Idea Using Tabletop RPG Mechanics/Dice to Write Stories

[Naxtaroth]

So, this isn't really roleplay related, it's moreso based on my personal writing. I believe I'd still put that here, rather than Creativity/General Discussion, however, since I'm looking for feedback and I'm not talking about preexisting literature. Without further ado, here is my idea:

Most stories are scripted, as is the nature of the beast. However, I want to explore the possibility of using dice rolls/RPG tabletop elements to determine the outcome of situations. I want to explore whether this would create good stories, or whether the reader, despite not seeing the dice rolls involved, would be able to tell that the actions/reactions were fairly random and inconsistent due to differing rolls on the writer's end of things.

For me, this would mean using a fantasy themed system like D&D to write, though whatever Tabletop RPG you use could change depending on many things such as the setting, how much you want to roll, what kinds of abilities you want the characters to have, etc. The author would act as a GM and also play all of the "players". It would essentially be like if a party pitted a bunch of NPCs against their enemies, and the GM sat there and rolled dice/moved pieces the whole time, except without having a group of people sitting there bored, waiting for their turns to act.

Essentially, I'd start out with a handful of level 1 characters, or maybe a higher level for various specializations, depending on the system. For instance, using D&D 5e as an example, starting with a party of 3rd level or higher characters would allow their archetypes to already be chosen, thus, creating some deeper backstories depending on which archetype was chosen. The reader, of course, wouldn't see things like hit points, level, class name, armor, detailed inventory, attributes, etc. They'd just be seeing the narrative side of things. The story would progress, in the eyes of the author, as a homebrew D&D (Or other tabletop RPG) campaign. The story itself would be written as any story would, but the outcome of certain actions/battles being determined solely by the rolls. The reader, however, would be reading it as if the author had just written these events. In systems that are within a genre susceptible to large-scale battles, there are often times rules and guides in place for running massive battles as opposed to duels, dungeon encounters, etc. This allows the author to have a large, climactic battle if need be.

Pros of using this to write:

• Prevents Deus Ex Machina, by providing a rigid magic system/ability system. It's not 100% foolproof, as the author can introduce allies or other circumstances into a scenario to make the battle wildly swing in favor out of nowhere. However, random new powers showing up in the midst of battle are less likely.
• Main characters actually have the chance of dying. To some, the idea of "it'll all be okay, they're the main character(s)" is enough to sort of break their suspension of disbelief. With a system like this, even the author won't know who will die and who will live.
• The comedy/drama isn't overdone/nonexistent. Epic fails, tragic losses, insane successes, and likewise are all sprinkled throughout the story in a generally equal amounts. For every low charisma character that manages to expertly lie their way out of a situation with complete bullshit, a rogue will completely fuck up while trying to sneak past some guards, simply by tripping on air. Likewise, for every grand, finishing blow to a creature, the main characters will have a moment where one of them has fallen, their life force barely hanging on. The dice determine outcomes, thus, an author isn't trying to crack 20 jokes per page, or kill off the main characters for no reason *cough* J. R. R. Martin *cough*.
• Customization: Most big systems are built around the idea that homebrew content can be added. This means, for instance, an author who can't find a certain spell or ability that suits their needs, can create their own content using the existing system as a guideline. As with any homebrew campaign, you can assign house rules. The idea here is to use the RPG as a skeleton for unpredictable outcomes, rather than following the rules as written and never straying from them. It's to keep things unpredictable, even on the author's end of things. If one tabletop doesn't completely have what you need, you can always borrow from other tabletops.
• Re-rolling/Choosing not to roll. Since it's just the author who sees the original outcome of the dice, re-rolling for different outcomes is definitely a possibility. Also, if an author wants to just have something auto succeed or auto fail, that's entirely up to them! I, personally, would always use the first rolls and roll whenever would be necessary in the typical game of D&D, however, I can see why in certain situations that might not be the best idea. Abstaining from rolling/Re-rolling too often would, however, sorta defeat the purpose of using this system to determine outcomes. This kind of writing does, however, allow an author to adjust just how much of the story is left up to chance. If they truly do not want the main character dying, then in certain situations where death is imminent, an auto fail on an enemy strike might be for the better. As with customization, it's entirely up to the author just how much of the system they use is actually present in deciding outcomes/choosing scenarios. Whether rolling a few rolls to add the possibility of complete and utter failure, only during battle, only outside of battle, all the time, or something in the middle, it's ultimately up to the author.

