions they are taking (usually fairly simplistic), the PCs decide what they are doing, then we roll dice to determine the results. Part of the "game" here is the players determining what skills/abilities/powers/items/spells/whatever they think will be needed ahead of time and deciding when to use them well. It becomes part of resource management over the course of an adventure (or day, or whatever time frame), and makes things more challenging. Allowing them to use abilities (especially limited use ones) selectively, after the fact, and only when they know they will be needed, eliminates that resource management part of the game.

Some people love that, since it allows them to be the most effective they can be and can certainly up the fun level. Others dislike having what they may view as an "easymode" style of play. Each table can be different on this.

[Tanarii]

There's definitely an apparent philosophical difference between:
1) roll first, then describe the results
2) describe the action first, then roll

Really though, they're both just 2 steps of:
Describe the intended action (intent & approach), decide on appropriate resolution method (roll, fiat, etc), determine the in-world results based on resolution (outcomes & consequences).

What get skipped a lot is the first tends to gloss over actually determining intent & approach, and the latter often skips thinking about reasonable outcomes & consequences.

So you end up with:
1) people rolling to persuade then inventing a reason they succeeded or failed by modifying the argument/delivery method
2) others making an rock solid argument that should either result in unhappy cooperation with long term consequences vs enthusiastic cooperation failing entirely because of a botched roll.

[Vahnavoi]

Characterizing that as a philosophical difference is silly - it is that too, but in this context it's entirely uninformative - when it's straightforward difference in processing order of game moves. However, in both of your examples, rule priority is the same. The awkwardness you describe happening in case 2) is a result of descriptions being processed first, but the die roll having priority over description. This frequently leads to a need on a referee's part to annul some or part of the description.

The same thing would happen if you had a combat engine where you roll a dice for damage first and for to-hit second; you end up knowing the damage value before knowing whether it applies. A sane person would question why things are done in this order. I'll give a cookie to anyone who figures out a good reason.

Meanwhile, in a game where descriptions have priority rather than being simply being done first, if the player makes a good case for X, the situation is already resolved and the die is never rolled.

1) is not interesting to talk about because it is just bog-standard use of abstract mechanics.

[Satinavian]

The more i read it,the less i think those new categories are useful.

Everyone seems to understand it in different ways, so it doesn't help communication at all. The distinction must be made much clearer and without involving lots of different aspects that sometimes come together but often don't.


And that is even before we get into how this new distinction is meant to be used and to what benefit.

[Tanarii]

Characterizing that as a philosophical difference is silly - it is that too, but in this context it's entirely uninformative - when it's straightforward difference in processing order of game moves.

No, it's not. It's just skipping steps, in both cases.

Edit: sorry for my tone. Rereading it, it may look like I was claiming there was a philosophical difference. My point was it's merely apparent. So yes, characterizing it as philosophic is a little bit silly, when what it's really doing it skipping steps, or misapplying them due to bad assumptions.

[kyoryu]

There's definitely an apparent philosophical difference between:
1) roll first, then describe the results
2) describe the action first, then roll

While I think this is a reasonable top-level differentiation, there's also a lot of subtleties.

For #1, in many cases, the description is unnecessary. Few or no decisions are impacted by it. Anything that "matters" in the game is represented in some kind of mechanical way, and the descriptions are utterly irrelevant.

For #2, in many cases the rules are insufficient to really determine what's happening without the context of the stuff we imagine - and in many cases, the description of the action can impact what is or is not rolled.

There's some fuzziness - some will claim that #2 is really just a matter of having insufficient rules . Some will argue that in #1, you can retcon what happened to match the results.

I don't find either of these really super compelling. Retconning what happened to match results isn't the same thing at all, and any system that captured enough to really capture everything that might happen "in the fiction" (stuff we imagine/say) would be so overweight as to be unplayable.

This is all tangential to rulings over rules, as well.

As a concrete example, there's only four actions in Fate. Create Advantage is one that is used to effectively try to get a leg up on someone. But if you just say "I Create Advantage with Physique!" that's not enough to rule what happens - what's the advantage? How could the person defend against it, if they can? How difficult is it?

