Agreed, but I wouldn't even consider these narrative actions. These are abilities and effects that go beyond bonuses or penalties, and this is why they are interesting. Instead of tipping the scales towards specific tactics, they enable new ones, or create new considerations.
Shooting two enemies with a single shot, teleporting, becoming invisible, disarming an enemy... more rules at the player level, deeper gameplay!
The narrative bonus is easy to accept while reading this proposal, however my question is about the "how?". If it is tied to the narrative side then it should not affect the mechanic side, hence it would not be a bonus (or penalty)... I am not sure how to implement this idea, although I like it in its description! I find it another solution to get to the same target I aim with my game approach called KUP (keep uneducated paradigm): players' fun!
They do affect the game mechanics indirectly. If I have to use my dagger rather than my sword, for example. I may not be as good with it, or it does less damage. Likewise, if I'm such a great swordsman that I can tell how good the bad guy is with a sword just by looking at him, that might give me some kind of indirect advantage.
Narrative is amazing, and the reason I play RPGs (though, I learned a long time ago, many others do not, and wouldn't recognize narrative if it bit them)... my main question from a game design perspective is on incentives.
Like everything in life, it is about incentives, real and perceived. If you want someone to act a certain way, you have to place the right incentives in front of them. What is rewarded and how?
Generally, when I think of "system matters" I'm thinking "What do these rules incentivize in regards to player decisions/PC actions? Human nature, when given a choice, is to at least try to make "the right choice" and thus will compare choices to criteria. Mathematical bonuses and penalties are the clearest incentives out there.
What are your best examples of game designs that has criteria that incentivizes narrative? (I know of what I would consider, but I'm really interested in yours.) For example, your "Have to use your knife, can't use your sword" scenario... you can't have volumes of "In this situation, make this happen" lists of options... there needs to be some general rules/guides for GMs to respond with a narrative rather than mathematical response. How do you incentivize players to like and WANT to choose interesting narrative takes... beyond metagame discussions and play group dynamics that encourage them?
Very interested in HOW you would design to narrative.
I feel like this is where a lot of my "house rules" came from 🙂 The idea that people need to do things for storytelling reasons is a useful artifice for better communal group fun. Love the thought.
I have a sort of parallel question related to whether this is a reason why some CRPGs can feel ... off. In Baldur's Gate 3, there's no GM to add narrative flair, so everything's a dice roll. The rules are how the story progresses due to the lack of a human at the helm. It'd be sweet if we could see your ideas above made more manifest in all forms of RPG (computer or otherwise) so players can act with heightened agency and tell the stories that matter to them.
Totally agree, especially when it comes to magic items. 5e's biggest innovation was advantage/disadvantage - would you say that's narrative or math? To me, it seems like an elegant blending of the two; the GM may grant you advantage based on your specific position in the narrative, but it materially affects the math of the game. Same is true with Blades in the Dark position and effect. It's contextualized with the narrative, it's not just a flat +1 bonus, and it is based on the fiat of adjudicating different circumstances.
I gave my 5e players a 'Shard of the Mourning Knight' a spellcasting focus made from a fragment of a meteor. It enables them to twist spells into their opposite. There's a check to use it, with the DC increasing the more the spell changes from its direct opposite eg. Fireball into iceball is easier than fireball into waterball so, it slows things down no end but, it's always fun, and the lateral thinking it unlocks is exactly the kind of play I enjoy. The players love getting to twist the rules so the payoff when it works feels huge.
In fact, overall, I've found the more I slow down, visualise, and narrate, the more engaged my players get. I've learnt it's more fun to play an hour long tense, cinematic fight than trying to keep things quick and having a 30 minute slog exchanging numbers. And, I'll always try to give a bonus (+1?) to anyone trying some scheme, plan, or maneuver that makes things interesting! It takes the pressure off me narrating everything, it keeps the player's engaged, and it gives me cues for my baddies to react to. Win win win!
