D&D 5E Experiment: DnD 5e meets Dungeonworld

[MagicSN]

It is not about reward or punishment but about
Having a "living" gameworld which mskes
You feel you are there. And this only works
with 1st person talk and stuff like this.

 

[Illithidbix]

I likewise have a dislike of determining social interactions and challenges between players and NPCs by dice rolling and have a preference towards what is sometimes called “active” or “acting roleplay”, the words and mannerisms that the player portrays of their character is used as the primary basis of the outcome of the scene.
Characters will of course be more/less competent at social situations than the player so when DMing I do take character's charisma scores and proficiencies into account.

I don't expect fantastic oratory and acting performances from my players and assume that most NPCs will go along with something reasonable, unless they have suspicions or orders not to. Likewise most NPCs will take what the player characters say at face value, unless they have good reasons to believe otherwise. If the character is proficient at a social skill then it will influence the vast majority of NPCs unless there is a specific reason why it shouldn't.

However this is at least partially also because myself and almost everyone I regularly game with also do at least as much Live Roleplay as well as tabletop and tend to be pretty confident and speaking in character together. This Focus on active or acting roleplaying does put a lot more pressure of competence onto the player, regardless of how competent their character is meant to be in social situations.

So whilst it is my preferred form of gaming I don't want to get elitist about it and assume that it is objectively "better" than people who prefer to describe things in the third person or just use dice rolls if they find this more comfortable.

 

[Staccat0]

I've done a lot of borrowing from the apocalypse engine, but have erred closer on the other side of it. That system as a lot of practical advice for running a game. Much of it is common sense. All of this is to say, "I approve."

 

[MagicSN]

I likewise have a dislike of determining social interactions and challenges between players and NPCs by dice rolling and have a preference towards what is sometimes called “active” or “acting roleplay”, the words and mannerisms that the player portrays of their character is used as the primary basis of the outcome of the scene.

That's exactly how we handle it as well.

However this is at least partially also because myself and almost everyone I regularly game with also do at least as much Live Roleplay as well as tabletop and tend to be pretty confident and speaking in character together. This Focus

We don't have live rp'ers in our group (well, our main GM joined a live rp I think 1-2 times, but that's years ago...) but it seems we handle the RPG pretty much as you do. For us it might be an influence that most of our players play RPG since a very long time already. So that people are uncomfortable with acting roleplay just does not happen. Even the more quiet people want to act out their characters at our table.

We do not take Cha stats into account, but when at the end of the acting roleplay scene the player rolls the dice the Cha goes into it via
the Persuasion, Deception or whatever roll. Ah, and sometimes we had a "maybe this is something your character would say, mine wouldn't".

As to players who are not so big talkers the GM sometimes takes what the player MEANT his character to be saying instead of what the player actually SAID (at least if the player said something stupid ^^). With people who are bigger talkers he is more "strict" on the other side. On the other side nearly every player had already his "ah that's what I said, but my character said that correctly" moment. And this was always accepted. It is about acting your characters out - it is NOT about getting grades for it ;-)

As to new players or people who only join for a one-timer our main GM always says "say as your character would say, don't worry about speaking, you will get into it fast". And he was always right about this.

Ah, one more thing there is - We at least try to have only one person speaking at a time. Especially for the more quiet people that helps a lot, that the "much-talkers" don't dominate. If someone currently has a scene, let him/her have it. It is also very important that the GM knows the characters well, what their intentions are, what sort of scenes their players love, so they have chances to achieve such scenes.

To people who advocate "only roll dice" I suggest - just try it once the other way. Maybe you will be surprised. And it is much more fun this way ;-) I actually don't care if people speak 1st or 3rd person, as long as they bring over what exactly their character is to achieve. If someone is like "I talk him into doing this-and-that" he needs to say with which arguments... anything else will get a "Why are you rolling dice?"
from the GM at our table ;-)

 

[SheWantstheD&D]

I've been really interested in aspects of the Dungeon World system since listening to Friends At the Table. I think for me having some of the structure of D&D is helpful. I approach each game with a rough outline of the story but leave enough room for the players to swing with it and develop it around their play - I'd expect regardless of the system any good DM would do that, wouldn't they?

