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

[zakael19]

So do you see Stonetop as a close analog of freeform collaborative storytelling?

I'm not sure how I'd categorize it on that continuum, but I certainly think it's bounded collaborative storytelling maybe? Like, you have a premise (setting, playbook, background, traits, etc) that give you some bounds and a starting position- but from there it's absolutely collaborative storytelling with complications informed by dice and mechanics.

My group has a set of starting interests that are going to be very different from another Stonetop group with totally different playbooks/answers to background questions/starting equipment that are going to drive an emergent story in vastly different directions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure how I'd categorize it on that continuum, but I certainly think it's bounded collaborative storytelling maybe? Like, you have a premise (setting, playbook, background, traits, etc) that give you some bounds and a starting position- but from there it's absolutely collaborative storytelling with complications informed by dice and mechanics.

My group has a set of starting interests that are going to be very different from another Stonetop group with totally different playbooks/answers to background questions/starting equipment that are going to drive an emergent story in vastly different directions.

Yeah, that seems pretty much in keeping with Baker's statements about AW. Each game of Stonetop seems to go in different directions. I feel like the great thing about AW/PbtA play is the tight focus on the characters vs freeform play per se, but one kind of leads to the other in this case.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, that seems pretty much in keeping with Baker's statements about AW. Each game of Stonetop seems to go in different directions. I feel like the great thing about AW/PbtA play is the tight focus on the characters vs freeform play per se, but one kind of leads to the other in this case.

Yeah, I really like the concept of almost always "playing with a purpose," but where the purpose is one that arises from the player's portraying their character's wants/needs/hopes/dreams. I personally have no interest in the pure OC/freeform RP some players really like, so I like that PBTA/AW is always asking "are you making a move, if not this is just flavor" and opens the space for the GM to make a soft move.

 

[kenada]

That's great, and happy to be corrected there! I've been meaning to pick up that book -- still wading through Playing at the World, and very cool to hear about the concern in the primordial days. Of course different people will get different kinds of fun out of the games -- I personally lean into the fun wargamers/simulators model, but I don't begrudge anyone playing competitively (though I will quickly bow out of a table full of them).

It’s been an interesting read. I grew up in the ’80s, but I didn’t get involved with the hobby until college in the ’00s. Not really sure how I missed it, but we typically played video games growing up, so maybe we lacked the exposure. We did play HeroQuest though, which I recall enjoying.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So do you see Stonetop as a close analog of freeform collaborative storytelling?

Mind if I step in here; I'm currently running Stonetop for what I refer to as my Apocalypse World group. And the quick answer is "a lot closer than anything actually in the D&D space. And some of what Stonetop does builds on freeform to give more of what people who play it want (again largely borrowed from Apocalypse World)."

The first thing to say is that Freeform is not perfect and there are some known cases where there are issues; some obvious ones where Freeform has far more problems than TTRPGs when trying to act in character and create stories are:

• Conflict Resolution (as anyone who has played Cops & Robbers probably has seen); TTRPGs give everyone stats so you have something specific, then let you roll the dice - and blame them if both people want different things.
• Playing the NPCs; everyone has their own characters who have their own agendas and their characters aren't NPCs.
• Providing opposition; providing challenge and opposition to other peoples' characters can make people feel like jerks so people often don't like to do it.

Is this saying you can't handle these things under freeform? No, of course not. But they are things tabletop is genuinely much better at - and things Vincent doubled down on; he was trying to create a game that was good for freeform gamers including his wife. Meanwhile he kept the characters mechanically lean (five stats, no skills, about three special abilities for a starting character and always clearly written, always the same roll) and used a number of tricks to disrupt the freeform experience as little as possible.

Stonetop is two generations removed from AW. Dungeon World is AW slightly clumsily crossed with D&D and is much further from freeform. Stonetop is meanwhile more deftly done than its Dungeon World parent and adds back in a lot from Apocalypse World that makes it feel closer to freeform. It also adds a mountain of lore (current Stonetop betas could do with someone cutting back the lore with a chainsaw), including maps, and a defined starting environment (although you build on it in shared character creation) and locations to a degree I've not seen in freeform but have in tabletop. But there is a very strong freeform influence.

