I appears blakkie that this is a real passion for you.

I find myself at a disadvantage, I don't share your passion on this issue. And I certainly don't have the market research to back up my personal opinion.

So I'm going to have to leave the field to you. I however remain highly skeptical of your claims, and certain that D&D in no way or form is of any use to myself today.

Quote from: gleichmanI appears blakkie that this is a real passion for you.

I have a passion. A passion for knowledge and understanding and sharing.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAll roleplaying games create story by their very nature, though not necessarily satisfying story of real quality.

Thanks, Levi.  Sorry this thread exploded, but hopefully you'll still see this.



Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Ben LehmanSigmund --

The point is not that there are RPGs that don't produce story, but if you as players don't care about the quality of the story you produce, then the quality of that story doesn't matter, does it?

For instance, in the D&D game I'm playing right now, story isn't the focus.  (And I'm talking about this specific game, not D&D in general.)  So our story isn't that great.  I wouldn't read it if it were a book.  That's okay, we're having a blast anyway, because story isn't what we're looking for.

I think some of the real damage of the 90s is the idea that story is somehow a "better" or "more pure" goal in role-playing than, say, tactical combat.  That's just silly.  It's a recreational activity.  The goal is to have fun.

yrs--
--Ben

Ok, but I would say that I don't see the rules as defining the quality of the story. They might affect how one's character performs actions in the game that the story is coming from, but that just boils down to whether you care for the mechanics of the game. Other people who like a game that I don't are perfectly capable of having a rolicking good time playing that game (thereby "creating" a "story"), where I would just be annoyed by it's mechanics or flavor. Vice-versa also applies. This tells me that it's not the game that defines the quality of the "story", as I see it, but the players. All this is on top of the fact that I can honestly say that I have never played a RPG with the focus (or even the conscious thought) of creating a "story". I can also say the 99% of the games I've played in I wouldn't read if it were a book, because it wasn't a book, it was a game...it was much more fun to play it than to read about it.

Now don't get me wrong, there are lots of events that have happened to my characters in game that I enjoy telling stories about afterward, and might even make decent scenes in a book, just like I have decent fishing stories, and decent stories about my time in the Army, and my greatest story, watching my son being born (and almost passing out...I held it together though...barely  ). None of these event/activities ever provoked a single thought about "creating" a "story".

Now, just to let ya know, I agree 100% with your last paragraph, as well as when ya said you weren't playing DnD for a story. It's just that neither I nor anyone I've ever gamed with to my knowledge has ever had "story" as focus or thought when playing any RPG. If ya'all play different then

:emot-rock:  ON brother!  

If we define a "good story" as one that follows a literary structure (foreshadowing, strong central theme, three-act structure, and, most importantly, the kind of focus that only comes with revision) then I doubt very many games do this reliably (some groups may--but not games themselves. I have experienced DitV taking digressions that would likely be edited out, for example--the same, even more strongly with Sorcerer).

If we define good stories as *meaningful* to the audience then no games do this reliably but some people may do it all the time (and they may do it with any variety of mechanics).

However: both elements (structure and meaning) can be accomplished reliably via techniques that apply to just about any game so long as the player(s) are interested in engaging them.

For a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).

We have a couple of editorials concerning this:
Fault Tolerant Scenario Design (how to make a scenario that has a decent shot at literary structure)

Integrated Scenario Design (how to approach play to help ensure that the PCs are relevant to the action and vice versa)

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoFor a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).


-Marco

This doesn't really appeal to me at all.

Quote from: SigmundThis doesn't really appeal to me at all.

Which piece? Having the players buy into the spirit of the game? Having the GM front-load situation to be relevant to the players? Or the whole idea of the subject of the game having anything to do with the characters in the first place?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoFor a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).

At one time or another i have done all of the above. Each proved to be a rewarding experience. I can honestly say, i can't really place any of those styles of play in any meaningful order of preference (which i realise was not your point). Just my two cents.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: MarcoWhich piece? Having the players buy into the spirit of the game? Having the GM front-load situation to be relevant to the players? Or the whole idea of the subject of the game having anything to do with the characters in the first place?

-Marco

Well, what you said here means something slightly different to me than this...

QuoteFor a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).

