TheRPGSite

I'm still noting a lot of confusion and misrepresentation of 1:1 style gaming. So I thought I'd autisically explain how it all works using the original trilogy of Star Wars films as an example.

So imagine you are a GM. You got this idea for a cool space based campaign with a hex grid. Like most GMs you want to give the illusion of players being in a living world. But then you read the AD&D 1ed rulebook and read the advice given in the DMG. It's pretty cool. Instead of giving the illusion of a living world, you can have a living world in a similar fashion to how MMOs nowadays work. With players dropping in and out into this world that persists after every game. Even when you aren't playing your characters and everyone else's characters are doing something. Lets say for argument's sake you decide to go for a heavily homebrewed version of DnD. It adds a lot of science fiction whilst keeping many fantasy elements. You make this cool monk/paladin hybrid with magic and weapon skills. And write out the lore. These are the Jedi. They are warriors of peace and justice. Enforcing that in the Galactic Republic. Vague but you can work out the details later.

You put a lot of work into this. But oh dear, the usual group of three players you run with have other obligations in the long term. They can't keep to a set schedule. But no worries.

You later find out about the concept of Patron players. These can be Kings, famous wizards, players with large amounts of assets, power, and maybe even a whole empire. They don't have to turn up every session. They will scheme and do things on their own time. And often create lore themselves for their own domain. As long as you the GM is informed. This could be through discord or facebook messages, phone calls, hand written letters. Whatever. The great thing about Patron players is instead of the various NPC factions being static until the GM decides what to do with them. They react in dynamic ways to the PCs. They also have control over their own lore within their domain. Which offloads some of the work. Your three regulars who don't have much time on their hands are ideal for these kinds of Patron players.

As GM you decide to discuss with your three patron players what characters they want to make. They're high level characters with a lot of assets and possibly a whole kingdom to run. One of the three Patron players asks to be the king of the major space kingdom. This player then creates his character. The Evil Emperor Palpatine. He decided that the empire he runs is an evil fascist one. After hearing about you talking about the Galactic Republic. He suggests that as Emperor he schemed for many years to twist the Republic into this evil regime run by him. Great. With no prompting you have an arch villain. A goal for the player characters in overthrowing this person and restoring the Republic. And a dynamic villain who will react to the PCs foiling his schemes. Cool. But how do you figure the Jedi into this. You say worked hard on that lore and you'd like one patron to represent that as a powerful jedi. The second of three patrons speaks up.

"Okay, so what if you had one of these Jedi who turned evil. Like an anti-paladin or something."

You ask this player to elaborate. You are intrigued.

"So like I have this idea for a character who was a jedi. A great and famous warrior. Lawful and shit. But he was manipulated by this guy...Palprotein or whatever into going Chaotic and helping overthrow the Republic."

Palpatine adds

"Yeah, that's cool and what if I was one of the Chaotic Jedi people with wizard spells. And my whole scheme was to exterminate the Jedi with my friend here. He's my chief second in command now."

The other player goes

"Awesome but what if I was secretly resentful and craved power of my own so plot to overthrow you."

And thus, this patron has created Darth Vader. You now have two competing factions within one kingdom with their own interests that can clash with the PCs. Great stuff.

Now, Some GMs might see this as a campaign going off the rails and the players making op characters. But for one these are meant to be powerful. And in practice whilst they will affect great change everything still needs to be passed by you first. You can still refuse a lot. You already made a list of spells both players can cast. And made sure those spells aren't too gamebreaking compared to your usual wizard affair. Things like a Lightning bolt, choke on touch and so on.

You chime in.

"Okay, I think what you two said is great. But here's the deal. This is going to be in space. We don't have Law and Chaos in this game. I'm thinking we spin this as just a good side of the power the Jedi wield and a bad side you guys wield."

"Oh yeah. So you have the Jedi. And these other guys who are ancient rivals." Suggests Palpatine.

You make a strange sneezing noise due to your allergies which Darth Vader hears as something different.

"Yo, Sith. That's a cool name. We'll use that." Suggests Darth Vader.

Yes, you absolutely meant for that to happen. You are a genius.

Throughout all of this the third patron player has been quiet. She's always been a little nervous so you ask her if she has any suggestions for Patron players.

"Well um, you got these two evil guys. In an empire. Um... what if there was a good faction that opposed them. I don't like playing evil characters to be honest."

That makes sense. You say that as the Empire has taken over the galaxy perhaps some kind of Guerilla army fights to oppose them with few resources. A real underdog.

"Yeah I can be a politician working to restore democracy and I'm secretly in charge of these rebellious guys."

A Rebel Alliance if you will you suggest to her.

We now have Mon Mothma. Charismatic and moral leader of the Rebel Alliance. 

This is the beauty of Patron players. Before we even roll up the PCs we now have three patron players who are scheming and working against one another. You tell them all to roll up sheets and run them by me in their own time. You tell them to take their time as finding players might take a while. Meanwhile you message them a list of assets and territory they own. And resources they posses. They message you every once in a while with troop deployments, schemes and so on. The Emperor watched a lot of TOS messages  and tells you that he was inspired by the Planet Killer to make a massive planet destroying space station. It's been built secretly since the foundation of the Empire and now it's nearly ready. You make a note of this. You could just say no. But this place could serve as the first dungeon for the PCs.

