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

[Eric V]

at whatever they wanted to attempt.

Like, a skill check, for example?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So it's not D&D, but in our 13th Age game, the use of Icon Relationships is a hard-wired mechanic in the game for the PCs to generate fiction (and more) into the ongoing narrative.

Mechanically, the necromancer in our game once used an Icon Die with the Lich Kiing to capture some of the essence of their defeated shadow dragon opponent into an onyx gem. Now, there's no spell Capture Essence, but this is apparently something he can do (sometimes...sometimes he doesn't have an Icon Die with the Lich King to spend!). What does it mean that he's carrying around some part of the essence of Shadow Dragon? It means as a GM, I have very fertile ground for further adventures, cryptic hints, etc. Can't imagine why, as a GM, I'd say no to something like that.

Another used his Icon Die with the Prince of Shadows to spontaneously come up with an NPC on the spot, to get them out of a jam: "Before I answer the guard, my old high school chum, Willard, recognizes me from across the bar and comes over to say hi. He's a minor noble, and the guards don't want to risk offense, so they let me go." For some GMs, that might seem like cheating, but for me, I have a new NPC to play with, as well as a noble who is now owed a favour by the PC. There's nothing but upside here, and again, I can't imagine wanting to say no to itt.

Well, as others have noted, the main downside is that this may require players to be thinking in ways like this, and some players just really dislike that form of thinking during play.

That said, Icon Relationships are easy to ignore or fob off onto the GM for people who don't want to bother with that sort of thing, so I generally agree that it's not nearly as intrusive as some folks think it is. That said, I'm sure there's a minority of players who can't stand that sort of thing from anyone at the table, and thus such games just will not ever appeal to them. That's unfortunate, but no game can be for everyone.

i'm sure all those responses have their place, but i think by that same merit so does a plain 'no', sometimes you simply fail, sometimes your idea wasn't a valid one.

Did you miss the part upthread where I had said...

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.

Because literally nothing whatsoever in the text says you must say yes no matter what. Instead, it recommends that you start from a position of wanting to say yes, unless you have a reason not to, and "I need a satisfactory explanation and I'm not getting one" is a reason not to. The text, explicitly, speaks about just telling people that their attempts auto-fail (or auto-succeed!) if that's what makes sense for the situation at hand.

It's genuinely deeply frustrating how frequently people resort to, effectively, "But what about players unreasonable to the point of being actively jerks???" Doubly so because if you attempt to reference the converse--"what about DMs unreasonable to the point of being actively jerks???"--people get DEEPLY offended.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

 

[Eric V]

Sorry this is a bit late, was combing back through the thread and felt I should reply.

In my experience, a good DM needs to learn how to say "yes" much more than they need to learn how to say "no."

Most folks, when they take up the DM seat, are not total rubes. They've played the game for a while before DMing. They know what it means to be a player searching for an advantage, or an exploit, depending on how one views the tactics used. Even if they don't do that sort of thing themselves, they've almost surely seen it from someone else. DM skepticism is alive and well, particularly in this vaunted age of "DM empowerment" which basically just means "do whatever you want, whenever you want, for as long as you want, and give your players the proverbial middle finger if they don't like it; you aren't required to do anything more or different, and if players complain, they're being toxic and horrible and ruining your beautiful game." Beyond that, we're still plagued by old favorites like DMs not understanding iterative probability (that old chestnut, e.g. "you have to roll Hide and Move Silently every round you're inside," which merely guarantees eventual failure), or having deeply mistaken beliefs about what is physically possible IRL let alone in a fantasy setting where being angry enough can let you chokeslam dragons.

What DMs actually need--a skill they almost never start with, but which is critical to develop--is learning how to say "yes" well. Saying no is easy; you just shut down whatever the person is trying to do. Saying yes is significantly more difficult, because there are grades of yes. No is no; but "yes" can be "yes, absolutely 100%", or "sure, but with this tweak", or "how about this, which does the same thing a different way?", or "yes, but it won't work the way you think", or "yes, and this other consequence too," or "yes, but it will take time/effort/resources/etc.", or...

The only variation on "no" is "no, but..." which is, IMO, actually a way of saying yes--because the "but" cashes out as, "well you can't have that very specific thing, but this is something I'm happy to say yes about which is close to what you wanted."

Learning how to say "yes, but..."/"yes, and..." is a crucial skill that many DMs take a very long time to develop. I find very, very few DMs need to learn how to say a flat "no", and as noted, "no, but..." is IMO actually saying "yes" in disguise.

