Narrative aspects of D&D(3e)

[RFisher]

Rolling a character does involve a lot of options. This points to a 3e encouraging a more narrative style of play than 1e, something it probably inherited from 2e.

Hmm. At first blush, it strikes me that most of the character creation/developing options don't really encourage a narrative style.

What aspects of (3e) D&D (whether character creation/development or not) encourage a narrative style of play?

& I'm less interested in comparisons to previous editions/other games, though I suppose that's inevitable in a topic like this.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The mere fact that PCs have these additional abilities, such as Improved Unarmed Strike or Armor Proficiency (heavy) encourages the players to come up with an explanation. Of course there doesn't have to be reason, but it's a small push towards giving one's character more of a back story.

 

[Lockridge]

Hmm, interesting topic although your requested limitation of other games/editions tends to limit the discussion by limiting communication by comparison. But anyway:

I find 3e does little to encourage a narrative style. Most players I play with tend to look at new abilities as strategic advantages instead of aspects of their character's life. Maybe I play with too many powergamers though. There are players who look at character creation as a story and develop backgrounds to go with that story.

I can't say for sure that 3e as written actually promotes narrative style. I understand Doug's point though -depending on the type of player all of the options are narrative. Many others view D&D as a table top strategy game where the story gets in the way and slows things down.

I just had a thought: maybe we should look at the adventures instead of the rule books. I find that many adventures are constructed as large dungeons with a small supporting story/plot.

In other words the plot is your basic three point plot: 1. get hired by the king. 2. slay the dragon and 3. return for reward. These three encounters take maybe 5% of game time. The dragon's dungeon, tower or whatever is composed of literally 100 rooms that require strategic thought - to either dodge a trap or to fight a monster and steal its stuff. The dungeon is more of a battleground during which there is really very little actual narrative plot - the dungeon then is a strategy game that takes 95% of the time.

There are many adventures that are not quite like this but the vast majority are arena battles to some degree. Maybe the plot is more detailed but the designers have padded it with encounters that don't really mean anything.

I'd have to say that most adventures are designed to be strategy tests rather than narrative plots.

I'd like to see something that takes out most of the meaningless encounters that are not necessary for plot development and replaces them with plot and plot options (no railroading please).

Something like: 1. Plot hook 2. Plot twist 3. Useful encounter 4. Another plot twist 5. More clues from a useful encounter 6. Plot twist 7. Climax 8. Conclusion
With options for player creativity.
So no adventure with 100 encounters 95% of which are meaningless but instead 8 to 12 meaningful encounters that build narrative.

Then again is this possible: if I create a plot in an adventure, will it be sold to thousands of people with different character concepts. A narrative tends to require characters. If I make the character ideas in advance I am taking away an essential element of role playing games that players enjoy.

My answer after all of this is No. Its up to the players not the game as written.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To explain myself a bit, this was meant to describe part of why true, permanent character death was so rare in 3e. Complexity is part of that: choosing all those options for a higher-level character can be time-consuming. 3e kind of wants it to grow out of the character's experiences, so by the time the character has enough options for it to begin being a hassle is about the same time resurrection comes into play. By this point, the character has some history, some adventures in the past, that they have embarked on.

What aspects of (3e) D&D (whether character creation/development or not) encourage a narrative style of play?

1 - Permanent death is rare. This encourages you to grow attached to some "central characters."

2 - Prerequisites for abilities are common. This encourages a path of development from less power to more powerful, related abilities -- your new powers stem from your old ones in most cases. You learn to attack with all your strength, you learn to attack *through* the bodies of enemies, you learn to spin in a circle as an attack, your blade cutting through all who are around you.

3 - Character classes and Archetypes. This encourages adherence to a character type, so that your class helps define your personality. Wizards are studious. Druids are a bit savage. Bards are charmers and tricksters. Paladins are virtuous. You know how each would react to a fire in the local library (the Bard might organize a fire brigade, the Wizard would be in near-panic, the Druid might help, but might actually be kind of glad, the Paladin would want to rush in and save people, etc.).

