Forsaking Dice as GM: Going full narrative

[Gorgon Zee]

I didn't say trivial tasks. Those aren't covered under the GM's evaluation of odds or outcomes, but because those don't drive the dramatic needs. If you think my statement was about walking across a room, then you've missed the preceeding context. That was already addressed and had been moved past to consequential moments.

But if the GM is deciding what is a consequential moment, and what is not, isn’t that exactly working to a pre-existing agenda? isn’t that exactly what PbtA is supposed to hate with a passion? If I decide that when Pippin kicks a stone down a well, it’s not a consequential decision, haven’t I imposed my vision of the story on the players?

I might even argue that deciding what is consequential or not is a stronger tool for imposing an agenda on players than the choice of which move to require them to make.

I honestly do not believe that any good GM, in any system, does not actively try to stay in genre, to make the game fun — to give characters equal time; the choice of whether an action has consequences is informed by their vision for the game — their agenda. PbtA stresses that you should err on the side of randomizing outcomes as much as possible, and that’s cool. But trying to suggest that PbtA prevents the GM from applying their vision to the game just ends you up in definitional knots, trying to explain how the GM deciding a move is not consequential is not actually the GM imposing their viewpoint on the game.

PbtA is a highly opinionated game. Whenever it says “always” it means “default to this”. When it says “never” it really means “rarely”. Or at least, that‘s the way I’ve seen it run when it’s been run well.

 

[MarkB]

A well designed PbtA move set will tell you what's worth rolling or not. The GM exercises their judgement as to whether or not a move applies based on the fiction. For instance the move in Masks is 'directly engage a threat'. If Superboy is fighting against gang members he is not directly engaging a threat. The text is pretty clear on this.

This is one area where FitD games have a slightly more nuanced approach, because the principles of Position and Effect allow a more graduated spectrum between "threat" and "non-threat", and between "difficult" and "trivial". They also make the defining of how consequential an action may be more of a conversation or negotiation between the players and GM - the GM declares the stakes by initially setting the Position and Effect, but the player may choose to trade them out, taking on higher risk to achieve greater reward, or vice versa.

 

[Manbearcat]

But if the GM is deciding what is a consequential moment, and what is not, isn’t that exactly working to a pre-existing agenda? isn’t that exactly what PbtA is supposed to hate with a passion? If I decide that when Pippin kicks a stone down a well, it’s not a consequential decision, haven’t I imposed my vision of the story on the players?

I might even argue that deciding what is consequential or not is a stronger tool for imposing an agenda on players than the choice of which move to require them to make.

I honestly do not believe that any good GM, in any system, does not actively try to stay in genre, to make the game fun — to give characters equal time; the choice of whether an action has consequences is informed by their vision for the game — their agenda. PbtA stresses that you should err on the side of randomizing outcomes as much as possible, and that’s cool. But trying to suggest that PbtA prevents the GM from applying their vision to the game just ends you up in definitional knots, trying to explain how the GM deciding a move is not consequential is not actually the GM imposing their viewpoint on the game.

PbtA is a highly opinionated game. Whenever it says “always” it means “default to this”. When it says “never” it really means “rarely”. Or at least, that‘s the way I’ve seen it run when it’s been run well.

The GM isn't deciding (meaning without constraint nor direction; fiat) what is consequential. What tells the GM what is consequential is (a) the system's say and (b) the player's say.

I'm running two games of Stonetop right now. It is a Hearth Fantasy game where you play notable figures in the life of a small village in an Iron Age setting that is a wondrous, filled with mystery and myth, and extremely PoL-ey meaning with few, far-flung neighbors and hostility and hardship everywhere (from within and without). Here is how conflict is sited (what is consequential to play). It is the intersection of:

SYSTEM

* Map (and map feature) relationships to other locales which have huge say in Journey procedures and where your Home is within Stonetop.

