# What could One D&D do to push the game more toward story?



## overgeeked (Dec 14, 2022)

Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...

I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.

So, with the new edition, I wonder: what rules tweaks could the designers do to the 5E chassis to make it work better as a storytelling game?

The biggest issues with 5E as a good storytelling game is that whatever story happens is either an accident of the dice or must be imposed by the referee and/or the players rather than being naturally emergent from the mechanics. The closest we have to story-based mechanics in 5E is inspiration, and it is, at present, anemic. But, more often than not, the mechanics tend to get in the way of story rather than support it. You want to run an epic boss encounter, but the action economy and a few lucky crits could mean the fight's over in a round or two. You want a big scary bad guy, but forgot to write immune to stun and charm in their stat block, so your big bad gets to just stand there and drool while the PCs wreck their face. You want to play a cool, badass, heroic character but you have to roll a d20 to accomplish just about anything...no matter how unimportant. But that all makes for a boring story.

I think if D&D is going to be a storytelling game it should have some actual story-focused mechanics in the game. Provide primers on scene structure, act structure, how scene-and-sequel works, character motivations and arcs, picking scene goals, plot points, long dark night of the soul, save the cat, kick the dog, twists...you know...actual storytelling guides. A good primer on improv would be great, too. It should have metacurrency that can actually alter the story (for players and referees). It should maybe cut back on the pointless bookkeeping, too. Characters in stories die when the writer needs them to, so hit points are a waste of time to track. You rarely see characters in stories going to the bathroom or eating, so there's really no point in having the rules for food and water in a storytelling game. Come to think of it, everything in a story serves a purpose, whether plot- or character-based. So, in theory, the only things that should be in the game are story-focused mechanics. Everything else is superfluous.

Thoughts?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 14, 2022)

I think PbtA and FitD present a potential path to that, which ultimately boils down to when things happen in play we say "yes, and" and move forward.

Specific to the transition from 5e to 1D&D would be to adopt a narrative style multidimensional task resolution outcome. There's a DC but X below that means one complication thing and Y above that means some exceptional result. That is, don't let the dice be binary.

It's unlikely but it wouldn't be hard to implement.  I as GM already use many die rolls as informative checks rather than binary pass/fail states.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 14, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think PbtA and FitD present a potential path to that, which ultimately boils down to when things happen in play we say "yes, and" and move forward.



Right. But what that actually means, how it works at the table isn't really well explained in the context of D&D. Yes, and...okay what is that, what does it look like, how does it work, etc. I know it's an improv technique. I know what it looks like in that context, and how it works, but it very quickly makes D&D nonsensical if actually applied. 

Player: "Look, I just found the Rod of Seven Parts in this bag of holding. What luck."

Referee: "Yes, and an eagle swoops down and steals it from you." 

The player wants to be able to declare their bit but, importantly, for the referee to not be able to do that response.


Reynard said:


> Specific to the transition from 5e to 1D&D would be to adopt a narrative style multidimensional task resolution outcome. There's a DC but X below that means one complication thing and Y above that means some exceptional result. That is, don't let the dice be binary.
> 
> It's unlikely but it wouldn't be hard to implement.  I as GM already use many die rolls as informative checks rather than binary pass/fail states.



In PbtA, the results are 41.67% fail, 41.67% mixed, and 16.67% success. You could easily swap out DCs for the rough equivalent for that in D&D. Say 1-8 = fail, 9-16 = mixed, and 17-20 = success. Or tack on a degrees of success with 5 lower than the needed DC and 5 higher than the needed DC. 

I think something like Fate's compels needs to be in the game, honestly. If we're going for proper storygame here then we need something that will give the player a coupon for playing along and biting plot hooks.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...
> 
> I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.
> 
> ...



I don't know the answer because d&d is so extremely different from every story/narrative game I've ever played or run.  There was a panel at garycon a few years ago where mearls mentions one mechanic an early version of 5e had that sounds similar to fate style compels here at 1:21:20 but it doesn't seem like something that fits within what people normally consider d&d. Mindja,,er might be the closest I've seen a story/narrative game to d&d given it includes things like equipment lists races/species & so on but midway through the tome it's printed in things eventually click & you realize it's still just fate underneath the surface.

While I was typing this one specific improv technique came up but it's only one of many & the slavish devotion to it as some kind of holy grail that the GM should somehow rush to deploy is quite harmful to any semblance of story if the GM's role is to be anything but life support for the main character's story.


Spoiler: Here is a good video on two others rather important to GMing but weirdly villainized




The DMG does not even mention them in passing last I checked.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 14, 2022)

Bah.
Make easier rules to convert monsters to different class types.

If I want to make an adventure about an evil cult, it should be easy to take evil cultist and convert them to "evil cult warrior", "evil cult priest" ,"evil cult assassin" and "evil cult warlock".

This way I can focus back on the story and NPC characteristics.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 14, 2022)

I'm torn on this question... because my true answer would be something along the lines of "There probably shouldn't be any, because trying to 'gamify' a story is the antithesis of creating it."  In other words... when you put in 'game rules', the players will naturally gravitate towards being more concerned with "playing the rules of the game"... and thereby missing the forest through the trees of creating a story.  People get so tied up in how mechanics work that their focus would be on the storytelling mechanics, rather than the story that was meant to emerge from it.

Now the reason I probably SHOULDN'T be the one to answer this question and why almost NO ONE should take my answer as by any means "correct"... is because my feelings and opinions are coming at it from a wildly divergent angle than probably 99.9% of the player base.  Because I am first and foremost an improvisor and have been performing and directing and producing performance improv for a quarter-century.  And as a result... my brain has been completely rewired and conditioned towards creating story out of nothing but the interactions with other people... without using any sorts of "rules" to do so.  And even the so-called "rules of improv" that people tout are not actually rules that experienced improvisors follow... they exist merely to help new improvisors get better at the basics and middle-range stuff before they finally realize that "improv rules" aren't needed either.

And thus "game rules" don't _help_ you get better at story-based improvisation... they exist merely to focus and constrain story... not help generate it.  Things like improv "games" are not there to help us create better improvised scenes... they are there more or less as a party-trick to impress the audience.  "Oh look!  They are creating this interesting and compelling story with interesting and compelling characters... while also changing the genre they are in every 30 seconds!  Cool!"  And likewise... any sort of commodified "game mechanics" are really just trying to "teach you effective improv technique" at a table while in the middle of playing the game you are using them for and without a professional improv instructor there to give you notes to tell you how or why these rules exist and whether or not your use of them is actually helping you do the thing you're trying to get out of it.

Which means in truth that I can't effectively answer the actual question... because my answer for what would be the best "storygame" mechanics to add to D&D would be-- _take improv classes_.  LOL.  Actually learn and practice the techniques of creating improvised story that "storygames" _attempt_ to do while in the middle of playing it.  But to me, that's like trying to learn how to play baseball _during_ the actual baseball game.  It doesn't really work very well.  At best you learn how to play the mechanics-- the "game rules"-- but you don't really learn the underlying thing these rules and mechanics are trying to serve.

But that's really a completely unhelpful answer and I freely admit it.

And the only reason I bring it up is because the same way I'm an advocate of D&D and RPGs to people who don't play them and don't realize how fun they can be... I am also an advocate for the art of improvisation itself and want to inspire as many people as I can to give it a try.  Because in my opinion it ends up being the purest form of expression of what "storygames" are trying to teach us.  So rather than stutterstep your way through it by playing something like _Fiasco_ or _Ten Candles_... just go right to the source.  Because once you do... once you learn how to effectively create a compelling narrative and story at a table without ANY rules whatsoever... then after the fact games like _Fiasco_ and _Ten Candles_ will become fun to play not because they are telling you how to do it, but because they are just helping you focus and constrain your improvisation the exact same way improv games like "Film And Theater Styles", "The Alphabet Game", and "Stand Sit Kneel" do.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 14, 2022)

As a DM, I can change the story by modifying the rules and results.  If I magically give the BBEG resistance to something or more HP suddenly I may be changing the story for a more dramatic result.  Half the people on these boards shout yes and the other half shout no or foul.  If the players did it to make the PC hit or to suddenly have an item, DMs would likely call foul and constrain them.  Seems to advantage the DM which is likely where this sort of fudge should lay.  

I give the players a 'hero point' each night of play which is like inspiration but can be used for anything.  It gives them a chance to change the story a bit.  A monster hits them and now it rerolls, or reroll a saving throw- or make the monster reroll.  It seems a bit like the bard power where you add 1d6 to a roll over the next 10 minutes.  It changes the story to make the PC do better and not fail.  

Bringing a good story into plot and a campaign is hard to do.  Maybe the designers can help in making plot and campaign tie together better and how to use the rules for better play.  We have threads here about cinematic play and fail forward, but if Wizards has not made the rules part of the core mechanic many will not use them.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 14, 2022)

There are many things that they could do, but I don't expect the new edition to go into them. There are many games out there that have strong mechanical story support, but these games are also really different from the D&D experience. From Fate to Blades in the Dark to Swords of the Serpentine to Dungeon World there are a lot of games out there. The problem is that they approach things quite differently to traditional D&D because they were designed in response to D&D and to do things that it didn't do well.

What could be done, it to separate the different pillars of play in execution. If you've seen the game ICONS, it uses a D20 combat system matched up with the Blades in the Dark skill system and it works pretty well. With the concept of "pillars" of the game that we heard about during the playtest for D&D Next, this is something that could really work.

But, I think everyone knows that won't happen, since it would be a massive change to the game and not something that current casual players would easily adopt. I remember saying that the notion of adventures that didn't require combat to solve would be a massive shift in the game, but it turns out that they were just bolted on to existing mechanics, that don't serve them really well.

What I think will happen: I think the next DMG will have a few 1-2 page modules that attempt to offer some mechanical support for more "story" approaches, so you might have the shell of a mystery mechanic or a social conflict system. I'd say that will be about it.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 14, 2022)

SteveC said:


> There are many things that they could do, but I don't expect the new edition to go into them. There are many games out there that have strong mechanical story support, but these games are also really different from the D&D experience. From *Fate* to Blades in the Dark to Swords of the Serpentine to Dungeon World there are a lot of games out there. The problem is that they approach things quite differently to traditional D&D because they were designed in response to D&D and to do things that it didn't do well.



Emphasis mine.

I think you could layer Aspects on to D&D without a whole lot of effort, and could easily change Insiration into fate points. Not that I think that is going to happen -- I'm just saying you could play D&D with that feature of Fate and it would work fine. But then, underneath the aspects, Fate is a pretty trad game engine.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 14, 2022)

Kill the dice. Give more ways to obviate or actually be good at what characters are good at.

Emphasize location design and improv for DMs.

Have an expanded discussion on not just RP, but party building in the PH.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...
> 
> I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.
> 
> ...




Weird. I hear _some_ people say that modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling game.

And then I see that, in terms of marketshare, D&D and Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu and other games that are not collaboartive story telling games absolutely dwarf those games that people keep saying are the wave of the future (ahem). 

And that the market-share of the games people are talking about are roughly equivalent to past editions of D&D.

That's not a criticism- some of the best things in life (such as the media I enjoy) don't appeal to everyone. But I don't think that WoTC wants to LEVERAGE and MONETIZE the success of D&D by going more niche. Just my opinion.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 14, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Weird. I hear _some_ people say that modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling game.
> 
> And then I see that, in terms of marketshare, D&D and Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu and other games that are not collaboartive story telling games absolutely dwarf those games that people keep saying are the wave of the future (ahem).



It seems to me that Wizards themselves are saying they want the game to go more in those directions, with recent releases being less classic "fight/dungeon" in nature. If that's the case, it would be a good idea to look at what can be done from a system perspective to help the DM out.

I don't expect much to happen, from what we're seeing from a VTT perspective, the goal seems to be much more of a traditional game. I do think that if Wizards wants to broaden their audience (which they have made a goal) having a strong framework for storytelling/mysteries/social adventures is a necessity. You can run a mystery in D&D, but the DM has to do a lot of lifting that they absolutely don't in a Swords of the Serpentine game.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 14, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I think you could layer Aspects on to D&D without a whole lot of effort, and could easily change Insiration into fate points. Not that I think that is going to happen -- I'm just saying you could play D&D with that feature of Fate and it would work fine. But then, underneath the aspects, Fate is a pretty trad game engine.



I don't think so.  Aspects only work because of compels & the fractal, trying to layer that on top of d&d's exception based abilities would be a disaster of gaming.  Without compels aspects are as meaningful as the boxes for hair & eye color but invite "well I'm a _role_player and _my_ character..." type problems to the table


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 14, 2022)

1. A DM's Guide that is an actual guide, with the first half devoted to teaching DM's how to better incorporate story, offering a variety of styles through short adventure modules.

2. Make combat suck less and take half as long.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 14, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I don't think so.  Aspects only work because of compels & the fractal, trying to layer that on top of d&d's exception based abilities would be a disaster of gaming.  Without compels aspects are as meaningful as the boxes for hair & eye color but invite "well I'm a _role_player and _my_ character..." type problems to the table



We did that for a time and it worked fine. Things like race, class, background, and BIFTs became aspects. You could spend a Fate point to invoke for advantage and the referee could compel based on those. In exactly the way Mearls suggests in that round table. Importantly, as in Fate, the player can refuse the compel by spending a Fate point. Basically saying, “yes, my *greedy thief* would want to steal that, but she’s working on her self-control just now.”


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 14, 2022)

SteveC said:


> It seems to me that Wizards themselves are saying they want the game to go more in those directions, with recent releases being less classic "fight/dungeon" in nature. If that's the case, it would be a good idea to look at what can be done from a system perspective to help the DM out.
> 
> I don't expect much to happen, from what we're seeing from a VTT perspective, the goal seems to be much more of a traditional game.* I do think that if Wizards wants to broaden their audience* (which they have made a goal) having a strong framework for storytelling/mysteries/social adventures is a necessity. You can run a mystery in D&D, but the DM has to do a lot of lifting that they absolutely don't in a Swords of the Serpentine game.




¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Almost like D&D wants to continue to have their cake and eat it too, by appealing to the broadest possible base. You know- something for the optimizers and the storytellers. Something for the casuals and the less casuals. Something with enough crunch to keep people playing, but not so much that people are scared away. Etc.

Which is why they aren't going to be leaning hard into a particular niche anytime soon.


----------



## Yora (Dec 14, 2022)

Dungeons & Dragons should focus on rules that push for more dungeons and more dragons.

They have not completely separated the brand name from the core concept of the game yet, but I think they really should try to return to that core concept instead of slapping the brand name on something completely different.
4th edition didn't work out as a D&D branded tactical skirmish game. I don't see 6th edition as a D&D branded storytelling game doing any better.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> We did that for a time and it worked fine. Things like race, class, background, and BIFTs became aspects. You could spend a Fate point to invoke for advantage and the referee could compel based on those. In exactly the way Mearls suggests in that round table. Importantly, as in Fate, the player can refuse the compel by spending a Fate point. Basically saying, “yes, my *greedy thief* would want to steal that, but she’s working on her self-control just now.”



Oh I'm sure it can be done with experienced players but IME they try to metagame them pretty hard playing to win &get salty if their Frank Castle/Christopher Smith inspired aspects cause them problems they can't simply ignore.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 14, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Oh I'm sure it can be done with experienced players but IME they try to metagame them pretty hard playing to win &get salty if their Frank Castle/Christopher Smith inspired aspects cause them problems they can't simply ignore.



Weirdly, my experience is the opposite. It’s the inexperienced players who had the easiest time making the adjustment and were the least likely to try to game the system. It was the experienced players who had the hardest time. But yeah, experienced gamers always game whatever system you put in front of them.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 14, 2022)

I definitely think it's mistake to try to design for the most hardcore, optimizing players. They'll never be satisfied anyway, and they are a tiny minority. And since 5e is sticking around, what we are really talking about are tweaks and content delivery. As far as combat goes, I think it will continue to be too slow, but that seems like it works for most people, so I'll just work on streamlining it at my table. For content delivery, I do strongly think the DM's Guide is a huge opportunity to actually do something useful with a text that have never really had a strong _raison d'être_.


----------



## Malmuria (Dec 14, 2022)

This will never happen, but maybe as a houserule: make rolls matter more.  For example, when you succeed on a roll it often changes the gamestate but when you fail on a roll it often does not.  For example: you are trying to persuade the guard at the masquerade ball to let you in, you fail your roll, he refuses to let you in.  If this same thing happened in Blades in the Dark, there would be some sort of consequence (and there are guidelines for how to make up a consequence).  

This can work for successful rolls also.  I suspect that a lot of players interpret the die roll to indicate _quality_ of success and failure in a narrative way, but there is no rule that makes this so.  For example, when people roll very low, they might narrate what they do as humorous incompetence ("2 for perception.  My druid is too busy looking at the flowers!  ::laughter:.  Similarly, when people roll high the dm might view that as a quality of success ("ok those of you who got a 15 or higher notice the goblins, but Cleric, with your 23, you notice that some of them appear to be riding wolves").

This sort of thing means that something always happens and keeps the narrative progression of the game moving forward.


----------



## ART! (Dec 14, 2022)

Along the liners of Fate and the PbtA games, I became  a big fan of the _Smallville_ rpg, which used the Cortex system. Cortex is now a very modular system that you could use to build a (near?) replica of the _Smallville_ rpg.

What that game had was a lot of the usual things games like D&D have to define characters. I can't remember all the terms the game used, but you had the equivalent of skills, feats, backgrounds, and super-powers (which in D&D terms would be your class features and spells. The kinds of stuff that exceptional Ability scores represent in D&D were represented by one of more of the above.

But the thing that really caught my eye, really stuck with me, and that I would love to make the time to hack into D&D, was Values and Relationships. 

Values were ideals, basically. There were 5 or 6 of them, Smallville had a thematic pre-set list of them, but a Cortex game could be built with your own tonally-appropriate list. You would basically rate each Value with a die type (d4 to d10, maybe d12 was in there, too).

Relationships were very rated the same way, but you had as many of them as there were other PCs in the group. Each relationship was rated in terms of how strong yourbond was to that other PC. Remember, this was designed to emulate the kind of serialized drama you get in tv shows.

