Basing the DC on the setting or the players

[LordVreeg]

I also think it's not too bad of a solution, although I'd like to add two caveats:

- This generally requires designing the adventure around the party's capabilities: the DCs of the "whole party" situations have to be kept in check, and the "specialist" situations have to be set up so that they're tied to a skill that someone in the party actually has. I don't think this is a huge problem for most people, as there is still a lot of flexibility and possibility to include organic challenges, but ardent "simulationists" who like to insist their world is completely objective and detached from the players may have a problem with it. It might also start to become a problem as the party rises in level and the general level of challenge goes up-- it feels a bit silly to be breaking into the higher tiers of play and still be dealing with "mundane" DC 10 challenges, and the fact that they're still trouble for someone can turn what was once a feeling of cooperation into a feeling of dragging around dead weight.

- Nothing you've suggested actually necessitates the use of a skill rank system. It requires a system where there is some disparity in capability, but I agree with you that some is needed so that characters can feel good about what they've invested in. However, I think the way that the amount of disparity can be both quite wide and quite open-ended is still not a good thing. Rather, a fairly simple approach that could nonetheless work well enough would be to decide the amount of disparity you think is "good" between being trained and untrained, and make that the standard. Then, your two situations would work as follows:

• "Whole party" checks: Trained characters pass easily, untrained characters are challenged.
• "Specialist" checks: Trained characters are challenged, untrained characters don't have a chance.

... which is essentially how they work anyway. :grin:

As an aside, I sort of dislike those "core cluster" skills because, if everybody needs them, they're just a point tax, and it's a regressive tax at that: Rogues and Wizards usually have skill points to spare, while meanwhile Fighters are already sort of screwed due to their low skill points. So if there are skills they simply must put ranks into or they'll risk being pushed even further down into uselessness, it prevents them from diversifying and sort of reinforces the already large problem that Fighters are simply not good at anything other than dealing damage.

I think you are very right in that there is a continuum where simulationist/verisimilitude-style games get into trouble.  I am one, and I recognize I often create situations based on the logic of the setting, sometimes years before they are played, with no thought of any particular group.  My Igbarians just were in an adventure I started work on in 1986.  At the same time, this fosters the idea in the players heads that the world is consistent and they need to often solve problems in-character, instead of knowing the GM has provided a challenge specifically on a skill some player has.
And as to the other part, all the needed % of success (the equiv of DC) are done based on the setting, not the players.  Things can go unfound, knowledge can be misunderstood or partially understood, locks can go unopened. 

That being said, that is, as I understand it, now a less-popular way to design a setting and system, and as Sparkle mentioned, this does NOTHING to make sure a PC gets a chance to shine or be useful for what they are uniquely suited to do, especially when viewed from the perspective of a single session.  A character with many social skills and religious knowledge and priest skills is going to get little chance to shine in an exploration area where the PCS are hiding and sneaking through a sewer, trying to open locks, find traps, and scout areas to avoid conflict.  So if a design goal is a skill system and game style where everyone gets spotlight time regularly, you have it right.  I think this matters more in class-based games, as well.   

[Steerpike]

My Igbarians just were in an adventure I started work on in 1986.

Sweet Demogorgon, that adventure is a year older than I am.

[sparkletwist]

I split this topic because it was getting rather tangential.

I am one, and I recognize I often create situations based on the logic of the setting, sometimes years before they are played, with no thought of any particular group.

What is the point of doing this? I mean, it can be fun as a creative exercise, sure, and we all design broader parts of our setting and cool looking things without any particular group in mind. But as for individual encounters and campaigns, I don't see how this helps (and can see many ways it would hinder) actual play. It's essentially like suffering all of the problems of a premade module (designed with no regard for your group) without any of the benefits (you don't have to do the work).

At the same time, this fosters the idea in the players heads that the world is consistent and they need to often solve problems in-character, instead of knowing the GM has provided a challenge specifically on a skill some player has.

How is a player supposed to "solve a problem in-character" when the problem expressly is something that they can't handle with their in-character skills because it wasn't designed with any regard for what the character is actually able to do?

