Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

[Aldarc]

People impose substantionally more malice and gatekeeping towards "jargon," whether in its creation or use, than is actually there IME.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

All language is jargon, and I'm about to start killfiling people who deprecate it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Have you tried introducing an adorable baby alien for the character to raise like their own child??

 

[loverdrive]

I haven't been around for a while, but I'm not surprised that "using specific words to describe specific things" is still a controversial subject.

I think y'all should be grateful that TTRPG "jargon" didn't went the way of gamer slang and isn't abbreviated, littered with in-jokes or referring to things that aren't there anymore.

Although I guess discussions would be funnier if we talked about happy birthdays, double piping and bananas.

 

[innerdude]

So a couple of things that I wanted to capture/summarize that's been discussed so far--

• To discuss narrative-style play in "natural terms", it seems to lead to a discussion of character. I think that's because talking about character is a natural pivot point to looking at how fiction is constructed in relation to the game. It's easy for a player to connect the idea that "my character is a fictional construct" with the idea that the game at large is the same--something constructed via play. It's a very obvious thing on the surface, but it's something that isn't always connected within the group.
• Once you've made this connection, the conversation moves to thinking about how individual player attitudes and drives feed into how the construct is shaped. I think maybe that's something I can talk to my whole group about. The idea is to generate some consensus as a group about what kind of construct we're building.
• A third part is looking at how mechanics intersect between character conception and how it layers over the game fiction. I think most players don't really think about this. They assume that mechanics exist at face level. They're just the things they read and manipulate to spit out the numbers on their character sheet. Talking through how the mechanics create differences in the actual fictional approaches can be a way to talk about play style.

 

[Manbearcat]

• A third part is looking at how mechanics intersect between character conception and how it layers over the game fiction. I think most players don't really think about this. They assume that mechanics exist at face level. They're just the things they read and manipulate to spit out the numbers on their character sheet. Talking through how the mechanics create differences in the actual fictional approaches can be a way to talk about play style.

On this third part I would add:

how the mechanics + principled GMing generates compelling decision-points which in turn feeds into compelling gamestate evolution toward dynamic trajectories.​

This is an absolutely essential part that I try to frequently talk about in hopes that one day it will become assimilated and then operationalized in the same way that traditional play discusses Rule 0 and its implications upon play.

Just like Rule 0, the aspiration of the rules/mechanics get out of the way is absolutely anathema to Narrativism. They play one of the most vital roles in generating compelling blow-by-blow play which leads to unforeseen directions. Conscientious design and conscientious GMing around a Narrativist game's novel premise which leverage that game's novel mechanics should be creating hard, compelling choices for the large percentage of table time. Players should then be focused on making big, bold moves that aggress the fiction and gamestate. With those features working in concert, play is never sterile, never robbed of its vitality, never predictable.

 

[thefutilist]

This is an absolutely essential part that I try to frequently talk about in hopes that one day it will become assimilated and then operationalized in the same way that traditional play discusses Rule 0 and its implications upon play.

Isn't that already the core of Narrativist design or do you think people are missing something.

 

[Manbearcat]

Isn't that already the core of Narrativist design or do you think people are missing something.

Yup. Absolutely at the core of Narrativist design.

I just think the commentary on these games sometimes lacks the stressing of this essential point to the frequency and magnitude that it deserves. Commentary might end up talking about broad agenda or a game’s aspirations in terms of finished product, but it doesn’t press upon the reader the nuts and bolts of how that agenda is operationalized and how that finish product is attained; the moment-by-moment implementation of system and execution by the participants.

I think because of that, agendas like NeoTrad and Narrativism can get confused or conflated (binned into “Storygames” often) despite them being rather different things. I mean you even see GM Storyteller Trad games binned under that absurdly broad “Storygames” catch-all.

 

[zakael19]

I think pretty much all narrativist games have a good layout of "player's agenda," but I happen to like Stonetop's quite a bit:

Your agenda
When you play Stonetop, these should be your goals:

• Portray a compelling character
• Engage with the fictional world
• Play to find out what happens

The game’s rules and structure assume that you are pursuing these three goals, and no others. This isn’t a game that you play to win. The game doesn’t expect you to optimize your character. It’s not a game about testing your skill, and it’s not a game where you show up to be led through the GM’s story.

Your first and most important goal is to portray a compelling character. Your PC is one of the protagonists of the story. Make them worthy of that role. Don’t treat them as just a set of stats and abilities. Portray them as a person, with hopes and dreams, inner conflicts and relationships with others. Your playbook (page 50) will help you to sketch out a compelling character, but it’s your job to bring that character to life, to portray a protagonist that you and your fellow players care about.

Your second goal is to engage with the fictional world. Don’t just react to the world that the GM presents, care about it. Explore it and be curious about it. Talk with NPCs like they’re real people, get invested in their stories. And don’t just allow the world to be revealed to you—contribute! Suggest details. Ponder out loud about what things might mean. Be a fan of the world that you and the GM and your fellow players are creating together.

Finally, play to find out what happens. The rules and the dice are there to introduce uncertainty and surprises, to tell us what happens when things go wrong. Your character won’t always get what they want. You often won’t get what you expect.

Have ideas for your character’s arc and story, sure, but hold those ideas lightly. We don’t yet know what your PCs’ story will be, whether it will be a comedy or a tragedy or a little bit of both. Play to find out what happens.

And of course there's the list of principles that help bring all of the above together:

-Begin and end with the fiction
-Connect with the other PCs
-Show us what’s important to you
-Have goals and pursue them
-Be bold, take risks
-Embrace difficulty, setback, and failure
-Participate in worldbuilding
-Build on what others have said
-Give others a chance to shine
-Participate in the conversation

The only one that imo needs a bit of explanation is the first one (tell us how you do what you do, what it looks like, and ensure you're clear on the details what happened as the result of a triggered move).

 

[SteveC]

I have played several campaigns of FFG's Star Wars and I have to say that your player isn't wrong. But neither are you. Star Wars isn't a game about getting gear and loot and equipment progression. I think the series that uses it the most is the Mandalorian and at some point they just lost sight of his gear. He carries ammo for a weapon that as far as I know, he doesn't even own any more because it's a cool part of the costume.

The problem is that FFG Star Wars is absolutely chock full of gear and upgrades. And mods to put on your gear. The game is seriously at odds with what the source material tells us is important. So your player is looking at all of that cool stuff and wants the shiny. Can you see how that makes sense?

My suggestion is to do what the GM who ran my games with me did: he made gear upgrades happen in the background. We got the option to upgrade character equipment but he had us do it between sessions. The game was about what's important in Star Wars.

And my suggestion if you really don't want to have gear be a big part of the game is to just run Scum and Villany. I ran a game of that and it did what I was looking for, which I think is very similar to what you want.