Hey all, the Landmarks thread has disappeared due to a technical error on the part of one of the mods. Let's hope they can get it back.

Anyways, I was going to suggest that since its stopped being about the Landmarks long ago we switch it to another thread, so I'm starting this one right here.

Ryan: you claimed on that thread that most groups start out with characters created in isolation, where they have to come up with some kind of slapped-on excuse to justify why they're a party, and where the characters usually come with no dependents, no family, no net of friends and connectedness.

Let's say that's true, that many, if not most gamers play D&D that way anyways (I don't think that criticism really applies so easily to other RPGs).  

Have you stopped to think this might be because those D&D players LIKE IT that way?  I mean, is it basically your plan to fuck up a good "rescue the princess" adventure by having the heros have to play through all kinds of shitty subplots with their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins once removed, etc?

Do you really think that for those who have not ALREADY added more sophistication to their character's family lives or whatever, such a change if forced upon them would be unwelcome?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHave you stopped to think this might be because those D&D players LIKE IT that way?  I mean, is it basically your plan to fuck up a good "rescue the princess" adventure by having the heroes have to play through all kinds of shitty subplots with their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins once removed, etc?

If the subplots involved their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins then I agree it likely to be boring. But there are other subplots that complicate the rescue the princess that aren't boring.

You are missing a point just I contendRyan is. Players like choices. If you keep using traditional plots like recuse the princess, bash the dungeon, etc then they will feel the same as being railroaded because they keep doing the same things over and over again. "The been there done that" syndrome.

The way to beat that is introduce complication into the basic plot. With complication and choice you can run five "rescue the princess" without making the players eyes glaze over.

Finally I don't think most GM know how to do that well these days. With the emphasive on intricate stories in all the setting their plots are what is fed to them rather thing making their own or winging it. I think the solution are product that teach to how to get from where they are now 'Point A' to 'Point B' where they can run session by winging it in response to what the players are doing.

I agree with all your points, Estar. But MY point is that if gamers make their PCs have no family relations or connections to the community, it might be just because that's the sort of game it is, the sort of thing they want to play, and that there isn't necessarily "something wrong" that needs to be fixed, nor are these gamers ignoramuses in need of being enlightened.

RPGPundit

Just to amplify:

I am one of those people who prefers players to make the character they want to play. And when I am not the DM, I like to be able to make the character I want to play.

Thats buy-in.

I'm ok with minor things like.."no evil characters" or "no psionics". But even when it was my friend saying "I am not going to allow halflings or monks in this campaign", I was pretty quick to drop out, or subtly hint that I was going to drop out. I just like to have all the options. Usually when I see someone messign with the baseline parameters like that, it's a sign of a very short-lived campaign.

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree with all your points, Estar. But MY point is that if gamers make their PCs have no family relations or connections to the community, it might be just because that's the sort of game it is, the sort of thing they want to play, and that there isn't necessarily "something wrong" that needs to be fixed, nor are these gamers ignoramuses in need of being enlightened.

This is the weird leap into anger and negativity that you are always making that is just unnecessary and unproductive.  If I understand what Ryan is saying correctly, he is not implying that there is anything wrong with "a bunch of characters meet in a bar - go!".  I think he is saying that the majority of gamers who like that style are having their needs met already with products that do that.  But that that market is tapped out and getting poached more and more by MMORPGs that satisfy a lot of the needs of those kinds of players (though obviously not all).  

So he is looking for new systems and methods that will create a new demand for an immersive play experience with a stronger foundation for "story".  Whether or not this is possible or sellable, I really don't know.  But I do think it is worth exploring and does not at all imply that the most traditional style of game is broken.

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree with all your points, Estar. But MY point is that if gamers make their PCs have no family relations or connections to the community, it might be just because that's the sort of game it is, the sort of thing they want to play, and that there isn't necessarily "something wrong" that needs to be fixed, nor are these gamers ignoramuses in need of being enlightened.

