D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[clearstream]

Here is the thing about me that may be making some of my commentary non-transferable or incomprehensible to others.

I come from an athletics and martial arts background.

I spent ages 4 through college ruthlessly committed to baseball (of which I played through college). I spent most of that time period also playing basketball, football, wrestling, tennis, golf, and various track/running.

I’m a Brown Belt and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (and I really have no excuse to not be a Black Belt other than losing interest primarily due to both rotator cuffs being torn multiple times and cervical injuries).

I now spend much of my physical time working on being as good of a climber as I can be.


My brain is absolutely oriented toward extreme focus on micro-goal-attainment. Part of this is genetic, but a HUGE part of the array of cognitive features that make that so is due to the mental demands of that physical life and the well-understood Best Practices approach to maximizing your capability (focus on what you can control and narrow your focus to the attainment of micro goals to the exclusion of the big picture).

This has very much helped me to focus intensively on the moment and run scene-based games with obstacles and objectives.

So when I look at any TTRPG tech, I look at it through that prism. When I run any scene, I look at it through that prism. If for whatever reason I don’t understand what players are trying to accomplish, I make it abundantly clear for all parties via direct conversation. We then set about mechanizing the test for “is this objective attained or not attained?” And I make that mechanical archetecture clear. I doubt players who come away from a game with me will ever be confused as to (a) what just happened or (b) how the gamestate was moved from here to there and how the content of the shared fiction was resolved.


Now will this be different in a scene of Dogs in the Vineyard where you’re confronting your traumatic past (and making decisions about when/how to martial Traits/Relationships/Things and how to manage your dice pools/potential Fallout…and maybe when/if you Give) with your abusive Aunt…the same Aunt that you’re now obliged to try to exorcise a demon from…vs a social conflict in DW using a Tug of War Clock where you’re a Paladin trying to adjure a demon from a non-relative (and you’re simultaneously dealing with the various tech and subtle thematic divergence that underwrites this scene in each game)?


ABSOLUTELY.

But my brain has a very particular focus. And if I had to guess (@darkbard can correct me on this if I’m wrong), that focus comes through in play as distilling moments of play and objectives of play in an extremely clear fashion.

That focus…that lack of murk and obfuscation…coupled with the clarity of ethos and mechanical effect of the games I run…we’ll, it feels very Win Con - ey to me!

Through your lense, say that (by analogy) you give up or eschew a good hold on a climb, to make your next six moves far more demanding. Could that come out of an agenda that says - it's not if I win overall that matters (e.g., reach the top of the boulder), it's the difficulty of each moment that I overcome... the expressed skill of each move that I make*.




*I am assuming a relationship between skill and difficulty, were we can confidently say an expressed move is more skillful if it overcomes a higher difficulty. There is nuance to that, which I can unpack if needed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The conclusion you arrive to is quite surprising. I would say the opposite is true. A leader needs nuances, motivations, needs, for skilled play to occur.

I'm currently running Lost Caverns of Tsojcants with OSE (B/X d&d) rulesets. The vast wilderness part before the actual caverns really demands skilled play in terms of engaging with the fiction, the environment, but most importantly the opposing/interacting factions (there are many) to even think of finding a safe place to rest and heal.

Players must be very careful when approaching human patrols, monsters' lairs, or bands of goblinoids/tribesmen/dwarves/gnomes/half-orc smugglers ecc.

(By the way, I always ask for their Task & Intent when they declare actions, or approaches to situations )

I think what @pemerton was saying here is that a realistically detailed world admits of so many possible variables which are unconstrained (because they are simply details which the game world's developer has not the time and energy to specify) that it would be basically just always DM Fiat what happens next, or else left up to some toss of dice. Either way, trying to bargain with an orc leader would be a puzzle beyond reasonably solving. We don't know what he wants, or how to communicate our offer, or even how to approach. We could certainly come up with 'solutions', but again this is just playing the DM, even he doesn't have answers to what will work. Honestly, the skill is actually more STORYMAKING skill here, where all the participants at the table try to figure out how to all agree to an interesting scenario.