However, if I say "I rush into them and knock them over" then that answers all of the questions we had - you might defend by dodging, which would be the Athletics skill. If you're successful, the opponent would be knocked over, and if not, maybe you fall on the ground instead.

And maybe that's part of the key - the imagined action can provide context/info to the mechanical one. Again, someone might argue that's an insufficient mechanical system, but I don't think a mechanical system is going to be developed in any time that can manage the factors that the human imagination can.

I talk about the interactions types above, and that's also somewhat adjacent. Fiction first interactions tend towards type 1 (note that in type 1 the rules are p;rimarily handled by the GM), while mechanics first systems tend towards Type 2 - if the mechanics are complete enough, a GM isn't necessary and/or becomes primarily another participant with the exception of scenario design.

The more i read it,the less i think those new categories are useful.

Everyone seems to understand it in different ways, so it doesn't help communication at all. The distinction must be made much clearer and without involving lots of different aspects that sometimes come together but often don't.

Fundamentally in many cases it's a human communication issue - people don't understand the things that they haven't been exposed to, and often try to "prove" what they've been exposed rather than asking questions when people say things that don't fit in their experience.

I find it's usually best when people say something that just makes no sense at all to presume that they know something or have had an experience that I haven't had, and to genuinely ask about it with real curiosity. Most people do not do that. And so a lot of these discussions end up with people talking past each other, as they're each speaking from their own experience.

A great example - I used to think narrative systems were "roll to see how you win." Someone on this very forum talked about a DFRPG/Fate game where the various characters got absolutely battered. This piqued my interest and made me start looking at various narrative games, and now they're some (some!) of my favorites. Because they said something that countered my beliefs/perceptions, I had the curiosity to look further into it and discover a different style of playing that has enriched all of my gaming, narrative and traditional alike.

(as an aside, "presume people are smart and reasonable" is also something I apply when GMing, so when people declare nonsensical actions, I assume they're smart people and the only reason they'd declare something nonsensical is a gap in our understanding of how things work. And I've found that this is almost always correct. Presuming reasonableness goes a long way.)

[Cluedrew]

Not only that, crunch and fluff folks generally don't recognize a spectrum. [...] They have real problems with things like roleplaying rules, [...].

And if we break it down everything down far enough I think that might be true. But "resolution system" is far to big, even "Carpentry: 5k2" is too big. Because what you can do with carpentry is usually defined in the fiction layer while the meaning of 5k2 is a mechanics thing. But I used "similar" for several reasons. The main one is crunch and fluff seem to have grown out of a "rules and flavor" divide in other genres, like wargames, CRPGs or card games. And if you approach it with that perspective, you are going to get into trouble.

For instance, there are "fiction rules", that is rules of play that only exist on the fiction layer. For instance, you cannot use "Carpentry: 5k2" to wield a sword into battle against a dragon. Even if (in a hypothetical system) you could mechanically role 5k2 and compare the result with the dragon's defense, that is not carpentry. I think this is also one of the reasons (there are others) that role-playing rules are disliked, people aren't used to dealing with fiction rules in anything but the broadest strokes.

"fiction" layer is "the stuff we're imagining and saying". "Mechanics" layer is "the stuff on the sheets and on the map".

One of the things I often use is "can you run this game reasonably using only the mechanics with no input from the fiction?"

For most versions of D&D combat, you can. AW, Fate, and even D&D skills fail pretty hard at that.

That is a good description of the two layers. And the question also seems good, but I am a bit confused about what it actually represents. I get the feeling it is a way to answer a bigger question, but I don't know what that bigger question is.

Character creation is interesting, because it’s one area where most RPGs involve a default 0 roleplaying.

That is my favorite example to show why you don't have to be role-playing every moment of a role-playing game; there may be an exception in life-path systems. Still, I think we can agree that it, role-playing, should be one of the pillars of the experience.

Providing the Player with information that the Character doesn’t have is bad form wrt anyone who cares about Roleplaying. So putting minis on the map for things that are around the corner, that the PCs should be unaware of? That’s the point where your example has something to "push me out of character", not when "the battle mat comes out". Just FYI.