Separately Mon Mothma has consulted the massive hex star map I made. She's sent rebel agents to uncover any intel on the Empire. A lightbulb goes off in your head. You ask her to roll for the intel she receives. She rolls a nat 20. So you say one of her agents has heard rumours of a massive build up of resources. That just so happens to be on the planet Palpatine is storing his plans for the Death Star. I don't tell her that the Death Star plans are there. Just that there is crucial info she might need. She sends her best spy/mercenary. One player has expressed interest in the game. He makes a cool new character called Kyle Katarn. Rebel agent and merc. Kyle is going to play him for a solo session where he steals the Death Star plans. He hasn't got a lot of free time. But that's not an issue with a drop in, drop out system. He's obviously far less powerful than Mon. Still a level 1 Ranger. He's not OP at all. He's going to use Kyle every once in a while to help aid the rebel players. He gets his orders direct from Mon Mothma. Again, this is on a drop in, drop out basis. IRL Kyle is very busy with his job. So I can only squeeze one session out of him this time. I ask him when he's next free. he's got a weekend break coming up. So we say Kyle "spawns" on the rebel base and in 7 days of real time travel Kyle will arrive at the Imperial base to steal the plans. Right when Kyle has free time to play.

A common misconception with 1:1 time is that EVERYTHING is 1:1. 1:1 time primarily happens during player downtime. The time players are not playing. Depending on your rules you might measure the exact amount of time has passed during play. But you absolutely can abstract that.  Using 1:1 timescale is ideal for those who don't have a set amount of free time. You just discuss with the relevant people when they are free. They make sure they are traveling, training, or doing something during downtime. The responsibility is on the players to schedule their sessions. Play only happens when players and their PCs are free to play. They must take responsibility for that. If a player decides a character wants to train for two weeks that character can not be used for that amount of REAL time. At worse that player either doesn't play or makes a new character. But for the most part players will discuss with the GM and other players the best time for them to drop in and out.   It is not a rigid schedule. The GM just referees everything. Katarn only has 1 day free. And may not have free time for another while. So we consult the star map and pick a planet that just so happens to have a travel time close to when he's free. You did not fudge this. This is the time it would take as per the Star Map I constructed.

The session goes great and Kyle hands off the plans to a ship that will take them to Mothma. Kyle goes back to his regular job IRL. He tells me every once in a while what his character is doing during downtime. He wants to spec into a new class. The Jedi homebrew you made. You say due to the great power of this class and lack of teachers this will take a long time. Let's say two months IRL. Kyle says that's no problem as work is really fucking him up the ass with his hours. And he doesn't know when he'll be back next. Worst case scenario he'll roll up a new character if he gets free time before his character's training is up.

You go to inform The Emperor of what happens. He is livid at Mon Mothma for outfoxing him. However a critical fail on Kyle's part meant he didn't spot the tracking device on the Death Star plans. So Palpatine knows where that ship is. He orders Vader to pursue the ship. Which Mothma suggested was called the Tantive IV. Just as two new players say they want to join.

So before we even begin a true session 1, we have lore, we have players dynamically affecting the world and messing with the patrons, and we have the patrons reacting. We already have a story, a plot hook for the first adventure. And a potential first dungeon. And as GM I didn't have to make any of that up myself. It was all my patron players and PCs shaping everything through play.  And now the real game begins.

Fuck me I wrote a lot. I'm going to leave a to be continued here and write more later. If people have questions I will answer them later.

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 26, 2022, 09:21:56 AMWhatever. The great thing about Patron players is instead of the various NPC factions being static until the GM decides what to do with them. They react in dynamic ways to the PCs.

This is where your argument falls apart. How can players react in "dynamic ways" but the DM cannot? Not only does the DM have to communicate the current situation to the patron players, which generally happens between session, but these players won't have all the necessary setting information that the DM has. I just can't see how another player can react in any way as well as a DM who is right there at the table.

I never said anything about the GM not reacting. Did you read what I wrote? I offload some of the lore writing to the patrons. The patrons do something and notify me. I then notify the players or the patrons notify the players.  Sometimes I ask for a role.The same applies for patrons. I even gave an example of this with the death star plans. Something a player does affects a patron. The patron then reacts. Everything either side does is run by me. The players might not know exactly what Palpatine does at all times. But they will feel his actions. And I as GM have to decide how that's going to play out.

You didn't read what I wrote at all. It's all explained through gameplay WITH examples.

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 26, 2022, 12:23:25 PMYou didn't read what I wrote at all. It's all explained through gameplay WITH examples.

The question isn't "how" this works but "why". What is the point of creating three super-NPCs to control various in-game factions when the DM can just control these factions himself?

Your example has so many problems. Why do the regular players get less of a say in how the campaign works than these part-time super players? What happens the Kyle Katarn's player doesn't want to be the lackey of another player but instead just wants to play Han Solo and fly around having adventures?

In a normal DM-run game, the DM can easily adapt and change the focus of the campaign. But if you have some players acting as the main story drivers, this forces all the other players to play along whether they want to or not.

Your example seems like the DM is running two entirely different types of games that may occasionally interact with one another. That's a significant amount of extra work, so it is important to first establish what the benefit is for running a game like this. IOW, what is the problem that you are trying to solve by adding patron players?


[Note that none of this applies to characters who earn their power and influence through actual play. These characters are known to the other players, most likely having a relationship with many of them. Plus, because they have been playing for a long time, they already know the themes and style of the campaign. And, as they are also normal character, they can be played as such if their patron-level aspects are ignored by other players. ]

Are there elements here, outside of 1:1 time from the DMG, that are specific to a Gygax game? One thing you set out to do was clear things up (and I can tell you put a lot of effort into it). I think one aspect working against this conversation is there is a little game of telephone going on because of the other thread.

