TheRPGSite

Ryan Dancey says here (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98876#98876),

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 (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98876#98876),

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 (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98876#98876),

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! :P

-clash

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

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

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. :D

-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.

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'.

I don't think he's been completely clear about that.

QuoteAs 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.

This sounds just like the type of play you and Clash have been arguing for (and which I prefer, too), as long as you assume that the word "story" is defined by the rest of the passage, rather than importing some additional meaning.

However, the above does definitely say that the GM is the final arbiter of things, and in practice that can mean anything from "the GM can unilaterally override any and all rules" to "the GM has final say on all matters not covered by the rules and outside the domain of PC volition." I lean strongly toward the latter; from other discussion I know that Kyle is somewhat closer to the former. But what both preferences have in common is a rejection of giving players final say over matters outside the domain of PC volition.

Again, if a player wants his character to discover a note in his attic proving that the President is secretly in thrall to the Red Lectroids--which fact has neither been established in play nor part of the GM's prep--and then the GM who says "no"--that's not the same as having the GM stage-manage the buildup & release of dramatic tension or arbitrarily edit events to maintain a certain sequence of events.

On the other hand...

QuoteSo 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.

Here, by saying the GM "determines" the game, it does sound like Kyle wants the GM to take a more active role in steering events--in a way that could be "telling a story" in the sense I see it, and which could negate player input through their PCs. Really, what's missing here is a sense of the responsibility of the GM and the expectations of the players. The GM who decides to have an NPC change his mind in response to a player overture (or alternatively refuse the overture) may be doing the perfect thing from a dramatic perspective but the worst from a perspective of making the world seem "real" and not "arbitrary".

Quote from: droogWell, 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.

1. What does Ron Edwards have to do with it? Maybe you should credit me, too. I've been "some random internet guy arguing against GM storytelling" since circa 1990.

2. If we want to talk about anybody, we should concentrate on Dancey, or rather the range of possible "storytelling" evoked by his passage. And here it's clear that he's talking about far more than just "let the players drive the action through what they have their characters do". Instead he's talking about "let the players create the world"--maybe by what their characters do, maybe by some metagame resource, maybe by some fuzzy conflation of the two.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat does Ron Edwards have to do with it?

RE-->Dancey-->Kyle.

I don't see Edwards mentioned anywhere in Dancey's post, or in this thread before you brought him up.

EDIT: Here's the thing: either you're dense, or you're deliberately conflating reactive GMing (of various sorts, from pure improv to neutrally-administering a prepped situation) with mechanically enabling players to take control of the world outside of their characters. (In other threads here it's been called Shared Narrative Control; elsewhere I suppose it might be called "player assumption of Author Stance".)

EDIT 2: And that's the only reason to bring Edwards into it, because Edwards and his followers repeatedly engage in exactly that bit of conflation.

Forget it, Elliot.

Don't hassle droog, he's just saying that there are different styles of GMing and playing, and different understandings of the same style. He's saying that the differences in style are not as great as we might think, but that the differences are significant and worse teasing out and discussing.

In regards to Dancey, he tells here (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99510#99510) of his personal epiphany in gaming involving an rpg by Tweet called The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men. I've read through his post, and am re-reading it. My first reaction is mockery because of the subject matter, thinking, "grow up", but I'm having a good look and a think because we should always try to be fair and open-minded about things.

1. I should have written "Director Stance" above.

2. Don't mean to hassle droog, on the contrary I'm at pains to tease out the differences in style that are obscured by saying that e.g. Clash's preferred style = Edwards' style.

3. I think Edwards' style and especially Luke's style (or at least the promise of his style; the actual rules to BW are another matter), and even the style of full-on "no myth player-director-stance" all have something to offer; my preference as a default, though, is towards traditional mechanics with neutral/reactive GMing. Circles/Relationships/Resources can work fine with that model and strike me as an excellent approach to abstraction and simplification, without necessarily taking narrative control away from the GM any more than rolling to hit does.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn regards to Dancey, he tells here (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99510#99510) of his personal epiphany in gaming involving an rpg by Tweet called The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men. I've read through his post, and am re-reading it. My first reaction is mockery because of the subject matter, thinking, "grow up", but I'm having a good look and a think because we should always try to be fair and open-minded about things.

I have to admit my reaction when reading about that game was that it sounded more like a particularly Twee LARP than a storytelling game.  I don't think the running around the house with props bit can really be overlooked.  I'm sure that was a major contribution to the novelty and amusement of the game.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDon't hassle droog, he's just saying that there are different styles of GMing and playing, and different understandings of the same style. He's saying that the differences in style are not as great as we might think, but that the differences are significant and worse teasing out and discussing.

Every time we try to tease them out they're exaggerated to the point of incomprehensibility.  I don't really get the controversy.

Yeah, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but then he went on to say that really he knows most gamers aren't having any fun with the traditional GM-player modes, because of the market research which is secret and he can't tell us about. Which reminds me a lot of New Coke, where the Coca-Cola company was absolutely convinced by their market research that everyone would like their new stuff, and it was a disaster.

This idea of secret knowledge that only specialists have, and the rest of us must bow before their superior wisdom, it's a very widespread idea these days, especially popular with those specialists. I say, let's look at the results. I mean, we have around 1,000 rpgs in print now since Chainmail, so I think that gives us a good range of kinds of games. And what do people like? From the sales, we can conclude that people like rules-heavy, detailed games with a strong GM/player divide.

Sure, other people like other stuff, and that's a worthwhile market, and it's always good to experiment, if no-one ever experimented then we'd all still be eating raw mammoth, and our only music would be banging rocks together. But what people today like overall, it's pretty clear. And they're happy with it.

I just can't take seriously someone who tells me I Know The Truth But It's A Secret, and presents me with his gingerbread man with licorice on him, and tries to tell me it's a great revolution in roleplaying.  

That said, I'm very interested in different styles of roleplaying, of GM-player authority, and so on. But I don't think these different styles are some Great Saviour of roleplaying, or even that roleplaying needs it. I just think they'd be interesting to try out.

I'll try anything once except incest and folk-dancing.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen1. I should have written "Director Stance" above.

2. Don't mean to hassle droog, on the contrary I'm at pains to tease out the differences in style that are obscured by saying that e.g. Clash's preferred style = Edwards' style.

I have no idea about that, not ever having played with Mr. Edwards, but I know my objections to Forge games are most strongly concerning the level decisions are made on - i.e. the designer vs. the GM & Group.

Quote3. I think Edwards' style and especially Luke's style (or at least the promise of his style; the actual rules to BW are another matter), and even the style of full-on "no myth player-director-stance" all have something to offer; my preference as a default, though, is towards traditional mechanics with neutral/reactive GMing. Circles/Relationships/Resources can work fine with that model and strike me as an excellent approach to abstraction and simplification, without necessarily taking narrative control away from the GM any more than rolling to hit does.

To clear up any confusion, I'm a situational GM. In fact, I may have coined the term many years ago. I throw an initial situation at the PCs, to which they react - i.e. I am an active GM with reactive players. They then springboard off this, pushing me, to which I react - now I'm a reactive GM with active payers. I build on what they have done and throw another situation at the PCs, and they do the same to me.  

