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

[Emberashh]

I'd argue that were we to take "positive" and "negative" or "compelling," "shallow," "interesting," "intrusive", "restrictive," "uncomfortable" judgments out of the conversation, we'd get to a better definition of what things are without getting into more arguments. The thing we can't seem to get past is the judgment on these games at the same time we are trying to simply define what they heck they are.

Sure. What I'm specifically and objectively referring to is a given games overall feedback loop, which for RPGs is easily identifiable in what its overall procedure of play is. I look at that and try to evaluate how much gameplay occurs before it loops back onto itself, and what, if any, sub-loops emerge as a result of different mechanics and systems.

I also look at whether or not these sub-loops feed into each other as a sign of well-developed integration, which is valuable for increasing the amount of gameplay those loops can sustain before the overall loop feeds back onto itself.

When I then go on to pass a judgement on a game as shallow or uncompelling, I am looking at these loops, seeing very few of them, with little integration and with very little capacity for sustaining themselves before it feeds back into the overall loop, which is just the improv game as I've noted every RPG has at its core.

This is why I've suggested in the past that a good way to think about this perspective is to strip away the Content and Theming of a game, and just look at its bare mechanics. You can have the most intricately detailed and interesting theming and content around, but if the bare mechanics aren't fun on their own, that carries through to the game, and the game won't be near as fun as it could be with something more.

And I'd argue, coming back to the discussion at hand, that that is why PBTA types are so heavily themed and why they don't work as a generic system. The theming is what makes those games, and what makes the Improv Game, the bulk of these games actual gameplay, compelling for their fans.

Nobody is playing Apocalypse World or Masks because Moves are the hot new game mechanic.

Now, this isn't all to say that how I judge a given game is the only way you can do it, nor that the assessment I conclude based on that method is anything but my opinion, but you also cannot try to say that the things I looked at are something else.

The reality of a given games feedback loops are immutable, and like it or not, PBTA games do not have many of them at all. Whether thats a good thing or bad is a matter of taste, and I've spoken to why the G matters for many people.

 

[Campbell]

This was my original onus for starting this this thread. I noticed in a lot of conversations about the playtest, you would see the statement of “but remember DH isn’t like dnd, it’s a narrative game” or “DH doesn’t need that kind of mechanic because it’s a narrative game”

And so I was genuinely wondering…what makes a game a narrative one?

Ah. Mostly my sense is that Daggerheart is a game that expects everyone to be invested in maintaining the integrity of the fiction. So like when taking action you should be mindful of does this make sense in fiction? instead of just thinking about the downstream benefits of taking that action. The same can be said for invoking an experience or providing help to someone else's action. The game leaves it in players' hands to determine what makes sense whereas more traditional games largely leave these sorts of decisions up to the game system and/or GM.

A similar example you might be familiar with is how skill challenges in 4e required the same sort of mindfulness from players of the larger fictional situation (and not just justifying the use of their best skills all the time).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah. Mostly my sense is that Daggerheart is a game that expects everyone to be invested in maintaining the integrity of the fiction. So like when taking action you should be mindful of does this make sense in fiction? instead of just thinking about the downstream benefits of taking that action. The same can be said for invoking an experience or providing help to someone else's action. The game leaves it in players' hands to determine what makes sense whereas more traditional games largely leave these sorts of decisions up to the game system and/or GM.

A similar example you might be familiar with is how skill challenges in 4e required the same sort of mindfulness from players of the larger fictional situation (and not just justifying the use of their best skills all the time).

That is something that is hard to do, even with experienced players. It is very hard to not do the thing that the mechanics clearly say is optimal, especially if there are are other areas in the same game where it is sort of expected that you play tactically.

If one can design a game so that what is fun and what is optimal mostly align, then I think that is definitely a superior way to do it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Several APs, such Rime of the Frostmaiden and call of the Netherdeep try to do something about that, but there is only so much an author can do when they can’t read the PC’s backstories.

