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

[Crimson Longinus]

As @Manbearcat said, is your claim that system doesn't matter and that there's no such thing as narrativist games which through intentional design result in different (narrative) outcomes compared to a traditional game like D&D if players and GM follow the guidelines and expectations set forth?

System of course always matters somewhat. Different games play differently. But I don't really understand what it exactly is that is supposed to make something narrativist, and how do these systems achieve it.

 

[zakael19]

System of course always matters somewhat. Different games play differently. But I don't really understand what it exactly is that is supposed to make something narrativist, and how do these systems achieve it.

So what's your response to the first portion of post #928 then?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've said it already. You just shrug and say "but other games can do that" or "no, that's not any different".

Because no one has actually shown the difference.

The way you're describing your Blades game as "just criminals doing criminal stuff" makes me think you're not really invested in it, or maybe the GM isn't, or maybe the entire group.

We are invested in it just fine. But that' still what the game is about.

That lack of investment could be from ignoring the principles of play or the principles of GMing. While these are not "mechanics" in the same sense as dice rolls and action ratings and the like, they are (or rather should be) just as binding. They're not suggestions. That's the author telling you "This is how you should play the game". Yes, you can change that if you want, but that will have consequences.

In your case, it seems to me like you guys are ignoring the principles, the resultant game is not as compelling as it could be, and you're wondering why.

How? What principles? You could be even correct, but I need specificity. Like what it is is supposed to happen you think is not happening?

But I can't really say for sure. I've asked you to elaborate on your game a bit, and you give the most basic and non-detailed answers "because we needed to frame another crew" and "why? oh because we needed to keep them busy".

I can't just continue to try and pull these details from you in the hopes that eventually a complete enough picture to actually evaluate emerges.

If you want to talk about your game of Blades, then let's talk about it. Let'd not reference it and then shrug at requests for further details. Let's put it under the microscope and actually examine it, warts and all.

I just don't understand what sort of details you want. Black Lamps were our rivals, and their leader was a personal enemy of one PC who was a former Black Lamp. They were unfriendly and sort of bullied us. So we stole a thing from Crows (one job) and planted it so that it seemed Lamps had taken it (another job) in attempt to make Crows hostile to the Lamps, so they'd had less time to harass us. It was a while ago, I don't remember all the details. In any case, it was just thing we the players came up with.

 

[innerdude]

There is some weird obscurantism going on where specific mechanics are supposed to cause some magic to happen in a way that no one can explain.

This here is the magic >>>

The magic of narrative games happens when players bring thematic character intent + stakes to the fore of play, and the players and GM take advantage of the game's implicit and/or explicit mechanics and incentives to honor those intentions, stakes, and themes above the GM's own conceptions of the game world.

If you and your GM aren't shifting the paradigm to really make this happen --- then, yeah, system doesn't matter.

 

[innerdude]

Because no one has actually shown the difference.


We are invested in it just fine. But that' still what the game is about.


How? What principles? You could be even correct, but I need specificity. Like what it is is supposed to happen you think is not happening?



I just don't understand what sort of details you want. Black Lamps were our rivals, and their leader was a personal enemy of one PC who was a former Black Lamp. They were unfriendly and sort of bullied us. So we stole a thing from Crows (one job) and planted it so that it seemed Lamps had taken it (another job) in attempt to make Crows hostile to the Lamps, so they'd had less time to harass us. It was a while ago, I don't remember all the details. In any case, it was just thing we the players came up with.

As far as I can tell, you've sort of broken the first paradigm of "narrative" style games, which is that you weren't bringing thematic character intentions and stakes to the table. Like, real, meaty stakes that slot into your character's real sense of self within the fictional world.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what's your response to the first portion of post #928 then?

I admit might not fully understand the advice, nor @Manbearcat's commentary regarding it, as I feel both are written in unnecessarily confusing manner.

I'd imagine what the advice mainly results, is focusing things on the players' goals, and forcing the players to actually think and articulate their goals. To certain degree it is a good thing. When done in mid action it also might put people in the "writers' room mode" like I feel happens habitually in the Blades, as we are focusing on structure of the game rather than the actual PoV of the characters.

This advice also isn't something I'd call a mechanic, it is a principle.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This here is the magic >>>

The magic of narrative games happens when players bring thematic character intent + stakes to the fore of play, and the players and GM take advantage of the game's implicit and/or explicit mechanics and incentives to honor those intentions, stakes, and themes above the GM's own conceptions of the game world.

