D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

From a practical standpoint, I don't really start play not knowing much about the characters. Most of the trad games I play/run tend to fall more into elaborate backgrounds where you need a session just to create characters together.

A lot of the Narrativist games I have run in the past do start with very little character level premise. Dogs in the Vineyard, Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts do not do much in the way of setting things up. So, during the early portions of the game it's on the GM to frame scenes that help us discover the characters' individual premises. It's part of an ongoing process in all Narrativist play to have scenes where we first establish stakes and then to have scenes where we resolve those.

For me, this can vary a bit.

In my Prince Valiant game, what you describe in your second paragraph fits: the PC knights step onto the "stage" somewhat attenuated as persons - though their stats and skills give some hints - and play is where their characters emerge.

Burning Wheel can, on the other hand, begin with more established PCs - eg relationships, rich Beliefs, etc. Though it varies - Thurgon was more fully-formed than Aedhros, who in turn was more fully-formed than Alicia (my friend spent resources on spells rather than relationships!).

I would say that play where we are spending substantial amounts of time exploring and learning about the setting and engaged with conflicts that are external to the characters' concerns so that we can get to the points where our characters concerns are central is more focused on the GM's setting and less focused on the players' characters' concerns.

100% agreed.

That sort of play, while enjoyable for its own sake, can feel like jumping through hoops if your concerns are those sorts of personal stakes.

There's nothing wrong with that being a component of play, but it is very much a sort of play that highlights the GM's creative contributions more so than a game that does not require players to engage in that level of free exploration to get to the personal-stakes parts.

For me, it really has to be pretty compelling setting/backstory. And I don't want an experience where I feel like my PC is really just a "button" for triggering GM exposition.

 

[robertsconley]

On this we agree. I've been making this point for much of this thread, and many predecessor threads also.

That's good to be in agreement about a point. However, I feel we still disagree about the implications of the two assumptions, namely that they are both equally capable of producing the same variety and scope of outcomes.

Both styles, referee-first, player-first, value consistency and plausibility. Both can lean heavily on prep or improvise on the fly. Both are fully capable of producing deep, character-rich campaigns with consequences and arcs that matter. They do it through different means and priorities, which gives each a distinct feel at the table and different points of appeal for different groups.

And it is also important to note that referee-first and player-first remain simplifications. Both approaches use many of the same techniques, just in different ways. Both have varying degrees of the different types of player agency, like character-agency, meta-agency, or the agency afforded to a player of a game. We have to keep in mind that to a fan of one approach, it can feel like the other approach is missing the point. To a fiction-first/player-first player, referee-first play may feel like it is ignoring character intent. To a referee-first player, player-first play may feel like skipping over the world.

 

[Campbell]

@thefutilist

When it comes to engaging with a Narrativist agenda in mixed play I do miss transparent resolution somewhat but that's mostly my enjoyment of dice as palpable narrative tension (which is an aesthetic desire). What I find is the biggest stumbling block is usually other players. Mostly in that the ways in which my characters gather information tend to annoy some of the world explorers or who might find the pursuit of personal goals distracting from group goals. The other stumbling block that often occurs is when I'm trying engage character to character with other player characters who lack a strong identity. Like I'm asking for their thoughts and I can tell its the thoughts of the player and not an independent character it kind of throws off my engagement.

That's why I am so big on everyone rowing the boat in the same direction these days. I want our creative efforts and collaboration to be something the whole table can enjoy. I would rather not put in the emotional effort if it's not going to be reciprocated.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You keep posting as if the only reason the GM would be subject to rules any stricter than introduce whatever fiction you think is worth introducing and that the other participants will accept would be because the GM is terrible and can't be trusted.

Whereas the actual reason seems obvious to me: I want to play a game different from the one described in the previous paragraph - which gives the GM essentially unlimited authorial power - and hence I adopt different rules.

I see no need to restrict the actions of the GM in order to play that game. If there are things you could do that aren't in keeping with your chosen playstyle, just...don't do them.

Your answer reads to me as: it benefits me because it's what I want to do. For someone insisting on more and more specific analysis, this seems remarkably circular.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. The illusion of geography is similar to - not necessarily identical to, depending on details of how the illusion is established and maintained - the idea of a "GM-offered menu".

