D&D General Player-generated fiction in D&D

[Vaalingrade]

I am trying to get what is actually meant by this "player generated quest."

So here's an example from one of my current playtest games.

Basically, we're doing a magic school campaign and I decided that the framing story would be that they're all doing independent study to research and collect their weapon, armor and familiar. Everyone got a choice of designing what their item would be or asking me to do it, and then I took their notes on what kind of adventures they wanted to go on to get said items.

So our combat obsessed players gets quests with Big Fights, the two that like playing with the lore of the world, got adventures that led to lore, and the chaos goblin got complicated, hyper-referential trollbait with stop motion skeletons.

I also asked them about friends and family and where they would be and what they'd be like so as to create side stories to the independent study quests.

And then I also have some episodes that are Just For Daddy; full of puns and pro wrestler pastiches and the legendary 'Wizard' Spell, 'Punch'.

Pretty much the entire campaign is bespoke based on the desires of each player at the table.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A game of d&d is not a restaurant

It's more of a potluck.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's more of a potluck.

I’d have compared it more to mom’s kitchen.

Mom
‘It’s about meal time, Do you want pork chops, meatloaf, chicken????’

Me
‘What about spaghetti?’

But really all these analogies are probably counterproductive.

 

[pemerton]

Does or does not your definition require the player to invent the setting elements related to their goal or does it not? Is it "player-established quest" to explore ancient giant civilization, even if the player did not establish the fact that giants exist in the setting and had an ancient civilization?

I'm not talking about who invented a setting element. Presumably Gary Gygax invented Nyrond (in the narrowest of "invent"), although to the extent that it is really just a stand-in for Aquilonia or some similar Hyborian kingdom then REH invented it, and to the extent that it is really just generic pseudo-historical mediaeval kingdom #101, then no one invented it - it's an obvious sort of thing to include in a fantasy setting.

I'm talking about who actually makes some fiction the focus of the action.

But if the thing the player goal was related to was already established to exist in the setting, isn't that still selecting from GM created options, even though that might be choosing among thousand options rather than two?

Who wrote the setting? Suppose that the GM established the setting detail, who called for that sort of thing to be part of the setting?

An example, based on something from a long time ago when I was GMing Rolemaster: a player wrote up his magic-using PC, and as part of his backstory had a mentor who (i) lived in a giant hollow oak tree outside the PC's home village of Five Oak, and (ii) was hiding there from powerful enemies in Nyrond. Five Oak and Nyrond are both places on World of Greyhawk maps. The player, being familiar with the maps, made the backstory decisions that incorporated those places. What Five Oak "means" is a reasonably small village in a forest not too far from the City of Greyhawk. What Nyrond "means" is a large, important but threatened kingdom some distance from the City of Greyhawk.

At some later point in play, I 9as GM) introduced a situation in which the mentor was missing, and there were obvious signs of disturbance/assault in his oak tree dwelling. The player's (and players') attention naturally turns to powerful enemies in Nyrond.

From what I've said so far, I think it's an open possibility whether we're talking about the GM or the player generating the fiction that is the focus of play. It seems to me to depend on what happens next at the table. If the GM uses the kidnapping of the mentor as the hook to have the players play through an adventure the GM has designed - say, some variant of the slave lords or similar scenario involving multiple sessions of play in which the PCs, piece by piece, dismantle and defeat an evil organisation - and the players' decision-making is predominantly tactical or instrumental decisions about how to do that, I wouldn't say there is a lot of player-generated fiction in respect of the focus of play.

On the other hand, if the kidnapping of the mentor leads into a series of situations in which the player's decision-making does contain a significant element of making decisions about stuff the players have flagged or otherwise rendered salient - eg their are choices about alliance with or opposition to other NPCs with meaningful relationships to the PCs (as established via flags and/or prior play) - and the status of the mentor and the powerful enemies and how these relate to the PC are all front-and-centre not just as hooks but as the actual subject-matter of play and decision-making as events unfold, then there probably is quite a bit of player-generated fiction in respect of the focus of play.

wasn't the thread specifically about player-generated fiction? I remain confused and examples @pemerton offered didn't help, as many of those to my eye didn't seem to contain such, so I assume they mean something else by it...

