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

[hawkeyefan]

Given that a D&D sandbox is close to the opposite of what @hawkeyefan has in mind - and is much closer to @soviet's example of "the setting is real, the PCs are just passing through" - I think you have misunderstood what is meant. (I don't think it's necessarily PC creation choices, either, though those might be a factor. It's about the players contributing significantly to stakes and themes.)

Yes, yes, yes!

RPGs are a distinctive medium. In their typical (mainstream) play, one person is establishing a scene/situation, and another one or more persons are describing what key characters do in that scene/situation, and there is a shared process of working out what happens as a result. Of course this medium can be used for wargame-y or puzzle-solving play (a la Gygax); but when we're talking about stories we're looking at how this medium might be used to that end.

Provoking action declarations and engaging the resolution system is the obvious way. If the core resolution system and the framing system are the same (ie "GM decides" - see DL, Dead Gods, much CoC, etc for typical examples) then the main method of player direction over fictional events will be low- or no-stakes actions where the GM doesn't get involved and the players sort it out themselves. In my experience this creates something like "two games" - the among-the-PCs game and the deal-with-the-GM's-stuff game.

An alternative is a different core resolution system, which removes the "two games" syndrome and integrates player direction with the momentum of play.

I think it’s also about what a scene needs to do in an RPG. Compared to what scenes need to do in movies or novels, it can be quite different.

When characters are introduced in a film, the audience (typically) no clue about how the characters relate to each other. The film has to show this some way. There are all manner of ways to do this, and some are more effective than others in the overall art of film making, and considering the constraints of the medium (scheduling, budget, effects, etc.). So if you have a film that involves two brothers who although they love each other, have a deep sense of competition between them, the filmmakers have to figure out the best way to reveal this dynamic relationship to the audience, in a way that fits within the time allowed and within budget and scheduling concerns and in a way that can actually be produced and so on.

With an RPG, the needs are different. The audience… the players… have most likely already determined the relationship in some way, whether through some character generation method, or simply by talking it out.

They don’t need the nature of the relationship to be revealed to them. They already know it.

So in that sense, spending time on a scene that does nothing more than reinforce the situation… brothers who care for each other but who also compete fiercely with each other… becomes a bit more questionable. Why are we spending time on this?

Now, one could argue that there’s no budget constraints and maybe the game is a regularly scheduled one where time isn’t as significant a concern… and if that’s the case, and everyone’s on board… sure, go for it. Chew the scenery and reinforce the dynamic as it exists between these two PCs.

But, if the intention of the game is to remain propulsive… either out of preference or necessity… than spending time that way can seem indulgent. Why not show the dynamic in some way that is meaningful to the game? That moves things along? That potentially changes or tests the dynamic between the two brothers?

All this to say it’s not just the tools of the medium that matter, but also the needs of the chosen medium’s audience. If that makes sense.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m no mind reader. I can only respond to what is written. In d&d sandboxes player choices really do matter in a fundamental way. They cannot be ignored.

That’s what @hawkeye’s definition was.

No, it’s deeper than that, I think. Player choice can matter for play even in a dungeon crawl, and even when players are unaware of the impact of their choice. Taking the left hand corridor instead of the right in a classic dungeon crawl will yield different results, for example.

And I think that’s largely what sandbox play consists of. Yes, player choice matters, but always in how it relates to what the GM has already prepared. So in a hexcrawl kind of game, perhaps the players decide that their characters head off to chart the dark forest to the north rather than staying near the coast and dealing with the pirates who’ve been threatening the port. Certainly these choices yield different results as to the content of the fiction. But not to its nature.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it’s deeper than that, I think. Player choice can matter for play even in a dungeon crawl, and even when players are unaware of the impact of their choice. Taking the left hand corridor instead of the right in a classic dungeon crawl will yield different results, for example.

I’m with you here. I think the question becomes - what does it mean for a choice to really matter in a fundamental way.

I would agree that blindly choosing the left or right corridor in a dungeon doesn’t really matter in a fundamental way despite yielding different results.

And I think that’s largely what sandbox play consists of.

I’m a bit taken aback that you would compare sandbox play to blindly choosing the left or right corridor. Like, the comparison is so far in left field you aren’t even in the ballpark anymore.

Yes, player choice matters, but always in how it relates to what the GM has already prepared.

If you mean to emphasize the ‘GM has already prepared’ part then you seem to be suggesting that narrative play cannot contain myth - or at least not GM prepared myth. Is that what you are suggesting?

