Advice for new "story now" GMs

[AbdulAlhazred]

You don't need to revamp a single thing to avoid gamism/or gamist dungeoncrawling. And my anecdotal experience is far different from yours. Perhaps it's geographical. I'm in Los Angeles and many of my D&D groups have involved player/DM's who are writers, directors, actors, voice actors, MOCAP performers, stunt men and others in the Hollywood industry.

That's certainly an interesting mix of people.

 

[Maxperson]

That's certainly an interesting mix of people.

Yeah. Put on a blindfold in Los Angeles and throw a rock and it's better than 50/50 that you're going to hit someone who works in the business. I exaggerate, but not by a lot. Especially when it comes to D&D(and other RPGs). Creative folks are drawn to the game and those I listed tend to be very creative people.

 

[niklinna]

Perhaps a case could be made the CoC is worse, because GM-driven stakes and deprotagonisation are so inherent to CoC play.

Well now, deprotagonization is a classic element of horror as a genre, period, regardless of game. The players in my Torg Eternity Orrorsh campaign just brought this up at our last session and we have opened a discussion about how much to include that as an element of play. Some players are fine with being hit by deprotagonizing gotchas specifically tied to the theme of corruption (as opposed to deprotagonization by, say, plot railroading and the like), others want to have some idea of what's at stake as players, before they have their characters risk the temptations.

 

[niklinna]

Yes, you can play 'low myth D&D' to a degree. However, the system is going to constantly trip you up. My advice is don't do it. Any imagined 'advantage' will evaporate immediately when you play simply due to the fact that its a lot more work to get around the issues than it is to simply adopt a system, like DW, that does what you want and tells you how to run such a game.

So here's a thing. People talk all the time about hacking and kitbashing D&D to do any style of play. Somebody did just that in creating Dungeon World. It's got the six attributes, it's got polyhedrals for damage rolls, it's got classes & races, and it is further hackable to suit house tastes. What makes Dungeon World objectionable as a kitbashed hack of D&D? The lack of the specific name? The lack of some particular mechanic that got hacked out? Something tells me no....

 

[loverdrive]

but the result is still, by and large, going to look and feel like 'classic' or 'traditional' D&D as you know it."

Either that, or barely distinguishable from freeform roleplaying

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So here's a thing. People talk all the time about hacking and kitbashing D&D to do any style of play. Somebody did just that in creating Dungeon World. It's got the six attributes, it's got polyhedrals for damage rolls, it's got classes & races, and it is further hackable to suit house tastes. What makes Dungeon World objectionable as a kitbashed hack of D&D? The lack of the specific name? The lack of some particular mechanic that got hacked out? Something tells me no....

Yeah, I mean, from my perspective, its a PbtA-based story now system with D&D genre assumptions, and color. BUT from the perspective of a D&D kitbash person, what DOES make it 'not kitbashed D&D'? Not much! I mean, if we assumed we're starting at a base of, essentially, 2e AD&D, we have the classes, and like late-era 2e each class has a fair number of build options (kits, NWPs, sub-classes, and other late-2e-era gimmicks). Yes, the COMBAT system is pretty much completely different, though it still features checks to test for success, armor, and hit points. Admittedly the fundamental structure of combat doesn't include 'rounds', etc. However, Defy Danger, Spout Lore, and Discern Realities, which probably make up over 50% of all DW moves, are pretty clearly related at a crude mechanical level with subsystems present in D&D (IE ability checks/saves, deciding what you know, and searching/perceiving stuff).

It feels to me like it isn't really a matter of mechanics here. Despite the talk of 'kit bashing' a narrativist solution, any such solution that really WORKED would run afoul of what I consider the fundamental objection, which is the model of allocation of roles in authoring of fiction, or maybe more generally 'source' of fiction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I mean, from my perspective, its a PbtA-based story now system with D&D genre assumptions, and color. BUT from the perspective of a D&D kitbash person, what DOES make it 'not kitbashed D&D'? Not much! I mean, if we assumed we're starting at a base of, essentially, 2e AD&D, we have the classes, and like late-era 2e each class has a fair number of build options (kits, NWPs, sub-classes, and other late-2e-era gimmicks). Yes, the COMBAT system is pretty much completely different, though it still features checks to test for success, armor, and hit points. Admittedly the fundamental structure of combat doesn't include 'rounds', etc. However, Defy Danger, Spout Lore, and Discern Realities, which probably make up over 50% of all DW moves, are pretty clearly related at a crude mechanical level with subsystems present in D&D (IE ability checks/saves, deciding what you know, and searching/perceiving stuff).

It feels to me like it isn't really a matter of mechanics here. Despite the talk of 'kit bashing' a narrativist solution, any such solution that really WORKED would run afoul of what I consider the fundamental objection, which is the model of allocation of roles in authoring of fiction, or maybe more generally 'source' of fiction.

