What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Daggerheart Discussion)

[thefutilist]

@Campbell prefers AW to BW because AW's procedures increase the "diegetic" immediacy and don't include the BW-esque intent stuff.

(At least, I think that's so. @Campbell will tell me if I'm wrong!)

Depending on how connected the intent and task are, I’m ok with the Burning Wheel. I mean I have preferences but I was getting at something a bit different, and my latest rant seems like it’s attacking BW but it’s more about how the IIEE theory gets used.

Also, ‘the gift’ is so awesome that even if I didn’t like Burning Wheel it would be hard to stay mad.

 

[FrogReaver]

This basically leads to ‘solving’ the tyrant GM problem by ignoring the actual problem and then destroying the fundamentals of the medium. You’re ignoring fictional positioning and using the resolution system as a back story generator. Everybody is having great fun, lots of hi-jinx. The GM can even get in on the action. You failed a roll so goons kick down the door. The resolution system is at this point just giving narrative control. Everyone is rolling to force their version of events into being. You can see this most clearly by how people use ‘on a miss’ in PbtA games.

Don’t principles around following the fiction and limiting moves to a specific list mean that fictional positioning is preserved?

I agree on the basic passing of narrative/authorial control. That’s a really common observation people introduced to these systems have. That if success means the player gets their intent then that’s direct player authorial control over the fiction and if the DM gets to define failure then that’s DM authorial control over the fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, I am agreein with you! I don't know which of us is confused, but I don't think players in narrative games can solve thing with one roll like this. But @pemerton seems to. So argue this with him!

I fail to accept that @pemerton is unable to discern how to coherently play games like TB2 (or BitD if he was so inclined). None of his postings I'm aware of indicate that he would accept some sort of "do it all" action declaration. Sure, I believe players in a game like BW can state certain things to be the case if they can pass a check, but those things do not normally include "win the whole game in a single toss of dice" (well, maybe there's a 'wise' for that? LOL).

 

[clearstream]

An assemblage is a collection of things - of "signifiers" to use your jargon.

Based on these exchanges, I'm drawn toward mechanism laden with signifiers, or something in that direction.

The creator of the assemblage is not part of the assemblage, except perhaps in some special cases (like some happenings or other artist-participant artworks).

Game play is such an exception.

Players can "change signifiers" - that is, they can imagine stuff and invite their fellow game participants to imagine the same things - without themselves being elements of what is imagined, nor without themselves being cues to what is imagined.

If a player is replaced, the answer to a question about some signifiers (or the next observation of such signifiers), changes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It depends on the game right. I’m pretty sure in the game I was using for the original example, you’re just allowed to kill off NPC’s if another NPC is motivated to kill them. That doesn’t necessarily get to the point of whether it’s satisfying or not. Which to me is a bit of an open question.

If it’s never satisfying, then in Apocalypse World terms, the first tick of the clock is always to announce future badness? I can see that being a good general practice.

But assuming there is no clock and the assassin is there, even if unknown. So the general circumstances are established. Then I’m thinking, is the assassin really going to kill her? And it just looks like, based on the state of the fiction, he is. Then I think that’s legitimate.

Although I have MC’d Apocalypse World a few times and in one session I failed to telegraphed something that I really should have in hindsight. So I err on the side of telegraphing rather than not but it does depend on the fictional situation.

Fair enough, I have not MCed AW myself, but in Dungeon World you would have a Front, and one danger associated with that front would be something like "the assassins" and they might be an 'Ambitious Organization', which might make a move like 'attack someone'. They could have a grim portent like 'assassinate the princess'. So, as a hard move, given that a PC has laid stakes on this NPC it will require a hard move as it would be an irreversible harm to the character, the princess can be assassinated. Before this happens, either the PC will need to 'present a golden opportunity', or suffer the consequences of a failed move (and one with open-ended consequences at that). This is a fairly low bar, but I'd also point out that there are some principles at work here, like 'Be a fan of the Characters'. Now, murdering a character's love interest might not ALWAYS be a bad idea, but I'd think, at least within the sort of tone and genre of DW, that kidnap, or poisoned but still alive, cursed, etc. would be pretty good choices.

 

[clearstream]

I see far more folks categorizing Critical Role as OC or Neotrad play, not Trad. I have not watched it myself, but my (possibly incorrect) understanding is that Mercer's players bring their PCs fully formed to the game to be told a story about those PCs in Mercer's world. There is no crucible of play nor playing to find out (beyond what Mercer has planned or improvs for the group or individual) that would push play towards Narrativist in the ways that have been discussed here.

Likewise. In fact I believe TTRPG culture of play and game design has evolved so that comparisons with how folk used to play have diminishing relevance. That relates to remarks following my post #972, about comparing apples with apples.

 

[clearstream]

Something I noticed in the Daggerheart game text raised a question I thought I'd post here.

