What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[billd91]

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.

As the person who's been using the term "quantum gear" farther up in the thread and who explained exactly why I did in a reply to one of your posts, and the fact that I LIKE tools that behave that way, you should probably get off Micah Sweet's case about coining the term as one of derision.
He didn't.
And for that matter, neither did I.

 

[Celebrim]

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).

If I can jump into this dispute without hopefully insulting either side, I think both of you are wrong in interesting ways.

You have correctly looked at the mechanic and said, "The "Quantum Gear" mechanic is not connected strongly to the imagined situation, since in a real situation either the gear would have been chosen a priori or it wouldn't have." You have incorrectly made a category error though by asserting that "All mechanics not strongly connected to the imagined situation are narration mechanics" as if the only two options are narration mechanics and simulation mechanics. Yes, if we have a rule like "Your gear has to be chosen and on your character sheet before you leave for the adventure" that's strongly a simulation mechanic because that's how it really works. But it's not necessarily the case that the reverse is narration mechanic because it's not clearly the case what the allowing abstract gear is trying to accomplish.

My guess is that in most cases such a mechanic is complex and intending to fulfill several needs and aesthetics, most notably convenience and speed of play. There is a fallacy of excluded middle or some such going on here. Mechanics are rarely pure for one goal. By freeing players up from worrying about detailed equipment lists, you're letting the players get on with the game or the story. In general, my guess is that this is a game construct in that we are accepting an abstraction for speed of play that lets us get away from calculating encumbrance and get away from bookkeeping and focus on whatever we think matters. But there is a possibility that the mechanic also has narration or even simulation goals.

For example, if everyone in the setting has access to the "Quantum Gear" mechanic, that's probably game mechanics with aesthetics of Fantasy (thinking about gear is not "cool", just have everything in a virtual back pocket for when you need it). But imagine a situation where you have to spend CharGen resources to get "Quantum Gear" and only characters that are very Smart or very Lucky qualify for this perk. Now we have a situation where the abstraction likely has simulation goals - there exists in the genre of fiction mastermind characters who because of their intelligence are always prepared for the exact situation that transpires. Since these masterminds are significantly smarter than most or all players, we are simulating the genre tropes by giving players a limited resource whereby they can pretend to "The Batman" or whomever.

It's not clear to me that "you have the gear you need when you need it" fulfills a story goal or helps create a story. So I wouldn't consider this a strong example of a narration mechanic. This does touch on something I've asserted elsewhere that tends to get people really upset, which is that in my opinion most of the mechanics that Nar games introduced don't actually assist in creating stories but rather only assist in creating scenes, and in fact might actually be working against creating coherent narratives. But I suppose in theory if you had a game where one of the tropes of the genre the game was set in was "all the protagonists are masterminds" (typically a heist game) then giving everyone access to mastermind resources would help fulfill a story goal. I'm thinking for example of "Blades" retcon/flashback mechanics where everyone is allowed to redefine the fiction to avoid having to plan for things the players haven't foreseen. But even then, this seems at least as much motivated by a desire to speed up play than it is by a desire to create good heist stories.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As the person who's been using the term "quantum gear" farther up in the thread and who explained exactly why I did in a reply to one of your posts, and the fact that I LIKE tools that behave that way, you should probably get off Micah Sweet's case about coining the term as one of derision.
He didn't.
And for that matter, neither did I.

The first use of the phrase "Quantum Gear" in this thread was by Micah, comparing it to Quantum Ogres - although to be fair it was his summary of your "quantum-state equipment".

There's a huge difference, however, between how things are for the player, interacting with the game world through their character sheet and the descriptions of the DM, and the character who lives in that world. Do you actually consider the gear to be quantum for the character or just the player?

 

[billd91]

The first use of the phrase "Quantum Gear" in this thread was by Micah, comparing it to Quantum Ogres - although to be fair it was his summary of your "quantum-state equipment".

There's a huge difference, however, between how things are for the player, interacting with the game world through their character sheet and the descriptions of the DM, and the character who lives in that world. Do you actually consider the gear to be quantum for the character or just the player?

