Incorporating Dogs in the Vineyard into D&D

[RSDancey]

In the D&D games I've played over the last few years (mostly 3.5E and 4E), the player segments which remain are the "Power Gamer" and "Thinker".

I have a reasonable suspicion that any D&D group you've played with other than as a demo or a playtest included at least one Storyteller.

RyanD

[Cole]

Ryan, it's difficult to address Sean's essay and your references to it, since I don't know what the questions asked were like, or through what process the 2 dozen or so found to "have a bearing on the segmentation results," so I may be speaking in reaction to a misinterpretation of WotC's findings, or misunderstading their interpretations of the findings. That said,


Starting off, you've got your two axes, that necessarily generalize data; the Strategic vs. Tactical seems straightforward to me.

"Strategic" means "a perspective larger than the immediate future and surroundings". "Tactical" means "a perspective limited to the immediate future and the immediate surroundings."

The two ends of this axis are basically plain-english equivalent to the assigned meanings; there is little interpretation or analogy involved in either direction; however the other axis is more problematic -

"Combat Focused" means "Conflict resolution is interesting to me." "Story Focused" means "The world and the interaction of the characters is intersting to me."

In this case, the designated meaning is more loosely related to the plain english meaning, and which is considered first before next assigning the meaning/name makes a difference; whether we are assume one interested in combat i.e. fighting implies broad interest in a "conflict resolution scenario,"  whether interest in conflict resolution challenges implies a broad interest in combat, etc. - there are issues from both directions...

Look at it this way. All things being equal on the Strat/Tac axis, if we start from the 'combat' first, would be be saying a person who is an avid boxing enthusiast (interested in combat) is probably more interested in playing out a game of chess with an NPC in-game than he is (a conflict resolution) than he is interacting with NPC gladiators (world/character interaction), for example; or that a player who is a member of a debate society (interested in conflict resolution) is probably more interested in 4e-style minatures battle (combat) than interacting with NPCs socially (world/char.)?

I think it is considerably more problematic on the story focused ~ world/character equivalence end, as it not only seems to equate those who are interested in playing out a Dragonlance-type "Storyline" with those interested in improvising Primetime Adventures-type improvisation of story, which are two very different animals, but also to equate the Dragonlance guy with the player who is interested in autonomously exploring the cities, dungeons, etc. of the campaign world - these two guys probably being in total opposition in terms of play goals.

Now, this is why I think it is potentially leading to a fallacy of the appeal to players. If we're saying two of the four segments have left probably irreparably, since MMO's for example, can do tactical and strategic combat better, we need to focus the future of RPGs on "storytelling" and "character acting" in a huge proportion, those being the portions appealing to players categorized as story focused the four 'segments' being the end result of the player study, it's dangerous to be tempted to abandon due to this methodology the portion of the player base interested in open-ended conflict resolution other than combat, which alternatives to RPGs do very poorly, and also to assume that players who are interested in interaction with the game world will generally be pleased if the game focuses on the building of stories - which pages of heated discussion among the community here, at least, is diametrically opposed to this case.

Much the opposite, I fear, in the face of competition, we are then drastically reducing or eliminating the appeal of RPGs to their broadest market and damaging the central play experience, which is closer to the resolution of conflict, in a holistic and open ended way, through interaction with the world and characters.

I think it would have proven difficult to gauge the appeal of this central experience via 1-5 rating of tersely worded questions, as the fascinating address of imaginary situations, the exploration and discovery that fundamentally characterized D&D during its most popular and market-penetrating era (versus the gross sales decline commensurate programmed plot of the desperately foundering 2e days, or the extremely small niche market of the Story-game, for example) risks sounding extremely boring and unappealing if presented in one-line questions such as "Rate the importance of Problem Solving in your game/ of puzzles in your game/etc," which easily translates "No, I do not enjoy solving this algebra puzzle to open the door to the next level" into "No, I do not enjoy figuring out how to recover the crown jewels from the thieve's guild vault," etc.

So I hope here are some potentially fruitful points for discussion.

[ggroy]

I have a reasonable suspicion that any D&D group you've played with other than as a demo or a playtest included at least one Storyteller.

RyanD

I was usually the one attempting to be the storyteller, whenever I was DMing.

Though I can agree that the 4E Ecounters games I've been playing, the storyteller is almost absent.

