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

[clearstream]

Yes, some of us find "IC talking for the sake of talking" deeply tiresome, but that's a personal opinion. I have personally never encountered IC back and forth with little momentum that improved the game state, and is in fact the thing I run into most likely to result in players not involved pulling out their phones / zoning out.

Do you think that "IC" back and forth "chatting and joking" is an inherently more meaningful way of constructing character connections and shared desires then a focused chargen session via guided Q&A that establishes a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts? Because narrativist games ranging from PBTAs through Daggerheart do OOC work up front to anchor your characters to each other and the world in a very metagame way. Then, in actual play, you have all this fiction to grab and rely on when the GM tests the characters, or you conflict with each other.

Is it right to understand that you would count "IC talking for the sake of talking" of no value, "IC talking for the sake of constructing a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts" of some value, and "OOC talking for the sake of constructing a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts" of high value? So that you are committed as to both the means and the ends?

 

[pemerton]

A page or two upthread I mentioned a couple of PCs from my Torchbeare 2e game:

the Dwarven Outcast Golin has a Belief (or Creed?) that Elves must be brought into touch with reality; and the Elven Dreamwalker Fea-bella has a Belief that Dwarves are greedy and not to be trusted, and a Creed that in these dark times all Elves will need help. There is plenty of at-the-table banter between these two characters that reflects these opposed and interlocking convictions - but that's not the point of play. The point of play is to engage with situations that actually put these convictions to the test - like, how will they respond when the Half-Elf Lareth the Beautiful asks him to align with his kult?

When Fea-bella attacked the Dwarven NPC Gerda, Golin stood back. When Golin attacked the Elven NPC Megloss (after Megloss killed Gerda), Fea-bella stood back.

When the Elven NPC Glothfindel tried to persuade Golin to return the Elven sword that Golin had found strapped to Glothfindel's saddle, when Glothfindel had been taken prisoner, Fea-bella assisted Glothfindel: after all, Dwarves are greedy, and all Elves need help in these dark times.

I think these are the sorts of interactions that reveal characters' interrelationships. They are not the only ones - Agon 2e, for instance, builds into its "downtime" phase a reflection by the PCs on one another's actions and responses to the island they have just left. But I think they are the most important. They show the characters in action.

In a party-based game - which Torchbearer and Agon both are - there is always the question of limits: how far will a player push their play of their PC when that generates conflict with another PC. (This doesn't come up the same way in non-party-based RPGing.) This in turn leads to a certain degree of stylisation, in my experience, but no worse than (say) Claremont-era X-Men.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not exactly. Story Now requires that each scene be framed as an act in a previously existing conflict that tests the stakes of that conflict, where initial conflicts are introduced by the players and then tested, and that the resolution of the conflict is always a matter of player choice. Introducing new elements to the fiction is a tangential concept.

In other words, Story Now requires whomever is responsible for framing scenes to tailor that scene to the conflict that has been signaled by the player. Cut to the chase. Let's have the story the player wants now. See also "play to find out what happens".

This is an enlightening definition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is an enlightening definition.

I’d say it’s a very skewed one, actually.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, I think the real difference is time. I mean, no one is going to argue that setting up connections and tensions between PCs and the setting, (through any mechanism) isn't interesting. The distance between character beats being measured in "sessions of play," instead of "acts of resolution" is where I think the dividing line comes in.

I guess I am unclear as to what you mean. D&D could focus on the characters and their stuff. I am constantly told by a whole faction of posters that it does this just as well as DW or even Stonetop. I would agree with you if you say that isn't really a very practical way to run D&D though! I guess at that point my beef is just 'D&D is not the right game for it'. But we've been saying that for years. OTOH if connections between PCs/with setting is not a thing that concerns one, I wish it would just be stated!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, there were certain comments that deemed the sort of flavour RP that I think is good for establishing and deepening relationships as waste of time.


What you mean it wasn't established? Like if they didn't know each other before the events of the game, presumably they met each other at some point during the game, so that' show they came to know each other...

No, we just were there in the same place on day one of the campaign, there was no why, how, when, etc. Just classic trad, poof you all are a party.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, we just were there in the same place on day one of the campaign, there was no why, how, when, etc. Just classic trad, poof you all are a party.

If it truly was like that, and there was even no attempt to justify the characters meeting and working together, then it sounds like a crap game to me and I don't understand why you would play in one. Like sure, sometimes the justification can be a bit thin, as we all know that the point of the game is that the characters will work together, but I don't recall it ever being non-existent. Either it is established that the characters know each other beforehand, or them meeting is roleplayed. I don't remember it not being done even in games I played as kid.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’d say it’s a very skewed one, actually.

What specifically is wrong about it?

 

[zakael19]

If it truly was like that, and there was even no attempt to justify the characters meeting and working together, then it sounds like a crap game to me and I don't understand why you would play in one. Like sure, sometimes the justification can be a bit thin, as we all know that the point of the game is that the characters will work together, but I don't recall it ever being non-existent. Either it is established that the characters know each other beforehand, or them meeting is roleplayed. I don't remember it not being done even in games I played as kid.

Our contention here is that it's very common and the system doesn't bake in a degree of guided character creation the way an explicitly narrative game tends to. See, the topic of this thread. Narrative games build systems into their rules that try and facilitate connective player driven (directly / story now, or at least via significant espoused character hooks in creation) narratives from the get-go. D&D and similar are going to rely on a DM doing stuff like looking in those threads referenced last page, 3rd party guides, YT videos, etc etc and wrangling the party.

Obviously the success of Critical Role and other "actual play" games means you can get to something highly narrative, but it takes a lot more work, yeah?

Is it right to understand that you would count "IC talking for the sake of talking" of no value, "IC talking for the sake of constructing a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts" of some value, and "OOC talking for the sake of constructing a web of relationships, emotional loading, and conflicts" of high value? So that you are committed as to both the means and the ends?

I'd place the latter two on the same level, with the caveat that the middle is likely to be following from the last. Your OOC answers about the world lead to, as @Manbearcat said actionable character moments that move the fiction. Without the OOC work up front and along the way, my personal experience is that you don't get much of the middle - just idk, banter? Which is fun and all, for the people involved, but can quickly get spotlight hoggy and boring.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Our contention here is that it's very common

Not in my experience. In my experience it is basically unheard of.

and the system doesn't bake in a degree of guided character creation the way an explicitly narrative game tends to. See, the topic of this thread. Narrative games build systems into their rules that try and facilitate connective player driven (directly / story now, or at least via significant espoused character hooks in creation) narratives from the get-go. D&D and similar are going to rely on a DM doing stuff like looking in those threads referenced last page, 3rd party guides, YT videos, etc etc and wrangling the party.

Yes. But that is not hard. And certainly everyone here knows how to do it, so why not do it in D&D as well. I don't get it.
Like if people intentionally played D&D in in dumb way so that they can blame it for being a bad game.

Obviously the success of Critical Role and other "actual play" games means you can get to something highly narrative, but it takes a lot more work, yeah?

Well, no, not really. You just do it.