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

[zakael19]

I think most games are simply a series of subsystems for performing various tasks, some more bolted on and some more consistent and scalable. I am guessing in a Story Now game that combat would be more an extension of the narrative mechanics ("what's an interesting thing to happen right now in this combat?) than a switch to objective success/failure tests.

In most narrative games, combat follows from the fiction. Because players set the conditions for the fiction, they're often developing the shape of anything which could be combat or as in @pemerton 's example of his character dropping their grudge dice moving the scene there in full.

See, this is a point that I keep hearing, but there is nothing in D&D that says it has to be a heavy combat crunch game. It's merely a system that has received a lot of attention because people like to play combat. But you could just as easily play D&D with a light combat focus. It goes back as far as the Village of Hommlet scenario in AD&D -- the adventure was mostly about going through the village, getting to know the residents and figuring out of what, if anything, was going on. Of course, there's a dungeon crawl at the end, but 80% of the scenario was merely conversations with villagers and roleplaying.

There's an assumption D&D is a combat heavy crunch game because of how much of the core mechanics, authored modules, and culture of play are biased towards some degree of tactical combat. This doesn't meant that there isn't a continuum of actual games, but the system is generally accepted to be carrying forward the dungeon crawling combat roots.

@Crimson Longinus
The GM determines what exists in the world, the player determines the actions of their characters. These together create the fictional positioning that helps us determine what happens. Also, why are those actions GM centred if it is the players who initiate them? What would not be GM centred? The player directly dictating the external reality of the setting? That's not their job.

Who determines what the action initiation and resolution is? In a lot of PBTAs the player is the one doing a move in the fiction which triggers mechanics that have combined fictional->mechanical resolutions. In D&D, the GM is the one who calls for/makes a roll "if one is required."

The skill system of 5e is also fundamentally constrained in creating narrative experiences as somebody noted up thread. Again, and this seems to be lost on some folks here over and over again, we're talking rules and systems enabling outcomes. An incredible group of RPers can get a narrative out of a system-less game. A group of folks playing together have a much higher chance of getting a free flowing PC focused narrative when a system is built to promote that. D&D 5e fundamentally is not, even if you can hack it together with either personalities or work.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That was you:

No, it was @thefutilist to whom I was responding.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Violence and fight scenes are not a problem (and often play a big role in games like Maks, Apocalypse Keys and Avatar). What is an issue for me (when I am looking for Story Now play) is the 'combat mode' where the normal flow of the conversation is disrupted. It's stuff like cyclical initiative, explicit time tracking, proscribed task-resolution oriented mechanics, etc. It's the technical specifics of the way combat is run in trad RPGs that presents a problem for taking an approach where the GM is actively framing elements to address the thematic premises of the characters.

Yeah, that seems fair enough. "Combat mode" is definitely a thing, and it makes people to focus on the tactics aspects of the game over the narrative. But I'm not sure DH avoids this "combat mode" thinking.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

I answered as best as I could based on the phrasing of your question.

Can such play… player driven play… be expected in a more trad game? My answer is “why would one expect that to be the case?” Is it possible? Yes! Do I expect it when someone proposes a game of 5e D&D to me? Nope!

Why would someone expect it?

 

[FrogReaver]

I answered as best as I could based on the phrasing of your question.

Can such play… player driven play… be expected in a more trad game? My answer is “why would one expect that to be the case?” Is it possible? Yes! Do I expect it when someone proposes a game of 5e D&D to me? Nope!

Why would someone expect it?

I’m not Crimson, but I think exploring just what needs to be true in d&d 5e for ‘player driven play’ to happen would be helpful.

 

[zakael19]

I answered as best as I could based on the phrasing of your question.

Can such play… player driven play… be expected in a more trad game? My answer is “why would one expect that to be the case?” Is it possible? Yes! Do I expect it when someone proposes a game of 5e D&D to me? Nope!

Why would someone expect it?

Hell, you basically have to hack in the mechanical support for it if you want to move beyond DM fiat.

 

[zakael19]

I’m not Crimson, but I think exploring just what needs to be true in d&d 5e for ‘player driven play’ to happen would be helpful.

Conflict resolution mechanics that allow for degrees of success, fail forward, and player-side action declarations would be a good start. All that has to be hacked in by a DM baseline. If it's reliant on DM home-brew, it's not suited from the system design perspective.

This is what Daggerheart is trying to marry - D&D tropes and some degree of play style, with some narrativest mechanics.

 

[FrogReaver]

Conflict resolution mechanics that allow for degrees of success, fail forward, and player-side action declarations would be a good start.

Okay, but Is that enough?

 

[Wolfpack48]

In most narrative games, combat follows from the fiction. Because players set the conditions for the fiction, they're often developing the shape of anything which could be combat or as in @pemerton 's example of his character dropping their grudge dice moving the scene there in full.

That sounds right, and I can see why some folks would want the system of the game to be consistently narrative in focus. From everything to character interaction, to stealthy infliltration to out and out combat.

There's an assumption D&D is a combat heavy crunch game because of how much of the core mechanics, authored modules, and culture of play are biased towards some degree of tactical combat. This doesn't meant that there isn't a continuum of actual games, but the system is generally accepted to be carrying forward the dungeon crawling combat roots.

That's fair. I think it was a bit further in that folks realized D&D didn't have to be 100% combat-fest, but there was always a bit of wargamer aspect to it, even tension relief. Traps, overland adventures, and character interaction were always something that folks gradually wanted more of (after tiring of hack and slay 100% for a while). I do feel like D&D has graduated a bit beyond that by now, but you can even see the tension there with a more "story-focused" series like Dragonlance. We never understood the hate for that series that others did, but I do remember folks thinking the chartacter relationship piece and overarching was a cool new lens available to the game. The railroad aspect was what people really kicked out against, but I think it sorta depended how you were playing at the time. I think much of all of this is how everyone's particular table evolved (or didn't).

The skill system of 5e is also fundamentally constrained in creating narrative experiences as somebody noted up thread. Again, and this seems to be lost on some folks here over and over again, we're talking rules and systems enabling outcomes. An incredible group of RPers can get a narrative out of a system-less game. A group of folks playing together have a much higher chance of getting a free flowing PC focused narrative when a system is built to promote that. D&D 5e fundamentally is not, even if you can hack it together with either personalities or work.

I'll only say that the system itself (the rulebooks) may be constrained, but I think lots of tables have learned over the years to do the work (it's not that hard) to add narrative and relationship elements. Heck, Jennell Jacquay's Central Casting came out in 1995.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Conflict resolution mechanics that allow for degrees of success, fail forward, and player-side action declarations would be a good start. All that has to be hacked in by a DM baseline. If it's reliant on DM home-brew, it's not suited from the system design perspective.

This is what Daggerheart is trying to marry - D&D tropes and some degree of play style, with some narrativest mechanics.

Why? Why is this needed? It seems incredibly mechanistic way of looking at things. I just do not recognise that this is necessary. The Blades game I'm playing in has this, but it is no more player driven than my D&D game.