i started up a game of D+D 3.0 a couple nights ago, and for a change i've got 3 players instead of 2.

the lineup is as follows:

allison, playing a desert princess Human Barbarian/Sorcerer
doug, playing a game warden-turned-avenger Halfing Ranger
felicia, playing a crusading Elf Druid
me, game moderator

our first session wasn't actually meant to be a session at all. my head full of Sorcerer, i convinced the group to write Kickers for their characters so we could avoid the standard rambling D+D campaign.

it worked really well, actually. allison, with over 10 years of mainstream-rpg gaming under her belt, took some time getting used to increased player authorship and the idea of a kicker. doug and felicia took to it readily, neither of them having more than a little RPGing experience.

doug had been exposed to Donjon a few weeks previous, so he was already familiar with the idea of authorship cranked way up. this actually proved a bit of a problem, however, as he coupled his big imagination with occasional toe-squishing. when he started describing other folks' characters for them, allison and i steered the conversation away from the subject of PC appearance and back to the action at hand.

felicia was fairly quiet, thinking long and hard before adding anything to the discussion, but she started to get a lot more engaged when she named her Druid's leopard after the house cat.

after collectively slaying a giant lizard, the players carried the narrative for a good 40 minutes with little effort on my part. allison, portraying the princess of the realllly tall desert folk, started making I.C. short-jokes about doug's Halfling. felicia and i watched with grins, shouting "oh no you DIDN'T!" every time the princess made a particularly cutting remark.

allison was already pretty bewildered by the dicelessness (more on that in a sec), the Kickers, and the heavy focus on player creativity; having an active audience for her RPing really threw off her narration, so we had a talk after the game about Stances and how a strong Actor Stance was cool but not the only game in town.

everybody took to diceless pretty well, as the example below demonstrates:

allison: I fling myself at the halfling, trying to stop him from charging.
doug: *a little defensive* I leap back from her and pull out my short sword. no way, bitch!
me: umm, guys, maybe we could decide who does what instead of just going back and forth.
doug: wanna roll for it? *excited*
me: ummm i don't have my dice with me... i think i saw a couple d6's over there..
allison: let's just decide it!
me: *grin* yeah, totally.

so i'm really excited about this campaign. i'm gonna try to keep it diceless, and try to keep everybody engaged. i had a really weird, new experience, too, from a D+D perspective: i had no urge to make things low-key and build up. trying to fire off Bangs as best i could envision the concept, i started the game off with a big, scary lizard attack and ended it with the party and the nomads fleeing an orc war party. it was really cool to feel like the story could happen NOW! instead of soon, instead of in a couple sessions, etc. etc.

for an accidental session (this was supposed to just be a time to finalize people's Kickers), this went exceedingly well.

Hi Bob -

This sounds fun, but - how is it D&D 3.0 with no dice? Is the 3.0 stuff just color? (The main color difference in 3.0 from previous versions is that every race appears to have sex with every other race, by virtue of polymorph spells I suppose, if you take all the half-templates seriously.)

Are you going to continue with no dice? I guess I'm asking 'what's the system'? The way you describe it it sounds like pure drama with kickers to constrain the narration and bangs to drive it.

Obviously, if you guys are having fun then you're playing the game you should be playing, but Sean's got a point--your example text makes me think you're conflating "diceless" with "freeform." Do you plan on building a homebrew system with actual mechanics around Kickers and Bangs, or continuing to "just narrate along?"

Hi Brendan,

good point about the conflation of different ideas. i wasn't actually sure if i should use the word "freeform", given the Lumpley Principle (tho yeah, "freeform" doesn't mean "no system"), but i guess it does fit more clearly than "diceless".

i don't know if i actually want to create a Homebrew or not. i think that really strong Drama resolution with a few nods to Karma here and there would be an excellent way to continue playing. everybody enjoyed themselves.

Hi Sean,

i think you described our system in really excellent terms. to be fair, we're not really playing D+D at all, let alone 3rd edition. i think i'd describe it as using D+D character stats to provide some Karma resolution suggestions, but really only calling it "D+D" because that's what doug and allison were clamoring for.

clearly, they weren't necessarily crying out for by-the-book D+D, but rather allison wanted to pick up the "classic fantasy gaming" torch and doug wanted to try out the game so he could see what it's like. as i see it, and judging my interactions with the players, allison was really looking for an excuse to play a Xena-esque, fur-bikini-clad badass (and felt that only D+D would allow such a person); doug has been calling for D+D so he could find a socially acceptable outlet for his urge to "be a geek".

thankfully (from my perspective), our Drama system gives me a chance to crib all i want from Sorcerer and Sword and carry out my fiendish Narrativist agenda. *cackle* some folks at home suggest that i shouldn't have agreed to run D+D, given my long-standing frustration with it. but since folks like my almost-pure Drama mechanic (90% social, at that), i think it's gonna be fine.

i recently picked up Everway again, and i think it (my middle-school RPG of choice) might just be the game i can play without ripping the rules to shreds. that aside, more sessions of "D+D" will be forthcoming!

