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

[TwoSix]

And if it's not hard at all, and the notes consist of just some vague sentence fragments and lists meant to be evocative then well, I have a really hard time sitting through that for more than about 2 hours.

I feel personally attacked!

 

[Wolfpack48]

The funny thing about this? Narrative games are almost always at the light end of the spectrum. RQ is slow, number-bound (how many skills? How many hit locations? How many attacks per fight whiff?) and people spend far longer with noses in books than they do with AW

Rarely. There are dice for hit locations if you decide to use hit locations, and the skills are self evident and easy to remember. Stealth, Oratory, Spot. Those become second nature really quickly, to the point where everyone knows what skill would be tested. Battles are quick (and deadly) once you get into the flow. The key here is that the roll for things like parry are interesting enough that people actually don't mind the defensive roll. And with the levels of success, the defender can sometimes do things to the offensive character. Complete whiffing is actually a pretty rare thing -- more likely the defender blocked a blow where nothing got through, which would be a pretty common event. It's when something DOES get through when the sparks happen.

 

[innerdude]

Or alternatively it empowers the players to make impactful decisions with real meaning as the fictional reality their characters inhabit is not an amorphous mutable mess.

And that's a bit flippant, I and I genuinely see the other side too, but it is also true. In Blades you don't need to make concrete plans for your actions, but you also really cannot make concrete plans as there is no concrete reality to begin with.

Yeah, I have to agree with @Neonchameleon and others here --- the constant, trad-centric claim of "amorphous chaos of non-reality" inherent to narrative style games is meaningless, a massively overstated bogeyman.

It's a scare tactic thrown out by trad GMs to warn away the gullible and credulous from the heretical dangers of narrative games.

"Go ahead, try your narrative style game. You'll be sorry when your game world isn't the perfectly consistent, coherent, verisimilitudinous entity that only my genius GM mind can conceive and maintain!"

*Edit -- fixed word choice. "Duplicitous" was the wrong adjective.

 

[Wolfpack48]

"Go ahead, try your narrative style game. You'll be sorry when your game world isn't the perfectly consistent, coherent, verisimilitudinous entity that only my genius GM mind can conceive and maintain!"

Are there really that many ogre-like referees out there? Have rules been created in reaction to some terrible GM experienced along the way somewhere?

 

[Emberashh]

A lot of where this topic has gone just reminds me of why I feel the entire hobby is trying way too hard to tell stories and has really lost sight of how best to use games as a story medium.

Id honestly go as far as the no doubt controversial statement that all of this Story Now stuff is on the same level of any given GM railroading his party in terms of how it uses games as a story medium.

Because in both cases, it puts the telling of a specific story at the forefront of the game, with everything else being secondary, at best. Whether its a prewritten story or something created ad hoc, it doesn't really matter, because its all story telling at the end of the day.

Comparatively, games as a medium for stories excel over other forms in a very specific way, in that only they can give the audience the first hand experience of the events in a given narrative. This necessarily means that gameplay, fundamentally, will always consist of a, if not realistic, then at least verisimiliar, amount of things that would never work in any other medium, but can make for an extraordinarily compelling experience in a game.

When Tony Stark builds a suit in a cave, only the rare few would find it interesting to watch the many weeks it must have taken. But if that same idea was instead gamified, and delivered through some compelling gameplay design? Thats a different story, to turn a phrase.

We'll have much of that 'boring' downtime and slow pacing that would never work well in a movie, and would need some very specific narrative riders to work in a book (see the vast descriptions of Tolkien that hinge on the slow pace of travel), but in a game, serve as very necessary breaks in what would be, in this example, highly engaging gameplay.

And what we'd get is the same broad idea, smart guy builds a power suit in a cave with a box of scraps. But what the Audience takes from it is much different. In a movie or comic book, we just see Iron Man as a crafty and resourceful character.

In a game, we are Iron Man, and we built that suit, in a cave, with a box of scraps, and the story we would tell of that experience, is where the really good stuff is. When I tell how I finally left the cave, I'm not thinking about fictional positioning or how best to hit a climax.

I'm thinking about frantically trying to get that damn suit to power up before me and my friend get shot by terrorists. I'm thinking about how my friend had the bright idea to pick up a gun and charge down the terrorists, and how incredibly tragic it was that he died before I could get to him. And I'm also thinking about how much I roasted my friend for doing something that obviously stupid so early in the game.

So in short, my point is games are at their best as vehicles for story when the game is an experience, and the story is what we remember of it. Games ought to be about story making, not just merely telling them. And getting back to what I said earlier, I feel the hobby gets lost when it tries too hard to tell stories, as story telling doesn't allow much room for story making, and thats why I'd say the two ways mentioned aren't all that different, particularly in the context of their respective games.

