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

[Campbell]

I don't speak "player driven" is a very good descriptor. I think play that addresses the thematic premises embedded in the character is a much better one. What conflict resolution brings to the table is a way to keep the focus on consequences that relevant to things players are trying to address through their characters without set outcomes or play drifting away from those concerns as a natural result of setting extrapolation.

The big difference we see in more traditional play is that the premises we are addressing are either established by play or the GM's situation framing (that is usually not in regard to the thematic premises a player sets for their character). That and premise drift naturally occurs because consequences need not (and often do not) to the thematic concerns of the characters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't speak "player driven" is a very good descriptor. I think play that addresses the thematic premises embedded in the character is a much better one. What conflict resolution brings to the table is a way to keep the focus on consequences that relevant to things players are trying to address through their characters without set outcomes or play drifting away from those concerns as a natural result of setting extrapolation.

Right. this is actually good observation. What the sort of concflict resolution that necessitates the GM coming up with consequences does, is to give the GM specific cue and reason to frame new stuff. Which is something I would not say in general increases things being player driven at all. But if the GM, like you say, uses this opportunity to refocus things to stuff relevant to the character, then that obviously makes the themes of the character more central. But I don't think all narrativist games expect GM to exclusively do this. I don't think Blades does. The complications can be just random crime related stuff that are not inherently linked to the themes of the characters.

 

[clearstream]

I don't speak "player driven" is a very good descriptor. I think play that addresses the thematic premises embedded in the character is a much better one.

I've been wondering about exactly that, and I strongly agree with you.

What conflict resolution brings to the table is a way to keep the focus on consequences that relevant to things players are trying to address through their characters without set outcomes or play drifting away from those concerns as a natural result of setting extrapolation.

So if a player wants to address their character's resolve to "stand up to Tyrants, no matter the cost" then the spotlight should fall on that. And this is distinct from a player's possible desire that their character should have the resolve that they will "stand up to Tyrants, no matter the cost" but that this shall never in fact cost the character... no risk of execution etc. I think the player should embrace the costs, otherwise they're hardly playing sincerely to the premise.

The big difference we see in more traditional play is that the premises we are addressing are either established by play or the GM's situation framing (that is usually not in regard to the thematic premises a player sets for their character). That and premise drift naturally occurs because consequences need not (and often do not) to the thematic concerns of the characters.

I observe this changing across TTRPG. The realisations of the narrativism movement both cast a light on and showed how to better manage it. It's not that it was absent from play before then, but it was not well understood, it was not widely communicated (thus found by some groups and possibly not others) and the tech hadn't evolved to drive it consistently (which is a form of communication in itself). Folk would like neat categories, but the reality is messy.

 

[zakael19]

Maybe do an example of each (traditional vs narrative table) using the same (short) scenario to illustrate?

I don't think I can, because as @Campbell notes it starts from premise & chargen forward in a system set up to facilitate that.

My experience with every single 5e group ever is that they're always looking to the DM for permission to do things, ranging from "hey, I want to find a thing, can I?" to "what's next on the quest adventure line?"

When I started my Stonetop game, we built the world starting point point from the fundamental premise (a town exists, you're part of it), and then the players espoused what particular things they were interested in via playbook selection, features, backgrounds, explicit answers to GM questions, etc. On top of that, they selected their starting goal: an opportunity to discover more about the Great Forest and Forest Folk.

You can probably approximate some of that via deep GM thought and work, and you can grab the "soft moves" that PBTA leans on and use them in a 5e game too, but as soon as things go to player ideations, "moves" the differences separate out. Hacking in skill challenges from 4e helps, but the math doesn't work as well (expertise breaks it) and the 5e skills are just not set up for the breath of player actions. So then you're back to a player looking at the DM for permission.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I don't think I can, because as @Campbell notes it starts from premise & chargen forward in a system set up to facilitate that.

My experience with every single 5e group ever is that they're always looking to the DM for permission to do things, ranging from "hey, I want to find a thing, can I?" to "what's next on the quest adventure line?"

