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

[pemerton]

My partner is an absolute TTRPG noob.

<snip>

They wanted to try GMing. I recommended Fabula Ultima's Press Start, since it basically doubles as a tutorial for GMing and learning the game.

<snip>

When we finished, they were surprised by how time flew while they were having fun. Naturally I was curious about what they thought about GMing, Fabula Ultima, and how things went. I was personally surprised by their feedback as the first thing that they said was that they liked was players coming up with things about the world during play. (This is part of Fabula Ultima's Press Start and how the game is supposed to be played.)

I didn't expect that answer because it's not a TTRPG topic that I have ever talked about with them before. They weren't using the vocabulary often used here of player-authored/generated-fiction or related jargon, but they were clearly talking about the general idea. They liked that it made things surprising for them as a GM. They liked what the players came up with, and they liked working that into the game as we played.

Obviously I don't know your partner, and so can't comment on your personal surprise about what they said.

But the general character of what you say in the passage I've quoted is not surprising to me, in the abstract. What I enjoy about GMing is being surprised, enjoying what the players say, working that stuff into the game. So I can easily imagine someone else - like your partner - enjoying that too!

I'm glad your partner has found a system that works for them in this respect.

I do sometimes wonder if we are conditioned by D&D and many other more traditional TTRPGs about things like GM/player roles with generating fiction.

I do feel sometimes particular preferences or experiences are presented as norms. Sometimes rather dogmatically.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do sometimes wonder if we are conditioned by D&D and many other more traditional TTRPGs about things like GM/player roles with generating fiction.

Oh, I don't wonder--I'm certain this is a major causative factor. It's not the only factor, because there are plenty of players out there ("beer and pretzels" players, certain flavors of powergamer/murderhobo, "observer" players and certain forms of "explorer" players) who want to contribute absolutely nothing whatever like that. They do, in fact, want to simply be told what is true (or at least what they can see/hear/etc.), and do not at all wish to be authoring anything. For at least some of them, the draw is in the visceral reactions; needing to author fiction makes it a cold, dead exercise for them. For some others, like one of my current players, it's paralyzing indecision and generally being happier reacting to a clear situation rather than picking a path forward.

The most frustrating thing for me is, a game designed to support player-authored fiction does not, in general, require it. 4e is perfectly capable of being run with little to no player-authorship involved. But the converse is not true: games that aren't designed with the option of player-authored fiction in mind are generally really, really bad at supporting that if you want it. That's a big part of why I find so frustrating the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose arguments that so frequently break out on this topic. If you explain it in terms of the rules and processes you're told you're ruining TTRPGs. Then, if you show people the actual usage and application they either boggle because they can't see how it differs from what they do, or they dismiss it with "oh well of course if you have a perfect group that always agrees 100% on everything then fine, but I'm talking about the real world".

 

[pemerton]

games that aren't designed with the option of player-authored fiction in mind are generally really, really bad at supporting that if you want it.

This isn't my experience. As I posted upthread, when I used to GM AD&D and Rolemaster, it wasn't hard to incorporate player-generated fiction pertaining to backstory and to the focus of the action.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I do sometimes wonder if we are conditioned by D&D and many other more traditional TTRPGs about things like GM/player roles with generating fiction.

I mean the presence of Rule 0 and its popular interpretation of 'Dm is Daddy, listen to daddy, do not question daddy' goes a long, long way.

 

[Aldarc]

The most frustrating thing for me is, a game designed to support player-authored fiction does not, in general, require it. 4e is perfectly capable of being run with little to no player-authorship involved. But the converse is not true: games that aren't designed with the option of player-authored fiction in mind are generally really, really bad at supporting that if you want it. That's a big part of why I find so frustrating the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose arguments that so frequently break out on this topic. If you explain it in terms of the rules and processes you're told you're ruining TTRPGs. Then, if you show people the actual usage and application they either boggle because they can't see how it differs from what they do, or they dismiss it with "oh well of course if you have a perfect group that always agrees 100% on everything then fine, but I'm talking about the real world".

Or the usual "it's apples and oranges" attempts to other these games so the foreign ideas they contain can't pollute D&D.

 

[Umbran]

Bad design is bad design. I'm only pointing it out. We need less "+" threads so we can discuss ttrpg design HONESTLY rather than censoring dissenting opinions.

Mod note:
Honesty has little to do with the issue raised to you. You may be presenting an honest opinion, but are doing so in such an aggressive and information-sparse way as to make it more a bludgeon about your personal likes or dislikes than a useful part of discussion.

We cannot deny your passion, but we cannot condone your beating your fellow posters over the head with it.

And, with all respect, we have very few "+" threads around here. I don't see as they can really stand in the way of you having your honest conversations.

 

[dave2008]

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?"

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension. Those were not rules, but guidelines and suggestions. The didn't say you couldn't say no, they suggested you entertain the idea of yes first.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension. Those were not rules but guidelines and suggestions. The didn't say you couldn't say no, they suggested you entertain the idea of yes first.

Careful there, you might begin to cloud the picture with facts.

 

[pemerton]

Here's my take on "try not to say no" in the context of skill challenges:

There's a well-established approach to RPGing, in which the GM has a conception of the fictional situation that they have only partly shared with the players. When the players ask a question (say, "Is there a market stall at the foot of the wall?") or declare an action, the GM answers and adjudicates by reference to that conception. My experience is that this produces an approach to play where the players declare actions that are "low stakes" in terms of risk, but are likely to prompt the GM to tell them more, so that they can enrich their conception of the situation to bring it more into line with the GM's.

A classic dungeon exemplifies the preceding paragraph, but is by no means the only sort of fiction and situation-design that does so. Things like "This guard is too upright to be bribed", "This king is too important to give the PCs an audience", "This cavern is too wide to be jumped", "There is no sustenance to be found in this desert" - all as decisions made by the GM that generate adjudication of declared actions - are examples of a sort that I often see discussed.

"Try not to say no" is an injunction not to use the approach just described. The situation is what has been presented, not other stuff the GM is imagining. "Is there are market stall?" - either say 'yes', or else call for a Streetwise check (do you know where the market stalls are?).

The 4e DMG2 spells this out a bit more (p 16): "player suggestions must remain consistent with the world's previously established continuity. . . . This stipulation only applies to facts about the world that have come up in play. You can contradict a detail about your setting that, so far, appears only in your notes."

This "try not to say no" approach reduces the "puzzle-solving" element of play. My view is that it tends to increase the "vibrant shared fiction" element. This is what skill challenges are for: to create vibrant fiction with reasonably clear stakes and consequences that flow from those stakes.

 

[Oofta]

I'm just going to reiterate something. Whether players should add to the fiction of the world outside of their character actions and some character specific details is a preferred style. It has nothing to do with the GM having a precious world, demanding people respect their authority or anything like that. Repeatedly saying that is insulting.

I want a game where I'm not making contributions to the world's fiction when I play because I don't want to. It would totally take me out of investing in my character's motivations and thought process.

Then there's the other side of it when I DM, many people would be like deer caught in the headlights if I asked them to make up lore about the world around them. Take my wife. She's amazing and in many ways far more competent and capable than I am. But making things up on the spot? Just not her thing, her brain just doesn't work that way. Give her time, let her sleep on it? No problem. Ask her to do it on the spot? It would be stressful, not fun.

All I'm asking is that people play for different reasons, with different strengths an weaknesses. There is no one true way and shared narrative style games simply aren't for everyone. Stop telling me and everyone else that my preferences are stunted, that I simply don't understand the glory of your personal take on things because other game approaches don't appeal to me and I'll do the same.