Quote from: MaddmanI think that might be more productive.

Here's some of the things that I've done in-game and had it come out a better experience.  Most of these are concepts that I've picked up from various places in theory discussion.

- Addressing a theme.  In my current game, all the characters are sort of unlikely heroes.  Each episode sort of focuses on a different character - this is Buffy, so it's very in keeping with the genre.  Each epsiode was designed to put the spotlight on the characters to see if they could indeed be the hero when it really mattered.  Three of them overcame and rose to the challenge.  One of them started the slide to darkness, and the fifth failed.  This has made the game very personal.

The players who aren't the focus this week don't get bored waiting the 3-4 weeks (depending on the # of players) for their spotlight time to roll around? Do ya'all meet more often than once a week? Do you find allowing the whole group at once to be the focus of the game doesn't work for you? Not being a fan of either the show or the game, I'm at a disadvantage in discussing the Buffy genre.

Quote- 'Front loading' conflict.  The system helps with this, I take the various Qualities and Drawbacks from the characters to instantly get them into conflict.  Overall this is the strategy of pushing conflict at the characters and seeing how they resolve it.  I also call it the "Throw hand grenades at them and see what way they jump" technique.

Does your group not like building up to a conflict? Why is there a rush to "instantly get them into conflict"? Honestly, it seems to me that every session of every RPG I've ever played involved some conflict of some sort, why is "front loading" a better way to go about providing it than just allowing it to develop seemingly naturally during regular gaming?

Quote- Bangers.  This is where you present the PCs with a choice, the kind of choice that will tell them what kind of person they are, and it needs to be immeditely resolved.  This was the first one I tried.  It was an All Flesh game, with the PCs members of the military trying to hold off the zombie onslaught.  They were in a hotel full of civilians.  The doors had been breached and the commander recieved orders to pull out.  The PCs were given orders to blow the hotel with the civilians inside, to keep the infection from spreading.  Now, do they follow orders or protect the innocent?  Since one PC was playing a by-the-book type while another was an in-it-to-protect-my-country type there was instant conflict.  Easily the most memorable session of the game.

Sounds fun, hasn't this device been used for many years? It sounds like just another way to provide conflict, why the fancy name? Is it that theorists and story gamers derive more enjoyment from pitting the players against each other than against npcs and monsters?

Quote- "Yes" gaming.  Put most succinctly in Dogs in the Vineyard, Say Yes or Roll Dice.  Generally, let the PCs do and create what they think would be cool.  If the PCs should be able to do something, then let them do it.  Only roll when there's a reasonable chance they'll fail, or you'd like to see them fail.

This doesn't appeal to me all that much. I much prefer the randomness of dice rolling most of the time. There's always a chance to fail...chaos science and all. I will very occasionally fudge in the PC's favor if they come up with something outstanding in some way, but 95% of the time I prefer the unexpectedness of dice rolling to stay in the game. Also, if my players are doing huge chunks of my job (as I see it) for me, what am I as GM doing? If players can whatever they want why am I there? Why should I go to the effort to build as fun and interesting world/setting as I can if the players can alter it to suit themselves at will?

Quote- Stakes.  Also an idea from Dogs.  While I'm not doing it mechanically like they do, I've still used the idea.  Essentially it means letting the PCs know what they are putting on the line.  Clearly let them know 'You can try to do this, but if you fail you could lose your life' or what have you.  This creates a LOT of drama.  Even if they fail, they went in with both eyes open and doubtless were very invested in the result.

I don't understand the point of labelling and even going so far as to create mechanics around this. Isn't this part of every game? What's the point of separating this from the game conceptually? I don't get it....every time my character goes into combat there's stakes...every time my rogue gambles, etc... I couldn't possibly see how either I or my character would forget wha the stakes might be in any given conflict, I really don't feel I'd need to be reminded or need to have it pointed out.

