TheRPGSite

Courtesy of TBP (link to the thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?682261-Group-Issues-GMs-have-you-ever-dealt-with-entitlement-issues-with-your-players))

QuoteAlright, I'm in an odd position that I never thought I would end up in as a GM gaming with friends. About a year ago, I started a Werewolf the Forsaken game. I told the group that I would be running it like a TV show, breaking things up into seasons. At the outset, I predicted a 5 season game to run the storyline(s) that I had planned. This was a big departure for me as a GM because I normally do straight-up sandbox, plot-as-we-go, style games.
 
I ran into an issue after the first season, because we had to ask a player to leave for game and non-game related reasons. I corrected what was a fairly tight plot and covered the holes that were created by that character's absence. Second season goes off without a hitch, though the group was unhappy with having such a small group now. We invited someone else in, I contorted and twisted things to make it work without damaging what I had already laid. No problems.
 
Before the start of the third season, I took a look back at my initial outline and found that I only had two arcs left. And the one heralds the other and the end of the game. I announced this, said that the game would end with the closure of season 3 and that we only had maybe 12-15 sessions left depending on time and choices, etc. I ran the first 7 sessions and placed my few remaining pieces before the endgame. I handed off the reigns to another GM, so I could have a bit of a break because of life. One of the players asked me a question about trying to make something happen with their character and I mentioned it might be a bit much to squeeze in due to the dwindling amount of time. I mentioned that there is going to be a time jump coming up though, and we could cover a bit of it during that jump as a vignette and just assume the rest before the final session.
 
Suddenly after mentioning this, I have gotten emails and texts from two of the other four players about how they are really attached to their characters and that they don't think I should end the game. That I shouldn't do the time jump, that we could game that portion and that I'm holding their character's hostage. I conceded that I don't think those 5 years would be very fun to game, as I know where things are likely to leave off but I would think about and we could discuss things when we get there. Apparently that answer is not good enough for any of them, because I continue to get emails and texts trying to convince me to continue it.

My reply has been something to the effect of: "We'll see where it lies afterwards. Trying to pressure me to do more after I've already conceded that I'll think about and see if its viable, isn't helping your case. If you have enjoyed the game thus far, are invested in the story, and have had fun; trust me to finish it as I have intended."
 
Frankly, I'm kind of at a loss. I'm flattered that they like it enough that they want me to continue it. At the same time, I want to finish it according to my vision. It is by far the best game that I have ever run and I think it is that way because I have planned so very much. To continue it, would mean jettisoning most of work to push filler into the system for their sake. I'm also really annoyed because I've got a bunch friends, with whom I have gamed with for years upon years, trying to pressure me into doing something that I really don't care to do. I just want an opinion. I am being a dick, shanghaiing their characters for the sake of hard, worked-on plans or are they being unreasonably entitled?

I read that and thought to myself, I seriously have no idea how to even think about games like that. And no, this isn't a post to bitch about storygames, or say they're awful, or anything of the sort. I just think it really succinctly shows how its a completely different experience as a game that has problems completely alien to me.

Dude that has nothing to do with a storygame. Werewolf is standard trad game and all you are describing is a trad game played with a tight plot arc.

Plot arcs do not = story games. Plot arcs might equal railroads. Plot arcs might not be your cup of tea but they are not storygames.

If you are playing a game where you map out the structure and you envisage 'series 1' ending with a fight with Boss number 1 who has been been behind the PCs issues for the first dozen sessions and it turns out he is the brother of one of the PCs which you foreshadowed in session 1 and the games ends with a duel between the two of them as you envisaged from the outset. That, though it might sound odd, does not make any of the intervening sessions storygames.

You may well have chosen to use some PC plot immunity to keep them alive, you may well have railroaded them down a path, neither are inherrent storygame tactics.
In reality you may have done none of that you may have played the game totaly straight up lost 2 PCs along the way and the PCs did exactly what they wanted each time but you retconned the plot arc against what they did and so Boss1 is the brother of the one PC that survived and it just looks like you did that from the start.

Quote from: jibbajibba;642421Dude that has nothing to do with a storygame.

This.

Still seems pretty odd to me.

But then, I never really understood what you did in any of the White Wolf games.

In D&D, you explore dungeons, fight monsters, build castles. (Same for most other fantasy games).

In CoC, you investigate weird stuff and probably get killed trying to save the world (or at least people)

In Traveller, you travel around the galaxy, probably breaking laws and exploring new planets.

In Vampire, you're vampires, and do what, exactly? Same with Werewolf? Do you chase Chuck Connors around the country?

Then again, I never understood what you did in Rifts, either.

Sounds like the mother of all railroad campaigns. I wouldn't enjoy it, my players wouldn't enjoy it, but it must be some good though as (s)he's managed to drag it over so many sessions.

It doesn't really fit as a shared narrative game however, no player-character dissociation, moving away from the first person perspective, player control over the setting beyond what their characters do, and no discussion about story arcs or related waffle except in the GM's head.

Agreed with most others here: this is a traditional RPG, not a model of traditional RPG which I'd personally enjoy but if the players like it and the GM likes it then no foul. (It isn't even a style which is particularly unique to White Wolf - Dragonlance was basically a commercialised version of this sort of very linear concept.)

Quote from: JeremyR;642458In Vampire, you're vampires, and do what, exactly? Same with Werewolf? Do you chase Chuck Connors around the country?

The nWoD werewolf PCs are essentially spirit cops charged with patrolling the boundary between the material world and its animistic shadow counterpart, opposed by not only intruders from the other side but also a significantly larger enemy faction of werewolves who'd instead wish to bring down the barriers and enslave humanity in the name of their spirit masters. Vampires admittedly don't come with this sort of a default "to do" list, although the upcoming Blood & Smoke chronicle book may change that.

Yeah this has nothing to do with storygames. It's a problem with the "story-telling" mindset, which is a different thing. That is, setting out to play the game as a story with plot, storyline, narrative structures etc (story telling), versus using a specific type of (modern, post Forge, post 2000 in most if not all cases) game which gives specific mechanical/rules tools to act as the co-author of a narrative or story building exercise (story gaming).

Quote from: The Traveller;642467Sounds like the mother of all railroad campaigns. I wouldn't enjoy it, my players wouldn't enjoy it, but it must be some good though as (s)he's managed to drag it over so many sessions.

What is really intertesting is that the group who generally play sandbox stuff obviously love the game. So railroad or not I can't see any problem with it at all.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642420Courtesy of TBP (link to the thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?682261-Group-Issues-GMs-have-you-ever-dealt-with-entitlement-issues-with-your-players))




I read that and thought to myself, I seriously have no idea how to even think about games like that. And no, this isn't a post to bitch about storygames, or say they're awful, or anything of the sort. I just think it really succinctly shows how its a completely different experience as a game that has problems completely alien to me.

Too much planning?  Why not do Werewolf as a sandbox?

In theory yes - but based on the impression I get from reading the op's quote, two of the players DO have a problem with the railroading. At least insofar as they would very much like to go on playing their characters in that setting instead of ending it all in a grande finale.

