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

[Manbearcat]

But pre-establishing character dynamics/relationships at sessions zero, (that you IIRC advocated for) instead of via roleplay, is telling, and not showing. Establishing them via roleplay would be showing.

Negative, ts not. A "dump" in this conception is when the relevant climax, the falling action, and often (though not always) the denouement has already been resolved offscreen (or sometimes onscreen if its a crappy movie and they have to tell us what just happened because they were so poor in the showing of it) and we're just revealing it to the audience. The relevant cake is already baked and we're just putting it on a platter for passive consumption. Anticipation of and curiosity around "what happens when/if (?)" doesn't/can't enter into it...because the relevant if/when has already happened and we're learning about it and the attendant fallout right now during the exposition.

Contrast with the sort of setup you're pointing at (the kind you're seeing me advocate for) where it is about actually generating the ingredients of "what happens when/if (?)", generating the sites of rising action, so we can answer those questions in the course of play; the climax, falling action, and denouement. Its about generating entanglements, prospective sites of conflict/clash, opportune areas to generate downstream dangers, hardships, duress, discoveries during actual play.

Further, its not actual play. Its preplay and totally meta. Therefore, its no more "telling" than selecting a playbook/class, what-have-you, or the process of choosing a game where there is a consequential premise that generates the player and GM meta which one has to opt into to play the game at all. No one is playing a character and no one is framing an onscreen (because right now there is no "screen") situation/obstacle to resolve.

EDIT: And it should be noted that the above is referring to actual sites of conflict. I'm also folding in (and perhaps even especially) free, protracted roleplay about mere color like philosophical musings where there is nothing at stake (no consequential gamestate/situation-state clashes are occurring...so the opposite of a Convince or Convince Crowd conflict) or cosplaying weddings or tavern winching or marketplace haggling or hey I'm at a tailor lets cosplay getting a fancy suit/dress etc etc. I can't remember who coined the term off the top of my head, but I'm pointing at "Dollhouse Play" here. I don't want to spend any table time on Dollhouse Play. There are lots of people who do. That is great. I'm glad for them to have that form of play. They just won't be doing it with me as a GM for them. Which is easily enough avoided because I'm just one person out of a massive pile of people to run games!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Negative, ts not. A "dump" in this conception is when the relevant climax, the falling action, and often (though not always) the denouement has already been resolved offscreen (or sometimes onscreen if its a crappy movie and they have to tell us what just happened because they were so poor in the showing of it) and we're just revealing it to the audience. The relevant cake is already baked and we're just putting it on a platter for passive consumption. Anticipation of and curiosity around "what happens when/if (?)" doesn't/can't enter into it...because the relevant if/when has already happened and we're learning about it and the attendant fallout right now during the exposition.

I am not sure I'm following you. Can you give an example?

Contrast with the sort of setup you're pointing at (the kind you're seeing me advocate for) where it is about actually generating the ingredients of "what happens when/if (?)", generating the sites of rising action, so we can answer those questions in the course of play; the climax, falling action, and denouement. Its about generating entanglements, prospective sites of conflict/clash, opportune areas to generate downstream dangers, hardships, duress, discoveries during actual play.

You talk in terms of storytelling, but certainly you also understand that stories are not non stop conflict? That there are slower moments, discussions that establish the personalities and relationships of characters etc. And all this is also part of a good story.

Further, its not actual play. Its preplay and totally meta. Therefore, its no more "telling" than selecting a playbook/class, what-have-you, or the process of choosing a game where there is a consequential premise that generates the player and GM meta which one has to opt into to play the game at all. No one is playing a character and no one is framing an onscreen (because right now there is no "screen") situation/obstacle to resolve.

I mean it is literally telling these things to the participants. You tell that you're a friend with such and such, instead of showing it with roleplaying interaction with said friend.

 

[thefutilist]

Yeah, sounds reasonable to me. But from this it also follows that one can choose to play D&D narrativisticly.

The main reason I wouldn’t is that I dislike a lot of the sub systems, I dislike the way magic is handled and it looks like it would be hard to give combat any kind of thematic weight. As opposed to say GURPS, which I could see working well, or HERO system, or cyberpunk 2020. To be ultra contrarian, I might choose 5E over Dungeon World. I’d want to hack both games heavily and I think I could hack 5E combat easier than I could hack Dungeon World combat. Although if I was forced to play out of the box I’d go for Dungeon World.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The main reason I wouldn’t is that I dislike a lot of the sub systems, I dislike the way magic is handled and it looks like it would be hard to give combat any kind of thematic weight. As opposed to say GURPS, which I could see working well, or HERO system, or cyberpunk 2020. To be ultra contrarian, I might choose 5E over Dungeon World. I’d want to hack both games heavily and I think I could hack 5E combat easier than I could hack Dungeon World combat. Although if I was forced to play out of the box I’d go for Dungeon World.

