Storygamers trying to understand old school gaming.

[Archangel Fascist]

FYI, Traveller, that quote in your sig comes from Vincent Baker himself.  I don't know who atpollard is, but he seems kind of dumb.  Most of the accusations against storygamers here come from actual, neck-raping storygame playtests.

Imo, I'm coming around to "color first" games like Apocalypse World, but not in the vein of "I am a grand and mighty storyteller, and my group will explore what it means to be human."  Instead, I want a game where the rules slip quietly into the background so the characters can do things.

Random tables are still fun, though.

[jhkim]

FYI, Traveller, that quote in your sig comes from Vincent Baker himself.  I don't know who atpollard is, but he seems kind of dumb.  Most of the accusations against storygamers here come from actual, neck-raping storygame playtests.

Imo, I'm coming around to "color first" games like Apocalypse World, but not in the vein of "I am a grand and mighty storyteller, and my group will explore what it means to be human."  Instead, I want a game where the rules slip quietly into the background so the characters can do things.

Random tables are still fun, though.

AF - claiming that you're "not interested in starting cross-forum drama" seems utterly ridiculous. You're pulling out selected quotes to specifically incite those of us here who don't read Story Games, rather than actually - say - talking to the people there or creating conversation.

For example, you pulled in an out-of-context quote from Vincent from the middle of the thread. I think the more descriptive is his first post to the thread,

Sure!

We're playing Dungeon Crawl Classics, in the funnel. This means that we each have 4 0-level characters on a dangerous adventure. "The funnel" refers to the idea that the survivors become our PCs, but having 4 0-level characters on an adventure that will kill them is a fun way to play even if they won't.

We've followed some bandits to their hideout in the woods, where something has gone clearly wrong. We don't have the details yet but it looks like some terrible monster has massacred the bandits and moved in. We'll deal with that later in the evening. For now, there's something weird in their yard, a tree stump with a squirrel on it but it ain't no normal squirrel. We investigate, and it's some kind of classic D&D monster where a tentacled tree stump beast uses a squirrel-shaped lure to draw larger animals in as prey. Of course we find this out by getting too close to it. It kills, what, 3 of us? 4? Kills and eats us. We figure out (at some cost to life and precious lantern oil) that it doesn't mind being set on fire, and we waste many arrows and darts discovering that it'll take a lot more than our weapons to kill it. One of my characters, a dwarf, was its last victim, before we figured out that it was slow-moving and that as long as we kept a safe distance we'd be okay. Tragically, this character was the one who'd been carrying all our extra gear, since he had the encumbrance capacity and all. We had a quick debate about whether to try to dart in and grab his pack while the thing ate him, and decided it would be comical and not a good idea.

The fun in that game was high-color tactical play, where we (the players, not our characters) use our wits, our characters' surroundings, and our characters' meager resources to try to put off as long as possible the hilarious inevitable.

You know the kind of Odyssey of the Mind-esque puzzle game where you dump out your kitchen junk drawer and have to use its contents to build a tower that will hold an egg 12 inches off the table? It's fun in that same kind of way. The characters and all the fiddly little game mechanisms are like the corkscrew, the rubber bands, and the packet of coffee stirrers you have to build the tower with.

He is expressing a limited view of what OSR play is - but at least he's actually playing it, and enjoying it. By pulling in only his short fourth post expressing his caveats about the play he enjoyed, you're giving a misleading impression. Going behind people's backs to selectively quote them and misrepresent them elsewhere is a dick move.

Sure, there are some people on Story Games who don't like traditional RPGs in general - but that's not everyone over there, and you're just creating cross-forum drama by selectively quoting to give that impression.

[Iosue]

There's an OSR Bundle of Holding right now, so I thought I'd read the free "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" by Matthew Finch that is contained in it. The primer touts a principle called "Rulings, not Rules", which apparently means "everything in the game will be determined by arbitrary GM fiat". I'm not making that up. An actual quotation from the text is "Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players." Another actual quotation, from the section for GMs, is "You are the rulebook. There is no other rulebook."

This conception of the GM as the all-powerful guy who gets to make all the decisions and can ignore the rules as much as he likes -- does that reflect the OSR movement as a whole? This is not a rhetorical question. I've read only this one document, and I'm curious.