It seems to me that what they want is akin to plot-based pc games like oblivion, skyrim or fable where after finishing the main plot you can go on playing. Except this wish apparently collides with the purity of the auteur's vision...

Quote from: JeremyR;642458In Vampire, you're vampires, and do what, exactly? Same with Werewolf? Do you chase Chuck Connors around the country?

Then again, I never understood what you did in Rifts, either.

Werewolf is very much rooted in the traditional D&D kill monsters and level up approach, with a healthy dollop of the political intrigue which made Vampire work.  Honestly, Werewolf: The Apocalypse is probably one of the better RPGs out there for accessibility and the like -- I just got my copy of the 20th anniversary edition, and in addition to making me feel old that I can remember the game when it came out, reminded me of just how incredibly potent that combination of old-school action and '90s political storytelling could be.

I mean, Werewolf is basically even class and level, it's that rooted in old school adventuring.

Given Rein*Hagen's role in creating Ars Magica, my take on the WoD games is that they shared with their ancestor game a focus on a specific location (Chicago or the caern or the chantry instead of the wizard's covenant) and thus on RPing the travails of being enmeshed in a place. Hence politics with one's neighbors, attending to the necessities of vis-gathering or feeding, stopping spirits from crossing over, etc. Despite the official game lines' penchant for meta-plotting, I found that all of my WoD games in the 90s were essentially player-driven sandboxes.

Quote from: Maltese Changeling;642602Given Rein*Hagen's role in creating Ars Magica, my take on the WoD games is that they shared with their ancestor game a focus on a specific location (Chicago or the caern or the chantry instead of the wizard's covenant) and thus on RPing the travails of being enmeshed in a place. Hence politics with one's neighbors, attending to the necessities of vis-gathering or feeding, stopping spirits from crossing over, etc. Despite the official game lines' penchant for meta-plotting, I found that all of my WoD games in the 90s were essentially player-driven sandboxes.

Chicago By Night is, to my mind, one of the classic sandbox settings.

Quote from: jibbajibba;642421Dude that has nothing to do with a storygame.

Let me explain then. Yes, the system itself is not a storygame system. White Wolf games to do impose3 storygaming style on  players via the mechanics. I would never call Werewolf or any White Wolf game a "storygame". However, storygaming is a style of play, defined by viewing the PCs as characters in a story and making choices to that effect. In the example, this is very much the case. Not only because the GM is railroading them through a plot, but because the players are very aware of this. They play in sets of games corresponding to seasons of a TV show, there's a predetermined effect of their actions, and as there is a set ending that is inevitable, and as the example makes clear, the players have had their character's choices limited specifically to reflect the ending.

For example, in a sandbox game where players have control over their characters decisions, even with a railroady GM, they still have the option of rejecting the plot. A player group could decide to leave the city, to pursue other goals, to reject the "plot" or "story". Plot in a traditional RPG has the meaning of "plan" or "scheme". Its events that are going to happen unless the players interfere. Plot in a storygame, as clearly evinced in the example, is a predetermined set of events that the players will "act through" but is not based on their decisions or actions, and views the course of events in the game as conforming to a narrative structure.

The style of gaming referred to now as storygaming is not dependent on the system. Its existed for decades. It was described and definined in both trifold game theory and GNS. The difference, post-Forge, is that now there are games made specifically to cater and enforce this style of gaming, hence "storygames".

Wait, so Pathfinder Adventure Modules are are a Storygame?

Quote from: TristramEvans;642684Let me explain then. Yes, the system itself is not a storygame system. White Wolf games to do impose3 storygaming style on  players via the mechanics. I would never call Werewolf or any White Wolf game a "storygame". However, storygaming is a style of play, defined by viewing the PCs as characters in a story and making choices to that effect. In the example, this is very much the case. Not only because the GM is railroading them through a plot, but because the players are very aware of this. They play in sets of games corresponding to seasons of a TV show, there's a predetermined effect of their actions, and as there is a set ending that is inevitable, and as the example makes clear, the players have had their character's choices limited specifically to reflect the ending.

You're not describing anything particularly storygaming here, you're simply describing bad GMing.  If the ending is predetermined, that's a problem in itself, it has nothing to do with the GM pacing the game like a three-act structure or using rising and falling action or basing the adventure structure on a modern television season.

You can use all of those narrative techniques without railroading or making the PCs serve the plot.  This debate's been going on for a while in the gaming community -- what's described here is a wave of gaming that got examined and revised and fixed sometime in the late '90s, although clearly people occasionally need to relearn history's mistakes.

QuoteFor example, in a sandbox game where players have control over their characters decisions, even with a railroady GM, they still have the option of rejecting the plot. A player group could decide to leave the city, to pursue other goals, to reject the "plot" or "story". Plot in a traditional RPG has the meaning of "plan" or "scheme". Its events that are going to happen unless the players interfere. Plot in a storygame, as clearly evinced in the example, is a predetermined set of events that the players will "act through" but is not based on their decisions or actions, and views the course of events in the game as conforming to a narrative structure.

Sandbox games can be just as railroady as these terrible examples of what you're describing as storygames.  The classic example of this is a sandbox videogame like GTA IV or something, where the sandbox action is tied to an overarching plot which is inexorably going to reach a climax.  

Sandboxes and narrative plots are all tools, some of which can even be used together (!), and in any case can be used poorly or well.  In this case, the OP's example is of narrative techniques being used poorly.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642686Wait, so Pathfinder Adventure Modules are are a Storygame?

No idea. Probably not.

Were the Dragonlance modules a storygame?

Quote from: Future Villain Band;642689In this case, the OP's example is of narrative techniques being used poorly.

Yep narrative techniques, aka storygaming. The two terms are interchangeable.

Quote from: Warthur;642695Were the Dragonlance modules a storygame?

No, of course not. A module isnt a game, so it cant be a storygame or otherwise.

As for whether they are intended to be run storygaming style, depend on how you ran them I suppose. Never read them myself. I read the first book series and frankly that was enough to kill me ever being interested with anything with Dragonlance in the title.

Quote from: jibbajibba;642520What is really intertesting is that the group who generally play sandbox stuff obviously love the game. So railroad or not I can't see any problem with it at all.

Nobody has a problem with railroading so long as your GM is George R.R. Martin* and you get to be in his interactive novel. Trouble is most of us aren't.

*insert your favorite author here.

Quote from: Piestrio;642700Nobody has a problem with railroading so long as your GM is George R.R. Martin* and you get to be in his interactive novel.

*cough* I really, really do. I play an RPG because it offers the one thing that videogames cannot: complete freedom to make choices as a character and not having the game break down because my character does something unanticipated or unexpected. The minute you take that away, I'd rather play a videogame.

I don't get it -- your post is to complain about players you've made creative invalids of because they're slaved to your plot?

Yea, that's what happens when you run railroads.

You keep insisting that storygaming is about plot structure. It's not.

