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

[clearstream]

Presumably on your account, then, JRRT and I are both "part of" The Lord of the Rings - he as author, me as (one of many) reader(s).

That feels forgetful of the player duality that Edwards called attention to, and that I have many times emphasised.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’d argue that profit is much more of a meaningful motivation in Blades. For the characters, but also the players. There are far more interesting choices to be made in regard to Coin in Blades, and far more meaningful uses for it.

In 5E D&D as written, there’s little need for gold. Magic items are the much bigger element of treasure. Coin does very little in the game except serve as a kind of score. And maybe it’s used occasionally for some purchases or hirelings and the like, but that kind of play seems mostly a relic at this point. One of the primary complaints about 5e is how little use there is for gold.

Yeah, sure. But what I meant that the point of neither game is really acquiring money. Acquiring money is an excuse for putting the characters into interesting situations. The money obviously still can be useful in the game (and definitely is more so in Blades than in D&D), but you're not trying to "win" the game by gathering most gold.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know what "hybridism" is.

See my post #972.

However, the point that different imagined situations, different mechanics, etc may be better or worse suited to narrativist play isn't a new one, though. Not from me: I've been making it for 10 or 15 years on these boards.

And I didn't invent the point. Ron Edwards made it over 20 years ago.

I mean, look at Vincent Baker's remarks about what narrativism needs: fit characters with apt opposition/antagonism generating rising conflict across a moral line, with the players' decisions establishing the conflict and the meaning of its resolution. It follows trivially from this that some situations are better suited than others: there's a reason his imagined RPG is "Life o' Crime" and not "Life o' Muffin Baking". That's not to say that we can know, a priori, that it is impossible to create rising conflict across a moral line in the context of muffin baking. But I don't think it's going to be easy!

There's a reason that the debate over armour repair was one scene in my Burning Wheel play, but not the whole of the game.

It simply seemed ironic to me that you wrote

I honestly don't know what the spectrum is that you (and @clearstream?) are trying to articulate.

Having just articulated some examples of it (and now more.)

As I used it (and I really did so only to speak to @FrogReaver's usage) I understood a "spectrum" to be the case where an element may suit in some degree a mode of play, implying that it may appear in other degrees in other modes of play (as to which, you gave examples.)

Matters of degree, rather than all or nothing. Thinking about your #1040, do you want to say that some features are available in degree, while others are strictly binary?

 

[pemerton]

This neatly speaks to my thesis that there are modalists and hybridists. Modalists - like you seem to attest to being - don't believe properties of play can be found in degrees: it's all or nothing. Hybridists - like @FrogReaver if I understand what they say correctly - believe that properties of play can be found in all kinds of arrangements and degrees.

What is a property of play, in this context?

Using the phrase with its ordinary meaning, one property of play is it happens at pemerton's house. How is that a matter of degree?

Another property of play is it was exciting. That probably is a matter of degree.

Yet another property of play is it was interrupted because pemerton's child fell over and cut her head. That happened once. That doesn't seem to be something that can be a matter of degree - either play was interrupted or it was not.

Now maybe you are thinking of other properties of play? I really don't know.

hybridists are interested in drifted and yet-to-be-designed games. They're willing to focus on details and deconstruct.

I don't know what this means either. You and @FrogReaver claim to be the hybridists. I'm not sure what games you've designed. On your account, Edwards, Baker and Luke Crane are presumably "modalists". Between them they've designed many games, some quite influential on the hobby as a whole.

Your "deconstruction", as best I can tell, involves coining a lot of new phrases that seem to me to have very limited explanatory power. Whereas the work of Edwards, Baker, Crane, Czege et al has both profoundly shaped my understanding of the RPG medium and hobby, as well as my own approach to RPGing.

So when you say a scene is framed or it is not framed.

Well, I didn't actually say that. I said "Either the way scenes are framed, and resolved, generates theme, or it doesn't." I don't think "deconstruction" extends to "misattribution".

A hybridist would see the possibility for variance on at least the following

What comprises a scene? We could have different lists in mind, with many commonalities and some differences.​

Is it framed if some but not all of that list are framed? What about if some things on my list are left unframed even though your list is satisfied? And the converse.​

Why does any of this matter? What concrete play examples do you have in mind? Did you have ever have play stall because a scene was incomplete? (Eg there was confusion as to where two people were located in relation to one another, or confusion as to which characters were present in the scene.) If you did, was it hard to correct an unstall?

