What is a "Narrative Mechanic"?

[aramis erak]

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.

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

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

Fate's mechanics aren't really that narrative focused, but there's a hidden factor in several older flavors: dropping a plot point to create an item in the environment.

Most narrativist games don't have pure narrative-affecting-but-not-character-linked mechanics in them; most do have some form of meta-ability. The requirement to justify the various things you can mechanically create into the fiction-state as coming from your abilities is why they aren't actually narrative mechanics.

 

[Celebrim]

In Tolkien's books? No. While playing LotR in D&D with optimized characters using saving throws? Probably yes. The One Ring is child's play as far as magic items are concerned in D&D, and the players probably have better ones.

Probably not. One of two things are true. Either the PC's are scaled to the power of Tolkien's world ("Gandalf is a 6th level wizard") or else the One Ring is scaled to the power of the PC's.

Either way, The One Right is an artifact that in the setting confers veritable invincibility on any powerful character that possesses it. It does this because regardless of the setting it basically doubles the power level of whomever wields it and confers on the rulership and authority and command over others.

So think in 5e it does something like doubles your proficiency bonus, doubles your ability score bonus in your highest ability score, gives you advantage on all saves from any source other than itself, grants advantage to you on all magical attacks, is a ring of invisibility, and acts as double strength rod of rulership, allows you to attune any other magic item as a bonus action, allows you to dominate the wielder of any of the other rings of power, plus confers to you all the powers of each of the other rings of power if the wielder of that ring has submitted to you.

 

[Reynard]

Why is Champions more narrative/story focused than the other games of pre-1982?
All the other supers games of the era that I've read are buy the cause simulation-focused. about 5 or 6 games, tho' one is an official mod for The Fantasy Trip, from an issue of Space Gamer
Hero, you buy the mechanics, and skin them however the player and GM agree works for the mechanics. Literally, every power has to have a description of what its special effect is, including which sense groups. It's emphasis on buy the mechanics, define the story look, and then that the GM is explicitly encouraged to fit interactions to the descriptions...
Also, 90% of the modifiers to power costs (to purchase) are open ended classes. Such as "requires skill roll" - you have to pick a skill and specify it.
The disads are very VERY broad, the modifiers to the disads equally so. You're required to define the various ones as specifics. For example: Hunted. Hunted in Hero has 3 levels (which can be, if desired, mapped to "shows on 15+, Shows on 11+, shows on 8+"), and 3 modifiers (Extensive non-combat influence? Only watching? Agents relative power to the PC?). TO actually use it in play, you have to say who, then answer the mods questions. (if not witten, the answer to NCI is no, and Only Watching is no. Sometimes (IME, usually), "Hunted - only watching" is instead written "Watched" - but there is no "watched" in the disad list. There's no "Bad SIght" nor "Lame" - both fall into "Physical Limitation" - so every PL is custom.

I think we are using significantly different enough definitions of "narrative mechanic" that there isn't likely to be any Venn in our diagram.

 

[Aldarc]

One of two things are true.

There are probably far more possibilities than just the two you put forth. Anyway, stop taking a joke about Tolkien and D&D so seriously.

 

[Campbell]

One of these things that personally feels weird to me is that any mechanics that represent interpersonal, mental and emotional things often get placed into the narrative bucket. Stuff like strings in Monsterhearts, emotional conditions in Masks, drives in Dune, Warlords being inspiring, pretty much all social influence mechanics, etc. I get that mental and emotional states are not traditionally part of what the mechanics in roleplaying games cover, but to me these sorts of things are just as representative as any mechanic that focuses on physical and/or supernatural things.

 

[Celebrim]

One of these things that personally feels weird to me is that any mechanics that represent interpersonal, mental and emotional things often get placed into the narrative bucket. Stuff like strings in Monsterhearts, emotional conditions in Masks, drives in Dune, Warlords being inspiring, pretty much all social influence mechanics, etc. I get that mental and emotional states are not traditionally part of what the mechanics in roleplaying games cover, but to me these sorts of things are just as representative as any mechanic that focuses on physical and/or supernatural things.

