Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Professor Murder]

Thanks all for the discussion so far. I did want to further clarify my intentions.
Some people are speaking about the GM not rolling and the rolls of the players determining all outcomes. For anyone seeking a system that does this, please check out the excellent Red Markets. Also, the current Paranoia I believe.
But that's not what I am proposing. I am saying that while the players still roll to determine outcomes, the GM would not. Instead, they would judge what they want to happen narratively, and it happens. This is why I mentioned that a GM fudging rolls already does this. PCs getting hit too much on a fight that should have just been the warm up? You have the enemies miss more or do less damage. Players are cakewalking your big bad? He gets a hellacious crit that takes out the party mage and puts the whole party on the back foot as they scramble to heal him. That's what I am proposing.
I have been doing this for a while, and what I enjoy is using game systems to tell a story. Playing a game that tangentially contains a story is less appealing, tbh. That story is told collaboratively.

 

[Umbran]

Does Masks have the same agendas and principles of play, or are they different?

I expect some are the same, and others are genre-specific.

Masks' Agendas for the GM are:
• Make Halcyon City feel like a comic book
• Make the player characters’ lives superheroic
• Play to find out what changes

The Principles of Play are:
• Describe like a comic book
• Address yourself to the heroes, not the players
• Make your move, but misdirect
• Make threats real
• Give up to fight another day
• Treat human life as meaningful
• Make supers seem outlandish, creative, and cool
• Give villains drives to feature their humanity
• Make adults seem childish and short-sighted
• Support people, but only conditionally
• Ask provocative questions and build on the answers
• Be a fan of the PCs
• Treat your NPCs like hammers: square peg, round hole
• Remind them of the generations that came before
• Think in the gutters between panels
• Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

 

[Ovinomancer]

I expect some are the same, and others are genre-specific.

Masks' Agendas for the GM are:
• Make Halcyon City feel like a comic book
• Make the player characters’ lives superheroic
• Play to find out what changes

The Principles of Play are:
• Describe like a comic book
• Address yourself to the heroes, not the players
• Make your move, but misdirect
• Make threats real
• Give up to fight another day
• Treat human life as meaningful
• Make supers seem outlandish, creative, and cool
• Give villains drives to feature their humanity
• Make adults seem childish and short-sighted
• Support people, but only conditionally
• Ask provocative questions and build on the answers
• Be a fan of the PCs
• Treat your NPCs like hammers: square peg, round hole
• Remind them of the generations that came before
• Think in the gutters between panels
• Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

Yeah, cool, looks like colored to match the theme. I'd say that those drive towards if you do it you do it style calling for moves, though. That's how you both make PC lives superheroic and play to find out what happens.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thanks all for the discussion so far. I did want to further clarify my intentions.
Some people are speaking about the GM not rolling and the rolls of the players determining all outcomes. For anyone seeking a system that does this, please check out the excellent Red Markets. Also, the current Paranoia I believe.
But that's not what I am proposing. I am saying that while the players still roll to determine outcomes, the GM would not. Instead, they would judge what they want to happen narratively, and it happens. This is why I mentioned that a GM fudging rolls already does this. PCs getting hit too much on a fight that should have just been the warm up? You have the enemies miss more or do less damage. Players are cakewalking your big bad? He gets a hellacious crit that takes out the party mage and puts the whole party on the back foot as they scramble to heal him. That's what I am proposing.
I have been doing this for a while, and what I enjoy is using game systems to tell a story. Playing a game that tangentially contains a story is less appealing, tbh. That story is told collaboratively.

While I've made my own opinion on this clear, I really think unless you're really wedded to a top-down approach on this, something like what Umbran suggested would be more appropriate if that's what you're really trying for, where neither the GM nor the players roll dice, but have some sort of resource that lets them choose results. Otherwise, to me, all this does is overenpower and already often overpowered role (the GM).

 

[Blue]

I thought about it, but its pretty much the definition of "rather have a tooth pulled."

