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

[Pedantic]

You are talking past me. You are continuing to defend toxic behavior. You are making assumptions about what was said to me and what was being argued when you weren't there. So barring an apology, the two of us done here, Pedantic.

That's fair, I don't have the full context on your past experiences, and I'm sorry for dragging them up to make my point. I'll adjust my posts to remove your specific situation/comments form my broader point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Uhh... I have found it unhelpful to use the phrase "not a game" in a TTRPG context online, certainly, but if I were to apply the same tests I use on boardgames, where that is not a deadly insult and instead a pretty normative part of criticism with a specific connotation about the impact, depth and variability of decision making....I would describe those as "not really games" or as "not very good games" depending.

The thing here is while I might call Snakes and Ladders "not really a game" this is based on two things:

1. There being a generally agreed definition of what a game is within the boardgame community.
2. There being no meaningful freedom of action to achieve your goals more effectively in Snakes & Ladders; you just roll the dice and move

1 either isn't generally agreed or is agreed to be something like "taking on the role of something within a setting and being able to act as they do". And 2? By definition you can act, and few RPGs have explicit objectives.

Now calling it "not a good game" or "shallow" is another matter. But the "not a game" criticism for even Lasers and Feelings is about on a level of calling Dominion not a boardgame because it uses cards and doesn't require a board.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

This was my original onus for starting this this thread. I noticed in a lot of conversations about the playtest, you would see the statement of “but remember DH isn’t like dnd, it’s a narrative game” or “DH doesn’t need that kind of mechanic because it’s a narrative game”

And so I was genuinely wondering…what makes a game a narrative one?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Maybe we could come up with some rules of the road for a more constructive and dare I say merry conversation? Maybe start by agreeing that all these are valid games that can include roleplaying elements? It seems like the terms and categories are where we start clashing, and maybe agree on some terms that are as inclusive as humanly possible? Maybe we can differentiate a little bit between narrative systems and narrative approaches so that we capture all the nuances? Maybe we agree to not label anything as "good" or "bad" or "better than" or "worse than" and just describe how these things work so at the end all we have a good picture in, plain language, of the RPG universe?

 

[Pedantic]

The thing here is while I might call Snakes and Ladders "not really a game" this is based on two things:

1. There being a generally agreed definition of what a game is within the boardgame community.
2. There being no meaningful freedom of action to achieve your goals more effectively in Snakes & Ladders; you just roll the dice and move

1 either isn't generally agreed or is agreed to be something like "taking on the role of something within a setting and being able to act as they do". And 2? By definition you can act, and few RPGs have explicit objectives.

Now calling it "not a good game" or "shallow" is another matter. But the "not a game" criticism for even Lasers and Feelings is about on a level of calling Dominion not a boardgame because it uses cards and doesn't require a board.

I have no desire to take on the defense of whatever group/individual you're seeing the targeted "not a game" criticism coming from, but I am saying that the implied argument "the criticism not being applied to these games is a clear example of animus" likely does not follow, in that anyone criticizing other "narrative" (not to step into the muddiest waters in the thread) games that way would almost certainly criticize L&F and your other example games on the same grounds.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black.

So, the thread was moderated just a little while ago for pushing the limits of civility.

And here you go, snarkily sticking yourself into the middle of an interpersonal clash that was unwise to begin with, to make it personal.

It is unclear how you thought this was a good idea. Hint: It was not.

Please, folks, clean up the collective act.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I do consider that to be a narrative mechanic, yes. Also, are you telling me that no ability in any AW playbook allows a player to have any control over the fiction beyond what their PC is in-universe capable of? If you say yes I'll accept that, but frankly it's hard to believe.

Yeah, this is exactly the case. Some results of a move will tell the GM to respond within constraints, but I don't think that's materially different from a hit in D&D obligating the GM to allocate damage to the orc and say it died. DW spout lore has a SLIGHT exception, the player gets to say how they know the lore, that's it for stock moves. Obviously people can make up whatever other moves they want...

 

[Emberashh]

This was my original onus for starting this this thread. I noticed in a lot of conversations about the playtest, you would see the statement of “but remember DH isn’t like dnd, it’s a narrative game” or “DH doesn’t need that kind of mechanic because it’s a narrative game”

And so I was genuinely wondering…what makes a game a narrative one?

Something that could be noted is that two people can describe the same general fact as both a positive and a negative. For example, where I could describe X game as lacking compelling gameplay and being very shallow, another person could describe the same actual "thing" about the game as being streamlined and without any complex or obtuse mechanics to get in the way.

