D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Lanefan]

Another anecdote to illustrate my point. Not long ago, my Wizard cast Wall of Force to trap a monster inside it. The creature didn't take time to test it's boundaries. Instead, it instantly realized "oh this is a Wall of Force" and used it's ability to Dimension Door beyond it's boundaries (that I didn't know it possessed when I cast the spell).

Now that's a fairly typical event in a game, no doubt.

But if that had been an ILLUSION of a Wall of Force, I'd instantly expect the creature to try and move through it, poke or prod it, or anything else required to prove it's fake. Because that's what I tend to see happen.

Given that a Wall of Force is supposed to be invisible and doesn't usually make any noise, how the bleep would you go about casting an illusion of one in the first place?

All the other Wall of xxxx spells, sure - but Wall of Force?

 

[jgsugden]

Maybe so, but being the protagonists in a story isn't always the goal of play, no matter what the 5.5 books say.

In a one shot game where you're really just playing a strategy game? Story is a second thought, if a thought at all.

In an adventure with a thin story and a focus on creating interesting combats with the story just there to give a reason to pull the PCs from combat to combat? Again, not so much.

In a dungeon delve campaign where the PCs are just there to collect treasure and experience? Again, story is not the goal.

However, for all three of those examples (and every other situation I can think of) the game is improved when there is a good story with the heroes at the center, told well, behind the action.

Inherently, a well told story is engaging and entertaining. It is part of the definition. Those are good things. It never hurts to have a good story and engaging delivery - and I confidently argue that it always makes the situation better.

It may not always be the goal ... but I'd argue that when it is not, the game is missing out on the benefits that could be derived if it was one of the goals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a one shot game where you're really just playing a strategy game? Story is a second thought, if a thought at all.

In an adventure with a thin story and a focus on creating interesting combats with the story just there to give a reason to pull the PCs from combat to combat? Again, not so much.

In a dungeon delve campaign where the PCs are just there to collect treasure and experience? Again, story is not the goal.

However, for all three of those examples (and every other situation I can think of) the game is improved when there is a good story with the heroes at the center, told well, behind the action.

Inherently, a well told story is engaging and entertaining. It is part of the definition. Those are good things. It never hurts to have a good story and engaging delivery - and I confidently argue that it always makes the situation better.

It may not always be the goal ... but I'd argue that when it is not, the game is missing out on the benefits that could be derived if it was one of the goals.

I would argue that story is something you simply don't need to prioritize beyond the emergent variety, and the game is no more guaranteed to be improved by adding it as you then it is by letting the players actions in the game through their PCs be all the "story".

 

[James Gasik]

Given that a Wall of Force is supposed to be invisible and doesn't usually make any noise, how the bleep would you go about casting an illusion of one in the first place?

All the other Wall of xxxx spells, sure - but Wall of Force?

Oh right, for most games this would be a bad example, but it's a long-standing debate with my DM. His ruling is that it appears like a glassy pane- you can see through it, but you can tell it's there, making it more translucent than transparent. We've gone around and around on this, ever since we found a Cube of Force in an adventure.

(As a side note, I've yet to see anyone run into an invisible Wall of Force in any D&D game I've played in, ever, lol.)

 

[Lanefan]

In a one shot game where you're really just playing a strategy game? Story is a second thought, if a thought at all.

In an adventure with a thin story and a focus on creating interesting combats with the story just there to give a reason to pull the PCs from combat to combat? Again, not so much.

In a dungeon delve campaign where the PCs are just there to collect treasure and experience? Again, story is not the goal.

However, for all three of those examples (and every other situation I can think of) the game is improved when there is a good story with the heroes at the center, told well, behind the action.

I agree with pretty much all of this except the bolded; and even there I don't completely disagree other than replacing "heroes" with "PCs" (or "party") and "at the centre" with "as key elements".

Just because the PCs tend to be the centre of attention by no means makes them heroes.

Inherently, a well told story is engaging and entertaining. It is part of the definition. Those are good things. It never hurts to have a good story and engaging delivery - and I confidently argue that it always makes the situation better.

It may not always be the goal ... but I'd argue that when it is not, the game is missing out on the benefits that could be derived if it was one of the goals.

I'll challenge the bolded "always" here: there's many a time when adding a story can make things worse, largely because the players for whatever reason just aren't interested in the story that's being added. Further, there's also the risk that the DM gets too attached to the story even if-when the players want to deviate from it or abandon it entirely.

 

[Lanefan]

(As a side note, I've yet to see anyone run into an invisible Wall of Force in any D&D game I've played in, ever, lol.)

A PC I used to play once bent her own nose into her face by running into a WoF.

More usefully, I've occasionally seen it used (and used it myself) as an invisible and immovable means of stopping something that's moving fast, with predictable and messy consequences:

--- a large troop of enemy soldiers riding at full gallop along a road, we dropped a WoF on the road ahead of them and the resulting carnage was delightful...even more so once we started pouring fireballs into the mess. Felt sorry for the horses, though.
--- a flying galleon moving at speed; as WoF can be cast in mid-air we did exactly that, and the galleon nailed it dead on. So much for those masts, never mind the bow is now crushed in and the ship's dead in the air...

It's worth having the spell just for those sort of glorious opportunities, rare though they may be.

 

[jgsugden]

I would argue that story is something you simply don't need to prioritize beyond the emergent variety, and the game is no more guaranteed to be improved by adding it as you then it is by letting the players actions in the game through their PCs be all the "story".

Need? No. But when we plan, prepare, and craft we generally get a better result than when we just throw things together. This is true in storytelling, architecture, programming, etc... Don't get me wrong - I like improvisation and it is a necessary part of the game ... but if you're plugging that improvisation into a planned structure, you're going to get a better result ... even when the PCs deviate from plan entirely because it gives that deviation something to be balanced against. If they decide to let the Young Royal be kidnapped and instead go hunt wyverns there is a story to unfold from their decision ...

...there's many a time when adding a story can make things worse, largely because the players for whatever reason just aren't interested in the story that's being added. Further, there's also the risk that the DM gets too attached to the story even if-when the players want to deviate from it or abandon it entirely.

You're essentially arguing that story isn't important because players and DMs can derail it. That is like arguing against driving cars because they can crash.

A well crafted story inherently will engage the players. If it doesn't, it wasn't well crafted for the purpose it was intended. That happens - we all bomb sometimes. However, when deciding whether a path is worth taking we should not dismiss it because it might go somewhere bad if it far, far, far more likely to go someplace excellent.

And as for the DM getting too attached and forcing players hands - again, that is not part of a good communal story telling experience. If the PCs want to walk from the story elements presented, the DM should be prepared for the possibility and have a positive experience plan for f the PCs do it. If they hunt wyverns instead of rescuing royalty - great! That opens up new story hooks, right?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would argue that story is something you simply don't need to prioritize beyond the emergent variety, and the game is no more guaranteed to be improved by adding it as you then it is by letting the players actions in the game through their PCs be all the "story".

"Need" is, and has always been, a useless standard when it comes to game design. Nothing is "needed". Ever. Period.

You are correct that it is false to say "absolutely all games are always improved by adding story". You are incorrect to then conclude that we should never bother adding story to any game. The former is a very mild claim; "there exist some games that would not be improved by adding story." The latter is an extremely strong and almost surely false claim: "for all games, attempting to add story should be avoided as unnecessary or counterproductive."

 

[NN]

“Story” needs to be retired as a term. Its useless.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

“Story” needs to be retired as a term. Its useless.

What do you recommend to replace it? Because I find it's still really important to me to talk about the things I refer to by the term "story", and primary alternatives (such as "narrative") do not encompass what I'm referring to.