In the other thread, the Professor DM video references a piece from Ben Milton in one breath, shows Original D&D books the next, and also references West Marshes. He talks about a lost rule?? Now I am a subscriber of his channel and a fan of his work, but it was all over the place. Some of these elements may have some overlapping areas, but wide differences in other areas. West Marches, for example, is in no way a synonym for 1:1 campaign time from the 1e DMG.

I need to watch the inappropriate characters episode, but three hours plus my reluctance to take something called the "BrOSR" seriously has placed it on the backlog. The 1:1 campaign section spills over two pages in the DMG, but is less than a full page of text. It is also very clear to understand. When talk of West Marshes (ProfDM) and patrons (here/BrOSR??) are introduced, it starts to get muddy.

To quote Pundit, if you "talk to me like I'm Venger", is this really an explanation of how patrons work in the BrOSR?

Regardless, I'm interested in learning more about the approach.

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 26, 2022, 09:21:56 AM
I'm still noting a lot of confusion and misrepresentation of 1:1 style gaming. So I thought I'd autisically explain how it all works using the original trilogy of Star Wars films as an example.

So imagine you are a GM. You got this idea for a cool space based campaign with a hex grid. Like most GMs you want to give the illusion of players being in a living world. But then you read the AD&D 1ed rulebook and read the advice given in the DMG.

Gross Conceptual Error

If you are going to do a space based campign, why would you want to use a fantasy game to do so? Even back during the days when the AD&D 1e DMG was king, there were better games out there to do a space based campaign than D&D.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 26, 2022, 01:05:13 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 26, 2022, 12:23:25 PMYou didn't read what I wrote at all. It's all explained through gameplay WITH examples.

The question isn't "how" this works but "why". What is the point of creating three super-NPCs to control various in-game factions when the DM can just control these factions himself?

Your example has so many problems. Why do the regular players get less of a say in how the campaign works than these part-time super players? What happens the Kyle Katarn's player doesn't want to be the lackey of another player but instead just wants to play Han Solo and fly around having adventures?

In a normal DM-run game, the DM can easily adapt and change the focus of the campaign. But if you have some players acting as the main story drivers, this forces all the other players to play along whether they want to or not.

Your example seems like the DM is running two entirely different types of games that may occasionally interact with one another. That's a significant amount of extra work, so it is important to first establish what the benefit is for running a game like this. IOW, what is the problem that you are trying to solve by adding patron players?


[Note that none of this applies to characters who earn their power and influence through actual play. These characters are known to the other players, most likely having a relationship with many of them. Plus, because they have been playing for a long time, they already know the themes and style of the campaign. And, as they are also normal character, they can be played as such if their patron-level aspects are ignored by other players. ]

The thing you're solving, is that those players are people who don't have time to play anyway normally -- they just wouldn't be in a traditional game because they can't show up to sessions, or they show up once every four months.

So you basically are doing a play by post game with them on the side to let them still do stuff, and using it as game fuel for the rest of the campaign.

The bonus is the people here bring the same ingenuity to the NPCs that players normally do, so you get them thinking and reacting more organically than if it was just you. It adds some fun to the GM's side of things too since you get to be surprised by their plans. It's more like you're just refereeing their big plans.

This is for patron play, that is.

1:1 time just enhances it, but you could have 1:1 time without it.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 26, 2022, 08:38:09 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 26, 2022, 09:21:56 AM
I'm still noting a lot of confusion and misrepresentation of 1:1 style gaming. So I thought I'd autisically explain how it all works using the original trilogy of Star Wars films as an example.

So imagine you are a GM. You got this idea for a cool space based campaign with a hex grid. Like most GMs you want to give the illusion of players being in a living world. But then you read the AD&D 1ed rulebook and read the advice given in the DMG.

Gross Conceptual Error

If you are going to do a space based campign, why would you want to use a fantasy game to do so? Even back during the days when the AD&D 1e DMG was king, there were better games out there to do a space based campaign than D&D.

I was originally going to use Traveller but then thought analogys to Law And Chaos wouldn't fit as well. Plus I wanted to use DnD terms the vast majority of people would be familiar with. If this were an actual game I'd happily break out Traveller, FASA Trek, D6, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 26, 2022, 08:55:06 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 26, 2022, 01:05:13 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 26, 2022, 12:23:25 PMYou didn't read what I wrote at all. It's all explained through gameplay WITH examples.

The question isn't "how" this works but "why". What is the point of creating three super-NPCs to control various in-game factions when the DM can just control these factions himself?

Your example has so many problems. Why do the regular players get less of a say in how the campaign works than these part-time super players? What happens the Kyle Katarn's player doesn't want to be the lackey of another player but instead just wants to play Han Solo and fly around having adventures?

In a normal DM-run game, the DM can easily adapt and change the focus of the campaign. But if you have some players acting as the main story drivers, this forces all the other players to play along whether they want to or not.

Your example seems like the DM is running two entirely different types of games that may occasionally interact with one another. That's a significant amount of extra work, so it is important to first establish what the benefit is for running a game like this. IOW, what is the problem that you are trying to solve by adding patron players?


[Note that none of this applies to characters who earn their power and influence through actual play. These characters are known to the other players, most likely having a relationship with many of them. Plus, because they have been playing for a long time, they already know the themes and style of the campaign. And, as they are also normal character, they can be played as such if their patron-level aspects are ignored by other players. ]

The thing you're solving, is that those players are people who don't have time to play anyway normally -- they just wouldn't be in a traditional game because they can't show up to sessions, or they show up once every four months.

