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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Are we really going to rehash this? What difference does it make, and can you even tell, if the fiction was framed on the spot or invented last Thursday? There's NOTHING 'objective' about game content, whatsoever! I don't want to get sidetracked on this, but it is just a straw man.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is something that is hard to do, even with experienced players. It is very hard to not do the thing that the mechanics clearly say is optimal, especially if there are are other areas in the same game where it is sort of expected that you play tactically.

If one can design a game so that what is fun and what is optimal mostly align, then I think that is definitely a superior way to do it.

I don't know... sometimes, it's a lot more fun for a character to do the non-optimal thing. Sometimes, it also makes much more sense for the character.

I think this is one of the areas of tension in RPGs. As players, there is often an obvious optimal choice to make from a tactical standpoint. But for the characters, it may not be as clear OR they may not be interested in making the optimal choice. People don't always do what's best for themselves. People very often behave in ways that are detrimental to themselves and to those around them.

I think eliminating this tension rather than leaning into it would ultimately be a bad idea for game design. I like games that incentivize the poor choice that's in character versus the safe choice that's purely player decision.

I know I wasn't a very good GM when I was 15. And I suspect a number of rules have been created in reaction to some terrible GM ... who was the teenage version of the writer of those rules.

I think this is actually really important. I don't know if we need to reach "terrible" before we try and improve. I don't really think I've been a terrible GM at any point (though I've probably made some terrible decisions as GM at times, I like to think those have been offset by other decisions that were good), but I absolutely have been a very traditional "the GM has total authority" type. My earliest days of GMing were very much a product of their time.... and that was the prevailing method according to most of the source material of the day.

The idea that narrativist/story now games were made in response to tyrant GMs is just hyperbole.

Especially when you consider such games are designed by GMs, and purchased and selected for play by GMs. I don't think many games of Dogs or Apocalypse World were started by players clubbing together to buy their GM a game they insist he use.

My players in my longstanding play group would have happily let me continue to run D&D for years. They weren't calling for a change of game... though I could see instances of dissatisfaction that might warrant it, no one every voiced a desire to change the game.

That came from me.

I was pretty much the forever GM. And I was dissatisfied with the way the game worked. Again, it had nothing to do with players railing against a tyrant GM... it was almost entirely from the GM side that we changed games. I wanted that because I wanted something different from play. I wanted to be challenged as a GM in different ways. I wanted to be surprised by what happened. I wanted to have to spend less time in between sessions preparing. There were a lot of reasons.

But none of them really came from the players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But you didn't answer the question...

Because it depends on the context and is at least to me relatively clear by the fictional situation. And funnily enough l often feel that in the Blades how much progress single roll produces seems somewhat arbitrary. But that’s probably more related to what one is used to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are we really going to rehash this? What difference does it make, and can you even tell, if the fiction was framed on the spot or invented last Thursday? There's NOTHING 'objective' about game content, whatsoever! I don't want to get sidetracked on this, but it is just a straw man.

You are welcome to believe that improvisation and prep are indistinguishable and thus without difference, but others disagree and that just how it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know... sometimes, it's a lot more fun for a character to do the non-optimal thing. Sometimes, it also makes much more sense for the character.

I think this is one of the areas of tension in RPGs. As players, there is often an obvious optimal choice to make from a tactical standpoint. But for the characters, it may not be as clear OR they may not be interested in making the optimal choice. People don't always do what's best for themselves. People very often behave in ways that are detrimental to themselves and to those around them.

I think eliminating this tension rather than leaning into it would ultimately be a bad idea for game design. I like games that incentivize the poor choice that's in character versus the safe choice that's purely player decision.



I think this is actually really important. I don't know if we need to reach "terrible" before we try and improve. I don't really think I've been a terrible GM at any point (though I've probably made some terrible decisions as GM at times, I like to think those have been offset by other decisions that were good), but I absolutely have been a very traditional "the GM has total authority" type. My earliest days of GMing were very much a product of their time.... and that was the prevailing method according to most of the source material of the day.

