Adding tension to "narrativist" games

[sparkletwist]

One of the common refrains around here is that "narrativist" systems aren't very good at creating tension and a sense of desperation. I think they can fail at this, and there certainly isn't some "magic system" that works for all players or all genres. However, I also contend there's no reason to say they necessarily have to fail just on principle, I mean, enough people like Diaspora that it's got to have done something right. Personally, I think reducing player empowerment is kind of a cop-out way to raise the general tension level, because it runs the risk of just  making players not the protagonists in their own story. Rather, I contend that a system like FATE (or my own system, Asura, which I will also talk about) can actually work pretty well for whatever sort of nastiness you want, but just requires some adjustments in mechanics and thinking, which I will suggest here!

Naturally, the most important requirement, for "narrativist" games or for any other games, is...

Players have to be on board - If the players aren't buying what the GM is selling, it really doesn't matter how suitable or unsuitable the rules are. Players have to be interested in creating the atmosphere and relishing the darker, grittier game world that the GM is going to try to put before them. They have to realize that there is going to be a feeling of the "oppressive unknown" out there, and they should not just defeat this with the narrative control "meta points" they're given. If they try, well...

You just cast a poorly worded wish at Gary Gygax's table - Ok, so, not quite that bad. But the point is, if the players try to twist the setting to their own ends, the GM can always twist it back around. There are always more unknown things and more horrors out there. Players might not even have time to pull too much of this, because...

Your meta points are why you're alive - The world is a dark, cruel place. The only reason you're still standing, in-character, is that you've got a little more pluck and a little more luck. Out-of-character, it's because you've got these little meta points in your pocket. Rather than using their existence to decrease tension, though, use them to ratchet it up. Players face tough challenges their skills alone can't match, or have a tough decision to make when facing a cruel compel. And they should be cruel. The GM should...

Compel, compel, compel - In FATE, a compel takes a situation or a character flaw and offers a choice: pay a meta point to avoid this situation, or suffer some difficulty and gain a meta point. In lighter games, this leads to a sort of "Scooby Doo adventures" feel to the game, where lots of slapstick hijinks occur on the way to victory. However, that's not how it should work here. The choices should have real ramifications, and be tough. Characters should be forced into very difficult situations. That's ok, because...

More forgiving mechanics mean more unforgiving challenges - If failure states are "interesting" and somewhat malleable, then characters can be placed in failure states more often, and will really relish those times that skill, luck, and metagame resources come together so that they can succeed at something with unqualified success. And, of course, if characters actually get hurt...

Keep HP lower and damage higher - In other words, we're making it so characters actually can't take all that much punishment, at least without having to spend a lot of meta points or rack up consequences. This is actually something FATE does fairly well. Any FATE player who has been around for a while is going to start taking note when a Weapon:4 comes out, and will pale slightly when someone starts performing Evocation for 8 shifts. Of course, if it hits, and you do have to take consequences, then....

Consequences should mean something - In my opinion, FATE falls a bit short here-- if you've taken a severe consequence, well, it's supposed to be severe, but it's really just a "6 stress" checkbox that takes a long time to clear. Asura ups the ante by saying that a severe consequence means you get a -2 to every roll you make, and -4 to initiative rolls. Stuff like this can lead to an annoying death spiral if it isn't carefully managed, but it also really adds impact to taking a consequence. And, finally, at the end...

"Taken out" means dead - We can say we're playing hardball. When all the meta points have been spent, all the consequences have been racked up, and the character is still out of options-- well, if it's a physical conflict with something trying to kill you, then you're dead, and that's that. Just remember...

Never fudge the dice - This is something I do in Asura, even when the game isn't supposed to be super tense. There are enough ways within the rules to mess with the dice that when all is said and done the roll will stand. Dice are the one bastion of cold and cruel objectivity in our fluffy and fuzzy world.

So yeah. There you have it. :yumm:

[Steerpike]

Some really great points!

One of the flaws with a GNS model is that it's easy to lump games together according to their "type" as GNS defines it, but ultimately that kind of classification falls apart under close scrutiny (I was probably speaking too broadly in the other thread, when I was comparing narrativist/simulationist games in overly general terms).  The sort of game you've described above, for example, probably has more in common with something like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or OSR retroclones than it does with typical high "narrativist" games - so, even though it has meta points and gives players control, it's still grim, gritty, unforgiving, deadly, challenging, "realistic," etc.  Genre, setting, and specific mechanical choices - like how many hit points a character gets per level, or whatnot - can mean as much or more as the system's overall approach or philosophical underpinnings.

