D&Detox

[pemerton]

@pemerton - Before I WoT here, a question. Do you think it's common in D&D games for the DM to ask the players to describe something in the game world? As in, the player walk into their local tavern, and the DM asks OK, what does it look like and who's here? That sort of thing.

My basic premise is that isn't common at all, nor is it suggested or encouraged by the rules set. Why I think that's important is another story, but I wanted to set the ground before we got any more involved, as I think we're coming at this form different angles.

I'm not sure what WoT is in this context (not Wheel of Time?). [EDIT: = wall of text?]

i think it's probably not common for the GM in a D&D game to ask players to describe things. What puzzles me is why it's not.

Maybe our different angles, or at least one dimension of difference - as I read your posts, so obviously with all the risk of error that entails! - is that you seem to be thinking that if the text doesn't forthrightly encourage player contributions, it is tending to discourage them.

Whereas I think if the text says little about it, then if the tendency is to go one way (few player contriutions) rather than another (some, even many, player contributions) that invites further inquiry and explanation. Especially when the texts are not all one-way.

I've posted already the passage from 1977 Traveller. From 1979 DMG )p (93) we have the following:

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a river. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

On the one hand, that's not the most powerful player contribution to the fiction of all time; on the other, it shows that the GM - while having overall editorial control - is not envisaged as being the sole contributor shared fiction. This is reinforced when we consider actual play examples from Gygax's game - many of which are recorded in early published products like the Rogue's Gallery, modules and rulebooks - that show us players being pretty active in establishing the content and parameters of the shared fiction.

D&D 4e goes further than either the Traveller or AD&D texts in both core and supplementary books - I already mentioned player-authored quests and the DMG2, and those aren't the only examples.

So where does the idea come from that the player's job is essentially to be an audience to fiction estabished and set forth by the GM? My own view is that the 2nd ed AD&D books are a significant part of the answer to this question. That may not be the only or even the best answer.

Again, what's striking to me is that there appears to be a culture here which is not what I would expect if all I knew was late-70s/early-80s RPG texts. And related, that a game published in 1977 seems closer in its ethos to Apocalypse World than many RPGs that are ostensibly far more modern.

 

[Ratskinner]

So from my point of view, it's not so much what D&D actively encourages, but rather what is about either D&D rules or D&D culture that actively discourages players engaging with the fiction in that sort of way? (And it's not like D&D is a monolith in this respect. There's 4e and especially but not only the DMG2 - eg the idea of player-authored quests is right there in the PHB and DMG. And as I said, I was working out some of this stuff for myself around 1986/7, GMing AD&D.)

My $.04...

Encourages and Discourages are two sides of the same coin here. I think there are two particular factors in D&D (and I throw most traditionally-framed rpgs in there, too):

First, the game-design is list based (spells, equipment, classes, tables for what kind of prostitute you meet, etc.) which defines the fiction right off....yes, there is magic...but THIS is what you can do with it. That kinda narrows things right off the bat.

Secondly, the game mechanics and descriptions of those list items are defined in such a way as to primarily act quantitatively with other mechanics (hp, AC, etc.), not qualitatively within the fiction, and only secondarily to add very specific narrative elements. (Consider the necessity of having a mechanical definition for "stunned" vs. just being "stunned" as a Consequence or temporary Aspect in Fate - no extra mechanics needed.)

....I'm going to avoid addressing 4e to try and keep this thread from degenerating.

 

[pemerton]

So an important element of a D&Detox would be giving the players magical rings, still subject to the One Ring, that allow them - nay - encourage them to do some narrating? Maybe a short scene, created mostly by the players, with minimal GM input? Or GM input that requires PC elaboration?

I don't think having players narrate vignettes is particularly necessary. It may be helpful, but I don't know as I've never really tried it.

I thik @Ratskinner's post in more on target. It's about encourage players to engage the fiction - both in high-level "thematic terms, that is, making decisions about what it is that their PCs' goals are; and in more nitty-gritty action declaration terms, that is, actually telling us what it is their PCs are doing or hoping to achieve in the here and now.

