Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Ovinomancer]

No, I have never considered doing this. If you did, then D&D stops being a game and becomes - something else. And this is a wholly unsatisfying to me. Also, there are approximately 10, 000 rpgs that do narrative storytelling way better than D&D 5E.

There's actually a few quick D&D houserule sets out there that remove dice rolling from the GM. On monster turns, the players roll defense against a static attack value (inverted attack vs AC, now AC vs attack, attack set to 10+bonuses). Saves already work this way. Damage is average. GM never needs to touch dice.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

For clarity, you can note that this thread is not in the DnD section, it is in general RPG. I don't mention DnD or even use the term DM, instead using GM.

Oh, in that case, absolutely not. Sitting around chatting isn't something that I want to spend my hobby time on. Why not just write fiction?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, in that case, absolutely not. Sitting around chatting isn't something that I want to spend my hobby time on. Why not just write fiction?

Not either or. Take Blades in the Dark. Not at all sitting around and telling stories. GM never rolls, bad guys don't have turns. Not at bit like a story telling game. There's more out there than "plays like D&D" and "is just conch passing."

 

[kenada]

Again, it's not a videogame.

Your post did not say that when I responded to it. I don’t know why the forum software is not reflecting an edit, but changing the content of your post that much to make me look like I’m out of touch isn’t cool.

Agreement that a move is invoked requires just that, agreement. I notice again and again in these debates an assumption of sincerity and judiciousness in saying what follows from the method, rule or system someone is arguing for, and assumptions of insincerity or injudiciousness for the alternative.

You changed the context of the discussion after I responded and continue responding assuming the original basis. Again, not cool. Insinuating that I am further presuming insincerity on your part is also not cool.

Responding back to the “it’s not a video game” line of argument: but it is a game. That’s something that gets lost sometimes in certain play styles. The mechanics aren’t subordinate to the story. They’re a mechanism for creating new story. If the GM decides an outcome, that denies everyone (the players and the GM) the possibility of experiencing something new and unexpected. This is different from e.g., traditional D&D. Neither are wrong or bad. It’s just different.

Regarding who suggests a move, I think it’s fluid. I’ve quoted below what Apocalypse World has to say about that. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong if the MC is usually the one to call out. The point is that when a move triggers, you (to quote AW) make with the dice.

Usually it’s unambiguous: “dammit, I guess I crawl out there. I try to keep my head down. I’m doing it under fire?” “Yep.” But there are two ways they sometimes don’t line up, and it’s your job as MC to deal with them.

First is when a player says only that her character makes a move, without having her character actually take any such action. For instance: “I go aggro on him.” Your answer then should be “cool, what do you do?” “I seize the radio by force.” “Cool, what do you do?” “I try to fast talk him.” “Cool, what do you do?”

Second is when a player has her character take action that counts as a move, but doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t intend it to be a move. For instance: “I shove him out of my way.” Your answer then should be “cool, you’re going aggro?” “I pout. ‘Well if you really don’t like me...’” “Cool, you’re trying to manipulate him?” “I squeeze way back between the tractor and the wall so they don’t see me.” “Cool, you’re acting under fire?”

You don’t ask in order to give the player a chance to decline to roll, you ask in order to give the player a chance to revise her character’s action if she really didn’t mean to make the move. “Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice.

Can you explain the necessity of random means of resolution in having and following an agenda?

That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m only discussing PbtA games because they are up front about what they say you should be doing. For other games, it’s going to depend on the game. For example, I should think it would be unprincipled not to do like you say in a traditional D&D game because the point is to play to experience the story. If the mechanics would screw that up, it behooves you not to follow the mechanics (hence the use of fudging, quantum ogres, and so on). Again, neither bad nor wrong. Just different.

For PbtA, it’s pretty specific about what it’s about. One can create new playbooks and new moves, but the core engine and agenda are the same. You’re supposed to play to find out what happens. Removing the ability to decide from the GM is a means of accomplishing that. And if you do decide to shift your agenda, then you’ve got more work to do than just what I mention above.

Speaking from my own experience, I briefly tried using PbtA-style resolution (and countdown clocks) in my homebrew system. My agenda is to treat the campaign as an experiment (an attempt at doing Purist for System in a D&D-like game). It took only one session to see how that was fighting what I wanted to do. If one wants to do something similar to PbtA (drift it to another agenda), it’s going to take more work than just new playbooks and moves. But I digress.

This relies on tautologically assuming a roll was required in the first place, to justify requiring a roll.

No, it’s basic deduction. According to PbtA, you never roll unless a move triggers (see below). I also assume that we both agree that the purpose of a fortune (i.e., roll) is to decide an uncertain outcome — because why suggest a GM could decide not to roll under circumstances that are impossible or (presumably) a sure thing. Therefore, given that the purpose of a roll is to decide an uncertain outcome; and that if a move is triggered, then a roll is made; it follows that if a move is triggered, then its purpose is to decide an uncertain outcome. QED.

All of the character playbooks list the same set of basic moves, plus each playbook lists special moves for just that character. Your threats might list special moves too. When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does.

 

[clearstream]

Your post did not say that when I responded to it. I don’t know why the forum software is not reflecting an edit, but changing the content of your post that much to make me look like I’m out of touch isn’t cool.

I edited before you replied... well, at least so far as internet-time is concerned. Probably our timings crossed. I certainly did not make any change to make you look out of touch.

You changed the context of the discussion after I responded and continue responding assuming the original basis. Again, not cool. Insinuating that I am further presuming insincerity on your part is also not cool.