* Stonetop Connections (Division of Labor Roles/Personnel and Assets, Followers, Defense, Prosperity, Fortune, Population, Surplus)

* NPC Connections (with each other and with various PCs)

* PC to PC Connections

* Seasons Changing - (a procedure based on present Fortunes, having implications on future Fortunes, and then 1 of 4 moves that will trigger Threats or Gains or both)

* End of Session

When a session ends,

• point out how you demonstrated or struggled with your instinct. If you can, mark XP.
• Say how your relationship with or opinion of a PC, NPC, or group has changed. If you can, mark XP.

Answer these questions as a group. For each "yes," everyone marks XP.

-Did we learn more about the world or its history?

• Did we defeat a threat to Stonetop or the region?
• Did we improve our standing with our neighbors?
• Did we make a lasting improvement to Stonetop, or tangible progress towards doing so?

* Fill their lives with adventure/threaten Stonetop > provoke them by making a soft move > ignored or 6- move result? > announce badness/introduce a Threat/escalate an existing Threat (reveal a Grim Portent and tick a box).

* Follow the rules/procedures (everything I've mentioned above, and more, has encoded rules...follow them ruthlessly...say what the rules DEMAND).


PLAYERS

* Playbook - Background/Instinct/Connections/Moves. As GM, this encodes my soft move index such that I'm making moves which (a) put your Background in the crosshairs in a way that challenges you or Stonetop, (b) provoke your Instinct, (c) challenge your Connections (eg if your Instinct is Hope and another PC's is Harmony, I'm looking for ways to make the PCs and Stonetop prioritize one over the other when they are beset by a Danger/Threat from within or without), (d) and create a call to action in which you to leverage your archetype (make moves).

* Moves that let you create myth/backstory/connections on the spot whereby you are creating leverage for you or your fellow players or Stonetop at large to follow up with subsequent moves...or you're defining features of "badness announced" or "new Threats" because of the who/what/why/how of the Move you're making informing those things (because of "follow from the fiction" which should go under SYSTEM above).

* A Loadout system that lets you create useful Inventory on the spot (very kindred with Blades in the Dark in terms of procedure and constraints).

* All of your myriad of decision-points within the Journey system (there are many and they are all chunky and consequential) and then the moves you make to resolve your role.

* All of the moves made in the game are thematically chunky. They aren't just simulating process. They are boldly branding archetype onto play, onto your PC, onto the nature of your Connections, onto your place in Stonetop, onto the emerging world.

* The decision-space and operatalionizing (just like Rituals or Quests in Dungeon World or like Threats/Fronts but the inverse) of Stonetop Upgrades (there is a large list of them w/ prerequisites and boxes with fiction attached - just like Threats/Fronts but the inverse - which, when ticked full, you get the boon related to the Upgrade) similar to Blades' Scores.

* "<GM asks questions of the players>...and uses the answers." This is a key feature. This creates a further dynamic of winnowing (or outright dictating) a GM's decision-space as play unfurls in any given session. This footprint (on both situation framing and consequences) has a huge impact on any given session and massive impact on the entire course of a campaign.

* Bottom part of End of Session where players give input about play (basically a formalized, meta Ask Questions and Use the Answers).

---

So this is a huge list of stuff that should (hopefully) put this to bed every time it comes up. The GM's cognitive workspace is a matrix of DO (inputs and procedures) and DON'T DO (constraints and rules) w/ very clearly encoded parameters. Its not squishy and fraught with corner cases where a GM can make actionable some lurking metaplot and just ignore each of the chunky and constraints and inputs above and their intersections.

And again (as I say every time this comes up)...why the hell would you try to create a metaplot to Railroad or a high resolution setting to inject play with Setting Tourism? The game works swimmingly and delivers on the goods if you don't do those things and will fight you if you do try to do those things!

Now yes...if you have a collection of passive players who are looking for the GM to drive play, who want a Railroad and Setting Tourism, who want to just cosplay a character conception and vaguely roll some dice that doesn't do a lot of work...then yeah...the GM can do whatever they want. In that very specific circumstance with extremely casual players...yes...system (and all of the stuff mentioned above)_doesn't_matter.