This is what motivated the generation of skill systems (I know, I was there). Nobody knew what was 'likely to happen', so it was deemed better to play at the skill of bringing the most bonuses to bear on a 'diplomacy check' than on a 'manipulate the DM/story operation'. Plus you could still try to control the framing of the checks (intent/cost/consequences) such as to come out with an optimum mix of risk to reward. This is a type of skill, it was accepted as such, and in MOST circles it was accepted as MORE skilled than "talking the DM into say the orc takes your bribe." At least it was a skill more apropo of playing an RPG, as it is more about the characters and less about the participants in the game. OTOH it also may encourage a '3rd person stance' at times. I think DW and such games are partly a reaction to THAT.

 

[Manbearcat]

Through your lense, say that (by analogy) you give up or eschew a good hold on a climb, to make your next six moves far more demanding. Could that come out of an agenda that says - it's not if I win overall that matters (e.g., reach the top of the boulder), it's the difficulty of each moment that I overcome... the expressed skill of each move that I make*.




*I am assuming a relationship between skill and difficulty, were we can confidently say an expressed move is more skillful if it overcomes a higher difficulty. There is nuance to that, which I can unpack if needed.

I like your post here. This is very insightful and applicable.

Here is what I'll say on this. Lets limit this exclusively to bouldering. You have a (roughly) 15 ft high, graded route/obstacle on a wall or an underhang or a "soccer ball-esque object" or some combination thereof + a sequence of holds/moves that integrate into what is called "beta" (the prescribed moveset to ascend...but you have to (a) figure out this puzzle and (b) figure out if it works for you or if you need to adjust). When you're (well, at least me) bouldering, you're typically doing one of three things:

* Training - You're working on specific techniques and/or conditioning your skin and/or strengthening specific parts of key muscle groups (eg perhaps you're working on "crimpy" holds for fingers. You're likely still working on ascending particular routes, but you're focus is "getting better and getting more comfortable/moralized with particular techniques/holds/obstacles ("problems" is the parlance climbers use)"; that is the Win Con.

* Practice/Play Sessions - This is basically your standard deal. Get warmed up. Assess obstacles (again, they're called "problems" but I'm not going to try to afflict that jargon on folks here) and try to crack the beta or develop your own route if the beta doesn't work for you. Then climb. You work on obstacles that are at the apex of what you're capable of (V+ number between 0 and 9 at my gym but they conceptually go up to 17). Its not just important to ascend obstacles of your apex grade, but to be able to ascend the variety of obstacles available (eg a V4 might be extremely easy for you because the setup plays to your strengths...whereas another V4 may be approaching virtual impossibility because it leverages your weaknesses). So you're trying to (a) push your apex and (b) turn your weaknesses into strengths; that is the Win Con.

* Horse - This is just what it sounds like. Its the basketball version of Horse. You pick an obstacle and intentionally "break the beta", coming up with odd sequences of moves to ascend the route that you can (hopefully) manage and it will (hopefully) challenge who you're competing against. Obviously the Win Con here is having your opponent get the "E" (fail 5 times to match your sequence on a route you've ascended) before you do!


Back to what you're proposing above:

"Through your lense, say that (by analogy) you give up or eschew a good hold on a climb, to make your next six moves far more demanding. Could that come out of an agenda that says - it's not if I win overall that matters (e.g., reach the top of the boulder), it's the difficulty of each moment that I overcome... the expressed skill of each move that I make*."

This happens mostly in the first mode of bouldering (Training) and the last mode (Horse). Obviously Horse is a competitive game with a clear Win Con. Training (as I've outlined above) also is competitive and has a Win Con; improve confidence/morale/poise, techniques, strength/coordination/dexterity/balance, skin conditioning, managing particular holds, improving transitioning from a hold/moveset to a divergent one.