QuoteAnd my own theory, which is the simple idea that if games are stories, then trying to frame a game in the form of a story will make for a good game.  This doesn't mean railroading, but winging it with an eye toward the story structure.  What I try to do each game is put conflicts in front of the PCs, let them deal with it however they like, come up with the consequences of those choices, then wrap it up with a satisfying climax.  I've yet to correctly guess what they'll do, but that just makes it more fun.

The problem I see with this is that in the best campaigns I've played, there are many different conflicts occuring simultaneously, and we rarely had good beginning/middle/end points as the game was constantly free-flowing and open-ended. I couldn't even begin to see how to apply a story type structure to it.

QuoteI think this might just be my Buddhist showing.  I don't think things have 'purposes' inherant of themselves.  They are what they are and do what they do.  If you get a story when you play an RPG, then that's close enough for me.

I understand, being a practicing Zen Buddhist myself. If things have no inherent purpose, then you would still be inaccurate in saying that their purpose is to create stories.

When I play an rpg, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. When I GM a RPG, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. I don't believe that to attempt to create a story using a rpg is a superior or more correct way to use a RPG. I've seen no evidence that most RPGs are designed for the purpose of creating a story, especially the most successful ones.

Quote from: SigmundThe players who aren't the focus this week don't get bored waiting the 3-4 weeks (depending on the # of players) for their spotlight time to roll around? Do ya'all meet more often than once a week? Do you find allowing the whole group at once to be the focus of the game doesn't work for you? Not being a fan of either the show or the game, I'm at a disadvantage in discussing the Buffy genre.

No, they seem to really like it.  There's always something for everyone to do - just because it's the witch's episode that doesn't mean that the Slayer and the Werewolf won't be able to do some character development or kick some vampire ass.  And knowing upfront that everyone gets their turn in the spotlight makes them a little more patient.  I've talked to them about it and no one feels shortchanged.

QuoteDoes your group not like building up to a conflict? Why is there a rush to "instantly get them into conflict"? Honestly, it seems to me that every session of every RPG I've ever played involved some conflict of some sort, why is "front loading" a better way to go about providing it than just allowing it to develop seemingly naturally during regular gaming?

To be honest, because I'm an adult now.  When I was a teen and gamed every week, or hell every day, then sure we could organically build up to these conflicts.  We don't have the time for these slow gradual buildups.  If I'm going to keep the attention of five people with super busy lives enough to keep the group together I need it to be awesome and I need it to be awesome NOW.  If I wait for the buildup six sessions from now the campaign would fizzle.  That happened about four times before I started this game.

QuoteSounds fun, hasn't this device been used for many years? It sounds like just another way to provide conflict, why the fancy name? Is it that theorists and story gamers derive more enjoyment from pitting the players against each other than against npcs and monsters?

You nailed it, another way to provide conflict.  And no, it isn't anything overly remarkable.  It's appeared in movies and books as well as RPGs for ages now.  By giving it a name it gives you an easy way to talk about and implement it.

QuoteThis doesn't appeal to me all that much. I much prefer the randomness of dice rolling most of the time. There's always a chance to fail...chaos science and all. I will very occasionally fudge in the PC's favor if they come up with something outstanding in some way, but 95% of the time I prefer the unexpectedness of dice rolling to stay in the game. Also, if my players are doing huge chunks of my job (as I see it) for me, what am I as GM doing? If players can whatever they want why am I there? Why should I go to the effort to build as fun and interesting world/setting as I can if the players can alter it to suit themselves at will?

This is another difference.  I'm not referencing reality when I judge what is acceptable in a game.  I'm referencing literary conventions.  It all depends on the genre you are playing in.  The game I'm running now is like an action movie - I don't really care how many stakes the PCs have on them, or how far it is from the high school to the graveyard.  Doesn't matter.  If its reasonable for them to have a stake on hand, they have it.  If they disagree, then I can charge them a Drama Point.  High School to the Graveyard, we cut scene from one to the other.

