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

[Manbearcat]

I don't have time to compose a post of any heft today, so here are a few words:

* I would hope that everyone has their head around the differences between (a) the constraints and dynamics of initial conditions established during preplay ("I select Would Be Hero as my playbook and I answer the question "who is counting on you (?)" with "Zuzu the troublemaking orphan who has been discarded three times over") vs (b) the dynamics of actual play (hard move on a 6- result during Homefront; Zuzu has set fire to his last foster family's home and run away into the deep dark of The Great Wood...which no one has dare tread in a decade...word is spreading around Stonetop that the steading is better off without the boy..."what do you do Would Be Hero?").

* Personally, when I use the term conflict, I'm always referring to the dynamics of conflict-charged play or Narrativist priorities (see the above preplay question and attendant hard move). When I use the term challenge, I'm referring to the dynamics of challenge-based play or Gamist priorities.

* While 5e Background Traits were one of the three things I talked up at late playtest and then at the game's release, I would hope (especially in light of all of the ample conversation around @hawkeyefan 's home game GM handling of situation + the Folk Hero Trait) that people understand the significant difference between both the implications of the preplay selection of 5e's Folk Hero Background vs the preplay selection of Stonetop's Would Be Hero playbook + the answering of a preplay question like in the first bullet point, and the downstream consequences for those dynamics on the actual play of those two games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To give an example of how this might play out if it was my group.


So the guy who is captured refuses to escape because he’s taking some kind of principled stand.

A trial happens and that guy speaks in his defence, addressing the subjugated crowd. He’s prepared to die fighting tyranny. Sounds like a conflict. Do his words inspire the crowd to put aside their own lives in fighting the mad king?

And hey, here’s where the specifics of what is said can become important. If he says ‘you can live for life’s sake but living in fear isn’t living’. Then that’s a slightly different conflict to something like ‘tyrants everywhere must be overthrown.’

anyway we roll and he fails and it turns out that actually the populace will carry on, even if many are ashamed to do so, or admire the bravery or foolishness of the man.

He’s executed and we get some kind of theme.

Or the crowd rise up, a riot breaks out, we get some kind of theme.

What we don’t get is a multiple page thread about what’s realistic.


Now this isn’t even to say that the direction of the thread is wrong. It does show that focus on the mechanics of the situation might be a little bit of a distraction though because they’re always down stream of what we find cool. Why we're playing is really important and the source of the primary judgement about the actual gameplay loop.

So I did not read the thread, just the OP, so I mainly concentrated on the negotiations and not the aftermath. But sure, what you describe here is how I would handle that part as well, and there is absolutely nothing in 5e that suggests that you couldn't or shouldn't do it this way. "Realism" (I wouldn't use that word) is mostly related to the scope of the plausible reactions of the crowd, which would be used for setting the DC for getting them to your side to sufficient degree that they would actually rise up and do something helpful.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't have time to compose a post of any heft today, so here are a few words:

* I would hope that everyone has their head around the differences between (a) the constraints and dynamics of initial conditions established during preplay ("I select Would Be Hero as my playbook and I answer the question "who is counting on you (?)" with "Zuzu the troublemaking orphan who has been discarded three times over") vs (b) the dynamics of actual play (hard move on a 6- result during Homefront; Zuzu has set fire to his last foster family's home and run away into the deep dark of The Great Wood...which no one has dare tread in a decade...word is spreading around Stonetop that the steading is better off without the boy..."what do you do Would Be Hero?").

* Personally, when I use the term conflict, I'm always referring to the dynamics of conflict-charged play or Narrativist priorities (see the above preplay question and attendant hard move). When I use the term challenge, I'm referring to the dynamics of challenge-based play or Gamist priorities.

* While 5e Background Traits were one of the three things I talked up at late playtest and then at the game's release, I would hope (especially in light of all of the ample conversation around @hawkeyefan 's home game GM handling of situation + the Folk Hero Trait) that people understand the significant difference between both the implications of the preplay selection of 5e's Folk Hero Background vs the preplay selection of Stonetop's Would Be Hero playbook + the answering of a preplay question like in the first bullet point, and the downstream consequences for those dynamics on the actual play of those two games.

I’m curious how this relates to daggerheart and what it means when it calls itself a narrative game. I don’t think the same kind of mechanical machinery is present in it? Am I mistaken on this point? Would you not classify it as a narrative game? Or is there something else about it that makes you consider it a narrative game?

