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

[Clint_L]

In my big 4e campaign, at the start of the campaign I (as GM) asked the players to all tell me two things about their PC: (1) a loyalty, and (2) a reason why they would be ready to fight Goblins.

I similarly ask players to give me at least two things to work with at the start: 1) what does their character hope to get out of adventuring (in other words, a motive), and 2) one weakness.

 

[pemerton]

I similarly ask players to give me at least two things to work with at the start: 1) what does their character hope to get out of adventuring (in other words, a motive), and 2) one weakness.

How do you relate the weakness to the game system? In asking this question, I've got in mind that D&D doesn't, by default, have a temptation-style or Fate compel-style mechanic.

 

[Clint_L]

How do you relate the weakness to the game system? In asking this question, I've got in mind that D&D doesn't, by default, have a temptation-style or Fate compel-style mechanic.

The weakness is there for me to build towards, and for the player to role play around if they so choose. I don’t think the game needs to have a mechanic for every aspect of story. All you really need for a basic story is a want and a problem. Things like flaws and needs help make the story more thematically interesting, if the player is into it. And if they aren’t, that’s okay too. You can have super fun games that are pure heroic fantasy.

I just like to start with options on the table.

In general, I like a lot of story in my D&D. But I don’t see it as a story game to the same degree as Monsterhearts or Fiasco. But then, I have to be in the right mood for those games - I find I can have a good time at D&D with less investment.

 

[mamba]

Can I just check that you intend this in a completely non-judgemental, non-pejorative fashion?

surprisingly I do not mean that judgmental, I am simply describing my feelings towards it. I am aware that you can (and let’s face it, do…) feel differently about it, and that fact neither makes me right or you wrong, it just means we have different preferences.

I am not going to tell you that you are playing wrong, if you enjoy it that is all that matters, knock yourself out. It simply is not what would interest me much. Different tastes…

I am interested discovering the world and the plot, and if in some form I contribute to that part of world building, great (to a degree… I do not want to get the impression that I just spoke something into existence, the world should be more ‘permanent’ than that)

I do not need to discover my character, I created that, I know all I want to know about them already.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The weakness is there for me to build towards, and for the player to role play around if they so choose. I don’t think the game needs to have a mechanic for every aspect of story. All you really need for a basic story is a want and a problem. Things like flaws and needs help make the story more thematically interesting, if the player is into it. And if they aren’t, that’s okay too. You can have super fun games that are pure heroic fantasy.

I just like to start with options on the table.

In general, I like a lot of story in my D&D. But I don’t see it as a story game to the same degree as Monsterhearts or Fiasco. But then, I have to be in the right mood for those games - I find I can have a good time at D&D with less investment.

I get your point, but personally, I wish D&D had a little more in regard to stakes for the characters, from a mechanical standpoint. Just something, anything, that had some teeth and meant something and wasn’t hit points.

Like in 5e you’re meant to pick a Flaw as one of the BIFTs. But the player can ignore that flaw forever and face no consequence. I just don’t like that. I wish there was something there mechanically… it doesn’t even have to be too significant. But I wish there was something.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree with that, it's just that I am generally more interested in the AP than in discovering my character, that is too much navel gazing for my taste

I believe that is called “novel-gazing.” In those cases, I usually find reading the AP a better use of my time than playing it. However, what you call “navel-gazing” is what I happen to call “roleplaying my character,” and it’s what I generally expect when playing a TTRPG.

That was not the intended implication, I did not mean BS negatively like that, it was just expression for making stuff up. But it changes the nature of the problem solving. It is different to improvise solution with limited pieces than to be able to invent new pieces. Either can be fun, but if you like the former adding the latter ruins it.

I agree that it changes the nature of problem-solving. However, I'm not necessarily sure that games of higher player-generated fiction are necessarily interested in the gamism of problem-solving challenges. I think that the interest lies more in connecting their characters to the world and having who their characters are matter. While I think that “inventing pieces” can be used in a way that solves problems, I have also found through playing player-generated fiction games that it’s also about players creating problems, hooks, and a world they are actually interested in engaging.

While a lot of discussion here is being framed in terms of Story Now, I do find that there is a fair bit of overlap here with some strands of Neo-Trad.

It is the same reason why as a GM I these days prefer to have pretty fixed myth that sets limits to myself.

What I like about player-generated fiction and having a looser myth is similar in that it also sets limits to myself as a GM.

 

[mamba]

On the serious part of your post, discovery/revelation of character is core to the greatest fantasy fiction: LotR (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, even Gimli and Gandalf); Earthsea (Ged and Tenar and Arren); better versions of Arthurian myth (eg the film Excalibur); some of the best Wuxia films (eg Ashes of Time, Hero, Crouching Tiger, even Tai Chi Master); Star Wars; etc.

Adventure fiction with no character development - for me, James Bond films probably count as a paradigm of this, at least pre-Daniel Craig (and even then it's not the richest of all time!) - can tend to shallowness precisely because of that.

I am not going to disagree with you in principle, even though I am not sure that there is all that much character progression in some of your examples that goes beyond the equivalent of leveling up in D&D.

I am more interested in the story however, I do not need to learn some deeper truth about the character I made up. Arguably there is no deeper truth, there is just me playing the character the way I always envisioned them to be

 

[mamba]

I believe that is called “novel-gazing.” In those cases, I usually find reading the AP a better use of my time than playing it. However, what you call “navel-gazing” is what I happen to call “roleplaying my character,” and it’s what I generally expect when playing a TTRPG.

if I wanted to read a novel, I’d do that. There are plenty to choose from that are much better than any AP.

What I mean by navel gazing is a strong focus on the char over the world as such. To me the char is a means to an end, not the end in itself. You can role play your char in either case.

 

[pemerton]

I believe that is called “novel-gazing.”

I think anyone following this thread must admit that that was cleverly done!

While a lot of discussion here is being framed in terms of Story Now, I do find that there is a fair bit of overlap here with some strands of Neo-Trad.

I agree with this. Without wanting to be definitive, I conjecture that one key difference between those two approaches lies on the GM side - how does the GM handle framing and consequences - rather than on the player-side, where (at an appropriate level of abstraction) many of the ways players generate fiction are similar.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I am more interested in the story however, I do not need to learn some deeper truth about the character I made up. Arguably there is no deeper truth, there is just me playing the character the way I always envisioned them to be.

What if an XP/reward system existed which the DM offered during play to mechanically hamper you (like disadvantage) for a situation related to your TBIF. So you get the reward if you accept the disadvantage as the action relates to your TBIF. Is that something worth exploring for your character?