You've chosen to use the label of storygaming and storygames but you're wrong. That's not what this micro-niche of the hobby considers storygames.

You can insist all you want that this is the case. That still doesn't make it true.

My condolences to your players.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642705*cough* I really, really do. Railroading inflicts with my immersion.

Some threads you just have to write off.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642705*cough* I really, really do. Railroading inflicts with my immersion.

Okay let me RPGnet this:

"Many players, in my limited and singular experiance may enjoy what some people might call a "railroad" (not that there is anything wrong with that) dependent on the subjectively judged "quality" (knowing that "quality" means different things to different people) of said "railroad"

In my experiance.

Your mileage my vary.

Please don't ban me.

Quote from: Piestrio;642709Okay let me RPGnet this:

"Many players, in my limited and singular experiance may enjoy what some people might call a "railroad" (not that there is anything wrong with that) dependent on the subjectively judged "quality" (knowing that "quality" means different things to different people) of said "railroad"

In my experiance.

Your mileage my vary.

Please don't ban me.

Misspelling of experince, consider yourself excused.

Quote from: Ian Noble;642706I don't get it -- your post is to complain about players you've made creative invalids of because they're slaved to your plot?

Uh...nope. I posted an post by someone on another forum who started a thread to discuss a problem their having, wherein the GM interprets the players as having entitlement issues. In other words , the players felt entitled I guess to just roleplay their characters and the G was forcing them through their plot.

I did this because I read the post and thought to myself, these are problems of a gaming style completely alien to me. And I thought it really clearly illustrates the difference between a game that is run based on narrative principles vs a traditional RPG, where player agency dictates the plot rather than vise versa.

I didn't complain about anything.

Quote from: The Traveller;642711Misspelling of experince, consider yourself excused.

Group attack on stupid people, take a week off.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642684The style of gaming referred to now as storygaming is not dependent on the system. Its existed for decades. It was described and definined in both trifold game theory and GNS. The difference, post-Forge, is that now there are games made specifically to cater and enforce this style of gaming, hence "storygames".

This is completely backwards.  Forge-style story games are a reaction against railroading, and in particular tend to empower the player and restrict the GM.  Ron Edwards hates exactly this White Wolf style to the point that he claimed it causes brain damage.  

If anything, complaints about modern story games are that they throw out the baby with the bathwater in disempowering the GM.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642684However, storygaming is a style of play, defined by viewing the PCs as characters in a story and making choices to that effect.

No. It's not.

If you want to use the word like that, more power to you. But nobody else uses it like that, so no one will understand what you're talking about. And the fact that you think that's what "story game" means explains a lot of other threads you've participated in.

Quote from: Piestrio;642700Nobody has a problem with railroading so long as your GM is George R.R. Martin* and you get to be in his interactive novel. Trouble is most of us aren't.

*insert your favorite author here.

Personally, I'd still have a problem with it. If I wanted a linear story from my favorite author, I'd read their book. If I'm sitting down at a game table, it's because I want to take advantage of the unique creative advantages of the RPG medium -- not experience a watered down and compromised story imported from a different medium.

YMMV.

(I'd still play in that game. But there are a lot of things I'd do with my favorite author simply because they were my favorite author.)

Quote from: The Traveller;642467Sounds like the mother of all railroad campaigns.

It might be. But based on the description it could easily be fairly open, too.

For example, if I were running a Buffy the Vampire Slayer campaign I might say: "Season 1 the Master shows up. Season 2 Spike and Drusilla show up. Season 3 will be about the First showing up. In Season 4, I'll probably have government officials catch on that something weird is happening in Sunnydale; maybe have a special army unit move in."

Then we play through Season 1 and Buffy gets killed and unexpectedly resurrected by Xander. And I'm like, "Huh. Wasn't expecting that." And I make a note about a new Slayer showing up... maybe in a couple of years because she has to train first?

Then Buffy sleeps with Angel and I review my notes and discover that, oh shit, he's totally going to turn evil. Guess he's partnering up with Spike and Drusilla instead of facing off against his old pals the way I thought.

And so forth. As a GM, you can plan ahead without railroading. Particularly if you focus on events that the PCs are unlikely to know about or be able to do anything about if they do.

It's also quite easy to predict where your players are likely to end up. For example, in my current campaign the PCs are trying to hunt down and kill a cult leader named Wuntad. I have no idea how or when that's going to happen, but it's pretty likely that at some point it's going to happen (or that they'll die trying) not because I'm railroading them, but because it's what they're planning to do and they're unlikely to change their plans. If I said that the campaign would end once Wuntad had been captured or killed, I still wouldn't be railroading.

Quote from: jhkim;642741This is completely backwards.  Forge-style story games are a reaction against railroading

Railroading is related to but does not equal storygaming. That the example is a railroad is incidental to what I was trying (and obviously failed at least with this crowd to point out). A shame, because it for me was one of the clearest expressions of how that style of game differs. so radically by any type of game I play in or run, so that even though some of the words are the same (GM, players), it bears no relation whatsoever to any traditional play experience.

So, thread fail. Oh well, I thought that would have been an interesting conversation.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;642744And the fact that you think that's what "story game" means explains a lot of other threads you've participated in.

The definition that I use is the only one I've encountered that makes any senzse as a distinguisher from traditional RPGs. I've seen hundreds of people's personal definitions of storygames, and 9 times out of ten the definition could just as easily be applied to a TSR edition of D&D.

I'd welcome your personal definition, if you think it somehow is better, but the one I use is the only one that is clearly understood by anyone I talk to about the matter, and was the definition put forth years before the Forge existed.

a few observations.

the players are not complaining that their PCs will die in the end of the game in the final conflagrations they are complaining that the GM won't continue to run the game for them. As a  GM this is win. If players are desperate to play in your game world then you are a great GM and you have created a compelling and engaging setting.

Second whilst it looks like a railroad, it doen't have to be. I have run games at cons where I retconn final scenes to make it seem like they were foreshadowed by initial disclosure but they weren't I just added a couple of parts to make it seems that way so the PCs have had an open ended adventure but some Gm jiggerypokery gives the illusion of an arc and resolution. To be honest foreshadowing I think is one of the greatest tools a GM can develop.

Also a Sandbox is not the only way to run a game it is not the greatest thing ever. Some groups want plot and direction they want a guiding aim. Are we really saying that anythign that isn't an OSR sandbox is badwrongfun cos that is what its sounding like

These players obviously loved this game for like 30 sessions and wanted to keep on playing. We need more games like that not less

Quote from: jibbajibba;642750These players obviously loved this game for like 30 sessions and wanted to keep on playing. We need more games like that not less

\
again, as I specifically stated in the OP, nothing about the post was a complaint, just an attempt at an illustration. Granted on that failed to be picked up by the audience, but I am not offering any criticisms of that style of game, merely noting how different it is in conception, execution, and with different problems arising.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642755\
again, as I specifically stated in the OP, nothing about the post was a complaint, just an attempt at an illustration. Granted on that failed to be picked up by the audience, but I am not offering any criticisms of that style of game, merely noting how different it is in conception, execution, and with different problems arising.