Powers, skills, etc. were also rated in dice.
Here's the clincher: when you're trying to do a thing and going to roll dice, you and the GM would decide which Value, Relationship, power, skill, etc. was relevant. You had to roll two dice, but you could roll more if other stuff was relevant, and then you choose the two results you want from the roll.

So, if Lois Lane is on a train while investigating a criminal thing, and the bad guys have cut the brakes, Superman would definitely use his Super-Strength die to stop the train, and his Justice (a Value) die, but could also add his Lois (a Relationship) die.

I've tinkered with ways to do this in 5E without messing with things much. I tried giving Background characteristics a die you could add to relevant rolls, and that works as well as any other "add a dX" class feature or spell - i.e., it works...okay? when you remember to do it.

Anyway, something along those lines would be a way to bring out the storytelling that 5E likes to think it already has built into but doesn't provide much support for.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 14, 2022)

Just sit back and let the Matt Mercer effect do the work for you.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 14, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I don't think so.  Aspects only work because of compels & the fractal, trying to layer that on top of d&d's exception based abilities would be a disaster of gaming.  Without compels aspects are as meaningful as the boxes for hair & eye color but invite "well I'm a _role_player and _my_ character..." type problems to the table



Well,I mean, I've done it so...


----------



## Reynard (Dec 14, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Oh I'm sure it can be done with experienced players but IME they try to metagame them pretty hard playing to win &get salty if their Frank Castle/Christopher Smith inspired aspects cause them problems they can't simply ignore.



That's not a D&D problem.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 14, 2022)

One thing I think it could do is get back to the changing game model, the dungeon-wilderness-rulership track. There's an inherent story in that.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 14, 2022)

Reynard said:


> One thing I think it could do is get back to the changing game model, the dungeon-wilderness-rulership track. There's an inherent story in that.



Would love that. Instead we get "bastions" or whatever that is.


----------



## bert1001 fka bert1000 (Dec 14, 2022)

SteveC said:


> What could be done, it to separate the different pillars of play in execution. If you've seen the game ICONS, it uses a D20 combat system matched up with the Blades in the Dark skill system and it works pretty well. With the concept of "pillars" of the game that we heard about during the playtest for D&D Next, this is something that could really work.




I think this could work.     D&D specific action per turn combat seems to be a hallmark of D&D, but the 5e skill system and noncombat systems are so underdeveloped you could easily use an entirely different system for social, explortion, etc. and not step on any toes.

I did that in 4e once and it worked pretty well -- Used FATE for the game for all scenes that weren't large set piece combat and then switched to 4e for 1-2 combats per session.   Worked pretty well.


----------



## Argyle King (Dec 15, 2022)

I don't feel that there need be added rules for story.

Rather, I believe that a few areas which are central to how the game is built which could be changed to facilitate a more emersive experience.

If there's a better relationship between what the player imagines doing and how their character functions in-game, I believe that leads to emergent gameplay having more of a story element.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...
> 
> I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.
> 
> So, with the new edition, I wonder: what rules tweaks could the designers do to the 5E chassis to make it work better as a storytelling game?



5e has a tool for storytelling that I don't think is pushed enough although I've used to good effect (having stolen the idea from Apocalypse World) - the subclass change. The Paladin of Valour who loses the faith can become a Paladin of Redemption, of Glory, of Conquest, or even an Oathbreaker - or a Warlock can change patrons. This is a very powerful tool and should be used sparingly (I've even turned a battlemaster into an echo night for reasons) 

This also ties into my pet hate about 5e's storytelling - character growth is on rails. Once you have your subclass at level 3 you've very few important choices left to make; you're almost certainly taking an ASI in your primary stat at 4 or 8 and most of the +1 feats just aren't that good. Who most characters are mechanically at level 11 is almost entirely predetermined from who they were at level 3 unless they multiclass. (This is a key reason I like the OneD&D feat changes).

The other biiiig thing is a lack of consequences for combat. No Rust Monsters. No wounds. No scars. Either you die or you're fine. 

I'd also give a lot of monsters a "short rest action" in their statblocks - so if the PCs stop they can recover their wound and are now fighting slightly empowered versions of their foes. And more weight on what you can do with loot.


----------



## kenada (Dec 16, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> In PbtA, the results are 41.67% fail, 41.67% mixed, and 16.67% success. You could easily swap out DCs for the rough equivalent for that in D&D. Say 1-8 = fail, 9-16 = mixed, and 17-20 = success. Or tack on a degrees of success with 5 lower than the needed DC and 5 higher than the needed DC.



My homebrew system is a D&D-like with a PbtA-influenced resolution mechanic. I’ve explored various dice pools (2d6, 3d6, 1d20, etc). There was a lot of appeal for using the d20 this way (unifying between attacks, saves, and skill chrcks), but the distribution of results is weird compared to PbtA or FitD. Your chance of a mixed results never changes until you push failure completely off the chart (of possible outcomes).

The obvious solution is switching to a non-uniform distribution (like how I’m currently planning to use 2d10), but rolling d20s is a big part of the D&D culture. I don’t think replacing d20 rolls would be received very well. It might be better to do like Pathfinder 2e and keep DCs while adding degrees of success.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 16, 2022)

Storytelling is a skill and a motivation, not so much a mechanic. The DM and players need to give the game room to breathe, while avoiding busy work combat. Put more weight on choices so players have a reason to care about them. Build relationships between PCs and NPCs and give them reasons to care.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 16, 2022)

The most important thing a set of game rules can do to promote narrative constructions in play is to not have binary outcomes to rolls the players make. There is a grab bag of terminology here -- consequences, success at cost, degree of failure, etc -- but they all come down to interpreting die roll results in the most interesting way possible. The problem with D&D is it generally asks players to make a lot more rolls than games built to be narrative.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 16, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I think you could layer Aspects on to D&D without a whole lot of effort, and could easily change Insiration into fate points. Not that I think that is going to happen -- I'm just saying you could play D&D with that feature of Fate and it would work fine. But then, underneath the aspects, Fate is a pretty trad game engine.



Jonathan Tweet's _Over the Edge_ was a _huge_ influence on Aspects in Fate and Distinctions in Cortex. Jonathan Tweet likely had a hand in 13th Age's backgrounds, which are an Aspect-like approach to skills and ability checks.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...
> 
> I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.
> 
> ...



Well, there are two responses to this post that seem like they are potentially useful. 

The first is fairly 'nuts and bolts'. My feeling is that the easiest practical change would be to simply rework the 'making a check' system (by which I refer to basically all tosses of the d20 by the players). Have the player state an INTENT along with a course of action. Success indicates the character's intent is accomplished. Failure indicates something else happened, possibly the character got a version of what they wanted, maybe with consequences, or that their intent was not achieved at all. The GM can frame this how they want in that case, but in the former case the player's course of action is effective. This is not sufficient to make a story game in and of itself, but I think it is a necessary component, at least assuming the system still closely resembles 5e in other ways.

On a more theoretical level, I've not played a story game which does what you suggest, exactly. I mean, many story games include some sort of 'meta-game' that does include some of the elements you suggest, but others don't mention any of those things, and yet they are story games. I mean, most such games (all the ones I'm really familiar with at least) include scene-framing processes of some sort.  So, I think it is not demonstrated that mechanics related to story, as such, and not to 'things happening in the plot of the story' (IE world-facing mechanics, albeit perhaps framed in meta-game terms) are strictly 'all that is required'. In fact I think such a game would be somewhat anemic.

I used to run a lightweight diceless story game, PACE, now and then. There are no mechanics that relate to anything 'in game' at all. In fact the game makes no assumptions of any sort about genre, etc. Its mechanics purely deal with "who gets to say how the next conflict/obstacle turns out." It also presents the structure of scenes, and presents rules for how character traits can be used along with 'plot points' to do the deciding. Honestly, while its certainly usable, the game is quite anemic overall. Its fine for a quick one-off, but the lack of actual rules governing how world and story relate can make it pretty hard to run. Blades in the Dark OTOH is much clearer, the game has a lot of things which make it flow, and none of that exists in PACE. So, I posit that an infrastructure focused on generating and 'activating' the fiction is at least really handy, if not completely vital.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, there are two responses to this post that seem like they are potentially useful.
> 
> The first is fairly 'nuts and bolts'. My feeling is that the easiest practical change would be to simply rework the 'making a check' system (by which I refer to basically all tosses of the d20 by the players). Have the player state an INTENT along with a course of action. Success indicates the character's intent is accomplished. Failure indicates something else happened, possibly the character got a version of what they wanted, maybe with consequences, or that their intent was not achieved at all. The GM can frame this how they want in that case, but in the former case the player's course of action is effective. This is not sufficient to make a story game in and of itself, but I think it is a necessary component, at least assuming the system still closely resembles 5e in other ways.



Isn't this pretty much exactly the way it is laid out in the DMG?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

SteveC said:


> There are many things that they could do, but I don't expect the new edition to go into them. There are many games out there that have strong mechanical story support, but these games are also really different from the D&D experience. From Fate to Blades in the Dark to Swords of the Serpentine to Dungeon World there are a lot of games out there. The problem is that they approach things quite differently to traditional D&D because they were designed in response to D&D and to do things that it didn't do well.
> 
> What could be done, it to separate the different pillars of play in execution. If you've seen the game ICONS, it uses a D20 combat system matched up with the Blades in the Dark skill system and it works pretty well. With the concept of "pillars" of the game that we heard about during the playtest for D&D Next, this is something that could really work.
> 
> ...



Doesn't 4e D&D kinda put this answer to death? lol. As we have played it, there's no doubt it is a story game, and also no doubt that it is a close relative of both 3.x and 5e D&D in an overall mechanical sense. I expect you are right though about what '5.5' will bring, my expectations of WotC are basically zilch, lol.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...
> 
> Thoughts?



Hate it. Not what I want in D&D. I don’t want mechanics that push or force story in D&D.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> The most important thing a set of game rules can do to promote narrative constructions in play is to not have binary outcomes to rolls the players make. There is a grab bag of terminology here -- consequences, success at cost, degree of failure, etc -- but they all come down to interpreting die roll results in the most interesting way possible. The problem with D&D is it generally asks players to make a lot more rolls than games built to be narrative.



I feel like you need INTENT though, a resolution system that is focused strictly on the action you take doesn't capture that, and is much more limiting to the GM. Not that I disagree with you that at least a 'success with consequences' isn't going to also help a lot.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Isn't this pretty much exactly the way it is laid out in the DMG?



Well, the 5e DMG makes some fairly vague statements about various things, which are then contradicted in other places, so I am a bit skeptical that it has anything coherent to say, really. I mean, there are statements about things like only making checks for things that 'matter' or where 'failure is meaningful' and such. Those are good, and I would argue something along those lines, a process/criteria which tells us when to bring out the dice, is certainly an element that games need. Honestly 4e is a bit weak here too when you stray too much out of the encounter-centered model (IE if the characters wander around exploring and making unstructured checks, 4e doesn't really give a ton of guidance about that).


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, the 5e DMG makes some fairly vague statements about various things, which are then contradicted in other places, so I am a bit skeptical that it has anything coherent to say, really. I mean, there are statements about things like only making checks for things that 'matter' or where 'failure is meaningful' and such. Those are good, and I would argue something along those lines, a process/criteria which tells us when to bring out the dice, is certainly an element that games need. Honestly 4e is a bit weak here too when you stray too much out of the encounter-centered model (IE if the characters wander around exploring and making unstructured checks, 4e doesn't really give a ton of guidance about that).



I don't recall how well-stated it is, but in 4E the assumption is that you'll just throw together a skill challenge if players seek one out.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, the 5e DMG makes some fairly vague statements about various things, which are then contradicted in other places, so I am a bit skeptical that it has anything coherent to say, really. I mean, there are statements about things like only making checks for things that 'matter' or where 'failure is meaningful' and such. Those are good, and I would argue something along those lines, a process/criteria which tells us when to bring out the dice, is certainly an element that games need. Honestly 4e is a bit weak here too when you stray too much out of the encounter-centered model (IE if the characters wander around exploring and making unstructured checks, 4e doesn't really give a ton of guidance about that).



Sorry, my question was evasive. What I meant was, yes, this is exactly what the 5E DMG says to do in the section on calling for ability checks and setting DCs. That information is in the game. the problem is no one thinks they need to be told how to DM better, don't read the DMG, then turn around and say the DMG is terrible, and that 5E doesn't give DM's advice. It is an exhausting, circular argument.

5E is actually pretty good (2E levels) about talking about the DM's role and how to go about adjudicating. It is just terrible at walking a new DM through the actual process of running a session of D&D.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 17, 2022)

Should the game be pushed more toward story/storytelling? I’m not so sure. I don’t think I want that for games I play in, but it could be fine as variant or optional rules I guess


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> The problem is no one thinks they need to be told how to DM better, don't read the DMG, then turn around and say the DMG is terrible, and that 5E doesn't give DM's advice. It is an exhausting, circular argument.



It really is. It's especially tough in more experienced referees. In the early days of 5E our regular referee just ported in 4E monsters with their stat blocks intact. We tried to explain how that doesn't work and how the math is different and the numbers were all off. "It's all D&D" was his response. This worked a charm in the TSR days when the AC was only one point off between Basic and Advanced and the rest was all close enough. To this day I still don't think he's cracked open the 5E DMG.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> In the early days of 5E our regular referee just ported in 4E monsters with their stat blocks intact. We tried to explain how that doesn't work and how the math is different and the numbers were all off. "It's all D&D" was his response.



This is quite bizarre. Like asserting that the auction in all whist variants must work the same.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think PbtA and FitD present a potential path to that, which ultimately boils down to when things happen in play we say "yes, and" and move forward.



I can't comment on BitD/FitD, but Apocalypse World doesn't boil down to "yes, and". For instance, if my character goes aggro against a NPC, and then my overall result is 6 or less, the GM can make as hard a move as they like that follows from the fiction, which might be that my PC is captured, or is left beaten to a bloody pulp on the floor, or whatever else seems to make sense.

Part of what makes AW work is that it generates momentum in the fiction without the need for collaboration on the story between the players and the GM. This is the essence of the sort of RPG that the Forge used to call "story now".

I think @AbdulAlhazred is right to say that introducing this into D&D would require a focus on _intent_ in action declaration, and hence adjudication of success and failure. It is the protagonists getting what they want, or missing out on it, that generates the ebb and flow of a story.

In a lot of D&D play, including (as best I can tell) a lot of 5e D&D play, it is the GM who makes key decisions about what the protagonists want, and what the significance of any situation, or any action declaration, is. Changing that can be quite tricky, because it tends to require a different sort of approach to prep, to framing and to adjudication from that which is set out in the 5e materials (at least as I'm familiar with them).


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 17, 2022)

D&D doesn't need it.
You have a session, you play a game, by the end a story will have happened. Not forced, not squeezed into some PBTA definition.

It you want a game where every roll matters, the new Talisman RPG is perfect. Like PBTA games, the GM doesn't roll, every pc roll generates something ( it has 4 results not 3), but with more freedom and generation of funky effects. My game of the year by far.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I don't recall how well-stated it is, but in 4E the assumption is that you'll just throw together a skill challenge if players seek one out.



Right, so it isn't so much of an issue in 4e. In fact, my game has an actual rule, "there are no dice outside of an encounter."


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...
> 
> I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.



I do not believe that this is true. I believe that 5e is kind of optimised on a kind of casual play where the characters are big damn heroes. What I have refereed to as "protagonists". It does not get in the way of Trad story of the kind you see on Critical Role.

In so far as there is a story it is dependent on the interaction of the PCs and notable NPCs.

For the record, I have not played any of what are referred as story game rpgs. Mostly because the people I game with are not interested and so I lack opportunity.
I also suspect that WoTC have done their market research and concluded that there is not enough interest to make the effort of creating such a subsystem worth their while.



overgeeked said:


> So, with the new edition, I wonder: what rules tweaks could the designers do to the 5E chassis to make it work better as a storytelling game?
> 
> The biggest issues with 5E as a good storytelling game is that whatever story happens is either an accident of the dice or must be imposed by the referee and/or the players rather than being naturally emergent from the mechanics. The closest we have to story-based mechanics in 5E is inspiration, and it is, at present, anemic. But, more often than not, the mechanics tend to get in the way of story rather than support it. You want to run an epic boss encounter, but the action economy and a few lucky crits could mean the fight's over in a round or two. You want a big scary bad guy, but forgot to write immune to stun and charm in their stat block, so your big bad gets to just stand there and drool while the PCs wreck their face. You want to play a cool, badass, heroic character but you have to roll a d20 to accomplish just about anything...no matter how unimportant. But that all makes for a boring story.
> 
> ...



Any such subsystems, beyond DM advice about using dice checks for guidance (fail forward type stuff) should be additive and optional. At least in the context of D&D.


----------



## Scott Christian (Dec 17, 2022)

The OP asks a tough question. 

To me, the only real answer is to have a DM that cares about, knows how to craft, and puts in the work towards _the story_. The ruleset, as is, does story perfectly well. The difficulty is finding the right person to run the game, the right players to pursue the story, and the right chemistry between everyone to share in the collective journey.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Sorry, my question was evasive. What I meant was, yes, this is exactly what the 5E DMG says to do in the section on calling for ability checks and setting DCs. That information is in the game. the problem is no one thinks they need to be told how to DM better, don't read the DMG, then turn around and say the DMG is terrible, and that 5E doesn't give DM's advice. It is an exhausting, circular argument.
> 
> 5E is actually pretty good (2E levels) about talking about the DM's role and how to go about adjudicating. It is just terrible at walking a new DM through the actual process of running a session of D&D.



Yeah, being used to the more robust line in PbtA games, I find 5e's formulation muddled. I agree it is heavily reminiscent of 2e, IMHO 5e is basically a mechanically rationalized 2e. For my tastes a game that really did this stuff well is best, and 5e really would need to be rewritten to be that game. I'm sure many of the mechanics can be adapted, but it would be a fundamentally different game. Honestly, this is why I simply wrote my own game starting from 4e's baseline, because I don't see any point in using something that is so much further from the goal as a starting point.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I can't comment on BitD/FitD, but Apocalypse World doesn't boil down to "yes, and". For instance, if my character goes aggro against a NPC, and then my overall result is 6 or less, the GM can make as hard a move as they like that follows from the fiction, which might be that my PC is captured, or is left beaten to a bloody pulp on the floor, or whatever else seems to make sense.
> 
> Part of what makes AW work is that it generates momentum in the fiction without the need for collaboration on the story between the players and the GM. This is the essence of the sort of RPG that the Forge used to call "story now".
> 
> ...