I do really like the bond system. My group is fairly experienced at D&D but not all of them are very strong role players. I wanted to encourage them to roleplay without taking away the traditional battles and challenges of D&D -- that is, I want to encourage them to RP, not strong arm them into it. My hope is by giving them an XP incentive to develop and resolve bonds with each other they end up being more invested in each other's characters (party cohesion and story-telling) and also in their own characters. We've just added it so I need time to see if this is how it'll turn out, but those are my expectations.

 

[MagicSN]

I've been really interested in aspects of the Dungeon World system since listening to Friends At the Table. I think for me having some of the structure of D&D is helpful. I approach each game with a rough outline of the story but leave enough room for the players to swing with it and develop it around their play - I'd expect regardless of the system any good DM would do that, wouldn't they?

Not leading the players along a "red line" and develop the game around the character's action is exactly the core of what I would say is in this "experiment". Nothing else we are doing ;-) Everything else is details.

I do really like the bond system. My group is fairly experienced at D&D but not all of them are very strong role players. I wanted to encourage

I assume you mean the "bonds with each other stuff"? The game comes more "alive" with this in action. The whole world goes more alive, if you do not always wonder "why am I hanging out with this person at all" about the other character. If your character has a REASON or even a common backstory (and in this system the backstory actually MATTERS and is not something which never plays a role) the world feels even more alive.

them to roleplay without taking away the traditional battles and challenges of D&D -- that is, I want to encourage them to RP, not strong arm

No need to remove them ;-) Though due to the fact that many challenges can be solved without combat with this "system" you will have less battle encounters. But basically all influenced by the character's actions. If they want more battles they can get them, by acting in a way which gives more battles.

It also depends on what the players expect from play. On our table everyone wants to play his/her character. Nobody is interested in playing a "bag of numbers". The "bag of numbers" issue is why we moved from 4e to 5e ^^ Sure some people do the RP part more "aggressively" than others, but at least at our table everyone wants to do this to some extent. We even had some new players since this new "system", people who never played RPG-Games before, and it worked out for them as well.

them into it. My hope is by giving them an XP incentive to develop and resolve bonds with each other they end up being more invested in

I don't think XP incentives is the right way. Actually if I would suggest something around XP on our table all players without exception would
protest vs. "this outdated bookkeeping" (we just make the levelup based on the story, certain points in the story which usually coincide with a number of "plays"). We have some players who will protest vs. any sort of "extended bookkeeping". Up to a point where they prefer having less goldcoins than other characters to having to bookkeep how many goldcoins they have (yes, that one I also find a bit silly... myselves I always keep down how many goldcoins I have ^^).

What most of our GMs are doing though is if there is a magic item reward, it is usually something tied into the character's backstory and interests (our outcast Paladin got an Armor +1 of his old Paladin order, the young rogue who was the result of magic experiments which left her with scaly skin got an item with which she could cast "Alter Self" to be able to pass herselves off as a normal girl again, the Barbarian in the Thule campaign got his huge iron axe (in Thule iron is next to non-existing, including magic boni), the transformation wizard got a "special" Alchemist stone (heart of the ice paraelemental the group beat, with this stone she now can transform herselves into an ice paraelemental for a short time).

each other's characters (party cohesion and story-telling) and also in their own characters. We've just added it so I need time to see if this is how it'll turn out, but those are my expectations.

Yes, expect you do not get results immediately... but from every play people will "get it" how this story-based play works better.

 

[SheWantstheD&D]

I don't think XP incentives is the right way. Actually if I would suggest something around XP on our table all players without exception would
protest vs. "this outdated bookkeeping" (we just make the levelup based on the story, certain points in the story which usually coincide with a number of "plays"). We have some players who will protest vs. any sort of "extended bookkeeping". Up to a point where they prefer having less goldcoins than other characters to having to bookkeep how many goldcoins they have (yes, that one I also find a bit silly... myselves I always keep down how many goldcoins I have ^^).

I'd say the majority of economics would disagree that there is no value in incentive. If it works for my players then it works. Plus, they don't keep track of their XP, I do. If I'm already keeping track of their encounters and the challenges they overcome why not just go one step further and keep track of the XP, too? There isn't a reason for them to complain about "outdated book keeping". Dungeon World expects the players to tally up their XP too so that really seems like a moot point to bring up.