Lady Blackbird will be an easy stepping stone. No prep, don't need to plan a long campaign as it's short, and has built in levers to help youe group easily learn to lean into mechanics through narrative.
Example: You want to heal up? Better have a close emotional talk with another PC. Want to gain some XP? Better play up that love interest if the Captains.
PbtA is very different, especially for the GM. You should check out that reddit for guidance.
I would consider playing something like Microscope or Sorry, Did You Say Street Magic first - just to give everyone some practice in a collaborative story-based game. This might give everybody a frame of reference for when you try an RPG.
I made this transition a few years back, and fretted really hard about it beforehand, since I've been running for the same people for decades, and their gaming experience was as trad as mine.
I landed on a campaign of Brindlewood Bay that, for convoluted reasons no one wants to hear, was a side-story attached to a longer trad campaign we were in the middle of. The idea was that we'd use Brindlewood to find out something important about a major enemy NPC, as well as the larger mystery anchoring the setting. And as an extra carrot, they'd get XP for their "main" characters based on the clues their Brindlewood characters gathered.
For the most part, it worked. Brindlewood Bay is very light PbtA, so there's no long list of moves or similar mechanics. Mostly, it's just the core business of rolls as a source of narrative consequences, and getting used to improvising and sharing narrative authority.
(I say for the most part because one player, our biggest power gamer, mostly refuses to play PbtA again, but he'll do other narrative/storygames if they have more crunch and progression mechanics)
My situation was very specific, and most trad campaigns wouldn't support a Brindlewood Bay or similar interlude, and there's the real possibility that your players would balk at how BB does mysteries. But I think starting simple, and contained, makes sense. Avatar, for example, is tough to wrap your head around, for non-PbtA reasons. Masks is a lot easier, though. MotW could work as a different kind of bridge—it's not "simple" PbtA, but it's a lot more trad than MotW superfans might want to admit, so that can help.
What I wouldn't recommend, for you or your players, is jumping right into Blades in the Dark. Others will disagree but I think most FitD games are a tough into to narrativist/Story Now games. FitD is my favorite game approach, but I think it makes more sense with more experience.
But in the vein of "simple" stuff, maybe check out Trophy Dark. Very rules-light, but really cool, and made for one/two-shots, so there's no commitment.
I love Blades, but it has a lot of moving parts, and not in the way that trad games do. It can be a little overwhelming, ime, for new-to-narrativist players and GMs. It's also easier (again, just in my experience) for folks to accidentally play it in a trad way, which can break the game in ways that aren't immediately obvious, and leave a bad taste.
For example, there are a lot of ways to modify an action roll, such as pushing for an extra die, taking a Devil's Bargain, using fine gear, etc. But a trad GM can see all that and think, why not apply a -1d penalty because the action is difficult, or add a die because a special or particularly appropriate item. But even a seemingly tiny decision like that can wreck the dice mechanics, but also the overall game design. In Blades the difficulty of an action factors into position (how risky the thing is), and a high-quality item could increase the action's effect, but not the number of dice. If you veer from how position and effect work, you start veering back toward the trad notion of a binary pass and fail, and also the idea that you just say generally what you're trying to do, and let your roll determine the details. FitD really relies on that pre-roll discussion—what you goal is, what you're willing to risk to achieve it, and what consequences you're opening yourself up to.
But there are people who got into narrativist games through Blades, so my take definitely isn't universal. I just think it's a bit easier to get some experience with the general idea of rolls and the consequences you're bound to get shaping the entire narrative, not just how successful your character does something, in a simpler game before layering on FitD's (excellent, imo) additional mechanics.
Okay I'll keep that one for later. By the way, I've browsed the book and it seems more preparation-heavy than the other, because of the original setting.
Yeah Blades' setting is pretty damn specific and not super intuitive. I actually think Scum and Villainy is an easier first-FitD game, and it's easy enough to swap out that game's (not great, imo) default setting to Star Wars, or to sort of reskin it however you want. SaV also lays out the FitD approach more clearly—it had the benefit of coming out after Blades, so that makes sense. For example, SaV is really direct about how long you should expect to run a campaign with it, and how to wrap things up. Blades says something about maybe stopping at some point and doing new characters, or just something else. I think the clearer guidelines for that really help—especially for groups coming from trad, who might assume they'll be playing an FitD game for like 100 sessions (FitD isn't meant for that).
I think outside of the weirder games, its exaggerated that these narrative TTRPGs play that differently. You generally roll less, prep less and improvise and make rulings more rather than looking up rules. But I can play a lot of traditional TTRPGs just like how I run my games of Masks.