I contend that you can foster the idea in the players' heads that the world is consistent without any of this mess by simply making sure that challenges remain consistent, and not doing what D&D 4e does where the same trap does more damage if you encounter it at a higher level. However, you can still design around the characters' capabilities. A world designed around the "Forest of DC 10 challenges" and the "Evil Temple of DC 30 challenges" still feels consistent, because those things are there-- if they go in the forest late, it'll seem easy, and if they go in the temple early, they'll probably run right back out-- but with the added benefit that it's actually balanced and allows the play group to experience both parts of it as they grow... instead of a bunch of stuff designed solely according to the "logic of the setting" (which, let's be honest, still just exists in the GM's head and is as such not nearly as objective as we sometimes like to pretend) that might just go to waste because nobody actually experiences it.

[LD]

>>How is a player supposed to "solve a problem in-character" when the problem expressly is something that they can't handle with their in-character skills because it wasn't designed with any regard for what the character is actually able to do?

It is certainly more along the lines of the Gygaxian/old Adventure Game way of doing things. Enter room- it poisons you because you out of character didn't think to listen at the wall for the sound of seeping gas :).

re: other comments- not much to say other than your OP describes one reason I have no interest in your games Vreeg; no worries though, different people like different things and many people certainly like to do things your way, so I am happy for you. :). If I am playing with others, I am more interested in a story than a simulation; thus also why I find the extreme low power of Warhammer Fantasy 1E so perplexing (I am not sure how anyone advanced past level 2...ever).

Answer to Sparkletwist's new title for the thread: I prefer to base the DC on the players. My players don't like to die-they would quit if I killed a character and one did (even when I warned everyone in the session to roll two characters because we were experimenting with an 'actually' dangerous way of playing rather than constantly letting them succeed... that did not last long. Player quit, others were angered by later in-game happenings that put their characters at too much risk, etc.). I've played in a few groups and in none of them would anyone have accepted their character's death. I've had players throw tantrums, etc. (no tantrums in my current group though). (Call of Cthulu games are a different breed... for some reason the game design and ambiance makes it work but for DnD, the player is the hero and it is upsetting when the hero dies- I never died-died as a character, but I certainly had no fun when I was completely ineffectual as a player- that is one reason I became a GM. I could never design a good character within the rules, so I ran the story... It seems that the THEME of a game affects whether it should be simulationist or not.). Heck, even when I've played in one-shots with other people, the person whose character dies is usually upset, even if they only end up sitting out 30 minutes to an hour of a 4-5 hour game. It's simply not worth it to me to make a game that causes people to become upset. I spent a good long time trying to restore happiness in my group after I gave up being "hardcore" about rolls.

[Llum]

I split this topic because it was getting rather tangential.

I am one, and I recognize I often create situations based on the logic of the setting, sometimes years before they are played, with no thought of any particular group.

What is the point of doing this? I mean, it can be fun as a creative exercise, sure, and we all design broader parts of our setting and cool looking things without any particular group in mind. But as for individual encounters and campaigns, I don't see how this helps (and can see many ways it would hinder) actual play. It's essentially like suffering all of the problems of a premade module (designed with no regard for your group) without any of the benefits (you don't have to do the work).

At the same time, this fosters the idea in the players heads that the world is consistent and they need to often solve problems in-character, instead of knowing the GM has provided a challenge specifically on a skill some player has.

How is a player supposed to "solve a problem in-character" when the problem expressly is something that they can't handle with their in-character skills because it wasn't designed with any regard for what the character is actually able to do?

I contend that you can foster the idea in the players' heads that the world is consistent without any of this mess by simply making sure that challenges remain consistent, and not doing what D&D 4e does where the same trap does more damage if you encounter it at a higher level. However, you can still design around the characters' capabilities. A world designed around the "Forest of DC 10 challenges" and the "Evil Temple of DC 30 challenges" still feels consistent, because those things are there-- if they go in the forest late, it'll seem easy, and if they go in the temple early, they'll probably run right back out-- but with the added benefit that it's actually balanced and allows the play group to experience both parts of it as they grow... instead of a bunch of stuff designed solely according to the "logic of the setting" (which, let's be honest, still just exists in the GM's head and is as such not nearly as objective as we sometimes like to pretend) that might just go to waste because nobody actually experiences it.

