This week, I am putting the finishing touches on a little book/.pdf covering the creation and use of non-player characters and "Social Combat". It expands on previous offerings such as the
Gameable NPC and the
Eloquent NPC. There is nothing else like it that I've found.
It's the simple, fast system for designing and running non-player characters in ways that are determined by
player skill,
notnatural social ability or
character skill.
It has an objective resolution method that bypasses the need to subjectively convince anyone of anything.
One of the ways it meets these goals is by categorizing player actions in moves.
What it does
not do is require the player to '
consider the fiction first'.
Why is that?
On the Separation of Fiction from the Rules
I have this to say in the book:
"[T]he players should all be exposed to the complete list of moves and how those work mechanically during play (See APPENDIX D for play aids).
When they choose what to do during play, before it is resolved, the mechanical effects and consequences should be explained and the player should be allowed to confirm their action. The only hidden information should be the number of actions they have remaining.
It is a resolution system for actions. . . Because the resolutions are abstract players are allowed and encouraged to just state which move they are doing next. They are also free to talk in-character and apply the appropriate mechanical resolution, through it is not necessary."
Again, why is just stating the move encouraged?
For the exact same reason that abstraction is a strength. It allows the fiction to be discovered by the results of play, rather than by attempting to shoehorn the results into the stated fiction.
There are other advantages too, let's look at them.
The Concrete versus the Abstract
A simple example of
concrete versus the
abstract is
modern saving throws versus
traditional saving throws. Modern saving throws have the benefit of being clear, easy to conceptualize, and
concrete. What this means is, when the rogue is targeted by a fireball in the middle of a bare stone room and makes his saving throw, he takes no damage. He did this by
dodging out of the way. It's a reflex saving throw, right?
But when you start to examine this example it immediately breaks the fiction. He isn't prone. He hasn't moved. He just hasn't been hurt by the explosion of fire that is forty feet in diameter.
This really isn't a problem. It is, after all a game, and nothing is preventing you from immediately abstracting out that reflex saving throw.
The mechanical separation of early Dungeons and Dragons was a feature. When you save versus Poison or Fireball,
how you save is left undefined. Perhaps you use your cloak to redirect the flame, or call upon your god, or stare down the fireball defending with the very force of your will. You find a piece of fiction to match the
result rather than define the fiction first.
Why is Fiction First a problem?
When require fiction to be produced before mechanical results are resolved this limits your ability to interpret the result. Doing it first,
you lock yourself into a certain idea, your idea, of what's going to happen. Dictating what occurs during play rather than going through an organic process of discovery has many pitfalls.
There are other costs also.
Play of the game must stop while the player is put on the spot to create something interesting and creative; players are required to do this for actions that occur very frequently. Definitively stating things closes the door on other future more creative options. And it can sometimes create uninteresting results ("That cool thing you tried to do, failed")
This problem is exacerbated in the new wave of 'wolf-in-sheeps-clothing' storygames, attempting to break out of their general unprofitability by co-opting the rising cachet of the old school renaissance movement. Demanding that the play of the game must stop so players can make the 'fiction come first' slows down play and inhibits creative results.*
Sometimes the problem of Fiction First is even
encoded into the rules of the game itself. A well documented problem with this is
Dissociated mechanics.
What's this mean?
If the player is allowed to bypass the fiction and simply play the game, you sidestep all the problems above.
A good example of selecting a move without deciding the fiction first is the
Attack Roll.
![]()
This creates a situation where the abstract mechanical resolution is handled first, and then the reality of events can be augured as a group experience. It's faster too and nobody has to be put on the spot.
This does not mean I or the people I play with are unable to handle being put on the spot. It means we are not forced to be there. We discover the reality of play as a group, instead of constantly forcing individuals to be put on the spot and 'immersed' in the 'fiction' whether they want to or not.
Your axe swipe was cool,
because you critted. You became Conan
because you survived.
Personally, I find the memory of communal events
much more immersive than having to constantly stop the game and manage several different levels of play. It isn't that I can't keep track of character goals and what I'm trying to accomplish and the relative tactical benefits of various moves while continuing to present my character in an entertaining way
and trying to think of what I'm going to do to activate the move I want. I can.
It's that I find it more immersive to play a game and then after the results are known talk about what is actually happening.
What's This Mean for Non-player Characters?
The moves the book uses have always been in Dungeons and Dragons from the very beginning, much like the attack roll, so there isn't anything new to learn.
There's no hoop jumping either. The player just says what they want to do ("I want to ignore them so they leave us alone." "I ask them where the ghoul leader is." "I attack them") and the action and possible consequences is communicated and resolved. You can talk naturally to the non-player characters also, objectively resolving issues as they come up. You aren't in the dark about any effects of your choices. You don't have to worry about themes, or balance, or arcs. You can just play and see what happens.
You are never forced to stop playing by the Dungeon Master and jump through the hoop of explaining how you are doing what you want to do. If you are trying to avoid the encounter
that is what you are doing. You don't have to explain how.
More information on the book is coming soon. . .
*
In an effort to be very clear about things that cause a lot of cognitive dissonance from people, I am going to be explicit here. Yes, I am aware of the "success" of kickstarters of story-games that I'm not going to link to. But the 50,000$ or 100,000$ or 440,000$ dollars raised is peanuts compared to the 20,000,000$-50,000,000$ million dollars that Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder does annually. Yes. that is two whole additional zeros against the absolutely most popular story game. Games of the traditional sort are vastly more profitable than a few dozen or hundred or even two thousand copies of story games sold. What's more is that many of the most profitable story games are in fact doing what I say, attempting to co-opt the success of traditional gaming.To the second point, it is a literal physical truth that rolling dice and determining actions must stop while you wait for the player to generate the fiction first. And that once generated, the fact that it is stated aloud prevents any other option from being true. Saying one specific thing is happening and no other thing happens inhibits creativity by eliminating the possibility of any other thing happening.
Simply the idea that perhaps somewhere in the world is someone willing to teach you something you don't 
