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

[pemerton]

Sure. I did not doubt it was otherwise. Take it up with @pemerton who seems to have an issue with the player declared stakes of royal abdication not being accepted.

I think that @AbdulAlhazred would accept that, in Dungeon World, a knife to the throat would grant leverage.

I mean, it worked for Conan!

 

[clearstream]

Yes I am. Players aren't part of any assemblage on which any story supervenes, or by which any story is constituted.

If players are not part of the assemblage, then we should not expect that they contribute/rearrange/change any signifiers. On surface that contradicts what you have argued in this and other threads so I wondered what reconciliation you have in mind between those positions?

Recollecting of course that player acts as audience and contributions as author expand/reorganise/update the pool of signifiers. And that their performances are available to one another as signifiers.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe it is right to formally call out and label a mode and say that it has a distinct nature when all the parts are present. And equally, that it is right to feel able to deconstruct and say that those parts can be found in and serve other play even if that play doesn't amount to the mode.

I liked much of what you said here, but I’d push back a little here.

There’s an inherent problem in what you describe as modality classification when the modality is based on a particular combination of discrete elements. What happens when just 1 of those discrete elements is removed (or even decreased assuming it’s not a binary on/off element). Well you get another modal classification! And this can be done for all different modal combinations of elements (and values they can take).

Which then brings us to the next part of classification hierarchy - the family. Since modal classification ends up being unique then to group similar games together you need a family that contains certain types of modal classifications. Then you need a family to classify all these modal classifications into. Which can be designed to work well for a moment in time, but as long as games continue to evolve and hybridize the family classification is going to become more and more blurry.

Which I think is the problem I highlight when exploring provided definitions and what is applicable to them.

Spectrums run into their own classification problems, namely there usually aren’t clear lines to cleanly divide the spectrum into classifications, so the classification cutoffs can feel a bit arbitrary.

 

[FrogReaver]

So you made a huge deal about me getting the name wrong. And if you stop to consider it, there is very simple reason for this. For the same reason I might indeed call Crows Ravens and Red Sashes Red Scarves etc. I am a Finn, we don't play in English. And it would be weird to have English words pop up in a Finnish in-character speech. So every name with an obvious meaning, every concept we need to refer to in-character, we translated. Factions, districts, names of things. That's how casual about this game we were. So most of the time I'd call them Mustalamput, and so when I try to remember what it is in English, I just translate it back and such glitches may occur.

You write in English very well for non-native English speaker.

 

[FrogReaver]

If players are not part of the assemblage, then we should not expect that they contribute/rearrange/change any signifiers. On surface that contradicts what you have argued in this and other threads so I wondered what reconciliation you have in mind between those positions?

Recollecting of course that player acts as audience and contributions as author expand/reorganise/update the pool of signifiers. And that their performances are available to one another as signifiers.

My eyes usually gloss over when you talk too much about ludonarrative and assemblages, etc. But the basic idea and question in this post makes sense to me.

 

[Campbell]

Reading posts in this thread, I'm observing two competing descriptions of observed play.

The first that I'll call a "modalities" description, describes combinations of playstyle and game design as distinct modes such that one is playing in one mode or another mode. To my reading, @Campbell has presented with clarity such a description. In this case, when there are modes of play A and B, one is either playing in mode A or one is playing in mode B.

The second that I'll call a "hybrids" description, deconstructs playstyle and game design granularly for reassembly in a vast number of ways. To my reading, @Crimson Longinus has been working from such a picture.

Hybridists are naturally puzzled about the apparent protectiveness over and exclusivity reserved for what appear to them to be redeployable principles and structures (including mechanics) that can be used together or apart and in more or less degree. Modalists don't see how the play they cherish could possibly arise except in the presence of all the parts working together.

Stepping back a bit, over the arc of modern game development I have seen in the early stages a rapid process of branching hybridisation that eventually settles on what comes to be known as a game genre. The process is still continuing and surprising hybrids turn up all the time, receive some focused attention and development, and either whither or flourish as a new genre. The autochess genre is a recent example in videogames. Player culture has expanded and evolved in parallel.

So I believe it is right to formally call out and label a mode and say that it has a distinct nature when all the parts are present. And equally, that it is right to feel able to deconstruct and say that those parts can be found in and serve other play even if that play doesn't amount to the mode.

So, I don't think a given process or mechanic is sacred and only belongs in a single given arrangement. If I did Chronicles of Darkness and L5R Fifth Edition would not rank as two of my favorite games. I do believe there is value in particular arrangements of mechanics, play processes and principles. I believe discipline of how all these things come together has immense value.

What I find somewhat annoying is the idea that by freely combining processes, mechanics, etc that we will somehow get the best of all possible arrangements. What I find more annoying than that is the conceit that people playing a game like say Monsterhearts in the way it is written are somehow missing out on all the fun they should be having (when I might not want what you are selling - at least not when playing Monsterhearts). That by enjoying one of my favorite games as it as designed to be played that I somehow being rigid or denying pleasurable experiences to myself.

I think there are many possible arrangements. Not two or three. I just believe we should be mindful of how we are arranging things, and the point is to get to many sorts of play, not to find one best way everyone should play (which is what I personally would consider dogmatic).

I also frankly just find it exhausting that I get called on to constantly justify the very existence of the sort of play that got me invested in the hobby.

 

[clearstream]

There’s an inherent problem in what you describe as modality classification when the modality is based on a particular combination of discrete elements. What happens when just 1 of those discrete elements is removed (or even decreased assuming it’s not a binary on/off element). Well you get another modal classification! And this can be done for all different modal combinations of elements (and values they can take).

