Non-diegetic (AKA Outside the story)

 

So the last post discussed the idea of diegetic things existing within the story, this post looks at the other side of the equation. 

The clearest and easiest option I can think of as I start this post is the idea of "Classes" and "Levels". These are explicitly a shorthand to get a character's progress understood by the players as they try to visualise the imagined diegetic space in which the characters exist. 

Johan the Swift is a level 6 rogue. 

Mariana Vorlani is a level 4 sorceror (sorceress?).

Kalani Soulseeker is a level 10 paladin.

We instantly get an idea of what these characters might be capable of (and what their stereotypical weaknesses or quirks might be) with a pair of broad brushstrokes. Then, as they ascend ranks and gain levels, we get an idea of what specific powers they might have acquire along the way, because we might have read the rulebook. It's part of the reason why I didn't like the "streamlining" (A.K.A. dumbing down) of the recent editions of D&D, maybe I like my games to simulate something, maybe I don't just play them to "win".

Other games aren't immune to this, pretty much the whole OSR mentality is based on levels and classes, some particularly egregious examples going back to the stereotypically racist notion of defining entire races by a single class that they all follow (with all the baggage that "those people" learn specific abilities in a specific order, and always have those abilities and skills)... and when asked why the designer did that, the questions are often met with "but that's just how they are". (Anyway...enough of my rant on that topic...)

Another element of levels and classes that rarely sits well with me is the idea that a character can gain experience for doing one thing, and then with their level gain they get better at something else entirely. 

Johan kills a bunch of monsters and gains a level, suddenly his ability to pick locks or hide gets better. Even though he didn't do those things, the game rules say that monster-killing might be the most effective way to gain experience, and his class says that the next thing he gains is improved rogue skills. There's a disconnect in what is happening.

Sure, there's plenty of games that don't do this, but by tying things more carefully between performing tasks and gaining rewards, a game is starting to cross the divide from non-diegetic to diegetic. I'm trying to stay with the non-diegetic here.    

Levels and classes aren't the only form on non-diegetic advancement and play mechanism.

Let's temporarily look at the idea of "Death Saves", Once a character drops below 0 hits points, everyone gets up to 5 rolls, and it's not tied to a specific ability, it's just a case of roll 10 or better means you stabilise a bit, 9 or lower means you get a bit closer to death. As soon as you roll 3 successes, you're good...even with 2 failures after that point you'd have had a majority of positive rolls. As soon as you roll 3 failures, it's all over. It's basically a 50/50 (not quite because the odds are stacked toward you surviving, especially when a Nat 20 resoves the whole process for good, while a Nat 1 only counts as 2 failed rolls. Its convoluted, it's a game within a game, but it doesn't account for one character being more damaged than another, or a character having stronger resilience. And as soon as you stabilise, you get back all of your rolls as they reset, and the next time the process starts all over again. However, I hear it said that people houserule this, with more damage applying a penalty to the roll, or only regaining death save rolls when characters rest (or between adventures)... but this is just pushing the "rules as written" system toward something that simulates narrative (or a version of reality) better by making it more diegetic.

Let's go back to some other advancement systems...

The next one I find interesting is "off-screen advancement", where an example might involve a character earn a reward during the course of play (money, treasure, influence, favours, etc.) then trade in that reward for learning a skill, acquiring a blessing from a god, gaining/building a new piece of equipment, or gaining a benefit that we don't explicitly see during the course of play. The actual advancement is non-diegetic, since the specifics of the upgrade occur outside the context of the story, but there are events within the story that point toward it being a logical conclusion for the character's development.

Kalani has a run in with some satyrs in the forest outside of the city. During play they find out that the satyr's follow a different god to the one she has sworn her allegiance to. They also find a hidden archive in the catacombs beneath the city's cathedral. Working on the assumption that we're using a "non-level based" system, it makes sense here that Kalani might spend the time between sessions learning as much about the satyrs as possible from the archive, and maybe develop some techniques that will give her a bonus in combat against them later. This is still informed by the diegesis of the narrative... if she were to show up in the next session with all the accoutrements of a vampire hunter, that's a wild left turn that doesn't really make sense.

There's long been a concept that was semi-formalised back in the World of Darkness games of the 1990s. It is called "blue booking" (named after the colour of commonly available notebooks), players woud write out their interpretation of a game's events, then write another page or two explaining what their characters do between sessions. The storyteller/narrator/GM goes over the books, confirms what they see and this helps inform them of how to proceed in the game sessions, it also serves as justification for why certain character advancements might be possible. "Outside the story" becomes "inside the story".

Another non-diegetic advancement system that comes to mind is the random upgrade table. I've seen a few games use it over the years (I'm thinking that there was an edition of Paranoia that used it, but my most regular recollections are the Mordheim game from Games Workshop). Basically, characters would reach checkpoints then roll on a table to see how they improved. It might be an increase in combat skill, strength, or picking up some new quirk ability. All attributes were capped according to a character's race, and quirky skills were limited to the type of role they had in the team, but it was all pretty arbitrary. In some ways this was good, as it gave the feeling that these were unique individuals who had goals of their own that might be separate from their commander, and it certainly led to interesting characters in the team, but in other ways it was just weird. I loved it for a game about chaotic warbands, but it wasn't necessarily a path for strong story agency.

Now I guess the point is that non-diegetic is easier than diegetic. Tacking something onto the outside is always easier than integrating the element through the entire piece. Similarly, you can always add your own rationale and retcon events to make it look like things should have been this way all the way along. However, it's all up to a designers intentions, and whether or not they think through the implications of what they've designing, or just throw a bunch of stuff together because the various elements look cool in a range of game they're familiar with. I've got no problems with non-diegetic elements in my TTRPGs, as long as they serve a purpose in the whole ecosystem of play. Too many designers, it seems, are just throwing elements in for the sake of it.