To reiterate: one of the sorts of player-generated fiction I identified in the OP is player-generated fiction that pertains to the focus of the action. That is, the player deciding what "the story" is about. (I use scare quotes because "story" is a contentious term in the context of RPGing.)

This is why I think @FrogReaver's examples of GM-presented options, choosing modules etc are really not all that on point. Suppose that the players decide to follow the GM's lead of "investigating an ancient fortress". During - let's say - 7 hours of play, a lot of fiction will be created. A lot of words will be said. This fiction and those words will have something that they are about. And I'm discussing who it is that generates that.

So, in my example upthread of 4e play, a significant episode of play involved talking about soul energy, and whether Vecna or the Raven Queen was going to have it, and why it is bad that Torog currently has it, and how it might be redirected, and so on. It was the players who generated much of that focus.

On the other hand, the most recent time that I GMed AD&D we played a session of White Plume Mountain. There was a lot of discussion about pit traps, and the heat induction trap, and the ghouls, and the frictionless surface pits, and so on. It was me as GM, mediating the module, that generated much of that focus.

The proposition stated in the previous paragraph wouldn't change if the players, playing their PCs, had "diegetically" followed up on a possible plot hook about recovering stolen weapons from Keraptis. Because even if in some notional sense the players (as their PCs) had chosen the goal of recovering weapons, the actual focus of the action would still be al this stuff coming from the module and mediated by the GM

 

[hawkeyefan]

A game of d&d is not a restaurant

Well, no of course not. I was just going with your idea of a menu, which actually works pretty well.

If a GM offers a choice of A or B or C, the fact that the players are free to choose which one doesn't change the fact that they are all generated by the GM.

What's being talked about is instead of the above, the players are offering those ideas. Player 1 suggests A, player 2 suggests B, and player 3 suggests C. Then they decide as a group what to do, and the GM then preps accordingly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not talking about who invented a setting element. Presumably Gary Gygax invented Nyrond (in the narrowest of "invent"), although to the extent that it is really just a stand-in for Aquilonia or some similar Hyborian kingdom then REH invented it, and to the extent that it is really just generic pseudo-historical mediaeval kingdom #101, then no one invented it - it's an obvious sort of thing to include in a fantasy setting.

I'm talking about who actually makes some fiction the focus of the action.

Who wrote the setting? Suppose that the GM established the setting detail, who called for that sort of thing to be part of the setting?

An example, based on something from a long time ago when I was GMing Rolemaster: a player wrote up his magic-using PC, and as part of his backstory had a mentor who (i) lived in a giant hollow oak tree outside the PC's home village of Five Oak, and (ii) was hiding there from powerful enemies in Nyrond. Five Oak and Nyrond are both places on World of Greyhawk maps. The player, being familiar with the maps, made the backstory decisions that incorporated those places. What Five Oak "means" is a reasonably small village in a forest not too far from the City of Greyhawk. What Nyrond "means" is a large, important but threatened kingdom some distance from the City of Greyhawk.

At some later point in play, I 9as GM) introduced a situation in which the mentor was missing, and there were obvious signs of disturbance/assault in his oak tree dwelling. The player's (and players') attention naturally turns to powerful enemies in Nyrond.

From what I've said so far, I think it's an open possibility whether we're talking about the GM or the player generating the fiction that is the focus of play. It seems to me to depend on what happens next at the table. If the GM uses the kidnapping of the mentor as the hook to have the players play through an adventure the GM has designed - say, some variant of the slave lords or similar scenario involving multiple sessions of play in which the PCs, piece by piece, dismantle and defeat an evil organisation - and the players' decision-making is predominantly tactical or instrumental decisions about how to do that, I wouldn't say there is a lot of player-generated fiction in respect of the focus of play.

