Point (http://www.costik.com/gamnstry.html) - a lengthy essay by Greg Costikyan
QuoteThat is true because story is the antithesis of game. The best way to tell a story is in linear form. The best way to create a game is to provide a structure within which the player has freedom of action. Creating a "storytelling game" (or a story with game elements) is attempting to square the circle, trying to invent a synthesis between the antitheses of game and story. Precisely because the two things--game and story--stand in opposition, the space that lies between them has produced a ferment of interesting game-story hybrids. And yet the fact remains: game and story are in opposition, and any compromise between the two must struggle to be successful.
So should designers eschew attempts to inject story into the games they design? By no means; past efforts to do so have been fruitful, and have led to interesting and successful games. What designers must do, however, is understand that they are not involved in the creation of stories; gaming is not inherently a story-telling medium, any more than music--just as games are not simulations (though some games are) and games are not competitions (though some games are).
To think of games as "a storytelling medium" leads to futile attempts to straightjacket games, to make them more effective stories at the expense of gameplay.
Counterpoint (http://armpitgames.com/2014/02/27/story-games/) - a reply by 'some guy' game designer and blogger
QuoteThe second assumption is that a story game must necessarily be inferior as a game. It ain't necessarily so. In fact, the factors that are most important for engaging gameplay – consequential decisions made in the pursuit of goals – are precisely the factors that make for engaging narrative. So putting players in the position of the protagonist and giving them the opportunity to select those goals and make those consequential decisions seems more like a match made in heaven than a fundamental incompatibility. They are just different types of decisions and goals to arcade games or strategy games, that's all.
Y'know, when you stand back far enough, it's easy to lose sight of the differences between things which are clear and distinct when you're standing close to them, particularly when you seem them side by side.
I generally side with Greg Costikyan in that I have yet to see a really good implementation of games (as I understand them) as media for telling stories. This is even more true of videogames than RPGs, to be honest.
I think it may be done better than it's been done so far, but generally speaking, I share the feeling that what makes for a good game (as I understand games, in the broader sense, including videogames, boardgames, etc.) doesn't necessarily make for a good story. The best games, like real life, make no fucking sense other than the one you want to give them after the fact.
I'm all for playfully analyzing shit over a post-game beer and going "shit Bob, when your PC saw the Star Vampire eating Jim's PC and lost it? That felt straight outta HPL." Or "remember when your Toreador frenzied because the Sabbat impaled your ghoul on one of your abstract sculptures? Not even Lestat was that fucking emo." But sitting down before the game and declaring that it'll be a grand epic about something or a deep, thoughtful exploration of something other? Not my thing.
The counterpoint to Greg's essay seems to hinge on the fact that storygames hinge on emergent and cooperative storytelling, rather than predetermined or linear ("railroading") play. Now I freely admit a total lack of experience with storygames, but my experience is that round-robin storytelling doesn't really crank out deep, thoughtful or engaging stories about anything. But maybe I just haven't read a good one yet?
A good game, for me, puts me 'in the moment'... vs. standing outside of time and seeing it in some larger, epic context.
I'm thinking of some of my favorite videogames... Silent Hill, Deus Ex... they have a good 'story' in retrospect but the joy of my experience of them is being mostly in the dark as to what's really going on... grasping for solutions... making choices that matter in the moment, never what's 'good for the story.' Sure they're limited by the technology so they're still 'on rails'... only so many options exist, only a few possible endings (unless I choose my character's death as THE END and turn off the machine, sell the game).
The same goes for RPGs... I don't want some canned 'endgame' or narrative track... PCs/NPCs that matter too much to the plot to ever be in serious danger.
... "squaring the circle" ....
Again, it is much depending on how one defines "storytelling" or just "story", even.
What designers may do, and that often is appreciated by both GMs and Players, is to essentially set up the playing pieces(the NPCs), their goals and methods, as well as the historical and geographical background.