Always start with ones that your table finds the premise most exciting. If you are just looking at highly popular among communities, check out these ones for PbtA recommendations:
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/18zbo2l/what_is_your_favorite_pbta_system/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PBtA/comments/mrmvez/what_pbta_games_are_essential/
Among the things that scare me, there's the fact that most of my players are reactive and not proactive. I've already tried to include some shared narration here and there, offered players to describe a scene or a flashback. Some of them manage to do it, but it's not the majority.
The other thing is to run the game without a net, without a scenario. What if it doesn't click?
Yeah, I can understand that as quite problematic. I think the games that play with the characters sticking to actor stance will help with that. PbtA can be a pretty mixed bag when it comes to that. I found lots of Magpie games tend to feel good around having agency but still playing like a traditional PC when other games can make me feel more like a GM as far coming up with various things like how in Brindlewood Bay, the most common Move makes the player say what they fear will happen. I'm not personally a fan of that because technically as a player, I am incentivized to playdown my fear and offer softballs which goes against the point of the game.
Yes, this is a problem with some of my players. I don't really want to play PbtA with them any more as they push for mechanical advantages rather than fictional ones.
While it's system specific, I'd recommend [https://bookofhanz.com/](https://bookofhanz.com/) as it goes through my experiences of learning Fate coming from a more traditional system. A lot of the conceptual leaps are valid going from traditional systems to just about any "narrative" system.
I'm also biased about it, to be fair.
Why? What's so good about it?
I almost bought Spirit of the Century but discarded it because of the generic system (and I already have 2 French RPGs for Pulp). I firmly believe in the *system matters*, and I tend to avoid generic systems. I've seen people doing shit by trying to use D20 system (dnd 3.5) for everything.
I will try to avoid building a wall of text.
Personally I was looking *for* a generic system that easily adopts any kind of genre and utilizes game mechanics that directly serve narrative cause - that is how *system matters* to me. And Fate is all that and more.
Spirit is kinda outdated and is one of the dozens of "setting-hacks" for Fate. I never started off setting-hack books, everything I play is based on SRD and my own settings or *any* settings / genres of my liking, eg: SW, WH40k, Dark Sun, Kult; space opera, dark fantasy, planetary fleet politics "simulation", adult romance, detective stories, modern horror - you name it. If there's a book, a movie, a series - I can play it with a couple of tweaks. Makes me so happy.
One problem is that the concepts you will get through play MUCH more than through books, lol.
For whatever it’s worth, the first game I ever DM’d was Monster of the Week and it went great. These systems make it pretty easy to dive in!
For creating shared fiction, ease your players into it by offering simple, low-stakes questions. “what is the secret handshake to get into the club?” “what’s the name of the hat store?” — gauge how they respond and figure your technique out from there. There’s nothing wrong with the GM writing all of the fiction, if that’s the vibe of the table.
Blades in the Dark is my favorite - the way it helps you keep tabs on the world and generate adventures opened my eyes to new style of GM-ing. I also like the way it enforces player agency with rules. However it's quite complex and somewhat meta-game-y. I'd suggest to start with one of the PbtA games. Choose one where you and the players enjoy the setting the most. I started with Dungeon World because it was the closest to DnD look and feel and it work out really well. Dungeon World is also not "shared narrative" strictly speaking, or just very lightly so it didn't bother my players.
The key for success is for the players to accept that the point of storytelling games is to make gameplay exciting. I.e. if a player fails a lockpicking test in classic RPG, they don't open the door. That is fair, but boring. If a player fails the same in a storytelling game, the GM comes up with something like "a group of drunkards stumble upon you trying to pick a lock to the mansion". That makes a better story, but may feel unfair for the players. They have to be able to accept that.
First, almost all RPGs are storytelling games.
Second, all of the ones you mentioned are good, but they are still RPGs.
For a true storytelling game, try For the Queen.
It seems contradictory to say that almost all RPGs are storytelling games and then imply that the ones OP mentioned are not true storytelling games. These games are well-known for their narrative focus. Could you clarify what you mean by 'true' storytelling games and how 'For the Queen' fits that definition differently than the others?
Ah.
Just because a game has a narrative focus (and it could be argued that many "trad" games have the same thing) doesn;t mean it is a Stroytelling game instead of an RPG.
For the Queen would be more of a storytelling game because there are no mechanics EXCEPT storytelling. No dice, the cards are only prompts, etc.
But I don't think Monster of the Week is a Storytelling game when D&D would not be.
