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

[pemerton]

Instead of somehow trying to prove me wrong, why don’t you explain how you think otherwise?

How does player choice in a trad sandbox matter in a way beyond telling us what of the GM’s prep we encounter?

What are your thoughts about the difference between the role and nature of prep in those systems, and the way that prep works in (say) The Isle of Dread?

@FrogReaver, I think hawkeyefan's question to you overlaps with my own. Any thoughts?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The GM's conception of the situation did not change one iota. The situation begins as PCs must do XYZ in order to get <whatever it is that they are supposed to get> from the Mad Tyrant> And the situation ends up as PCs not having done XYZ are not getting what they want from the Mad Tyrant who, being a Mad Tyrant, is jailing and executing them.

The GM decided what was at stake - namely, the PCs getting <whatever it is that they are supposed to get>. The GM decided the significance and implications of the NPC being a Mad Tyrant. The players' conception of the situation - that it is about the moral stakes of compromising with, versus opposing, a Mad Tyrant - gets no look in at all, to the extent that the GM, posting, describes that conception of the situation as "murder hoboism".

When I talk about play being a railroad, or play being driven by the GM, I am not supposing that the GM has the players bound and gagged, or that the GM just recites a monologue. I am talking about exactly this sort of thing: the GM frames the situation, decides what is at stake, and establishes the consequences of the players' declared actions entirely by reference to those decisions that they have already taken, so that what the players are doing in play is learning what the GM thinks the situation is about and what should follow from that.

I don't know if this is exactly what @soviet had in mind in posting "ultimately in a trad game it's just colour", but I believe that it's at least in the neighbourhood. Likewise I think it's pretty close to being an example of what @hawkeyefan has in mind in saying that "these choices yield different results as to the content of the fiction. But not to its nature."

I didn't use the phrase "change of direction". I am talking about what is colour? and "content vs nature of fiction*, building upon my understanding of hawkeyefan's and soviet's posts.

The content of the fiction changes - as, inevitably, it must, if people at the table are declaring actions and resolving them. But the GM's conception of the situation remains absolutely static. There is not even a thought turned to the sorts of possibilities that @thefutilist mentions - guards refusing to obey the Mad Tryant's orders and joining in the uprising; locals freeing the trapped PCs from the stocks; the Mad Tyrant himself repenting; etc.

I'm pretty confident that this is what @hawkeyefan had in mind in saying, upthread, that
It also illustrates how one sort of approach to GM prep is at odds with player-driven play: namely, when the GM's prep produces a completely static conception of what is at stake and of what might happen next.

First of, the entire direction of the fictional events being "mere colour" is an absurd idea. Making such outlandish claims is a barrier for clear communication, as that's not what most people would understand by such a statement. Second, in that example I actually didn't see the players taking actions to change the stakes. @thefutilist gives a good example of how this could occur, and I agreed with it. But I don't recall that sort of thing actually happening in the example.

I did skim couple of posts more in that tread, and it is hard to get proper read of the situation from the PoV of the poster. It might indeed seem like that player was making a principled stand, and the GM was not getting it. In any case, I am not terribly interested in taking a deep dive into some ancient example from someone else's game of which we have a possibly biased account.

 

[pemerton]

First of, the entire direction of the fictional events being "mere colour" is an absurd idea. Making such outlandish claims is a barrier for clear communication, as that's not what most people would understand by such a statement.

What is mere colour is the PC's expression of principled opposition to the tyrant. Mere colour, because it has no actual effect on the play - to the extent that it is characterised by the GM as "murder-hoboism". The player could just as easily have said "I don't like the cut of his codpiece, and kick him in the googlies" and the unfolding of play - guards, stocks, execution - would be no different.

Second, in that example I actually didn't see the players taking actions to change the stakes. @thefutilist gives a good example of how this could occur, and I agreed with it. But I don't recall that sort of thing actually happening in the example.

In the example, as per the OP:

a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character.​

There's the attempt to change the stakes. As the OP explains, it goes nowhere.

In any case, I am not terribly interested in taking a deep dive into some ancient example from someone else's game of which we have a possibly biased account.