Sure, this is technically not writing the story, but it is very close to doing so.
I find it interesting, that during the time i tried to be active on the Forge, i had to defend the more Gamey parts ... or at least tried to, and here, i instead have had to defend, or tried to defend, the story ... or narrative parts.
... Ok, i'm exaggerating my own importance(i'm full of myself), most haven't noticed me at all, or noticed me for very different reasons, but that is the feeling i got on the matter.
Anyway, the impression i have gotten, was that GNS originally was supposed to be like a trinary version of the binary yin/yang, as in all parts are needed, required, and should be accounted for in the rules.
Essentially, Game and Story(Narrative) is not eachothers antithesises, They are both needed and required.
It do seem like a good idea not to intermix them too much though, or one will end up in storygames, more or less.
Quote from: The Butcher;733444I generally side with Greg Costikyan in that I have yet to see a really good implementation of games (as I understand them) as media for telling stories. This is even more true of videogames than RPGs, to be honest.
I think it may be done better than it's been done so far, but generally speaking, I share the feeling that what makes for a good game (as I understand games, in the broader sense, including videogames, boardgames, etc.) doesn't necessarily make for a good story. The best games, like real life, make no fucking sense other than the one you want to give them after the fact.
I'm all for playfully analyzing shit over a post-game beer and going "shit Bob, when your PC saw the Star Vampire eating Jim's PC and lost it? That felt straight outta HPL." Or "remember when your Toreador frenzied because the Sabbat impaled your ghoul on one of your abstract sculptures? Not even Lestat was that fucking emo." But sitting down before the game and declaring that it'll be a grand epic about something or a deep, thoughtful exploration of something other? Not my thing.
When i am about to read a book, or look at a movie, i do not declare it will be a grand epic either, or thoughprovoking, or anything such either.
What is important is that i like playing, and the story i remember afterwards.
I think some people intentionally confuse meanings of 'story' in their rhetoric, trying to pull sleight of hand between Afrika Korps ...
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/__dCb5tmxOb0/Se8mtbP1QjI/AAAAAAAAAJE/6cnJm1aT6Ec/s400/Afrika%20Korps%20001.jpg)
... and My Life With Master.
(http://media.trollandtoad.com/products/pictures/294891.jpg)
Quote from: Catelf;733459When i am about to read a book, or look at a movie, i do not declare it will be a grand epic either, or thoughprovoking, or anything such either.
What is important is that i like playing, and the story i remember afterwards.
So you approach books and movies with no expectations whatsoever? You don't read dust jackets, reviews, or ask friends who have watched or read them? I surmise you don't even read the title? How do you even pick which book to bread, or film to watch?
These discussion are always non-productive because no one ever agrees at what point a plot point becomes a railroading story. More often than not, it's just a platform for people to rant about how their preference is the one true way of gaming, and anything else is badwrong fun.
Mmmm, many happy memories playing Afrika Corps with my father; otherwise though, I'm pretty much on the game side. While there might be some overall continuity in the setting, the players do not have to follow any predetermined path, I prefer they don't really.
Quote from: The Butcher;733461So you approach books and movies with no expectations whatsoever? You don't read dust jackets, reviews, or ask friends who have watched or read them? I surmise you don't even read the title? How do you even pick which book to bread, or film to watch?
Ah, you got me there ... or did you?
The thing is, if i see a movie from the beginning, i have probably heard it was really good, or even great.
However, that only translates into "I might like this movie", so when i line up in the cinema, or put the DVD into my player, i don't think "this will be great", i'd rather be thinking "let's see now ..." with some anticipation, but not exactly expactation, except a good enough story.
I go into rpgs with a similar feel, but possibly less expectation and anticipation.
Same with books and comics as with movies.
My point is that i do not go into fiction or games expecting great stories, but when they prove to have that, i'm delighted.
If i can add to the story myself in the game, then i also do so, within the limitations given(or as a GM, within the limits of honoring the players' choises as PC's, and the NPC's characterizations as well).
