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

[thefutilist]

That's all fine and good. But the point of mechanics that point to fiction-first, non-"diegetic" conflict resolution in games like Ironsworn are to keep the character stakes relevant.

So, the player is ambivalent to the fate of the princess. Okay, so, why is the player putting so much at stake for the character to be involved with her? There's a disconnect there. The player isn't playing toward thematic character intentions and stakes. Or if the player is playing toward those stakes, then (s)he's doing so playing a character that (s)he isn't comfortable with. (S)he has built a character that (s)he isn't interested in exploring. So why is (s)he playing that character?

I can see the point, being that "Believe it or not, I was helping out the player avoid a rabbit hole of a plot development that (s)he wasn't interested in at all."

But in narrative-style RPG-ing, this is a clear fail state. If interacting with the princess isn't of interest to the player, (s)he shouldn't be investing character stakes into it. If those are the only stakes of interest made available to the player, it's a additionally a fail state by the GM for framing scenes and situations that don't speak to the character's evinced thematic intentions and stakes. It's even further a fail state because it seems like neither the player nor GM are communicating through character build, world building, out-of-character discussion what they want the themes and stakes to be.

If the solution to the problem is, "I as GM am going to arbitrarily kill off this NPC character we've invested significant play time around evincing character intent and stakes, because the player is bored / disinterested," then the question of "What kind of game are we really aiming for?" is strikingly misaligned between GM and player.

I meant ambivalent in the sense that they have mixed feelings. Not that they’re disinterested.

I mean your point still kind of stands because I don’t frame scenes in such a way as to speak to the characters thematic stakes and in fact would find doing so anathema. I think about what the NPC’s are up to and have them act on their own current best interests, ‘living world’ style.

But this works because we’re both invested in the situation and in many games have either built it together or it’s implicit in the setting. When we’ve built it though, then it’s living world all the way. This carries with it the chance of failure but on the plus side it means I don’t have to cater to what the player wants and the player doesn’t have to cater to what I want.

Although there are also nuances to this because we’re talking about three different things.


How resolution works and what we’re resolving.

How scene framing works.

The role of prep in play, especially prep of the type ‘the assassin will kill the princess on Tuesday.’

 

[Umbran]

So you are saying if the DM decides the fictional position doesn’t meet the requirements that the PC cannot even make that move?

And DW is supposed to be an example of narrative, character driven play?

You say this as if it is surprising.

If, in normal D&D, a player declares, "My character is going to swim to shore," when the character is currently in a stone-floored dungeon room with no water or other liquid to swim through, a rational GM isn't going to ask for an Athletics check to see if they successfully swim. The action declaration doesn't make sense in the situation currently established - this is essentially the same.

Character-driven play does not mean that the character can expect to suddenly act contrary to the fiction currently established. Some work may be necessary to change the fiction first.

 

[zakael19]

I meant ambivalent in the sense that they have mixed feelings. Not that they’re disinterested.

I mean your point still kind of stands because I don’t frame scenes in such a way as to speak to the characters thematic stakes and in fact would find doing so anathema. I think about what the NPC’s are up to and have them act on their own current best interests, ‘living world’ style.

But this works because we’re both invested in the situation and in many games have either built it together or it’s implicit in the setting. When we’ve built it though, then it’s living world all the way. This carries with it the chance of failure but on the plus side it means I don’t have to cater to what the player wants and the player doesn’t have to cater to what I want.

Although there are also nuances to this because we’re talking about three different things.


How resolution works and what we’re resolving.

How scene framing works.

The role of prep in play, especially prep of the type ‘the assassin will kill the princess on Tuesday.’

I want to note here that most narrative games I've read the rules for would say something like the last sentence in particular would be verboten. Could it be a "hard move" or something if it made sense (threat previously established, advancing a clock, etc)? Maybe, but that level of "plotting" is generally explicitly told to the GM to forget about.

 

[Umbran]

And the thing I've bolded is what I'm absolutely naughty word sick of in regards to trad play.

Mod Note:
If you're invoking the language filter, that's a problem. Please dial it back from where you need curse words to express yourself, please and thanks.

 

[innerdude]

I mean your point still kind of stands because I don’t frame scenes in such a way as to speak to the characters thematic stakes and in fact would find doing so anathema. I think about what the NPC’s are up to and have them act on their own current best interests, ‘living world’ style.

See, this is one of those things that until you give narrative mechanics an honest try, feels like it should be the absolute right move. Before I really, truly embraced what Ironsworn had to offer, I was just as terrified of "breaking the plausibility of the living world" as the most traddiest of trad GMs out there.

But the thing you discover very quickly is that it's an absolute myth. There are thousands upon thousands of ways, minor tweaks, tiny adjustments to the "living world" that maintain total fidelity and plausibility AND totally and completely engage with the thematic character intentions and stakes.

It is emphatically NOT a zero sum game, an "either or" proposition.

But this works because we’re both invested in the situation and in many games have either built it together or it’s implicit in the setting. When we’ve built it though, then it’s living world all the way. This carries with it the chance of failure but on the plus side it means I don’t have to cater to what the player wants and the player doesn’t have to cater to what I want.

"The player doesn't have to cater to what I want"? Apologies, but, well, LOL.

Really? You, the trad GM, with absolute utter power to do anything and everything to the "living world" any time you choose, regardless of effect it has on player stakes and intent, and somehow it's a good thing that "the player doesn't have to cater" to your wants?

