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

[ART!]

In the current debates in the daggerheart forums, there is the talk that Daggerheart is a "narrative game". This claim is made primarily as an opposition to 5e, which is "not a narrative game". But what exactly is a narrative game? I thought about it, and here's what I've come up with.

We can imagine a few tiers to consider:

Narrative Presentation
In this version, narrative is more a style of presentation than it is anything to do with the mechanics of the game itself. The game actively mentions that players should feel empowered (and GMs should encourage) to actively create elements of the world. While all TTRPG give players descriptive control over their characters, this is more about the world itself. The idea that a player can decide what kind of scar an NPC has, or what metal is holy for god XYZ, etc.

If there are standard adventures for the game, the game might stop at points and specifically note that players get to decide XYZ about the world they find themselves in.

In this area, I would agree that Daggerheart IS narrative. It clearly wants players to feel empowered in these areas, and mentions a few times in its example adventure for GMs to let the players decide some things about the world.

Narrative Mechanics
In this version, a narrative game offers some mechanic that "breaks the mechanic", perhaps through the spending of a limited resource. A good example of this is Buffy the RPG, in which the Slayer is quite powerful by the core mechanics, while the side characters gain meta currencies that literally let them change a scene, sometimes extensively. This is mainly on the player's side, as most games assume the GM as the creator of teh world has the ability to make changes as they see fit to the story.

Daggerheart I would say is NOT a narrative game under this category. While the GM can make certain alterations through the fear mechanic, the players don't have similar capabilities expressed in the rules.

Freeform Resolution
In a standard TTRPG mechanical framework, players decide they want to do something, they utilize some random determiner (cards, dice, etc), and than the GM decides what the ultimate outcome of that action is. And the focus here is on the WHAT that happens, rather than the HOW. I think most games are perfectly fine with players describing how a certain attack hit or how they used that weird fact about mimes to solve a given puzzle, etc. Where games differ is more what the actual result of the action is.

In this version, while the GM might constrain what a "success" or a "failure" in the resolution has to entail, the game gives the player a wide berth to decide how that resolution comes about and what are the other secondary consequences. As an example, a player succeeds at a persuasion roll against the court lady. The GM notes this means that the lady will give up the secret password to the secret entrance. However, the game empowers the players to run with it further. The player decides the lady falls head over heels for them....in fact so much so that it becomes an awkward point later on.

I would say Daggerheart is NOT a narrative game under this context. The rules give the GM a lot of berth in resolution mechanics with the "succeed/hope, succeed/fear, fail/hope, fail/fear", but it is still up to the GM to decide what the actual resolution is (which is pretty standard in nearly all TTRPGs). Most mechanics in daggerheart are fairly packaged, you have a power card that does X thing, and while the player is welcome to narrative the look and feel of those abilities, the actual game resolution remains anchored in the mechanic itself.



Those are my initial thoughts, what do you think?

Very interesting, and thanks for the thread. I don't know Daggerheart yet, but none of these is how I would define a narrative game.

For me, a narrative game is one whose mechanics focus on drama. The technical details of skills, powers, spells, punching, stabbing, etc. might have some bearing in the mechanics, but not any more than - just as an example - the strength of relationships, ideals, or goals.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There are times when you use far too generalized language, such that the words chosen are applicable to any rpg, but then you try to restrict those words to only being applicable to narrative rpgs. Depending on how offensive that implication is I may try to understand what nuance you intended as I’ve shown in many of our back and forths here, or if particularly offensive I may just focus on the why the generalized language being used is wrong.

I don't think generalized language is the issue. I made a statement, and then provided an example that gave that statement context. You ignored the example and the context.

Also, you complain about jargon and now you're complaining about general language. What's left?

I’m happy to comment on this idea, but first I must note that it doesn’t support the notion that some RPGs don’t provide meaningful player choice.

I've already said that most RPGs provide meaningful player choice. I'm not saying that meaningful choice is not present. I'm talking about how the fiction of the game is determined.