Honestly, practicing falling/landing is important as well (in Training).

However, it is also fundamental to the second mode. Because one of the primary Win Cons there is "push your apex." Eschewing holds (or boulders with less difficult holds/sequences) for more difficult holds/sequences is fundamental to that Win Con.

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess I don't like the terminology 'constraining', as if the players and the GM are really wrestling for leverage on the narrative.

Here is where I disagree with this and why it seems like you and I (in particular...though with others as well) are experiencing a disconnect.

When I'm GMing Apocalypse World or Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark (or any other PBtA or FitD game or derivative), its not ME wrestling for leverage of the narrative with the player.

Folks will have seen me say these three words many times before:

"The System's Say"

That is what the players are wrestling with for the trajectory of the narrative (or leverage on as you put it above); the system. That is their opposition/nemesis. The snowballing action resolution, the game of "Spinning Plates" and all the other integrated system architecture (eg navigating Range tag bands to get that Hack and Slash off, Forceful, Messy, Debilities, squishy but precious Cohorts, various resource loss...this goes on for days) that opposes their sought ends is a real bogeyman that they have to confront and resolve. I just give that mechanical effect and make sure its attendant to the premise of play and the thematic life the players have breathed into their characters/relationships via evinced dramatic needs.

And in so doing (giving the System its Say and ensuring the thematic/premise integrity of play), I absolutely am constrained in a dozen or more ways via the play agenda, the GMing principles, in the procedures embedded into each particular procedure/move/clock, and into the thematic material the players have invested the game with (and the continuity of that material to date).

The System's Say is the proverbial Sword of Domacles that hangs over play...and its waaaaay more potent than in classical D&D (because its volition will spiral...not can...will...and you have to beat that will all by yourself...because I'm not on your side...I'm here "to find out").

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My personal thoughts on this are that if the GM has the capacity to override results or push play in a given direction for story reasons them making the active choice not is itself a choice that pushes play in a direction of their choosing. If I only have the ability to impact the fiction when the GM decides not to override play in that way then there is no real ability to do so. It's smoke and mirrors.

In all fairness, there are plenty of games where there is both Story Now, AND established canon. That would be true, for example, of many supers games where there is extensive canon, but systems which focus on other aspects, like interpersonal, or character growth, or whatever. Within that realm there is no defined pre-generated story, but in terms of the 'geography' of the game world, you aren't just making it up on the fly.

However, I agree with you that, at least with respect to the elements that the participants care about, GM fiat is a sort of absolute power that obviates player independent decision-making and choice.

 

[clearstream]

However, I agree with you that, at least with respect to the elements that the participants care about, GM fiat is a sort of absolute power that obviates player independent decision-making and choice.

Where I have struggled with that in this thread is where I perceive a dilemma created by this, when I try to also think about -

a realistically detailed world admits of so many possible variables which are unconstrained (because they are simply details which the game world's developer has not the time and energy to specify) that it would be basically just always DM Fiat what happens next

So then... is it that we must believe the DM was (and is) always obviating player independent decision-making and choice whenever there are details not specified in advance... that let in DM fiat?

I know that this is an unappealing suggestion! I gain a sense that posters would like to finagle there way around it, to say something like - the right kind of DM-fiat, or done under the right principles - will not obviate player skill. So then I wonder how such "right principles" are being understood operate, so as to make the unspecified specified, or in some other way redress the fault?

One approach might be to say that unspecified details with no valency to our current concerns won't matter, but then I recall how wide afield the concerns of my players can roam, and I wonder if valencies are going to be enough alike from table to table? Still, I think this is where a shared agenda does some work, along with its idiosyncratic choices about what needs to be detailed and what can be glossed over.

Back to the dilemma, however. Do you also perceive it?

 

[clearstream]

Here is where I disagree with this and why it seems like you and I (in particular...though with others as well) are experiencing a disconnect.

When I'm GMing Apocalypse World or Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark (or any other PBtA or FitD game or derivative), its not ME wrestling for leverage of the narrative with the player.