Eg instead of I look around - what do I see? I would encourage players to say I am looking for such-and-such - is it here? Of course one way you encourage that is by making it matter. And one way you can make it matter is be using some sort of post-action-declaration rather than pre-action-declaration process for working out the answer to the player's question.

 

[Ratskinner]

It might not be common, but I also don’t think that DMing style is rare. I’ve run across it many times, and also hear it frequently in live-streamed games. I use it myself, selectively.

I have no idea how common it is overall. My suspicion is that podcasts are changing the way that people are playing the game. I mean, there's lots of folks picking up the game for the first time after watching some of them, and the younger folks will be coming in without the decades of prejudicial experience that us old-timers have. From what I've seen from other DMs, some will occasionally sprinkle such things in, but that most people don't consider it part of the "game" as prescribed by the rules... and how that affects what people perceive about the popularity of this kind of behavior is up for grabs.

 

[Ratskinner]

Eg instead of I look around - what do I see? I would encourage players to say I am looking for such-and-such - is it here? Of course one way you encourage that is by making it matter. And one way you can make it matter is be using some sort of post-action-declaration rather than pre-action-declaration process for working out the answer to the player's question.

My suggestions:
baby steps
DM: Its a workroom full of tools and materials. Dust fills the air and glitters in the shafts of daylight slicing through the wooden walls.
Player: What's here?
DM: (thinking...do they really think I wrote down everything here? I just said tools and materials.) Are you looking for something in particular or do you want to inventory the place before the bad guys get here?
Player: Well, something to brace the door...like maybe some boards, nail, and hammer?
DM: Make a Wisdom(Perception) check DC 10 to find them quickly enough to beat the bad guys.
Player: rolls...14
DM: Yup. You find some nails and board up the door. You've just finished when you hear them shouting outside.

up and running
DM: Its a workroom full of tools and materials. Dust fills the air and glitters in the shafts of daylight slicing through the wooden walls.
Player: A workroom? I want to try and use the stuff here to brace the door.
DM: Make a Wisdom(Perception) check DC 10 to find them quickly enough to beat the bad guys.
Player: rolls...14
DM: Okay, what did you find and how'd you brace the door?
Player: A hammer, nails, and some boards.
DM: You just get finished when you hear them shouting outside.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm going to start by addressing a point in your response above this one. I don't think that D&D discourages the kind of play we're talking about, it just doesn't overtly encourage it. Many players have only D&D to guide them, or game similar to D&D. IF the game they play doesn't say "Hey, this thing and that thing" how would they know it's a thing, never mind better or worse. I don't know that just watching a podcast would help either. Even a very fiction forward game might be difficult to parse and sift out exactly what the difference is.

The actual mechanics of D&D also don't really connect to the idea we're talking about either. Even the weak attempts at drive and motivation (the Inspiration System) seem very tacked on and are regularly ignored.

I don't think having players narrate vignettes is particularly necessary. It may be helpful, but I don't know as I've never really tried it.

I thik @Ratskinner's post in more on target. It's about encourage players to engage the fiction - both in high-level "thematic terms, that is, making decisions about what it is that their PCs' goals are; and in more nitty-gritty action declaration terms, that is, actually telling us what it is their PCs are doing or hoping to achieve in the here and now.

Eg instead of I look around - what do I see? I would encourage players to say I am looking for such-and-such - is it here? Of course one way you encourage that is by making it matter. And one way you can make it matter is be using some sort of post-action-declaration rather than pre-action-declaration process for working out the answer to the player's question.

I agree with everything you say here. Engagement is the key.

My comment about vingettes wasn't, in itself, all that important. It's more about the style of play indexed by that sort of thing. When you read PtBA, or Blades, or any FATE game, I think the way those writers and designers talk about the game, and the way they explain how it should be played is different than what you find in the D&D books. This isn't a criticism of D&D at all, btw, I'm just trying to sort the differences. When they talk about the player's responsibilities, how a character is imagined, what the goal of actions are, and what the general nature of the game is, that all of those things add up to a very different message than the one you get in the PHB.