So you basically are doing a play by post game with them on the side to let them still do stuff, and using it as game fuel for the rest of the campaign.

The bonus is the people here bring the same ingenuity to the NPCs that players normally do, so you get them thinking and reacting more organically than if it was just you. It adds some fun to the GM's side of things too since you get to be surprised by their plans. It's more like you're just refereeing their big plans.

This is for patron play, that is.

1:1 time just enhances it, but you could have 1:1 time without it.

I was literally just writing something similar to what you posted. I actually thought I explained the whole scheduling thing. But I must not have been clear and for that I appologize.

I'll put a TLDR here instead of my usual waffle

1:1 play is good because it allows a flexible and uneven schedule for players and patrons. It takes the onus off the GM to organize the timetable of sessions and makes it purely a player responsibility. The players decide to travel for two weeks because that's when most of them have time. They then have the responsibility to turn up at that time. If not they must at least declare what their PC is doing instead.

I'm going to write the second part of this tomorrow. With a greater explanation of how I understand Patron play to be. I do appologize again if I didn't make it clear what the benefits of patron play are. I thought if I just gave examples that would show the cool things they could do. That would explain it. But I was wrong.

1:1 time and open table is basically the answer to "my group can't ever get together to play!" or "I have too many players and I don't want to kick my friends out" or "My friend wants to play but they're too busy to ever play really". The game is not about a particular group but just everyone doing their own thing that intersects, sometimes as groups, other times not. If they don't show up nothing is riding on them and nothing is lost.

The other thing I like is it makes you feel the passage of time. My other 5e games have everyone going from level 1 to 8 and we look back and realize it's only been 3 months in-game.

Now here's one thing I thought of, that's come up with me, but hasn't been addressed:

If the players don't show up or don't have time you just keep ticking the clock forward.

But what if the DM himself doesn't have time?

Do you just advance time anyway? Isn't that punishing the players with missing out on their chances to do stuff as time steps forward when it's not their fault? What happens then?

So I've had the chance to listen to the livestream. I am legitimately interested to hear more about it...between all of the flame wars, name calling, and ridiculous chat worship, very little substance was covered over three hours.

Patron is a BrOSR concept, and really should be separated from Gygax and 1e. There is nothing in the DMG, and I do not interpret page 7 of the PHB to mean that patrons were implied. Jeffro would be better off telling me about his cool toast versus trying to convince me that Jesus' face is on it. Just own the mechanic and provide real examples of how it has worked along side the rules.

Having said that, and I think all of the shit talking is brilliant trolling, it is an interesting idea and I look forward to hearing more.

The OP pre-campaign communal creation of the setting and its patron PCs seems very un-Gygaxian to me. Very New School Dramatist play, in fact. I thought the idea was that patron characters emerged in play as low level PCs reached high level.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 26, 2022, 10:16:40 PM
Now here's one thing I thought of, that's come up with me, but hasn't been addressed:

If the players don't show up or don't have time you just keep ticking the clock forward.

But what if the DM himself doesn't have time?

Do you just advance time anyway? Isn't that punishing the players with missing out on their chances to do stuff as time steps forward when it's not their fault? What happens then?

The solution I have seen from reading the Trollopolous blog is Patron players can GM games with permission from the GM and as long as the GM is notified of what happened. This would most likely only be done for games directly in the Patron's domain.

An example would be The Death Star. Let's say as GM you can't make it. You gave Palpatine the Death Star. He says it would be better if he gave it to Vader because he's plotting a scheme with it to make Vader look bad. Cool. You okay him to give the Death Star to Darth Vader as part of his domain. The Emperor assigns an NPC, Grand Moff Tarkin to watch Vader. Meaning you as GM now have to occasionally roll for Tarkin to see if he picks up any intel on Vader's schemes. Things I as GM already know but can't say because the Emperor is not omnipresent. But I can reveal to the Emperor as intel on successful roles. With detail dependent on how good the roll was.  The PCs are going to the Death Star and will be there in 3 days. Oh no, the wife called and needs you to look after the kids on that day. Bugger. So Darth Vader offers to volunteer to GM that game himself. As the Death Star is part of his domain, he already came up with a dungeon map. Cool beans.  Now for this to work it is crucial that you trust your patron players. It's a big deal to be one. And should only be given to people you as the GM can trust to not abuse it. Whilst they will work towards their schemes they should be able to GM as fairly as you would.  If you don't have that trust in a person do not give them patron status. It is not to be given to strangers you just met online. It is to be given to friends you've gamed with for many years and know the personality of. A bad patron can absolutely ruin a game. So I can see why some GMs wouldn't want them at all. The idea of giving up even a little control is scary. So mitigate the risk by giving it to a friend. Bear in mind, every single thing a Patron does is declared by them and okayed by you. You should never not know what your patron's are doing. Every thing they do is done with your permission and thus is your responsibility. However, the rewards are great. Instead of an illusion of a dynamic world. You have an actual dynamic world you as GM don't need to fuss over. As long as you have good time keeping and aren't a door mat. You will be fine.

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 27, 2022, 07:52:56 AM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 26, 2022, 10:16:40 PM
Now here's one thing I thought of, that's come up with me, but hasn't been addressed:

If the players don't show up or don't have time you just keep ticking the clock forward.

But what if the DM himself doesn't have time?