Folks will have seen me say these three words many times before:

"The System's Say"

That is what the players are wrestling with for the trajectory of the narrative (or leverage on as you put it above); the system. That is their opposition/nemesis. The snowballing action resolution, the game of "Spinning Plates" and all the other integrated system architecture (eg navigating Range tag bands to get that Hack and Slash off, Forceful, Messy, Debilities, squishy but precious Cohorts, various resource loss...this goes on for days) that opposes their sought ends is a real bogeyman that they have to confront and resolve. I just give that mechanical effect and make sure its attendant to the premise of play and the thematic life the players have breathed into their characters/relationships via evinced dramatic needs.

And in so doing (giving the System its Say and ensuring the thematic/premise integrity of play), I absolutely am constrained in a dozen or more ways via the play agenda, the GMing principles, in the procedures embedded into each particular procedure/move/clock, and into the thematic material the players have invested the game with (and the continuity of that material to date).

The System's Say is the proverbial Sword of Domacles that hangs over play...and its waaaaay more potent than in classical D&D (because its volition will spiral...not can...will...and you have to beat that will all by yourself...because I'm not on your side...I'm here "to find out").

I have an idea about this

1. One internalises a principle
2. Given a prompt to respond, one subliminally ideates options for responding with
3. Options are filtered or promoted by internalised principle until one or a few crystallise
4. Crystallised options perforce feel like one had no choice: it must be this way

Speculatively: A) The principle internalised in 1. cannot avail in filtering options one never ideates. B) We may not consciously know precisely what we have internalised. C) Per-player differences will impinge on what is internalised; in conjunction with B) leading to subtle gaps or disagreements in understanding.

Of course, this is all made tremendously more complex because one is internalising multiple principles and game mechanics, and each one is subject to B) and C). While local contexts will always produce novel judgements related to A).

 

[Manbearcat]

I have an idea about this

1. One internalises a principle
2. Given a prompt to respond, one subliminally ideates options for responding with
3. Options are filtered or promoted by internalised principle until one or a few crystallise
4. Crystallised options perforce feel like one had no choice: it must be this way

Speculatively: A) The principle internalised in 1. cannot avail in filtering options one never ideates. B) We may not consciously know precisely what we have internalised. C) Per-player differences will impinge on what is internalised; in conjunction with B) leading to subtle gaps or disagreements in understanding.

Of course, this is all made tremendously more complex because one is internalising multiple principles and game mechanics, and each one is subject to B) and C). While local contexts will always produce novel judgements related to A).

I think I understand what you're trying to convey here, but you're going to have to demonstrate on something more substantial.

A goodly (his goddess is of Emotion and Truth) Paladin stumbles upon a hut with a mother and child.

The evidence in the hut reveals a twisted relationship of neglect and abuse.

Worse, the mother seems deranged, pestilential, or both.

The mother attacks as the frightened child attempts to intervene.

The small child could trivially be killed via the mother's crazy aggression and/or a violent reprisal by the Paladin.

Something has to be done immediately to spare the child. Does the Paladin:

• Slay her.
• Lay on Hands and draw forth her pestilential derangement.
• Adjure the demon within by his divine-bulwarked decrees, prayers, and sacred implements.

---

What happens here?

What is the player's say?

What is the system's say?

What is the GM's say?

You can pick your system and elaborate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What do you think of the thought-worm in Earthdawn as an example of compelling design? Not related to the modes of play we have been discussing, but rather to the job of getting players to live the sinister manipulation that horrors ought to be capable of. Another example might be Wrath of God in MtG. It's symmetrical, destructive design puts in play an idea of divine justice. Again, I'm not thinking here about modes of play specifically, more about motivated designs.