Yes, so what you're describing is a common problem in conceptual ontologies. Picture it topographically. We have a contoured plane and at various places peaks. This is a many-dimensional plane - one dimension for each degree of freedom of expression - but for now think of it as three dimensional: game dimensions x, y, z. Thus a high peak in the top right corner is a maximised expression of the three dimensions (aka game properties.)

The peaks represent modes, and their slopes represent neighbours of the modes. A little less x, a little less y, a little less z. So when we talk about a mode of play (or a game genre FTM) we are talking about a neighbourhood in which are found recognisably similar games... but they are also when we scrutinse them recognisably dissimilar. In theory the top of the peak is a sharp-point hard up against the top-right corner, but in practice it's a blunt peak with a few games that are pretty strongly in the "genre" - genre-defining, you might say - but each slightly different from the other. A strong family resemblance, in Wittgenstein's language.

Which then brings us to the next part of classification hierarchy - the family. Since modal classification ends up being unique then to group similar games together you need a family that contains certain types of modal classifications. Then you need a family to classify all these modal classifications into. Which can be designed to work well for a moment in time, but as long as games continue to evolve and hybridize the family classification is going to become more and more blurry.

I think so too. You end up with a set with some defining characteristics, but the thing about sets is you can always define new ones, and the new ones can intersect the old ones. Still, generally for a time one can define genres and sub-genres in a meaningful and useful way. And equally, when one is speaking of membership in sets defined by collections of properties, dimensions of the definition can't really be protected: they're always available to the definition for another set that intersects the first (i.e. includes other dimensions, or excludes some of them).

One important note here is that sometimes the sum contains something other than the parts. Taking games to be mechanisms, perhaps the analogy of an ICE can work. The sparkplugs alone won't propel you from 0-200MPH in ten seconds. So that provides modalists with a strong reason for cherishing their mode. They may say, and possibly with justice, that the sum is greater than the parts.

Spectrums run into their own classification problems, namely there usually aren’t clear lines to cleanly divide the spectrum into classifications, so the classification cutoffs can feel a bit arbitrary.

The point of a spectrum is to resist clear lines, not to look for them! However, I don't think the cutoff is arbitrary. In many domains, particular mixtures prove to be sweet-spots... more appealing than other mixtures containing some but not all of the ingredients. Of course, there are other equally sweet-spots containing some of the ingredients, with perhaps some others.

I feel like a fruitful path for hybridists is to accept that modalists are identifying a sweet-spot, and insist in return that other recipes that may very well share ingredients are also sweet-spots. For one thing, this requires getting a bit more particular about that label "trad". What really is trad? I don't think I've ever experienced anything like the list of features that I've seen put forward in this thread to define that mode of play.

Is the "trad" folk have in mind sandbox? If so, is it OSR-ish sandbox? D&D-ish sandbox? Rules-lite sandbox? Rulings-not-rules sandbox? Rules-not-rulings sandbox? Neotrad sandbox? Or is it AP specific? Does that include CoC APs? How about Masks of Nyarlothep? Does it include RQ APs? How about Griffin Mountain? Is it only when the AP is played a certain way (playstyle dependent)? Or does it include when a group deconstruct the AP and use it for setting, adversary and adversity inspiration?

Comparing a modal view of "narrativist" play with a fuzzy hybrid strawman for other play, isn't comparing figs with figs and can be readily foreseen to not work out very well, e.g. to invite fuzzy hybrid views of "narrativist" in return.

 

[clearstream]

So, I don't a given process or mechanic is sacred and only belongs in a single given arrangement. If I did Chronicles of Darkness and L5R Fifth Edition would not rank as two of my favorite games. I do believe there is value in particular arrangements of mechanics, play processes and principles. I believe discipline of how all these things come together has immense value.

Agreed. The sums being possibly greater than the parts. Setting aside for the moment the matter of taste.

What I find somewhat annoying is the idea that by freely combining processes, mechanics, etc that we will somehow get the best of all possible arrangements. What I find more annoying than that is the conceit that people playing a game like say Monsterhearts in the way it is written are somehow missing out on all the fun they should be having (when I might not want what you are selling - at least not when playing Monsterhearts). That by enjoying one of my favorite games as it as designed to be played that I somehow being rigid or denying pleasurable experiences to myself.

In my experience, we never really know. Genres frequently emerge from other genres, through twiddling with the parts. But I definitely would not put it (and do not recall ever having put it) that one will miss out from playing a game as it is written. I more say that - on account of taste - some might enjoy playing a game not as it is written, while at the same time others may take what is written to have different implications.

I think there are many possible arrangements. Not two or three. I just believe we should be mindful of how we are arranging things, and the point is to get to many sorts of play, not to find one best way everyone should play (which is what I personally would consider dogmatic).

100%!

I also frankly just find it exhausting that I get called on to constantly justify the very existence of the sort of play that got me invested in the hobby.

It's practically definitional to play that one doesn't have to justify what you enjoy!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Relentless focus on premise and lack of a prearranged plot of any sort beyond what the core premise itself implies. The focus is on what happens to the characters, what they do, what they are, why and how they choose, and what comes of that. Yes, you can sort of describe some trad play like this to a degree, but there's a distinct difference in practice. Yes you can practice vanilla Narrativist play using most any mechanics, yet in almost 50 years of play I have never seen something like our BitD game happen that way, even with GMs whom I know from experience can run a game like that.

Games like D&D have an immense weight of past practice, expectations and tradition, on top of specific mechanical structure and assumed process of play which freights any such attempt with huge baggage. Mostly you get a sort of mixed narr-light kind of outcome, which is not some bad thing! It's just not quite the full monty.

Tying back to Daggerheart, my feeling is it's aimed at light Narrativist or adjacent play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Takeo wanted to know what happened to his home island and thus how he ended up an orphan with a demon-possessed sword.