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

[Campbell]

I understand that, and even if we describe individual watches mechanically, we can still readily describe a watch-dimensional space that maps the properties and meta-properties of watches-as-mechanisms each as a dimension.


I kind of agree. It's very much in the nature of play that individual tastes matter inordinately to what particular works will appeal to one. Part of the point of my modes description, however, was also to suggest that tastes observably cluster around works that themselves, are neighboring (share observable similarities).

I think we should be careful about assuming things are the same just because there are some conceptual similarities. For example, Chronicles of Darkness and Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition are first blush look like (and are likely somewhat inspired by) Masks and Monsterhearts. However, the former games are largely designed to reinforce themes rather than to challenge and address premise (like Masks and Monsterhearts). When I played Bayushi Haruka in our L5R game I knew who he was, who he cared out when push comes to push comes to shove. Some of that did change over the course of play, but it was mindful decision I made rather than the result of pressure put on my character.

I think we could have probably played it in a way that was closer to typical Masks play, but the game mechanisms would have kept reinforcing our conception of who Bayushi Haruka was (someone who rode the line of honor and put his family above his duty).

 

[clearstream]

I think we should be careful about assuming things are the same just because there are some conceptual similarities. For example, Chronicles of Darkness and Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition are first blush look like (and are likely somewhat inspired by) Masks and Monsterhearts. However, the former games are largely designed to reinforce themes rather than to challenge and address premise (like Masks and Monsterhearts). When I played Bayushi Haruka in our L5R game I knew who he was, who he cared out when push comes to push comes to shove. Some of that did change over the course of play, but it was mindful decision I made rather than the result of pressure put on my character.

Yes, and I observe player cultures oriented toward some games, which can lead to further dissimilarities. These sometimes reveal themselves in fracturing, such as the OSR movement fracturing from other approaches to D&Dish play. A game like Daggerheart strikes me as going to be played in many different ways.

 

[FrogReaver]

But that suitability of the range of possible means to a given purpose is a matter of degree doesn't tell us that there is any sort of spectrum.

then what would?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Hidden backstory is stuff given fictional positioning that the players aren’t yet aware of.

This post was illustrative to me. It seems some would find the concept of hidden fictional positioning anathema. It's a GM trump card (queue the GM Tyrancy) that cancels player agency. But I get your points below.

This became an ‘apparent’ problem because of the important papers in the safe. There are some important papers in the safe and the character tries to pick the lock, is successful and opens the safe. Yet there are no papers to be found. (cue the tears)

Everybody who has ever had a problem with that has massively misdiagnosed why their play was dysfunctional. So they do the really silly thing and try and fix it at the mechanical level.

A common resolution system break down goes as follows. There is an intent (get the papers from the safe), there is an execution (use my lock picking tools to open the safe). And there is an effect (the safe is open and I can get the papers)

That seems to solve the problem because now we’re rolling for intent, not for execution. The GM can no longer welch us.

I was trying to think of a model in fiction where what the player narratively asserts becomes the new reality. "The safe must have the needed papers" and the thought that springs to mind is that book The Secret where you will things into reality. And that seems to be where traditional and narrative focuses diverge. The narrative reality created by the player must be respected and cannot be countermanded by any "objective" reality ("objective" as defined by the GM's notes or an event in the published scenario or the setting's "reality.").

The narrative flow is constantly changing and evolving based on story inputs created by everyone at the table, but it becomes more like Joyce or Faulkner style stream-of-consciousness fiction, and the story might not have a traditional end unless everyone agrees on the way to wrap it up.

Whereas a traditional flow is the more well-recognized story structure "authored" or at least framed by a singular GM, and everyone works to play within or expand that structure. It would have a defined beginning, middle and end, however, and possibly events that players don't control.

I could see how someone who likes a particular style might be frustrated by the other style, and I could see some liking both. Some might not like the "amorphous" feel of a stream-of-consciousness session, and some might feel imposed on by the author's "structure."

This basically leads to ‘solving’ the tyrant GM problem by ignoring the actual problem and then destroying the fundamentals of the medium. You’re ignoring fictional positioning and using the resolution system as a back story generator. Everybody is having great fun, lots of hi-jinx. The GM can even get in on the action. You failed a roll so goons kick down the door. The resolution system is at this point just giving narrative control. Everyone is rolling to force their version of events into being. You can see this most clearly by how people use ‘on a miss’ in PbtA games.

Or the other version. You roll for intent and it has be situationally binding. You have to meet the princess which means you have to skip straight to meeting her. It basically cuts the scene (stops escalation as well but that’s almost incidental at this point).

