Narrative mechanisms in table-top roleplaying games

It’s your world Frank, we just live in it.

Sammy Davis Jr

Table-top roleplaying games started originally as war-games. The players took on one role, a single player character. And the Dungeon Master played everyone else in the world, including (crucially) the inanimate objects. To misquote Sammy Davis Jr, in these early games, it was the DM’s world, and the PCs just lived there.

So what happened? Recently (since the mid-2000s) we started to see the introduction of what I will call ‘narrative mechanisms’ in table-top RPGs. These are rules in the game that allow the players to monitor, or even change the narrative. These are different from the original war-game-style RPG rules, which were only ‘dramatic mechanisms’. Let me explain the difference.

Imagine a classic D&D scenario. The players have to reach some objective (a captured princess, some treasure etc). Between their starting point and the objective are a number of obstacles (some orc guards, a locked door, and maybe a final boss such as a dragon). As the players reach each obstacle they need to resolve that dramatic conflict, which they can do in the usual manner (combat, spells etc) or an unusual manner (seduce the orcs, bypass the door entirely, and defeat the dragon in a philosophical debate).

The ‘dramatic mechanisms’ allow these conflicts to be resolved. But the rules only govern interactions between things in the world. When a PC stabs or flirts with an orc, tries to pick a lock or cast a spell, the rules govern what happens in these internal interactions. But the narrative is only changed by the outcome of these interactions. And if the players or the DM don’t like the direction the narrative is going, they need to change the choices made by the characters.

Narrative mechanisms work differently. They’re not about interaction between PC and object, or PC and NPC. Instead they’re about the flow of the story itself.

Some examples of these include:

• Progress clocks and planning/engagement in Blades in the Dark
• The churn in The Expanse
• Obligation in the Star Wars RPG
• Momentum in Ironsworn

The interesting thing here is that these are kind of ‘meta’ rules, since they are rules that govern the story rather than rules that govern the world. And they can be different, depending on the kind of narrative that you want. For example, in The Expanse, which is a game about ordinary people being caught in system- or galaxy-wide events beyond their control, the churn is a nice mechanism to represent when things are things are about to blow-up, and major events are about to happen.

Some of these narrative mechanisms are effectively inviting the players in to be co-DMs in shaping the story. Ironsworn, for example, is meant to be played entirely without a DM, just the players creating the story together as they go.

You could argue that the Shadow from Wraith: the Oblivion is a narrative mechanism. I would not, however, because the shadow is a real thing in the world of Wraith, that has dramatic consequences, and the mechanisms that govern the shadow are more dramatic that narrative, in my mind. So The Shadow is really an antagonistic player character, being portrayed by another player, than a non-player character.

This split between RPGs that have only dramatic mechanisms (such as D&D and the World of Darkness games), and those that have both dramatic and narrative mechanisms (such as those mentioned above), is close to (but not exactly the same as) the Story-gaming vs OSR split. To lift directly from here,

… [story-games] tend to have more rules that supported the integrity of the genre of game and the intended play experience whereas traditional RPGs tended to have more rules supporting the integrity of the fictional game world.

Zak Smith

Which side do I fall on? Well, you might expect that, given that I support innovation and narratively satisfying games, I would be in favour of narrative mechanisms. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I still prefer games where the characters interact directly with the world, and the story is shaped by what the characters chose to do, not what the players decide. In this way, I have a lot more sympathy for the OSR side of the argument.

Does this mean I want to be a dictator, and the players are just along for the ride (living in my world)? No. The story still changes based on the choices made by the characters. But I kind of like sandboxes, where the players can make whatever choice they like, based on what they feel their character should do.

But, maybe I haven’t given narrative enough of a try, or explored how they work to the necessary extent. So, I will do some research, and try to write more on this subject.