What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Apocalypse World Discussion)

[LesserThan]

my perspective that every single RPG that has existed in tabletop has at its core a narrative improv game,

Then you have been wrong. D&D began as a minis war game. Braunstien began as a minis war game, etc, but I dont want to derail this thread.

There is a place for narrative games, but not all are. As Edwards said, I think Pemberton quoted it..."you can play any game any way you like". But, it does not make them what you like them to be, OUTSIDE of your table.

Why do I feel like I am reading the Forge again? Kind of wish I never presented that video.

 

[LesserThan]

I certainly have my own biases with my perception, but I have mostly experienced a lot of the bludgeoning from Simulationists bashing other games and playstyles that weren't "sufficiently simulationist enough" for the self-proclaimed Simulationists.

Pundit is a narcassist.
Play how you like and ignore peoples labels. If your group is enjoying the game, then who cares. If you want more of Part A, seek it, from AW or DW, or that Bike kids game even.

I cant add much to the STORY NOW, as still do not fully understand it and may never be able to. Sorry if this has ruined your Narrative AW thread on a derail.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Pundit is a narcassist.
Play how you like and ignore peoples labels. If your group is enjoying the game, then who cares. If you want more of Part A, seek it, from AW or DW, or that Bike kids game even.

I cant add much to the STORY NOW, as still do not fully understand it and may never be able to. Sorry if this has ruined your Narrative AW thread on a derail.

Oh I think we all agree with you on the core sentiment. Play any game, play it any way you enjoy. I enjoy using analysis of how I enjoy playing to help inform me on which games are more suitable and techniques to use, etc. I am often puzzled by the resistance in some quarters to this, and the notion that not every game is perfectly useful in doing at least some things. I think it commonly boils down to the existence of certain "D&D Uber alles" bandwagon, but of course not always.

 

[pawsplay]

That's probably why the Big Model doesn't suggest what you say it suggests. Here is the relevant passage from Edwards' essay:

Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in for several different processes and goals, some of which were incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.​

I don't actually grasp the substance of the supposed misunderstanding. Edwards and I agree, essentially, on what "story" in an RPG means.

Edwards suggests "narrativism" is a particular agenda. I say that all the elements he describes are integral to any style of play. That's the substance of the my objection to this model.

 

[Emberashh]

Then you have been wrong. D&D began as a minis war game. Braunstien began as a minis war game, etc, but I dont want to derail this thread.

Braunstein has the lovely distinction of revealing why the Improv Game is so inherent to all RPGs. The moment you ask people to embody characters, the improv game is an unavoidable consequence.

And DND was not immune to that effect, as can be revealed by Arneson's DND. But even beyond that, DND goes way farther than Braunstein did in terms of eliciting an improv game, because DND characters are more directly substantive, various, and deliberate, even in ODND, than the rudimentary and limited selection of townspeople characters of the original Braunstein.

Asking players to embody character archtypes like Knights and Wizards and Thieves, when any kid whose read a fantasy book would have already pretended to be these things, is just begging for an improv game to emerge, especially as these characters interact within the context of the game.

The fact that Wesely had to start improvising new rules on the spot just because of this spontaneous improv that was happening in the game should tell you something about how what I've said applies to what happened in that first game.

 

[pemerton]

I don't actually grasp the substance of the supposed misunderstanding. Edwards and I agree, essentially, on what "story" in an RPG means.

Upthread, you said this:

The Big Model / GNS doesn't really admit that "narrative" is a thing. It doesn't even mention story as something involved in Exploration. "Developing a story" is a Creative Agenda in The Big Model, which suggests simulationist and gamist games don't have a relationship with story-making.

And that's not correct. "Developing a story" is not a creative agenda in The Big Model. Creative agendas are competition ("step on up"/gamism), addressing thematic premise via play ("story now"/narrativism), and - subject to some dispute - simply exploring/enjoying the imagined stuff for its own sake (sim).

There is no posited creative agenda of "developing a story".