Is it determined based on what the players have chosen for their characters? Or is it determined independent of the players' choices for their characters?

The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief is determined independent of the characters. So while the players are able to make meaningful choices within the adventure as designed... do they sneak through the steading, and remove the threats stealthily, or do they charge in and face the chief and his attendants in his throne room? This may be a meaningful choice for play.

But it has nothing to do with the characters or the elements the players have crafted for the characters. It's not about the characters.

On module play - I’m not a huge module fan, but I’ve yet to see a module where player decisions do not matter at all.

I think there is a conflation of 2 things in your posts in this topic, the uniqueness of the story elements and whether player choices matter.

One can have a unique story (or story elements) that is all about the unique aspects of the characters that contains no meaningful player input.

Likewise one can have a totally generic story that contains tons of player input.

These issues are orthogonal. I get the sense that story uniqueness is important to you and that’s fine. Maybe that’s even key of narrative play (initial thoughts are that it might very well be).

I think I keep making a distinction, and then you keep discarding it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, we are Shadows, so it is mostly some sort of robbery or property related heists. Though recently we bit of a gang far effectively forced on us. Some of the "robberies" also were not primarily about property but framing a rival gang for a thing.

We have burgled warehouses and casinos, infiltrated into a noble lady's masquerade ball and stole her famous necklace. Stuff like that.

Okay... I think of all of that, the bit about framing a rival gang is the closest thing to what I'm talking about. You had a more specific motive in that case than just the general one of getting coin. What was the situation with framing the rival gang? What were you trying to accomplish by framing them? Why?

Those are more of the kinds of things that I think makes the game shine. When you have investment in the situation beyond just the basic idea of stealing stuff. The more of that there is in play, the better.

No not really. It is about trying to remember what the confusing skills are actually supposed to do. Then you use the best of which you can justify. Also, as there is a lot of "can used for this, but X might be better" which I think is instruction of the GM that using suboptimal skill might have a weaker effect or something. So then we agonise is it better to use one "which might be better" even if you have worse trait in it. It doesn't increase agency, it just makes choosing a skill unnecessarily complicated. I also don't know what is supposed to happen if the player chooses to use completely inappropriate skill. I don't think that should fly, so it is probably prevented somehow.

Well, yes, there is a player principle "don't be a weasel". So there may be more than one approach, but ultimately, it's up to the player, but they should be choosing within reason.

I don't see how you don't see this as an improvement to player agency.

Friends and rivals do pop up, and allied and rival factions affect things. We recently killed a rival of one PC and a rival of another has been involved in quite a bit of stuff and the PC is plotting their downfall. Though I don't think rivals of all the characters have yet been involved. Mine hasn't. But I don't think this is anything unusual for this game. We've dealt with rivals and friends of the characters in my D&D too. It is true that in the Blades the same NPCs and factions keep popping up more, but I think that is mainly due the setup being confined to one city, rather than wandering all over the continent and often exploring new places like the character in my D&D game do.

Well the point is to keep things confined in a way... to make things so that the same people keep coming up. The idea that you can just leave and go where there are no ramifications from past actions, no pre-existing relationships and so on... that's specifically what Blades is trying to avoid.

 

[Campbell]

The greater difference is what @Campbell said - "play that addresses the thematic premises embedded in the character" - which now I reread it can be understood a few different ways, but generally a sandbox could conceivably be considered play that address the thematic premises embedded in and between character and world.

I don't particularly care to get into the particulars of what is and is not a sandbox, but what I would say differentiates say typical Blades from typical Worlds Without Number is that we focus on the thematic premises of everything (not just the player characters) over our detailed conception of the setting. In Blades we let the premises set the details as needed whereas in Worlds Without Number we let extrapolation of the details determine what the premises are.

For example Mylera Klev's (the leader of the Red Sashes) tags are [leader, shrewd, ruthless, educated, art collector]. That's all we know about her before she is brought into play. As a GM then it becomes my job to focus on bringing those premises forward in any scene she is in, rather than preestablishing fixed details about her.

