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

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Sorry, but you need to elaborate.

 

[innerdude]

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

I was never a tyrant GM even when I was running Savage Worlds for 9 years in about as "trad" a fashion as possible.

But neither was I, as GM, really giving weight to character stakes and intentions during my GM play. It simply didn't occur to me that I should be, because nothing about the "trad" culture of RPG gaming makes it seem like it needs to be a "thing" in the first place.

Running roughshod over your players thematic intentions and stakes in regard to their character isn't something that happens in trad play because the GM is a jerk. It happens because the GM largely either doesn't know, or largely hasn't been enculturated to value those inputs into how (s)he runs the game. It's just not part of "trad" GM-ing DNA, so accounting for those things as part of process resolution doesn't happen.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I've mentioned it several times, but has none in this discussion watched Critical Role? Because I feel people's conception of D&D in these discussions often seem to be some sort of outdated near pawn stance dungeon Vietnam, that I do not recognise. That or just adventure paths. To me D&D (and just RPGs I play and run in general) look more like CR. Trad, but characters certainly aren't some sort of interchangeable afterthought even though everything wouldn't always revolve around their personal issues. And if a lot of people weren't already playing that way, now they certainly are, as at least half of the D&D GMs are trying to mimic Mercer. And I am not even thinking that he is somehow amazing, I just find his style pretty relatable even though I wouldn't agree with all his choices. Seeing it helps to understand how a lot of people these days play or at least aspire to play.

And of course that also is the playstyle which probably influenced the design of Daggerheart quite a bit.

 

[thefutilist]

So I've mentioned it several times, but has none in this discussion watched Critical Role?

I’ll walk you though how to get from critical roll to Narrativist play. (or how I would do it at least)

Constrain the situation. What I mean by this, is the GM should create a cast of NPC’s and relationships between them and the player characters. Then the GM and the players have got to be interested in how that’s going to go.

To do that you need player characters that are open to having their world views and morality changed. In part you’re playing to see what what happens to the character on that level.

There is no party and no expectation of a party. There is no adventure and no expectation of an adventure.

As a GM you can’t create bad guys. You can create characters whose views you find abhorrent but you still have to play them as people. Also, they have to be open to having their world views changed in response to the fiction.

So to be more blatant about it. You want the possibility that one of the player characters will end up becoming the main threat to the other player characters and the possibility the main antagonist will side with the player characters.

Do you see how a lot of that is actually a mind set shift rather than anything mechanical?

Anyway I can write more if you’re interested but that’s the kind of broad overview stuff.

 

[zakael19]

So I've mentioned it several times, but has none in this discussion watched Critical Role? Because I feel people's conception of D&D in these discussions often seem to be some sort of outdated near pawn stance dungeon Vietnam, that I do not recognise. That or just adventure paths. To me D&D (and just RPGs I play and run in general) look more like CR. Trad, but characters certainly aren't some sort of interchangeable afterthought even though everything wouldn't always revolve around their personal issues. And if a lot of people weren't already playing that way, now they certainly are, as at least half of the D&D GMs are trying to mimic Mercer. And I am not even thinking that he is somehow amazing, I just find his style pretty relatable even though I wouldn't agree with all his choices. Seeing it helps to understand how a lot of people these days play or at least aspire to play.

And of course that also is the playstyle which probably influenced the design of Daggerheart quite a bit.

So here's the thing, D&D as written doesn't really do anything to promote that, yeah? I've mentioned this multiple times and you just reply with "but I do and it's not hard! crossed eyes emojI" Yet, lots of us here have shared our personal experience both as players and DMs (and there's just so damn many posts on r/DMAcadamy) that indicate the norm is very much still trad play, with a DM at best burying the rails. AP's consistently show up as the most popular way to play the game on polls, and most home-brew seems to be figuring out how to do "tell my story" stuff. I think there's lot of "OC" style play/RP, but that has very little reference to D&D rules.

