D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, wouldn't you think the idea of player-authored quests would be best presented in the book intended to be read by players? How would they even know about it otherwise?

Well, my answer would be "if you only think GMs read DMGs, I have a bridge to sell you." But perhaps that's not true with some groups.

 

[Thomas Shey]

All of core is valid game text. Any other view runs into all kinds of problems.

While true, its a common view.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I certainly would not describe Critical Role as a game where players created characters with strong goals and doggedly pursued them. Nor would I describe Critical Role as a game where the GM first looked to those character goals and built scenarios around them. Occasional backstory weaving is far from what I'm talking about or what I described.

Huge chunk of the events is directly related to character backstories and the characters often have deep motivations which they pursue and which shapes the course of the game. Sure, there is a lot of other stuff too, but it definitely is there in large amounts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I certainly would not describe Critical Role as a game where players created characters with strong goals and doggedly pursued them. Nor would I describe Critical Role as a game where the GM first looked to those character goals and built scenarios around them. Occasional backstory weaving is far from what I'm talking about or what I described.

Even though I've disagreed that there's a brightline between what GNS Story Now does and older Dramatist practice, I do have to agree there's some significant differences here. As I put it in all kinds of things, "Degree matters."

 

[clearstream]

So this is the wish list text I can find

Magic Items: Special rules apply to the roll for magic items as part of a treasure. If the number on the die (before any adjustments for group size) is odd, the item is a common item. If the number on the die is even, but not a natural 20, the item is uncommon. On a roll of a natural 20, the item is rare. Group size doesn’t affect the likelihood of finding common or rare items. The trickiest part of awarding treasure is determining what magic items to give out. The DM should tailor these items to the party of characters in his or her game. These items are supposed to excite the characters, so they should be things the characters want to use rather than discard. For instance, if none of the characters in a 6th-level party uses a longbow, don’t put a 10th-level longbow in the dungeon as treasure. One way to make sure that adventurers receive magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask the players for wish lists. At the start of each level, each player writes down a list of three to five uncommon items that he or she is intrigued by and that are no more than four levels above his or her character’s level. The DM can choose treasure from those lists (making sure to place an item from a different character’s list each time), crossing the items off as the characters find them. Don’t use wish lists for rare items. These items are completely in the DM’s purview, and they should advance the story of the campaign and provide unexpected delights to the players.

I'm not seeing so much player authorship here. Not more than suggested in 3e DMG2 years earlier.

 

[overgeeked]

Nobody is saying that. What we're saying is that D&D, until 4e talked about quests, never ever provided even the slightest support or help with that. I mean, it WAS acknowledged as a thing that happens, but GMs were simply left totally to their own devices on questions about how, when, why, etc. Beyond that, sometimes D&D actually took a stance AGAINST it. 2e is infamous for this! "Oh, you want to make a magic item!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, go harvest the dying breath of a star, sucker. Oh, and what does that mean? Good luck figuring that out!" I mean, you COULD interpret it to mean "give interesting plot hooks" but the whole thing was almost universally interpreted by GMs to mean "make it so hard that the players will be discouraged from doing this, because you know those sneaky players are just trying to get some vorpal weapons!"

Weird. Because the 2E DMG give explicitly cooperative guidelines about players researching (i.e. creating their own) spells. I get that it's a meme that DM's don't read the 5E DMG...but was that a thing all the way back in 2E as well? 2E DMG Black Cover, p64.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, my answer would be "if you only think GMs read DMGs, I have a bridge to sell you." But perhaps that's not true with some groups.

Indeed. That would imply that at least GMs read the DMG whilst we know that no one does!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But if the PCs' vessel is washed away to a different shore as a result of the GM establishing it as a consequence of a failed perilous journeys (or some such) check by the player it is? Why it matters whose hand rolls the dice?