In an attempt to codify the differences, I arrived at player agency in the narrative, which in many different ways, aptly describes the divide I'm trying to describe, but that difference is also well described by your use of engagement. Like I said, there's no value judgement here, no better or worse. When you see a DM playing a more PbtA style, or whatever (fronting the things I see in PtBA that you also see in Traveller) I think those things, in many cases, come from experience with other games rather than a moment of satori about how D&D could be better.

 

[GrahamWills]

If you want people to try a new system, you have to find the fun. Teaching rules, getting rid of ingrained concepts, all that stuff is beside the point. If you do not demonstrate why the new system is more fun is some way than the old system, you will not win people over. It’a up to you which find the thing to get people excited about, but that must be your main goal.

And it‘s not going to be easy, because D&D is a pretty good system that handles a variety of play styles well; so you really do need to work hard in those first few sessions to make people think “hey, that was pretty cool! i like D&D, but this might also be fun”

For me, Fate clicked for my players the first combat where they created advantages and used social ‘attacks’ as well as just physical attacks. That was something that D&D doesn’t do as well, and gave them a reason to keep playing. It’s why people love the CoC sanity rules and why that system never has problems winning converts — it’s immediately clear that it offers a fun Experience unlike D&D.

On the other hand, I’ve never had that experience with PbtA games. As a player, it always felt like I could be playing the same game using Fate rules to get the same sort of effect.

So if the system has great rules for X, or does X differently from D&D in a way that is fun, get to that first. Give people a reason to play a new system.

 

[pemerton]

My $.04...

Encourages and Discourages are two sides of the same coin here. I think there are two particular factors in D&D (and I throw most traditionally-framed rpgs in there, too):

First, the game-design is list based (spells, equipment, classes, tables for what kind of prostitute you meet, etc.) which defines the fiction right off....yes, there is magic...but THIS is what you can do with it. That kinda narrows things right off the bat.

Secondly, the game mechanics and descriptions of those list items are defined in such a way as to primarily act quantitatively with other mechanics (hp, AC, etc.), not qualitatively within the fiction, and only secondarily to add very specific narrative elements. (Consider the necessity of having a mechanical definition for "stunned" vs. just being "stunned" as a Consequence or temporary Aspect in Fate - no extra mechanics needed.)

....I'm going to avoid addressing 4e to try and keep this thread from degenerating.

Now we're cooking with gas!

Re lists: I see what you're saying. But Classic Traveller relies heavily on lists (mostly of gear). And Rolemaster relies heavily on lilts (especially of spells). But I don't necessarily see the narrowing you describe. Eg Traveller has Electronics skill, which kind-of implies that players are expected to have their PCs jury-rig their gear (and we've seen this happen in play). And at least in my experience, the "richness" of RM PC gen encourages players to think about the backstory and conrtext for their PC, which already contributes to the shared fiction.

In AD&D Oriental Adventures, the PC gen system encouraged the players to think about their family, their martial arts masters, etc, which likewise contributes to the shared fiction.

Also, in the days of ur-D&D one gathers that it wasn't unheard of for a player to suggest a new class or class variant (hence the ranger, presumably the illusionist, etc). I've always assumed it was Rob Kuntz who brought up the possibility of Robilar taking an orc on as a henchman. Spell research was presumably intended to be a meaningful option. Etc. In other words, the lists weren't seen as outside the players' sphere of influence.

On your second point - that is something I've picked up in the "Putting the Awe back into Magic" thread. The D&D combat mechanics don't engage the fiction at what, when one thinks about the fiction, is apt to be the most dramatic point of action - what happens when A tries to run B through with a sword? I don't accept that all "trad" RPGs are like this: RM and RQ are not, and Classic Traveller's combat is a bit like this but is so close to sudden death that it doesn't really compare to D&D beyond 1st level.