As I've often said - I'd be more willing to believe there's all this narrativistic 5e D&D play going on out there if someone actually pointed me to examples of it. But most of what I see is much closer in approach to the example that I pointed to: GM control of framing, GM control of stakes, GM control of consequences of declared actions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is mere colour is the PC's expression of principled opposition to the tyrant. Mere colour, because it has no actual effect on the play - to the extent that it is characterised by the GM as "murder-hoboism". The player could just as easily have said "I don't like the cut of his codpiece, and kick him in the googlies" and the unfolding of play - guards, stocks, execution - would be no different.

In the example, as per the OP:

a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character.​

There's the attempt to change the stakes. As the OP explains, it goes nowhere.

Like I said, I think the GM's account of the events might be biased. Still openly challenging a monarch in their own court is very likely to end badly for you. Now what could and perhaps should have happened is that act garnering sympathies of some people who were not that fond of the monarch, which might then help the characters later to escape, and perhaps to eventually take down the tyrant. But I don't think expecting all courtiers to rise against the king because one PC challenges him is particularly sensible. I don't think player agency requires that the player should be free to completely ignore the fictional positioning, and expect every sort of madness to succeed in the way they want.

As I've often said - I'd be more willing to believe there's all this narrativistic 5e D&D play going on out there if someone actually pointed me to examples of it. But most of what I see is much closer in approach to the example that I pointed to: GM control of framing, GM control of stakes, GM control of consequences of declared actions.

I mean I really don't care about narrativism. I just care when people make overreaching claims, either directly or implicitly, about what is and isn't possible in games I'm familiar with.

And loosely tie this back to the original topic, I think Critical Role play exhibit several of the characteristics you ascribe to narrativism, though I don't think it really is such. But it is interesting that they're making a narrativistish game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do you intend the implication that no TTRPG's other than those identified as "narrative" can possibly expect player choices to matter in any "fundamental" way?

Not exactly. What I’m saying is that some games are designed to deliver that experience. Others are not designed to deliver it. With those games, it may happen, but when it does it’s despite the rules, not because of them.

So, when playing the second type of game, should you “expect” player focused play? I don’t know why you would.

I play with people with whom just the basic act or roleplaying characters and NPCs is entertaining. And I think being able to do this is an essential skill for enjoyable roleplay. People need to inhabit and portray their characters, and do it so that it is engaging. And you don't need to be a professional actor to do that (though that probably helps!) Like I have said before, my tabletop RPG circles overlap with LARP circles quite a bit, and LARPs basically cannot function without this.

So anything that characterises in-character roleplay as "mere colour" or "pantomime" etc is a huge red flag for me. It is not some optional spice, it is the main ingredient for me.

That’s fine!

But no one is saying that we would never test these things and there would never be conflict!

Well, you said that not all of play needed to be conflict heavy. Others said you should always be driving toward conflict.

I don’t think the type of game you’re describing will be without conflict. But given your description of what you consider the main ingredient of RPGs and your statements about not needing conflict at all times… I’m not sure why you’re unsure of the differences. You seem quite aware of what you like and want to see!

I was not talking about the system as a whole, but the heavy focus on combat, which it shares with D&D, albeit perhaps not quite the equal degree.

I look at the DH playtest and I see player principles that align with story now type play. I see session zero practices that are inspired by story now play. I see character options that grant players a wide range of opportunity to impact the fiction.

I’m not sure why combat must limit player driven play. But I didn’t introduce that idea to the discussion.

 

[pemerton]

Still openly challenging a monarch in their own court is very likely to end badly for you.

Is it? Gandalf challenged Theoden in his own court, and gained an ally who ended up being absolutely crucial in the unfolding struggle against Saruman and Sauron.

In a different way he subsequently challenged Denethor, too. That worked out differently, but certainly not as Denethor might have willed things going in.

Now what could and perhaps should have happened is that act garnering sympathies of some people who were not that fond of the monarch, which might then help the characters later to escape, and perhaps to eventually take down the tyrant. But I don't think expecting all courtiers to rise against the king because one PC challenges him is particularly sensible. I don't think player agency requires that the player should be free to completely ignore the fictional positioning, and expect every sort of madness to succeed in the way they want.

All the fictional positioning that you refer to here resides solely in the GM's imagination. It's not a shared imagining.

And the recipe you prescribe for play is all GM-centred as well: identify possible sympathisers, garner their sympathies, eventually take down the tyrant.

