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

[soviet]

i enjoy IC conversations as well but ultimately in a trad game it's just colour. PCs aren't going to fight each other or break up the party because of what was said. Inter-PC relationships aren't going to meaningfully change, or have an impact on the direction of play. The conversation your character has with any given NPC is never going to meaningfully change the status quo. Without an agreed mechanism for resolving conflicts that isn't under one participant's control, those conflicts cannot be the driving force behind play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

i enjoy IC conversations as well but ultimately in a trad game it's just colour. PCs aren't going to fight each other or break up the party because of what was said. Inter-PC relationships aren't going to meaningfully change, or have an impact on the direction of play. The conversation your character has with any given NPC is never going to meaningfully change the status quo. Without an agreed mechanism for resolving conflicts that isn't under one participant's control, those conflicts cannot be the driving force behind play.

This is such a weird thing to say. Sure in any team based game there is certain expectation for the characters to work together, but for example in my current D&D game the characters have come to blows. And of course the discussions can affect the opinions of the other characters, which in turn will affect the direction of the play. And of course conversations with NPCs can change the situation. Like what? What sort of bizarre games do people play where this is not the case?

 

[FrogReaver]

Given that it is obvious to everyone in the thread what @Manbearcat means by his use of conflict - namely, conflict of the sort that drives a narrative

For what it’s worth, that kind of distinction was not and usually is not obvious to me.

One circumstance where it is more obvious to me is when it starts out specifically narrowed as you do above and consistently done so for some time in ones posts and then switching over to the shorthand of using the generic non-narrowed term to stand in for the previously narrowed and more wordy phrase.

 

[clearstream]

Helpful how?

You've participated in a lot of these threads. Are you confused about the difference between the role of prep in (say) The Isle of Dread compared to (say) Apocalypse World?

For avoidance of doubt, I am not confused. I am pursuing a line of thought and would value others speaking to the points raised rather than questioning whether I ought to raise them.

 

[pemerton]

This is such a weird thing to say. Sure in any team based game there is certain expectation for the characters to work together, but for example in my current D&D game the characters have come to blows. And of course the discussions can affect the opinions of the other characters, which in turn will affect the direction of the play. And of course conversations with NPCs can change the situation. Like what? What sort of bizarre games do people play where this is not the case?

Here's an example that comes to my mind: Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

Although it takes about 150 posts for it to come out, the scenario under discussion is Curse of Strahd, which seems to be quite widely played among 5e D&D-ers.

 

[clearstream]

i enjoy IC conversations as well but ultimately in a trad game it's just colour. PCs aren't going to fight each other or break up the party because of what was said. Inter-PC relationships aren't going to meaningfully change, or have an impact on the direction of play.

What is said here is that the following are not "just colour" in connection with what is said

PCs fight each other​

PCs break up the party​

Inter-PC relationships meaningful change​

There is an impact on the direction of play​

The last seems nebulous: it could be fulfilled in a wide variety of ways of which I am sure some are intended to be excluded. Regarding the first two, I often observe groups agreeing that they don't want PvP and that for the sake of regular social gaming with friends they will stop short of breaking up the party. Is the notion here is that both those nuclear options must be on the table? Or are less than nuclear versions intended?

The conversation your character has with any given NPC is never going to meaningfully change the status quo.

I suspect change of a specific sort (or to put it another way, the status quo only in specific regards) must be intended here, right? As it is very common in all kinds of play that conversation with NPCs changes the status quo.

Without an agreed mechanism for resolving conflicts that isn't under one participant's control, those conflicts cannot be the driving force behind play.

This is an entirely separate point from the one about "it's just colour", right? It adds a rider that even if PCs fight each other and break up the party, and their relationships meaningfully change, it still doesn't count unless the resolution "isn't under one participant's control".

 

[clearstream]

Here's an example that comes to my mind: Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

Although it takes about 150 posts for it to come out, the scenario under discussion is Curse of Strahd, which seems to be quite widely played among 5e D&D-ers.

This is the OP

I was running a game last week in which half of the party handled a tense diplomatic situation very poorly. Going into the meeting, they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand.​

The party got a private audience with the ruler and things were moving friendly enough, when a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat to take him as a hostage.​

The other two characters left the room and proclaimed their innocence. With some good roleplay (and great dice rolls) they were able to convince the ruler and his guards that they had no part of the attack and were allowed to leave.​

The two other characters (the would-be assassin and the instigator) were taken to the public stocks to await trial that could end in execution (or at the very least, expulsion from the land).​

That night they were given several opportunities to escape the stocks, but the would-be assassin failed and the instigator said he would rather die than let this corrupt man stay in power.​

What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts.​

I did speak to the players after the game. The instigator apologized for "ruining the campaign." (Even though I tried to tell him that the campaign hadn't been ruined, merely that he has made the characters' situation more difficult and there would be consequences.)​

​

Is it being held up an an example of a conversation with an NPC not changing the situation? Per @Crimson Longinus's

And of course conversations with NPCs can change the situation. Like what? What sort of bizarre games do people play where this is not the case?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here's an example that comes to my mind: Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

Although it takes about 150 posts for it to come out, the scenario under discussion is Curse of Strahd, which seems to be quite widely played among 5e D&D-ers.

I am not going to read 150 page thread for context, so if you want to make a point you need to make it in other way. Preferably under 150 pages, though I know you struggle with brevity.

 

[FrogReaver]

You've been participating in these discussions for some years now, across dozens of threads. Are you really confused about what @hawkeyefan has in mind?

in the general sense that he has in mind some real difference between d&d sandboxes and what daggerheart means when calling itself a narrative game, no confusion there.

If you mean what specifically he thinks that difference is, yes because the explanation he is providing in words appears to be missing some specific nuances that he thinks.

Are you really confused as to the key differences between playing something like The Isle of Dread (hexcrawl sandbox) and something like Stonetop or Burning Wheel?

The conversation thus far hasn’t been about the key differences between playing such games and it doesn’t need to be. Also, from past interactions I know youll just exclude me from that kind of discussion anyway because I’ve not played any of them. Thus, why even ask me this?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it being held up an an example of a conversation with an NPC not changing the situation? Per @Crimson Longinus's

Right. Seems like the conversation changed the situation pretty significantly.