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

[clearstream]

Yes, it obviously have plenty of narrativism inspired elements. Someone just made a point that heavy combat crunch of D&D would make it poorly suited for narrativist play, so I merely asked whether the heavy combat crunch of DH is similarly detrimental to that. And if it isn't, then we need to examine what the difference is, as it obviously then just isn't about the amount of focus on combat, but how the rules are implemented.

As an aside, I like the look of the DH action token system. It is a light-touch preservation of ludic tempo, which is one of the fundamental dimensions of challenge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it? Gandalf challenged Theoden in his own court, and gained an ally who ended up being absolutely crucial in the unfolding struggle against Saruman and Sauron.

In a different way he subsequently challenged Denethor, too. That worked out differently, but certainly not as Denethor might have willed things going in.

It sure helps that Gandalf is one of the most powerful and respected people in the setting, which the characters in the example probably weren't. Also, whilst he challenged Theoden's judgement, he didn't challenge his position. There also were other obvious things in the fictional positioning that helped these things go the way they did. (Though the scene in the movie version where Gandalf literally assaults Denethor and everyone is fine with it is still ludicrous to me.)

I am very willing to let my players to try crazy stuff, doesn't mean they will always succeed. And yeah, obviously this is something that could happen in a game given the right circumstance, but some (which I assume to be) low to medium ranking unknown just shouting at the king's face that he is bad and should get lost probably is not gonna be it.

But it it was not my example and there certainly were things that read as red flags to me in the GMs attitude, even though I don't think the course of the fictional events in itself is unreasonable. It bothered me like this was treated as some sort of distraction or "derailment." I think the course of the events was pretty cool and poignant, even if it would end with the character being executed like Ned Stark. That probably would still have some weight later.

All the fictional positioning that you refer to here resides solely in the GM's imagination. It's not a shared imagining.

And the recipe you prescribe for play is all GM-centred as well: identify possible sympathisers, garner their sympathies, eventually take down the tyrant.

The GM determines what exists in the world, the player determines the actions of their characters. These together create the fictional positioning that helps us determine what happens. Also, why are those actions GM centred if it is the players who initiate them? What would not be GM centred? The player directly dictating the external reality of the setting? That's not their job.

No one has asserted that narrativist 5e D&D is impossible. I, at least, have suggested it's not an ideal tool. And we can already see one reason why - when the player wants to identify sympathisers, there is no obvious mechanism other than looking to see what the GM provides (contrast, say, BW/Torchbearer Circles, or creating a Resource in MHRP).

Right. Because in D&D the players cannot use mechanics to acausally summon sympathisers or towers. I get why being able to do that would give the player more control, but it also is something a lot of people don't want to have.

We can see another reason, too - the "eventually". 5e D&D has no clear resolution procedure for attempts to achieve things that happen over an extended period of time. It's resolution - both spells, and ability/skill checks - are oriented towards discrete and relatively short moments of time (seconds, minutes - even the hours involved in a long rest are notorious for triggering discussion and disagreement over whether this is a unit of time that the GM should treat as indivisible or as still liable to encounter checks, interruption etc).

I have a vague recollection that there was some rule for extended checks, which would help wit this, though at quick glance I didn't find it. Maybe I invented it or ported it from another game, or then it is just in typical fashion buried in DMG somewhere and I just can't find it...

As I said, I'd love to be informed about all this narrativistic 5e play that is taking place, but still wait to be pointed to it.

Well, most people don't care whether their D&D is narrativist or not, and having participated in many of these discussions, I still do not know what it actually takes to qualify. It seems that every time it is pointed out how other games have the listed qualities goalpost shifting to show how it doesn't really count commences...

But as soon as we allow for player-authored goals and stakes, then combat just as much as anything else can serve as an opportunity for the character to be expressed and drive play. Like in my Torchbearer game, after I narrated Megloss incinerating Gerda by summoning the Flames of the Shroud, I noticed Golin's player putting together a big pile of dice. "What's that about?" "I'm going to attack Megloss!" "Kill conflict?" "What do you think?" "Why so many dice? Aren't you only Fighter 4?" "Well, those ones are my Avenging Grudges Nature - he just killed my friend."