[Ghostman]

How's this for an idea: reward players with meta-points whenever they use their narrative control to deliberately increase rather than suppress the tension?

[sparkletwist]

One of the flaws with a GNS model is that it's easy to lump games together according to their "type" as GNS defines it, but ultimately that kind of classification falls apart under close scrutiny

Yeah, I always scare-quote "narrativist" because the GNS model isn't actually a lot of use. It does provide convenient words to express some concepts in gaming, which is why I keep throwing those words around, however, the actual definitions given in the actual GNS theory don't make a whole lot of sense, so we're stuck with sort of making up our own definitions and they don't always agree. Maybe I should just stop using the word "narrativist" period...

Anyway, the kind of game I was talking about (which I guess failing to come up with any other word could just belong to the category of "games sparkletwist likes") really only has three defining criteria:

• The game is trying to tell a story - Rather than simulate a world or just give you entertaining mechanics to play with. (i.e., fits into the "N" of the very broad categories that GNS gives us)
• Player characters are protagonists - To some extent, the world revolves around them, although it should still hopefully feel like a living place.
• Players have a meta-currency - They are able to spend resources to make changes in the setting and gain it by playing their character flaws.

How's this for an idea: reward players with meta-points whenever they use their narrative control to deliberately increase rather than suppress the tension?

Yes, that's basically how a compel works: the GM proposes a situation where an environmental factor or one of your own character flaws can cause more difficulty. You either gain a meta point by playing it out, or can avoid the situation but have to pay a meta point in order to do so. I've added some elaboration on it to the list.

[Ghostman]

What I meant was that when a player is placed in a position to manipulate the narrative (other than through actions of their character), they should have some mechanical incentive to promote the tension/sense of desperation rather than going for what is most convenient for their character(s). For example, a player could decide that the monster they've just fought a hard and grueling battle to slay suddenly reanimates as an undead horror.

[SA]

Character tension or player tension?

A story can imperil the characters' lives, livelihoods or philosophies without involving fail conditions for the players. The players can succeed even as their characters constantly fail as long as the system and the people around the table are open to it.

A story can also imperil player stakes and intentions (hopefully not their lives) within the narrative. Here the players' goals are bound up with their character goals and the former can fail if the latter is thwarted. Emphasising this element blurs the boundary between in- and out-of-character protagonism and limits player contribution to the narrative itself by increasing defensive 'play'.

Traditional role playing has emphasised the second kind of tension-building. When you spend the bulk of your time arbitrating a single character's actions your ability to appreciate their fate in non-competitive terms is diminished. Time is key here, as is granularity. My Fighting Dude has a stat block that took me maybe half an hour to generate, and I've spent the last three hours perceiving the setting through the singular lens of his perception.

In contrast, players might collaborate more intensely in the generation of their living world. Imagine it's the difference between: three players representing John Snow, Cersei Lannister and Sandor Clegane; and: three players embodying various and diverse peoples of the Seven Kingdoms as the Game of Thrones unfolds. In the latter, from one conflict to the next, you might advance different factions' agendas.

The tension of the two approaches is of a qualitatively different sort. When I ask 'what happens next' as a single player character, there are a multiplicity of possible consequences that I manifestly do not want. When I ask it as an agent of the unfolding world (however great or small) all consequences carry the narrative forward to my satisfaction. This formulation is not consequently superior. It merely begins somewhere else and demands different considerations.

[Ghostman]

In contrast, players might collaborate more intensely in the generation of their living world. Imagine it's the difference between: three players representing John Snow, Cersei Lannister and Sandor Clegane; and: three players embodying various and diverse peoples of the Seven Kingdoms as the Game of Thrones unfolds. In the latter, from one conflict to the next, you might advance different factions' agendas.

While that latter scenario you describe seems potentially fun and interesting, is it something that should still be considered "roleplaying" or has it drifted too far from the meaning of the word?

[sparkletwist]

For example, a player could decide that the monster they've just fought a hard and grueling battle to slay suddenly reanimates as an undead horror.

