Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now

[innerdude]

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.

I mean, the short answer is---to channel the appropriate Star Wars motif---"This isn't the game you're looking for. Move along."

If that's genuinely---genuinely, mind you---the player's mindset, then narrativist play agendas, techniques, and overall goals don't generally align to that kind of player motivation. Casual, "beer and pretzels," "I just want to sling a few spells and smash a few bad guys" approaches to play are somewhat antithetical to the level of investment most narrativist play is looking for.

Now that doesn't mean that player can't co-exist in a group who is pursuing that agenda. I can sort-of, kind-of envision that kind of player co-existing in a specific type of Dungeon World / Stonetop / Ironsworn game, but that player's role and character in the fiction will be pushed steadily into the background. I can't imagine it being a particularly satisfying kind of gameplay, at least not for more than 2-3 sessions.

Which is why I think Daggerheart is finding such strong footing, because it toes that line between giving the invested players more of the "narrativist" morsels they crave, while still having "enough" of the "casual" game mechanical footprint offered by D&D.

But all that said, I also firmly believe that the number of "truly casual players" alluded to by much of the "old school" RPG demographic is significantly overstated. Most players I introduce to narrativist techniques---more shared fictional control, player-side agendas + protagonism, reduction in GM force---suddenly find that they're more invested than they've ever been previously.

That's not to say, of course, that there are no actual "casual" players out there. Obviously there are truly "casual" players like the ones you've described.

But in my experience many more "casual" players have been rendered "casual" by the predominant trad / old school GM ethos than by their actual level of interest.

 

[Campbell]

So, our home group has a decent number of players who don't think about the game during the week and do not fuss over rules. They have functioned just fine in my Blades in the Dark and Masks game and the Star Wars game @RenleyRenfield runs.

Players who like to actively avoid the spotlight, want to play just to be silly or just want to pay attention in combat would not work well though. These players would not fit in with our more like traditional games either though (which actually tend to be more demanding on players).

 

[Lanefan]

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?

All of those except the second would fit my idea of a casual player, but my thoughts and comments have been mainly about the first type - the "beer and pretzels" player.

Somebody who plays a character deeply but doesn't care about rules might be casual or might not; the casual version can't be bothered to learn the rules while the non-casual version learns the rules and then - intentionally or otherwise - ignores them.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Do we have examples of games built using narrativism that would work for beer and pretzel players? Would Monster of the Week be one?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Do we have examples of games built using narrativism that would work for beer and pretzel players? Would Monster of the Week be one?

Monster of the Week = for sure a good beer and pretzels narrative game!

Masks too!

Could toss in Pasion de Las Pasiones as well.

Dread for sure.

 

[pemerton]

I ran a session of In A Wicked Age for a couple of kids and a parent, who I think would all count as "casual" players. It worked fine. The kids in particular tended to use the compromise mechanic for resolving conflicts in ways that de-escalated a bit, and made things a bit more "comfortable", than I would expect with my regular group. But that's fine - not everyone has to play in exactly the same way!

(The full session write-up is here: In A Wicked Age actual play.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I think that if we can't call Vincent Baker a revolutionary game designer with a list of games including Apocalypse World and Dogs in the Vineyard then the list of revolutionary game designers since E. Gary Gygax can't go beyond Sandy Petersen and Mark Reign*Hagen. And I'm not even sure about Petersen.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But in my experience many more "casual" players have been rendered "casual" by the predominant trad / old school GM ethos than by their actual level of interest.

This matches my experience as well; I get far more engaged players when I even run Daggerheart and let them create their own cultures and put them on a map than I do running 5e in a predetermined world. They want to join in with the creativity but many games just don't let them.

 

[kenada]

I think that if we can't call Vincent Baker a revolutionary game designer with a list of games including Apocalypse World and Dogs in the Vineyard then the list of revolutionary game designers since E. Gary Gygax can't go beyond Sandy Petersen and Mark Reign*Hagen. And I'm not even sure about Petersen.

The original phrasing (“a revolutionary trying to get his message to the widest audience possible”) implied that Baker’s purpose in designing these games and talking about them is advocacy. While he has said that he designs games as a way to say something about design, the goal seems to be to get people to create better games rather than to convince them that they should design games like his. That’s the kind of “revolutionary” I’m disclaiming.

 

[pemerton]

The original phrasing (“a revolutionary trying to get his message to the widest audience possible”) implied that Baker’s purpose in designing these games and talking about them is advocacy. While he has said that he designs games as a way to say something about design, the goal seems to be to get people to create better games rather than to convince them that they should design games like his. That’s the kind of “revolutionary” I’m disclaiming.

Yeah, someone can be revolutionary (as in, upending or transforming their field) without being a revolutionary.

I think Baker is a pretty perceptive designer. You can see this in the Anyway blogs from 15 to 20 years ago, where he is working through his satisfactions and dissatisfactions with his earlier games (especially In A Wicked Age and Dogs in the Vineyard) in the lead-up to Apocalypse World.

Perhaps where the two meanings of "revolutionary" come together in Baker's case is in the way that he wants designers of RPGs to think about what RPG design actually is, and how RPG design actually affects play. I think the phrase "Game design is mind control" comes from Luke Crane; but Baker's the one who has actually worked through, in detail both of analysis and of putting out both prototypes and full-fledged games, how the "mind control" can be achieved.

I agree with you that this has nothing particularly to do with narrativist RPGing, although that's the sort of RPGing where Baker has done what is probably his most interesting work.