What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[Tony Vargas]

The reason that Apocalypse World, played by the book, will turn out differently from Gygax's AD&D, played by the book, is mostly because of things the GM does, not things the player's do.

That sounds more like narrative advice for the traditional omnipotent DM, than "narrative mechanics"

I mean, every ability on a D&D player's sheet flows from either class, race/ancestry or gear, and the last two are clearly elements of the fiction and the first is at least somewhat expressed in the fiction. But that doesn't mean that, by definition, there can be no metagame mechanics in D&D.

Metagaming has always been rife in D&D. When done by players in the form of using "player knowledge," like, having read the module before playing in it, it was understandably abhorred. When done by players to "move the story along" is may be tolerated, depending on the the attitudes of the other players, especially the DM. When introduced for convenience, or to reduce the restrictions faced by casters (like the aforementioned Spell Component Pouch, introduced in 3e), it's more well-received, generally (there are always purists, of course). When found among options that expand the choices/resources of martial characters (the aforementioned Come & Get it, 1 of hundreds of martial exploits), it's anathema... c'est la D&D

 

[Micah Sweet]

It wasn't narrative mechanics that were named to appease those who disliked them. It's storygames. But ignoring that the key distinction I'm making is between mechanics that are actively picked because they enhance the narrative (of which I've listed a couple of famous ones) and mechanics derided as "narrative mechanics" that are in practice pretty rare and are generally there to prevent things getting in the way.

It's how they get those things out of the way that, for me, determines whether or not a mechanic is narrative. As I said above, if the mechanic relies upon anything that does not connect to PC or otherwise in-universe action, it is narrative by my definition. Why that mechanic is being used doesn't enter into that definition.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's how they get those things out of the way that, for me, determines whether or not a mechanic is narrative. As I said above, if the mechanic relies upon anything that does not connect to PC or otherwise in-universe action, it is narrative by my definition. Why that mechanic is being used doesn't enter into that definition.

And as I've said above this means that e.g. Fate pretty much doesn't have what you call narrative mechanics. When Batman pulls Bat-Shark-Repellent out of his utility belt that's a mechanic that's connected to what the PC does irrespective of whether the player has Bat-Shark-Repellent on the character sheet or just a mechanic for "Bat-Utility-Belt". Indeed the only two games I can recall that make heavy use of what you call narrative mechanics are Cinematic Unisystem and Cortex Classic. And I can recall lots of examples of them in trad games like Savage Worlds and GURPS.

That sounds more like narrative advice for the traditional omnipotent DM, than "narrative mechanics"

It also involves giving the MC rules. They aren't a traditional omnipotent DM, which is why they are called an MC.

Metagaming has always been rife in D&D. When done by players in the form of using "player knowledge," like, having read the module before playing in it, it was understandably abhorred.

And when it comes under the form of "reasonable character knowledge" like you burn trolls to stop them regenerating there's often argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And as I've said above this means that e.g. Fate pretty much doesn't have what you call narrative mechanics. When Batman pulls Bat-Shark-Repellent out of his utility belt that's a mechanic that's connected to what the PC does irrespective of whether the player has Bat-Shark-Repellent on the character sheet or just a mechanic for "Bat-Utility-Belt". Indeed the only two games I can recall that make heavy use of what you call narrative mechanics are Cinematic Unisystem and Cortex Classic. And I can recall lots of examples of them in trad games like Savage Worlds and GURPS.

Quantum gear is narrative, because the decision of what to carry wasn't made until the player decided the PC needed it, not when they actually would have made that choice in-universe. It does not equate to in-universe action. And again, if you want to do that in your game, go for it! Everybody has their preferences. I don't want it in a game like D&D, but that obviously doesn't affect yours. As far as whether or not it's narrative, agree to disagree.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Quantum gear is narrative, because the decision of what to carry wasn't made until the player decided the PC needed it, not when they actually would have made that choice in-universe. It does not equate to in-universe action. And again, if you want to do that in your game, go for it! Everybody has their preferences. I don't want it in a game like D&D, but that obviously doesn't affect yours. As far as whether or not it's narrative, agree to disagree.

Your understanding is simply not true. The decision of what to carry was made by Batman based on a likely threat assessment made from a mix of logic and gut instincts based on subconscious clues and the fact he can fit multiple things into each of the dozen or so pouches of his utility belt. From a dozen pouches and three items per pouch, less a couple of pouches for standard stuff (Bat-grapnel, batarangs, bat-cuffs) Batman should literally have thirty utility items on him at any given time.

And the utility belt for someone as prepared as Batman is going to be modular - or he has several possible choices of belt. This means that you have basically three options:

• Play an absurdly fiddly character who chooses thirty utility items out of a hundred every single time he suits up.
• Approximate with mechanics that produce the right overall effect but allow you to play the game without tracking a spreadsheet
• Not play Batman. Which is to many not an acceptable outcome.

But declaring Batman's utility belt to be "quantum gear" is to declare the sounds and smells of the world to be non-existent unless they are directly relayed through the DM's mouth. A character is going to decide to not step in a cowpat without the DM or the players ever needing to note the existence of that cowpat.

You seem to be treating the game rules as a physics engine - and as I've said repeatedly that turns the DM into an inferior computer. I treat the rules as a user interface to an approximation of an underlying real setting.

