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

[thefutilist]

In practice, in my experience at least , the content of "fun ride" RPGing is provided overwhelmingly by the GM, and fits within conceits provided by the game. An example of what I mean is this:

This fits my experience as well. When you genuinely get questions you want to answer and like the system (not the mechanics, the system), play becomes absolutely awesome. There’s nothing like it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, so what you're describing is a common problem in conceptual ontologies. Picture it topographically. We have a contoured plane and at various places peaks. This is a many-dimensional plane - one dimension for each degree of freedom of expression - but for now think of it as three dimensional: game dimensions x, y, z. Thus a high peak in the top right corner is a maximised expression of the three dimensions (aka game properties.)

The peaks represent modes, and their slopes represent neighbours of the modes. A little less x, a little less y, a little less z. So when we talk about a mode of play (or a game genre FTM) we are talking about a neighbourhood in which are found recognisably similar games... but they are also when we scrutinse them recognisably dissimilar. In theory the top of the peak is a sharp-point hard up against the top-right corner, but in practice it's a blunt peak with a few games that are pretty strongly in the "genre" - genre-defining, you might say - but each slightly different from the other. A strong family resemblance, in Wittgenstein's language.


I think so too. You end up with a set with some defining characteristics, but the thing about sets is you can always define new ones, and the new ones can intersect the old ones. Still, generally for a time one can define genres and sub-genres in a meaningful and useful way. And equally, when one is speaking of membership in sets defined by collections of properties, dimensions of the definition can't really be protected: they're always available to the definition for another set that intersects the first (i.e. includes other dimensions, or excludes some of them).

One important note here is that sometimes the sum contains something other than the parts. Taking games to be mechanisms, perhaps the analogy of an ICE can work. The sparkplugs alone won't propel you from 0-200MPH in ten seconds. So that provides modalists with a strong reason for cherishing their mode. They may say, and possibly with justice, that the sum is greater than the parts.


The point of a spectrum is to resist clear lines, not to look for them! However, I don't think the cutoff is arbitrary. In many domains, particular mixtures prove to be sweet-spots... more appealing than other mixtures containing some but not all of the ingredients. Of course, there are other equally sweet-spots containing some of the ingredients, with perhaps some others.

I feel like a fruitful path for hybridists is to accept that modalists are identifying a sweet-spot, and insist in return that other recipes that may very well share ingredients are also sweet-spots. For one thing, this requires getting a bit more particular about that label "trad". What really is trad? I don't think I've ever experienced anything like the list of features that I've seen put forward in this thread to define that mode of play.

Is the "trad" folk have in mind sandbox? If so, is it OSR-ish sandbox? D&D-ish sandbox? Rules-lite sandbox? Rulings-not-rules sandbox? Rules-not-rulings sandbox? Neotrad sandbox? Or is it AP specific? Does that include CoC APs? How about Masks of Nyarlothep? Does it include RQ APs? How about Griffin Mountain? Is it only when the AP is played a certain way (playstyle dependent)? Or does it include when a group deconstruct the AP and use it for setting, adversary and adversity inspiration?

Comparing a modal view of "narrativist" play with a fuzzy hybrid strawman for other play, isn't comparing figs with figs and can be readily foreseen to not work out very well, e.g. to invite fuzzy hybrid views of "narrativist" in return.

I dismiss your model and propose a different one, something more like software architecture and implementation. There ARE of course many ways to approach any given problem, but a particular construct, let us say rules/mechanics/setting/preparation/backstory/characterization/and then framing and play decisions is a UNIQUE THING, it has a unique character that is not simply a spot on a landscape. It is much closer to a mechanism or a tool. There are specific traits, functional and non-functional. You cannot simply jam different things together, or solve a given problem -well at least- by any arbitrary arrangement.