A couple of things:
I really do hate those essays. Game designers should stay away from those. This reminds me of french cinema of '60s. Those excellent directors felt the need to come up with some theory about movies, how stories are ... they should stick to doing movies. And by the way, this doesn't help our hobby.
Quote from: Catelf;733453(...)
What designers may do, and that often is appreciated by both GMs and Players, is to essentially set up the playing pieces(the NPCs), their goals and methods, as well as the historical and geographical background.
(...)
Essentially, Game and Story(Narrative) is not eachothers antithesises, They are both needed and required.
I strongly agree with Catelf on this.
Quote from: dragoner;733471Mmmm, many happy memories playing Afrika Corps with my father; otherwise though, I'm pretty much on the game side. While there might be some overall continuity in the setting, the players do not have to follow any predetermined path, I prefer they don't really.
I don't think it is about a pre defined path: it is about creating an 'environment' that challenges the players and offers them choices, interesting ones. In fact that is, I'm quite sure, what most of us already do. We can argue about semantic, but the process is still there.
Now, do designers need to implant in some kind of rules and design for it to be good, or be a game? I don't think so ...
Look, we're not the only ones 'creating stories' (writers do it for novels, movies, TV series ... look around there is A LOT of them), and others are using techniques that are useful. For instance, some writers are using GANTT (MS project) to write and make sure everything is coherent. Maybe that is the kind of stuff we should be looking into.
When it comes to RPG-like games, I basically see four approaches.
1) The GM is the author of the story. Basically this is railroading. Whether it's through tricks to hide the fact or a great sense of improv that folds what the other people say back into the pre-defined story, this is basically a pre-determined story that the GM will present through play. Lots of players actually like this because they don't have to think. They can just show up, do some play acting or fight some combats and rolls some dice. I would say actually, that this is currently the most popular way of playing. It's the approach taken in Paizo's Pathfinder adventure path products, for example.
2) The GM is the guardian of the story. It's the GM's job to take all the different actions that everyone does and cobble together an interesting story going forward. It's an incredibly improv heavy approach and requires the GM to think on his feet in terms of how to take player decisions into consideration when presenting the overall story of the game. Many players think they are playing in a game like this when they are actually playing in a game outlined in 1).
3) The act of playing produces a story right in play. This is the domain of "story games" where the mechanics and procedures ensure that a recognizable story unfolds during play. Even if many consider them to depart from the core elements that make something an RPG, they do still actually work at doing what they say they will do. if you play In A Wicked Age and follow the procedures in the book, you will indeed produce a swords & sorcery genre story. And it won't be one that someone has written in advance.
4) The referee sets up a situation and the players engage with the situation without any regard to story structure or without any thought of creating a story as a goal. And with everyone at the table playing to find out what happens rather than having the GM enforce "his story" on the results. Story in this situation is an after-the-fact byproduct. When we experience our day-to-day lives and then tell someone about them afterwards, we have the ability to construct and present them as a coherent narrative. We naturally interpret them into a story when we tell other people about them. So that's why this type of play looks like it produces story when we look back on play. This is the approach of most old school RPGs and many, many games can be played in this format regardless of when they were written or how their designers think they should be played.
I pretty much only do 4) these days. How do 4) and 2) differ? In 2), the GM actually cares about the story and what would be interesting, fun or dramatic from a story perspective and makes decisions on that basis. In 4) the GM is more of a referee who fairly adjudicates the results of what the players describe as their character's actions.
A classic example of type 1) or 2) play is giving a villian more hit points in the middle of the fight because he's an important character later on in the campaign or because he has potential as a character the GM doesn't want to lose. So rather than letting the dice fall where they may, the GM will override them for the sake of protecting the story.
Approaches 1) and 2) are largely about selectively nullifying player input, 3) can often be about elevating it above all else (sometimes these games don't have GMs at all) and 4) is about adjudicating things fairly and finding out what will happen rather than deciding what will happen.