What if some are framed contingently? What is the list of things that can undo or ignore our framing down the line?​

I don't know what you have in mind by this.

Who frames what? Does it matter if that changes? What if GM frames everything? What if GM frames everything barring X? What if players frame everything? What if one player frames everything? Two? Etc.​

These questions have been asked, analysed, and answered - to death - by me, and others, including in this very thread? It strike me as bizarre that you would think I am uninterested in this, when - for instance - you have seen me post about the role of Circles and Wises in Burning Wheel, about my experience of two player/two GM Burning Wheel play, etc.

Are there any rules governing framing? What if I vary those?​

Ditto. If you think this is uncharted territory, I don't know what to say.

 

[thefutilist]

All I as the player have to do is play as my character. I want to meet the princess, so I do all the things necessary to achieve that. If, as a player, the dice tell me this is not how it will play out, then that's fine too, those are the terms of engagement with the game. I might, at most, think "gosh it would have been interesting." Oh well. I RP my now very disappointed character going on a 3 day drinking binge and waking up in the King's gaol with a bad hangover and a 300 coin fine that he cannot pay!

I'm really at bad writing because this was my point, I mostly agree with everything you've said. (although more incoming later)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, either the session of play addresses premise, or it doesn't.

Some sessions, or some parts of the single session address the theme. But some sessions or some parts of the session also address other things.

Either the way scenes are framed, and resolved, generates theme, or it doesn't.

Some scenes do, some don't. Some scenes serve other purposes.

Either there is rising action across a moral line - driven by fit characters and apt antagonism - or there isn't.

Sometimes there is. But not always.

Like this is blatantly obviously trivially possible, and done by countless gamers routinely. It is always all or nothing for you, but not everyone approaches things that way. @clearstream's modalist and hybridist thing was the most astute observation to rise from these hundred pages, and explains so much of the arguments on these forums.

 

[pemerton]

The way you say it here sounds like it’s just a property of being a ttrpg. Like if you can say anything you want about the fiction (mechanic = say what you want) and then the next player can do the same it sounds more like a story game than an rpg IMO.

In some sense it seems rpg play arises due to the constraints placed on the players and GM.

Well, it comes out of Baker's arrows and clouds which were I believe descriptive, meaning they observe and describe TTRPG. Which through diagramming allowed it to be explored and addressed.

Thus I think fiction-first recognises, intentionally structures, and emphasises a common dynamic. Of course, even a common dynamic can start to have a meaningfully different impact on play once it is recognised and structured.

The point of Baker's boxes and clouds is to describe, for a particular system/procedure of play, the relationship between cues (like dice rolls, or charts, or PC sheets, or some mathematical operation) and imagined stuff ("the fiction"). (The "boxes" - dice - represent cues; the clouds represent imagined stuff.)

The basic idea of "fiction first" is to establish rightward arrows - ie from fiction to cues - rather than to have only leftward arrows, or recursive arrows from cues to cues. (Here is where Baker uses the analysis to diagnose why his system In A Wicked Age is experienced as unsatisfactory by some RPGers.)

An example of a recursive arrow from cues to cues is "Roll to hit." => dice are rolled, final to hit number calculated using appropriate mathematical procedure => "OK, as per the stat block the AC is <whatever> and so that hits. Roll damage." => dice are rolled, final damage result is calculated using appropriate mathematical procedure => "OK, I've subtracted that number from the hit point number. It's now equal to zero."

There was one leftward arrow there: when the GM said "so that hits", that is, the mechanical process requires us to imagine, as part of the fiction, the attacking character doing <something or other> to set back their foe.

The final bit, about the foe's hit points being reduced to zero, is also apt to prompt the GM to say "They're dead!" which generates another leftward arrow - as part of the shared fiction we are now all to imagine that this being is dead, killed by the attacking character.

D&D combat often includes quite a bit of this sort of thing - lots of recursive arrows from cues to cues, the occasional leftward arrow (some not very crisp in terms of the imagination they produce like, "that hits"), and few or no rightward arrows. (There was no rightward arrow in my example, but presumably one occurred prior to the instruction to roll to hit: the player saying "I attack the foe", which is an event in the fiction that prompts the call to roll the d20.)

(For the curious, I've just reiterated Baker's steps 2, 4, 5, 6 from his Resolution System #1 on the blog I linked to above.)

