TheRPGSite

You get wankers even over at the Fear the Boot forums, in a thread entitled "Story Game Vs Hack n' Slash ... an evolved form?" (http://www.feartheboot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7152). But the thread was worth wading through for this exchange,

Quote from: PillagingPolarBearI have not advocated for one either other than agree with Narmical that the mechanics of DnD do not support a story-telling style despite that style being fairly common.

Quote from: keith curtisThis is true. They don't. My point is that the rules of D&D are superfluous to the creation of story, which is a natural ability of humans, and that any rules which govern story creation necessarily limit it in some fashion. That is what rules do by definition.

That's beautiful. Rules for story creation limit story creation. The story-gamer crowd don't want to create story, they want to limit it!

Beautiful. I bet Andy K wouldn't let Curtis into his forums, and Uncle Ronny would flip out.

Only that limits can actually be productive.

"Tell me a story" can, in fact, seem daunting in its wide openness and purported freedom, whereas "tell me a story about corruption" might result in better and quicker results. True, you'll have less variety, but cohesion can be a goal as well, i.e. having a thematic core.

So basically, yes, rules are limiting. But they also give structure and provide inspiration.

Even out of the realm of story. I read the PHB and see rules about tripping. In combat, I might go, "wait a minute. Can I try to trip the guy?" whereas before, with all possible combat maneuvers in mind, I wouldn't have thought of it.

Now, to me, combat mechanics in D&D are too restrictive, and story mechanics non-existent, i.e. too lax. But the bigger problem for me is that role-playing (or story or whatever you want to call it) grinds to a halt in combat as everybody gets the minis out and another kind of game starts. But that's neither here nor there.

I just think your awesome pwnage hits the target, but fails to penetrate the armor (or damage reduction, to stay in the D&D framework).

Generally, I see nothing wrong in rules that _support_ story-creation. You don't have to pick up a story-game to see that stuff - well-crafted lifepaths are for instance an instant story generator that gives a PC goals, connections, enemies and other plot-hooks.
And although I think that 7th Sea is overall poorly crafted, its rules for Hybreis and Backgrounds are neat supporting stuff to get something interesting started and keep it moving.

There's other stuff in story-games that puts me personally off most SGs (board-gamey rules, Brecht-like Theme/Premise obsession in deferral to actually entertaining fiction, low re-play/long-term play value etc.), but the pure existence of rules for story isn't even close to one of them.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time now.

RPGPundit

I don't think keith curtis went far enough.

Rules that legislate story put the cart before the horse.  Narrative is a natural ability of human beings, true, but we do not enter experience with a pre-formed narrative to which we submit all our thoughts and actions.  Rather, narrative is a way of retroactively reflecting on experience, organizing the chaos of actuality and drawing meaning from it.

This is why any three people will take something completely different away from a shared experience or recount that experience differently.  This is why most literary stories are told in the past tense (and those which are written in the present or even future tenses are done in reaction to a normal narrative mode; they are exceptions proving the rule).  This is why we can tell a million stories about what happened in a million D&D campaigns in times past.

This is why rules to legislate narrative are ultimately useless and self-defeating.  Rules that give you hooks (lifepaths and such) can be good in moderation, but stories will happen regardless of whether you're playing D&D, Vampire, Sorcerer, or what have you.

Creativity, limitations, thriving under, et. al.

I don't think this is news, or even an indictment. Rules provide limits. It's the nature of rules. One could just as easily say that D&D's rules exist to limit the actions your character can perform.

Yawn.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's beautiful. Rules for story creation limit story creation. The story-gamer crowd don't want to create story, they want to limit it!

Beautiful. I bet Andy K wouldn't let Curtis into his forums,

Based on that item alone? You'd be definitly wrong.

On the subject matter, one might say the rules "limit" story creation, while another would simply say they channel story creation.

Rules that don't appeal to me often seem limiting. That includes rules for sports sim fantasy league, board games, traditional RPGs and yes, Story Games.

On the other hand, when the rules appeal to me, make sense on a personal level, I don't find them limiting at all. They allow everybody at the table to focus on the good things we're looking for.

This has been true for me of several so-called "Story Games" like PTA, Mountain Witch, etc... they're not limiting my ability to create stories. They've facilitated the creation of great stories for me.

Considering Malcolm Sheppard posts on Story Games, Andy's limits must be pretty broad.

Quote from: Technicolor Dreamcoat"Tell me a story" can, in fact, seem daunting in its wide openness and purported freedom, whereas "tell me a story about corruption" might result in better and quicker results. True, you'll have less variety, but cohesion can be a goal as well, i.e. having a thematic core.

So basically, yes, rules are limiting. But they also give structure and provide inspiration.

"Tell me a story about corruption" isn't a rule for story creation, it's establishing the story's premise, or in rpg terms, "a setting".

Rules for story creation in the sense Curtis was talking about are stuff like, "you get +1 to your rolls if you bring this trait into play" or "you get +1xp when you find an excuse to say this quote on this card the GM gave you before the session", and so on.

One "story-telling rpg" that was discussed here by its authour was We All Had Names, where the PCs are Jews in German-occupied Europe in WWII. The thing there is that the PCs have no freedom. All you get to do is confront the particular dilemma given you by the GM and feel the angst and pain. You don't get to say, "okay next time I see a German soldier I ambush the fucker and take his SMG, then I get a buddy and together we get him an SMG, and we make like those guys in Uprising and rebel. We also use the Resistance's radio networks to ask for supplies to be parachuted to us while we use the sewers to fight the Germans and try to get the whole city to rise up." You couldn't do that in his "game".

Any set of rules, by definition, restrict you to certain types of actions. A "setting" isn't a set of rules about the world you live in, it's a setting - you have to start somewhere, your characters can't begin in a grey limbo. The rules come in during play, when a player says of their character, "I want them to do X," and the GM says "you can" or "you can't" or "you can, but -" etc. These rules shape the PCs to certain types of actions, for example some rules encourage combat over social approaches, and vice versa. Same with rules for the "story telling".

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Tell me a story about corruption" isn't a rule for story creation, it's establishing the story's premise, or in rpg terms, "a setting".

I think that helps to clarify a point I've made in the past about games like DitV that the ideas behind creating the towns and the characters could be ported in to a traditional game without the need for the abstract conflict resolution mechanics.  It's all, as you say, setting or maybe, a bit more broadly, background.  It's part of the set-up of the game and that sort of set-up doesn't require a new type of mechanics or game to play out.

I still think that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerI still think that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

I know that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

I will readily admit that the use of tricks from other media can assist in running a table-top RPG, but they don't have to.

We've never had trouble with weaving a great story in D&D.

We had a fantastic one where we hit level 3 before we ever had any combat. And that was me seeing a sniper try to take out the king, and I, not seeing the guy, put an arrow in his throat. 2 natural 20's, BayBEE!

Quote from: Old GeezerI know that the entire idea of tabletop RPGs being a dramatic medium is fucked up and wrong.

It's worked admirably well for me and several of my friends.

I fail to see what's fucked up or wrong about that, honestly.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI fail to see what's fucked up or wrong about that, honestly.

When I'm playing my character, I'm living a second life.  I don't give a damn about pacing, dramatic intent, Chekov's Law, what David Mamet says about good drama, how it might look to an audience, or if my decision to gut the bastard villain instead of letting him go because it's the (default) smart thing to do with such people ruined the GM's fanfic session plans due to whacking the plot device in the first encounter.  It's about a fictional history, not a story, so the rules of drama fail because they're not applicable in the first place; you want something to bring order to your gaming- study history.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerWhen I'm playing my character, I'm living a second life.  I don't give a damn about pacing, dramatic intent, Chekov's Law, what David Mamet says about good drama, how it might look to an audience, or if my decision to gut the bastard villain instead of letting him go because it's the (default) smart thing to do with such people ruined the GM's fanfic session plans due to whacking the plot device in the first encounter.  It's about a fictional history, not a story, so the rules of drama fail because they're not applicable in the first place;

:shrug: Most folks I have gamed with want to live second lives and appreciate issues such as pacing, dramatic intent etc. I know as a GM, being aware of such issues has made me a better GM.

Quoteyou want something to bring order to your gaming- study history.

Or you know, game with folks who enjoy the same things as you.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's worked admirably well for me and several of my friends.

I fail to see what's fucked up or wrong about that, honestly.

What gets lost is the GAME.  You want to create stories, great.  Have fun.  By all accounts, however, it is nothing like a game.

Quote from: Old GeezerWhat gets lost is the GAME.  You want to create stories, great.  Have fun.  By all accounts, however, it is nothing like a game.

This is a rather black and white view of the issue. My experience has been that I use a different kind of pacing and storylining for gaming than I do when writing  stories. The game influences what my response will be. So, I do not have a plot laid out in advance and the players are just actors. It is more a case of the dice are one factor, a random factor if you will, the players are another factor based on characterization and the GM lays the basic premise.

I think one of the problems that GMs and Game Designers have when they try to write novels is that these elements change. Pacing is important to a novel as much as gaming. If you are playing and nothing happens but dice roll after dice roll...you may find that boring. I wont rule out that you enjoy it but I definitely find it boring and a problem with what I would call pacing. If I find the world bland and the adventure we are on non-stimulating, I would site a problem with either characterization (NPCs are boring) or plot (the premise is boring).

So, in the end, I see a lot of story in my games and do not view it as an either or. That said, I also see people who run RPGs like board games. There is nothing wrong with that but people of that experience are not going to see anything resembling story in their games. Likewise, I have seen people run RPGs like improve theater. No dice on the table and no structured rules beyond a group preconception. Honestly, I tend to avoid either extreme since I do not enjoy those types of play.

Bill

Quote from: Old GeezerWhat gets lost is the GAME.  You want to create stories, great.  Have fun.  By all accounts, however, it is nothing like a game.

Careful, Old Geezer. Keep going down that track of thought, and you end up calling one kind of play "Gamist", another kind "Narrativist", and insisting that they can't possibly be mixed, and... once you start down the dark path (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), forever will it dominate your destiny.

It's quite possible to have storyish things mixed in with dice and cheetos. You can have moments of high drama connected by a common theme or thread, mixed in with moments of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI fail to see what's fucked up or wrong about that, honestly.

There's nothing wrong with having drama in your game.  But that's a bit different from trying to make out that RPGs are a dramatic medium.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThere's nothing wrong with having drama in your game.  But that's a bit different from trying to make out that RPGs are a dramatic medium.

What he said.

Quote from: Kyle AaronCareful, Old Geezer. Keep going down that track of thought, and you end up calling one kind of play "Gamist", another kind "Narrativist", and insisting that they can't possibly be mixed, and.

"No, that's not true!   That's impossible!"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron.. once you start down the dark path (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/), forever will it dominate your destiny.

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

(because it's there)

:est:

Actually, in regard to Uncle Ronny and Old Geezer's ridiculous ideas that "game" stuff and "story" stuff can't be mixed in the same session, I always think of these guys,


(http://web12.dvd2web.de/ghostbusters/dt4.jpg)

You know, Kyle's right.

The Cheetoist answer is that as long as everybody at the table is having fun, they can call it "a dramatic medium" if they like.

I may think they're dead-ass wrong, but if they're having fun they're doing it right.

Also, there arises the whole question of exactly what is a "dramatic medium", which leads directly to Old Geezer's First Derivative of Godwin's Law:

"When an internet discussion devolves into a circular quibbling over definitions of a word, that discussion is effectively over."

I hereby officially recognize and subscribe to the Cheetoist theory.

You should probably read about Cheetoism (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage) before subscribing to it. Unless of course you're going to be a really passionate and fanatical believer, then you're morally obliged to have only the slipperiest grasp of its essentials. It's a principle that's worked well for communism, Christianity, GNS...

I did.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou should probably read about Cheetoism (http://cheetoism.pbwiki.com/FrontPage) before subscribing to it. Unless of course you're going to be a really passionate and fanatical believer, then you're morally obliged to have only the slipperiest grasp of its essentials. It's a principle that's worked well for communism, Christianity, GNS...

If there was a Cheeotist jihad, what would their battle cry be?

Short version: "Dice and cheetos!"

Longer version: "We game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories."

Quote from: Kyle AaronShort version: "Dice and cheetos!"

Longer version: "We game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories."

Good one. I support it fully! :D

Quote from: Kyle AaronShort version: "Dice and cheetos!"

Longer version: "We game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories."

I love this right in its face.

"Cheetoism" is a good manifesto for players.  Not really all that helpful for actually designing games... other than keeping in mind it should be fun... but there you go.

Quote from: Stuart"Cheetoism" is a good manifesto for players.  Not really all that helpful for actually designing games... other than keeping in mind it should be fun... but there you go.

I'm going to quote myself from a couple years ago:

"Games should be fun to read and play.  All else is wank."

Quote from: Stuart"Cheetoism" is a good manifesto for players.  Not really all that helpful for actually designing games... other than keeping in mind it should be fun... but there you go.

It was never intended as an aid to game design. It's descriptive, not prescriptive; it describes the ways people tend to play their games, it doesn't say that this or that way is right.

What it says is that people come first, and everything else second, and that game groups don't implode over rules or even setting, but over personality issues. No-one's going to leave the game group or fail to join it because you use the Dropped Lantern Table, they'll leave or not join because they just don't get along with someone in the group.

I happen to think that bearing in mind we've got a social creative hobby, and the "social" comes first, is a very good thing to do when designing a game. Good game design emphasises the social part as much as the creative part.

People first, everything else second.