Player, duh.
Edit: Though I'd say it can lead to weird in-character discontinuities:

Griffo the druid successfully checks against Well Prepared, which he can use once/day, and remembers he has a crowbar.​

"Oh, you have a crowbar? Why didn't you bring that out yesterday when I was trying to break into the chest?"​

"Because I was busy remembering I had a foldable ladder yesterday."​

​

So yeah, it would be laughed about between players for years as quantum gear even if that wouldn't make sense for the PCs.
Edit2: I'm now realizing that in my example Griffo is starting to sound a bit like Winnie the Pooh.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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).

As the person who's been using the term "quantum gear" farther up in the thread and who explained exactly why I did in a reply to one of your posts, and the fact that I LIKE tools that behave that way, you should probably get off Micah Sweet's case about coining the term as one of derision.
He didn't.
And for that matter, neither did I.

I don't have an issue with the term itself. In fact, I actually like the term. I wasn't sure if it was being used as a way to purposefully misrepresent the point people were trying to make. That's why I asked.

The reason I like it is because I have a character (in a non-D&D game) who has a power that is, literally, a Quantum Tool Kit. It lets him do the bugs bunny thing and pull anvils out of his coat. It's a 'quantum' connection to his Super High Tech Pseudo-Science Workshop.

The mechanics work exactly the same as the 'Batman Belt', which lets you declare 'just the right tool for the job'. But there's an important distinction:

• The batman belt assumes Batman always had the gear on him. That he'd prepared it ahead of time.
• The Quantum Tool Kit assumes that my character is pulling things from his Space-Time Workshop that exists in a pocket dimension.

Both affect the story in different ways even though the mechanic that allows each character to do that is the same. For example: If this was D&D and a room was under the effects of a 'Dimensional Lock', Batman would still be able to access his 'just the right tool', while Pseudo-Science guy wouldn't.

Which is why, similarly, for the Spell Component belt, the narrative is also important. Finding a new spell and learning it might mean that you don't necessarily have the component you need for that specific spell until you go to town where you can acquire it. It would be a reasonable assumption and ruling for the DM given the current story. As @Crimson Longinus had pointed out earlier.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I mean, it does equate to in-universe action, the character pulls out the needed item. That's action, it's in-universe.

It doesn't tie the in-universe action to a decision made by the player instead of the character. Yeah, no, that doesn't make sense. Let me try again. The character is different from the player. The player jotted down gear after thinking about it a few minutes after getting out of a hard day at work and driving through traffic to a friend's house. The character has devoted his life to spelunking for monsters & treasure. Going by the jotted-down list is not modeling the character well. (...still not happy with it, doubt I can do better...)

TBH, long before any game thought to say "yeah, your character has reasonable stuff, don't worry about a detailed inventory" players would occassionally get away with "but, my character would have brought that, right?" So I really don't find it too abhorrent.

...I mean, we talk about 'styles' sometimes, and, IDK if styles always fits. I think about genres, stories, even tropes. Like, a High Fantasy character in game should be doing the stuff High Fantasy characters do "on screen." A grittier, cunning adventure, more that kinda stuff. Pulling out something the reader/audience/viewer has not been explicitly told you have - not that out of line for either, really. When you add that there are genres/stories that tend to get told in a non-linear fashion, like heist movies, with flashbacks that change the tenor of the scene (Mission Impossible is the poster boy, for me; maybe Leverage if you're not as old), mechanics like "Quantum Gear" start to make some sense...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, it does equate to in-universe action, the character pulls out the needed item. That's action, it's in-universe.

It doesn't tie the in-universe action to a decision made by the player instead of the character. Yeah, no, that doesn't make sense. Let me try again. The character is different from the player. The player jotted down gear after thinking about it a few minutes after getting out of a hard day at work and driving through traffic to a friend's house. The character has devoted his life to spelunking for monsters & treasure. Going by the jotted-down list is not modeling the character well. (...still not happy with it, doubt I can do better...)