The characters don't need to solve the problem immediately. You mention this yourself, the PCs can come back another time when their more prepared, better equipped or higher level. Just to note, I've played in Vreegs games and things aren't really as bad as I think it might seem. We never really ran into things that just straight up stopped us, we were inventive, found ways around, got lucky or there was another route. Usually a combination of all 3 :P

Now as a player playing, I don't think DCs tailored are really a bad thing in use. However the idea of tailoring DCs bothers me as it seems to be very close to player "wish-lists" where the PCs expect to be able to do everything. When I play I expect to be stopped, I expect adventuring to be hard, I expect PCs to die to mistakes, stupid decisions or sometimes just bad luck. You're playing the game and sometimes things don't work out like you want them, to me that is just part of how the game is. A PC dying, or the group not suceeding is perfectly acceptable to me, and this came up in the CE game, where I lost Gorethirst, my PC to an enemy crit. Steerpike had mentioned fudging the dice and I said that that was not something I'd be comfortable with, sometimes shit just happens. I think one of my largest issues with Narratavist games is that a lot of them have too many (sometimes this is any way) ways for the PCs to basically always succeed or never die. Where's the risk?

Now with my liberal use of I, this is all just my opinion on gaming and what not.

[Steerpike]

I feel the same way about tailoring DCs as I feel about tailoring any other aspect of an adventure.  While most of my non-episodic campaigns tend to be sandboxes, more or less, where it's up to the players what kind of challenge they seek out, I do still throw quest hooks (and often many, many subquest hooks...) at players with intended adventures behind them, and I do tailor those adventures roughly to the PCs ability.  So, for example, if I had a group of 1st level PCs I am not going to throw them head-long into an adventure intended for 15th-20th level characters - that's not fair and it's not fun (if they go and seek out the 20th level adventure on their own, then they've dug their own grave - that's a different story).  So, if I'm detailing a region or dungeon or adventure that's suitable for low-level PCs, I'm going to tailor the DCs as well.  I don't really think this undermines verisimilitude or immersion, the things that (at least for me) "simulationism" strives to create.

However, even within a low-level adventure I sometimes have pockets of danger or challenges which are intentionally placed above the abilities of the PCs - tough places or challenges they could revisit later, or find clever ways to circumvent.  If you always tailor DCs so that they're uniformly "manageable," you can end up in a situation where everything gets solved with die rolls, whereas if you sometimes push the DC higher, players start thinking creatively.  Like if I make the door to a keep near-impossible to pick and/or force, they're going to have to go searching for a side-door or a key or a secret passage etc.  Seemingly impassable challenges can engender great creativity.

This anecdoate doesn't directly relate to skill DCs, but it does relate to the idea of throwing seemingly unbalanced, mathematically unsound or "unfair" encounters/challenges at PCs.  One time, for example, in my Planescape game, I sent my players to Ravenloft (it was my "Halloween special").  One leg of the adventure culminated in a kind of Satanic, cannibalistic mass scene with a convent-full of flesh-eating zombie nuns - way, way, way more zombies than the PCs could handle (like a hundred zombies - and the PCs are out of spells, were low on hp, and have no Cleric or Paladin).  Strictly speaking, this encounter wasn't remotely "fair" to the players.  However, they thought quickly and very intelligently, and managed to barricade the doors to the church the undead nuns were having their black mass in (the PCs were in an adjoining cloister at the time).  While some PCs manned the doors to prevent the zombies from bursting through (picking off those who started bursting through the doors, slamming against the doors to keep them shut), other PCs used a combination of secret passages they found earlier to get out of the cloister, then climbed on top of the church (which I'd mentioned before had holes in the roof) to start picking off the zombies with fire arrows, burning oil, etc.  They incinerated the bunch.  To this day, this is one of my players' favorite anecdotes and has sometimes been trumpeted as the "most impressive thing we've done."   But if I'd just designed an encounter which, by the math, was appropriate to the characters' level, it never would have happened.  Note that I hadn't designed the scene with this solution in mind: I wasn't railroading, or trying to force a certain solution on the players.  When I wrote it, I figured the PCs would probably just have to run, and that it'd be a great and terrifying climax where the nuns chase the PCs 28 Days Later style through the ruins of the convent, and the PCs have to desperately slam doors behind them and stuff.  Alternatively, I'd speculated that if they really pulled out all the stops the PCs might have been able to fight their way through the nuns, maybe, but that a few would probably die in the attempt.  None of that happened, but what the PCs decided to do was even better, because 7 people working together and using their heads turned out to be a lot cleverer than the "solution" I, as a DM, had "intended."

