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

Campbell said:

Let's forget about labels and instead discuss the sort of play experience I look for when playing games like Blades in the Dark.

I am playing Tal Rajan (a Lurk) who has the following set of premises:

• He is an Iruvian Noble (so someone who comes from privilege but is a foreigner)
• His Vice is his Faith in She Who Slays in Darkness, a dark Iruvian Forgotten Goddess who demands her followers deliver justice to the guilty. He indulges in this vice by ritual murdering those he considers guilty on his off time (delivering the blade he uses to a temple of the dark goddess).
• His rival is Darmot, an honest but violent Bluecoat
• His friend is Rosalyn Kellis, a doting noblewoman whose custody he was placed in as a child.
• He is a part of the Wayward Souls, a weird and fanatical group of assassins all with their own heretical beliefs.
• The crew is allies with the Circle of Flame and enemies with the Grinders

What I'm looking for is for play to proceed from a place where the GM is constantly framing situations to put these premises these premises (and the ones attached to the other characters) at stake. Put them through the crucible and see what comes out the other end.

What I'm not looking for is premise drift that does not come as fallout from addressing these things. The opportunities we are presented with, the complications we deal with, the faction clocks in play should all reflect on these premises in one way or another.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Is that something that Blades actually requires? Because if it is, I don't think it consistently materialises in our game. Sometimes things are personal, related to this stuff about the characters, but often not. It is just common crap related to being a criminal and such.

clearstream said:

Can they establish what is at stake for NPCs?

Click to expand...

I don't know what this means. The notion of what is at stake in a scene is about the player of the game. It's a concept that sits in the same general domain as literary criticism: like, we ask what is at stake for a protagonists.

In the context of RPGing, if we're establishing and resolving stakes for NPCs, then we've left player-driven RPGing way behind in the rearview mirror!

To make the same point by reference to actual published games: the GM in BW or in DitV can't "say 'yes'" to a NPC's declared action; in AW the GM never rolls the dice - Seize By Force, Go Aggro and Seduce/Manipulate are rules the players invoke, that resolve stakes for their PCs.

clearstream said:

The rough problem I'm trying to solve is - what is the difference between the nature of the fiction and its content? @hawkeyefan wrote

Click to expand...

He and I have both answered this: by "the nature" of the fiction, @hawkeyefan meant whether or not what is at stake, and the thematic nature of resolution (assuming resolution has some thematic nature), is established unilaterally by the GM

clearstream said:

The meaning of ludonarrative is that it is the sort of narrative organic to games, as distinct from that organic to other mediums such as books or films.

Click to expand...

I still don't know what this means. Like, what sort of narrative is organic to books? Off the top of my head, I think of four books: The Woman in White, The Quiet American, Myself and Marco Polo, and Ulysses.

Or to films? I think of Black Panther, The Seventh Seal, Citizen Kane and Ashes of Time.

Similarly, I have no idea what narrative is organic to games. Or even to RPGs.

clearstream said:

The court and the King are presumably content, so what must nature refer to? Ordinarily in sandboxes, players decide what's at stake in a scene... otherwise the scene doesn't occur.

Click to expand...

It's not true that, ordinarily in a sandbox, the players decide what's at stake in a scene. Very often this is established by the GM, as part of the process of keying the sandbox.

clearstream said:

I mean that they decide together if there is a court, and if there is a King, and what the King's motives are, and so on.

Click to expand...

What process are you talking about here. Free conversation? The player declaring and succeeding on a King-wise check? Something else?

clearstream said:

I don't think how it would be resolved is under contention. Is it? It's the setup itself. The King's motives. How they respond to the PC's actions. Whether player will communicate to GM some stakes with the expectation that GM will adjust the scene if needed to respect and center on those stakes? And whether that can be done in the moment, or must be part of setup going in.

Click to expand...

I still have very little idea what you're talking about.

Let's consider a game of AW. The player is playing The Driver. Previously, some roll they made failed and the GM made a hard move - the (NPC) hardholder confiscated the PC's car. So now the player goes to confront the hardholder: "I want my car back!" It's a charged interaction, and so the player rolls to Read a Person. Being a Driver with +2 sharp, they succeed and so, over the course of the conversation, obtain an answer to the question "How could I get your character - the hardholder - to give me back my car?" That answer comes from the GM, playing the NPC. The rule note (p 201) that "“Dude, sorry, no way” is a legit answer to “how could I get your character to __?” But it is legit for the GM to have this be the answer from their NPC hardholder? Well, the rules tell the GM to be a fan of the characters, and p 114 elaborates thus:


So the GM is not going to have the hardholder say "Dude, sorry, no way". The hardholder will say whatever it is that they say, that also fits with the GM's agenda and principles. As a move, it will most likely be providing an opportunity, with a cost. But perhaps it will be something else - say, announcing offscreen badness - "Sure dude, you can have your car back. I mean, it's not like it's any use now. Overnight Dremmer's gang snuck in and emptied out all our tanks - there's not even a litre of petrol left in the hardhold."