As for what the GM is doing?  The work in running this kind of game is just as much if not more than running a pastiche game.  The difference is where the work is.  There's not a whole lot of prep work.  Figure out the conflicts you want to toss at the players, write up a couple of guesses as to what they'll do, and write up some stats.  The main work is in-game.  Because I can't tell what direction the players will go I have to be willing ready and able to toss all my preconcieved notions out the window and roll in a totally different direction.  While that's always true, this is a much greater challenge than going through an area I built up earlier.  This style I find far more challenging and interesting, but perhaps that's because I've done it, well, your way for many years.  

I'm really not trying to piss on anyone's game style - all I'm talking about is what has made my game more fun.

QuoteI don't understand the point of labelling and even going so far as to create mechanics around this. Isn't this part of every game? What's the point of separating this from the game conceptually? I don't get it....every time my character goes into combat there's stakes...every time my rogue gambles, etc... I couldn't possibly see how either I or my character would forget wha the stakes might be in any given conflict, I really don't feel I'd need to be reminded or need to have it pointed out.

Well Buffy pretty much has script immunity.  And many games can be ran in that style.  If you're going to say through mechanics or not that PCs will only die when it's important, you should let them know "Hey, this is important."

QuoteThe problem I see with this is that in the best campaigns I've played, there are many different conflicts occuring simultaneously, and we rarely had good beginning/middle/end points as the game was constantly free-flowing and open-ended. I couldn't even begin to see how to apply a story type structure to it.

Yeah, like I said I ran many games like that in the past.  But I found them fizzling now that we're all older, and I'm not playing with the old group anymore.  With this game we'd put a new group together and rather than try and get everyone to commit to a game for life, I proposed a short Buffy season.  6-8 Episodes, then we can talk about what we want to do next - another Buffy season or something else.  Since I know in advance how long the game will last it helps me plot out the season long arc.

But even with a long term open ended game, one can easily put plot arcs into it.  And to be clear, when I talk about the story structure of introduction->rising action->climax->ending I mean that I do this within one game session.  If the game needs to be cut short, I'll change things around to get some kind of satisfying climax.  If they're going too fast I'll throw in some things to slow them down.  In general, time to talk and analyze slows the plot while conflict speeds it up.  Using these as my 'pedals', most of the time the game follows this pattern.

QuoteI understand, being a practicing Zen Buddhist myself. If things have no inherent purpose, then you would still be inaccurate in saying that their purpose is to create stories.

When I play an rpg, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. When I GM a RPG, I'm not consciously attempting to create a story. I don't believe that to attempt to create a story using a rpg is a superior or more correct way to use a RPG. I've seen no evidence that most RPGs are designed for the purpose of creating a story, especially the most successful ones.

And I'm saying two things - your conscious effort is irrelevent.  Playing an RPG creates a story.  Playing D&D, any flavor, creates a story.  Fuck, playing FATAL creates a story.  Not one I want to hear, but it'll create it.    

Second, it's my theory that trying to emulate the structure of a story will make for a really good game.  Or at least a good type of game.  I'm not claiming superiority about anything, except that I'm having more fun.  Someone else may find it all dull or annoying, but I'd suggest they try it before they dismiss it.

Quote from: MaddmanAnd I'm saying two things - your conscious effort is irrelevent.  Playing an RPG creates a story.  Playing D&D, any flavor, creates a story.  Fuck, playing FATAL creates a story.  Not one I want to hear, but it'll create it.    

Second, it's my theory that trying to emulate the structure of a story will make for a really good game.  Or at least a good type of game.  I'm not claiming superiority about anything, except that I'm having more fun.  Someone else may find it all dull or annoying, but I'd suggest they try it before they dismiss it.

How humorous it is to see such effort put into to two such insignificant statements.

The first point is defines nothing.

The second is nothing but a statement of taste with two horrid side effects. First we've heard it hammer time and time until we're so sick of it that the only thing we can associate it to is the preening prattle of Forge elitism. Second, an attempt to change the rpg world in something that is altogether different- but with a monkey like fist that refused to call by a new name.

Past humor actually, it became pitiful a long time ago.

Quote from: gleichmanHow humorous it is to see such effort put into to two such insignificant statements.