 

[Mallus]

Here's my take on the subject. D&D 3.x is the same as the previous editions with regard to narrative (use any definition of 'narrative' you like, from Websters to that peculiar variant found only in Forge discussions).

The rules neither support nor hinder a narrative style of play.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

D&D's core rules (in any edition with which I'm familiar, which is pretty much all of them from AD&D 1e to D&D 3.5) never interact with what the Forge calls Narrativism: addressing a theme in play. If that's what you're getting at, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single paragraph supporting that 'stance.'

Almost none of the adventures/modules do that, either.

SOME of the settings do so, or at least the 2e settings; Ravenloft to some extent, Dark Sun to a larger extent, Planescape most of all. Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer and Greyhawk have essentially none of this, Dragonlance and Eberron a bit more (these settings being more Sim-supporting than Nar-supporting in GNS terms).

If you don't mean the GNS stance of Narrativism, I'm afraid you'll have to further define what you're asking about.

 

[Hussar]

Here's my take on the subject. D&D 3.x is the same as the previous editions with regard to narrative (use any definition of 'narrative' you like, from Websters to that peculiar variant found only in Forge discussions).

The rules neither support nor hinder a narrative style of play.

Wut he said.

Just as another point though, is permanent death more or less likely in other editions really? I know that in 1e, my characters died fairly regularly, but, we had such a mountain of cash, getting raised was never really a problem. Heck, we had nothing better to do with that money.

I do recall rods of resurrection featuring in more than one old school module as well.

 

[Mallus]

Just as another point though, is permanent death more or less likely in other editions really?

In my experience, no.

Regardless of edition, permanent death was ultimately the product of what kind of campaign we chose to play, which were usually long term 'epic narratives' with relatively stable casts of characters.

 

[buzz]

Here's my take on the subject. D&D 3.x is the same as the previous editions with regard to narrative (use any definition of 'narrative' you like, from Websters to that peculiar variant found only in Forge discussions).

The rules neither support nor hinder a narrative style of play.

D&D's core rules (in any edition with which I'm familiar, which is pretty much all of them from AD&D 1e to D&D 3.5) never interact with what the Forge calls Narrativism: addressing a theme in play. If that's what you're getting at, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single paragraph supporting that 'stance.'
...
If you don't mean the GNS stance of Narrativism, I'm afraid you'll have to further define what you're asking about.

I'm down with both of these posts. Rules-wise, D&D has pretty much always been about combat and challenge. Publications-wise, D&D has also spent a lot of time on big, detailed settings in which to set combats and face challenges.

Any further discussion needs, I think, someone to define what's being referred to as "narrative" here.

Now, what Kamikaze explains as his original point sounds more to me like "investment". I'd definitely agree that the "carrot on the stick" aspect of D&D is pretty intense in 3e. There are tons of cool build-decision points in 3e chargen. Ergo, I can see some encouragement in 3e to be interested in the overall career of the PC, as otherwise you miss out on lots of kewl powers that accrete over the course of play.

Then again, I think the default assumption in all eras of D&D has been the long-term campaign. Creating high-level PCs is complex because the assumption is that you're going to do it over the course of a campaign, not all at once.

This is one of many reasons I like 3e so much.

 

[Voadam]

Hmm. At first blush, it strikes me that most of the character creation/developing options don't really encourage a narrative style.

What aspects of (3e) D&D (whether character creation/development or not) encourage a narrative style of play?

I know my brother makes really sourcebook intense high option characters then creates his backstory and character hooks around those elements.

So his vow of poverty druid master of many forms was raised in a druid circle by his parents until they were killed by an evil druid member of the circle. He swore a vow to see justice done for his parents and was disappointed by the circle's response to the murderer, so he left to follow his own path rejecting orthodox druidism to follow different paths of power in his quest.