Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now

[Umbran]

I wasn't aware we were limiting discussion here on EN World, a niche website frequented by a minority of players of this already-niche hobby, to "truly casual players."

We are not limiting discussion to casual players. But explicitly including them.
He's asking where do casual players fit in this scheme of narrative play.

 

[zakael19]

I guess what is a casual player? Somebody who just shows up for light hearted beers and pretzel hijinks? Somebody who plays a character deeply but doesn’t engage heavily in rules? Somebody who is happiest in the “spectator” archetype and mainly fades to the background outside of their combat rounds and an occasional comment? Somebody who bounces in and out of pickup games without schedule committing?

 

[Umbran]

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?

So, we can start looking at that question with another question:

Where does the truly casual player fit in in a game that allows high degrees of combat optimization in play?

I think the answer is the same - you have to take some care to either make sure the entire table has similar intents in play, or there's some extra effort to keep play on an even keep when the table has folks with radically different agendas.

 

[TwoSix]

I guess what is a casual player? Somebody who just shows up for light hearted beers and pretzel hijinks? Somebody who plays a character deeply but doesn’t engage heavily in rules? Somebody who is happiest in the “spectator” archetype and mainly fades to the background outside of their combat rounds and an occasional comment? Somebody who bounces in and out of pickup games without schedule committing?

I definitely think there's a portion of the "casual" player base that is generally passive. They show up at the table, chime in with actions on their turn during combat, and volunteer some ideas during non-combat play. But they have no interest in doing anything to drive play forward. They are essentially recipients of the narration unfolding around them.

There's also a portion of the casual player base that are invested casuals. They don't browse forums like this, they don't know anything about different play styles, but when they're playing, they love to get involved with making suggestions and paths to move the story forward.

I don't claim to have any idea of what the relative proportions are, except to say I've played with several examples of both passive casuals and invested casuals. And the "invested" casuals are definitely the ones that really enjoyed the low-key narrativism and player prompting of systems like Daggerheart.

 

[zakael19]

I definitely think there's a portion of the "casual" player base that is generally passive. They show up at the table, chime in with actions on their turn during combat, and volunteer some ideas during non-combat play. But they have no interest in doing anything to drive play forward. They are essentially recipients of the narration unfolding around them.

There's also a portion of the casual player base that are invested casuals. They don't browse forums like this, they don't know anything about different play styles, but when they're playing, they love to get involved with making suggestions and paths to move the story forward.

I don't claim to have any idea of what the relative proportions are, except to say I've played with several examples of both passive casuals and invested casuals. And the "invested" casuals are definitely the ones that really enjoyed the low-key narrativism and player prompting of systems like Daggerheart.

Yeah I’d say your second category is just a “player.” If you’re consistent and invested, you can engage in narrativism without trouble. If you’re inconsistent and invested, you can engage with narrativism (you can do a one-shot narrativist play).

I don’t think a passive player can engage well with a narrativist game, they won’t push for character goals and needs in conflicts.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah I’d say your second category is just a “player.” If you’re consistent and invested, you can engage in narrativism without trouble. If you’re inconsistent and invested, you can engage with narrativism (you can do a one-shot narrativist play).

Well, I'm contrasting them with us, who are probably "overinvested" players.

I don’t think a passive player can engage well with a narrativist game, they won’t push for character goals and needs in conflicts.

Agreed. I enjoy marrative type games, but I feel they tend to fall down in two situations. One, your active and interested players are outnumbered by passive players. Two, your group is simply too large to allow any one player to drive the game via their character's interests. (Generally once you have 6 or more people at the table.)

 

[darkbard]

We are not limiting discussion to casual players. But explicitly including them.
He's asking where do casual players fit in this scheme of narrative play.

My point was more that @Lanefan 's post is an example of "What about-ism" or shifting the focus of the conversation away from the OP's topic of inquiry into yet another derailing of conversation that will inevitably get bogged down in fights over definitions, what terms are permissible in this discussion, feigned offense, and the like.

If the topic doesn't seem to be about "casual" play, let's just leave that out of it and have a conversation about the kind of active, engaged gaming and the techniques of arriving at such that the OP presents/interrogates. There's no need to butt in to insist any topic of inquiry be applicable to everyone.

 

[Umbran]

If the topic doesn't seem to be about "casual" play, let's just leave that out of it and have a conversation about the kind of active, engaged gaming and the techniques of arriving at such that the OP presents/interrogates. There's no need to butt in to insist any topic of inquiry be applicable to everyone.

1) You don't get to decide what "needs" to happen - individual posters don't get to exert editorial control over what others post. Folks who aren't interested in that line of discussion are free to not engage. If too few are interested, that sub-topic will die on its own without your intervention.

2) While EN World is filled with people who are into the active, engaged gaming, most of our tables probably aren't filled with those same types. However active and engaged we, personally, may be, we generally play with folks who are less engaged, all the way down to the beer-and-pretzel sorts every day, so knowing how to work with them is important to us.

If a schema of gaming is not applicable to those people, it is pretty important to recognize that, and talking about why it doesn't work can be edifying. If it is applicable, but needs some awareness and techniques applied to make it work, that's a very valid direction of discussion.

 

[darkbard]

1) You don't get to decide what "needs" to happen - individual posters don't get to exert editorial control over what others post. Folks who aren't interested in that line of discussion are free to not engage. If too few are interested, that sub-topic will die on its own without your intervention.

2) While EN World is filled with people who are into the active, engaged gaming, most of our tables probably aren't filled with those same types. However active and engaged we, personally, may be, we generally play with folks who are less engaged, all the way down to the beer-and-pretzel sorts every day, so knowing how to work with them is important to us.

If a schema of gaming is not applicable to those people, it is pretty important to recognize that, and talking about why it doesn't work can be edifying. If it is applicable, but needs some awareness and techniques applied to make it work, that's a very valid direction of discussion.

I'm not interested in a debate about this with you, Umbran. The thread will develop as it does, and readers can judge for themselves the usefulness of drifting the OP and whether any "edifying" techniques come out of this.

 

[Piperken]

I guess what is a casual player? Somebody who just shows up for light hearted beers and pretzel hijinks? Somebody who plays a character deeply but doesn’t engage heavily in rules? Somebody who is happiest in the “spectator” archetype and mainly fades to the background outside of their combat rounds and an occasional comment? Somebody who bounces in and out of pickup games without schedule committing?

A recent anecdote which fits here:

I just ran (for the first time myself) a game of Brindlewood Bay (Carved by Brindlewood) for three players. Two are currently participating in a 5E campaign. The third was brand new, not having played any role playing game at all.

Of the two players who had some experience in playing 5E, one roughly falls under the "spectator" type and the other "someone who plays a character deeply but doesn't heavily engage in rules" type.

All three enjoyed the experience! They do want to play it again. The game definitely nudges participants towards engagement with contributing fiction details to the immediate scene, spending time painting vignettes of their own character's past, etc.