I think you could give combat thematic weight well enough, but yeah, it is rather involved and crunchy system that expects certain level of tactical play, so if that's not what one is interested about it might feel like a distraction.

 

[GothmogIV]

For what it's worth, I think the narrative-mechanical see-saw hinges on how players play their characters, and what the rule set allows them to do. If I want to be a pirate, for example, a more mechanical-orientated game might give me a subclass with certain pirate abilities, reactions, bonus actions, etc. In a more narrative game, it is more incumbent on the player to actually role play a pirate. In 5e, there are mechanical ideals, bonds, and flaws. In a more narrative game, a player brings much more of their creativity and individuality to the character.

I have run D&D 1, 2, 3, and 5. I have run Dragonbane, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and--soon--Castles&Crusades. I have run BRP and Call of Cthulhu. For my personal preference--and I am not yucking anyone's yum!--I prefer a more narrative game where the rules play less of a role in character personality and ability.

You want to be a pirate, matey? Role play a pirate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So maybe a solid start for defining a “narrative” game, or at least whatever Daggerheart is meant to be, is a game that expects (or maybe even requires?) that player choice matters in a fundamental way? That it should not (or maybe even cannot?) be ignored?

I think you could give combat thematic weight well enough, but yeah, it is rather involved and crunchy system that expects certain level of tactical play, so if that's not what one is interested about it might feel like a distraction.

And to connect this back to the origin of the thread, this sort of heavy and involved combat system is something DH shares with D&D, albeit they work rather differently. So should that count against DH being narrative?

 

[thefutilist]

I think you could give combat thematic weight well enough, but yeah, it is rather involved and crunchy system that expects certain level of tactical play, so if that's not what one is interested about it might feel like a distraction.

It’s not that it’s crunchy or tactical per say, I think if you’re going detailed you really need to add value given how much it ups the handling time.

I think my base line for good combat is Sorcerer. It can do everything well and is reasonably light and so what am I actually getting when I add complexity? Depending which side of the bed I get out of, even Apocalypse World fails that test.

 

[thefutilist]

I think you could give combat thematic weight well enough, but yeah, it is rather involved and crunchy system that expects certain level of tactical play, so if that's not what one is interested about it might feel like a distraction.

Here’s a simple scenario through which to analyse combat.

Dead girl the Sorceress has the Amulet and three skeletons guarding her. She’s in some kind of ruined church. Sir Goodman and Happy Elf want the Amulet. Happy Elf also used to be Dead girls lover. Also if Dead girl dies the skeletons de-animate.

So Sir Goodman charges into the church while Happy Elf sneaks around on the roof. Dead girl sends her skeletons after Sir Goodman and then Happy Elf drops down so he can try and get the Amulet.


So the type of dramatic questions and interplay I’d be looking for is…

If Dead girl just tries to escape can Happy Elf stop her and how? Like if he puts an arrow through her leg will that mean she is at risk of dying?

What happens when Happy elf tries to get the amulet without trying to harm Dead Girl, especially if she’s fighting back? Will he have to escalate and also go to potentially lethal force?

What happens if Sir Goodman is being overwhelmed and is at risk of dying. Can Happy Elf kill dead girl in the time it takes to stop the skeletons?

What happens if Dead girl stabs Happy Elf and flees? How does the fight with the skeletons influence Sir Goodman’s subsequent choices. Can he fight past them and try and drag Happy Elf away to safety. What happens if he leaves Happy Elf to die because the Amulet is more important. Can he get away from the skeletons?

Anyway I’m not saying being able to answer all these questions well would make one system better than another. I do want the system to add mechanical weight to at least some of the choices though. I'd find the above hard to do with 5E but I'm not intimately familiar with the system so I could be totally wrong.

 

[Campbell]

The slower moments don't have to be conflict neutral or without genuine stakes. They can simply be moments of play where the stakes are lower. but still contribute to the momentum of play. These smaller conflicts than become fertile ground to establish the sorts of details that bring meaning to the larger conflicts you snowball into.

This can include those moments of bonding and vulnerability that often come with their own social and emotional risks. Like sometimes in Masks your attempts to comfort your friends might instead lead to you taking on a bit of their emotional burdens.

 

[Campbell]

No Country for Old Men, Breaking Bad, Homicide and Sons of Anarchy are l very good examples of media that use conflicts to setup other conflicts (and mostly avoid scenes that exist only to establish things).