Quote from: RSDanceyAll this handwaving that there's something going on in RPGs other than storytelling has always bemused me.  One of Pundit's extremely valid critiques of Forge theory is that it often does not match observed reality.  Observed reality is that people use D&D in particular, and virtually every other successful RPG in general, as a vehicle to tell stories.  I'm taking that one step further and arguing that the quality of the story matters, and suddenly I'm an apostate.

The apostacy comes in when you start to suggest that making a "great story" is so important that you should blow the GM-player relationship all to shit, and castrate the GM, in order to be able to "tell" those stories.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyMike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

I think they play RPGs to "live out" stories, not to "tell" them. There's a fundamental difference there.
Players want to live out a character, most of them. Story is a part of that, a byproduct, but the main thing is the character.

Again, it isn't novels, its improv theatre.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RSDanceyNo, he's exactly wrong.  He's suggesting that playing an RPG and telling a story are not equivalent.  They are.  That's what makes an RPG different from DOOM, or chess.  The terms are synonyms.

Ryan

No, they're not. Telling a story implies that you will create a coherent (and not in the forge sense) story, where the actions of the characters of the story make sense, where there is a beginning, a middle, and an ending, that is plotted out from the start for the most part. Where major characters cannot suddenly die in ways that make no sense to the "Plot".  There needs to be a structure where every part of what you are telling serves some kind of purpose.

RPGs aren't like that. RPGs ramble; RPGs go nowhere sometimes, then have things happen that seem totally out of the blue. Major characters do die suddenly, or in ways that seem to make no sense. All kinds of things happen that, if you took the log of an RPG session, you'd realize it made an absolutely CRAPPY novel.

Instead, RPGs are character studies. They're improv theatre. They are certainly NOT synonymous with "story" in the literary sense.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RSDanceyEngineering football to create a great story (which could be done; I wrote a massive treatment for the XFL that I wanted to pitch to the WWF when WotC was doing its wrestling games....never had the chance; too bad.) would be either adding something to football that is not already there, or changing the point of football into a whole new kind of entertainment.

Engineering an RPG to create a great story is just making an existing tool work better as designed and intended.

Really? You want to make GMs powerless, and you can honestly say this with a straight face?

Do something where suddenly players can dictate to the DM how the world or the session is going to be, and you've changed the game into something that is no longer an RPG, but something entirely different.

For one thing, you've made it into something I would never want to play. Thus, its something I would struggle to my last breath to destroy rather than let the hobby I DO want to play in be changed into that kind of twisted travesty.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? You want to make GMs powerless, and you can honestly say this with a straight face?

Let's review what I want to do.  I want to let GMs:

* Set the genre of the game
* Set the rules of the game
* Limit the kind of characters to be used in the game
* Know things the other player's don't know
* Change the story with arbitrary plot twists
* Play all the monsters and NPCs
* Direct the non-player campaign organizations
* Place persistent objects in scenes by fiat
* Adjudicate the rules as written

And the only real change I make from stock D&D is that the GM has to say they're doing it.

Of course, I'm also advocating the idea that in certain circumstances, the players can add persistent objects & NPCs to the game, can describe the details of their environment, and can control the pacing of events.  Given certain preconditions the players can re-write the details of scenes that have already been played, can add and modify rules, and make wholesale changes to the game world, but doing those types of things is exceptional and will require some mechanic for control to ensure chaos does not result.

Most of those things were the exclusive province of DMs in D&D, and I'm advocating the idea that all the participants (including the DM) be able to do those things.

Is that "making the DM powerless"?

Ryan

Quote from: RPGPunditThus, its something I would struggle to my last breath to destroy

FREEEDOOOOOOOM!!!!!

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? You want to make GMs powerless, and you can honestly say this with a straight face?

I'd short-hand what Ryan said:  There is a large and productive middle ground between "The GM is all-powerful!" and "The GM is powerless and castrated."

