Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Daggerheart Discussion)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9333475" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>Not a ton of time, so I'm just going to hit the high, important notes as I see them as briefly as I can:</p><p></p><p>1) Mea culpa and retraction for the observation regarding "Black Lamps vs Lampblacks." Obviously, your ESL situation kills that tentative observation of mine stone-dead.</p><p></p><p>2) You already got a perfect answer from [USER=1282]@darkbard[/USER] regarding the extreme differences between what Critical Role did in their 5e game (a sort of high-production w/ a heavy focus on the visuals/signals to the audience around color and affectation, some level of writer's room dynamics, discretional rules ignoring to achieve preferred story beats, some level of GM metaplot + player character arc/metaplot possibly w/ some player-side railroading working in concert); Neotraditional play.</p><p></p><p>In the past you've grokked my usage of "System's Say." I'm just going to invoke it again (for economy). That fidelity to System's Say is such an essential (in frequency and magnitude) difference between what Critical Role is doing and, say, what we did last night in our (2nd to last) The Between session and what we'll be doing tonight in our Stonetop game. Relentlessly following the rules, being deeply interesting in the game engine's input upon the trajectories of character, evolving situation-states, emergent setting is fundamental to the blow-by-blow experience of play. I mean, if one thing is taken away from these conversations, I hope it is that. These games demand fidelity to the game layer. The game layer is very purposeful. It is not opt-out. It is a participant as much as the flesh & blood around the table (virtual or meatspace). And each of those game layers, while having a fair amount of shared DNA, each have novel aspects that change that blow-by-blow experience from one game to another. Yes, the fiction of Dogs in the Vineyard is different from Apocalypse World, but the game layer is also enormously different, despite Baker authoring both...that difference in game layer matters considerably to the cognitive and emotional space of each participant playing.</p><p></p><p><strong>TLDR </strong>on 2: If you find yourself saying "I just want the <em>system to get out of the way (of your story of your immersion...whatever)</em>" and/or you want the option to <em>opt-out of the game layer or system directives</em> in the course of play? You are not a Narrativist-inclined player. Story Now games feature a blow-by-blow experience that you're clearly_not_looking_for (and cannot recreate with heavy GM mediation and table discretionally opting out of the game layer and any focus at all on conflict & stakes free/lite play) out of TTRPGing (either as a player or a GM).</p><p></p><p>3) I appreciate your response regarding player hesitation to engage in violence (despite what the game is telling you to do; eg Go Boldly into Danger), but I can't figure what is going on at your table beyond the suspicion that your GM is either giving out too much Harm or the players just feel the physical peril is more "Sword of Damoclese-ey" than it actually is.</p><p></p><p>I mean, yes, the game is physically dangerous to characters and increasingly so if you punch above your belt (Assault Scores with higher Tier opposition). But, again, I've got so much experience with that game and its just not materialized. The danger in that game is serious (especially Tier 0 to Tier 2) but its danger from the things I mentioned in that post (full Crew Trauma Out of a Score and/or abandoning a Score w/ a PC or two having Trauma'd out in the midst of it and not being able to make a move to get them out of their helpless pickle, characters hitting 3 Traumas early or 4 Traumas total, Incarceration, danger to Friends/Contacts/Vice Purveyors/Allies/Cohorts that you've developed relationships and bonds with).</p><p></p><p>Harm is absolutely perilous to Cohorts. That is a fear that should loom. But to PCs? Net, in the course of a huge amount of running that game? Dangerous, yes...but not this looming peril that should send players knuckling under the weight of it so they're reconsidering going boldly into danger and therefore violating the rules (and Best Practices are rules...they're not opt-in/out; Go Boldly into Danger and Embrace the Scoundrel's Life are foundational to play). Your signals are a bit mixed as to whether or not the players are actually Going Boldly into Danger or not (you brought this line of conversation up in the course of discussing this particular issue...so that generates a read from me that you feel they aren't, in fact, going as boldly into danger as the game expects/demands).</p><p></p><p><strong>EDIT</strong>: The primary point of duress (both frequency and magnitude) that Harm puts on play is the impact of Reduced Effect and -1d of Harm 1 and 2.</p><p></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p></p><p>I think I'm just going to cut it there. I could talk about how game engine meets espoused principles meets meatspace dynamics to generate a play paradigm (turtling vs going boldly into danger); incentive structures, trade-offs, the weight of social customs and pressures, internalizing and operationalizing norms (unknowingly or knowingly). But I think I don't want to engage too deeply with that at this point. The above is enough I think (for me, at least).