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

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Cheating" implies malice that I don't think should be attributed to the example here. Instead, the player is simply trying to declare an illegal action, like trying to move a rook diagonally. It's cheating if you attempt to do so covertly, it's a misplay to do so because of mistaken knowledge of the rules.

My use of the term was simply in response to your use of it. You described a player authoring some fiction in order to provide fictional position for bypassing an obstacle, or solving it using a more advantageous mechanic as 'feeling like cheating'. I simply responded to that with the observation that, within the context of a system like 4e's SCs this is in no sense cheating, simply optimum play. I would extend that to other systems, like Dungeon World, say, where the process would actually involve a check of basically the same sort as trying to climb the wall (IE Discern Realities revealing the existence of a ladder). TB2 would also involve a check, with all the implications of grind/cost of living/conditions/resource depletion that implies. In none of the Narrativist systems of which I'm familiar would a player making up some fiction of this sort be anything unusual or 'cheating'.

I think there's still a very old school fundamental core assumption that many people have buried so deeply in their thinking about these topics that they barely recognize its presence. That is the idea that, fundamentally, the purpose of play is to create challenging puzzle-like tests of player skill, and that the GM and players have some kind of fundamentally oppositional role with respect to that. So, in any case where a player can influence the elements of fiction in a way that is outside their character's actions is a form of 'cheating' because it changes the conditions of some sort of test, and there's an unwritten rule that this is not allowed.

Before you can, if you wish to do so, move on to using other forms of play, you have to stop making these assumptions. The exercise of skill in the play of the game that I am interested in when playing in a Narrativist mode is skill in terms of constructing the Narrative, and particularly exploring and exemplifying my character within it. With that in mind it makes no sense for me to want to simply bypass obstacles. I want interesting challenges for the character, that may also produce interesting challenges for myself in terms of deploying mechanics and resources in such a way as to depict my character doing successful things, but not boring or idiotic things, actually interesting ones. I'm also challenged in a gamist sense to do so using the resources given to me by the system in a clever and efficient way. If I don't, then the GM should depict mounting challenge and defeat (or maybe I get really lucky). In that sense there is STILL some 'taking different sides' between me and the GM at times. If he plays with integrity, then when I blow it, my character tragically fails, or at least encounters even more difficult situations.

So it is definitely a game, but one with a certain set of goals, and in which, relevant to this thread, player generated fiction plays a fairly significant part at times.

 

[pemerton]

My current gothic fantasy snow white game has a world authored by me (the PCs are strangers to the world, so I want them to go in blind). There is an abundance of NPC's trapped in the world with the PC's. One of those NPCs is a blood warlock who hunts others. The world was such that this blood warlock was slowly draining the life-force of a knight in the town via a secret passage.

The party enters the scene. They discover the secret passage, and figure out what the blood warlock is doing. They then seal up the secret passage.

They decided to do this. I had no inkling they'd do this, no plans for what would happen if they did this. This was improvised, unscripted.

So unless I've misunderstood, what this involves is the players declaring an action - We seal up the secret passage - which, given what they know about the fiction the GM has presented to them, they believe will have the consequence The blood warlock can no longer get to the knight and drain their life force.

the PC's improvising actions

I'm not quite seeing how we seal up the passage is an improvised action. Do you mean that there are no rules for it?

In any event, to me this episode doesn't really seem to be an example of player-generated fiction of the sort canvassed in the OP: there is no player-generated backstory/worlbuilding, the players don't seem to have established the focus of the action (that seems to have come from the GM), and the players don't seem to have established what is possible in action declaration (as I said, we seal up the passage seems pretty straightforward to me).

But maybe there's something I've missed or misunderstood?

 

[pemerton]

I think there are three different things that are being discussed here, one is 'action description' in which players, and possibly in some games the GM, describe what the PCs do, as well as possibly their plans and goals and such as depicted strictly within the shared imagined space. This would include things like describing casting a spell and its effects (subject potentially to some resolution mechanics) or simply things like which direction a character takes, or what they say. I do not think this is what the OP was generally describing. ALL games have this, and while some details might differ, it is fundamentally similar in all types of play.