Well, the other half of it is that the player's have to own the intent! I don't think it is true that the GM necessarily decides what the protagonists want, but the GM decides ENTIRELY what it is possible for them to achieve, and thus aspire to. This creates the most classic of all conflicts that exist at the table in neo-trad play, which is a player with an independent agenda vs a GM with a fixed idea of what the world holds and what can happen in it (and often, but not always, a pretty fixed idea of the trajectory of play overall).

This was played out in a CLASSIC fashion in the first full 5e campaign I played in. My character was pretty much built with an agenda. It was a pretty general and rather flexible one, he was just very ambitious and wanted to rule his own kingdom (or whatever, barony, etc.). Instead of trying to fight out a war, or battle of intrigue, with people in the established kingdom, he just went to the frontier and figured out how to construct his own place. The GM was pretty OK with this, but at a certain point she wanted to run an adventure, so all the PCs were transported off (by some GM fiat handwavy thing) to another land where we spent several weeks or a couple months, I forget exactly, doing this completely unrelated activity. When we came back, eventually, the GM decreed that 6 years had passed and all the land I had claimed and my castle was now owned by someone else! Blah, I think that was pretty much the last we played of THAT campaign. I never did figure out what exactly the point of that was, or why it was serving the agenda, etc. Nothing in 5e, however, really addresses the structure of play in a way that would make it make better sense. 

I mean, contrast what would happen in DW. A doom supplied by a front could CERTAINLY threaten the character's land in some fashion. Failing to deal with it COULD lead to the loss of his property. No way, no how could it happen within the bounds of the agenda and principles of play of DW through such an arbitrary and unaddressable process. In fact the whole POINT of play would be to find out (at least for that aspect of the campaign) how the character dealt with such a threat to his ambitions. It might involve asking questions about what he was willing to sacrifice, or what moral compromises he might make in order to succeed, or whatever. ANY principled play of DW would lead to that, IMHO! I mean, assuming it went in that direction at all, most DW GMs would probably assume once I won the castle that was that and the various choices and whatever would play out on the next stage, say building the wilderness trading route that was supposed to make the thing economically viable.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> When we came back, eventually, the GM decreed that 6 years had passed and all the land I had claimed and my castle was now owned by someone else! Blah, I think that was pretty much the last we played of THAT campaign. I never did figure out what exactly the point of that was, or why it was serving the agenda, etc.



Without more information, my guess is the GM was trying to make the "battle" to get your lands back the central theme of the next stage of the campaign. They probably thought they were throwing you a bone after distracting you with an adventure. The mistake,  of course, was not clearing it with you first.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 17, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Hate it. Not what I want in D&D. I don’t want *mechanics that push or force story in D&D.*



How do you understand the bold? Do you have examples of "mechanics that push or force story" in other games? 

I ask because people don't always mean the same things when I hear vague comments like this.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 17, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> How do you understand the bold? Do you have examples of "mechanics that push or force story" in other games?
> 
> I ask because people don't always mean the same things when I hear vague comments like this.



I don’t have examples - I just don’t like the concept


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 17, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I don’t have examples - I just don’t like the concept



That's helpful.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 17, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> D&D doesn't need it.
> You have a session, you play a game, by the end a story will have happened. Not forced, not squeezed into some PBTA definition.



And what do you think the PBTA definition of story is other than "what happened, strung together"? The big differences are that PBTA has more things happen on every roll and has non-linear growth and change.


John R Davis said:


> It you want a game where every roll matters, the new Talisman RPG is perfect. Like PBTA games, the GM doesn't roll, every pc roll generates something ( it has 4 results not 3), but with more freedom and generation of funky effects. My game of the year by far.



I'll give it a look.


Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I don’t have examples - I just don’t like the concept



Then I suggest you drop any game with a levelling system - because Zero to Hero or levelling up from level 1 to high level is a textbook example of mechanics that force a story.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 17, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then I suggest you drop any game with a levelling system - because Zero to Hero or levelling up from level 1 to high level is a textbook example of mechanics that force a story.



Not in my 20+/- yrs of experience playing D&D


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 17, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> That's helpful.



Sorry! I just don’t like the idea of mechanics  that push the story. I like the story to happen organically in play. The interaction of players and DM, not mechanics (other than how the dice fall)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 17, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Not in my 20+/- yrs of experience playing D&D



So you've never played Zero to Hero? And in your 20 years levelling up has never impacted the way characters behave or their place within the game world?

I'm afraid I simply do not believe you here. Levelling up is a _textbook_ example of mechanics pushing story. You might find that the mechanics don't interfere with the gameplay that much because you accept what they are trying to do - but that doesn't make them _not_ mechanics that push a story.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 17, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> So you've never played Zero to Hero? And in your 20 years levelling up has never impacted the way characters behave or their place within the game world?
> 
> I'm afraid I simply do not believe you here. Levelling up is a _textbook_ example of mechanics pushing story. You might find that the mechanics don't interfere with the gameplay that much because you accept what they are trying to do - but that doesn't make them _not_ mechanics that push a story.



I will clarify that I don’t like other mechanics that “push” the story. By push I mean actively advance the story. Leveling is passive, and, in our games, story dependent. We level when the story dictates, not the other way around.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 17, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> If that is the stance you want to take, then I will clarify that I don’t like other mechanics that “push” the story. By push I mean actively advance the story. Leveling is passive, and, in our games, story dependent. We level when the story dictates, not the other way around.



I repeat @Aldarc 's challenge. "_Do you have examples of "mechanics that push or force story" in other games?_"

The fact that levelling is passive only makes it push the story more because the players and characters have less control over it and it forces them more down a predetermined path. And you have to write your settings such that levelling with the inherent _vast_ disparity in power is a part of them.

Now, I'll give you a mechanic that to me is one that encourages story from Apocalypse World (from memory)

When _life becomes untenable_ choose 1 [exclusive so each can only be picked once]:

Die, permanently
Come back with -1 Hard
Come back with +1 Weird
Come back with a different playbook [class]
(The Apocalypse World stats are Hard, Hot, Sharp, Cool, and Weird and a +1 modifier is significant).

Is this something you dislike? The idea that instead of resurrection magic you can come back changed in one of a number of ways so death isn't consequence-less


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 17, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Without more information, my guess is the GM was trying to make the "battle" to get your lands back the central theme of the next stage of the campaign. They probably thought they were throwing you a bone after distracting you with an adventure. The mistake,  of course, was not clearing it with you first.



Yeah, I'd have happily dealt with all sorts of threats or whatever. This is one of those things though that is generally understood in story games, don't take away the player's toys! Challenge is always possible, there's no need to crush everyone's dreams, lol. Honestly, it was just old habits IMHO. My sister was running that game and she's a pretty good GM. She's run a bunch of DW for us, but old habits die hard I guess.... lol.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 17, 2022)

What exactly is the gap trying to be filled here?
A story is characters doing stuff and stuff happening to characters. Are characters not doing stuff or having stuff happen to them?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 17, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> What exactly is the gap trying to be filled here?
> A story is characters doing stuff and stuff happening to characters. Are characters not doing stuff or having stuff happen to them?



Slowly and in a pretty teflon manner.

A D&D character in any edition can be brought down to 1hp and recover back to full HP with no ill effect. There are no injuries. And character growth after level 3, unless you multiclass, is normally on rails; you just get higher level.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Slowly and in a pretty teflon manner.
> 
> A D&D character in any edition can be brought down to 1hp and recover back to full HP with no ill effect. There are no injuries. And character growth after level 3, unless you multiclass, is normally on rails; you just get higher level.



Do you want story to be slower and more stressful and to involve less combat?

I don't understand the "on rails" thing unless you also do not want a class-based game.

Maybe the WoD-style rules would work better?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 18, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Sorry! I just don’t like the idea of mechanics  that push the story. I like the story to happen organically in play. The interaction of players and DM, not mechanics (other than how the dice fall)



Given the way you speak of it, and that you've clearly not become familiar with any of these sorts of games (lets say PbtA games, though they are only a subset of story games), my feeling is you're not really understanding what they entail. 

That is, 'story' is not particularly an element of a PbtA game, and one of the primary principles of these games is 'Play to See What Happens', which LITERALLY MEANS that story is fully emergent from play. Nothing within the game dictates story, at all. Story will inherently arise, because the process of play inevitably triggers the formation of some sort of story, but nothing is forced at all! In a DW game, for instance, players describe their characters using several mechanisms that are very similar to generic D&D (IE 6 ability scores, a class, a race, an alignment, and 'bonds' which are just descriptions of a couple pre-existing relationships each character has with one or two of the other PCs). DW is a 'low myth' game in a general sense, the GM does do prep, but first she asks the characters questions, and frames an initial scene in response. Then once that is resolved it will often lead to the definition of a steading (IE a base of operations for the PCs). Anyway, basically its remarkably similar to any other RPG aside from the GM is expected to generate action and scenes that directly engage the characters, although world events can certainly go on off-screen without any PC intervention. Honestly, Dungeon World is more like a really really good D&D game than anything else, it just produces that result a LOT more of the time than B/X or whatever does.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I repeat @Aldarc 's challenge. "_Do you have examples of "mechanics that push or force story" in other games?_"



I will give the same answer: no I don’t. I have only played D&D, so how could I?

This is not a discussion to get so worked up over IMO. I know I am right for me, and I am sure you are correct for you.

I never entered this to discuss mechanics, only wanted to voice my opinion that I don’t personally want such mechanics. However, I don’t mind if the game has them and others use them. 

A 5e example I can give is inspiration. People describe that as a story pushing mechanic in 5e. We don’t use it in our games, but I don’t mind that it is an option for others.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 18, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Given the way you speak of it, and that you've clearly not become familiar with any of these sorts of games (lets say PbtA games, though they are only a subset of story games), my feeling is you're not really understanding what they entail.



That is correct and likely true. I only have experience with D&D. My aversion to such mechanics could be completely off base. 

I just want the game I have, and the layers and DM, and I don’t need anything more to create the stories I’ve enjoyed for 20 years.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I will give the same answer: no I don’t. I have only played D&D, so how could I?
> 
> This is not a discussion to get so worked up over IMO. I know I am right for me, and I am sure you are correct for you.
> 
> I never entered this to discuss mechanics, only wanted to voice my opinion that I don’t personally want such mechanics. However, I don’t mind if the game has them and others use them.



The thing here is you are saying

You have never played anything other than D&D
You are therefore confident that you understand what you don't want despite no experience with other games
D&D has, as I've mentioned, some story pushing mechanics (which you, when questioned are fine with)


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing here is you are saying
> 
> You have never played anything other than D&D
> You are therefore confident that you understand what you don't want despite no experience with other games
> D&D has, as I've mentioned, some story pushing mechanics (which you, when questioned are fine with)



1 and 3 are correct, not #2, if you consider leveling story pushing (which I don’t)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Do you want story to be slower and more stressful and to involve less combat?



No. I want the story to be faster. I want every fight to mean something and to have consequences on the table. The single slowest thing possible is a period of time that takes an hour or so in real time and where nothing of consequence happens.


Incenjucar said:


> I don't understand the "on rails" thing unless you also do not want a class-based game.



_Apocalypse World_ is a class based game.  The problem isn't classes, but levels.

The best class in 5e for character development is the Warlock because you get to choose how you level up, by picking invocations. Two warlocks are not the same as each other (and it would be better if you replaced roughly half the invocations with good ones). Second best is either the sorcerer (your spells are determined with each level) or the artificer (what did you spend your time learning how to create)? Most of the classes with spells have either the same spell list or at worse can switch books.

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread I've used changing subclasses in 5e as both character growth and as consequences. And also the OneD&D feats being better balanced and generally better than ASI increase also gives more options for growth.


Incenjucar said:


> Maybe the WoD-style rules would work better?



WoD is little more than point buy. Classes have their advantages. All WoD characters are more or less playing the same game. I prefer the WoD experience mechanics - but I prefer the diversity of starting points of a class based system. Apocalypse World gives me the benefits of both and some things of its own.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> What exactly is the gap trying to be filled here?
> A story is characters doing stuff and stuff happening to characters. Are characters not doing stuff or having stuff happen to them?



Well, I mean, if all we define story as is "whatever happens to the PCs" then what's the point of any discussion of what happens? Obviously the happening must have certain qualities which can be attributed to it, right? I think it is more a question of whether the 'story' in your sense is or is not in any sense dramatic or interesting. Is it simply a long rambling list of scenes with no unifying theme? Do the characters have some sort of substance to them, or are they simply 'pogs' in a game focused on some other goal like 'who can get the most GP' or something like that? 

So, what Dungeon World does, as an example, is to set the scene, the world is fantastic, its dangerous, the PCs are unique individuals, and some sort of 'stuff' is happening in this world (which is independent of, but will inevitably have an effect on, the PCs). Also whatever this stuff is, it is chosen to correspond in some degree to the avowed interests/character traits of the players and their PCs. The PCs have traits, like bonds and an alignment (kind of a primary personality concept) that the players will engage with, because they get XP for that. Whenever the PCs roll low, whenever the players don't know what they want to do next, or whenever the GM is given a 'golden opportunity' (IE if the PCs ignore some obvious danger) then the GM makes a move, usually a hard move. The GM may also make soft moves, which just draw doom closer (IE your 2nd to last torch just guttered out, and you're a mile underground). The upshot is that PCs are always getting into something, and its always got an element of trouble to it! 

So, its not like there IS a story, certainly not explicitly, but it is true that DW, unlike D&D kind of cannot function when something interesting isn't happening, and if that situation arises, the GM literally hits the party with something, immediately. There isn't ever the possibility you are just putzing around or that the PCs have to go to the action. I mean, you could decide nothing happens for a while, but that sort of period would be elided in DW. You wouldn't normally talk about how the halfling makes dinner, unless it has some potential to 'go somewhere'.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

The reason I note what a story is is that these conversations usually start with " more x" but mean "more version of X that I like better". The latter is far more usable.

You can always skip playing out combat and just make it a roll for outcomes consequences if that's not a part you're interested in. Any scenario with complex meaningful choices will happen at the speed of the people at your table, so there's a hard limit to speeding up combat in unless you take away combat options.

I get a desire for more complex character options and build-your-own mechanics. Feats are great for this, of course. I think just adding more classes would work here, maybe stuff that's a little more like 13th Age. No guarantee of getting story from it, though.

Things like theme are up to DMs and players. While there's certainly plenty of advice that can be provided, setting up an interesting world and events and inviting the players to interact with whatever parts they find interesting is all that's needed.

The tricky part is teaching people how to make engaging worlds so players want to engage with it.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

A story generally has protagonists, dramatic needs, rising action, and climax.

The examples of play in Gygax's DMG, and in Moldvay Basic, don't demonstrate these as elements of play.

The example of play in Apocalypse World clearly does.

Which is 5e D&D closer to, when typically played? The example in the Basic PDF is more like those classic D&D examples, than it is like AW.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I get a desire for more complex character options and build-your-own mechanics. Feats are great for this, of course. I think just adding more classes would work here, maybe stuff that's a little more like 13th Age. No guarantee of getting story from it, though.



More classes aren't wanted so much as better classes. What's needed on this one is more defining options within the class which is why I'm pointing out Invocations and known spells rather than spells you can change every morning.


Incenjucar said:


> Things like theme are up to DMs and players. While there's certainly plenty of advice that can be provided, setting up an interesting world and events and inviting the players to interact with whatever parts they find interesting is all that's needed.
> 
> The tricky part is teaching people how to make engaging worlds so players want to engage with it.



And how to make engaging with your own flaws interesting as against the dopamine hit of success


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A story generally has protagonists, dramatic needs, rising action, and climax.
> 
> The examples of play in Gygax's DMG, and in Moldvay Basic, don't demonstrate these as elements of play.
> 
> ...



Protagonists: The PCs

Dramatic Needs: D&D really isn't very good at this. 

Rising action: With a well written adventure. Although most have fairly flat action IME - and the test-your-luck of O&D with its attrition had more of this.

Climax: Any adventure worth writing should have this


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Rising action: With a well written adventure. Although most have fairly flat action IME - and the test-your-luck of O&D with its attrition had more of this.
> 
> Climax: Any adventure worth writing should have this



"The adventure" is a perennial issue in RPGing. Too loosely scripted: no story. Too tightly scripted: railroading.

That's why "story now" RPGs do away with the whole concept of it!


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

...are we not already having final battles on dragon back over waterfalls wherein the PCs can realize the redemption they sought all along was never needed because the burden of their past was never something they should have carried and now they can truly be heroes, not just debtors paying their due?


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 18, 2022)

As gamers, we do over analyse stuff don't we ?
I wonder how many of these in-depth discussions actually change the way we play?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> As gamers, we do over analyse stuff don't we ?
> I wonder how many of these in-depth discussions actually change the way we play?



Well, in my case discussing different techniques is pretty useful.

And the methods I use for GMing a RPG where story is supposed to be a thing are pretty different from those I use in the occasional session of classic AD&D.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> ...are we not already having final battles on dragon back over waterfalls wherein the PCs can realize the redemption they sought all along was never needed because the burden of their past was never something they should have carried and now they can truly be heroes, not just debtors paying their due?



I dunno. Which participant decided that it's the final battle?


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 18, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> As gamers, we do over analyse stuff don't we ?
> I wonder how many of these in-depth discussions actually change the way we play?



I may be an outlier but it has changed the way that I think and go about play. It's also improved my relation with games to the extent that I'm not trying to force square-shaped games into round-shaped holes, but, instead, play a variety of games in accordance with their respective strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I dunno. Which participant decided that it's the final battle?



The DM, because that is fairly baked into the role.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> The DM, because that is fairly baked into the role.