If the GM wants to experience a fiction rather than author a fiction, then the game needs to be set up around a different basis than largely unconstrained GM authorial power.

Can't you experience a fiction through the actions of the players? I mean, you don't control what they do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm good with Story After, but I prefer not to muck around with the other two if I can help it.

I'm curious what your concern with Story Now is. To be clear (though I wish it weren't necessary to say this explicitly), you're entirely within your rights to not like it. I'm just curious why it is a problem for you.

For my own part, I'm not very keen on Story Before unless it's a well-written AP like Zeitgeist (which I still someday hope to play in the original 4e version), but accept that it's the unfortunately most common mode of play even for homebrew campaigns. I almost always dislike Story After, though, because such games so frequently end up being deeply unsatisfying to me. That is, where Story Before has annoying bits where we have to follow the breadcrumbs or the like, Story After all too often just...goes nowhere and does nothing. It makes the arc of the campaign feel like a meandering mess without merit, especially if characters die since that leaves their goals unfulfilled, all potential just....wasted.

And yes, I know real life is like that, there is no story and no resolution, just the eternal march of the Present. I also know that I'm not interested in playing Real Life, I can do that by walking outside or watching the news. So Story After is a big ask for me--I'm putting my faith in the mere possibility, and not a particularly high chance IME, of there being a satisfying arc as part of the experience. Slice-of-life vignettes can be fun for a little while, but they get old really, really fast, and the "thrill" of combat or treasure-hunting doesn't make up the difference.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Disregarding what it means to be player driven or not I would say that play where we are spending substantial amounts of time exploring and learning about the setting and engaged with conflicts that are external to the characters' concerns so that we can get to the points where our characters concerns are central is more focused on the GM's setting and less focused on the players' characters' concerns. That sort of play, while enjoyable for its own sake, can feel like jumping through hoops if your concerns are those sorts of personal stakes.

Right. Let me give an example: I had a 5e character, way back when 5e was brand new. The game was set in my sister's pre-existing game world, which has a ton of lore and lots of games played in it. So, I pick Dwarf, Wizard, Transmuter, and Folk Hero. So I'm not trying to be especially profound in my characterization, I just figure he's tired of all the BS associated with being a little guy and he wants to play in the big leagues.

So, we go out on the frontier, turns out we're doing some loose version of Phandelver, which is itself reasonably location-based kind of AP-esque 'there are a few routes but they all basically lead to the same place'. But along the way Azardel kicks the ass of the Boss Hobgoblin in personal combat (good trick for a wizard, but as a Mountain Dwarf he's actually got a battleaxe and chain armor he can wear).

He decides he's going to take over the castle, and rebuild it, call all his dwarf buddies that he's a folk hero to down to live in it, and develop a trade route. Yeah, I guess that either A) doesn't mesh with whatever the DM wanted to do, and/or B) doesn't seem 'plausible'. Well, I did it, and got some reasonable problems and whatnot to solve, for a time. Had to kiss the arses of the neighbors, kill of a few monsters, build a bunch of stuff, and somehow come up with enough cash and retainers to make it work.

So, once I was dragged off on an adventure related to the other characters, that was that, it was decreed that my henchmen, acting with monumental foolishness, released a terrible monster which immediately took over all my stuff and undid all of that work.

Now, that MIGHT happen in a kind of narrativist fashion, but all of the above just illustrates many of the flaws with plausible and logical, and the many foibles of trad play in general. Also, I want to be clear, it wasn't BAD play in its own right, it was just a certain kind of play that is very distinct from what is found in games like BitD.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I see no need to restrict the actions of the GM in order to play that game. If there are things you could do that aren't in keeping with your chosen playstyle, just...don't do them.

Your answer reads to me as: it benefits me because it's what I want to do. For someone insisting on more and more specific analysis, this seems remarkably circular.

It is not just that.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "limitation breeds creativity". I don't personally think the pithy version is actually correct--it needs one extra word. "Good limitations breed creativity." There are good limitations and bad ones. As an example, forcing a DM to run the game with total sound-cancelling earphones on is a limitation, but not one that leads to creativity.