I just care when people make overreaching claims, either directly or implicitly, about what is and isn't possible in games I'm familiar with.

No one has asserted that narrativist 5e D&D is impossible. I, at least, have suggested it's not an ideal tool. And we can already see one reason why - when the player wants to identify sympathisers, there is no obvious mechanism other than looking to see what the GM provides (contrast, say, BW/Torchbearer Circles, or creating a Resource in MHRP).

We can see another reason, too - the "eventually". 5e D&D has no clear resolution procedure for attempts to achieve things that happen over an extended period of time. It's resolution - both spells, and ability/skill checks - are oriented towards discrete and relatively short moments of time (seconds, minutes - even the hours involved in a long rest are notorious for triggering discussion and disagreement over whether this is a unit of time that the GM should treat as indivisible or as still liable to encounter checks, interruption etc).

As I said, I'd love to be informed about all this narrativistic 5e play that is taking place, but still wait to be pointed to it.

 

[pemerton]

I’m not sure why combat must limit player driven play. But I didn’t introduce that idea to the discussion.

I think the notion that there's some sort of tension between combat as an in-fiction activity and character-driven play results from the idea that "roleplaying" consists in presenting the character vis what the character says. And because combat is not very talk-y, it's therefore not very "roleplay-y" and hence not very much about the character.

And this way of thinking about it all rests, in turn, on the idea that the GM is the one who controls framing, and stakes. Which is not to say that the GM is necessarily forcing the fight - maybe the GM is happy for the players to have their PCs try and escape or sneak instead, but that's taking place in a context of expedience ("the fight's too risky, so we'll sneak instead"), not players authoring their own goals and stakes. (Many times I've seen posts where GMs talk about placing an encounter with the expectation that the players will be "smart" and work out that the rational - in the sense of expedient, efficient, etc thing - is to sneak past it.)

But as soon as we allow for player-authored goals and stakes, then combat just as much as anything else can serve as an opportunity for the character to be expressed and drive play. Like in my Torchbearer game, after I narrated Megloss incinerating Gerda by summoning the Flames of the Shroud, I noticed Golin's player putting together a big pile of dice. "What's that about?" "I'm going to attack Megloss!" "Kill conflict?" "What do you think?" "Why so many dice? Aren't you only Fighter 4?" "Well, those ones are my Avenging Grudges Nature - he just killed my friend."

Now we know what Golin stands for, what he's prepared to risk (in Torchbearer, a player who initiates a kill conflict has put their own PC's death on the line), etc.

(I think this also illustrates your point, upthread, that the RPG medium doesn't necessarily rely on the same expository devices as film. In a film there's no such thing as spending a point of Persona to include Avenging Grudges dice.)

 

[clearstream]

Is it? Gandalf challenged Theoden in his own court, and gained an ally who ended up being absolutely crucial in the unfolding struggle against Saruman and Sauron.

I don't think this is the right example. For one thing, Theoden can be viewed as the PC here. Having admirably played to their flaws and succumbed to Wormtongue, they are railroaded by Olorin, the Maiar primordial spirit in their magic-wielding Istari form. The whole thing plays out in accord with the GM's setup. Even tranferring this to the example being cited (ad arguendo accepting the PC as Gandalf), it's as if a PC with an entirely different standing and power were in the court, and in that case it's likely the GM would have directed NPC responses in a different way.

I am talking about what is colour? and content vs nature of fiction, building upon my understanding of hawkeyefan's and soviet's posts.

I think what @hawkeyefan's contrast between content and nature could be about is whether player has agency not as to what happens in the scene, but in the scene setup itself. Say the GM has the King worked out and it makes sense that they'd react as they did? Can the player change the King's motivations here? Perhaps inserting a moment in the King's past where they stood before a Tyrant in a similar setting. With that history inserted, handing the King back to GM as an adversary that they manage, the GM will likely now direct their responses in a different way.