Quote from: Stuart"Cheetoism" is a good manifesto for players.  Not really all that helpful for actually designing games... other than keeping in mind it should be fun... but there you go.

I wish a few designers out there would actually keep that in mind... :p

As this thread was talking about my ideas, I thought i should weigh respond.

First let me restate my position. There is a theory of game design called Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics. You can read it here (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf).
The important part for this discussion is the relationship between Mechanics and Dynamics.

Mechanics are the rules of play. All the rules of play. Anything that effects what you can or cant do in the game, what is allowed or disallowed is a mechanic.

Dynamics what happens at the play table.
The Mechanics of the game directly engender the Dynamics of the game. If not for Mechanics to support it one cannot expect a particular Dynamic to occur.

That should be enough to understand my responses. For more, read the paper i linked to here, or the thread linked in the OP.

The point I'm trying to make is: "If you want your RPG to be about story you need Mechanics to support a story telling Dynamic". In other words "If your Campaign is about story either the system you use, or additional mechanics that the players apply through house rules, social contracts, agreements or guidelines exist to support that dynamic"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Tell me a story about corruption" isn't a rule for story creation, it's establishing the story's premise, or in rpg terms, "a setting".

Anything in a game that directs the play is a Mechanic. The setting is a Mechanic. If we are playing in a fantasy setting can I buy a robot? Why or why not?
That limits/directs my choices and therefore is a Mechanic.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA "setting" isn't a set of rules about the world you live in,

No its a set of rules about what the imaginary land is like. A setting is rules of play (or Mechanics) no matter what you call it.
A Rose by any other name...

Quote from: 'John Morrow'It's part of the set-up of the game and that sort of set-up doesn't require a new type of mechanics or game to play out.

Quote from: 'Bradford C. WalkerWhen I'm playing my character, I'm living a second life. I don't give a damn about pacing, dramatic intent, Chekov's Law, what David Mamet says about good drama...

You may not care about those things, but i do. I'm saying that your kind of game is bad. Actually we agree. I'm saying that traditionally RPGs are designed for the kind of play you desiccated.
If i want a game that has different intended dynamics, i should get one with mechanics to support it. Not use a game with an intended dynamic of what you desiccate to do something completely different.

Kyle, Whats you big beef with GNS?
Also you seem to be against ANY theory of game design. Why?

For my own part, I am against not game theories but rather the air of superiority and condescension that seems to hover about some folks who think their theory trumps mine.

Quote from: NarmicalThat should be eunuch to understand my resp onces.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  Over.

Quote from: NarmicalThe point I'm trying to make is: "If you want your RPG to be about story you need Mechanics to support a story telling Dynamic". In other words "If your Campaign is about story either the system you use, or additional mechanics that the players apply through house rules, social contracts, agreements or guidelines exist to support that dynamic"

Story is the byproduct of all human experience, including games.  A poker game, a tennis match, a game of D&D, and dinner with your in-laws all produces story.

If you want a game about telling stories, then yes you need game rules (mechanics) that involve telling stories, and base your success or failure in the game upon how you tell those stories.

Quote from: NarmicalYou may not care about those things, but i do. I'm saying that your kind of game is bad. Actually we agree. I'm saying that traditionally RPGs are designed for the kind of play you desiccated.

In a traditional RPG the story is a byproduct of the gameplay, not the intention.  If it were the intention your success or failure in the game would depend on your ability to tell a "good" story.  It isn't, and ironically I'm not aware of any Forge / Storygames where it is either.  They seem to mostly be about resource management and dice games.

Now, some people might decide they'll make the creation of a good story through their RPG or Storygame the goal of the game that they're actually playing -- in which case they're adding some additional mechanics that help determine whether the story is "good" or not.  That's all very vague though, and neither traditional RPGs or the majority of Storygames (Once Upon a Time being a possible exception) have that a concrete part of the rulebook.  It varies from person to person and group to group.

If Storygames actually had mechanics that rewarded good storytelling, you wouldn't see so many "Actual Play" accounts describing zany / gonzo stories.

There's some good ideas in the storygames community -- but by and large there are few examples of game designers who really understand what they're doing.

Quote from: NarmicalWhats you big beef with GNS?

The problem with GNS is that it doesn't work as a theory of game design.  The starting assumption of any theory of game design should be that they are all games, and build from there.  The very foundation of the theory is at fault, and everything built from there is wasted effort.

Stuart, You and I agree on the basic idea of what an RPG is an isnt. Thats cool!

I want to point out something that i have noticed relating to story in games.

You pointed out that in all human actives stories are produced. In the context of a game this is an account of what each player did through out the game. I call this player driven narrative. Its a story in the sense of "a recounting of events" but not in the sense of "similar to literature".

Games also have another kind of narrative, what i call designer driven narrative. This is like the story of Final Fantasy 7 where cloud saves the world.

Most games have both. Sometimes one is emphasized over the others.

Quote from: 'stuart'The starting assumption of any theory of game design should be that they are all games, and build from there.

Your ideas on GNS are interesting. I have read the theory so I know it a little bit. Could you expound, I would like to hear more. Why exactly do you think its flawed?

Quote from: NarmicalYou pointed out that in all human actives stories are produced. In the context of a game this is an account of what each player did through out the game. I call this player driven narrative. Its a story in the sense of "a recounting of events" but not in the sense of "similar to literature".

Stories created through improv storytelling games and exercises do not have a greater potential of being more "similar to literature" than the stories created by reflecting on events that have taken place.  Improv has the advantage of trying to steer events toward structures we use to analyze literature -- but stories created through reflection have the benefit of seeing the entire structure and being able to emphasize and minimize events to give them more importance.

Quote from: NarmicalGames also have another kind of narrative, what i call designer driven narrative. This is like the story of Final Fantasy 7 where cloud saves the world.

Most games have both. Sometimes one is emphasized over the others.

I haven't played FF7.  I did play Grim Fandango, which has a very strong story element.  When you finish playing the game, the story is certainly a mixture of what you put into it, and to a much larger extent what the game designers, animators and voice actors put into it.

The point of the game wasn't telling a story though.  The advancing story was a reward for your progress in the actual gameplay -- which was exploration and puzzle solving.  I imagine FF7 is similar, which gameplay including resource management and stat management tactics.

Quote from: NarmicalYour ideas on GNS are interesting. I have read the theory so I know it a little bit. Could you expound, I would like to hear more. Why exactly do you think its flawed?

GNS is flawed because it suggests a method for creating games that aren't games.  GNS breaks things into games, stories, and environments.

Even this, the elemental storygame, is a game with a way to win and lose:

Circle Story Time
Players take turns telling a story.  Players pass a stick from person to person around the campfire.  When you have the stick, it's your turn to talk and add to the story.

Winning and Losing
Do you think the story you told together was good?
How do you think you did compared to the other storytellers?

So under GNS, the quintessential storygame is... gamist?  

Not a very useful theory.

So yes, you can have a story separate from a game (see Grim Fandango), but creating a theory for game designers that tells them to make games ABOUT telling stories, in which the game part isn't important... it's just bad advice

Personally, I think the best "pwning" of "story games" comes from the fact that some of the brightest and most successful minds in video gaming are starting to similarly clue in to the very thing RPG gamers have known all along, that the stories gamers care about the most are the ones that happened all on their lonesome as an emergent property of an open world environment.

Seriously, listen to Will Wright talk about "story" some time.  It sounds revolutionary to vidgamers' ears, but to some of our local grognards who remember playing the original Wilderlands or somesuch, it's just old hat.

Quote from: StuartStories created through improv storytelling games and exercises do not have a greater potential of being more "similar to literature" than the stories created by reflecting on events that have taken place.  Improv has the advantage of trying to steer events toward structures we use to analyze literature -- but stories created through reflection have the benefit of seeing the entire structure and being able to emphasize and minimize events to give them more importance.

Interesting point.

I just realized something
Also improv storytelling, as apposed to the player driven narrative, is more likely to be a story of pure fantasy. Where is a player driven narrative, by definition is based in the reality of the game play.
just an idea, nothing more.

QuoteI haven't played FF7.  I did play Grim Fandango...

Yes, Grim Fandango also has a strong designer driven narratives. Both of these games can be viewed as story books. In order to turn the page, you must complete the challenge (combat for FF puzzle for GF).


Where does the idea of the traditonal RPG idea of "no one wins, its a coperative game, you just play and play".

I'm curious. I didn't draw the same conclusion you made about GNS, however your idea seems to fit the theory.

I'm gonna take another look at GNS.

Quote from: NarmicalWhere does the idea of the traditonal RPG idea of "no one wins, its a coperative game, you just play and play".

It's equally nonsense.  When groups are playing an RPG or a Storygame there are definitely ways to "win" and "lose" -- but people don't always have the same understanding of what that is.  So you can have groups where the GM thinks the game is "tell my great story" while another person thinks it's "solve these puzzles", another thinks its "kill the most monsters" and yet another thinks it's "how good an improv actor can I be?"

Sometimes groups are all working towards the same goal, like "good story" or "exciting battles". Sometimes the different goals are compatible.  When the group isn't working in the same direction, and when the goals aren't compatible -- because one player pushing towards their goal take another player AWAY from theirs -- that's when you get all the garbage about Twinks, Munchkins, Meta-Gamers, Prima Donna Actors, Railroaders, Illusionism, Roll vs Role... blah, blah, blah. :haw:

There's a lot of potential in these games, but it's really surprising how badly a lot of designers understand them.

J Arcane is right -- videogame designers (and I'd add boardgame designers) seem to understand tabletop games better than the majority of RPG type game designers!

Quote from: StuartThere's a lot of potential in these games, but it's really surprising how badly a lot of designers understand them.

I couldn't agree more!
I would add that many players don't get it ether.

A well designed game will make the play style clear. The mechanics will make it clear to the players what the intended dynamics are.

No one argues over play styles in chess or settlers of catan (except maybe people taking to long :-P)

Quote from: J ArcanePersonally, I think the best "pwning" of "story games" comes from the fact that some of the brightest and most successful minds in video gaming are starting to similarly clue in to the very thing RPG gamers have known all along, that the stories gamers care about the most are the ones that happened all on their lonesome as an emergent property of an open world environment.

Seriously, listen to Will Wright talk about "story" some time.  It sounds revolutionary to vidgamers' ears, but to some of our local grognards who remember playing the original Wilderlands or somesuch, it's just old hat.

J speaks the truth here.  Take a look at various threads on various boards for the Dwarf Fortress game (bay12games.com).  You'll find a massive amount of stories - a surprising number of them very entertaining and all of them quite complex - about little ASCII dwarves or adventurers in randomly generated worlds.  And the game has no storyline of its own; it's a pure sandbox game.  I've never experienced anything in a narrative sense when playing Forgetful Fantasy or any of those Japanese CRPGs that is like what I regularly see happen in a DF game.

As I've said many times and Stuart has said just a few posts up, story is an artifact of experience.  Stories emerge as we retroactively attempt to make sense of our experiences.  Games that try to constrain or legislate narrative so it comes out "right" are approaching the subject from the wrong direction.

QuoteForgetful Fantasy or any of those Japanese CRPGs

Player driven naratave in FF7:
"I always had cloud equipped with the fire materia. it was mega powerfull. Then everyone else i equipped mime materia and i was able to beat the first boss by only doing one action!"

Dwarf Tower may have a stronger player driven narrative, but FF defiantly has it too.

QuoteAs I've said many times and Stuart has said just a few posts up, story is an artifact of experience. Stories emerge as we retroactively attempt to make sense of our experiences. Games that try to constrain or legislate narrative so it comes out "right" are approaching the subject from the wrong direction.

I don't think stories are as simple as all that.
Certanly there are stories that are "making senece of our experances" or "recounting the past".
But where do creative works such as "tale of two cites" or "Star Wars" fit into that framework?

How about improv comedy? They certainly have games in improve comedy that have as a dynamic "tell a funny story" or "act a funny scene".

Quote from: NarmicalThey certainly have games in improve comedy that have as a dynamic "tell a funny story" or "act a funny scene".

This is the place where story games go off the rails.

If the game is "tell a funny story"  or "act a funny scene" your success of failure on that depends on your ability to do those things.  You win by being funny.  And telling a story.  Or acting in a scene.

Contrast that with a game like Dogs in the Vineyard.  Is success at that game based on your ability to tell a "good" story or a "story that's like literature"?  Why then are there all these rules about dice rolls and conflict resolutions, and initiative and raising and bidding?

I mean... read this:

Quote from: WikipediaThe game features an unusual form of conflict resolution, where die rolls are used in poker-style bids.

Character's statistics and traits are represented by dice pools. At the start of a conflict, the Gamemaster decides what is at stake, determines which pools are applicable, and those are rolled at that point. The character with the initiative puts forward a "raise" of two dice, while narrating a portion of the conflict which is beneficial to his character's position in the conflict. The opponent must respond by putting forward one or more dice whose total exceeds the total of the dice which were used to raise, or "give" — i.e. lose the conflict. If three or more dice are needed, the opponent suffers "fallout" — a negative outcome to be determined at the end of the conflict. If only one die is needed by the opponent, the attack has been "turned against the attacker" and the die can be reused to raise in the next round. The opponent now begins a round by putting forward two dice which the first character must match, and so on until one player or the other gives. Players may bring in new dice by "escalating" the conflict, from non-physical (discussion) to physical (running away) to brawling and then to gunfighting.

Since conflicts can cover theological debates as well as simple combat, players can find that the outcome of a conflict has changed their character's opinion on a topic, though not necessarily. This can be difficult to accept for inexperienced players and for those who prefer a more Gamist approach.