It's an approach that fixates on what is elemental about the setting, game and characters. Our north star when bringing Duskvol to life (as GMs) is to make White Crown feel like White Crown and engage with its essence above extrapolating and preconceiving. White Crown is safe for the powerful. It's a place where the Underworld does not have much purchase. The Blue Coats are everywhere. These elements should inform our framing above and beyond detailed extrapolation of preestablished details.

Essence over details.

 

[pemerton]

What I observe most often being described in these games is more the player chooses the positive outcome, the dm the negative and then the dice determine which version to go with. Or the player chooses the success outcome the dice are rolled and if not full success then the dm chooses the complication or failure state.

Which games do you have in mind?

I can't comment on BitD, but what you say here is not an accurate description for Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World.

In BW, the player declares what their character is doing and what their character hopes to achieve by doing that thing. As per @zakael19's post not far upthread, if the goal/intent is unclear then the player and GM discuss it until it is clear. The GM then establishes the difficulty, using the very extensive heuristics provided in the rulebooks, and the player then rolls the dice. If the test succeeds, then the PC's succeeds at their task and achieves their goal/intent. Otherwise the GM narrates what happens, having particular regard to ensuring failure of intent and building on what is implicit or explicit in the fiction about what a failure will look like.

This is quite different from "choosing a success outcome". It begins with action declaration. So, for instance, Aedhros has no power to control the weather and so I can't, when playing Aedhros, choose a "success outcome" like "it starts raining heavily, thus hiding Aedhros and his tracks". But I can declare as an action that Aedhros tries to skulk unnoticed by watchers; and if my check fails, the GM could include the weather as part of the narration of the failure (eg the sun comes out from behind a cloud, and shines on Aedhros for all to see) - this would be particularly apt if Alicia was also in the scene, as Alicia is a weather witch.

In AW, the player declares what their player is doing and then, if that action does not trigger a player-side move the GM makes a move (typically a soft move) and if that action does trigger a player-side move then the dice are rolled. And the move then says what happens on a success and (sometimes) on a failure (but by default a failed roll permits the GM to make as hard and direct a move as they like). The player doesn't "choose a success outcome" and then roll.

So this is why I'm curious what games you have in mind, in your description.

In any event the games don’t usually have unilateral setting of stakes for a particular conflict by the player. The GM typically gets to at least choose a negative outcome from a list of player approved options.

Well, I'm pretty sure I've quoted the BW rulebook already in this thread, which states that the job of the GM is to frame scenes that address player-determined priorities. So that would be a RPG where the players unilaterally establish what is at stake, at least in general terms.

The fact that the GM gets to narrate failure doesn't affect this. The GM's narration of failure is expressly expected to address the intent of the action, and the intent will - in turn - be connected to one of those player-determined priorities.

In AW, too, the GM's moves are defined by reference to what the player takes to be at stake for their PC - that's why they are framed in normative terms like "announce badness" or "put them in a spot" or "provide an opportunity".

Even in games that by rule give the player veto power on any stakes they don’t like, their are typically other rules that compel them to not be a weasel or similar such that they aren’t playing the game in good faith if they try to game the stake selection process for precisely the stakes they want. Or to say it another way, what the player puts at stake in a given instance isn’t completely in his control.

Again I'd like to know what RPGs you have in mind.

The only "no weasels" rule I'm familiar with is in the Burning Wheel family of games, and what it means is that once an obstacle has been framed, the dice have to be rolled. The player can't withdraw their action declaration just because they don't like the odds. This is not a rule that has any bearing on what is at stake. I mean, in BW the dice are only rolled if something is at stake, and as I already posted that is determined by reference to player-determined priorities.

 

[pemerton]

On module play - I’m not a huge module fan, but I’ve yet to see a module where player decisions do not matter at all.

If B2 Keep on the Borderlands is played as written, using the Basic D&D rules; or if S2 White Plume Mountain is played as written, using the AD&D rules; then player choice will matter a great deal to whether or not the players succeed in beating the module.

