PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next A Guided Narrative System for D&D 5E (and other systems too, if you prefer) - PEACH!



truemane
2023-05-02, 03:18 PM
PRE-AMBLE

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's. And I've been trying to graft narrative-focused mechanics to the basic D&D chassis for almost that long. I tried dozens of variations with wildly varied results. It's one of those things I can't seem to get right but can't seem to let go. This is a completely new version with some fresh influences and ideas. I've taken it for a couple of limited test-runs, to generally positive reviews. I'd love to get some wider feedback.

The purpose of the Guided Narrative System is to provide a simple, flexible, modular set of guidelines to help GM's and players manage traits and developments that the system doesn't model well (or at all). It's basically an attempt to codify the Rule of Cool: what's cool enough to trigger it? How often? Under what conditions and limitations? To what impact?


I want the Guided Narrative System to perform some combination of the following.

1. Let a character exist in the game the way the player wants them to, even if the mechanics don't reflect it.
Sometimes the narrative weight of an ability does not match its mechanical implementation. Let's say my character, Trusty McForthright, is a con artist. he grew up on the streets, scamming anyone and everyone he could to survive. I reflect this with the Criminal Background and the Rogue Class, with Expertise in Deception. Awesome. Depending on my attribute spread, Trusty might have a +5 or +6 to Deception. Meanwhile, Goober McRustic, the Hermit Sorcerer, gets +3 or +4 just for waking up in the morning. Which means that, in the run of a day, Trusty (the lifelong, expert conman might) has about the same chances to lie successfully than a guy who's never spoken to a single human being before walking into the tavern.

And this is fine during encounters. It's the way Bounded Accuracy works and I'm all for it. But off the battlemat, out in the world, it means that it's hard to move through 'the fiction' in the way your traits say you should when the implementation of those traits doesn't match. So I'd like to have a way to say some things about my character and have those things born out in the fiction (I'm not going to overuse that phrase, I promise).

2. Provide limited, metered opportunities to let me take limited, metered control over limited, metered portions of the game or story (generally to make things more interesting or dramatic).
If you imagine two theoretical, arbitrarily extreme positions: The dice are the story. The game is basically (in the immortal words of Randall Monroe) a weighted random number generator from whose outputs you craft a narrative. If Frodo gets to Mount Doom and Gollum fails his Grapple check and Frodo claims the Ring and Sauron kills him and rules the world, well that's just the story now.
The game is a story. The game is a means of creating a satisfying narrative and the dice are useful when they facilitate that aim and ignored when they don't. If Luke turns off his targeting computer, uses the Force, and gets one last shot at that exhaust port, thereby saving the Rebellion and claiming his Jedi birthright... maybe we don't even make him roll for that. Maybe we just say he gets it done.
I think most of us are somewhere between those two. Too strict an adherence to the rules or the dice can make everything feel like a video game (which, as much as I love D&D, is not as good at being a video game as video games). Too little adherence, however, and we lose the tension and uncertainty that the dice provide and wind up just playing Let's Pretend all night.

Now, generally speaking, I come to the table because I want the dice to tell me what happens next. And the 'story' is what we do with what the dice tell us. But sometimes, just sometimes, I want something dramatic to pay off in a satisfying way and I don't want the dice to tell me no. But I only want to be able to when it's dramatic, awesome, and really important to my character (or to the story).

3. Provide tools for managing narrative traits that lie outside the system's usual (or reasonable) reach (such as reputation, contacts, political office, etc).
You don't have to play D&D as an endless, incremental, reiterative combat simulator, but the farther you move from 'violent nomads kill things and steal their stuff to get better at killing things and stealing their stuff' the harder it gets for D&D to model what you're doing (and the more you have to wing it). Because a D&D character has finite resources (levels, Feats, spells, etc) and because the game's default assumption is that various choices need to be balanced against each other (and against a baseline proficiency in killin' and stealin'), it's not very good at dealing with story-based traits.

For example, let's say I want to be the king's childhood friend. That's way better than being the king's enemy, right? Being the king's childhood friend feels like it should cost something, and being his enemy should give you something, but what? A Feat? A Proficiency? Advantage on some rolls and Disadvantage on others? And if you did trade a Feat to be the king's childhood friend, what happens if you guys fight and you become his enemy? Do you get your Feat back? Or do you just get a new, king-equivalent friend instead?