Point of clarification, I did not mean to say that the battle mat itself is the thing itself that does the push, but it creates so many situations where it will happen that, if the battle mat comes out, the chance of me staying in character is effectively zero. Besides that example and other instances where there is an information mismatch, there is how the information (turns where I have time to think, so I'm never detracted and miss something) and the fact culturally the expectations when the battle mat is out is different.

[gbaji]

While I think this is a reasonable top-level differentiation, there's also a lot of subtleties.

For #1, in many cases, the description is unnecessary. Few or no decisions are impacted by it. Anything that "matters" in the game is represented in some kind of mechanical way, and the descriptions are utterly irrelevant.

For #2, in many cases the rules are insufficient to really determine what's happening without the context of the stuff we imagine - and in many cases, the description of the action can impact what is or is not rolled.

There's some fuzziness - some will claim that #2 is really just a matter of having insufficient rules . Some will argue that in #1, you can retcon what happened to match the results.

Not to speak for Tanari, but those options were followed with a statement that what is skipped is that in #2, you aren't actually declaring the result and then rolling, but declaring the "intent", then rolling, then determining the outcome based on the intent of the action and the die roll.

Both methods work depending on the game system and style. You can absolutely just choose a skill to use, roll it, and then based on the roll decide what you were actually able to pull off in the given situation and can lead to a great degree of creativity from the players (also kinda expects is though). This tends to work best in more player driven games.

The second method tends to work better in a more refereed game, where the player states what he's attempting to do, the GM tells the player what skill/ability/whatever to use to try to do that thing, the player maybe looks at his sheet and realizes he sucks at that and maybe decides something else might work better or decides to go for it, rolls the dice and hopes for the best. The GM then takes the die roll, applies whatever bonuses or minuses he determined applied, and the tells the player the result.

But again, that approach always means you are "attempting" something. You start with that and move forward.

And that's not to say you *can't* have a player driven system which uses the intent->skill determination->roll->outcome methodology. It's just that #1 tends to be a simplification of said process over time. You can just skip that first step, pick a skill to apply to a situation, roll, and then decide that the outcome is going to be based on that roll. The GM driven component requires the first step (statement of intent) because the GM needs to keep the player honest. Players may tend towards changing what they were trying to do based on the roll of the die, so as to minimize failure effects and maximize success effects. Those also tend away from narrative and towards the tactical as well.

[Tanarii]

For instance, there are "fiction rules", that is rules of play that only exist on the fiction layer. For instance, you cannot use "Carpentry: 5k2" to wield a sword into battle against a dragon. Even if (in a hypothetical system) you could mechanically role 5k2 and compare the result with the dragon's defense, that is not carpentry. I think this is also one of the reasons (there are others) that role-playing rules are disliked, people aren't used to dealing with fiction rules in anything but the broadest strokes.

Interestingly, in Free League's Forbidden Lands, human characters have an ability to spend metacurency to use any skill they want in place of another skill, so long as the player can explain how it works in the fiction.

Not to speak for Tanari, but those options were followed with a statement that what is skipped is that in #2, you aren't actually declaring the result and then rolling, but declaring the "intent", then rolling, then determining the outcome based on the intent of the action and the die roll.

Yes, that's certainly how it should happen. Players do have a tendency to declare their action as if it's a done deal though.

But specific my example that they're both incomplete parts of the same full process, I did mean player declares intended action, then a pass/fail isn't taken to its logical conclusion of what a 'fail' actually is, and what as 'pass' actually is. Often the assumption is that given the intent and approach, pass = intent achieved as the outcome without appropriate consequences, and fail = fails in the worst possible outcome/consequences way.

In systems like AW that have a pass, pass with cost or fail (player choice), or fail with cost, the line gets even blurrier. And if the MC were to for example ignore the oft repeated advice that everything should relate to the fiction, some of the meanings of "pass", "fail" and "at a cost" could be very weird. Although one thing AW does very well is define these things specifically in player Moves and more generally/broadly in terms of the MC's moves.