Okay.
But your point is really look how different games with a plot arc are to sandboxes.
Also your language does indicate your personal preference quite clearly so whilst you claim no value judgement I suspect most people would not have gotten that from your original post :)

Quote from: Warthur;642695Were the Dragonlance modules a storygame?

No, but they are an example of story-telling in RPGs, for sure.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642696Yep narrative techniques, aka storygaming. The two terms are interchangeable.

That is not how Storygamers themselves would use the term. No Storygamers would allow a GM to reign like this. We would pitchfork him in an instant.

A storygamer is not allowed to say: "There will be a time jump." Storygaming requires you to say: "Guys, what do you think, would a time jump be a good thing?" A GM cannot "allow" either - something seen often in non-storygaming contexts. The GM can kindly state his or her preferences.

In storygaming you do not prepare plot beforehand, either. It's called "Story Now!" for a reason. Players (that includes the GM) will sit down, talk about what they'd like to play, create a starting situation, then play it out.

See this is why I often say that 'storygames' is a poor description of the forge offshoot. Shared narrative games gets the point across much better, there's no confusion what anyone is talking about.

Quote from: jhkim;642741This is completely backwards.  Forge-style story games are a reaction against railroading, and in particular tend to empower the player and restrict the GM.  Ron Edwards hates exactly this White Wolf style to the point that he claimed it causes brain damage.  

If anything, complaints about modern story games are that they throw out the baby with the bathwater in disempowering the GM.

Pretty much this.

The campaign described in the OP is unquestionably a game about a story, but it isn't a "storygame" in the sense anyone uses it either here or on those communities which actually like and embrace storygames. There's much more to "storygame" than "a game with a story", just as there's much more to "football" than feet and balls.

Re: Dragonlance:

Quote from: Benoist;642764No, but they are an example of story-telling in RPGs, for sure.

My point exactly: as per Tristram's definition, if you ran the Dragonlance modules as intended you'd basically transform D&D into a storygame, because the railroading is just as tight and it's all tied to the aspiration to tell a wonderful, coherent story over the course of the saga.

This is obviously nonsensical because D&D (or White Wolf games, for that matter) don't magically become different games just because you apply a particular GMing and adventure design style to them.

Eh, I think Tristam has a point.  Sure, WW games aren't Storygames, and Storygamers don't like railroads, but that's not what he was trying to say I think.

In the example given, the GM is more concerned about the telling of a story, the creation of a narrative, even going so far as to use terminology as scenes, acts, arcs, etc... like he was writing a play or tv show.  

He's concerned more with the sessions as fulfilling the narrative then he is playing the world.  Instead of simply Roleplaying everything and everyone else but the PCs, the GM is pulling a level back into narrative metagame constructing a planned plot.

In a Storygame, it's the players who are frequently pulling a level back from their characters into narrative metagame in order to have more then PC level control over the story.

So yeah there is a similarity.

Hmm, the similarity is drawn through the metagaming stance instead of the shared narration authority. Interesting alternate read CRKrueger. Wasn't my first read of the given example, but you make a compelling comparison there.

Railroads are not storygames and vice versa.

If anything, the Forge school of thought formed largely as a reaction to the 1990s prevalence (via AD&D 2e and WW/WoD) of railroady adventures and tried to tackle "tell-a-story" gaming (i.e. having the output of a tabletop game look and read like a piece of literature, bound by the same conventions) without doing away with player agency.

Nevertheless I found the original RPGnet post quoted quite didactic. It nicely showcases why railroads suck and gives you a bigger appreciation of the thankless job of series producers and writers. :D

Quote from: JeremyR;642458In Vampire, you're vampires, and do what, exactly? Same with Werewolf? Do you chase Chuck Connors around the country?

Then again, I never understood what you did in Rifts, either.

Oh man, I know it's been a long five pages, but can I tackle this one?

Most of the WoD Monster: The Something games, old and new, put forth a world in which supernatural beings (1) exist in secret, (2) organize themselves in some sort of shadow society, (3) fight over some limited resource, and (4) have been fighting over it for time immemorial, resulting in rising and falling shadow empires, alliances and intrigues between factions, etc. Those are the for pillars of a WoD monster game.

Vampires, old and new, fight over blood. Which goes hand in hand with pulling strings in mortal society, because calling the shots in the hospital or local millenialist cult means an easy source, while having friends in the police or the media makes it easier to disappear with evidence of serial exsanguinated corpses.

Werewolves in Apocalypse are fighting a holy war against the spirit of corruption itself, while in Forsaken they stake out territory and defend it from spiritual threats.

Mages in Ascension fight for belief and reality itself; in Awakening the squabble is over mana, artifacts, knowledge and even getting to recruit newly Awakened mages.

As for Rifts, well, there's so much going on in Rifts that it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Rifts is a post-apocalyptic roleplaying game. The Coalition may have self-sufficient high-tech arcologies and the inhuman lords of Atlantis may dwell in golden spires of unearthly construction, but most people eke out their subsistence in a deadly dangerous land warped by a supernatural cataclysm, populated with alien life and monsters from myth, and squabbled over by dozens of competing factions armed to the teeth with technology and/or magic, from petty bandit lords and doomsday cults to the Coalition States (expansionistic, totalitarian human supremacists), Atlantis (transdimensional slave traders), Vampire Kingdoms (self-explanatory) and Xiticix (your average eusocial bug-men collective), to name but a few North American threats.

Quote from: TristramEvans;642747The definition that I use is the only one I've encountered that makes any senzse as a distinguisher from traditional RPGs. I've seen hundreds of people's personal definitions of storygames, and 9 times out of ten the definition could just as easily be applied to a TSR edition of D&D.

I'd welcome your personal definition, if you think it somehow is better, but the one I use is the only one that is clearly understood by anyone I talk to about the matter, and was the definition put forth years before the Forge existed.

Well first, the Forge didn't use the term Storygame. Second, the term Storygame is defined as 'morally deviant work designed to promote ethically corrupt behavior and destroy all forms of gaming I like' on this site, so it's bound to lead to some confusion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;642750the players are not complaining that their PCs will die in the end of the game in the final conflagrations they are complaining that the GM won't continue to run the game for them. As a  GM this is win.

Indeed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;642891In the example given, the GM is more concerned about the telling of a story, the creation of a narrative, even going so far as to use terminology as scenes, acts, arcs, etc... like he was writing a play or tv show.  

He's concerned more with the sessions as fulfilling the narrative then he is playing the world.  Instead of simply Roleplaying everything and everyone else but the PCs, the GM is pulling a level back into narrative metagame constructing a planned plot.

And the GM has always had the ability to do this. In fact, I know far more DMs who game in this style than sandbox. FAR more. And this survey seems to back that up (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20130117). Plus most of the time when I see a GM balk at Storygames it's because they CAN'T do things this way anymore, regardless of 'shared narrative'.