The game is ideally a constant push/shove match, like tennis or ping-pong, where the energy level keeps building. Nobody cares about winning, though - the idea ian't to make the other side miss the ball, it's to see how long you can keep it all in the air. If things start going too fast, one side or the other cools it down a shade. If it's too slow, we pick up the pace. And the game is all about keeping up the feeling that we are all there, and the situation is real, and the time is now. Things react in real time. There is no loss of continuity.

I can do this with my group about 6 times in ten.

-clash

Quote from: Kyle Aaron...
I just can't take seriously someone who tells me I Know The Truth But It's A Secret, and presents me with his gingerbread man with licorice on him, and tries to tell me it's a great revolution in roleplaying.  

....

Even if glorious fun for 20 folks of all ages, and sounding like a parlor game, can you make a campaign of it?

Quote from: flyingmiceI...
The game is ideally a constant push/shove match, like tennis or ping-pong, where the energy level keeps building. Nobody cares about winning, though - the idea ian't to make the other side miss the ball, it's to see how long you can keep it all in the air. If things start going too fast, one side or the other cools it down a shade. If it's too slow, we pick up the pace. And the game is all about keeping up the feeling that we are all there, and the situation is real, and the time is now. Things react in real time. There is no loss of continuity.

I can do this with my group about 6 times in ten.

-clash

Now that is excitement.  I bet you get four hours of fun in four hours.  Maybe these designers who opine about how "traditional" RPG play is not fun never got this going even 1 time in 10.

I'd have to say I've got a similar approach to clash but I'm a very well prepared situationalist, with multiple contigencies ready.  The rules allow it to just flow, if your using rules that constantly pull you out of play to look things up or compute changes or conditionals, then it's just going to stop the flow.   But that doesn't mean traditional RPGs can't work just the rule set you've chosen is problematic.

Clash, in that case I have to make a partial retraction; your situational/active-reactive/improvisational style sounds a lot like descriptions of how RE plays Sorcerer.

In fact there seems to be some sort of disconnect between RE's "followers" and the man himself. Somehow there's an idea out there among the more zealous of the bunch--and I would include Dancey here, based on what he's been writing lately--that the only way to avoid having the GM "tell the story" is to give the players ample control not only over their characters, but over the "external world". RE's rubbished this idea on more than one occasion. At least two, well-separated in time, are here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=905.msg8417#msg8417) and here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20791.msg216069#msg216069).

Again, there are games that give that level of control to players--Polaris, The Mountain Witch, Dogs in the Vineyard all have it to some degree, and they all work more or less well for some people. For me...not so much; I wasn't that crazy about TMW or DitV, largely because they take a schizophrenic attitude toward immersion and Shared Narrative Control. Polaris may be more to my taste but I can't be sure since I only got to play a brief session of it; in any case it seems to take a much more solid position in favor of rules-mediated storytelling. If so that would make it easier for me to understand but also less likely to view as a candidate for meat-and-potatoes RPGing.

Where I stand is, I think, somewhat less on the improvisational axis than Clash and RE, and with most of the active GMing occurring between sessions. It's hard to gauge, though.

[Hmmm...I wrote the following but frankly it's more hypothetical than I'd like. I'll keep it in and if anyone can make heads or tails of it, so much the better. Also--oops, a lot of this started as a quick edit and ballooned; by the time I was done I thought I was posting a new message.]

An example: the session is slowing down, so instead of wrapping up, the GM scans down a list of "flags" (issues of interest to one or more characters) and creates a situation out of one of them to throw at the players. This is leaning a bit more toward story-time than I'd care for. On the other hand if the GM incorporates "flags" in the campaign setup, then "administers" them neutrally, that would be fine.

To elaborate, suppose I create a character who's on the run after defrauding the Mafia. What I'd like the GM to do is either to have some way of situating and tracking the PCs enemies and their reaction to whatever the PC does, to see when they make an appearance...or simply have a random chance per session that they show up. What I wouldn't like so much would be for the GM to have them pop up simply to add spice to a scenario. Or at least, I'd see that as a very different sort of game.

Another example: regardless of "flags", the GM will generate a new situation to provide for an interesting game. But how does this fit into the flow of game-time and real-time? Again I think some GMs introduce plot complications ad hoc into an existing scenario. I think I prefer to have a situation be resolved without this kind of intervention--though random events/wandering NPCs are a different matter; they're part of the prep even though they appear later, possibly not at all. The time for situation-generation is either after the players have proposed a new course of action (usually at the end of a session, planning for the next one), or as a consequence of completed player action, or simply due to passage of time and how it plays out in campaign background.

And again, more concretely: if the players decide to just hit the bad guys' lair, guns blazing, and they somehow succeed, now is not the time to impro an über-boss who'll keep things rolling for the rest of the session. Now's the time for the GM to solicit player input on what they do during downtime and what they plan to next. The GM might have a new event that's triggered either by a timeline or randomly, but downtime and player initiatives should be taken into account. E.g., the GM may know that some enemy is going to try to break into a PC's apartment; it doesn't follow that it happens immediately if and only if there's a lull in the game. Player initiatives might pre-empt the event or alter its circumstances (maybe the player buys an alarm system). Or maybe the PCs do nothing for a year and the GM duly notes the passage of time before introducing the new situation.

Quote from: XantherEven if glorious fun for 20 folks of all ages, and sounding like a parlor game, can you make a campaign of it?

I dunno. That's the thing about a lot of non-traditional games, though - they never seem to get played for long campaigns.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. First, do we want a campaign, or a fun session? Ideally, a whole campaign of fun sessions, but...

Second, the average length of campaigns, according to another rpg.net survey I put up, was 10-15 sessions, and most people excluded the 1 or 2 session things that just sort of fizzled. So if people are actually just playing 1 or 2 sessions usually, or up to about a dozen if they're doing okay, then... why not aim for what we're getting anyway? Why not just go for short campaigns, but aim to make 'em good, not fizzles?

Another issue is whether a game is played, or replayed. That's something Dancey brings up about D&D, and also something that people bring up about these Forger games - a lot of people buy them then never or rarely play. But I don't think that's really restricted to roleplaying games. Lots of homes have a whole pile of board and card games gathering dust, never or rarely played.

And with those games, some have got more replay value than others. You can probably play chess every day, Trivial Pursuit once a week or two, but Cluedo only every few months. If you tried to play Cluedo every day it'd get old and tired quick. So I think it's okay for roleplaying games to be the same.

On the other hand, if the inventor of Cluedo were to tell a chess player that Cluedo was a great revolution in board games and that the thing to do with board games was make them more like Cluedo, well then we'd have to tell him that's bullshit.

I guess in this analogy, D&D - or any rules-heavy, defined GM/player split game - is chess, and Gingerbread Men or Dogs or whatever are Cluedo.

Personally, if there is no campiagn potential I'd rather play a board game, one with a conclusion at the end of the night.  

I'm really on the outliers here (although I don't go to rpgnet) the length of my campaigns is usually 2xnumber of months until I have to move.

Just a brief note to point to my above post, which I expanded on heavily before realizing I was editing and not posting a new one. So, heads up, and apologies for that.

Quote from: XantherNow that is excitement.  I bet you get four hours of fun in four hours.  Maybe these designers who opine about how "traditional" RPG play is not fun never got this going even 1 time in 10.

I'd have to say I've got a similar approach to clash but I'm a very well prepared situationalist, with multiple contigencies ready.  The rules allow it to just flow, if your using rules that constantly pull you out of play to look things up or compute changes or conditionals, then it's just going to stop the flow.   But that doesn't mean traditional RPGs can't work just the rule set you've chosen is problematic.