The short answer is that I agree with your point.  Relations and connections are just tools to help solve what I view as the real problem. There are other ways that work.

The problem is that I don't see enough help for GMs to actually run a fun session for their players from companies making RPGs. I think people have problems running actual sessions. That it isn't a question of enlightment but rather hardly anybody tries to teaches them.

LARPS run using the NERO system pretty much try to be live-action D&D. We have found that there are people that can write kick-ass events but can't run them worth shit. The same with table-top I seen GM that work hard and mean well for their players but when it came to the actual session they sucked and it wasn't fun. I think for 95% if they had something they could read and aides to help them then the game would improve for them. The problem is mostly one of inexperience.

This is couple with with my observation that whether in LARPs or table-top when GMs get jammed, overloaded, etc that they fall back to running things via a script and fighting out the session encounter by encounter because that is easy to do compared to the more fun alternatives.

I hope this makes more sense what I am driving at.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

Quote from: walkerpSo he is looking for new systems and methods that will create a new demand for an immersive play experience with a stronger foundation for "story".  Whether or not this is possible or sellable, I really don't know.  But I do think it is worth exploring and does not at all imply that the most traditional style of game is broken.

Calling it story is a mistake and I don't think it is immersion either, as most people define it. What players want is their choices to have meaning and consequences. At least that what my players keep telling me over the years. I think helping people run Sandbox style settings of different genres and types is the path to take. Giving a GM the knowledge and tools to "wing" it on the fly.

I certainly do agree that now that Ryan has defined what he meant by "story"; I find myself more accepting of his position than I do with the ideas that either the Story-based WW crowd or the Forgies have about "story" and how it should be rammed into RPGs.

Nevertheless, it now leads me to question why Ryan would call it "story" at all; both from the strategic point of view of knowing that he would inevitably have ended up having his points confused with the conflicts regarding those other two ideas about story, and given that what he seems to be talking about is more to do with the elaboration of Characters, than with anything resembling what people normally think of as "story" (ie. creating a novel or a tv script or something like that, with all the consistency and structure those things demand; stuff that doesn't translate well to RPGs at all).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHave you stopped to think this might be because those D&D players LIKE IT that way?

I think that the best argument anyone can make is that it is a neutral condition with no positive or negative elements.  I think that if you start running games where characters "exist" in their world with social connections that many players will like it and embrace the change as a positive.

QuoteI mean, is it basically your plan to fuck up a good "rescue the princess" adventure by having the heros have to play through all kinds of shitty subplots with their mothers, aunts, 3rd cousins once removed, etc?

God no.  That would suck.

Here's the basic theory:  If a player writes something down on the character sheet, the player is creating an agreement with the DM that that thing will come into the story during play when and if appropriate.  Social contacts give the play group several interesting gaming hooks.  Loved ones in danger, friends with resources to share, elders to dispense wise advice, etc.

Some people will write "orphan, no friends, hates authority" and play a character that exists in a social vacuum.  Ok; play that way.  I'm not the arbiter of your fun.

I want to work on adding, not subtracting fun.  Maybe the hipporyancratic oath should be "do no harm to fun".

You want to run a quickie pickup adventure were people just make up whatever weird and wonderful characters they wish, and figure out how to make that make sense through emergent play?  Go for it.  You want to try something that seems to repeatably make games more fun for lot of people?  Try some of these ideas.  Neither style should be judged as "right".  Do what works for your group, don't do what doesn't.

Ryan

Quote from: estarCalling it story is a mistake and I don't think it is immersion either, as most people define it. What players want is their choices to have meaning and consequences. At least that what my players keep telling me over the years. I think helping people run Sandbox style settings of different genres and types is the path to take. Giving a GM the knowledge and tools to "wing" it on the fly.

