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

[Wolfpack48]

Oh, possibly. But so would a perpetual motion machine. System matters and "a simple system-agnostic elegant narrative overlay that works anywhere" is on about the same level of possibility.

"Impossible" is a word I really don't agree with in general.

EDIT: Removed snark.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think this is a pretty good definition of what Narrative gaming means to most people and almost everyone whose first experience with it was with PbtA games. It is recognizable and a lot of games fit into this category. It's also quite different from the default experience of a game like D&D that, again, most people are going to be familiar with. I think it's instructive and useful to talk about game design, and it's clearly the intention of Daggerheat.

The problem is that it isn't the same definition of Narrativism, which a lot of older gamers are familiar with. That definition has very few games that apply to it, and they tend to be very niche games. If we're going to say that Narrative games aren't what they claim because they don't fit the definition from a debate on Usenet before most new 5E gamers were even born, what are we saying?

I'd hardly call Fate that niche - and although Cortex Plus is about ten years retired (with Cortex Prime having never really got off the ground) and Cinematic Unisystem about twenty years past they both had their days and some pretty big licenses for both. Essentially the description is one of popular 2000s Indie-mainstream games.

The thing is that in my experience meta-currencies in design always means one thing "We know this should be represented but we lack the desire or ability to truly focus in on it". In Blades in the Dark what gets called "Quantum Gear" is all about "Gear matters for heists, but we want a breezy heist not one where you're spreadsheeting your gear so here's a way to have limited amounts without tracking it". In Cinematic Unisystem it's a thumb on the scales so people can play different power levels without different agency; this sort of design for this sort of end is less common than it was, I think because we've got better at design with AW being one of the watersheds.

 

[SteveC]

Anecdotally, I've only ever seen these terms become a point of contention when used to refer to PBTA types when those kinds of games are coming under critique. Take of that what you will.

I think you're making a very good point here. I have played and run a lot of PbtA and PbtA adjacent games, despite having a very traditional history with gaming. What I see is that these games play very differently than other games. If you're playing Blades in the Dark, that is a radically different experience than if you'd try and do a heist-type scenario in D&D.

And I think it is useful and fun to talk about things like that. Especially since they have some interesting things you can port into games like D&D. The Backgrounds thread was (I think) an attempt to do that. The problem comes when a term that is sort of agreed on by people "Narrative games," comes into conflict over the name and what that name implies.

I think we have a working definition (several of them, actually) for a Narrative game, and if we need to cede the term I guess that's what we need to do. I'd argue that terms from the Forge aren't necessarily relevant in 2024 and that the term works just fine and has a decent definition.

 

[Wolfpack48]

If you pick a term like, for example, "Drama" to describe these games, people here will be offended by what they will perceive as a slight that their games are not as "Drama" focused as so-called "drama games." You can't win here. The problem is not the name. The arguments about the name are just a smokescreen. The real problem for some people is that these "non-traditional" games exist at all.

No, the real problem is the snarky, condescending attitude and the badwrongfun attitudes of many players of narrative/story now games. I feel like any time I talk to one, I am being lectured.

 

[SteveC]

So there's exactly one, and it hasn't been published yet?

I was using the thread title as an example. There are lots of games that fit the definition. As has been mentioned, Fate is a pretty good start, which has spawned tons of other games. The most recent Fate-inspired game I've come across is Fabula Ultima, which also takes inspiration from PbtA and Forged in the Dark.

And on that note, PbtA and Forged in the Dark games also have a strong Narrative element to them, despite being different from older definitions.

So there are a lot of games that fit the category. I would argue that most indie designs, from very simple story games to complex tactical ones, have Narrative elements to them.

 

[Emberashh]

I think you're making a very good point here. I have played and run a lot of PbtA and PbtA adjacent games, despite having a very traditional history with gaming. What I see is that these games play very differently than other games. If you're playing Blades in the Dark, that is a radically different experience than if you'd try and do a heist-type scenario in D&D.

And I think it is useful and fun to talk about things like that. Especially since they have some interesting things you can port into games like D&D. The Backgrounds thread was (I think) an attempt to do that. The problem comes when a term that is sort of agreed on by people "Narrative games," comes into conflict over the name and what that name implies.

I think we have a working definition (several of them, actually) for a Narrative game, and if we need to cede the term I guess that's what we need to do. I'd argue that terms from the Forge aren't necessarily relevant in 2024 and that the term works just fine and has a decent definition.