[LordVreeg]

My Igbarians just were in an adventure I started work on in 1986.

Sweet Demogorgon, that adventure is a year older than I am.

well thought out system goals, an intelligently written adventure, and a good GM can create a magic and verisimilitude beyond any flavor of the year.  The details and histories embedded in this adventure make it fit so snuggly in the setting that there is no need to feed adult players the pablum of narrativist sweets.  The longer I do this, the more I am convinced that it is only when the GM creates a poor backdrop and is incapable of a consistent and engaging setting that you have to bribe the PCs with extra control or 'made for their PCS to defeat challenges' to keep playing.  It's only when they feel unsatisfied with the GMs ability that they feel the need to rewrite the storyline or to be given the crutch of knowing their skills are included. 

My PCs did not know that this adventure was this old or this large.  I don;t let them see that.  (or see me get a magnifying glass becasue it was written with much younger eyes).  This is part of the Illusion of Preparedness I work with, that they do not see where they are on my notes or not on them.

The point of using this is that it creates a different and better expeience.  The Pcs have not been taught that every 'skill challenge' (and in a skill based game, every breath can be this) is built to be solved formulaically based on their characters, instead they see the skills as organic extensions of their characters to be applied creatively in the setting (as opposed to figure out what the GM was thinkig).   The PCs do not expect that the situation was built for them to solve, rather, that it is a part/challenge of the setting that they may or may not be able to surmount with creativbe, in-character thinking.

The characters don't need to solve the problem immediately. You mention this yourself, the PCs can come back another time when their more prepared, better equipped or higher level. Just to note, I've played in Vreegs games and things aren't really as bad as I think it might seem. We never really ran into things that just straight up stopped us, we were inventive, found ways around, got lucky or there was another route. Usually a combination of all 3

This.  The right kind of setting and system match create a situation when triumph is not a forgone conclusion.  It is earned through creativity and without the expectation of succfes that comes from having everyhting being written for them. 

This is opinion, based on decades of running these games and somehow it keeps one of my live groups going sinve 2003 and the other since 1995.  it may not be prefgect and ther may be other very valid ideas and theories, but something in my ssytem and setting match works.

I

[Elemental_Elf]

I have a hard time turning the DM portion of my brain off, so when I am adventuring, I often find myself analyzing the plot, the characters and the structure of the adventure as I am playing.  Due to this fact, it really takes me out of the game when I enter a dungeon and every trap, challenge and enemy is designed around the party. Oh look a Galaxy Quest style Chomper where the Rogue's acrobatics check and the Barbarians speed are exactly what we need as a party to overcome the challenge... It just feels so artificial.

Due to the fact that this is a game, a DM definitely needs to make the adventure with his players' characters in mind and take time to craft interesting challenges that showcase different PCs' abilities. Having said that, there should always be challenges that the PCs perhaps cannot defeat with a simple check. Maybe they need to figure out how to create a make-shift a bobsled to safely glide down a frictionless slide. Maybe the PCs have to leave the dungeon and find an expert in the linguistics of Ancient Lava Gnollese to aid them in deciphering an ancient riddle. Maybe the PCs need to think creatively to either surmount, subvert or go around a particular challenge.

Diversity o challenges makes the game more interesting and better for everyone involved (IMO).

