Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[darjr]

To let the players control the narrative is potentially game breaking.

GM: "you open the door. What do you see"
Player: I see 10 chest filled to the brim with gold pieces and all 7 pieces of the rod of seven parts".

Sure I see that, but so is extreme optimization. Or an insistence to PVP. Or chaotic behavior. Or siding with the villains against the PCs.

Those also could be great parts of the game given the right table.

 

[zakael19]

But we should be very clear, that's not what Daggerheart expects or intends.

 

[cranberry]

Edit: this is also a reply directly to @cranberry above! That is not at all what Daggerheart wants from play. It wants players to add input that links their characters to the situation, and for the GM to think about what that would mean and pull on the characters during play.

Well, if they have thousands of GP, and a powerful artifact, that would certainly allow the characters to control the situation, links or not.

 

[Umbran]

Sir this is a Wendy's?

Yes. And immersion is a chicken sandwich - despite being nominally a burger joint, Wendy's sells a lot of chicken sandwiches, too.

I dont think there's any helpful or interesting conversation about immersion to be had here.

Then, by all means, don't try to engage in it. Nobody's stopping you from disengaging.

Just don't get in the way of others in case they want to try.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right! Immersion for you is that. You want to be immersed in your character without leaving their perspective (although as @TwoSix has noted, he's more immersed in his character when he gets to fill in some of what they see!). I may want to be immersed in the game. Or I dont care about immersion. etc.

This is why "immersion" as a standalone term tends to just add confusion. Like, you're the sort of person who may read through DH and go "this game probably isn't for me unless we're running it far from how the book suggests it wants."

This is why I was clear on my use in my first post (and pretty consistently throughout my time on the board).

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, if they have thousands of GP, and a powerful artifact, that would certainly allow the characters to control the situation, links or not.

But the point is not that the players can simply re-write all narrative as they see fit. My example of the Ring of Three Wishes is that if you start from a ridiculous premise, of course you arrive at a ridiculous result. But even with Description on Demand, the GM still sets the scene and allows players to provide input into that scene with all the same abilities as in a traditional RPG to rein in absurd answers.

 

[TwoSix]

To let the players control the narrative is potentially game breaking.

GM: "you open the door. What do you see"
Player: I see 10 chest filled to the brim with gold pieces and all 7 pieces of the rod of seven parts".

If you have players who do that, don’t play narrative games with them. Noticing that not all games work for all players is not a novel observation.

 

[TwoSix]

Those who like the Daggerheart approach are the ones talking about engagement and not immersion from my perspective on those words. Something can be interesting and engaging but still not immersive. Immersion for me is staying in character as much as possible.

And having to ask the DM about world details is what removes me from character.

 

[cranberry]

Noticing that not all games work for all players is not a novel observation.

I think a lot more people would take advantage of it then you might realize.

 

[Reynard]

To let the players control the narrative is potentially game breaking.

GM: "you open the door. What do you see"
Player: I see 10 chest filled to the brim with gold pieces and all 7 pieces of the rod of seven parts".

GM paternalism is such a weird position. "I can't give players control over anything, because they will abuse it."

I think many, many GMs would do well to hold on a little more loosely.