This is really only weird because the traits "King's Childhood Friend" and "King's Enemy" need to somehow balance against each other, and against Lucky or Fae Touched (or, at the very least, +2 to your main stat). Take numbers and dice out of it completely, however, and being a king's friend and a king's enemy are both different, but potentially equal, kinds of fun.
Okay. Let's get to it.

THE GUIDED NARRATIVE SYSTEM

General Notes All of this is meant to apply outside of encounters. This system implies a fairly strict division between encounters (any discrete, metered, formal resource-expending scene) and the fluffy scenes in between.
All flippant references to 'combat' or 'rolling initiative' or being 'on the battlemat' can be taken to mean 'encounter' in the broad sense, as above.
I mostly talk about using this with D&D because that's mostly what I've been doing. But this could be used with any system-based game (or even freeform games), with few changes. However, if those systems already have mechanics to deal with some of this stuff (World of Darkness games, for example), this will bump awkwardly up against them. And provide diminishing returns.
I know that all of this can be solved by just making it up as I go along, but in the words of Rich Burlew himself, "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." If you read all this and think What idiot needs rules for this stuff? The answer is this idiot, me, truemane. You can tell me I don't need all this, but the ship sailed on that some time ago.
In brief: the Guided Narrative System involves assigning each character a number of story-based traits (Aspects), which are used as guidelines for taking actions that earn a narrative resource (Tokens), and actions that require expenditure of that resource.

ASPECTS
An Aspect is a short, evocative phrase describing an important narrative trait. Ideally, they're less about your character's skills and more about their story. Less like Class Abilities and more like specific conflicts or obstacles or themes you want to confront. Less about things you can do and more about things you are. "The greatest swordsman since the Wizard of Corsica" is okay. "Will stop at nothing to find the six-fingered man" is better. "Spent his entire like preparing for the day he would avenge his father's murder" is better still.

The 'standard' Aspect list is: two or three Aspects combined from the categories of Physical, Mental, Spiritual Traits; one or two from Circles (social traits); one or two Knacks (miscellaneous resources or abilities); and the Character Sheet.

However, the list of Aspects can be customized for any given game to put more emphasis on particular elements. A more customizable list might be: One or two Aspects that describe your character's place in the world. Standing, Resources, Special Knowledge, Family, Fame, Position.
One or two Aspects emerging from your character's internal life. Ethics, Wounds, Trauma, Goal, Fear, Secret Desire.
One Free Choice, which can be just about anything within the scope of the game in question. Maybe you want to double up on another category, or want something that doesn't fall into one of the others. This could be a singular mental or physical or spiritual trait, a magic item so powerful it exists on the narrative rather than the mechanical plane, a great destiny (or grim fate), a blessing (or curse), or the like.
Your character sheet. Anything on your sheet can, in theory, be used to drive the story as though it were an Aspect. If you've optimized for stealth, for example, you don't also need the Aspect "Sneakiest sneak who ever snuck." You've got that covered already.
Finally, if appropriate for the game in question, players may be asked to tell one or two stories or anecdotes about one or more of the other players. This could represent either shared ties or widely known information (for the sake of categorization, I refer to these as 'Legends').

TOKENS
Tokens are the narrative resource gained through your Aspects. There is a short list of actions that earn Tokens and a short list of actions that cost Tokens. As rule, Tokens are earned by adding things to the game (complications, history, complexity, depth, etc) and Tokens are spent to take control over a defined piece of the game for a defined time.

In order to be considered valid, any Token-based action must always BOTH*: Emerge organically from, and have some direct impact on, the current scene; and
Be related to one or more of your Aspects*Unless the action specifically says otherwise.