Perhaps they should print “this is only an outline, the GM is expected to add material of personal relevance to the PCs” in giant block capitals on the cover?

The difference is far more than just providing some variation based on backstory. The essence of a game like AW is that everything in play flows from who the characters are. It's not even possible to write an AW 'module'. This is what I mean when I say that, fundamentally, a game of AW doesn't even exist without the PCs, it's built around them. Now, @Celebrim SEEMS to be insisting that some D&D game is built this way. Obviously I can't really analyze that since I haven't seen it. All I can observe is that D&D is ill-suited to this sort of usage. I have seen plenty of D&D games where GMs often produce elements in response to player input. I have never seen one that ran like a proper AW/DW game. And Celebrim's characterization of playing DW raises huge red flags.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The difference is far more than just providing some variation based on backstory. The essence of a game like AW is that everything in play flows from who the characters are. It's not even possible to write an AW 'module'. This is what I mean when I say that, fundamentally, a game of AW doesn't even exist without the PCs, it's built around them. Now, @Celebrim SEEMS to be insisting that some D&D game is built this way. Obviously I can't really analyze that since I haven't seen it. All I can observe is that D&D is ill-suited to this sort of usage. I have seen plenty of D&D games where GMs often produce elements in response to player input. I have never seen one that ran like a proper AW/DW game. And Celebrim's characterization of playing DW raises huge red flags.

Why it is ill suited for it? It seems to be almost completely about what criteria the GM uses whilst framing content, and that seems rather system independent.

 

[Emberashh]

So like when taking action you should be mindful of does this make sense in fiction? instead of just thinking about the downstream benefits of taking that action.

My nitpick is that strictly speaking it was never necessary to build a whole new kind of game just to support this.

Its been one of my design tenants to basically try to, at all times, make the optimal play indistinguishable from roleplaying, which where successful goes a good bit of the way towards encouraging a more diverse range of Actions to take in a given scenario.

Another approach I've taken has actually just stemmed from addressing the common issues of Tactics games in terms of HP bloat and emphasizing to an even greater degree elements that typically take a backseat like positioning and Movement.

When Players can Defend each other from attacks, particularly attacks that could end up making them vulnerable to killing blows, but have to displace to do so, that makes for Sid Meiers branded Interesting Choices (TM), and what might be strictly optimal is just hazy, as it would be in real combat.

Roleplaying in this instance becomes indistinguishable from optimal play, because choosing to defend your friend at your own risk or leave them to get hit is as much a roleplaying choice as it is a tactical one.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Sure. What I'm specifically and objectively referring to is a given games overall feedback loop, which for RPGs is easily identifiable in what its overall procedure of play is. I look at that and try to evaluate how much gameplay occurs before it loops back onto itself, and what, if any, sub-loops emerge as a result of different mechanics and systems.

I also look at whether or not these sub-loops feed into each other as a sign of well-developed integration, which is valuable for increasing the amount of gameplay those loops can sustain before the overall loop feeds back onto itself.

When I then go on to pass a judgement on a game as shallow or uncompelling, I am looking at these loops, seeing very few of them, with little integration and with very little capacity for sustaining themselves before it feeds back into the overall loop, which is just the improv game as I've noted every RPG has at its core.

This is why I've suggested in the past that a good way to think about this perspective is to strip away the Content and Theming of a game, and just look at its bare mechanics. You can have the most intricately detailed and interesting theming and content around, but if the bare mechanics aren't fun on their own, that carries through to the game, and the game won't be near as fun as it could be with something more.

And I'd argue, coming back to the discussion at hand, that that is why PBTA types are so heavily themed and why they don't work as a generic system. The theming is what makes those games, and what makes the Improv Game, the bulk of these games actual gameplay, compelling for their fans.

Nobody is playing Apocalypse World or Masks because Moves are the hot new game mechanic.