But if you're playing (for instance) Stonetop, you're not one of those players and you're not one of those GMs. And if you are...WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU PLAYING STONETOP! Play something that fascilitates that play!

 

[Umbran]

Sigh, obvious strawman is obvious.

Either the GM has some right to make judgements of what really needs a roll, or they don't. If they don't, that means rolling to cross the street. If they do have some right to judgements, we are quibbling over exactly when, and for what, that should be exercised.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Either the GM has some right to make judgements of what really needs a roll, or they don't. If they don't, that means rolling to cross the street. If they do have some right to judgements, we are quibbling over exactly when, and for what, that should be exercised.

Sure. What move is triggered by walking across the street? That's the most obvious part of the obvious strawman.

As has been posted by others, if you have a totally neutral situation where there's no need to call for a triggered move, then you've already not done the job according to the agendas and principles of play to get there. Second part of obvious strawman.

If you are in a situation where things are consequential, and a move is triggered, if you're substituting your judgement for the system then you're breaking with the agenda and principles of play. You play to find out, so play to find out. So walking across the street doesn't apply here. Third part of obvious strawman.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Either the GM has some right to make judgements of what really needs a roll, or they don't. If they don't, that means rolling to cross the street. If they do have some right to judgements, we are quibbling over exactly when, and for what, that should be exercised.

I suspect they are, but I have to say, like a lot of things, this is an area where degree matters. The fact its not an absolute binary doesn't make that any less true.

 

[MNblockhead]

I've played a number of narrative systems and have had a lot of fun with them. But they still have game mechanics. Otherwise, it is more just group story telling, which is also fun, but not what I think of when I sit down to play a TTRPG. InSPECTREs has interesting mechanics where players can determine outcomes, including a fun reality-TV inspired mechanic where you can attempt to add things into the story by sitting in the "confessionals" chair. But dice are still involved in that game. In InSPECTREs the players still roll dice, the DM just calls for rolls and narrates results. Actually, the players narrate results based on their roles and some broad guidelines and the DM reacts to it.

I know that the OP isn't focused on D&D specifically, but you could run 5e like this by the DM just assigning DC values for skill checks as normal and have a chart where based on how much they exceed on the skill check, the player can narrate the results. And if they fail, the DM gets to narrate the results of the failure by how far they fail.

Below is the InSPECTREs skill roll chart. It works differently because no DC is assigned in that system, but you could tweak the chart base on number of points you exceed or fail on the skill check:

Skill Roll Chart
6 Amazing! Describe the result and gain 2 franchise dice.
(in 5e, perhaps this is when you roll a natural 20 and you get an inspiration point)

5 Good. Describe the result and gain a franchise die.
(in 5e, succeed by 10 or more. Ignore "franchise die" language.)

4 Fair. Describe the mostly positive result of your action but you must also include a negative or humorous effect.
(in 5e, succeed by 5 or more.)

3 Not Great. The GM decides your fate but you may be given a chance to suggest a single positive (albeit minor) effect.
(in 5e succeed by less than 5 above the DC)

2 Bad. The GM decides your fate or you may suggest something suitably negative.
(in 5e fail)
1 Terrible! The GM gets to hose you with a truly dire situation resulting from your incompetence.
(in 5e, if you roll a natural 1, I would also have you lose any accumulated inspiration if you are allowing inspiration to be banked under this system)

For combat, it would work similarly, but instead of DC, it would be AC. But if monsters only hit when players fail to hit, I think you'd have to up the AC considerably. Or you would have to abstract combat to the level of just assigning DC to combat situations.

Personally, I would just select a system designed to work in a narrative, only players role, manner than try to redesign a game that like D&D to fit that style. InSPECTREs provides a simple, easy to learn, and fun set of mechanics for this. It also provides simple character advancement and organization-building rules for running a campaign. But you'd have to come up with your own skills sets to fit it into other genres, which I don't think would be very difficult with such a simple system.