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

[Celebrim]

Sounds GM-driven to me. Driving to where the player said they wanted to go isn't the same thing as letting them take the wheel.

I defy you to express a counter-example that is still a game. I mean even if I agreed with you, and I don't, you'll just be proving that there aren't really any nar games. Not even 10 Candles, Fiasco, or Dread is going to meet the standard you just set.

In general, while a player can generate the premise that is going to be tested, they can't introduce everything about the situation because otherwise there is no story and no conflict to be tested. If you have a player that introduces the idea that they are an amateur detective that discovers a murder in their small town, that is one thing. You can then run a story about that conflict. But that that same player creates all the clues and creates all the suspects and decides who the real murderer isn't an exercise in collaborative story telling. Narrative control has to be passed around in some fashion, or its not collaborative storytelling and it's boring for all involved. We wouldn't be "playing to see what happens". We'd just be listening to one guy talk about himself.

 

[SteveC]

But this is just what you're doing because you're a good game master. It's not something you're doing thanks to the system itself. The system does nothing to facilitate this kind of play at all. Your other example is the same thing.

And this is exactly so. Any game can be run in a narrative mode, but it requires a lot of heavy lifting on the part of the GM. Especially to give the players some authority over the story. A game designed as narrative has mechanisms in place to help the GM and players determine the outcome. It also has them to make sure that the randomness of the game affects play, so that neither the players, nor the GM are purely in charge.

While you can run any game with a narrative bent, games designed with this in mind make it easier for less skilled GMs to do this.

 

[pemerton]

There are a ton of popular rpgs that talk about being Narrative games let's let them have that definition. Fate, PbtA, Forged in the Dark all have that as a design goal and they are casting a long shadow on other games design.

Apcolaypse World does not have "narrative game" as a design goal.

The rulebook actively tells the GM do not plan events. It is hostile to story-telling.

What the rulebook does say is that the whole design of the game follows from Edwards essay on "narrativist" RPGing.

You can play just about any rpg as a Narrative game. You certainly can play D&D that way.

It is almost impossible to use 5e D&D to get a play experience comparable to Apocalypse World, or Burning Wheel.

It's is not all that hard to use 5e D&D to get a play experience similar to freeform-ish Vampire or Ars Magica.

What I'd really like to see is more of how the players can work to shape the Fiction with mechanics, for instance. There are very decent rules elements on how the GM and random rolls can do that already, and there's some of it in character abilities. Let's do more of that, please!

If you want the players to shape the fiction in play, the key is always to start with GMing. How is the GM establishing scenes? And establishing consequences? To get player-driven RPGing, you ned to work on those things.

 

[pemerton]

No, I don't think so. People might not exactly know what narrative or narrativism means (but does anyone?) but they tend not mean that by it.

This is what they mean:

I don't follow. They're the same sort of thing: predominantly GM-led fiction, in which the players make contributions whether informally (as would have to happen in D&D, unless a 5e Background feature is invoked) or formally (if the game has some sort of meta-game mechanic) to the content of that fiction other than by declaring actions for their PCs.

 

[pemerton]

If my understanding of Story Now is correct, it allows players to add things to the game that had not previously been established as existing. This would be contrary to a simulationist approach.

Your understanding is not correct. Have you read the essay you are saying is wrong? Or my post about it, that you criticised.

Here's the key part of the latter again:

So one thing to notice is that nothing in @Stalker0's OP touches on the issues that Edwards is interested in: there is nothing in the OP about framing, resolution, etc techniques for ensuring thematically-oriented player protagonism.

Second, the canvassed system features - allowing players to directly establish elements of the fiction without having to declare actions for their PCs (whether via free narration, or by expending currency) - have no particular connection to thematically-oriented player protagonism. They may be a component of that or may not be, but that depends entirely on other features of a system. For instance, BW players are allowed to introduce NPCs - Relationships - into the fiction as part of the process of PC build; but these feed into thematically-oriented player protagonism because of obligations that fall onto the GM in relation to the incorporation of those NPCs into framing and consequence. And the OP of this thread says basically nothing about the GM's role at all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, I don't think so. People might not exactly know what narrative or narrativism means (but does anyone?) but they tend not mean that by it.

This is what they mean: "And in attempting to talk about it, they tend to focus on player-side mechanics (eg meta-currency, or the ability to stipulate fiction without having to declare and resolve a PC's action) when the key to the sort of RPGing Edwards was describing all sits on the GM side."

Which has nothing to do with "Story Now" or Narrativism.

As I have said earlier in this thread (and @pemerton has provided a quote to support) Apocalypse World is deservedly one of the strongest and most influential narrativist games out there and explicitly defines itself as Narrativist. And I'm pretty sure it has fewer of that sort of mechanics than GURPS.