I generally agree, and I have mostly switched to playing narratively oriented games that operate this way. However, it does cause one problem for a GM that I have not fully solved:
Most narrative games tend to lean towards "permissiveness". The advice of the game is usually to allow a creative idea, unless there is a strong reason not to. So, when the starship pilot character tries to "push it beyond the limits to get a bit more speed"...with nothing else to go on, as a GM you are going to say, "Sure, give it a shot", and roll the dice or whatever the resolution system requires. Then...2 levels later, the player has the option to acquire an ability like "When you push a ship beyond its limits, blah, blah". And the player's response is..."nope, don't need that, already been doing this without the ability so it is useless."
The same could be said of the "Aragorn gets to disarm a foe" ability. That seems like a reasonable thing that any character might try...The rules don't usually prohibit such things explicitly.
This requires the players and GM to hold the entire system of abilities in their heads so as to better protect the special permissiveness of those abilities. OR...
I think the best solution is a design one: if you are going to design narrative abilities, they must do more than grant permission to do a thing a certain way - they should also offer some sort of enhanced outcome, side benefit, explicit narrative outcome, etc.
Many narrative games seem to get this right, but I still run into a fair number of duds. There is nothing worse than gaining a level and getting access to "When you attack with your sword, on a hit you may choose to disarm your foe instead of dealing damage" when you have been doing that exact thing for 4 levels!
I think ICRPG does a fair amount of this. Things like ranges are narrative: CLOSE, NEAR, FAR. You might gain an ability that lets you do something at FAR range that you can normally only do at CLOSE.
On the mathematical side something that is EASY is defined with a target 3 less than normal and something HARD is 3 more, but after that is defined the rest of the book only refers to EASY/HARD. So if I decide to replace the -3/+3 with 5e's Disadvantage/Advantage all I have to do is replace the definition and everything else in the book continues to work as-is.
This is what I love about ICON. That game has so much horizontal progression (new abilities) vs. vertical progression (numbers go up).
Personally I like a bit of both. I want to see my character slowly become greater than the world around it. The same climb became effortless, the goblins from the upper floor cannot penetrate my armor and the venom of a snake rarely puts me under.
Out of curiosity, who is the artist for the image? I'd like to see more of their work.
Jason Engle, a fabulous artist I've had the pleasure of working with for more than 20 years.
aha! thank you!
Agreed, but I wouldn't even consider these narrative actions. These are abilities and effects that go beyond bonuses or penalties, and this is why they are interesting. Instead of tipping the scales towards specific tactics, they enable new ones, or create new considerations.
Shooting two enemies with a single shot, teleporting, becoming invisible, disarming an enemy... more rules at the player level, deeper gameplay!
The narrative bonus is easy to accept while reading this proposal, however my question is about the "how?". If it is tied to the narrative side then it should not affect the mechanic side, hence it would not be a bonus (or penalty)... I am not sure how to implement this idea, although I like it in its description! I find it another solution to get to the same target I aim with my game approach called KUP (keep uneducated paradigm): players' fun!
They do affect the game mechanics indirectly. If I have to use my dagger rather than my sword, for example. I may not be as good with it, or it does less damage. Likewise, if I'm such a great swordsman that I can tell how good the bad guy is with a sword just by looking at him, that might give me some kind of indirect advantage.
Good article. Some good points for the hobby.
Narrative is amazing, and the reason I play RPGs (though, I learned a long time ago, many others do not, and wouldn't recognize narrative if it bit them)... my main question from a game design perspective is on incentives.
Like everything in life, it is about incentives, real and perceived. If you want someone to act a certain way, you have to place the right incentives in front of them. What is rewarded and how?
Generally, when I think of "system matters" I'm thinking "What do these rules incentivize in regards to player decisions/PC actions? Human nature, when given a choice, is to at least try to make "the right choice" and thus will compare choices to criteria. Mathematical bonuses and penalties are the clearest incentives out there.
What are your best examples of game designs that has criteria that incentivizes narrative? (I know of what I would consider, but I'm really interested in yours.) For example, your "Have to use your knife, can't use your sword" scenario... you can't have volumes of "In this situation, make this happen" lists of options... there needs to be some general rules/guides for GMs to respond with a narrative rather than mathematical response. How do you incentivize players to like and WANT to choose interesting narrative takes... beyond metagame discussions and play group dynamics that encourage them?