What I was thinking of, was whether a player is a storyteller type and not just the DM.  In just about every 3.5E and 4E game I've played over the years, I don't recall really any of the players being storyteller types.

[Cole]

The quote in question is a biased framing of the events that occur during a tabletop RPG.   It is biased to produce a specific result.  It does so.  In doing so, it enhances the game that it is packaged with.  And that's all good.

Attempting to frame other games with that same bias is a problem.  The majority of other games were written, and are played, while viewing the material of play through an entirely different lens.  Through a multitude of different lenses.

Attempting to view RPGs in general from the perspective of Dogs, and expecting to get a clear picture, is silly.  It's an alternate view, deliberately crafted as such,  and will provide a distorted picture if applied outside it's scope.

The analogy that jumps to mind is dismissing Macbeth as an failed drama because it does not observe the "Classical Unities," or worse, dismissing The Eumenides on the same grounds.

None of this, of course, invalidated Racine's Phedre for doing so.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Okay, so if I'm getting you - you want a whole slice of the good stuff Dogs does, but not with the same precise orientation.

And that's cool.  Here's my look at the general issue:

Many of the things that have "always been done" in tabletop gaming can also be done by computer games.  Games that focus on those things are being, and will be, utterly eclipsed by computer games.

However.  There are also things that can be done in tabletop gaming that cannot be done, cannot be emulated, cannot be paralleled, by video games.  Right now, most of the moves into that territory have been dominated by story games, like Dogs, Primetime Adventures, and so on.

And that's great, as far as it goes.  But it's not necessarily the way things have to be.

I think you're pointing at that hard to define stuff.  The exercises in judgement, flexibility of topic and meaning and play, that are unique and inherent to tabletop.  Dogs is a game that makes those things visible and central in it's own way.  D&D 4th edition, to me, is unfortunate, because while it is cleanly and wonderfully designed, it's a movement away from that same ill-defined stuff; too much of it is "stuff that could be run better on a machine."

But I don't believe that story-focus is the only way to make those things central and visible.  And I don't think it's the right one for the majority of gamers.   I could be wrong.  But there it is.

[Kyle Aaron]

Given the amount of time I have spent in D&D games where little happened but arguments between characters trying to convince one another of something, shouldn't the game rules actually interact with that behavior?

No. Instead you should get a better GM who stomps down on pointless bickering.

This is something Forgers will never understand: no amount or combination of rules can ever make up for crap gamemastering. It's like changing the offside rules in soccer to try to make up for the referee wandering off to have a beer.

[ggroy]

I think you're pointing at that hard to define stuff.  The exercises in judgement, flexibility of topic and meaning and play, that are unique and inherent to tabletop.  Dogs is a game that makes those things visible and central in it's own way.  D&D 4th edition, to me, is unfortunate, because while it is cleanly and wonderfully designed, it's a movement away from that same ill-defined stuff; too much of it is "stuff that could be run better on a machine."

I don't know how D&D would fare, if it went more in the direction of Dogs in the Vineyard.

Though I suspect most of the "Power Gamer" and "Thinker" types in my previous games, would just revolt and walk away.

[Levi Kornelsen]

I don't know how D&D would fare, if it went more in the direction of Dogs in the Vineyard.

Though I suspect most of the "Power Gamer" and "Thinker" types would revolt and just walk away.

Amber is also deep, deep in the territory of "Computers can't do this".

The territory is far larger than Story.

[ggroy]

Amber is also deep, deep in the territory of "Computers can't do this".

The territory is far larger than Story.

In what sense of "Computers can't do this"?  (I've never played Amber).

[Lord Hobie]

This is something Forgers will never understand: no amount or combination of rules can ever make up for crap gamemastering. It's like changing the offside rules in soccer to try to make up for the referee wandering off to have a beer.

And unfortunately, crap gamemastering is all too plentiful in this hobby.

Lord Hobie

[RSDancey]

No. Instead you should get a better GM who stomps down on pointless bickering.

Kyle, I'd like to relate to you a life experience I call the Fukutaki Lesson.  The history of the name isn't relevant but the Lesson is.  "Manage within the company you have, not the company you wish you had."

This has direct application to designers of tabletop RPGs:

"Design for the gamers who will actually use your work, not the gamers you wish would use your work."