Now we know what Golin stands for, what he's prepared to risk (in Torchbearer, a player who initiates a kill conflict has put their own PC's death on the line), etc.

How couldn't you do this in D&D? The meaningful difference I see is that it seems this game the player can decide whether the character can die in combat, but as this is not something the character could actually decide, puts us more into collaborative storytelling style rather than immersing to the viewpoint of the character style. Which BTW is my issue with a lot of the narrativist mechanics. I can play that way, but I don't prefer it.

But I don't think the impact of Golin challenging Megloss relies on that. In D&D he would risk death by default by initiating combat, the pathos is in why the player chooses to do it, rather the exact mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

The GM determines what exists in the world, the player determines the actions of their characters. These together create the fictional positioning that helps us determine what happens. Also, why are those actions GM centred if it is the players who initiate them? What would not be GM centred? The player directly dictating the external reality of the setting? That's not their job.


Right. Because in D&D the players cannot use mechanics to acausally summon sympathisers or towers. I get why being able to do that would give the player more control, but it also is something a lot of people don't want to have.

This is a mode of play preferences statement, right? And if my discussion of nature versus content describes something essential to narrativism, then that preference would rule out playing narrativistically regardless of chosen game text. no doubt one would then find sections of some game texts unhelpful, and disregard them.

And that would not prevent ones preferred mode of play containing what one feels are meaningful player choices... ones that are fundamental to how things go. The most obvious case would be game structures and play relating to challenge. It would only require having in mind a different idea of what counts as meaningful and fundamental.

I have a vague recollection that there was some rule for extended checks, which would help wit this, though at quick glance I didn't find it. Maybe I invented it or ported it from another game, or then it is just in typical fashion buried in DMG somewhere and I just can't find it...

I don't recall any momentum mechanic in 5e. There are a few mechanical cascades in specific cases. Social Interaction is one. Others are found in downtime activities, where a series of checks yield an outcome.

Well, most people don't care whether their D&D is narrativist or not, and having participated in many of these discussions, I still do not know what it actually takes to qualify. It seems that every time it is pointed out how other games have the listed qualities goalpost shifting to show how it doesn't really count commences...

For me understanding narrativism is complicated by its wedding to traditional Western dramatic story-telling. It's defined by a bundle of characteristics, not just one. It's a helpful concept that belongs somewhat to the past, as more and more we're seeing the design ideas appear in games that are not intended to be necessarily or purely "narrativist". Games like DH reveal just how incredible the inspiration that produced AW was, yet taking advantage of those discoveries doesn't make them "narrativist", and possibly "narrativist" is not even a particularly helpful description. No more than "trad" or "simulationist" would be.

GM moves are one example of what I'm thinking about. So we have this idea that GM could be seen as some sort of player, or at least following the rules, but in fact the rules in many game texts simply don't cover the GM. The GM is always addressed as being in some sense outside the rules. Giving them game actions brings them within the rules. I think it's essential if you really want to take that seriously. (GM moves have other helpful effects too.) AW is the first game text I know of in which they appear. DH includes GM moves. Of course, we've still much to learn about them. I'm curious as to whether they can be used in other ways: to give GMs actions that don't amount to following the game principles, but take the play in specifically curated directions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is a mode of play preferences statement, right?

Yes.

And if my discussion of nature versus content describes something essential to narrativism, then that preference would rule out playing narrativistically regardless of chosen game text. no doubt one would then find sections of some game texts unhelpful, and disregard them.

It seems that I have many times observed that narrativism (at least as defined by some people) seems to require giving the players meta level acausal control of parts of the setting. Then those people deny that this is the case. But when we examine actual examples, it turns out the difference still boils down to that in one way or another.