The idea that narrativist/story now games were made in response to tyrant GMs is just hyperbole.



My players in my longstanding play group would have happily let me continue to run D&D for years. They weren't calling for a change of game... though I could see instances of dissatisfaction that might warrant it, no one every voiced a desire to change the game.

That came from me.

I was pretty much the forever GM. And I was dissatisfied with the way the game worked. Again, it had nothing to do with players railing against a tyrant GM... it was almost entirely from the GM side that we changed games. I wanted that because I wanted something different from play. I wanted to be challenged as a GM in different ways. I wanted to be surprised by what happened. I wanted to have to spend less time in between sessions preparing. There were a lot of reasons.

But none of them really came from the players.

And your players just went along with a completely different style of game without complaint?

 

[Emberashh]

then surely it's reasonable to suppose that what's been found to be important in traditional narrative provides lessons for what is likely to be important in ludonarrative.

Oh for sure. Thats something that I think is actually very important for the kinds of story telling that you still want to have, even in a fully gameplay driven experience.

To use a video game, the environmental storytelling we see in the original Halo (in particular the Library) wouldn't work without being informed by traditional narrative structures. Its easy to just scatter bodies and viscera and random scary things on a map, but to do it with intentionality so that the tension rises as the Player traverses the level takes more a lot more deliberate thought.

And over in tabletop land when we're approaching the question of ludonarrative harmony vs dissonance, we need to consider how the games ludic elements are utilized in tandem with the expected narrative. If we flop too much the either side, there's going to be dissonance.

While a game devoid of any intended narrative isn't strictly a problem for story making (afterall, Baseball makes stories), in RPGs there's always going to be an intended narrative to every mechanic, and thats pretty inescapable.

To take the easy excuse to talk about my own game design, lets talk about something I've recently finished up an initial draft on, which is my take on Race mechanics. While I can explain in the aggregate of how I approached the design, I think it'll be better, and less of a novel, to give an example and point to what its doing.

So here is the full entry for Goblins in my game, which I'll do my best at keeping the formatting straight:

Goblins
Goblins are often misunderstood by the other People's of the world, and for good reason, as Goblins exist at the center of a perpetual conflict between themselves and the other Peoples. Goblins are the sapient saplings of the various Great Hardwood Trees that comprise much of the largest and oldest forests in the world. Understandably, as so many Peoples and Cultures make use of Wood for various things, Goblins are effectively bound to fight back in defense of their Elders.

The Great Hardwoods are a valuable crafting Material, and for many, the fact that it was once a person is not enough to quench the desire for it. Goblins as a result have developed a reputation for being warlike and cruel to other Peoples, often comprising the bulk of Bandit parties on the Road, and every once in a while a Goblin rises to such prominance that they lead a full on war against what they call the “Gnashers”.

Despite their troubled relations with other Peoples, Goblins are not the mere monsters some would have you believe. Goblins are a proud and hearty People, and to have a Goblin as an Ally is worth twice as many a Dwarf or Pidgin. Goblins typically stand anywhere from 3ft to 5ft Tall, with skin that will close resemble the tones of the bark from their Elder Trees.

When Goblins die, either in battle or by choice, their bodies will act as the seeds for a new Great Hardwood. However, Goblins that stay alive will slowly sprout anyway, beginning around age 30, and will begin to take on further characteristics of their Elder Trees. By age 75, Goblins have been observed to settle down and take root, preferably in their home forests. It is rumored that, even at this age, the now Elder Goblin can still walk about the world, but no one has ever seen this...or at least, lived to tell the tale.

Class Abilities
All Goblins, due to their biology, will suffer a weakness to Fire, be it natural or magical in nature. Any time a Goblin is afflicted with the Burned Wound, it will automatically become a 1d12 Wound.