It is (too) easy to point at the GM and assess all blame.  But that's unfair, and in fact, unworkable in the wider sense of making the hobby better for its participants.  Thus its a dead end street of an argument.

RyanD

[John Morrow]

If you do not think that the above paragraph is just as valid if you replace "these Watchdogs of God" with "this band of fantasy heroes", "this group of superheroes", "this coven of Vampires", or "this platoon of WWIII survivors" (etc.) then you and I occupy such different universes that it will be difficult for us to communicate substantively.

While I think much of that paragraph does a good job of describing what people do in a role-playing game, the sticking point for a lot of people is the claim that the purpose of the exercise is "collaborating on a story".  And I've had a problem with that long before I heard of Vincent Baker, The Forge, RPGPundit, or you.  If you doubt that, feel free to do a Google Groups (Usenet) search for my name circa 1995-1996.  And the roots go all the way back to my very earliest role-playing games.  Here's a brief history of my time in the hobby so you know where I'm coming from.

As a child, three of the main types of play I engaged in were (A) playing make-believe with myself and my friends pretending to be characters (e.g., "Your Kirk and I'm Scott."), (B) playing make-believe games with action figures, Legos, or toy cars and their adventures, (C) playing board and card games ranging from the abstract (e.g., playing card games, parcheesi, etc.) to light war games (e.g., the American Heritage games Broadsides and Dogfight) and games in between (e.g., Columbo, Masterpiece, Bermuda Triangle, Stratego, etc.).  

When we pretended to be characters, we'd sometimes carry around props and pretend we were on missions.  For example, the landfill area near my grandmother's house was a good proxy for a desolate Star Trek planet.  An old Rambler in a friend's hard served as a spaceship.  For the action figures (largely MAC figures and MEGO figures but also Star Wars figures near the end), Legos, and toy cars (primarily Matchboxes and Hot Wheels) we'd create settings for them in our houses and yards (e.g., bases, spaceships, ships and docks, truck stops, towns, tree houses, etc.) and then play out adventures with each of us playing various characters either literally or loosely modeled on the popular TV shows of the day.  

For the board games, we frequently added a certain amount of role-playing to our card and board games for flavor (e.g., narrating how we were driving when playing Mille Bornes or talking in snooty accents for Masterpiece), used the rank names rather than numbers in Stratego, and modified games, sometimes heavily, often by a friend's father that we played with who had a really good mind for such things.  Our version of Bermuda Triangle had additional cargo cards, "chance spots" and cards (e.g., Crazed U-Boat Commander doesn't know the war is over and takes a shot at your ship."  The players would roll a die for the results), salvage rules, ship investments, engine improvements, and all the ships had names.  

So before I played my first role-playing game, I had a pretty good grasp of "role-playing" (without any rules) and games (following and modifying the rules).  

I found out about D&D from an article in People Magazine on Gary Gygax that mentioned the game and imagined that it was some sort of tactical fantasy game that was some sort of advanced board game without a board.  Igot the "blue book" basic set for Christmas and learned it from the book rather than having anyone else tell me what it was about.  I got Traveller not long after that.  D&D helped me understand what a role-playing game was supposed to be but Traveller was the first thing I actually played, and the way I played it is quite different from how I play today.

Nobody wanted to be the GM so my friend and I both made groups of characters and played adventured with them, sometimes running the bad guys for each other as necessary.  Basically, we used the rules for character creation, record keeping, continuity, how to decide what happens, and the random element provided by the dice but we were basically using role-playing rules on top of what we'd always done with the action figures and toy cars.  I also did a lot of homebrew rules including tons of random tables for Traveller and rules for playing with Star Wars action figures that took the cinematic importance of the characters into account (e.g., named figures had better chances of doing things than stormtroopers).  We also played some Car Wars as sort of a role-playing and board game hybrid, again drawing on what we'd always done.  This was all before I played with anyone else other that the friends I'd introduced the hobby to.  

As I met people who role-played in my town, a lot of them were doing what I was doing and quite a few people played what we called "Solo Traveller".  That was using the rules and random tables in the game and homebrew random tables to run characters through adventures as a solo exercise.  I played in and ran a few games with the traditional GM and player structure.

