Mountain Witch question
Eero Tuovinen:
Ah, I'm very happy to hear that the game's working for you - sounds like you're just having trouble with the invisible lines and where they are, not with the actual intent of the game. That's no big deal once you figure out what works and what doesn't for your group, and you'll only get better if you play with many different people and learn to adapt to local style.
You're absolutely right that the narration rights are not a big deal. Historically we've taken years to figure out what their importance is, and quite many people have had to realize in practice that it's not a right that is the big deal, it's the procedure. My game Zombie Cinema is a direct descentant of this Dust Devils -> TMW tradition, and I write this up pretty unambiguously in there: the narration right's purpose is to make it unambiguous as a point of procedure who acts as the approval authority for narration, not to be the sole source of dramatically disruptive turns of events. The narrator works best if he doesn't try to be shocking or inventive or original, but simply acts as the clearinghouse for suggestions and detail everybody at the table contributes. Picking a player to be the main narrator helps us avoid consensus, the big enemy of excitement; without a single authority all contributions would have to be moderated and accepted by everybody, which would tend towards a much more mediocre, conservative narration environment. It's procedure, not strategy, that is the reason behind narrative authority.
It would not be far off to say that the reason for making narration authority a big deal in the first place is that it's an antidote against bad play practice (bad from the viewpoint of these games, note) established in other games. The way I see it, narration rights in Forge-influenced games ultimately originate with (Pool and) Sorcerer & Sword, which has a very clear discussion of character failure vs. character competence; one original point of giving the narration rights to individual players has probably been to safeguard against others narrating your character into a buffoon. By distributing the authority you pretty much force a group to learn to play together or combust; it's a do or die solution.
I'm not saying that the narration authority can't be exciting, though. There is a certain sweet spot in stretching the authority with surprising outcomes and details that drastically affect the consequences of events. For example, when you're interrogating another character about his past: the point of narration rights is not that you get to dictate the past, but that you get to establish what your interaction with the other character looks like: do you break his will, or do you seduce him? Do you mislead him, allow him to believe incorrect things? Do you shame him in front of his people? That sort of thing can get quite volatile, and it's all possible with the resolution narration rights. The idea is not to intentionally seek to shock and challenge, but when inspiration comes along, the authority is there to be used.
cra2:
Speaking of narration -
1) Can you "Buy narration rights" even if your PC is not in the scene?
2) If you buy narration rights, WHEN do you have to do it?
In other words, can I watch the conflict dice roll, see who is awarded narration, listen to the narrator depict the outcome and THEN jump in and purchase the rights - allowing me to ignore or re-write what the narrator depicted?
(ew... hope not)
Or do I have to decide whether or not to buy-in before the die are rolled?
Thanks
Eero Tuovinen:
As I remember it, you can buy narration whenever it suits you. No need to be in the scene, and you can choose the moment before or after the roll, or even in the middle of the narration. So you can wait to do it until you know that you need to, one might say.
timfire:
Hiya, I'm a little late to the party, but hopefully I can still help clarify things.
Quote from: cra2
I knew I could induce a conflict saying, "I'm trying to socialize with him and get him to tell me the truth."...
Since a regular success means I got what I wanted, he was now going to have to tell me the truth.
And since I got high die, I got narration rights.
So at this point we realize that I now have carte blanche to make up whatever answer I want for this poor player, and that it IS the truth - thus negating whatever backstory and reasons he had written down on his sheet...
Seems kinda wierd, taking control of another PC's past like that.
And seems like you could just begin the damned ascent asking everyone about their Fates or whatever, inducing conflicts, and getting a 50/50 shot at TELLING them what YOU want their fate to now be.
There are a number of issues in your example. I agree that tMW's text is showing its age, but on this particular issue, I don't think it's *as bad* as it's being made out to be. I think the intent is clear if you read the book, though admittedly you have to stop and focus on individual paragraphs and sentences.
Quote from: 'Narrating Success', page 34, tMW
Conceptually, it is important to understand that while the dice (in combination with a player’s declaration of intent) generally decide what happens, narration decides how it happens. In other words, though the dice decide the general aftereffects of a Conflict, how that effect is achieved is totally open to the interpretation of the narrating player. Within reason, the player can narrate whatever they want, given that it fulfills the requirements of the Conflict roll.
This point could certainly benefit from some elaboration, but I think the intent is (relatively) clear---the dice and stakes decide the end point of a Conflict, while narration simply establishes the journey. Your stakes---aka, what happens---were "I get him to tell the truth". Thus your narration---aka, how it happens---should have just covered how that truth came to be revealed (that's ignoring the Mixed Success part, of course).