 

[FrogReaver]

I dismiss your model and propose a different one, something more like software architecture and implementation. There ARE of course many ways to approach any given problem, but a particular construct, let us say rules/mechanics/setting/preparation/backstory/characterization/and then framing and play decisions is a UNIQUE THING, it has a unique character that is not simply a spot on a landscape. It is much closer to a mechanism or a tool. There are specific traits, functional and non-functional. You cannot simply jam different things together, or solve a given problem -well at least- by any arbitrary arrangement.

Pretty sure that’s what he said?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I made a bit of a hash of that last post. I’ll try and explain more thoroughly but it’s a hard subject and to write diplomatically would take too long. So I’m going to have to attack a huge amount of Narrativist play.

Hidden backstory is stuff given fictional positioning that the players aren’t yet aware of.

This became an ‘apparent’ problem because of the important papers in the safe. There are some important papers in the safe and the character tries to pick the lock, is successful and opens the safe. Yet there are no papers to be found. (cue the tears)

Everybody who has ever had a problem with that has massively misdiagnosed why their play was dysfunctional. So they do the really silly thing and try and fix it at the mechanical level.

A common resolution system break down goes as follows. There is an intent (get the papers from the safe), there is an execution (use my lock picking tools to open the safe). And there is an effect (the safe is open and I can get the papers)

That seems to solve the problem because now we’re rolling for intent, not for execution. The GM can no longer welch us.

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.

Or the other version. You roll for intent and it has be situationally binding. You have to meet the princess which means you have to skip straight to meeting her. It basically cuts the scene (stops escalation as well but that’s almost incidental at this point).

If you don’t immediately cut the scene you have to try and railroad each other towards a preset destination. Nothing of consequence can happen in case it messes up the stakes, that you’ve earned by rolling for them.

If you’re familiar with Apocalypse World you’ll see people who think intent is binding get really confused by the seize by force move. They’ve rolled for it and yet the GM can immediately take it away again.

IMHO this is ALL a problem of failure to allow the player to initially establish what they're putting at risk! That could be a failure of transparency in which the GM and player are failing to communicate, or a result of hidden backstory which clobbers the fictional position. Now, interestingly, you CAN have hidden backstory of a sort, like in DW (or AW for that matter) where dangers might not be known ahead of time but 'on a map' or 'part of a front'. HOWEVER, the GM is heavily bound by principles which, if followed correctly, will prevent the sorts of issues you are encountering here.

So, for instance, if the player is rolling for his PC to find the papers in the safe, by cracking it presumably, then IT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED that the consequences of not getting those papers is on the table. Fictionally the GM can describe it as "the safe is empty" and in AW/DW that would simply be a GM move that would be perfectly fine on a 6-. Success is likewise not a problem, the player and the GM have already established that this outcome is within the bounds of what can happen. Thus 'intent' and 'action resolution' can, in this sort of case, be brought fully into harmony with each other.

Anyway on the creative level what starts to happen is that there’s just a push and pull over the course of the story. The fundamental dysfunction hasn’t been fixed and if you’re not 17 then you’ll almost inevitably have to change the role of the GM. Or in games without a GM everybody becomes the GM.

This new GM ends up being a facilitator of the players. They’re not actually answering premise because their job is to challenge the players characters. They have the same (or similar) relationship to the players as Brennan Lee-Mulligan or Matt Mercer has to their players.

So that’s my issue.

I don't know much about your examples here, but the GM in games like BW seems to be pretty much a 'framer of scenes and bringing of opposition'. That's fine. This IS Story Now Narrativist play, there's no place things are supposed to go. Play to Find Out. The GM isn't pushing, the GM is simply letting the poo fall where the poo may fall.

Now I’ll talk about what the original dysfunction was/is for anyone who finds my ranting at all compelling.

Yeah it is kind of the GM having story control but probably not in the way most people think.

The basic act of role-playing is that I say something, you listen to what I say and use that when you say something in return.