When I started my Stonetop game, we built the world starting point point from the fundamental premise (a town exists, you're part of it), and then the players espoused what particular things they were interested in via playbook selection, features, backgrounds, explicit answers to GM questions, etc. On top of that, they selected their starting goal: an opportunity to discover more about the Great Forest and Forest Folk.

You can probably approximate some of that via deep GM thought and work, and you can grab the "soft moves" that PBTA leans on and use them in a 5e game too, but as soon as things go to player ideations, "moves" the differences separate out. Hacking in skill challenges from 4e helps, but the math doesn't work as well (expertise breaks it) and the 5e skills are just not set up for the breath of player actions. So then you're back to a player looking at the DM for permission.

I think I may not have been clear. I don't mean trying to apply narrative to 5e (I know we've been discussing that). I mean illustrating a scene in DM-focused traditional play vs a player ideated play of narrative. Maybe do a short chat with the barkeep of a local tavern or something just to show how it differs at a basic level.

 

[Pedantic]

You can probably approximate some of that via deep GM thought and work, and you can grab the "soft moves" that PBTA leans on and use them in a 5e game too, but as soon as things go to player ideations, "moves" the differences separate out. Hacking in skill challenges from 4e helps, but the math doesn't work as well (expertise breaks it) and the 5e skills are just not set up for the breath of player actions. So then you're back to a player looking at the DM for permission.

I didn't want to derail this discussion, but there's a bit of an excluded middle between 5e's skill system and conflict resolution (or even skill challenges). You can have specific actions coded into player facing skill mechanics without further embracing the model. Just write down what each action does, how long it takes, and the appropriate modifiers, then process the resulting fiction from success/failure.

5e doesn't do this, but it isn't an intrinsic feature of task resolution to not provide player agency in action selection. GM permission doesn't need to be wedded to resolution that way; this can be entirely shifted to a question of setting/scenario design (framing if you like, but I find the term groups together too many GM roles to make the point).

 

[zakael19]

I didn't want to derail this discussion, but there's a bit of an excluded middle between 5e's skill system and conflict resolution (or even skill challenges). You can have specific actions coded into player facing skill mechanics without further embracing the model. Just write down what each action does, how long it takes, and the appropriate modifiers, then process the resulting fiction from success/failure.

5e doesn't do this, but it isn't an intrinsic feature of task resolution to not provide player agency in action selection. GM permission doesn't need to wedded to resolution that way; this can be entirely shifted to a question of setting/scenario design (framing if you like, but I find the term groups together too many GM roles to make the point).

I have no idea what any of this means, to be honest. Can you provide some mechanical examples in a currently popular ruleset so I can parse?

 

[zakael19]

I think I may not have been clear. I don't mean trying to apply narrative to 5e (I know we've been discussing that). I mean illustrating a scene in DM-focused traditional play vs a player ideated play of narrative. Maybe do a short chat with the barkeep of a local tavern or something just to show how it differs at a basic level.

Why are they talking to the innkeeper?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Why are they talking to the innkeeper?

Any reason but assume it’s in line with a thematic premise embedded in the character. Feel free to make something up for purposes of the example. Or any example that illustrates the differences in playstyle.

 

[Pedantic]

I have no idea what any of this means, to be honest. Can you provide some mechanical examples in a currently popular ruleset so I can parse?

Try the 3.5 climbing rules. The player can know precisely what outcome they'll get from trying to climb something, and facing a described situation, leverage that knowledge to achieve a desired outcome. A player declaring an intent to climb something isn't asking the GM to design a resolution mechanic or looking for permission to achieve a specific outcome; the outcome has been written ahead of time in a general case, and the player is leveraging it in a specific case to get the board state to something they prefer.

Perhaps it's better understood via the fortune mechanics; players aren't rolling to see if they get an outcome they want, they're rolling a percentage chance to activate a specific action, with a specific outcome baked in. Resolution isn't the roll, it's applying the specific effects of the action to the boardstate.