Any definition or description of Narrativist games that does not include Apocalypse World is just using it as a snarl word with a complete lack of understanding of why people play narrativist games.

 

[pemerton]

What I am saying is that the Narrative RPGs we are seeing today aren't based on the assumptions that Ron had. PbtA and Forged in the Dark games call themselves Narrative and explain what they mean by that.

I can't tell if you are characterising Apocalypse World as a "narrative" game, or not.

But AW is absolutely influenced by Edwards ideas. The acknowledgements section cites multiple Edwards games (Spione, Sorcerer, Trollbabe) and states that the entire game design follows from Edwards's "Story Now" essay.

If there are almost no RPGs that would qualify as Narrativist, but plenty that count themselves as Narrative, the definition has changed.

Here are some RPGs that count as "narrativist".

The following predate, and influenced, Edwards's essay: Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth.

The following post-date, and were influenced by, Edwards: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, BitD, Agon 2e (it may be that Edwards' influence on John Harper is mediated via Baker - I'm not sure of the precise details there).

I'm not sure whether DitV and In A Wicked Age were influenced by Edwards or not. I suspect the former at least was.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't follow. They're the same sort of thing: predominantly GM-led fiction, in which the players make contributions whether informally (as would have to happen in D&D, unless a 5e Background feature is invoked) or formally (if the game has some sort of meta-game mechanic) to the content of that fiction other than by declaring actions for their PCs.

Those features you described your earlier post are often found in narrativist games, they're not really found in White Wolf games or Ars Magica. And yes, it is not the essence of the thing and it is mistaking the trappings for the thing itself, but it is still pointing at the right direction.

People do not associate narrative with Storyteller games, they associate it correctly with Apoc World, Blades etc.

 

[Celebrim]

But this is just what you're doing because you're a good game master. It's not something you're doing thanks to the system itself. The system does nothing to facilitate this kind of play at all. Your other example is the same thing.

You could have a crappy GM instead who has read the exact same rule books as you have but who has no idea how to deal with a game with only one character and who can't make up a story on the spot. They need a module. They cannot improvise because they haven't been prepared to do it.

Now you are being broadly insulting.

First of all, if it can be done in the system without breaking the system then the system facilitates it. And secondly, DW "facilitates" it to the same degree. Telling you how you are intended to GM isn't the same as facilitating. That's the mistake that I think PbtA games make and why they are such bad examples of nar games. (Not coincidentally, I think it's also why they are so relatively popular.)

But not being able to make up a story on the spot or being reliant on a module doesn't make you a crappy GM! Geez the utter freaking arrogance of that statement just kills me. Being able to improvise a story isn't the be all end all of what makes you a good GM. There are all sorts of things that go into making a good RPG experience and different GMs are skilled to different degrees in different aspects of them. I'm a lousy Paranoia GM and I'd probably be a lousy Toon GM, but that doesn't make me a bad GM. It just means my talents don't line up with what makes a good GM in that system as it is intended to play. Those systems require you to be a natural wit to run them well and achieve the results imagined for them. I can make players laugh, but not in the way that is required for those sorts of gonzo games.

Being a good GM is just being able to entertain your players and make them happy. How you do it is secondary to that. I can give advice for practices that are likely to go well and warn you against practices that I think are likely to go wrong, but there is no magic formula for making a good game and you can't just go, "They are a crappy GM because they can't make up a story on the spot and they need a module", or "They are a crappy GM because they can't draw their own maps", or whatever.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But this is just what you're doing because you're a good game master. It's not something you're doing thanks to the system itself. The system does nothing to facilitate this kind of play at all. Your other example is the same thing.

But a good narrativist system does encourage being a good GM in the ways outlined as well as good characters that work well with such an approach. System matters and that's the main point of such systems.

Those features you described your earlier post are often found in narrativist games, they're not really found in White Wolf games or Ars Magica. And yes, it is not the essence of the thing and it is mistaking the trappings for the thing itself, but it is still pointing at the right direction.

People do not associate narrative with Storyteller games, they associate it correctly with Apoc World, Blades etc.

You think most people make some sort of technical distinction between narrative and story? I really can't agree with you here other than to say that the genesis of the Narrativist philosophy was trying to deliver on the "storytelling game of personal horror" that V:tM promised and failed to deliver on.

Edit: For that matter I'm pretty sure that Fate Points started life as a more general version of the Storyteller game pools like Willpower and the splat-specific ones like Blood for vampires and Quintessence for mages, leaving it up to the player how their characters worked rather than hard coding each separate splat.