If that is a table's approach to story, then nothing is needed in One D&D. 5e D&D already strongly emphasises the GM as having extensive, even sole, authority over what events occur in the game and what their dramatic significance is. All One D&D needs to do is keep it up!


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 18, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I may be an outlier but it has changed the way that I think and go about play. It's also improved my relation with games to the extent that I'm not trying to force square-shaped games into round-shaped holes, but, instead, play a variety of games in accordance with their respective strengths and weaknesses.



Agreed.
I have/do played a massive variety of games ( I do get to play a lot).
Not a fan of OneGame Uber Allies.
Discussion for another thread.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 18, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> As gamers, we do over analyse stuff don't we ?
> I wonder how many of these in-depth discussions actually change the way we play?



I think for a lot of people, these discussions are akin to painting that army you bought. That is,they actually represent the bulk of the time we actually engage in the hobby. On the upside, unlike painting, it's social.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> The DM, because that is fairly baked into the role.



Any battle can be the final battle if the DM tries hard enough.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> The DM, because that is fairly baked into the role.



It should be.  But with no consequence to worry about burning through resources too fast and being in a bind without them, the pllayers are now free to nova through any encounter & declare it was the final by demanding a rest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Come to think of it, everything in a story serves a purpose, whether plot- or character-based. So, in theory, the only things that should be in the game are story-focused mechanics. Everything else is superfluous.



There is a ton I disagree with vociferously in this post, but this most of all. 

You describe one style of storytelling. Not everything in a story needs to matter. 

Beyond that, part of why people play 5e D&D so much as a game about stories is that it doesn’t mechanize the process of storytelling, it gives structure and form in which boundaries the participants can tell a story. It encourages making characters you have a clear image of, and then puts fun gameplay challenges before them, and otherwise leaves you to it. 

A bunch of storytelling mechanics wouldn’t improve it. IMO.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> This will never happen, but maybe as a houserule: make rolls matter more.  For example, when you succeed on a roll it often changes the gamestate but when you fail on a roll it often does not.  For example: you are trying to persuade the guard at the masquerade ball to let you in, you fail your roll, he refuses to let you in.  If this same thing happened in Blades in the Dark, there would be some sort of consequence (and there are guidelines for how to make up a consequence).
> 
> This can work for successful rolls also.  I suspect that a lot of players interpret the die roll to indicate _quality_ of success and failure in a narrative way, but there is no rule that makes this so. For example, when people roll very low, they might narrate what they do as humorous incompetence ("2 for perception. My druid is too busy looking at the flowers! ::laughter:.  Similarly, when people roll high the dm might view that as a quality of success ("ok those of you who got a 15 or higher notice the goblins, but Cleric, with your 23, you notice that some of them appear to be riding wolves").
> 
> This sort of thing means that something always happens and keeps the narrative progression of the game moving forward.



This is the only “story” mechanics I’d enjoy in a 5e style game, and I’d like them best as a success ladder with mixed results in the middle.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> ...are we not already having final battles on dragon back over waterfalls wherein the PCs can realize the redemption they sought all along was never needed because the burden of their past was never something they should have carried and now they can truly be heroes, not just debtors paying their due?





Incenjucar said:


> The DM, because that is fairly baked into the role.



And this is another reason why, as both player and DM, I find D&D's lack of good rules for story development and complete lack of rules for character development far more intrusive than something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark in which such things arise much more organically rather than requiring scripted climactic battles.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> In a lot of D&D play, including (as best I can tell) a lot of 5e D&D play, it is the GM who makes key decisions about what the protagonists want, and what the significance of any situation, or any action declaration, is.



I have never seen a GM make any key decisions about what the protagonist wants, in any version D&D . 

Is this perhaps misstated, or are our experiences really so divergent that you’ve had DMs telling players what thier PC wants?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this is another reason why, as both player and DM, I find D&D's lack of good rules for story development and complete lack of rules for character development far more intrusive than something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark in which such things arise much more organically rather than requiring scripted climactic battles.



I'm rather confused, as this sounds like you want a completely different game.

Do you want a game story system where there's no DM designing the opposition or choosing when they oppose the players?

I run my games with stuff happening on its own and let players choose whether or not they engage with it, but I still design that stuff and determine when it's been shut down by the players when they choose to engage with it.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 18, 2022)

Thousand Suns used the concept of 'Narrative Authority".  Each character had a few traits, which were sort of quotations, picked entirely freeform, which encapsulated the character.  I think the player could swap them out between adventures for a new one linked to things that happened in the last adventure.  Then, once per adventure, the player could invoke narrative authority to dictate the outcome of some event related to their trait.  So Captain Kirk might have: "You're too much woman, too beautiful to ignore," and might invoke that when trying to woo a female npc to decide how she reacts and what he gets out of the encounter rather than rolling the dice and the DM deciding.  It might require horse trading but a lot of players are happy to compromise with the DM if the result is fun.  In D&D I suppose you could include it as one of the options when spending inspiration.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Dec 18, 2022)

I am not sure what what D&D One can do to truly monetize story based mechanics.  Maybe they could?  But people that are going to cough up the most coin for skins and items and etc. I suspect still want a game of numbers and competition.

I suspect One and its VTT will focus more on this than pushing storytelling per se.

I don’t have a dog in the fight necessarily—-my group is unlikely to go virtual except when someone is sick (last night we had cameras and iPads with video for that purpose).  

I am very invested in terrain—-I have perhaps 150 trees, 24 square feet of foam dungeon with doors and furniture and…stuff.  

There are a few of us dinosaurs that are still way into distances and tactics for whom 4e did not stick.

My belief is that D&D is and will remain a cousin of wargames.  I suppose when the giant skeletons swarmed us last night we could have used a storytelling element to find a way to excuse ourselves from what the board showed, but why have the table set up at all?

My bias is showing.  

I suppose really dialing down on discussion of bonuses and  ranges and damage would be a start.  Story telling seems to obviate a lot of extant mechanics.

We are into emergent play coming from dice rolls and choices bound by mechanics of war and exploration I just cannot see what would be left of the current game if they really dove into story telling games.

I don’t wish away other people’s fun.  Do what you like—-but is D&D the game for that?  And why would WOTC want to go in that direction?

I think where money is involved we will see the opposite and at most maybe a section about other styles of play talking about a few ways to think less about mechanics and less about crunch.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I'm rather confused, as this sounds like you want a completely different game.
> 
> Do you want a game story system where there's no DM designing the opposition or choosing when they oppose the players?
> 
> I run my games with stuff happening on its own and let players choose whether or not they engage with it, but I still design that stuff and determine when it's been shut down by the players when they choose to engage with it.



No. I want a design that gives me the tools to lean into the characters' arcs in ways I decide. And where a confrontation can lead off in any number of directions rather than will almost invariably end with a few hp lost and a few spell slots expended.

But it's the mechanical respresentations of character growth (as opposed to power growth) I'm arguing here is the missing part. One D&D will be better than 5e because the feats are much better done but this is baby steps.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> No. I want a design that gives me the tools to lean into the characters' arcs in ways I decide. And where a confrontation can lead off in any number of directions rather than will almost invariably end with a few hp lost and a few spell slots expended.
> 
> But it's the mechanical respresentations of character growth (as opposed to power growth) I'm arguing here is the missing part. One D&D will be better than 5e because the feats are much better done but this is baby steps.



In what way can you not do that already?

Edit: Do you want emotional growth feats...?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> In what way can you not do that already?
> 
> Edit: Do you want emotional growth feats...?



Aaarrggghhhhh!!!!!!! I have been writing again and again parts of this on this thread, sometimes in direct reply to you.

From here
_The best class in 5e for character development is the Warlock because you get to choose how you level up, by picking invocations. Two warlocks are not the same as each other (and it would be better if you replaced roughly half the invocations with good ones). Second best is either the sorcerer (your spells are determined with each level) or the artificer (what did you spend your time learning how to create)? Most of the classes with spells have either the same spell list or at worse can switch books._​
I want other classes to be able to do this; once you have selected a subclass to not spend the rest of your time just levelling up as a cookie cutter member of that subclass unless you abandon your class entirely to multiclass. And OneD&D feats are better - partly because the feats aren't so in competition with ASIs and partly because they are much better balanced meaning there are more good choices.

From here
_The fact that levelling is passive only makes it push the story more because the players and characters have less control over it and it forces them more down a predetermined path. And you have to write your settings such that levelling with the inherent vast disparity in power is a part of them._​​_Now, I'll give you a mechanic that to me is one that encourages story from Apocalypse World (from memory)_​​_When _life becomes untenable_ choose 1 [exclusive so each can only be picked once]:_

_Die, permanently_
_Come back with -1 Hard_
_Come back with +1 Weird_
_Come back with a different playbook [class]_
_(The Apocalypse World stats are Hard, Hot, Sharp, Cool, and Weird and a +1 modifier is significant)._​
Do I think that this sort of mechanic would work in D&D where coming back after death was fairly cheap but had limited uses and a player chosen long term consequence (for example replacing your subclass with one from the god or patron that brought you back?) I certainly think I'd like to see something inspired by this mechanic rather than no consequences at all other than diamond and spell slot cost.

From here
_5e has a tool for storytelling that I don't think is pushed enough although I've used to good effect (having stolen the idea from Apocalypse World) - the subclass change. The Paladin of Valour who loses the faith can become a Paladin of Redemption, of Glory, of Conquest, or even an Oathbreaker - or a Warlock can change patrons. This is a very powerful tool and should be used sparingly (I've even turned a battlemaster into an echo night for reasons) _​​_This also ties into my pet hate about 5e's storytelling - character growth is on rails. Once you have your subclass at level 3 you've very few important choices left to make; you're almost certainly taking an ASI in your primary stat at 4 or 8 and most of the +1 feats just aren't that good. Who most characters are mechanically at level 11 is almost entirely predetermined from who they were at level 3 unless they multiclass. (This is a key reason I like the OneD&D feat changes)._​​_The other biiiig thing is a lack of consequences for combat. No Rust Monsters. No wounds. No scars. Either you die or you're fine. _​​_I'd also give a lot of monsters a "short rest action" in their statblocks - so if the PCs stop they can recover their wound and are now fighting slightly empowered versions of their foes. And more weight on what you can do with loot._​
Again I think I've been pretty clear in what I want and how it can tie into 5e's existing mechanics. And you'll note that most of what I want isn't additional character power like feats. It's allowing characters to change to better reflect who they are and what has happened to them. "Emotional growth feats" are the most ham-fisted way I can imagine to do this.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> The DM, because that is fairly baked into the role.



Only for one narrow definition of how to GM... MANY possibilities exist. Some games can accommodate more than one approach (I'm thinking of 4e D&D, which admits of either a classic neotrad GM or a story game scene-framing GM).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Aaarrggghhhhh!!!!!!! I have been writing again and again parts of this on this thread, sometimes in direct reply to you.
> 
> From here
> _The best class in 5e for character development is the Warlock because you get to choose how you level up, by picking invocations. Two warlocks are not the same as each other (and it would be better if you replaced roughly half the invocations with good ones). Second best is either the sorcerer (your spells are determined with each level) or the artificer (what did you spend your time learning how to create)? Most of the classes with spells have either the same spell list or at worse can switch books._​
> ...



Yeah, as an example of this sort of design, in my own game you play, and during play you may run into situations (will, if you play correctly) where the PCs 'get stuff', which I call 'boons'. Any time a PC gains a major boon, which would be, say, a magic sword, they also gain a level. There are callings (classes) but they don't, mostly, force you to get only certain boons, story logic handles that. A lot of it is likely to be player preference too in actual play (IE whomever wants a magic sword as part of their character concept picks it up). Players are also expected to author quests for their PCs, which are a primary source of the narrative drive, and generally imply some sort of boon (IE find the Altar of Sunlight, you can bet what you will get when you pray there, right). 

I think it sounds like One D&D is trying to move at least somewhat in the same direction. To Be Honest, this is basically going back to roughly where 4e was almost 15 years ago, where you pick powers, feats, and then PP and ED, as well as items, which constantly reflect the incremental development of your PC in whatever direction, and then also provide a lot of story leverage. Heroes of Myth & Legend just kind of amped that up, so I expect One D&D won't quite hit the same focus there as HoML does. But then I'm a fan of pushing things in RPG design, and paring away the non-essential.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Aaarrggghhhhh!!!!!!! I have been writing again and again parts of this on this thread, sometimes in direct reply to you.
> 
> From here
> _The best class in 5e for character development is the Warlock because you get to choose how you level up, by picking invocations. Two warlocks are not the same as each other (and it would be better if you replaced roughly half the invocations with good ones). Second best is either the sorcerer (your spells are determined with each level) or the artificer (what did you spend your time learning how to create)? Most of the classes with spells have either the same spell list or at worse can switch books._​
> ...




Your response seems to be that yes, you want character growth feats of a sort, rather than just character growth reflected in the story itself. This sounds extremely tedious outside of very big moments, like getting your eye ripped out by a mid-boss and now you have a magic eye from Mechanus installed - something you can already narrate in very easily. My 4E campaign had characters incorporating adopted NPCs into their attacks, for example. One plant-themed druid PC also merged with the pirate ship after sacrificing themselves to save the captain.

These don't need mechanics to add to the numbers you have to track.

Edit: You CAN if you want to, of course. But it seems redundant.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Your response seems to be that yes, you want character growth feats of a sort, rather than just character growth reflected in the story itself. This sounds extremely tedious outside of very big moments, like getting your eye ripped out by a mid-boss and now you have a magic eye from Mechanus installed - something you can already narrate in very easily. My 4E campaign had characters incorporating adopted NPCs into their attacks, for example. One plant-themed druid PC also merged with the pirate ship after sacrificing themselves to save the captain.
> 
> These don't need mechanics to add to the numbers you have to track



I'm not sure whether you didn't actually read what I wrote or whether you are trying to create meanings for words.

So I'm going to ask two questions 

What do you mean by "character growth feats"?
What do you mean by "emotional growth feats"?
And I'm going to point out that a big part of the reason I want things done the way I do is so that the mechanical reflection of character growth (and thus who the characters are) the way I want is largely under the control of the player rather than doled out by the DM. And a second reason is that *nothing I am aware I have suggested adds numbers to track.* What I've suggested is _replacing_ numbers. So there isn't any actual tracking to be done.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 18, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Only for one narrow definition of how to GM... MANY possibilities exist. Some games can accommodate more than one approach (I'm thinking of 4e D&D, which admits of either a classic *neotrad* GM or a story game scene-framing GM).



That doesn't mean that it's going to generate a healthy impact on the gameplay when the player responsible for shouldering the lion's weight of the game is not able to decide or robbed of the ability to decide something as fundamental as where their prep for an adventure comes to an end or what level of resource burn+recovery is suitable for the encounters they have setup in those plans. 

OC/Neo-Trad can be perfectly healthy flavor in an organized play scenario where the player agency is basically zero or a playbypost where the GM can come back in hours/days with a carefully written fully investigated response to abuses.  Things start changing when it gets forced  into a traditional style ruleset & game where the goal of those around the table is fun of those playing & running the game rather than creating a for profit product intended to entertain the viewers.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm not sure whether you didn't actually read what I wrote or whether you are trying to create meanings for words.
> 
> So I'm going to ask two questions
> 
> ...




I acknowledge that classes could be more interesting and less... wizards, so we can move on from that point.
The core of the gap is here is that you seem to think you can't do things which other DMs are already doing without waiting for permission from the books. I don't know if 5E has text somewhere telling DMs that they can't assign little quirks in the system but I doubt it.

You stated: "But it's the *mechanical respresentations of character growth* (as opposed to power growth) I'm arguing here is the missing part."
Character/Emotional growth feats are a term I threw out because of your reference to mechanics that grow characters without growing power. Call them boons or traits or consequences or weebles or whatever, it comes down to a rule added somewhere that does a thing. May as well call them feats because they serve the same function of being a list item with character changes.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I acknowledge that classes could be more interesting and less... wizards, so we can move on from that point.
> The core of the gap is here is that you seem to think you can't do things which other DMs are already doing without waiting for permission from the books. I don't know if 5E has text somewhere telling DMs that they can't assign little quirks in the system but I doubt it.



No. The core of the gap is here that you think that the DM should be the one controling the growth of the players' characters. I think that the PCs belong to the players not the DM and that the players shouldn't be having to play "Mother, May I" when their characters learn things.


Incenjucar said:


> You stated: "But it's the *mechanical respresentations of character growth* (as opposed to power growth) I'm arguing here is the missing part."
> Character/Emotional growth feats are a term I threw out because of your reference to mechanics that grow characters without growing power. Call them boons or traits or consequences or weebles or whatever, it comes down to a rule added somewhere that does a thing. May as well call them feats because they serve the same function of being a list item with character changes.



So ... allowing the players to change subclasses is adding an entire feat-like system. Riiight.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> No. The core of the gap is here that you think that the DM should be the one controling the growth of the players' characters. I think that the PCs belong to the players not the DM and that the players shouldn't be having to play "Mother, May I" when their characters learn things.
> 
> So ... allowing the players to change subclasses is adding an entire feat-like system. Riiight.




So you just mean "let players change subclasses"?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> So you just mean "let players change subclasses"?



I mean a range of things - of which that is one. Another one is making character levelling more flexible the way it is for warlocks. A third is more consequences. As I say I've suggested a range of things


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I mean a range of things - of which that is one. Another one is making character levelling more flexible the way it is for warlocks. A third is more consequences. As I say I've suggested a range of things



Respeccing has a lot of consequences for narrative that could backfire there. Other than that I think I get you now. The consequences stuff still sounds horribly tedious if applied beyond what can already be done. Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I have never seen a GM make any key decisions about what the protagonist wants, in any version D&D .
> 
> Is this perhaps misstated, or are our experiences really so divergent that you’ve had DMs telling players what thier PC wants?



I've seen a lot of published D&D scenarios which only work on the premise that the players will have their PCs be motivated do some particular thing - chase the villains, rescue the victim, explore the house/cave/dungeon/etc.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I've seen a lot of published D&D scenarios which only work on the premise that the players will have their PCs be motivated do some particular thing - chase the villains, rescue the victim, explore the house/cave/dungeon/etc.