Most people seem to think that Critical Role is about the funny voices and OC interactions, or at least that's the vibe I get (and my players who are huge "Critters" certainly didn't show up expecting to knit their characters into the fabric of the world and do a player directed and ideated story with minimal DM steering!) - and so when they show up to a game, they want the vibe but aren't sure how to get there on either side.

This is fundamentally different then the play from session 0 I get in Stonetop (PBTA). The GM and player Agendas are so clearly laid out, and the premise just hammered into your face, that the ground expectations shape a totally different experience. And the system directs that at both parties.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was never a tyrant GM even when I was running Savage Worlds for 9 years in about as "trad" a fashion as possible.

But neither was I, as GM, really giving weight to character stakes and intentions during my GM play. It simply didn't occur to me that I should be, because nothing about the "trad" culture of RPG gaming makes it seem like it needs to be a "thing" in the first place.

Running roughshod over your players thematic intentions and stakes in regard to their character isn't something that happens in trad play because the GM is a jerk. It happens because the GM largely either doesn't know, or largely hasn't been enculturated to value those inputs into how (s)he runs the game. It's just not part of "trad" GM-ing DNA, so accounting for those things as part of process resolution doesn't happen.

Yeah, I think it's tough to examine our games and realize this, but like you, I know I did my fair share of this earlier on. Even when I started running D&D in a more neo-trad style (before I knew what that was, or before it was even labeled as such), it still involved a lot of GM authority.

I think the thing about games that are more story now in implementation is that it structures things for the GM and also for the players. I mean, when a player shows up with a 32 page backstory, I don't blame a GM for rolling their eyes and discarding the vast majority of it. But when there's a structure in place... a process the GM and players follow... a lot can be accomplished with minimal effort. And as @Campbell pointed out... it's not just the details, but how they inform play. These are actionable things that are determined.

I look at the game of Stonetop that I'm running and so much of what is going on in that game came from our character creation session. The Ranger had to come up with a threat he'd encountered in the forest. The Seeker came up with a strange man who gifted an artifact to him. The Blessed had vanished when he was young, and lived with wolves walking the spirit roads and only recently returned, much older than he should be.

All of this stuff has directly influenced much of our play. These things are central to it... what's the nature of the beast in the forest? What's happening to the forest? How does it connect to the spirit realm? Who was the gaunt stranger who gave the Seeker her artifact? Did he also give an artifact to a Manmarch warlord? What about the artifact held by the vizier in Marshedge? These are all questions that have come up as a result, and still matter to the game many sessions later.

If I sat down ahead of time and tried to craft all this in a more trad approach to play, I'd never have come up with these different elements, and never seen how they could connect in interesting ways that challenge the PCs and the players. It's not just about collaboration, it's about that collaboration driving play.

 

[darkbard]

So I've mentioned it several times, but has none in this discussion watched Critical Role? Because I feel people's conception of D&D in these discussions often seem to be some sort of outdated near pawn stance dungeon Vietnam, that I do not recognise. That or just adventure paths. To me D&D (and just RPGs I play and run in general) look more like CR. Trad, [...]

I see far more folks categorizing Critical Role as OC or Neotrad play, not Trad. I have not watched it myself, but my (possibly incorrect) understanding is that Mercer's players bring their PCs fully formed to the game to be told a story about those PCs in Mercer's world. There is no crucible of play nor playing to find out (beyond what Mercer has planned or improvs for the group or individual) that would push play towards Narrativist in the ways that have been discussed here.

 

[thefutilist]

"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.

I mean it might be absurd but it’s how I play and I wouldn’t want to play any other way.

Also I don’t get the whole thing about the GM being able to do anything. I wrote down the assassin kills the princess and so I’m not free to change that. Or in the case where the assassin is there unbeknownst to the player character. I’ve got to work with what’s established about his priorities, I can't change them to let the princess live, even if I wanted to. Or maybe more accurately, I’m playing the NPC’s as I would play a player character.