Their biology also grants them a general incapability to feel fear, including from magical sources. All Fear effects that would affect the Goblin will not work. Note, however, that Goblins are not the types to waste their lives, and especially not those of a potential new Elder, and they will act to defend themselves from having their bodies destroyed.

Martials
Barkskin: Martial Goblins can fight in and with anything, but even a Goblin stripped of everything is still a worthy opponent, and the older they are, the harder they are to break. When wearing no Armor, a Goblin may consider their Age as a fixed Defense value, that they may add whenever they attempt to Guard whilst stripped of all Armor. If the Goblin does not have a weapon, they may do the same when rolling Damage as part of a Strike.

Mages
Rootborn: While Goblins are born and raised like that of the other Peoples, some Goblins are born from an Elder, emerging from their Elder's Roots nearly fully grown, and it is those Goblins that go on to become Mages. All Goblin Mages gain a natural affinity for Earth Magic, and any Fissure Wound they inflict will automatically become a 1d12 Wound. Additionally, any non-combat spell they attempt on a Plant or Tree will never trigger a Corruption, regardless of what they roll.

Summoners
Elderwood: Strangely, Goblin Summoners are rare to see in the world, but the few who have existed were known for the particularly terrifying things they could raise. All Summons that a Goblin summons to themselves will enjoy the same Class Abilities as the Goblin, including any other Class Abilities they have taken.

Mystics
Autumn Shroud: Autumn for Goblins is universally seen as a time of change and renewal, with many Goblins losing their hair, just as their Elders lose their leaves, leaving room for new growth and new looks to emerge. Goblin Mystics, attuned to their bodies and mind, will be able to camouflage themselves at will, their skin and hair changing colors to blend in to any background they can hide amongst. While this camouflage doesn't work with most armor, clothes, or weapons, some crafty Goblin tailors have been known to create durable clothing that can mimic the effect at the Goblin's will.

Nature
Verdant Path: Goblins do not often become great navigators at sea, and will be about as good as anyone else on land, but in the forests of the world, Goblins are supreme. When Traveling, Nature Goblins will automatically grant an additional 1d12 Pacing to their Party when passing through Forests, and additionally will allow their Party to move at full Pacing while under Stealth. If combat should occur in a Forest, Nature Goblins may double their Movement every round, and can automatically convert their Movement to Climbing at no penalty.

Divine
Elder Blessing: Goblins typically lack a religion in the same way that other People's have developed, instead focusing purely on Ancestor and Elder worship, which in of itself isn't entirely accurate; after all, we wouldn't call it religion to take care of our grandmothers. Divine Goblins have the unique capability to draw deep on their ancestral blood, and will gain a small blessing from the veneration, granting them 2d12 Composure, and increasing their Movement by the same amount for all remaining Combat Rounds for the day. This ability may only be used once per day, and it and the Movement Bonus will reset at Dawn the day after it has been used.

Cultures

Cherrywood
Cherrywood Goblins hail from the continent of Aflaskr, and are known the world over as the sole mostly peaceful tribe of Goblins. They occupy the Great Cherry Forest to the north of that Continent, adjacent to the homeland of the Northern Elves, with whom they share a cordial relationship. This is because the Northern Elves, unlike their cousins on other Continents, do not make use of any Wood products at all, even of the lesser trees, instead preferring earthenware and metals in their constructions. Cherrywood Goblins as a result are the most common Goblins to be seen out Adventuring, as young Goblins without a war to fight need an outlet somewhere. Cherrywood Goblins are also noted as the sole Goblins to join in a loose alliance with the late Terran King Ulfire, coming to his aid on the slopes of Aflaskr itself, the great Ash Hearth in the South. The Cherry are well respected in most parts of the world, but will typically be seen with suspicion if not hatred by other Goblins.

Like the wood of their Elder Trees, Cherrywood Goblins typically begin life a pale beige color, but overtime will develop a rich, burnt-orange Tan, typically as they reach full maturity at age 30 and begin to Sprout.