My advice to anyone would be to embrace approach 4). Stop worrying about telling cool stories or controlling what will happen and get back to presenting interesting situations, NPCs, threats, monsters and environment and let the players decide how to deal with them and play to find out what happens. PCs that survive will naturally emerge as the great heroes in a story as you remissness about the game.
Quote from: NathanIW;733481Story in this situation is an after-the-fact byproduct. When we experience our day-to-day lives and then tell someone about them afterwards, we have the ability to construct and present them as a coherent narrative. We naturally interpret them into a story when we tell other people about them. So that's why this type of play looks like it produces story when we look back on play.
Right, and so does every other activity. The reason I brought up Afrika Korps earlier, is that even though it actually has a basis in history, the notion of a wargame as a 'storygame' seems not to be seriously adopted (much less pressed) by pretty much anyone.
Even less, I think, would people call a live baseball game a 'storygame'.
A 'trad' RPG, like a wargame -- or like real life! -- can be simply a series of events, with none of the character of a well crafted tale except in a carefully edited after-action account (if even then).
Quote from: pells;733475I don't think it is about a pre defined path: it is about creating an 'environment' that challenges the players and offers them choices, interesting ones. In fact that is, I'm quite sure, what most of us already do. We can argue about semantic, but the process is still there.
Now, do designers need to implant in some kind of rules and design for it to be good, or be a game? I don't think so ...
Look, we're not the only ones 'creating stories' (writers do it for novels, movies, TV series ... look around there is A LOT of them), and others are using techniques that are useful. For instance, some writers are using GANTT (MS project) to write and make sure everything is coherent. Maybe that is the kind of stuff we should be looking into.
Writing is different in it has a linear path, which usually follows a pre-set curve as well. A game is different, while in the end a story might be made, or not if there is a TPK; nothing exists if the players don't do it. For me as the GM, my most fun is when the players go off track, and in that it is the moment that is the most fun. Whether or not something occurs or not down the road is fine, fine as well if the players had a hand in it or not, but that is really up to the players, the backstory is easily enough created as setting material.
Quote from: Catelf;733474Ah, you got me there ... or did you?
The thing is, if i see a movie from the beginning, i have probably heard it was really good, or even great.
Irrelevant. I am speaking, essentially, of games that do not perform as advertised.
Quote from: The Butcher;733502Irrelevant. I am speaking, essentially, of games that do not perform as advertised.
I assume you read the whole reply, and not just that part.
You asked about movies, and i answered, and i also said how it corellated to rpgs.
Now, let's get back to why i replied to you at first:
Quote from: The Butcher;733444I generally side with Greg Costikyan in that I have yet to see a really good implementation of games (as I understand them) as media for telling stories. This is even more true of videogames than RPGs, to be honest.
I think it may be done better than it's been done so far, but generally speaking, I share the feeling that what makes for a good game (as I understand games, in the broader sense, including videogames, boardgames, etc.) doesn't necessarily make for a good story. The best games, like real life, make no fucking sense other than the one you want to give them after the fact.
I'm all for playfully analyzing shit over a post-game beer and going "shit Bob, when your PC saw the Star Vampire eating Jim's PC and lost it? That felt straight outta HPL." Or "remember when your Toreador frenzied because the Sabbat impaled your ghoul on one of your abstract sculptures? Not even Lestat was that fucking emo." But sitting down before the game and declaring that it'll be a grand epic about something or a deep, thoughtful exploration of something other? Not my thing.
I'll rephrase my earlier answer, because you seem to have misunderstood me, or thought that i misunderstood you:
Bolded 1 Corresponds well to Bolded 3, but really, Bolded 2 says something different.
Bolded 2 implies that games can indeed be a good media for telling stories.
After all, it is easier for some to remember stories if the themselves took part in them.