Do you just advance time anyway? Isn't that punishing the players with missing out on their chances to do stuff as time steps forward when it's not their fault? What happens then?

The solution I have seen from reading the Trollopolous blog is Patron players can GM games with permission from the GM and as long as the GM is notified of what happened. This would most likely only be done for games directly in the Patron's domain.

An example would be The Death Star. Let's say as GM you can't make it. You gave Palpatine the Death Star. He says it would be better if he gave it to Vader because he's plotting a scheme with it to make Vader look bad. Cool. You okay him to give the Death Star to Darth Vader as part of his domain. The Emperor assigns an NPC, Grand Moff Tarkin to watch Vader. Meaning you as GM now have to occasionally roll for Tarkin to see if he picks up any intel on Vader's schemes. Things I as GM already know but can't say because the Emperor is not omnipresent. But I can reveal to the Emperor as intel on successful roles. With detail dependent on how good the roll was.  The PCs are going to the Death Star and will be there in 3 days. Oh no, the wife called and needs you to look after the kids on that day. Bugger. So Darth Vader offers to volunteer to GM that game himself. As the Death Star is part of his domain, he already came up with a dungeon map. Cool beans.  Now for this to work it is crucial that you trust your patron players. It's a big deal to be one. And should only be given to people you as the GM can trust to not abuse it. Whilst they will work towards their schemes they should be able to GM as fairly as you would.  If you don't have that trust in a person do not give them patron status. It is not to be given to strangers you just met online. It is to be given to friends you've gamed with for many years and know the personality of. A bad patron can absolutely ruin a game. So I can see why some GMs wouldn't want them at all. The idea of giving up even a little control is scary. So mitigate the risk by giving it to a friend. Bear in mind, every single thing a Patron does is declared by them and okayed by you. You should never not know what your patron's are doing. Every thing they do is done with your permission and thus is your responsibility. However, the rewards are great. Instead of an illusion of a dynamic world. You have an actual dynamic world you as GM don't need to fuss over. As long as you have good time keeping and aren't a door mat. You will be fine.

Ah... that's actually what I do for my open table games. It doesn't even need to be a patron. You can just have a bunch of lieutenant DMs that run their own dungeons.

It just doesn't work if the players want to tackle a specific problem and that problem is the one under the DM's purview who is busy. If it was another DM's dungeon it's one thing, but if they want to tackle my dungeon, the Dungeon Of Infinite Doom, and I'm on vacation for three weeks.... then....

I guess if it's a dungeon they can run it's one thing, but often so much of a dungeon and its plot is in the DMs head specifically and not something you can just impart. Especially if that patron is also playing regular PCs that delve that dungeon normally because they don't know the information.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 26, 2022, 10:16:40 PM
Now here's one thing I thought of, that's come up with me, but hasn't been addressed:

If the players don't show up or don't have time you just keep ticking the clock forward.

But what if the DM himself doesn't have time?

Do you just advance time anyway? Isn't that punishing the players with missing out on their chances to do stuff as time steps forward when it's not their fault? What happens then?

While BroSR was stretching interpretations the 1E rules to justify Patron play as "BtB", I was twisting and stretching Appendix A to say the rules justify GMless/GMfull play as being "BtB."

What we've been doing is, everyone is solo gaming using Appendix A (random dungeon), B (random wilderness), and C (random encounters) and I (dungeon dressing), but we're all doing it on the same map. We can team up, split up, cooperate, compete, etc.

Since each player is their own DM, the game can always go on. And as long as you track time carefully, you can even play solo throughout the week if you want. You're not limited to just the weekly scheduled gathering.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 27, 2022, 12:04:07 AM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 26, 2022, 10:16:40 PM
Now here's one thing I thought of, that's come up with me, but hasn't been addressed:

If the players don't show up or don't have time you just keep ticking the clock forward.

But what if the DM himself doesn't have time?

Do you just advance time anyway? Isn't that punishing the players with missing out on their chances to do stuff as time steps forward when it's not their fault? What happens then?

While BroSR was stretching interpretations the 1E rules to justify Patron play as "BtB", I was twisting and stretching Appendix A to say the rules justify GMless/GMfull play as being "BtB."

What we've been doing is, everyone is solo gaming using Appendix A (random dungeon), B (random wilderness), and C (random encounters) and I (dungeon dressing), but we're all doing it on the same map. We can team up, split up, cooperate, compete, etc.

Since each player is their own DM, the game can always go on. And as long as you track time carefully, you can even play solo throughout the week if you want. You're not limited to just the weekly scheduled gathering.

Huh. Everyone is just playing with themselves? I feel like that would lose all the magic...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 28, 2022, 02:09:39 AM
Huh. Everyone is just playing with themselves? I feel like that would lose all the magic...

That's why we gather together once a week and play on the same map. I should mention we use easel-size graph paper with a 1" grid.

It's tons of fun, especially splitting up, one person always gets in trouble, as the exploration continues, the party re-unites and can confront that troublesome thing.

We piloted the idea one day when 3 of the players couldn't make it, leaving us with only 3. I got myself 3 copies of Midnight on Dagger Alley because I always wanted to try doing it with 3 players simultaneous all on the same map. It was a ton of fun. A couple of times we teamed up to fight some monsters. But since each pre-gen had their own quest, it was sort of a competition to see who would finish their quest first.

After that we switched up the campaign to this GMless/GMfull form.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 28, 2022, 02:25:30 AMI should mention we use easel-size graph paper with a 1" grid.