On the other hand, if the kidnapping of the mentor leads into a series of situations in which the player's decision-making does contain a significant element of making decisions about stuff the players have flagged or otherwise rendered salient - eg their are choices about alliance with or opposition to other NPCs with meaningful relationships to the PCs (as established via flags and/or prior play) - and the status of the mentor and the powerful enemies and how these relate to the PC are all front-and-centre not just as hooks but as the actual subject-matter of play and decision-making as events unfold, then there probably is quite a bit of player-generated fiction in respect of the focus of play.

To reiterate: one of the sorts of player-generated fiction I identified in the OP is player-generated fiction that pertains to the focus of the action. That is, the player deciding what "the story" is about. (I use scare quotes because "story" is a contentious term in the context of RPGing.)

This is why I think @FrogReaver's examples of GM-presented options, choosing modules etc are really not all that on point. Suppose that the players decide to follow the GM's lead of "investigating an ancient fortress". During - let's say - 7 hours of play, a lot of fiction will be created. A lot of words will be said. This fiction and those words will have something that they are about. And I'm discussing who it is that generates that.

So, in my example upthread of 4e play, a significant episode of play involved talking about soul energy, and whether Vecna or the Raven Queen was going to have it, and why it is bad that Torog currently has it, and how it might be redirected, and so on. It was the players who generated much of that focus.

On the other hand, the most recent time that I GMed AD&D we played a session of White Plume Mountain. There was a lot of discussion about pit traps, and the heat induction trap, and the ghouls, and the frictionless surface pits, and so on. It was me as GM, mediating the module, that generated much of that focus.

The proposition stated in the previous paragraph wouldn't change if the players, playing their PCs, had "diegetically" followed up on a possible plot hook about recovering stolen weapons from Keraptis. Because even if in some notional sense the players (as their PCs) had chosen the goal of recovering weapons, the actual focus of the action would still be al this stuff coming from the module and mediated by the GM

I see. So it is not about player generated fiction as I understood it, it is about the game being player driven, a topic we've discussed many a time. I don't understand why you needed to confusingly rename it.

Still, some things still elude me. Why is discussion metaphysics of soul channelling player driven but discussing methods of evading pit traps not, if both were initiated and chosen by the players? Like sure, the former seems more interesting to me, but I am not quite sure about where the distinction lies. Like perhaps one character is a hunter or a rogue who is personally very interested in traps or something.

I also don't think that outside APs the distinction between material created around characters and the interests of the players, and character agnostic material that the GM "lures" the characters into is that clear. In my experience most GMs do not actually preplan extensive AP-like campaigns long beforehand, but instead new material is generated as needed, and as such is likely to be informed by the characters and the things the players have expressed interest towards.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, no of course not. I was just going with your idea of a menu, which actually works pretty well.

If a GM offers a choice of A or B or C, the fact that the players are free to choose which one doesn't change the fact that they are all generated by the GM.

What's being talked about is instead of the above, the players are offering those ideas. Player 1 suggests A, player 2 suggests B, and player 3 suggests C. Then they decide as a group what to do, and the GM then preps accordingly.

I think the confusion lies in what is meant by the options here. Like sure, the players of course can choose to do anything and the GM preps for that, but the player choices are still happening within the GM curated world, so in that sense their options are limited.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a GM offers a choice of A or B or C, the fact that the players are free to choose which one doesn't change the fact that they are all generated by the GM.

As i said before. If players are forced to choose only A, B, or C then i would agree. But the truth is, they never are forced to only choose A, B or C. They can always say 'none of the above' and ask for additional choices or say 'none of the above' and make their own suggestion.

The problem seems to me to be the insistence that the choices are meant to be exhaustive rather than inspirational.

What's being talked about is instead of the above, the players are offering those ideas. Player 1 suggests A, player 2 suggests B, and player 3 suggests C. Then they decide as a group what to do, and the GM then preps accordingly.

And I'm saying that's always an option in every rpg ever. If the players don't choose to do that then it's because they were happy with one of the non-exhaustive options presented. And if so then I can't understand why that's not viewed as the player driving the focus of the fiction. They made the decision to go with it when they could have chosen nearly anything else.

But maybe more importantly I view the game as a collaborative effort. Neither the player nor DM solely drives the focus of play. It takes both of them agreeing for the game to be played and to continue to be played.

