The Role of Narration

What to encourage and what to avoid.

It is no secret that I adore, and prefer to run, the original three little brown book version of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing game. The reasons for my devotion to this version are many and over the course of posting on this blog I have enumerated several of them. Today I will add yet another to the list of praises I have for my beloved White Box.

The original game intentionally leaves much to interpretation, I believe. The system encourages the free use of both individual and group imaginings and for frequent dialogue between the players and referee - and I am not referring to "role-playing" one's character, although that is certainly not discouraged. The dialogue to which I refer is one in which the referee narrates, the player then questions and makes statements regarding the intent of their character, and the referee then applies the rules and makes any judgement calls narrating the outcome of those character actions. In this manner play proceeds...and occasionally the dice are consulted. 

By describing what the characters shall sense and perceive, the referee sets the stage for subsequent character action. Through an exchange of dialogue the players are frequently asked to, "Tell me what you would like your character to do." This is then followed by a shift in focus to the player, who describes, often in detail, what they imagine their character might be doing in response to what has been described in the fictional game setting. The referee may again prompt the player to tell just how the character goes about the desired activity - for example, where shall they search and how. The response might be given in the first person, "I get down on my knees and look under the bed, holding my torch low, so as to shed some light, but being careful to not set the bed on fire." - meaning the character does this. After a careful narration of intent by the player, the referee will usually describe what happens next - often doing so without resorting to the unpredictable result that can occur by having called for a die roll. 

It is my contention that dice are frequently overused in too many game situations where logic and dialogue alone can determine probable outcome. The characters are "adventurers" and deserve the benefit of the doubt! By listing a number of skills on the character sheet, players are in fact encouraged to ask the referee if they can roll to accomplish an action even when the outcome should not be left to chance. This is one of my objections to skill based systems.

What seems particularly non-productive is when players try to describe the outcome of a die roll before it is made. A dramatic narrative failure can result when in the course of combat a player announces, "I swing my sword and cut off his head!" Then when the dice are rolled and it turns out to be a character "miss". The imagined action then comes to an abrupt halt! 

I have found that in most cases combat die rolls need no interpretation and neither player nor referee should narrate the action, but rather by leaving it to each individual in turn to imagine the action, the game is generally enhanced to everyone's enjoyment. An occasional "colorful" narrative description of a "swing and a miss" or a "solid blow" may set the example. It is not necessary to overdo this and in fact over-narration leads to boredom.