That's why I include an NPC creation chapter in all my games, with tools to create encounters on the fly. Deep PC character prep tends to invest the Players in their characters, a GOOD THING. Deep NPC character prep tends to invest GMs in their NPCs, a BAD THING. NPCs need to be made at different levels, for different purposes. You need a gang of generic thugs to provide some armed opposition? I've got a list of straightforward opponents you can use as is, in seconds. You need a complex leader who has goal, motivations, and resources? I've got a random-or-pick-from-list method of running this up in a minute or two. No GM investment, virtually no prep time.

As far as "How to run a game," that I refuse to do. There are too many styles of GMing for me to think my way is superior, though it works a treat for me. Marco Chacon used to have one up on the JAGS website for Situational GMing, IIRC, but I've never written one.

-clash

Quote from: RSDanceyDo what works for your group, don't do what doesn't.

That's just crazy talk!

Quote from: flyingmiceDeep NPC character prep tends to invest GMs in their NPCs, a BAD THING. NPCs need to be made at different levels, for different purposes.

Hmm, that's an interesting thought.  I'll need to ruminate on that a bit.

Quote from: RSDanceyHere's the basic theory:  If a player writes something down on the character sheet, the player is creating an agreement with the DM that that thing will come into the story during play when and if appropriate.  Social contacts give the play group several interesting gaming hooks.  Loved ones in danger, friends with resources to share, elders to dispense wise advice, etc.

There are games that already have that and I hate it.  I avoid Dependent NPCs in Champions for exactly that reason.  As I mentioned in the other thread before it disappeared, it feels like taping a "Kick Me!" sign to the back of my character.  Yuck.

Quote from: RSDanceySome people will write "orphan, no friends, hates authority" and play a character that exists in a social vacuum.  Ok; play that way.  I'm not the arbiter of your fun.

See, the problem is that once you start making these things a part of the rules and an expectation, they start to become mandatory.  One of the reasons why I put Burning Empires down is that there is an example of character creation in the book.  At one point, the example shows one of the players making a choice along the "orphan, no friends, hates authority" line that didn't have any plot hooks built into it.  The GM's reaction?  It was unacceptable.  "Why don't you just go play X-Wing."  

Quote from: RSDanceyI want to work on adding, not subtracting fun.  Maybe the hipporyancratic oath should be "do no harm to fun".

Then my primary bit of advice to you would be to make sure that none of this is mandatory or required.  Because once it becomes mandatory or required, it's guaranteed to do harm to some people's fun.

The problem is that ties into the game-world are not something that players can do on their own.  

Without rules, then you're in an enormous grey area.  Within D&D 3.5, for example, the rules mandate that my starting PC can only own basically the clothes on her back.  Starting funds are often only enough to buy a bare minimum of adventuring equipment.  By the rules, it's impossible to make, say, a character who owns a house or shop.  That's a major limitation on what sort of ties I can have.  

Now, obviously groups can get around this and come up with their own way of doing things.  However, then you run into trouble.  Suppose someone wants to be a prince of the kingdom.  That could be cool, but does he get that for free?  Should he still just get 1d6x10 gold pieces?  And might another player who just made a common soldier feel a little left out by that?  

I don't think this has been dealt with all that well in many games.  It's not that easy to just improvise because it is an overlap of player and GM authority.  The player gets to decide on the PC's background, but if the family is going to show up, that is a part of the GM's territory.

Quote from: flyingmiceAs far as "How to run a game," that I refuse to do. There are too many styles of GMing for me to think my way is superior, though it works a treat for me. Marco Chacon used to have one up on the JAGS website for Situational GMing, IIRC, but I've never written one.

I thinking more of a toolkit approach not some type of uber-theory. Stuff that goes "If you want to do ... ".

Software development has a problem in that nobody has a straightforward way of writing software of arbeitary complexity. Beyond a certain it become an art. However there are things called algorithms and patterns that are useful to a programmer. They are used as a building block to make the final software. Algorithms and patterns nearly always start out as "If you want to do X"

What I am talking about is algorithms and patterns for GMs. Something beyond the traditional "Don't be a dick to your players" advice. A GM can then combine them to get the game he wants to run for his players.