Quote from: Omnifray;427674So, what about this...

Yes, I think you're right on all points.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427741Yes, I think you're right on all points.

Thanks for the feedback!

Further to this excellent point:

Quote from: Benoist;427660Sure. When all GMs learn is how to run scripted stories and there is a complete void of relevant advice on how to actually run competent games, GMs who do not know how to deal with creative PCs in other ways but to say "no" and be dicks about it and wrecking the whole fucking game desperately to get the PCs back on track is what you get.

I think it's worth noting that the principle of 'roll the dice or say yes' comes from the 'How To GM' advice section in Dogs in the Vineyard.  Here's the relevant section, along with the paragraph just before it:

Quote"All I'm saying is, the PC's stories aren't yours to write and they aren't yours to plan. If you've GMed many other roleplaying games, this'll be the hardest part of all: let go of "what's going to happen". Play the town. Play the NPCs. Leave "what's going to happen" to what happens.

How, though? Here's how:

Drive Play Toward Conflict

Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes. If nothing's at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they're doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they're there. If they want it, it's theirs. Sooner or later— sooner, because your town's pregnant with crisis— they'll have their characters do something that someone else won't like. Bang! Something's at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice.

Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes."

The section continues with lots more of good advice about how to run an open sandbox campaign and avoid rail-roading. Most importantly, and to rather belabour the point, it's not a rule that you have to follow, it's advice about how to be a better GM.

Quote from: Glazer;427968The section continues with lots more of good advice about how to run an open sandbox campaign and avoid rail-roading. Most importantly, and to rather belabour the point, it's not a rule that you have to follow, it's advice about how to be a better GM.

Some of the advice in DitV I agree with, some I don't. It's not as if I'm arguing for some kind of "say NO or roll the dice" principle. I just don't necessarily prefer to address resolution in terms of 'stakes' that are relative to the PC's goals, especially in terms of their dramatic goals. I prefer to view the world as relatively independent, and to try to rule impartially.

Some people, Mr. Dancey seemingly among them, and possibly Mr. Baker (though I think he's more trying to clarify), are very tied to the idea that the traditional DM and traditional D&D rules exist entirely to control PC decisions and keep them moving to a predetermined outcome. That's not the case.

QuotePlay the town. Play the NPCs. Leave "what's going to happen" to
what happens.

is good advice, but it's independent of "Roll dice or say yes." You can go with "Roll dice or say yes" and try to work toward "what is going to happen." (Though I think that's bad advice) or you could go with "roll dice when the results would not be obvious" and let what happens happens.

I'd rather just play the situation and let the stakes be what they turn out to be. Say a PC decides to throw a coin so as to land on a ledge. Seemingly nothing's at stake, but he might not get it there. It might turn out to be important later for unpredictable reasons. In the moment, it just may or may not land where the PC wants it. So I might make it roll. Or if I judge that it's too far to throw, I might say no. It's not about keeping the PCs on the rails, at all. It's just about giving them an independent world to explore.

Quote from: Cole;427971Some people, Mr. Dancey seemingly among them, and possibly Mr. Baker (though I think he's more trying to clarify), are very tied to the idea that the traditional DM and traditional D&D rules exist entirely to control PC decisions and keep them moving to a predetermined outcome. That's not the case.

I agree - if you go riiiiight back to early versions of D&D. However, pretty quickly RPGs became dominated by very linear modules, partly I think because they were easier to write and use, and partly I think because linear modules tend to give an obvious 'story' (story now!). Look at the difference between something like G1-3 and the DL modules, for example. With linear modules comes ideas of plot and storyline, leading to rail-roading and saying 'no' if players do something that doesn't fit with the GMs plan.

It's this style of play that DitV is pushing back against, I'd say. Not good old-fashioned OSR sandbox style play!

Actually, the advice to "drive play toward conflict" is the antithesis of world-centric play, the type of sandbox where the world & events are independent of the PCs.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427975Actually, the advice to "drive play toward conflict" is the antithesis of world-centric play, the type of sandbox where the world & events are independent of the PCs.

The two are plainly in tension with each other [in exactly the same way that naturalistic roleplay and player choices intended to steer the game in a particular direction are in tension with each other] but I think that as GM you can combine them successfully as GM... run the world according to your subconscious instincts of how things will happen, but nudge yourself in the direction of dramatic events, or of events which paint alluring/exciting imagery such as mystery/horry. You might do that nudging subconsciously too, or you might do it consciously - it doesn't really matter, as long as the game stays exciting, dramatic and/or full of alluring/exciting imagery. As a player the issue is - does my effort of mixing naturalistic immersive roleplay and attempts to steer the game interfere with my immersion? - to which the answer may well be yes. As GM, your immersion is not so much the issue, so the question is merely - does steering the game in exciting/dramatic directions jeopardise the believability of the setting I portray to the players? It may do so by making the world spin in inconsistent ways which you as GM aren't even consciously aware of; but the risk is not as direct and powerful as the risk to a player's immersion from the player doing the corresponding thing.