 

[innerdude]

Yeah, I think it's tough to examine our games and realize this, but like you, I know I did my fair share of this earlier on. Even when I started running D&D in a more neo-trad style (before I knew what that was, or before it was even labeled as such), it still involved a lot of GM authority.

Very much this. But man oh man, was I extrapolating to keep the "living world" alive and running. I was a darn good extrapolator. I could extrapolate upon extrapolated extrapolations, then extrapolate some more on the extrapolated extrapolated extrapolations.

And for a long while -- well over a year -- everything just sort of hummed along in my homebrew Savage Worlds fantasy campaign setting, people were having fun, I was having fun, the world felt "alive" and "vigorous" and "full of mystery and enchantment."

And then somewhere around month 14 or 15, it changed. The extrapolations were no longer maintaining full fidelity to previous events, because, how could they? Unless I was willing to record in odious detail every possible thing that transpired during play, of course gaps in the details would appear. Suddenly an NPC may have been in one place instead of another, because "Otherwise, how did he/she manage to steer events in a city 400 miles away?" I had to suddenly invent new NPCs retroactively, because there's no way the main "baddie" could be orchestrating absolutely everything.

And then the question began to arise, "How is this all going to end? What's the real end-game?"

Do we just keep running this forever with different villains and quests? Is there supposed to be "an ending to the story," or is that something I'm not supposed to impose? How do I keep events moving forward as if they are a "living world," but now I'm facing immense pressure to bring about a "satisfying conclusion" to the PCs efforts, to move toward a "story ending." And because of that, I was then flooded with all these ideas of how things could/would/should end, but if I implemented any of them or enforced any of them as "hidden backstory," would it have changed player perceptions of the outcome and campaign as a whole?

And then the cognitive dissonance started setting in---this isn't a "living world." It's a mish-mash of stuff I made up 2-5 years ago, extrapolated stuff I made up based on what we did during play, stuff I'm making up now out of whole cloth (with additional extrapolated made up stuff), and stuff that I may or may not be making up in play tomorrow when we get together again.

I think the thing about games that are more story now in implementation is that it structures things for the GM and also for the players. I mean, when a player shows up with a 32 page backstory, I don't blame a GM for rolling their eyes and discarding the vast majority of it. But when there's a structure in place... a process the GM and players follow... a lot can be accomplished with minimal effort. And as @Campbell pointed out... it's not just the details, but how they inform play. These are actionable things that are determined.

I look at the game of Stonetop that I'm running and so much of what is going on in that game came from our character creation session. The Ranger had to come up with a threat he'd encountered in the forest. The Seeker came up with a strange man who gifted an artifact to him. The Blessed had vanished when he was young, and lived with wolves walking the spirit roads and only recently returned, much older than he should be.

All of this stuff has directly influenced much of our play. These things are central to it... what's the nature of the beast in the forest? What's happening to the forest? How does it connect to the spirit realm? Who was the gaunt stranger who gave the Seeker her artifact? Did he also give an artifact to a Manmarch warlord? What about the artifact held by the vizier in Marshedge? These are all questions that have come up as a result, and still matter to the game many sessions later.

If I sat down ahead of time and tried to craft all this in a more trad approach to play, I'd never have come up with these different elements, and never seen how they could connect in interesting ways that challenge the PCs and the players. It's not just about collaboration, it's about that collaboration driving play.

Very true, and I really appreciate what Ironsworn and Starforged have unlocked for me as a GM. So much more freedom to play and GM in a different way.

But I'm also very much encouraged by some things I read recently from Eero Tuovinen, which is that it's okay to embrace the GM role as "Story Hour" provider for trad play, as long as you as GM are doing the work to create a "story" structure worth playing through.

Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

www.arkenstonepublishing.net

If it's agreed upon with you and your players that you're largely going to be playing through elements of a "structured story" together---and what else is module and/or adventure path play than this?---that you and your players are along for the ride together, and largely understand the structures and limits of what the entails.

And this all made sense. When I created story structures worth playing, the game was great. The best, most functional parts of my trad Savage Worlds GM-ing were the parts where I had very carefully aligned NPCs, "fronts", factions, geography, and current PC objectives to come together.

