Ryan Dancey says here,

Quote from: Ryan DanceyI have become a strong advocate for the idea that the players in a TRPG have to become more active in the telling of the story itself. In other words, it is no longer a good idea to imagine a game where the GM establishes the 'world', and the Players tell the GM what they do in it. Structural changes in the makeup of the player community, and competition from the MMORPGs have made that mode of play likely to lead to a death-spiral.

In both its resource management system, and its relationship management system, Burning Wheel plays close to its main strength (as a kind of 'bridge' between GM/Player divided games and GM & Player directed games. These mechanics are central to virtually any TRPG experience that extends outside of combat & exploration.

Let's begin by setting aside that nonsense about MMORPGs and "structural changes", as it's all baseless speculation. Let's just focus in on who should tell the story.

Now, if the GM is not creating most of the setting and shaping the plot of things, then all that's left for them to do is the rules stuff. Which if it's Dancey's approach would explain why he says roleplaying is "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

Okay, let's just stick with the simplest definition of "story" - the telling of a series of connected events. So if you play through the Against the Giants series of modules, you have a "story". It may or may not be a good or interesting one, but it's a story.

As I see it, the GM should present a game world with lots of different things happening in it, and give the players and their characters the chance and a reason to get involved in those events, they get involved and do stuff and the GM describes the results. So with that approach the players and GM together create the story, but the GM tells it. The GM allows the players and their characters to direct the course of action, but remains the final arbiter of things.

So there's a distinction between creating the events of the story, and telling the story. It's one lost on Dancey and many others, but I think it's a useful one. It's the difference between contributing to something, and making decisions about something. It's rather like the way the players in a game of football create the game, but the referee determines the game, and the commentator describes it. In this the GM is like a mixture of referee and commentator. I think Dancey's saying he wants the GM to just be a ref, which would be pretty fucking boring for everyone concerned, I think.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThoughts?

I think you'd better play BW and see how it actually goes down.

I'd be delighted to, but I already have two games happening, and the only game going around here is looking crowded already

But anyway, this isn't about Burning Wheel specifically, it's about the general question of "who should tell the story?" After all, Dancey describes BW as being only a halfway step to where he thinks things should be.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut anyway, this isn't about Burning Wheel specifically, it's about the general question of "who should tell the story?"

Yes, but BW is a good example of how it works. What your criticism misses is the crucial role of the GM in pushing the game forward. Believe me, there's plenty for the GM to do in BW other than simply be a rules-adjudicator.

Freaking story! I'd like to burn it at the stake. Story doesn't get told in an RPG! It happens.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceFreaking story! I'd like to burn it at the stake. Story doesn't get told in an RPG! It happens.

Yes, well, that's pretty much how a game like BW is supposed to work.

Quote from: Kyle AaronRyan Dancey says here,

Let's begin by setting aside that nonsense about MMORPGs and "structural changes", as it's all baseless speculation. Let's just focus in on who should tell the story.

Now, if the GM is not creating most of the setting and shaping the plot of things, then all that's left for them to do is the rules stuff. Which if it's Dancey's approach would explain why he says roleplaying is "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours." ...

Thoughts?

I can't let Ryan's comments go unchallenged.   It presumes there is some revolution in the air, that only the "new" way will save RPGs.  Please, that way ain’t new.  And by how people vote with their wallet, that way won't save a thing.  

I never got the "20 minutes of fun in four hours" thing either.  Not in my games, as observed by my friend's wife (I think that is the origin of the comment someone not playing looking in) or us.  We get going and it's non-stop role-play, battles, and jokes.  We rarely if ever crack the rule book, and still play by the rules.  It's more 5 hours of fun in 4 hours, admittedly we are not playing D&D, but it is still a GM mediated system.

I also don't get how GM mediated systems equate to lack of story control by the player.  I run a pretty classic set up, but the number of opportunities is large for the players to do what they want, go where they want and lobby for the kinds of adventures they want to have (all I need is a reasonable amount of prep time).  Yeah there are limits to the stage, but for it to hang together it need some limits and frankly the story is meaningless if you can change the stage to suit your whim.  

