First off, let me apologize, as my terminology may be incorrect in modern gaming theory parlance; I'm not up to date on it. I'll try to define my terms as I go, and get this out of my head.
I've seen a lot of game systems in recent years (FATE, Powered by the Apocalypse) that have been called more 'narrative' in nature. On a linear continuum defined by two opposite poles, this would be one the poles. The opposite pole would be games that are more 'mechanistic' in nature.
Mechanistic game systems' primary priority is to emulate the 'physics engine' of a given world, including perhaps some unspoken rules of that world's genre. In the case of the Hero System, this allows to take damage and recover from it as people do in heroic fiction (books, comics, TV shows, movies), as opposed to how they do in real life. The game rules reinforce the consistency and therefore in-game plausibility of these things happening.
And plausibility -- strongly correlated to suspension of disbelief -- is one of the cornerstones of science fiction / fantasy stories.
Narrative game systems' primary priority appears to be (I've not played that many, and certainly not as long as I've been playing mechanistic game systems) to emulate the character archetypes and plot tropes of a given genre or sub-genre. The rules themselves enable and enforce the actions of characters and the unfolding of the story within certain parameters -- the good ones allowing for a multitude of stories without falling into the trap of the dreaded railroad.
The responsibility for plausibility here lies with the players and the GM rationalizing the unfolding of the story in a satisfying manner.
You'll note that I've steered away from calling either approach 'story-oriented'. To my mind, both are used to tell stories -- narrative ones seem to focus on the narrative flow of the game, while mechanistic ones tend to focus on the plausibility of the events that unfold in the game. Both seem to retain the agency of the players / player characters (for the most part).
With that in mind, some future posts I'll be writing will try to unpack what things I like about each type of system -- and which things I don't. My preference is clearly for mechanistic systems, as these are the ones that I'm most familiar with, and the type that I most strongly associate with RPG gameplay. But I've always been intrigued by different systems and settings in RPGs, so off I go...
I personally avoid both mechanistic AND narrative play, but I suspect we also use both those terms to mean different things.
ReplyDeletePerhaps. What do you mean?
ReplyDeleteI use "mechanistic" to mean any play dependent on, or focused on, mechanisms (no matter what those mechanisms are specifically trying to achieve or model).
ReplyDeleteI use "narrative" to mean play where play goals place a premium on narrative structure (which, by necessity, involves a character-external viewpoint to a greater degree than play where narrative structure isn't a concern).
(And for the record, I don't think there's such a thing as "correct" usage in these cases ... I think we all just mean what we mean, and as long as we can express it clearly it works out) =)
ReplyDeleteAh, I see -- so terminology-wise, your definitions aren't opposed. Unlike mine, where they've been defined as such.
ReplyDeleteGood point; I know that there's no 'correct' usage, but I'm trying to find the closest terminologies I can.
The 'character-external' viewpoint is a different way of thinking about it. I see where that's coming from -- does that mean that first person POV is potentially antithetical to narrative structure?
That's correct; the terms as I use them can and frequently do overlap.
DeleteRe POV: yes. Since narrative structure/narrative quality/narrative existence isn't something the character can perceive without breaking the fourth wall.
I find it interesting that you used the Hero System as an example when discussing Mechanistic systems.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mitigating damage to a non-lethal system, thereby emulating the Superhero comic book trope of people being able to sustain massive damage without apparent lasting effects, seem Narrative in nature? I mean, the system "enables and enforces the actions of characters" in a superhero setting, no? That's noted under Narrative in your descriptions.
What I am getting at is not an attempt to correct your usage of terminology but rather to suggest that #1) it maybe that something else defines the difference a bit more and #2) there is more crossover between the two approaches than is apparent at a glance.
I chose it specifically to show how it emulates the physics rules of a Heroic Universe, but not necessarily the narrative rules of a Heroic Universe. Much of that heavy lifting, I feel , is in the GM advice... not explicitly in the rules.
DeleteThe only aspects in Hero System that I consider proto-Narrative rules are the Disads for DNPCs and Hunteds, because they bring in story elements (characters with inherent story complications) based on a roll.
But I guess that’s where I’m trying to evolve how I’m trying to express these ideas in my head. I see your point and need to clarify what I’m talking about better.