 

[clearstream]

A lot of where this topic has gone just reminds me of why I feel the entire hobby is trying way too hard to tell stories and has really lost sight of how best to use games as a story medium.

Id honestly go as far as the no doubt controversial statement that all of this Story Now stuff is on the same level of any given GM railroading his party in terms of how it uses games as a story medium.

Because in both cases, it puts the telling of a specific story at the forefront of the game, with everything else being secondary, at best. Whether its a prewritten story or something created ad hoc, it doesn't really matter, because its all story telling at the end of the day.

Comparatively, games as a medium for stories excel over other forms in a very specific way, in that only they can give the audience the first hand experience of the events in a given narrative. This necessarily means that gameplay, fundamentally, will always consist of a, if not realistic, then at least verisimiliar, amount of things that would never work in any other medium, but can make for an extraordinarily compelling experience in a game.

When Tony Stark builds a suit in a cave, only the rare few would find it interesting to watch the many weeks it must have taken. But if that same idea was instead gamified, and delivered through some compelling gameplay design? Thats a different story, to turn a phrase.

We'll have much of that 'boring' downtime and slow pacing that would never work well in a movie, and would need some very specific narrative riders to work in a book (see the vast descriptions of Tolkien that hinge on the slow pace of travel), but in a game, serve as very necessary breaks in what would be, in this example, highly engaging gameplay.

And what we'd get is the same broad idea, smart guy builds a power suit in a cave with a box of scraps. But what the Audience takes from it is much different. In a movie or comic book, we just see Iron Man as a crafty and resourceful character.

In a game, we are Iron Man, and we built that suit, in a cave, with a box of scraps, and the story we would tell of that experience, is where the really good stuff is. When I tell how I finally left the cave, I'm not thinking about fictional positioning or how best to hit a climax.

I'm thinking about frantically trying to get that damn suit to power up before me and my friend get shot by terrorists. I'm thinking about how my friend had the bright idea to pick up a gun and charge down the terrorists, and how incredibly tragic it was that he died before I could get to him. And I'm also thinking about how much I roasted my friend for doing something that obviously stupid so early in the game.

So in short, my point is games are at their best as vehicles for story when the game is an experience, and the story is what we remember of it. Games ought to be about story making, not just merely telling them. And getting back to what I said earlier, I feel the hobby gets lost when it tries too hard to tell stories, as story telling doesn't allow much room for story making, and thats why I'd say the two ways mentioned aren't all that different, particularly in the context of their respective games.

I certainly feel this is a meaningful direction for critique regards storynow and narrativism.

What one might expect narrativism to investigate - given it's central comprehension of what it means to be a player and play to find out, etc. - is the possibilities of ludonarrative. I'm thinking possibly of whimsical explorations like Wisher, Theurgist, Fatalist - which I've read but not played. As you describe, anxieties about the whiff factor seem potentially beside the point.

What narrativism often investigates - from the outset - is how to recreate something significant in the traditional Western dramatic mode in game form. To defend that, I would want to suggest that if we're serious about counting games narratives, then surely it's reasonable to suppose that what's been found to be important in traditional narrative provides lessons for what is likely to be important in ludonarrative.

 

[Wolfpack48]

A lot of where this topic has gone just reminds me of why I feel the entire hobby is trying way too hard to tell stories and has really lost sight of how best to use games as a story medium.

Id honestly go as far as the no doubt controversial statement that all of this Story Now stuff is on the same level of any given GM railroading his party in terms of how it uses games as a story medium.

Because in both cases, it puts the telling of a specific story at the forefront of the game, with everything else being secondary, at best. Whether its a prewritten story or something created ad hoc, it doesn't really matter, because its all story telling at the end of the day.

Comparatively, games as a medium for stories excel over other forms in a very specific way, in that only they can give the audience the first hand experience of the events in a given narrative. This necessarily means that gameplay, fundamentally, will always consist of a, if not realistic, then at least verisimiliar, amount of things that would never work in any other medium, but can make for an extraordinarily compelling experience in a game.

When Tony Stark builds a suit in a cave, only the rare few would find it interesting to watch the many weeks it must have taken. But if that same idea was instead gamified, and delivered through some compelling gameplay design? Thats a different story, to turn a phrase.

We'll have much of that 'boring' downtime and slow pacing that would never work well in a movie, and would need some very specific narrative riders to work in a book (see the vast descriptions of Tolkien that hinge on the slow pace of travel), but in a game, serve as very necessary breaks in what would be, in this example, highly engaging gameplay.

