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

[Crimson Longinus]

At one point I thought about doing this for 5E but then I realised to do it well would require a lot of work. I could probably write a really bad guide for doing it.

Well then it would be on a par with most of the DMG advice!

 

[Aldarc]

I think the bolded bit applies.

Look at what I found at the bottom of page 3 (for me) of this thread:

Even if we account that "narrative game" is something of an exonym that is frequently imposed on games, there are probably things about these games that get them labeled as such, even if by their detractors. Note: these qualities may be found in other "non-narrative" games too, but it's often a combination of these things. Likewise not every game that gets labeled a "narrative game" will have these things or to the same extent.

These games often include, but are not limited to...

• ..."Fiction First" Principles, Rules, and/or Mechanics
• ...an interest in the fictional stakes and/or consequences in conflict resolution
• ...a mechanical interest in the dramatic beats of the player characters and/or fiction
• ...a greater concern for Emulation > Simulation
• ...ways for players to declare narrative truths or story details in the fiction

I will add that for some people I have interacted with here, it only takes the below to get labeled as a "narrative game."
* ...a game that has any mechanic that breaks their idiomatic sense of in-character roleplay immersion

This addresses the first way that @thefutilist says here that the term "narrative game" is used.

I would add, though, that I don't really think that metacurrencies are in and of themselves enough to make a game a "narrative one," as action point and inspiration are hardly things that get 3e D&D, 5e D&D, or PF2 to be labeled as "narrative games."

 

[Wolfpack48]

Why? The goal of narrative games is not to win arguments on the internet. It's to have good games. And the people who talk about narrative games (on any side) are basically statistically irrelevant. A modular system is always always going to be worse than a tailored experience, all else being equal.

And there are some things (such as entwined backstories) that are easy to add while others (like success-with-consequences mechanics) need to be put in there from design up. And some of the techniques that work do filter down.

I would think the challenge -- a simple system-agnostic elegant narrative overlay that works anywhere -- would be the ultimate design challenge that would be fun and win accolades everywhere!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would think the challenge -- a simple system-agnostic elegant narrative overlay that works anywhere -- would be the ultimate design challenge that would be fun and win accolades everywhere!

Oh, possibly. But so would a perpetual motion machine. System matters and "a simple system-agnostic elegant narrative overlay that works anywhere" is on about the same level of possibility.

 

[SteveC]

Look at what I found at the bottom of page 3 (for me) of this thread:

I think this is a pretty good definition of what Narrative gaming means to most people and almost everyone whose first experience with it was with PbtA games. It is recognizable and a lot of games fit into this category. It's also quite different from the default experience of a game like D&D that, again, most people are going to be familiar with. I think it's instructive and useful to talk about game design, and it's clearly the intention of Daggerheat.

The problem is that it isn't the same definition of Narrativism, which a lot of older gamers are familiar with. That definition has very few games that apply to it, and they tend to be very niche games. If we're going to say that Narrative games aren't what they claim because they don't fit the definition from a debate on Usenet before most new 5E gamers were even born, what are we saying?

The definition you provided gives a meaningful context to talk about different goals for game design. It differentiates Narrative games from what I'd call "trad" style. If we don't use it, we have a whole branch of game design that tells us what it's about and we're basically saying "No you're not what you're telling us you are." This is why discussing this issue tends to be counterproductive. If the term is the issue, perhaps we just need to coin a new term to entirely separate it from any notion of the threefold.

 

[soviet]

Which games specifically say they are narrative (not narrativist)?

Which gamers are saying they like narrative (not narrativist) games?

It seems to me narrative is a label being imposed from the outside.

 

[Indaarys]

what are we saying?

Anecdotally, I've only ever seen these terms become a point of contention when used to refer to PBTA types when those kinds of games are coming under critique. Take of that what you will.

 

[SteveC]

Which games specifically say they are narrative (not narrativist)?

Well, Daggerheat says it is, and in the thread about the playtest, there are people saying its a game just like 5E, so I suppose that's why we're having this thread.

 

[Aldarc]

I think this is a pretty good definition of what Narrative gaming means to most people and almost everyone whose first experience with it was with PbtA games. It is recognizable and a lot of games fit into this category. It's also quite different from the default experience of a game like D&D that, again, most people are going to be familiar with. I think it's instructive and useful to talk about game design, and it's clearly the intention of Daggerheat.

That was my goal with my post. I wanted to list some common features that often get some games labeled, whether correctly or not, as "narrative games."

The problem is that it isn't the same definition of Narrativism, which a lot of older gamers are familiar with. That definition has very few games that apply to it, and they tend to be very niche games. If we're going to say that Narrative games aren't what they claim because they don't fit the definition from a debate on Usenet before most new 5E gamers were even born, what are we saying?

The definition you provided gives a meaningful context to talk about different goals for game design. It differentiates Narrative games from what I'd call "trad" style. If we don't use it, we have a whole branch of game design that tells us what it's about and we're basically saying "No you're not what you're telling us you are." This is why discussing this issue tends to be counterproductive.

Yeah, I also share the opinion that "Narrativism" as per GNS =! "Narrative Game" as per above.

If the term is the issue, perhaps we just need to coin a new term to entirely separate it from any notion of the threefold.

And you will be accused here of being a pretentious elitist for inventing a new term. And you will likewise be accused here of being a pretentious elitist for re-purposing a pre-existing word or term.

If you pick a term like, for example, "Drama" to describe these games, people here will be offended by what they will perceive as a slight that their games are not as "Drama" focused as so-called "drama games." You can't win here. The problem is not the name. The arguments about the name are just a smokescreen. The real problem for some people is that these "non-traditional" games exist at all.

 

[soviet]

Well, Daggerheat says it is, and in the thread about the playtest, there are people saying its a game just like 5E, so I suppose that's why we're having this thread.

So there's exactly one, and it hasn't been published yet?