If you and your GM aren't shifting the paradigm to really make this happen --- then, yeah, system doesn't matter.

As far as I can tell, you've sort of broken the first paradigm of "narrative" style games, which is that you weren't bringing thematic character intentions and stakes to the table. Like, real, meaty stakes that slot into your character's real sense of self within the fictional world.

Give me an example. What does this mean in practice? What counts as "thematic character intent?" Why didn't character creation in this narrative game give us such? Why didn't the mechanics guide us to employ such?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because no one has actually shown the difference.

But we have. You simply don't accept them or fail to see them.

For instance, many of the story now games have an entire character and group creation process. Apocalypse World does it, Stonetop does it, Blades does it. You don't create your characters in isolation, you create them together, and then decide what brought them together and how they're connected and what is their place in the world.

D&D does not have this.

You then say "yeah, but you could do it if you wanted" but that misses the point. The point is that in the games listed above, you must do it that way (or at least, you should per the direction of the book).

We are invested in it just fine. But that' still what the game is about.

I mean, the way you talk about it doesn't seem like you're that invested. You talk exuberantly about speaking in character to another player about stuff that is more flavor than meaningful, but when you've talked about your Blades game, it's pretty blase.

I don't know if this is because it's how you feel, or simply because you're trying to reinforce your view of the game through tone, or if there's some other reason.

How? What principles? You could be even correct, but I need specificity. Like what it is is supposed to happen you think is not happening?

Have you read the book? They're clearly listed there on page 182- 186. @Manbearcat 's post #928 gets into some of it.

Others are:

• Don't Be a Weasel- this is about players not abusing the authority they've been given, particularly as it relates to choosing which action ratings to choose- they're supposed to choose what makes sense in the fiction. Yes, there may be overlap between Skirmish and Finesse if someone is throwing a stiletto at an enemy, but we know it's certainly not Sway.
• Take Responsibility- this is about the role of the players as "co-authors", that they are as responsible for how the game goes as the GM is regarding tone, style, and theme. You have to be an active participant.
• Build Your Character Through Play- character generation doesn't end. You are constantly meant to be establishing things about your character during play. Not just their skills and short term goals, but also their connections to the world around them, their hopes and their morals. All of this matters and all of it should be a part of play. No one should be a wandering, rootless loner.

I just don't understand what sort of details you want. Black Lamps were our rivals, and their leader was a personal enemy of one PC who was a former Black Lamp. They were unfriendly and sort of bullied us. So we stole a thing from Crows (one job) and planted it so that it seemed Lamps had taken it (another job) in attempt to make Crows hostile to the Lamps, so they'd had less time to harass us. It was a while ago, I don't remember all the details. In any case, it was just thing we the players came up with.

Something illuminating. Anything that includes enough information for us to look at it and examine it. Your sparse descriptions can indeed be about any game at all... so they're not going to tell us anything about Blades as a game. Same as if you were making similar statements about your D&D game, they'd not tell us anything about the process of play.

Why were the Lampblacks your enemy? Were you successful in getting the Crows to go after them? What was the result mechanically? Did you take a -1 with them? Did you take a +1 with the Crows? I mean, the Faction game is meant to be player facing... how did your crew stand with these other ones? Did you ever go to war with any of them?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, it's not like that.


The stuff is most of the time related to our rival gangs, sometimes to our personal rivals and to the stuff we did before. Though sometimes the entanglements or such result new stuff being introduced. But most of this is still basic criminal stuff, gang competition, cops beating people etc. Sometimes it is more personal than that, related to stuff of specific characters.

But again, this sort of stuff happens in most games. It is not unusual that your past actions influence future events, in fact it is weird if they don't.

And I don't think we're playing it wrong. It is game about criminals doing criminal stuff so most of the game is about that. It's not that deep. Now what @Campbell said about Masks sounded being more about personal connections and dynamics, so that seemed more significantly different.

Yeah, and I was just going with an impression I got from the first of several posts. I am happy to concede it could be inaccurate. My greater point is really just how well the mechanics fit with this sort of play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Give me an example. What does this mean in practice? What counts as "thematic character intent?" Why didn't character creation in this narrative game give us such? Why didn't the mechanics guide us to employ such?

How about we start with this? Who is your character in Blades? What playbook, what heritage, what background, what vice?

Can you list these things?

Then tell us how they came up in play. Either introduced by you or by the GM.

Start there.