Gain 1 Token whenever you: Offer further information or details about the game world ("Speaking Lore").
Tell the table about a personal connection you have to a place, person, or group.
Complicate or delay something important to the party in order to tend to something important to you.
Complicate or delay something important to you in order to tend to something important to the party.
Fail when you should have succeeded and tell the table why or how.
Accept Lore from another player. (see *1* below)
Spend 1 Token to: "Speak Lore" about something not covered by one of your Aspects.
Take the spotlight for one Story Beat. Tell the table what you do and then what happens.
Present an effective solution to an obstacle.
Succeed at something when you should have failed and tell the table why or how.
Offer Lore to another player (see *1* below).
Give an NPC a name, tell the table one or two things about them, and "Bring them forward" into the current scene (see *2* below).
*1* In the event that you want to Speak Lore about another player, instead of paying a Token, you offer them a Token and tell them what you want to say, which they may then accept or refuse.

*2* Depending on circumstance, you may be permitted to pay another Token to "pick up" an NPC (place them under your control) and "hold" them (control them) until you "put them down" (release them from your control). Holding an NPC longer than one scene, removing them from their original setting, or otherwise making extensive use of them, requires the GM's permission and may cost additional Tokens.

Like Aspects, the list of actions can be customized to fit a particular game. Combined with customized Aspects, a few custom Token actions will help keep the game focused on particular elements of the world or game or story.

And that's it.

Aspects come from FATE, FUDGE, and a number of other games. I first came across the idea in the one-page RPG Aspect Only FATE by Michael Moceri.
Speaking Lore comes from the game Fellowship by Jacob Randolf.
Bringing an NPC Forward comes from Star Trek Adventures by Mophidius Press.
Picking Up and Holding NPC's, as well as the general shape of the Token system, come from the No Dice No Masters Engine in the games Dream Askew and Dream Apart by Buried without Ceremony (although I first came across them in Wanderhome by Jay Dragon).

A 5E game called Hardknock Life, about members of a global confederation of battle-hardened mercenaries, veterans from a generation of war, now trying to survive in a hardscrabble world that's lost its patience for soldiers (but not its need), might have the following Aspects:
Rep - a descriptor of how your character is perceived within the fraternity of mercenaries.
Shame - something in your character's past that they deeply regret and will never forgive themselves (and/or be forgiven) for.
Specialty - your character's primary skill or talent. What they're known for.
Code - the line your character won't cross or the standard they hold themselves to or the lesson they only had to learn once.
Free Choice - it's all you, buddy. Whatever you want.
Legend 1, Legend 2 - two other PC's will each tell one commonly known story about you. You start the game with a Token for each story you decide is true.
Your Character Sheet - operates as an Aspect when applicable.
Depending on the focus of this game, there could be an Aspect for reputation with non-mercenaries. Specialty and Rep could be combined. If struggling with ethical lines is not important, Shame and Code could be combined (or even eliminated). In a game more concerned with gaining power and resources, there could be one or more Aspects specifically for assets or contacts or debts or liabilities.

Gain 1 Token whenever you: Tell the table what happened last time you encountered this town, these people, this group.
Complicate or endanger the mission to attend to something personal that just can't wait.
Turn away from something personal because the mission comes first, and tell the table about the fallout.
Step over the line you swore you wouldn't cross.
Hold the line no matter the consequences.
Let another player tell you about something you did in the war. Tell the table what really happened.
Spend 1 Token to: "Speak Lore" about something not covered by one of your Aspects.
Take the spotlight for one Story Beat. Tell the table what you do and then what happens.
Have something planned for this exact situation.
Cause someone to re-consider their opinion of you.
Cause someone to re-think their ethical stance (or lack thereof).
Tell another player something you heard about something they did in the war.
Give an NPC a name, tell the table one or two things about them, and "Bring them forward" into the current scene.
The generic list covers most of the above material as is, but sharpening the language, or narrowing the triggering, can really keep the story focused on what the game is about. If that's your thing.