Cons of using this to write:

• Main characters actually have the chance of dying. This isn't so much a problem on the story side of things as it is the writing side of things. Authors who enjoy writing in first person would have to really work out just how they'd bring the main character back in a reasonable, non DEM fashion. This is listed as both a pro and a con, as their are both advantages and disadvantages to using a method of writing that makes it a toss-up as to whether or not characters die.
• Copyright (assuming you'd be writing for publishing purposes and not just personal writing). Though the actual writing would not show the stats of characters, or anything that would point to a specific tabletop, there are a few issues that could arise with copyright. After all, these tabletop games are made by various companies, who own the rights to the game's content. Certain aspects, such as elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. in D&D might not be subject to any copyright, however, if a bard in your story summons an arcane hand referred to as "Bigsby's Hand.", Wizards might have some ground to stand on in that regard. This can be circumvented by not directly naming spells, characters, locations, etc. that can be tied to whatever official content exists for the RPG you are using as a guide. This also applies to homebrew content. For example, if Steve from Wisconsin has posted a homebrew spellbook on the DM's Guild website, any spells with very very distinct effects and the use of any unique spell names are probably best avoided. There are many ways to phrase things in a way that hides what specific tabletop RPG you are using, however, it's nice to be aware that certain aspects of certain tabletops might be specific to that RPG and not just a general element of whatever genre you're writing.
• Clunky Writing/Inconsistency. Though, in certain cases, nat 1s and nat 20s that result in the exact opposite outcome a character should get can be quite hilarious, it can also add a sense of inconsistency. This is, of course, dependent on how the author writes the success/failure off, though, is still a downside to this method of writing. As for clunkiness, using a turn-based system for combat, as most RPGs do, when writing could, depending on how it's written make battles clunky. It could, also, end up seeming more scripted than organic, natural writing that results in the main character(s) winning in the end, all the time. Again, this depends on the author and better writers can write scenes surrounding turn based combat that feel natural flowing and without any particular order. One method could be that any character who simply moves, or holds an action, isn't even mentioned until an action is taken. Also, having characters who would attack right after one another do a combo attack where they assault from all sides can also make battle seem less ordered and more free-form.
• Introducing new party members after one dies. In certain games, and depending on your GM, most people can probably re-roll a character and it's mostly up to the DM to determine how this new character will fit into the party. However, as with some of the other cons, it might take some explaining as to why the party suddenly replaced their dead comrade with some newbie. Perhaps it's someone they've met, that has been an "NPC" up until this point, but sees the party is in dire need of someone to fill the role of the dead party member. Again, this can break the suspension of disbelief if not written properly.

So. Let me know what your thoughts on using a Tabletop RPG as a skeleton for determining various outcomes via dice for normal writing are. I plan on doing some writing using D&D 5e+ homebrew content/house rules as a backbone, and I would like to hear ideas on what to avoid, what I could do that could better disguise the fact I'm basically just narrating a campaign, etc. I'll leave you with some examples of how I'd be applying D&D 5e to my writing by offering a situation, and then the Author/Reader points of view.


Critical Examples:

• Rogue picking a Lock
  • Author's POV: *rolls a natural 1*
  • Reader's POV: The rogue's deft fingers carefully inserted the lockpick. His/Her face went ghostly white as the echoing click within the lock was more than just the pick breaking. They stood, sheepishly grinning and not making eye contact with their party members. "It... ah...well... this lock is beyond repair." Though they had picked many locks, this Dwarven door seemed to have a much more intricate lock design than was expected.
• Low charisma character bribing a guard
  • Author's POV: *rolls a natural 20*
  • Reader: "Well, big boy." The extremely awkward half-elf pulled 5 coins and a crumpled piece of paper out of their satchel. "There's more where that came from if you look the other way." The guard sighed, rolling his eyes. It wasn't the bribe, but rather, the fact that they were in the middle of the busy city center, hundreds of curious eyes watching this half-elf hand over the bribe in the least subtle way possible. He glanced at the half-elf and the rest of the party, cheeks red with embarrassment. "You're lucky your fine is small, otherwise it'd be the gallows for you all. I suggest you leave." He glanced back at the half-elf, who offered a cringe worthy wink. "The next guard might not care about the fact he's drawing so much attention." With this, he dropped the coins, turning around as the party barely controlled their snorts of laughter.

 

[Atraxaisbae]

Interesting. That could be a fun way to write a story. Like a solo game of DND.

 

[_Line 213]

I wouldn't recommend it.

Unless you end up using a narrative-driven system, not only would there be no real consistency in the way that things progress, there also wouldn't really be that many interesting portions to the story itself.

Most tabletop games don't really exist to make stories so much as facilitate interactions. If you look back at most long-running tabletop games, you'll likely realize that most of them don't actually make any sense, and wouldn't be enjoyable stories if you just read them off to someone. The thing that makes most of them fun is interacting in the moment to twists and turns, and / or seeing other people do the same. Without that sort of interpersonal aspect to it, tabletop loses a lot of its charm.

Sort of in line with that, you'll likely find that much of the "epic retellings" that people have of various tabletop games are found to be interesting either due to their ridiculous nature, or due to the fact that it's hard to believe that whatever happened happened within the context of the game. Without the understanding of how certain things work, a lot of the impact of those sorts of stories are lost.