So as far as I'm concerned running things this way is as traditional as you can get.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642965Second, the term Storygame is defined as 'morally deviant work designed to promote ethically corrupt behavior and destroy all forms of gaming I like' on this site, so it's bound to lead to some confusion.

The collection of fuckwits who attach themselves to shared narrative games certainly seem to include a preponderance of moral deviants, but I don't think anyone is claiming shared narrative gaming itself is particularly corrupt. Just different enough to be a seperate hobby.

Quote from: 1of3;642793That is not how Storygamers themselves would use the term.

Mmm. The thing is people who are nowadays self-proclaimed "storygamers" are johnny-come-latelys on the scene, with little to no knowledge of RPG systems pre-late 90s at best and  nothing much to add to conversations beyond they're ego-on-the-line assertions that their games are exactly the same as classic RPGs and anyone who says different is a big meanie who has it out for them. They're kinda like 4E fans in that manner.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;642965Well first, the Forge didn't use the term Storygame.

No, but that seems to be as far back in history as most storygamers are aware of , if that. The usenet discussions on narrative gaming are completely pre-history at this point, let alone any of the numerous A&E discussions in the 70s and 80s about storygaming.

QuoteSecond, the term Storygame is defined as 'morally deviant work designed to promote ethically corrupt behavior and destroy all forms of gaming I like' on this site, so it's bound to lead to some confusion.

I thought that was just the Pundit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;642891Eh, I think Tristam has a point.  Sure, WW games aren't Storygames, and Storygamers don't like railroads, but that's not what he was trying to say I think.
[snip].

Well, someone understood. Thank you for assuring me I'm not completely insane.

Quote from: 1of3;642793A storygamer is not allowed to say: "There will be a time jump." Storygaming requires you to say: "Guys, what do you think, would a time jump be a good thing?" A GM cannot "allow" either - something seen often in non-storygaming contexts. The GM can kindly state his or her preferences.

In storygaming you do not prepare plot beforehand, either. It's called "Story Now!" for a reason. Players (that includes the GM) will sit down, talk about what they'd like to play, create a starting situation, then play it out.

I understand what you're describing. but there's a distinction between a game that focuses on a narrative or 3rd person point of view for the players and one where the GM tasks are shared among participants. While there's some overlap, I don't think there's a term yet extant to cover the "I'm afraid of GMs so I wrote this RPG to make sure they can never bad touch me again" like Burning Wheel. I wouldn't call BW a storygame,( though there are lements like social combat), whereas there's the very obvious storygame Eclipse Phase or something (I may have gone that title wrong, so if Im confusing it with another game called Eclipse Phase, apologies) where they pretty much blatantly say : "this game has a GM, but we've redefined that word entirely so it means something completely different just to confuse the f out of anyone whose ever roleplayed before."

I think, though, they are two separate trends that exist independently of each other.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643079I understand what you're describing. but there's a distinction between a game that focuses on a narrative or 3rd person point of view for the players and one where the GM tasks are shared among participants. While there's some overlap, I don't think there's a term yet extant to cover the "I'm afraid of GMs so I wrote this RPG to make sure they can never bad touch me again" like Burning Wheel. I wouldn't call BW a storygame,( though there are lements like social combat), whereas there's the very obvious storygame Eclipse Phase or something (I may have gone that title wrong, so if Im confusing it with another game called Eclipse Phase, apologies) where they pretty much blatantly say : "this game has a GM, but we've redefined that word entirely so it means something completely different just to confuse the f out of anyone whose ever roleplayed before."

I think, though, they are two separate trends that exist independently of each other.

No, I'm pretty sure that Eclipse Phase is a bog-standard GM having RPG set in a body hopping sort-of-transhuman (post human maybe?) space based society with vague handwavy magitech monsters and increasingly dated eco-warrior concerns.  

Either that or I didn't get teh memo that hte players are supposed to be their own collective GM, so all those rules are meant to be administered by committee.

Quote from: Spike;643083No, I'm pretty sure that Eclipse Phase is a bog-standard GM having RPG set in a body hopping sort-of-transhuman (post human maybe?) space based society with vague handwavy magitech monsters and increasingly dated eco-warrior concerns.  

Either that or I didn't get teh memo that hte players are supposed to be their own collective GM, so all those rules are meant to be administered by committee.

Okay, it was another rpg then. Let me see if I still have the name somewhere in my emails...nope.

Well, it wa sthe one where its post apocalypse, and the players are all children, who fight in energy mecha created by their dreams, and they get bonuses for having sex with their family members or something as an unintended consequence of the game's rules.

So if Eclipse Phase is something different I don't think I know anything about it.


Edit: okay, just remembered the name. It was called "Bliss Stage". which I guess kinda rhymes with Eclipse Phase....

Quote from: TristramEvans;643074Mmm. The thing is people who are nowadays self-proclaimed "storygamers" are johnny-come-latelys on the scene, with little to no knowledge of RPG systems pre-late 90s at best and  nothing much to add to conversations beyond they're ego-on-the-line assertions that their games are exactly the same as classic RPGs and anyone who says different is a big meanie who has it out for them. They're kinda like 4E fans in that manner.

As a 4E fan I don't think 'my game' is exactly the same thing as classic RPGs.

My game is good. :)

(Actually so was BECMI/RC, it's really just AD&D1/2 and 3E that are terrible.)

Quote from: TristramEvans;643079I understand what you're describing. but there's a distinction between a game that focuses on a narrative or 3rd person point of view for the players and one where the GM tasks are shared among participants. While there's some overlap, I don't think there's a term yet extant to cover the "I'm afraid of GMs so I wrote this RPG to make sure they can never bad touch me again" like Burning Wheel.

You seem to think that the term "storygaming" was around in the 90s. It wasn't. (Try google, if you like.) There was much talk about story, storytelling, narration, drama and derivations thereof like narrative or dramatic play. And I very much agree with you that the quotation in your OP fits that discourse.

But the exact combination of story and game in one word started pretty much at story-games.com. Storygaming was the term that largely replaced Forgian/Forgite or the even less precise Indie.

It's a rather encompassing term, describing not only actions in play, but rather a certain philosophy of approaching play. The role (or not) of the GM is very importan in that regard. I could list several other aspects too. Talking about the standing of the GM was important to show why the quotation in OP does not match storygaming sensiblities. But there is even more to those.

Quote from: TomatoMalone;643090As a 4E fan I don't think 'my game' is exactly the same thing as classic RPGs.

My game is good. :)

(Actually so was BECMI/RC, it's really just AD&D1/2 and 3E that are terrible.)

Guys, I think it is ok to like the classic and the new.

Quote from: Bill;643129Guys, I think it is ok to like the classic and the new.

But... but... if we start being reasonable about these things... we'll end up not having new game hate threads! And then what are we going to do? :D

I actually didn't play half as much D&D 4e as I'd like to, but it's a fun game if you buy in the combat-centric mindset. I know the WoW analogy has been beaten to death, but bear with me this once. If you walk in expecting a tabletop version of WoW raids, you're less likely to be disappointed than if you're expecting Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or Wilderlands of High Fantasy.