Yeah, it sure sounds like it's all about telling stories. :)

And see that ridiculous jargon?  "Gamist"  When you really start thinking about how these games work, that is the most ridiculous nonsense.  I mean... ANY storygame (Circle Story Time) would already be a game and "gamist" -- and here you have this game with all these extra rules about dice and resource management and raising and betting.  And somehow it's NOT "gamist".

The reason so many people dislike the entire GNS theory is it's really just a veneer over these two categories:  "Games we think are cool" and "Games we don't like".

Quote from: NarmicalI don't think stories are as simple as all that.
Certanly there are stories that are "making senece of our experances" or "recounting the past".
But where do creative works such as "tale of two cites" or "Star Wars" fit into that framework?

How about improv comedy? They certainly have games in improve comedy that have as a dynamic "tell a funny story" or "act a funny scene".

Tale of Two Cities and Star Wars are both narratives that endure because they serve as touchstones for peoples' experiences.  Readers/viewers can relate to the struggles and themes of these stories, and perhaps find ways to make sense of some aspect of their own experience through reading/viewing such works.  From another pov, those narratives also emerged as a result of the personal experiences of their authors; the experiences are transformed (hugely in the case of something like Star Wars), but are nonetheless part of the makeup of the work.

Creative works like novels and movies are also planned, edited, re-written.  They are quite different from RPGs in so many respects that you can't really compare the emergent narrative of a tabletop game to a plotted novel in any real sense, anyway.

Improv comedy draws on the experiences of its performers to give a random scene life.  What gives comedy power is its prediliction for re-contextualizing some bit of experience in an absurd way.  You can't do that without something from your past to draw upon.  We find things funny when they are shown operating in a manner that does not fit with our preconceptions (which are formed by...wait for it...experience) according to Eco (I can name drop with the best of them!).

I've long thought that many of the folks who advocate "story" games should really research theories of narrative.  The stuff I'm spouting is from English 101.

Quote from: KenHRI've long thought that many of the folks who advocate "story" games should really research theories of narrative.  The stuff I'm spouting is from English 101.

And if you're serious about modeling games on improv acting and comedy it wouldn't hurt to have some real experience with that as well.

Around the time I stopped visiting Storygames there were a couple of members (i don't remember who) who had designed some storygames and were talking a lot about improv this and that... and then I found out they were about 2 months in to their first improv acting class.

:haw:

Quote from: StuartAround the time I stopped visiting Storygames there were a couple of members (i don't remember who) who had designed some storygames and were talking a lot about improv this and that... and then I found out they were about 2 months in to their first improv acting class.

:haw:

Next thing you know, a bat genitalia expert will be promoting himself as the guru of narrativism!

Quote from: KenHRCreative works like novels and movies are also planned, edited, re-written.  They are quite different from RPGs in so many respects that you can't really compare the emergent narrative of a tabletop game to a plotted novel in any real sense, anyway.

I've read dozens of books on writing fiction and one of the bits of advice most often repeated is the importance of revision.  Another thing that comes up again and again is knowing how your story will end (in fact, some agents and publishers ask for the first three chapters and the last chapter).  Usually, when I bring this point up, people throw Heinlein at me or give me examples of authors who don't work that way (or get offended because they don't work that way, even though they've never sold or even finished a novel :rolleyes:) but the reality is that most writing isn't don't linearly or extemporaneously without revision and most role-playing games don't play toward a planned end and don't have ways for the players to revise what their characters have done along the way.

Quote from: StuartAnd if you're serious about modeling games on improv acting and comedy it wouldn't hurt to have some real experience with that as well.

You mean like writing stories and novels that have actually sold before trying to write a story game. ;)

Quote from: StuartAround the time I stopped visiting Storygames there were a couple of members (i don't remember who) who had designed some storygames and were talking a lot about improv this and that... and then I found out they were about 2 months in to their first improv acting class.

I visit Storygames for three reasons.  First, there is the occasional insightful idea that gets tossed out there that I find interesting.  Second are the threads where they let eyebeamz and GMS get away with slapping them around with things they don't want to hear.  Finally, there are the trainwreck threads where one person asks how to encourage a certain sort of play and it's clear that the person asking and the people answering don't have the slightest clue what the sort of play that they are opining about is actually like.  That last one isn't like watching four blind men describe an elephant.  It's like watching people who have never seen an elephant or even a clear picture of an elephant talk as if they are elephant experts.

Quote from: StuartIf you want a game about telling stories, then yes you need game rules (mechanics) that involve telling stories, and base your success or failure in the game upon how you tell those stories.

One of the things that always surprised me about certain debates that I've been in is that they claim that they are story games yet they don't want to discuss the quality of the story produced.  If your goal is to create a story, isn't it important to create a good one?  Or perhaps that runs afoul of the non-judgmental idea that one shouldn't judge the quality of a story against any sort of objective measure.

Quote from: StuartIn a traditional RPG the story is a byproduct of the gameplay, not the intention.  If it were the intention your success or failure in the game would depend on your ability to tell a "good" story.  It isn't, and ironically I'm not aware of any Forge / Storygames where it is either.  They seem to mostly be about resource management and dice games.

While I think the measure of the success or failure of a story game should be based on the quality of the story produced via the game, this, too, surprises me.  Many of the Forge/Storygame mechanics use dice and resource management mechanics that are so abstract that the details of what's going on seem to be irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if the argument that you've narrated or acted out is really persuasive or not but whether you have the points or dice to make the game go one way or another.

Quote from: John MorrowI've read dozens of books on writing fiction and one of the bits of advice most often repeated is the importance of revision.  Another thing that comes up again and again is knowing how your story will end (in fact, some agents and publishers ask for the first three chapters and the last chapter).  Usually, when I bring this point up, people throw Heinlein at me or give me examples of authors who don't work that way (or get offended because they don't work that way, even though they've never sold or even finished a novel :rolleyes:) but the reality is that most writing isn't don't linearly or extemporaneously without revision and most role-playing games don't play toward a planned end and don't have ways for the players to revise what their characters have done along the way.

Bingo!  This is the reason the literary model for RPG plotting is utter bunk.

As someone who experienced the grind of workshop classes in college (I have a very useful degree in Writing!...and no, my forum posts are not indicative of this, I know) as well as the grind of tutoring writing at the college level for a few years, the reaction of students to the idea of revision was a fairly reliable indicator of who was serious about the craft (the other indicator was finding out who among them read anything...and I do mean anything).

To go off on a further tangent, I know several writers (like REH) who claimed to write without outlines or revision actually did so.  They just told people they didn't, for whatever reason.

Quote from: NarmicalKyle, Whats you big beef with GNS?

Like what you posted, it is meaningless bollocks.

Putting a capital letter at the start of a word does not suddenly grant it profound meaning.

Quote from: NarmicalAlso you seem to be against ANY theory of game design. Why?

I am not against any theory of game design. I am against people talking bollocks. Thus far, the most prominent and popular rpg theories have been bollocks. There have been some less prominent theories which are not bollocks, but most of them aren't very well-developed, it's just people working on some small part of the issue, they've not yet developed it into a coherent whole.

"Story", as J Arcane said, is an emergent property of a game session. And as Keith Curtis said, if you make rules about "story", you limit it. Thus, "story-games" are not about making stories, but about limiting stories.

Quote from: NarmicalThe point I'm trying to make is: "If you want your RPG to be about story you need Mechanics to support a story telling Dynamic". In other words "If your Campaign is about story either the system you use, or additional mechanics that the players apply through house rules, social contracts, agreements or guidelines exist to support that dynamic"

Damn it, you mean all these years of gaming using just about any system out there, we were not creating stories ?

I knew I should have stuck with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkya9tUZ0g

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDamn it, you mean all these years of gaming using just about any system out there, we were not creating stories ?

I knew I should have stuck with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkya9tUZ0g

Regards,
David R

I feel like Dark Helmet in this clip but replace The Movie with Game Theory...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvd3kaupZ60&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvd3kaupZ60&NR=1)

Bill

Quote from: hgjsIf there was a Cheeotist jihad, what would their battle cry be?

"MY FINGERS ARE ORANGE!!!!!"

-clash

"More cheetos!"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"More cheetos!"

That should be Where are the Cheetos!?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vChEPj0dXXk), of course.  :p

Quote from: John MorrowThat should be Where are the Cheetos!?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vChEPj0dXXk), of course.  :p

That reminds me -- Rob "Where are the Cheetos" Schrab has promised me some artwork for my game.

If you're going to Wondercon this weekend, stop by the Image Booth and say hi to Rob and pick up your copy of Scud #21!

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2065/2280202130_11f8039e57.jpg)

Quote from: KenHRBingo!  This is the reason the literary model for RPG plotting is utter bunk.

It's also why I'm convinced that most of the people who talk about literary games may know literary criticism but don't really know about actually writing stories.  But at least the authors of Theatrix used Syd Field's screenwriting books as source material.

Quote from: KenHRAs someone who experienced the grind of workshop classes in college (I have a very useful degree in Writing!...and no, my forum posts are not indicative of this, I know) as well as the grind of tutoring writing at the college level for a few years, the reaction of students to the idea of revision was a fairly reliable indicator of who was serious about the craft (the other indicator was finding out who among them read anything...and I do mean anything).

In her essays on becoming a professional writer, author Holly Lisle refers to it as the Stench O' Doom (http://www.hollylisle.com/fm/Articles/feature8.html) in the writers that she meets or corresponds with.

I'm proud of the fact that the one bit of writing that I have had published by an RPG company (two essays in the original Tribe 8 Companion on population and economics) were written to a deadline and a specific word count that I hit by mercilessly trimming down what I wrote and that I made modifications at editorial request without fuss.  

Quote from: KenHRTo go off on a further tangent, I know several writers (like REH) who claimed to write without outlines or revision actually did so.  They just told people they didn't, for whatever reason.

What Heinlein apparently advised was don't revise unless an editor tells you to.  That bit of advice is one of the things that Holly Lisle addresses in the essay that I linked to above.  And in a world of word processors where pages don't have to be retyped on a manual typewriter (I actually learned how to type on one), there is really no reason for not revising your writing.

Thanks for the link, John.  I enjoyed it, and have passed it on to a professor I know.

Quote from: KenHRThanks for the link, John.  I enjoyed it, and have passed it on to a professor I know.

Holly Lisle's whole site and her collection of essays in the free PDF book Mugging the Muse: Writing Fiction for Love AND Money (http://www.hollylisle.com/books.html#MTM) are actually worth looking at, too.  Oh, and I highly recommend her essay How To Write Suckitudinous Fiction (http://www.hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/suckitudinous.html), which I've posted links to here, I'm sure, before.

Quote from: Kyle AaronLike what you posted, it is meaningless bollocks.

Putting a capital letter at the start of a word does not suddenly grant it profound meaning.

Ok, Put you money where your mouth is. Why is it bullocks?

I'm particularly interested in your view of my ideas. I may be wrong. Id like to hear what you have to say.



On the issue of story creation and improv comedy VS a recounting of an event. The point was that they have differences.  And that all stories don't boil down to tell about something that happened.

On the subject of gamisim. I think the point the GNS theory is trying to make is not "A game is gameist or not" but rather there are three different aspects. Games emphasize one or two over the others

Quote from: David RDamn it, you mean all these years of gaming using just about any system out there, we were not creating stories ?

Nope I'm sure you were.

When you play a season ot football are you creating a story?

Sure you are

Is is a game about getting a ball across a line and winning the most games? or a game about creating stories?

Quote from: NarmicalOk, Put you money where your mouth is. Why is it bullocks?

I'll give you the same answer Uncle Ronny does: "We've had this discussion before, read the old threads and essays."

In the Big List of Links in my sig are a few discussions and mocking of GNS.

I'm here on therpgsite for good new ideas, if I wanted bad old ideas I could go to the Forge.

Quote from: NarmicalWhen you play a season ot football are you creating a story?

Sure you are

No...

QuoteIs is a game about getting a ball across a line and winning the most games? or a game about creating stories?

Is this a fancy way of saying some systems create stories while others do not?

Regards,
David R

Narmical: none of what you wrote in the Fear the Boot thread or here is anything original - it is, basically, just the old Usenet talk ("Hack and slash is not real roleplaying! Real roleplaying is about telling stories!") dressed up in slightly different Capitalised Words, but with the same inflammatory language ("a more evolved form of roleplaying" :rolleyes: ). For fuck's sake, you even used oh-so-clever "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" witticism. Dude. Dude... that's so 1979 it's not even funny. :rolleyes:

Also, note how even video game creators - a hidebound and conservative profession if there ever was one - are discovering that games aren't really about the traditional sense of story; that they are a different form of entertainment.

All in all, there is no debate here, nor a need for it until something new is brought to the table.

Oh yeah.

QuoteThere is a tool set that I use to formally analyze game design.

You shouldn't really be doing that. You should be playing more games instead of "formally analysing them". Real games - by which I mean the kind of games that get played, not the theoretical constructs "formal analysis" tends to use - are fuzzy, incoherent, chaotic, adaptive and fun (and fun in very unexpected ways that totally contradict theory); in short, infused by the mysterious quality of human input that makes all the difference.

Quote from: NarmicalOk, Put you money where your mouth is. Why is it bullocks?

I'm particularly interested in your view of my ideas. I may be wrong. Id like to hear what you have to say.



On the issue of story creation and improv comedy VS a recounting of an event. The point was that they have differences.  And that all stories don't boil down to tell about something that happened.