[LordVreeg]

I have a hard time turning the DM portion of my brain off, so when I am adventuring, I often find myself analyzing the plot, the characters and the structure of the adventure as I am playing.  Due to this fact, it really takes me out of the game when I enter a dungeon and every trap, challenge and enemy is designed around the party. Oh look a Galaxy Quest style Chomper where the Rogue's acrobatics check and the Barbarians speed are exactly what we need as a party to overcome the challenge... It just feels so artificial.

Due to the fact that this is a game, a DM definitely needs to make the adventure with his players' characters in mind and take time to craft interesting challenges that showcase different PCs' abilities. Having said that, there should always be challenges that the PCs perhaps cannot defeat with a simple check. Maybe they need to figure out how to create a make-shift a bobsled to safely glide down a frictionless slide. Maybe the PCs have to leave the dungeon and find an expert in the linguistics of Ancient Lava Gnollese to aid them in deciphering an ancient riddle. Maybe the PCs need to think creatively to either surmount, subvert or go around a particular challenge.

Diversity o challenges makes the game more interesting and better for everyone involved (IMO).

I think it can be a better game for some players and some GMS and some style of play when a GM takes the players and PCs into account, to one degree or another. A good GM takes into account the players and player characters when 'in medias', I think, though.

But to say, "DM definitely needs to make the adventure with his players' characters in mind and take time to craft interesting challenges that showcase different PCs' abilities", is a little, well, definite.  And as I have literally dozens of adventures that I have written and placed in Celtricia that were made without any set of PCs in mind that I run that way, and my players have yet to run kicking and screaming away. 

[Steerpike]

I think one thing to keep in mind with something like 3.X or really any edition of D&D is that if your players have a somewhat thoughtfully put-together party - i.e. not a party where everyone decided they all wanted to be Rogues or Wizards or something - then even if you don't know the precise skills and abilities and spells of everyone, you can reasonably expect them to be able to handle a pretty wide range of tasks and challenges.  So if there's a tough acrobatics check or climb check, you may not know ahead of time whether a barbarian, monk, or rogue is going to be the one to tackle it, but you can be reasonably sure someone in the group can manage it (or that the Wizard or Sorcerer can cast Jump or Spider Climb).

[beejazz]

Basing the DC on the players' actual stats is something I'd be unlikely to do.

Really, if you want your players to have (let's say) a 50% chance of success on a check regardless of what their skill is at this point:
1) It would be much more efficient to just have them roll something with 50% odds and not take their skill into account.
2) If the players know this and have resources that can be spent on skills or something else, it's optimal for them to spend those resources on the something else, since you'll be upping (or dropping) difficulties based on their skill.

I know these conversations have been about gaming vs simulation in a lot of respects, but this trope is actually pretty terrible on both counts, IME.

That said, there is something to be said for not locking the crucial stuff behind an impossible check. But this only becomes relevant if there are rails to block with these checks. If the party's just dicking around in a sandbox, and has numerous options to accomplish any goal, this becomes less of an issue.

[sparkletwist]

feed adult players the pablum

If we're talking about "adult players," then I would say the more "adult" approach is to view the game as the collaborative and shared creative exercise that it is, rather than a single player (i.e., the GM) demanding absolute authority like a bossy preschooler standing atop the jungle gym during make believe playtime.

The longer I do this, the more I am convinced that it is only when the GM creates a poor backdrop and is incapable of a consistent and engaging setting that you have to bribe the PCs with extra control or 'made for their PCS to defeat challenges' to keep playing.  It's only when they feel unsatisfied with the GMs ability that they feel the need to rewrite the storyline or to be given the crutch of knowing their skills are included.

Your dismissal is rather harsh and unfair, I think. I've always felt like mechanics to increase player empowerment and narrative control are put in there to hopefully increase the fun for everybody, not act as bribes and crutches to make up for some failing on the part of the GM.

But anyway. I don't want to derail this too much with a general debate about "narrativism" or whatever. I'll address the points about skills and such below.

The Pcs have not been taught that every 'skill challenge' (and in a skill based game, every breath can be this) is built to be solved formulaically based on their characters, instead they see the skills as organic extensions of their characters to be applied creatively in the setting (as opposed to figure out what the GM was thinkig).   The PCs do not expect that the situation was built for them to solve, rather, that it is a part/challenge of the setting that they may or may not be able to surmount with creativbe, in-character thinking.
...
The right kind of setting and system match create a situation when triumph is not a forgone conclusion.  It is earned through creativity and without the expectation of succfes that comes from having everyhting being written for them. 