What I could say is an interesting and dividend paying part of the gameplay loop could be said to be intrusive and restrictive to the Player.

Ultimately though, I will say it is interesting sometimes to see a lot of arguments bandied about regarding how certain games might be too intrusive on the play experience, when Apocalypse World in particular is often praised for doing the same thing by obligating you to deal with uncomfortable experiences. I suppose one could argue thats rooted in being unable/unwilling to separate the concepts of failure and losing when playing more conventional RPGs, but who knows.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Something that could be noted is that two people can describe the same general fact as both a positive and a negative. For example, where I could describe X game as lacking compelling gameplay and being very shallow, another person could describe the same actual "thing" about the game as being streamlined and without any complex or obtuse mechanics to get in the way.

What I could say is an interesting and dividend paying part of the gameplay loop could be said to be intrusive and restrictive to the Player.

Ultimately though, I will say it is interesting sometimes to see a lot of arguments bandied about regarding how certain games might be too intrusive on the play experience, when Apocalypse World in particular is often praised for doing the same thing by obligating you to deal with uncomfortable experiences. I suppose one could argue thats rooted in being unable/unwilling to separate the concepts of failure and losing when playing more conventional RPGs, but who knows.

I'd argue that were we to take "positive" and "negative" or "compelling," "shallow," "interesting," "intrusive", "restrictive," "uncomfortable" judgments out of the conversation, we'd get to a better definition of what things are without getting into more arguments. The thing we can't seem to get past is the judgment on these games at the same time we are trying to simply define what they heck they are.

 

[Celebrim]

And on that note, PbtA and Forged in the Dark games also have a strong Narrative element to them, despite being different from older definitions.

That I would agree with. There are a lot of modern games that are "informed' by the Forge discussion and a lot of the conversation that it spawned without meeting any sort of pure agenda definition that Forge would have recognized.

One problem that causes though is you have a lot of people looking at these disparate games and categorizing them by "do I like them".

I have a good deal of respect for what both PbtA and FitD are doing and they've both been tremendously successful and influential.

That said, a lot of the claims made about them are not defensible, but just part of the long running pattern going back to the 1980s of people going, "My choice of games proves I'm a better gamer than you." Back in the 1980s it was often "My game is more realistic and makes more sense than your game." Now it's usually, "My game is more narrative than you", which is the old 1980's "role player does not roll player" pretension.

On the topic, "Daggerheart" is clearly informed by modern gaming theory like "fail forward", a single generic resolution mechanic, and the inclusion of meta currency. But it's also clearly informed by classic gaming with things like granular weapon and armor lists. To a large extent, the classification of it into "nar" or "not nar" feels to me pointless. It's an abstraction people are using to discuss it based on whether they like or don't like those things. You can make arguments either way because the designer isn't trying to be pure about it, and really people are just defending that they like or dislike the system (or some other system). For me I see good points in the rolls as a group system and the fact that it does always give the GM an out for its "consequences" roll of just taking metacurrency if it's not obvious what the consequences should be.

For my part I don't like or dislike "nar" or "not nar". They each have their place depending on what you are trying to accomplish. Which is better a socket wrench or calipers? I do greatly dislike the very broad claims about what is possible for a gaming system and the lack of exactness - confusing "player driven" with "character driven" or claiming that non-nar games aren't about stories or don't have PC protagonist or claiming that nar is such a vague concept that you can do it with any game system and such is just... poorly considered.

But as for "Daggerheart" I dislike mostly the barely controlled chaos of the system and the fact that if you had different levels of extraversion in the players in the group I feel like the introverts would be pushed to the back harder than normal. The lack of taking turns gives me as a GM a lot of pauses, because you now have almost nothing to force characters to share the stage. I see why because turn based creates oddities, but I'd put up with the oddities over chaos and people arguing over who should take the next action. I also wonder what the extra granularity of "with hope" or "with fear" would actually do for me as a GM besides make running the game a bit more complicated. I don't think it's the right game for my players, and I'm not excited to run it because I don't see it giving me any stories I can't already tell or any scenes I can't already generate with other systems. As a potential player, it doesn't feel particularly empowering to me because disassociated mechanics and the fiat addition of stakes always favor the GM. I always feel these sorts of mechanics are there to make railroading easier. But you know, I wouldn't not play it either if I have the right GM with a flair for story telling. Whether it's "nar" or "not nar" doesn't really enter into this.