I don't think that's a Bad Thing in and of itself. I mean, it's not what I think of as D&D (I'm strongly partial to TSR editions and their OSR clones and variations), but it can be an enjoyable game with the right group and the right mindset.

You could conceivably gloss over the highly restrictive encounter balance guidelines and play a more freewheeling, lifelike game (conceivably even a sandbox), but then, why bother?

Quote from: The Butcher;643352But... but... if we start being reasonable about these things... we'll end up not having new game hate threads! And then what are we going to do? :D

I actually didn't play half as much D&D 4e as I'd like to, but it's a fun game if you buy in the combat-centric mindset. I know the WoW analogy has been beaten to death, but bear with me this once. If you walk in expecting a tabletop version of WoW raids, you're less likely to be disappointed than if you're expecting Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or Wilderlands of High Fantasy.

I don't think that's a Bad Thing in and of itself. I mean, it's not what I think of as D&D (I'm strongly partial to TSR editions and their OSR clones and variations), but it can be an enjoyable game with the right group and the right mindset.

You could conceivably gloss over the highly restrictive encounter balance guidelines and play a more freewheeling, lifelike game (conceivably even a sandbox), but then, why bother?

I have ignored encounter balance guidelines, challenge ratings, etc...in all versions of dnd. So that was never an issue for me.

I gm 4E the same way I gm 1E or Pathfinder.

No version of dnd feels like world of warcraft to me.

The OP has nothing to do with storygaming.  Its a  criticism of Story-based gaming, aka "Storytelling" in the White Wolf vein, which is a really crappy way to handle a roleplaying game.  Totally different thing from storygaming, as many have already pointed out.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TristramEvans;642747The definition that I use is the only one I've encountered that makes any senzse as a distinguisher from traditional RPGs.

Since you used your definition to immediately label a traditional RPG a story game, I've got some bad news for you.

QuoteI'd welcome your personal definition, if you think it somehow is better,

Storytelling games (STGs or "story games") are defined by narrative control mechanics: The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)

So we got, in essence:

Sandboxing: The time-honoured, original tabletop revolution (by Dave Bakunin and Gary Trotzky) No narrative control whatsoever, rails haven't been invented yet. Players run wild, the GM exults in the havoc.

Rail-roading: Narrative control is usurped by the GM (Stalin). A sad, yet persevering tradition.

White Wolf 'Storytelling': The inner railroad variant, with added Thespianism (Mao's Great LARP Forward). They used newfangled nomenklatura in order to fool Sartre-ists but were still essentially Stalinist, with some Trotzkyist dissenters*.  

Story games: Shared narrative control between players and GM aka railroading by committee (Brezhnev-era 5-year plan or Sartre/de Beauvoir free-for-all in ritualistic circles)

Is that about right? So Brezhnevist**  storygamers don't like Rail-Roadings of either the Stalinist or Maoist persuasion, because there the narrative control lies wholly in the hands of the evil dictator. What they want is a benevolent, modern, creative committee of dictators, trading places like Putin and Medvedev when it comes to narrative control and laying the rails. Their real objective seems not the train ride itself but writing the timetables. This doesn't necessarily lead to train wrecks, but it IS different both to the off-road rally preferred by old-school Trotzkyists and the well-ordered Stalinist train trip along scenic Potemkin villages and battleships.


* As stated before in this thread, some older Vampire modules are really geared for sandbox play, Chicago by Night especially.

** What do you mean, that analogy is flawed? Brezhnevists rule modern Russia, real-life storygamers rule modern TBP. If you think that this is this post's greatest flaw, you're even more confused than I am.

Comrade Beria wishes to have some words with you at NKVD's headquarters. Please bring your toothbrush.

Quote from: Riordan;644412So we got, in essence:

Sandboxing: The time-honoured, original tabletop revolution (by Dave Bakunin and Gary Trotzky) No narrative control whatsoever, rails haven't been invented yet. Players run wild, the GM exults in the havoc.

Rail-roading: Narrative control is usurped by the GM (Stalin). A sad, yet persevering tradition.

White Wolf 'Storytelling': The inner railroad variant, with added Thespianism (Mao's Great LARP Forward). They used newfangled nomenklatura in order to fool Sartre-ists but were still essentially Stalinist, with some Trotzkyist dissenters*.  

Story games: Shared narrative control between players and GM aka railroading by committee (Brezhnev-era 5-year plan or Sartre/de Beauvoir free-for-all in ritualistic circles)

Is that about right? So Brezhnevist**  storygamers don't like Rail-Roadings of either the Stalinist or Maoist persuasion, because there the narrative control lies wholly in the hands of the evil dictator. What they want is a benevolent, modern, creative committee of dictators, trading places like Putin and Medvedev when it comes to narrative control and laying the rails. Their real objective seems not the train ride itself but writing the timetables. This doesn't necessarily lead to train wrecks, but it IS different both to the off-road rally preferred by old-school Trotzkyists and the well-ordered Stalinist train trip along scenic Potemkin villages and battleships.


* As stated before in this thread, some older Vampire modules are really geared for sandbox play, Chicago by Night especially.

** What do you mean, that analogy is flawed? Brezhnevists rule modern Russia, real-life storygamers rule modern TBP. If you think that this is this post's greatest flaw, you're even more confused than I am.

I laughed a bit - so, wargames were the Tsar Russia then?

(TBP though is really modern socialism take to it's extreme, and really - it just proxies for Something Awful nowadays. In bad old Commie times, it was illegal to be homosexual or transsexual, and there were state - ran entrapment programs)

edit: Reported for socialistshaming. Warning.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;644330Since you used your definition to immediately label a traditional RPG a story game, I've got some bad news for you.

Nope. storygaming =/= storygame.

And my sources for lexicon are quite a bit older than, well, blogs.

thats said, my point of this was numerous things besides the "railraoding", which is not the same as storygaming. Look at how the GM themselves in the example are "trapped" by this mode of play, unable to simply roleplay or exert any creativity or judgement as a GM beyond following the dictates of the story. The GM is reduced to the role pf narrating a choose-your-own-adventure book to the players, and its even more tragic in that its clearly a trap of the GM's own making rather than a game system forcing it on them.

Now, there's obviously no universally standardized definitions of the terms bandied about regarding RPGs, but my intent with the thread was not to debate or even proselityze my own definition, rather to point out in effect the way that this game is approached by both the players and GM with a totally different mindset than anything I'm familiar with playing classic RPGs. You are free to call it what you want.

Quote from: TristramEvans;644454Nope. storygaming =/= storygame.

And my sources for lexicon are quite a bit older than the alexandrian.

Wait, what? I've only just half-way wrapped my head around the concept that Storytelling games (WW) aren't necessarily storytelling games (STG). Now you say that storygaming isn't storygaming either?

Quote from: Frundsberg;644437Comrade Beria wishes to have some words with you at NKVD's headquarters. Please bring your toothbrush.

How nice! Will he commend me for upholding the spirit of partisanship, I wonder?