Sure, different systems appeal to different players. Amber was a well received system with a number of published adventures. Even though it's been out of print for a long time there are still regular conventions dedicated, and a monthly periodical. So we have to assume it's a valid game that some play. With "Diceless" right in the name, I think it's a safe assumption that people picked it up knowing explicitly there was no randomization. If they self-select for no-randomization, it's likely seen as a benefit for those people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, different systems appeal to different players. Amber was a well received system with a number of published adventures. Even though it's been out of print for a long time there are still regular conventions dedicated, and a monthly periodical. So we have to assume it's a valid game that some play. With "Diceless" right in the name, I think it's a safe assumption that people picked it up knowing explicitly there was no randomization. If they self-select for no-randomization, it's likely seen as a benefit for those people.

Yeah, one has to assume the guys who did "Lords of Gossamer and Shadow" weren't complete idiots pouring effort and money down the drain, too.

 

[clearstream]

But that's not what I am proposing. I am saying that while the players still roll to determine outcomes, the GM would not. Instead, they would judge what they want to happen narratively, and it happens. This is why I mentioned that a GM fudging rolls already does this. PCs getting hit too much on a fight that should have just been the warm up? You have the enemies miss more or do less damage. Players are cakewalking your big bad? He gets a hellacious crit that takes out the party mage and puts the whole party on the back foot as they scramble to heal him. That's what I am proposing.
I have been doing this for a while, and what I enjoy is using game systems to tell a story. Playing a game that tangentially contains a story is less appealing, tbh. That story is told collaboratively.

Got it. So what does one think of GM's choosing the outcome that makes the narrative pan out how they want?

I would say on the one hand, that can result in a more satisfying game because sometimes the dice really don't land on a result that takes things forwar the most satisfying way. And on the other hand, I value the dice taking us in directions we might not otherwise have chosen - for me that's satisfying - and when I do GM diceless I don't aim to specify the narrative that way, but there is nuance to that...

You've left open a variable - [what GM wants to happen narratively] - so that lets in the possibility that what GM wants to happen narratively is to play to find out! I am taking it however that you don't mean that, and you mean having a pre-existing idea of what you want to happen, is that right?

 

[Umbran]

I'd say that those drive towards if you do it you do it style calling for moves, though. That's how you both make PC lives superheroic and play to find out what happens.

Broadly, sure. But it looks to me like there's allowance for the judgement call. F'rex, if there's no question whether you succeed, or significant consequences to the action, then you don't roll the dice, and such.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Broadly, sure. But it looks to me like there's allowance for the judgement call. F'rex, if there's no question whether you succeed, or significant consequences to the action, then you don't roll the dice, and such.

That would be going against the agendas and principles, though. These games don't hinge on the GM's evaluation of the odds, but rather whether the stated action has weight for these characters. There shouldn't ever be an evaluation by the GM of odds happening, because that's not playing to find out. There shouldn't be no roll if there are significant consequences to an action, because that's not making the PCs lives superheroic. And so on. The premise of play rests on the idea that we're not looking to the GM to choose outcomes based on the GM's judgement, but that the GM is providing honest adversity, the players are responding with their PCs, and we're playing to find out what happens!

 

[beancounter]

My DM went partially narrative last night. He's had a thorn in his side ever since I decided to play a moon druid. He complained a couple of times how he has seen the subclass abused.

So lat night, all of the monsters scored significant hits with near max damage in an attempt to nullify my "advantage". I was the only player that had slime drop on me out of now where....

I never heard any dice roll. (We play on a VTT). He was narrating the whole thing when it came to my PC. (I heard dice rolls for the other PCs)

Well, I'm f**"n sorry you don't have the tactical skills to challenge my PC fairly....

Sure, you can fudge dice rolls, but the damage seemed skewed toward my PC, so clearly there was intent.

So, my point is that narration can introduce too much bias.