I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the idea of tailoring difficulty to the players and the game, and you're kind of beating up on a straw man here. I was definitely never advocating situations "built to be solved formulaically" or the "expectation of [success] that comes from having [everything] being written for them." Your basic point seems to be along the lines that the GM shouldn't just reduce everything to simplistic skill rolls that the players can expect to always succeed at, and I can't help but completely agree with that.

Designing the adventure around the party is doing exactly that-- designing around what they can do and also what they can't do. It is as much about making sure that the challenges are hard enough as being easy enough, and making sure that the situations encountered encourage creative solutions and roleplay. I feel like overcoming the obstacle should always be a "may or may not," because, after all, the point of setting a difficulty is that they might fail. The dice are there for a reason! The GM is just setting it up so they've got a fair shot without it being too easy or hard for whatever context is desired-- or, as Steerpike observed, sometimes setting it up so that things are a little "too difficult." Creating challenges that are deliberately a bit beyond what the party would normally be able to manage is still tailoring the adventure to them, after all.

That said, I still like an organic feel to the world, just one that firmly establishes the role of the player characters as the protagonists of the story. Deciding on an immutable hard list of applicable skills or raising and lowering a specific DC in response to character abilities is taking it a little too far. That's basically what D&D 4e does, and it's not my cup of tea at all.

[Steerpike]

I've always felt like mechanics to increase player empowerment and narrative control are put in there to hopefully increase the fun for everybody, not act as bribes and crutches to make up for some failing on the part of the GM.

This could get derailed, but I thought I'd chime in with my two cents on this kind of thing since I was talking about it quite a bit in the thread this spun off from (maybe we need another spin-off thread... or we could just not worry about it, because conversations evolve and all...).

This may sound like a cop-out or fence-sitting, but I think both approaches have great validity - one where the GM is the one "in charge" of the setting, and one where the players have substantial environmental/narrative control.  But I do think that analyzing the pros and cons of the two approaches, and why one approach can work better for some people or in some games, is worthwhile.

One thing about narrativism is that it can be very demanding for players.  Speaking for myself, improvising is the hardest thing for a GM to do - I like to be very, very prepared as a GM.  I key every room.  In a city, I write descriptions of every major district - sometimes every street.  I like to have plenty of descriptions on-hand.  Sometimes I improvise brilliantly, but improvising is tough, because it's hard ot think of good ideas on the spot, and sometimes my improvisations are mediocre.  I have to be careful, when I'm improvising, not to start contradicting facts about the world or the story that have already been said and established.  Now, of course as a GM I have to improvise quite a bit, but I like to prepare as much as I can.

Narrativist-type mechanics demand an additional level of improvisation from the players, who already have to deal with pretending to be other people (i.e. roleplaying) and improvising dalogue for the entire game, not to mention solving logic puzzles, deciding on strategy, dealing with mechanics, keeping track of inventory items, etc.  Some players are going to enjoy taking control of the narrative and thinking in that way, but others are going to find it stressful; they might prefer to divert their energies into just roleplaying their character really well.  When I play, for example, I am way more relaxed than when I GM.  I love GMing, but it's a very high-intensity activity: I'm constantly talking, thinking, sometimes drawing, rolling dice, looking up things.  When I play, I don't always want to have to deal with thinking creatively about the nuances of theme and story and mood, as I do when I GM, I just want to concentrate on my character and what they're doing, and exploring the world the GM creates.  I don't want to have to think about what'll make the best story arc for everyone or what change in the environment or an NPC's behavior is going to heighten the atmosphere, because I get enough of that when I DM.  I don't want to have a hand in creating the world, because I want to let someone else do that work for a change.