Totally off topic, but I love that giant graph paper. Back in my 3e days, I would design my dungeon on the easel paper and cut it out in sections to lay on the game table. It let me spend time and effort drawing little details on the map that I wouldn't have time to if drawing it out during the game session.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 28, 2022, 02:25:30 AM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 28, 2022, 02:09:39 AM
Huh. Everyone is just playing with themselves? I feel like that would lose all the magic...

That's why we gather together once a week and play on the same map. I should mention we use easel-size graph paper with a 1" grid.

It's tons of fun, especially splitting up, one person always gets in trouble, as the exploration continues, the party re-unites and can confront that troublesome thing.

We piloted the idea one day when 3 of the players couldn't make it, leaving us with only 3. I got myself 3 copies of Midnight on Dagger Alley because I always wanted to try doing it with 3 players simultaneous all on the same map. It was a ton of fun. A couple of times we teamed up to fight some monsters. But since each pre-gen had their own quest, it was sort of a competition to see who would finish their quest first.

After that we switched up the campaign to this GMless/GMfull form.

So it's more like a board game? Everyone is just following some rules and sees what's going on?

WTF is BrOSR?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 29, 2022, 08:13:31 PM
So it's more like a board game? Everyone is just following some rules and sees what's going on?

If you need to ask it, I probably have no idea what you mean by RPG and what you mean by board game and what you feel makes a game more one than the other. With multiple GMs, it's not really possible to say very much about the play style. Each GM is entitled to their own style. Sure, there are bound to be certain constraints--a certain degree of uniformity--in order to all GM simultaneously on the same map, but I would say those are minimal. My own personal GM style, even when I'm the sole GM/gawd of the game, is what I consider to be a more balanced approach that does remain grounded in the fact that we are playing a game. I feel otherwise the experience can become too nebulous and abstract when taken too seriously.

In this sense, you might say any game I run is closer to a board game relative to the average GM. But it wouldn't be accurate to say what I'm doing is more board game than it is RPG. There's no fixed board. No fixed set of multiple choice answers to the question of "What do you do?" GMs are still called upon to adjudicate.  There is genuine novelty. If I tried to present what I'm doing to someone more interested in board games than role-playing games, this wouldn't pass as a board game. Although I do continue to refine the process in the hopes that someday I can easily generate interest among the uninitiated.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 30, 2022, 11:10:30 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 29, 2022, 08:13:31 PM
So it's more like a board game? Everyone is just following some rules and sees what's going on?

If you need to ask it, I probably have no idea what you mean by RPG and what you mean by board game and what you feel makes a game more one than the other. With multiple GMs, it's not really possible to say very much about the play style. Each GM is entitled to their own style. Sure, there are bound to be certain constraints--a certain degree of uniformity--in order to all GM simultaneously on the same map, but I would say those are minimal. My own personal GM style, even when I'm the sole GM/gawd of the game, is what I consider to be a more balanced approach that does remain grounded in the fact that we are playing a game. I feel otherwise the experience can become too nebulous and abstract when taken too seriously.

In this sense, you might say any game I run is closer to a board game relative to the average GM. But it wouldn't be accurate to say what I'm doing is more board game than it is RPG. There's no fixed board. No fixed set of multiple choice answers to the question of "What do you do?" GMs are still called upon to adjudicate.  There is genuine novelty. If I tried to present what I'm doing to someone more interested in board games than role-playing games, this wouldn't pass as a board game. Although I do continue to refine the process in the hopes that someday I can easily generate interest among the uninitiated.

I meant it in the sense that the rules are rigorous enough that you don't really need a GM, you can just follow a procedure and resolve them yourself -- GMless, in other words. But it sounds like you're saying they're GMing for themselves... that part is the part that confuses me, since I feel like if you GM for yourself, you lose the mystery of what's in store for you, and aren't you more likely to cut yourself a break? Or is everyone reviewing everyone else's actions? Is there one ur-DM that rules over them all to keep things in line? I guess it seems like it doesn't feel as "real" when you are deciding everything for yourself. Nonetheless this concept intrigues me...

Washing on the board game vs rpg question, my theory is

Board Games are about players controlling a play piece or pieces within a rules constricted environment.
Role Play Games are about players assuming the mindscape of the character being portrayed and determining what the character would do while the GM adjudicates the outcome, using rules and RNG when the outcome is not certain.
Story Games are about players spinning tall tales of their subjects exploits with some mechanical prompts.

Elements of all of them can be mixed together by taking place in diffident phase, but they cannot be combined in one as rules, GM adjudication, or telling, not playing, as story has to dominate. Either the rules say X happens with Y probability, the GM says X doesn't make any sense so cannot happen but A will or B with Z probability, or the question becomes would X happening make the story better and is there a W probability that something else should happen too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 31, 2022, 09:47:06 AM
I meant it in the sense that the rules are rigorous enough that you don't really need a GM, you can just follow a procedure and resolve them yourself -- GMless, in other words. But it sounds like you're saying they're GMing for themselves... that part is the part that confuses me, since I feel like if you GM for yourself, you lose the mystery of what's in store for you, and aren't you more likely to cut yourself a break?

Well, if what I'm doing is joining together several solo games, it helps to know what solo play is like. Not just know what it's like, but recognize that if it's just you, sure, you can go as easy or hard on yourself as you like. You can cheat as much as you want. If your purpose is finding a flaw in the system, then you'll have no trouble finding it. On the other hand, if your purpose is actually having fun with it, I don't think just handing yourself everything is going to get you there.