And that would not prevent ones preferred mode of play containing what one feels are meaningful player choices... ones that are fundamental to how things go. The most obvious case would be game structures and play relating to challenge. It would only require having in mind a different idea of what counts as meaningful and fundamental.

Thing is I think the players can control the nature of the play via the actions of their characters. Is this more limited that being able to do so on meta level too? Perhaps, but it is still happening.

For me understanding narrativism is complicated by its wedding to traditional Western dramatic story-telling. It's defined by a bundle of characteristics, not just one. It's a helpful concept that belongs somewhat to the past, as more and more we're seeing the design ideas appear in games that are not intended to be necessarily or purely "narrativist". Games like DH reveal just how incredible the inspiration that produced AW was, yet taking advantage of those discoveries doesn't make them "narrativist", and possibly "narrativist" is not even a particularly helpful description. No more than "trad" or "simulationist" would be.

Yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Yes, it obviously have plenty of narrativism inspired elements. Someone just made a point that heavy combat crunch of D&D would make it poorly suited for narrativist play, so I merely asked whether the heavy combat crunch of DH is similarly detrimental to that. And if it isn't, then we need to examine what the difference is, as it obviously then just isn't about the amount of focus on combat, but how the rules are implemented.

See, this is a point that I keep hearing, but there is nothing in D&D that says it has to be a heavy combat crunch game. It's merely a system that has received a lot of attention because people like to play combat. But you could just as easily play D&D with a light combat focus. It goes back as far as the Village of Hommlet scenario in AD&D -- the adventure was mostly about going through the village, getting to know the residents and figuring out of what, if anything, was going on. Of course, there's a dungeon crawl at the end, but 80% of the scenario was merely conversations with villagers and roleplaying.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think this is the right example. For one thing, Theoden can be viewed as the PC here. Having admirably played to their flaws and succumbed to Wormtongue, they are railroaded by Olorin, the Maiar primordial spirit in their magic-wielding Istari form. The whole thing plays out in accord with the GM's setup. Even tranferring this to the example being cited (ad arguendo accepting the PC as Gandalf), it's as if a PC with an entirely different standing and power were in the court, and in that case it's likely the GM would have directed NPC responses in a different way.

The notion that anyone in LotR is a PC or NPC makes no sense to me. It's a novel.

My point is that, in the inspirational fiction for D&D, a major ruler - Theoden - is challenged in his court and has his mind changed.

If the players are not expected to challenge the GM's NPC tyrant, why is the GM framing them into that scene at all? There may be an answer, but it's obviously not going to be one that connects to player-driven RPGing!

I think what @hawkeyefan's contrast between content and nature could be about is whether player has agency not as to what happens in the scene, but in the scene setup itself. Say the GM has the King worked out and it makes sense that they'd react as they did? Can the player change the King's motivations here? Perhaps inserting a moment in the King's past where they stood before a Tyrant in a similar setting. With that history inserted, handing the King back to GM as an adversary that they manage, the GM will likely now direct their responses in a different way.

Well, I'm pretty confident that I know what @hawkeyefan's contrast was about, as I described it and hawkeyefan liked my post and didn't post any correction of me. (Whereas, when I understated what he meant about RPG as a medium that is different from film, he did politely correct me.)

I don't know of any RPG that permits what you describe - the player establishing an NPC's backstory like that. But I know plenty of RPGs that take it for granted that the players can establish what is at stake in a scene, and what their PCs' goals are in that scene.

Referring back to my discussion up thread of ludonarrative requiring establishing narrative potential without committing to a given story, that can be achieved in a couple of ways. And at least one of those ways you seem to be ruling out as non-narrativist

I don't really know what "ludonarrative" means - it's not a term I'm familiar with - but I'm not surprised that some of what you describe about RPGing is not narrativist. After all, you are not a notable advocate or expositor of narrativst RPGing.

