Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Thomas Shey]

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

I'd have to see the implementation before I'd be willing to make an absolute statement, but I'm not sanguine about the socio-dynamics of that being what I'd think of as good.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Way back when I used to procrastinate on my trig homework (ahh, the 80s), a buddy and I used to play a pretty loose, hack-'n'-slash-y game of solo D&D together. The way we did it was the player would have to roll as normal, but the DM almost never rolled any dice: it was all judgment calls. Now, I do think it matters that we were good friends and trusted each other; in a game lacking such mutual trust, this might not have worked so well.

But at least the way we did it, it went fine. And I wouldn't say we weren't playing D&D at the time; it seems to me we were.

 

[John R Davis]

In Talisman adventures RPG the GM doesn't roll. I really like the system

 

[kenada]

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.

Fair enough. I’ll assume no ill intent, but it does recontextualize the discussion, and I would have framed my initial responses differently.

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.)

My presumption is that the game means what it says in the text. My experience with having run it (or, rather, Dungeon World) without taking that seriously is it doesn’t work very well. The game will fight against you, and you’ll undermine your agenda. I’ve also seen the same happen in Scum and Villainy when the GM was mostly interested in episode, mission-based play. We ended up drifting the game into neotrad even though I don’t think that was the intent, and it sort of messed up how it was supposed to work (e.g., we could more or less assume we would always succeed at a mission, which should not be the case).

To put it another way, consider an OSR style of play. If you try to run an adventure for Old-School Essentials, it will advise you that the encounters are not balanced with the PCs’ capabilities in mind. You should take that seriously because otherwise it will break the game. Why? The PCs will die if they think they should fight and defeat everything. The expectation is they are trying to avoid and subvert encounters rather than engage them directly. You could fudge things, but then you’re arguably not doing OSR-style play anymore. Anyway, while that is a much harsher failure state than PbtA, the effect is still the same: you don’t get the experience the game was designed to provide.

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.

I suppose it’s possible for a PbtA game to say that, but that’s not how I read Apocalypse World. There is even an example of a player calling out their move, asking if they were “doing it under fire”. That’s the trigger for a move (act under fire, AW2e p. 136). The way I read it is you can ask if your fictional declaration matches your intent, and the GM is supposed to help you reconcile those, but you’re not just supposed to call out that you’re “acting under fire” because there is nothing in the fiction to trigger it.

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.)

I’ve run Dungeon World a few times and played Scum and Villainy. If someone called out they wanted to “defy danger”, I’d ask them what they were doing in the fiction to trigger it. That strikes me as in-line with the examples from Apocalypse World and the conversational nature of play. FitD is a bit different in that you can declare which action you can use, but you still need to establish in the fiction how you are doing it. I think the difference between the two approaches is FitD uses an action list that looks superficially like a skill system, and you have a lot more flexibility in how you go about using them than you do with moves.

Would you say that a deterministic game like Diplomacy cannot possibly be played to find out what happens?

That a certain activity would be unprincipled in a PbtA game doesn’t make it unprincipled in other games. I already gave the example of a traditional D&D game, so I would presume likewise for Diplomacy. I also have this as part of the agenda in my game even though I’m not trying to do a PbtA game either.

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.)

The issue I have is with PbtA games specifically. I don’t see how it would result in principled play if the GM decides the outcome of a move. You’d lose the chance of being surprised by the outcome of a situation if you decided it was impossible. I think that’s the reason why Dungeon World includes “Draw maps, leave blanks” in its principles. The temptation with having a map would be to squash anything that went outside the lines, but finding those unexpected places is what you’re supposed to be playing to do.

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

That’s not the argument I’m making. That some agendas may require it doesn’t mean all agendas do, nor that some’s not requiring it mean that none do. For what PbtA is doing, I think it’s necessary. The mechanics are very intentioned in what they set out to do, and the use of a fortune is constrained and determined by the players (triggered by the things they do in the fiction).

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.

While I agree the referee gets to put their touch on things via moves, you’re still constrained by the existing fiction (and having to follow it), the outcome the move prescribes (and what the player chose), and your principles.

Look at it this way. You’re running Dungeon World, and you have a map that says the room ahead is empty. If someone triggers Discern Realities, should you cut them off and say there’s nothing there? I’d posit not. You’re supposed to be leaving blanks on your map and be a fan of the characters. According to those principles, I feel like one should make that roll (and not just because I should always say what the rules demand) because it is an opportunity to learn something new that not even I (the GM) had expected to see.

 

[kenada]

@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.

Just wanted to respond to this. I’ve done that too, though I try to not to make sweeping changes. See the rest of my response. I assume no ill intent. It was just a bit frustrating, and I also particularly dislike the “again <x>” rhetorical device (especially when that point hasn’t been made in the current conversation, though that ended up not being the case here).

 

[kenada]

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.

I’m not familiar with Masks, but Apocalypse World is pretty explicit that you must roll when a move is triggered. However, there are a lot of different PbtA games. I’ll concede that some may soften the requirement to roll, though I’d still opine that I don’t think it’s a good idea (for the reasons outlined).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m not familiar with Masks, but Apocalypse World is pretty explicit that you must roll when a move is triggered. However, there are a lot of different PbtA games. I’ll concede that some may soften the requirement to roll, though I’d still opine that I don’t think it’s a good idea (for the reasons outlined).

Its been abundantly clear in discussion that over time, "PbtA" has become less and less descriptive in terms of what you can expect of the game system involved, as I've seen people describe processes with games using that label that others have indicated are very contrary to basic AW principals.

(Note this is coming from someone not particularly on board what PbtA games are trying to do, but its got too big a footprint in the current non-D&D market not to see and participate in some discussion relating to it).

 

[kenada]

Its been abundantly clear in discussion that over time, "PbtA" has become less and less descriptive in terms of what you can expect of the game system involved, as I've seen people describe processes with games using that label that others have indicated are very contrary to basic AW principals.

(Note this is coming from someone not particularly on board what PbtA games are trying to do, but its got too big a footprint in the current non-D&D market not to see and participate in some discussion relating to it).

That’s a fair point. I was trying to keep things focused (using PbtA as a euphemism for “Apocalypse World” or similar), but there are a ton of games under that banner now. FitD is technically PbtA, and it’s quite different mechanically (while still being similar in other ways). I suppose it would be like trying to talk about how D&D plays without specifying the system or style in mind (OD&D/basic, AD&D, 5e, PF2, something adjacent, etc). If someone talked about DCC-style character funnels, and I assumed we were talking about 5e, I’d probably be shocked and horrified at what I was hearing.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Its been abundantly clear in discussion that over time, "PbtA" has become less and less descriptive in terms of what you can expect of the game system involved, as I've seen people describe processes with games using that label that others have indicated are very contrary to basic AW principals.

(Note this is coming from someone not particularly on board what PbtA games are trying to do, but its got too big a footprint in the current non-D&D market not to see and participate in some discussion relating to it)

I’ve read Masks again very recently, and while it’s a bit looser than AW, I think the section we’re talking about is misrepresented. My sense is that it’s just a reminder that you can say you’re walking across the street or web-swing across town without triggering a Move.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’ve read Masks again very recently, and while it’s a bit looser than AW, I think the section we’re talking about is misrepresented. My sense is that it’s just a reminder that you can say you’re walking across the street or web-swing across town without triggering a Move.

Wouldn't want to say. Only PbtA games I actually own are Monsterhearts 1e and one other who's name escapes me.