Creative agenda pay off is the shared social reward between two people. If there’s an agenda mismatch. Say you open the safe and there’s nothing there and the GM grins at you like you’re an idiot (which is rewarding for both people with a G agenda). Then if you’re playing for story you’ll be really confused as to what’s going on. There is no communal reward, you just do actually feel like an idiot. If the GM is exerting plot control as well. You’re already in the bad creative relationship I outline above, just a different version of it. The GM is still and always will be a tyrant but now you have system tools to wield against them.

I disagree! Why does the player feel like an idiot? He's playing, and he's finding out! What does he do now? His sister is going to be executed tomorrow and he's got no evidence to exonerate her. This is where the rubber meets the road, you are now going to find out what your PC is made of.

So what should the relationship look like?

You’re both interested in where the fiction leads by fundamentally disinvesting your control of it. You shouldn't want to meet the princess (as author), it should simply not be a concern. As audience, yeah, you can want your character to meet her all you want. In fact play is a failure if you aren’t emotionally invested in certain things happening. That just has no impact at all (or very minimal) in how you utilise the fiction and system. That’s both of you. Even in a gmless game that should be the attitude. As author you do not care.

All I as the player have to do is play as my character. I want to meet the princess, so I do all the things necessary to achieve that. If, as a player, the dice tell me this is not how it will play out, then that's fine too, those are the terms of engagement with the game. I might, at most, think "gosh it would have been interesting." Oh well. I RP my now very disappointed character going on a 3 day drinking binge and waking up in the King's gaol with a bad hangover and a 300 coin fine that he cannot pay!

So what do you do as author? Well you make creative decisions in line with what has been established with no regard to the outcome. One common way of doing this is known colloquially as ‘Doing what my character does’ or as GM ‘doing what my character does (as NPC)’ (I'm dumbing this down but that’s the basic gist of it)

Well, as GM, the PC is in the gaol and now I drop the news on him that he owes 300 coin. Now a new set of priorities and exigencies has established itself by dint of 'soft move, announce badness'.

Then we’re both in this together, looking at how the game fictions internal logic and causality drive play.

So back to the safe. You open it and there’s nothing there. Your character might be annoyed, you might be annoyed on behalf of your character. But if you’re annoyed as a player, you’re doing it wrong.

I don't need causality AHEAD OF TIME at all though, IMHO. I only need it to use AFTER some dice got rolled. First establish what the obstacle is, what the PC is risking, roll the dice, and tell the tale. Pure Fortune-In-the-Middle design!

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't need causality AHEAD OF TIME at all though, IMHO. I only need it to use AFTER some dice got rolled. First establish what the obstacle is, what the PC is risking, roll the dice, and tell the tale. Pure Fortune-In-the-Middle design!

On this point I don't agree (at least not based on most narrativist games i've seen described). There's usually a principle that things must 'follow from the fiction'. That's your ahead of time causality mandate. It's the principle that keeps narrativist games from being anything goes at anytime, from resolving all the narrative elements with a single dice roll at the start of the game, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have never played like that and it sounds utterly miserable to me.


Eh. In my experience people always make characters with at least some depth, and also, I don't think a lot of people need "win conditions" or goals beyond "cool characters having cool adventures." It is not about a goals, it is about having a fun ride. The goal is just an excuse for having a ride. Like most characters in my game care about gold, but I don't think the players really do. Players care about having exiting stuff for their characters to for, and treasure is just one convenient excuse to put their characters into a tight spot. Though obviously not the only one, there are way more interesting reasons.

OK, but think about the sort of immersion and verisimilitude that are often deployed as arguments in defending trad play. Here we see D&D in its pure form. Believe me, this is a game that was utterly commonplace, and is still utterly commonplace at many tables. I don't think people need 'win conditions' either, my point was that D&D in its raw form is SO bereft of anything else that you DO kind of need them! I mean, even if you follow the 'B2 pattern' of basically "hey we showed up, there's a dungeon here, lets loot it." well, you need a REASON, and the game, nor the setting in that case, gives you any.