In practice there's a middle ground, to be sure. But the advice as presented in the rulebook of DitV, and the interpretations you see from fans of the game, indicate that the game's culture is highly drama-centric. (For example, look at Jason M.'s comments in the survey thread.) The idea is to use all the discretion available to you as GM to actively ramp up the tension in the course of the scenario. Across scenarios, you're also supposed to do some armchair psychoanalysis of the players and then design the following towns to push their buttons harder and harder.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427975Actually, the advice to "drive play toward conflict" is the antithesis of world-centric play, the type of sandbox where the world & events are independent of the PCs.

I'm sorry you feel like that Elliot, and it's not been my experience. I haven't found it hard at all to 'roll the dice or say yes' while still having events independent of the characters take place. The trick is to come up with events that are truly independent of the characters, driven by the world being a real place, rather than making them up on the spur of the moment just to drive the player's back onto the path you have planned for them.

The other thing DitV taught me was to listen to the players, and incorporate their ideas into the world if I possibly can. I am having an absolute blast playing a Barbarians of Lemuria campaign with my 10 year old daughter (she loves the old Marvel Conan comics I have in my collection, god bless her), where we're creating the world background for the campaign jointly, although I'm the GM and she the player. We do the world building between sessions, adding stuff we think will be appropriate and building the world as we go along. The effect has been *more* immersive, for both of us, not less. But that's just how it's worked out for me - YMMV

1. What's there to be sorry about?

2. When you use "immersive" like that with no gloss or explanation, I have no idea what you mean. But on the face of it, if the player is participating in world-building, that's problematic for an "in character perspective". It's not fatal--I can even see how it can help if done in-between sessions, since it gives the player more familiarity with the world. On the other hand, the more it has to do with directing the "plot" or "course of play" by means that aren't accessible to the characters, the less compatible it is with an "IC POV".

However, that's not really what I'm talking about here, I didn't mention it in my post, and I don't know why you're bringing it in as it tends to obscure the real issue. I'm talking specifically about "drive play toward conflict", which in the passage you quoted, is portrayed as a sort of adjunct to "say yes or roll the dice". (I've already dealt with my specific problems with "say yes or roll the dice" upthread.) But elsewhere in the rules you'll find: "Escalate, Escalate, Escalate" and "GMing Between Towns". Have you read those sections? Do you follow those guidelines? Or what about Jason M's suggestions for play here? I read them not as presenting the world as a neutral, preexisting reality, but as deliberately adjusting and improvising in the course of play, in an effort to ramp up conflict & drama.

EDIT: I should mention that either I misread something in one of your earlier posts, or the sense changed during an edit. I agree 100% that DitV and other (particularly early) Forge games were a reaction against linear plots. What I would object to, though, is the idea that DitV or other Forge games are restoring the "roots" as found in early dungeoneering-type D&D. In a nutshell I think when it comes to the "GM-led, linear story" paradigm, they reacted mostly to the "linear", somewhat to the "GM-led", but kept the "story".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;428183But on the face of it, if the player is participating in world-building, that's problematic for an "in character perspective".

I understand the theory of IC POV, but in my experience it's never been an issue. Certainly my ten year old copes perfectly well flip-flopping between co-GM and player.

QuoteHowever, that's not really what I'm talking about here, I didn't mention it in my post, and I don't know why you're bringing it in as it tends to obscure the real issue.

Sorry, it was in response to Omnifrey's post. I should have been clearer.

QuoteBut elsewhere in the rules you'll find: "Escalate, Escalate, Escalate" and "GMing Between Towns". Have you read those sections? Do you follow those guidelines?

I have read those sections, and I'd certainly follow them if I was playing DitV. I think they're good advice in general too - keeping the characters motivations in mind will usually lead to a better game than ignoring them, whatever type of game you are running, don't you think?

Quote from: Glazer;428189I understand the theory of IC POV, but in my experience it's never been an issue. Certainly my ten year old copes perfectly well flip-flopping between co-GM and player.