I can tell you that even when using Appendix A as a design aid during prep, when I'm walking through it as the players would experience the dungeon, I do find I'm frequently curious and even excited about discovering what's beyond the next corner. You might say this is what is meant by the "exploration" aspect of RPGs, which is sometimes invoked as a fourth leg to three-fold RPG models, but I rarely find it in other GMs campaigns, and certainly not with the same intensity I get out of Appendix A.

So if I'm going to rate the degree of mystery and not knowing what's in store, I'm going to rate what I'm doing more highly than what you get in most campaigns with GMs. I don't want to speak for the other people I have playing this, but the fact that they've stuck with it this long and get less distracted with less cross-talk than a standard campaign suggests they're at least getting something more out of it.

QuoteOr is everyone reviewing everyone else's actions? Is there one ur-DM that rules over them all to keep things in line? I guess it seems like it doesn't feel as "real" when you are deciding everything for yourself. Nonetheless this concept intrigues me...

There is no review or oversight. We've got a few rules for the sake of coordination. We use hand-counters and sand-timers to make sure no one gets too far ahead or too far behind time-wise. If we cross paths and are exploring a new area simultaneously, whoever's got the lowest count has first exploration rights. Whoever explores a new area, room, or section of corridor has final say in interpreting the results.

Quote from: Wisithir on May 31, 2022, 08:07:30 PM
Board Games are about players controlling a play piece or pieces within a rules constricted environment.
Role Play Games are about players assuming the mindscape of the character being portrayed and determining what the character would do while the GM adjudicates the outcome, using rules and RNG when the outcome is not certain.
Story Games are about players spinning tall tales of their subjects exploits with some mechanical prompts.

There are a pretty wide variety of board games, that I don't think this sort of definition will accurately fit them all. As unsatisfying as it may be, I think the only accurate definition for board games might be a lot more superficial than all that. Like the game board is kind of a big thing in a board game.

QuoteElements of all of them can be mixed together by taking place in diffident phase, but they cannot be combined in one as rules, GM adjudication, or telling, not playing, as story has to dominate. Either the rules say X happens with Y probability, the GM says X doesn't make any sense so cannot happen but A will or B with Z probability, or the question becomes would X happening make the story better and is there a W probability that something else should happen too.

I have a couple of objections here. Regarding Rules vs Adjudication, I don't know they are necessarily as separate as they sound. If I decide here and now, while I'm not actually running any game at all, that Xorn are immune to the decapitation effect of a Vorpal Sword, you could say, "Well, that's a rule. It may be a house rule, but still a rule." Now compare that to a situation where I never even considered this, a player attacks with a vorpal sword, rolls a natural 20, and then in that moment I realize it doesn't make sense. If I over-rule it, you could say, "Well, that's adjudication." I doubt there's going to be a high degree of agreement that the defining characteristic between two types of games comes down to when or how quickly you thought about something.

It seems more like it would come down to my reason. If it's to reign in the potency of the vorpal sword, then I'd say that's a game consideration. If it's because the Xorn has no neck and head separate from the body, then it's an "as if it were real" consideration, like role playing. Since the same call can be made for either reason, or indeed even for both reasons, you really don't have to sacrifice one in the name of the other.

As far as "would X happening make the story better", the problem I have is even the very statement itself makes no sense to me. Why would I or anyone necessarily know what's better or worse for the story? As a game-oriented person, I wouldn't hand-pick who should win a football game according to what I think would make a better game. That would defeat the purpose of the game. I don't know that the knight slays the dragon is necessarily a better story than the dragon slays the knight. I would think that running a story according to what makes the story better is a recipe for making a story that is cliche and trite.

Insofar as that goes, the RPG form has something special to offer to storytelling. The fact that you don't know whether or not your knight will be able to slay the dragon, or if you'll be slain, or if some other outcome puts tension back into an otherwise old and played out story. I think not knowing allows the player to better relate to the knight and what he is going through internally, mentally and emotionally. And this can be appreciated without needing to possess the acting skills to emote the inner doubts for an audience.

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2022, 12:16:37 AM
I have a couple of objections here. Regarding Rules vs Adjudication, I don't know they are necessarily as separate as they sound. If I decide here and now, while I'm not actually running any game at all, that Xorn are immune to the decapitation effect of a Vorpal Sword, you could say, "Well, that's a rule. It may be a house rule, but still a rule." Now compare that to a situation where I never even considered this, a player attacks with a vorpal sword, rolls a natural 20, and then in that moment I realize it doesn't make sense. If I over-rule it, you could say, "Well, that's adjudication." I doubt there's going to be a high degree of agreement that the defining characteristic between two types of games comes down to when or how quickly you thought about something.

For my purposes, in either case the GM is making a decision as to what occurs when a vorpal sword interacts with a Xorn. The board is important, but are card games board games? Fixed choices vs the option to invent your own move maybe the differentiator. The angry monster charges at you, do you counter attack or run away? I stand there frozen in fear. That's not an option, run or fight, versus you can do that, let me figure out what happens then.

Ultimately the distinction is secondary to the topic at hand. My litmus test is; in a board game players apply the rules to determine the outcome, in a roleplaying game players declare intended action and the GM determines the outcome, while in a story game the mechanics provide a vague outline of the outcome and whoever's turn it is narrates conforming events.

"Making the story better" is perhaps poor wording on my part to express that a board game would be played to the players strategy, a roleplaying game to advance the characters interests in a consistent manner, and in story game a disadvantageous outcome not in the character's interest would occur because it would be more "fun" to run into trouble instead of succeeding without incident or because the mechanics prescribe injecting a complication independent of it being appropriate to the scene.