You generally need to be using a specific spell to make a spellcast roll—you can't just make up magic effects (like forming a bridge out of vines) that aren’t on your character sheet or cards. However, at the GM's discretion, they might allow you to creatively apply an existing spell in an unusual way. And you can always flavor your magic to match the kind of character you’re playing, but that flavor shouldn’t give you access to effects you wouldn’t normally be able to perform with your spells.

Example 2: If a Wizard wants their Rune Circle spell they just picked up at Level 3 to erupt from their wand in sparks, form into a galloping, flaming stallion that circles them-- and this is the reason why the Rune Circle gives them protection from enemies, that’s awesome and should be highly encouraged. But if they wanted it to do extra damage to an enemy because of this narration, that wouldn’t normally be permitted.

I observe something like this as a norm at some tables: additions to fiction can and must be "just colour". Suppose we happen to narrate a dining table which for a time is just colour, but then stuff happens and that colour seems like it might have mechanical consequences...

Here's a rule: "3. If your character has higher ground than his opponent, make your attack roll at +3."

Player: I jump on the dining table flourishing my rapier "fwip, fwip" like this!

So thinking about that stallion. Can another player sit on it? If they place a beaker in its path, does it get knocked down? If it's dark, does it shed light? If it really is "awesome" why shouldn't it "do extra damage to an enemy because of this narration"? One could argue that the offered narrative is simply missing the adjective "insubtantial"; as written, it can be viewed as a mandated divorce of fiction from effect... what's narrated from what happens.

 

[FrogReaver]

I see far more folks categorizing Critical Role as OC or Neotrad play, not Trad. I have not watched it myself, but my (possibly incorrect) understanding is that Mercer's players bring their PCs fully formed to the game to be told a story about those PCs in Mercer's world. There is no crucible of play nor playing to find out (beyond what Mercer has planned or improvs for the group or individual) that would push play towards Narrativist in the ways that have been discussed here.

This is an idea I brought up earlier, if 1) the DM has the player indicate via backstory or other method what's important to the character and 2) the DM uses his authority to frame scenes around those things important to the characters, then doesn't the resulting play center around the thematic elements of the characters, and isn't that what natural language use of 'narrative play' should mean? From this perspective the necessity of mechanics associated with the technical term 'narrative play' aren't needed at all to achieve natural language 'narrative play'.

Or consider the phrase ‘play to find out’. It exemplifies the problem of taking natural language that applies to a much broader range of things than those appropriating it as a technical term allow it to apply to. In natural language every RPG has players playing to find out (you even note this use above). But the technical term means something much different. It's a barrier to entry into the conversation that leads to people misunderstanding what is meant by those who intend to invoke the technical term as opposed to the natural language.

 

[darkbard]

This is an idea I brought up earlier, if 1) the DM has the player indicate via backstory or other method what's important to the character and 2) the DM uses his authority to frame scenes around those things important to the characters, then doesn't the resulting play center around the thematic elements of the characters, and isn't that what natural language use of 'narrative play' should mean? From this perspective the necessity of mechanics associated with the technical term 'narrative play' aren't needed at all to achieve natural language 'narrative play'.

Or consider the phrase ‘play to find out’. It exemplifies the problem of taking natural language that applies to a much broader range of things than those appropriating it as a technical term allow it to apply to. In natural language every RPG has players playing to find out (you even note this use above). But the technical term means something much different. It's a barrier to entry into the conversation that leads to people misunderstanding what is meant by those who intend to invoke the technical term as opposed to the natural language.

This appeal for natural language is (a) a chimera and (b) counterproductive to analysis. Of course there are barriers to entering conversations for someone new to a topic. That is not you; you've been jumping into these discussions for years here.

I've practiced two primary professions in my adult life, English professor and carpenter. Both come with specialized terminology and perspectives. When there is a new concept (to me), I don't eschew learning the associated terminology; I learn and deploy it. That helps me communicate more precisely and efficiently with other practitioners.

 

[FrogReaver]

This appeal for natural language is (a) a chimera and (b) counterproductive to analysis. Of course there are barriers to entering conversations for someone new to a topic. That is not you; you've been jumping into these discussions for years here.

I've practiced two primary professions in my adult life, English professor and carpenter. Both come with specialized terminology and perspectives. When there is a new concept (to me), I don't eschew learning the associated terminology; I learn and deploy it. That helps me communicate more precisely and efficiently with other practitioners.

I’m not opposed to learning how it’s used. Even in talking in those terms to someone that wants to use it that way, but there’s even more barriers there. 1. Everyone means something different by the terms. When I try to dig in to understand what exactly is being meant, except for the broadest similarities, the nitty gritty details don’t align between people, even people mostly on the same side. And 2. Even the same person often contradicts their own explanations of the terms.

I think I’m doing it too much of a kindness by calling it a technical term. Technical terms are well defined, without the kind of person to person drift and without the contradictions present even in a single posters explanations.

*** I am opposed saying the phrase cannot mean the natural language meaning.