The Shape Of Things

In a fascinating article on The Alexandrian, the author draws a line between roleplaying games (RPGs) and storytelling games (STGs) (read it here). To summarize: RPGs use associated mechanics—rules that directly tie player choices to in-character decisions. Think “I do this, so I roll that.” STGs, on the other hand, are driven by narrative control mechanics—rules about who gets to shape the story and how, often allowing or even encouraging a looser connection between character action and game mechanics.

Many games blur the line, but the author’s point is that this distinction can help sharpen discussions around design, play, and expectation. He suggests placing both under the broader umbrella of tabletop narrative games.

I bring this up because I often find it hard to define where Scribarchy lands in all of this.

For the most part, Scribarchy’s mechanics are associated—even if they’re highly abstract. Players act through roles, and mechanics respond to those roles. Pretty standard RPG territory.

Things might be the exception.

Mechanically, each Thing is defined by a set of Role pairs—a bonus in one Role, and a penalty in another. For example, a Thing might give you +1 Tough but -1 Sprinter. This doesn’t really feel like an associated mechanic in the traditional sense. Why should getting stronger make you slower? There’s a balancing argument to be made—sure, it keeps characters from becoming unstoppable—but that’s a topic for another devlog.

What interests me is how this mechanic forces a story into existence. The fun isn’t just in the stat bonus. The fun is in asking: What kind of Thing would make someone tougher but slower?

Maybe it’s a set of prosthetic power gauntlets—bulky, powerful, and definitely not made for track and field.

In this way, Things become little narrative devices. They’re not just gear; they’re mini-stories, plot hooks waiting to be expanded. Their value lies not just in game balance but in storytelling potential.