by siebharinn » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:05 pm
Grimmshade wrote:siebharinn wrote:Were you expecting a dam burst when you put the scene together? Or did they just spring that on you?
Sprung it, it wasn't a scene distinction going in or anything.
(It's all theoretical, but yeah.)
by Supplanter » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:02 pm
Doc Hydrogen wrote:Supplanter wrote:There's always a narrative. The continuation in which the player-hero's stunt with the water has an insignificant effect beyond her intention of splashing hell out of the villain is one possible narrative. The continuation in which it washes everybody in different directions, which is kind of amusing but soon dealt with, is another possible narrative. The continuation in which the flood surges horribly out of control and destroys Johnstown again is a third possible narrative. The question is how we, together at the table, will decide which narrative becomes real. There's no use saying its up to THE narrative to choose among all the narratives.
I'm not certain that anyone's saying that, Jim. Which poster--and which post--are you responding to here?
Doc Hydrogen wrote:What happens to Black Widow & Bucky?
This is what I mean when I say narrative before mechanics. They take stress too, of course. I don't care what the rules would or should say happens. If it's crystal clear what the narrative says happens, that's what happens. You're in a bus that rolls over, you're almost certainly taking stress, area attack or no, friendly character or no.
by Doc Hydrogen » Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:26 pm
by Supplanter » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:10 pm
Doc Hydrogen wrote:I'm sorry that the phrase seems to seriously raise your hackles, but it's shorthand for games of this nature, and I don't think you're adding anything by railing against it. Please don't read that as you're not contributing, you clearly are--and helping quite a few people understand the game better, myself included--but this almost crusade against a phrase seems more than a bit silly.
by Grimmshade » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:51 am
Doc Hydrogen wrote:
In games of this nature you start with the narrative and what makes sense, then you rely on the Watcher to make a decision as to which rule best suits the situation, and in the best of these games--such as MHR--there are often several that could apply. So, you're still back to the old saw of GM fiat no matter which way you slice it.
by blaster219 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:08 am
by alai » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:20 pm
Supplanter wrote:There's just no way I can read practically anybody's use of the phrase "narrative precedes mechanics" on this forum as saying anything but, My taste comes first. Then the rules. But the rules for this game are the means by which all of us, together, make the story of our chosen heroes together. They aren't an alternative to "narrative," they're narrative's engine.
by kirezemog » Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:47 pm
alai wrote:Adding in additional negative consequences on a purely extra-mechanical basis should always be an option, but it should also always merit a moment's second thought. It's in a sense relying on "Watcher capital", and insofar as it differs from the table consensus, is potentially expending it. In the spirit of allowing a possibility of success-as-intended, I wonder if something like adding extra D4s to the pool for especially... cowbowish actions would be a somewhat more idiomatic (if equally extra-mechanical) approach than simply adding after-the-fact additional bad consequences.
by kirezemog » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:26 pm