Are there any generic narrative systems other than FATE and PbtA? Am I missing something?

>This feels like bait.
Probably is, but we like bait.

Nah, it's not. I am trying to understand narrativist mechanics and my starting point is generic narrativist mechanics because specialist system, of course, can always have special stats, for example, to a narrative effect (eg, Humanity in Vampire).

Based on what I am seeing so far, it means a system in which the players have SOME agency over the gameworld beyond their character's actions. See FATE's Fate Points or how players can choose consequences of a Move in PbtA.

Wouldn't savage worlds count?

I think a better definition is "where the mechanical focus/design intent of the system lies".

You could have it so you have to choose your result before you roll in PbtA, and it'd STILL be a narrative system because the entire move setup is a way to focus on events that are narratively important.

There's WaRP, basically Risus with a bit more crunch to it to reign in what a character is capable of.

And by the same token, although SW has bennies that can theoretically affect the narrative (pretty damn wasteful compared to "make my character not die" instead), it mostly concerns itself with being a fun little skirmish wargame with some simple skill system bolted on top.

Not sure I understand you correctly. You mean PbtA would still be narrative if the GM made the decision for the players?

Storyteller system

Yeah sure. My point was that PbtA doesn't give THAT much narrative power into the players' hands, and it'd be still a primarily narrative system if you removed that little, because in itself is focused on and designed around adjudicating events that are narratively important to begin with.

The problem I am havign with that is that you can't classify a mechanic on user intent. A GM might require yet another additional move to kill the BBEG just to increase the challenge. This would be a gamist concern but using PbtA's narrative mechanics.

Storyteller system is quite famous for not delivering on what its name promises.

>Storyteller system is quite famous for not delivering on what its name promises.

B-but if you ignore the rules you have the perfect groundwork for telling a story!!!

> A GM might require yet another additional move to kill the BBEG just to increase the challenge.

We are getting into specifics here, in some PbtA he can, but he''d be going against the games' guidelines.

>This would be a gamist concern but using PbtA's narrative mechanics.

All games are a mix of all elements, but PbtA is pretty open about what it is doing and why.

>Storyteller system is quite famous for not delivering on what its name promises.

I can't think of a better example of doublespeak/doublethink that isn't in politics.

My point is that user intent isn't a good basis for definition. If anything, we'd had to go by designer's intent.

>PbtA is pretty open about what it is doing and why.
My point precisely.

I think my problem is that it's not always clear how narrative the design intent is - if we look at FATE, for example. Is invoking an aspect narrativist or gamist?

The mechanics themselves are very rarely purely one thing, it's almost always about the approach, which, as you say, the players/GM can decide for themselves... but some games will be better at supporting one approach over another.

Gamist games (by my definition) try to make a mix of mechanics that challenge players in a satisfying way (usually through tactical/strategical depth).

FATE isn't really mechanically satisfying, since there's very little depth to the system, or the "Invoking an aspect" mechanic; however, it is great at establishing and putting emphasis on the important traits of the actors involved, which makes it, in my opinion, very heavily leaning towards narrativist.

Funny, if I compare FATE with PbtA, I come to conclusion that it is narrativist-gamist. You can game FATE by skillful selection of aspects. Invoking scene aspects also allows for strategizing.

It's not very simulationist, however, although the line between narrativism and genre simulation is blurry.

Does Storyteller HAVE a generic system? Like the closest I can think is the core book for New World of Darkness and that still limits to playing a normal human so...eh.

Cypher System is pretty close

What's so narrative about it?

I don't think so but you can modern and fantasy with it, at least.

That's not exactly the definition of generic.
You couldn't do like a space or cape shit with it for example.

Light rules+desire to appear as modern

So when do we go full meme shill and link you to the Genysis thread?

FATE isn't even a real narrative system. My experience with it proves that attaching rules to narrative just kills the narration by making it more gamist, so in the end get neither of hardcore rules or light-ruled narrativism.