Edwards suggests "narrativism" is a particular agenda. I say that all the elements he describes are integral to any style of play. That's the substance of the my objection to this model.

Well, the element of "narrativism" that Edwards' describes is addressing thematic premise via play. And that is not present in all RPGing. For instance, when - about once every two years - I run a session of B/X or AD&D, that is not present. It's dungeons and 10' poles and the like all the way. (The creative agenda is low-stakes gamism.)

 

[pawsplay]

There is no posited creative agenda of "developing a story".

Well, the element of "narrativism" that Edwards' describes is addressing thematic premise via play. And that is not present in all RPGing.

So, every creative agenda is seeking a kind of payoff. What would you say the payoff is for addressing a thematic premise? What happens when you address a thematic premise, in the context of a game that makes stories?

For instance, when - about once every two years - I run a session of B/X or AD&D, that is not present. It's dungeons and 10' poles and the like all the way. (The creative agenda is low-stakes gamism.)

I say the agenda is addressing the thematic premise, "What peril are you willing to face for gold or glory?" etc. There's no "plot," nothing but characters and their motivations (alignments) and an escalating danger meter (level). "What does it mean to be a lawful character in a canyon overrun by goblins?" That's your Story Now, right there.

I'm telling you, it's integral to the RPG experience. If you retreat too much from the promise of unexpected narrative events, you just aren't playing an RPG any more. Anything that meets the criteria for being a bona fide RPG has "story now" in its bones. It's implicit in the promise of free will.

 

[thefutilist]

Edwards suggests "narrativism" is a particular agenda. I say that all the elements he describes are integral to any style of play.

You've got it wrong. Edwards is calling a particular agenda Narrativism. You're confusing an element of play for an agenda. Does that clear things up?

 

[pemerton]

I say the agenda is addressing the thematic premise, "What peril are you willing to face for gold or glory?" etc. There's no "plot," nothing but characters and their motivations (alignments) and an escalating danger meter (level). "What does it mean to be a lawful character in a canyon overrun by goblins?" That's your Story Now, right there.

I'm telling you, it's integral to the RPG experience. If you retreat too much from the promise of unexpected narrative events, you just aren't playing an RPG any more. Anything that meets the criteria for being a bona fide RPG has "story now" in its bones. It's implicit in the promise of free will.

I'm telling you, I've played and GMed RPGs in which there is no addressing of a thematic premise.

Declaring my PC "lawful" and then sending them into the Caves of Chaos doesn't make it story now. It just puts a fig leaf over the ensuing dungeon-bashing.

 

[Emberashh]

So, every creative agenda is seeking a kind of payoff. What would you say the payoff is for addressing a thematic premise? What happens when you address a thematic premise, in the context of a game that makes stories?



I say the agenda is addressing the thematic premise, "What peril are you willing to face for gold or glory?" etc. There's no "plot," nothing but characters and their motivations (alignments) and an escalating danger meter (level). "What does it mean to be a lawful character in a canyon overrun by goblins?" That's your Story Now, right there.

I'm telling you, it's integral to the RPG experience. If you retreat too much from the promise of unexpected narrative events, you just aren't playing an RPG any more. Anything that meets the criteria for being a bona fide RPG has "story now" in its bones. It's implicit in the promise of free will.

Plot Now may be a more accurate term for what these folks are after. As I related in the other thread, games work best as a medium for story when they're about story making rather than story telling, because games inherently provide for story making. Even baseball.

Game 3 of the 1932 World Series didn't become Legendary when Babe Ruth called his shot in the 5th inning just because it was cool. The entire game of Baseball and how it was designed allowed for the emergent narrative that came when a nation of different baseball teams competed over a year of games, leading to Babe Ruth pointing that bat towards center field. Such a story doesn't come from people telling stories, but simply playing the game.

Now, these folks take issue with that because they read too much into how all of that makes their games sound bad, especially when I point out that they're all about story telling (and is clearly what they want), but even their style of games aren't incompatible with storymaking. I've never not praised Ironsworn and its descendent games for doing this well, and I'd throw Fellowship in there too.