(If so, how can you possibly make such a game work? It sounds like a recipe for unmitigated disaster. This principle seems, for instance, to be utterly incompatible with a second principle touted by the "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming": namely that the game is about player skill, not character skill. If the GM gets to decide everything, the only player skill that is left is "influencing the GM to make decisions favourable to you".)

Man, he or she is this close to a breakthrough.  And yeah, they'd probably have to play to get it.

The GM is the game.  They either decide the outcome outright, or roll some dice.  The rules are just bits of structure to help them run the game.  So how does one avoid the game becoming an unmitigated disaster?  By the GM keeping in mind at all the times that the game is about player choice.

I think Mike Carr put it best in the DM advice in the underrated, underread B1 In Search of the Unknown (money quotes are bolded):

On How to be an Effective Dungeon Master
The Dungeon Master, as referee, is the pivotal figure in any DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. Accordingly, the DM's ability and expertise—as well as fairness—will be important factors in whether or not the game will be enjoyable for all of the participants.

The D&D game is a role-playing game, and is unlike traditional games which have a firm basis of regulated activity and repetitious action. A D&D adventure is free-flowing, and often goes in unknown and unpredictable directions—and that is precisely the reason it is so different and challenging. The Dungeon Master is best described as the moderator of the action, for the DM oversees the whole process, keeps the game moving, resolves the action based upon events occurring and player choices made, and monitors the actions and events outside the player group (i.e., handles monsters encountered, determines the actions of non-player characters encountered, etc.). The DM's responsibilities are considerable, but his or her foremost concern should be to provide an enjoyable game which is challenging to the players. This means that risk should be balanced with reward and that game situations are neither too "easy" nor too deadly. Above all, the DM must be fair, reasonable (without giving in to the unreasonable demands of the players), and worthy of the respect of all the participants.

Beginning Dungeon Masters who are not familiar with the game often ask the most common first question, "Exactly how do you referee the game?" The answer is that there is no single best way—different DM's have different styles, just as individual players do. However, there are certain guidelines which are important to follow...

First, it is crucial to keep in mind that this is a game based on player interaction and player choice. The game generally follows the course of the player's actions—if not always their plans! As moderator, you present an ever-changing situation as it occurs (sort of like an unfolding story, or even a movie, if you like to think in those terms), and the players respond pretty much as they desire. As the game goes on, you are presenting them with a hundred different opportunities and choices—exactly how the game goes will depend upon their response to those opportunities and choices. For instance, if players decide to walk down a corridor and find a dead end with three doors, they have a number of choices—simply turn around and ignore the doors, listen at one or more before proceeding elsewhere, try to open one or more (either normally, by forcing them, or even by simply bashing them in), or whatever. You describe the situation, then await their decision as to a course of action. Of course, some decisions will be more difficult, or quick, or crucial to survival—and as always, imagination and resourcefulness, as well as quick thinking, will usually be rewarded.

Second, a good DM remains "above the battle" and does not attempt to influence player actions or channel the activity in a particular direction. The Dungeon Master should do everything possible to assist players in their quest without actually providing important information unless the players themselves discover it or put the pieces of a puzzling problem together through deduction or questioning, or a combination of the two. A large part of the game consists of player questions, many of which are, "What do we see?" Your job as gamemaster is to answer those questions without giving too much away. You need not hint to players any information that they do not ask for on their own, except in unusual instances. Allow them to ask the questions, and allow them to make the choices.

In the same vein, as Dungeon Master you will enjoy watching players wrestle with the problems you present them with. Although you may set up situations to challenge them, you must understand that you are not their adversary, nor are you necessarily out to "defeat" them. You will enjoy moderating a well-played game where players respond to the challenges encountered much more than one where the adventurers foolishly meet their demise in quick time. However, if your players abandon caution or make stupid mistakes, let them pay the price—but be fair. In many cases, a danger due to lack of caution can be overcome, or a mistake in judgment countered by quick thinking and resourcefulness, but let your players do the thinking and the doing.

Also of note is the emphasis on solving problems and puzzles, rather than derring-do or character exploration.  "Old school" may not be the greatest way to create a heroic fantasy story, or delve into complicated characters with rich backgrounds.  Other games and other styles are probably better for that.  But old school is very good at what it does: provide an environment to explore and problems to solve with a flexible human intellect to keep things running smoothly.

Of course, the use of randomness as a tool for this is often overlooked or downplayed.

[Sacrosanct]

AF - claiming that you're "not interested in starting cross-forum drama" seems utterly ridiculous.