On the subject of gamisim. I think the point the GNS theory is trying to make is not "A game is gameist or not" but rather there are three different aspects. Games emphasize one or two over the others

If you've come across GNS and you're not sure why it's completely nonsensical, I'm willing to help:

Go re-read the primary essay; when you get to Chapter 5, look at it's definition of incoherence and its (only) prediction: that incoherent games are "most likely" to result in "on-going power struggle"

This, on the face of it, should be ridiculous (the only game we know for a fact to be "incoherent" is one of the most popular games published) -- and the essay acknowledges this without responding to it (something about 'economic factors') but wait! There's more:

When you actually try to apply the theory (either to game design or play, or diagnostic assessment of dysfunction... or *anything*) you realize that nothing in the theory (not G, N, nor S) are well-defined enough to be actionable.

The theory acknowledges this weakness in the posts that talk about "the murk" but here's what it comes down to: those labels are meaningless; they're only useful as broad judgment qualifiers. Nar = games we like. Sim = Games we don't.

It's role-playing v. roll-playing dressed up in pseudo-academic gobbledy gook.

I can walk you through the rest of it if you'd like, but believe me: it's not worth your time.

Now: if you liked some of the ideas in the theory like the concept of Social Contract or the statement that different people like different things, I recommend you check out r.g.f.a. theory (GDS and the suite of terminology).

My guess is that you'll be surprised: Hey! All the *good* stuff from GNS is there! But, of course, r.g.f.a. came first and said it better.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Now: if you liked some of the ideas in the theory like the concept of Social Contract or the statement that different people like different things, I recommend you check out r.g.f.a. theory (GDS and the suite of terminology).

My guess is that you'll be surprised: Hey! All the *good* stuff from GNS is there! But, of course, r.g.f.a. came first and said it better.

While the rec.games.frp.advocaty model has it's own problems and generated it's own wave of animosity, I would say that the value that most people say that they get from the GNS they could have gotten from the GDS (or "Threefold Model") with more clarity and less confusion and and that many casual advocates of the GNS, when asked to explain what the GNS categories mean, often wind up describing the GDS categories.

Quote from: MelanNarmical: none of what you wrote in the Fear the Boot thread or here is anything original - it is, basically, just the old Usenet talk ("Hack and slash is not real roleplaying! Real roleplaying is about telling stories!") dressed up in slightly different Capitalised Words, but with the same inflammatory language ("a more evolved form of roleplaying" :rolleyes: ). For fuck's sake, you even used oh-so-clever "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" witticism. Dude. Dude... that's so 1979 it's not even funny. :rolleyes:

I don't think you understood my position. Fist off, The fear the boot thread in question was a responce to the idea that "Hack n' Slash is not real roleplaying" et al. I was aserting that one is not better or more evolved than the other.

Let me try and restate my ideas.

RPGs can be played in a hack n' slash way. They can also be played in a way that focus on character goals, personality, and motivations.

The MDA framework states that the mechanics are wholly responsible for how the game is actually played at the table.

Using DnD as an example, its mechanics are focused on the elements of hack n' slash. For example, combat, leveling, loot tables, monster combat stats.

However, people do use DnD to play games focused on the other style.
I assert that this is because the players actually modify the game mechincs to support there desired play style. They are no longer playing DnD but rather there own home made variant.

For example, Keith Curtus has a system he uses with HERO to encourage backstory. He awards bonus build points to players based on the detail of there backstory.  

Detail in backstory is an element that is important to him. With out this additional mechanic detailed backstory could occur but is not guaranteed.

To give another example. In the Mountain Witch the designer was concerned with foreshadowing. He wanted the stories to incorporate that. In this vein each player gets a "Dark Fate" card. They can use the fate on this card to take narrative control from the GM. The game rules are such that you can narrate things to foreshadow, revel or resolve the fate.

Sure, a DnD game can have foreshadowing, but it natively doesn't support that. Additional mechanics must be put in place to enforce that.

The final conclusion being, if you want a game about certain elements of story you need mechanics to do that. And just because you added mechanics your game to do it does not make your style "better" or "More Evolved".

Also i will admit that my use of the phrase story game was a poor choice. Wat i was trying indicate were RPG play sessions that were not dungeon crawls or hack n' slash game. But the kind that focus more on plot, character goals and motivations.

Any suggestions for a better descriptor for that?

Quote from: NarmicalRPGs can be played in a hack n' slash way. They can also be played in a way that focus on character goals, personality, and motivations.

One of the reasons "Roll vs Role" is so insipid is that it suggests there are only two ways to play the game:  

1) All about dice rolling (A "Hack N Slash" combat simulator)

2) All about playing a role (Amateur Thespians and Novel Writers)

What about exploration?  What about solving puzzles and mysteries?

Quote from: NarmicalThe MDA framework states that the mechanics are wholly responsible for how the game is actually played at the table.

Just a quick clarification: D&D (and most other RPGs) includes provisions for the DM and other players to fulfill key functions MDA generally assigns to Designer Roles (e.g. definition of characters, scenarios, 'victory conditions' and other aspects that causally create Dynamics).

In an MDA sense, the players who choose to focus on non-combat aspects of play are, in fact, playing exactly as the publishers and designers intended and aren't drifting the game or playing something different.

For what it's worth, I think the assessment that D&D is "about combat" because that's what it's got rules for is naive and simplistic -- it's explicit in every edition I've owned that D&D is "about" whatever the players decide it should be about; parts of play that aren't structured by the rules are as critical to the experience as the parts of play that are.

Cheers,
-E.

Sssssh, Stuart. Ignore that man behind the curtain!

Quote from: -E.Just a quick clarification: D&D (and most other RPGs) includes provisions for the DM and other players to fulfill key functions MDA generally assigns to Designer Roles (e.g. definition of characters, scenarios, 'victory conditions' and other aspects that causally create Dynamics).

MDA doesn't specifically assign any task to the designer beyond "Make the mechanics that you hand to the player". It is true that MDA is usually applied to video games. In that context that things you mentioned are usually part of the mechanics. However MDA can be applied more broadly.

Taking 'viictory condition' as an example. In the card game Flux, the victory condition changes based on cards played by the players. This change of victory condition is in itself a mechanic.

Just as the GM building of scenarios is a mechanic of an RPG. Most RPGs have guidelines on how to build scenarios for there games. Such guidelines are also mechanics. Even the setting is a mechanic in MDA terms.

QuoteIn an MDA sense, the players who choose to focus on non-combat aspects of play are, in fact, playing exactly as the publishers and designers intended and aren't drifting the game or playing something different.

How do you figure this?
The way i see it, DnD's mechanics stear the player to the hack n' slash dynamic. There are players who modify the mechanics to suit other goal dynamics

QuoteFor what it's worth, I think the assessment that D&D is "about combat" because that's what it's got rules for is naive and simplistic -- it's explicit in every edition I've owned that D&D is "about" whatever the players decide it should be about; parts of play that aren't structured by the rules are as critical to the experience as the parts of play that are.

Cheers,
-E.

A key element of MDA the difference between what someone says the game is about, and what the mechanics say the game is about.

If I handed you DnD and told you it was about riding pink ponies does that make it so? You can certainty ride pink ponies in DnD. But the mechanics make it clear that is not the focus.

Just because DnD says its about whatever you want, does not make it so.
Similarly, just because a game tells you to do something, like write a detailed backsoty, doesn't mean it will happen. Unless the mechanics support that dynamic, you cant expect it to happen.

To use the example of kith curtis i gave before. If detailed baickstory just happened in HERO system, there would have been no need for that extra rule.

What keith did is mechanically support the dynamic of detailed backstory.

Quote from: MelanOh yeah.

You shouldn't really be doing that. You should be playing more games instead of "formally analysing them". Real games - by which I mean the kind of games that get played, not the theoretical constructs "formal analysis" tends to use - are fuzzy, incoherent, chaotic, adaptive and fun (and fun in very unexpected ways that totally contradict theory); in short, infused by the mysterious quality of human input that makes all the difference.

could you give an example of a game that is successfully at entertainment at the defiance of formal analysis?

Oh dears, it's the "design what matters" (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/18537.html) argument presented again...which is really a replay of the maximalist "system matters" (http://ewilen.livejournal.com/16535.html) argument.

It's wrong in the general case, and especially wrong in the RPG case.

Though Gary Gygax was keen on the idea, they never did manage to form the RPG Police that would come and hit you with truncheons if you were playing the game "wrong".

A rules system encourages a certain play style, but it does not determine play style. As Game Master, I master the game, it does not master me. The rules are my bitch. If I want to play a D&D game about riding pink ponies, then by Gygax's loaded dice, I damn well will - and there's not a damn thing the rules book can do about it.

I think a focus on the importance of game systems over the wills and personalities of players comes from reading rpgs more often than you play them. The cure for this is obvious, but not always to a fan of MARPs.

"This game is so awesome, but no-one will play it with me! The fault could not possibly lie in the game, so it must lie in the players. Obviously they are unworthy imbeciles and philistines, and the only solution is to give up play, spend more time reading my game books and talking on mailing lists and in forums about the totally awesome campaign I'll run someday, honest."

I do not think that bad gaming is better than no gaming, but I do think a game which is played is better than a game which is not played. MARPs are the condom in your wallet or purse which got six months past its expiry date without your noticing - it's sadly unused potential.

Play your games limiting - er, "creating" - your stories. I want to hear about someone's six month Sorcerer campaign, or two year HeroQuest campaign, or year-long Burning Empires campaign. All I hear about is two or three sessions discussing "Premise" or "Beliefs" which broke up with no real play after the GM sent the players too many lengthy essays quoting Uncle Ronny.

If someone would rather sit at home playing Halo than roll dice, eat cheetos and play your rpg with you, then at least one of you is a sad bastard who needs a new direction in life.

Quote from: Narmicalcould you give an example of a game that is successfully at entertainment at the defiance of formal analysis?

D&D
Vampire
GURPS
Rifts
etc

Basically, none of those games select as their sole focus one of Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism. They are therefore "Incoherent" and people won't have fun with them.

And yet people love them to bits.

Of course, this is describing Uncle Ronny's writings as "formal analysis" which is an extraordinary stretching of the term, but one which Narmical as a Forger would probably agree with.

Quote from: NarmicalMDA doesn't specifically assign any task to the designer beyond "Make the mechanics that you hand to the player". It is true that MDA is usually applied to video games. In that context that things you mentioned are usually part of the mechanics. However MDA can be applied more broadly.

Taking 'viictory condition' as an example. In the card game Flux, the victory condition changes based on cards played by the players. This change of victory condition is in itself a mechanic.

Just as the GM building of scenarios is a mechanic of an RPG. Most RPGs have guidelines on how to build scenarios for there games. Such guidelines are also mechanics. Even the setting is a mechanic in MDA terms.

How do you figure this?
The way i see it, DnD's mechanics stear the player to the hack n' slash dynamic. There are players who modify the mechanics to suit other goal dynamics

A key element of MDA the difference between what someone says the game is about, and what the mechanics say the game is about.

If I handed you DnD and told you it was about riding pink ponies does that make it so? You can certainty ride pink ponies in DnD. But the mechanics make it clear that is not the focus.

Just because DnD says its about whatever you want, does not make it so.
Similarly, just because a game tells you to do something, like write a detailed backsoty, doesn't mean it will happen. Unless the mechanics support that dynamic, you cant expect it to happen.

To use the example of kith curtis i gave before. If detailed baickstory just happened in HERO system, there would have been no need for that extra rule.

What keith did is mechanically support the dynamic of detailed backstory.

MDA describes a set of perspectives or "views" based on causal relationships. In MDA the designer creates the mechanics which in turn imply a dynamic, etc.

In video games the designer is pretty much fully responsible for creating all elements of the mechanics including things like character and situation.

In RPGs those elements are provided by players.

If you apply MDA to RPG's with the same set of assumptions you use when you apply it to video games you a strange answer: that the dynamic is fully created by the mechanics; this is obviously wrong --  huge amounts of the game's runtime behavior are determined by GM- and player-provided elements.

It's just a misapplication of MDA.

And thus, D&D really can be about riding pink ponies if that's what the people playing it decide to make it about.

This kind of flexibility is explicitly written into the rules: the GM role is defined through rules written in the rule book as being able to create pink ponies. The players -- according to Hoyle, without modifying or drifting anything, are permitted to ride them.

And if that's what a group decides to do, they can do so without violating amending, or ignoring any published rule of D&D.

If this seems counter-intuitive, take a look at how you subtly shift the goal posts when you're describing the backstory mechanic:

You move the goalposts from "can have a back story" to "guaranteed a back story."

Interesting, no?

See, if everyone in a D&D game gets off on having a backstory, it'll happen -- that's where the choice / open-ness of the system comes in... but to *guarantee* one? Well then mechanics would help.

If the above seems unconvincing to you, let me pose this in a different way:

Can you point to any rule in D&D which prohibits a game session from being about riding pink ponies if everyone at the table wanted that to be the focus and theme for their game?

I think you'll find the answer is 'no.'

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: NarmicalTo give another example. In the Mountain Witch the designer was concerned with foreshadowing. He wanted the stories to incorporate that. In this vein each player gets a "Dark Fate" card. They can use the fate on this card to take narrative control from the GM. The game rules are such that you can narrate things to foreshadow, revel or resolve the fate.

Sure, a DnD game can have foreshadowing, but it natively doesn't support that. Additional mechanics must be put in place to enforce that.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

You need a rule for foreshadowing?!  I mean, I know this isn't the main thruse of your argument, but...foreshadowing!  Why on earth do you need a rule for that?!  That's just something a good GM does, and GMing advice in RPG books from my childhood to the present day have always had guidelines on how to do this.