The first point is defines nothing.

The second is nothing but a statement of taste with two horrid side effects. First we've heard it hammer time and time until we're so sick of it that the only thing we can associate it to is the preening prattle of Forge elitism. Second, an attempt to change the rpg world in something that is altogether different- but with a monkey like fist that refused to call by a new name.

Past humor actually, it became pitiful a long time ago.

I'm not trying to change the RPG world.  I'm exploring ways to make my game better, and talking to other gamers about it.  The only one I see trying to speak for all gamers or influence the RPG world is Pundit and his fans.  That's what I find so humorous.

Quote from: gleichmanHow humorous it is to see such effort put into to two such insignificant statements.

They are only insignificant to someone who doesn't want to understand them.
 

QuoteThe first point is defines nothing.

Yes it does. It says that *every* roleplaying game tells stories. The difference between different games and different groups of players is in how much they focus on those stories.
 

QuoteThe second is nothing but a statement of taste with two horrid side effects. First we've heard it hammer time and time until we're so sick of it that the only thing we can associate it to is the preening prattle of Forge elitism. Second, an attempt to change the rpg world in something that is altogether different- but with a monkey like fist that refused to call by a new name.

So what if Maddman plays and promotes a way of playing that doesn't mesh with how you like to play? You make it sound like he's trying to take away your dice or something. If the techniques he use when gaming works for him, how does that affect you? This is a roleplaying site. Sharing experiences so that others can learn from them is what this place is all about. If you don't want to play the way Maddman does, go read another thread instead of crapping in this one.
 
I'm sorry, but until you post about what you do to create a good gaming experience the way you prefer to play, your bitching comes off as pretty hollow.
 

QuotePast humor actually, it became pitiful a long time ago.

The only pitiful I see are your attempts to contribute to the conversation. Sniping from the sidelines adds absolutely nothing.

A narrative and a story are not always the same thing. Everything has a narrative, in that it has a possible sequential description as well as a broader description you would use to tie it together and give it some sort of overall meaning. This is basic to life experience.

"Story," can mean a whole bunch of things, but I suspect that in many cases this is specifically referring to a fictional narrative revolving around a group of characters who are described in more detail that whatever is necessary to describe the external results of their actions.

If a dude sticks another dude with a sword, that's not really this kind of story. If a dude sticks another dude with a sword because he's angry or good at sticking folks with a sword because his his individual training? That's getting more into a story (as defined here, anyway). Wargaming straddles this border based on whatever systems get used. Some of them make individuals important; others don't. RPG characters are all about integral abilitiea and traits that go beyond what would be displaye to a third party, though, and that interior perspective is a pretty decisive difference.

Quote from: shooting_diceA narrative and a story are not always the same thing. Everything has a narrative, in that it has a possible sequential description as well as a broader description you would use to tie it together and give it some sort of overall meaning. This is basic to life experience.
 
"Story," can mean a whole bunch of things, but I suspect that in many cases this is specifically referring to a fictional narrative revolving around a group of characters who are described in more detail that whatever is necessary to describe the external results of their actions.
 
If a dude sticks another dude with a sword, that's not really this kind of story. If a dude sticks another dude with a sword because he's angry or good at sticking folks with a sword because his his individual training? That's getting more into a story (as defined here, anyway). Wargaming straddles this border based on whatever systems get used. Some of them make individuals important; others don't. RPG characters are all about integral abilitiea and traits that go beyond what would be displaye to a third party, though, and that interior perspective is a pretty decisive difference.

 
All true. Just like Pundit and gleichman seems to suggest that when roleplaying veers too far into storytelling/story-creation, it stops being roleplaying, I suggest that when you have so few narrative elements that it doesn't turn into a story, it's not a roleplaying game either, but a wargame. I think everybody who are actually involved in these discussions *are* playing roleplaying games where stories are created. If you call them narratives instead, it doesn't really matter, it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
 
If someone would claim that the typical roleplaying adventure (get a motivation, go through hardship, reach goal) doesn't form a story, then we don't have a common language to talk about these things with, which is even more reason for the theorists to continue their work creating that common language.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheThey are only insignificant to someone who doesn't want to understand them..

