The DM Narrates what happens next.
I thought it was going to be a long post, but the answer to every situation was the same. If at the end of the last session the players told you they wanted to head down the Bandit Road and you've prepared for an encounter with bandits, but then at the start of the next session they say they've changed their minds? Start the session with narration about what the characters have been doing and things begin In media res on the Bandit Road with the attack. Or just before the attack if you prefer, and at that point if the players want to change their strategy and try to head back to town, that's great. But the game starts in the situation the DM narrates at the beginning of the session.
Don't want characters dying at zero hit points? The DM narrates what happens instead. The fight is dragging on and getting boring? The DM narrates how it ends and you move on to the next thing. The system for determining if the character can swing from a chandelier and out the window onto a moving stagecoach is slowing everything down and there's only a 15% chance of success? Yes… the DM narrates what happens instead.
The players wants to know when their choices matter? When the DM isn't narrating.
The players want to know when things are happening because they "have to" to advance the plot? When the DM is narrating.
This is like a cut-scene in a computer game. Players understand when they're controlling their character and when the game is being advanced to the next section where they will once again be given control. When they have control their decisions are meaningful and the DM is being honest about hidden information, dice rolls and the game system. When the DM is narrating the players understand that to keep things moving and interesting there will be times when the DM narrates actions by the character and events that happen in the world without referring to dice rolls or rule systems.
I think that if, like me, you've decided you want to play in a game without dice fudging, illusionism, railroading etc. this is a good way to address the legitimate reasons people may have for wanting to use those techniques in the first place.
9 comments:
This stance is a bit troubling to me. I've certainly used the DM narration heavily in certain game systems - Trail of Cthulhu jumps immediately to mind - and it absolutely keeps the action moving forward in a scene-based game.
"You've exhausted your clues at the library and find yourselves back at the police station, ready to confront the jailed cultist with your new information..." Cuts out tons of minutiae.
But in the free form D&D sandbox, I couldn't imagine taking that kind of narrative control.
"In between adventures, you decided to journey south across the Sea of Dread, seeking a lost island..."
The players would revolt. With great power comes great responsibility... It would be important to establish boundaries for when taking narrative control isn't abhorrent (or play D&D like a new school scene-based game).
"In between adventures, you decided to journey south across the Sea of Dread, seeking a lost island..."
That's awesome. I have no problem with that at all, especially if at the end of the last session the players told you they wanted to journey south looking for a lost island.
If some larger period of time has elapsed between sessions this makes even more sense.
I would strongly prefer this as a player. The DM can tell me what the setup for the scenario is, and from that point forward I can control my character. If they want to do that at the beginning of every session I don't mind at all.
or play D&D like a new school scene-based game
Serialized one shot games with the occasional two-part episode. That works for me. :)
It is definitely a way, through some hand waving, to keep the game sessions focused on quality time. The opposite problem (which can happen in the sandbox if not curtailed) is death by a thousand details - players don't need to narrate what they had for breakfast, just get to the dungeon already.
I think that level of DM control can work if its part of the group's ground rules - I'll narrate the transaction scenes that get you from place to place, and turn control back over when decisions matter.
It's definitely replacing some pages in the 1E DMG with some new schoolisms. :)
I like the idea of cutting out the unimportant and keeping things focused on what matters. I'm a big fan of this article on improving player choices so would rather they were making decisions about things that were meaningful (and having the results of that choice be meaningful -- another reason honesty matters to me). I'm all about keeping the stuff we like from old games and adding new ideas to them. I think that's the best part of the OSR. :)
Here Here! Agree completely. And I was one of those that Stuart is referring to as someone who had concerns...
So, dumb question but is the old rule zero to 'have fun'?
(googling... ... ...)
Okay. According to urban dictionary, rule zero is apparently that the DM can be a jerk. Who made that rule up?
Anyway, assuming rule zero should be 'the DM should do what needs to be done to keep the game running in a manner that brings the fun', you have postulated a clear "corollary zero". DM Narration gives a certain path to the fun outcome where randomness may otherwise be pernicious.
As for those who rail against the rails and see DM Narration as an infringement on their free will, I can will suggeest that constraints placed on your character are more interesting than totally open options. Stop fighting and work with the new information - it's much more creative.
And if Rule Zero is as presented in Urban Dictionary then it should be supplanted with this one!
Rob W suggested on Twitter it was "have fun" but that's not what people mean by the term. "Have fun" is covered by "Game" which is why it's an RPG and not an RPW (Roleplaying Work), RPT (Roleplaying Therapy) etc.
The old rule zero was 'the DM can cheat if he wants to' which I really think is terrible. It's funny that every other rule from the original D&D has been hacked, modified, ignored or updated but people have a special affection for the most dysfunctional rule thought up in the mid 1970s. :)
People can certainly play with any or all of the 70s era rules if they want to - but there's nothing implicit in the idea of a roleplaying game that says you have to have the retro-rule-zero.
Unless everyone is into it the old rule zero is contradicted by Wheaton's Law. ;)
That video was great! What an awesome way to illustrate what you're talking about!
Post a Comment