But there will be no thematically laden story. And hence there will not be meaningfulness in the sense that @hawkeyefan intended it (as best I can read his post). Just as the decisions that I make in solving a crossword puzzle, or playing a game of chess, are not meaningful in that sense.

If the module Dead Gods is played as written, then there will be a thematically laden story. But the players' decisions will not meaningfully contribute to that, because the story has already been written by Monte Cook. The same is true of other railroad modules. (Only the very worst-written railroads fail to deliver theme of some sort.)

Now it's possible to have a prepared scenario in which player choice matters to the generation and delivery of theme. Off the top of my head I can't think of any published D&D module that is an example, but there are numerous examples in the Prince Valiant rulebook and the Prince Valiant Episode Book. Another example is found in the HeroWars Narrator's Book by Robin Laws: The Demon of the Red Grove. But I don't think those scenarios are what @hawkeyefan had in mind - he was clearly referring to D&D modules. And frankly I'd be surprised if you have these examples in mind either.

 

[thefutilist]

it doesn't seem substantially different than how I'd handle it in D&D or other trad game.

It probably isn’t. Although I’m getting a bit stumped here because I feel like to explain further I’d have to just reiterate all the stuff I’ve already said.

 

[Autumnal]

Also, you complain about jargon and now you're complaining about general language. What's left?

 

[Campbell]

I think Masks probably provides a crisper view of what playing to premise can look like:

Let's say I am playing The Protege playbook. The main thematic premise is that you have trained by a more experienced hero and are defined by your relationship to them. As part of character creation I establish the following:

• My characters' labels (this represents how they see themselves and modifies their capacity with different basic moves) [Savior, Danger, Freak, Superior, Mundane]
• A power or ability you share with your mentor, one you have they do not and one they have you do not.
• A label your mentor embodies and a label they deny.

Then I answer the following questions in a way that is to the point and actionable:

• How did you first meet your mentor?
• When and why did you choose to train with them?
• Why did they agree to train you?
• Who else, outside of the team, knows about your training?
• Why do you care about the team?

That then sets the core thematic elements the GM is expected to make moves around. We only go into more specific details when needed and always with these thematic elements in mind.

Here's the list of playbook specific moves the game provides for The Protege:

• Convey their mistakes
• Bestow wisdom, wanted or unwanted
• Hold up a mirror to them
• Give them exactly what they need at a cost
• Endanger their mentor.

The Protégé is about their relationship with their mentor—so you have to make that mentor show up a lot. Chances are good that the mentor will have opinions of everyone on the team, not just the Protégé.

The mentor is here to teach the Protégé, so they should always be telling the Protégé what the PC has done wrong. They don’t have to be mean about it, but it should drive the Protégé up the wall a bit. The mentor can provide the team with great resources and information, too—but always at a price, most often that the team follow the mentor’s rules.

Make the mentor awesome, too—someone the Protégé might genuinely want to be. At the same time, show the costs of the life that the mentor leads..

And sometimes, put their mentor in danger, with the only salvation coming from the Protégé themselves. Give the Protégé the chance to show their mentor everything they’ve learned.

Note that as a GM it's my job to frame in ways to make the mentor relevant, compare the protege to the mentor, put the shoe on the other foot and provide opportunities for the protege to come to their mentor's aid.

 

[Campbell]

I would note that my example above is remarkably different from the sort of approach I have taken in more traditional but still character focused games my home group plays and runs.

Here's my most recent Vampire character's background workup:

The process for creating Laurent was all about setting up a set of interesting details about what he's been through, what his current struggles are, how he knows and relates to the other player characters that creates a starting point for us to jump into. Through play these details lead to premise rather than the other way around. In Vampire we want that drift, that focus on the details. It's alright to go 5-6 sessions without interacting with your sire if other interesting things are going on because the point of play is to see where these details lead rather than exploring premises.

From my perspective these sorts of play just provide different sorts of fun. It's all about what we let take the lead.