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

[pemerton]

I am not going to read 150 page thread for context, so if you want to make a point you need to make it in other way. Preferably under 150 pages, though I know you struggle with brevity.

I assume that reading the OP of the thread I linked to is not beyond your time and abilities?

It illustrates that what you call "bizarre games" seem pretty mainstream. It's not like most posters came in to tell the OP that they were doing things wrong . . .

 

[clearstream]

By way of a flagrant digression, to me at a cursory first-glance Daggerheart is a great example of what I mean about the valuable evolution of TTRPG design first seen in games associated with narrativism being picked up by designers and built into what I would call neotrad designs ("neotrad" labelling that exact trend in design).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I assume that reading the OP of the thread I linked to is not beyond your time and abilities?

I did read it yes.

It illustrates that what you call "bizarre games" seem pretty mainstream. It's not like most posters came in to tell the OP that they were doing things wrong . . .

What you mean by that? The conversation with the noble definitely affected the situation.

 

[pemerton]

For avoidance of doubt, I am not confused. I am pursuing a line of thought and would value others speaking to the points raised rather than questioning whether I ought to raise them.

You don't seem to mind questioning @Manbearcat's use of the word "conflict".

I mean, I'm pursuing a line of thought too, which is that quibbling over word usage in circumstances where the meaning is clear doesn't contribute to understanding.

Is it being held up an an example of a conversation with an NPC not changing the situation?

Yes it is. The situation is completely fixed in the mind of the GM. (Presumably based on what they have read in the module, which is Curse of Strahd.)

 

[pemerton]

I did read it yes.


What you mean by that? The conversation with the noble definitely affected the situation.

No it didn't. The GM's conception of the situation didn't change one iota.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No it didn't. The GM's conception of the situation didn't change one iota.

So you don't think that a cordial negotiation evolving into an impromptu assassination attempt and the characters ending up in stocks is not a meaningful change of direction? Then what the hell would be?

 

[FrogReaver]

No it didn't. The GM's conception of the situation didn't change one iota.

Wait, the GM preconceived of the 2 pcs being thrown in jail and the other 2 talking their way out of it? How did he know which pcs to conceive were going to do the insulting and threatening? Lucky guess?

I think you have something far more narrow in mind than the situation didn’t change, maybe the situation didn’t change in a particular way and hopefully the questions above help everyone figure out what specific way you have in mind.

 

[Campbell]

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.

Are you suggesting that just because play is more intentional that people are not inhabiting or portraying their characters? Come the <naughty word> on. You should know better by now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you suggesting that just because play is more intentional that people are not inhabiting or portraying their characters? Come the <naughty word> on. You should know better by now.

No, but according to the post I responded to they do not do it in engaging and entertaining manner.

 

[thefutilist]

Right. Seems like the conversation changed the situation pretty significantly.

To give an example of how this might play out if it was my group.


So the guy who is captured refuses to escape because he’s taking some kind of principled stand.

A trial happens and that guy speaks in his defence, addressing the subjugated crowd. He’s prepared to die fighting tyranny. Sounds like a conflict. Do his words inspire the crowd to put aside their own lives in fighting the mad king?

And hey, here’s where the specifics of what is said can become important. If he says ‘you can live for life’s sake but living in fear isn’t living’. Then that’s a slightly different conflict to something like ‘tyrants everywhere must be overthrown.’

anyway we roll and he fails and it turns out that actually the populace will carry on, even if many are ashamed to do so, or admire the bravery or foolishness of the man.

He’s executed and we get some kind of theme.

Or the crowd rise up, a riot breaks out, we get some kind of theme.

What we don’t get is a multiple page thread about what’s realistic.


Now this isn’t even to say that the direction of the thread is wrong. It does show that focus on the mechanics of the situation might be a little bit of a distraction though because they’re always down stream of what we find cool. Why we're playing is really important and the source of the primary judgement about the actual gameplay loop.