6 times in ten, it's 8 hours of fun in 8 hours. 4 times in 10 it's 4 hours of fun in 8 hours. WHen I first evolved this style, I was a well-prepared situational GM, like you, but I found it hard to avoid subconcoiusly steering the PCs towards what I had prepared, so I began evolving improvisational and low-prep techniques. Now most of my prep is focused on the initial situation, and I improvise the rest.

-clash

Elliot - That's basically how I run things. NPCs have personalities, motives, resources, and goals when I create them. I have no idea how the PCs will react, so I work from these established bases of the NPC to determine how the NPC reacts or acts. I try to make it feel real, not fictional.

-clash

Recently I've been thinking that Referee, Game Master, Story Teller, Keeper, and Narrator are all basically wrong.

Facilitator, User Interface, Oracle, and Guy Who Bought The Books are all closer to the mark.

Banker. :)

Quote from: David JohansenRecently I've been thinking that Referee, Game Master, Story Teller, Keeper, and Narrator are all basically wrong.

Facilitator, User Interface, Oracle, and Guy Who Bought The Books are all closer to the mark.

"Game Manager"

Less romantic.  More accurate.

Quote from: flyingmiceElliot - That's basically how I run things. NPCs have personalities, motives, resources, and goals when I create them. I have no idea how the PCs will react, so I work from these established bases of the NPC to determine how the NPC reacts or acts. I try to make it feel real, not fictional.

Absolutely.  It's simply a matter of having the game world and it's inhabitants behave as if they were real (world-oriented) as opposed to part of a story (story-oriented).  If the setting and NPCs are interesting enough, things will be pretty interesting no matter what the PCs do.

Quote from: John Morrow"Game Manager"

Less romantic.  More accurate.

This is good. :)

Unless it's a Western game and then it should be "Wrangler!" :)

Quote from: StuartThis is good. :)

As an added benefit, it shortens to "GM".

Quote from: John MorrowAbsolutely.  It's simply a matter of having the game world and it's inhabitants behave as if they were real (world-oriented) as opposed to part of a story (story-oriented).  

Ding, winner. That's the difference right there, succinctly put. See also Settembrini's sig, which is a logical consequence of the above.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDing, winner. That's the difference right there, succinctly put. See also Settembrini's sig, which is a logical consequence of the above.

Exactly.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenCould 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.)

The problem I have with this concept is that it breaks the contract.  It is an intrinsically different game.   Players are no longer exploring the GM's / World Weaver's Universe.  They are co-creating it.   What's the problem with that?  Well for one thing it makes it functionally impossible to be an effective Story-Creator in the traditional sense.   Why?  Because lets say you've created a BackStory that is involved and complex and has lots of wonderful moving parts and inter-relationships (you know where I'm going), and all of a sudden, on some totally incomprehensible whim, and without any knowledge of what's going on in the BackStory because they haven't gotten there yet, the Player decides that X should be the son of Y.   Bam!  World-RE-WRITE.   In the middle of a complex and wonderful story that can spell Death to the GM's efforts.   That is simply a bad setup.  

If people want to Co-Create the World that's fine, I guess, but it would have to be done in a much more integrating way with the original BackStory than simply a whimsical decision because Player A happens to have resource points or a lucky roll to spend.   And without intimate knowledge of the BackStory how the hell can Player A add anything *actually* coherent to the story?   That's what I'd like to know.   I suspect the answer is, Player A can't.   And therefore the concept of Player Empowerment at the BackStory level is, as far as I can tell, just plain BadWrongFun.   I really just don't see how it can be done without exposing the entire BackStory to the Players.  Which totally kills the premise of the Traditional GM-Player Contract as I see it.

Or did I miss something essential in how Dancey, or any of the Player Empowerment Advocates, envisions this working?  So far it doesn't add up for me.   How do these guys answer this show-stopper?  

- Mark

Well, there are two elements here, hidden backstory and complex backstory. Hidden backstory of course goes right out the window if players are improvising stuff into existence without any limit or veto by the GM. Complex backstory though can survive, in theory, if the GM is quick enough on his feet to incorporate whatever the player contributes. But even in a game where the GM preps very little, you will eventually get a complex backstory as players add stuff, and there's the rub: how do you ensure that all the players "step up" and produce satisfactory additions that fit with whatever's already established? Or from another direction, who enforces continuity? And how?

Again the standard response is to just punt and say that the group is assumed to be compatible on that level as a prerequisite to satisfactory gaming. This is asking for a lot but perhaps it can work, with a bit of a mental adjustment and (frankly) kicking out the spazzes and weirdos. I think a bit more clever answer is to go straight to the mechanics to resolve all disputes; you can do this in Polaris, and I think you could do it Primetime Adventures, too--at the risk of going gonzo in both cases. But if there's some sort of feedback mechanic to give more narrative power to players who satisfy the other players, you might end up "naturally" ostracising the spazzes and/or training them how to fit into the group. Just a thought; after all the proof of the pudding isn't whether Group X's "story" is satisfactory to some outside observer, but whether it's enjoyable for the participants. So it's no skin off my nose if (hypothetically) most PTA games are awful, cliched drek with enormous continuity glitches, as long as the game works well for me and my group.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, there are two elements here, hidden backstory and complex backstory. Hidden backstory of course goes right out the window if players are improvising stuff into existence without any limit or veto by the GM. Complex backstory though can survive, in theory, if the GM is quick enough on his feet to incorporate whatever the player contributes. But even in a game where the GM preps very little, you will eventually get a complex backstory as players add stuff, and there's the rub: how do you ensure that all the players "step up" and produce satisfactory additions that fit with whatever's already established? Or from another direction, who enforces continuity? And how?

Again the standard response is to just punt and say that the group is assumed to be compatible on that level as a prerequisite to satisfactory gaming. This is asking for a lot but perhaps it can work, with a bit of a mental adjustment and (frankly) kicking out the spazzes and weirdos. I think a bit more clever answer is to go straight to the mechanics to resolve all disputes; you can do this in Polaris, and I think you could do it Primetime Adventures, too--at the risk of going gonzo in both cases. But if there's some sort of feedback mechanic to give more narrative power to players who satisfy the other players, you might end up "naturally" ostracising the spazzes and/or training them how to fit into the group. Just a thought; after all the proof of the pudding isn't whether Group X's "story" is satisfactory to some outside observer, but whether it's enjoyable for the participants. So it's no skin off my nose if (hypothetically) most PTA games are awful, cliched drek with enormous continuity glitches, as long as the game works well for me and my group.

Ok, I can see a way out of the bog, I *think*, but it would require specific Player-Empowerment Rules that allow Players to add content to the BackStory without risking destroying the pre-existing BackStory as created by the World Weaver*.  

If I were to pick up on the Player Empowerment aspect I would need to ensure that there's some rules in place for them not to wreck the BackStory.  How would I do that?  Hmmm...

1.  GM has Veto over BackStory additions and can and should use it when:

  a) the new element interferes with existing BackStory and
  a1) does not enhance the story
  a2) causes major revisions to other elements of the existing BackStory that would create Story Incoherence (ie - would require changing existing Played History in the Campaign)

  b) the new element is unacceptable deviation from the genre (such as throwing some clownish element into the climactic Cthulhu Moment)

  c) The GM really really just can't stand it because it is too horrid, stupid, or added with the intent to undermine existing BackStory.

  d) The new element is too Grand (such as the existence of an entire new race, new civilization, etc) where the inclusion of such an element would create too many incalculable implications on the rest of the BackStory.   For example, a Player postulates the existence of a Race of Orc-Devourers that would, if they existed, have eliminated the entire Race of Orcs long ago.