<insert rant about the quality of published adventures and the bad habits they give new DMs>

A DM should really be tailoring any given adventure to their group or starting with the premise "hey we're going to be running scenarios with X motivation, so please make characters who can be compelled by that motivation".


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> A DM should really be tailoring any given adventure to their group or starting with the premise "hey we're going to be running scenarios with X motivation, so please make characters who can be compelled by that motivation".



The premise you describe would be an example of what I mentioned upthread: _the GM making key decisions about what the protagonists want_.

The only version of D&D I'm familiar with that embraces the first approach is 4e D&D, with its emphasis on player-authored quests.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I've seen a lot of published D&D scenarios which only work on the premise that the players will have their PCs be motivated do some particular thing - chase the villains, rescue the victim, explore the house/cave/dungeon/etc.



There are whole story games that assume the PCs are heroic, or villainous, or afraid of dying, or whatever else. 

That isn’t the GM telling the players what the PCs want. 

At worst, it’s mismatched expectations for what game is being played.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The premise you describe would be an example of what I mentioned upthread: _the GM making key decisions about what the protagonists want_.
> 
> The only version of D&D I'm familiar with that embraces the first approach is 4e D&D, with its emphasis on player-authored quests.



D&D is a multiplayer cooperative game. It requires that everyone in the game be at least sufficiently cooperative enough to accomplish some task. A MUD or an MMO is better for when you want to do your own things and not accomplish much and roleplay without regard for anyone else.
If a DM is running a pre-fab adventure, the characters being run need to be the kinds of characters who would get involved in that adventure. I personally do not like pre-fab adventures, but some people do, and "will actually play the adventure" is needed to justify those expensive hardbacks. If you're running Tomb of Horrors, and half the players would rather run a tailoring business in Waterdeep and the other half want to become dragon riders in Tassledale, then you are not actually running Tomb of Horrors.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Dec 18, 2022)

I may be biased due to primarily playing with long term friends.  But we have usually asked: good or evil?  The assumption is that neutral folks will be mixed in both.

This is shorthand for “will try to be heroes” or are totally mercenary and “may not be enticed to so hero stuff.” 

The DM then goes with it.  It’s been easy.  In either case we work together for shared goals.  Chaotic evil died with our youth. 

We have assumed that heroes can often be enticed to help people.  As evil murder hobos and conquerors, the dm knows we have to have some real self interest in it.

I cannot play with people who try to do anything but what the DM lays out.  Did that in high school a little and the person who could not go with the flow was one who had trouble just getting along with people.  He’s not in the group anymore.

Then we do what we want in those confines without fear of too too much railroad.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2022)

I just thought I'd add a further note on "Emotional Growth Feats" and why the very idea of them appears to be looking in the wrong place to @Incenjucar 

A war priest who decides that they've seen enough of creating devasatation and who decides to focus hard on the healing arts, becoming a life domain cleric has undergone character growth
A life domain priest who loses too many of their patients to raiders and takes up the warhammer to protect their patients, going after the cause of the injuries, and becomes a war domain cleric has undergone character growth.
The fact that they've grown in opposite directions doesn't make either _not_ growth. And the fact they've both had character growth doesn't make either more powerful. Which means when you're talking about feats, i.e. something you add on to the character you're being massively restricted. (Which doesn't mean a feat like Sentinel or Resilient can't be the result of character growth - but let's not have feats like "Has had an emotional reaction" or "Recovering from betrayal")


----------



## SteveC (Dec 18, 2022)

There are a lot of people talking past each other in this thread due to a lack of experience with what "pushing a game towards story means." Most of that seems to come from a lack of experience with the kind of games that do this sort of thing, which leads to a question of "why would you even want to do this sort of thing?"

If you are looking to understand what's meant here, here are some games to check out:

13th Age. I recommend this one first, since it has a lot of D20 elements, and is also available through an SRD, so you can check it out for free.
Blades in the Dark: a game centered on heists. If you think the "Dragonheist" adventure left something to be desired, well, this is a system to check out, since it's designed to do that sort of thing.
Dungeon World: this is a PbtA game that's designed using D&D stats and terms. It has classes and levels and is really approachable, if you want to learn about story mechanics and keep familiar terms front and center.
Swords of the Serpentine: this is a fantasy game based on GUMSHOE, a system about solving crimes and mysteries. Again, if you want to look at a system with mechanical support for that sort of thing, look here.
It's pretty clear that WotC is moving more in the "story" direction in the attempt to broaden the appeal of D&D and bring in players who aren't interested in the dungeon crawling aspects. There are a ton of people out there who might not be interested in going into a dungeon to get gold, but might find solving a mystery in a world of magic and dragons really interesting.

I think the idea of what can be done to make the D&D rules more focused in this direction comes from the fact that the system assumes you will interact with the skill or exploration system in a journey to get to the combat part of the game, and that combat and fighting things can solve big problems.

If you expect players to solve problems using their wits and skills without combat, D&D is (and this is my opinion only) a less than inspiring game, since that's not its focus. That's the point that at least I'm trying to get to: what makes for telling better story that doesn't lean on the combat part of the game.

So I'd suggest looking at something like 13th Age at least to see what these systems are trying to do. Maybe that will help, maybe you'll recoil in horror, but it's a direction that the designers really seem to be looking in.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 18, 2022)

SteveC said:


> There are a lot of people talking past each other in this thread due to a lack of experience with what "pushing a game towards story means." Most of that seems to come from a lack of experience with the kind of games that do this sort of thing, which leads to a question of "why would you even want to do this sort of thing?"
> 
> If you are looking to understand what's meant here, here are some games to check out:
> 
> ...



Actually with some of the changes like specified action types, the announcement of their VTT, & the whatever it's called MIC looking analog due out late next year I wouldn't be surprised if oned&d takes steps to give the GM back some influence & things move more towards 6e not trying to actively kneecap dungeon crawling as a playstyle.  

A VTT makes it easy to load up stored maps when you need a generic cavern/cave/sewer/etc but not so much when bob is trying to run from the adventure & you need to keep inventing new locations that get more & more specific


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 19, 2022)

I expect that a lot of the disconnect comes from different experiences and perspectives between "My campaign needs more X and I want tools to improve it" and "My campaign is overflowing with X and tools will get in the way of that".

Edit: It may be worth noting that I already let players futz around with their builds. I only care that they're not trying to use a game breaking combo that they found online. Beyond that, it's their character.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 19, 2022)

I find it weird that a number of folks in this thread are arguing one way or another about "pushing a game toward story" without actually bothering to define waht that means.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I find it weird that a number of folks in this thread are arguing one way or another about "pushing a game toward story" without actually bothering to define waht that means.



It is weird when you think about but pretty normal for online discourse.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 19, 2022)

SteveC said:


> It's pretty clear that WotC is moving more in the "story" direction in the attempt to broaden the appeal of D&D and bring in players who aren't interested in the dungeon crawling aspects. There are a ton of people out there who might not be interested in going into a dungeon to get gold, but might find solving a mystery in a world of magic and dragons really interesting.
> 
> I think the idea of what can be done to make the D&D rules more focused in this direction comes from the fact that the system assumes you will interact with the skill or exploration system in a journey to get to the combat part of the game, and that combat and fighting things can solve big problems.
> 
> If you expect players to solve problems using their wits and skills without combat, D&D is (and this is my opinion only) a less than inspiring game, since that's not its focus. That's the point that at least I'm trying to get to: what makes for telling better story that doesn't lean on the combat part of the game.



Traditionally, in D&D the non-combat stuff that you decide has traditionally been heavily reliant on GM adjudication. Sometimes PC skills or abilities almost serve - functionally if not quite literally - as descriptors that the GM uses to interpret their impact on the fiction (perhaps guided by a die roll or two).

Moving towards mechanisation of this sort of thing would be a bit of a change. 4e had that, in the form of skill challenges, but the success was not unalloyed.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 19, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> D&D is a multiplayer cooperative game. It requires that everyone in the game be at least sufficiently cooperative enough to accomplish some task. A MUD or an MMO is better for when you want to do your own things and not accomplish much and roleplay without regard for anyone else.
> If a DM is running a pre-fab adventure, the characters being run need to be the kinds of characters who would get involved in that adventure. I personally do not like pre-fab adventures, but some people do, and "will actually play the adventure" is needed to justify those expensive hardbacks. If you're running Tomb of Horrors, and half the players would rather run a tailoring business in Waterdeep and the other half want to become dragon riders in Tassledale, then you are not actually running Tomb of Horrors.



Sure. This doesn't contradict what I posted.


----------



## Aldarc (Dec 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I find it weird that a number of folks in this thread are arguing one way or another about "pushing a game toward story" without actually bothering to define waht that means.



I asked precisely for this reason, but no examples or definitions were provided.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I asked precisely for this reason, but no examples or definitions were provided.



This is a similar problem as the one trying to classify playstyles. There are words out there but little agreement as to what they mean.

So, how about throwing out some concepts there and see if any stick.

Trad-Story. Here the game is played in a traditional D&D way but there is an expectation that the characters are protagonists. This is characterised by a reasonable chance to survive a fight/encounter. The campaign ends if a TPK occurs or they defeat the final boss.
The story is the interaction between the party and various NPCs and resolves as a series of arc where the party unravels the plots of antagonist NPCs that have come to their attention.

It is reinforced by game elements that increase character competence. Like powers, skills, more hit points and so forth, a good skill challenge mechanic.

It could be further enhanced by things like Fate Points: - to be cashed in, in the event of a TPK. that is, convert it to a capture or waking up in the battle site sans equipment or what ever.
Or by a re-roll currency like Inspiration.
Or by allowing the DM to make a hard move on the plot like capturing the party in an encounter where they were overmatched with out playing out the encounter. This would then yield the party plot coupons that could be cashed in to set up their escape.
An example would be the rogue cashed in her coupon to declare that she has lock picks hidden in the braids of her hair with out any pre-establishing fiction.

A more narrative/drama focused game could have mechanics relating to back story or other elements but I am not familiar with such games to suggest any category names or the mechanics to support them.

What I do not want in response to this post are blank statement that one does not like this but is the category name useful, do the suggested mechanics fit into this or should they belong to another category or another (an suggest a name for this).
Ideally these suggestion should promote story (for some value of story) and I leave it to those familiar with modern narrative type games to offer their suggestions and classifiers.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 19, 2022)

I would argue that some of the features that take the NPC narrative away from the DM end up being anti-story. Behavior is no longer tied to motivation or cause and effect, and you've reduced the complexities of decision-making to a meta-game mechanic that can completely go against immersion.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 19, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I would argue that some of the features that take the NPC narrative away from the DM end up being anti-story. Behavior is no longer tied to motivation or cause and effect, and you've reduced the complexities of decision-making to a meta-game mechanic that can completely go against immersion.



Ok, which ones, what rules systems and how have you seen them used?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 19, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Ok, which ones, what rules systems and how have you seen them used?



You described one: "It could be further enhanced by things like Fate Points: - to be cashed in, in the event of a TPK. that is, convert it to a capture or waking up in the battle site sans equipment or what ever."


----------



## SteveC (Dec 19, 2022)

I think that you haven't seen a solid definition of the "story emphasis" that people want or see WotC embracing, because it means different things to different people and there really is no one definition. I know I've been talking about this issue since the 90s on Usenet where I first heard it seriously discussed and that's been a long time.

*For me*, I'd start with wanting the skill/exploration/social systems in D&D to have the same emphasis as the combat portions. I think about a lot of the scenarios in the Radiant Citadel and think that they would run much better in another game system. 

Added on to that, I would love to see an element of Narrativism (and that's a huge can of worms in itself) where there is more attention to the story itself, with more player input, so Aspects, improvisational elements, fail forward and something to keep the session from being derailed by failed skill checks.

Now I know for 100% certainty that all that is not something a lot of people want in their game, and I also don't expect WotC to go very far with it for precisely the point that it's too different from traditional D&D. I also know that doing something along these lines would really broaden the appeal of the game to the sorts of people they seem to be appealing to.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 19, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> A more narrative/drama focused game could have mechanics relating to back story or other elements but I am not familiar with such games to suggest any category names or the mechanics to support them.



Probably the single best-known "narrative" game is Apocalypse World. It's the game that inspired PbtA.

AW does not have particularly fancy mechanics. It doesn't have fate points. It doesn't use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (that's from a different Vincent Baker game, DitV). It has a very small number of PC build options which allows players to establish fiction which goes beyond the in-fiction causal consequences of things their PCs do.

There are two main features of AW that mean that, in play, it yields story.

The most important is the GM moves. When it's the GM's turn to speak in the conversation of the game, the GM make a move. And most of the time this is a soft move. GM soft moves include (inter alia) "announcing future badness" - in ENworld parlance this is a form of what is often called "telegraphing" - or "announcing offscreen badness" or "offering an opportunity, with or without a cost". In some circumstances the GM can make a hard move - this can include (inter alia) "inflicting harm" (ie dealing damage) or "separating them" or "turning their move back on them" (eg the PC as played by the player tried to discern a weakness, but instead reveals a weakness of their own). The list of GM moves does not include _nothing happens_.

Nearly as important are the player moves. These are little resolution subsystems that are triggered, in the course of play, by the player declaring a certain sort of action for their PC (eg trying to intimidate someone ("go aggro") or trying to exert leverage over someone ("seduce/manipulate")). If a move fails, the GM is licensed to make a hard move. The other time a hard move is OK is when a player hands an opportunity to the GM on a platter (eg the GM makes a soft move, the player proceeds in disregard of it, now the GM can make a hard move).

If a player declares an action for their PC that does not trigger a move, then no dice are rolled, the conversation of the game continues, and the GM makes an appropriate move - probably a soft move, unless the player's declared action provides an opportunity on a platter.

This is fairly different from a lot of D&D play. Not because of anything about the mechanics. But because of the rules about what the GM is to say.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Probably the single best-known "narrative" game is Apocalypse World. It's the game that inspired PbtA.
> 
> AW does not have particularly fancy mechanics. It doesn't have fate points. It doesn't use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (that's from a different Vincent Baker game, DitV). It has a very small number of PC build options which allows players to establish fiction which goes beyond the in-fiction causal consequences of things their PCs do.
> 
> ...



This is interesting but it strikes me as culturally fairly far removed from the common culture of D&D play. I wonder are there games have have elements that encourage narrative that are closer to the cultural norms of D&D that could be added as an optional extra for those tables that are interested and willing to buy in.
It seems to me that "pushing the game toward story" as the thread title suggest involves a change in the culture of the game. An barring a CR like popularity for Apocalypse World this can only be accomplished by iterative nudging of the base D&D experience by the addition of tools or other support (Let's play videos) or something that opens up the experience.


----------



## ART! (Dec 19, 2022)

Adding mechanical ways to include Background characteristics and features into play might help. Like Inspiration, the fact that you can theoretically use your background to give you advantage on a roll is something that only some players or tables will even think of.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think for a lot of people, these discussions are akin to painting that army you bought. That is,they actually represent the bulk of the time we actually engage in the hobby. On the upside, unlike painting, it's social.



Painting is stress relieving. Pointless argument on the internet is stress inducing.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Painting is stress relieving. Pointless argument on the internet is stress inducing.



Heh!, arguing on the internet is a voluntary activity (unless you are being paid to do it) and if it is stress inducing one really should stop.
Getting mad at people on the internet it like getting mad at the wind. You can be as mad as you like but the wind still blows.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> This is interesting but it strikes me as culturally fairly far removed from the common culture of D&D play.



Agreed.

For instance, "nothing happens" is clearly a legitimate GM-side move in a lot of D&D play.

And also, in a lot of D&D play the GM is allowed to make a hard move whether or not the player hands an opportunity on a platter, in the AW sense of that phrase. This is related to the role of "secret" or "unrevealed" backstory in D&D play, which GMs routinely rely on to help make their moves, but which doesn't play the same role in AW play (eg it doesn't count as an opportunity on a platter that an action a player declares interacts in some way, unknown to the player, with some bit of GM unrevealed backstory or setting notes).

I'm sure there are other differences two, but the two I've mentioned are the first that I think of.

As you may know, there are pockets of approaches to 4e D&D which come closer to the AW approach. I don't know that they were ever "mainstream" even for 4e D&D, and I believe are even less mainstream in the post-4e era.



UngainlyTitan said:


> I wonder are there games have have elements that encourage narrative that are closer to the cultural norms of D&D that could be added as an optional extra for those tables that are interested and willing to buy in.



Burning Wheel is a bit closer to D&D than AW; and Torchbearer closer still. I still think that adapting some of the approaches found in these games would require cultural change, particularly around _what the GM is permitted to say_. For instance, both use a form of "say 'yes' or roll the dice"; whereas a common D&D norm is to sometimes say "no" (which in AW parlance often means making a hard move) in response to a player action declaration, even if the player has not rolled and failed a check.



UngainlyTitan said:


> It seems to me that "pushing the game toward story" as the thread title suggest involves a change in the culture of the game.



Agreed.

I think there is a bit of a tendency to place too much emphasis on a few mechanics - eg Fate points, BIFTs, etc - rather than to focus on these core questions that govern who gets to say what when, with a particular focus on the GM. But it is different approaches to these core questions, rather than nifty mechanics, that tend to be the driving machinery of RPGs (like AW) that are widely seen as "story oriented".

I am able to run "story oriented" Classic Traveller making almost no changes to the mechanics that were published in 1977 (the only significant change I have made is to generate the star map on more of a just-in-time basis, rather than in advance of play as the rulebook instructs me to). But I have adopted a version of the AW approach to who gets to say what when, taking advantage of the fact that, just like AW, Classic Traveller bundles much of its action resolution into discrete, and trope-y/thematically salient moves (like "When you attempt an interstellar jump . . ." or "When you try a non-ordinary manoeuvre wearing a vacc suit . . ." or "When you deal with police or other government officials . . .").