I laugh at you.

 

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheYes it does. It says that *every* roleplaying game tells stories. The difference between different games and different groups of players is in how much they focus on those stories.

This is why I laugh at you. You don't even know what I've already said about story in an rpg in this very thread. Or if you did, *you* are the one not understanding.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheSo what if Maddman plays and promotes a way of playing that doesn't mesh with how you like to play? You make it sound like he's trying to take away your dice or something.

He may play whatever he likes to play. But when he misrepresents those games as rpgs, when he constantly claims that they are better games*, when he throws Forge speak around like it's a great revelation (and the Forge is *All* about their games being better than those games)- the result is that he publicly devalues traditional design and its players. And that makes one feel unwelcomed and looked down upon.

*his rare statements backing away from such is no counter. It's like someone claiming that they aren't racists while making people set at the back of the bus.

And the 'story crowd" have taken things away from me. First the Forge, and then RPGNet.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI'm sorry, but until you post about what you do to create a good gaming experience the way you prefer to play, your bitching comes off as pretty hollow.

Like anyone here would care about how I play.

This site is currently like an early RPGNet, about to be taken over by Forge like wankers. There's enough D20 players making up the membership to hold the line for a while longer, but I don't expect it to last.

http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11776&postcount=33

I posted this on another thread. It sums up my take on the whole discussion at hand. Very interesting so far.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanHe may play whatever he likes to play. But when he misrepresents those games as rpgs

You know what I hate? It's when traditionalists try to take our hobby hostage by claiming that whatever it is we do, it's not playing roleplaying games. We play roles, using the rules of a game. It's a roleplaying game. They might not look like D&D (though on the other hand, they might).
 

Quote, when he constantly claims that they are better games*, when he throws Forge speak around like it's a great revelation (and the Forge is *All* about their games being better than those games)- the result is that he publicly devalues traditional design and its players. And that makes one feel unwelcomed and looked down upon.
 
*his rare statements backing away from such is no counter. It's like someone claiming that they aren't racists while making people set at the back of the bus.

I think it's only natural that those who are satisfied with the games that already exists are less interested in developing games that work differently. Those of us who feel limited by how current games work are more interested in looking at how the games work, and how we can make games that promote the kind of play we are interested in.
 

QuoteAnd the 'story crowd" have taken things away from me. First the Forge, and then RPGNet.

Oh really? Let's see if you can tell me what they have taken away from you, without me laughing at you.
 
 

QuoteLike anyone here would care about how I play.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm interested in how Maddman plays, because I know we share views on how to enjoy a roleplaying game. It's not inconceivable that there are those who share your views that could learn/draw inspiration from how you play.
 

QuoteThis site is currently like an early RPGNet, about to be taken over by Forge like wankers. There's enough D20 players making up the membership to hold the line for a while longer, but I don't expect it to last.

Apparently, Paranoia isn't just a roleplaying game. :rolleyes:
 
If you look around, you'll notice that there are no boundaries here. Even if Maddman were to post a hundred threads about dusty Forge theories, there is no stopping you from posting about D&D, or whatever your preference is. One does not exclude the other. You'll notice that I have one thread going in the general rpg-forum. It's about D&D, not about Dogs in the Vineyard or some other Forge game. The fact that some of us are interested in "theory" shouldn't detract one whit from your enjoyment of the site, but on the other hand, it would be nice if we were spared your bile too, at least in designated threads...

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheWe play roles, using the rules of a game. It's a roleplaying game. They might not look like D&D (though on the other hand, they might).

This is the classic post-modernist clash. The assumed right by self-defined high-brows that they can redefine whatever they wish. Thus they get to justify anything they wish and feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

 

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI think it's only natural that those who are satisfied with the games that already exists are less interested in developing games that work differently.