See, elements of story are just things that happen.  Foreshadowing is effective in an after-the-fact sense.  Why do you need to enforce it with a rule, especially one that gets it so bass-ackwards?  And I'm not sure how giving players control of the "story" enforces or encourages this, anyway....

Quote from: Kyle AaronI want to hear about someone's six month Sorcerer campaign, or two year HeroQuest campaign, or year-long Burning Empires campaign.

I think you know some guys who've been playing an extended game of BW, don't you?

Quote from: droogI think you know some guys who've been playing an extended game of BW, don't you?

BW is about the only indie game that plainly gets long campaigns on a fairly regular basis, I think PTA may as well.

Otherwise though I think Jim-Bob's point holds.



Moving on from droogs post onto GNS more generally, for me it's been falsified.  It predicted that incoherent games would not be successful, would lead to conflict within the group.  Incoherent games outsell coherent ones by an order of magnitude, which is why we end up with theorists arguing that most people don't know what they enjoy or think they are having fun but aren't.

The theory met reality, and reality did not accord with the theory.  About that time Ron stopped posting outside of the Forge I notice.

Otherwise, the theory itself is incredibly vague if you actually read it, devoid of much real content (other than that falsified prediction) and huge numbers of people have said they don't recognise their actual play as being described within it.

All that, and also the fundamental notion that by reading a game's rules you can tell what that game about is so manifestly wrong and so manifestly disproved by over 30 years of gamers' actual play experiences I'm not persuaded it merits meaningful discussion.  Even Vincent Baker nowadays talks about the fruitful void and doesn't run that old canard about system determining play, because it's wrong.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA rules system encourages a certain play style, but it does not determine play style. As Game Master, I master the game, it does not master me. The rules are my bitch. If I want to play a D&D game about riding pink ponies, then by Gygax's loaded dice, I damn well will - and there's not a damn thing the rules book can do about it.

Dear Mr Aaron --

If you are going to live in my brain, please pay rent or at least do some dishes.

Isn't the Pink Pony Rider prestige class part of the My Little Pony (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060401a) source book?

Quote from: Kyle AaronA rules system encourages a certain play style, but it does not determine play style. As Game Master, I master the game, it does not master me. The rules are my bitch. If I want to play a D&D game about riding pink ponies, then by Gygax's loaded dice, I damn well will - and there's not a damn thing the rules book can do about it.

I think a focus on the importance of game systems over the wills and personalities of players comes from reading rpgs more often than you play them. The cure for this is obvious, but not always to a fan of MARPs.

I agree with this whole heartedly. I am very much of the opinion the system does NOT matter, at least not in the way Forgies describe it. It is, to me, a series of elements that can be emphasized and enjoyed through the lens of those playing it. If you like level advancement, HP increases and an Epic level of play, you will be drawn to DND or Palladium. Those are the elements you enjoy. However, you could play those same games with no XP and have a very static flat "progression" if the group wanted it that way.

I often wonder if "System Matters" is a mindset of people slavishly devoted to the rules. Do they look at RPG books and think "That is the sum of the game"? RPGing is much more about the people at the table and how they interpret the rules.

Bill

You could play Chess without Castling, or Checkers without "Kinging" if you want.  You could even use your chess set and play checkers with it if you really wanted.  Again, nobody will stop you.

That doesn't mean you're still playing chess though. :)

If you take the "System doesn't matter" idea far enough... RPGs -- they're all bascially the same game:

GM Narrates some story.
Players say what they want to do.
GM maybe asks them to roll some dice.
GM Tells them what happens next.
etc.

So you could take just about any RPG and use it to play "Pretty Pink Ponies" -- but that doesn't mean you're still playing whatever game was written in that book.

Which is awesome if you're having fun.  But it means your taking a game as a point of inspiration, and then making up your own game with it.

Quote from: StuartYou could play Chess without Castling, or Checkers without "Kinging" if you want.  You could even use your chess set and play checkers with it if you really wanted.  Again, nobody will stop you.

That doesn't mean you're still playing chess though. :)

If you take the "System doesn't matter" idea far enough... RPGs -- they're all bascially the same game:

Ah, grasshopper, you begin to understand. Unfortunately, you seem to embrace the ultimate hubris of the game designer "Bbbbut MY system is COOL! You should play it like I told you!" No game gets played like the designer intended it unless the designer is running it. It is always up for interpretation and more likely, misinterpretation. I know, as a game designer and publisher I am supposed the toe the line of "If you aren't playing my game the way I wrote it then you aren't playing my game".

Yes, you could say "That's fine, but you aren't playing my game" or you can look at it as a tool box. I don't use every tool in the box with every job I do. Some tools, I never use. Some I use so much they wear out and need replacing. RPGs are alot like that. Some rules work. Some rules work for most groups. Some rules work for only a few. If your game is played, it will take on a life of its own.

This is why I say System does not matter in the way the phrase is commonly used. It matters from the tools and elements it brings to the table. I used to play sci-fi with DND. For years I did this. It was a poor choice initially due to a lack of tools (stats for aliens, monsters, weapons and armor for the genre) but I made those up and the groups liked the elements that DND brought to out game. This was not because DND had such a great sci-fi rules, there were none, but because my group liked the elements of style and how the game played. We had choices from Traveller to Palladium to several other far more obscure systems. They chose DND.

Setting, now that matters. ;)

Bill

Quote from: -E.MDA describes a set of perspectives or "views" based on causal relationships. In MDA the designer creates the mechanics which in turn imply a dynamic, etc.

In video games the designer is pretty much fully responsible for creating all elements of the mechanics including things like character and situation.

In RPGs those elements are provided by players.

If you apply MDA to RPG's with the same set of assumptions you use when you apply it to video games you a strange answer:

I partly agree with you on the difference on applying MDA to RPGs. Its true that you can apply the same set of assumptions to RPGs as you can Video Games. Its because of the medium.

However, MDA is generalizable if you set the assumptions about video games aside when you apply it to other games.

The inclusion of player responsibility for things like character and setting to is in itself a mechanic.

Do you think this is an inappropriate applications of the theory?

Quote from: Kyle AaronD&D
Vampire
GURPS
Rifts
etc

Basically, none of those games select as their sole focus one of Gamism, Narrativism, or Simulationism. They are therefore "Incoherent" and people won't have fun with them.

And yet people love them to bits.

Of course, this is describing Uncle Ronny's writings as "formal analysis" which is an extraordinary stretching of the term, but one which Narmical as a Forger would probably agree with.

Your arguing with the wrong person here. I am neither a Forger nor do i support there GNS theory.

I believed I analyzed how DnD supports Hack n' Slash play in the FtB thread you read. And people love that set of dynamics. If you would like to discuss MDA with me, I'm game.

If you want to grind you ax with uncle ronny, GNS, or the Forge, go ahead and leave me out of it.

Quote from: 'stuart'You could play Chess without Castling, or Checkers without "Kinging" if you want. You could even use your chess set and play checkers with it if you really wanted. Again, nobody will stop you.

That doesn't mean you're still playing chess though.

If you take the "System doesn't matter" idea far enough... RPGs -- they're all bascially the same game:

GM Narrates some story.
Players say what they want to do.
GM maybe asks them to roll some dice.
GM Tells them what happens next.
etc.

So you could take just about any RPG and use it to play "Pretty Pink Ponies" -- but that doesn't mean you're still playing whatever game was written in that book.

Which is awesome if you're having fun. But it means your taking a game as a point of inspiration, and then making up your own game with it.

You totally understand my position!

Quote from: Kyle AaronA rules system encourages a certain play style, but it does not determine play style. As Game Master, I master the game, it does not master me. The rules are my bitch. If I want to play a D&D game about riding pink ponies, then by Gygax's loaded dice, I damn well will - and there's not a damn thing the rules book can do about it.

You understand my position except for one thing. At that point you are playing your own variant of the game. Which there is nothing wrong with. Its just different.

Quote from: KenHR:confused: :confused: :confused:

You need a rule for foreshadowing?!  I mean, I know this isn't the main thruse of your argument, but...foreshadowing!  Why on earth do you need a rule for that?!  That's just something a good GM does, and GMing advice in RPG books from my childhood to the present day have always had guidelines on how to do this.

See, elements of story are just things that happen.  Foreshadowing is effective in an after-the-fact sense.  Why do you need to enforce it with a rule, especially one that gets it so bass-ackwards?  And I'm not sure how giving players control of the "story" enforces or encourages this, anyway....

If as a designer, you feel that a foreshadowing dynamic is important to your game then yes, you need mechanics to support it.

Heres how it encourages foreshadowing. Players crave agency. They crave the ability to effect the game world. If a player wants to maximize there effect on the game world they can narrate story elements. But to do so they must foreshadow there fate.

Quote from: 'HinterWelt'Setting, now that matters.

And according to the MDA, Setting is part of the mechanics.

Quote from: BalbinusBW is about the only indie game that plainly gets long campaigns on a fairly regular basis, I think PTA may as well.

Otherwise though I think Jim-Bob's point holds.

Depends on what you think that point is. Sorcerer really isn't built for six-month games. That isn't a point for it or against it, it's just how it is. Sorcerer produces short stories, BW produces novels and my old standby RQ produces never-ending TV serials.

QuoteEven Vincent Baker nowadays talks about the fruitful void and doesn't run that old canard about system determining play, because it's wrong.

Vincent Baker is a fucking hypocrite who bounces back and forth on "system matters" depending on what serves him politically at any given moment.

Go back and read his statements about Poison'd if you need proof of that.

I wonder if you actually have played The Mountain Witch, Narmical. Because the so-called foreshadowing mechanic is nothing more than the designer scripting in, or really just throwing out, an idea for how to roleplay your character. It isn't enforced, reinforced, or supported mechanically except insofar as the mechanics of the game itself are so abstract that any improvisation of concrete detail can't upset them.

Quote from: droogI think you know some guys who've been playing an extended game of BW, don't you?

Yep.

But I was hoping it wasn't a unique case.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Dear Mr Aaron --

If you are going to live in my brain, please pay rent or at least do some dishes.

I dunno about rent and dishes, but I could cook.

Quote from: HinterWeltI often wonder if "System Matters" is a mindset of people slavishly devoted to the rules. Do they look at RPG books and think "That is the sum of the game"? RPGing is much more about the people at the table and how they interpret the rules.

Mostly it seems to come from the MARP games crowd. If your experience of roleplaying games is much more reading them and discussing them in mailing lists, and very little playing of them with other people, it's quite natural that you'll think system is very important - it's most of what you're experiencing.

Whereas if you're playing once or twice a week with a bunch of people and having a good time, you're going to be naturally inclined to think that the people are more important. This is especially so if half the people don't even know the rules. How can a game system determine or influence play if most of the participants don't even know the rules?
"Oooh, it's a got a lot of rules about combat, no wonder your game has lots of combat."
"Yes but mate, the player who starts most of the combats doesn't know the combat rules. I have to walk them through each fight."

I think it's just a question of your experiences influencing your perspective. If all you do is read and discuss rpgs, you'll think System Matters. If you play a lot, you'll think People Matter. And between those two extreme viewpoints is a lot of room for discussion and ideas not so influenced by experiences.

Quote from: StuartYou could play Chess without Castling, or Checkers without "Kinging" if you want.  You could even use your chess set and play checkers with it if you really wanted.  Again, nobody will stop you.

That doesn't mean you're still playing chess though. :)

If you take the "System doesn't matter" idea far enough... RPGs -- they're all bascially the same game:

GM Narrates some story.
Players say what they want to do.
GM maybe asks them to roll some dice.
GM Tells them what happens next.
etc.

So you could take just about any RPG and use it to play "Pretty Pink Ponies" -- but that doesn't mean you're still playing whatever game was written in that book.

Which is awesome if you're having fun.  But it means your taking a game as a point of inspiration, and then making up your own game with it.

In your non-roleplaying examples you describe changing the rules (removing castling rules, removing king-ing rules).

In your roleplaying examples, what rules are changed if the players decide to ride pink ponies?

I think you'll find the answer is "none."

The point is that playing D&D without combat or with ponies is just as much playing by the rules as slaying orcs.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: NarmicalPlayers crave agency. They crave the ability to effect the game world. If a player wants to maximize there effect on the game world they can narrate story elements. But to do so they must foreshadow there fate.

You have no idea what you're talking about....maybe it's because your gaming experience has been limited.  

Regards,
David R

Quote from: NarmicalI partly agree with you on the difference on applying MDA to RPGs. Its true that you can apply the same set of assumptions to RPGs as you can Video Games. Its because of the medium.

However, MDA is generalizable if you set the assumptions about video games aside when you apply it to other games.

The inclusion of player responsibility for things like character and setting to is in itself a mechanic.

Do you think this is an inappropriate applications of the theory?

I think the mistaken application comes in when one assumes that the dynamic or aesthetics come from the combat rules and not Rule Zero, or the rule that states the GM gets to create the game world and NPC's.

To use your intentionally absurd pink ponies example:

If we play D&D and the players ride pink ponies then, in MDA terms, they are enjoying an aesthetic, created by a dynamic that, in turn, is created by the D&D mechanics every bit as much as the dynamic that is created when they roll for initiative or cast Sleep on a bunch of Smurfs.

It's *all* D&D. Every bit of the play is created by rules in the book -- but for some reason people don't assess the rules about the GM's scope of authority or rules allowing players to describe their character's speech and actions as being as influential as highly structured combat rules.

I'm not sure why: in many of my games, that traditional-rpg-rules model has been far more influential than the specific set of combat or magic rules we were playing with.