Quote from: RPGPunditFor one thing, you've made it into something I would never want to play. Thus, its something I would struggle to my last breath to destroy

I'm torn on how to respond to this.  One the one hand, I find it pretty amusing to think that you're actually going to try to struggle to your last breath against something that you can't possibly impact in more than the most glancing way.  You gonna DIE?  You gonna DIE if Ryan publishes his book?  Ryan, you murderer!

On the other hand, I find it sort of sad to see the leap of logic from "I wouldn't, personally, want to play this game" to "It must be destroyed!  That which I would not play CANNOT BE TOLERATED!  BURN IT WITH FIRE!"  And that takes away some of the fun of Ryan murdering you with words.


Ryan:  If I haven't said so already (and I don't think I have) I think this is a worthy project.  You want to do it, and you're sticking to that in the face of criticism, and that's all to the good.  

That said, I personally think that you may overestimating the number of people who want to be conscious of the ways that they make story with their RPGs.  I think that there are a fair number of people who, for good and proper reasons, don't want that subject to hog the spotlight in their games.  They want it to be happening, but they don't necessarily want it to be explicit.

Selling to a niche within the niche is really not a problem though, unless it leads you to unwise business decisions.  If you're printing a book for every roleplayer in the world, because you follow the logic of "They're all making story, and therefore they all want to pay close attention to how they're making story" then I'd worry for you.

As is, though?  A fairly big name making a D20 product specifically for the folks who do want their story-process more spotlighted?  Sounds all good to me.  Best of luck!

Quote from: RSDanceyOf course, I'm also advocating the idea that in certain circumstances, the players can add persistent objects & NPCs to the game, can describe the details of their environment, and can control the pacing of events.  Given certain preconditions the players can re-write the details of scenes that have already been played, can add and modify rules, and make wholesale changes to the game world, but doing those types of things is exceptional and will require some mechanic for control to ensure chaos does not result.

Yes, it certainly will. That way lies chaos.

QuoteMost of those things were the exclusive province of DMs in D&D, and I'm advocating the idea that all the participants (including the DM) be able to do those things.

Is that "making the DM powerless"?

Ryan

whenever you set up a situation where a player can raise his hand and say "no, in fact, that DIDN'T happen" or "I've decided that instead, the NPC is going to do this...", you are essentially disempowering the GM, and taking away his sovereignty over the only thing he actually does in the game, control the world. What would be the fucking point of playing the GM then?

What's more, you're doing it in a half-assed way in your own case, because you seem to lack the conviction to either allow for a strong GM or to completely declare a "dictatorship of the playertariat" a la Forge. The end result of your idea would be a chaos more unbalanced than that of a typical Forge game even, and what's worse a game that would satisfy no one. GMs wouldn't feel sufficiently empowered, players who hate GMs wouldn't feel sufficiently empowered, normal players would feel overburdened with having to do stuff besides handle their own character, everyone would end up at everyone else's throats.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBI'd short-hand what Ryan said:  There is a large and productive middle ground between "The GM is all-powerful!" and "The GM is powerless and castrated."

Yes, there really is. Its what we have already. The unhealthy extremes are WW-story-based-GMism on the one hand, and Forgey-GM-castration on the other.

QuoteOn the other hand, I find it sort of sad to see the leap of logic from "I wouldn't, personally, want to play this game" to "It must be destroyed!  That which I would not play CANNOT BE TOLERATED!  BURN IT WITH FIRE!"  And that takes away some of the fun of Ryan murdering you with words.

Ryan, like you and your Dear Leader's gang, does not seem satisfied to say "Hey i have some cool ideas for a kind of game I'd like to make", and leave it at that. Ryan, like the Forge-swine before him, is talking about some kind of sweeping movement to make changes to all of the Roleplaying Game hobby as a whole. And given that Ryan, unlike you or anyone in your little gang, has actual credentials and name recognition in the gaming world. Unlike Ron Edwards, who is nothing more than a glorified community college science teacher with delusions of grandeur, Dancey really is something of an expert on RPGs. Unlike ANYONE in the Forge or Storygames, Dancey really is a brilliant guy.  He's the sort of RPG-genius the rest of you only imagine yourselves to be.  He might just be able to push to make the kind of changes he seeks.