The key additions to this new version are the strict division between encounters and everything else (crunchy scenes and fluffy scenes) and the the requirement that a Token-generating action be both organic to the scene and related to an Aspect. While this system will not survive bad faith engagement, these two elements do a lot to focus player creativity where it belongs, and stops a lot of the fluff-to-crunch creep that plagued prior versions.
Having the Character Sheet function as an Aspect incentivizes player choices that are not strictly combat-focused. And also allows strictly combat-focused characters (martials) to use their abilities outside of combat.
Offering and Accepting Lore can have two layers: the player can accept or reject it and/or the player can decide whether or not it's true. So a player could accept Lore (which means it exists in the game world) but decide it isn't true (or is only partly true, or whatever). I've found this additional wrinkle especially useful in games where reputation is a dominant theme (like a global confederation mercenaries, for example).
If you add the option "one combat Action" to "Take the spotlight" you can allow some cross-over between the narrative and the mechanical without completely sinking the ship. Additional controls may be required depending on the table (once per Long Rest, only by DM permission, only during Boss Fights, only one PC can do this per combat, etc). This is great for cinematic finishing moves, but is more easily abused than the rest.
The 'overcome an obstacle' action, in my experience, is more of a blank cheque to the DM than the players. If you know that your players can burn a Token to narratively solve a non-encounter problem, you suddenly have enormous freedom in the scope and variety of the problems you can present off the grid. There's no roll or spell for a party to get a town to rise up against a cruel oppressor but it's the sort of thing a Bard with the 'Dedicated rabble-rouser' Aspect and a spare Token would do.
Giving an NPC a name is the key part of that action. Again, the system will not survive bad faith engagement, but without that limitation, players could validly take control of major NPC's and just circumvent the whole story. Restricting that ability to un-named NPC's takes most of the edge off. Still this can easily cause lots of problems if you're not prepared for it and can be just left out entirely.
The implementation of a strict encounter/non-encounter paradigm will generate some complexity when it comes to some scenes. Do you roll Persuasion to talk your way past a guard or spend a Token to be his favourite third cousin? What about extended stealth scenes? What if you're in a dungeon but not in initiative this very moment? I don't think this is a bad thing, and it tends to be very case-by-case, but it's worth noting the near inevitability of the conversation.
One of my main goals was to make both earning and burning Tokens interesting and entertaining. I didn't want players to have to sacrifice one cool thing to get a cool thing. Instead, players should be able to do a cool thing, and so gain the ability to do a different kind of cool thing. At the same time, the whole thing needs to be simple and flexible enough to not become just more bookkeeping.
The biggest hole in this thing, from my personal perspective, is that getting Aspects just right is vital for making the whole thing work. Aspects define the scope, tone, genre and mood of how you earn and burn Tokens. And workshopping Aspects and refining them so they're working for you rather than against you is a bit of an art. I've been doing it a long time and I'm pretty good at it, but I've never been able to articulate exactly how.
Similarly, I've found that it's hard to get players away from using Aspects as backdoor Class Abilities. And it's equally hard to get them away from always choosing 'positive' Aspects. Because they're the means by which you generate Tokens, "Everyone Hates Me" is just as useful an Aspect as "Everyone Loves Me" (arguably more useful). But there's a persistent paradigm at work that takes some effort to pierce. Any advice to help with these last two points would be especially appreciated.
Thoughts and notions of all kinds appreciated.

Notafish
2023-05-02, 04:51 PM
I think this is interesting - and could work well for games where the GM prep time is focused on the dungeon and combat, rather than presenting a grand narrative. I have definitely run into cases where the game stalled due to the players not having enough structure to know what to do between quests, and myself or other DMs not sure how to prompt more engagement outside of fight scenes.

What would be your guidance to DMs trying to incorporate this system into a new game? How would you frame it for the players?

truemane
2023-05-04, 10:57 AM
I think this is interesting - and could work well for games where the GM prep time is focused on the dungeon and combat, rather than presenting a grand narrative.
That's an interesting point. I usually use them for the opposite reason. But I have used similar systems to add just a touch of structure to Freeform games. And if you assume the Fluff Scenes are a kind of Freeform game, then it would work much the same.


I have definitely run into cases where the game stalled due to the players not having enough structure to know what to do between quests, and myself or other DMs not sure how to prompt more engagement outside of fight scenes.
In my experience, this sort of thing is mostly a matter of setting good stakes. Which is a whole thing on its own. I think the main benefit this sort of system would provide in that circumstance is getting players to think about who their characters are, and what they want, off the gridmap. Like, if one of your Aspects were 'Plan for retirement' that would naturally mean each player would have to imagine their character as something other than a Nomadic Murderhobo.


What would be your guidance to DMs trying to incorporate this system into a new game? How would you frame it for the players?
Excellent questions.