Then we have fiction that is less directly engaged with the character and her actions. This would include things like backstory, which is ABOUT a character, but not necessarily representing things the character did. This might also be held to include 'meta fiction' like describing the character's goals and such, stuff that is about things in the shared imagined space, but which is not action oriented or necessarily governed by imagined causality.

Finally we have things that are entirely independent of the character, or largely so. Backstory might fall into this category as well, but any sort of general setting lore or fiction would be things that primarily fall into this category.

I think the OP is most focused on this third category, though I think it bears on the second category as well. These are the independent fictional contributions of the players. Contributions which simply depict character actions are fundamentally much more constrained and dependent, they're really secondary in some sense because they can only happen and be relevant in the context of other preexisting fiction. Regardless of who authored that context, actions depicted within it are not really independent, while something like imagining the history of your clan is much more so, and inventing a new location is primary fiction.

Well, the OP identifies three things but I'm not sure they quite correspond to your categories.

(1) The player generating the focus of action: what is our fiction about? This is where Quests, in 4e, or Beliefs, in the BW family of games, or more informal sorts of "flags" in other systems, etc, do their work.

(2) The player establishing what is possible in action declaration - for instance, is it possible to manipulate this portal to another realm by deploying my knowledge of Arcane phenomena? This is a big part of 4e (in skill challenges, and via p 42). It is also found in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. It is completely absent from Rolemaster (which uses hyper-simulationist prescribed categories and effects of actions). It figures in Apocalypse World in some places (eg what can a Savvyhead build in their workshop?) but I think probably not as much as in 4e or Cortex+.

(3) The backstory - NPCs, relationships, PC history, geography, etc. I think your post is mostly focused on bits of this.

The three things I identify above are not in watertight compartments - eg establishing what the fiction is about might also affect backstory (if my quest is to free my imprisoned sibling from the Iron Ring slavers, then we have as backstory that I have a brother - and perhaps also that there are Iron Ring slavers, if that wasn't already established); and likewise establishing what is possible in action declaration (eg we learn that portals of this sort are amenable to a certain sort of manipulation - or are not, perhaps, if the check fails!).

But I think they can be meaningfully distinguished.

Perhaps part of this stems from not knowing the limitations around what you consider a player-designed quest. Like is goal: I want to find X item a player authored quest? Is I want to avenge my fathers murder a player authored quest? If not, can you add enough detail to make these quests be player authored?

But what does this mean in practice? What elements of the quest need the player to author? Goal? Opposition? Exacts setting details pertaining the quest? Because if "authoring" the goal is sufficient, it is happening in all sort of RPGs all the time.

Also, what is difference between "breadcrumb" or "plot hook" and the setting just having interesting details that may or may not catch the attention of the players?

I'm not presenting a scientific taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories. I'm talking about who is establishing what play is about.

If the GM presents two options and the players choose one of them, it seems to me the GM established the focus of play. If the players say, "It would be cool to pursue <such-and-such a sort of goal>" and the GM frames a scene that puts that sort of goal at stake, then it seems like the players have generated the focus of play.

Also, can a player authored quest develop in game.

Why not?

Players can try weird things, and with good rolls they might work. For example in my last game a warlock decided to "reverse polarity" of enemy arcane ward that would trigger a trap, and with an excellent arcana skill roll they managed to change the ward from "lizardfolk may pass, everyone else triggers a trap" to "lizardfolk trigger a trap, everyone else may pass." It is not something I had considered, the player invented it on the spot, and as it sounded reasonable, albeit difficult, they could do it.

That seems to be an example of the player establishing what is possible in respect of action resolution.

I think we might be putting the cart before the horse. Its the initial group collaboration on what specifically to run that determines the amount of player input that gets put forth and potentially accepted in backstory/worldbuilding. Everything else is downstream from there. To me, this says the key is understanding why such collaborative agreements with limited player input into worldbuilding/backstory form in the first place.