Cherrywood Longevity: Like their neighbors, Cherrywood Goblins carry a distinct knack for crafting, and Cherry-made Weapons and Arms are prized throughout the north for their longevity in combat. When ever you craft a Weapon or a piece of Armor, you may roll 1d8, and add the value to its Durability Bonus. This Durability bonus is permanent, and will stay with the item even if it is transferred to another character to repair. With 25 Smithing, this bonus grows to 1d12.

Ebonwood
Ebonwood Goblins hail from the many islands of Afurui in the east, and are seldom seen outside of the islands. While their people are scattered and divided across the islands, often times with splinter tribes warring against each other over disputes, when provoked the Ebonwood almost always present a united front against their aggressors. As island folk, the Ebonwood have become a common sight on pirate ships coming and going among the islands, and on land, they are particularly famous for their night raids, making use of their natural stealth to prey on those threatening their Elders, who unlike other Goblin Peoples, are particularly vulnerable to the Terrans and Elves that also live on the islands.

Ebonwood Goblins sport a uniform base skin color of a deep and dark brown, almost entirely black, particularly as they age. The Ebonwood, however, also sport brilliant spots, stripes, and other shapes of a deep rosy red, that stands out up close, but blends into their skin at a distance. The Ebonwood, curiously, are also known as some of the best smelling Goblins in the world, with their natural odors being so intoxicating, that some shameless Ebonwoods have even begun selling their own sweat as a perfume...and you can't really blame them, it does smell amazing.

Tree Predators: Ebonwood Goblins still on land spend much of their days hunting from the tree tops, and it is the pride of many a young Ebonwood to score a clean kill from above, and the skills honed in the treetops become invaluable at sea, attacking from the sails to the deck. When utilizing Velocity attacks, Ebonwood Goblins will have their Critical Hit range reduced to 19 or 20. With 25 Striking, this range drops to 17-20.

Oakwood
The Oakwood are a tragic tale indeed. Oakwood Goblins hail from the continent of Brandr in the south, and in ancient times, there existed a Great Oakwood Forest that stretched from the mountains in the West all the way to the sea in the East, and the Oakwood for a time even managed to coexist peacefully with the Dwarves, who upon arriving in Brandr preferred the Jagged Mountains to the Forest. But it would not be long before Brandr became the favorite breeding ground of Dragons, leading to the Oakwood being nearly destroyed in their entirety well before the Dwarves managed to kill a dragon for the first time, at the loss of many of their own.

This lead to the Oakwood being scattered across the world. While some small enclaves still exist on Brandr itself, still in deep danger of being beset by Dragons, most ended up fleeing to the southern coast of Aflaskr, and a small forest has managed to stay put there for centuries, despite the inevitable wars that erupted between Aflaskr Oakwood and the Ash Terrans in the region. Others still fled to other continents, and some even managed to take refuge on Sequoya at the benevolence of the Orcs. Despite their tragedy, the Oakwood are as proud as any other, and their struggles have only strengthened their natural Endurance and fortitude.

The Oakwood are a bit taller than the average Goblin, with some approaching 6ft at times, and like their Elder Trees, they sport a skin color that typically stays a consistent whitish pale brown through their entire lives.

Oaken Fortitude: It is said that if one were to knock down an Oakwood Goblin, they had best have had witnesses, for it is a rare sight; rarer still, is to find an Oakwood Goblin who can't survive even the harshest environments imaginable. In Combat, Oakwood Goblins have a great resistance to being moved against their will, and will quarter any attempt to do so by physical means, and halve any by magic. They will additionally be immune to being knocked Prone and unless by Magic. Out of Combat, Oakwood Goblins enjoy an incredible boon to their Endurance ability Stone Skin, and may double their Endurance score when utilizing that ability.

So, what we can see in how I structured this is two fold:

• Deep integration of Lore
• A Strong Ludonarrative Harmony between the Lore and the Mechanics

The entry overall introduces a player to my take on Goblins, and dives deep into their history and place within the setting while, seamlessly, covering the actual mechanics that each People and Culture within that People grants the player, including the variable ones that are based on their chosen Class(s).

