D&D General Player-generated fiction in D&D

[pemerton]

Fully agreed.

'I approach the guard at the adjacent doorway - 'I say good fellow, I'm on an urgent mission for the King, you couldn't let me through and up the stairs could you?'

Just to comment on this.

Notice that the goal is <get to such-and-such a place to do such-and-such a thing?, the obstacle is a wall, and the task used to circumvent the obstacle is persuade a person to let me up the stairs. It's structurally very similar to @Umbran's example. And fully responds to the query posted by @Theory of Games.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not a big fan of having the players add things to the game. I'll tell such a player that it might be better if they just stayed home to write their novel.

Isn't there an Uno Reverse "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" here?

The GM who is precious about content authority over the shared imaginings of play can stay home and write their novel?

Alternatively, we could recognize that (a) not all games where players gain some level of constrained content authority over the shared imaginings of play entail anything approximating or even nearing "novel-writing" (its typically pretty structured what content can be added, how it can be added, and when it can be added in these sorts of games) and (b) some players (quite a few actually or APs and Adventure Modules wouldn't do as well as they do!) actually enjoy being mostly passive consumers of a well-crafted & told GM story or touring a beloved setting where they go in with the understanding that their contributions to the premise/shape/trajectory of play is quite modest when contrasted with the GM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not a big fan of having the players add things to the game. I'll tell such a player that it might be better if they just stayed home to write their novel.

Why should they hang around to help write yours?

 

[Tonguez]

I'm not a big fan of having the players add things to the game. I'll tell such a player that it might be better if they just stayed home to write their novel.

and if you are so precious about Your game that you dont want players contributing then maybe you should be playing monopoly instead?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But what about the why?

Investment. Getting what they want to see out of the game. Having a good time. Feeling included and recognized.

Lots of benefits. I'm really not sure why they had to be spelled out; I had thought it was obvious that if someone gets to be a creator, not just a passive recipient, they're more invested.

sitting in the endzone watching the goal post move again

That's pretty rich, given the other things you yourself have already said in this thread. The goalposts have already been hypersonic.

So. If my character's GOAL is catching an escaping assassin. And the wall is an OBSTACLE to my PC catching the assassin. I can't use Streetwise to climb the wall?

Without a narrative explanation, no. That's the critical thing you keep glossing over as though it were irrelevant, when it is actually THE whole point of the rule, the most important part thereof.

Folks have given you examples. I'll give another. Investigating possible leads on a mysterious illness the party has been hearing reports about. Naturally, as a research task, the obvious choices mostly involve Intelligence or Wisdom: Heal (in 5e, Medicine), perhaps Nature, perhaps Arcana since the disease is probably magical in nature, perhaps History to look up past outbreaks, etc.

The Barbarian asks, "Hey, can I contribute using Athletics?" I, as a DM, would hear that question and reply, "Sell me on it. Flexing muscles is generally not that useful for research. What's your angle?" As DM, I can see a handful of ways a player could potentially answer; these are only what I can come up with on short notice while sleep deprived, I'm sure actual players could provide further ideas.

• Letting the actually book-smart characters stay put, while the Barbarian runs errands; fetching things from high places or from across the library, sprinting across town to pick up a report stored in a different location, lifting huge stacks of tomes, etc.
• Hiking out to remote villages, where survivors of the last outbreak are believed to live, to get eyewitness accounts of the disease and its progression
• Trading favors with a local physician or alchemist--perhaps providing a robust test subject (though that sounds more like Endurance) or anatomical model--to get access to privileged information normally not provided to outsiders
• Capturing a wild animal thought to be a carrier or survivor of the disease before it jumped species to sapient beings

All of these, naturally, depend on there being appropriate connection points in the world. If alchemists and physicians genuinely don't exist (e.g. it's a Neolithic-period campaign), then obviously that one's right out. If the PCs are deep in the heart of the nation's capital, such that "remote villages" simply wouldn't make sense in context, then that approach doesn't make sense either. Further, just because you can make a convincing argument that it could work doesn't mean you've made a convincing argument that it should be easy. In fact, the books generally recommend being open-minded about creative uses, but that the DM should feel absolutely free to make the associated check Hard if it's relatively reasonable but not necessarily likely to produce the desired results (e.g., capturing a wild animal to hopefully get a test subject is predicated on a fair amount of luck in actually finding a test subject to begin with.)

