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.