I don't mind players "buying into" the "spirit" of a game I run, but I don't really like "front-loading" characters. By this I take it to mean loading a character up with built-in conflicts all ready to go before the game even starts. I much prefer characters starting out as "normal folks" or kids just starting out and then either have them thrust into a situation that creates conflict (disaster strikes, war breaks out, etc..), or have them just starting out on a career that involves adventure (mercs, soldiers, PIs, cops, deep space miners, etc..). I don't mind if a player includes some possible hooks in a character's background, but to force all the players to do this has, in the few times I've seen it attempted, created more confusion than good gaming. The whole group can't be Harry Potter. The groups I play with are much more interested in the "simulation" type game (to use what I believe is a theory term).

If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.

Quote from: SigmundI don't mind players "buying into" the "spirit" of a game I run, but I don't really like "front-loading" characters. By this I take it to mean loading a character up with built-in conflicts all ready to go before the game even starts. I much prefer characters starting out as "normal folks" or kids just starting out and then either have them thrust into a situation that creates conflict (disaster strikes, war breaks out, etc..), or have them just starting out on a career that involves adventure (mercs, soldiers, PIs, cops, deep space miners, etc..). I don't mind if a player includes some possible hooks in a character's background, but to force all the players to do this has, in the few times I've seen it attempted, created more confusion than good gaming. The whole group can't be Harry Potter. The groups I play with are much more interested in the "simulation" type game (to use what I believe is a theory term).

If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.

Got it. I agree strongly on a number of points:
1. The whole group can't be Harry Potter. My experience with very strong front-loading (Kickers) is that you wind up time-slicing a *lot* between characters and, in fact, the PCs may never meet (in a recent Sorcerer game our characters, indeed, never met and the game was poorer for it--I don't have an intense hatred of spectating but it's *way* not my preferred play style).

Aside: in the tradtional RPG I ran for the same group using kicker-style conflicts there was a lot of time-slicing too--but the characters did meet since there were other conditions on the character-creation that mandated it.

Things like Spiritual Attributes, flags, etc. require additional levels of structure to keep the party from being pulled apart and to set the expectation that the game will not be "all about" your specific problem but either a gestalt of other character's issues or some other clearly agreed on focus (which is what indie-games do very well: you know if you are playing DitV that it's very unlikely you will discover an old, dangerous mine-shaft filled with pitfalls that you'll go down in and adventure in).

2. A big pice of what I am talking about by "front-loading" applies to stuff like *internal conflicts*. In a space game I played in a year or so ago (entire text on the net as it was IRC) I played an uplifted Hyena who was entirely fed-up with being a second-class citizen in the sci-fi world. That conflict wasn't with anyone in particular and he was certainly a "normal kid" (15 years old, living on a back-water space station)--but I guaranteed that the conflict was gonna come out in some way during the game and I made sure the GM knew about it.

I will note that, as I prefer, the GM did not bend over backwards to *cater* to my conflict. He didn't re-design the game to spot-light my character's problems (they were already built into the world: uplifts tend to have it rough)--but it wasn't something he warped the campaign around like James Dean wrapping his porsche around a tree.

Still: the conflict was, IMO, "front-loaded" and was going to reveal itself in almost any imaginable situation.

3. In terms of the GM "front-loading story" I think that creation of games in such a way as to encourage certain evolving *structures* (but certainly not *forcing them*) is the sort of thing Cop/Merc/etc. games do lend themselves to very well.

It's my feeling that to get story-like structure (something I think RPGs do very well and can produce a very satisfying feeling by doing) without resorting to either covert or overt railroading (something that kills the buzz for me) you need to do the work on a structural level as a foundation to play rather than a guiding force during it.

-Marco

Two things struck me about your post, Marco:

Quote from: Marco...(in a recent Sorcerer game our characters, indeed, never met and the game was poorer for it--I don't have an intense hatred of spectating but it's *way* not my preferred play style).
...

Things like Spiritual Attributes, flags, etc. require additional levels of structure to keep the party from being pulled apart and to set the expectation that the game will not be "all about" your specific problem but either a gestalt of other character's issues or some other clearly agreed on focus (which is what indie-games do very well: you know if you are playing DitV that it's very unlikely you will discover an old, dangerous mine-shaft filled with pitfalls that you'll go down in and adventure in).

The additional level of structure you talked about is making up the Spiritiual Attributes or Beliefs or Keys or whatever flags you are using together.  Making characters all together is really important.  Having flags that coincide and some that directly conflict are all decisions that should be made as a group.

