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

[pemerton]

even in D&D, where nothing except whatever social contract is in place stops the DM from taking such action, there’s a world of difference between “rocks fall, you die” and a DM simply not incorporating the background choice of the character.

Agreed. I've never seen anyone advocate for "rocks fall, everybody dies". But I see plenty of advocacy for the idea that "the adventure" or even "the campaign" is independent of the PCs' backstories and context.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Agreed. I've never seen anyone advocate for "rocks fall, everybody dies". But I see plenty of advocacy for the idea that "the adventure" or even "the campaign" is independent of the PCs' backstories and context.

And if that's how they want to play, then that's a valid option for them. I don't think the game engine needs to prevent playing in that way. It is about communication, so that everyone is playing the same game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And if that's how they want to play, then that's a valid option for them. I don't think the game engine needs to prevent playing in that way. It is about communication, so that everyone is playing the same game.

So maybe a solid start for defining a “narrative” game, or at least whatever Daggerheart is meant to be, is a game that expects (or maybe even requires?) that player choice matters in a fundamental way? That it should not (or maybe even cannot?) be ignored?

 

[soviet]

I remember the opposite being characterised once as 'Middle earth is real, the player characters are just passing through'.

Which is a a perfectly valid and fun way to play! But it's not the only way to play. In a narrative game the setting is expected to be more malleable to the player characters. Not malleable as in 'doesn't have a solid existence'. Malleable in the sense of 'reacts to what the player characters do'.

I'm a player in a traditional D&D game that's lasted 34 years and we are very slowly playing through various Living Greyhawk adventures. It's good fun, but no-one has any expectation that the PC group will do anything other than play through the relevant modules more or less in order. We're not going to be killing the King, ruling the land, legalising hempweed, and turning Hochoch's economy on a war footing anytime soon.

 

[soviet]

Playing in a traditional RPG with a published (or detailed and homegrown) setting is a bit like working for Marvel Comics. You can play with the toys for a while, and maybe even adjust the sets, but 100% you are putting everything back the way you found it at the end. Don't break anything.

Can the Avengers intervene about global warming, destroy all nuclear weapons, and overthrow dictatorships? No, no they cannot. You are fired.

 

[soviet]

Playing in a traditional RPG with a published (or detailed and homegrown) setting is a bit like working for Marvel Comics. You can play with the toys for a while, and maybe even adjust the sets, but 100% you are putting everything back the way you found it at the end. Don't break anything.

Can the Avengers intervene about global warming, destroy all nuclear weapons, and overthrow dictatorships? No, no they cannot. You are fired.

If Marvel Comics were real, all superheroes would be absolute evil, the lowest of the low. Imagine fighting Doctor Doom in space with your genius level IQ and your billion dollar supertech and then quietly walking past homeless people and pro-democracy marches on the way back to your mansion.

 

[Manbearcat]

I realize that folks have different tolerance levels for generating and experiencing plot and character via exposition dump. There is no objective standard. However, here is the thing for me when it comes to movies, books/short stories, and TTRPGs. Exposition dumps as a vector for story is absolutely Dead on Arrival to me. I want no part of that (reading/watching it or delivering that as a GM or sitting through it while players engage in protracted instances of it with each other). I am pretty much a "show me, don't tell me" absolutist. As far as my brain and emotions are concerned, deft and economic "Show Me" is actual storycraft, full stop. Experiencing anything more than the most pithy and singular (typically...if its actually woven and performed well, such that its mostly unobtrusive, in terms of exposition dumps, I can handle a few of them) instance of "Tell Me" elicits an eyeroll at best from me (at worst its an abrupt Nope Out). If you're plot dumping me or character dumping me? My read is you don't know how to deliver story or character via actual showing.

The vectors of action, elegant subtext/motif, and subtle + organic + economic delivery is the only way I want to experience setting, plot, character no matter the medium or my role (audience, reader, GM, or the very few moments of being a player). Like The Between's Vulnerable move and Janus Masks are a good way to deliver character-via-exposition if its going to happen via prompt/free play; chunky, concise, potent. Then move on to doing more stuff. Wash > Rinse > Repeat > Loop > Game Over.

And, again, if I'm running straight Pawn Stance Dungeon/Hexcrawls? I have zero interest in story from any direction. Exposition exists solely to relay obstacles/challenge-based situation to players. Play is all about executing the game engine procedures, deftly conveying the mapped/keyed/stocked obstacle courses I've pregenerated, and the moment to moment decision-points that generate the playing of the crawl's strategic and tactical dynamics. If, upon reflection, anything compelling in terms of story comes out of it? So be it, but its going to be shallow (at best) because its not the point and totally incidental.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I realize that folks have different tolerance levels for generating and experiencing plot and character via exposition dump. There is no objective standard. However, here is the thing for me when it comes to movies, books/short stories, and TTRPGs. Exposition dumps as a vector for story is absolutely Dead on Arrival to me. I want no part of that (reading/watching it or delivering that as a GM or sitting through it while players engage in protracted instances of it with each other). I am pretty much a "show me, don't tell me" absolutist. As far as my brain and emotions are concerned, deft and economic "Show Me" is actual storycraft, full stop. Experiencing anything more than the most pithy and singular (typically...if its actually woven and performed well, such that its mostly unobtrusive, in terms of exposition dumps, I can handle a few of them) instance of "Tell Me" elicits an eyeroll at best from me (at worst its an abrupt Nope Out). If you're plot dumping me or character dumping me? My read is you don't know how to deliver story or character via actual showing.

But pre-establishing character dynamics/relationships at sessions zero, (that you IIRC advocated for) instead of via roleplay, is telling, and not showing. Establishing them via roleplay would be showing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So maybe a solid start for defining a “narrative” game, or at least whatever Daggerheart is meant to be, is a game that expects (or maybe even requires?) that player choice matters in a fundamental way? That it should not (or maybe even cannot?) be ignored?

Yeah, sounds reasonable to me. But from this it also follows that one can choose to play D&D narrativisticly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Playing in a traditional RPG with a published (or detailed and homegrown) setting is a bit like working for Marvel Comics. You can play with the toys for a while, and maybe even adjust the sets, but 100% you are putting everything back the way you found it at the end. Don't break anything.

Can the Avengers intervene about global warming, destroy all nuclear weapons, and overthrow dictatorships? No, no they cannot. You are fired.

Eh. I once let the characters to blow up the Exalted's Creation. That was the last session of that campaign though...