... n) Potential Additional Rules as may become clearly needed during the course of play-testing.

However, that said, this does in fact undermine the whole concept of Player Empowerment in one crucial aspect, of course.  It leaves GM Fiat in place in the form of ultimate Veto Power.  Worse, no one in the case of a Veto could prove that the GM was 'cheating' in Vetoing something that did not abide by the rules without requiring an explanation that would in turn require an explanation of BackStory, defeating the purpose of the Veto Rules, which is to keep the BackStory coherent without having to reveal the BackStory to the Players.   Dicey, indeed.  In so far as that is the case, I'd venture to say that Player Empowerment is to this degree incompatible with the Original GM-Player Contract, and it's intent as I see it.   That intent being to create a game structure in which Players explore the World of the World Weaver, not knowing what is ahead of them necessarily.   It is, again, this aspect of Play that as a Player I enjoyed the most.   I extrapolate that others do as well.

On the other hand, if the Players can live with those limitations, then I see no further reason not to adopt the technique, in principal.   And in this case, I'd say that it could prove to be an enhancement to the game.   The aspect that I do like about Player Empowerment are those that I've heard as it's benefits before, namely, that it is fun for Players, and that it takes some of the BackStory creation burden off the GM.   So, I'd be willing to try it.  

- Mark

* "World Weaver" is a generic term I'm using to describe the function of creating BackStory.   Most often this is an activity that the GM does, however it is not required.  For example, GM's might pick up BackStory from pre-written modules, books, films, etc.   World Weaving is to be distinguished from the other GM responsibilities, such as Rules Adjudication, and Improvisational NPC play.

Quote from: flyingmiceElliot - That's basically how I run things. NPCs have personalities, motives, resources, and goals when I create them. I have no idea how the PCs will react, so I work from these established bases of the NPC to determine how the NPC reacts or acts. I try to make it feel real, not fictional.

Quote from: John MorrowAbsolutely.  It's simply a matter of having the game world and it's inhabitants behave as if they were real (world-oriented) as opposed to part of a story (story-oriented).  If the setting and NPCs are interesting enough, things will be pretty interesting no matter what the PCs do.

These two sum it up for me exactly.  Much of my prep being the world-oriented motivations, resources and interrelations thought out several moves ahead, along with crunch to help, just so that in real time without delay for much thought I can achieve more sophisticated world-oriented responses.

Quote from: flyingmice6 times in ten, it's 8 hours of fun in 8 hours. 4 times in 10 it's 4 hours of fun in 8 hours. WHen I first evolved this style, I was a well-prepared situational GM, like you, but I found it hard to avoid subconcoiusly steering the PCs towards what I had prepared, so I began evolving improvisational and low-prep techniques. Now most of my prep is focused on the initial situation, and I improvise the rest.

-clash

I think you're highlighting on my disconnect clash.  You learned, through experience, that situational GMing kept you from steering the PCs.  The players are proactive so you can further the session.  It's a give/take relationship.  In my opinion, the other method is trying to achieve the same playing atmosphere but it's hardwired into the rules.  What you learned from GMing is built into the game, so that players and GMs don't have to spend time learning how to avoid classic pitfalls of the GM/player relationship.  I don't see it as anything more than that.  I'm confused by the story game vs. trad game, GM disempowerment vs. player empowerment, exploration vs. contribution, players vs. GM taking advantage, don't tell me how to game, types of arguments.  Both sides of the argument are taking something simple and blowing it WAY the hell out of proportion.  Has internet debate poisoned the perception of the games themselves?

Quote from: GunslingerHas internet debate poisoned the perception of the games themselves?

I don't think so. It could be that you haven't read many of the more radical designs out there. Or, no offense, you may have such a strong idea of how to play/run an RPG that you impose that on all the games you play, so they all look the same to you.

That's just speculation, really, I have no idea if it applies to you. I do know that the description of "traditional" games by many Forgers is almost unrecognizable to me; given their experience it's perhaps understandable that they think it's a radical innovation to not railroad characters through linear plots. It all depends on where you're coming from.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt could be that you haven't read many of the more radical designs out there.

That is definitely a possibility.  I can only frame the argument through the games I have experience with, which is probably small compared to most.  I only have a handful of Forge inspired games, mixed with a majority of what I consider trad games.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenOr, no offense, you may have such a strong idea of how to play/run an RPG that you impose that on all the games you play, so they all look the same to you.

None taken and a good point.

Dancey said that it was better for the players to narrate game-world things than the GM. I said, "That just leaves the rules. What's the GM there for, then?" He said he agreed, and what was the GM there for?

What he's missing there is one of the main reasons we roleplay - for the joy of discovery.

In my view, the GM is there to describe the results of the PCs' interactions with the game world. The reason not to have the players do it is that if a player could come up with interesting things all by themselves they wouldn't be doing roleplaying, they'd be writing a novel.

I think people have expressed here well the idea of the "secret backstory" which the GM knows and is gradually revealed by the actions of the PCs, and which you can't have if game world things are narrated by players all the time.

But it's not simply secret backstories they'd miss out, because the GM has an overview of the game which players don't. That's why the coach is there in a football game, they're someone who's sitting back seeing the whole of the game, while the players naturally only see what's right in front of them. That's why dance companies have choreographers, too. The player naturally has a narrow view of things, the co-ordinator has a broad view, and tries to bring the narrow views together into something greater.

That may sound railroady, but I don't mean that. I mean more that the GM prompts the overall direction of things by who and what they put in the game world.

I also think that in any group, it's natural that someone or other will dominate, speak and be listened to more. I've played in GMless games, and someone always takes control. Dancey &co might say that this is just some holdover from traditional gaming, but it's something I've seen in work and sports and social groups, too. Even if you go to the pub with your mates for an evening someone will basically be in charge. I think it's better to formalise that role, so that the person dominating will do so for the fun of all, rather than just for their own fun.

There was a good bit in HeroQuest where they noted that part of the joy of reading a novel or watching a movie was not knowing what was going to happen next, then finding out. They said that in rpgs because you decide what's happening next, that could be missing - so that's why we have dice, to keep things uncertain, and to have the joy of discovery.

I'd add that that's why we have a GM, to interpret and narrate the results of the dice rolls, and also the times when the dice aren't rolled at all.

If the player narrates the results of their character's actions, then the player loses that joy of discovering what was uncertain. It becomes the same as sitting at home by yourself writing a story.

The GM is better-placed than the players to narrate results of PC-world interactions because the GM knows the whole game world. Of course, it's possible to have GMless games where each player creates some part of the game world, but then the players' complete knowledge removes the joy of exploring, of discovery. You'd still have some surprise and discovery as other players surprised you, but the world wouldn't have that coherence and integration that a world well-designed by one person has. I mean, if you hear someone say, "this thing looks like it was designed by a comittee" then you think "mess", yeah? Well, with most of the game world created by players it'll be designed by a comittee.

Which could be fun for a session or two, but not longer-term. I was saying earlier how it's okay if campaigns don't have longevity, if you just want fun for an evening that's fine, nobody complains about not being able to have a series of connected games of Cluedo.