Anyway, I recommend you address my question about the ponies example explicitly (it was in the same post you quoted, just further down) -- I think that if you take a look at it, it'll point you to the same conclusion I reach: that if no rule is removed, amended, ignored, or violated, the the riding-pink-ponies game is definitionally within the bounds of what D&D can be about.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I think the mistaken application comes in when one assumes that the dynamic or aesthetics come from the combat rules and not Rule Zero, or the rule that states the GM gets to create the game world and NPC's.

You are correct; ignoring all the other rules of DnD would be a mistake. However my interpretation of what dynamics are is not based on the combat rules alone. Rather from play experience and anecdotes of other's experiences.

Do you mean to say that hack n' slash style of play is not how many people play DnD?

Quote from: -ETo use your intentionally absurd pink ponies example:

If we play D&D and the players ride pink ponies then, in MDA terms, they are enjoying an aesthetic, created by a dynamic that, in turn, is created by the D&D mechanics every bit as much as the dynamic that is created when they roll for initiative or cast Sleep on a bunch of Smurfs.

It's *all* D&D. Every bit of the play is created by rules in the book -- but for some reason people don't assess the rules about the GM's scope of authority or rules allowing players to describe their character's speech and actions as being as influential as highly structured combat rules.

I'm not sure why: in many of my games, that traditional-rpg-rules model has been far more influential than the specific set of combat or magic rules we were playing with.

Anyway, I recommend you address my question about the ponies example explicitly (it was in the same post you quoted, just further down) -- I think that if you take a look at it, it'll point you to the same conclusion I reach: that if no rule is removed, amended, ignored, or violated, the the riding-pink-ponies game is definitionally within the bounds of what D&D can be about.

Cheers,
-E.

I think you missed what my intention for the pink ponies example was.

If i were to take the DnD rule book and replace the front cover with a picture of Pink Ponies. The title now reads "Pretty Pink Ponies RPG" and the back "A game about Love Happiness Pinkness and Most of all PONIES!". And i lave the rest of the book alone.

If i play this game, am i playing DnD or am i playing something different?

I say you still playing DnD.(This is what i was getting at. Now on to what you're talking about)

If I as GM invoke rule zero to give all my players pink ponies to ride on. The ponies are identical to heavy war horses in every way except that they are pink and pretty. Am i still playing DnD?

Yes

If i as GM use rule zero to give all my players pink ponies. AND pink ponies can rub there buts together to create beautiful smells. And when ponies smell beautiful smells they generate love points. Which can be spent on the adventureres to give them happness which keeps them from turning into uglys.

Am i still playing DnD?

I say not. The Mechanics have changed now.


Bringing the examples back to narrative elements in DnD

The First Example would be like running a dungeon crawl campaign. This is clearly set of dynamics supported by the unaltered book.

The Second Example would be like adding in narrative elements to make the game more than just "you start at room one, do you go left or right after beating the kobolds". Events get strung together by dialogs and quests, but basically boils down to the same things as the dungeon crawl does.

The Third Example would be like focusing on character motivations and goals. Awarding experience points for completion of goals or significant steps to completion. I then reward players for good roleplay, interesting dialog or compelling narration with easer completion of said goals. I in essence tie agency to subjective judgments of roleplayng rather than objective judgments of character stats.

In the third example am i still playing DnD?

I say no. because the mechanics have changed at that point.
The dynamics that come from example three, would those then be dynamics of DnD?
I say no, they are dynamics of "Narmical's DnD Variant"

Whats the obsession with pink ponies?

 DAmn!! Its like a furry obsessed person started yakking.

Look - D&D  is roleplaying game. Its the most famous RPG, but its still a game.  Its also most widely played.

 So the hell what if players wind up in a beatles-inspired land with plasticene porters with looking glass ties, marmelade skies, Kaleidascope eyes, cellophane flowers towering over your head, and...and ... pink ponies .... etc...

Its Still D&D to me .

 (Quick!! somebody get Billy Joel to do a FILK version of "ITs still Rock & Roll to me" - but call "Its still D&D to me" )

- Ed C.

Koltar, historically, that's absolutely how things happened, and it's still basically right, as a refutation of Mr. Narmical's maximalist "system matters" argument.

That is: even when game rules do get mutated, changed, added, it's through an organic process that can't be compared to simply picking up the notional final product off a shelf and playing it. When a group modifies the written rules of D&D, they're doing it in the context of a social dynamic: when this process is successful, the notional "rules" of the game and social context bend to fit one another. You can try to write the rules changes down, but you can't easily port the social context from one group to another.

In my opinion this is why many Forge games don't really work outside a narrow culture: they depend on specialized understandings, techniques, and habits that the designers take for granted, or at best struggle to explain through informal guidelines. They're not very robust across a variety of social environments.

Narmical: you simply have a flawed understanding of roleplaying games. You arrive at faulty conclusions based on faulty premises. I think the relevant part is the following:

Quote from: NarmicalThe MDA framework states that the mechanics are wholly responsible for how the game is actually played at the table.

Using DnD as an example, its mechanics are focused on the elements of hack n' slash. For example, combat, leveling, loot tables, monster combat stats.

However, people do use DnD to play games focused on the other style.
I assert that this is because the players actually modify the game mechincs to support there desired play style. They are no longer playing DnD but rather there own home made variant.

You are applying your tools to games which are not analogous to the games the MDA framework was invented for. I propose that it is not possible to correctly understand a roleplaying game from the perspective of traditional games (board games, most war games and computer games), because they have a different scope. Traditionally understood games are "closed", in that they have a finite and usually immutable ruleset which determines the sort of actions players are allowed to undertake. In chess (the most common example brought up in gaming arguments - including this one), you may not invent new moves, nor can you arbitrarily redefine the goals during action. You may invent your own variant, but when you formally establish your house rules, they become sacrosanct for further games.

Roleplaying games, on the contrary, are open, a combination of "play" and "game". The innovation of RPGs was not only the ability to control a character in a fantastic environment described and "dynamised" by a non-impartial (!) referee, but also a sort of fluidity in their rules. A traditionally understood RPG is not a "game"; it is an intuitive framework to make up your own game based on referee/player calls, the needs of participants or plain "what if?" whimsy. Playing "outside the rules" is also a general feature; the game doesn't intend to restrict your moves to a limited set. Original D&D explicitely declared both of these to be fundamental parts of the game in its afterword, and subsequent editions hewed fairly close to the formula - even though a lot was codified and formalised later on. Moreover, other games, and other roleplayers, instinctively understood them to be a fun and interesting feature of roleplaying in general. Even very stupid people got this simple concept!

The only ones who didn't get it were some game theorists, who believed more in their imaginary constructs than the reality of gaming. They first discarded much of gaming-in-practice as irrelevant, and then tried to analyse games through methods that didn't take RPGs' basic features into account. And afterwards, they wrote off most of gaming as "dysfunctional", because it didn't conform to their theories. And they called this "research"! If I were doing this kind of "research" - rejecting reality in favour of an aesthetically attractive theory - I would be fired from my freaking job!

If you argue from the standpoint that only the formal rules matter, you are Not Getting It. You are thinking in the terms of non-RPG type games - and since you mentioned you were taking game design classes in the original thread, I suspect this is where you got the error in your thinking. As someone who enjoys designing fan-made levels for the (excellent and very enjoyable) Thief: the Metal Age computer game, I am struck by how restricted players are even in its fairly emergent environment. Things I take for granted as a participant in a roleplaying game are unavailable to me; in fact, the only thing I possess is a very limited set of moves supplemented by a few exploits (like stacking impossibly high crate towers to access unavailable locations). Even its "open" environments take several months to design and fine-tune for playing. In contrast, even a poorly run RPG gives me comparatively unlimited ability to invent new moves, move outside the GM's established world, or even the formally set rules - at the drop of a hat. If I tried to understand RPGs while thinking in the paradigm of Thief, my conclusions would be irrelevant and erroneous.

Your conclusions are irrelevant and erroneous, and will continue to be as long as you wilfully or accidentally disregard matter-of-fact features almost all popular roleplaying games possess. Mechanics are emphatically  not wholly responsible for how the game is actually played at the table. That's a fact, Ace, and there is no way around it.

Quote from: Narmicalcould you give an example of a game that is successfully at entertainment at the defiance of formal analysis?

Roleplaying games which evolved organically through incremental improvement; which is to say, all the popular ones. And, of course, I mean "at the defiance of formal analysis that has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of roleplaying games".

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn my opinion this is why many Forge games don't really work outside a narrow culture: they depend on specialized understandings, techniques, and habits that the designers take for granted, or at best struggle to explain through informal guidelines. They're not very robust across a variety of social environments.

That's one of those insightful things which is obvious once someone else says it.

You should post to your blog more often so we can read this interesting and useful stuff.

Thread closed.

I once ran a thief guild based D&D campaign were the players spent most (if not all) of their time plotting in the shadows, backstabbing their enemies and engaging in a Undeclared War with other guilds. I rewarded roleplaying & "silent kills" . Apparently I was not playing D&D because any kind of house rules detracts from the original design intent of the game. This is what Narmical's argument boils down to. Houseruling = incoherency.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RHouseruling = incoherency.

Then my last D&D game was incoherant because I had to decide what the effect of a cleric letting a succubus kiss him when his character had a mouth full of holy water would be. For damn sure that particular situation was never covered in any D&D related book or magazine I've read.

And we all still had fun.

Quote from: jeff37923Then my last D&D game was incoherant because I had to decide what the effect of a cleric letting a succubus kiss him when his character had a mouth full of holy water would be.

That fucking rocks.

How did you handle it?

Quote from: NarmicalYou are correct; ignoring all the other rules of DnD would be a mistake. However my interpretation of what dynamics are is not based on the combat rules alone. Rather from play experience and anecdotes of other's experiences.

Do you mean to say that hack n' slash style of play is not how many people play DnD?

The danger with using personal experience and anecdote is that people generalize the way they choose to play and assume

a) it's how everyone plays or...
b) it's the only way to play and somehow the only set up validated by the rules

That's simply not the case with traditional games. People can choose to play them hack n' slash if that's what they enjoy... they can choose to play them with strong humor elements (I do D&D in this mode quite a bit; not joke campaigns per-se, but with strong comic relief elements).

They can even, yes, choose to ride horses.

I invite you to examine your experience with D&D -- if you think through it carefully, you'll note at some point that someone at the table made a choice to bring in any element that existed.

Example: If there was combat then

a) The GM made a choice to put in adversaries for which physical violence was an acceptable solution
b) The PC chose to engage (or the GM forced an ambush -- either way, it's the choice of the people at the table)

Absent these choices the game would have been different.

It wasn't the rules or the rule books... it was the folks sitting around the room.

Quote from: NarmicalI think you missed what my intention for the pink ponies example was.

If i were to take the DnD rule book and replace the front cover with a picture of Pink Ponies. The title now reads "Pretty Pink Ponies RPG" and the back "A game about Love Happiness Pinkness and Most of all PONIES!". And i lave the rest of the book alone.

If i play this game, am i playing DnD or am i playing something different?

I say you still playing DnD.(This is what i was getting at. Now on to what you're talking about)

If I as GM invoke rule zero to give all my players pink ponies to ride on. The ponies are identical to heavy war horses in every way except that they are pink and pretty. Am i still playing DnD?

Yes

If i as GM use rule zero to give all my players pink ponies. AND pink ponies can rub there buts together to create beautiful smells. And when ponies smell beautiful smells they generate love points. Which can be spent on the adventureres to give them happness which keeps them from turning into uglys.

Am i still playing DnD?

I say not. The Mechanics have changed now.

Bringing the examples back to narrative elements in DnD

The First Example would be like running a dungeon crawl campaign. This is clearly set of dynamics supported by the unaltered book.

The Second Example would be like adding in narrative elements to make the game more than just "you start at room one, do you go left or right after beating the kobolds". Events get strung together by dialogs and quests, but basically boils down to the same things as the dungeon crawl does.

I may be confused by what you're calling Narrative elements... let's try a less surreal example:

Let's say I run a game where there's court intrigue -- the PC's have arrived at the Lord's castle and various political factions are vying for control with very little physical combat.

The game consists of the PC's talking to various NPCs as they figure out what's going on (who the sides are, what they like, etc.) and then, based on their decisions and values, take sides and act decisively (win a key tournament, etc.-- the decisive action may involve some combat, but -- again -- is not exclusively combat-related).

Throughout most of the game no dice are rolled; when they are rolled it's mostly for non-combat stuff (e.g. sneaking around).

I would say the character interaction and the heavy emphasis on setting / characterization / etc. are all 'Narrative' elements introduced by me -- the DM.

No new rules, no new mechanics. This is just as much D&D as a dungeon crawl. The narrative elements are part of the story and fully supported by the game.

Quote from: NarmicalThe Third Example would be like focusing on character motivations and goals. Awarding experience points for completion of goals or significant steps to completion. I then reward players for good roleplay, interesting dialog or compelling narration with easer completion of said goals. I in essence tie agency to subjective judgments of roleplayng rather than objective judgments of character stats.

In the third example am i still playing DnD?

I say no. because the mechanics have changed at that point.
The dynamics that come from example three, would those then be dynamics of DnD?
I say no, they are dynamics of "Narmical's DnD Variant"

Here you're back to making up rules -- technically it's still D&D (rule 0), but most people would see this as a house-rules variant. There's nothing to stop you from house-ruling D&D, but formalizing experience point schedules is, in my experience an unnecessary rule creation:

Most D&D players, though, who wanted good roleplay and dialog would simply -- and this is getting redundant, no? -- simply choose to play that way without the necessity of creating any structured framework.