This is where Narrativist systems are going to need INTENT as their unit of resolution. In other words, if the system says "Make a Navigator check to see if you reach the destination." then that's not focused on narrative and such a game will, at least in that regard, lack support for a narrative agenda. It isn't important who makes the check! So, in a game that wants to focus on the story and develop a narrative, the question wouldn't be whether or not the ship is washed away, it would be whether or not the character(s) made it to the island in time to support the King, whom they were sworn to protect. Now, it wouldn't, IMHO be very interesting for them to simply make a check to see if some weather thwarted that. Instead you'd want some sort of pressure put on their values. Maybe they're pirates and they stumble upon the super fat target that they've been hunting for months. They can support the King, or they can acquire a vast treasure. Which will they do? Is honor more important than riches? Play to Find Out! Now, perhaps success on the navigation check would have let them avoid that particular temptation, its a 'twist' or whatever term you wish to use. OTOH, eventually their honor will be tested, BECAUSE THEY ESTABLISHED IT AS A VALUE. And this is where the huge difference is with something like a sandbox! Sure, the same events can theoretically transpire, but is it really likely that random chance, or a long-preordained encounter key, will produce this situation? No, not really. Nor is the reward structure or process of play of a game used for that kind of setting likely to foreground this kind of thing and encourage it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

THE AGENDA

DUNDUNDUN

What exactly is

THE AGENDA

DUNDUNDUN

Overgeeked?

Related, guess where Fail Forward is in Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer (and 4e)?

GM Section.

Where is “Don’t play the story…there is no story…play the towns” (4e has an iteration of this), “say yes or roll the dice” (4e has an iteration of this), “at every play drive play toward conflict” (4e has an iteration of this) in Dogs in the Vineyard?

GM Section.

Where is “play to find out what happens” in Apocalypse World?

GM Section.

Conflict/threat rules for pretty much all the games above?

GM Section.

---

I’ve never understood this assumed opt-in/opt-out paradigm based on where rules text is. So if something is in the PHB or players’ section of a book it’s this giant ownership/authority issue that desperately vexes GMs because MINE (like how OMG GET OUT THE TORCHES SND PITCHFORKS subversive 4e was when it put Magic Items in the PHB rather than DMG).

So Magic Item Wishlists was this giant subversive piece of player entitlement (a D&D iteration of indie tech kindred to player authored kicker) because it was in the PHB. But actual player-authored kickers in the form of player-authored quests are a big nothingburger because they’re in the DMG?

What sort of vile sorcery is this?

Can I roll to disbelieve?

I think that a lot of it boils down to expectations. D&D has, over the course of many editions/iterations/changes for personal preference, become a game that allows for many approaches. If you look at the earliest editions of the game, there are deliberate processes. Exploration turns and random encounters and inventory management and so on. The game worked a specific way as presented (although at times the presentation was poor, but the intention was for the game to be played a certain way). As we've moved through editions, that's changed, and a variety of ways to play have emerged. This has led to the latest edition which essentially eschews committing to any specific approach and instead attempts to allow for them all.

This has then created the expectation that all RPGs should function similarly. That they should allow for a variety of approaches to play. And so that must be true of games that use Story Now, right?

But I don't think that's true. The games I know that use Story Now have specific instructions on how to play. There are procedures that are explicit and expected.

So because D&D "may" or "can" do something, people fail to see the difference with a game that MUST do those things.

 

[overgeeked]

So this is the wish list text I can find



I'm not seeing so much player authorship here. Not more than suggested in 3e DMG2 years earlier.

2E DMG Black Cover, p120.

"Finally, the DM has the right to exclude from player manufacture any magical item he feels is too powerful or too significant a part of his campaign world. (For example, if all magical weapons in the DM’s campaign are the product of an ancient civilization and the art of their manufacture has now been lost, he can deny the ability to create such items to the player characters.)

These limitations notwithstanding, players should be invited to submit their own ideas for new or unique items. The possibilities for new items are limited only by the constraints of game balance. Perhaps the character wants an arrow that explodes in a flash of brilliant light or a wand that causes those touched to suffer amnesia.

Using the same give-and-take process described for new player spells, the DM should have the player write up a description of the desired item. The DM studies this, alters it as needed, and discusses the changes with the player. When both are in agreement, the character can begin the actual process of research and construction.

When a player announces his character’s desire to construct a given item, it is not the DM’s task to tell him whether this is within the character’s capabilities or not. It is the DM’s responsibility to decide the materials and steps needed to construct the item. The player can then have his character consult a sage, fellow spellcaster, or higher power to learn what he needs. In the process the character may discover he lacks the appropriate powers to create the item. This is one of the risks inherent in magical research."