I guess what I mean is the difference between "fun" and "fulfilling." To fuck about with gingerbread men or just have "the fighter" and "the wizard" slay orcs in one room and skeletons in the next is fun, but it's not fulfilling. What's fulfilling is to have a campaign of several sessions where your characters can each live and change a bit, and explore and affect their game world.

Now, I've no doubt that for Dancey it was fulfilling to play gingerbread men for a day with his friends and family, just like every one is fulfilled by being with their family and friends. But that's not a game design issue, and it's not something we can take to roleplaying in general; he was fulfilled by family and friends, not by the game itself.

The difference between Dancey's gingerbread men session and even something as simple and straightforward as Against the Giants is like the difference between two kids playing kick-to-kick in the backyard and a full game of football with established teams and a referee. One is definitely fun, and if you do it with family and friends, fulfilling but not because of the game itself; the other is both fun and fulfilling.

For that feeling of fulfilment, you need players who describe their characters' interactions with the game world, and a GM who describes the results of that.

Not to respond for clash but here is how I see the difference.  But first things first.

Quote from: GunslingerHas internet debate poisoned the perception of the games themselves?

Of course isn’t that the purpose of internet debate? :)  No really I think it is Mr. Dancey’s delivering of his views in absolutists terms and absolute statements about traditional TRPG game play that get folks going.  The conclusions about traditional game play implied or outright made are counter to what people know from decades of personal experience, with respect to their games then and now.  

I’ll just address my side of it but I don’t mean to say the collaborative world-building approach is not fun, or badwrongfun, or that we shouldn’t have such games.  Sometimes I get the feeling Dancey is implying all those negative things about traditional TRPG play.  But he needs to if his goal is seeking investment in his new vision as the last best hope for TRPGs.    In the end if we all walk out of our game night having a great time who cares about the rules.  

Quote from: GunslingerI think you're highlighting on my disconnect clash.  You learned, through experience, that situational GMing kept you from steering the PCs.  The players are proactive so you can further the session.  It's a give/take relationship.  In my opinion, the other method is trying to achieve the same playing atmosphere but it's hardwired into the rules.  

I’ll first mention that not all players want to be so proactive, and the collaborative building part will turn them off or they’ll just narrate something very short and very simple.  What these players often want is to act in response to the world that behaves with an underlying reasonableness and they want a human so they are not limited in tactics or actions (the whole world is destructible and moveable in a TRPG) and have their opponents/obstacles react in a challenging way to them (the AI of MMORPG just isn’t anywhere near as good as a real person).

True, the give/take is the stated goal of the collaborative method in theory but it is unlikley in practice to address true problems.  Specifically…

Unrestrained Collaborative World/Story Building Does Not Solve the Adversarial GM/Player Problem
    The idea that the rules that empower players solve the adversarial problem is false.  Adversarial styles don’t come from the mechanics in most traditional TRPG (although evangelization of such styles can come from the designer) they arise from the people.  One or both being unreasonable in the social contract of the table.  Peer pressure to be reasonable is what controls this in a traditional TRPG as it will in the collaborative game.  But the rules are never going to result in an unreasonable person being reasonable any more than Rule 0 ever did.  They are rules without teeth, the teeth being the people around the table enforcing the rule, that is the local social contract of what is non-adversarial play.  In fact, collaborative games will only exacerbate the problem by putting it in the rules that you choose the outcome.  The jerk player will read this as a license to do anything, no matter rule caveats.  So you can get situations like this:

 Party comes to the first door in a dungeon that is know to have goblins, other fell beast, and a dragon deep below rumored to have a vast horde.  The Thief listens and rolls to hear something he succeeds now he needs to narrate, create the world he says:
“I hear a deeply snoring dragon as if he’s in coma from some powerful spell, occasionally he stirs and the sound of a massive pile of coins and large items shifting under him is heard.”

The GM and other players say “What?, This is the entry the dragon can’t be here, he’s deep underground.”

Thief: “No he’s here the locals were wrong, and he is very soundly asleep on a hoard of gold and magical items.  The goblins must use another entrance we haven’t found yet.  Anyway I don’t want some lame goblins, I want to create a story about grand dragons and hordes of treasure, not one mucking about for a few coppers with goblins. Anyway it says right in the rules I can narrate my story.”

GM and other players: ”OK”

Thief:  “OK I check the door, oil the hinges if necessary, and open the door as quietly as possible.”

GM: “You can’t it’s locked.”

Thief: “Wait, I didn’t say it was locked that’s not part of my story.  OK well I’m good at picking locks so I pick it, I roll x, success!”

GM: “Nope that roll doesn’t succeed the locks too difficult to pick.”

Thief: “What! Is this a collaborative game or what?  It sounds like you just don’t want me to get the treasure.  Anyway the mage has a spell that opens locked doors.”

Mage (who is Thief’s friend): “OK I cast the spell. Roll, success.  The door opens.”

GM: “Any more, can you add some more description.”

Thief looks at Mage, Mage: “The door opens without a sound to reveal a gleaming pile of treasure with magic items sticking out of it.”

Now the thief may go through the whole check for traps, sneak up on the dragon, etc.  When it comes time to determine what is discovered, a whole other can of worms is opened up.  You can imagine the Thief stating.

Thief: “I want to find a Dragon Slayer Sword.” GM: “Roll. Not there.”
Thief: “I want to find a Vorpal Blade.” GM: “Roll. Not there.”
Thief: “I want to find a Sword that makes me impervious to dragon breath, ignores armor and makes me invisible to anything.” GM: “Roll. Not there.”
Thief: “I want to find a Dragon Slaying Arrow like in The Hobbit, and Bow that never misses, and the Dragon has a weak spot just like Smaug.” GM: “Roll. Not there.  Ask for something reasonable”
Thief: “Reasonable, you mean lame. You just want me to create your story for you. You don’t want me to tell mine.  This is all just railroading until I guess what you want me to do.”

Is the player being juvenile and adversarial? Yes.   The point is, collaborative games don’t lessen this behavior but worsen it.  Adversarial is adversarial whether GM or player initiated.  The only check there has ever been on such behavior is not game rules but the social contract between players.   The fact that the other players can reign in such people is beside the point, they always could in any traditional TRPG as Tin God GMs were reigned in.  The answer when this is brought up is usually, well yeah you can create the world as a player within limits.   Yet the troublesome, adversarial player will just complain about those limits, and call the collaborative part a farce. As traditional games had limits too.

I won’t even begin to talk about what could happen if you have players that want to take the world and story in different directions, all of which fit with the premises of the world and situation.  Someone or thing is going to have to arbitrate and pick, maybe democracy, maybe the GM.  In the end , not everyone is going to get their way and some will not feel empowered by the rules.

QuoteWhat you learned from GMing is built into the game, so that players and GMs don't have to spend time learning how to avoid classic pitfalls of the GM/player relationship.  I don't see it as anything more than that.  

What is the classic pitfall?  You mean the adversarial relationships?  That ain’t going to go away and it was never universal or prevalent in my experience in the “I’m out to get you, dictatorial jerk sense.”  All the talk about making the collaborative game work relies on the social contract at the table, not the rules. Rather the rules in such games make it worse by giving everyone, except the GM, a basis and mandate to act by fiat.  