If you don’t immediately cut the scene you have to try and railroad each other towards a preset destination. Nothing of consequence can happen in case it messes up the stakes, that you’ve earned by rolling for them.

If you’re familiar with Apocalypse World you’ll see people who think intent is binding get really confused by the seize by force move. They’ve rolled for it and yet the GM can immediately take it away again.

Anyway on the creative level what starts to happen is that there’s just a push and pull over the course of the story. The fundamental dysfunction hasn’t been fixed and if you’re not 17 then you’ll almost inevitably have to change the role of the GM. Or in games without a GM everybody becomes the GM.

This new GM ends up being a facilitator of the players. They’re not actually answering premise because their job is to challenge the players characters. They have the same (or similar) relationship to the players as Brennan Lee-Mulligan or Matt Mercer has to their players.

So that’s my issue.

One thing I would point out here is that my definition of a Tyrant GM would be one who is constantly and actively making moves to counter or nullify player agency to the point where the player feels absolutely powerless.

Others' threshold might be much lower. To the point where any hidden fictional positioning, or GM authored/scenario event not initiated by a player is tyrannical.

I guess everyone needs to decide where they stand on that spectrum and find players of like mind.

Now I’ll talk about what the original dysfunction was/is for anyone who finds my ranting at all compelling.

Yeah it is kind of the GM having story control but probably not in the way most people think.

The basic act of role-playing is that I say something, you listen to what I say and use that when you say something in return.

Creative agenda pay off is the shared social reward between two people. If there’s an agenda mismatch. Say you open the safe and there’s nothing there and the GM grins at you like you’re an idiot (which is rewarding for both people with a G agenda). Then if you’re playing for story you’ll be really confused as to what’s going on. There is no communal reward, you just do actually feel like an idiot. If the GM is exerting plot control as well. You’re already in the bad creative relationship I outline above, just a different version of it. The GM is still and always will be a tyrant but now you have system tools to wield against them.


So what should the relationship look like?

You’re both interested in where the fiction leads by fundamentally disinvesting your control of it. You shouldn't want to meet the princess (as author), it should simply not be a concern. As audience, yeah, you can want your character to meet her all you want. In fact play is a failure if you aren’t emotionally invested in certain things happening. That just has no impact at all (or very minimal) in how you utilise the fiction and system. That’s both of you. Even in a gmless game that should be the attitude. As author you do not care.

So what do you do as author? Well you make creative decisions in line with what has been established with no regard to the outcome. One common way of doing this is known colloquially as ‘Doing what my character does’ or as GM ‘doing what my character does (as NPC)’ (I'm dumbing this down but that’s the basic gist of it)

Then we’re both in this together, looking at how the game fictions internal logic and causality drive play.

So back to the safe. You open it and there’s nothing there. Your character might be annoyed, you might be annoyed on behalf of your character. But if you’re annoyed as a player, you’re doing it wrong.

I think it comes back to how everyone at the table wants to run things. If all agree that James Joyce is the way to go, then it's all good. But everyone must agree at the outset.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yet another property of play is it was interrupted because pemerton's child fell over and cut her head. That happened once. That doesn't seem to be something that can be a matter of degree - either play was interrupted or it was not.

Was there an interruption is a binary question. But how long was the interruption is a matter of degree. How that interruption impacted the mental states of the participants going forward would likely also be. Or maybe more important, how many interruptions are there in a particular session, which is another question that requires a non-binary answer.

Which brings us to - if I’m convinced something exists on a continuum or spectrum or whatever you want to call that which doesn’t conform to binary answers, then if your immediate reaction is that what I’m talking about is a binary, then it’s a pretty safe assumption that we are talking about different things.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's nothing to do with all or nothing. Where are these countless examples? For the past many pages I have asked you and @FrogReaver to point me to some. You're yet to do so. (Unless you mean Critical Role. That's already been discussed to death in this thread and I've got nothing to add.)

Pretty much everytime Ive given an example it’s always one of the following responses.

1) More detail is needed
2) Non-acceptance of example, despite it meeting the previous definitions provided

Heck I can even share my own personal experiences from games like BitD and the running assumption is always that I couldn’t be playing it right if that’s my assessment of it - despite no one pointing to any explicit rule or principle that I’m not not following.

Then there’s also the issue that even if something didn’t currently exist that doesn’t mean it cannot. As @clearstream pointed out - I’m a bit less interested in where we are today and more interested in all the different ways I can arrange the building blocks and the implications of those arrangements. Which is why I often talk hypotheticals whereas you want real world examples. Which might be best summarized as, different goals for analysis.