They would, for example, select a group that has those same values and they would describe their character's behaviors in a manner consistent with their character's defined background, goals, etc.

This happens all the time -- many, many groups have no need of special incentives to re-enforce good roleplaying. There are people and groups who do; folks who prefer to act (for example) for the maximal tactical advantage and who (therefore) de-prioritize (for example) fidelity to character.

This is simply a choice; it's not baked into the rules. It's not part of D&D. D&D  (agnostic ally) supports whatever priorities the players bring to the table.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThat fucking rocks.

How did you handle it?

Cleric's Bluff skill check vs the succubus Sense Motive skill check to fool her into getting close enough. An oppossed grapple check with a +4 bonus for the cleric since the move was unexpected and he had beaten her Sense Motive with his Bluff. Reduced the base damage of the holy water from 2d4 to 1d4 because the cleric couldn't hold that much in his mouth, but made the result double damage since it would be internal. And I gave the cleric and party a surprise round afterwards against the succubus since it was a genius move by the player.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMostly it seems to come from the MARP games crowd. If your experience of roleplaying games is much more reading them and discussing them in mailing lists, and very little playing of them with other people, it's quite natural that you'll think system is very important - it's most of what you're experiencing.

Whereas if you're playing once or twice a week with a bunch of people and having a good time, you're going to be naturally inclined to think that the people are more important.

While I do ultimately believe the people are more important, rules still play a significant role in my fun.  I found "system" impinging on my fun in 3.5 long before I ever was on the internet or even thought about other game systems. Every time I wanted to play a non-canon type of player (like a pacifist cleric or a retired fighter who wanted to become an herbologist), I ran into rigid rules that limited my capacity to play the character I wanted.  Either stupid levels or combat dominance made it very frustrating to me, and this was with a great GM and a good group.  It's just that when all you know is D&D, you really try to follow the rules.

This propelled me to start looking around for other options.  I found GURPS, a system where I could play any character I wanted.  And that made me realize that the system does indeed make a difference.

QuoteWalkerdude said:  (like a pacifist cleric or a retired fighter who wanted to become an herbologist),

I apologize, but the knee is jerking.

Both of those can be pretty easily done using GURPS - just depends on how much detail you decide to go for.


- Ed C.

That was exactly the point of my post.  I was able to create any kind of PC in GURPS and that was the first thing that made me realize that system can make a difference.

So we agree on the three examples that i gave and what is playing DnD as written and what is a rules Variant.
Is this correct?

Quote from: -E.Example: If there was combat then

a) The GM made a choice to put in adversaries for which physical violence was an acceptable solution
b) The PC chose to engage (or the GM forced an ambush -- either way, it's the choice of the people at the table)

Absent these choices the game would have been different.

It wasn't the rules or the rule books... it was the folks sitting around the room.

That is true, but the mechanics of combat and the way they relate to the other mechanics in the game. Like primarily discussed way of advancing your character is through combat. Encourages combat in actual play. Its not required but encouraged.

Its like in Settlers of Catan. You can trade resources. You could chose to or chose not to. But the other mechanics of the game (the number of resources and the difficulty in being able to produces them all)encourage you to trade and in turn bargain.

Quote from: -EMost D&D players, though, who wanted good roleplay and dialog would simply -- and this is getting redundant, no? -- simply choose to play that way without the necessity of creating any structured framework.

They would, for example, select a group that has those same values and they would describe their character's behaviors in a manner consistent with their character's defined background, goals, etc.

This happens all the time -- many, many groups have no need of special incentives to re-enforce good roleplaying. There are people and groups who do; folks who prefer to act (for example) for the maximal tactical advantage and who (therefore) de-prioritize (for example) fidelity to character.

This is simply a choice; it's not baked into the rules. It's not part of D&D. D&D  (agnostic ally) supports whatever priorities the players bring to the table.

Cheers,
-E.

Its not simply a choice at that point. If you get a group of DnD players together to play a gave where they "wanted good roleplay and dialog". An agreement to be in the game is an agreement to play in that manner. This agreement then becomes a mechanic of the game.

In the idea of mechanics put forth by MDA is more broad than just what people usually consider "game rules". Do you consider setting a game rule? MDA considers it a Mechanic.

I mentioned this in another thread.  You don't need ANY system to roleplay.  A GM and some players can roleplay anything they can imagine with no system at all.  In that respect, System doesn't matter.

However, a game system can either get in the way of that roleplay or do things to encourage it.  

If a single round of combat requires dozens of math calculations, buckets full of dice, and about an hour of real time -- players might think twice before getting into combat compared to a system where combats are resolved in a matter of minutes.  Similarly if the system mechanically encourages or discourages certain player choices -- that will affect how they end up roleplaying in the game.

A system can also enhance the roleplaying by adding randomness and unpredictability, as well as providing a structure for players to make choices about risk and reward for their characters.  Players with characters in a highly lethal combat game will roleplay differently than those in a game where there is little risk to their characters, or more emphasis on other areas.  Roleplaying situations based on actual risk / reward in the game can be more interesting and exciting.

System doesn't matter.  System does matter.  :)

Quote from: MelanThe only ones who didn't get it were some game theorists, who believed more in their imaginary constructs than the reality of gaming. They first discarded much of gaming-in-practice as irrelevant, and then tried to analyse games through methods that didn't take RPGs' basic features into account. And afterwards, they wrote off most of gaming as "dysfunctional", because it didn't conform to their theories. And they called this "research"! If I were doing this kind of "research" - rejecting reality in favour of an aesthetically attractive theory - I would be fired from my freaking job!

Argue this with those "some game theorists" not me. I never asserted that any game was dysfunctional.

Quote from: MelanIf you argue from the standpoint that only the formal rules matter,

If you take a second look at the MDA paper you will see that Mechanics is greater than the formal rules.

Quote from: MDA PaperMechanics describes the particular components of the
game, at the level of data representation and algorithms
...
Mechanics
Mechanics are the various actions, behaviors and control
mechanisms afforded to the player within a game context.
Together with the game’s content (levels, assets and so on)
the mechanics support overall gameplay dynamics.

With this understanding of mechanics in an RPG, setting is mechanics, Social Contract contains mechanics. They are just as much mechanics as the "formal rules" and the house rules.

Quote from: MelanYour conclusions are irrelevant and erroneous, and will continue to be as long as you wilfully or accidentally disregard matter-of-fact features almost all popular roleplaying games possess. Mechanics are emphatically  not wholly responsible for how the game is actually played at the table. That's a fact, Ace, and there is no way around it.

Quote from: David RI rewarded roleplaying & "silent kills" .

How did you reward roleplaying? Did you award XP? what metric did you use to determine what counted?

how was a silent kill different than a regularly kill? how did you reward it more?

Those changes are house rules, they are additional mechanics. You are no longer playing DnD as written but rather a rules variant.

Quote from: David RHouseruling = incoherency.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

I said House ruling changes mechanics. Houseruling creates a rules variant. And at a point, so many changes can be made that you no longer can say your playing DnD as written.

Quote from: NarmicalI'm saying that traditionally RPGs are designed for the kind of play you desiccated.

des·ic·cat·ed
Pronunciation[des-i-key-tid]
–adjective
dehydrated or powdered: desiccated coconut.

Quote from: NarmicalNot use a game with an intended dynamic of what you desiccate to do something completely different.

des·ic·cate      Pronunciation[des-i-keyt]
–verb (used with object)
1.   to dry thoroughly; dry up.
2.   to preserve (food) by removing moisture; dehydrate.


Unless this is the "Beef Jerky Theory of Gaming", I guess an education at Northwestern isn't what it used to be.  :D

Quote from: NarmicalHow did you reward roleplaying? Did you award XP? what metric did you use to determine what counted?

The "reward" in an RPG is often not related to anything the GM can give the players directly.  If a player thinks the goal of the game is supremacy in tactical combat, then "winning" in battles is the reward.  If they think the game is about character acting, then their reward is giving a "great" performance (their impression of winning or losing here could be based on what the other players and GM think of their performance -- but some players may not be able to pick up on subtle social cues letting them know when their performance is meeting with approval or not).  For other players, the reward could be a sense of satisfaction in solving the puzzles and mysteries found in a dungeon.

RPG texts that say "There's no winning and losing!" are incorrect.  Rather most RPGs could say "There are many ways to win and lose".

Oh for pity's sake!!

I make typos, but geez Narmical some of yours just get in the way of whatever point you are trying to make. (Notice that you are  or "you're" NOT "Your")


- Ed

Quote from: NarmicalDon't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Let's test this. Do you consider D&D incoherent? If so, why?

(What difference will my answers make ?)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923Cleric's Bluff skill check vs the succubus Sense Motive skill check to fool her into getting close enough. An oppossed grapple check with a +4 bonus for the cleric since the move was unexpected and he had beaten her Sense Motive with his Bluff. Reduced the base damage of the holy water from 2d4 to 1d4 because the cleric couldn't hold that much in his mouth, but made the result double damage since it would be internal. And I gave the cleric and party a surprise round afterwards against the succubus since it was a genius move by the player.

JAWSOME.

Quote from: NarmicalIts not simply a choice at that point. If you get a group of DnD players together to play a gave where they "wanted good roleplay and dialog". An agreement to be in the game is an agreement to play in that manner. This agreement then becomes a mechanic of the game.

I just don't see this as a mechanic.  Mechanics mean consistent rules, based on an a priori mechanic (like 3d6 and roll under) that you apply consistently to a situation or based on empirical information (like tables) that you reference.

The above agreement is a question of style, emphasis, communication so that the GM knows where the game is going to go.  But the interactions will be determined by the dynamic relationship between the GM and the players.  There are no rules there, no mechanics.

Quote from: StuartI mentioned this in another thread.  You don't need ANY system to roleplay.  A GM and some players can roleplay anything they can imagine with no system at all.  In that respect, System doesn't matter.

However, a game system can either get in the way of that roleplay or do things to encourage it.  

If a single round of combat requires dozens of math calculations, buckets full of dice, and about an hour of real time -- players might think twice before getting into combat compared to a system where combats are resolved in a matter of minutes.  Similarly if the system mechanically encourages or discourages certain player choices -- that will affect how they end up roleplaying in the game.

A system can also enhance the roleplaying by adding randomness and unpredictability, as well as providing a structure for players to make choices about risk and reward for their characters.  Players with characters in a highly lethal combat game will roleplay differently than those in a game where there is little risk to their characters, or more emphasis on other areas.  Roleplaying situations based on actual risk / reward in the game can be more interesting and exciting.

System doesn't matter.  System does matter.  :)

Exactly. This is the truth and anyone arguing vehemently for one side at the exclusion of the other is just excluding the middle.

Quote from: NarmicalThose changes are house rules, they are additional mechanics. You are no longer playing DnD as written but rather a rules variant.

Out of curiosity, if I make up a magic item (which I am allowed to do under the rules framework)  that does not express its power as a stock-effect, are we no-longer playing D&D?

If this is the case then it seems that under your interpretation of MDA, running anything but the adventure in the back of the book (with pre-gen characters) is no-longer playing D&D--but rather a house-ruled variant.

This perspective doesn't seem especially useful to me in the context of an RPG.

-Marco

It's a spectrum.

Add a house-rule to any game, and you're probably still playing something people will identify as the original game.  Add a substantial amount of house-rules and/or remove a substantial amount of original rules, and you very well could be playing something people will not identify as the original game.

Marco's point, I think, is that the definition of "house-rule" is so restrictive as to be, essentially, meaningless.

Besides - Narm's question of David about reward mechanics, specifically in the case of D&D3e, is off base. You can reward all kinds of things - says so right in the books.  We've had this discussion before.

And to link that to Marco's point - calling the adjustment of a reward mechanic to fit the group's desire a house-rule of X that makes it no longer playing X seems extreme.

In "theory," no two tables are playing the same game of D&D. Sheesh - perhaps this should go in the "Not D&D" thread....

Quote from: StuartIt's a spectrum.

Add a house-rule to any game, and you're probably still playing something people will identify as the original game.  Add a substantial amount of house-rules and/or remove a substantial amount of original rules, and you very well could be playing something people will not identify as the original game.

That's a reasonable answer. Different people will draw the line at different places which is okay--but it puts the lie to the MDA overly-prescriptive answer which holds (in this thread) that if the PCs in a D&D game decide to play court intrigue they are no longer playing D&D.

-Marco
Edited to add: Yes, James is correct--I think a "reasonable man" standard is, well, reasonable--but I'm not sure that, for example, a magical creature (the ponies) would completely change the game from that standard by its lonesome (I can imagine a unicorn hunt where capturing the unicorn brings everyone happiness as a Wish-spell).

Another reason GNS is fucked is the redefinition of ordinary words until they lose their meanings.

For example, in almost all conversations about roleplaying mechanics means the rules.  Pretty much everyone knows this.

Here, mechanics gets redefined as a term, and clarity goes out the window.

I'm surprised people are bothering to respond to such a tired retread of arguments that went out of circulation literally years ago.

Marco, good to see you back, I was wondering the other day what you were up to.

Quote from: BalbinusHere, mechanics gets redefined as a term, and clarity goes out the window.

I was just going to post about this.

Narmical, you're defining "mechanics" and house-ruling so broadly that the terms are useless for discussion.  If "mechanics" includes the game setting, the act of people sitting around the table and playing the game, etc., then I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.  That things happening around the table and who shows up, etc. affect how we play?  That's kind of obvious, isn't it?  I'm missing the insight here.