Now, this isn't all to say that how I judge a given game is the only way you can do it, nor that the assessment I conclude based on that method is anything but my opinion, but you also cannot try to say that the things I looked at are something else.

The reality of a given games feedback loops are immutable, and like it or not, PBTA games do not have many of them at all. Whether thats a good thing or bad is a matter of taste, and I've spoken to why the G matters for many people.

The problem I see is that by equating the number of feedback loops with "fun," what constitutes "fun" for most people isn't objective. I suggest describing these things simply as what these systems do, rather than whether they do them "well" or not. I think folks here are just trying to understand what comprises a narrative approach or system. We could say something like "more feedback loops take longer time to resolve during gameplay" and then leave the interpretation out, simply so we can get to an objective profile of each of these games without arguing over whether they are "good" or "bad."

 

[Manbearcat]

That is something that is hard to do, even with experienced players. It is very hard to not do the thing that the mechanics clearly say is optimal, especially if there are are other areas in the same game where it is sort of expected that you play tactically.

If one can design a game so that what is fun and what is optimal mostly align, then I think that is definitely a superior way to do it.

There is an alternative to this and there are games where skillful GMing is the ability to generate decision-spaces for players where there is a complicated relationship between thematic advocacy for your PC’s ethos/duties/relationships and advancement incentives and “the best line of play.”

It demands a form of lateral intelligence to both generate (GM) these kinds of decision-points and resolve (player) them (some folks here would say “suffer them”). You’re basically talking Devil’s Bargain or Tapping Nature (particularly when Acting Outside Your Nature) or the various Strings/temptations-mechanics in games. Generate a complication (or risk one) or the prospect of cascading consequences for a boon right now…vs “cash out” and suffer a thematic setback/loss now. And then there is the advancement component of the calculus that must be folded in.

 

[Emberashh]

My nitpick is that strictly speaking it was never necessary to build a whole new kind of game just to support this.

Its been one of my design tenants to basically try to, at all times, make the optimal play indistinguishable from roleplaying, which where successful goes a good bit of the way towards encouraging a more diverse range of Actions to take in a given scenario.

Another approach I've taken has actually just stemmed from addressing the common issues of Tactics games in terms of HP bloat and emphasizing to an even greater degree elements that typically take a backseat like positioning and Movement.

When Players can Defend each other from attacks, particularly attacks that could end up making them vulnerable to killing blows, but have to displace to do so, that makes for Sid Meiers branded Interesting Choices (TM), and what might be strictly optimal is just hazy, as it would be in real combat.

Roleplaying in this instance becomes indistinguishable from optimal play, because choosing to defend your friend at your own risk or leave them to get hit is as much a roleplaying choice as it is a tactical one.

One example of this for non-combat scenarios that I've fallen in love with is the concept of the Party cooking a meal together. Mechanically, this specific activity places no limits on the Party combining their collective Crafting Budgets together, so they can all share and make their whole meal better for all of them, with more portions, more Energy Dice, and better Bonuses.

But its also absolutely brilliant to see in action when Players have become fully immersed. Imagine six people sharing their recipies, swapping ingredients, joking around, all of that while you sit there and just bask in the gloriousness of it all.

Its truly amazing, and something that would feel very cheapened without the robust and well integrated Crafting and Survival mechanics that are being engaged with in that scenario.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The difference is far more than just providing some variation based on backstory. The essence of a game like AW is that everything in play flows from who the characters are. It's not even possible to write an AW 'module'

Yes, I’m aware. Frankly I think my players would hate that! They tend to prefer me to do most of the narrative driving, sometimes using backstory they have written. I don’t think they like being in the spotlight to that extent - we are a rather reserved group. Even I prefer to prep extensively, allowing for many possible alternatives. I do improv, but prefer not to. But then there is also my teacher training, which drummed in a “prepare for everything” approach.

There are some Story Now elements I would like to incorporate - especially if they can reduce bookkeeping, which everyone in our group hates. In that respect Daggerheart looks good.