As with many things in D&D, there really isn't a line that can be identified. When someone says something is or isn't D&D, what they're saying is, "This doesn't trigger my gut-feeling recognition of 'D&D' things." It's completely personal and unstructured. Which is fine, if all one wishes to do is express personal preference/interest/etc. Issues arise when one starts to reify such things--I'm sure all of us have heard of at least one example thereof.

 

[Lanefan]

So here's a thing. People talk all the time about hacking and kitbashing D&D to do any style of play. Somebody did just that in creating Dungeon World. It's got the six attributes, it's got polyhedrals for damage rolls, it's got classes & races, and it is further hackable to suit house tastes. What makes Dungeon World objectionable as a kitbashed hack of D&D? The lack of the specific name? The lack of some particular mechanic that got hacked out? Something tells me no....

And in a case of "what goes around comes around" there's a DM in our crew who is using a mash-up of DW and house rules to run what seems largely like a typical (by our standards) D&D game. So far so good, four years in.

 

[clearstream]

A conversation with a couple of friends about "tips for new GMs" blogs/Q+As led to someone suggesting a thread along these lines. So here it is.

At the heart of "story now" RPGing is the players bring the protagonism. The players decide what it is that their PCs care about, what their motivations are, what their projects will be. I'll bundle all these up as the players' concerns for their PCs.

I've been mulling this over, not in disagreement. A thought I had is that another sort of "heart of 'story now'" is emergent dramatic premises, in respect of which the player protagonism drives or delivers a story that matters to us. (EDIT See my quote of Callois 1958 in my immediately following post for what I understand to be a direct implication.)

This gives the GM three important, and related, jobs during play: to facilitate; to respond; to oppose. A fourth job happens outside play: to prep.

Prep: there's a lot that can be said about the role of prep in "story now" play, but some simple ideas are enough to start. You need to learn what your players' concerns are for their PCs. The easiest way to learn this is to ask them. This can be part of PC gen. (Burning Wheel and Torchbearer are both good systems for this approach.) It can also be part of a first session where the players and GM bounce off one another to build up the initial situation for the game. (Apocalypse Word uses this approach.)

Once you've learned what your players' concerns are for their PCs, think up - and if it makes sense for your game system, stat out - a few situations and a few NPCs that speak to those concerns. Think up some links between them - use ideas the players have given you, and add your own. Soap operas and Marvel Comics can be your guide here - making everything interconnected (my family nemesis is also a cultist of the demon you're sworn to defeat) will make it easier to do your other jobs.

Many story now games will offer some system of bonds or commitments. Often connected to the reward apparatus. Passively, these can work just fine. Related to my first point, as GM I feel like you want to prep something that looks likely to stress these. You've covered that with the fundamental "learn what your player's concerns are for their PCs" and this takes it a little further to say to what ends.

Facilitation: it's your job to "set the stage" so that the players can pursue their PCs' concerns. This means presenting situations that speak to those concerns, and thus prompt the players to declare actions for their PCs. This is where your prep can be helpful. But if you need to take a 5 minute break to think up something new and appropriate, don't be afraid to tell the players that. Let them talk among themselves for a little bit while you exercise your imagination!

It's helpful, here, to know how your game's action resolution system works, because if you prompt your players to declare actions that your system can't handle, that can be a problem. It pushes play away from the player protagonism you're aiming for, and into either rules debates, or rules-free storytime.

Also, different game systems express different attitudes towards "rigidity" of prep. As a general rule, though, I suggest it can be better to be flexible with your prep - adapt your situations and your NPCs that you've worked up, in order to do the job of facilitating - rather than sticking to it rigidly and risking things becoming boring or aimless. (There's a skill in sticking to your prep and keeping things interesting and focused on the players' concerns for their PCs. The Apocalypse World rulebook is excellent, maybe essential, reading for anyone who wants to develop this skill.)

The last decade or so has delivered (or made explicit) several powerful tools to RPG. Fiction first, as brilliantly articulated in AW and found in all PbtA. No-myth and player authorship, which go hand-in-hand and lay the ground work for players to really be authors (not just to establish the fiction, but to do so in the distinct way of forming a story.) Use of the metagame so that "when a player 'really means it' then their character's impact on play needs to increase" as perhaps best demonstrated in BitD. And goal-driven play (instead of adventure-paths or map-and-key).

Those in various constellations can fairly passively give rise to vanilla narrativism: in my experience they can allow successful drift and hybrids. I think story now wants to push it a bit further, so that some combination of situation, system elements, adversity management, and player advocacy finds out what happens when who you are and what you believe is cast into question. As you lay out, situation and system elements are thus important parts of facilitation.

Responding: when your players declare actions, you have to respond. Your game should (if it's got a good rulebook) tell you how to do this. Maybe your response is to call for some appropriate dice roll. Maybe it's to say something more that develops the situation. Maybe both: first dice are rolled, and then you say something that honours the outcome of the dice role and develops the situation appropriately.