You also normally don't know about the actual story beforehand, so story-wise pre-talk is not really common in any case.
But, if you mean that it may be different depending on if it is railroaded or not, then the difference lies in two things: where you practically draw the line for railroading, and the GM's skill.
For instance, if your character takes on an assignment, is the resulting mission a railroad?
Is it a railroad if you already start at the entrance of a dungeoun?
Is it a railroad if you somehow has gotten imprisoned, and there only is one way out?
To return to the recent comment you replied to me:
We both know that part of the charm with rpgs is that they don't have to "perform as advertised", during play, so i frankly have no idea what you are meaning ..
...Unless you are referring to preplanning a novel-like story for a game or several, in which case one needs to be a really good GM for it not to appear as a railroad.
Quote from: NathanIW;733481Entire post
Good post. I actually was playing approach 1. You mention Pathfinder. I am playing WoD and I think they want you to play it like this. Railroading all over the place. I don't think the players mind it, but as a GM it isn't much fun.
I am thinking about playing it like 2. What do the PC's do? How do the NPC's respond to that? Improvise. And continue. I think method 4 aka just a series of encounters does work well in a fantasy hack and slash, but I don't see it working a modern more low key type of setting.
Should I point out that Costikyan was a wargame designer for SPI before writing Star Wars, Paranoia and Toon..? He certainly knows the difference between roleplaying games and wargames, and most assuredly understands what he's talking about. That said, yeah, he's pretty much right. The story is what you tell after you're done playing the game. Just like you're not, at this very moment, "living a story", or are trapped in some sort of narrative. You're just living. If some fucked up shit happens to you, next week you'll tell the story, but at the time it's JUST HAPPENING. Sort of like when you're playing a game.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733512Good post. I actually was playing approach 1. You mention Pathfinder. I am playing WoD and I think they want you to play it like this. Railroading all over the place. I don't think the players mind it, but as a GM it isn't much fun.
I got burned out on these kind of games. I wanted something more like 2), but I couldn't get the players to step and up and contribute. They didn't want to step on the toes of "the GM's stories." Players on the internet talk all the time like railroading is the great evil, but the truth is that most players want it. They want to show up, have a bit of fun and not put themselves out there or truly contribute. As long as you don't emphasize the meaningless of the decisions they make, they'll just enjoy going along for the ride.
A while back a guy asked me about FATE based games and I told him it's a great game if you have a table full of GMs who actually care about the game and a complete bust if you have the passive players who are looking for the GM to be the entertainer.
QuoteI am thinking about playing it like 2. What do the PC's do? How do the NPC's respond to that? Improvise. And continue. I think method 4 aka just a series of encounters does work well in a fantasy hack and slash, but I don't see it working a modern more low key type of setting.
Playing a WoD game in a old school mode would be hard. I think the way to do it is to make a social sandbox. Figure out all the NPCs that might matter and what their goals are and how they might react to the PCs. And what will happen for each situation when the PCs do nothing.
It actually sounds like a lot more work than a "story guardian" approach where you do the same thing, but for a much smaller subset of NPCs (the ones you plan on being central to the story).
That both overthink the issues. What it boils down to is how much metagaming is involved. Because in traditional tabletop the only thing the player can do is what defined for his character. In a story game, the player has abilities outside of the character to influence the game.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733512Good post. I actually was playing approach 1. You mention Pathfinder. I am playing WoD and I think they want you to play it like this. Railroading all over the place. I don't think the players mind it, but as a GM it isn't much fun.
I am thinking about playing it like 2. What do the PC's do? How do the NPC's respond to that? Improvise. And continue. I think method 4 aka just a series of encounters does work well in a fantasy hack and slash, but I don't see it working a modern more low key type of setting.
I've never run WoD, but modern day as a setting has worked out for me. If the PCs want to run drugs from Mexico, that's where the game goes. Or search for Amelia Earhart's plane or take over a street gang in Chicago or investigate an IRS conspiracy or whatever tickles their fancy.