Furthermore, you overstepped the boundaries of a single Success, though there's a bit of a learning curve to recognizing what's appropriate for a single Success.
Quote from: 'Success: The Currency of Narration', pg 30, tMW
Generally, narration is constrained by the Degree of Success. But technically, narration is constrained by the number and type of Successes the Degree of Success grants. Each Success allows the player to narrate basically one thing or one change in the game world. A Partial Success allows the player to narrate one “small” thing, while a Regular Success is used to narrate one “big” thing...
One Success = "one thing". So stop and think about what you did---you narrated a) that he told the truth, AND b) what that truth was. You narrated 2 facts, not just one.
But even without those points, there's also a squishy argument here that you overstepped the scope of your stakes. "I get him to tell the truth" doesn't seem to imply (to my ears at least) "I get to narrate his past". But that point is dependent upon the norms of your particular play group.
On the issue of the scope of narration, the text implies the answer, but admittedly does not directly address it.
Quote from: 'Extra Success: The Power of a Critical or Double Success', pg 30, tMW
A Critical or Double Success is much more powerful than they first appear. Because the “extra Success” these rolls grant are not tied to the player’s declaration of intent, they effectively grant directorial power. In other words, the narrating player can use these extra Successes to create or control (either overtly or through implication) aspects of the game world, including the environment and NPCs...
To begin with, the implication here (and elsewhere) is that a normal Success does not grant that type of power. But more relevant to the discussion, it states that these types of Successes allow the player to declare facts about "the game world, including the environment and NPCs". Granted, it doesn't mention PCs, but I think that implies that using narration to declare facts about other PCs is excluded.
Quote from: cra2
But you do just that (describe backstory) if you play the Revenge fate card, right?
You're free to suddenly narrate how the target of your anger used to kill babies or whatever and that's why you're after him.
No?
Yes, that's right, and technically you can do that with any of the Fates, Revenge is just the most obvious. By the book, a player can use their Fate to declare any (appropriately Fate-related) fact about another PC, and the owner of that character just has to take it, period. Eating babies included.
My desire wasn't to disallow players from describing other PCs' backstory, it was to control the context in which it was done. I didn't want to give players carte blanche freedom, I only wanted to give them freedom to create facts related to their Fate.
Now, in practice, I do like Eero suggested, and encourage soft negotiation between players. But that's just general play advice, not an official rule. Does imposing facts on other players make the game unfun? Maybe, maybe not. It's an individual group thing. You have to know what your group likes and doesn't like. I more or less say as much at the very beginning of the book:
Quote from: 'A Reasonable Standard', page IV, tMW
Very often, the text leaves certain aspects of play up to what would be considered “reasonable.” Exactly what is and is not reasonable or plausible is largely left to the discretion of individual groups. If what is “reasonable” is ever in question, or if individuals have specific concerns, the group can simply discuss the matter among themselves.
One other point here---when something happens in the game, will your group retroactively revise the facts later? When a player declares something about their Fate or history, I generally consider that "established fact", which as a matter of course protects it from being overwritten. I'll be honest---I always thought that was something didn't need to be said. It honestly surprises me that you thought you could overwrite someone's history. I mean, it makes sense if you didn't consider it "established fact", but I'm surprised you interpreted it that way.
Quote from: cra2
But that leaves me wondering what to do with narration rights sometimes then.
Eero is awesome, but I have to disagree with him on the importance of narration. Narration in tMW (and other games) is certainly a subtle aspect of play, but I think it's actually much more important and powerful than most people give it credit for.
The issue is that people always want to use narration to directly affect the narrative, which it can't do (though admittedly, I sorta imply that it can in the text). Where narration shines is in coloring or otherwise shaping the feel of the narrative.
For example, suppose you have a ronin who's struggling with self doubt because he failed to protect his lord from some assailant. Then, at some point when he's working with another PC, they lose a roll---but did they lose the Conflict because their opponent was too strong, or because the doubting ronin fumbled a tactical manuever? That sort of thing can be a *big* deal if the dramatic timing is right. And beyond that, little touches here and there add up, and can have a profound effect on the overall game.
Quote from: cra2
If you buy narration rights, WHEN do you have to do it?
In other words, can I watch the conflict dice roll, see who is awarded narration, listen to the narrator depict the outcome and THEN jump in and purchase the rights - allowing me to ignore or re-write what the narrator depicted?
- When buying narration, your character doesn't have to be present, but you do have to spend Trust given to you by one of the characters in the Conflict.
- Regarding when, as it says in the book (pg 60), "Buying narration is declared after the physical die roll, but before the official narration is begun." Once someone begins narrating, that's it, you can't go back.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page