A. GM (or game designer FTM) can set the scene up with terrain and actual and potential adversaries (NPCs whose stakes potentially conflict with those of players). PCs enter that scene and although they set nothing up, it plays out in response to what they do. Only through knowing what PCs do, can we know how it will play out. And that is true even though they didn't play any part in setting things up, and cannot modify the nature of those things. Although we must work with the stakes as set, it can involve genuine stakes-motivated-conflict, and as to what stakes matter here and now can be down to what players do. I believe that this is the kind of setup the cited quotation describes.​

There are many, many variations on this. Who gets to decide the PCs' goals within the scene, and what is at stake? I mean, as you describe it this could be an episode of Apocalypse World - but AW permits the players to establish stakes (by use of moves like Read a Situation, Read a Person, Seize By Force, and Seduce/Manipulate).

Or it could be a total railroad like the example from 5e Curse of Strahd play that I linked to upthread.

Without specifying the system whereby what is at stake in an action resolution, and how it is described - ie basically everything that matters in approaches to RPGing - we can't tell what's going on in terms of player agency and narrativistic or non-narrativistic play.

B. GM and players can set the scene up. PCs enter and it plays out from there. Beyond setup, there is no editing of the nature of the scene. Only how things go out based on what the PCs do.​

I don't know what you mean by "players set the scene up". I mean, is a player saying "I look around for a <useful person fitting such-and-such a description>" and then succeeding on the check (say, Streetwise in Classic Traveller - a 1977 RPG! - or Circles in Burning Wheel) an example of this?

Is the player saying to the GM "I'd like to go and visit my friend the blacksmith" and the GM responding "OK, you turn up at the smith's place - but they seem to be missing!" an example of this?

C. GM can set the scene up, and players can be empowered to add to and edit the scene as they play it out. They can edit the King's nature to add that snippet of history at the moment it matters, so that GM will be inclined to direct their responses in a different way.[/INDENT]

I don't know what you mean by a player being empowered to "edit the scene". In MHRP the player can, under certain circumstances, declare an action to establish an Asset, or spend a PP to establish a Resource - does this count as editing the scene? In some versions of D&D, a player can spend a spell slot or memorised spell to make it true that the scene includes a creature under their control (in the fiction, the PC casts a summon-type spell) - does this count as editing the scene?

These descriptions of play that are devoid of specifications of actual play processes, of the relationship between clouds and boxes, etc, seem pretty unhelpful to me.

The example of Gandalf and Theoden is at best a case of A. Gandalf is able to challenge Theoden in his own court due to facts already established. Over the course of the scene, the natures of Gandalf and Theoden are revealed but not changed. (I think arguing that their natures are changed, will be contradicting earlier posts about what counts as a "nature" change versus a "content" change.) Given it's authored up front, there's no possibility of a "nature" change.

This just makes no sense to me at all.

As far as I know, of active participants in this thread I'm the one to have most recently run a MERP/LotR-type game with Gandalf statted up as a PC. In that system - a MHRP variant - there are multiple ways that Gandalf freeing Theoden could be resolved. Theoden could be a Scene Distinction - King Burdened by Weariness and Wormtongue - and Gandalf's actions would be aimed at eliminating that Distinction, with Wormtongue as a statted NPC providing the opposition.

Or Theoden could be statted as a NPC, suffering from Mental and Emotional Stress, with Gandalf performing recovery actions, and Wormtongue adding to the Doom Pool and/or directly opposing those actions.

Which approach to use is a matter of taste and skill in GMing that system. I don't know how either is supposed to fit into your A/B/C schema, which as I've said doesn't actually make any reference to the processes of play that I and (I believe) @soviet and @hawkeyefan are interested in.

 

[FrogReaver]

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”.

Okay so removing the blindly constraint. So if the players choose to go to the underdark, that sounds to me like a player decision that places the campaign in the underdark. A player decision that has such impact seems to fundamentally matter, at least on the surface.

Do you see why I assumed blindly making a choice was your initial intent? Because if we don’t, I don’t see how the above isn’t a fundamental choice that matters.

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.

I think this is one place that I’m also not doing good at explaining. I wouldn’t refer to a hexcrawl as a sandbox. I would simply refer to it as a hexcrawl. When I say sandbox I mean something different. Typically a world with defined factions, with enough blanks where factions make moves alongside the PCs.