Without wanting to rehash a different thread's debate in this one, I think "pushing the game toward story" would have to begin with a discussion of the different sorts of approaches to GMing. (And I should add: of course there is an approach to story in RPGing that is very different from the AW approach I've posted about in this thread - that is, the DL-approach which relies heavily on the GM suspending the rules, and managing the backstory, so as to make sure a story happens somewhat independently of the actual minutiae of play.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> snip
> 
> Without wanting to rehash a different thread's debate in this one, I think "pushing the game toward story" would have to begin with a discussion of the different sorts of approaches to GMing. (And I should add: of course there is an approach to story in RPGing that is very different from the AW approach I've posted about in this thread - that is, the* DL*-approach which relies heavily on the GM suspending the rules, and managing the backstory, so as to make sure a story happens somewhat independently of the actual minutiae of play.)



What is DL?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> What is DL?



Dragonlance.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Dragonlance.



Are you referring to the original Dragonlance Modules here? I never played them or ran them. I believe that they were very much on rails and even needed DM force and the use of illusionism to make work as intended.


----------



## darkbard (Dec 20, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Are you referring to the original Dragonlance Modules here? I never played them or ran them. I believe that they were very much on rails and even needed DM force and the use of illusionism to make work as intended.



You are correct in your understanding, and this is part of what @pemerton is getting at when he talks about who is permitted/constrained to say what at various instances of play.


----------



## ART! (Dec 20, 2022)

For my money, I think the way to do this (push the game more toward story) is to work within the structure 5E already has. I don't see WOTC adding any big story-centered mechanics to the game any time soon, so I've been trying to figure out how to use stuff that's already in the game to achieve this. I'd love to hear what others have come up with along those lines.

I flirted with assigning die types to each Background characteristic. Flaw gets a d4, and then the player can distribute d6s and one d8 among Ideal, Bond, and Personality. If players want more than one Bond (for instance), I'd probably allow another d6 there. Mechanically, it's very much like the Proficiency Die variant rule in the game, but the player could add that die to a relevant roll once per game session, or in-game day.

The problem was getting the players and even myself to even start doing this. Now, instead, I'm just going to remind people to use their Background stuff to give them advantage on appropriate rolls.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Are you referring to the original Dragonlance Modules here? I never played them or ran them. I believe that they were very much on rails and even needed DM force and the use of illusionism to make work as intended.



That use of GM force/illusionism is what I was getting at when I referred to "the GM suspending the rules, and managing the backstory, so as to make sure a story happens somewhat independently of the actual minutiae of play."

That is a way of getting story in RPGing which is quite different from AW and other "indie"-/"story"-games.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 21, 2022)

I've mentioned this elsewhere requiring the earning of Inspiration for levelling up is one way of pushing the game towards story. At this point the player is required (dare I say forced) to engage with their Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Goals (BIFG) to progress. That feels like the foremost change we should making with the mechanics at hand.

The only disagreement people may have would who adjudicates whether one has successfully leaned into their BIFG sufficiently to earn their Inspiration (the DM, the player, the table). At our table it was the DM (me) - we had an instance where the player disagreed with me, and then I let the table decide, which backed my decision. The player in question is very much more tactically/mechanically minded. I did not yield, because I did not want to cheapen the efforts made by the other players - otherwise I may as well as have removed the requirement altogether.

Besides Inspiration, other mechanical benefits could also be earned Piety, Faith, Honour...etc
The trick is to tie it to levelling up otherwise the BIFG mechanic is ignored, especially by players who are not naturally engaging with the game's narrative aspect.


----------



## ART! (Dec 21, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I've mentioned this elsewhere requiring the earning of Inspiration for levelling up is one way of pushing the game towards story. At this point the player is required (dare I say forced) to engage with their Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Goals (BIFG) to progress. That feels like the foremost change we should making with the mechanics at hand.
> 
> The only disagreement people may have would who adjudicates whether one has successfully leaned into their BIFG sufficiently to earn their Inspiration (the DM, the player, the table). At our table it was the DM (me) - we had an instance where the player disagreed with me, and then I let the table decide, which backed my decision. The player in question is very much more tactically/mechanically minded. I did not yield, because I did not want to cheapen the efforts made by the other players - otherwise I may as well as have removed the requirement altogether.
> 
> ...



Interesting. How do you go about tracking this, or gauging when it's time to level up?

I'm running _Tomb of Annihilation_, and the PCs have recently, finally entered the titular tomb. I quickly realized that encounters were going to happen much more frequently there compared to the game thus far, so now I'm allowing long rests every 8-9 encounters instead once per day.

However, reading your comments makes me think I'm going about this the wrong way. I know long rests is different than leveling, but maybe I should be focusing on character arcs and story hurdles rather than encounters.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 21, 2022)

ART! said:


> Interesting. How do you go about tracking this, or gauging when it's time to level up?



Good question.
Some factors - our table moves at a slower pace than most, high level 13th, I do not keep track of XPs but rather Inspiration points used.
We have 3 level-up conditions at any time...
(a) Completion of 1/2 Level+1 (i.e. 7) Sessions and the use of Level+1 (i.e. 14) Inspiration points (milestone and XP variant) *OR*
(b) Obtaining a Conch of Teleportation (achieve a great feat in the storyline) *OR*
(c) Attending the 4th Council Meeting (timeline event)

As soon as they go up a level, the slate is wiped clean for (a), and (b) and (c) are updated.

The point for this entire exercise of mine was more to ensure
(1) The PCs integrate with the narrative aspect of the game
(2) I have a levelling-up system that is player-facing and that works with my campaign pacing.

So, to answer your question I analysed my campaign and used numbers that best suited it based on our play history & frequency as well as how the campaign story would progress and what I thought would be fair. I guess the earning of Inspiration points is tempered by the number of sessions needed (milestone equivalent).



ART! said:


> I'm running _Tomb of Annihilation_, and the PCs have recently, finally entered the titular tomb. I quickly realized that encounters were going to happen much more frequently there compared to the game thus far, so now I'm allowing long rests every 8-10 encounters instead once per day.
> 
> However, reading your comments makes me think I'm going about this the wrong way. I know long rests is different than leveling, but maybe I should be focusing on character arcs and story hurdles rather than encounters.




Yeah, I see your dilemma.
I haven't purchased _Tomb of Annihilation_ just yet so I cannot comment insightfully on progression within that storyline but I will say that I'd imagine my current campaign which is a ToD/SKT mashup allows for much more freedom for characters to play into the BIFG which doesn't help you.
However - you can use your pre-existing pacing metric of 8-10 encounters which is a milestone mechanic essentially and tack on x required Inspiration uses. Obviously not too many if it is difficult to leverage their BIFG within the Tomb.

I hope I've made some sense in all that rambling.


----------



## ART! (Dec 21, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Good question.
> Some factors - our table moves at a slower pace than most, high level 13th, I do not keep track of XPs but rather Inspiration points used.
> We have 3 level-up conditions at any time...
> (a) Completion of 1/2 Level+1 (i.e. 7) Sessions and the use of Level+1 (i.e. 14) Inspiration points (milestone and XP variant) *OR*
> ...



No, that all makes sense! Thanks!

I've been rewarding Inspiration for 1s rolled that go to whoever rolled the 1 (they're heroes (or the like), so they come back from failure), and 20s rolled that add an Inspiration to a pool that the players can draw from. I could keep track of that, but the 1s and 20s things is so mechanical and chance-based that it has nothing to do with character per se. So, I could require a Background-related rationale for drawing from the Inspiration from the pool, for instance. Hmm...


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I've mentioned this elsewhere requiring the earning of Inspiration for levelling up is one way of pushing the game towards story. At this point the player is required (dare I say forced) to engage with their Bonds, Ideals, Flaws and Goals (BIFG) to progress. That feels like the foremost change we should making with the mechanics at hand.





AnotherGuy said:


> I haven't purchased _Tomb of Annihilation_ just yet so I cannot comment insightfully on progression within that storyline but I will say that I'd imagine my current campaign which is a ToD/SKT mashup allows for much more freedom for characters to play into the BIFG which doesn't help you.



I think your second post brings out an important point - whether the approach you set out in your first post can fully gain purchase depends to some extent on elements of the fiction that are, traditionally, under GM control.

Marvel Heroic RP uses an XP system (which is not about levelling in the literal sense, but does allow the purchase of PC build power-ups) which is a bit similar to your Inspiration/BIFTs approach - each PC has (normally) two "Milestones" which are thematically-apt lists of trigger conditions for earning XP (eg Captain America gets XP for mentoring a hero, starting or dissolving a superhero team, etc). There are technical rules about how often each trigger actually earns XP (at will for the 1 XP trigger, 1x/scene for the 3 XP trigger, once for the 10 XP "capstone" trigger and then the Milestone is done and the PC needs a new one to reflect how they've changed).

In my experience, what this produces in play is a bit like a Marvel comic - the characters play out their concerns, sometimes rivalries, etc, against the background of the action (fighting Dr Doom or whatever). Because the system is relatively abstract and flexible in the way it handles action declarations and scene framing, it doesn't really get in the way of this.

I think there would be scope, in a hypothetical (or even actual) new DMG to give a GM advice on how D&D, which is a bit more "rigid" in its approach to scene framing and resolution, could be deployed so as to support your approach rather than cause the possible friction that might arise out of (say) a rather trad-ish dungeon like ToA.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 21, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think there would be scope, in a hypothetical (or even actual) new DMG to give a GM advice on how D&D, which is a bit more "rigid" in its approach to scene framing and resolution, could be deployed so as to support your approach rather than cause the possible friction that might arise out of (say) a rather trad-ish dungeon like ToA.



I agree. Given the characters at our table are level 13 and are of a certain age within the fiction - I have allowed them to select 10 (half their level +4 initial) Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, Personality Traits and Personal Goals for their characters. My intention is to offer more as rewards when the fiction calls for it.

Even though I am the final arbiter for success, I do not want to make it challenging for the players to earn Inspiration for their characters. The point was always to encourage leaning into story more and with this increased range of options it makes it easier for them to be creative/inspired. We are testing it out, it is still very early on. By the time we finish our campaign and ready to start another we will have a better idea where we could improve on the system.

Due to our pacing, the system appears to work for us, because within x sessions we would have dungeon-delved, travelled, long-rested, socialised and possibly down-timed...etc All of this is more than enough time for the players to lean into their character's story hooks.
Within the traditional dungeon - it really depends how much time (i.e. how many levels) the PCs are expected to adventure there.

Despite Undermountain being a traditional dungeon, I'd imagine its easier with this mechanic than a dungeon like ToA.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 23, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> This is a similar problem as the one trying to classify playstyles. There are words out there but little agreement as to what they mean.
> 
> So, how about throwing out some concepts there and see if any stick.
> 
> ...



OK, but let me observe: I would consider my own game to be pretty much intended to operate in the 'story game' space, the agenda is weaving a tale of heroes arising and becoming immortal legends/myths. All of the elements, I mean all as in virtually exactly as you describe them, are present, except you label this 'trad'.

So, I think you have perhaps missed something key here. IMHO that is where the driving impetus of story comes from. The story, as various story game exponents have long opined, is about the PCs and is thus primarily the domain of the players, not so much of the GM. So in HoML the action is determined by the players choosing quests (they can just pretty much make them up, though the need for fictional coherence will impose certain limits on theme and content). The GM frames scenes, and thus has some significant say in the specifics of challenges, but then the players decide what the intent of the component actions is, and have some tools like fate and practices, to shape how they deploy themselves and what the results will be. In other words, I think its more the things where the players say "and we're attempting to achieve X, followed by the GM's more reactive "and you will get that if you can pass an A check." 

I guess my point is, trad may also use some of the same stuff, potentially, but full bore story game has an additional toolkit and process of play architecture that makes it do what it does. And what it does is basically say "well, you wanted to do X, here you go! Oh, here's a twist!" I mean, HoML has a specific theme, like all of these kinds of game. Trad games, OSR games, etc. all IMHO have equally specific themes and genre conventions.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 24, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Heh!, arguing on the internet is a voluntary activity (unless you are being paid to do it) and if it is stress inducing one really should stop.
> Getting mad at people on the internet it like getting mad at the wind. You can be as mad as you like but the wind *Internet* still blows.



FTFU


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 24, 2022)

ART! said:


> For my money, I think the way to do this (push the game more toward story) is to work within the structure 5E already has. I don't see WOTC adding any big story-centered mechanics to the game any time soon, so I've been trying to figure out how to use stuff that's already in the game to achieve this. I'd love to hear what others have come up with along those lines.
> 
> I flirted with assigning die types to each Background characteristic. Flaw gets a d4, and then the player can distribute d6s and one d8 among Ideal, Bond, and Personality. If players want more than one Bond (for instance), I'd probably allow another d6 there. Mechanically, it's very much like the Proficiency Die variant rule in the game, but the player could add that die to a relevant roll once per game session, or in-game day.
> 
> The problem was getting the players and even myself to even start doing this. Now, instead, I'm just going to remind people to use their Background stuff to give them advantage on appropriate rolls.



Right, but my response to this, and I'm not against it, is simply that it won't change the fundamental equation. A game where the GM presents a dungeon and the player's PCs venture around in it won't suddenly become a story about the PCs vs being a story about the dungeon, simply because a player can interject "I roll my extra bonus d6 when I attack the orc threatening the halfling because my bond with him says I protect him at any cost!" I mean, it will clearly provide a more ready correspondence between character traits and expected situations where the character will try something. It will make those things tried likely to be successful (which isn't necessarily moving you toward more story, just more success). I don't think those are bad, but I would at least couple them with a convention that says "and on success the player describes how the character's intent was met" even if it means authoring a bit of added fiction.


----------



## damiller (Dec 24, 2022)

For a long time as GM i "worried" about telling stories. I wanted to help players tell stories.

Then I realized I can't make stories. I can only make plots. For me stories are what the players DO with the plot. The choices THEY make about the events that happen during the session.

Therefore I no longer consider "story" something that I as a GM have to worry about. THAT is only something the players can do, as they make choices on how to interact with the events that i send their way.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 24, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Due to our pacing, the system appears to work for us, because within x sessions we would have dungeon-delved, travelled, long-rested, socialised and possibly down-timed...etc All of this is more than enough time for the players to lean into their character's story hooks.
> Within the traditional dungeon - it really depends how much time (i.e. how many levels) the PCs are expected to adventure there.



What is the substance of this 'leaning in'? If the 'backbone' of the arc of play is the module/AP/GM-authored story arc, then to what degree is the story about the character, and not basically a playing out of that arc? IMHO it seems like such things as BIFTs and Inspiration are more 'color additions', and perhaps the 'B' part coupled with any other background the player authored, might inject some secondary plot items. This technique certainly isn't SUBTRACTING from story, but its fundamentally limited to secondary elements, not to shaping the arc of play. I would be tempted to say those kinds of techniques may have more impact in a sandbox type of play, which 5e can certainly support though it doesn't seem to be exceptionally good at it. Even there the game tends to be much more "environment as protagonist" but I've definitely seen some games of that ilk that are more character focused.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> A game where the GM presents a dungeon and the player's PCs venture around in it won't suddenly become a story about the PCs vs being a story about the dungeon, simply because a player can interject "I roll my extra bonus d6 when I attack the orc threatening the halfling because my bond with him says I protect him at any cost!"



Right. This is why, somewhere upthread, I made the point about the key being _who gets to say what when_. Everyone understands that the players are under various limits of this sort. Unless the GM is too, the only way to get story is full-bore GM force. If the GM is limited, _and_ if that is a certain sort of limit coupled with a certain sort of player empowerment, _then_ we start to get story from our RPGing in the same sort of way that Apocalypse World does it.

And the player empowerment doesn't need to be "narrative abilities". As in some of your recent posts, more important is the players being able to establish macro goals/agendas (quests etc) and perhaps intents for action declarations.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 24, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Right. This is why, somewhere upthread, I made the point about the key being _who gets to say what when_. Everyone understands that the players are under various limits of this sort. Unless the GM is too, the only way to get story is full-bore GM force. If the GM is limited, _and_ if that is a certain sort of limit coupled with a certain sort of player empowerment, _then_ we start to get story from our RPGing in the same sort of way that Apocalypse World does it.
> 
> And the player empowerment doesn't need to be "narrative abilities". As in some of your recent posts, more important is the players being able to establish macro goals/agendas (quests etc) and perhaps intents for action declarations.



Right, I think there was a time when I thought those narrative abilities, the BIFT kind of stuff, fate points, etc. was the stuff, but you quickly learn that's kind of the other wheel, its good, but it isn't the part that is really driving this machine, though it may provide some of the steering!


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> What is the substance of this 'leaning in'? If the 'backbone' of the arc of play is the module/AP/GM-authored story arc, then to what degree is the story about the character, and not basically a playing out of that arc? IMHO it seems like such things as BIFTs and Inspiration are more 'color additions', and perhaps the 'B' part coupled with any other background the player authored, might inject some secondary plot items. This technique certainly isn't SUBTRACTING from story, but its fundamentally limited to secondary elements, not to shaping the arc of play. I would be tempted to say those kinds of techniques may have more impact in a sandbox type of play, which 5e can certainly support though it doesn't seem to be exceptionally good at it. Even there the game tends to be much more "environment as protagonist" but I've definitely seen some games of that ilk that are more character focused.



So our game is completely sandbox despite the two overarching APs, which both can be deserted and indeed had been suggested to them within the fiction which would see the characters pursuing one of the character's goals (find out about his parents disappearance and the mysterious artefact which they entrusted to him and his sister).
If anyone makes the BIFTs secondary elements - it would be the players themselves. Not me.

One of the characters is exploring a crisis of faith through the AP storyline, questioning his own judgement and the sometimes lack of insight/direction given to him by his deity (as the character sees it). This saw the him have an in depth conversation with a fellow cleric colleague NPC (roleplayed out). The player also deemed that his character, given his state, would likely not pray...etc (he wanted to purposefully limit his resources) and instead use our homebrew mechanic where powers/spells could still be used but that it would spend the character's HD and eventually lead to exhaustion should he continue.
These last two is what earned the PC the Inspiration. I do not know if I would consider that simply colour.

Another character, having become gradually disillusioned via the in-game fiction and having lost fellow party members, has become more accepting of some previously considered unethical or immoral choices, especially if making those choices are likely to expedite him or the party achieving their goals. He has made alliances with questionable factions/persons, even secretly made a deal with a devil. His roleplaying of a social scene with a mayor connected with the Zhentarim is what earned him the Inspiration.