Frankly just because you can draw a division of labor between GM and player (which can get blurry and varies) it seems that certain game designers think this inherehtly leads to adversarial relationships in actuality and not just as a cnoveninet descriptor of a game style (nice that a descriptor is chose with negative connotations). And/or that certain games designers view GM’s as some species of Ogre unable to cooperate, be impartial, abstain from undesired railroading etc., or that traditional games almost always create such.  Yet players, who are also humans that often GM, are somehow paragons of reason and fonts of impromtu creativity that if only the right game existed would change the world forever.  I doubt that’s true, anymore than all players are whiners.

QuoteI'm confused by the story game vs. trad game, GM disempowerment vs. player empowerment, exploration vs. contribution, players vs. GM taking advantage, don't tell me how to game, types of arguments. Both sides of the argument are taking something simple and blowing it WAY the hell out of proportion.

I agree.  

I just disagree with the original Dancey implication that traditional TRPG are somehow inherently flawed and his current game of choice is inherently going to solve those flaws.  Sure it can be a fun game world building together, some players are going to dig it, others hate doing it, and others have a hard time improving something that is as good what they would have come up with had they sat down and thought on it for a while.

I’ll leave it to his research data that what TRPG people really want is his version of storytelling games.  I can only say in my antidotal way that every experience I have had, or forum I have read (self selected for sure and excepting The Forge) tends to want exactly what they already got, a traditional RPG.  Sure people may gripe about rules bloat, time commitment, edition of D&D, T&T vs. TFT vs. RIFTS vs. GURPS vs. games without an acronym, but they are certainly more on the traditional side of the play style and none of them seem to regularly feel disempowered or have Ogres for GMs.

We might have a clue as to why Dancey thinks we need GMless games, or rather games where everyone's the GM. He says there are too many GMs, not enough players (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99639#99639).

Quote from: Ryan Dancey1970: Any GM could find players.
1980: Most GMs could find players.
1990: Many GMs could find players.
2000: Some GMs could find players.
2010: Few GMs will find players.

This trend, which is now 40 years old, is unlikely to change.

I can guarantee you that for 95% of the TRPGs being sold in the market today, there are more GMs than players. Most of those games have NOTHING but GMs; people who read the games, think about playing them, and never do because they can't assemble a group to do it with. Probably 50% of the TRPGs for sale right now are played regularly by fewer than 1% of the people who have read them.

For the remaining 5% (D20, Storyteller, Palladium, etc.) there are more people playing than GMing, but the number of players is dropping fast, and more and more GMs are finding their game groups dissolving despite their best efforts to keep them intact.

I don't know what planet he's living on, but everywhere I've ever been, there were more people keen to play than to GM. I think perhaps he's confusing "bought a few game books" with "wants to GM," or else "will GM if they have to just to get a game going," with "wants to GM."

Or maybe it's just that the 95% of rpgs he's talking about can't get players because, well, not many people want to play gingerbread men, low-class teenaged girls, or oppressed minions of an evil overlord. So he's taking a "we can't get people to play these games" problem and claiming it's a problem with all of roleplaying. And I suppose it is - for the indie game designers.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat is the classic pitfall?

There's a lot there to respond to, so I'll start with this.  The classic pitfall, to me, is an awareness of what the group desires out of a game.  This doesn't derive from any particular system or is fixed by any particular system.  It may change the approach or at least satiate certain aspects of that desire but what more is there to it than that?

Oh, you just mean, "the group doesn't talk to each-other." Yes, that's a classic problem for game groups.

In my game groups I always keep one player from the last campaign, to go with the 2 or 3 new players. This old player knows me well enough to take the piss out of me on a regular basis. This mockery of the GM and host of the game acts to bond the new group members together. It also means people feel free to speak up. Mocking someone regularly in a light-hearted and non-malicious way makes it easier to talk to them about more important stuff.

Maybe Dancey doesn't let anyone make fun of him, and that's why his game sessions aren't much fun.

Quote from: XantherNot to respond for clash but here is how I see the difference.  But first things first...

I thoroughly agree!  Really well said!  Bravo!!  

Well, perhaps if they ever stop trying to push Ivory-Tower-Rhetoric-Driven game designs, they might do better?   It doesn't take a brainiac to figure out that evangelizing "Player Empowerment" to Gamesmasters is not going to be a winning Marketing Strategy.  After all, it's not Players who drive RPG sales, it's GMs.  And why would GMs be attracted to RPGs that are intrinsically opposed to - GMing?  It appears to make no sense.  Unless there's more to the picture than meets the eye.

Anyway...  Brilliant Post!!  Thanks!

Long Live GM Fiat!
:)

Quote from: Kyle AaronWe might have a clue as to why Dancey thinks we need GMless games, or rather games where everyone's the GM. He says there are too many GMs, not enough players (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99639#99639).

I don't know what planet he's living on, but everywhere I've ever been, there were more people keen to play than to GM. I think perhaps he's confusing "bought a few game books" with "wants to GM," or else "will GM if they have to just to get a game going," with "wants to GM."

Or maybe it's just that the 95% of rpgs he's talking about can't get players because, well, not many people want to play gingerbread men, low-class teenaged girls, or oppressed minions of an evil overlord. So he's taking a "we can't get people to play these games" problem and claiming it's a problem with all of roleplaying. And I suppose it is - for the indie game designers.

That's just friggin weird.  Where in the world is he getting this stuff?  I can't imagine there is any data on this stuff from the 1970s or 1980s.  And what is he saying, that we'll all be GMs and there will be no players.  Like being a GM and player are mutually exclusive?  I can see it now, "Hi Kyle want to play D&D 5th edition.  Sorry, I'm a GM now I can't play.  Sorry Kyle, I'm a GM too, can't play any more. Man it sucks no one likes TRPGs anymore, up for playing a MMORPG?"

IIRC in the 70's we were all GM, player and game designer rolled into one because OD&D had gaps that came up in play.  

I think you probably have the gist of it, he's misreading or misleading with some statistic on percentage of games played.  It is also misleading to say 95% of games are never played as if that mean 95% ofa ll TRPGers can't find players to play with.  No tehy play teh otehr 5% of games they have on their shelf.  It's a misleading way to put it as only a small fraction of the number of games make up a huge segment of the market.  The "5%" of d20 is probably 80% of all RPGs played.  

I'm losing all respect for this Ryan guy, it's one thing to sell the game on good game play, and rules designed to really support a style of play.  I mean that is cool, you might actually convince me to try it.  But the scare tactics and hubris?  Wait is he playing a game with us?  Is this some like viral marketing kind of thing for Dogs in the Vineyard?  Convert or else?

Quote from: Kyle AaronDancey said that it was better for the players to narrate game-world things than the GM. I said, "That just leaves the rules. What's the GM there for, then?" He said he agreed, and what was the GM there for?

Might help to mention that this was in a different thread (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6093&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) from the one you referenced in the OP.

What really strikes me in all this, and it's a pattern I've seen before, is the extremely limited basis for comparison on which the "storytelling" games are being touted as both "revolutionary" and "necessary". You can see it most clearly in the comments by Ken Burnside, and I strongly suspect it's where Dancey's coming from as well. Ken:

QuoteI've played MMOs. I really can't see anything in a D&D game that I can't do in Worlds of Warcraft, with a lot less work on my part. I get the same thrill of minmaxing powers, don't have to worry about die rolls, and don't have to put up with a GM as a player, or generate three file boxes of back story as a player.

