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

[FrogReaver]

In my experience, as both player and GM, this is often not the case. Very often, the players are expected to engage with the GM's material.

Sure and that's at the level of social agreement - which is why one of my earliest posts here spent time delving into that.

The conclusion being that since a social agreement was formed to focus and engage with whatever material the GM has then the player's consent to this social agreement means he's taken the necessary steps to establish the focus of the game. *Note it's not about who creates the material, but how/who makes it such that this fiction is the focus of the game.

So if a GM buys Tomb of Annihilation and reads through it enough to run it competently, and then in, say, session two, the players decide they're not interested in exploring the jungles of Chult to find the Tomb and try and solve the death curse plaguing the land... that GM is just going to shrug and say "oh, okay... what do you guys want to do?"

Depends on the social agreement.

Now, I'm not saying that can't be possible... but I would say that it definitely is not going to be the common response. Some folks are going to be annoyed by the time, effort, and money they put into preparing that game only to have the players not engage. And rightfully so.

Sure, but all that's issues around the social agreement.

You seem to almost be challenging the premise while also claiming that it's true for you or even for every game.

I get the criticism and could probably be more exact with my word choice. I do challenge the premise that focus is really that one sided that it can be dm or player. Consider the other to be pushback on the notion that player's aren't having significant impact on the focus of nearly all games.

 

[pemerton]

So if you had chosen a module that has factions and the other things you mentioned rather than the Slave Lords (not familiar with it, I assume it lacks that), then that would have been player driven.

I dunno - maybe?

You, @FrogReaver and @CrimsonLonginus are introducing the vocabulary of "player driven" into the thread. It's not something I talked about in the OP.

I'm talking about who generates the stuff that we all talk about for hundreds of minutes and thousands of words.

Players ask for game to be focused on White Plume Mountain from the module. The DM gives that to them. The players created the focus of white plume mountain (someone else authored the module, the DM ran it). In this scenario, do you really believe the DM created the focus on White Plume Mountain?

I don't know if you've ever played White Plume Mountain. But in my experience, when playing WPM very little of the conversation at the table is about White Plume Mountain itself, or about the stolen weapons, or about Keraptis or Keraptis's motivations or character or whatever. The conversation is about the corridors, the weird rooms, the puzzles etc. And these things are not created by the players - at least when I've played it. They are (were) created by the module author and mediated to the players via the GM.

Isn't who's generating the fiction synonymous with who's inventing a setting element?

No.

I've tried to explain this in several posts upthread.

I'm not talking about who invented a setting element, at least in this context: rather, that would fall under the idea of who is generating background, world elements etc (which is also something the OP talks about, but distinguishing it from player generated fiction in respect of the focus of the action).

I'm talking about who is generating the actual focus of the action, as in, who is generating the stuff that we talk about as we play the game? Who put that stuff at the centre of the conversation?

In my example of 4e play, none of my players invented the Raven Queen, or Vecna, or the Eye of Vecna, or Torog's Soul Abattoir which drains the energy from the souls of all those who die in the underdark. But it is the players who brought it about that this is what we all talk about during the play of that session. They put it there, at the centre.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure and that's at the level of social agreement - which is why one of my earliest posts here spent time delving into that.

The conclusion being that since a social agreement was formed to focus and engage with whatever material the GM has then the player's consent to this social agreement means he's taken the necessary steps to establish the focus of the game. *Note it's not about who creates the material, but how/who makes it such that this fiction is the focus of the game.

That seems pointlessly reductive.

It is very much about who creates the material. That’s the point.

Saying that “players agree to play Tomb of Annihilation therefore they’ve determined the focus of play” doesn’t talk about player-generated fiction at all.

It’s intentionally trying to squirm around the actual topic.

Depends on the social agreement.

Sure, but all that's issues around the social agreement.

I get the criticism and could probably be more exact with my word choice. I do challenge the premise that focus is really that one sided that it can be dm or player. Consider the other to be pushback on the notion that player's aren't having significant impact on the focus of nearly all games.

I don’t see how.

Compare a game where players agree to play Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth to a game where the players are coming up with quests for their characters. One is cleary involving player generated fiction more than the other.

And you edited the below out of your reply, but I think it’d be good to have examples to talk about.

