D&D 5E (2024) What could One D&D do to push the game more toward story?

[UngainlyTitan]

I find it weird that a number of folks in this thread are arguing one way or another about "pushing a game toward story" without actually bothering to define waht that means.

It is weird when you think about but pretty normal for online discourse.

 

[pemerton]

It's pretty clear that WotC is moving more in the "story" direction in the attempt to broaden the appeal of D&D and bring in players who aren't interested in the dungeon crawling aspects. There are a ton of people out there who might not be interested in going into a dungeon to get gold, but might find solving a mystery in a world of magic and dragons really interesting.

I think the idea of what can be done to make the D&D rules more focused in this direction comes from the fact that the system assumes you will interact with the skill or exploration system in a journey to get to the combat part of the game, and that combat and fighting things can solve big problems.

If you expect players to solve problems using their wits and skills without combat, D&D is (and this is my opinion only) a less than inspiring game, since that's not its focus. That's the point that at least I'm trying to get to: what makes for telling better story that doesn't lean on the combat part of the game.

Traditionally, in D&D the non-combat stuff that you decide has traditionally been heavily reliant on GM adjudication. Sometimes PC skills or abilities almost serve - functionally if not quite literally - as descriptors that the GM uses to interpret their impact on the fiction (perhaps guided by a die roll or two).

Moving towards mechanisation of this sort of thing would be a bit of a change. 4e had that, in the form of skill challenges, but the success was not unalloyed.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is a multiplayer cooperative game. It requires that everyone in the game be at least sufficiently cooperative enough to accomplish some task. A MUD or an MMO is better for when you want to do your own things and not accomplish much and roleplay without regard for anyone else.
If a DM is running a pre-fab adventure, the characters being run need to be the kinds of characters who would get involved in that adventure. I personally do not like pre-fab adventures, but some people do, and "will actually play the adventure" is needed to justify those expensive hardbacks. If you're running Tomb of Horrors, and half the players would rather run a tailoring business in Waterdeep and the other half want to become dragon riders in Tassledale, then you are not actually running Tomb of Horrors.

Sure. This doesn't contradict what I posted.

 

[Aldarc]

I find it weird that a number of folks in this thread are arguing one way or another about "pushing a game toward story" without actually bothering to define waht that means.

I asked precisely for this reason, but no examples or definitions were provided.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I asked precisely for this reason, but no examples or definitions were provided.

This is a similar problem as the one trying to classify playstyles. There are words out there but little agreement as to what they mean.

So, how about throwing out some concepts there and see if any stick.

Trad-Story. Here the game is played in a traditional D&D way but there is an expectation that the characters are protagonists. This is characterised by a reasonable chance to survive a fight/encounter. The campaign ends if a TPK occurs or they defeat the final boss.
The story is the interaction between the party and various NPCs and resolves as a series of arc where the party unravels the plots of antagonist NPCs that have come to their attention.

It is reinforced by game elements that increase character competence. Like powers, skills, more hit points and so forth, a good skill challenge mechanic.

It could be further enhanced by things like Fate Points: - to be cashed in, in the event of a TPK. that is, convert it to a capture or waking up in the battle site sans equipment or what ever.
Or by a re-roll currency like Inspiration.
Or by allowing the DM to make a hard move on the plot like capturing the party in an encounter where they were overmatched with out playing out the encounter. This would then yield the party plot coupons that could be cashed in to set up their escape.
An example would be the rogue cashed in her coupon to declare that she has lock picks hidden in the braids of her hair with out any pre-establishing fiction.

A more narrative/drama focused game could have mechanics relating to back story or other elements but I am not familiar with such games to suggest any category names or the mechanics to support them.

What I do not want in response to this post are blank statement that one does not like this but is the category name useful, do the suggested mechanics fit into this or should they belong to another category or another (an suggest a name for this).
Ideally these suggestion should promote story (for some value of story) and I leave it to those familiar with modern narrative type games to offer their suggestions and classifiers.

 

[Incenjucar]

I would argue that some of the features that take the NPC narrative away from the DM end up being anti-story. Behavior is no longer tied to motivation or cause and effect, and you've reduced the complexities of decision-making to a meta-game mechanic that can completely go against immersion.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would argue that some of the features that take the NPC narrative away from the DM end up being anti-story. Behavior is no longer tied to motivation or cause and effect, and you've reduced the complexities of decision-making to a meta-game mechanic that can completely go against immersion.

Ok, which ones, what rules systems and how have you seen them used?

 

[Incenjucar]

Ok, which ones, what rules systems and how have you seen them used?

You described one: "It could be further enhanced by things like Fate Points: - to be cashed in, in the event of a TPK. that is, convert it to a capture or waking up in the battle site sans equipment or what ever."

 

[SteveC]

I think that you haven't seen a solid definition of the "story emphasis" that people want or see WotC embracing, because it means different things to different people and there really is no one definition. I know I've been talking about this issue since the 90s on Usenet where I first heard it seriously discussed and that's been a long time.

For me, I'd start with wanting the skill/exploration/social systems in D&D to have the same emphasis as the combat portions. I think about a lot of the scenarios in the Radiant Citadel and think that they would run much better in another game system.

Added on to that, I would love to see an element of Narrativism (and that's a huge can of worms in itself) where there is more attention to the story itself, with more player input, so Aspects, improvisational elements, fail forward and something to keep the session from being derailed by failed skill checks.

Now I know for 100% certainty that all that is not something a lot of people want in their game, and I also don't expect WotC to go very far with it for precisely the point that it's too different from traditional D&D. I also know that doing something along these lines would really broaden the appeal of the game to the sorts of people they seem to be appealing to.

 

[pemerton]

A more narrative/drama focused game could have mechanics relating to back story or other elements but I am not familiar with such games to suggest any category names or the mechanics to support them.

Probably the single best-known "narrative" game is Apocalypse World. It's the game that inspired PbtA.

AW does not have particularly fancy mechanics. It doesn't have fate points. It doesn't use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (that's from a different Vincent Baker game, DitV). It has a very small number of PC build options which allows players to establish fiction which goes beyond the in-fiction causal consequences of things their PCs do.

There are two main features of AW that mean that, in play, it yields story.

The most important is the GM moves. When it's the GM's turn to speak in the conversation of the game, the GM make a move. And most of the time this is a soft move. GM soft moves include (inter alia) "announcing future badness" - in ENworld parlance this is a form of what is often called "telegraphing" - or "announcing offscreen badness" or "offering an opportunity, with or without a cost". In some circumstances the GM can make a hard move - this can include (inter alia) "inflicting harm" (ie dealing damage) or "separating them" or "turning their move back on them" (eg the PC as played by the player tried to discern a weakness, but instead reveals a weakness of their own). The list of GM moves does not include nothing happens.

Nearly as important are the player moves. These are little resolution subsystems that are triggered, in the course of play, by the player declaring a certain sort of action for their PC (eg trying to intimidate someone ("go aggro") or trying to exert leverage over someone ("seduce/manipulate")). If a move fails, the GM is licensed to make a hard move. The other time a hard move is OK is when a player hands an opportunity to the GM on a platter (eg the GM makes a soft move, the player proceeds in disregard of it, now the GM can make a hard move).

If a player declares an action for their PC that does not trigger a move, then no dice are rolled, the conversation of the game continues, and the GM makes an appropriate move - probably a soft move, unless the player's declared action provides an opportunity on a platter.

This is fairly different from a lot of D&D play. Not because of anything about the mechanics. But because of the rules about what the GM is to say.