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

[pemerton]

It is just that in trad approach the bad thing is usually assumed to be causally related to the action you took

And that causation is very often worked out by the GM making reference to notes/ideas that were/are hidden from the players.

This is part of @Campbell's reply to you: this sort of approach does not actively support player-driven, thematic and protagonistic RPGing. It encourages play based around discovering, and/or hedging against, and or working out the consequences of, GM's secret info.

For contrast, in 5e

Player chooses going in that they'll power attack, meaning that they will also not be able to avail of a shield.​

Player rolls to see if they succeed​

If they succeed, they roll again to decide if they inflict full or some lesser quantum of damage​

​

I don't think any of the above necessitates GM splicing: the meaningful difference is on what happens on a miss. In 5e combat, the price in tempo is deemed sufficient. Tempo, strictly speaking, isn't available as a systematic cost in AW. For 5e broader abilities, the DMG version of play is that GM must have in mind a meaningful cost for failure. In this narrow case, the absence of GM moves is distinctive.

The question asked was,

Why it is ill suited for it? It seems to be almost completely about what criteria the GM uses whilst framing content, and that seems rather system independent.

And here we see the answer. The system does tell us what content the GM can introduce, when, and how. And different systems foreground different sorts of stuff. Where in the example of 5e resolution do we see the player's thematic concerns being foregrounded? They're absent, for the good reason that having regard to them is simply not a factor in 5e's approach to resolving declared actions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And that causation is very often worked out by the GM making reference to notes/ideas that were/are hidden from the players.

This is part of @Campbell's reply to you: this sort of approach does not actively support player-driven, thematic and protagonistic RPGing. It encourages play based around discovering, and/or hedging against, and or working out the consequences of, GM's secret info.

Or alternatively it empowers the players to make impactful decisions with real meaning as the fictional reality their characters inhabit is not an amorphous mutable mess.

And that's a bit flippant, I and I genuinely see the other side too, but it is also true. In Blades you don't need to make concrete plans for your actions, but you also really cannot make concrete plans as there is no concrete reality to begin with.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For contrast, in 5e

Player chooses going in that they'll power attack, meaning that they will also not be able to avail of a shield.​

Player rolls to see if they succeed​

If they succeed, they roll again to decide if they inflict full or some lesser quantum of damage​

​

I'm not sure which game's fifth edition you are talking about here? Because the only power attack options are with the GWM and SS feats - and their cost is accuracy. The closest to a defence penalty is the Reckless Attack barbarian feature.

And how much damage you do isn't a decision - which means that organised players often roll to hit and damage at the same time; there is no decision here.

I don't think any of the above necessitates GM splicing: the meaningful difference is on what happens on a miss.

Nope. A 7-9 in DW is a hit. Just not an ideal one.

In 5e combat, the price in tempo is deemed sufficient. For 5e broader abilities, the DMG version of play is that GM must have in mind a meaningful cost for failure. In this narrow case, the absence of GM moves is distinctive.

Hardly distinctive from other games - but a major oversight.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Or alternatively it empowers the players to make impactful decisions with real meaning as the fictional reality their characters inhabit is not an amorphous mutable mess.

Oh noes! We're all playing make believe rather than in a concrete reality. And the game setting is just what we make up and agree on.

Sorry to be flippant here - but there are only two understandings I can get out of this and neither of them are particularly useful:

1. The specific genre simulation factors that are intended to simulate Blades In The Dark's heist genre (flashback scenes, "quantum equipment") apply to all narrative heavy games whether or not they are heist games. This is as false as it would be to claim that all trad games had D&D style levels and classes.
2. One "amorphous mess" with the DM filling in useful blanks is inherently better than another. And the ideal RPG is a CRPG where the entire world eas simulated with nothing being mutable and the GM never adding input.

And that's a bit flippant, I and I genuinely see the other side too, but it is also true. In Blades you don't need to make concrete plans for your actions, but you also really cannot make concrete plans as there is no concrete reality to begin with.

Again flashback scenes are almost unique to the Leverage and Blades In The Dark RPGs because they are specific genre simulation. They are a specific feature of two specific games (one based on the other; Leverage is the less famous parent of Blades) not a general one.

Stonetop, for example, has much more of the setting mapped (including actual physical maps). It is very strongly PbtA and narrative.

 

[darkbard]

In Blades you don't need to make concrete plans for your actions, but you also really cannot make concrete plans as there is no concrete reality to begin with.

Pssssst. Here's a little secret: there's never a concrete reality; it's all make believe! This doesn't mean one can't have a rich, immersive, verisimilitudinous game, though, regardless of playstyle!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again flashback scenes are almost unique to the Leverage and Blades In The Dark RPGs because they are specific genre simulation. They are a specific feature of two specific games (one based on the other; Leverage is the less famous parent of Blades) not a general one.

Stonetop, for example, has much more of the setting mapped (including actual physical maps). It is very strongly PbtA and narrative.

Not talking about flashbacks. I'm talking about existence of objective pre-existing game reality, vs one which is determined on the fly. I.e. myth vs. no myth.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Pssssst. Here's a little secret: there's never a concrete reality; it's all make believe! This doesn't mean one can't have a rich, immersive, verisimilitudinous game, though, regardless of playstyle!

It is and you can, but myth vs no myth is a genuine difference, each having its own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Certainly "It didn't work, a bad thing happens" is quite common option. It is just that in trad approach the bad thing is usually assumed to be causally related to the action you took, whilst in nar games that is not necessarily so.

"Is usually assumed to be" means there are times when this is not the case. "Is usually assumed to be" is therefore almost a perfect synonym of "is not necessarily so" (but usually is).

Even by your own words there is literally no significant difference here.

The big difference here is that in trad games absolutely bupkiss is a common outcome. "Story Now" on the other hand has an impatience to it and wasting your time on rolls where nothing happens or even on rolls where no choices are being made (like damage rolls - and yes I know DW does this) or adding up math and modifiers is inherently bad and to be avoided.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Is usually assumed to be" means there are times when this is not the case. "Is usually assumed to be" is therefore almost a perfect synonym of "is not necessarily so" (but usually is).

Even by your own words there is literally no significant difference here.

I think there is significant difference in the basic assumption of how this is expected to work, and people notice when it altered. They tried it a bit in D&D 4e and people didn't like it. Again, not about good or bad, but they're different.

The big difference here is that in trad games absolutely bupkiss is a common outcome. "Story Now" on the other hand has an impatience to it and wasting your time on rolls where nothing happens or even on rolls where no choices are being made (like damage rolls - and yes I know DW does this) or adding up math and modifiers is inherently bad and to be avoided.

Sure. And one impact of this that in my experience it makes things more chaotic and unpredictable. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing.

And it makes some people play more cautiously. I noticed in the Blades, people might be hesitant to try to do a thing, because even though fictional positioning is such that causally nothing bad apart lack of success could follow, by the mechanics bad things can still happen.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not talking about flashbacks. I'm talking about existence of objective pre-existing game reality, vs one which is determined on the fly. I.e. myth vs. no myth.

No myth doesn't mean there's no reality. It means that you don't know what is actually there until you go and see it. In reality only the most railroady GMs never e.g. make up an NPC on the fly. Only video games, some LARPS, and ultra strict railroads have utterly immutable reality. And by the end of Session Zero there are going to be locations and NPCs that are there in any campaign.