So I think to get D&D players to orient themselves more towards non-D&D games it would make sense to lean more heavily on non-combat resolution.

And to conclude this post: I don't think we could talk about why discussion of 4e would degerenate the thread without talking about how 4e relates in distinctive ways to these features of the D&D "tradition".

 

[pemerton]

If you want people to try a new system, you have to find the fun. Teaching rules, getting rid of ingrained concepts, all that stuff is beside the point. If you do not demonstrate why the new system is more fun is some way than the old system, you will not win people over. It’a up to you which find the thing to get people excited about, but that must be your main goal.

Over the past few years my group - which playes for 4 or so hours every second to fourth Sunday afternoon depending on our other commitments - has played the following systems:

**Cthulhu Dark
*AD&D
4e D&D
*Classic Traveller
*Burning Wheel
**Wuthering Heights
**Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP
**The Dying Earth
**Prince Valiant
**In A Wicked Age​

One asterisk signals new to at least one player. Two signal new to everyone at the table.

Not all of those systems have produced campaigns as opposed to one-offs - the campaigns are 4e (currently on hold), Classic Traveller, BW, Cortex+ Heroic and Prince Valiant. But none has been dropped because disliked.

Maybe it's just a quibble, but I would say what is important is not so much what's fun - which is alomost a given for a half-decent system with a group of experienced RPGers - but what worthwhile experience does this give that we woudn't have had otherwise. Eg in our Wuthering Heights game last Sunday, that was overwrought drama driven by rage and despair.

For a good one-shot, though, the systems needs to be fairly painless and easily picked up. Wuthering Heights (and Cthulhlu Dark, and In A Wicked Age) tick that box. The Dying Earth - which is a bit crunchier - relied more on me knowing the rules fairly well even though I'd never played it before.

I don't think 4e or even Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP makes for a particular good one-shot if all the group are trying to pick it up then and their!

 

[pemerton]

In an attempt to codify the differences, I arrived at player agency in the narrative, which in many different ways, aptly describes the divide I'm trying to describe, but that difference is also well described by your use of engagement. Like I said, there's no value judgement here, no better or worse. When you see a DM playing a more PbtA style, or whatever (fronting the things I see in PtBA that you also see in Traveller) I think those things, in many cases, come from experience with other games rather than a moment of satori about how D&D could be better.

I want to unpack this a bit more.

In classic D&D, there are two "phases" of the fiction: (1) character build - which includes PC gen, equipping the PCs, choosing spell load out, etc; and (2) the dungeon/wilderness that the PCs have to make their way throuigh and extract treasure from.

When it comes to (2), referee control over the fiction is central, because that is what frames the challenge.

When it comes to (1), player influence on the fiction is fine, provided the GM exercise the sort of oversight that stops overpowered class variants, unlimited bankc accounts, etc. This is where orc henchmen, new classes, research spells, thinking up new wacky bits of dungeoneering equipment, etc all fit in.

There are (at least) two ways that this distinction can be eroded:

(A) Character building increasingly itself becomes a site of challenge - eg having to find a supplier of your goods, or having to find a mentor or trainer, etc. In more concrete terms I would say this is especially associated with urban adventuring becoming more common, in place of the abstract town/village/inn.

(B) The idea of the challenge becomes less prominent, with the emphasis shifting to exploration of the fiction. And all the fiction, the (1)-phase as well as the (2)-phase, becomes seen as the GM's domain.

I think one can see (A) taking place in the late 70s, and (B) taking place in the early 80s, culminating (you won't be surprised to see me assert) in 2nd ed AD&D.

I wouldn't say that I ever had a moment of satori, but as I (B)-ed I didn't collapse the phases in the direction of (2) but more in the direction of (1). Or at least a more expansive conception of what is part of (1), to include elements of the fiction that will be prominent in play and not just as "background".