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

[Neonchameleon]

Are there really that many ogre-like referees out there? Have rules been created in reaction to some terrible GM experienced along the way somewhere?

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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We do have some very memorable games we recall even today, but at no time during play did we think about what would make the best story. In the moment we are worrying about survival and somehow getting a leg up on the big bad Cthulhu beastie.

I'll tell you a secret. When I'm running Apocalypse World (or for that matter D&D) I don't think about "What would make the best story" either. I think about what would be the most logical or fun thing in the moment. But if you keep the characters strong and consistent, the world coherent, and turn up the pressure stories always happen.

Apocalypse World gives strong characters that are integrated into the world through playbooks, and then encourages really turning up the pressure through hard moves and success with consequences. The story is what happens.

 

[innerdude]

I brought up the contra-narrative of "amorphous non-reality" because it was genuinely one of my major concerns about trying "narrative" style games 5 or 6 years ago.

"How does the game world of Dungeon World even make sense if players are spouting off lore and it suddenly becomes canon? Doesn't chaos ensue? How do we know what's 'real' inside the game world anymore if the GM doesn't control it? This can't possibly work . . . ."

^^^^^^^^^
Very much thoughts that were going through my mind reading Dungeon World for the first time, and in multiple conversations on EnWorld between 2012 and 2018.

That said, my experience with Ironsworn is what really solidified my understanding of how things work. A solo Ironsworn session teaches you instantly how to balance the unknown and unexpected against what you know about the game world and its assumptions. When playing solo, you do still want to be surprised --- you want to see where the narrative goes and not impose your own view upon it.

Well, guess what? Just take that mindset to a GM + group experience, and watch what happens . . . . (hint: it isn't chaos. It's exciting narrative developments).

 

[kenada]

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 ran into this problem running for my group. I would stretch to come up with complications, and they were sometimes rather bad (besides slowing down the game). It’s why my homebrew system requires the GM to foreground consequences as part of the process of making a skill check. If you can’t think of any, then the PC gets what they want because nothing is really at stake.

 

[Campbell]

Are there really that many ogre-like referees out there? Have rules been created in reaction to some terrible GM experienced along the way somewhere?

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?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'm fine with the 5e skill system (modulus some greater concerns with 5e design in general). 5e would go a fair ways in terms of being suitable for narr play if it recast checks in general in a way more like PbtA where you check something, and there's a hard and fast rule that THINGS MOVE ON, either the player gets what they were attempting to do (at a fairly atomic level, granted) or there was a consequence of some sort. A 'mixed success' result might be nice too, but maybe it isn't needed, I'd have to think about it more. However, you still have the transparency problem. So, I want to steal the papers from the Duke. As 5e is written I don't really know what that will entail, its all hidden GM-side information. It could require 3 skill checks, or 30. The GM could rule any degree of consequences for any specific failure, total mission fail down to slight inconvenience. Nor is there even a mechanism or a suggestion to clarify that before the check is made. As a result PCs are flying blind into GM curated darkness. Heck, by taking away the DC-by-level aspect of 4e we don't even get a notion of how hard the checks will be, from simple to impossible, until we arrive at each situation!

Now, obviously, a GM could arrange a whole sequence of play that illuminates the "get the papers score" and gives the PCs some idea of what these parameters are, at least in fiction terms. Unfortunately 5e isn't super good about making it clear which fictions are really appropriate. Outside of combat there isn't anything even resembling a 'CR'. How do I even do something like balance the options of fighting vs sneaking in a given situation? It is all pea soup!

Narrativist play NEEDS these sorts of things to be present! I need the papers to save my sister from execution. So, what makes this interesting? The fact that I can, as a player, look at the situation and say "I am pitting myself, as the character, against almost certain death to save my sister!" Well, that's pretty substantive. Granted, in the real world everything is muddy and grey, and you just don't know, or can only suspect. But that's not what we're after in RPG play! If its a grand gesture, it is spoilt if nobody knows that!

I mean, this is all just examples, touching the surface, but you see there's a pretty steep road to climb to get something approaching AW out of 5e.

 

[Wolfpack48]

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?

That's fine and I agree. It's just the quote was making it seem like there was a mythical GM somewhere railing against narrative games being a threat to their dictatorship, and I honestly was wondering if that was a real scenario. I'm totally cool with other reasons for liking the arrangement!

 

[soviet]

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?

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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.)

Sure, 5e's trad resolution process is fine, for trad play. I wasn't really questioning that (though the 'CR' question might be nice to have an answer for). What I was more questioning, or describing really, is how this falls short when you want to do Narrativist play. Certain posters INSIST they can do this kind of play with, as far as I can tell, vanilla 5e. That just won't fly!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

But you didn't answer the question...