Our academic, pragmatic and non-religious arcanist had a theological/philosophical conversation (roleplayed out) with the abovementioned cleric NPC, where each character was challenging each other's beliefs. I awarded Inspiration for this.

Like I said my system of tacking it on as a requirement in order to increase one's level means I will likely see more of this kind of character exploration. It may be a secondary element for now (player's choice) but I'm expecting it to become more relevant and more interesting for the players where they begin pursuing their personal goals over any "environmental antagonist"

My plan is for them to conclude the APs soon - since that is what they want, pursue their personal goals all within Tier 3 before I introduce them to the last module (Tier 4) I have planned for this campaign.

EDIT: The way I see it, this method I'm using may also be a nice bridge to more narrative styled games for our table going into the future.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, but let me observe: I would consider my own game to be pretty much intended to operate in the 'story game' space, the agenda is weaving a tale of heroes arising and becoming immortal legends/myths. All of the elements, I mean all as in virtually exactly as you describe them, are present, except you label this 'trad'.
> 
> So, I think you have perhaps missed something key here. IMHO that is where the driving impetus of story comes from. The story, as various story game exponents have long opined, is about the PCs and is thus primarily the domain of the players, not so much of the GM. So in HoML the action is determined by the players choosing quests (they can just pretty much make them up, though the need for fictional coherence will impose certain limits on theme and content). The GM frames scenes, and thus has some significant say in the specifics of challenges, but then the players decide what the intent of the component actions is, and have some tools like fate and practices, to shape how they deploy themselves and what the results will be. In other words, I think its more the things where the players say "and we're attempting to achieve X, followed by the GM's more reactive "and you will get that if you can pass an A check."
> 
> I guess my point is, trad may also use some of the same stuff, potentially, but full bore story game has an additional toolkit and process of play architecture that makes it do what it does. And what it does is basically say "well, you wanted to do X, here you go! Oh, here's a twist!" I mean, HoML has a specific theme, like all of these kinds of game. Trad games, OSR games, etc. all IMHO have equally specific themes and genre conventions.



OK, What is HoML? I am not really familiar with story/narrative games. Not because I do not want to try them but I do lack opportunity. I keep meaning to look up some lets plays on YouTube but have not got around to it yet. 

I used the label "Trad" because people have been trying to do this in D&D for 40 year or may be more and particularly post Hickman.
And I am not sure what your point is other then full bore story games have better tools than D&D. 

Ok, I accept that but can any of these tools be added to the current structure of D&D and what would that look like? That is the theme of this discussion, after all.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> FTFU



The Wind (Internet) still blows. Whooosh!


----------



## pemerton (Dec 24, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> can any of these tools be added to the current structure of D&D and what would that look like? That is the theme of this discussion, after all.



I would restate your question_can 5e D&D work if the GM is put under the sorts of limits and obligations found in (say) Apocalypse World?_

So, unless we radically change the combat system, we already have to turn our focus to non-combat only. Although, as I type this, I think of one exception: some legendary actions and lair actions could also, perhaps, stay within our focus.

The key departure from what I would think of as typical D&D play would be _not using GM's secret/unrevealed notes as the core of resolution_. Can 5e D&D work without that? How do all the information-gathering parts of the game work?

I don't want to say it's impossible, but I'm happy to say it's tricky. 4e drew heavily on the skill challenge structure as its alternative framework. Can 5e do something similar?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 24, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I would restate your question_can 5e D&D work if the GM is put under the sorts of limits and obligations found in (say) Apocalypse World?_



Not directly, I would say, both the rules and the culture of play are against it. I would think that D&D would need some scaffolding to support a different culture of play.


pemerton said:


> So, unless we radically change the combat system, we already have to turn our focus to non-combat only. Although, as I type this, I think of one exception: some legendary actions and lair actions could also, perhaps, stay within our focus.
> 
> The key departure from what I would think of as typical D&D play would be _not using GM's secret/unrevealed notes as the core of resolution_. Can 5e D&D work without that? How do all the information-gathering parts of the game work?
> 
> I don't want to say it's impossible, but I'm happy to say it's tricky. 4e drew heavily on the skill challenge structure as its alternative framework. Can 5e do something similar?



I think a skill challenge system is doable within the 5e framework.


----------



## Vork_Hammerfist (Dec 24, 2022)

What exactly do all of you mean when you use the terms "story", "character development/growth" and "roleplaying"? I ask because you use these terms _very_ differently than I do, and I don't even use "character development/growth" in the context of RPGs.

To me a story is what you get _after_ having played D&D (or any other RPG). It's your flawed memory of what happened while you were playing, it's talking about something that happened in the game, possibly years after the event in question.

Character development... well, the closest I can get to understanding how this is supposed to be relevant to an RPG rather than a novel, movie, TV show, or stageplay, is that the player's goals in-game change over time, not necessarily because they have achieved their goals, but because they have found new goals, or other goals have become more important. And this really isn't something I would typically be concerned about in an RPG. Let the players do what interests them.

Roleplaying is playing your character. Your character is a set of (preferably randomly generated) ability scores, followed by the player's choice of class, alignment, and race, acquired magic items, spells and special abilities, fueled by the player's goals, ambitions, and the past events of the campaign, all within the context of the setting. How you choose to actually communicate this role doesn't matter to me very much. If you want to do a silly voice, go ahead. If you want to speak in-character, go ahead. If you want to simply state what your character does or attempts, go ahead. If you want to switch between these options at times, go ahead. More generally, as long as it doesn't interfere with playing the game and isn't an attempt to cheat or tactlessly second guess the DM's rulings, go right ahead.


----------



## damiller (Dec 24, 2022)

I will say, that in service of a


Clint_L said:


> 1. A DM's Guide that is an actual guide, with the first half devoted to teaching DM's how to better incorporate story, offering a variety of styles through short adventure modules.
> 
> 2. Make combat suck less and take half as long.



What I've done is take a note from Nights Black Agents: I make combats player facing which means for 5e that they are now just skill rolls. I often use armor class as the dc. if they are successful the enemy is beaten. If they fail. We then may enter regular combat. I do this for games where i want to deemphasize 5e combat, and I always make note of it in my recruitment posts.

If I don't want to make the combat a full 5e, I'll use a skill challenge of sorts. Really i look at the situation and the buy in from the players. And then use the level of resolution I want even in 5e. It has at least 3 levels: 1 roll, series of rolls, or combat. I just use them when I want and for what I want. (Though I wouldn't use the combat rules to work through a climbing cavern walls.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 24, 2022)

Vork_Hammerfist said:


> What exactly do all of you mean when you use the terms "story", "character development/growth" and "roleplaying"? I ask because you use these terms _very_ differently than I do, and I don't even use "character development/growth" in the context of RPGs.
> 
> To me a story is what you get _after_ having played D&D (or any other RPG). It's your flawed memory of what happened while you were playing, it's talking about something that happened in the game, possibly years after the event in question.
> 
> ...



I come from a D&D background and I tend to use story where the focus is on the player characters as protagonists/heroes engaging with the NPCs and events presented by the DM (sort of like Critical Role). 
As distinct to flavours of D&D that focus on the environment as challenge or exploration and story( if any ) is a emergent property of that.

I would then view "Character Development/Growth" in part by the levelling process but also by engagement by the DM in the characters backstory or other elements expressed along the way. 
"Roleplay" I would regard as anything that characters do including exercise of skills by die rolling.

There are other games that focus of the development of the fiction scene by scene, that I think of a narrative but some refer as story. I know less about them. At some point I must make the effort to look up play examples on the internet.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 24, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> So our game is completely sandbox despite the two overarching APs, which both can be deserted and indeed had been suggested to them within the fiction which would see the characters pursuing one of the character's goals (find out about his parents disappearance and the mysterious artefact which they entrusted to him and his sister).
> If anyone makes the BIFTs secondary elements - it would be the players themselves. Not me.
> 
> One of the characters is exploring a crisis of faith through the AP storyline, questioning his own judgement and the sometimes lack of insight/direction given to him by his deity (as the character sees it). This saw the him have an in depth conversation with a fellow cleric colleague NPC (roleplayed out). The player also deemed that his character, given his state, would likely not pray...etc (he wanted to purposefully limit his resources) and instead use our homebrew mechanic where powers/spells could still be used but that it would spend the character's HD and eventually lead to exhaustion should he continue.
> ...



I would say we do somewhat different things. You talk of 'your plan for them', and I would posit that there is a range here which extends from my situation with HoML (my 4e hack) where the players make the plans, deciding what quests to go on, what quests may even be possible to go on, and how this relates to their characters, through the gamut of situation where the GM picks up more and more of that 'directing/planning' function, through prep or definitive statements about setting/environment/situation, through hard sandboxes where the players are picking one amongst a set of relatively preset options, and then on down into AP/module type play where there is a defined path or arc which has to be played out (or else things derail). Obviously you can pick and choose stuff from modules potentially in more or less sandboxy ways (and some modules, like the older TSR ones are very location-based and thus can work as sites within a bigger sandbox).

So, the difficulty I've seen with the kind of 'middle path' ways of doing things there is its pretty hard to architect a game that way. I mean, maybe it is possible, something like Torch Bearer is indicative of those possibilities, but its tricky. PbtA games' ability to do kind of the extreme story now end of the range is pretty straightforward, if you play how it says to play in Dungeon World you will get a game focused on the things the PCs do, and discover who they are pretty reliably. I'm 100% sure you can do what you do, someplace in the middle, but I have yet to see a game successfully spell out that formula, because it HEAVILY relies on "GMing by feel." I mean, BIFT/Inspiration type stuff provides signposts. I think there's some sentiment for trying to explain it in the 5e DMG, but 4e for instance is more successful (and not entirely) in explaining its story game approach IMHO, and enabling it, than 5e is in explaining something like what you are doing. I guess we will see what '6e' does, I'm not sure "Better BIFTS" will take it far though.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 24, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> OK, What is HoML? I am not really familiar with story/narrative games. Not because I do not want to try them but I do lack opportunity. I keep meaning to look up some lets plays on YouTube but have not got around to it yet.
> 
> I used the label "Trad" because people have been trying to do this in D&D for 40 year or may be more and particularly post Hickman.
> And I am not sure what your point is other then full bore story games have better tools than D&D.
> ...



HoML, or Heroes of Myth & Legend is just my 4e-esque even more story game, game. 

And yes, trad or neo trad or whatever labels people use, things have been attempted since the days of 2e. It hasn't been a great deal of success, IMHO. 2e, for example, goes on and on about telling stories, but it fails architecturally in the most basic sense. That is, a story is about characters, but the players who play the characters have no power over the story at all! The GM authors an adventure/path/environment and the players have literally, classically, no say whatsoever about its content or how it works. They may influence the story, certainly, but only by essentially choosing between preexisting options, a menu presented by the GM, who thus owns the principle component of the story, the overall plot and subject matter. This is all pretty well-trodden game-analytical territory by this point. 

In terms of adding stuff, well, why not? '6e' could say "When a situation arises where there is a conflict, doubt exists as to the outcome of an action, and the resolution of the conflict may be effected by the action, then the GM calls for a check. The player describes the action, and what a successful result will entail, that is the intent of the action. The player may describe any particular outcome in keeping with the fictional action and situation. If the check fails, the GM will describe the outcome, which may entail failure to achieve the character's intent, and/or consequences, complications, loss of resources, etc."

I don't see why a (obviously more polished version) of the above couldn't replace the existing descriptions of the 5e check process, what it does, and how it works, etc. Now, as a player, I am able to have significant input into how the situations unfold and what they are about. I'd also add other things of course, like a stricture that scenes need to address something relevant to player character goals/motivations/backstory/etc. Maybe include a kind of distinction between scenes that are 'part of the action' and ones that are more 'story development' (IE the stuff you do in town, research projects, whatever). The game could give the GM the authority to state the situation in each scene, but the players would choose, as they do now, the sort of directions they wish to go in, particularly in the 'development' kind of mode, where they are likely to say "OK, the wizard goes to the library to research a spell to make him smell like elderberries" and that essentially defines the possible scene frames the GM can use (IE at the library, on the way to the library, etc.).


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would say we do somewhat different things. You talk of 'your plan for them', (snip)



_Plan for them_ in a more charitably honest sense
There was a thread not too long ago that dealt with advice for high level campaigning.
One of the pieces of advice was to make sure you deal with all personal/background quests by tier 3.
I took that to heart, I do want to conclude with their character's dilemmas, quests, wants, desires - I do not want to leave them _hanging _while they jump into another AP/module_._



AbdulAlhazred said:


> and I would posit that there is a range here which extends from my situation with HoML (my 4e hack) where the players make the plans, deciding what quests to go on, what quests may even be possible to go on, and how this relates to their characters, through the gamut of situation where the GM picks up more and more of that 'directing/planning' function, through prep or definitive statements about setting/environment/situation, through hard sandboxes where the players are picking one amongst a set of relatively preset options, and then on down into AP/module type play where there is a defined path or arc which has to be played out (or else things derail). Obviously you can pick and choose stuff from modules potentially in more or less sandboxy ways (and some modules, like the older TSR ones are very location-based and thus can work as sites within a bigger sandbox).
> 
> So, the difficulty I've seen with the kind of 'middle path' ways of doing things there is its pretty hard to architect a game that way. I mean, maybe it is possible, something like Torch Bearer is indicative of those possibilities, but its tricky. PbtA games' ability to do kind of the extreme story now end of the range is pretty straightforward, if you play how it says to play in Dungeon World you will get a game focused on the things the PCs do, and discover who they are pretty reliably. I'm 100% sure you can do what you do, someplace in the middle, but I have yet to see a game successfully spell out that formula, because it HEAVILY relies on "GMing by feel."



I find _GMing by feet _intimidating, hence me not wanting to dive straight into PbtA.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, BIFT/Inspiration type stuff provides signposts.



Nicely put.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think there's some sentiment for trying to explain it in the 5e DMG, but 4e for instance is more successful (and not entirely) in explaining its story game approach IMHO, and enabling it, than 5e is in explaining something like what you are doing. I guess we will see what '6e' does, I'm not sure "Better BIFTS" will take it far though.



I'm not sure I agree with you regarding 4e. What narrative element do you believe existed within 4e? I mean the path write-ups and the powers were wonderfully described and in-sync but is that all you are referring to? I get the feeling that you're implying there is more.
As for 6e, I'm not expecting much in the way or BIFTs but I will admit it would be poor form of WotC if in a decade they have not evolved the system into something more substantial.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 25, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> _Plan for them_ in a more charitably honest sense
> There was a thread not too long ago that dealt with advice for high level campaigning.
> One of the pieces of advice was to make sure you deal with all personal/background quests by tier 3.
> I took that to heart, I do want to conclude with their character's dilemmas, quests, wants, desires - I do not want to leave them _hanging _while they jump into another AP/module_._



Well, I personally just don't even use any sort of published material, beyond perhaps inspiration for a location, NPC, or possibly a threat. Like when I had this party that was around mid-heroic the players seemed to want to go rove around the setting and there was an elf ranger with some background issues about elves, who had been established to be in a certain area. So I had the lord they happened to be dealing with mention that he was having some sort of problem with his northern lumber operation and maybe elves were the problem. 

I figured the rest of the party might not be super interested in the elf angle, but some of them had been delving into ancient history, so I invented a thing for them to have fun with, The Vuul. This was just a type of threat that I invented from a note that there were once ancient shape shifters living in this region. So, what happened to them? Oh, they were banished to the Shadowfell and became shadow shape shifters, etc. I made up a bunch of stat-block conversions, including a big bad boss Vuul (IIRC it was a conversion of a White Dragon). Things simply went from there, I framed a scene at a wood cutter's cabin that the party ran across as they moved into the area, and a totally crazy battle happened (with the ranger leaping around the inside of a large cabin trying to avoid the Vuul who replaced the woodcutter's family while sticking them with arrows, he learned just how stupid powerful his character really was in that one). After that was a very famous 'sawmill battle' with the big bad, etc. I admit, I set up the sawmill part ahead of time, but I wasn't building up a plot. I mean, the Vuul DID have a plan, and the PCs did decide to thwart it, but nothing was completely dictated. Heck, they could have sided with the Vuul potentially! I mean, the Vuul were kicking the arses of some elves that the PCs didn't like much... 



AnotherGuy said:


> I find _GMing by feet _intimidating, hence me not wanting to dive straight into PbtA.



Well, I think Dungeon World is a pretty good solid game. You might try playing with some people that are experienced in running it to get a feel for the 'classic' style of DW play, but you could probably run it. You simply have to set aside notions of 'knowing how it is done' and taking the DW rules at face value. As they say, most of what DW asks you to do as a GM is actually just the same stuff all GM's do anyway. 

Mostly I recommend when running one of these types of games for the first time, go gonzo. 4e is a great game this way, my GMing of 4e is 100% off the wall bonkers crazy. The world is a crazy magical fantastical and in no way mundane place. Same with Dungeon World, the world is a fantastic place, RUN WITH IT.


AnotherGuy said:


> Nicely put.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with you regarding 4e. What narrative element do you believe existed within 4e? I mean the path write-ups and the powers were wonderfully described and in-sync but is that all you are referring to? I get the feeling that you're implying there is more.
> As for 6e, I'm not expecting much in the way or BIFTs but I will admit it would be poor form of WotC if in a decade they have not evolved the system into something more substantial.



4e has a rich set of plot hooking elements. It features an entire cosmological backstory of a vast struggle between order (the Gods) and chaos (the Primordials) which richly informs all else. It presents the players with a SERIES of defining decisions on character build, theme, paragon path, and then epic destiny, which are deeply tied to character goals, plot, and meta plot (not to mention class, which is of course the overarching choice). Even feats, powers, and magic items can be pretty defining. You are also offered additional tools like Artifacts, which are specifically designed for this sort of building up stories on the fly. 