I am not talking about your sincerity, I am talking about the presumed implementation of the RPG methodology concerned. (It seems so often that the favoured approach is assumed to be implemented with all due sincerity and judiciousness, while the unfavoured approach is assumed to be implemented with insincerity and injudiciousness.)

Responding back to the “it’s not a video game” line of argument: but it is a game. That’s something that gets lost sometimes in certain play styles. The mechanics aren’t subordinate to the story. They’re a mechanism for creating new story. If the GM decides an outcome, that denies everyone (the players and the GM) the possibility of experiencing something new and unexpected. This is different from e.g., traditional D&D. Neither are wrong or bad. It’s just different.

We can agree though, that it's not auto-enforcing, right? PbtA insists that players don't name their move. The move is invoked iff others agree it is invoked (usually that's the GM, although PbtA itself envisions it being the group as I think you highlighted.) I appreciate the difference from trad.

Regarding who suggests a move, I think it’s fluid. I’ve quoted below what Apocalypse World has to say about that. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong if the MC is usually the one to call out. The point is that when a move triggers, you (to quote AW) make with the dice.

I'm working from my knowledge and experience of DW and MotW, and reading of ST. FitD games by comparison are okay with players invoking their actual move (e.g. by naming it.)

That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m only discussing PbtA games because they are up front about what they say you should be doing. For other games, it’s going to depend on the game. For example, I should think it would be unprincipled not to do like you say in a traditional D&D game because the point is to play to experience the story. If the mechanics would screw that up, it behooves you not to follow the mechanics (hence the use of fudging, quantum ogres, and so on). Again, neither bad nor wrong. Just different.

For PbtA, it’s pretty specific about what it’s about. One can create new playbooks and new moves, but the core engine and agenda are the same. You’re supposed to play to find out what happens. Removing the ability to decide from the GM is a means of accomplishing that. And if you do decide to shift your agenda, then you’ve got more work to do than just what I mention above.

Would you say that a deterministic game like Diplomacy cannot possibly be played to find out what happens? What I mean is that folk often miss that even if it is up to GM to make calls, GM still doesn't know or control what players will do. Playing to find out what happens can be demonstrated to arise from the uncertainty of group determinations. (Although to be fair, I cannot demonstrate it in writing. I would have to run a game for you to show you how.)

Speaking from my own experience, I briefly tried using PbtA-style resolution (and countdown clocks) in my homebrew system. My agenda is to treat the campaign as an experiment (an attempt at doing Purist for System in a D&D-like game). It took only one session to see how that was fighting what I wanted to do. If one wants to do something similar to PbtA (drift it to another agenda), it’s going to take more work than just new playbooks and moves. But I digress.

So... we're agreed that random resolution isn't required to have and follow an agenda?

No, it’s basic deduction. According to PbtA, you never roll unless a move triggers (see below). I also assume that we both agree that the purpose of a fortune (i.e., roll) is to decide an uncertain outcome — because why suggest a GM could decide not to roll under circumstances that are impossible or (presumably) a sure thing. Therefore, given that the purpose of a roll is to decide an uncertain outcome; and that if a move is triggered, then a roll is made; it follows that if a move is triggered, then its purpose is to decide an uncertain outcome. QED.

Actually, I believe the putatively uncertain outcome can easily be resolved by GM fiat. There will be unconscious biases that I feel sure could be mapped over time, and yet I think the point is both to have biases, and that there always are biases, for example in choice of hard or soft moves. As for any moves that give GM (or others) choices to make.

 

[clearstream]

@kenada To expand on editing, most folk I interact with here are in the US, and mostly I am replying while they are asleep. So I have a habit of dashing something out, reflecting, and making corrections. Usually (nearly always), that is completed while my interlocuter is still offline. I do not edit to make anyone look bad. (Which honestly seems futile to me: I'm interested in hearing the best version of what others have to say.) Only to try and get my own thoughts straight.

 

[clearstream]

No, I have never considered doing this. If you did, then D&D stops being a game and becomes - something else. And this is a wholly unsatisfying to me. Also, there are approximately 10, 000 rpgs that do narrative storytelling way better than D&D 5E.

Well, 5e doesn't set out to be narrativist.

It does give a faint nod to narrativism with TIBFs and Inspiration, and nothing prevents a group adding and acting upon a premise. I think you could run narrativist sessions using 5e. As you say, there are other options though: ones that set out to support that mode.

Consistent with my skepticism about knowing what any game is without knowing the cohort grasping and upholding it, I would propose that it could come down more to how well your group understands how to play narrativistically, than your choice of system.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a couple of others have said, there are game systems where all the resolution is player facing, and I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand (I think I'd find it unsatisfying, though); but I'm remarkably uninterested in a primarily diceless resolution (by which I also mean a lack of other randomizers such as cards or such); I'd find it put too much pressure on my in ways I'd find singularly unpleasant.

 

[Umbran]

That’s not how things work in PbtA. If you do it, you do it. The move triggers.

If you do it, you do it. But you may be able to do it without triggering a move.

"Using moves is specifically triggering these combinations of fiction and rules, but you can still do things in the fiction without there being a move behind it." - Masks: A New Generation, Pg49.

So, there is still a space for a question of whether the dice roll on every fictional action declared.

 

[Umbran]

As a couple of others have said, there are game systems where all the resolution is player facing, and I wouldn't dismiss that out of hand (I think I'd find it unsatisfying, though); but I'm remarkably uninterested in a primarily diceless resolution (by which I also mean a lack of other randomizers such as cards or such); I'd find it put too much pressure on my in ways I'd find singularly unpleasant.

How about bidding systems? No randomness, but not just you choosing a result by fiat, either.