Referring back to my discussion up thread of ludonarrative requiring establishing narrative potential without committing to a given story, that can be achieved in a couple of ways. And at least one of those ways you seem to be ruling out as non-narrativist

A. GM (or game designer FTM) can set the scene up with terrain and actual and potential adversaries (NPCs whose stakes potentially conflict with those of players). PCs enter that scene and although they set nothing up, it plays out in response to what they do. Only through knowing what PCs do, can we know how it will play out. And that is true even though they didn't play any part in setting things up, and cannot modify the nature of those things. Although we must work with the stakes as set, it can involve genuine stakes-motivated-conflict, and as to what stakes matter here and now can be down to what players do. I believe that this is the kind of setup the cited quotation describes.​

​

B. GM and players can set the scene up. PCs enter and it plays out from there. Beyond setup, there is no editing of the nature of the scene. Only how things go out based on what the PCs do.​

​

C. GM can set the scene up, and players can be empowered to add to and edit the scene as they play it out. They can edit the King's nature to add that snippet of history at the moment it matters, so that GM will be inclined to direct their responses in a different way.​

There are a few other permutations, but that's probably enough to give the sense of it. The example of Gandalf and Theoden is at best a case of A. Gandalf is able to challenge Theoden in his own court due to facts already established. Over the course of the scene, the natures of Gandalf and Theoden are revealed but not changed. (I think arguing that their natures are changed, will be contradicting earlier posts about what counts as a "nature" change versus a "content" change.) Given it's authored up front, there's no possibility of a "nature" change.

@hawkeyefan do I have it right that a "nature" change must mean changing elements of the scene such as the King's motivations during play of the scene? So things can turn out differently not simply because the GM responds at all times reasonably and justifiably, with a view to genuine conflicts within the terms of both system and fiction, but because the nature of the fiction itself can be altered during play. The King can turn out to have a memory of opposing a Tyrant, even though we knew nothing about that going in, and our reasonable/just GM must take that memory into account in saying what the King does. (Or it can be that they player simply tells the GM what the King would say, to make their intended change to nature clearer.)

A note on B. On the one hand, I don't think a co-authored piece is playing to find out if it is authored up front any more than a solo-authored piece is. However, setting up the scene (nature + content) together means players have a stronger say in how it will go because after all, perhaps they will think to give the King that snippet of history that will turn out to matter. Suppose though, that it's set up that way but as it happens, when it's played this time the whole resisting-the-Tyrant thing never comes up... was it then just colour?

 

[clearstream]

Not exactly. What I’m saying is that some games are designed to deliver that experience. Others are not designed to deliver it. With those games, it may happen, but when it does it’s despite the rules, not because of them.

So, when playing the second type of game, should you “expect” player focused play? I don’t know why you would.

I don't quite see how that answers "Do you intend the implication that no TTRPG's other than those identified as "narrative" can possibly expect player choices to matter in any "fundamental" way?" Reading "that experience" to mean one where player choices matter in some "fundamental" way, right? That restates the claim in a circular way, without making distinctive what counts as "fundamental". The adjective begs the obvious question.

Setting that aside, is "fundamental" and in particular your concept of "nature" at all close to what I lay out in my #788 above?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not exactly. What I’m saying is that some games are designed to deliver that experience. Others are not designed to deliver it. With those games, it may happen, but when it does it’s despite the rules, not because of them.

So, when playing the second type of game, should you “expect” player focused play? I don’t know why you would.

What does "player choices mattering in fundamental way" actually mean? Because I think I have played and run many games in which I think they do. And I definitely do not feel that "fundamentally mattering" is happening in the Blades campaign I play any more than in the D&D I run.

Well, you said that not all of play needed to be conflict heavy. Others said you should always be driving toward conflict.

I don’t think the type of game you’re describing will be without conflict. But given your description of what you consider the main ingredient of RPGs and your statements about not needing conflict at all times… I’m not sure why you’re unsure of the differences. You seem quite aware of what you like and want to see!

I am not unsure of the differences. It just seem that some people seem to read "there doesn't always need to be conflict" as "most of the time there is no conflict."

I look at the DH playtest and I see player principles that align with story now type play. I see session zero practices that are inspired by story now play. I see character options that grant players a wide range of opportunity to impact the fiction.

I’m not sure why combat must limit player driven play. But I didn’t introduce that idea to the discussion.

Yes, it obviously have plenty of narrativism inspired elements. Someone just made a point that heavy combat crunch of D&D would make it poorly suited for narrativist play, so I merely asked whether the heavy combat crunch of DH is similarly detrimental to that. And if it isn't, then we need to examine what the difference is, as it obviously then just isn't about the amount of focus on combat, but how the rules are implemented.