As always, players who have an idea what they want to do is necessary. Otherwise, just a general knowledge of the world and GM willingness to run with whatever works fine.
Quote from: NathanIW;733524Playing a WoD game in a old school mode would be hard. I think the way to do it is to make a social sandbox. Figure out all the NPCs that might matter and what their goals are and how they might react to the PCs. And what will happen for each situation when the PCs do nothing.
It actually sounds like a lot more work than a "story guardian" approach where you do the same thing, but for a much smaller subset of NPCs (the ones you plan on being central to the story).
Like I thought. The story guardian needs less work, because you only use the NPC's who are relevant. That's the benefit. But I think you do have to write some scenes who are part of a story. They might not be linked to each other. I think there are some scenes who are written in advance and some sandbox parts in between.
Lots of WoD players call the new WoD sandbox, but ther are referring to the setting and not to the style of crafting their adventures.
Quote from: Old One Eye;733540I've never run WoD, but modern day as a setting has worked out for me. If the PCs want to run drugs from Mexico, that's where the game goes. Or search for Amelia Earhart's plane or take over a street gang in Chicago or investigate an IRS conspiracy or whatever tickles their fancy.
As always, players who have an idea what they want to do is necessary. Otherwise, just a general knowledge of the world and GM willingness to run with whatever works fine.
Ah, this could also work. In the new Blood & Smoke setting it is an obligation to choose three "Aspirations" during character creation. These are your motivations.
Actually, most players play a motivation driven game dictated by the players secret agenda's. Most of these are very political. Becoming important for your clan or covenant or becoming a Prince or Sheriff of a city. That kind of stuff. Problem is my players aren't interested in that at all. I am ok with it, but it doesn't really float my boat either.
Quote from: estar;733536That both overthink the issues. What it boils down to is how much metagaming is involved. Because in traditional tabletop the only thing the player can do is what defined for his character.
Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, but when I ran Swords & Wizardry I never once restricted a player's action based on what I thought was appropriate for their character or not. If the party TPKed but then avoided the threat the next time, I didn't say "hey guys, the only thing you can do is what is defined by your characters, and they wouldn't know to avoid the danger!"
When I run S&W, I want the players to use every resource they have at their disposal regardless of whether it's on their character sheet or something. The game is about skillful play, with the only impartial non-biased individual being the referee.
On the other hand, when I rune Runequest, I might allow slightly less. The cultural connections of the characters in the form of cults, guilds and communities makes the game feel so much more like it's about verisimilitude than OD&D. I want the game experience to feel more real than when I run Swords & Wizardry. I want the world to be real and the decisions to be made to be real based on the characters.
So maybe I do get what you are talking about?
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733546Like I thought. The story guardian needs less work, because you only use the NPC's who are relevant. That's the benefit. But I think you do have to write some scenes who are part of a story. They might not be linked to each other. I think there are some scenes who are written in advance and some sandbox parts in between.
I think this approach will work great. The games can even have 'scene' as a mechanical length of time for certain powers and abilities, so there's nothing at all wrong with thinking about things in a scene by scene basis. In WoD, it's pretty much expected that the Storyteller will over-ride whatever is needed to make things work, so doing a bit of pre-planning, a bit of improv, factoring in what people do and doing your best not to nullify player input in any obvious way should work really well.
QuoteLots of WoD players call the new WoD sandbox, but ther are referring to the setting and not to the style of crafting their adventures.
You mean the Strix book? I always got the sense than when WoD players use the word "sandbox" they are talking about the setting as a menu at a restaurant. Rather than exploring the setting, you take the items on the menu and put together the game you want to have and then railroad your played through it :D (not that you have to railroad).
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733548Ah, this could also work. In the new Blood & Smoke setting it is an obligation to choose three "Aspirations" during character creation. These are your motivations.