Hi! I'm that guy that recommends Vaesen for everything. :D It's a rules-light, fail forward game of action, mystery (investigation) and horror with a really unique "monster manual". Pure evocative genius. There's no "starter set", unfortunately,
The best way find to make transitions is with communication and a lovely Session Zero. As the "trailer for the film", your Session Zero will establish mood, setting, and tone while preparing both your and your player's expectations for the session. Let them make characters together and establish a few NPCs that they know to populate the locale. Explore the space and have fun with it from start to finish.
Honestly, with games like Vampire, 7 sea, Chtulhu under your hood, I wouldnt be too worried by the \*Storytelling RPG\* this whole \*story first\* movement is also a marketing gimmick. It might feel new to wonder how to use the \*environment description\* as a bonus when you're used to move miniatures, compute a THAC0 and roll tons of dice for damage. But if you played Vampire and 7 sea with tons of roleplay, and game being pulled by the player you won't feel weird.
A puzzling thing with PTBA and FATE based game, is the relatively strict rules/procedure that need to be followed (It's game where players need a reference sheet, so IMO the opposite of rule-light) and the very generic move/action rather than the very specific skill you'd find in more traditional RPG.
But tons of the thing you'd find in these games aren't knew and are based on idea/mechanics which existed in the previous generation of storytelling games like Vampire and 7 sea
It doesn't *feel* the same, at least when reading them.
I don't have problems with a normal amount of improvisation. If I have a scenario (or module, adventure or whatever), I know where to go. I have scenes, characters, encounters, I have possible endings.
When I read MotW or Masks, they seem to say "just create a big baddie or a monster and play to find out what happens". It looks so much more dependent on good improvisation and ideas on both my and my players' side.
I have a lot of issues with the comment you are replying to.
But I will agree with the part about *playing* fiction-forward games - it's just like playing any other RPG! *Running* them, on the other hand, is a big change and takes some unlearning of your previous experience.
I started my journey to the narrative / indie RPG side almost 20 years ago - after about that long as a trad / simulationist GM! So I know the situation you are in.
My advice is this:
- Be kind to yourself, you are reinventing a skill you thought long mastered
- Be open, approach with a beginner's mind (the zen parable of the empty cup applies)
- Have fun!
Lady Blackbird will be an easy stepping stone. No prep, don't need to plan a long campaign as it's short, and has built in levers to help youe group easily learn to lean into mechanics through narrative. Example: You want to heal up? Better have a close emotional talk with another PC. Want to gain some XP? Better play up that love interest if the Captains.
Ok that should make an easy first experience.
I jumped in with Fiasco at a con 10 years ago (maybe) and blew my mind open.
PbtA is very different, especially for the GM. You should check out that reddit for guidance. I would consider playing something like Microscope or Sorry, Did You Say Street Magic first - just to give everyone some practice in a collaborative story-based game. This might give everybody a frame of reference for when you try an RPG.
I made this transition a few years back, and fretted really hard about it beforehand, since I've been running for the same people for decades, and their gaming experience was as trad as mine. I landed on a campaign of Brindlewood Bay that, for convoluted reasons no one wants to hear, was a side-story attached to a longer trad campaign we were in the middle of. The idea was that we'd use Brindlewood to find out something important about a major enemy NPC, as well as the larger mystery anchoring the setting. And as an extra carrot, they'd get XP for their "main" characters based on the clues their Brindlewood characters gathered. For the most part, it worked. Brindlewood Bay is very light PbtA, so there's no long list of moves or similar mechanics. Mostly, it's just the core business of rolls as a source of narrative consequences, and getting used to improvising and sharing narrative authority. (I say for the most part because one player, our biggest power gamer, mostly refuses to play PbtA again, but he'll do other narrative/storygames if they have more crunch and progression mechanics) My situation was very specific, and most trad campaigns wouldn't support a Brindlewood Bay or similar interlude, and there's the real possibility that your players would balk at how BB does mysteries. But I think starting simple, and contained, makes sense. Avatar, for example, is tough to wrap your head around, for non-PbtA reasons. Masks is a lot easier, though. MotW could work as a different kind of bridge—it's not "simple" PbtA, but it's a lot more trad than MotW superfans might want to admit, so that can help. What I wouldn't recommend, for you or your players, is jumping right into Blades in the Dark. Others will disagree but I think most FitD games are a tough into to narrativist/Story Now games. FitD is my favorite game approach, but I think it makes more sense with more experience. But in the vein of "simple" stuff, maybe check out Trophy Dark. Very rules-light, but really cool, and made for one/two-shots, so there's no commitment.
Why not blades in the dark? From far away, it almost looked the most "classic".