But let's say the GM's move is to offer an opportunity - the hardholder says "Sure, you can have your car back, if you <do this thing for me>". Of course the GM, in deciding what the <thing> is, will have regard to the agenda and principles - so it won't be an arbitrary fetch-quest.

And now the driver PC says, "Sure, I can do that, but just show me my car's OK in the meantime." And the GM makes a soft move in response, providing an opportunity right upfront: "No probs, come with me, I'm taking good care of it". And so the NPC takes the PC to where the car is garaged, and the player says "I get behind the wheel, and I say to the hardholder 'I can <do this thing you want me to do>, but I'm gonna need my car to do it'" And that's an attempt to Seduce/Manipulate, and the PC - being The Driver - gets to add their car's looks to the roll. And depending on the roll, maybe the PC gets to drive out right now in their car!

I have no idea whether that counts as your A, your B or your C. Contra @Crimson Longinus, it involves no "meta-acausal" whatever: it's just the player saying what their PC does, and the GM saying what happens next having regard to the rules of the game. But it's player-driven. And obviously is completely different, in processes of play and in play experience, from the example of the Curse of Strahd railroad that I linked to upthread.

Campbell said:

His Vice is his Faith in She Who Slays in Darkness, a dark Iruvian Forgotten Goddess who demands her followers deliver justice to the guilty. He indulges in this vice by ritual murdering those he considers guilty on his off time (delivering the blade he uses to a temple of the dark goddess).

Click to expand...

That's quite a hobby!

Campbell said:

What I'm looking for is for play to proceed from a place where the GM is constantly framing situations to put these premises (and the ones attached to the other characters) at stake. Put them through the crucible and see what comes out the other end.

What I'm not looking for is premise drift that does not come as fallout from addressing these things. The opportunities we are presented with, the complications we deal with, the faction clocks in play should all reflect on these premises in one way or another.

Click to expand...

Right.

So, here's some of Aedhros's PC sheet:


So what I'm looking for in play is situations, and consequences, that speak to this character and these concerns and motivations. To put it in a nutshell, there should be opportunities to use the Song of Soothing, where doing so will mean admitting that Thurandril is right! Or maybe the only way to avenge the death of my spouse is to completely subordinate myself to Thoth!

The colour of play should be Elven Etharchs who spurn the Dark Elf; ill-fated fellows with whom Aedhros consorts; and moments of quietly singing the Elven Lays, perhaps even having a passing Elf notice and take pity despite Aedrhos's ill-fated nature.

This character is not an "adventurer". He doesn't undertake quests. He hangs about the port, among the ill-favoured, overlooked by Thurandril, alternately wallowing in bitterness or doing some good for someone despite his best intentions.

Crimson Longinus said:

Hmm. Is that something that Blades actually requires? Because if it is, I don't think it consistently materialises in our game. Sometimes things are personal, related to this stuff about the characters, but often not. It is just common crap related to being a criminal and such.

Click to expand...

I think a game ran and played according to best practices will look a lot like that and I think it's where the game really sings. It's what the reward systems seem to point towards (the stuff you get personal and crew XP for). It's also what I got out of the actual plays I saw John Harper run.

Nevertheless, the important part of the post was getting the actual agenda I approach games like Apocalypse World with across.

Why is it so difficult for some to differentiate the presence of certain pieces of content within a scene and what is at stake in a scene?
Say, for example, a PC has entered into a jousting tournament. The presence of a duke and his daughter in an observation box, the duke's loyal knight dressed in tournament regalia to fight the PC, an audience of village peasants and royal observers, and a jester are all content of the scene.

But what's at stake?

Say the player says, "If I win this tournament, I expect to have an opportunity to meet the duke's daughter, alone, in the castle gardens to discuss the duke's plans related to his sworn enemy, Baron Updike."

In Ironsworn, the player invokes a Compel move to "Charm, pacify, barter, or convince" the duke to allow this visit---even if the duke isn't aware of what will be discussed. The player describes the persuasive action, perhaps with some banter, swordplay, and flattery.

If the Compel succeeds with a strong hit, the rules clearly state that the person who has been compelled will "do what you want or share what they know."