Moreover, some players might find being able to control the narrative directly immersion-breaking, because by seizing control over the environment the illusion of verisimilitude, the idea that the place being described actually exists, is threatened (it's already under threat constantly, just because of the nature of the game).  When I GM D&D, I try to make the players feel as if they're subjectively experiencing an objectively real place, even though on some level we totally know that idea is crazytownbananapants.  If suddenly the players can also decide on details of the setting, suddenly the feeling that the place objectively exists can be problematized; when everyone can weigh in on aspects the setting/environment, attention is drawn to the thing that I'm trying to make my players forget, or at least push to the back of their minds.  Not everyone is going to find this is the case, of course, and there are some people who don't care about immersion/verisimilitude in the first place, and who are going to find a "non-narrativist" game, where they just have control over their characters, somewhat stifling and rigid.  That kind of player doesn't want to pretend that the world being described has any reality - that's not what they're investing imaginative energy into.

Not only do the two approaches work better for different people, but I think they alsoclearly work better or worse in different games.  I said in the Cadaverous Earth thread, for example, that I thought a survival horror type game, where you want to make the players feel desperation and claustrophobia and want to keep the unknown unknown, doesn't work very well with narrativist mechanics, because when you give the players that kind of control over the environment you run the risk of undermining the oppressive, alienating atmosphere you're trying to create.  But in a game like Nobilis or Amber (or Asura), where the players are powerful entities and can sometimes even restructure reality to some degree, you really need narrativist mechanics of some kind.  Likewise in a game that aspires toa  kind of cinematic feel, or a game that's about drama and deep interpersonal conflict and pathos and internal struggle (as opposed to a band of grizzled murderhobos skinning gnolls and looting crypts), you want narrativist mechanics because a more "simulationist" style, where a random mook's arrow can kill you, can totally wreck the beautiful story everyone's collaborating on.

[Weave]

I've always felt like mechanics to increase player empowerment and narrative control are put in there to hopefully increase the fun for everybody, not act as bribes and crutches to make up for some failing on the part of the GM.

[snip]

This may sound like a cop-out or fence-sitting, but I think both approaches have great validity - one where the GM is the one "in charge" of the setting, and one where the players have substantial environmental/narrative control.  But I do think that analyzing the pros and cons of the two approaches, and why one approach can work better for some people or in some games, is worthwhile.

This. I have personal experience in how one system/style of gaming is not the end-all/be-all of gaming. I grew so dissatisfied with D&D, Pathfinder, and the D20 system in general that, when I found something as different as FATE, I flocked to it like a moth to a flame. When I pressed FATE against my classically D20-centric, rules crunching, build perfecting players, they turned up their noses. No matter how much I tried, FATE wouldn't stick. And I learned that that was okay (grumble grumble).

One thing about narrativism is that it can be very demanding for players.  Speaking for myself, improvising is the hardest thing for a GM to do - I like to be very, very prepared as a GM.  I key every room.  In a city, I write descriptions of every major district - sometimes every street.  I like to have plenty of descriptions on-hand.  Sometimes I improvise brilliantly, but improvising is tough, because it's hard ot think of good ideas on the spot, and sometimes my improvisations are mediocre.  I have to be careful, when I'm improvising, not to start contradicting facts about the world or the story that have already been said and established.  Now, of course as a GM I have to improvise quite a bit, but I like to prepare as much as I can.

Narrativist-type mechanics demand an additional level of improvisation from the players, who already have to deal with pretending to be other people (i.e. roleplaying) and improvising dalogue for the entire game, not to mention solving logic puzzles, deciding on strategy, dealing with mechanics, keeping track of inventory items, etc.  Some players are going to enjoy taking control of the narrative and thinking in that way, but others are going to find it stressful; they might prefer to divert their energies into just roleplaying their character really well.  When I play, for example, I am way more relaxed than when I GM.  I love GMing, but it's a very high-intensity activity: I'm constantly talking, thinking, sometimes drawing, rolling dice, looking up things.  When I play, I don't always want to have to deal with thinking creatively about the nuances of theme and story and mood, as I do when I GM, I just want to concentrate on my character and what they're doing, and exploring the world the GM creates.  I don't want to have to think about what'll make the best story arc for everyone or what change in the environment or an NPC's behavior is going to heighten the atmosphere, because I get enough of that when I DM.  I don't want to have a hand in creating the world, because I want to let someone else do that work for a change.