Just wanted to say how much I agree with this, especially the bolded parts. I used to be that type of GM*, and the players (and myself!) had less fun. You are 100% right that learning to say "yes" is a skill, and it would be great if games gave solid advice on how to do so. "No" is easy; learning to allow other players' imaginations to participate on an equal level, even for brief moments, is hard.

*Looking back, I am very guilty of the stealth problem you describe above; playing with a bunch of engineers, they quickly figured out that mathematically, stealth was a loser's game. Similarly, inflicting an ad hoc penalty when a player tried something flashy; the on-the-spot penalty was usually mathematically too harsh and just discouraged fancy maneuvers.

 

[Eric V]

Well, as others have noted, the main downside is that this may require players to be thinking in ways like this, and some players just really dislike that form of thinking during play.

That said, Icon Relationships are easy to ignore or fob off onto the GM for people who don't want to bother with that sort of thing, so I generally agree that it's not nearly as intrusive as some folks think it is. That said, I'm sure there's a minority of players who can't stand that sort of thing from anyone at the table, and thus such games just will not ever appeal to them. That's unfortunate, but no game can be for everyone.

For sure. Some of my players really like using the Icon Dice this way, and two others feel less comfortable...but I'll tell ya, the more those latter see the former doing it, the more they are willing to try. And you're right that it's easy enough to ignore.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Did you miss the part upthread where I had said...
Because literally nothing whatsoever in the text says you must say yes no matter what. Instead, it recommends that you start from a position of wanting to say yes, unless you have a reason not to, and "I need a satisfactory explanation and I'm not getting one" is a reason not to. The text, explicitly, speaks about just telling people that their attempts auto-fail (or auto-succeed!) if that's what makes sense for the situation at hand.

It's genuinely deeply frustrating how frequently people resort to, effectively, "But what about players unreasonable to the point of being actively jerks???" Doubly so because if you attempt to reference the converse--"what about DMs unreasonable to the point of being actively jerks???"--people get DEEPLY offended.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

i wasn't contradicting that though was i? and you even agree with me saying "nothing in the text says you must say yes no matter what", and in those circumstances 'no' is a valid response, the original context of 'GMs can say no' was in response to bloodtide's assertion that:

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.

This is a good point as letting the players generate stuff takes them right out of the fiction. The players are deeply immersed in the game....until one player says something silly "gosh sure wish there were dragonriding monk tortles. Now the DM has to drop everything and end the game to make ...oh, look dragonriding monk tortles right over there. And the player will be happy and dance around the table. Then do it for the rest of the players...and, oh look game is over.

and so we are saying that GMs are not simply puppets forced to perform for the player's amusement in this style of play.

 

[Umbran]

One possible conclusion is that an approach that empowers players leads to engaged proactive players, and that your approach leads to players that don’t care very much about the game.

Mod Note:
Please don't make this personal.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

and so we are saying that GMs are not simply puppets forced to perform for the player's amusement in this style of play.

Okay. Has anyone claimed anything remotely like that, other than as a CR 0 Straw Golem to rip into?

 

[Eric V]

Okay. Has anyone claimed anything remotely like that, other than as a CR 0 Straw Golem to rip into?

Literally no one. It's an insane bit of hyperbole.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m going to start by simplifying to a single dm and single player scenario.

What does it take to get a game going? Both the player and DM must agree to roles and responsibilities, including starting scenario details. Many of these roles and responsibilities are spelled out in whatever game text they decided to play by, but not always everything, or all the necessary details about the thing.

So if that player and dm agree that players can supply a high level quest goal where almost all the details are filled in by the dm, then the player afterwards insisting that he gets to author most of the quest details is an example of bad faith play. Likewise when the dm agrees to let the player author most the details and then decides to change the details that’s not good faith play either.

IMO, most of the pushback on both sides in this discussions stems from assuming certain social agreements about how to play are already in place in a particular way and so depending on which assumption one starts with it comes across as either the player or dm insisting play be a certain way is a jerk.

Personally I’m against such rigidness on either side. DMs can have good reason for restricting players. Players can have good reason to desire less restrictions. What’s important is how the player and dm agree to handle any differing desires they have.

 

[FrogReaver]

2nd thought,

Everything the player does is authoring the fiction. I attack the orc is authoring the fiction. Etc.

The question here really seems to be around particular ways in which the player can author the fiction.

The other concept that came up here is focusing the fiction, and I find most living sandbox style games give the players a lot of freedom to establish their own goals and thus focus play toward those goals. That doesn’t mean every single thing that happens in such games are directly around player goals, but neither was there any kind of preagreement that such ought to be the case.

As a separate case consider the players and dm agreeing to run a particular module. Is this not an example of the players setting their goals for play as well?