D&D General Player-generated fiction in D&D

[KYRON45]

There is no wrong way to D&D. Play the game how you like. If everyone comes back for the next session....you're doing it right enough for the people you have.

 

[Aldarc]

Given the frequency with which people indicate that immersion is important to them, I am not sure that player authored fiction is particularly desirable in D&D. All meta-mechanics break immersion to some degree, and letting players declare truths about the world rather than discover them is the ultimate meta-mechanic.

Been watching Questing Beast lately?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Sure, PCs can have more ownership over the game's fiction. And as @Oofta points out, it's not an either/or situation. But what about the why?

Are the players going to a session to play their game? Or are they going to play the GM's game? Do the players feel any ownership (for lack of a better word) over the game or the setting? Or is it disposable?

As a player, I like suggesting worldbuilding in situations where the dm hasn't already done it, if the dm is okay with me doing so. Almost always it's stuff directly related to my character. A few reasons:

1. It ensures that relevant details that I need to roleplay are present.

2. Since I wrote it, I know it really well.

3. It will definitely work for what I had in mind for the character.

4. More fleshed-out background details means more ways for the dm to incorporate it into the actual game.

A good example would be detailing the church y cleric belongs to: the church's doctrines and structure would impact a lot of decisions I'd make as a cleric, there's a lot of little details that I'd need to know in the moment and if I already know them there isn't a pause while I ask (and a longer pause while the dm ad-libs it), the church I wrote won't clash with my concept for my cleric, and a fully-detailed church will have npcs, plot hooks, background goals and other things that might cross the party's path, and/or be more personally relevant things when the dm needs patron or rival or location for a scene or adventure.

But even that's not really player-generated fiction in a strict sense because none of it is true until the dm approves it. Some dms love the help, some will only take it as a first draft and then do their own thing with it, some are very protective of their settings and will turn down the offer in the first place. I'm just providing ideas, not generating fiction in the setting.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So. Lemme git this straight: when playing D&D 4e, say I have a Fighter who wants to climb a wall. I can use Diplomacy to climb a wall? Arcana?

Thank you. I had no idea this rule, the STUPIDEST rule I've ever seen for a D&D edition, existed. Probably because I didn't waste time or money on the WotC dumpster-fire that was 4e. "Try not to say no?"

are you ignoring the fact that the very next line after the one you bolded is a caveat saying they need to be able to provide reasonable justification for how the chosen skill can be used in that situation? i'd imagine that's there to explicitly prevent diplomacy based wall climbing.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The 4e D&D rulebooks have quite a bit of advocacy for the players making decisions about the shared fiction: backstory, the focus of the action, what is possible here-and-now in terms of action declaration.

Some examples around the focus of the action:

PHB p 258: "You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story."​

​

DMG p 103: "You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!"​

Some examples around what is possible in action declaration:

DMG p 42: "Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them. . . . [rules and guidelines follow, and then an example action declaration] . . . This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage . . ."​

​

DMG pp 73-5: "When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . . players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . . Characters might have access to utility powers or rituals that can help them. These might allow special uses of skills, perhaps with a bonus. Rituals in particular might grant an automatic success or remove failures from the running total. . . . Thinking players are engaged players. In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no."​

Some examples around backstory:

DMG2 p 12: "A sense of shared authorship between you and the players can begin before you start playing, when you create the campaign. . . . Have each player bring a pitch, a basic idea for the campaign . . . The pitch is a simple sentence that describes how the player characters fit into their world."​

​

DMG2 p 15: "You might also ask players to invent one or two NPCs to whom they have important ties. These can be ties of loyalty . . . Alternatively, these NPCs might despise the character, and you can use the NPCs as obstacles to the character's goals."​

​

DMG2 pp 16-17: "The process of shared creation doesn't need to stop during your campaign's prep phase. You can continue it by allowing players a role in inventing your D&D world. . . . When you are presented with player input into your world, start by repeating to yourself the first rule of improvisation: Never negate. . . . Three main techniques allow you to bring player suggestions to the fore: incidental reference solicited input, and the turnaround. Proactive players might employ a fourth method, the direct assertion."​

When I used to GM Rolemaster and AD&D, players would contribute around backstory, and the focus of the action, but not so much in terms of what is possible in action declaration. Those systems don't support that sort of player contribution like 4e D&D does!