I don't know what your cart and horse are. In the OP I didn't ask what is the reason why some D&D play involves more player-generated fiction than other D&D play?

I asked about others' experiences with a high volume of player-generated fiction in their D&D play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Is that the only way to gain XP? (In Torchbearer, there are no XP in the most literal sense, but there is level advancement based on spending Fate and Persona, and these are acquired by reference to Belief and Goal, plus to a lesser extent Instinct and Creed, in the way I've described upthread.)

So the characters have 3 ways to level up in the homebrew system we have
(1) Gain XP (as above) = to their current level
(2) Complete a major party goal
(3) Timeline event
If they progress using (2) or (3), the XP for (1) do not reset to 0. The only time they will reset is when they achieve (1).

EDIT: I should say (2) and (3) are out in the open and known to the players.

I ask, because that might influence how you handle the "disadvantage" XP: are they the mainstay, or more of a bonus?

I'm not sure I understand you here in terms of mainstay.
But to explain our full system once they accept the disadvantage, they gain an Inspiration point AFTER the check. Once they utilise the Inspiration point they gain the 1 XP.

I don't think D&D's approach to resolving actions, and especially to determining the consequences of failure, always makes it so easy to keep the focus on these things that the players are bringing to the front and centre of the fiction, because they tend to encourage consequences to be narrated in terms of the immediate physical environment rather than the "thematic" environment that is surrounding the characters.

You are right in this limitation with std D&D, but I do try insert new/borrowed game mechanics for specific situations if I find them interesting and fun and believe the table would too and should they work for the situation.
We've borrowed flashbacks from BitD for a overland journey and the players enjoyed that mechanic.
We've borrowed from DW's Ritual for the Wizard class to set up a removal of a PC's mental affliction.
...etc

4e skill challenges are an exception here (or can be). I saw in your post that you're using social skill challenges: if you're wanting to increase the character discovery/development aspect in play; and if you're currently not using failures in skill challenges, and the reframings that they produce, to do that; then I'd suggest maybe giving it a try.

Reframings is not something I have explored but I'm keen to try it out. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not presenting a scientific taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories. I'm talking about who is establishing what play is about.

Yes, but then we should actually be more exact about what that involves.

If the GM presents two options and the players choose one of them, it seems to me the GM established the focus of play. If the players say, "It would be cool to pursue <such-and-such a sort of goal>" and the GM frames a scene that puts that sort of goal at stake, then it seems like the players have generated the focus of play.

But if the thing the player goal was related to was already established to exist in the setting, isn't that still selecting from GM created options, even though that might be choosing among thousand options rather than two? Does or does not your definition require the player to invent the setting elements related to their goal or does it not? Is it "player-established quest" to explore ancient giant civilization, even if the player did not establish the fact that giants exist in the setting and had an ancient civilization?

That seems to be an example of the player establishing what is possible in respect of action resolution.

Sure. With the caveat that the GM has final say regarding what's poosible. But in my decades of playing RPGs, I don't remember this ever being in any other way. RPG rules are never exact with just limited set of options like a computer game; the cool thing about RPGs is that you're not limited in that way.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not presenting a scientific taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories. I'm talking about who is establishing what play is about.

We aren’t asking you to present a scientific taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories. We are trying to understand what kinds of things that you feel fit into your categories. We apparently aren’t alone because you are getting long detailed play examples that you don’t think are applicable.

If the GM presents two options and the players choose one of them, it seems to me the GM established the focus of play.

I don’t see it.
GM solely establishing the focus of play would be the players get no menu of options.

GM provides menu of options is more player and GM decide focus of play IMO.

But even in a menu of options situation I’ve never known the players not to be able to say none of the above - and either wait for more options or suggest a different course of action.

If the players say, "It would be cool to pursue <such-and-such a sort of goal>" and the GM frames a scene that puts that sort of goal at stake, then it seems like the players have generated the focus of play.

Everytime the players are presented with a menu of options that’s always an implicit possibility.