So what examples do you have from play? What anecdotes can you share of players generating fiction in your games and how did it go?

 

[pemerton]

It is very much about who creates the material. That’s the point.

Certainly that's the point of this thread, as set out in the OP ("Who else's D&D has a high volume of player-generated fiction?").

To me it didn't seem as complicated as some seem to find it!

 

[Aldarc]

Most of my player-generated fiction tends to be in more fiction-first games with game mechanics for players to introduce new fictional elements: e.g., Fate, Fabula Ultima, Cortex, etc.

In Fate a player can introduce new fiction into the game: i.e., Declare a Story Detail. There are guidelines and caveats to this. (1) The new fiction must (generally) be based on an Aspect in play and follow-the-fiction. (2) The player must spend a Fate point to invoke this Aspect. Your ability to perform this feat is (generally) limited by these two factors, as well as the consent of other players (GM included) at the table.

What does this look like in play? So here are several examples, including one that I know that I have used before.

Example 1: Disgraced Bodyguard of the Prince
The players are trying to sneak into the palace that belongs to the royal family to stop an assassination plot; however, they are being refused admission. One of the players happens to have "Disgraced Bodyguard of the Prince" as his High Concept Aspect. While roleplaying in-character, the player picks up a Fate point, and says as a former bodyguard of the prince, he knows a secret way into the palace. He says that there was secret passage from the kitchen that led to the gardens, and they can use that exit in the garden as their way in. Fate point accepted. Now this secret passage exists in the fiction. So here as a GM, I honor their "victory" by accepting that such a passage exists. However, there may be further complications related to that tunnel or possibly on the other side.

Example 2: The Magic Sword and the Blacksmith
In a separate game of Fate, the players need a magic sword to seal the prison of a dark evil. The players find the sword, but there's a complication: it's broken! (This was the result of a player's choice to Succeed at a Cost with locating the sword.) So they now have the broken sword, but none of them know how to fix it. One of the players then has the idea of spending a Fate point to invoke one of her character's Aspect "Shady Sorcerer's Guild Connections." So the player figures that she may be able to pull some strings to find someone in the Sorcerer's Guild who could fix a magic sword, such as a magical blacksmith. I again honor their "victory" by having such a character exist. However, again, this does not make the problem auto-solved. Instead, when the players meet the magical blacksmith, she tells them that she can't fix it with what she has. She needs the proper equipment and materials to do the job, which she tells them. Now the players have a new quest.

I would like to reiterate that with both of these examples just because the players created new fiction in how they approached the problem does not mean that they auto-solved the problem. The first created a secret passage between the kitchen and the garden, but there may be complications down the line. The second created a new NPC. The moment they did so, that NPC became "mine" as the GM, and that NPC was unable to auto-solve the broken sword problem.

Of Apples to Oranges and Fate to D&D
The tendency in conversation at this point is to compare the relevancy of these aforementioned games with D&D is to dismiss it all as being all "apples and oranges." However, I don't necessarily think that is the case, and the reason is a man named Jonathan Tweet. If you asked the various designers of Fate or Cam Banks of Cortex where they, respectively, got the idea for Aspects and Distinctions, then they will tell you that it was a game called Over the Edge by Jonathan Tweet, which used "concepts" for building characters. When we look at 13th Age, we can also see more freeform skills called "Backgrounds," which are similar to Aspects and Distinctions. All that's really missing from 13th Age are meta-currencies that can be spent to declare new fictional elements into the fiction. That's it. But would it really be that difficult to add them? Whether you like meta-currencies like Fate points, Plot points, or Fabula points is a separate matter from whether or not they could easily be slotted into games like D&D or 13th Age.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A game of d&d is not a restaurant

Sure. If I I go to a restaurant, I have a pretty good idea what I’m getting.

If the DM announces a pirate campaign, it could be “Pirates of Penzance”, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Vikings” or “Spelljammer”.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, about APs and such. Yes, technically the players might have chose to play it, but that is one choice that limits their (and the GM's) choices massively for the whole campaign.

APs are twenty or so sessions of preplanned content, with some, but no much room influence what's going on. It limits all participants and gives them less options to add their own stuff.