I think that writing a story using tabletop rulesets will ultimately do the story itself a disservice, because these systems are specifically built to produce certain kinds of outcomes that are tailored towards providing a certain kind of entertainment. This entertainment is ultimately distinct from the sort that we get (or expect to get) from hearing a story.

 

[Naxtaroth]

An interesting opposition. My rebuttal would be that the story itself would not be fully driven by the tabletop system, but rather, the tabletop system would, as you say, be used to facilitate interactions within the preexisting story. I would merely use the tabletop system to facilitate battle interactions or various skill- based endeavors. As I said, it would be completely up to the author to choose what situations to roll, and what situations to write. If there's a situation where a natural 1 would provide a well placed moment of humor, then by all means, bypass the rolling and go straight for the nat 1. The story itself would be entirely of the author's creation, with only the rolls coming into play when the author wants to put something to chance. The only things that would really lean on the tabletop system would be the cosmology (though even within things like D&D, you yourself can create the cosmology, using the base rules as a guideline), skills of the characters (again plenty of homebrew aspects to be added), and anything that wouldn't influence the story in a way that would make it feel like "oh this is just a tabletop narration." The system would be but a skeleton, hidden from plain view, but supporting the meat and vital essence of the story itself.

I personally think it would depend on the skill of the writer, as I brought up in many of my cons to writing in this manner. Someone who is able to turn these behind the scenes stats and dice rolls into a grand adventure, I think, could use this method of determining outcomes. As for things like starting level and all that, it would entirely depend on the type of story being written. A short story about some hopeless nobodies accidentally saving a small town could function much like a brief one-shot session with low level characters. A grand, world shaking cataclysmic event resulting in a more novel style of a story could maybe start out with characters around levels 8-12, depending on how powerful the main characters are to be at first. It could detail their journey from their starting level, up to level 20, though the reader wouldn't know anything about the levels. To the reader, it would just be something where the character is growing their skill set. Then, you have the idea of a legacy campaign. Perhaps you want to focus on a level 20 character who has seen a lot, done a lot, and reached their peak. Perhaps you wish the story to be about their slow decline as the new generation comes in. As the story goes on, rather than gaining new skills, perhaps the emotional and physical wear of their adventures starts taking its toll and they start losing their luster, resulting in behind the scenes debuffs. Another way you could go from there is that perhaps this level 20 character begins separating from their group. With the height of their power within their hands, they can't settle for enough, and grow crazed and evil. They search for more and more power, brushing aside their old partners, and you write the story from the villain's point of view. The entire time, the story is about this person going after their goals, and getting constantly knocked down by those around them, parties upon parties coming to stop the person, but to no avail. At the end, this main character is slain, or even finds redemption, and it's revealed that they were the villain all along.

See all the types of ideas you can come up with? All of these would merely be facilitated, when appropriate, by whatever tabletop system was used. The story wouldn't progress like: Go to dungeon A to save a small town. The next town over heard of your deeds and wishes your aid. Oh shit you stumbled across some dark shit, this needs to be taken to the capital immediately. The king sends you on a quest to discover the origin of this artifact. BAM! a demon overlord is suddenly out for power and ready to destroy the world.

It wouldn't focus on the entire level 1-20 journey, but rather, one large arc within the adventures of the main character(s). Sure, in a more novel style story, things can start out a bit loose and then come together into one climactic plot, but overall it wouldn't be a story that results from a tabletop game. The idea is that the story functions much like a normal story would. The only elements that the tabletop game would introduce would be that battles aren't 100% "yeah the main characters will win, or if they lose, they'll come back from it and win at a later date." Again, the tabletop game would only be used as necessary, and in a way that wouldn't necessarily hinder the natural flow of writing, except for maybe outside of writing battle scenes. Though, again, I think a skilled writer could write battle scenes based upon turns and dice rolls without it seeming clunky and over planned.

 

[_Line 213]

snip

The easy rebuttal to all of this is that a skilled writer would be able to tell what's interesting and what isn't without the use of dice in the first place. They would know what pushes would be required in order to break certain characters at critical points, and focus the development of the story around those elements. Even if they didn't know right off the bat, they would still be capable of figuring it out as the story goes along. Alan Moore of Watchmen fame, for example, slowly realized who his characters were as the story moved along, and his storyline became dependent on who they were as people, which is why it took the direction that it did.

Spoiler

For instance, it was only once he realized that Rorschach would never compromise on his individual visions that he decided that the character was never going to survive the story.

The idea that novels or stories always result in a win for the heroes, and that a tabletop system will prevent this also strikes me as rather untrue; many of the great works of fiction that people adore don't necessarily end that way (Watchmen again being a good example). There are places for both sorts of stories, and it all depends on what the writer decides they want to create at any given time.

 

[Naxtaroth]

Touche indeed. I guess in the end, it really does come down to how the system is used, and personal preference when writing. I do agree, however, that if a writer is skilled enough to really veil the dice rolls, then they're skilled enough to write without using dice to facilitate interaction.