For me, personally, I almost always run games that are tight, specific scenarios. It's been a long time since I've started a game that was like "You're all in this tavern, see, and an old man runs in and says his daughter was kidnapped." Mostly, when I start a game, it's more like "Your kingdom was just invaded and conquered by the Elves of Snootvale Forest. You're members of the resistance and you have to decide how far you're willing to go to reclaim your homeland."

Or whatever.

So for me, tightly keying the Aspects and Token Actions to the game itself is an important part of the process.

So if I were framing it for players, I'd emphasize that this is for non-encounter scenes. That combat is going run as advertised. I'd emphasize that the system is not controlled or balanced in the way D&D mechanics usually are. You get a Token for making up a cool fact about your character. That's already win-win! But then you can spend a Token to just tell me out loud how you use a cool thing you can do to solve a problem, no dice required. That's another win.

I usually use the process of Aspects to explain how it all works in practice. Someone picks "Best sword guy" as an Aspect and I try to nudge them away from discrete class abilities and more toward motivates and goals.

aimlessPolymath
2023-05-05, 01:49 PM
I enjoy systems that hard-divide combat and noncombat encounters, and this looks quite nice!

I like the token gain triggers that rely on playing personal and party priorities against each other.

Some questions on the details:
"Mixed successes"- can you combine a 'gain a token' and a 'spend a token' into one 'move', or do they need to be separate narrative beats? For example, if you have no Tokens, can you 'succeed where you should have failed and tell the table why or how' while combining it with 'tell the table about your personal connection to a place, person, or thing'? (an example from the D&D movie might be "Actually, I know where this legendary artifact is- my tribe captured it 50 years ago")

Speaking Lore, in Fellowship, is a triggered move. When another player asks a question about your People, you get to answer; you can't Speak Lore whenever you want. Is this still true here (I'm assuming that the 'must flow directly from / impact the scene' requirement applies either way)? Mainly asking because this is an action described in Capital Letters.

When not spending or gaining tokens, do you default to using the base rules of the system (ex. 5e skill checks)? This aspect isn't 100% clear to me- I'm inferring from design note 7.

"Present an effective solution to an obstacle"- how is this different in scope/effect from the next token spend, "Succeed at something where you should have failed"? This may be due to ambiguity regarding the verb 'present' to me- does it mean you 'create' a solution (ex. reveal that you have The Right Tool For The Job) which solves the obstacle, or is it explaining a plan for how to solve the obstacle, and the token spend makes it viable? Does it bypass the need for mechanically resolving a problem, or just give narrative permission to attempt to solve it (ex. a bard can use Rabble-Rouser to let them attempt to get a mob together, despite all normal barriers, but still needs to make a check (or whatever the system uses) to actually succeed)?

truemane
2023-05-08, 08:57 AM
More great questions. And again, I think the answers would be the sorts of things a table might want to work out for themselves. There's a tension between specificity and usability. And I wanted to err on the 'usability' side of things.

But:

Mixed Successes
As a DM, I would discourage this sort of thing, especially if it became too common. Not necessarily out of balance concerns (although a little that) but more that, if overused, it make the whole system a bit of a slush. No one has any Tokens, but so long as you can 'shade' your Action you can earn it and spend it at the same time.

If I had to make a legalistic ruling, it would be that you need to have the Token to spend it, but maybe you could get the Token back if you took a 'mixed' action.

Speaking Lore
You know what, that didn't even occur to me. But you're right. I only capitalized the phrase because it's a good descriptor of the activity (which is then referred to farther down). I envisioned Speaking Lore as something anyone can do whenever the 'organically emerge from, impact on' conditions are met.

Base Rules
Yes, I envisioned this system's use as both modular (as in, it could be dropped in or removed without any knocking over any dominoes) and also optional (as in, any given player could use it, or not, in any given scene). So whenever Tokens are not being used, the rules prevail. The one bit of fallout from this is that the DM would have to make it clear, scene to scene, if it were an "Encounter" or not. Which, as I mentioned, could cause some persnickety discussions.

Present vs. Succeed
The way I picture those two is that you 'succeed when you should have failed' on a single, discrete task. Your Rogue sneaks past something they shouldn't have been able to. Your Spanish dualist manages to pull a knife out of his belly and still out-fence a master swordsman. Etc. You point to a line on your character sheet and say "I do this one thing better than I should be able to."

