Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Mannahnin]

Right. Not every character action in the fiction is a Move. Some can simply be resolved by DM judgement as being certain of success or impossible, as discussed previously.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

FitD is inspired by and follows from PbtA, but it's not the same thing. To many mechanical differences that direct play in different ways.

 

[Blue]

It's interesting that no one is talking about the granddaddy of "DM rolls no dice", Amber Diceless Roleplay. No one rolls dice. Characters are, much like the book, nigh-cosmic people who have had centuries+ of affiliation and know who's the strongest, who can endure the most, who's the best fighter, and so on. You bid for ranks, and everything is based on that - and the brilliance of the system is players trying to be clever to migrate a contest from where they know they will lose to a ground that they can win on.

 

[Blue]

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).

Take a closer look at what Umbran quoted - it's talking about doing things in fiction that are not moves. This doesn't contradict what you were saying.

Actions declared need not be a move, and if so there's no roll. For example, if a super in Masks wants to beat up a mook, they succeed. It's using their power in a normal way, and not against someone dangerous to them. No move is triggered.

If a move is triggered, it does require a roll.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

It's interesting that no one is talking about the granddaddy of "DM rolls no dice", Amber Diceless Roleplay. No one rolls dice. Characters are, much like the book, nigh-cosmic people who have had centuries+ of affiliation and know who's the strongest, who can endure the most, who's the best fighter, and so on. You bid for ranks, and everything is based on that - and the brilliance of the system is players trying to be clever to migrate a contest from where they know they will lose to a ground that they can win on.

I keep thinking about mentioning Amber or Nobilis or other diceless systems, but I don't have enough experience with them to offer any real insights. Except to say that, while I like the notion of a game where you're managing resources instead of tempting fate, at least on an intellectual level, the older I get, the more I love disclaiming authority as GM. Whether that means rolling the die of fate or letting consequences beget consequences, I want to be as surprised as the players. And when I'm a player, I don't want to feel like I'm an actor in someone's play, with Stan Lee's infamous "illusion of change" narrative style ensuring that nothing I do truly impacts a set plotline. I want to shape the game world as much as its shaping my character.

None of which is exclusively about dice vs. no dice, but I've always associated diceless with even more GM force than usual. I know that doesn't have to be the case, but it sure feels like it.

 

[kenada]

Take a closer look at what Umbran quoted - it's talking about doing things in fiction that are not moves. This doesn't contradict what you were saying.

Actions declared need not be a move, and if so there's no roll. For example, if a super in Masks wants to beat up a mook, they succeed. It's using their power in a normal way, and not against someone dangerous to them. No move is triggered.

If a move is triggered, it does require a roll.

That was my initial take, but I figured I might as well admit the limit of my knowledge and experience with PbtA games (and put my assumptions out there).

Anyway, that makes sense. Move triggers aren’t expansive. When a move doesn’t trigger, the players still look to the GM to see what happens next. It’s using fiat to negate moves that I’m contesting.

 

[Umbran]

I’m not familiar with Masks, but Apocalypse World is pretty explicit that you must roll when a move is triggered.

I couldn't say, as I don't have Apocalypse World to hand. Perhaps they have different perspectives on who has to be encouraged to do what?

Masks (same page) says, "No move ever triggers without associated fictional action," and it speaks to how you cannot get the mechanical effect if there's no narrative to support it. If you want to get the effect of directly engage a threat, you must actually get in there and get in their face in the narrative.

They say the GM will be looking for events that might be moves, and the GM should point out the opportunity, but I can't find anything to the effect of, "if a player declares an action that looks like a move, you must have them roll."

So I think the focus here might be different than in Apocalypse World - the move seems more an opportuity to get a mechanical effect than a requirement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's interesting that no one is talking about the granddaddy of "DM rolls no dice", Amber Diceless Roleplay. No one rolls dice. Characters are, much like the book, nigh-cosmic people who have had centuries+ of affiliation and know who's the strongest, who can endure the most, who's the best fighter, and so on. You bid for ranks, and everything is based on that - and the brilliance of the system is players trying to be clever to migrate a contest from where they know they will lose to a ground that they can win on.

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

Edit: Let me expand on this a little bit, because I don't want this to come across as just kneejerk negativity.

First off, having to decide the validity of every choice a character makes as a GM is the opposite of what I want to be doing. It centers way, way too much of the process of success on me.

The way theoretically around it in Amber is to just let the person with the better score succeed most of the time. There are, to me, numerous problems with this even in the context of the source fiction, particularly when it comes to Warfare. For all of Amberites power over what's around them, when not directly engaging Shadow manipulation, there's nothing to tell me they're any more immune to slipping on a wet spot than anyone else, experience notwithstanding. Even Benedict lost an arm. So they default-to-succes-unless-higher-attribute simply doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

And that's a big part of this; one of the functions dice and other randomizer serve is to factor in large amounts of situational modifiers that are below the level where any GM can reasonably expect to keep track of or even think about, but can still creep into situations in relevant way. Purely diceless resolution says "Either you keep track of it, or ignore it" and I don't find either of those appealing.

 

[clearstream]

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.

One has to get into a state of flow where you're inventively saying what follows. Each participant is surprised by the contributions of others and where that takes their own thoughts.

Say that empty room you mentioned. In my experience of pure diceless that's unlikely to be pre-established. If I described a bare room and a player felt there might be something there, I'd have to think about that. Given this room, it's location - the context - might there be something hidden in it? To my surprise, I might decide yes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I couldn't say, as I don't have Apocalypse World to hand. Perhaps they have different perspectives on who has to be encouraged to do what?

Masks (same page) says, "No move ever triggers without associated fictional action," and it speaks to how you cannot get the mechanical effect if there's no narrative to support it. If you want to get the effect of directly engage a threat, you must actually get in there and get in their face in the narrative.

They say the GM will be looking for events that might be moves, and the GM should point out the opportunity, but I can't find anything to the effect of, "if a player declares an action that looks like a move, you must have them roll."

So I think the focus here might be different than in Apocalypse World - the move seems more an opportuity to get a mechanical effect than a requirement.

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