You already have a website completely devoted to such 'high' and mighty goals. I'd like to see on general rpg site that wasn't flooded with such crap.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheOh really? Let's see if you can tell me what they have taken away from you, without me laughing at you.

The simple obvious facts.

The original mission statement of Hephaestus' Forge is gone and replaced.

An unmoderated RPGNet that was free of GNS crap because it was slapped down hard whenever it raised it ugly head for the pretension that it was.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheMaybe, maybe not. I'm interested in how Maddman plays, because I know we share views on how to enjoy a roleplaying game. It's not inconceivable that there are those who share your views that could learn/draw inspiration from how you play.

I see no significant sign of any such interest here at all.
 

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheApparently, Paranoia isn't just a roleplaying game. :rolleyes:

Paranoia, played as intended- is a parody of an rpg.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheIf you look around, you'll notice that there are no boundaries here.

A simple and total lie. There are very significant boundaries here.

Quote from: gleichmanThis is the classic post-modernist clash. The assumed right by self-defined high-brows that they can redefine whatever they wish. Thus they get to justify anything they wish and feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

QuoteYou already have a website completely devoted to such 'high' and mighty goals. I'd like to see on general rpg site that wasn't flooded with such crap.

And I'd like an edition of D&D that came with my own personal Playboy bunny DM who'd run personal monty hauls for me whenever I wanted. There are lots of things I want that I don't get. I don't really see a point here. If you want a site devoted only to the things you are interested in, you better start it yourself. Shockingly, I don't think Pooka is interested in catering to you and you only.

QuoteAn unmoderated RPGNet that was free of GNS crap because it was slapped down hard whenever it raised it ugly head for the pretension that it was.

Cry me a river. If you want to talk about D&D and only D&D (or whatever your game of preference is), there are plenty of sites. This is a site about roleplaying games, and if you like it or not, it includes many different games that work in many different ways. GNS might have its flaws, that's really not important. What is important is that it's just as valid a topic for discussion as anything else relating to roleplaying games.

QuoteA simple and total lie. There are very significant boundaries here.

Limiting your ability to discuss traditional roleplaying games? Where? I don't see them.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI don't really see a point here. If you want a site devoted only to the things you are interested in, you better start it yourself. Shockingly, I don't think Pooka is interested in catering to you and you only.

The point is that I've had the perfect site three times. First r.f.g.a, then HF, then RPGNet. Each time theory types with the same lame thoughts come along and wreck it.

I already knew that Nunkinland isn't a suitable place for me. That's why I'm only staying until the end of the 'debate', although given how that's gone it's taking an act of will to stay. There are a couple of cool people here and that helps.

I'm not trying to change anything here. I'm just venting at finding the same crap yet again.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheCry me a river. If you want to talk about D&D and only D&D (or whatever your game of preference is), there are plenty of sites.

I have no interest in talking about D&D. I'd be at ENworld if I did.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheLimiting your ability to discuss traditional roleplaying games? Where? I don't see them.

You wouldn't.

Ok. Well, I'm just confounded by the idea that one type of topics discussed is going to prevent your enjoyment of the rest of the site, but since that's how you feel, I don't see any reason to continue arguing about it.

Quote from: gleichmanLike anyone here would care about how I play.

I would care about how you play.  Start a thread, or discuss it here.  Maybe you do something that I hadn't considered before.  I'm always looking for new tricks and methods to put into my GM's bag.

You do not understand this community or what it is about.  You utterly do not get it.  This is not a new community, it is one with a long history.  It's a new site under new management, but it's largely the same old crowd.  There's some new blood around here, and the Nutkins seem amused by all this, so it goes on.  For all we know tomorrow they'll decide that anyone posting any 'theory' crap or complaining about 'swine' will get a jackass avatar or something.  Hell, I was ready to let it all go then they gave us each a forum.

One of the things about this site is that it doesn't take gaming, or itself, too seriously.  That's why it's so amusing to poke at pundit and yourself and the other 'crabs' - you all take yourselves so deadly seriously.  We're just talking about our games here.  No one's trying to redefine gaming or take over anything.