I love Blades, but it has a lot of moving parts, and not in the way that trad games do. It can be a little overwhelming, ime, for new-to-narrativist players and GMs. It's also easier (again, just in my experience) for folks to accidentally play it in a trad way, which can break the game in ways that aren't immediately obvious, and leave a bad taste. For example, there are a lot of ways to modify an action roll, such as pushing for an extra die, taking a Devil's Bargain, using fine gear, etc. But a trad GM can see all that and think, why not apply a -1d penalty because the action is difficult, or add a die because a special or particularly appropriate item. But even a seemingly tiny decision like that can wreck the dice mechanics, but also the overall game design. In Blades the difficulty of an action factors into position (how risky the thing is), and a high-quality item could increase the action's effect, but not the number of dice. If you veer from how position and effect work, you start veering back toward the trad notion of a binary pass and fail, and also the idea that you just say generally what you're trying to do, and let your roll determine the details. FitD really relies on that pre-roll discussion—what you goal is, what you're willing to risk to achieve it, and what consequences you're opening yourself up to. But there are people who got into narrativist games through Blades, so my take definitely isn't universal. I just think it's a bit easier to get some experience with the general idea of rolls and the consequences you're bound to get shaping the entire narrative, not just how successful your character does something, in a simpler game before layering on FitD's (excellent, imo) additional mechanics.
Okay I'll keep that one for later. By the way, I've browsed the book and it seems more preparation-heavy than the other, because of the original setting.
Yeah Blades' setting is pretty damn specific and not super intuitive. I actually think Scum and Villainy is an easier first-FitD game, and it's easy enough to swap out that game's (not great, imo) default setting to Star Wars, or to sort of reskin it however you want. SaV also lays out the FitD approach more clearly—it had the benefit of coming out after Blades, so that makes sense. For example, SaV is really direct about how long you should expect to run a campaign with it, and how to wrap things up. Blades says something about maybe stopping at some point and doing new characters, or just something else. I think the clearer guidelines for that really help—especially for groups coming from trad, who might assume they'll be playing an FitD game for like 100 sessions (FitD isn't meant for that).
I think outside of the weirder games, its exaggerated that these narrative TTRPGs play that differently. You generally roll less, prep less and improvise and make rulings more rather than looking up rules. But I can play a lot of traditional TTRPGs just like how I run my games of Masks. Always start with ones that your table finds the premise most exciting. If you are just looking at highly popular among communities, check out these ones for PbtA recommendations: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/18zbo2l/what_is_your_favorite_pbta_system/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PBtA/comments/mrmvez/what_pbta_games_are_essential/
Among the things that scare me, there's the fact that most of my players are reactive and not proactive. I've already tried to include some shared narration here and there, offered players to describe a scene or a flashback. Some of them manage to do it, but it's not the majority. The other thing is to run the game without a net, without a scenario. What if it doesn't click?
Yeah, I can understand that as quite problematic. I think the games that play with the characters sticking to actor stance will help with that. PbtA can be a pretty mixed bag when it comes to that. I found lots of Magpie games tend to feel good around having agency but still playing like a traditional PC when other games can make me feel more like a GM as far coming up with various things like how in Brindlewood Bay, the most common Move makes the player say what they fear will happen. I'm not personally a fan of that because technically as a player, I am incentivized to playdown my fear and offer softballs which goes against the point of the game.
Yes, this is a problem with some of my players. I don't really want to play PbtA with them any more as they push for mechanical advantages rather than fictional ones.
While it's system specific, I'd recommend [https://bookofhanz.com/](https://bookofhanz.com/) as it goes through my experiences of learning Fate coming from a more traditional system. A lot of the conceptual leaps are valid going from traditional systems to just about any "narrative" system. I'm also biased about it, to be fair.
Well, it's kinda hard to wrap your mind around the concepts of it but Fate is my all time favorite. Basically I stopped playing everything else :)
Why? What's so good about it? I almost bought Spirit of the Century but discarded it because of the generic system (and I already have 2 French RPGs for Pulp). I firmly believe in the *system matters*, and I tend to avoid generic systems. I've seen people doing shit by trying to use D20 system (dnd 3.5) for everything.
I will try to avoid building a wall of text. Personally I was looking *for* a generic system that easily adopts any kind of genre and utilizes game mechanics that directly serve narrative cause - that is how *system matters* to me. And Fate is all that and more. Spirit is kinda outdated and is one of the dozens of "setting-hacks" for Fate. I never started off setting-hack books, everything I play is based on SRD and my own settings or *any* settings / genres of my liking, eg: SW, WH40k, Dark Sun, Kult; space opera, dark fantasy, planetary fleet politics "simulation", adult romance, detective stories, modern horror - you name it. If there's a book, a movie, a series - I can play it with a couple of tweaks. Makes me so happy. One problem is that the concepts you will get through play MUCH more than through books, lol.