TBH, long before any game thought to say "yeah, your character has reasonable stuff, don't worry about a detailed inventory" players would occassionally get away with "but, my character would have brought that, right?" So I really don't find it too abhorrent.

...I mean, we talk about 'styles' sometimes, and, IDK if styles always fits. I think about genres, stories, even tropes. Like, a High Fantasy character in game should be doing the stuff High Fantasy characters do "on screen." A grittier, cunning adventure, more that kinda stuff. Pulling out something the reader/audience/viewer has not been explicitly told you have - not that out of line for either, really. When you add that there are genres/stories that tend to get told in a non-linear fashion, like heist movies, with flashbacks that change the tenor of the scene (Mission Impossible is the poster boy, for me; maybe Leverage if you're not as old), mechanics like "Quantum Gear" start to make some sense...

See, I don't think about TTRPGs in terms of stories or tropes, but rather in terms of an imaginary world the players explore through their PCs. Creating that world, arbitration disputes, and resolving outcomes is what I'm there for. How the players play and what they decide is up to them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Player, duh.

And this is why I'm getting cranky at Micah. The "quantum gear" mechanic refers to the player experience while the character is acting as we would expect.

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.

The mechanic relies upon Batman's preparation and dipping into the utility belt to get an item that exists in universe. It is therefore not narrative by this definition. (And if it's any part of any mechanic then any time you roll the dice then they aren't directly connected to the character).

See, I don't think about TTRPGs in terms of stories or tropes, but rather in terms of an imaginary world the players explore through their PCs. Creating that world, arbitration disputes, and resolving outcomes is what I'm there for. How the players play and what they decide is up to them.

And in terms of the imaginary world Batman has a utility belt full of stuff. By your definitions this is not a narrative mechanic unless you somehow thinks that Batman doesn't know what's in his utility belt. Batman knows a lot of things I don't - including the exact smell of Gotham, the pattern of wood grain at Wayne Manor, Alfred's birthday, and the contents of his utility belt.

The most sensible reading I can get out of your statements is that the question is one of DM authority - and you, as DM, should have 100% control of the entire setting and the players have basically been Isikaid into it entirely unaware of their environment except the parts that they have encountered under your direct guidance and control.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And this is why I'm getting cranky at Micah. The "quantum gear" mechanic refers to the player experience while the character is acting as we would expect.

The mechanic relies upon Batman's preparation and dipping into the utility belt to get an item that exists in universe. It is therefore not narrative by this definition. (And if it's any part of any mechanic then any time you roll the dice then they aren't directly connected to the character).

And in terms of the imaginary world Batman has a utility belt full of stuff. By your definitions this is not a narrative mechanic unless you somehow thinks that Batman doesn't know what's in his utility belt. Batman knows a lot of things I don't - including the exact smell of Gotham, the pattern of wood grain at Wayne Manor, Alfred's birthday, and the contents of his utility belt.

The most sensible reading I can get out of your statements is that the question is one of DM authority - and you, as DM, should have 100% control of the entire setting and the players have basically been Isikaid into it entirely unaware of their environment except the parts that they have encountered under your direct guidance and control.

Look, I'm tired of fighting you on this. You win, if it makes you feel better.

 

[billd91]

The mechanic relies upon Batman's preparation and dipping into the utility belt to get an item that exists in universe. It is therefore not narrative by this definition. (And if it's any part of any mechanic then any time you roll the dice then they aren't directly connected to the character).

IF Batman's utility belt were fully detailed, I might agree. But if he's got some kind of variable ability that allows me, the player, to decide exactly how that tool/solution works, then I might have a lot of leeway in how I can direct the narrative direction of the game. It's even more obvious if it's a weird science gadget inventing pool that a character like Reed Richards would have.
I feel the same is true with similar abilities that have limited uses like Well Prepared's once/day use. I have to be judicious about how I use it - do I use it for a crowbar to open this stuck door or do I pull out rope to get up to that overhang in the big cavern? The choice I make can privilege or even lead inexorably to a particular narrative outcome.
Some of these may be kind of penny ante narrative powers, but I don't think we're really looking to grade impact as much as just trying to identify some of them and their characteristics.