 

[zakael19]

I’m curious how this relates to daggerheart and what it means when it calls itself a narrative game. I don’t think the same kind of mechanical machinery is present in it? Am I mistaken on this point? Would you not classify it as a narrative game? Or is there something else about it that makes you consider it a narrative game?

Have you read any of the Daggerheart playtest materials? The character creation portions have very similar style questions meant to build up actionable background & PC bonds via pre-game fiction.

 

[Umbran]

Come the <naughty word> on.

Mod Note:

Please watch your language. Aside from this being a family place, if you're cussing, that is goign to suggest to the mods taht you are getting somewhat too heated.

You should know better by now.

Please don't make it personal, either.

 

[SteveC]

Have you read any of the Daggerheart playtest materials? The character creation portions have very similar style questions meant to build up actionable background & PC bonds via pre-game fiction.

I don't think this is as big an issue on Enworld, but I have read a lot of comments on Daggerheart that come from not reading the game. This is a game that encourages Narrative play with things like this but it's easy to skip. I'm helping a new GM get a game ready, and they are really leaning into these tools for our session 0.

 

[clearstream]

Have you read any of the Daggerheart playtest materials? The character creation portions have very similar style questions meant to build up actionable background & PC bonds via pre-game fiction.

It looks like a strong example of the design trend first labelled neotrad (although I have concerns that for some that label is a barrier). Integrating rules and principles first seen in games associated with narrativism.

While the character creation has a D&Dish pattern and mechanical elements, I see the sort of background and connections questions that are becoming familiar in character creation. They're perhaps more tentative than they could be in instructing how they should be used

Background

Next, explore your character’s background by filling out the “Background” section of your character guide. Several prompts are provided to jumpstart inspiration, but you or the GM can modify or change these questions to fit the character you’re looking to play. Think of the prompts as a jumping-off point if you don’t know where to start, but they should never inhibit your creativity.

The decisions you make about your background are purely narrative, but they can deeply impact the kind of character you’re playing and the story the GM might prepare for your adventures. Over the course of character creation, feel free to adjust some mechanical choices you’ve made in earlier steps, allowing them to better reflect this background as the shape of your character comes into clearer focus.

If you are planning to play in a campaign, once you finish the background questions, you can continue developing your character in whatever way works best for you. There are many character backstory tools you may wish to use—just remember to give the GM your backstory as well so that they can work any people, places, or ideas from it into the campaign they’re running. You may also choose not to do any more background work, instead finding out more about your character as you play. Whatever you find fun and allows you to play your character in a way that feels appealing and exciting is what you should lean into​

Connections

These represent the relationships and personal history between you and the rest of your party members.

Once all players feel comfortable with their finished (or almost-finished) characters, summarize your characters for each other. At minimum, share your Name, Pronouns, Character Description, Experiences, and the answers to your Background Questions, but feel free to include other details you’d like the players to know.

Once everyone has shared who they’ll be playing, work together to decide how your characters are connected and how you feel about each other. The Connections section of your character guide provides inspiration for these connections— it is recommended you pick at least one question to ask another PC—but you’re welcome to create new questions. You can always turn down a question or relationship from another player if it’s not a good fit or not a relationship you’re interested in exploring. While it’s great to create Connections with every player, it’s perfectly okay if you’re not sure about some of them yet— you can always discover your relationships through play. These Connections are just a starting block to build on during the game.
​

The line I've bolded stood out to me because of its relation with some notions and language I've been questioning upthread. The words quoted could be read as deflating (especially "GM might prepare",) but I'm curious about the proposition that player exposition about their character can be "purely narrative" while still expected to "deeply impact". Earlier I said that overall I haven't observed many "just colour" player conversations during play. It is after all, all figment, all pretence. In a sense, the most powerful sort of player conversation would be "purely narrative".

Anyway, the Daggerheart design is certainly interesting enough to keep reading!

 

[clearstream]

I don't think this is as big an issue on Enworld, but I have read a lot of comments on Daggerheart that come from not reading the game. This is a game that encourages Narrative play with things like this but it's easy to skip. I'm helping a new GM get a game ready, and they are really leaning into these tools for our session 0.

That's exactly how it looks to me. One can follow the character creation steps with the questions just the lightest brushstrokes, or one can commit more into it. Hopefully not to harp on too annoyingly, but I believe it intentionally straddles traditional and new TTRPG design: neotrad. I notice echoes throughout that will be comfortably familiar to players of D&D, while of course some very solid elements that absolutely have their parentage in "narrativist" game designs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m a bit taken aback that you would compare sandbox play to blindly choosing the left or right corridor. Like, the comparison is so far in left field you aren’t even in the ballpark anymore.