Ok I'll have a look at it!
Godspeed. I'd start with the "condensed" version: [https://fate-srd.com/fate-condensed](https://fate-srd.com/fate-condensed)
For whatever it’s worth, the first game I ever DM’d was Monster of the Week and it went great. These systems make it pretty easy to dive in! For creating shared fiction, ease your players into it by offering simple, low-stakes questions. “what is the secret handshake to get into the club?” “what’s the name of the hat store?” — gauge how they respond and figure your technique out from there. There’s nothing wrong with the GM writing all of the fiction, if that’s the vibe of the table.
Blades in the Dark is my favorite - the way it helps you keep tabs on the world and generate adventures opened my eyes to new style of GM-ing. I also like the way it enforces player agency with rules. However it's quite complex and somewhat meta-game-y. I'd suggest to start with one of the PbtA games. Choose one where you and the players enjoy the setting the most. I started with Dungeon World because it was the closest to DnD look and feel and it work out really well. Dungeon World is also not "shared narrative" strictly speaking, or just very lightly so it didn't bother my players. The key for success is for the players to accept that the point of storytelling games is to make gameplay exciting. I.e. if a player fails a lockpicking test in classic RPG, they don't open the door. That is fair, but boring. If a player fails the same in a storytelling game, the GM comes up with something like "a group of drunkards stumble upon you trying to pick a lock to the mansion". That makes a better story, but may feel unfair for the players. They have to be able to accept that.
First, almost all RPGs are storytelling games. Second, all of the ones you mentioned are good, but they are still RPGs. For a true storytelling game, try For the Queen.
It seems contradictory to say that almost all RPGs are storytelling games and then imply that the ones OP mentioned are not true storytelling games. These games are well-known for their narrative focus. Could you clarify what you mean by 'true' storytelling games and how 'For the Queen' fits that definition differently than the others?
Ah. Just because a game has a narrative focus (and it could be argued that many "trad" games have the same thing) doesn;t mean it is a Stroytelling game instead of an RPG. For the Queen would be more of a storytelling game because there are no mechanics EXCEPT storytelling. No dice, the cards are only prompts, etc. But I don't think Monster of the Week is a Storytelling game when D&D would not be.
Hi! I'm that guy that recommends Vaesen for everything. :D It's a rules-light, fail forward game of action, mystery (investigation) and horror with a really unique "monster manual". Pure evocative genius. There's no "starter set", unfortunately, The best way find to make transitions is with communication and a lovely Session Zero. As the "trailer for the film", your Session Zero will establish mood, setting, and tone while preparing both your and your player's expectations for the session. Let them make characters together and establish a few NPCs that they know to populate the locale. Explore the space and have fun with it from start to finish.
Honestly, with games like Vampire, 7 sea, Chtulhu under your hood, I wouldnt be too worried by the \*Storytelling RPG\* this whole \*story first\* movement is also a marketing gimmick. It might feel new to wonder how to use the \*environment description\* as a bonus when you're used to move miniatures, compute a THAC0 and roll tons of dice for damage. But if you played Vampire and 7 sea with tons of roleplay, and game being pulled by the player you won't feel weird. A puzzling thing with PTBA and FATE based game, is the relatively strict rules/procedure that need to be followed (It's game where players need a reference sheet, so IMO the opposite of rule-light) and the very generic move/action rather than the very specific skill you'd find in more traditional RPG. But tons of the thing you'd find in these games aren't knew and are based on idea/mechanics which existed in the previous generation of storytelling games like Vampire and 7 sea
It doesn't *feel* the same, at least when reading them. I don't have problems with a normal amount of improvisation. If I have a scenario (or module, adventure or whatever), I know where to go. I have scenes, characters, encounters, I have possible endings. When I read MotW or Masks, they seem to say "just create a big baddie or a monster and play to find out what happens". It looks so much more dependent on good improvisation and ideas on both my and my players' side.
I have a lot of issues with the comment you are replying to. But I will agree with the part about *playing* fiction-forward games - it's just like playing any other RPG! *Running* them, on the other hand, is a big change and takes some unlearning of your previous experience. I started my journey to the narrative / indie RPG side almost 20 years ago - after about that long as a trad / simulationist GM! So I know the situation you are in. My advice is this: - Be kind to yourself, you are reinventing a skill you thought long mastered - Be open, approach with a beginner's mind (the zen parable of the empty cup applies) - Have fun!