This is getting away from steps and more into initiative, but...
I would struggle to find a metaphor that makes this sort of initiative-free game less appealing. Baseball is a game where everyone gets to bat, even if their jobs in the field aren't the same. Basketball is a game that is often dominated by the star player(s), and the teammates who are lucky enough to get off the bench are remembered by how well they played sidekick. The latter is not an ideal TTRPG to me.
I do think initiative is relevant to this discussion—not as a digression, but as part of the broader question of how game mechanics guide participation. When steps are designed to shape flow—especially in reactive systems—then their number becomes less important than their
function. In
Daggerheart, for example, the steps aren’t just sequential tasks—they cue interaction, adjust tone, and shift momentum. That’s why I brought up initiative structure: it’s not a separate topic, it’s part of how that momentum is shared and sustained.
And just to clarify, the sports analogy wasn’t meant as a direct comparison. It’s not that TTRPGs
are like basketball or baseball—it’s that they can resemble certain pacing models. Baseball as a metaphor for turn-based, sequential play. Basketball for reactive, fluid engagement. It’s just a way to visualize structure. It wasn’t intended to map over player prominence, balance, or fairness. That kind of literal reading moves away from what the analogy is trying to surface.
That said, I understand why some people might feel uneasy with more open or momentum-based systems. If the group isn’t on the same page—or if people prefer a style where turns are clearly defined and outcomes are tightly scoped—then yeah, something like
Daggerheart can feel loose. But that’s where design intent comes in.
Daggerheart is built around collaborative pacing. It expects players to respond to one another, to contribute actively, and to pass narrative control fluidly. That doesn’t make it universally better—it just means it’s tuned for a specific kind of table. Some games support a wide range of play styles. Others commit more fully to one. That’s not a flaw in the system—it’s just a reflection of what kind of experience the designers had in mind.
And not every game is going to click with every group. That’s okay too.
And this brings it back to the core thread topic: when a game has more steps, they only feel heavy if they’re mechanically dead or narratively empty. If each step contributes to how play flows—especially in a system without fixed initiative—then the steps themselves
are the structure that keeps players engaged and the game moving. They aren’t obstacles to resolution; they’re the rhythm of the play itself. That kind of design alleviates the need for turn-based structure, like initiative, and becomes a feature of the game system—and a relevant part of the discussion that shouldn’t be overlooked.