A fiction-first system tries to increase the ratio of (i)rightward arrows to (ii) leftward arrows and recursive arrows from cues-to-cues.

 

[clearstream]

What is a property of play, in this context?

Using the phrase with its ordinary meaning, one property of play is it happens at pemerton's house. How is that a matter of degree?

Another property of play is it was exciting. That probably is a matter of degree.

Yet another property of play is it was interrupted because pemerton's child fell over and cut her head. That happened once. That doesn't seem to be something that can be a matter of degree - either play was interrupted or it was not.

Now maybe you are thinking of other properties of play? I really don't know.

When time permits I will scour back through the thread and list out some that you and others (probably including me) have listed.

I don't know what this means either. You and @FrogReaver claim to be the hybridists. I'm not sure what games you've designed. On your account, Edwards, Baker and Luke Crane are presumably "modalists". Between them they've designed many games, some quite influential on the hobby as a whole.

I haven't claimed to be either a modalist or a hybridist. I observed that both exist. It is always the case that successful designs will be situated in the hot spots, i.e. represent distinguishable modes. Novel designs are often found initially in the hinterland, but quickly form a neighbourhood as others promulgate and emulate them.

Well, I didn't actually say that. I said "Either the way scenes are framed, and resolved, generates theme, or it doesn't." I don't think "deconstruction" extends to "misattribution".

Interesting. I was looking at "framed", "resolved" and "generates theme" each as properties. Such that a game could have a "scene" property, and (via scenes) could have the properties "framed", "resolved", and "theme". I'll label those FRT for convenience.

In this case I would wonder if frequency, accuracy and intensity matter. It seems very likely that they do, in which case what you have described isn't a binary. EDIT: I see @Crimson Longinus making observations relating to this.

By frequency I mean are all scenes FRT? What is some are and some aren't? What if some types of scenes always are, and other types always aren't?

By accuracy I mean given scenes are FR, how often does that generate T? With scope for variance as implied above.

And by intensity, I mean that given scenes are FRT, how noticeable, impactful, relevant to player interests, and a whole suite of concerns of that sort, is the theme? It seems to me you have something in mind for this that is binary for you - a pemertonian-T - but would not necessarily be chosen by or matter to others.

Why does any of this matter? What concrete play examples do you have in mind? Did you have ever have play stall because a scene was incomplete? (Eg there was confusion as to where two people were located in relation to one another, or confusion as to which characters were present in the scene.) If you did, was it hard to correct an unstall?

Yes. And usually no.

These questions have been asked, analysed, and answered - to death - by me, and others, including in this very thread? It strike me as bizarre that you would think I am uninterested in this, when - for instance - you have seen me post about the role of Circles and Wises in Burning Wheel, about my experience of two player/two GM Burning Wheel play, etc.

I am not raising them in order to be answered, I am pointing them out as scope for variance.

Ditto. If you think this is uncharted territory, I don't know what to say.

Ditto.

 

[pemerton]

That feels forgetful of the player duality that Edwards called attention to, and that I have many times emphasised.

Forgetful how? Separating author and audience doesn't mean they cease to be part of the work.

Or to flip it around: you've provided no argument that combining author and audience means that they themselves become constituent elements of the work they produce, in a way that they wouldn't if they were separate.

I mean, playing guitar for my own pleasure is different from playing for a friend, but that doesn't mean that in the first case I am part of the music I create where in the second case I'm not.

 

[pemerton]

As I used it (and I really did so only to speak to @FrogReaver's usage) I understood a "spectrum" to be the case where an element may suit in some degree a mode of play, implying that it may appear in other degrees in other modes of play (as to which, you gave examples.)

I took spectrum to be used with its natural language meaning.

I mean, X is better suited for purpose P than Y is entails (trivially) that Y is less well suited for purpose P than X is. So we have it established that some things are better suited to certain purposes and others less suited. This is true of most tools (or other means0 and most purposes, I think. (If someone has a counter-example, of a purpose for which there are not means that exhibit various degrees of suitability, I'd be interested to hear it. I'm not thinking of one off the top of my head. Maybe some ethical or religious purposes?)

But that suitability of the range of possible means to a given purpose is a matter of degree doesn't tell us that there is any sort of spectrum.

A fortiori it doesn't tell us that there is a spectrum of purposes, nor a spectrum of means.