Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Baron Opal II]

I wouldn't mind playing a game to see how that kind of system works. But, I like rolling dice, too. I would miss it.

 

[clearstream]

Kind of. Players roll all the dice in most PBtA games BUT this doesn't mean that the GM just makes mechanically uninformed judgements for hits/misses as the OP suggests. Instead, the players roll dice for all that stuff. For example, if a monster attacks a PC, the player makes a roll for their character to dodge/parry that attack. It doesn't just arbitrarily hit or miss because the GM says so. Note that D&D 3.5 had an option for this (as it related to combat, anyhow), as well.

The thing is, for PbtA moves or 5e ability use, GM says whether there will be a roll at all. In both cases, a GM can just grant success or say it's impossible.

 

[kenada]

The thing is, for PbtA moves or 5e ability use, GM says whether there will be a roll at all. In both cases, a GM can just grant success or say it's impossible.

That’s not how things work in PbtA. If you do it, you do it. The move triggers.

 

[clearstream]

That’s not how things work in PbtA. If you do it, you do it. The move triggers.

The move doesn't just trigger, everyone (including GM) has to say that it triggers. It's an RPG not a videogame.

What I've observed in play with different groups is that typically it's the GM who calls it. One could just say they're playing it wrong. The RAW and advice isn't unambiguous.

 

[kenada]

Could I tax your memory to recall the actual words in the rule book on who decides if it triggers?

Sure, see below. PbtA games use mechanics as part of their story-creating process. For the GM to be able to decide whether something is possible or impossible requires the GM to know what the story will be, which would result in unprincipled play.

The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.

Always Say​

• What the principles demand (as follow).
• What the rules demand.
• What your prep demands.
• What honesty demands.

Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.

Always be scrupulous, even generous, with the truth. The players depend on you to give them real information they can really use, about their characters’ surroundings, about what’s happening when and where. Same with the game’s rules: play with integrity and an open hand. The players are entitled to the full benefits of their moves, their rolls, their characters’ strengths and resources. Don’t chisel them, don’t weasel, don’t play gotcha.

 

[clearstream]

@kenada Is your contention that it is only possible for a GM to be scrupulous, playing with integrity and an open-hand, if the game mechanics include random methods of resolution?

That a GM can't possibly give players the full benefit of their declarations, unless dice are rolled?

 

[kenada]

@kenada Is your contention that it is only possible for a GM to be scrupulous, playing with integrity and an open-hand, if the game mechanics include random methods of resolution?

No, my contention is that the GM can only do all of the above by following the rules, which specify that moves trigger when the PCs do them. It’s right there in your creative agenda: play to find out what happens. If the GM decides what happens instead, then you’re not doing that anymore.

The game spends several paragraphs (quoted below) explaining your agenda and how you should not be deciding. Intuitions about how to run other games don’t necessarily apply in PbtA games because they use rules and mechanics to different effect. It’s not like a common approach taken in D&D the mechanics are ultimately subordinate to the story being told. No story is told in a PbtA game. You’re playing to discover (create) it.

AGENDA​

• Make Apocalypse World seem real.
• Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.

Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no other. It’s not, for instance, your agenda to make the players lose, or to deny them what they want, or to punish them, or to control them, or to get them through your pre-planned storyline (DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I’m not f—— around). It’s not your job to put their characters in double-binds or dead ends, or to yank the rug out from under their feet. Go chasing after any of those, you’ll wind up with a boring game that makes Apocalypse World seem contrived, and you’ll be pre-deciding what happens by yourself, not playing to find out.

Play to find out: there’s a certain discipline you need in order to MC Apocalypse World. You have to commit yourself to the game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the players’ characters. You have to open yourself to caring what happens, but when it comes time to say what happens, you have to set what you hope for aside.

That a GM can't possibly give players the full benefit of their declarations, unless dice are rolled?

If a move triggers, then it means an outcome is uncertain. The only principled response is rolling the dice.

 

[clearstream]

No, my contention is that the GM can only do all of the above by following the rules, which specify that moves trigger when the PCs do them. It’s right there in your creative agenda: play to find out what happens. If the GM decides what happens instead, then you’re not doing that anymore.

Again, it's not a videogame. Agreement that a move is invoked requires just that, agreement. I notice again and again in these debates an assumption of sincerity and judiciousness in saying what follows from the method, rule or system someone is arguing for, and assumptions of insincerity or injudiciousness for the alternative.

The game spends several paragraphs (quoted below) explaining your agenda and how you should not be deciding. Intuitions about how to run other games don’t necessarily apply in PbtA games because they use rules and mechanics to different effect. It’s not like a common approach taken in D&D the mechanics are ultimately subordinate to the story being told. No story is told in a PbtA game. You’re playing to discover (create) it.

Can you explain the necessity of random means of resolution in having and following an agenda?

If a move triggers, then it means an outcome is uncertain. The only principled response is rolling the dice.

This relies on tautologically assuming a roll was required in the first place, to justify requiring a roll.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

No, I have never considered doing this. If you did, then D&D stops being a game and becomes - something else. And this is a wholly unsatisfying to me. Also, there are approximately 10, 000 rpgs that do narrative storytelling way better than D&D 5E.

 

[Professor Murder]

No, I have never considered doing this. If you did, then D&D stops being a game and becomes - something else. And this is a wholly unsatisfying to me. Also, there are approximately 10, 000 rpgs that do narrative storytelling way better than D&D 5E.

For clarity, you can note that this thread is not in the DnD section, it is in general RPG. I don't mention DnD or even use the term DM, instead using GM.