Were prototypes of Valiant Strike different from the published version? I wonder, because one can see that the published version is manageable in play (4e pushes toward miniatures and grids, so simply - count adjacent enemies.) But say we are surrounded by minions - they're not really a threat - ideally one might prefer not to scale the at-will. On the other hand, each published mechanic has a cost. I would guess that the effort to prototype, test, refine and balance this one made the payoff worth it. It is easy to parse and the effect is unlikely to get crazy. It reminds me of Virus (CE) for some reason.

In another thread I used the term gameful narrative (much to the mystification of others). The atoms of gameful narrative are these designs that pull you into a world-concept that their designer has grasped and formed into the mechanic. Collectively - the chosen set of mechanics - forms a marvelous machine: an author of a department in Borges' Library of Babel.

My Earthdawn foo is pretty much limited to 2nd hand. I know there is a 'Thought Worm' ritual that grants a sort of telepathy to the PCs, right? I don't know if it has any sinister implications or not. The color seems a bit sinister, that sort of magic in ED is usually styled 'blood rituals' etc. The whole imagery of a 'worm in your thoughts' is a bit squiggy... OTOH AFAIK it sounds like the EFFECTS are just to allow a group of characters to have a sort of 'walkie talkie' kind of telepathic link? Wrath of God is fairly evocative in M:tG, yes. Of course, IN PLAY, the effect is generally more to 'punish the enemy' lol. Still, there's good color there.

Obviously I don't know about prototypes of 4e powers. That one seems like once the game design was 'there' then it is a relatively straightforward idea to depict 'valiance' via the mechanics of Valiant Strike. You can see similar design choices in things like the Avenger's class feature. That probably took some iterations of design. I'd note that some classes, like Wizard, obviously seem less robustly tied to their role/thematics. Honestly, IMHO, 'Arcane' is a bad choice of a power source, since its thematics is basically "anything you can do with magic, which is potentially anything at all." So, 4e certainly doesn't succeed in a really even way here.

I'd also note that I am of the opinion that the vast array of 4e powers worked against the game. It is what it is, but I would not do the way they did it, in that particularly respect. I guess hindsight is 20/20, right? Dungeon World's playbooks obviously have similar design considerations. I guess you could say that the same is true for other similar designs (other D&Ds).

Now, what is interesting would be to consider other games. Traveller is quite thematic, but it entirely eschews this sort of design.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I know I'm still a few days behind on this thread, but I gotta say, that @Ovinomancer kinda raised a flag with that statement IMHO. PbtA games (Certainly DW which I'm really familiar with) are GIVE AND TAKE on story. The GM frames everything, but the game process/agenda GUIDES and INFORMS what that framing is! It isn't some sort of contest between the GM and the players to 'wrest control of the narrative' or something.

In DW the player picks 'Wizard' for his PC, and then maybe he picks 'Neutral: learn something about a magical mystery' and a bond like 'The fighter is woefully misinformed about the world; I will teach them all that I can.' There will be questions asked too, so some background established. The GM can only draw from that stuff, and the other players stuff to make the story, but none of that is "the player wresting control of the narrative" or even attempting to constrain the GM, it is INFORMING the GM and GUIDING the GM as to what the player wants to find out when he plays!

Actually, I was thinking about this, and there ARE some 'unwritten rules' that I think (maybe they are not things that other GM's adhere to) should be binding on a GM in DW. This amounts to "you cannot take away the player's stuff." So, if a PC took a big risk and won a magic sword, the GM CANNOT take that sword away! Only if the PC wagers it in another situation (IE if the fighter jams his magic sword in the mouth of the Great Dragon so it cannot bite the wizard, well, maybe it can get bit off!). There's no possibility of something like a 'Rust Monster' in DW! I mean, if there was it would have to be telegraphed via soft moves that clearly gave the PCs a choice "go here and your magic items/metal gear may be ruined" and play that against their bonds or something. That's fair game, but the players should know what they're risking etc. Really, if you don't do that, then the whole point of things like bonds is obviated anyway.

In any case, the real point is, there are always unwritten parts to the rules of pretty much any game, even one that is very transparent, like DW.