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

[pemerton]

I thought that was some sales stand at the wall. I admit that my example was based on it, but it was not meant to refer back to it.

The suggestion there was that someone might suggest/narrate the market stand, as providing an opportunity for a Diplomacy check ("Good melon vendor, may I use your market stall as a ladder to get over yon wall?").

When to "say 'yes'" to this sort of framing context for a check, and when to call for a check as a precursor to the framing (so eg requiring first a Streetwise check to know where the market stall is near the wall, and then the Diplomacy check to persuade the vendor to allow its use as a climbing frame), is an issue of GM judgement around situation, stakes and pacing in a skill challenge. There's no algorithmic answer (in my view).

 

[Manbearcat]

The suggestion there was that someone might suggest/narrate the market stand, as providing an opportunity for a Diplomacy check ("Good melon vendor, may I use your market stall as a ladder to get over yon wall?").

When to "say 'yes'" to this sort of framing context for a check, and when to call for a check as a precursor to the framing (so eg requiring first a Streetwise check to know where the market stall is near the wall, and then the Diplomacy check to persuade the vendor to allow its use as a climbing frame), is an issue of GM judgement around situation, stakes and pacing in a skill challenge. There's no algorithmic answer (in my view).

Yup, the Skill Challenge's goal and current situation-state will constrain legitimate action declarations.

On rare occasion, you might be able to make a convince move via Athletics (to drag the party-to-be-convinced to their chambers where you reveal the secret ritual their enemies have used to bewitch them) with the consequence of failure being an escalation of violence/forfeiture of good-standing with the guards.

On rare occasion, you might be able to make a traverse obstacle move via Diplomacy similarly when (a) the framed obstacle is actually in a location where a market stall or a ladder can be used to resolve it, (b) someone capable of being convinced of allowing its usage is present, and (c) the chase isn't frenzied/full-throttle. Like the "Athletics to convince" paradigm above, the GM carves out a consequence-space that is engaging and genre-coherent.

But "Athletics to convince" and "Diplomacy to traverse" are absolutely niche cases, so anyone pretending that play is under threat of degenerating into a dysfunctional game of "use your best Skill all the time and the GM/table is at the mercy of fiction-abridging nonsense-plays" is someone who hasn't played these games as they’re designed to be played. Or they haven't played them at all and they're just peddling in "but, but, but what if" extrapolation from a place of information deficit.

TLDR: We’re right back to situation-disregarding speculation around “but but but push-ups to Athletics-omance the King(!)” circa 2009 territory.

 

[Neonchameleon]

ok, then it is fine. If this were not based on a limited resource that is specifically for things like this, I'd consider it cheating.

Part of the point of skill challenge is that you almost always have a limited resource; three failures (assuming you're not using the earliest iterations).

 

[soviet]

Yup, the Skill Challenge's goal and current situation-state will constrain legitimate action declarations.

On rare occasion, you might be able to make a convince move via Athletics (to drag the party-to-be-convinced to their chambers where you reveal the secret ritual their enemies have used to bewitch them) with the consequence of failure being an escalation of violence/forfeiture of good-standing with the guards.

On rare occasion, you might be able to make a make a traverse obstacle move via Diplomacy similarly when (a) the framed obstacle is actually in a location where a market stall or a ladder can be used to resolve it, (b) someone capable of being convinced of allowing its usage is present, and (c) the chase isn't frenzied/full-throttle. Like the "Athletics to convince" paradigm above, the GM carves out a consequence-space that is engaging and genre-coherent.

But "Athletics to convince" and "Diplomacy to traverse" are absolutely niche cases, so anyone pretending that play is under threat of degenerating into a dysfunctional game of "use your best Skill all the time and the GM/table is at the mercy of fiction-abridging nonsense-plays" is someone who hasn't played these games as they’re designed to be played. Or they haven't played them at all and they're just peddling in "but, but, but what if" extrapolation from a place of information deficit.

TLDR: We’re right back to situation-disregarding speculation around “but but but push-ups to Athletics-omance the King(!)” circa 2009 territory.

Agreed. Also you can play around with different DCs (as long as it's not to punish/prevent) and different failure stakes for these skill switches. For example, if your attempt to Athleticsomacise the King fails, it might make you a laughing stock in the whole Royal Court.

 

[pemerton]

What there was player generated fiction?

That's just one illustration of the relationship between player-generated fiction in relation to the focus of play, and "discovery" of character.