What's worse is that in practice these sorts of mechanics don't actually achieve whatever it is they are supposed to achieve. What they are supposed to do I'd guess is encourage you to attempt things that relate in narrative to the mental and emotional bonds etc. of the character and act them out. What in practice they actually achieve is the cheapening of those bonds because the motivation of the player is to always try to wheedle the DM to accept that whatever the player's goals are at the moment, they relate in some fashion to the character's bonds in order to get the sweet bonuses.

In an actual narrative, those things get tested and become important only at dramatic moments. In a typical game with "narrative" intentions, they just get called out whenever they would be useful and not when it would be actually relevant and dramatic, and a player that tries to use them only in dramatic and appropriate moments loses spotlight to the player that engages in GM wheedling.

Just because you have a mechanic that relates to motivations doesn't mean it actually motivates roleplaying much less assists in the creation of story. Mechanizing these things to me often actually hinders natural and authentic seeming roleplay as well as interferes with the players decision making ability by making things that aren't tactical into tactical problems, thus messing with the player's motivations.

 

[Umbran]

Fate's mechanics aren't really that narrative focused, but there's a hidden factor in several older flavors: dropping a plot point to create an item in the environment.

I am not sure how spending a Fate point to create something in the environment is narrative, while "Create an Advantage" is not. Indeed, I think the former was dropped largely because the latter ate its lunch. Both are ways for the player to create a new truth in the narrative. The latter may be more diegetic than the former, but the results are otherwise similar.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Probably not. One of two things are true. Either the PC's are scaled to the power of Tolkien's world ("Gandalf is a 6th level wizard") or else the One Ring is scaled to the power of the PC's.

Either way, The One Right is an artifact that in the setting confers veritable invincibility on any powerful character that possesses it. It does this because regardless of the setting it basically doubles the power level of whomever wields it and confers on the rulership and authority and command over others.

So think in 5e it does something like doubles your proficiency bonus, doubles your ability score bonus in your highest ability score, gives you advantage on all saves from any source other than itself, grants advantage to you on all magical attacks, is a ring of invisibility, and acts as double strength rod of rulership, allows you to attune any other magic item as a bonus action, allows you to dominate the wielder of any of the other rings of power, plus confers to you all the powers of each of the other rings of power if the wielder of that ring has submitted to you.

Thats...actually a great list.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's worse is that in practice these sorts of mechanics don't actually achieve whatever it is they are supposed to achieve. What they are supposed to do I'd guess is encourage you to attempt things that relate in narrative to the mental and emotional bonds etc. of the character and act them out. What in practice they actually achieve is the cheapening of those bonds because the motivation of the player is to always try to wheedle the DM to accept that whatever the players goals are at the moment, they relate in some fashion to the characters bonds in order to get the sweet bonuses.

In an actual narrative, those things get tested and become important only at dramatic moments. In a typical game with "narrative" intentions, they just get called out whenever they would be useful and not when it would be actually relevant and dramatic, and a player that tries to use them only in dramatic and appropriate moments loses spotlight to the player that engages in GM wheedling.

Just because you have a mechanic that relates to motivations doesn't mean it actually motivates roleplaying much less assists in the creation of story. Mechanizing these things to me often actually hinders natural and authentic seeming roleplay as well as interferes with the players decision making ability by making things that aren't tactical into tactical problems, thus messing with the player's motivations.

I have to agree with all of this. This is the primary reason my distaste for these sort of mechanics, whether or not they are considered narrative.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I find weird in this (and many previous) discussions about narrative games and narrative mechanics is that people who seem to like games where such mechanics are prevalent, nevertheless often try to deny that there is anything that differentiates those mechanics. I don't get it. Like I recently made a Blades in the Dark character, and have tried to familiarise myself with that game and I hopefully soon get to play it. It certainly has a bunch of narrative mechanics, most prominently flashbacks and quantum gear. And that's fine!

But I don't get people who insist that narrative games play differently yet when we are trying to label mechanics as narrative they fight against it and insist that there is no difference. Like what?