 

[pemerton]

Because a lot of examples were in fact just player making choices and taking actions, not inventing new fictional elements. And that's why I am confused. I don't think my game entails a lot of player-generated fiction, yet the players in it are doing similar stuff than in @pemerton's examples.

White Plume Mountain: the GM describes the pits, reveals - as appropriate to the players' declared actions - the lack of friction in the room, etc. The players describe how their PCs will cross the room. The module itself notes a possible solution (anchoring a rope) but also notes that players may come up with other solutions.

This is analogous to @AbdulAlhazred's example of defeating a pit trap using a method the GM didn't think of, and also - assuming I properly understood the example - of @I'm A Banana's example of sealing off the tunnel to stop the warlock sneaking in and draining the life-force of the knight.

Why is everyone at the table talking and thinking about pits, frictionless surfaces, tunnels, life-force-draining, etc? Because the GM introduced those story elements as the focus of play, and the players are responding to that.

My 4e example: the GM describes the Soul Abattoir, the flow of soul energy, the invoker/wizard's imp with the Eye of Vecna implanted in it trying to send the souls and their energy to Vecna, etc. The player describes how his PC is taking control of the flow of soul energy, stopping it from entering Torog's machines, redirecting it to the Raven Queen although his imp is trying to do something different, etc.

Why is everyone at the table thinking about souls and soul energy, about Torog and Vecna and the Raven Queen, about the imp with the Eye of Vecna in it, etc? Because the players chose to play Raven Queen devotees, one also with an ambiguous "frenemy" relationship with Vecna, and therefore chose to try and stop Torog claiming the souls of those who die in the underdark. (The Dwarf and Drow PCs also bring in a focus on Torog and the underdark from a different direction.) And the imp and the Eye, and the Eye in the imp, are things being talked about because of other decisions (build decisions and play decisions) made by the player of the invoker/wizard PC.

This is what I am getting it in characterising, as one manifestation or mode of player-generated fiction, the players generating the fiction that pertains to, or even that constitutes, the focus of the action.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

White Plume Mountain: the GM describes the pits, reveals - as appropriate to the players' declared actions - the lack of friction in the room, etc. The players describe how their PCs will cross the room. The module itself notes a possible solution (anchoring a rope) but also notes that players may come up with other solutions.

This is analogous to @AbdulAlhazred's example of defeating a pit trap using a method the GM didn't think of, and also - assuming I properly understood the example - of @I'm A Banana's example of sealing off the tunnel to stop the warlock sneaking in and draining the life-force of the knight.

Why is everyone at the table talking and thinking about pits, frictionless surfaces, tunnels, life-force-draining, etc? Because the GM introduced those story elements as the focus of play, and the players are responding to that.

My 4e example: the GM describes the Soul Abattoir, the flow of soul energy, the invoker/wizard's imp with the Eye of Vecna implanted in it trying to send the souls and their energy to Vecna, etc. The player describes how his PC is taking control of the flow of soul energy, stopping it from entering Torog's machines, redirecting it to the Raven Queen although his imp is trying to do something different, etc.

Why is everyone at the table thinking about souls and soul energy, about Torog and Vecna and the Raven Queen, about the imp with the Eye of Vecna in it, etc? Because the players chose to play Raven Queen devotees, one also with an ambiguous "frenemy" relationship with Vecna, and therefore chose to try and stop Torog claiming the souls of those who die in the underdark. (The Dwarf and Drow PCs also bring in a focus on Torog and the underdark from a different direction.) And the imp and the Eye, and the Eye in the imp, are things being talked about because of other decisions (build decisions and play decisions) made by the player of the invoker/wizard PC.

This is what I am getting it in characterising, as one manifestation or mode of player-generated fiction, the players generating the fiction that pertains to, or even that constitutes, the focus of the action.

OK. But the thing is, in some other game we might have ended up in the pitrap situation, because the players choose to play daring Indiana Jones style explorer who is a bit of an an trap expert, thus choosing to explore dangerous ruins, thus leading to deal with pit traps.