Clearly the players “tell the story’ they determine where to go, what to do, the series of events that result is the story.  If they want a story about fighting dragons, then no problem they are here.  If they want a story about defeating dragons, they can do what is often in all such good stories about facing a dangerous foe, prepare, find weakenesses, train until you are fit and able to face the challenge.

I wonder, is “tell the story” really just code for I don’t like the element of chance (even when you can stack the odds in your favor) or want to admit that verisimilitude might benefit from having situations your players must run away from to survive; so no one else can or should either?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo there's a distinction between creating the events of the story, and telling the story.

Frankly, I don't see a lot of similarity between the act of playing the game and the act of telling the story of what happened, later.  So I'd vote for a distinction that goes three ways:

• Creating the situation of the story ("Okay, we'll have an ogre in this cave, guarding the entrance to the underworld")
• Playing out/creating the events of the story ("And I totally stab that ogre in the nuts with my greatsword!")
• Telling that story ("It was epic man ... my paladin, alone, against this gigantic creature of raw blood and terror ... ")

I've found that even when everyone is on the same page on #1 and #2, the stories they tell in #3 can diverge wonderfully and powerfully.

Is that a whole different sense of telling the story than what you meant?

Quote from: Kyle AaronRyan Dancey says here,

Let's begin by setting aside that nonsense about MMORPGs and "structural changes", as it's all baseless speculation. Let's just focus in on who should tell the story.

The people who enjoy doing it I would imagine.  I keep telling people that the strength of roleplaying is that it has aspects that can appeal to different interests.  This is why the GNS model is so divisive.  Roleplaying at its best is all three and another nine odd things to make up an even dozen.  Heck some of us who spend our days in grueling menial labour even enjoy a little book keeping and math.

That makes sense, Tony. I'd just add that #2 should be just "creating the events of the story." That's to try to get across the sense that even when the players' ideas and characters' actions aren't direct and obvious, they still contribute to things. A lot of the cause and effect is unintentional or indirect.

I'm not sure how we can say that succinctly without abstruse latinisms.

Goddamn.  That son of a bitch really did drink the forge koolaid, didn't he?  Or is this just a repost of the same post from last time?

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm not sure how we can say that succinctly without abstruse latinisms.

Yeah, likewise.  "Story" as a word conflates both the events and the later narrative created out of them.  I'll ponder whether there's a way to phrase that more clearly.

Quote from: Ryan DanceyIn other words, it is no longer a good idea to imagine a game where the GM establishes the 'world', and the Players tell the GM what they do in it. Structural changes in the makeup of the player community, and competition from the MMORPGs have made that mode of play likely to lead to a death-spiral.

This is just wrong.  Totally ass-backwards dead wrong.  The best RPG experiences I've had, the ones that made it "worth doing" at all, were those where we wandered through the GM's World, not knowing what would come next, and being amazed and astounded by the imagination of the World Weaver (what I call the person who creates BackStory, to distinguish that from the Referee aspect of GMing).  To say that this style of play is no longer a good idea because of MMORPGs is ... sorry to say Ryan ... just ignorant.   That is like saying that because someone invented Movies, books are no longer a good idea, and Authors would be best advised to create films.   Just wrong.

As for the "structural changes in the makeup of the player community" ... wrong again.   That is like saying because people like going to movies there is no longer a need for books.   Wrong.   Totally ass-backwards wrong.

What is probably going on is that Ryan is trying to pump up his team's action (the Indie-Forgies) by making these kinds of claims, in order to 1) give a Rah-Rah to his guys,  2) demoralize "the enemy" (traditionalists), and 3) convince the Big Boys (or someone in particular that is important to his plans) that he's on to something "new and amazingly refreshing".  

What his statements have to do with actual RPG reality is zilch.   D&D4 may not do as well as WotC likes, but that's not going to be because the basic model of RPGs as envisioned is BadWrongFun.  It will be, if anything, because they mucked up the rules in various ways that annoyed the hell out of their traditionalist base.  

Sorry Ryan, but you're dead wrong on this one.   Come back from the Dark Side!

Quote from: droogYes, well, that's pretty much how a game like BW is supposed to work.

Really, droog? I thought BW was different! You mean BW is an RPG? Perish the thought!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceReally, droog? I thought BW was different! You mean BW is an RPG? Perish the thought!

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