And the parts where I was mostly "slumming it," playing ad hoc, lesser preparation segments inevitably came across as bland and relatively tensionless.

For a long time after that Savage Worlds campaign finished, I felt like I never wanted to run a "trad" campaign again, because I felt like I would GM-ing under false pretense. But Eero's essay has just recently given me a renewed sense of appreciation for trad GM-ing. Like, I wasn't doing anything wrong, I was simply playing the game as largely enforced by the boundaries of "traditional" RPG game style, and that the pursuit of "worthy storytelling" through "living world extrapolation" isn't a bad thing. It's just not going to lead to other specific gameplay "happenings" (read: strong character-driven intent, protagonism, and stakes becoming a broader part of play). As long as I'm good with that tradeoff, all is well.

 

[innerdude]

I mean it might be absurd but it’s how I play and I wouldn’t want to play any other way.

Also I don’t get the whole thing about the GM being able to do anything. I wrote down the assassin kills the princess and so I’m not free to change that. Or in the case where the assassin is there unbeknownst to the player character. I’ve got to work with what’s established about his priorities, I can't change them to let the princess live, even if I wanted to. Or maybe more accurately, I’m playing the NPC’s as I would play a player character.

Sure. But that's you choosing to prioritize your own desires over the players'.

"I totally made up this fictional thing 6 hours / days / weeks / years ago, and somehow just because I totally made it up 6 hours / days / weeks / years ago, I cannot possibly change it. My version of this totally made up, fictional thing is more important than some other version of that fictional thing, just because I deem it to be more important."

I mean, sure! Totally your prerogative. Just don't pretend that it isn't what you're doing. Just admit to yourself, "I personally am more invested in seeing my version of these fictional happenings play out the way I've devised them, because I personally will find more enjoyment in doing so." That's EXACTLY what Eero Tuovinen was getting at in the essay I shared. "Trad" GM-ing is, in fact, about "GM Story Hour"! Just make sure it's a damn good story to tell!

Just don't lie to yourself and your players afterward and say, "Oh, well, that's just what the 'living world' required of me." No, you just prioritized your desires and intentions over the players' desires and intentions for their characters, end of story.

There's a million plausible reasons and means that would allow you to render "The princess dies on Tuesday" as a non-truth in your world, you just decided not to find or use any of them because you want the result of the fiction to go a certain way.

Maybe the assassin is waylaid on his way into town. Maybe his ship loses course and he loses 3 days having to backtrack to port. Maybe his horse goes lame and he has to walk a considerably longer distance than he intended. Maybe the assassin's employer refused to pay him, so he reneged. Maybe the assassin has a pang of conscience or realizes the risks are too great, and simply runs off with the money. Maybe some piece of vital equipment needed to scale the castle walls didn't arrive in time, so he has to delay his assassination attempt for a week. Maybe he gets in a bar fight and his hand gets sliced open and can't do the job. Maybe he bumps into an old rival and decides the princess can wait for a week to settle an old score . . . ad infinitum.

In narrative-driven play, as a GM you would avail yourself of any of these, if the game indicated that the player had succeeded at his/her intent, and the in-fiction positioning allowed for that success. The player gets his visit with the princess, because you're prioritizing that element of the player's stated intentions and stakes over the need to follow an arbitrarily-established-by-pure-fiat timeline of events.

*Edit: Having one final thought --- This was a big hurdle for me to get over as a former "trad" focused GM. Hearing and accepting that my conception of the "living world" wasn't really all that precious, and vital, and wonderful, and absolutely foundational to everything that's good and true about RPG play. That it really is just "stuff I made up and decided I liked better than stuff anyone else might make up, because that's the kind of story I want to tell." Does that mean that in-world consistency and plausibility aren't important? NO, they're vitally important. It's just that things that often get set in stone by GMs are in actuality 1000x more flexible than they realize, and in truth, most players would prefer that flexibility in most cases.