I fully agree with this, and I love to meticulously detail settings, but sometimes I hate all the preparation DMing entails. In a way, I look at narrative games a way of "sharing the burden" of GM, or as I'd like to put it, the creative freedom. As a player in FATE and Asura, I never feel all that pressured to improvise, especially at any level that would drastically alter the scene. I *can*, but I trust the GM to have some story in place that even if I don't my character and the rest of the game won't be any worse off. In fact, I'd daresay you could get by with really trivial narrative control and have fun. Need a getaway? Spend whatever fate point-related currency the game offers and BAM, there's a car/ladder/window/whatever; obviously something appropriate to the situation, but I don't think that's at all demanding on the player. Most narrativist systems I know don't require you to be shaping the story every waking second of the game.

Certainly I can feel more "at ease" when playing in a game like Pathfinder, but I don't think I feel that much less at ease in a narrativist styled game. Granted, this all goes back to your original point of why it's important to pay understand the person playing the game. FATE, Burning Wheel, Asura and other similarly styled games are not for everyone, nor is Pathfinder or Guildschool or GURPS or whatever. They are all, however, systems of reasonable merit, depending on who's asking ;).

Not only do the two approaches work better for different people, but I think they also clearly work better or worse in different games.  I said in the Cadaverous Earth thread, for example, that I thought a survival horror type game, where you want to make the players feel desperation and claustrophobia and want to keep the unknown unknown, doesn't work very well with narrativist mechanics, because when you give the players that kind of control over the environment you run the risk of undermining the oppressive, alienating atmosphere you're trying to create.  But in a game like Nobilis or Amber (or Asura), where the players are powerful entities and can sometimes even restructure reality to some degree, you really need narrativist mechanics of some kind.  Likewise in a game that aspires toa  kind of cinematic feel, or a game that's about drama and deep interpersonal conflict and pathos and internal struggle (as opposed to a band of grizzled murderhobos skinning gnolls and looting crypts), you want narrativist mechanics because a more "simulationist" style, where a random mook's arrow can kill you, can totally wreck the beautiful story everyone's collaborating on.

I've been weaned on the idea that one system should be stretched across ALL SETTINGS (thanks, D&D), when rather I think you should tailor a system to a particular setting, which is actually one of Vreeg's rules (laws?) so I can't take any credit for that. So, Steerpike, I fully agree that for a survival horror, FATE might not be ideal (in some circles it could be), just like how in a game like Asura, a narrativist system works wonderfully (and in some circles, doesn't). No one's "having fun wrong" for doing it differently, and phooey anyone who would say so.

[LordVreeg]

Am on the iPad on the road.   No cutting and pasting.

Weave, setting, game style,and system matches are critical.   No game does anything more than a few o these matches really well.

Sparkle, I always go by the idea that the pcs and the gm are all playing together.  They play the roles of the characters, the gm players the rest of the world...but everyone is playing together.   There is no adversarial relationship, everyone is playing together in cooperation.   
However, I always believe telling players to look from the gm/ narrative position is also diametrically opposed from any attempt to stay in character.   You cannot be trying to play in character at the same time as trying to view things from outside the character.   Getting into a role has enough barriers.



I apologize for the iPad and my lack of cut and pâté and quote, I plow onward. 
Similarly, players know the game and rules you play with.   Dc is the same as CR and EL.   The players know when you"'ve set the game to be based on their abilities vs creating a more organic world.  You may be avoiding formula and trying to make them think, but the player expectations are different and the game
PLay will be different.
I also think this part exists very much on a continuum and is not black and white at all, and we can be forty/ sixty on this, or any other number.   But setting the dc to the abilities of the pcs is the opposite end of the continuum from the organic world, can't have more than fifty percent of either.

Steerpike, I can agree that the two mechanical ideals are better for different types of games, but i also see them as different games, not just different styles.  Playing from the position of a role, a single person existing in the setting is fundamentally a different game than playing in a game where you can change what that setting is.

Hopefully, more when I am back off the ipad and not in bed in a hotel room