Generally I don't think GMs plan their own stuff like they were APs. I sure don't. I don't plan a massive twenty session story in advance. I might have some elements and ideas I might want to include in some point, but it is way more vague and flexible. And what happens during the play, is that the players make choices, express interest in things and the characters display their nature. And this in turn influences and inspires what new content the GM generates. This sort of feedback loop simply cannot happen in APs.

Now I've had experiences of GM invented campaigns, that have some massive central metaplot (usually world threatening thing that eventually needs to be thwarted or something.) This is a structure I've grown to dislike. Whilst it is not as limiting as APs, it still warps everything to be about that and limits how much the players can influence the direction of the game. When I started my current 5e campaign, I made very conscious decision not to have such. There are of course more local "big events" that might compel some sort of reaction from the PCs, but ultimately they can move on and do something else of their choosing. Blades in the Dark campaign I'm playing in also works like this, and that is an aspect I really like about it.

 

[FrogReaver]

No.

I've tried to explain this in several posts upthread.

I'm not talking about who invented a setting element, at least in this context: rather, that would fall under the idea of who is generating background, world elements etc (which is also something the OP talks about, but distinguishing it from player generated fiction in respect of the focus of the action).

I’ll probably go back and reply to more in a bit but this part seems to me the key at the moment.

I can understand this conceptual split.

Player generated background fiction vs player generated fiction in respect of the focus of action. I think I’m with you so far.

I'm talking about who is generating the actual focus of the action, as in, who is generating the stuff that we talk about as we play the game? Who put that stuff at the centre of the conversation?

This is where I lose you. I don’t think Generating the actual focus of action is the same thing as player generated fiction in respect to the focus of action.

This difference is what led me to talk about how things like choosing the module generated the focus of action/play.

It seems like your focus instead is on player generated fiction that is not player generated background fiction, not mere color etc.

Is this accurate?

 

[FrogReaver]

That seems pointlessly reductive.

It is very much about who creates the material. That’s the point.

Saying that “players agree to play Tomb of Annihilation therefore they’ve determined the focus of play” doesn’t talk about player-generated fiction at all.

It’s intentionally trying to squirm around the actual topic.



I don’t see how.

Compare a game where players agree to play Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth to a game where the players are coming up with quests for their characters. One is cleary involving player generated fiction more than the other.

And you edited the below out of your reply, but I think it’d be good to have examples to talk about.

And with this I think you and I are done for now.

 

[pemerton]

So here are several examples, including one that I know that I have used before.

Here are some thoughts on how these examples might work in 4e D&D.

Not for any purposes of contradiction or disagreement - just illustration.

Example 1: Disgraced Bodyguard of the Prince
The players are trying to sneak into the palace that belongs to the royal family to stop an assassination plot; however, they are being refused admission. One of the players happens to have "Disgraced Bodyguard of the Prince" as his High Concept Aspect. While roleplaying in-character, the player picks up a Fate point, and says as a former bodyguard of the prince, he knows a secret way into the palace. He says that there was secret passage from the kitchen that led to the gardens, and they can use that exit in the garden as their way in. Fate point accepted. Now this secret passage exists in the fiction. So here as a GM, I honor their "victory" by accepting that such a passage exists. However, there may be further complications related to that tunnel or possibly on the other side.

In 4e D&D this could be a check (most likely Streetwise, but perhaps something else apt) in a skill challenge.

In terms of the OP, it is the character establishing what is possible in action declaration (in particular, that finding a secret passage is possible). If the check succeeds, the player has now established a bit of setting!

The further complications would be further obstacles within the context of the skill challenge. If the check fails, the GM might nevertheless introduce the tunnel, but having it lead to something different or unexpected (in contrast to the palace).

Example 2: The Magic Sword and the Blacksmith
In a separate game of Fate, the players need a magic sword to seal the prison of a dark evil. The players find the sword, but there's a complication: it's broken! (This was the result of a player's choice to Succeed at a Cost with locating the sword.) So they now have the broken sword, but none of them know how to fix it. One of the players then has the idea of spending a Fate point to invoke one of her character's Aspect "Shady Sorcerer's Guild Connections." So the player figures that she may be able to pull some strings to find someone in the Sorcerer's Guild who could fix a magic sword, such as a magical blacksmith. I again honor their "victory" by having such a character exist. However, again, this does not make the problem auto-solved. Instead, when the players meet the magical blacksmith, she tells them that she can't fix it with what she has. She needs the proper equipment and materials to do the job, which she tells them. Now the players have a new quest.