Quote from: Riordan;644465Wait, what? I've only just half-way wrapped my head around the concept that Storytelling games (WW) aren't necessarily storytelling games (STG). Now you say that storygaming isn't storygaming either?

He's technically right - you can storygame using DnD, if it sees you fancy. Storygaming is more about the shared narrative power, whose aim is to create a story - which is the aim of storygames. It's the all whales are mammals, not all mammals are whales thing.

Quote from: Riordan;644465Wait, what? I've only just half-way wrapped my head around the concept that Storytelling games (WW) aren't necessarily storytelling games (STG). Now you say that storygaming isn't storygaming either?

Could have swore this was already explained in depth earlier in the thread.

storygaming is a style of play.

A storygame is game system that enforces that style of play.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644468He's technically right - you can storygame using DnD, if it sees you fancy.

Indeed. Here (http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/16138/dd4e-big-next-time-gadget-techniques-for-fictionful-4e/p1) someone gave a few ideas on how you might do it.

You could probably play a storygame in a non-storygamey fashion, too.

Quote from: 1of3;644477Indeed. Here (http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/16138/dd4e-big-next-time-gadget-techniques-for-fictionful-4e/p1) someone gave a few ideas on how you might do it.

You could probably play a storygame in a non-storygamey fashion, too.

I think my favourite from this list is:

QuoteIMPORT QUEST FICTION BACK INTO GAMEPLAY: Say a quest emerges that doesn't really feel like something the D&D4E mechanics cover. For example, say that Gronda the orc fighter PC declares that she wants to win the heart of Huckleberry, the parish priest NPC. This is awesome, but there's no check in D&D to make someone fall in love. So what kind of D&Dish opportunities can you provide for Gronda so that she can achieve her goal?

Maybe some toughs are bullying Huckleberry? (an encounter)
Maybe Huckleberry and his acolytes need an escort to a meeting with the bishop? (a whole adventure)
Maybe Huckleberry is already in true love with someone? (encounter to kill the other love, stealth/thievery/bluff skill challenge to intercept their correspondence and fake unflattering responses, diplomacy/intimidate skill challenge to convince Huckleberry's parents to arrange a marriage with Gronda..etc)

Because going to Huckleberry and asking him out on a date, then roleplaying the date is TOO MUCH HUSSLE AND DEPROTAGONISING. BEEP BOOP CAN NOT ROLL FOR LOVE

(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/1yE8Z.gif)

Quote from: TristramEvans;644471Could have swore this was already explained in depth earlier in the thread.

storygaming is a style of play.

A storygame is game system that enforces that style of play.

Ah. As in: While roleplaying (for example, in Tsarist war games, before the revolution) is a style of play, a roleplaying game is a game system that enforces that style/aspect. Just because you can still roleplay in (counter-revolutionary) Warhammer 40k tabletop games if you wanted to, it doesn't make WH40k an RPG. OK.

But, ahem - why use words that are prone to muddle the issue right at the time where you want to clarify it?

In that post you quoted I still only see the White Wolf 'story-telling' aka I-am-a-director-crafting-a-scene aka traditional railroading with fancy words to coat it, with the rare and strange addition that the GM informs his players about his season's timetable.

I would not want to play like that either and find the concept of a planned ahead RPG soap season as alien as you do, but there doesn't seem to be any narrative control on the players' side involved - and only that's what's usually, in an rpg forum context, termed as storygaming.

Quote from: Riordan;644498I would not want to play like that either and find the concept of a planned ahead RPG soap season as alien as you do, but there doesn't seem to be any narrative control on the players' side involved - and only that's what's usually, in an rpg forum context, termed as storygaming.

Yeah, thats fairenough, except that the players themselves are aware they are in a pre-planned story. While it wouldn't necessarily prevent them from role-playing in-character, I cant help but think that knowledge alone would colour the choices they make as their characters.

As for terminology, I'm not sure there's any options available right now that wouldn't be coloured in some degree or open to a number of differing interpretations.

Quote from: Riordan;644498In that post you quoted I still only see the White Wolf 'story-telling' aka I-am-a-director-crafting-a-scene aka traditional railroading with fancy words to coat it, with the rare and strange addition that the GM informs his players about his season's timetable.

Never mind railroading, this thread has been a traincrash from post one.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644492I think my favourite from this list is:

[...]
Because going to Huckleberry and asking him out on a date, then roleplaying the date is TOO MUCH HUSSLE AND DEPROTAGONISING. BEEP BOOP CAN NOT ROLL FOR LOVE

The idea is great, if you want to use the system. That's what storygaming is all about. Use the system, whatever it is. D&D is all about fighting monsters. So make stuff about fighting monsters. I love it.

Quote from: 1of3;644509The idea is great, if you want to use the system. That's what storygaming is all about. Use the system, whatever it is. D&D is all about fighting monsters. So make stuff about fighting monsters. I love it.

Really, I thought 'storygaming' was about taking roleplaying, wadding it up, wiping your arse with it, feeding it to a seagull, and hanging the resultant asphyxiated avian on the wall for your admiring guests.

Oh good, The Traveller is here to class up the conversation.

Quote from: 1of3;644509The idea is great, if you want to use the system. That's what storygaming is all about. Use the system, whatever it is. D&D is all about fighting monsters. So make stuff about fighting monsters. I love it.

I'll be foolish enough to walk into this manhole.

A conception that DnD is about fighting monster is the same misconception that brought the wide fan dislike of Diablo 3 (or the dislike/failure of 4e, come to think of it) - not because it was a bad game, but because it was based on misconceptions of previous games. This guy will explain it funnier than I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I22Ivb8ELzQ

Sure, you can treat DnD as just fighting monsters - but then you deliberatively choose to shallow your own experience, just as you can choose to treat Prachett's work as pure humour rather than clever social commentary, or to simply chomp on good food in a restaurant - you get your enjoyment/nourishment, it's fun all the same, but you miss out on some stuff.

DnD is about raising from a guy who can be killed by a goblin in one to one combat, to a guy who commands his own castle and starts combating not goblins, but lords and kings, and eventually, if his bones do not litter the various dungeons or battlefields, he may become a (demi)god. Killing monsters is means to an end, not the end itself - unless you deliberatively choose to do so. Just because you choose to gobble a fine goblet of wine in one go, it does not mean it wasn't created with intention of savouring it.

And my gripe is that sometimes a tavern should be just a tavern, a man/women should be just someone you try to bed, not a quest point.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644513DnD is about raising from a guy who can be killed by a goblin in one to one combat...

Near as I can tell, this hasn't been the case in some time.

D&D started out that way, but as of late, it's been very "you're a hero from the get-go, so awesome!"

I mean, just look at how many hps a character started with in 4e. And there's a thread on ENW right now started by somebody whining that characters need more hit points at first level...

I agree. If I just wanted to fight monsters, I wouldn't need an RPG. D&D is great, when I have an excuse to slay monsters. When I'm invested in the fiction. Those evil cultists want to drive away the last elves from their homelands? Kill them with fire! Some efreets dared to take my father's city? Kill them! (Be clever, don't do it with fire!)