In college, I encountered people who played in the traditional player and GM structure with strong in character play, talking in first person throughout.  I embraced this enthusiastically as an improvement over what I'd been doing.  I still play with some of the people I played with in college today.  In college, I also got involved in the Usenet and ultimately contributed to the rec.games.frp.advocacy theory discussions that predated the GNS and Forge.  In college, I also got a BA in English and have read dozens of books on writing fiction, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what purposely creating a good story looks like.

I don't think that what I got out of role-playing, from the beginning to now, was ever "collaborative storytelling" in any meaningful sense and I don't think I ever really thought of it that way.  It was always about escapism and the experience of doing it that I played for and not "collaborating on a story".  If there was a story being created, it was being created by the GM's adventure.  What the players were generally doing was playing their characters.  

While it's possible to use the word "story" in the most basic way to describe any series of events that get played out in the game, I think that you need to understand the distinction between playing for the story and playing for the experience of being the character in the setting to understand why RPGPundit claimed, "The truth is that regular RPGs are not designed to tell stories," and why people react so negatively to Forge theory and Forge-theory inspired games.  There is quite a bit more to it but that's much of the problem at the most basic level.  

People don't ride roller-coasters for the story, even though riding one creates a story in the sense that people are applying that word to a role-playing game.  They ride for the experience.  If you try to enhance the story value of roller-coasters at the expense of the experience, you are going to alienate most of the riders by missing the point of why they ride.

[Levi Kornelsen]

In what sense of "Computers can't do this"?  (I've never played Amber).

In the case of Amber, because the entire environment of play can be shifted to something you, the player, just thought up two seconds ago.  and so very, very much more.

In Dogs and other conflict resolution systems, all conflicts work one way, but a conflict can be anything; it can't be done in a video game not because of the rules, but because the rules go all sorts of odd places; anywhere you want.

Here's "computers can do this":



If that map is the strength of a game?  I say that game has no truly long-term future.  And in D&D 4th edition, handling that map really, really well is the strength of the game.

4th edition isn't like "an MMO on the tabletop".  But it has, I think, positioned itself perfectly to lose players to MMOs, not to steal them away.

[Benoist]

Here's "computers can do this":



If that map is the strength of a game?  I say that game has no truly long-term future.

Nope. You are wrong. Because the game isn't the map itself. The game is what's going on in the players' heads as a result of the game play this map supports. And THAT, is something a computer cannot replicate and indeed, impedes, by the very presence of its graphic interface and innate limitations, in terms of programming.

"Stories", narrative structures, rules, maps... all of these things computers can do, and in some cases (depending on a variety of variables, including personal tastes and inclinations), much better indeed. Because they are structured, and framed, and provide help to its user in a variety of ways a book simply cannot replicate.

So your argument that somehow the ground that cannot be covered by computer games has been mostly supported by story/plot/type games and mechanics? Complete, utter, 110% crap, as far as I'm concerned.

[RSDancey]

John I think in part what you're describing is the fact that a tabletop RPG can be used to do many things it was not designed to do (like be a solo-play experience), in the same sense that a screwdriver can be used for all sorts of work it was not designed to do.  That doesn't make the intended purpose of a screwdriver any less "driving screws".

I also think part of what you're describing is the "color blue" phenomenon alluded to in my Segmentation Study.  If you get too close to any problem it becomes fractal and you can get lost in the minutiae.  Kids in kindergarten make art even though they know nothing of art theory.  People playing RPGs are making stories even if they know nothing about the theory of literature.

The difference between a rollercoaster and an RPG is that the rollercoaster is a fixed experience (a "theme park" as we say in the MMO world).  Every time you ride it you have basically the same experience (from enough distance).  A classic or classic-descended tabletop RPG is shaped by and for its participants (a "sand box" as we say in the MMO world).  The experience of playing it is NEVER the same for any two groups of players - and often never the same if the SAME group of players plays it repetitively.

MMOs do Theme Park really good.  There's only a handful that do Sand Box at all.  This is primarily due to prior limitations of the medium, and the natural inclinations of many of the people who work in that field.

RPGs on the other hand do Sand Box really good, and basically suck as Theme Parks.  They suck so bad that "railroading" is a pejorative term within the medium.

When you take "Sand Box Play" and add "Characters & Story", you get tabletop RPGs.  I have never seen an "abstract" RPG (like an abstract board or card game), that is, one without characters and story.  I don't think that's on accident - I think that's because there's no market for such a thing.

RyanD