The relevant player-generated focuses of play included:

*The implanting of the Eye of Vecna into the PC's imp familiar, which (i) allowed the player to access the power of the Eye, while (ii) reducing the influence of Levistus over the imp, and also (iii) establishing the familiar as a "buffer" between the threat posed by the Eye, and the PC himself;
*The PC's complicated "frenemy" relationship to Vecna (established way back in the early Paragon tier) as a counterpoint/complement to his relationship to the Raven Queen (established from the outset of the campaign) and to Ioun (established somewhere along the way);
*Torog's Soul Abattoir, and the fate of the souls flowing through it.​

The relevant player-generated possibilities in respect of action declaration were the taking of control of the flow of souls and soul energy (via Religion checks, as part of the skill challenge): more details here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The relevant player-generated focuses of play included:

*The implanting of the Eye of Vecna into the PC's imp familiar, which (i) allowed the player to access the power of the Eye, while (ii) reducing the influence of Levistus over the imp, and also (iii) establishing the familiar as a "buffer" between the threat posed by the Eye, and the PC himself;​

*The PC's complicated "frenemy" relationship to Vecna (established way back in the early Paragon tier) as a counterpoint/complement to his relationship to the Raven Queen (established from the outset of the campaign) and to Ioun (established somewhere along the way);​

*Torog's Soul Abattoir, and the fate of the souls flowing through it.​

The relevant player-generated possibilities in respect of action declaration were the taking of control of the flow of souls and soul energy (via Religion checks, as part of the skill challenge): more details here.

Implanting the eye and manipulations allowed by it seem like perfectly normal creative character action based play to me.

Were later established relationships with Vecna and Ioun "retcons" in a sense that they were established later, but in the fiction had already existed, or were they new in the fiction as well?

 

[pemerton]

Implanting the eye and manipulations allowed by it seem like perfectly normal creative character action based play to me.

OK? I'm not sure what you're inviting me to do with this information.

Were later established relationships with Vecna and Ioun "retcons" in a sense that they were established later, but in the fiction had already existed, or were they new in the fiction as well?

I don't know that I'm quite following all the temporal adjectives and adverbs here.

I don't recall much about Ioun now. I do recall that, when the players found the Sword of Kas, some time early in Paragon Tier, the player of the invoker/wizard didn't want to handle it, because he was pretty sure it would be hostile to him (given its hostility to Vecna-ites). I think that's about the point that I (as GM) realised that the character had a serious (if complicated) connection to Vecna - because of Vecna's role as the god of secrets.

 

[pemerton]

On rare occasion, you might be able to make a convince move via Athletics (to drag the party-to-be-convinced to their chambers where you reveal the secret ritual their enemies have used to bewitch them) with the consequence of failure being an escalation of violence/forfeiture of good-standing with the guards.

Also you can play around with different DCs (as long as it's not to punish/prevent) and different failure stakes for these skill switches. For example, if your attempt to Athleticsomacise the King fails, it might make you a laughing stock in the whole Royal Court.

Here's an example from my actual play:

Up until the climax of the challenge, the only skill check that Derriks' player made in contribution to the challenge was an Athletics check - at one point the Baron described himself as a man of action rather than ideas, and Derrik agreed - I let his player make an Athletics check - a very easy check for him with a +15 bonus - to make the fact of agreement contribute mechanically to the party's success in dealing with the situation.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In TB2e, level gain depends upon (i) earning and then (ii) spending Fate and Persona points, which are meta-tokens that buff checks in various ways. You earn these by acting on Beliefs, pursuing and achieving Goals, and/or playing out in-character conflicts between Beliefs and Goals. Players write a Goal at the start of each session, and can also change their Belief at the start of each session if they wish.

Interesting, can you give me an example of each (Goal and Belief) please?
I'd like to assess how easy these goals can be as what I'm liking about the current mechanic we use, which is closer to Cortex and the TB2e camp-checks you described, is that the XP's require some thought by the players to obtain. The risk is known (by all at the table), stakes are set up front, and that is weighed against the cost of earning that XP.
They cannot use a simple bond like I strive to keep the party together and make some indirectly related check with disadvantage in order to gain an XP.
I require the stakes to be significant or in the instance of great roleplay to be praise-worthy by the table (not just me as DM).

Let me give you an example of my concern with the advanced TB2e mechanic you mentioned:

Player declares goal is To rid this ruined temple of Myrkul and the catacombs underneath it of Evil and then proceeds to motivate the rest of the party to go slaughter some undead, when in all likelihood, knowing that player and possibly the group, they would have done that anyway with the same risks/costs. So it is an empty reward. No character discovery/development.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think that, for some (perhaps even many) players who have been used to heavily GM-curated fiction, and who are first introduced to the idea of generating significant fiction themselves, there is a tendency to "act out" or go over the top. It's not too different from players whose idea of how to "break the railroad" is to pickpocket the quest-giver.

I don't think it normally takes long for these players to realise that there efforts are better spent on ideas that are fun and engaging for themselves and their fellow game-participants.

I wanted to highlight this as this does reflect the psyche of such players perfectly and certainly the concerns of DMs who wish to experiment with player-generated content but are unwilling/hesitant to because perhaps limitations/boundaries are not fully codified.

I remember when I introduced a severely drained Elminster into a scene, our table's envelope-pusher made the side comment of so I can kill him? This is the same player who made everyone groan with the use of his plot point.