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

[jmartkdr2]

Is there anything to the thought that when we categorize things like, trad...neo-trad...story now etc. (terms i have never and will never use outside of this forum) that we are pigeon holing ourselves to play a "certain way"?

It's certainly possible, but it could just as easily be a way to get ourselves to approach games differently.

I do not play Fate the way I play AD&D. I could, but I'd either get a terrible experience with Fate or a mediocre-at-best experience with AD&D, if the dm ran a style wildly dissimilar to Old School play.

It's only limiting if you think you can only play all games one way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is true, but this also attracts the wrong sort of player.

A good player players the game.

A bad player alters game reality on a whim and demands the DM agree and always say "yes player". And you really don't want to game with that sort of person.

And, as I have told you many, many times now, nobody disagrees with demanding players being bad. You are wrong that it "attracts the wrong sort of player." Crappy, demanding players are there for any and every style, guaranteed. No style is special or different and no style brings out such players more or less than any other.

Consider, for instance, that one could say the "old school" method "also attracts the wrong sort of player": murderhobos. People who don't give two craps about the consequences of their actions and do stupid, annoying, derailing things all the time because "lighten up, it's just a game" (or worse, "it's what my character would do") etc. But I would be extremely surprised if you agreed that your "hard fun" had any special association with bad players--rather the opposite, in fact.

 

[pemerton]

It would be great if we could keep arguments that 4e is a bad RPG, or that players who enjoy generating fiction are bad players, in other threads.

What would be great in this thread would be more examples of D&D play (or other RPGing if you like) that involves a high volume of player-generated fiction.

One thing that is fun about D&D is that it has many NPCs/antagonists that have a long history of part of the shared fantasy of the game: Vecna, the Princes of Elemental Evil, Lolth, Orcus etc. I and my players used this a lot in our 4e play. For instance, when the player of the Drow Chaos Sorcerer decided that his character was not only a Corellon worshipper but also a disciple of Chan, Queen of Good Air Elementals, that triggered the introduction (by me) of Yan-C-Bin as an antagonist. Which in turn easily feeds into the background of the Dawn War, and the threat of the pending Dusk War.

A semi-technical point to note is that this sort of thing works because the setting elements, lore etc are common knowledge among all the participants. It's different from an approach where the lore is known primarily to the GM and then revealed, in play, to the players.

I enjoy this sort of "bouncing lore of one another" approach. I find it is an effective way to quickly build up content that is shared, immersive, and also cared about by everyone at the table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My personal preference both as a player and as a GM, is that this sort of meat-level fiction generation by players happens mostly before the campaign in the PC background creation phase, end when elaboration is needed, between the sessions. During the play, I prefer players to be mainly in immersed character stance and contribute mainly via the actions and choices of their characters. I can play in other ways, and it can even be refreshing from time to time, but I know what is my favourite.

At least to me having the authority to decide fiction outside the causal control of my character puts me from the actor stance to the author stance, and this to me is less immersive. It is fine if this is done outside the actual game sessions, as then we're not immersing into our characters in the first place.

And whilst I like players being able to resolve situations in different ways, I still feels this too works best when there is some sort of fixed reality they need to creatively exploit. Giving the players control of the external reality means that optimal gameplay becomes trying to invent BS that lets you use your best skills. That is something I am good at, but not something I particularly enjoy. And whilst things like letting player to use flashback diplomacy to learn magical secrets might seem fine at glance, it also means that you have now rendered all knowledge skills obsolete.

 

[Pedantic]

My personal preference both as a player and as a GM, is that this sort of meat-level fiction generation by players happens mostly before the campaign in the PC background creation phase, end when elaboration is needed, between the sessions. During the play, I prefer players to be mainly in immersed character stance and contribute mainly via the actions and choices of their characters. I can play in other ways, and it can even be refreshing from time to time, but I know what is my favourite.

This is generally my experience. Player created fiction isn't generally part of the play loop, but an something that occurs between and outside sessions.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, you've already said this, quite clearly.

The topic of this thread is about an alternative approach.

If you only want positive feedback on alternative approaches you should have made it a (+) thread.

I assume you're quoting the 5e DMG?

This is a D&D general thread. The OP quotes the 4e D&D rulebooks quite extensively - they advocate a greater degree of player control over backstory and what is possible in action resolution than the Apocalypse World rulebook does.

4e clearly is designed for - and advocates - a reasonably high degree of player-generated fiction.

I see nothing other than some miscellaneous text to think it's designed for player-generated fiction. It states the obvious, that the DM can choose to share world building if the group chooses to do so. There's no built-in limitations, no trade-offs, no resource that controls what the player fiction can be. How much the player adds to the fiction is still always limited to what the DM allows.

There's a difference between accepting alternative approaches (which if I scoured the 5E DMG is probably there as well) and stating it as the assumed way to play.

 

[Aldarc]

Thing is, I simply disagree. I, and my players, like the separation of church and state DM and player, the designer of the world and the player being solely responsible for the PC.

I see it less as liking a separation of church and state, and more akin to liking a separation between royals and peasants. There are haves and have nots when it comes to governing power. I have even seen some people talk about this as a greater democratization of authority over the fiction in games. If you are insulted by this, then maybe consider how your thinly-veiled "church and state" line can also come across as insulting.

My personal preference both as a player and as a GM, is that this sort of meat-level fiction generation by players happens mostly before the campaign in the PC background creation phase, end when elaboration is needed, between the sessions. During the play, I prefer players to be mainly in immersed character stance and contribute mainly via the actions and choices of their characters. I can play in other ways, and it can even be refreshing from time to time, but I know what is my favourite.

At least to me having the authority to decide fiction outside the causal control of my character puts me from the actor stance to the author stance, and this to me is less immersive. It is fine if this is done outside the actual game sessions, as then we're not immersing into our characters in the first place.

And whilst I like players being able to resolve situations in different ways, I still feels this too works best when there is some sort of fixed reality they need to creatively exploit. Giving the players control of the external reality means that optimal gameplay becomes trying to invent BS that lets you use your best skills. That is something I am good at, but not something I particularly enjoy. And whilst things like letting player to use flashback diplomacy to learn magical secrets might seem fine at glance, it also means that you have now rendered all knowledge skills obsolete.

You were doing so well at expressing your opinion and game preferences without insulting other game preferrences until you got to the part in bold.

 

[Oofta]

I see it less as liking a separation of church and state, and more akin to liking a separation between royals and peasants. There are haves and have nots when it comes to governing power. I have even seen some people talk about this as a greater democratization of authority over the fiction in games. If you are insulted by this, then maybe consider how your thinly-veiled "church and state" line can also come across as insulting.


You were doing so well at expressing your opinion and game preferences without insulting other game preferrences until you got to the part in bold.

Church and state have different roles, just like DM and player in D&D games I've played. It has nothing to do with power.

 

[Aldarc]

Church and state have different roles, just like DM and player in D&D games I've played. It has nothing to do with power.

Royals and peasants also have different roles, just like the DM and player in D&D games. It has everything to do with power.

As you can see, these sort of responses are fairly easy to make, Oofta, and they don't really address the meat of the argument and they generally lack much substance.

 

[Oofta]

Royals and peasants also have different roles, just like the DM and player in D&D games. It has everything to do with power.

As you can see, these sort of responses are fairly easy to make, Oofta, and they don't really address the meat of the argument and they generally lack much substance.

It's a playstyle preference. Don't like it? Find a different table and DM that agrees with your preference or perhaps a different game. The referee in a football game has a different role than the players, it doesn't take away the agency of the players.