The kind of impact you Forge-Swine have had to work at for almost a decade in order to slowly corrupt and spread your influence to make more and more games unpalatable to regular roleplayers like me, he could theoretically do in one fell swoop of clever marketing.

So the problem is not about me, its about him: its about his inability to leave it at saying "i'm going to make a game", and instead saying "I'm going to FORCE the RPG hobby to be radically transformed to fit my megalomaniacal vision".  And that is what cannot be tolerated.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm outta here, though. I have nothing constructive to offer, because I think it's mixed up in so many ways.

With the definition of story being so...well, nebulous, perhaps this is a discussion best had after the product in question is out and read.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditWhenever you set up a situation where a player can raise his hand and say "no, in fact, that DIDN'T happen" or "I've decided that instead, the NPC is going to do this...", you are essentially disempowering the GM, and taking away his sovereignty over the only thing he actually does in the game, control the world. What would be the fucking point of playing the GM then?

It's fun. Giving the players more freedom and power, in my experience and estimation, makes for a better end result. And, most importantly, the players don't raise their hand and wreck the game. I've been playing this way for over a decade now and unless the player is there to be a dick (which means they're going to wreck the game no matter what), they just don't raise their hand and cast everything into doubt.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the problem is not about me, its about him: its about his inability to leave it at saying "i'm going to make a game", and instead saying "I'm going to FORCE the RPG hobby to be radically transformed to fit my megalomaniacal vision".  And that is what cannot be tolerated.

OK: Let's be clear.  I have not said, and do not believe that writing this product will force a radical transformation on the hobby gaming industry.  I've said "I'm going to make a game" several times in this discussion, and left it at that.

I have a theory that people who are currently playing D20 games will have more fun if they adjust the way they play in certain ways.  To test that theory I want to provide some tools to a public audience and let them play with them, and then see what they think.  That is the whole point.

If it turns out I am right, then I'll have some evidence to point to for advocacy beyond "I have this idea", which is all I've got right now.  If I am wrong, I'll have engaged in an intellectual pursuit interesting to me personally, and that will have been worthwhile no matter what.

I don't think this book will be sold to more than a couple of hundred people.  I don't think more than a couple dozen will try to implement the things in it.  I'd like to be surprised, but I'm a realist about these things.  So I don't think a couple of dozen people constitute a re-wiring of the hobby, and I certainly don't think it can be forced on anyone anyway.

Ryan

Quote from: SettembriniBut why, oh why, Oldest of all Geezers:

Why here?

Because he's got people who are engaging him in a fairly detailed, fairly logical discussion.

The language is both a bit harsh and a bit vulgar, but there are some really solid ideas on both sides here.

There have been at least a couple of 'Well, that might be OK' from some of the most skepitcal people here.

And if nothing else, it's excellent practice in refining what he's trying to say and how to say it.  No shot fired at a target is ever wasted; at least it's practice.

This is a good place to find intelligent, fairly well-spoken skeptics of a lot of his ideas.  That is a valuable thing.

Quote from: RSDanceyI have a theory that people who are currently playing D20 games will have more fun if they adjust the way they play in certain ways.  To test that theory I want to provide some tools to a public audience and let them play with them, and then see what they think.  That is the whole point.

You are going to play test this a little yourself before publishing, right?  You do play, don't you?  I ask because I'm a little confused as to how this can still be just an abstract exercise for you -- any active gamer would be trying out his ideas almost as fast as they come to him, so the idea that they are still formulating and will one day be a book seems to miss a few steps.

Tell me you're playing with your new rules and they are improving your play.

Quote from: RSDanceyPeople absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

My first impulse is to respond with an emphatic "bullshit".  However:

From my first session in Gary's study in 1971 or 72 to my last a couple weeks ago, neither I nor my compatriots have ever thought of or described it as "telling a story".  Story may come after.  We are there to play a game about having an adventure.

Discussion is useless without definition.  Therefor, Mr. Dancey...

Define, EXACTLY, OBJECTIVELY, and PRECISELY what you mean by "play RPGs to tell stories."

Then we can discuss if you're right or not.  Sans definition, it's all just bloviation.