That's kinda his thing though, so far.  Look at the threads he's started.

[RPGPundit]

I would not recommend theRPGsite to the faint of heart.

To be fair, neither would I.

That said, I think Traveller is already INSANELY popular here.  We've had utter shitloads of Trav threads compared to any other major general-RPG discussion forum, and quite a few rabid fans.  I don't think most people specifically need someone to come over and "instruct" or "educate" them about what Traveller is.

RPGPundit

[TristramEvans]

Yeah I think that was BS. Came here for Traveller discussions but first post was to a completely unrelated 800+ post thread about Old School roleplaying and announcing all games had story elements, then rocked a to start one thread about death in chargen in classic traveller then declaring the site only has posters who talk about classic Traveller, but spends majority of time posting to numerous non-Traveller related threads to argue about storygaming?

Then there's the typical "oh Im such a victim of hostility here" while ignoring any poster attempting to discuss or explain things reasonably and avoids ever acknowledging the validity of any playstyle except ones that involve elements of storygaming.

Troll. Last one Ill waste any benefit of the doubt on.

[crkrueger]

The weird thing is, why does a narrative gamer prefer Traveller as his game of choice?

[The Traveller]

The weird thing is, why does a narrative gamer prefer Traveller as his game of choice?

Apparently roleplaying doesn't really happen for much of the Traveller community, so you can see how they might have more in common than otherwise.

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Somebody go over there and explain Free Kriegspiel and be done with it.

Me, I can't be arsed.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I checked out the various OSR threads over there. They are looking at it from a very different point of view than we might here, but it is interesting that there are so many OSR threads at that forum. I think it shows what a two-way door something like dungeon world is. I see some folks instinctively turning their noses up at old school stuff but I also see plenty of people encountering it with interest for the first time. I like that a lot of folks are actually reading the 1E dmg and white box for example, even if their conclusions are vastly different from my own. I've also noticed more discussion of these things elsewhere online.

[Arduin]

I tried placing you on the 'ignore list'.
But you are a moderator and cannot be ignored.

Since this IS your sandbox and I can't ignore you and will not spend all of my time being attacked by you, I yield the sandbox to you.

Goodbye.

(Imagine that, a post with no profanity ... who would have thought it possible on this site.)

Hmm. Just like when you act like a dick over on COTI and posters can't block you.  You came here to troll. What you posted over on the Little Siberia board is public.  Rent an IQ

[The Traveller]

Imo, I'm coming around to "color first" games like Apocalypse World, but not in the vein of "I am a grand and mighty storyteller, and my group will explore what it means to be human."  Instead, I want a game where the rules slip quietly into the background so the characters can do things.

Is it just me or does there seem to be a paucity of deep and well realised settings among these shared narrative types? Most of their productions appear to be largely rulesets (like *World) with a vague gesture in the direction of "well it's a dungeon, or a post apocalypse world, do the legwork yourself". They also put quite a lot of effort into hacking their rulesets onto other peoples' deep and well realised settings, like that Shadowrun debacle.

Not very creative for a gang of self described storytellers.

[Warthur]

If you like being infracted by the mods like on tbp, for things said in passing days or even weeks later such as posting this wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_(politics), go for it.

Woah, what the hell is the story behind that?

[jhkim]

I checked out the various OSR threads over there. They are looking at it from a very different point of view than we might here, but it is interesting that there are so many OSR threads at that forum. I think it shows what a two-way door something like dungeon world is. I see some folks instinctively turning their noses up at old school stuff but I also see plenty of people encountering it with interest for the first time. I like that a lot of folks are actually reading the 1E dmg and white box for example, even if their conclusions are vastly different from my own. I've also noticed more discussion of these things elsewhere online.

Agreed.

Actually, I think a lot of story gamers were already familiar with the 1E DMG, and at least a number with white box. The interesting thing to me was how many are playing OSR games like Dungeon Crawl Classics and Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

[Warthur]

I've said it before but I honestly think Dungeon World is best parsed as a guidebook for running something with a broadly old-school feel for people whose gaming experiences have mostly been with storygame stuff. It isn't a perfect replication of all the stuff that the OSR prizes, but if you like to run D&D with a high level of improv and low prep (like me) it sort of guides you to a very "story after", don't-plan-the-solutions, GM-plays-the-world style of refereeing.