“Really narrative D&D” - a new RPG genre?

[jian]

As someone who made one (Swords under the Sun) and is playing/running Grimwild right now: I think they inherently suck.

D&D benefits a lot from having a separate combat minigame, because combat is fun. Brewing encounters is fun. Bashing together enemy statblocks is fun. Figuring out a strong build is fun. Using that build is fun. Excising combat by making it indistinguishable from non-combat leaves a gaping hole in the game that can't be filled within the bounds of adventuresque fantasy.

I'm bashing together a tactical combat subsystem for our Grimwild organized play right now to plug this gap and I legitimately want to cry, the system is so hostile to it, the asymmetry and lack of any sort of difficulty modifiers is kicking my ass.

Yes, that’s always been my problem with PbtA and somehow really annoyed me about Masks particularly. Such systems kind of assume that the fun in combat comes from being allowed to do whatever you like (distract the boss, help an ally, use magic creatively etc.) and the narrative freedom will make up for the lack of functional tactical options, when I think they hit entirely different satisfaction centres and so the fights feel sort of empty.

 

[loverdrive]

Yes, that’s always been my problem with PbtA and somehow really annoyed me about Masks particularly. Such systems kind of assume that the fun in combat comes from being allowed to do whatever you like (distract the boss, help an ally, use magic creatively etc.) and the narrative freedom will make up for the lack of functional tactical options, when I think they hit entirely different satisfaction centres and so the fights feel sort of empty.

I think it works for Masks (and the original Apocalypse World), as it has other stuff to do, and fight scenes tend to be brief (and not actually about fighting anyway)

Like, the crux of the Masks is relationships: beefs, friendships, rivalries or romance between characters and their journey of becoming adults.

The crux of D&D is going to dangerous places doing dangerous stuff.

One can certainly do a fantasy PbtA game — Stonetop exists, after all — but it must be about something other than the PCs constantly facing mortal peril.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'll get back to you after I figure out how "D&D PbtA" works.

We just finished playing Rime of the Frostmaiden with a Dungeon World variant, and it worked pretty well from a player’s perspective. It depends what is meant by D&D in this case because obviously we used the classes provided by the system we were using. The DM adjusted all of the monsters to work within it.

 

[zakael19]

I think it works for Masks (and the original Apocalypse World), as it has other stuff to do, and fight scenes tend to be brief (and not actually about fighting anyway)

Like, the crux of the Masks is relationships: beefs, friendships, rivalries or romance between characters and their journey of becoming adults.

The crux of D&D is going to dangerous places doing dangerous stuff.

One can certainly do a fantasy PbtA game — Stonetop exists, after all — but it must be about something other than the PCs constantly facing mortal peril.

I think there's also a split between "D&D the actual mechanical game that's gone through a number of iterations and grown to be a highly combat sub-system focused design that everybody has a favorite version of" vs "D&D, the fictional genre of related media that has grown up over the decades and spawned a whole set of heroic fantasy stuff around groups of people doing dangerous and thrilling narrative things."

Something like Dungeon World etc hits the latter goal on a scene by scene basis so much better than tactical-minigame D&D. You can have actual moments in a combat that match a novel written from D&D cultural bones in a way that the tactical rules make very hard.

 

[Aldarc]

One can certainly do a fantasy PbtA game — Stonetop exists, after all — but it must be about something other than the PCs constantly facing mortal peril.

STONETOP MENTIONED...

 

[loverdrive]

I think there's also a split between "D&D the actual mechanical game that's gone through a number of iterations and grown to be a highly combat sub-system focused design that everybody has a favorite version of" vs "D&D, the fictional genre of related media that has grown up over the decades and spawned a whole set of heroic fantasy stuff around groups of people doing dangerous and thrilling narrative things."

Something like Dungeon World etc hits the latter goal on a scene by scene basis so much better than tactical-minigame D&D. You can have actual moments in a combat that match a novel written from D&D cultural bones in a way that the tactical rules make very hard.

I find Dungeon World combat to be sleep-inducing. Just like I felt my eyes glaze over when listening to fight scenes in Corum audiobooks.

They are just... not super fun? The only time I enjoy PbtA-style combat is when I'm playing with sword nerds and we can circlejerk about different techniques from historical manuals and/or break into actual physical mock fencing -- and that has nothing to with virtues of DW or my SutS, that's just me liking to hang out with other sword nerds.

The only way around it is to make combat not about combat, but about conversations -- and then you firmly eject yourself from the D&D-esque fantasy.

For the record: I find D&D combat to be sleep-inducing too, but that's because the execution sucks, not the concept itself.

 

[jdrakeh]

I very recently released a narrative D&D-alike (based primarily on OD&D 1974). It's best classed as an FKR game. I don't know if it's a new genre. I think it's more of a representation of how my friends and I (and probably other people) played very early D&D. The exception is magic, which is much more freeform.

You can get the free (PWYW) version and introductory adventure here or the embellished edition and companion rules here. Judge for yourself. The rules are very loosely based on PbtA. It played well in testing (and the Companion was updated today to reflect that testing, notably by revising the optional Necromancer class).

 

[SteveC]

I very recently released a narrative D&D-alike (based primarily on OD&D 1974). It's best classed as an FKR game. I don't know if it's a new genre. I think it's more of a representation of how my friends and I (and probably other people) played very early D&D. The exception is magic, which is much more freeform.

I pretty much pick up any of the books I see from people I know from online, so you have at least one person buying today.

 

[jdrakeh]

I pretty much pick up any of the books I see from people I know from online, so you have at least one person buying today.

Thank you so much!

 

[aramis erak]

I very recently released a narrative D&D-alike (based primarily on OD&D 1974). It's best classed as an FKR game. I don't know if it's a new genre. I think it's more of a representation of how my friends and I (and probably other people) played very early D&D. The exception is magic, which is much more freeform.

Yeah, I've talked to a few grogs in the 80's and early 90's who played that style in the 70s-90s...
but it was one of a plethora of ways the game got played.

When I started playing, it was AD&D 1e, summer 1981, TOTM supported by use of tokens on a chessboard, narrative push your luck wargaming. I've known a number of people who played that way in the 70's. Essentially, minis wargaming without the minis or terrain. We had fun, story emerged. But it wasn't story first, and we made extensive use of 1d20 ≤ attribute by fall 1981... as we found that in the example in Moldvay... oh, yeah, the tokens? Bits of labeled paper, coins, chess pieces, monopoly pieces, toy soldiers... Quite the array.