Quote from: droogI'm no sure how I'm supposed to respond to this, clash. You want a serious answer?

My point was that if this is how I approach all RPGs, why should BW be an exception?

-clash

It was just a little American sarcasm, since as a 'Merkin I can't use irony.

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point was that if this is how I approach all RPGs, why should BW be an exception?

I think we're getting some confusion here. Several people on this thread do not seem to agree with you.

If that's how you approach all games, then bully for you. I might well enjoy your games.

Quote from: droogI think we're getting some confusion here. Several people on this thread do not seem to agree with you.

I'd be more surprised if they all agreed. No one agrees on this forum.

Quote from: droogIf that's how you approach all games, then bully for you. I might well enjoy your games.

It's how I approach running them.

-clash

Okay, well games like BW seek to make that approach the default, through front-loading the characters with Instincts, Beliefs etc. The idea is that the outcome will be a story, but that is not achieved by creating a story beforehand. Rather it is achieved through setting up the elements of a story and letting them work themselves out in play.

Quote from: droogOkay, well games like BW seek to make that approach the default, through front-loading the characters with Instincts, Beliefs etc. The idea is that the outcome will be a story, but that is not achieved by creating a story beforehand. Rather it is achieved through setting up the elements of a story and letting them work themselves out in play.

There's a small difference here between what I do and what BW intends. I don't care if the story that results is any particular good as a story, because my focus is the game experience. It will result in what is technically a story, but the fact that that story is almost always interesting is entirely beside the point. It is interesting because the interesting characters and interesting situations make it so. I literally couldn't care less whether or not the story is interesting. I'm not writing stories, I'm running games.

-clash

Again, no big difference.

Quote from: droogAgain, no big difference.

Exactly - that's why I said a small difference. My issues with BW have nothing to do with its aims, and everything to do with the means - I don't care for the scripted combat, for example. Purely matters-of-taste stuff.

-clash

The difference Dancey's pointing to, though, has nothing to do with BITs. He's talking about Resources and Circles--the parts of the game that allow players to "conjure setting elements out of nothing". And also possibly the "conflict-resolution" slant of the mechanics, with stated intents, say yes or roll the dice, and Let it Ride. These are all fine, IMO, though I don't see a need for them to be applied to all future games, or in a rigid/extreme fashion. E.g., I don't give a fig for SYoRtD if I'm playing with a prima-donna player who wants to do something that breaks the world--I'll either say no or impose penalties that'll make success impossible.

Also, by calling BW a "half step", Dancey seems to be pointing toward games which give far more narrative control to players and allow for far less predetermined world and background. Even in those, you can have plenty for a GM to do besides adjudicate the rules--but there are pitfalls as well. Unless you're careful I think those games are liable to either detach themselves entirely from the rules or to turn into badly-structured board games. And even if they work perfectly, they aren't going to satisfy the same range of interests as reg'lar RPGs. (Whether that's moot due to the popularity of CRPGs is another issue entirely.)

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point was that if this is how I approach all RPGs, why should BW be an exception?

Exactly!  When I read Actual Play thread for Forge games, I think, "Isn't that how RPGs normally play out, except for all that die rolling, rules jargon, and abstraction when people could just be role-playing their characters?"

Quote from: John MorrowExactly!  When I read Actual Play thread for Forge games, I think, "Isn't that how RPGs normally play out, except for all that die rolling, rules jargon, and abstraction when people could just be role-playing their characters?"

Same same, John. Mostly it's just regular roleplaying with more dice-rolling, AFAICS.

-clash

My comments from FtB:

The more players control the game world, the less potential for secrets, surprises, puzzles, mystery and fear that world will have for them.

This is also a shift from "roleplaying" to "storytelling" as the actual mechanism used in playing the game. Taken to the extreme it's a fundamentally different kind of game.

Now, I don't disagree that players should be more involved and less passive, but you need to be careful about how and when you asked them to add to the description of the game world itself.

As for MMORPGs, they have better graphics than text-based MUDs and MUSHes I was playing back in the early 90s, but from a story perspective they're not much different. An MMORPG will never be able to allow the level of detail in tactics, interaction, and story that a tabletop game allows. It's more immediate, doesn't require other people to be in the same room with you, and requires less preparation... but it's the infinite scope of action and the real social interaction where TTRPGs excel. And the dice. Who doesn't love rolling those funky dice?!

Look up to my post. The stuff Dancey's pushing isn't regular roleplaying, it's players empowered to make up stuff about the game-world. Read his whole post, and bear in mind that he thinks BW is a bridge to "GM and Player directed games". (About which I seem to recall him saying more in his blog.)

If BW is a half-step, then what's a whole step? I'd guess it's something where the players can--through expenditure of resources or by making good rolls--control not only the availability of NPCs or generic "stuff" that the GM judges would plausibly exist in the game world, but also highly "story specific" elements and backstory.

Could a game be fun where a player can spend a point to make NPC X the long-lost child of NPC Y? Yes. Is it where RPGs "need" to go? No. I'd play something like that occasionally, but if that were the primary mode of RPG play, I doubt I'd have been attracted to the hobby in the first place. (Unless maybe it had meant more girl players.)

EDIT: cross-posted with Stuart. I agree completely.

Quote from: flyingmiceExactly - that's why I said a small difference. My issues with BW have nothing to do with its aims, and everything to do with the means - I don't care for the scripted combat, for example. Purely matters-of-taste stuff.

Well, of course. But this is so off the point. Returning to the OP, Kyle is basically arguing for 'the GM telling the story'. You and I are both (possibly) arguing that 'story' is a function of play.

Quote from: droogWell, of course. But this is so off the point. Returning to the OP, Kyle is basically arguing for 'the GM telling the story'. You and I are both (possibly) arguing that 'story' is a function of play.

No possibly. I've been saying it for years.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceNo possibly. I've been saying it for years.

Well, so has Ron Edwards. But there might be some subtle differences between our positions that we haven't uncovered, which is why I said possibly.