Oh, I see... interesting thought. Like most game mechanics, this may or may not work well, depending on what the group playing actually wants. Groups that want to collaborate on the horror as well as the narrative would find this a neat idea. Others that want to maintain the feeling of "the characters vs. the unknown" would find this handing a little too much direct narrative control to the player, or at least control over a certain portion of it that is best left in the GM's hands.

Character tension or player tension?

Well, both, actually. I was thinking more in terms of "player tension" and adding in some of those "risk" and "danger" elements that some people seem to think games like FATE don't do well-- it's, of course, quite possible to have a story where there is lots of peril to the characters but none of these "hardcore" mechanics exist. In those cases, it's much more up to the players to collaborate with the GM to get the feeling they want-- of course, this would have to happen to a degree anyway in every game, but more so in a case like this.

[Ghostman]

Others that want to maintain the feeling of "the characters vs. the unknown" would find this handing a little too much direct narrative control to the player, or at least control over a certain portion of it that is best left in the GM's hands.

It may be that my understanding of the term "narrative control" differs significantly from your's. What is "narrative control" if not players getting to dictate the states of some elements/events within the game world?

To better explain my POV, here's what I would consider to be an example of "narrative control" in play:
[ic=Example 1]
The PCs are traveling outdoors and come upon a river, with an old bridge across it. The GM describes the bridge as looking to be in bad repair, precariously close to crumbling apart. One of the players interjects, declares that he's spending some meta-points and states that the bridge is, in fact, in perfectly good condition.
[/ic]
It shows a player definitely taking control of the narrative, intruding on what would be considered the exclusive domain of the GM in more traditional games.

And here's an example of something I would not consider to be "narrative control":
[ic=Example 2]
The PCs are in pursuit of a fleeing antagonist in a pulpy rooftop chase scene. The villain makes a daring leap across the gap between tall buildings, landing on the opposite roof. A PC follows, but fails his jumping check. The dice dictate that he plummets to his death. The player, not wanting to see his character end up a bloodstain on the street, spends some meta-points to overrule the failed diceroll into a success - the PC makes the leap safely and continues the pursuit.
[/ic]
What takes place here is nothing but fiddling with the effect of a game mechanic, and one that was subject to random chance in the first place. I see nothing about imposing any true control over the narrative here. After all, it's neither the GM nor the setting that dictated the original state that ended up being altered, it was the dice/game system. With a bit more luck the outcome that results from the manipulation could have come about even without the meta-points being involved.

[SA]

There is nothing stopping a story-focused system generating high player tension. The problem is, these systems often lack specificity of consequence. When the dice are tallied and the quality of result is established, it nevertheless devolves to the GM (and/or players) to determine what specific consequence of that kind occurs. The more ambiguity there is concerning that category of effects, the less tension there can be.

Note that this can be true even when the entire category is unambiguously negative: one result might yield "player loses an item", another might yield "player gains an enemy". We don't even know what those consequences mean yet, because there are different kinds of items and different kinds of enemies.

To ramp up the tension and keep it there, players need to know the stakes before they roll (What item will I lose? Who will despise me?). This is true in every model.

While that latter scenario you describe seems potentially fun and interesting, is it something that should still be considered "roleplaying" or has it drifted too far from the meaning of the word?

There is nothing in the word's definition that suggests the roles should be singular or consistent. Importantly, I suggest this model with greater regard to story creation than to roleplaying, as story is the first of sparkletwist's three "Narrativist" considerations. Most stories are not in first person.

[sparkletwist]

It may be that my understanding of the term "narrative control" differs significantly from your's. What is "narrative control" if not players getting to dictate the states of some elements/events within the game world?

I agree with your definition and your examples. The key word there (that I agree with) is "some." Different groups may have different places where they draw the line with regard to where that "some" is-- and some groups may decide that players being able to declare positive things for the group but not being allowed to declare negative things against the group (and instead leaving the creation of threats and horrors in the hands of the GM) works best for that group.

[Lmns Crn]

I don't have time for a proper comment now, but this topic interests me and I will probably have something to say about it this weekend. Thanks for giving me something stimulating to read on a Friday morning.

[sparkletwist]

I'm glad you liked it!

Let's follow it up!