Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now

[Fenris-77]

I would also say the causal gamer doesn’t give a crap about RPG theory, in the same way the causal runner doesn’t care about Strava scores, or the causal coffee drinker has no idea what a TDS count or water recipe

I don't think this is super important. I think you might be underselling the genre generally.

 

[Lanefan]

I would also say the causal gamer doesn’t give a crap about RPG theory, in the same way the causal runner doesn’t care about Strava scores, or the causal coffee drinker has no idea what a TDS count or water recipe is.

The casual gamers don't have to give a crap about RPG theory as long as they enjoy the games they're playing. Telling them right up front that they'll have to put a lot more effort into their play is - while creditably honest - not likely to sell them on the game being promoted.

Same with coffee. The ordinary coffee drinker doesn't need to know any of that stuff in order to enjoy a coffee. But introducing a new flavour of coffee intentionally designed to only appeal to a small niche of tastes and then hoping (or expecting) it'll become the Next Big Thing is, I think, a self-defeating approach.

In both cases, if the intent is that the product eventually take over as the mass-market go-to default, the product needs to meet the market halfway, as least, by making itself friendlier to the mainstream.

 

[kenada]

In reading the OP and subsequent discussion about required player effort, I'm left wondering: where does the truly casual player - the player who just wants to show up to the game every week, have a laugh, roll some dice, chow down on some snacks and a beer, and not put any real mental effort into any of it - fit in?

I ask because, whether any of us like it or not, those players make up the vast majority of the RPG playerbase; thus moving toward (or even catering to) those players would seem to be essential if the type of play being discussed is ever to become more than a small niche within the greater RPG realm.

Some games might not appeal to them, which is okay. However, if they’re willing to go with the flow, I suspect those players will be fine.

 

[soviet]

Not trying to limit discussion in the least, merely asking if casual players have a place at the table.

'Cause sure, we here are the hard-core nutballers. No argument there. That said, I think it also behooves us to consider the interests of - and occasionally speak up for - the great majority who aren't so hard-core.

Which is fine as long as he's willingly accepts that by doing so he's severely limiting the potential size and scope of his audience. Just seems an odd tack to take for a revolutionary trying to get his message to the widest audience possible, is all.

I don't think casual players who don't want to try new things are 'the great majority' of the hobby.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think any attempt to categorize casual players as some kind of monolithic thing are misplaced.

 

[pemerton]

I think any attempt to categorize casual players as some kind of monolithic thing are misplaced.

They're like a gibbering mouther, except some of them find gibbering to be too much effort!

(Or something like that . . .)

 

[TwoSix]

Some games might not appeal to them, which is okay. However, if they’re willing to go with the flow, I suspect those players will be fine.

I mean, I don’t think the level of improv and active thinking needed for a “standard” narrative-type play is much more difficult than a Jackbox game requiring the players to type in phrases.

 

[kenada]

Which is fine as long as he's willingly accepts that by doing so he's severely limiting the potential size and scope of his audience. Just seems an odd tack to take for a revolutionary trying to get his message to the widest audience possible, is all.

I don’t think of Baker is a revolutionary. I think of him more as a game designer who is very happy to share his thoughts and experiences designing games (and one who apparently has always been able to make money doing it). People are interested in how Apocalypse World is put together, so there’s a lot about that and the ideas that contributed to it, but he’s designed games other than narrativist games.

The second article mentioned in the OP talks about one of them: Murderous Ghosts.

To deal with the next couple of ideas, I think we need a working example of a game dynamic that isn’t narrativist. Let’s use the one in Murderous Ghosts:​

• The character’s a cool and likeable stand-in for the players, not necessarily passionate and driven. Once the game’s underway, they have no vision or motivation but escape.
• The character’s not caught in a conflict of interests, exactly, or not necessarily. They’re in a dangerous situation that’s over their head, trying to survive.
• They’re not “fit.” If they escalate against the ghosts they’ll lose, we all know this. We aren’t playing to find out who they are, what they’ll sacrifice, where they draw the line, what it’ll cost them. We’re playing to find out only if they can get out of here alive.

If we entertain Egri’s theory of stories, playing Murderous Ghosts doesn’t give us one. And indeed, playing Murderous Ghosts is fun and exciting in its own right, but it’s not satisfying in the same way a compelling story game is. People who go into it expecting a literary or even a folk ghost story are often pretty disappointed by it. What you get instead is a quick, tense little nightmare of simple action, shallow or nonexistent character, unclear motivations, and unanswered mysteries, with (usually) an anticlimactic death cutting it abruptly off.​

He’s also started designing an OSR game. He has a discussion of it on his Patreon. There is a playtest rules document, but it’s only available to patrons. The way he does attacks and saves is interesting.

But this thread is about Baker on narrativism, so I’m going off topic.

 

[zakael19]

I don't think this is super important. I think you might be underselling the genre generally.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I've currently got 15 players scattered across 5 games (there's some repetition), I think (1) of them is interested in RPG theory and discussions that go beyond relatively simple pointers on how to run a games (stuff like Colville etc videos).

I've played games with the same players that meet the old and new definitions of narrativism, but definitely fit the newer one better. My Tuesday Daggerheart game ticks all the boxes he presents there, but that's something we've brought to the game inadvertently around premise and then how these players responded.

My Thursday Daggerheart game is pretty "casual" stuff in comparison, a la Justin Alexander's "situations not plots" for fairly conventional play. About on par with the average 5e home-brew game I see around, if perhaps more player-centric when it comes to world and impact?

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I mean, I don’t think the level of improv and active thinking needed for a “standard” narrative-type play is much more difficult than a Jackbox game requiring the players to type in phrases.

100% this. I am honestly shocked when I see this characterization from someone online. I know everyone is different, but compared to actual scene improv performances, this isn't really a paradigm switch where you need full immediacy to respond fast - you don't even need to improvise dialogue, just roleplay indirectly. It doesn't take "theater kids" to do - I certainly wasn't one in school.

There may be a table culture gap sometimes where some people want to spend time and effort to find the most optimal strategy to win while others like more off the cuff and risky decisions, but it's not like all narrative RPGs (or tables using that playstyle) require one or the other. Some may be more rewarding of that risky style (Blades in the Dark's XP on a Desperate roll or Apocalypse World 2e armor bonus to rush in).

I think many people mix these up with many other things. They feel pressured to be faster and mix that up with being more active. They feel like they need to be on more because they are in the spotlight more without long tactical combats to give them a break. But you can (and should) take a break in general when doing long RPG sessions.

All this spiel to say, certainly this hypothetical casual player needs to be engaged. They can't just watch their friends make decisions then do a few actions in a combat sub-system. But I don't think they are all that much more engaged than what traditional games ask from you outside of combat - to roleplay. And I actually think that handy Basic Moves cheatsheet is basically the perfect tool to help when they haven't a clue what to do. Even if they don't use it, it's something solid to crystallize creativity and improv around (same deal with GM Moves list). When I do scene improv (I guess I am now a theater-adult but like a bad one), I miss these tools dearly to help my brain think.