The purpose of this is to help enhance the ludonarrative immersion (meaning, to me, thinking and acting as their character) a player could feel by connecting the setting directly to their characters capabilities in a way that, while it does nudge Players towards certain kinds of narrative threads, is still open enough to allow for agency. And meanwhile, these entries aren't just making reference to various bits of Lore, but also to a lot of actual, gameplay relevant things. Ebonwood Armpit Perfume? Its a real thing, and it has distinct uses particularly in the making of healing potions. Clothing that will change colors with the Goblins physiology? All made out of real in-game Materials any player can craft a number of things out of. And so on.

A new player who becomes enthralled by the game will have plenty to work with to ease in to this new world they'll be immersed in, and more experienced players will have no shortage of material to lean on and off of to twist towards whatever kinds of narratives they'd like to explore as they play.

To contrast this take with say Dungeon World and 5e, obviously theres some stark differences. For one, I took DWs idea of Racial Abilities and full sent it, so comparing, my game goes to a much deeper level with the same general approach, lending depth and more compelling character development not just from the sheer breadth of options, but also from the careful integration across most if not all 7 Pillars of the game. While DW has more going on under the hood compared to the usual, I can say with all objectivity it can't compare with the vast interwoven gameplay loops my game has.

Whether it will prove good or bad, my game just has more depth than DW is capable of, and if its good, which it so far has been, then I think we have an example of a third way.

Now, looking at 5e, while the Races do often have some substantial lore to go look at, little to none of it is really connected in anyway to whatever sparse mechanics are granted to the option, many of which turn, I might add, are just copy and pasted ad infinitum. (Frickin Darkvision man )

Here, every single ability is bespoke and tailored to the People, and will only share minor similarities to other People's abilities, (Which I hope with revision I can eliminate entirely where it happened) and the same integration between my games various gameplay loops plays a part in paying off the players choices in a way that 5e can't really compete with. When you say your character is an Oakwood Goblin Martial, those choices are going to still be relevant hundreds of hours later when your Goblin has had 3 descendents and they're now fighting to honor your original legacy as a steadfast warrior.

So long story short, I think my overall point is that while cutting out depth and gameplay and adding more narrative elements can often fix problems with games like DND, it doesn't mean you couldn't have also fixed the gameplay and depth, and added narrative elements.

Now, obviously, my game isn't a generic universal system. But, in one of the few things I really do agree with the PBTA style on, I don't think universal systems are really all that good outside some notable examples, and especially not if the fundamental issue we're having is how the games play from a ludonarrative perspective. Like your average PBTA style game, Labyrinthian is designed with a very clear vision of the experience players will have. If you see that Dragon over there, you can suplex that Dragon.

If I want to play a game like Fellowship, I'm not particularly concerned about the game selling the narrative I've concocted, because thats not what kind of game it is.

 

[Celebrim]

What difference does it make, and can you even tell, if the fiction was framed on the spot or invented last Thursday?

I don't know, I might make the exact same complaint, but with a different point.

 

[Emberashh]

I could cut through the bravado in this post with a knife.

Wanting a different arrangement of GM responsibilities and set of authorities is not caused by some sort of abuse. It's just about wanting a different sort of play experience. This sort of indie RPGs as a response to bad experiences trope is kind of sad. I have no idea why this notion tends to get trotted out again and again. If your concern was abusive GMs, I think it would be immensely silly to play in games that provide GMs with the sort of latitude a game like Apocalypse Keys or Masks gives to its GMs.

I run these games when I want a focus on player characters' personal struggles. That's it. I don't view the GM Move cycle anymore limiting than you view specific enumerated spells or super-powers. It's just part of playing a damn game that lets me take a more active role instead of sitting back as a neutral arbiter.

Can we let this you must have been abused or need your hand-held BS just wither on the damn vine?

