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

[Aldarc]

I mean, are we just arguing over "what constitutes an RPG?" This conversation usually goes something like "RPGs be like this" and someone saying "not all RPGs!" and then the first party going "okay but that game exists outside the universe of things I interact with because of [mechanic/aesthetic/design choice]" and then argument ensues. Functionally, I often feel like it's less "that's badwrongfun" and more "that's a related but distinct activity to what I was talking about." It's mostly issues about relevance.

You are playing apologetics for toxic experiences and behavior that was directed at me here in the past. I would personally appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so in the future.

 

[Wolfpack48]

You think that the mod made a cameo just for the people you happen to disagree with but not the ones who share your opinion? I'm not sure how you failed to notice that this thread is filled with people with snarky attitudes, condescendingly insulting narrativism and narrative games.

I have been condescendingly told repeated times by people here over my years here, including those on my ignore list, that these "narrative games" that I sometimes enjoy playing are badwrongfun, disfunctional, misguided, and not "actual" roleplaying games. In my experience, part of the reason why some of these people here "lecture" is because they are going on 15-20+ years of having to defend their game preferences on this board from some of the same people who told me that these games I sometimes enjoy are badwrongfun games that aren't proper roleplaying games.


That's one reason why I picked the term "drama." I think that there is a part of me that prefers "drama," as some of the mechanics in these games involve drama-generators.

Yeah, we (and I) need to tone that down on both sides so we can have a reasonable conversation.

 

[Emberashh]

I mean, are we just arguing over "what constitutes an RPG?" This conversation usually goes something like "RPGs be like this" and someone saying "not all RPGs!" and then the first party going "okay but that game exists outside the universe of things I interact with because of [mechanic/aesthetic/design choice]" and then argument ensues. Functionally, I often feel like it's less "that's badwrongfun" and more "that's a related but distinct activity to what I was talking about." It's mostly issues about relevance.

While deeply uncharitable, I don't think its entirely out of pocket when some people say that things like PBTA basically aren't games. For a lot of the people, the G in RPG matters, and from a mechanical standpoint, PBTA type games do not have very robust or compelling gameplay to engage with beyond the improv game, which all RP games have to begin with. The feedback loops are weak to non-existent and they're near universally puddle-deep unless they're willing to break from the no-effort simplicity that, IMO, explains more of why the games are popular with some gamers than anything to do with how they handle storytelling.

Yet another reason why Ironsworn is the sole one of the bunch I full throatedly endorse because I can just play it for the gameplay and its fun, and the mechanics it has are deep enough to chew on.

 

[Pedantic]

My conclusion has been that we are not, fundamentally, doing the same thing but we talk about it like we are.

The conflict that emerges nearly always seems to be because everyone in a given discussion places some conception of what an RPG is as an immutable constant outside the bounds of discussion, and those constants are routinely in tension, and/or treated as variables by the other parties.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Funny how I've never heard anyone call e.g. Risus, Fudge, or even Lasers and Feelings "not games" when the gameplay there is far less robust or compelling.

 

[Emberashh]

As Im apparently not the only one who logs out to see what other people said, Ill just note that if one thinks the phrase "Story S*******" doesn't also refer to games like Lasers or Feelings, I have a beach in Kansas for sale for the low low price of a million dollars.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In the most respectful way possible, that is also my experience, and I feel as entitled to it as you do. I'm striving for empathy; my conclusion has been that we are not, fundamentally, doing the same thing but we talk about it like we are.

The conflict that emerges nearly always seems to be because everyone in a given discussion places some conception of what an RPG is as an immutable constant outside the bounds of discussion, and those constants are routinely in tension, and/or treated as variables by the other parties.

In the most respectful way possible "this is not an RPG" is always and without exception incredibly toxic to discussion. It is a pure and distilled form of a badwrongfun argument, calling a game badwrongfun not for any suggested actual badness but because it doesn't fit within arbitrary lines that one individual or group is trying to impose on the entire hobby.

And the two different tables I'm running are doing different things - but both are RPGs and if I need to differentiate them I give their subtypes of RPG different names.

 

[Pedantic]

Funny how I've never heard anyone call e.g. Risus, Fudge, or even Lasers and Feelings "not games" when the gameplay there is far less robust or compelling.

Uhh... I have found it unhelpful to use the phrase "not a game" in a TTRPG context online, certainly, but if I were to apply the same tests I use on boardgames, where that is not a deadly insult and instead a pretty normative part of criticism with a specific connotation about the impact, depth and variability of decision making....I would describe those as "not really games" or as "not very good games" depending.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've had a conversation about a variant of Lasers & Feelings in person with a friend where that precise phrase came up. It's just that it's clear that "game" is being used very differently in the context of a discussion here, and I can see it's both rude and not conducive to deploy it that way.

 

[Aldarc]

In the most respectful way possible, that is also my experience, and I feel as entitled to it as you do. I'm striving for empathy; my conclusion has been that we are not, fundamentally, doing the same thing but we talk about it like we are.

The conflict that emerges nearly always seems to be because everyone in a given discussion places some conception of what an RPG is as an immutable constant outside the bounds of discussion, and those constants are routinely in tension, and/or treated as variables by the other parties.

You are talking past me. You are continuing to defend toxic behavior. You are making assumptions about what was said to me and what was being argued when you weren't there. So barring an apology, the two of us done here, Pedantic.

 

[Alzrius]

You are talking past me. You are continuing to defend toxic behavior. You are making assumptions about what was said to me and what was being argued when you weren't there. So barring an apology, the two of us done here, Pedantic.

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black.