And later,

QuoteMost D&D games have a band of looters (PCs) who go through a series of adventures (sometimes against giants) killing things to get experience points, gaining bigger toys to get bigger powers to kill more powerful things. It's a very nice Skinner treadmill.

Most WoW games have a band of looters (PCs) who go through a series of adventures (usually starting with rats and working their way up to giants), killing things to get experience points, gaining bigger toys to get bigger powers to kill more powerful things.

The fact that you can actually roleplay while doing your adolescent power tripping is a nice side effect, but there's very little in D&D to actively encourage roleplaying....and the exploration/simulative part of the RPG market will find WoW more immersive than a D&D game where the room descriptions are read by a sweaty guy with a nasal voice and all the delivery panache of a wet blanket.

So from a limited set of data, essentially hack & slash module-based D&D, not even "D&D in general" let alone games like RQ or GURPS, Ken & Ryan conclude that players who are tired of the H&S climb-the-experience-ladder style of play are really hungering for the power to improvisationally define the game world outside of their character. It's like arguing that the house isn't blue, therefore it's orange.

Do I think that RQ or GURPS are the real answer to hack & slash exhaustion? Of course not. But the Dancey-indie show is just a classic case of someone trying to usurp leadership and impose unity on a diverse fringe by attacking the mainstream.

(I also find it interesting that Dancey claims that TTRPGs must offer greater player control over the world in order to survive the supposed drain of exploration/challenge-oriented players by MMORPGs, but he then offers two online games (EVE and Second Life) as proof of the appeal of worldbuilding and player proactivity.)

Quote from: XantherThat's just friggin weird.  Where in the world is he getting this stuff?  I can't imagine there is any data on this stuff from the 1970s or 1980s.  And what is he saying, that we'll all be GMs and there will be no players.  Like being a GM and player are mutually exclusive?

Well, the old AD&D1e DMG did have Gygax saying that players weren't allowed to look into the DMG, and there were sections on "dealing with troublesome players" in which he said the DM should rid himself (it was always "him" with Gygax) of those players, he didn't mention what the other players might say... So there was definitely the thought that just one person would be the game master - forever - and never be a player again.

So maybe Dancey's meetings with Gygax brainwashed him or something ;)

Quote from: XantherI think you probably have the gist of it, he's misreading or misleading with some statistic on percentage of games played.  It is also misleading to say 95% of games are never played as if that mean 95% ofa ll TRPGers can't find players to play with.  No tehy play teh otehr 5% of games they have on their shelf.  

Of course. I mean, John Kim's webpage tells us there are about 1,000 rpgs put into print in English - not too many of them get played regularly. But still, I think that there's more variation in what's played than at first sight.

I've 15 different rpg systems on my shelves (not counting d4-d4), and 56 on pdf. And yet now we're playing a new one I came up with for a playtest. A game group I know across town is playing Burning Wheel, but previously played over 150 sessions of Hackmaster. Another group has a GM who says, "I'll play anything so long as it's GURPS." Down at the game clubs at the unis I see mostly D&D and nWoD being played.

So really there's a huge variety of stuff being played. There are lots of gamers who refuse to try other than their favourite system, or they try it but don't take it seriously and sabotage the game, but a pretty large number are happy to try lots of stuff. So if your little indie game can't have some success, that's not because gamers are stupid or busy playing WoW, but because your game is lame or badly-written or whatever.

And yes, Elliot, I agree that Burnside's and Dancey's comments sound like they're coming from bad D&D game sessions. Just like Uncle Ronny's comments seem to come from bad Vampire sessions. And like was said by Xanther above (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144982&postcount=66), most of the time it's just about crap players and people, not about crap game systems. They're confusing their bad personal experiences with some general principle. It's a bit like how if some guy's missus screws around on him, he might say, "all women are bitches!" Okay, Dancey and Burnside, so you ran or played in some shit D&D games: build a bridge and get over it.

Often though, I don't think they're even thinking back to some specific actual bad experience of their own, more to some imaginary caricature of things. Like, "if we take all the worst parts of System X, what kind of game would we get? Okay - every session of X is like this! It's terrible! A Skinner treadmill! An angsty wank! D&D has no rules for anything but smashing stuff, so all you can do is smash stuff! Brain damage!"

I'm starting to think this is almost a political difference. There are the socialists, who want laws to make things fair and bring out the best in people, and the liberals, who think the best thing government can do is get out of the way. So we've got the rules-heavy or rules-specific types who think that we need rules for what we want to happen in a game session, and the rules-light or rules-general types who say, "just roleplay it", etc.

But players can surprise you with their creativity. Last night one player had his character's first action on joining a private security and intelligence firm as... redecorating the tea room. But I didn't have rules for that! Oh no, what to do?! I was at a loss! Better tear up the system! Maybe we need a micro-game, Tea & Scones, with specific rules for redecoration?!

Again, it just seems like these guys are in a different world to us. Do Dancey and Burnside ever post about their game sessions? Do they have game sessions? Aside from one-offs with gingerbread men, I mean.

I mean, I don't everyone to be as open as me, me you can trace my old posts and find just about everything I've ever done, the great successes and the embarassing failures where I made a dick of myself... but still, you know... can't they tell us about their 25th level drowlesbianstripperninja, or their gay cowboys eating pudding?

Wow!  A nice rant, Ken, please show us on the doll where the GM hurt you.

What I can't do in a MMO?  Stack boxes to climb out a window.  Cut down a tree, build a ladder and scale a wall.  Any computer program is limited in what you can pull off with the environment.   It can be expanded by still limited.

AI opponents, are stupid and really unsatisfying to engage for the thrill of combat.  Big battles are just tedious point and click.  There is no real tactics, and the ones you can pull off often just exploit weakness in the AI.  

MMO have tedium of there own, albeit of a different kind than TRPGs.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWell, the old AD&D1e DMG did have Gygax saying that players weren't allowed to look into the DMG, and there were sections on "dealing with troublesome players" in which he said the DM should rid himself (it was always "him" with Gygax) of those players, he didn't mention what the other players might say... So there was definitely the thought that just one person would be the game master - forever - and never be a player again.

So maybe Dancey's meetings with Gygax brainwashed him or something ;)

...

Yes I remember it well, that being an example of an evangelizing designer.  I thought Gary's tone was strident, the recent posts form Ryan and Ken are putting old Gary to shame.

Yeah we all laughed at Gary then about not reading the DMG, there really wasn't any secret knowledge you didn't learn real quick from playing alot.  But then again we never memorized things, and surprise, as GMs we changed things slightly to mix it up.  Some would say he meant not to look in the DMG during play, which I might agree with.

Game designer kool-aid, refereshing!

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm starting to think this is almost a political difference. There are the socialists, who want laws to make things fair and bring out the best in people, and the liberals, who think the best thing government can do is get out of the way...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg)
The Indie-Revolution?  :raise:  Could be, could be...

The thing is they're not winning hearts and minds of Gamesmasters.  After all, "Player Empowerment" is not likely to be very appealing to GMs because it's intrinsically Anti-GM.  So, consequently, La Revolucion is not really working as Che has foreseen after all.   Kind of like poking a stick in the eye of the person you're trying to sell sticks to.   T'was a bad Marketing Strategy to begin with.   Sadly, its their Bad Rhetoric that's killing them.  The games themselves might have appealed to more GMs had they not foolishly deployed the BadWrongFun and BrainDamage attacks.   That was a huge Strategic error, and one that they may not be able to recover from.  Woopsie.   Just consider how things might have gone had they simply tried a Win-Win Strategy such as, "Traditional RPGs are FUN!  Try these New Ones, too!" ...?