They are also a source of experience and beat rewards, so they're pretty much essential. The aspirations advice on p274 really looks good to me. I could totally see secret agendas falling flat though.
I'd be very easy going when it comes to aspirations. For example, if the characters are recently embraced, I'd totally allow aspirations for just experiencing the new things about being a vampire: feeding, getting more involved in a covenant, exploring their new abilities, etc.,. Between each session (or heck, take a break mid-session to do it), the aspirations should probably be revised and updated. You probably shouldn't get rewarded for exploring your powers as a new vampire for very long or the aspirations will fail to drive the play towards anything.
It's okay as the storyteller for you to push them towards picking something that gets them involved in the important events going on around them after they've done their initial exploration and have met all the key NPCs.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733548Ah, this could also work. In the new Blood & Smoke setting it is an obligation to choose three "Aspirations" during character creation. These are your motivations.
Actually, most players play a motivation driven game dictated by the players secret agenda's. Most of these are very political. Becoming important for your clan or covenant or becoming a Prince or Sheriff of a city. That kind of stuff. Problem is my players aren't interested in that at all. I am ok with it, but it doesn't really float my boat either.
If the players are not interested in the secret political agendas of the bloodsuckers, then drop that like a hot coal. If you want the players to drive the action, you have to go with what they are interested in. Presumably there are things they like about modern day fantasy? Riff off that and ignore the whole paying homage to a prince thing by placing the game in an area without a prince.
Quote from: estarWhat it boils down to is how much metagaming is involved. Because in traditional tabletop the only thing the player can do is what defined for his character.
Quote from: NathanIWMaybe I'm not getting what you mean, but when I ran Swords & Wizardry I never once restricted a player's action based on what I thought was appropriate for their character or not. If the party TPKed but then avoided the threat the next time, I didn't say "hey guys, the only thing you can do is what is defined by your characters, and they wouldn't know to avoid the danger!"
I'm pretty sure what estar is referring to as not defined for his character is a player decreeing (for instance) that the bandit leader ambushing his party happens to be his old school chum; or that somebody happened to leave a loaded .357 magnum revolver in the restaurant booth where he's sitting; or that when an airliner with a vampire aboard arrives in London it's during a solar eclipse in otherwise clear skies.
The way such a rule is used could have to do with storytelling, or could simply be an efficient way to accomplish a purely game-oriented objective with no concern for either storytelling or roleplaying. That's a matter of the individual player's interest! Regardless, the rule itself (and the whole game of which it is a part) is likely to get filed around here as inherently "story gaming."
Unless it's Amber Diceless, in which case such reality warping powers are indeed defined for Amberites.
I think I get it now. It's a wide array of possible meta-level story concerns that can be expressed in many ways or avoided to various degrees, depending on the given game and it's goals.
Quote from: Phillip;733572I'm pretty sure what estar is referring to as not defined for his character is a player decreeing (for instance) that the bandit leader ambushing his party happens to be his old school chum; or that somebody happened to leave a loaded .357 magnum revolver in the restaurant booth where he's sitting; or that when an airliner with a vampire aboard arrives in London it's during a solar eclipse in otherwise clear skies.
Exactly, if the game has a mechanic that allows player to decree that a bandit is an old school chum then it is a metagame mechanic as it is the player making the decision, not the player acting as his character.
Likewise Hero points, fate points, luck points, etc are a metagame mechanic as they are used at the discretion of the player acting as a player of a game. The dividing line can be determined by imagining the setting a real place and you existing within that setting. Would you be a aware of the mechanic and be able to consciously evoke it. If so then it is part of your character, if not it metagame mechanic.
As Phillip pointed out, the Amber RPG has mechanics for arbitrarily altering the reality of the setting. But unlike say Fate Points, Amberites know they have this ability, and if you were an Amberite you would be able to consciously evoke the ability, if your character had the skill to do so.