And the house-ruling argument is sort of ridiculous.  To take one of your examples, the additional reward mechanisms for role-playing etc. have long been a part of the game (in guideline form, at the very least).  Even the 1e DMG gave characters a discount for training costs if they played well (within alignment, contributed to session, etc.).  How is that a house rule?

And, like others have already said, RPGs are inherently open in ways that video games or board games are not.  Players are allowed to try just about anything in-game (within limits of logic/taste/what have you).  Because of this, most folks understand that you have to be able to spot-rule situations and think on your feet to accomodate weird circumstances.  The holy water in the mouth scenario is one particularly awesome example of this.

More to the point, Narmical, what games do you enjoy playing regularly?  How often do you play them?  I'm not trying to be dickish with these questions (hell, I go many months between campaigns due to scheduling issues, and while I own many games, I tend to stick with a handful in practice); I'm sincerely interested.  It might help me understand where you're coming from a bit better.

Yes, I think I got caught up in that broad definition trap in my last post.

Quote from: NarmicalSo we agree on the three examples that i gave and what is playing DnD as written and what is a rules Variant.
Is this correct?

I'm... not sure... your examples about tearing off the cover of the book seemed a bit dramatic for me to figure out.

Quote from: NarmicalThat is true, but the mechanics of combat and the way they relate to the other mechanics in the game. Like primarily discussed way of advancing your character is through combat. Encourages combat in actual play. Its not required but encouraged.

Its like in Settlers of Catan. You can trade resources. You could chose to or chose not to. But the other mechanics of the game (the number of resources and the difficulty in being able to produces them all)encourage you to trade and in turn bargain.

Certainly -- but one huge mistake that I think a lot of analysis makes is assuming that the only rewards in games are in the form of points of some kind.

Certainly -- for me, and for many others, -- the most important rewards come from enjoying the fictional world generated... enjoying the experience of playing one's character... enjoying the in-character dialog, etc.

In many cases the reward systems provided by things like XP or in-game currency are the least interesting and effective in encouraging gamer behavior.

Quote from: NarmicalIts not simply a choice at that point. If you get a group of DnD players together to play a gave where they "wanted good roleplay and dialog". An agreement to be in the game is an agreement to play in that manner. This agreement then becomes a mechanic of the game.

In the idea of mechanics put forth by MDA is more broad than just what people usually consider "game rules". Do you consider setting a game rule? MDA considers it a Mechanic.

An agreement becomes a mechanic? Really?

If I'm playing Halo with my buddies and we agree to use code-names instead of real names, is that a 'mechanic'?

Are they no longer playing Halo?

No -- of course not. Your definition of what constitutes a mechanic is, I think, strange and overly-restrictive. And not part of the MDA model. Player decisions and choices can't violate the game rules (without changing the game), but so long as they make choices that the game allows, they're playing in the game... even when those choices are different from the ones you make.

I mean, I keep asking this:

If I choose to value roleplaying and dialog -- if everyone at the table makes that choice -- am I violating a D&D rule?

I'm not (right? You haven't really addressed this question, so I'm trying to be very explicit here).

I'm not ignoring a rule. I'm not ammending a rule. I'm not doing *anything* except playing straight-up D&D...

So why on earth would anyone look at that play and think I was changing the game?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm surprised people are bothering to respond to such a tired retread of arguments that went out of circulation literally years ago.

I'm just surprised that Narmical thinks that D&D is popular (sells great) just because it's a system that is so houseruled. Because gentlemen , this is what it's fans have been doing for years. And if he really thinks that nearly every campaign out there is a varient, it just demonstartes a lack of understanding about what gamers really do or a lack of understanding about game systems, which I suppose is why theory talk comes so easily for him....even though as you say, this is all so yesterday.....

(I'm not normally so rude, but this chap pisses me off for some reason)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: walkerpEvery time I wanted to play a non-canon type of player (like a pacifist cleric or a retired fighter who wanted to become an herbologist), I ran into rigid rules that limited my capacity to play the character I wanted.  Either stupid levels or combat dominance made it very frustrating to me, and this was with a great GM and a good group.  

How did the rules limit you from playing those non-canon roles? A pacifist cleric may have feats chosen to enhance his social skills and rhetoric, possibly encouraging you to multiclass as a bard to get a Ghandi or Martin Luther King type of character. A retired fighter wanting to be a herbologist sounds like he'd multiclass as a druid or expert to get the herbology skills. All of which is allowed by the 3.0 and 3.5 rules.

The only part which may become sticky is gaining experience. To cover where the PC may fall through the gaps by just doing his chosen profession (in essence making skill checks on a regular basis), I'd steal a section from the Traveller20 rukles on experience which gives you XP values for doing a job. Its definitely mundane, but that seems to be what you were aiming for with the characters.

Quote from: jeff37923How did the rules limit you from playing those non-canon roles? A pacifist cleric may have feats chosen to enhance his social skills and rhetoric, possibly encouraging you to multiclass as a bard to get a Ghandi or Martin Luther King type of character.

Where this guy became really unfun was in combat.  Now I know that's kind of an answer begging for a quick retort, but I envisioned him participating in combat, just not actually attacking anyone.  We had a fight between two ships and I wanted to do a bunch of things like throw off the gangplank.  It was all handwaved, leaving me feeling like my actions had no impact on the battle (which they didn't mechanically).

Quote from: jeff37923A retired fighter wanting to be a herbologist sounds like he'd multiclass as a druid or expert to get the herbology skills. All of which is allowed by the 3.0 and 3.5 rules.

I didn't want any of the extra stuff.  I didn't want any druid magic, didn't want an animal companion.  I just wanted to live in a treehouse and study the flora around me (and of course get caught up in troubles).

Quote from: jeff37923How did the rules limit you from playing those non-canon roles? A pacifist cleric may have feats chosen to enhance his social skills and rhetoric, possibly encouraging you to multiclass as a bard to get a Ghandi or Martin Luther King type of character. A retired fighter wanting to be a herbologist sounds like he'd multiclass as a druid or expert to get the herbology skills. All of which is allowed by the 3.0 and 3.5 rules.

The only part which may become sticky is gaining experience. To cover where the PC may fall through the gaps by just doing his chosen profession (in essence making skill checks on a regular basis), I'd steal a section from the Traveller20 rukles on experience which gives you XP values for doing a job. Its definitely mundane, but that seems to be what you were aiming for with the characters.

You don't have to murder everyone involved in a challenge to get XP for it.  You only have to get past it, one way or another. The 3e rules are deliberately vague on the how, so as to allow all flexibility of approach.

Quote from: walkerpWhere this guy became really unfun was in combat.  Now I know that's kind of an answer begging for a quick retort, but I envisioned him participating in combat, just not actually attacking anyone.  We had a fight between two ships and I wanted to do a bunch of things like throw off the gangplank.  It was all handwaved, leaving me feeling like my actions had no impact on the battle (which they didn't mechanically).

It sounds like a functional character in a party, even effective (removing the gangplank between ships slows down or even prevents reinforcements from entering combat). Pardon the armchair psychology because I don't have all the details, but it sounds like the difficulty you had in playing this character under 3.x was in your own perception of events.

Quote from: walkerpI didn't want any of the extra stuff.  I didn't want any druid magic, didn't want an animal companion.  I just wanted to live in a treehouse and study the flora around me (and of course get caught up in troubles).

A Fighter who retires and then multiclasses to Expert, no extras in the package. Sounds playable to me.

(Of course, I can see this guy becomming a parody of the Crocodile Hunter, except with plants.

"Crikey, mate! That Shambling Mound sure is pissed off that I transplanted its saplings to better soil! That's the problem with plants sometimes, they don't know what's best for their young! Whoops! Here it comes again!" )

Quote from: J ArcaneYou don't have to murder everyone involved in a challenge to get XP for it.  You only have to get past it, one way or another. The 3e rules are deliberately vague on the how, so as to allow all flexibility of approach.

I know this, it is one of the best parts of 3.x to me. The experience rules from Traveller20 I was referring to are when there is no challenge to overcome besides making your skill check against Craft, Profession, or Perform.

Quote from: NarmicalArgue this with those "some game theorists" not me. I never asserted that any game was dysfunctional.

You indeed didn't. However, you did come out with the Forgie "Dungeons and Dragons is designed to be a game of hack n' slash rollplaying", and argued for its incoherence - whether you used that particular term or not.

QuoteIf you take a second look at the MDA paper you will see that Mechanics is greater than the formal rules.

With this understanding of mechanics in an RPG, setting is mechanics, Social Contract contains mechanics. They are just as much mechanics as the "formal rules" and the house rules.

With my understanding of "dogs", I can say with the utmost confidence that they, in fact, do meow. In other words, your definitions are worthless, as they have nothing to do with what "mechanics" mean in roleplaying games.

Quote from: jeff37923Cleric's Bluff skill check vs the succubus Sense Motive skill check to fool her into getting close enough. An oppossed grapple check with a +4 bonus for the cleric since the move was unexpected and he had beaten her Sense Motive with his Bluff. Reduced the base damage of the holy water from 2d4 to 1d4 because the cleric couldn't hold that much in his mouth, but made the result double damage since it would be internal. And I gave the cleric and party a surprise round afterwards against the succubus since it was a genius move by the player.

Really cool, Jeff! :)

Quote from: walkerpI didn't want any of the extra stuff.  I didn't want any druid magic, didn't want an animal companion.  I just wanted to live in a treehouse and study the flora around me (and of course get caught up in troubles).

The Expert class would totally do that. As well, there are guidelines in the DMG to modify classes (I think they mention an example of a Ranger who wants a Paladin Mount and swaps it for other abilities). A DM might have allowed you to customize-build a class out of the Druid and Expert, dropping whatever you don't like.

As your DM, I would have offered two other options:

1-We create a prestige class together that we both find fun enough for you and relevant enough to the game.

2-Failing that, I suggest that we move this character concept to another game system and you keep the D&D characters more... err... archetypical, for lack of a better word.

Honestly, I think D&D *can* do that stuff, but it's not always very good at it. It's possible it just doesn't handle things the way you want it too. The concern is not just to customize a class for you (that's the wasy part) but how the system will support it while adventuring.

As you said in another post, if you don't feel you are rewarded for your actions in a given game, the system may be failing you.

Quote from: Consonant DudeHonestly, I think D&D *can* do that stuff, but it's not always very good at it. It's possible it just doesn't handle things the way you want it too. The concern is not just to customize a class for you (that's the wasy part) but how the system will support it while adventuring.

As you said in another post, if you don't feel you are rewarded for your actions in a given game, the system may be failing you.

That's correct.  It was a great campaign and I moved my fighter from level 4 to 14, as well as through a very interesting character and career arc.  When it came time to continue to develop that in the way that made the most sense in game (get out of politics and get into the forest that he had always loved), the system no longer supported it in a way that I found satisfying.  We could ( and did) keep going, but I never felt 100% satisfied.

So in that sense, for me, system did matter.  Had I played the same campaign with a system that worked for me but the GM was an ass, it would have been a worse game.  So in that sense, people matter.

No offense (a totally useless phrase that always seems to make things worse, but oh well...) Walker,

But from what you described I would hate to game with you, on either side of the screen.

As a fellow player I'd find your constant cock blocking (no, we want to KILL those motherfucking pirates, what the fuck, we pull away it's back to cannonballs and grapeshot to the face... and that just sucks) or whining about retiring extremely irritating (just fucking retire that character to the woods than, man... fuck a duck... we got a dragon to kill and you are bitchign about your peonies)

As a GM I'd have to sit you down and have one of those uncomfortable talks...

... "I just don't think its working out between us, Walker. I mean.. I want you to have fun, to grow as a character, but I feel we're growing apart. The other players are all for booting you from the group. They are trying to adventure, you know... I thought maybe we could work this out... but I just don't feel like you are trying to get along with everyone, you just aren't putting any effort into this relationship. I think we should game with other people."


then you'll scream at me, break some dishes but in the end we'd have to go our seperate ways.

You read me wrong.  I'd have to go into all the details of the campaigns to give it all context, and I can see how those two examples may have seemed like me trying to be special or different, but I generally play with the group and I like to kick ass.  The retired fighter was because he had already kicked so much ass he needed to get away from it all, but the idea was that there would be other problems (and there were).  The other PCs were all super high level and into their own thing as well (the mage was the head of Mageholm, the mage's guild, the dwarf fighter ran a bar and was the mayor) and we got together when the shit hit the fan.

The pacifist cleric was because I was so bored with 3.5 combat and that guy had a lot to do given the setting (pirates on an ocean of sand; each ship needed a priest to run it).  The removing the gangplank was just to prevent more of them from coming over while we took care of the too many that were already on our ship.  And he wasn't actually a pacifist, now that I remember.  He just couldn't fight.

Just to prove to you how badass I am, in the last session I played (the Monday before last), my real estate agent beat a guy to death with a baseball bat and then staked him out on the front lawn with tent spikes outside his suburban home then set him and the whole house on fire.

Unknown Armies.  The guy was from the New Inquisition.  The other players were all in favour (though we're fucked now, but they threatened my family, there was nothing else I could do).

I use the badass phrase above in a tongue-in-cheek tone.

Am I the only one getting a good laugh at how Narmical was trying to wrangle the argument into a jargon heavy discussion of this "MDA Framework", over and over, and yet everyone was (and continues to) aptly ignoring it, sidestepping the jargon and focusing on the actual point at hand?  It's a testament to the sterility and emptiness of the discussions in the "story" games fora seems accustomed to.  Here, he's rather like watching a fish out of water, flapping around, desperately gasping for air.