You view the menu as some kind of ‘you can only pick from these’ whereas the menu in d&d is more ‘here’s some cool ideas you might want to pick from, but feel free to have your own’.

Why not?

I don’t know. Thus, why I asked you the question about how you would classify it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, but then we should actually be more exact about what that involves.


But if the thing the player goal was related to was already established to exist in the setting, isn't that still selecting from GM created options, even though that might be choosing among thousand options rather than two? Does or does not your definition require the player to invent the setting elements related to their goal or does it not? Is it "player-established quest" to explore ancient giant civilization, even if the player did not establish the fact that giants exist in the setting and had an ancient civilization?


Sure. With the caveat that the GM has final say regarding what's poosible. But in my decades of playing RPGs, I don't remember this ever being in any other way. RPG rules are never exact with just limited set of options like a computer game; the cool thing about RPGs is that you're not limited in that way.

In 4e any time a player states a character goal in diegetic terms, which is not already established, a quest has been proposed. 4e gives the GM the right to both establish quests himself, and to accept or reject them. But there's no reason they must be or not be about any specific fiction.

RPGs vary widely in terms of who has authority to accept or reject any specific fiction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In 4e any time a player states a character goal in diegetic terms, which is not already established, a quest has been proposed.

But certainly this is something players do all the time in practically every RPG? Or what do you mean by "not established"?

4e gives the GM the right to both establish quests himself, and to accept or reject them. But there's no reason they must be or not be about any specific fiction.

RPGs vary widely in terms of who has authority to accept or reject any specific fiction.

Right. But wasn't the thread specifically about player-generated fiction? I remain confused and examples @pemerton offered didn't help, as many of those to my eye didn't seem to contain such, so I assume they mean something else by it...

 

[Vaalingrade]

But certainly this is something players do all the time in practically every RPG?

People can do this in any game, but not all games establish it explicitly and not all games discourage it via a certain power dynamic as part of the culture.

AND not all games have instilled in some of its fanbase that other players are all gremlins always scheming the get an advantage and 'win' the game whenever they try to exercise any form of narrative control. I remember a thread here last year where it was intimated that the other players will only give their characters family in an effort to gain some advantage.

That's not an environment conducive to the kind of thing pemerton is talking about. And to be fair not one endorsed by D&D for about fifteen years, but it's still alive and well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We aren’t asking you to present a scientific taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories. We are trying to understand what kinds of things that you feel fit into your categories. We apparently aren’t alone because you are getting long detailed play examples that you don’t think are applicable.

I don’t see it.
GM solely establishing the focus of play would be the players get no menu of options.

GM provides menu of options is more player and GM decide focus of play IMO.

But even in a menu of options situation I’ve never known the players not to be able to say none of the above - and either wait for more options or suggest a different course of action.

Everytime the players are presented with a menu of options that’s always an implicit possibility.

You view the menu as some kind of ‘you can only pick from these’ whereas the menu in d&d is more ‘here’s some cool ideas you might want to pick from, but feel free to have your own’.

I don’t know. Thus, why I asked you the question about how you would classify it.

I think you are misapprehending this. We are not dummies who fail to understand that RPGs offer the possibility of inventing different ways to approach problems. We're talking about who developed the fiction associated with what the focus of problem solving itself is. If you generate a keyed Dungeon with various puzzles in it and that's the focus of play, then the mere fact that I can invent 7 ways to defeat a pit trap, some of which the GM doubtless never thought of, is not 'authoring fiction' in a way that is super meaningful. The pit is an obstacle to any PC and the means of solution is of little significance in terms of serious characterization or plot.

I believe @pemerton is focused more on that really meaty stuff, not so much details. And by asking about player generated fiction is after those places where players developed the fictional focus of play, at least partly.

But I think there's inevitably some grey area. A player might choose to approach a problem in a way that casts a very different light on the fiction, and/or pushes it in a really different direction, perhaps creating a focus on something that was originally just a detail of background or something. The ultimate test here then is the degree to which that fiction becomes a central part of play vs being just color or a minor side quest or something.