For me its just the same kind of thing when people fall over themselves to make the point that PBTA isn't a system. They're not incorrect, but its such a pointless thing to make a fuss over, particularly when everyone involved knows whats being asked if someone asks "Whats the best PBTA out right now".

It supposes that its inappropriate to take Apocalypse World, Ironsworn, Masks and whatever else and refer to them collectively through a type of game that pretty much the whole hobby agrees can be referred to as "PBTA". As though each game can only be referred to individually, like they don't all share very clear mechanical identicality.

Now, for things like Ironsworn or Blades in the Dark, that point makes more sense because those games are practically a new experience unto themselves, despite the clear heritage from PBTA. But for all the rest of them? Nah. They're all PBTA and it wastes everyones time to act like they're not.

 

[SteveC]

If you pick a term like, for example, "Drama" to describe these games, people here will be offended by what they will perceive as a slight that their games are not as "Drama" focused as so-called "drama games." You can't win here

I would just point out that waaaaay back in the day, the term "Dramatist" was part of the original theory that morphed over time to become the threefold. John Kim coined the term on Usenet. But I agree with your point.

Edited to add: I did some quick research, and the "Dramatist" discussion came from 1997.

 

[Aldarc]

No, the real problem is the snarky, condescending attitude and the badwrongfun attitudes of many players of narrative/story now games. I feel like any time I talk to one, I am being lectured.

You think that the mod made a cameo just for the people you happen to disagree with but not the ones who share your opinion? I'm not sure how you failed to notice that this thread is filled with people with snarky attitudes, condescendingly insulting narrativism and narrative games.

I have been condescendingly told repeated times by people here over my years here, including those on my ignore list, that these "narrative games" that I sometimes enjoy playing are badwrongfun, disfunctional, misguided, and not "actual" roleplaying games. In my experience, part of the reason why some of these people here "lecture" is because they are going on 15-20+ years of having to defend their game preferences on this board from some of the same people who told me that these games I sometimes enjoy are badwrongfun games that aren't proper roleplaying games.

I would just point out that waaaaay back in the day, the term "Dramatist" was part of the original theory that morphed over time to become the threefold. John Kim coined the term on Usenet. But I agree with your point.

That's one reason why I picked the term "drama." I think that there is a part of me that prefers "drama," as some of the mechanics in these games involve drama-generators.

 

[Campbell]

I have seen "narrative game" used to refer to:

• Fairly traditional games that utilize some sort of GM side meta-currency to enact narrative changes or power NPC special abilities (2d20, Year Zero Engine games like Coriolis, FATE, FFG Star Wars)
• Games that use free descriptor tags instead of defined skill lists (13th Age, FATE, Cortex, Numenera)
• Fairly traditional games that put as much emphasis on modeling mental and emotional states as they do physical ones (Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, Pendragon, Vampire)
• Games that are fundamentally about exploring a premise (Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Masks) and use some sort of GM directed scene framing to keep play on premise.
• Games that model explicit narrative structures (Hillfolk, Gumshoe)

It's really a grab bag of very different concepts smushed into a singular category that says more about what it isn't than what it is. My own opposition to the way it gets thrown around has been 3-fold:

1. It's often used as a "those games are unclean" label.
2. If we move everything folks want to binge into "narrative game" outside of "traditional roleplaying game" than we basically just end up with GURPS, D&D, Traveller, Rolemaster, Runequest* and maybe HERO*. Pretty much every game designed from 1990 on would not be included.
3. Having such a wide array of games under a singular label that function in phenomenally different ways leads to a massive amount of confusion and flanderizing of how games actually function. The amount of misinformation about games this entails is massive. This is not fundamentally different in orientation to the criticism that many people have about Simulation being too broad of a category.

Now Daggerheart does take elements from several of the above bullet points, but that does not mean that "narrative game" as a broad category makes much sense to me.

* Even these are a bit of a stretch depending on character options and/or editions.

 

[Pedantic]

Are we just arguing over "what constitutes an RPG?" This conversation usually goes something like "RPGs be like this" and someone saying "not all RPGs!" and then the first party going "okay but that game exists outside the universe of things I interact with because of [mechanic/aesthetic/design choice]" and then argument ensues. Functionally, I often feel like it's less "that's badwrongfun" and more "that's a related but distinct activity to what I was talking about." It's mostly issues about relevance.