Who else's D&D has a high volume of player-generated fiction?

High volume, likely not but there are instances

I have used the skill challenge and opened it up with the flexibility as you describe in your OP to the players. I've done this a handful of times. I provide examples, but that style of play, where they advocate content for a challenge is quite a new idea to them so they have struggled.

They were in control of their backstory and have been allowed to create additional backstory content on our Obsidian Portal page. I even tried to encourage it with extra XP, but that seemed to penalise the less creative types within the group, so I stopped that reward system.

I've allowed them to create 5 NPCs (people, animal or faction) within the city of Waterdeep and have them establish the relationship with each, be it good, bad or neutral.

They are permitted to create content as and when it relates to downtime or even during adventures with the limitation of following the main fiction at the table, which some have done and posted on our Obsidian Portal page.

If they would like to inject something in play (an item, person...etc) and it is reasonable as per the fiction, with table consensus, a die is used to determine if that something is present.

One player (the min-maxer) has developed two items for the campaign. Climbing gear intended for scaling dragons (never used as yet) and a shield mechanically fitted onto his arm (so as never to lose his shield or having to drop it).

That is all that comes to mind, but I'm probably missing something.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The DM has been empowered to ignore all of the players' desires and fun in favor of their interactive novel and carefully curated, very precious world that would explode if a single hippo man showed up.

 

[Reynard]

Been watching Questing Beast lately?

That's a good video.

For clarity, I am NOT one of the pro immersion people. I like my game a little meta, because it is a game. But I understand those that do want to inhabit their characters and their world.

 

[Tonguez]

I strongly beleive that PCs should have downtime goals which connect them to the world and thus I run things as 'adventures' take place during an in-game season (3 months) during which the world continues via downtime.

Taking inspiration from FATE I have explicit Setting and Scene Aspects and encourage players to use them freely, I also have PCs set their own character Aspects, create NPCs and Factions for the game and invoke their goals to create events or advantages, which can use inspiration or my own Influence mechanic
When I was running a setting where money didnt exist I introduced the Influence mechanic by combining 3.5e Wealth and Leadership mechanics. Influence was a PCs ability to get others to give them stuff, as part of it I had the PCs create NPC patrons and allies, so maybe their uncle Jabu was the local Weaponsmith who they could influence to gift them an Iron-tip Spear . Anyway Influence was convinient so I would do things like using Influence minimums to gate Magic items (ie if a PC doesnt have enough influence the Magmahammer is just a shiny mace)

 

[Umbran]

i'd imagine that's there to explicitly prevent diplomacy based wall climbing.

Well, no. It is there to prevent use of skills without a plausible narrative behind it. And remember that this is for a skill challenge for a group, not a single test for success in getting up the wall by one character, so it can be building something up for the group:

Like, "I'll use Diplomacy to see if I can get the guy selling cabbages to allow us to clamber up on the sturdy-looking framework of his stall, which just happens to be where the wall is shortest..."

Open minds, folks. Open minds.

 

[Reynard]

Well, no. It is there to prevent use of skills without a plausible narrative behind it. And remember that this is for a skill challenge for a group, not a single test for success in getting up the wall by one character, so it can be building something up for the group:

Like, "I'll use Diplomacy to see if I can get the guy selling cabbages to allow us to clamber up on the sturdy-looking framework of his stall, which just happens to be where the wall is shortest..."

Open minds, folks. Open minds.

This brings something to mind that might be a bit of a tangent:

What is the difference between the above, and the situation where the player asks, "Hey, do I see a market stall near the wall, preferably where it is at a low point so maybe we can get over the wall that way?" and the GM, who hadn't thought of it before, decides "Sure, there's a cabbage stall next to a spot where the wall dips low."?

Is there a difference? Does knowing for certain they are inventing a detail impact the players? Is it not "player authored" if the Gm just goes with whatever the player says without acknowledging that the player made it up?