D&D is a great game, as it offers cycle. There is always one more bad guy that needs killing for all the right reasons. OK, you might die on the way, but that means the next party of heroes gets to save kingdom from the undead, not just a town.

So, what the Huckleberry example shows is how feed the interest in some random NPC into that cycle. Sure, you can keep it on the sidelines, just do some roleplaying. That's fine. I will the do same thing, most of the time. But the example shows how you can use even Huckleberry as fuel. ... Because, why were those hobgoblins after poor Huckleberry after all?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644516Near as I can tell, this hasn't been the case in some time.

D&D started out that way, but as of late, it's been very "you're a hero from the get-go, so awesome!"

I mean, just look at how many hps a character started with in 4e. And there's a thread on ENW right now started by somebody whining that characters need more hit points at first level...

I'd say that even in 3e, the levels 1 - 3 are really the "we are rather weak" stage, or as commonly known, The Gauntlet.

I've already explained this, but again - if you set out to create a game, with the  goal of fighting monsters in it, you will indeed want to make player characters more resistant to those monsters, since you don't want players to create a new character every encounter - since the game's all about encountering monsters. That was the 4e principal misconception about DnD.

If the game's about character progression and danger and risk management of that progression, it changes.

Quote from: 1of3;644522I agree. If I just wanted to fight monsters, I wouldn't need an RPG. D&D is great, when I have an excuse to slay monsters. When I'm invested in the fiction. Those evil cultists want to drive away the last elves from their homelands? Kill them with fire! Some efreets dared to take my father's city? Kill them! (Be clever, don't do it with fire!)

D&D is a great game, as it offers cycle. There is always one more bad guy that needs killing for all the right reasons. OK, you might die on the way, but that means the next party of heroes gets to save kingdom from the undead, not just a town.

So, what the Huckleberry example shows is how feed the interest in some random NPC into that cycle. Sure, you can keep it on the sidelines, just do some roleplaying. That's fine. I will the do same thing, most of the time. But the example shows how you can use even Huckleberry as fuel. ... Because, why were those hobgoblins after poor Huckleberry after all?

Fair enough - my gripe is really, that the tone of that work suggests that one ought to turn EVERY npc that players talk to into a potential reason for fighting things.

And not doing so has some good advantages - I'll take Fallout New Vegas as an example, here. Chief Hanlon's story has nothing to do with the plot, it'd appear (except of course underlining gently New Vegas' problems), but it's still a really cool story, that helps you immerse in the world. Other good example is in a DLC Honest Hearts - during it, you find a computer you can hack that sheds light on the origins of tribes of Zion. Knowledge of it does not give you anything - but it's just a fun piece of trivia, to see how their myths came to be. Or learning about Mr House's weird fetishes from Raul - it doesn't give you any leverage on House, it's just a fascinating piece that helps set him as an expy for Hughes, if Hughes built robots rather than planes. If you turn every piece of trivia into a Quest, you rob players of some immersion.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644524I've already explained this, but again - if you set out to create a game, with the  goal of fighting monsters in it, you will indeed want to make player characters more resistant to those monsters, since you don't want players to create a new character every encounter - since the game's all about encountering monsters. That was the 4e principal misconception about DnD.

Hrm... I disagree.

One of my major problems with 4e was that it removed any sense of danger from the game. Winning a combat in 4e is like awards for participation - it's mostly meaningless and cheapens the real successes.

Personally I find combat-centric games more entertaining when the threat of character death is at least present. If there is no risk, then the reward is meaningless, and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;644526Hrm... I disagree.

One of my major problems with 4e was that it removed any sense of danger from the game. Winning a combat in 4e is like awards for participation - it's mostly meaningless and cheapens the real successes.

Personally I find combat-centric games more entertaining when the threat of character death is at least present. If there is no risk, then the reward is meaningless, and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

Well, that was my point, really. In 4e the danger is much, much lesser, because a point of a combat is to provide some fun and/or resources that lead to another combat. Combat is both the means and the goal, rather than just the means. You fight, so you can fight some more. It does not matter whether you will own a castle or not, since at the point when in 1e you'd get a name level, you can level (ha ha) castles anyway, all by yourself. While in 1e it could be argued, that the point of leveling is to get that castle.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644528While in 1e it could be argued, that the point of leveling is to get that castle.

Which, I'll admit, I've never seen happen, despite being in a few 1e games.

I have observed that I have some difficulty in defining the goal of a TTRPG. I like story, but really only as an emergent property of the sandbox. Combat is fun, but combat as the be-all end-all is rather tiring.

The irony of it all is that normally I'd move a thread like this to the "other games" forum, but in this case, its not actually about "other games"...

Quote from: Riordan;644412So we got, in essence:

Sandboxing: The time-honoured, original tabletop revolution (by Dave Bakunin and Gary Trotzky) No narrative control whatsoever, rails haven't been invented yet. Players run wild, the GM exults in the havoc.

Rail-roading: Narrative control is usurped by the GM (Stalin). A sad, yet persevering tradition.

White Wolf 'Storytelling': The inner railroad variant, with added Thespianism (Mao's Great LARP Forward). They used newfangled nomenklatura in order to fool Sartre-ists but were still essentially Stalinist, with some Trotzkyist dissenters*.  

Story games: Shared narrative control between players and GM aka railroading by committee (Brezhnev-era 5-year plan or Sartre/de Beauvoir free-for-all in ritualistic circles)

Is that about right? So Brezhnevist**  storygamers don't like Rail-Roadings of either the Stalinist or Maoist persuasion, because there the narrative control lies wholly in the hands of the evil dictator. What they want is a benevolent, modern, creative committee of dictators, trading places like Putin and Medvedev when it comes to narrative control and laying the rails. Their real objective seems not the train ride itself but writing the timetables. This doesn't necessarily lead to train wrecks, but it IS different both to the off-road rally preferred by old-school Trotzkyists and the well-ordered Stalinist train trip along scenic Potemkin villages and battleships.


* As stated before in this thread, some older Vampire modules are really geared for sandbox play, Chicago by Night especially.

** What do you mean, that analogy is flawed? Brezhnevists rule modern Russia, real-life storygamers rule modern TBP. If you think that this is this post's greatest flaw, you're even more confused than I am.

Quote from: Rincewind1;644492I think my favourite from this list is:



Because going to Huckleberry and asking him out on a date, then roleplaying the date is TOO MUCH HUSSLE AND DEPROTAGONISING. BEEP BOOP CAN NOT ROLL FOR LOVE

(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/1yE8Z.gif)

These two posts are the best of the thread this far :D Brilliant, gentlemen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;645136The irony of it all is that normally I'd move a thread like this to the "other games" forum, but in this case, its not actually about "other games"...

No, its about playing RPGs as "other games" to illustrate the difference.

Quote from: TristramEvans;645334No, its about playing RPGs as "other games" to illustrate the difference.

I'd say its just about playing RPGs badly.