I didn’t really say blindly… though I didn’t provide enough detail otherwise. The choice can be informed.

Compare a choice between one corridor which leads to the hall of the orc chief, and another that leads further underground to the underdark, where the drow rule. In a dungeon crawl type game, there’s a difference between the choices. Largely, what prepared material of the GM’s becomes “active”.

At its most basic, how is that different than a hexcrawl sandbox? The main difference that I can see is that the sandbox is a bit less constraining in how it limits the choices available. Like, you’re not limited to intersections and where they lead and the like. But geography is still a factor, as is awareness of the options available.

If you mean to emphasize the ‘GM has already prepared’ part then you seem to be suggesting that narrative play cannot contain myth - or at least not GM prepared myth. Is that what you are suggesting?

Nope!

Because I agree sandboxes typically contain GM prepared myth, but outside session 1 and sometimes even for session 1, that myth is prepared based in part if not wholly on previous player choices.

How so? I don’t think that’s typically the case. Usually, in a trad sandbox, all the locations and their placement and inhabitants are set ahead of play. Then play begins and the players interact with them.

This last line I struggle to parse. It’s not clear what difference you perceive between ‘the content of the fiction’ and its nature.

Its nature in that it’s designed solely by the GM, and likely without any input from the players.

So player choice in a trad sandbox affects what content they find, but doesn’t make that content any more focused.

If there is GM prepared myth in a narrative game then how is the below not applicable to it as well?

*Note this was originally said about sandbox d&d.

Instead of somehow trying to prove me wrong, why don’t you explain how you think otherwise?

How does player choice in a trad sandbox matter in a way beyond telling us what of the GM’s prep we encounter?

 

[pemerton]

And of course conversations with NPCs can change the situation.

Wait, the GM preconceived of the 2 pcs being thrown in jail and the other 2 talking their way out of it? How did he know which pcs to conceive were going to do the insulting and threatening? Lucky guess?

I think you have something far more narrow in mind than the situation didn’t change, maybe the situation didn’t change in a particular way and hopefully the questions above help everyone figure out what specific way you have in mind.

The GM's conception of the situation did not change one iota. The situation begins as PCs must do XYZ in order to get <whatever it is that they are supposed to get> from the Mad Tyrant> And the situation ends up as PCs not having done XYZ are not getting what they want from the Mad Tyrant who, being a Mad Tyrant, is jailing and executing them.

The GM decided what was at stake - namely, the PCs getting <whatever it is that they are supposed to get>. The GM decided the significance and implications of the NPC being a Mad Tyrant. The players' conception of the situation - that it is about the moral stakes of compromising with, versus opposing, a Mad Tyrant - gets no look in at all, to the extent that the GM, posting, describes that conception of the situation as "murder hoboism".

When I talk about play being a railroad, or play being driven by the GM, I am not supposing that the GM has the players bound and gagged, or that the GM just recites a monologue. I am talking about exactly this sort of thing: the GM frames the situation, decides what is at stake, and establishes the consequences of the players' declared actions entirely by reference to those decisions that they have already taken, so that what the players are doing in play is learning what the GM thinks the situation is about and what should follow from that.

I don't know if this is exactly what @soviet had in mind in posting "ultimately in a trad game it's just colour", but I believe that it's at least in the neighbourhood. Likewise I think it's pretty close to being an example of what @hawkeyefan has in mind in saying that "these choices yield different results as to the content of the fiction. But not to its nature."

So you don't think that a cordial negotiation evolving into an impromptu assassination attempt and the characters ending up in stocks is not a meaningful change of direction? Then what the hell would be?

I didn't use the phrase "change of direction". I am talking about what is colour? and content vs nature of fiction, building upon my understanding of hawkeyefan's and soviet's posts.

The content of the fiction changes - as, inevitably, it must, if people at the table are declaring actions and resolving them. But the GM's conception of the situation remains absolutely static. There is not even a thought turned to the sorts of possibilities that @thefutilist mentions - guards refusing to obey the Mad Tryant's orders and joining in the uprising; locals freeing the trapped PCs from the stocks; the Mad Tyrant himself repenting; etc.

I'm pretty confident that this is what @hawkeyefan had in mind in saying, upthread, that

it’s deeper than that, I think.

<snip>

player choice matters, but always in how it relates to what the GM has already prepared.

<snip>

these choices yield different results as to the content of the fiction. But not to its nature.

It also illustrates how one sort of approach to GM prep is at odds with player-driven play: namely, when the GM's prep produces a completely static conception of what is at stake and of what might happen next.