And the problem isn't that this approach has "quantum gear". It's that you consider it to be badwrongfun. I'm not sure whether it's because you don't understand the approach and reasoning or because you refuse to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your understanding is simply not true. The decision of what to carry was made by Batman based on a likely threat assessment made from a mix of logic and gut instincts based on subconscious clues and the fact he can fit multiple things into each of the dozen or so pouches of his utility belt. From a dozen pouches and three items per pouch, less a couple of pouches for standard stuff (Bat-grapnel, batarangs, bat-cuffs) Batman should literally have thirty utility items on him at any given time.

And the utility belt for someone as prepared as Batman is going to be modular - or he has several possible choices of belt. This means that you have basically three options:

• Play an absurdly fiddly character who chooses thirty utility items out of a hundred every single time he suits up.
• Approximate with mechanics that produce the right overall effect but allow you to play the game without tracking a spreadsheet
• Not play Batman. Which is to many not an acceptable outcome.

But declaring Batman's utility belt to be "quantum gear" is to declare the sounds and smells of the world to be non-existent unless they are directly relayed through the DM's mouth. A character is going to decide to not step in a cowpat without the DM or the players ever needing to note the existence of that cowpat.

You seem to be treating the game rules as a physics engine - and as I've said repeatedly that turns the DM into an inferior computer. I treat the rules as a user interface to an approximation of an underlying real setting.

And the problem isn't that this approach has "quantum gear". It's that you consider it to be badwrongfun. I'm not sure whether it's because you don't understand the approach and reasoning or because you refuse to.

It is badwrongfun...for me. I really don't care what you play, but there's nothing you're saying that's going to change my mind, so just telling me I'm wrong isn't going to accomplish anything.

For the record, I'll always choose option one when I can. It makes more sense to me, and that's what I care about.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Quantum gear is narrative, because the decision of what to carry wasn't made until the player decided the PC needed it, not when they actually would have made that choice in-universe. It does not equate to in-universe action. And again, if you want to do that in your game, go for it! Everybody has their preferences. I don't want it in a game like D&D, but that obviously doesn't affect yours. As far as whether or not it's narrative, agree to disagree.

It seems like you aren't disagreeing. It sounds like you are agreeing that's it's a narrative technique used by the player to establish within the fiction that the character had a specific item all along. Just like making a History roll is establishing facts that a character knew all along, even though those facts weren't established until the player succeeded on their check.

Calling it Quantum gear is unnecessarily mislabelling it - are you doing that on purpose? I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to be derisive of the mechanic or if that is just how I'm reading it. I don't the think discussion is about the need to have these mechanics in any one specific person's game so there's no need to justify excluding them from your own games. We are just discussing people's definitions of narrative mechanics aren't we? At least, that's what I thought the discussion was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems like you aren't disagreeing. It sounds like you are agreeing that's it's a narrative technique used by the player to establish within the fiction that the character had a specific item all along. Just like making a History roll is establishing facts that a character knew all along, even though those facts weren't established until the player succeeded on their check.

Calling it Quantum gear is unnecessarily mislabelling it - are you doing that on purpose? I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to be derisive of the mechanic or if that is just how I'm reading it. I don't the think discussion is about the need to have these mechanics in any one specific person's game so there's no need to justify excluding them from your own games. We are just discussing people's definitions of narrative mechanics aren't we? At least, that's what I thought the discussion was.

I just had something claim that I think playing more narratively is "badwrongfun", as if I think no one should do that. I don't like it personally, but I don't speak for other people, and I resent the implication that I'm claiming my preferences as objective, so forgive me for getting a little defensive about it. As far as I can see, plenty of folks here have basically claimed that my preferences either aren't actually real or are "badwrongfun" themselves. I don't care what other people play at their own tables, and I would certainly never claim that they don't have the right to do what they want, or that what they like is fake or objectively bad.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just had something claim that I think playing more narratively is "badwrongfun", as if I think no one should do that. I don't like it personally, but I don't speak for other people, and I resent the implication that I'm claiming my preferences as objective, so forgive me for getting a little defensive about it.

Then stop inventing jargon like "quantum gear" that in no sense reflect how the people who use it actually treat it. When you're inventing jargon to justify your dislike for something I do think that the criticism is one of badwrongfun, and that it's something you care enough about to invent jargon for.

"I prefer to focus more on there being specified details" is a statement of preference. "It's quantum gear" is a statement that there's something wrong with not doing things your way. And claiming that it means that Batman in character treats what's in his utility belt as indeterminate is simply false.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then stop inventing jargon like "quantum gear" that in no sense reflect how the people who use it actually treat it. When you're inventing jargon to justify your dislike for something I do think that the criticism is one of badwrongfun, and that it's something you care enough about to invent jargon for.

"I prefer to focus more on there being specified details" is a statement of preference. "It's quantum gear" is a statement that there's something wrong with not doing things your way. And claiming that it means that Batman in character treats what's in his utility belt as indeterminate is simply false.

I borrowed that term from earlier in the thread, I didn't make it up. I don't see the term as insulting, but if you do, I'll stop using it.

Batman's opinion is subordinate to the player's who does treat what's in Batman's utility belt as indeterminate until it narratively becomes exactly what the player wants Batman to have. That's what makes it narrative. It is everything until you open the pouch and it becomes something. Hence the phrase "quantum gear" (which I will refrain from using after this post per your request).