At this point, the GM has now, by rule, agreed to these stakes assuming the other parts of the Compel move are met ---

This move doesn’t give you free rein to control the actions of other characters in your world. Remember: Fiction first. Consider their motivations. What is your leverage over them? What do they stand to gain or avoid? Do you have an existing relationship? If your argument has no merit, or your threat or promise carries no weight, you can’t make this move. You can’t intimidate your way out of a situation where you are at a clear disadvantage. You can’t barter when you have nothing of value to offer.

Click to expand...

If the GM disagrees that the stakes are relevant, then the GM can suggest or revise how far the duke is willing to assent to the player's declared intent. But once the stakes are set, it is imperative on the GM to faithfully maintain the intent if the player succeeds---even to the point of "revising" or "introducing" elements of the fiction that maintain fidelity to the player's declared stakes in the outcome.

In trad/GM-driven play, there are no mechanics that can compel the GM to agree to a set of relevant stakes and then adhere to them upon success. If the player wins the tournament, the GM is, BY RULE (or lack thereof), not bound to the stakes. (S)he can introduce some other complication or "thing" that derails the intent. The GM may decide that despite the duke's intent, the daughter refuses to meet with the PC. The GM may decide that it's "realistic" for the duke's guards to take offense at the PC and waylay him/her before the meeting ever happens. The GM may decide that the duke's archrival murders the duke's daughter before the meeting happens. There's any number of ways the GM might "decide" that to "maintain game world fidelity" that the PC's meeting with the daughter never happens.

Instead of looking for ways to evolve the fiction in a way that fulfills the outlined stakes, the GM subverts them through any dozens of means at his/her disposal to further "the story" in the way the GM sees fit.

Now of course, can a 5e / trad GM follow the same guidelines and adhere to the player's declared stakes? Of course! But there's no rule or compulsion other than "GM thinks this is interesting." Whereas Ironsworn constrains the fiction that the GM introduces to maintain fidelity to the player's success.

Or of course the GM can ignore the constraints placed around the Compel move entirely. At which point the GM has ceased playing Ironsworn and is temporarily playing some other game, because the GM is no longer playing by the agreed-upon rules.

To avoid this sort of compulsion, in 99% of my experience with D&D 3e and Savage Worlds (when I'm not GM-ing), the GM just sets the stakes for individual actions or scenes to be incredibly low, basically never allowing the full realization of a player's intent, and instead puts up road block after roadblock, since simply giving the player their declared success is somehow "boring" or "easy mode" or "emblematic of the wussification of Gen Z" or whatever.

innerdude said:

To avoid this sort of compulsion, in 99% of my experience with D&D 3e and Savage Worlds (when I'm not GM-ing), the GM just sets the stakes for individual actions or scenes to be incredibly low, basically never allowing the full realization of a player's intent, and instead puts up road block after roadblock, since simply giving the player their declared success is somehow "boring" or "easy mode" or "emblematic of the wussification of Gen Z" or whatever.

Click to expand...

We had an example not too far upthread:

Crimson Longinus said:

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.

Click to expand...

In this case, it was not "boring" or "easy mode", but "realism":

Crimson Longinus said:

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

<snip>

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.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

It is not a red herring. Circles checks and similar are player powers that let them acausally affect the game reality. Just accept it, as it is the truth, and admitting it makes the discussion easier. And yes, the flip side is that this takes the decision away from the GM, which I think it is important part for you. Nevertheless, the process is what it is.

Like this is not a minor flavour difference, it is quite fundamental. It is completely different game if a character can make the things they want to appear merely by looking hard enough for them anywhere, or whether they actually need to look for things that are predetermined to exist and at the locations they're determined to be.

And both are fine, but I don't think the former is inherently a higher agency state, it just has different sort of agency. Like I have said before, the latter is for example required to have genuinely agency of solving a murder mystery. It also required for haven certain sort of strategic agency that relies on utilising existing elements.


Well, someone has to, usually it is the GM. I don't remember whether in BW the GM must let the player to roll anything they might demand. At least I know they can make the DC effectively impossible (which is way easier in BW than in 5e D&D) Also in Blades the GM set the position and effect, and I don't think there is stipulation that the player must be able to have any effect they desire. So in practically any game some things are impossible, and usually it is the GM who makes the final determination what those things are.


First, we don't know if there was any roll, what chances it had to succeed, and what the outcome would have been if it had. Second, the player might choose still to do it even if they don't think they can succeed; they might want to make a point by being a martyr. Third, whilst sometimes it might be good idea for the GM to reminds the player about the realities of their position, I don't think the GM necessarily need to hold their hand this way. The players are free to make choices, even bad ones.*

(* Also, several times I've seen players to make choices that I as GM thought were insane, but then the dice turned out to like the players a lot and by a miracle they manage to pull it off.)