Hi Brendan,

It sounds like you're having fun and the game is working well. Good for you!

While I don't think you should change what you're doing, I suspect you're misapplying the term "narrativist." You've mentioned inter-character quips and player generated activity, but neither of these are specific to narrativist play. Also, you've used techniques that are common in narrativist supporting games -- player authorship, greater player creditibility and Kickers. However, I know from experience just using those techniques does not make a narrativist game. The key to the definition is not individual techniques, but whether combination produces an environment that supports addressing premise as a first priority (whether players are aware of it or not).

Now, there are techniques with a lot of influence on the play environment. Drama resolution, for example, often shows up in simulationist play. In addition, player focus on character interactions, without no mention of driving some plot, leads me to suspect it's producing a simulationist environment.

That's great. You and your group are enjoying it. Don't change a thing.

(Er, he's Bob. I'm Brendan.)

Hi there,

This is really interesting. Bob, tell us more about the game as an experience. I'd like to read an example of a scene or conflict which was, in your view, very successful as a "fun time," in terms of both (1) what the real people said and did with one another, and (2) what the characters said and did.

Also, I'm interested in the group itself as a social unit. Have you folks known one another a long time, and played many games together? Are there any family or romantic ties among you? That sort of thing.

Best,
Ron

Hi Alan,

I'm reading over what you've typed and I'm thinking "hmm I might just be doing it Nar after all." I haven't mentioned it yet, I suppose, but there definitely is, for sure, a plot. Here goes.

There's this nasty little wizard who's called up a whole army of Mountain Orcs, and he's using them as a living juggernaut to wipe out entire cities in the desert. The out-of-towners (the druid and the ranger) have come to the desert to do something about this. Their Kickers are things that have happened to them since they started trailing the army.

The princess is approaching the confront-fire-mage plot from a pretty different angle: unrelated to the ruinous wrath of the orcs, the princess' cousin has gone missing and is presumed dead or enslaved. Since the capital city of the desert kingdom is in the path of the orcs, she has to go there soon if there's any chance of finding her kin.

Regarding the players and me, the whole group is friends with one another, and has been for a fair bit of time. I'm the social hub of the wheel, however, given that only I am close with anyone else (and I'm pretty tight with everyone at the table). It's interesting to watch Doug and Allison make their characters argue: the players themselves keep a cool head and a smile while their bitter exchanges crack us up.

Felicia has only Rped once before, and she described it as: "we moved from room to room, killing stuff. We didn't really speak at all in character, so no interaction for us!"

Doug has played V:tM once before, but that game fell apart due to school issues. Allison was the GM for that one, and Doug caused us all to wince by opening up the current game by making pointed comments about her GMing style. I stepped in and said "Alli said she wanted to drop the subject," and Doug got a very defensive look on his face.

We didn't have any interpersonal problems aside from that, and the fact that we all know each other pretty well made Doug more responsive when told to share the spotlight and made Felicia more trusting and able to play her character without feeling too self-conscious.

Given that the PCs didn't really go up against much conflict beyond one another, I'll wait until we've played again before I think I can give a proper example of conflict.

Hi Bob,

It's really interesting how players can surprise you when they "click" into a new style of play, isn't it? I had a similar experience with a previous campaign. We created characters with D20 Modern, and after the first session we realized that the system we were actually using in play was Drama resolution, with a little Fortune thrown in the mix. (For example, the very first thing that happened in game was a Mexican standoff, as the PCs independently discovered a murder victim, and warily questioned each others, guns at the ready. I think the only mechanic we actually used in that scene was the first roll for initiative, which eventually fell to "take turns talking clockwise around the table.)

If you end up keeping "D&D" as your system (i.e., "we have character sheets but rarely use them", here's a few things that worked for us:

- We kept a single D20 around, for those times when "talking it out" started to bog down. Even then, we just used a simple opposed roll, with ad-hoc modifiers. Sometimes just reaching for the die is a way for a player to make a statement.

- I started asking people to write down important events, decisions, or consequences on their sheets, in the "Notes" field. These might be anything from "Alcoholic" to "Relationship with <NPC>".

This was the one part of the character sheet that got the most use, especially when we decided that the more "issues" you had that related to the current conflict, the more of a bonus you received. This eventually turned to us using a different system entirely, much like FATE or HeroQuest (the issues *were* your statistics), but that's another discussion.

In any case, I tend to agree that the information in Sorcerer & Sword, plus a simple conflict resolution system (even if it's diceless), is a solid base for a campaign. I'd submit that if you want to truly make this a Narrativist campaign you should jointly choose a premise, even if it's as simple as the time-honored "What will you do to get what you want?" But regardless, I think you have the potential for a very satisfying game, and I wish you luck. I hope you'll continue to post as the campaign continues.