It's not a problem of flip-flopping between the two. It's a problem of wanting to play and be a character, i.e. play a role playing game, and not play cooperative story telling and be some sort of co-author, i.e. a story game. Besides, being a co-GM in my mind is not the same thing as being able to edit the world as a player. As a co-GM you assist the GM. As a player you edit the world to fit some kind of authorial vision you have for the game and elements that are outside your character's sphere of action. That's not the same thing at all.

Also, just because your ten year old doesn't have a problem with that doesn't mean that other players cannot have an issue with it. It's kind of a lame back-handed slight that doesn't really address any of the issues I or other RPG players might have playing a game where they're basically building a narrative instead of living in a fantastic environment managed by the GM.

Quote from: Glazer;428189I understand the theory of IC POV, but in my experience it's never been an issue. Certainly my ten year old copes perfectly well flip-flopping between co-GM and player.

It depends on what the player's looking for. IC POV isn't absolutely necessary to enjoy a game, and playing as a player (that is, controlling a character) doesn't necessarily mean you have an IC POV.

QuoteI have read those sections, and I'd certainly follow them if I was playing DitV. I think they're good advice in general too - keeping the characters motivations in mind will usually lead to a better game than ignoring them, whatever type of game you are running, don't you think?

Actually, I think those sections are pretty bad. I recognize that they might provide exactly what DitV players are looking for. However, as applied to RPGs in general, if I'm playing and I decide to barricade a church, I wouldn't want the GM to decide on the spot that some NPC had a problem with my action, or to retroactively describe the church's new & shiny construction, which I'd have to mess up, just because it would be more dramatic and conflict-ful. Either the church is new & the NPCs have screwed-up priorities, or not.

EDIT: Saying those sections are about "keeping PC motivations in mind" is an oversimplification. Those sections encourage deliberately and improvisationally concocting challenges to the PCs' values.

Quote from: Glazer;428168... We do the world building between sessions, adding stuff we think will be appropriate and building the world as we go along. The effect has been *more* immersive, for both of us, not less. But that's just how it's worked out for me - YMMV

When I've used the word "immersive" I've probably meant "immersive in the character's point of view" or "character-immersive". I guess we could call it chimmersive for short. I'm not talking about "immersive in the story" or "immersive in the game-world" because that's so general that you might as well say "immersive in the game" or in other words "an absorbing game" which is so fundamental as to be trivial, if you see what I mean.

The notion is that chimmersion is better for certain kinds of experiences of play. One thing which your ten-year-old daughter MIGHT be missing out on (not altogether but in part), or might not, depending on how you are GMing within sessions and prepping between sessions, is the sense of the unknown regarding the pre-existing fleshed-out game-world and the related sense of mystery. You can't have optimal mystery and maximal co-authorship involvement. The two are plainly antithetical to each other.

I hate to break it to everyone, but all surveys have bias. You never get perfect data, and therefore are never able to make perfect conclusions based on that data. But until the pixie elves give us the technology for perfectly accurate magic 8-balls, we're stuck with that or nothing.

It's a science. You use whatever tools are available to you in the best way you know how to gather observations and form a conclusion. Trouble with 'soft' data like this though is that you're rarely able to TEST those conclusions in the field, and it's extremely difficult to verify causes and effects even when you can.

So attacking the survey and conclusions is pointless, but speculating on the ramifications of the conclusions and how to address them through design is not. And wanking off to statistics 101 is a complete waste of time.

I concur with most of what RSDancey has said because I have made similar conclusions from observing behavior at games as opposed to a written survey. In fact, his description of the in game 'discovery vs. creation' issue is so close to mine that I'm actually a bit worried he's involved in applying a similar technique to address it.

Quote from: John Morrow;427642Because MMORPG game words don't act like real places because the objects in them can only do what they are programmed let you do.  Maybe you can pick up the chair in a bar and break it.  And maybe breaking it will give you a chair leg that you can use as a weapon.  And maybe you can burn the chair because it was made of wood.  But can you play stickball with the leg?  Can you you roll the chair leg under the feet of another character to make them trip?  I can go on and on with examples like that.

I'm pretty sure most of this can already be done in Vindictus.

Computing physics is a well understood problem, and the only limit for in game physics is raw computing power. I give it three years before that power is in most people's hands and software designed to take advantage of it becomes available.

AI on the other hand will likely take longer because it requires both a change in computer architecture to do effeciently (the von neuman machine is basically nothing more than an assembly line), and a change in the way the majority of programmers think.

That step is mostly held back by the human factor (and perhaps getting pesky nanotubes to go where we want), but considering this same human factor is why people play RPGs in the first place, and that it's not exactly a scarce resource, we can get there more effectively by creating better human interface devices, especially for content creation.