Metagaming has a stigma associated with it which is one of the sources of tensions about the topic. But in reality they are all just games and neither approach is better or worse. Many RPGs have successfully incorporate a point system (luck, fate, etc) as it felt that it better emulates the chosen genre or setting.
My observation is that the average gamer enjoy a small amount of metagame mechanics because for many the point of playing is to be the hero. And the lucky hero is a very common and popular trope. But too much metagaming then the game becomes less challenging or the player is thinking too much of other things (i.e. the story) rather than remaining focused on his character.
Great post estar. I also think metagame as a concept has gotten a bad rap. People act as if the character and what they know is a real thing that you can act out when it's actually always just the players making decisions in their brains, imagining and expressing what the character is like or does. Even the most immersive in-character only game is going to have some meta based decisions going on. It literally can't be helped given how our brains work and going to war to stamp it out is likely going to fail.
You can certainly have games where you are only ever making decisions on the meta level based on story concerns, but even the most strident story-game will still have some opportunity to make in-character based decisions, but taking the opportunities isn't usually required to play.
Quote from: NathanIW;733652Great post estar. I also think metagame as a concept has gotten a bad rap.
While I do understnad that it works for other people, personally I intensely dislike metagaming for traditional tabletop RPGs.
Quote from: NathanIW;733652People act as if the character and what they know is a real thing that you can act out when it's actually always just the players making decisions in their brains, imagining and expressing what the character is like or does. Even the most immersive in-character only game is going to have some meta based decisions going on.
The discussion that goes on your head when trying to roleplay a different personality or background is no way the same as metagaming. That in your head discussion is defined by who the character is and his immediate circumstances. If you thinking about other considerations outside of the character then that metagaming.
Also understand that I realize that it not practical or possible to detail all aspects of a setting during a campaign. That sometimes detail needs to be created on the fly when called for. But I feel that mechanics to supply these types of detail is just needless complexity. If you need the contents of of peasant hovel just make up something reasonable. While the referee has the final say, I have no problem with a player saying "Hey Rob, you know X should be here." And me going "You are right, you find X."
I will add that one type of metagaming that does come up a fair amount is slanting your roleplaying so not to upset another player or to keep the group together. I know for many, like Old Geezer ;), the answer is don't game with people like that. Life is rarely that simple. sometimes avoiding certain actions is just plain courtesy if it touches on a known sensitive issue.
Quote from: Old One Eye;733553If the players are not interested in the secret political agendas of the bloodsuckers, then drop that like a hot coal. If you want the players to drive the action, you have to go with what they are interested in. Presumably there are things they like about modern day fantasy? Riff off that and ignore the whole paying homage to a prince thing by placing the game in an area without a prince.
I usually play an occult investigation game using hunter the vigil. Either I use on of the factions or they are gumshoes. You can combine hunter with one of those night horror books or any other antagonist book for weird monsters. Or slasher for serial killers.
I also like to combine hunter with the book of spirits, because bad stuff leaves wounds in the spirit world attracting evil spirits. They eventually break through the barrier and enter the regular world, possibly possessing humans and doing evil stuff. Creating a vicious circle. That's really cool. Another option might be the God Machine Chronicle.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;733865I usually play an occult investigation game using hunter the vigil. Either I use on of the factions or they are gumshoes. You can combine hunter with one of those night horror books or any other antagonist book for weird monsters. Or slasher for serial killers.
I also like to combine hunter with the book of spirits, because bad stuff leaves wounds in the spirit world attracting evil spirits. They eventually break through the barrier and enter the regular world, possibly possessing humans and doing evil stuff. Creating a vicious circle. That's really cool. Another option might be the God Machine Chronicle.
WoD: Book of Spirits is one of my favorite resources. It's a great fit for Vigil, but I prefer to use it as a bestiary for Forsaken and Awakening games. You can even use it with oWoD in a pinch, just a matter of assigning a spiritual "alignment" (Wyrm, Weaver, Wyld) for some spirits.