*I realize this is a narrower subset of sandbox than perhaps what it traditionally meant.

Nope!

Then some elaboration on what you did mean would be helpful.

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.

So in what I mean by sandbox that’s not really how it works. That’s probably a good part of the disconnect.

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

Okay. That’s helpful. Just to ensure I’m not confused, By nature you mean it’s nature in the sense of being designed with or without input from players?

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

This may very well be true in a trad sandbox, but I think there’s a mechanism that makes it untrue for the kind of sandbox I mean. But focused is a rather broad and generic word - so you probably mean focused in some particular way? So before I commit I’d be curious about focused in what way?

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

I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I’m trying to get to what you actually mean.

I can in my own words, but it’s obvious we aren’t using the same language. So I don’t think introducing alternate terms and definitions is going to help. At best we just start arguing over terms then. IMO.

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

I don’t know that it does in what you call a trad sandbox.

In the kind of sandbox I mean there’s a mechanism that works something like this. So if the PC backstory is, I want to kill my brothers killer, the PCs can focus their play on trying to do identify, find, and kill that man.

Consider the difference between a movie about such a theme and a procedural tv series containing such a theme. The movie is much more direct and to the point - which seems to match your notion of narrative play, but the procedural series still gets thise same elements and gets to resolution, it just typically does so over many episodes where the basic procedure is usually at the forefront and the elements about the brothers killer slowly drip in. This analogy highlights to me the differences well in sandbox as I mean and narrative play.

back to rpgs - Unless you mean focus to the exclusion of all else, then it seems obvious that the sandbox player initiated the idea of killing their brothers killer drove play toward that by asking NPCs they meet about him. Eventually the DM bites on that hook and provides additional details which then lets the process repeat until the player finally encounters their brothers killer.

 

[pemerton]

Someone just made a point that heavy combat crunch of D&D would make it poorly suited for narrativist play

That was you:

I think you could give combat thematic weight well enough, but yeah, it is rather involved and crunchy system that expects certain level of tactical play, so if that's not what one is interested about it might feel like a distraction.

 

[Campbell]

See, this is a point that I keep hearing, but there is nothing in D&D that says it has to be a heavy combat crunch game. It's merely a system that has received a lot of attention because people like to play the combat, but you could just as easily play D&D with a light combat focus. In goes back as far as the Village of Hommlet scenario in AD&D where the adventure was mostly about going through the village, getting to know the residents and figuring out of what, if anything, was going on. Of course, there's a dungeon crawl at the end, but 80% of the scenario was merely conversations with villagers and roleplaying.

Violence and fight scenes are not a problem (and often play a big role in games like Maks, Apocalypse Keys and Avatar). What is an issue for me (when I am looking for Story Now play) is the 'combat mode' where the normal flow of the conversation is disrupted. It's stuff like cyclical initiative, explicit time tracking, proscribed task-resolution oriented mechanics, etc. It's the technical specifics of the way combat is run in trad RPGs that presents a problem for taking an approach where the GM is actively framing elements to address the thematic premises of the characters.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Violence and fight scenes are not a problem (and often play a big role in games like Maks, Apocalypse Keys and Avatar). What is an issue for me (when I am looking for Story Now play) is the 'combat mode' where the normal flow of the conversation is disrupted. It's stuff like cyclical initiative, explicit time tracking, proscribed task-resolution oriented mechanics, etc. It's the technical specifics of the way combat is run in trad RPGs that presents a problem for taking an approach where the GM is actively framing elements to address the thematic premises of the characters.

I think most games are simply a series of subsystems for performing various tasks, some more bolted on and some more consistent and scalable. I am guessing in a Story Now game that combat would be more an extension of the narrative mechanics ("what's an interesting thing to happen right now in this combat?") than a switch to objective success/failure tests. A traditional game would be a consistent application of success/failure tests to determine what happened rather than the table consistently deciding what happened.