 

[zakael19]

Mind if I step in here; I'm currently running Stonetop for what I refer to as my Apocalypse World group. And the quick answer is "a lot closer than anything actually in the D&D space. And some of what Stonetop does builds on freeform to give more of what people who play it want (again largely borrowed from Apocalypse World)."

The first thing to say is that Freeform is not perfect and there are some known cases where there are issues; some obvious ones where Freeform has far more problems than TTRPGs when trying to act in character and create stories are:

• Conflict Resolution (as anyone who has played Cops & Robbers probably has seen); TTRPGs give everyone stats so you have something specific, then let you roll the dice - and blame them if both people want different things.
• Playing the NPCs; everyone has their own characters who have their own agendas and their characters aren't NPCs.
• Providing opposition; providing challenge and opposition to other peoples' characters can make people feel like jerks so people often don't like to do it.

Is this saying you can't handle these things under freeform? No, of course not. But they are things tabletop is genuinely much better at - and things Vincent doubled down on; he was trying to create a game that was good for freeform gamers including his wife. Meanwhile he kept the characters mechanically lean (five stats, no skills, about three special abilities for a starting character and always clearly written, always the same roll) and used a number of tricks to disrupt the freeform experience as little as possible.

Stonetop is two generations removed from AW. Dungeon World is AW slightly clumsily crossed with D&D and is much further from freeform. Stonetop is meanwhile more deftly done than its Dungeon World parent and adds back in a lot from Apocalypse World that makes it feel closer to freeform. It also adds a mountain of lore (current Stonetop betas could do with someone cutting back the lore with a chainsaw), including maps, and a defined starting environment (although you build on it in shared character creation) and locations to a degree I've not seen in freeform but have in tabletop. But there is a very strong freeform influence.

Funny, I think it has almost enough lore (they really need to add the Fae). I have no interest in playing AW. I despise that sort of setting/tone, and am genuinely repulsed by it - which is probably why I never really considered PBTAs beyond a bit of looking at MOTW before now. Stonetop's spin walks just enough world definition to be incredibly compelling, it's a setting that I desperately want to play any sort of game set there, lol.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Funny, I think it has almost enough lore (they really need to add the Fae). I have no interest in playing AW. I despise that sort of setting/tone, and am genuinely repulsed by it - which is probably why I never really considered PBTAs beyond a bit of looking at MOTW before now. Stonetop's spin walks just enough world definition to be incredibly compelling, it's a setting that I desperately want to play any sort of game set there, lol.

Fair enough. Although I would point out that the lore PDF is 391 (small) pages long with another 35 pages of arcana. That's what is to me too much; I'm certainly not disagreeing with the idea of having more lore than Apocalypse World.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fair enough. Although I would point out that the lore PDF is 391 (small) pages long with another 35 pages of arcana. That's what is to me too much; I'm certainly not disagreeing with the idea of having more lore than Apocalypse World.

It seems long, but honestly a significant chunk of it is random charts and NPC stats and the like. It’s not as lore heavy as you’d expect from a near-400 page book.

 

[zakael19]

^concur. It's not the dense page after page of crap of a standard setting book. The Great Wood gets 10 pages, only 2 are "lore" (and page 1 is impressions to describe it by season), 6 are pages of monsters basically. Everything in there is actionable at the table.

yes, I'm a fanboy - but I feel it's a new standard of how to write a 'setting' that's meant to be intriguing, still full of mystery, and be played.

 

[hawkeyefan]

^concur. It's not the dense page after page of crap of a standard setting book. The Great Wood gets 10 pages, only 2 are "lore" (and page 1 is impressions to describe it by season), 6 are pages of monsters basically. Everything in there is actionable at the table.

yes, I'm a fanboy - but I feel it's a new standard of how to write a 'setting' that's meant to intriguing, still full of mystery, and be played.

Agreed. It's all designed to prompt play, not define it.