Same with kickers.  I have run several games with kickers where I noted that the kickers all sent the players in different directions and if they want to meet, they need to talk to me and talk to each other.  In Sorcerer, the players don't have game mandated scene framing power but they always have the option of talking to me and making suggestions that I will listen to.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: PakaTwo things struck me about your post, Marco:



The additional level of structure you talked about is making up the Spiritiual Attributes or Beliefs or Keys or whatever flags you are using together.  Making characters all together is really important.  Having flags that coincide and some that directly conflict are all decisions that should be made as a group.

Same with kickers.  I have run several games with kickers where I noted that the kickers all sent the players in different directions and if they want to meet, they need to talk to me and talk to each other.  In Sorcerer, the players don't have game mandated scene framing power but they always have the option of talking to me and making suggestions that I will listen to.

Does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense--however: the structure for doing this is not (generally) provided. Advice to simply have people "make characters together" replaces a single authority-based decision making agency (a common power accorded the traditional GM) with a consensus-based decision making agency.

Neither one is objectively preferable to the other: which of them is better depends on the specific organizational dynamic and the people involved. In my first (aborted) game of Sorcerer, we never even got to play since the email contacts fizzled at the definition of humanity and decisions about the setting stage (and I was pretty clear about what I wanted but when someone didn't want the same thing the discussion dropped in energy level dramatically).

Finally, there's an issue of vision. When I say I am interested in the GM's story when I come to play, people (of a certain theory-informed bent) often assume (un-generously, IMO) that I want a railroaded game. I don't--but I do expect the GM to, as with an author I care to read, present a vison I will find interesting.

This means that my preferable method of play has to involve both the Players and the GM in the refining process (you can see the link on Integrated Scenario Design for a sketch of what I suggest) but, again, that requires a degree of collaberation that does not always come together.

Finally, when someone presents an idea that I'm not really excited about (but do not actively *dislike*) there are practical concerns about how much refinement and negoitation that can happen. I do not want the direction of play to be *so well defined* that we have effectively written the first and second acts before play begins. I do not want to spend days and days of email or voice exchange (hard with, say 4 players who meet once every other week) to make, reject, and refine suggestions.

IME, in practice, these practical concerns usually result in some kind of compromise which may mean less than optimal play conditions.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIME, in practice, these practical concerns usually result in some kind of compromise which may mean less than optimal play conditions.

-Marco

They result in compromise if you don't say to the player, "That kicker feels flat to me and isn't turning me on. What can we do to turn up the heat here?"

The set-up is vital and when a game goes badly, I can always trace it back to a gitchy feeling during chargen, no doubt.

Quote from: PakaThey result in compromise if you don't say to the player, "That kicker feels flat to me and isn't turning me on. What can we do to turn up the heat here?"

The set-up is vital and when a game goes badly, I can always trace it back to a gitchy feeling during chargen, no doubt.

Right--exactly. And as a practical concern there is only so many times you can say that (and you, um, can't just say that because I'm gonna reply with "what don't you like?" and if you don't know or can't articulate it besides "it leaves me cold" then we've got a problem).

When game-time, face-to-face in the FLGS-time, is limited and the communication tools are things like email and Skype, there is a limited amount of back-and-forth that can happen between play schedules.

I mean, yeah: we all quits our jobs and take the time to haggle it out and we're set for some non-comprimised gaming.

But I, like you, do this quite a bit and with many different groups (some of which are literally all over the country) and there are, IME, very strong practical limits on how much negoitating one can do before play.

This doesn't, of course, kill the methodology--in fact, it's my preferred methodology. But I'd be disingunious if I said there weren't obstacles there as well or it was all sweetness and light. IME, it's a great method--but not perfect or without comprimise of any sort.

-Marco

And yes, I absolutely would say that it was leaving me cold, let's tinker with it.  I've done it before and have worked with a player until they vomitted out a shit-hot kicker.

Quote from: MarcoThis doesn't, of course, kill the methodology--in fact, it's my preferred methodology. But I'd be disingunious if I said there weren't obstacles there as well or it was all sweetness and light. IME, it's a great method--but not perfect or without comprimise of any sort.

-Marco

I'm not sure compromise is always needed and it isn't ever about perfection, just about getting the ole gaming batting average up.