That's why I said
>I don't think so

I don't think that's enough. I still think the main criterium is the amount of agency that players have beyond their character's decisions.

I didn't even think of that. How narrative is Genesys really? Sure it has "narrative dice" but that might be "Storyteller System" BS. My impression is that it has about as much player agency beyond PC actions as FATE?

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about those experience (I only have played SOTC myself about three times?). Did your players try to game the Fate Point economy?

Genesys

Naw, its generic for sure, but not narrativist.

So, how's FATE?

It's the only thing I have played and seems simple enough for me to run a game for some people who haven't touched a die in their life but are interested in it

HillFolk

>my players
I was a player as well. But yeah other tried to game the fate point economy, and when we didn't it felt like the system was punishing us. Like I have to spend this fucking limited points to activate the most basic shit that would be free and taken for granted in a different game. If it's raining a normal game automatically adds the modifiers, in FATE I need to spend a stupid point to activate the "Heavy Rain" aspect (is that the english word?) to get any benefit from it.

TRPGs are generally divided into three categories; gaming; simulationist; and narrativist. Gamist systems are ones that acknowledges that it's first and foremost a game and thus try to provide a gaming experience. Examples of this would be D&D. Simulationist systems would be ones that claim that it's all about immersion in the character and the world and thus tries to provide the most realistic experience possible. I have no good examples of this category as I'm a native Swede and all the games I have played that are simulationist (all of which I love) are Swedish and have no English translation. Narrativist systems would be ones that place the story foremost. Often these systems will blur the line between what a GM and player is by giving the players some form of authority over the world the game takes place in and will sometimes make the discourse between players part of its mechanics. One of the earliest forms of this type of game I can remember is Polaris which didn't have a GM and instead the players took turns in playing different parts in each other's stories. A more current examples would be FATE or Burbing Wheel.

>Simulationist systems
>I have no good examples of this category
Shadowrun, Twilight 2000, Harnmaster, most GURPS campaigns, Feng Shui (Genre Simulation!)

Note that a lot of systems are a mix of categories. D&D is gamist-simulationist.

Burning Wheel is explicitly about ye olde medieval tales, its even baked into the system that a character with even a small dip into the Noble lifepath is explicitly better (e.g. has more skills, better skills, more invested, more resources) than any other.

>implying this isn’t true today
Maybe it’s because I’m American, but being born into a wealthy family sure seems to come with a lot of benefits.

Genesys.

I think that, if anything, "narrativist" only means that the dramatic outcome is the preferred outcome. The crunch that supports this isn't part of the definition, so you can have "narrativist" GURPS, as some user will claim.

The Fate Point is a way to make sure that the narrative "flow" undulates, so it stands to reason that if you really want it to, the Heavy Rain can assist you but then turn against you when someone else makes the economic choice of "to Invoke or not to Invoke".
In other cases, perhaps you just let the environment benefit some other character. It's not simulation-consistent but provides ups and downs.

But more importantly, if you only see Aspects as "that thing that does +2", you lack Fate's scope. "Heavy Rain" means certain things/actions CANNOT happen or happen with an imposed difficulty because the Aspect could impede an action that wasn't normally challenging outside of "Heavy Rain". Additionally, scene Aspects are yet another chance to create trouble and gain FP.

>I think that, if anything, "narrativist" only means that the dramatic outcome is the preferred outcome.
That's not a useful definiton for game design.

Agreeably. GNS theory is not super-useful because player/GM combinations change how systems are actually run.

Never heard of it. What's it like? I always like getting indie shit.

FATE is a great system, which actually gets to have some nice crunch. It only works if everyone at the table "gets" the aspect system, though. There is little more frustrating than not getting the fate point economy going.

Freeform Universal aka FU is a fairly rules light narravtive system I've always wanted to try it but never found a good excuse

>Sigil system.
It looks pretty simulationist, judging from the DriveThru page.

>Harnmaster
Mein Neger