Very interested in HOW you would design to narrative.
It often comes in scenario/adventure design more than rules design, which is nice because it's very situation specific.
I feel like this is where a lot of my "house rules" came from 🙂 The idea that people need to do things for storytelling reasons is a useful artifice for better communal group fun. Love the thought.
I have a sort of parallel question related to whether this is a reason why some CRPGs can feel ... off. In Baldur's Gate 3, there's no GM to add narrative flair, so everything's a dice roll. The rules are how the story progresses due to the lack of a human at the helm. It'd be sweet if we could see your ideas above made more manifest in all forms of RPG (computer or otherwise) so players can act with heightened agency and tell the stories that matter to them.
Totally agree, especially when it comes to magic items. 5e's biggest innovation was advantage/disadvantage - would you say that's narrative or math? To me, it seems like an elegant blending of the two; the GM may grant you advantage based on your specific position in the narrative, but it materially affects the math of the game. Same is true with Blades in the Dark position and effect. It's contextualized with the narrative, it's not just a flat +1 bonus, and it is based on the fiat of adjudicating different circumstances.
I gave my 5e players a 'Shard of the Mourning Knight' a spellcasting focus made from a fragment of a meteor. It enables them to twist spells into their opposite. There's a check to use it, with the DC increasing the more the spell changes from its direct opposite eg. Fireball into iceball is easier than fireball into waterball so, it slows things down no end but, it's always fun, and the lateral thinking it unlocks is exactly the kind of play I enjoy. The players love getting to twist the rules so the payoff when it works feels huge.
In fact, overall, I've found the more I slow down, visualise, and narrate, the more engaged my players get. I've learnt it's more fun to play an hour long tense, cinematic fight than trying to keep things quick and having a 30 minute slog exchanging numbers. And, I'll always try to give a bonus (+1?) to anyone trying some scheme, plan, or maneuver that makes things interesting! It takes the pressure off me narrating everything, it keeps the player's engaged, and it gives me cues for my baddies to react to. Win win win!
I generally agree, and I have mostly switched to playing narratively oriented games that operate this way. However, it does cause one problem for a GM that I have not fully solved:
Most narrative games tend to lean towards "permissiveness". The advice of the game is usually to allow a creative idea, unless there is a strong reason not to. So, when the starship pilot character tries to "push it beyond the limits to get a bit more speed"...with nothing else to go on, as a GM you are going to say, "Sure, give it a shot", and roll the dice or whatever the resolution system requires. Then...2 levels later, the player has the option to acquire an ability like "When you push a ship beyond its limits, blah, blah". And the player's response is..."nope, don't need that, already been doing this without the ability so it is useless."
The same could be said of the "Aragorn gets to disarm a foe" ability. That seems like a reasonable thing that any character might try...The rules don't usually prohibit such things explicitly.
This requires the players and GM to hold the entire system of abilities in their heads so as to better protect the special permissiveness of those abilities. OR...
I think the best solution is a design one: if you are going to design narrative abilities, they must do more than grant permission to do a thing a certain way - they should also offer some sort of enhanced outcome, side benefit, explicit narrative outcome, etc.
Many narrative games seem to get this right, but I still run into a fair number of duds. There is nothing worse than gaining a level and getting access to "When you attack with your sword, on a hit you may choose to disarm your foe instead of dealing damage" when you have been doing that exact thing for 4 levels!
I think ICRPG does a fair amount of this. Things like ranges are narrative: CLOSE, NEAR, FAR. You might gain an ability that lets you do something at FAR range that you can normally only do at CLOSE.
On the mathematical side something that is EASY is defined with a target 3 less than normal and something HARD is 3 more, but after that is defined the rest of the book only refers to EASY/HARD. So if I decide to replace the -3/+3 with 5e's Disadvantage/Advantage all I have to do is replace the definition and everything else in the book continues to work as-is.
This is what I love about ICON. That game has so much horizontal progression (new abilities) vs. vertical progression (numbers go up).
Personally I like a bit of both. I want to see my character slowly become greater than the world around it. The same climb became effortless, the goblins from the upper floor cannot penetrate my armor and the venom of a snake rarely puts me under.