 

[thefutilist]

This post was illustrative to me. It seems some would find the concept of hidden fictional positioning anathema. It's a GM trump card (queue the GM Tyrancy) that cancels player agency. But I get your points below.

I was trying to think of a model in fiction where what the player narratively asserts becomes the new reality. "The safe must have the needed papers" and the thought that springs to mind is that book The Secret where you will things into reality. And that seems to be where traditional and narrative focuses diverge. The narrative reality created by the player must be respected and cannot be countermanded by any "objective" reality ("objective" as defined by the GM's notes or an event in the published scenario or the setting's "reality.").

The narrative flow is constantly changing and evolving based on story inputs created by everyone at the table, but it becomes more like Joyce or Faulkner style stream-of-consciousness fiction, and the story might not have a traditional end unless everyone agrees on the way to wrap it up.

I’m getting at something a bit more fundamental but I probably shouldn’t have even bothered trying to address it. The only reason I attempted to do so was because @innerdude was talking about agency in trad games and not only do I fundamentally disagree with his take, I think it’s socially and creatively destructive. To fully attempt to explain why, I’d have to break down the constituent parts in a smarter way than I did. That would take a lot of writing and other people have already done it.

Now I do in fact have issues with the stuff you’re describing but not issues of the ‘socially and creatively destructive’ type. I mean the first objection is that it can be done well or badly (mechanically and aesthetically). I mean I am a Narrativist gamer, I do regularly play games that do extreme things on this spectrum.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I’m getting at something a bit more fundamental but I probably shouldn’t have even bothered trying to address it. The only reason I attempted to do so was because @innerdude was talking about agency in trad games and not only do I fundamentally disagree with his take, I think it’s socially and creatively destructive. To fully attempt to explain why, I’d have to break down the constituent parts in a smarter way than I did. That would take a lot of writing and other people have already done it.

Now I do in fact have issues with the stuff you’re describing but not issues of the ‘socially and creatively destructive’ type. I mean the first objection is that it can be done well or badly (mechanically and aesthetically). I mean I am a Narrativist gamer, I do regularly play games that do extreme things on this spectrum.

(re bolded sentence) As can anything! There are plenty of bad (traditional and stream of consciousness) novels out there, too. I would think good (and hopefully clear) system/tools lead to better results in either realm.

As to agency, I think I understand where you were going with that -- as in, is it healthy narrative for whoever holds the narrative reins to always be correct, and that it must always be respected? Is it really serving to make a better story for all, or is it simply a destructive tug of war over versions of events? Do the dice come into play here, or is any version of the input suspect? Maybe I'm wrong, but the quandary you laid out was interesting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm really at bad writing because this was my point, I mostly agree with everything you've said. (although more incoming later)

Honestly I agree with you on much too. My own practice of Narrativist style play emerged largely when I adopted 4e D&D. It's a bit of a weird transition game because we all thought we were going to play trad D&D and then we got a few sessions in and it was like, no this game really works best if you stop prepping adventures! I did do a lot of what you're suggesting though, like defining situations and possible outcomes. The SC system kind of suggested that, but I gradually moved pretty much to just letting the players name quests, posing obstacles and letting the challenges kind of write themselves.

 

[FrogReaver]

Honestly I agree with you on much too. My own practice of Narrativist style play emerged largely when I adopted 4e D&D. It's a bit of a weird transition game because we all thought we were going to play trad D&D and then we got a few sessions in and it was like, no this game really works best if you stop prepping adventures! I did do a lot of what you're suggesting though, like defining situations and possible outcomes. The SC system kind of suggested that, but I gradually moved pretty much to just letting the players name quests, posing obstacles and letting the challenges kind of write themselves.

For what it’s worth, I struggle to see how 4e really pushes hard toward narrativist play. I see it more baby-stepping in that direction. I view it as being more gamist and less simulationist than other versions which is what I think drove much of the strong opinions against it.

Maybe it’s actually the better example of a game lacking narrativist mechanics which can still play in a very narrativist fashion (didn’t for me, but many here report it did for them).

@pemerton mentioned something earlier that might help explain the better for narrativist feel. 4e did get rid of alot of mechanics that may have previously gotten in the way of narrativism. The biggest one I can think of is moving fairly hard away from the daily resource attrition based game. This means players aren’t strongly incentivized to make decisions to minimize resource attrition and can instead make decisions to maximize their thematics and narrative.