Quote from: Wisithir on June 01, 2022, 01:47:04 AM
For my purposes, in either case the GM is making a decision as to what occurs when a vorpal sword interacts with a Xorn. The board is important, but are card games board games?

I would say board games are board games and card games are card games. In principle, these games can and do vary so much that using a board may be the only thing board games have in common with one another; using cards may be the only thing card games have in common with one another. Admittedly, the problem with this view is it leads to citing edge cases to smash what might be imperfect yet otherwise useful categories and characterization of the games. To me, the stronger reason I believe this just is how it is is because so much of a board game is in the board itself.

If I were to describe The Game of Life board game by its rules alone, I'd say you spin the spinner, move that many spaces on the board, and if the space says something, apply it. He who dies with the most toys wins. Something like that. What does this have to do with life? I have no idea. Until you bring in the board. And the spaces describe different life events. And in some spaces you're allowed to make some major life choices. And everything fits thematically. Even though it sounds like a smart alecky response to say "well, board games have game boards" I think as far as it goes analytically, it's a much deeper statement than it sounds and goes to the heart of what's most significant about these games. And so I think that actually is the most accurate answer.

QuoteFixed choices vs the option to invent your own move maybe the differentiator. The angry monster charges at you, do you counter attack or run away? I stand there frozen in fear. That's not an option, run or fight, versus you can do that, let me figure out what happens then.

Obviously computer RPGs can only allow you to do what they're programmed to allow, and I have some reservations with declaring computer RPGs as not being real RPGs. But insofar as what I'm doing, Appendix A solo play doesn't really carve anything out differently from the standard rules. You can still at least attempt almost anything that one can imagine and seems reasonably plausible.

QuoteUltimately the distinction is secondary to the topic at hand. My litmus test is; in a board game players apply the rules to determine the outcome, in a roleplaying game players declare intended action and the GM determines the outcome, while in a story game the mechanics provide a vague outline of the outcome and whoever's turn it is narrates conforming events.

If I'm doing Appendix A solo play, the player and GM happen to be the same person. I'm not sure if that trips up your test at all. The other thing is, I am playing AD&D 1E. I happen to really, really like 1E rules. So although I feel perfectly free to over-rule anything I don't think makes sense, the fact is, in actual play, I almost never deviate from the rules as written because I think what's written makes a lot of sense. So I'm also not sure if you'd be able to tell from the outside looking in whether it's the rules determining the outcome or whether it's the player-as-GM making the call.

It is a little weird to me that I should be treading a line here. After all, I'm playing *the* classic smash hit RPG so closely to the book that I'm even letting Appendix A guide me in adventure creation. Like when the Science declared Pluto was no longer a planet. Over what? It didn't have a completely distinct orbit from Neptune? It's not like that was previously unknown. It just never formed part of the definition of a planet before.

In keeping with my theme that it's the board that makes it a board game and the cards that make the card game, I think it's the role, or the character, that makes the role-playing game. You've got character sheets with individualized stats and parameters and you move about in roughly first-person perspective from the perspective of the character. To me, that's a much clearer and accurate distinction between the board game and RPG, and it also doesn't exclude the granddaddy of all RPGs, nor CRPGs which are way more popular than TTRPGs. Even when I try to think of something that blurs that line, I come up with Hero Quest. Which feels pretty right. If there's going to be a game that walks the line, that seems like it would be the one.

Quote"Making the story better" is perhaps poor wording on my part

I just wanted to note, I'm not trying to play gotcha with your words. This is a phrase that's been uttered by a lot of gamers for decades. It is a thing. It's something players aim for. It's something they buy into. I just don't think it's an idea that holds consistent under scrutiny, and so it effectively means "making the game a better fit to what I want" but expressed it in a way that it's more likely to gain agreement and buy-in.

Quoteto express that a board game would be played to the players strategy, a roleplaying game to advance the characters interests in a consistent manner, and in story game a disadvantageous outcome not in the character's interest would occur because it would be more "fun" to run into trouble instead of succeeding without incident or because the mechanics prescribe injecting a complication independent of it being appropriate to the scene.

The tricky thing here is, don't actual people (such as the characters you're role-playing) form strategies to get things they want? Don't actual people do things all the time that work against their best interests?

Yeah, I get it. As a player playing a guy in a game, you do get to retain a certain level of detachment, so you can run a character's life in a far more optimized way than you can maximize your own life. I pondered exactly this 5 months ago when thinking about New Years Resolutions. Why do we RPGers set as a goal playing our characters as flawed in strategy as our own lives, rather than setting as a goal to live our own lives with the superior strategy of a character played by a min-maxer?

And there may actually be really good reasons why it wouldn't be best to live your own life in such a cold, calculating way. Maybe there are downsides to doing that. It would be good to know what those sort of things are to include in the RPG.

QuoteStory Games are about players spinning tall tales of their subjects exploits with some mechanical prompts.

In extreme cases like let's say Fiasco - indeed.
But most of storygame RPGs - while there are certain benefits for failing forward - is basically played on some regular in-character notion. Difference lies in a) mechanics solving things in more narrative, less manichean way, promoting complication as favourite result b) character abilities/moved based more on certain archetypical qualities and genre enforcement rather than game physics. Which to certain degree is not that different from D&D classes which... also are not simulationist beings but gaming/archetypical narrative ones.