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

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is where I part ways with a lot of other story inclined players. I don’t think the task/conflict split is a good way of understanding resolution. As long as the task is linked to the intent then task resolution is fine.

I use my lock-picking tools to open the safe, I roll and fail, I don’t open the safe.

That’s more or less how I play most games. Even when Playing Apocalypse World, I use this binary, I just add more that gets resolved in a single roll.

You’re trying to open the safe before the guards find you.

10: you open the safe and the guards don’t find you

7-9: It’s taking longer to open the safe than you thought, you can carry on but the guards will find you or you can split now.

6: You fail to open the safe and the guards find you.

Well, now, IMHO, you are talking transparency, which is super important. PbtA is not a 'resolve the intent' system, not really. So we agree here, but it IS a system which, as you point out, isn't binary pass/fail. I think you're more being transparent AND using it as intended, to surface consequences. And that's the key, things NEVER STAY THE SAME. This is really the secret sauce, these games MOVE ON, they don't dawdle around revisiting the same old situations or leaving us wondering where we go next.

 

[Pedantic]

Then why are so many of these system so wishy-washy about it? NONE of them that I know of really come out and SAY this. Nor do they provide any sort of support for it. Classic is 5e, there's no way of knowing what number of checks will get you what you want. Nor is there any real explanation of the deep need for transparency that would be required in order to make that really work.

I am in no way ready to defend 5e's missing skill system, and I'm more upset than the average gamer that resolution has trended away from complete skill systems. I lay much of that blame on the rise of generic difficulty and difficulty by level tables, but that's a whole other discussion.

There's a whole under supported mode of play here for sure, likely because it has heavier design requirements.

 

[Autumnal]

Then why are so many of these system so wishy-washy about it?

Many people never think about it. Others think about it only occasionally. It doesn’t enter their mental landscape or experience any more than Latin verb cases do for most English speakers (including me when I’m not reaching for a jokey comparison). To a whole lot of gamers, including pro developers and writers, people with our level of, um, enthusiasm and, er, depth of prior engagement tend to come across with the relaxed casual confidence of people arguing the distinct soteriologies of pre- and post-tribulation rapture.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is inaccurate. There are many more failure states:

1. You succeeded but it took longer than you wanted.
2. You succeeded but made more noise than you wanted.
3. You succeeded, but injured yourself in the process
4. You succeeded, but angered someone/thing in the process.
5. You succeeded, but placed yourself in a precarious position/situation.
6. You succeeded but broke tools in the process.

I could go on…

This is inaccurate. None of those are actual failure states. Every single one starts with "you succeeded". They are all "success-with-consequences" - a 7-9 result in a PbtA, not a 6-. And not one of them is given to you by the system; every single one is patched in there by the GM in a trad RPG.

But you were asking about a system independent package of narrativist tools? "Fail Forward" (which you are outlining) is narrativist advice that came out of The Forge in the early-mid 2000s before they worked out how to embed them in mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

Well, now, IMHO, you are talking transparency, which is super important. PbtA is not a 'resolve the intent' system, not really. So we agree here, but it IS a system which, as you point out, isn't binary pass/fail. I think you're more being transparent AND using it as intended, to surface consequences. And that's the key, things NEVER STAY THE SAME. This is really the secret sauce, these games MOVE ON, they don't dawdle around revisiting the same old situations or leaving us wondering where we go next.

I've found in play that it is less the trinary, and more the propelling consequences either way. To briefly illustrate

Succeed = you open the safe and the guards don’t find you​

Fail = nothing​

One can make arguments around nothing meaning try another way, but certainly this bounces the conversation back to players without impetus in any direction.

Succeed = you open the safe and the guards don’t find you​

Fail = you fail to open the safe and the guards find you​

Even if we do not expand to the trinary, play has gained impetus. There are other benefits in the binary, which others have noted in the past. For some groups I have observed play flowing more smoothly, whereas with a trinary I sometimes see play hit gaps as a group stretches for a complication. I like the trinary - it has its place - I just don't believe it is one size fits all (not that you were at all saying that... I'm just emphasizing your main point.)

 

[clearstream]

Then why are so many of these system so wishy-washy about it? NONE of them that I know of really come out and SAY this. Nor do they provide any sort of support for it. Classic is 5e, there's no way of knowing what number of checks will get you what you want. Nor is there any real explanation of the deep need for transparency that would be required in order to make that really work.

I feel like the arc of design - the designers were well aware of SCs - just moved away from seeing them as necessary. Groups find functional play in judging for themselves whether enough has been done, and in a sense that's the baseline in all TTRPG whether or not you systematise it.

SCs require group skill to avoid glitching on questions like - if we made our last needed success but the connected action doesn't really feel to us like it should seal the deal, what do we do?

I can go either way. I see worth in systematising it - especially using looser, flexible methods such as L5R momentum (and maybe PF2, which I haven't yet played.) I enjoy using clocks (particularly opposed clocks). And yet I'm comfortable with groups who feel better judging the fictional position and deciding enough has been done (and there is scope for group skill around this, too.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

• This is inaccurate. None of those are actual failure states. Every single one starts with "you succeeded". They are all "success-with-consequences" - a 7-9 result in a PbtA, not a 6-. And not one of them is given to you by the system; every single one is patched in there by the GM in a trad RPG.

I just thought I'd clarify this. Using Dungeon World as an example we can take the Volley move, as used for standard ranged attacks.

When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex. ​

• On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage.
• On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):

• You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
• You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
• You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one

(And on a 6- the GM makes a hard move which is worse; the GM never rolls their own actions.)

There are three major differences between these cases and Wolfpack's failure suggestions;

1. They are considered successes not failures; the character does what they were trying to
2. The system presents the options rather than having the GM splice it in to make up for the shortcomings of the system
3. The player, not the GM chooses the type of shortfall meaning that how recklessly you are playing your character and what you value is further emphasised.

And all of these things are valuable and show parts of why GMing advice is not as good as a system designed for the purpose.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then why are so many of these system so wishy-washy about it? NONE of them that I know of really come out and SAY this. Nor do they provide any sort of support for it. Classic is 5e, there's no way of knowing what number of checks will get you what you want. Nor is there any real explanation of the deep need for transparency that would be required in order to make that really work.

Because it is about the fictional positioning, not about some precoded rule structure that is applied regardless of context. You know, fiction first!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And to expand on this D&D (and Trad RPGs in general) only come with a tiny handful of failure states that arise directly from the mechanics.

1. It didn't work. You can try again if you have time.
2. It didn't work. You can't try again.
3. It didn't work and you lose a resource (hp or a spell slot). You can try again if you still have time and resources.
4. You die.

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. Not that I see any major glitches occurring if you abandoned the causality assumption in D&D, it might just feel jarring to some people.

 

[clearstream]

I just thought I'd clarify this. Using Dungeon World as an example we can take the Volley move, as used for standard ranged attacks.

When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex. ​

• On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage.
• On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
• You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
• You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
• You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one

(And on a 6- the GM makes a hard move which is worse; the GM never rolls their own actions.)

There are three major differences between these cases and Wolfpack's failure suggestions;

1. They are considered successes not failures; the character does what they were trying to
2. The system presents the options rather than having the GM splice it in to make up for the shortcomings of the system
3. The player, not the GM chooses the type of shortfall meaning that how recklessly you are playing your character and what you value is further emphasised.

And all of these things are valuable and show parts of why GMing advice is not as good as a system designed for the purpose.

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.