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

[Incenjucar]

Well, the 5e DMG makes some fairly vague statements about various things, which are then contradicted in other places, so I am a bit skeptical that it has anything coherent to say, really. I mean, there are statements about things like only making checks for things that 'matter' or where 'failure is meaningful' and such. Those are good, and I would argue something along those lines, a process/criteria which tells us when to bring out the dice, is certainly an element that games need. Honestly 4e is a bit weak here too when you stray too much out of the encounter-centered model (IE if the characters wander around exploring and making unstructured checks, 4e doesn't really give a ton of guidance about that).

I don't recall how well-stated it is, but in 4E the assumption is that you'll just throw together a skill challenge if players seek one out.

 

[Reynard]

Well, the 5e DMG makes some fairly vague statements about various things, which are then contradicted in other places, so I am a bit skeptical that it has anything coherent to say, really. I mean, there are statements about things like only making checks for things that 'matter' or where 'failure is meaningful' and such. Those are good, and I would argue something along those lines, a process/criteria which tells us when to bring out the dice, is certainly an element that games need. Honestly 4e is a bit weak here too when you stray too much out of the encounter-centered model (IE if the characters wander around exploring and making unstructured checks, 4e doesn't really give a ton of guidance about that).

Sorry, my question was evasive. What I meant was, yes, this is exactly what the 5E DMG says to do in the section on calling for ability checks and setting DCs. That information is in the game. the problem is no one thinks they need to be told how to DM better, don't read the DMG, then turn around and say the DMG is terrible, and that 5E doesn't give DM's advice. It is an exhausting, circular argument.

5E is actually pretty good (2E levels) about talking about the DM's role and how to go about adjudicating. It is just terrible at walking a new DM through the actual process of running a session of D&D.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Should the game be pushed more toward story/storytelling? I’m not so sure. I don’t think I want that for games I play in, but it could be fine as variant or optional rules I guess

 

[overgeeked]

The problem is no one thinks they need to be told how to DM better, don't read the DMG, then turn around and say the DMG is terrible, and that 5E doesn't give DM's advice. It is an exhausting, circular argument.

It really is. It's especially tough in more experienced referees. In the early days of 5E our regular referee just ported in 4E monsters with their stat blocks intact. We tried to explain how that doesn't work and how the math is different and the numbers were all off. "It's all D&D" was his response. This worked a charm in the TSR days when the AC was only one point off between Basic and Advanced and the rest was all close enough. To this day I still don't think he's cracked open the 5E DMG.

 

[pemerton]

In the early days of 5E our regular referee just ported in 4E monsters with their stat blocks intact. We tried to explain how that doesn't work and how the math is different and the numbers were all off. "It's all D&D" was his response.

This is quite bizarre. Like asserting that the auction in all whist variants must work the same.

 

[pemerton]

I think PbtA and FitD present a potential path to that, which ultimately boils down to when things happen in play we say "yes, and" and move forward.

I can't comment on BitD/FitD, but Apocalypse World doesn't boil down to "yes, and". For instance, if my character goes aggro against a NPC, and then my overall result is 6 or less, the GM can make as hard a move as they like that follows from the fiction, which might be that my PC is captured, or is left beaten to a bloody pulp on the floor, or whatever else seems to make sense.

Part of what makes AW work is that it generates momentum in the fiction without the need for collaboration on the story between the players and the GM. This is the essence of the sort of RPG that the Forge used to call "story now".

I think @AbdulAlhazred is right to say that introducing this into D&D would require a focus on intent in action declaration, and hence adjudication of success and failure. It is the protagonists getting what they want, or missing out on it, that generates the ebb and flow of a story.

In a lot of D&D play, including (as best I can tell) a lot of 5e D&D play, it is the GM who makes key decisions about what the protagonists want, and what the significance of any situation, or any action declaration, is. Changing that can be quite tricky, because it tends to require a different sort of approach to prep, to framing and to adjudication from that which is set out in the 5e materials (at least as I'm familiar with them).

 

[John R Davis]

D&D doesn't need it.
You have a session, you play a game, by the end a story will have happened. Not forced, not squeezed into some PBTA definition.

It you want a game where every roll matters, the new Talisman RPG is perfect. Like PBTA games, the GM doesn't roll, every pc roll generates something ( it has 4 results not 3), but with more freedom and generation of funky effects. My game of the year by far.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't recall how well-stated it is, but in 4E the assumption is that you'll just throw together a skill challenge if players seek one out.

Right, so it isn't so much of an issue in 4e. In fact, my game has an actual rule, "there are no dice outside of an encounter."

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Riffing on the other similarly titled thread...

I keep hearing about how modern D&D is a collaborative storytelling experience and how story trumps all. But then I look around to actual story games and they look nothing like 5E.

I do not believe that this is true. I believe that 5e is kind of optimised on a kind of casual play where the characters are big damn heroes. What I have refereed to as "protagonists". It does not get in the way of Trad story of the kind you see on Critical Role.

In so far as there is a story it is dependent on the interaction of the PCs and notable NPCs.

For the record, I have not played any of what are referred as story game rpgs. Mostly because the people I game with are not interested and so I lack opportunity.
I also suspect that WoTC have done their market research and concluded that there is not enough interest to make the effort of creating such a subsystem worth their while.

So, with the new edition, I wonder: what rules tweaks could the designers do to the 5E chassis to make it work better as a storytelling game?

The biggest issues with 5E as a good storytelling game is that whatever story happens is either an accident of the dice or must be imposed by the referee and/or the players rather than being naturally emergent from the mechanics. The closest we have to story-based mechanics in 5E is inspiration, and it is, at present, anemic. But, more often than not, the mechanics tend to get in the way of story rather than support it. You want to run an epic boss encounter, but the action economy and a few lucky crits could mean the fight's over in a round or two. You want a big scary bad guy, but forgot to write immune to stun and charm in their stat block, so your big bad gets to just stand there and drool while the PCs wreck their face. You want to play a cool, badass, heroic character but you have to roll a d20 to accomplish just about anything...no matter how unimportant. But that all makes for a boring story.

I think if D&D is going to be a storytelling game it should have some actual story-focused mechanics in the game. Provide primers on scene structure, act structure, how scene-and-sequel works, character motivations and arcs, picking scene goals, plot points, long dark night of the soul, save the cat, kick the dog, twists...you know...actual storytelling guides. A good primer on improv would be great, too. It should have metacurrency that can actually alter the story (for players and referees). It should maybe cut back on the pointless bookkeeping, too. Characters in stories die when the writer needs them to, so hit points are a waste of time to track. You rarely see characters in stories going to the bathroom or eating, so there's really no point in having the rules for food and water in a storytelling game. Come to think of it, everything in a story serves a purpose, whether plot- or character-based. So, in theory, the only things that should be in the game are story-focused mechanics. Everything else is superfluous.

Thoughts?

Any such subsystems, beyond DM advice about using dice checks for guidance (fail forward type stuff) should be additive and optional. At least in the context of D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

The OP asks a tough question.

To me, the only real answer is to have a DM that cares about, knows how to craft, and puts in the work towards the story. The ruleset, as is, does story perfectly well. The difficulty is finding the right person to run the game, the right players to pursue the story, and the right chemistry between everyone to share in the collective journey.