Click to expand...

All this post does is proclaim your prioritisation of GM-driven play. The "realities" of the situation are simply the GM's personal imaginings.

In Burning Wheel, what is possible or impossible is a matter of consensus, not GM fiat. This is one manifestation of the general proposition that the players and GM collaborate in establishing the game, the premise and themes, etc.

As far as player-side abilities that permit the player to oblige the GM to frame a scene - say, an encounter with a friendly NPC, or whatever - these have been part of RPGing since its inception. When an AD&D fighter reaches 9th level, they attract followers. Is this "meta-acausal". When an AD&D paladin reaches 4th level, they can call for a warhorse, and the GM is obliged - as per the DMG - to at least narrate a dream or vision that reveals where this horse can be found. Is that "meta-acausal"?

These abilities do not require the player to do anything but declare actions for their PC: "I build a castle" - and then, by the rules of the game, followers arrive; "I pray for a vision of my warhorse" - and then, by the rules of the game, the character receives a vision which does not lie; "I look around for a useful/friendly/whatever person" - and then, by the rules of the game, the dice are rolled to see what sort of scene the GM frames.

Do you also regard Apocalypse World - where the players' influence over the stakes and consequences is established via the rules for moves, including the rules that constrain what moves the GM can make - as "meta-acausal"?

Campbell said:

I think a game ran and played according to best practices will look a lot like that and I think it's where the game really sings. It's what the reward systems seem to point towards (the stuff you get personal and crew XP for). It's also what I got out of the actual plays I saw John Harper run.

Click to expand...

I've never read the BitD rulebook, and have only skimmed bits of the SRD. But the latter did have this about the role of the GM:


That seems fairly similar to Apocalypse World. I mean, the GM doesn't plan events ahead of time, so where is the "interesting stuff" coming from (and what makes it interesting)? From whatever it is that the players bring with them.

Crimson Longinus said:

Hmm. Is that something that Blades actually requires? Because if it is, I don't think it consistently materialises in our game. Sometimes things are personal, related to this stuff about the characters, but often not. It is just common crap related to being a criminal and such.

Click to expand...

Upthread I asked,

pemerton said:

Are you confusing necessary with sufficient conditions?

Click to expand...

Now there's more evidence that you may well be - apparently you're not playing "story now"/narrativistic BitD!

Crimson Longinus said:

The players usually do, though sometimes there are external developments that sort of push things in certain direction. This is similar to my D&D, though I think the latter happens somewhat more in D&D. (I don't think it needs to, but I like dynamism that unfolding events the characters need to react to cause.) However, in D&D the scope of what the characters can choose to pursue is much wider, and the potential sessions that may ensue from player choices differ from each other much more than they do in the Blades. Blades is thematically very focused and structurally formulaic, so it limits a lot what sort of things can happen in the game and how they happen.

Click to expand...

Okay, so the players pick the scores. Sometimes something may become more pressing than other concerns, and so it gets priority. That sounds pretty standard.

What kind of scores are you choosing and why? Can you give an example?

Crimson Longinus said:

De jure in Blades the player decides and in D&D the GM does, but de facto the fictional positioning dictates it most of the time in both.

The only reason why there is more agonising over this in Blades is because the skills are intentionally overlapping and confusing (which I find very annoying.) But then you of course just use the best trait you can justify applying to the situation. And if the GM doesn't like your justifications, they can let that affect the effect of the roll. Also I am not sure what RAW happens in Blades if the player makes completely absurd skill choice.

Click to expand...

The actions intentionally overlap to give some leeway. I find there's little agonizing over it if you follow the principles of play. It takes some getting used to, but it's not like there aren't similar things in D&D and other games.

Do you think this gives the players some freedom to interpret the fiction and decide what they can do? More so when compared to a system where the GM declares what skill or action pertains?

Crimson Longinus said:

Hmm. Is that something that Blades actually requires? Because if it is, I don't think it consistently materialises in our game. Sometimes things are personal, related to this stuff about the characters, but often not. It is just common crap related to being a criminal and such.

Click to expand...

I think that "just common crap related to being a criminal" hints that the GM isn't incorporating all these elements the way that he could.

How often do your friends/rivals come up? What about the factions that you selected at the start of play that are allied with your crew, or enemies of your crew? What about your contact? Do you have a web of NPCs about whom you care at all?