D&D (2024) What could One D&D do to push the game more toward story?

[Malmuria]

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!]

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]

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

 

[Reynard]

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 roleplayer and my character..." type problems to the table

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

 

[Reynard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.