The first thing this made me think of is Circles from Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, but in 4e D&D this could also be a Streetwise check.

Here's a variant on that example from my own 4e play:

My 4e campaign is in a bit of a rest and recuperation period after a big campaign arc (starting at 1st level) came to an end with the PCs at 16th level.

In the downtime, the players have been planning their next move(s), tying up loose ends, buying and making new equipment, planning the renovation of the temple of Erathis that they are re-founding, etc.

One interesting part of this, for me, has been running a number of complexity 1 skill challenges to resolve the various situations that have been coming up in the course of this.

<snip>

Another thing that had been planned for some time, by the player of the dwarf fighter-cleric, was to have his dwarven smiths reforge Whelm - a dwarven thrower warhammer artefact (originally from White Plume Mountain) - into Overwhelm, the same thing but as a morenkrad (the character is a two-hander specialist). And with this break from adventure he finally had he chance.

Again I adjudicated it as a complexity 1 (4 before 3) skill challenge. The fighter-cleric had succeeded at Dungeoneering (the closest in 4e to an engineering skill) and Diplomacy (to keep his dwarven artificers at the forge as the temperature and magical energies rise to unprecedented heights). The wizard had succeeded at Arcana (to keep the magical forces in check). But the fighter-cleric failed his Religion check - he was praying to Moradin to help with the process, but it wasn't enough. So he shoved his hands into the forge and held down the hammer with brute strength! (Successful Endurance against a Hard DC.) His hands were burned and scarred, but the dwarven smiths were finally able to grab the hammer head with their tongs, and then beat and pull it into its new shape.

The wizard then healed the dwarf PC with a Remove Affliction (using Fundamental Ice as the material component), and over the course of a few weeks the burns healed. (Had the Endurance check failed, things would have played out much the same, but I'd decided that the character would feel the pang of the burns again whenever he picked up Overwhelm.)

In running this particular challenge, I was the one who called for the Dungeoneering and Diplomacy checks. It was the players who initiated the other checks. In particular, the player of the dwarf PC realised that while his character is not an artificer, he is the toughest dwarf around. This is what led him to say "I want to stick my hands into the forge and grab Whelm. Can I make an Endurance check for that?" An unexpected manoeuvre!

I would like to reiterate that with both of these examples just because the players created new fiction in how they approached the problem does not mean that they auto-solved the problem. The first created a secret passage between the kitchen and the garden, but there may be complications down the line. The second created a new NPC. The moment they did so, that NPC became "mine" as the GM, and that NPC was unable to auto-solve the broken sword problem.

This would be the same in a skill challenge, assuming that neither of the suggested checks was the final successful one (which, from the fiction we're envisaging, it doesn't seem they would be).

Of Apples to Oranges and Fate to D&D
The tendency in conversation at this point is to compare the relevancy of these aforementioned games with D&D is to dismiss it all as being all "apples and oranges." However, I don't necessarily think that is the case, and the reason is a man named Jonathan Tweet. If you asked the various designers of Fate or Cam Banks of Cortex where they, respectively, got the idea for Aspects and Distinctions, then they will tell you that it was a game called Over the Edge by Jonathan Tweet, which used "concepts" for building characters. When we look at 13th Age, we can also see more freeform skills called "Backgrounds," which are similar to Aspects and Distinctions. All that's really missing from 13th Age are meta-currencies that can be spent to declare new fictional elements into the fiction. That's it. But would it really be that difficult to add them? Whether you like meta-currencies like Fate points, Plot points, or Fabula points is a separate matter from whether or not they could easily be slotted into games like D&D or 13th Age.

Here's another line of connection:

Robin Laws worked with Tweet on Over the Edge. And then designed HeroWars/Quest, which is an early example of a RPG with a closed-scene complex conflict resolution framework. (Not the earliest - Maelstrom Storytelling is earlier, and Prince Valiant earlier still - though Prince Valiant isn't as flexible in its framework.) And 4e skill challenges are clearly inspired/influenced by those earlier closed-scene complex conflict resolution frameworks.