And what we'd get is the same broad idea, smart guy builds a power suit in a cave with a box of scraps. But what the Audience takes from it is much different. In a movie or comic book, we just see Iron Man as a crafty and resourceful character.

In a game, we are Iron Man, and we built that suit, in a cave, with a box of scraps, and the story we would tell of that experience, is where the really good stuff is. When I tell how I finally left the cave, I'm not thinking about fictional positioning or how best to hit a climax.

I'm thinking about frantically trying to get that damn suit to power up before me and my friend get shot by terrorists. I'm thinking about how my friend had the bright idea to pick up a gun and charge down the terrorists, and how incredibly tragic it was that he died before I could get to him. And I'm also thinking about how much I roasted my friend for doing something that obviously stupid so early in the game.

So in short, my point is games are at their best as vehicles for story when the game is an experience, and the story is what we remember of it. Games ought to be about story making, not just merely telling them. And getting back to what I said earlier, I feel the hobby gets lost when it tries too hard to tell stories, as story telling doesn't allow much room for story making, and thats why I'd say the two ways mentioned aren't all that different, particularly in the context of their respective games.

I'm going to go a little parallel here and talk about a couple boardgames -- Arkham Horror 2e and Eldritch Horror. Both of those games get accused of being a random series ("card- and dicefests") of events and tests that the players are constantly reacting to. Players have complete freedom to do whatever they want on their turn (within the rules), but there is usually a "best" action strategically to win the game, and there are ways to improve the odds of success despite or counter to the randomness. A lot of crazy stuff happens over the course of the game, and only upon looking back does it feel like a story was created. We do have some very memorable games we recall even today, but at no time during play did we think about what would make the best story. In the moment we are worrying about survival and somehow getting a leg up on the big bad Cthulhu beastie.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are there really that many ogre-like referees out there? Have rules been created in reaction to some terrible GM experienced along the way somewhere?

No, but some people really like to push the "tyrant GM" narrative.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I certainly feel this is a meaningful direction for critique regards storynow and narrativism.

Sure ... If you want to think of tabletop RPGs as inferior video games that shouldn't attempt to anything that isn't done far far better by computers.

You want to be Tony Stark assembling things from a box of scraps and have a first hand experience? The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, or Dwarf Fortress will serve you far, far better than a tabletop RPG ever could. Want to be the best simulated combat team? Any MMO raid team has a more intense and varied experience and if you want to razor-hone your skills there's always League of Legends and DotA 2. Or if you want to pull off high skill shenanigans EVE Online is where it is at.

And those games all do easily produce stories, while producing faster, more intense, more challenging and more visceral experiences than people sitting round a table speaking in silly voices and slinging dice.

You can and do have challenges in narrative-style and NoMyth RPGs. (And on that note you're a lot more likely to actually reach failure in a narrative RPG than a trad one which says things about the actual difficulty). But if you want either challenge or putting complex things together to be a key part of the experience put the dice down and go do things better for it.

Narrative RPGs on the other hand have a heavy focus on two things where sitting down with people at a table is still superior to a computer. Telling stories together and emotional engagement by getting into the emotional state of your character.

What one might expect narrativism to investigate - given it's central comprehension of what it means to be a player and play to find out, etc. - is the possibilities of ludonarrative.

Both Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World started out as "can ludonarrative be an improvement on freeform narrative". Vincent Baker's first playtester is his wife Meguey Baker and she is a highly experienced freeform roleplayer. He knows he has a good design when she reflexively reaches for the dice both because they don't get in her way and they improve the experience.

I'm thinking possibly of whimsical explorations like Wisher, Theurgist, Fatalist - which I've read but not played. As you describe, anxieties about the whiff factor seem potentially beside the point.

What narrativism often investigates - from the outset - is how to recreate something significant in the traditional Western dramatic mode in game form. To defend that, I would want to suggest that if we're serious about counting games narratives, then surely it's reasonable to suppose that what's been found to be important in traditional narrative provides lessons for what is likely to be important in ludonarrative.

Honestly what most RPG groups investigate is having fun with friends. But yes, some things get investigated. And this is why I keep coming back to Apocalypse World - and even Monsterhearts.

 

[Alzrius]

No, but some people really like to push the "tyrant GM" narrative.

"Tyrant GMs" are up there with "canon lawyers" and "players who write dozens of pages of backstory for their characters" as RPG sasquatches. Every so often you'll find people claiming to have seen one, but somehow they remain vanishingly elusive.