Community

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Sure, I'm down with narrativism.  I just don't see how having a map - whether a poster map or a simple grid like a battle mat - gets in the way of it.   Well, unless you take it to the level of freestyle, in which case you hardly need rules, let alone maps.  

The way map based/grid-heavy combat resolution systems such as 4e get in the way is very simple; they remove the requirement that one narrate what they are doing during combat resolution. Narrative systems require you to narrate your activities. The system that 4e uses requires no narration. You can count squares, move your figure, point to an attack power, point to a target, and roll a die in silence.  

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

 Well, that's how you feel, then.  Just be aware that your feeling is irrational and wrong.  

I really hope you are joking. I have a feeling that, despite your smiley face, you are not. 

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Seriously, though, it helps to understand the problem when offering advice.  And 'how do I get away from maps to make my game more narrative' is hard for me to grasp when maps make a fine narrative aid, IMX.

Based on your responses in this thread, I don’t think you are the right person to be offering advice at all… I am not sure there is anything I can say that would change that. I think you have an outside agenda. I think your agenda precludes you from being able to accept that 4e might have some elements that genuinely don’t mesh with someone else’s subjective taste. You appear to have a vested interest in believing 4e is fine as is, even in regards to my subjective tastes, no matter what I might say.  

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

I'd say it's due to the group, not the maps.  But whatever, if your group can't handle the style of play you're after when using a map, that's a problem.  How to deal with it without giving up the existing narrativist qualities of 4e is an interesting question... (see, I'm getting to it). 

Yep. We should never try and modify the game so that it fits better with our subjective tastes. If we prefer something different than you the problem is always us. ::roleseyes::

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

I'd Require RP?  I've seen games do that and it's often quite forced and clumsy.  But, I think what you mean isn't require RP so much as require a bit of player/GM negotiation or creativity in resolution.  That sounds to me like an inadequate ruleset, but maybe that's just a glass-half-empty thing on my part.  :shrug:

Sorry, I did not mean to say anything about requiring RP. I meant to say something about requiring narration. That is not quite the same thing. As for what you believe is an inadequate ruleset, that is irrelevant to me. You don’t share my tastes. Your aesthetic judgements on them mean absolutely nothing to me. I prefer games that require narration as opposed to gamey piece movement and grid counting. That does require a certain level of player/GM negotiation. I don’t think there is anything inadequate about that. I could care less if you do…

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Really, then the solution is right in front of you:  don't use the map.  Without it, the mechanics of  4e positioning - movement, forced movement, reach, range, area, etc - become less functional, calling on the DM and players to resolve questions of positioning/range/movement through some more creative process.  Not exactly what I'd call 'narrativist,' but if it's what you're going for, just abandoning the map without particularly changing the rules should get you there.

Thanks for the facetious response, but it doesn’t help me any. Then again, like I noted, I doubt you are the right person to help me.

Dec 29, 2011 -- 11:01PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Your use of the word 'narrative' is confusing me, I guess.   4e has a number of strongly narrativist elements - indeed, it takes a lot of flack for them.

It does make use of a lot of narrative elements. In combat resolution, however, it makes use of (almost exclusively) gamist tactics. I like a lot of those gamist tactics. However, I prefer more narrative approaches to combat resolution. If the use of the word “narrative” confuses you, you should look up the word in the dictionary. Allow me to help:

Narrative:

That narrates or recounts, that tells a story; of or concerned with narration; having the character or form of narration.

Narration:

A thing narrated or recounted; a story, an account.

If you examine some of the more contextual definitions in the OED it also becomes evident that the term often has a verbal quality (and though this is not always the case, it is certainly the case in terms of the context in which I am using the term).

Since an account is the type of narration we are discussing, account, v.:

To render a reckoning….To present an account or reckoning of (one's actions, etc.)

Guess what doesn’t really fit into those definitions? If you guessed silently counting squares, figuring out modifiers based on grid positioning, pointing to a power, pointing to an enemy figure, and then rolling a die you would be correct. Of course, if you wanted to argue semantics you could argue that you are still producing a narrative when you perform those actions, bodily narration shall we say. It is arguable, since you are not really producing an account, you are producing a set of actions (which a narrative would have to account for). Then again, maybe one can create accounts with different forms of bodily media. Some forms of dance are considered narratives after all. The discussion is kind of pointless, though, because that narrative would not really mesh with the verbal quality that I am attributing to the term contextually speaking; yes, I am discussing oral narration, verbal storytelling, spoken word. That is what entices me in the genre of role-playing games. It is also the baseline assumption of context that the terms narration, storytelling, or word tend to carry--written or oral, verbal in both cases.