Because I agree sandboxes typically contain GM prepared myth, but outside session 1 and sometimes even for session 1, that myth is prepared based in part if not wholly on previous player choices.

So in a hexcrawl kind of game, perhaps the players decide that their characters head off to chart the dark forest to the north rather than staying near the coast and dealing with the pirates who’ve been threatening the port. Certainly these choices yield different results as to the content of the fiction. But not to its nature.

This last line I struggle to parse. It’s not clear what difference you perceive between ‘the content of the fiction’ and its nature.

 

[pemerton]

it’s not just the tools of the medium that matter, but also the needs of the chosen medium’s audience. If that makes sense.

Yes, it 100% does make sense.

The same sort of point could be made about establishing what's at stake. In a film, that requires establishing in some fashion (someone runs out of the burning house screaming "my baby", or the camera pans to show us the precipitous drop, or whatever). In a RPG there are other technical ways of establishing what is at stake - eg they may be implicit in the scene (given, say, the opposition the GM has narrated + a PC's bond or Belief), or may be established mechanically (eg the GM says something about the giant hefting its club, and at the same time hefts a handful of d12s), etc.

 

[pemerton]

If you mean to emphasize the ‘GM has already prepared’ part then you seem to be suggesting that narrative play cannot contain myth - or at least not GM prepared myth. Is that what you are suggesting?

No.

Consider all the examples that have been given: the GM can prepare "myth" that is prompted by how the players build their PCs, or play their PCs, or that speaks to a thematic matter that the group has all agreed upon. There are many ways to combine GM prep with the sort of player-driven RPGing @hawkeyefan is describing.

sandboxes typically contain GM prepared myth, but outside session 1 and sometimes even for session 1, that myth is prepared based in part if not wholly on previous player choices.

Is it? In what way?

I'm very familiar with the notion that the GM fills in details prompted by knowledge/anticipation of what the players intend to have their PCs do; and also with the notion that the GM extrapolates events by reference, in part, to what the players have had their PCs do. But neither of those is the sort of thing that @hawkeyefan is talking about.

 

[pemerton]

It’s not clear what difference you perceive between ‘the content of the fiction’ and its nature.

Roughly, between the neutral description of the elements and events and the thematic significance/resonance of the elements and events.

 

[FrogReaver]

Roughly, between the neutral description of the elements and events and the thematic significance/resonance of the elements and events.

Then sandboxes have that defining characteristic as well, at least for many fans of them! Maybe they don’t for you?

My issue is not with ‘narrative’ and sandbox d&d being different, it’s that the difference isn’t in the definition of narrative provided.

Even to such an extent that some very negative analogies and explanations of sandbox play are being brought up.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm very familiar with the notion that the GM fills in details prompted by knowledge/anticipation of what the players intend to have their PCs do; and also with the notion that the GM extrapolates events by reference, in part, to what the players have had their PCs do. But neither of those is the sort of thing that @hawkeyefan is talking about.

I can only judge his words and his words do apply to those concepts.

If that’s not what he is really trying to get at that’s fine, definitions are hard to craft so I’m not faulting anyone for that. But our disconnect isn’t because I’m not understanding his words.

 

[FrogReaver]

No.

Consider all the examples that have been given: the GM can prepare "myth" that is prompted by how the players build their PCs, or play their PCs, or that speaks to a thematic matter that the group has all agreed upon. There are many ways to combine GM prep with the sort of player-driven RPGing @hawkeyefan is describing.

If there is GM prepared myth in a narrative game then how is the below not applicable to it as well?

Yes, player choice matters, but always in how it relates to what the GM has already prepared.

*Note this was originally said about sandbox d&d.

 

[pemerton]

Then sandboxes have that defining characteristic as well, at least for many fans of them! Maybe they don’t for you?

I don't see many account of sandboxes that talk about thematic significance. Do you have examples you can point to?

I can only judge his words and his words do apply to those concepts.

If that’s not what he is really trying to get at that’s fine, definitions are hard to craft so I’m not faulting anyone for that. But our disconnect isn’t because I’m not understanding his words.

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? 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?

If there is GM prepared myth in a narrative game then how is the below not applicable to it as well?

Because the sequence of thematic input is different. The GM prepares by reference to some player-established or agreed thematically-resonant premise. Examples are well known and you've participated in many discussions about them: Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, to name a few.

What are your thoughts about the difference between the role and nature of prep in those systems, and the way that prep works in (say) The Isle of Dread?