But more even than that there are specific architectural elements. Quests are often constructed by the players, and have a potentially strong influence on the shape of play. Keywords allow things to be tied together very succinctly and integrated with rules for both skill challenges and Page 42 style extemporization. A GM and players with even modest creativity and a willingness to take the mechanics as merely one possible interpretation of underlying fiction can easily do things that @pemerton for instance seems to have regularly done in his games, like players declaring actions where they did things like sacrifice or risk the sacrifice of items or even character abilities in order to achieve specific effects, generalization of the idea of rituals as "if you are smart enough, powerful enough, and take some time you can do some pretty 'big stuff'" etc. 

The strongly encounter-centered architecture of 4e is also rather ripe for story now style scene framing exercises. In fact I abandoned ALMOST all prep during my years of tenure as a 4e GM, merely writing up outlines of possible threats and scenarios, and generating some stat blocks here and there ahead of time (or often just writing up lists of ones that could be used or reflavored if I needed X, Y, or Z).


----------



## Manbearcat (Dec 27, 2022)

When I ran 5e as an interim GM for a long term game (intermittently from level 9 through 20), I pretty much exclusively had to rely upon my own experience of running Story Now games because the game doesn't help you here.  Things that I did:

* Clarified stakes-setting before action resolution.

* Made all DCs table-facing while employing Success w/ Cost (242) but extending that range from 1-2 to failure by 4 or less.  I'm then treating them like the 7-9 result in Apocalypse World or Twists in Mouse Guard.

* Ran Social Interaction in a table-facing manner and as-is because, as-is, its a solid puzzle game that was clearly inspired by Apocalypse World's social loop.  Run as-is and in a table-facing manner, it works perfectly well enough for a Story Now social conflict engine predicated upon NPC dramatic need vs PC dramatic need.

* Short Rests were automatic unless there is some clear pressing issue in the shared imagined space.

* Long Rests were difficult to achieve with clarified procedural requirements to achieve them (again, go back to stakes-setting and clarity).

* Always honored PC Background Traits such that reliably change the fiction in the ways outlined on the ability.


The whole of this would allow just enough structure to create a sort of "Very Poor Man's Dungeon World" experience with action resolution being somewhat AW Moves-like + kinda snowballing action resolution + GM Threats vs PC dramatic needs.  The myriad ways One D&D would need to shore this up would be:

* Make all of the above clarified in text and provide robust GM guidance (technical, principled explanations) for it.  All of it (including table-facing DC generation like in Burning Wheel where there is a base Obstacle Rating and Factors which add up).

* Nerf the hell out of spellcasting/spellcasters (the apex prowess and how prolific spells and rituals are) AND make all cast spells require a spellcasting check whereby failure by 4 or less = Success w/ a thematic Twist (like the noncombat action resolution mechanics) based on the spell school or spell being cast.  Overpowered spellcasting is such a brutal problem for no-prep, Story Now play.  This MUST be resolved and resolved in a compelling way.

* Abstract Coin and mundane Gear and make them both matter to action resolution in a table-facing way.  Give players the capacity to interact meaningfully and consequentially with decision-points and dictate the trajectory of the fiction and the gamestate with Coin and Gear.

* Simplify xp profoundly with very small xp numbers needed to advance and make the process communal and table-facing.  Make BIFTs work like Beliefs in Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard/Torchbearer.  Make action declarations that aggressively pursue these things during play and earn  1 xp for each at End of Session (up to 4; 1 for each).  Make action declarations that exhibits serious internal conflict that manifests as external complication and Disadvantage on an attendant move, and get 1 Inspiration for each (up to 4; 1 for each) at End of Session.

* Make a very clear and expansive group of Consequences that GMs can use (like PBtA moves or BW/MG/TB Twists) on a Failure by 4 or less; Disadvantage, Prone, Exhaustion, Proficiency Tool, Armor and Weapon and Spellcasting Implement complications, Environmental Hazards including Hit Die loss or some kind of Vulnerability, Action Economy issues, NPC Reaction Adjustment, Hit Point damage, Ability Score damage ULR (Until Long Rest).

* Make very clear and codified procedures for triggering Long Rest (given how the massive gamestate and fiction impacts this has upon play).

* Create a very clear, thematic, codified, table-handling-time-friendly, rest of the game engine-integrated Conflict Resolution scheme to handle Journey, Pursue or Drive-Off, Supernatural (Banish or Bind Entity/Open & Close Gate/Etc) conflicts.

++++++++++++

What I'm outlining above is a very loose kind of Burning Wheel/Apocalypse World approach that 5e could emulate to a fair enough degree with a lot of designer/developer will (because boy will there be pushback!), technical prowess, and iterative stress-testing.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 27, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Ran Social Interaction in a table-facing manner and as-is because, as-is, its a solid puzzle game that was clearly inspired by Apocalypse World's social loop. Run as-is and in a table-facing manner, it works perfectly well enough for a Story Now social conflict engine predicated upon NPC dramatic need vs PC dramatic need.



Well.... KINDA. I am sure it DID work fine for you, as I know you also used the other techniques you listed. I only say this to reinforce to readers, it can work as a story now loop IF you clearly set stakes, allow for success with complication, let the players specific declare intent, etc. I agree, this is probably the closest piece of 5e to something like a story game, but as written and if run with the standard 'trad' techniques, the GM entirely dominates the discussion, as they set all the parameters.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 27, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> * Nerf the hell out of spellcasting/spellcasters (the apex prowess and how prolific spells and rituals are) AND make all cast spells require a spellcasting check whereby failure by 4 or less = Success w/ a thematic Twist (like the noncombat action resolution mechanics) based on the spell school or spell being cast. Overpowered spellcasting is such a brutal problem for no-prep, Story Now play. This MUST be resolved and resolved in a compelling way.



Bring parity, not only in terms of parity of some kind of 'abstract power' but in terms of the REAL power, which is plot power, overwhelmingly important in story play. So, its fine if a 'wizard spell' can charm someone, but the scale and consequences of that in mechanical game play terms needs to be rather similar to "and I talked him into it (maybe expending some resource on par with burning a spell slot)" otherwise wizardry still dominates the plot (which it does currently in 5e unequivocally). 

I get the "but then magic isn't special" thing, but there are other ways to achieve that. Like, the whole world is magical, so magical effects are possible with any power source. Watch a few Chinese fantasy TV shows, you will immediately begin to understand. So, I have a bit of hesitancy with the "nerf it down" thing, I don't really want nerfed magic, I just want every PC archetype to participate in the good stuff. 

So, universally IME, the story game core design concept is always a universal adjudicator. In PbtA everything is a move, and moves follow a set of universal adjudication rules. In  FitD games you have ability rolls and fortune/resistance rolls, that covers ALL adjudication of uncertainty, and clocks do the rest of the mechanical work in various forms, essentially. All these games have the same thing in common, first you have core adjudication, everything flows through it, no exceptions! Then various specific character abilities and such adhere to that structure and potentially modify or elaborate it, or at least put fictional position regulation onto it. 

I guess what I COULD see would be a 'wizard' where their stuff is always fictionally effective, but there's a high risk associated with most of it. So, yes, you can 'blast everything with a fireball', but you'll pay for that, dearly! Of course you can also have 'cantrips' to color more ordinary stuff as spell casting.


----------



## Starfox (Monday at 2:43 PM)

AnotherGuy said:


> One of the characters is exploring a crisis of faith...
> 
> Another character, having become gradually disillusioned...
> 
> Our academic, pragmatic and non-religious arcanist had a theological/philosophical conversation (roleplayed out) with the abovementioned cleric NPC, where each character was challenging each other's beliefs. I awarded Inspiration for this.



These are all rather depressing. Our games and character motivations tend to be more positive, with motivations revolving around making friends and discovering different aspects of the world. Our motivations don't generate much drama. Yes, there is conflict because the world can be adversarial and sometimes the PCs make mistakes, but in general this does not involve PC motivations - it is more action than drama. I wonder if this is why we're less into mechanics for role-play. If your motivation is to make friends and you play along these lines, you will rarely be compelled (in the FATE meaning). If a fight happens, its unlikely to be because of you. If your motivation is chastity and you role-play this, you will rarely be compelled because you avoid situations where this would be an option, tough you might have to react to seduction. I wonder if this might be why we never really felt a need for mechanics to enforce role-playing? Enforcement might be more relevant if you pick negative motivations?

And yes, this makes our games more like children's TV and less noir, but that is our taste.


----------



## Starfox (Monday at 2:56 PM)

pemerton said:


> Probably the single best-known "narrative" game is Apocalypse World. (...) The most important is the GM moves. When it's the GM's turn to speak in the conversation of the game, the GM make a move. And most of the time this is a soft move. GM soft moves include (inter alia) "announcing future badness" - in ENworld parlance this is a form of what is often called "telegraphing" - or "announcing offscreen badness" or "offering an opportunity, with or without a cost". In some circumstances the GM can make a hard move - this can include (inter alia) "inflicting harm" (ie dealing damage) or "separating them" or "turning their move back on them" (eg the PC as played by the player tried to discern a weakness, but instead reveals a weakness of their own). The list of GM moves does not include _nothing happens_.
> 
> Nearly as important are the player moves. These are little resolution subsystems that are triggered, in the course of play, by the player declaring a certain sort of action for their PC (eg trying to intimidate someone ("go aggro") or trying to exert leverage over someone ("seduce/manipulate")). If a move fails, the GM is licensed to make a hard move. The other time a hard move is OK is when a player hands an opportunity to the GM on a platter (eg the GM makes a soft move, the player proceeds in disregard of it, now the GM can make a hard move).



Just to see if I understand this, let me paint two examples, one using AW and one using 5E. The scene framing is the same, a thief-type character moving down a passage.

5E
DM: Roll Perception please.
Player: 6
DM You fall into A 10 foot pit and take 4 damage.

AW
GM: There might be traps in a passage like this. (soft)
Player: I am confident in my skills, watching for traps but I keep moving.
GM: You hear the soft fall of sand. (soft)
P: I try to find the source of the sand (roll fails)
GM: You fall into a 10 foot pit with <consequences>. (hard)

Writing this example, I found it much easier to elaborate the AW version, I had to hold myself back, whereas in the 5E version the style became almost telegraphic in brevity. But either could be elaborated in actual play.


----------



## DarkCrisis (Monday at 3:22 PM)

D&D does D&D well.  There are a ton of games out there that are made for what you want, they just aren't called D&D.  Expand your horizons.  It's very worth it.


----------



## chaochou (Monday at 5:54 PM)

Starfox said:


> The scene framing is the same, a thief-type character moving down a passage.




These kind of examples fail, because the assumption about framing is wrong. In D&D the character is in the passage because the DM put them there. In AW they are there because the player put them there.

Only if you start at the point where you answer the question "Who _authored _the character's goal?" (not chose, _authored_) will you start to understand the huge gulf between Apocalypse World and the overwhelming majority of D&D.

In AW, the MC follows the player's quest. The mechanics exist to facilitate that.


----------



## Starfox (Monday at 5:59 PM)

Manbearcat said:


> When I ran 5e as an interim GM for a long term game (...) Run as-is and in a table-facing manner...



What does table-facing mean in this context?


----------



## chaochou (Monday at 6:14 PM)

Starfox said:


> What does table-facing mean in this context?



It means not hidden from anyone at the table. In plain sight. All information available to everyone.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Monday at 6:17 PM)

Manbearcat said:


> * Nerf the hell out of spellcasting/spellcasters (the apex prowess and how prolific spells and rituals are) AND make all cast spells require a spellcasting check whereby failure by 4 or less = Success w/ a thematic Twist (like the noncombat action resolution mechanics) based on the spell school or *spell being cast*.  Overpowered spellcasting is such a brutal problem for no-prep, Story Now play.  This MUST be resolved and resolved in a compelling way.



How did you calculate the DC for the spellcasting check? i.e. 10 + spell level +1 because spell school in opposition?
And which spells being cast were isolated that increased the DC? Why not just increase their spell level?


----------



## Starfox (Monday at 10:18 PM)

chaochou said:


> These kind of examples fail, because the assumption about framing is wrong. In D&D the character is in the passage because the DM put them there. In AW they are there because the player put them there.



Once the framing is done, does it matter how it is done?


chaochou said:


> Only if you start at the point where you answer the question "Who _authored _the character's goal?" (not chose, _authored_) will you start to understand the huge gulf between Apocalypse World and the overwhelming majority of D&D.
> 
> In AW, the MC follows the player's quest. The mechanics exist to facilitate that.



Basically, this style of game is constant godmoding (without the negative connotation)?


----------



## pemerton (Tuesday at 3:56 AM)

Starfox said:


> Just to see if I understand this, let me paint two examples, one using AW and one using 5E. The scene framing is the same, a thief-type character moving down a passage.





Starfox said:


> Once the framing is done, does it matter how it is done?



I'm not @chaochou, but will respond to this question. The answer is Yes.

For instance, suppose that the AW MC/GM decides, in response to a failure, to "announce future badness".

What does "future badness" mean? It means "something that, were it to come to pass, would be adverse to the interests of the character as played by the player". In a context where the GM chose the framing as part of their control of the direction of the fiction, how can they announce future badness? This can only be done if it is accepted that the trajectory of the fiction is shaped by the players and their concerns.

The normative language and orientation found in "announce future badness" is replete in AW's GM-side moves: announce offscreen badness; put someone in a spot; offer an opportunity (with or without a cost); turn their move back on them; separate them; etc.

_Opportunity_, _cost_, _turning something back on someone_, _being put in a spot_: these all presuppose a disposition or orientation of the character, things they want and things they don't want.

_Separate them_ does not do so at the linguistic level - but clearly does so at the operational level, as it is meaningful as a move only if the characters who get separated have an interest in being togehter.

To repeat, in a context of play in which it is the GM's concerns and desires for the fiction that shape the framing, these sorts of moves won't be able to be made.



Starfox said:


> 5E
> DM: Roll Perception please.
> Player: 6
> DM You fall into A 10 foot pit and take 4 damage.



What you are describing here is a framed scene, followed by a call for what is in effect a saving throw, followed by (in AW language)  a hard move.

To me, this doesn't seem to be very interesting play - the player has not made any decision in response to anything of interest or value.



Starfox said:


> AW
> GM: There might be traps in a passage like this. (soft)
> Player: I am confident in my skills, watching for traps but I keep moving.
> GM: You hear the soft fall of sand. (soft)
> ...



This doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with AW. It actually looks to me like another example of how this might be done in D&D.

In AW, the GM makes moves in two basic circumstances: when everyone looks to them to see what happens next (typically this is a soft move, but if the player hands a golden opportunity then it can be a hard move); and when the resolution of a player-side move tells them to. In that latter case, if the roll is a 6- then the move will typically be a hard move.

So _for some reason we haven't yet specified_, the thief-type character is sneaking down a corridor. (Let's say Silas the Skinner is infiltrating an installation at the heart of any enemy hardhold. The floors of the installation are the same sand as the ground outside.)

Silas' player says "I walk down the passage". And then looks to the GM to see what happens next. The GM replies, "You hear the soft fall of sand: the floor is not stable" - this is a soft move, putting Silas in a spot.

Silas's player replies "I'm confident in my skills - I keep going down the passage!" This is Acting Under Fire, and so Silas's player has to roll ("if you do it, you do it" is the principle for player-side moves"). Let's suppose that the roll is 6 or less: the GM announces "You fall into a pit, about 3 metres deep. Take 2 harm." (That's a hard move, inflicting harm.)  Silas's player marks the harm, and then says "I climb out", looking at the GM to see what happens next. The GM makes another move - and _nothing happens_ is not a GM-side move! Silas's player hasn't handed an opportunity on a platter, so the next move will be a soft one.

Here's another version - after the GM announces the falling sand, Silas's player replies "Where's the sound coming from? What's making the sand fall?" This is reading a situation, and if you do it you do it, so Silas's player makes a roll. They're hoping to roll 7+, so that they can ask "Where's my best way in?" and get a truthful answer from the GM. But they fail, and so the GM announces "You fall into a pit, about 3 metres deep. And you're stuck down there." The GM has made a different hard move, turning Silas's move back upon him - instead of finding the way in, Silas is stuck with no way in or out. Silas's player then looks at the GM to see what happens next, and so the GM makes another move - and _nothing happens_ is not a GM-side move! Maybe the GM decides someone comes to see who has been trapped in the pit; or decides that Silas, as he looks around, notices a hatch in the floor of the pit; or anything else that conforms to the GM's principles and agenda.


----------



## pemerton (Tuesday at 3:58 AM)

Starfox said:


> Basically, this style of game is constant godmoding (without the negative connotation)?



I don't know what this means.


----------



## chaochou (Tuesday at 8:51 AM)

Starfox said:


> Once the framing is done, does it matter how it is done?




Only if you start at the point where you answer the question "Who _authored _the character's goal?" (not chose, _authored_) will you start to understand the huge gulf between Apocalypse World and the overwhelming majority of D&D.


----------



## niklinna (Tuesday at 5:28 PM)

@pemerton, @chaochou, thanks for your posts. I am in a Blades in the Dark game right now, and what you say crystallizes some things for me about some problems I have had, and how I could play better.


----------



## Manbearcat (Tuesday at 11:04 PM)

AnotherGuy said:


> How did you calculate the DC for the spellcasting check? i.e. 10 + spell level +1 because spell school in opposition?
> And which spells being cast were isolated that increased the DC? Why not just increase their spell level?




So I didn't actually do the proposed Spellcasting Nerfs when I ran 5e.  I just did the 6 listed bullet points at the top. 

The 7 bullet points at the bottom (including Spellcasting changes) are what I proposed would need to be engineered (and stress-tested...and then inevitably iterated upon) in order to optimize 5e for Story Now play.

If I were going to undertake this project, I would probably begin with something like:

* The spellcasting check vs DC has a spread of 40-50 % Success rate with Success With Twist being 30-40 % and a low % of (just) Twist result.  I would have a very mildly graduated relationship between Spell Level and this result spread...probably lump things into Cantrips - Level 2, Level 3 - Level 6, Level 7 - Level 9 buckets with mildly increasing DCs. 

I'd try that out first, see how it plays, adjust if results are undesirable (understand..."desirable" here means (a) heavily nerfed spellcasting and (b) much more dynamic decision-space and consequence-space...tactical, strategic, thematic around spellcasting).


----------