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9333475, member: 6696971"] Not a ton of time, so I'm just going to hit the high, important notes as I see them as briefly as I can: 1) Mea culpa and retraction for the observation regarding "Black Lamps vs Lampblacks." Obviously, your ESL situation kills that tentative observation of mine stone-dead. 2) You already got a perfect answer from [USER=1282]@darkbard[/USER] regarding the extreme differences between what Critical Role did in their 5e game (a sort of high-production w/ a heavy focus on the visuals/signals to the audience around color and affectation, some level of writer's room dynamics, discretional rules ignoring to achieve preferred story beats, some level of GM metaplot + player character arc/metaplot possibly w/ some player-side railroading working in concert); Neotraditional play. In the past you've grokked my usage of "System's Say." I'm just going to invoke it again (for economy). That fidelity to System's Say is such an essential (in frequency and magnitude) difference between what Critical Role is doing and, say, what we did last night in our (2nd to last) The Between session and what we'll be doing tonight in our Stonetop game. Relentlessly following the rules, being deeply interesting in the game engine's input upon the trajectories of character, evolving situation-states, emergent setting is fundamental to the blow-by-blow experience of play. I mean, if one thing is taken away from these conversations, I hope it is that. These games demand fidelity to the game layer. The game layer is very purposeful. It is not opt-out. It is a participant as much as the flesh & blood around the table (virtual or meatspace). And each of those game layers, while having a fair amount of shared DNA, each have novel aspects that change that blow-by-blow experience from one game to another. Yes, the fiction of Dogs in the Vineyard is different from Apocalypse World, but the game layer is also enormously different, despite Baker authoring both...that difference in game layer matters considerably to the cognitive and emotional space of each participant playing. [B]TLDR [/B]on 2: If you find yourself saying "I just want the [I]system to get out of the way (of your story of your immersion...whatever)[/I]" and/or you want the option to [I]opt-out of the game layer or system directives[/I] in the course of play? You are not a Narrativist-inclined player. Story Now games feature a blow-by-blow experience that you're clearly_not_looking_for (and cannot recreate with heavy GM mediation and table discretionally opting out of the game layer and any focus at all on conflict & stakes free/lite play) out of TTRPGing (either as a player or a GM). 3) I appreciate your response regarding player hesitation to engage in violence (despite what the game is telling you to do; eg Go Boldly into Danger), but I can't figure what is going on at your table beyond the suspicion that your GM is either giving out too much Harm or the players just feel the physical peril is more "Sword of Damoclese-ey" than it actually is. I mean, yes, the game is physically dangerous to characters and increasingly so if you punch above your belt (Assault Scores with higher Tier opposition). But, again, I've got so much experience with that game and its just not materialized. The danger in that game is serious (especially Tier 0 to Tier 2) but its danger from the things I mentioned in that post (full Crew Trauma Out of a Score and/or abandoning a Score w/ a PC or two having Trauma'd out in the midst of it and not being able to make a move to get them out of their helpless pickle, characters hitting 3 Traumas early or 4 Traumas total, Incarceration, danger to Friends/Contacts/Vice Purveyors/Allies/Cohorts that you've developed relationships and bonds with). Harm is absolutely perilous to Cohorts. That is a fear that should loom. But to PCs? Net, in the course of a huge amount of running that game? Dangerous, yes...but not this looming peril that should send players knuckling under the weight of it so they're reconsidering going boldly into danger and therefore violating the rules (and Best Practices are rules...they're not opt-in/out; Go Boldly into Danger and Embrace the Scoundrel's Life are foundational to play). Your signals are a bit mixed as to whether or not the players are actually Going Boldly into Danger or not (you brought this line of conversation up in the course of discussing this particular issue...so that generates a read from me that you feel they aren't, in fact, going as boldly into danger as the game expects/demands). [B]EDIT[/B]: The primary point of duress (both frequency and magnitude) that Harm puts on play is the impact of Reduced Effect and -1d of Harm 1 and 2. [HR][/HR] I think I'm just going to cut it there. I could talk about how game engine meets espoused principles meets meatspace dynamics to generate a play paradigm (turtling vs going boldly into danger); incentive structures, trade-offs, the weight of social customs and pressures, internalizing and operationalizing norms (unknowingly or knowingly). But I think I don't want to engage too deeply with that at this point. The above is enough I think (for me, at least). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Daggerheart Discussion)
Top