Long live GM-Fiat!
:)

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe thing is they're not winning hearts and minds of Gamesmasters.  After all, "Player Empowerment" is not likely to be very appealing to GMs because it's intrinsically Anti-GM.  So, consequently, La Revolucion is not really working as Che has foreseen after all.

Marxism experienced the same problem when the working class that was supposed to rise up actually enjoyed the fruits of capitalism enough and had enough upward mobility to not be eager to revolt and tear it all down.  That's where the whole idea of a revolutionary vanguard came from and why most of the Marxist revolutions have relied on rural peasants and upper-class college students rather than factory workers and the urban lower classes.  The inevitable transformation of society that was originally expected never happened.  Hmmm.  Maybe that's not such a bad analogy after all.

Yeah it's sad they seemed to have deployed vinegar instead of honey in selling these games.  

It does effect my buying decision, I just won't buy from these guys.  I was thinking of picking up Burning Wheel for ideas on world building and as a supplement to what I do, it sounds like an excellent product for that no matter your play style.  Not anymore.  I expected a vigorous sell of good points, new options, how the collaborative rules can support your style but have a style all there own, not ImmatureFun, BrainDamage, I'mTheGuruBowBeforeMe arguments.

What do others think?  The Guru angle has always fascinated me on the internet.  It relies on capitulating judgment to the other based on their track record.  But on the internet the Guru doesn't know his audiences' track record.  What if the person on the other end is not some know nothing / unsuccessful / inexperienced teenager that is easily impressed?  

I know it is taught as a sales tactic to find out what people fear and sell to that fear, I think that is what we have going on here, but in the crying wolf sense that just undercuts your credibility.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe thing is they're not winning hearts and minds of Gamesmasters.  After all, "Player Empowerment" is not likely to be very appealing to GMs because it's intrinsically Anti-GM.

What about GMs who happen to be playing as players?  :)

I buy games I want to play.  In order to play some of them, that means GMing sometimes.  If you're purchasing RPGs, you're most likely both a GM and player of RPGs.  I wish I knew people that would run games for me that I've bought.  The best I usually can do is find someone who also has bought the game and sweet talking them into running.  

Quote from: XantherIt does effect my buying decision, I just won't buy from these guys. I was thinking of picking up Burning Wheel for ideas on world building and as a supplement to what I do, it sounds like an excellent product for that no matter your play style. Not anymore. I expected a vigorous sell of good points, new options, how the collaborative rules can support your style but have a style all there own, not ImmatureFun, BrainDamage, I'mTheGuruBowBeforeMe arguments.

That reaction surprises me.  Your problem isn't with the mechanics or how it plays, it's about the thought process that went behind the mechanics or how the game plays?  :confused: How do you envision the people you LIKE to play with playing these games?  Is the GM/player relationship really the cornerstone of your enjoyment of RPGs?  It very well could be but it sounds to me like people are just worrying about how change could affect what you really enjoy about the RPGs you're accustomed to playing.  If that's your preference cool, that method delivers what I enjoy about roleplaying games too.  Games that use different methods also satisfy what I enjoy about roleplaying games.  I enjoy playing characters and setting things up so others can enjoy playing characters.

Quote from: Gunslinger...
That reaction surprises me.  Your problem isn't with the mechanics or how it plays, it's about the thought process that went behind the mechanics or how the game plays?  :confused:

I think I might need to step back from my statement.  I originally thought Ken and Ryan had some official connection with the game.  If not then I may consider it, if they do have some official connection or are sanctioned by the company or author, then no thanks.  It's about giving my money to people whose sale tactics I find highly distasteful.  That is, the approach to selling that has turned me off not how the game was made.  

QuoteHow do you envision the people you LIKE to play with playing these games?  Is the GM/player relationship really the cornerstone of your enjoyment of RPGs?  

I think for us it is, the aspect of a player not knowing what's behind the door say and the division of labor.  Odd as it may sound I love making settings and designing adventures but when I play I want a break and a different experience, I want to be surprised.

  Nevertheless, if one of my friends want to try it I'll give it a go and try to work with it.  It's probably not much different than the play-by-chat game I'm in where in our character narration we help define the world by bits.  No rules for this we just know where we can narrate in some color that the GM may later turn into something.

QuoteIt very well could be but it sounds to me like people are just worrying about how change could affect what you really enjoy about the RPGs you're accustomed to playing.

Not worried, more amused and flabergasted by the statements made and with phrases like "adolescent power trip" a bit put off.

QuoteIf that's your preference cool, that method delivers what I enjoy about roleplaying games too.  Games that use different methods also satisfy what I enjoy about roleplaying games.  I enjoy playing characters and setting things up so others can enjoy playing characters.

I don't disagree.  I have nothing against the collaborative method, or narrative stories or any other playstyle and would be happy to hear what is good about it.  

I just have to say "you've got to be kidding me" when the argument is that these games are the one true way to game and the only hope for TRPGs.  Couple that with the implict (or explicit) argument that the traditional ways are inherently crap and if you don't agree you must be an idiot.  It makes one want to speak up and disagree.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron

"I demand my twenty minutes of fun!"

(http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/uploaded_images/2-745864.jpg)

The Last Best Hope of the Roleplaying Industry

No, seriously!

Why?  Has it been 3 1/2 hours already?  
Hey - pipe down - you still have 10 minutes of torturous bordom to go!   :)

Well, as we were told by Stuart (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7786), old Dancey is planning on writing (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Entries/2007/10/5_They_tell_me_I%E2%80%99m_an_overachiever.html)

   Ryan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to The D20 System

This book is designed to take a stock D&D game (or any reasonably close to stock D20 variant) and transform it into a Storytelling Game. The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode. It will include my take on: Player created content, character motivation mechanics, abstract resource management, and streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers. I will also be writing extensive notes on how to convert 3rd party materials for D20 for use in Storytelling Games using these concepts.
I say let's call it the Gingerbread Book, after the revolutionary innovative intuitive indie game which inspired him to these heights of genius. The GM and the players not being against each-other? Why, that's only been happening since 1973, Dancey's right on the cutting edge, here!

I don't know if the GM or the players should tell the story or not, so long as it's not Ryan Dancey telling it. Or RA Salvatore. Ahem.

One place where I'm going to give some of the Forge / GNS / Storygames theory types credit is that they don't just talk about their theories -- they actually put games together and make them available for people to play.  They may not be my cup of tea, but that's beside the point.  They're putting their ideas into practice, and a finished not-so-great project is better than a never-finished could-have-been-great project.

So I think it's good to see that Ryan is doing more than just talking about these ideas -- he's planning on making a game using them.  And in that context I can excuse some of the "last best hope" talk, as that's just good marketing.  ;) I still think Ryan is very clever when it comes to the marketing, production, and distribution side of creating RPGs.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his game develops -- even if it's not something I'm likely to want to play myself.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(In other threads here it's been called Shared Narrative Control; elsewhere I suppose it might be called "player assumption of Author Stance".)

I think, if I may be so bold, that this is my very own shiny term...

And to be clear, there are two kinds of Shared Narrative Control, Required and Voluntary.