The point is, using Athletics (or any "unexpected" skill) in a creative way

that is narratively warranted​

is officially RAW in 4e. I hope this textual emphasis makes clear just how important it is that the action be narratively warranted.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

So. Lemme git this straight: when playing D&D 4e, say I have a Fighter who wants to climb a wall. I can use Diplomacy to climb a wall? Arcana?

Thank you. I had no idea this rule, the STUPIDEST rule I've ever seen for a D&D edition, existed. Probably because I didn't waste time or money on the WotC dumpster-fire that was 4e. "Try not to say no?"

A Skill Challenge is a specific concept in 4e. Climbing a wall isn't a Skill Challenge, "get inside the castle" could be a Skill Challenge. The players's actions could be "I use Athletics to climb the wall", or "I use Diplomacy to negotiate with the guards". Not all actions will have the same DC however, and the party needs a number of successful rolls to pass the challenge.

There's a lot more to Skill Challenges than this. Not everyone likes them, but you shouldn't dismiss the concept just on the fragmented mentions in this thread, you don't have the whole picture.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm not a big fan of having the players add things to the game. I'll tell such a player that it might be better if they just stayed home to write their novel.

YEAH, this is the GM's novel we're playing through here!

 

[BookTenTiger]

Personally I find player-generated fiction not just fun, but creatively refreshing as a DM. I can sit by myself and create an interesting campaign world, but it's limited by my own creativity. When I invite the players into the world-building process, they come up with ideas I never would have, and it inevitably makes the world a more interesting and fun place. In my experience it also highly increases player involvement. The characters don't just have a connection to the campaign world, the players do too! And when a Big Bad Villain threatens the things they created... oh boy, talk about engagement!

I'll give two good examples:

I started a game during the pandemic that was a riff on Curse of Strahd. I came up with a general layout and themes for the settlements in my version of Barovia, but I didn't establish any species until the players made their characters. I then populated the land mostly with their choice of species. There were tiefling nobles, oppressed turtles, cabals of kenku who acted as spies for vampires, and abbeys with aasimar priests. It was a lot of fun, and not necessarily what I would have picked for the campaign world if it was just up to me!

As the campaign went on, I would ask the players to come up with ideas for organizations, NPCs, or even enemies or challenges. For example, one player had come up with a mentor who was a vampire-hunting knight. I asked that player to describe an organization their mentor had founded. They came up with so many rich details, and it was so fun to have that resources when the characters finally found their secret fortress! Another character was a priest of a god of death. I asked him to come up with some rituals and descriptions of other priests, and he decided priests of this god were mostly silent. Boy that changed my plans for some upcoming NPCs, and I loved that creative challenge!

Here's example two:

Last year I started a campaign with entirely new players. After a few sessions of one-shots, we all sat down and created a campaign world together. I designed a questionnaire and we went through and had a big discussion. I took notes and revoiced their ideas. The players decided on the themes, setting, how the world looked, who lived there, what common and uncommon threats there were, the nature of divine, primal, and arcane magic... They even decided on the location and hook of their first adventure, came up with a starting town, and a friendly NPC!

When we started the first adventure, each player came with such an amazing backstory for their character, tied completely to the world we'd created. Everyone was so invested in the campaign world. It's so funny, they chose a really hard start for the campaign, they wanted to be prisoners sent on a suicide mission! And then when they rescued a mysterious figure from a giant spider and it turned out to be the suave resistance fighter NPC they'd created... everyone cheered!