Obviously I am not comparing this to how every modern trad/neo-trad player is playing D&D today, but there's a huge weight of established patterns, that are embodied in rules, in adventure design, in advice, etc. that all seem VERY much based on ideas and process that came out of that sort of play. I hear people even in this thread say stuff all the time that takes me right back to 1980!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, I think we can see in @Crimson Longinus's post that I've quoted another point of contrast: there are no questions to be answered. Play is just a "fun ride".

In practice, in my experience at least , the content of "fun ride" RPGing is provided overwhelmingly by the GM, and fits within conceits provided by the game. An example of what I mean is this:
The caring about gold is a conceit that is generated by D&D itself. It's a fig leaf that sits over the players' participation in the "stuff for their characters to do" that is provided by the GM.

This is, in my view, a long way from narrativist play.

Mate, the question answering is part of the ride. And the gold being excuse to do interesting stuff is as much a thing in the Blades than in the D&D, or arguably more, as it actually is pretty central conceit in that game. Like in that game too my chracter cares about getting rich, but it is not that I as player try "win" getting money, it is just an excuse for doing the heists, which challenge and put pressure on my character. Exact same thing in D&D. And like I said, it is just one possible motivation among many, and definitely not most interesting one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

On this point I don't agree (at least not based on most narrativist games i've seen described). There's usually a principle that things must 'follow from the fiction'. That's your ahead of time causality mandate. It's the principle that keeps narrativist games from being anything goes at anytime, from resolving all the narrative elements with a single dice roll at the start of the game, etc.

I don’t think that’s an accurate take on “fiction first”. It’s not saying that the fiction needs to happen first. It’s saying always think of the fiction first.

So when a roll is made and tells us the outcome… let’s say I try to bribe a guard… the result of the roll may tell us what the deal with the guars is. If I roll poorly, this guard is super loyal to his boss and won’t help me out in any way. If I succeed, maybe he hates his boss and decides to betray him and help me out.

Now, if it’s already been established that the guard is super loyal to his boss… maybe it’s the boss’s little cousin… then we would have to find some other reason that makes sense in the fiction if I succeeded in my roll. It wouldn’t make sense that he’d betray his cousin… so what is it that makes him agree to help me?

The GM’s job is not all that different in that sense… it’s just a matter of when this stuff is decided.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On this point I don't agree (at least not based on most narrativist games i've seen described). There's usually a principle that things must 'follow from the fiction'. That's your ahead of time causality mandate. It's the principle that keeps narrativist games from being anything goes at anytime, from resolving all the narrative elements with a single dice roll at the start of the game, etc.

Oh, sure, there has to be a coherent through narrative that arises, that's one of the constraints on play, probably the most important one. I just mean, I am not thinking like someone who's plotting out what happens next and saying "well, if the brick fell off the balcony, then the noise brought the watch." Instead "gosh, things went badly, the watch came. Why? Because he knocked a brick off the balcony!" I am not reasoning from causes to effects in order to construct my narrative (though I agree to a point with @thefutilist that this can be a way to play, but I don't put nearly the weight on it he does).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Mate, the question answering is part of the ride. And the gold being excuse to do interesting stuff is as much a thing in the Blades than in the D&D, or arguably more, as it actually is pretty central conceit in that game. Like in that game too my chracter cares about getting rich, but it is not that I as player try "win" getting money, it is just an excuse for doing the heists, which challenge and put pressure on my character. Exact same thing in D&D. And like I said, it is just one possible motivation among many, and definitely not most interesting one.

I’d argue that profit is much more of a meaningful motivation in Blades. For the characters, but also the players. There are far more interesting choices to be made in regard to Coin in Blades, and far more meaningful uses for it.

In 5E D&D as written, there’s little need for gold. Magic items are the much bigger element of treasure. Coin does very little in the game except serve as a kind of score. And maybe it’s used occasionally for some purchases or hirelings and the like, but that kind of play seems mostly a relic at this point. One of the primary complaints about 5e is how little use there is for gold.