Whereas 'present a solution' I imagine to be more broad in scope, to encompass things between the lines of your character sheet. Your Fighter with a 'Defender of the weak and downtrodden' Aspect spends a Token to organize a village's defense against a bunch of bandits. Or your Ancestral Guardian Barbarian spends calms the spirits of a haunted forest. Or your Mastermind Rogue sets up an intrigue at court that tricks the queen's rival to reveal herself. Or your Air Genasi Tempest Cleric stands on a mountaintop and calls a storm down on the army of the undead (or calms a storm!).

Generally, I would let the Token meet the cost to perform the action. The Genasi Cleric spends the Token, makes a cool speech, and the storm happens.

This could cause some time-scale weirdness that would have to be adjudicated. The Bard does his fiery song. The rabble is roused. But then what? Do you just jump forward three days and the castle is on fire? or do you play out each angry moment in between?

I don't have a single answer. I would play out as much as the players thought was fun or interesting, and montage the rest. But I'm not sure how to systemize that.

aimlessPolymath
2023-05-08, 12:26 PM
Mixed Successes:
Makes a lot of sense. In particular, I could see the various 'setting establishment' token gains (speaking lore, telling about personal connection) making those sort of mixed spends 'too easy'.

Present vs. Succeed
Would an appropriate way to characterize the difference between the two being 'reactive vs. proactive'? One is 'okay, the roll said I failed, BUT ACTUALLY-" and the other is 'Okay, there's this impossible-seeming problem that we're thinking about tackling, I'll just '.


I think 'present a solution' is probably the thing that has the most 'built-in tone' here- as you said, it lends itself to high-powered obstacles that can be circumvented through equally high-powered solutions. It almost seems [I]too sweeping- you get to dodge a lot of the risk that would normally require a bunch of rolls (and might involve one or more of those reactive spends to carry out).

A 'softer' alternative might be 'present a plan to solve a problem, then set a scene in which you carry it out', which gives 'permission' to attempt an otherwise-not-supported action, but requires the players to use to the 'normal' system mode in order to carry out their awesome plan.

truemane
2023-05-29, 08:17 AM
Sorry about the delay in responding! I thought I had answered this already.


Would an appropriate way to characterize the difference between the two being 'reactive vs. proactive'? One is 'okay, the roll said I failed, BUT ACTUALLY-" and the other is 'Okay, there's this impossible-seeming problem that we're thinking about tackling, I'll just '.
That's a good idea. I might roll that into the next version. Thank you.


I think 'present a solution' is probably the thing that has the most 'built-in tone' here- as you said, it lends itself to high-powered obstacles that can be circumvented through equally high-powered solutions. It almost seems [I]too sweeping- you get to dodge a lot of the risk that would normally require a bunch of rolls (and might involve one or more of those reactive spends to carry out).

A 'softer' alternative might be 'present a plan to solve a problem, then set a scene in which you carry it out', which gives 'permission' to attempt an otherwise-not-supported action, but requires the players to use to the 'normal' system mode in order to carry out their awesome plan.
But remember that the premise of this is that it happens outside of dice-rolling scenes. If you're facing a threat for which the solution is anything mechanical (attack rolls, saves, spells, etc) then you're having an 'encounter' - in which case we follow the normal rules.

This is for purely narrative scenes. With purely narrative stakes and purely narrative solutions.

So, let's say there's an encounter. A cursed forest becoomes a horrible Megablight and threatens to consume an entire kingdom. You fight it with initaitive and spells and attack rolls and all that. And then, once that's done, the megablight cracks open and a cloud of locusts a hundred miles long spews from its corpse.

Does the Druid spend a token to commune with the cloud of locusts?

Does the Tempest Cleric pray for a might wind to sweep it out to sea?

Does the Invoker Wizard weave a vast ring of fire that encircles it?

Does the Lore Bard sing an ancient song with the exact frequency required to calm insects?

Etc.

The 'tension' isn't so much about whether or not the PC's will succeed or fail, it's more about how they'll bring their themes and skills to bear on a situation.

I agree that some manner of pass/fail mechanic feels appropriate here. But adding one turns this from 'Guided Narrative' to 'Whole Other Alternate Conflict Resolution.'