On the other hand, things which specify pathways of response can be exactly that. Like how, for a famous example, the original Silent Hill video game got its absolutely iconic "thick fog" horror feel. Originally, in development, there was no fog--but that meant you could see the incredibly short rendering distance of the original PlayStation. They added the fog because it both solved that problem, and heightened the horror of the experience, leaving you always second-guessing whether you were truly safe. A similar thing happened on another PS1 classic, Medal of Honor, which exploited sound rather than visuals to imply a richer world than the game could actually display. Woven into the sound are dog barks, gunshots, and soldier voices in medium distance. You can never tell for 100% certain whether those are actual dogs or guns or soldiers, or just diegetic sound to make you think there's more going on. This allows them to get away with a non-overwhelming number of enemies, keeping the pacing up and the proper feel of the combat flow, without letting the player totally relax in the confidence that they know exactly where every enemy is.

So it isn't just "that it benefits me because it's what I want to do". Rules that bind GM behavior can, in fact, actually be useful to play. They can heighten the experience for the players in various ways, and they can push the GM to be more creative, not less, if they are properly designed.

Because, as I said above, SOME limitations do not actually enhance creativity and I'll be the first to bat for that. (I've said as much in many previous threads.) But well-constructed limitations do in fact foster and encourage creativity. This is one (of several) reasons why Dungeon World and other PbtA games discourage merely exploratory rewriting of their core rules without testing. The rules really have been very, very carefully thought out, designed, and rigorously tested. Changing them is a big deal and is much more liable to cause problems rather than solving them.

(Note that this is not the same as writing new player-facing moves you feel like writing--that's not only fine, the book explicitly talks about ways to do it and gives examples of well-constructed moves, poorly-constructed moves, how to turn the latter into the former, and IIRC some of their own experiences with flawed constructions they replaced with better versions. Further, it's not about writing DM-facing moves for monsters and locations. You're explicitly supposed to do that. This is about fundamentally rewriting important parts of the game itself, like the Agendas, Principles, rolling mechanic, or baseline moves like Defy Danger or Discern Realities.)

 

[robertsconley]

When I play, I make characters distinct from myself, whether it is tabletop or LARPs. I run into the same issue as you do. What you may not know is that the same problem exists in boffer LARPs like NERO. Players who dress in the minimum costume required (tabards and shorts) and who are there for the sport side of things, not the roleplaying.

The trick is to realize that the problem is that they don't have a strong identity as a character. They most certainly do have a strong identity, but it is of themselves with the abilities of the character. Doug, who works at the bank and comes to play every week, may not be interested in pretending to be someone different like you and I would. But during that session, he is Doug the Wizard.

So when it comes to me as a player, I will look at Doug and talk to him in-game the same way I would talk to you in-game, except I know that your character’s personality and goals are distinct from your own. Doug is still Doug with a fantasy (or sci-fi) veneer. And like your character is interested in certain things in-game, so will Doug be interested in certain things in-game. And that will factor into how I choose to roleplay as my character.

There are limits beyond which even this approach breaks down, but I’ve found it solves the majority of the issues I had and makes me enjoy the campaign more. And as a referee, it is why I insist on first-person roleplaying, because while Doug can remain Doug, it works way better if he is Doug the Wizard rather than Doug who works at the bank pushing a piece around the board.

Hope that helps in the future.

 

[zakael19]

Like I'm asking for their thoughts and I can tell its the thoughts of the player and not an independent character it kind of throws off my engagement.

I've grown to really value the combination of meta-channel openness and atmosphere of inquiry the games engines I'm currently running expect for this. My players often pause and like, step through their reasoning of why their character is about to do something - or if it's a PC to PC conversation may go like "you probably expected Sol to do X here, but then his expression twists and you can tell he's remembering that moment his ricochets hit Aodhan before he turns away muttering "no, never mind - you go on ahead." Like, that's so cool! We get to see how the consequences (game term) turn into character consequences (roleplaying/soft), and maybe get baked into mechanics again (memories-> adjusting beliefs).