What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Daggerheart Discussion)

[pemerton]

think exploring just what needs to be true in d&d 5e for ‘player driven play’ to happen would be helpful.

Every time I invite you or other posters to do so, you decline.

Like, where are your examples of narrativistic 5e D&D play?

Over this and other threads I've given my examples of narrativistic play, from AD&D, 4e D&D, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Torchbearer 2e, Agon 2e, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy, and Classic Traveller. I've talked about what are the strengths of these systems, and some of their limitations (particularly notable for AD&D and RM). I'm doing my share of the heavy lifting.

In a recent video that was posted in one of these threads (I think I posted it in this one), Ron Edwards gave his example of narrativist 3E D&D. He's doing his share of the lifiting without even posting on ENworld!

If 5e D&D players want examples of what narrativist 5e would look like, they need to offer some up. But the last really detailed discussion of 5e D&D play that I remember was @hawkeyefan's example of a GM railroading over the top of his Folk Hero background ability, and most of the other 5e players spent a lot of time and effort trying to defend that as good GMing. That's the sort of posting that makes me doubt that there is very much narrativistic or player-driven 5e play going on - because all the strong 5e D&D advocates pretty consistently advocate for GM-driven play.

 

[pemerton]

Why? Why is this needed? It seems incredibly mechanistic way of looking at things. I just do not recognise that this is necessary. The Blades game I'm playing in has this, but it is no more player driven than my D&D game.

Are you confusing necessary with sufficient conditions?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not remotely.

Yes it is exactly. This is what you demand in your previous post, and that it might not succeed as it is locked behind a roll is immaterial for the point.

The player declares an action: I stab the Orc. Dice are rolled to find out what happens next. (The earliest RPG I know to use this rule is 1974 D&D, via its combat system.)

The player declares an action: I look around for a sympathiser. Dice are roll to find out what happens next. (The earliest RPG I know to use this rule is 1977 Traveller, via its Streetwise skill.)

Neither is "meta level acausal". Both involve the player declaring an action, and dice being rolled to see what happens next and whether the action succeeds.

Yes, I know this is how you always try to smuggle this in. These things are not the same. Stabbing and orc is the player effecting a change via the causal power of their character, looking for a thing causing the thing to appear isn't. This is plain as day.

I don't understand why you need to be defensive about this and try to obfuscate what is actually happening. It is not inherently a bad thing that it works like that, you don't need to try to hide it.

And similarly, at some tables the GM is allowed to decided that there are no sympathisers, and that everyone is fanatically loyal to the NPC, and hence the attempt to find sympathisers is doomed to failure. (I believe, from your posts, that your table uses a version of this rule.)

That every imaginable avenue is not available doesn't mean the players lack agency to choose the direction. And I am sure that in practice similar limitations exist practically in every game. There simply are some things that are impossible, and I don't know of a single game where this is not the case. (I'm sure someone will soon chime in with an exception, but the general principle stands.)

 

[pemerton]

Presumably because if this is player driven game, the players decided to seek an audience, or at least answer the summons? Or that's how it would be in my game. The scene is framed because the players decided to go there.

Why do the players want their PCs to go there? What is "the summons"? What is at stake in all this?

Without answers to those questions, we can't tell whether or not we have player-driven RPGing.

 

[soviet]

I'm following two threads at the moment.

This one is (lately) about how narrativism doesn't really exist and players of D&D 5e are just as empowered to drive the story.

The other one is about how background traits in D&D 5e are terrible because they give players the ability to fiat content (criminal contacts, ships they've crewed) into existence, but players can't be trusted not to abuse this, and strict GM veto power is necessary to maintain the consistency and plausibility of your game world.

It's quite a whiplash clicking back and forth!

 

[pemerton]

The other one is about how background traits in D&D 5e are terrible because they give players the ability to fiat content (criminal contacts, ships they've crewed) into existence, but players can't be trusted not to abuse this, and strict GM veto power is necessary to maintain the consistency and plausibility of your game world.

Come on, pics or links or it didn't happen!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm following two threads at the moment.

This one is (lately) about how narrativism doesn't really exist and players of D&D 5e are just as empowered to drive the story.

The other one is about how background traits in D&D 5e are terrible because they give players the ability to fiat content (criminal contacts, ships they've crewed) into existence, but players can't be trusted not to abuse this, and strict GM veto power is necessary to maintain the consistency and plausibility of your game world.

It's quite a whiplash clicking back and forth!

Well, it is nice to know that I am not the only one who thinks that narrativism is strongly associated with the players having access to acausal reality editing.

Now what I do not agree with is, that such are needed for players to have significant impact on the direction of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I know this is how you always try to smuggle this in. These things are not the same. Stabbing and orc is the player effecting a change via the causal power of their character, looking for a thing causing the thing to appear isn't. This is plain as day.

No one thinks looking for a thing makes it appear. Similarly, when the GM narrates a failed climb check in AD&D by mentioning a crumbling hand-hold - even though crumbling hand-holds were not previously part of the fiction - no one thinks the PC's attempt to climb is what caused this particular wall to have loose, crumbly bits of rock and mortar.

The actual matter at hand is, How is it decided that an attempt to look for a person succeeds or fails?

I've already talked about how it works in Classic Traveller, and in Burning Wheel. So let's talk about how it works in Apocalypse World. In AW, there is no player-side move When you look for a person, . . . * So if the player declares that their PC looks for a peson, the GM makes a soft move. That move has to follow from the fiction. So the obvious examples are *to announce badness - the person isn't there, they seem to have (been kidnapped, eloped with the PC's girlfriend, locked the door so no one can visit them, etc) - or to provide an opportunity, with or with a cost - the PC comes upon the NPC doing whatever it is they're doing, and play unfolds from there.

Does this count as "meta-acausal" too?

"Meta-acausal" is a red herring. The point is that the GM doesn't have the unilateral power to decide consequences in a fashion that is irrelevant to, or runs roughshod over, whatever it is that the player is wanting to put at stake. Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel achieve this by using the generic conflict resolution mechanism. AW achieves this by shaping the rules for what the GM says happens next around player-concern-centred soft moves ("badness", "opportunities", "being put in a spot", etc)

That every imaginable avenue is not available doesn't mean the players lack agency to choose the direction. And I am sure that in practice similar limitations exist practically in every game. There simply are some things that are impossible, and I don't know of a single game where this is not the case. (I'm sure someone will soon chime in with an exception, but the general principle stands.)

Who decides?

That's all this is about. I mean, if the player really thought it was impossible that their PC's attempt to overthrow the tyrant might succeed, they wouldn't declare it.