I know player-generated narratives don't work for every player and DM, but for me they are consistently what bring my own games to the next level and make them memorable, fun experiences.

 

[Theory of Games]

Investment. Getting what they want to see out of the game. Having a good time. Feeling included and recognized.

Lots of benefits. I'm really not sure why they had to be spelled out; I had thought it was obvious that if someone gets to be a creator, not just a passive recipient, they're more invested.


That's pretty rich, given the other things you yourself have already said in this thread. The goalposts have already been hypersonic.


Without a narrative explanation, no. That's the critical thing you keep glossing over as though it were irrelevant, when it is actually THE whole point of the rule, the most important part thereof.

Folks have given you examples. I'll give another. Investigating possible leads on a mysterious illness the party has been hearing reports about. Naturally, as a research task, the obvious choices mostly involve Intelligence or Wisdom: Heal (in 5e, Medicine), perhaps Nature, perhaps Arcana since the disease is probably magical in nature, perhaps History to look up past outbreaks, etc.

The Barbarian asks, "Hey, can I contribute using Athletics?" I, as a DM, would hear that question and reply, "Sell me on it. Flexing muscles is generally not that useful for research. What's your angle?" As DM, I can see a handful of ways a player could potentially answer; these are only what I can come up with on short notice while sleep deprived, I'm sure actual players could provide further ideas.

• Letting the actually book-smart characters stay put, while the Barbarian runs errands; fetching things from high places or from across the library, sprinting across town to pick up a report stored in a different location, lifting huge stacks of tomes, etc.
• Hiking out to remote villages, where survivors of the last outbreak are believed to live, to get eyewitness accounts of the disease and its progression
• Trading favors with a local physician or alchemist--perhaps providing a robust test subject (though that sounds more like Endurance) or anatomical model--to get access to privileged information normally not provided to outsiders
• Capturing a wild animal thought to be a carrier or survivor of the disease before it jumped species to sapient beings

All of these, naturally, depend on there being appropriate connection points in the world. If alchemists and physicians genuinely don't exist (e.g. it's a Neolithic-period campaign), then obviously that one's right out. If the PCs are deep in the heart of the nation's capital, such that "remote villages" simply wouldn't make sense in context, then that approach doesn't make sense either. Further, just because you can make a convincing argument that it could work doesn't mean you've made a convincing argument that it should be easy. In fact, the books generally recommend being open-minded about creative uses, but that the DM should feel absolutely free to make the associated check Hard if it's relatively reasonable but not necessarily likely to produce the desired results (e.g., capturing a wild animal to hopefully get a test subject is predicated on a fair amount of luck in actually finding a test subject to begin with.)

The point is, using Athletics (or any "unexpected" skill) in a creative way

that is narratively warranted​

is officially RAW in 4e. I hope this textual emphasis makes clear just how important it is that the action be narratively warranted.

That is NOT how the rule reads:


DMG pp 73-5: "When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants...."

This makes a PC being proficient at a skill irrelevant. You can't rationalize this kind of trash game design.

 

[Theory of Games]

A Skill Challenge is a specific concept in 4e. Climbing a wall isn't a Skill Challenge, "get inside the castle" could be a Skill Challenge. The players's actions could be "I use Athletics to climb the wall", or "I use Diplomacy to negotiate with the guards". Not all actions will have the same DC however, and the party needs a number of successful rolls to pass the challenge.

There's a lot more to Skill Challenges than this. Not everyone likes them, but you shouldn't dismiss the concept just on the fragmented mentions in this thread, you don't have the whole picture.

4e is garbage but the Skill Challenge rules are hot garbage. I've only touched on the insanity. Justin Alexander does a better job with his analysis:

Skill Challenges – WTF?

Earlier this month, I included some analysis of skill challenges in my essay on the dissociated mechanics of 4th Edition. Because the core rulebooks had not yet been released, I included a disclaimer

thealexandrian.net