Again, apologies, but this is a rather absurd statement.

 

[thefutilist]

See, this is one of those things that until you give narrative mechanics an honest try, feels like it should be the absolute right move. Before I really, truly embraced what Ironsworn had to offer, I was just as terrified of "breaking the plausibility of the living world" as the most traddiest of trad GMs out there.

But the thing you discover very quickly is that it's an absolute myth. There are thousands upon thousands of ways, minor tweaks, tiny adjustments to the "living world" that maintain total fidelity and plausibility AND totally and completely engage with the thematic character intentions and stakes.

It is emphatically NOT a zero sum game, an "either or" proposition.

Well to answer you and @zakael19.

Let’s say in the previously discussed scenario, I’ve created this assassin and he wants to kill the princess and I’ve decided he’ll do it on Tuesday night, while she sleeps.

Are you suggesting I don’t prep or I change the prep in response to what the player is doing? I mean the character isn’t doing anything to stop the assassin, the character doesn’t even know about them.

Or are you suggesting that I should inform the character somehow that the plot is going to happen. Even something like ‘given what you know of the geo-political situation, the princess could be a target of assassination.’ Something like that? If it something like that, is the difference between how legitimate it is (to you), whether the player knows about it or not?

 

[gban007]

Well to answer you and @zakael19.

Let’s say in the previously discussed scenario, I’ve created this assassin and he wants to kill the princess and I’ve decided he’ll do it on Tuesday night, while she sleeps.

Are you suggesting I don’t prep or I change the prep in response to what the player is doing? I mean the character isn’t doing anything to stop the assassin, the character doesn’t even know about them.

Or are you suggesting that I should inform the character somehow that the plot is going to happen. Even something like ‘given what you know of the geo-political situation, the princess could be a target of assassination.’ Something like that? If it something like that, is the difference between how legitimate it is (to you), whether the player knows about it or not?

My understanding of the PbtA games is that yep, there should have been hints that there was a threat to the princess, if the princess was of interest to the character. So that they had opportunity to try and stop it if they wished.
Otherwise not being able to stop the assassin as not knowing about them, does run counter to the PbtA stuff by my understanding.
If on the other hand is more like a D&D book, where it is part of the plot point that this event is going to occur, then is part and parcel of the territory that these things could occur, and the player should hopefully be cognisant of that.
Been running Shadow of the Dragon Queen DL book, and it is probably the most railroady adventure I've run, but we've all enjoyed it, and taken as read that certain events weren't preventable by the party.

 

[zakael19]

Well to answer you and @zakael19.

Let’s say in the previously discussed scenario, I’ve created this assassin and he wants to kill the princess and I’ve decided he’ll do it on Tuesday night, while she sleeps.

Are you suggesting I don’t prep or I change the prep in response to what the player is doing? I mean the character isn’t doing anything to stop the assassin, the character doesn’t even know about them.

Or are you suggesting that I should inform the character somehow that the plot is going to happen. Even something like ‘given what you know of the geo-political situation, the princess could be a target of assassination.’ Something like that? If it something like that, is the difference between how legitimate it is (to you), whether the player knows about it or not?

I would say that most narrativist games would explicitly tell you that determining “an assassin will kill the princess on Tuesday night” is against GM principles. If “political assassination of the princess” is an advancing threat, that would be tied in somehow to a PC, and they should have some awareness of the eventuality so they can take steps to avert if desired.

EG: if “a plot against the princess’s life” is an advancing threat, then they might be trying to suss it out, and maybe they roll well on a move that leads to an in fiction reveal of something that then they try to act on, and so they’re lurking about and then some sort of altercation happens and maybe they do or don’t stop the assassin or they cut off the conspiracy in time or, or, or…

But it’s coming with player awareness of what’s at stake & respondent to their actions. If they decide “meh she’s probably fine” and then spark a 6- hard move, and the portents are there an assassination is imminent, maybe the fiction at that point says “in the night you’re awoken by a clamor - guards shouting that the princess has been killed!” But that’s because the player generated the occurrence, not because it’s Tuesday and the prep says “princess dies.”

 

[Wolfpack48]

"The player doesn't have to cater to what I want"? Apologies, but, well, LOL.

Really? You, the trad GM, with absolute utter power to do anything and everything to the "living world" any time you choose, regardless of effect it has on player stakes and intent, and somehow it's a good thing that "the player doesn't have to cater" to your wants?

Again, apologies, but this is a rather absurd statement.

It’d be really nice to not invoke Tyrant GM Universe in these discussions for a change.

 

[thefutilist]

I would say that most narrativist games would explicitly tell you that determining “an assassin will kill the princess on Tuesday night” is against GM principles.

It depends on the game right. I’m pretty sure in the game I was using for the original example, you’re just allowed to kill off NPC’s if another NPC is motivated to kill them. That doesn’t necessarily get to the point of whether it’s satisfying or not. Which to me is a bit of an open question.

If it’s never satisfying, then in Apocalypse World terms, the first tick of the clock is always to announce future badness? I can see that being a good general practice.

But assuming there is no clock and the assassin is there, even if unknown. So the general circumstances are established. Then I’m thinking, is the assassin really going to kill her? And it just looks like, based on the state of the fiction, he is. Then I think that’s legitimate.

Although I have MC’d Apocalypse World a few times and in one session I failed to telegraphed something that I really should have in hindsight. So I err on the side of telegraphing rather than not but it does depend on the fictional situation.