The big pitfall here is prejudgement. If your responses impose your own prejudgement of how things "should" go, then you've lost that player protagonism you were aspiring to. It's fine to inject your own ideas - you're a creative individual, just like your players! - but your ideas should complement and build on what the players have contributed, in accordance with whatever the rules of your game say. They shouldn't contradict or override them.

A useful technique here is to follow the lead of your players' response to your responses. If the players pick up your responses and run with them, then great! Build on that positive feedback cycle. On the other hand, if the players push back on your response, don't ignore that. Sometimes it might make sense to overtly retcon in response to such pushback, but I think a better first step is to use your game's own rules and procedures to invite the players to reorient back to their concerns. Maybe you can ask them questions that invite them, as their characters, to think about how they want to respond to the situation that is dissatisfying to them as players: that might prompt some new action declarations which allow the players and you to steer things away from the dissatisfying towards the satisfying.

Opposition: protagonism needs antagonism. It's your job, as GM, to bring that. It's something to keep in mind both when you're facilitating, and when you're responding. Not every bit of facilitation needs to involve opposition - sometimes it's fun and interesting to offer a player (and their PC) an opportunity, rather than presenting them with a challenge or a conflict - but sometimes it needs to. By presenting situations that oppose the players' concerns for their PCs - whether that is NPCs acting against the PCs' interests, or impersonal obstacles - you not only prompt the players to declare actions, but you give the players a chance to really show that their PCs mean it! (Or, perhaps, that they don't. That's interesting too.)

Not every response needs to involve opposition or confrontation. Sometimes a success takes a PC to a nice place for a while. Sometimes a failure just brings pain. But opposition is a nice way of responding. And it can be both a reward for success - the PC gets to confront the antagonist, or the impersonal force, the player was hoping for - or a consequence for failure - the PC has to confront some new obstacle or antagonism that they weren't anticipating. But when using opposition as a consequence for failure, still keep in mind that the game is focused on the players' concerns for their PCs. You'll need to find your balance here - most players will probably accept that a failure entitles the GM to put their imprint on the situation, but don't use it as an excuse to reorient play towards something completely different. Good standbys are old enemies turning up again, or new opponents who really care (but in the wrong way) about a PC's ideology or beliefs, or a NPC or situation that will let a player deploy their PC's central skill or method or approach.

Adversity management comes in here. I have some quibbles with prejudgement, even while agreeing with the not contradicting or overriding part. I don't think you rule it out, so I would just here rule in being opinionated (or grasping the opinion of the design.)

*****************

I hope that it's clear that facilitation, response and opposition are not mutually exclusive. They're not steps in a cycle of play. (The rulebook for your game should tell you what the cycle of play is, and what its steps are.)

Rather, facilitation, response and opposition are interrelated jobs. Good responses facilitate. One way to facilitate is to oppose, and one sort of response is opposition. But some facilitation should provide the PCs (and thereby the players) with opportunities other than just confronting challenges. Getting the hang of this - how to pace things, how hard to push - is a skill that takes time. But if in doubt, follow the signs your players are sending, as described above under Responding.

And remember: the reason for presenting the jobs in this way is to orient your thinking, as a "story now" GM, towards the players' concerns for their PCs. Or in other words, to orient your GMing towards player protagonism. That's the heart of "story now" RPGing.

******************************

Anyway, the above is a starting point. There's a lot more that could be said about "story now" GMing. One big topic is how setting factors into "story now" RPGing, and related ideas like "no myth"/"low myth" RPGing. And if you're already familiar with some other approaches to RPGing, there are also things to be said about how the "story now" approach is different. (Eg why is the idea of a "plot hook" unhelpful for "story now" GMs?)

But hopefully what I've written above is enough to get some discussion going!

So my comment/question is really - dramatic premise - what about it? I could be wrong, but I feel like it's important to get in there explicitly. Note that I'm talking about a process or emergence. Some designs have certain types or natures of premise implied right in them, but that is without dictating what versions of that will emerge in play.

 

[clearstream]

I feel like "story now" is essentially trying to incorporate "consent first" principles into TTRPGs, which means that the GM has to be a lot more sensitive to and caring about sometimes subtle clues from players during the game, and sometimes must make sure to ask questions up front. Those are good things for relationships in general, and TTRPGs are, at their core, about relationships between the players that can go on for years.

I think that "consent first" isn't really what story now is "essentially" about. Let me back up a bit, as this has certainly been a journey for me. There are a number of important and powerful techniques associated with - but also rather separable from - story now, and consent is probably one of them... due to the outer wrapper of play being the social contract.

However, that's not story now. I think story now most essentially aims to put players into the position of genuine protagonists in dramatic narratives. Half a century ago Callois wrote that

"game consists of the need to find or continue at once a response which is free within the limits set by the rules"

Given a theory that dramatic narrative is built around premises, the direct implication is that in order to really be protagonists they must be put in a position of true authorship (and this is not of being authors, but of doing authoring.) Otherwise how is their response "free within the limits set by the rules"?