The conclusion pops up so consistently because when certain folks try so very hard to justify and prove the value of their preferred design, they inevitably drift into arguments that, intentionally or not, point to the tyrant GM.

Its hard not to see that as the root issue when arguments start talking about being "de-protagonized" if the GM isn't sharing any overt amount of narrative control.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, we have a word in RPG play for that GM - Railroader. Hop on board the choo choo train. At its worst, No Myth becomes the validation for keeping a game on the rails because the GM believes that the story he envisions is the most interesting and thematic one available. And so of course he doesn't let "stuff" happen unless it's that thing he thinks is interesting and thematic.

Spoken like Gygax himself! lol. YOU may only understand how to approach it that way, but even a basic perusal of the Dungeon World rules, for example, will disabuse you of this notion.

Committing to some fictional positioning you intend to stick to and resolving tests through fortune are two of the most powerful ways to limit GM power and thus share the fiction with other participants. A GM committing to some fixed fiction is the least control the GM can have over the scenario, and not the most. If the GM doesn't commit, everything because "mother may I" and any action that isn't considered desirable can be countered. The reason for not committing is to increase GM control ostensibly for the good of the story, but that can so go wrong.

Again, the ghost of Gary rises over EnWorld! Actually read Dungeon World, and actually play it, according to its principles. There's no excess GM power being pimped around by players begging to have what they want. They are getting FED WHAT THEY ASK FOR, in the form of highly thematic, directly relevant, highly fantastic, and challenging content! If that is NOT happening, then the GM is not listening to the game designers.

Only slightly worse is that No Myth encourages GMs to believe that worlds you don't put thought and effort into generate better stories than ones that do. I've been running a bounty hunter campaign and an implied part of that is, "There is someone to catch which is non-trivial to locate, else someone else would have already done it and not be paying someone else to." Which means part of each adventure involves gathering clues to find the acquisition, often with forces trying to stop you from doing so. Often, I have to have detailed timelines of events leading up to the present so as to imagine what clues have been left behind to find. There is just no way I could do a good job with these sorts of things trying to event everything on the fly. If you'd look at my notes, you'd see I've left a lot of things pretty vague and if you could compare my notes to my games sessions, you'd see that I was improvising a lot. But also, there are some things that involve concrete details that are just hard to improvise.

You can do this sort of story in Blades, or DW, using the principles outlined and the mechanics supplied, moves, clocks, dangers, etc. In neither game is it forbidden for the GM to prepare SOME facts where required either. Certainly DW particularly talks about this, but BitD has detailed faction descriptions, locations, etc. Certainly the intent is that the GM either use them or invent other ones that are relevant and useful. It is simply done with a view as to how this all ties into the player's evinced concerns, and generally there's an avoidance of over specifying too many details.

You mention that you think having fixed consequences leads to the theme "stuff happens". I think rather in your example the theme is, "Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to blow up a building."

As a player I really struggle with No Myth or Low Myth games because they are so transparent to me and I can't invest any belief in them. Even with a GM screen up, I can generally "see" what another GM is doing "behind the screen" and so know how hard the reality I'm exploring is. And if it's not hard at all, and the notes consist of just some vague sentence fragments and lists meant to be evocative then well, I have a really hard time sitting through that for more than about 2 hours.

So, it is fine, you can dislike whatever kinds of play you want to dislike, and nobody has a right to impose on your preferences. That doesn't make the types of play that you dislike non-existent or lacking in positive character. Why do you insist on trash-talking stuff you don't like?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are we really going to rehash this? What difference does it make, and can you even tell, if the fiction was framed on the spot or invented last Thursday? There's NOTHING 'objective' about game content, whatsoever! I don't want to get sidetracked on this, but it is just a straw man.

It is not. Gameplay where we solve a murder mystery where the culprit, clues, motivations, red herrings etc are predetermined, and one where the rolls and/or the GM determines those things on the fly just are drastically different things.