Quote from: RSDanceyThe GM has 3 executive powers.

He can say "Stop being a dick.  That doesn't happen."

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it breaks the premise of the story".

He can say "No, that doesn't happen because it contradicts a previously established fact about the game world." (And he can shift into GM Stance and say: "And I don't have to tell you what that is.")

OR

He can say, "OK, if you want that to happen, here's what you will risk to make it so, and here's how you'll determine if you get to make that change or not." (I.e. "roll dice").

Plus all the god-game stuff, which some people seem to like.  A lot.

Ryan

I read those as:

"No, Because..."

"No, Because..."

"No, Because..."

"Yes, But only if..."

Which seems like a perfectly fine, but truncated list.  What about...

"Yes, And..." (Addition of detail)

"Yes, But..." (Addition of a twist or cost)

"Yes, Because..." (Changing the reason for success by basing it on other factors)

"No, But Instead...."  (Replying with an alternative)

...Are those options missing?  Do players have them, too?

Quote from: RPGPunditA story has all kinds of things that do NOT fit with RPGs. You continue to tiptoe around the issue of plot, of continuity, of story not being a rambling exercise but having events that fit into the predetermined plot, where you don't have characters suddenly die for reasons that serve no purpose to the plot, where characters only act in accordance with their role in the novel, etc etc.

I mean again, are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that RPGs are akin to Novels? That they create story in that way? Because to most normal human beings, THAT is story. Novels, or a told tale, or a TV series, the medium varies, but the method involves a story with beginning, middle and end where the teller already knows all three before he starts (or at least where he does everything leading to that end, everything making sense, rather than the improv spontaneity you see in RPGs).

I want to switch analogies.  Let me try to come at this from a different perspective.

I want to compare Storytelling Games to Roleplaying Games the way we could compare Jazz Music to Classical Music.

Jazz is improvisational, but it is improvisational with rules.  It "works" as music people find extremely enjoyable to listen to, despite the fact that prior to a jazz performance, the musicians could not write out the notes they will play.  Listening to a jazz recording can be entertaining, but it is rarely as entertaining as listening to it being created live.  And creating it live is, I have been told by people who have opinions I validate & trust, the most exciting form of musicianship there is.

If you recorded and transcribed a piece of jazz performed live, at the end your transcript would be a piece of music.  The point of the performance was not to create that transcript - it was to create the music itself.  Some jazz is intolerably bad, and some jazz is great.  The medium itself does not confer quality.  But it confers the potential for a unique creative expression unlike virtually all other forms of music.

Prior to starting to play, there may be a basic structure the musicians know they're going to follow, but they don't know how the music will start, continue or end.  They create the beginning, middle and end as they play.  A group that plays together a lot often becomes so adept at this process that it appears they did have the piece all worked out before they started, but if you listened to that group night after night, you'd soon come to realize just how much variation there can be on a theme, and how the creative elements of the performance are constantly in flux.

Is the work not "music" because it can't be written down before hand?  Because it doesn't have a defined start, middle and end?  Because the individual contributions of each performer are unknown until they make them?

Does it matter that such bands rarely have "conductors"?  That they tend to meld joint play with solos according to some instinctive method of passing authority?  That in many cases the "job" of the band leader is to select great musicians and strive to keep them working together, but not to direct their individual greatness?

I watched the Ken Burns series on Jazz.  You could hear echoes of the debate on this topic in this form from the birth of jazz.  Classically trained musicians, used to reading notes from prepared scripts, lead by conductors with total authority to direct the performance shaking their heads and basically saying "that's not music", despite the obvious evidence to everyone's ears that it was.  People saying the point of playing music was to master an instrument.  People saying the point of playing music was to generate an emotional response in the listeners.  People saying the point of playing music was to express something unique and special about the human soul and the human heart.  And other people saying "if you don't do it by reading sheet music and following the conductor, you're not doing it right".

Jazz is improv, but it is not unstructured.  Jazz is collaborative, but it has rules for sharing authority.  Jazz uses classic music notation when transcripted, but it required a host of new additions to the written language of music to allow it to be transcribed.  Jazz worked.

I want to try to jazz-up RPGs.

I wish I had a term as great as "jazz" for what I want to try to do to D20.  I hate the fact that the word "story" has this negative equity that gets in the way of communication, and sidetracks us into debates about terminology that are pedantic, not constructive.  I'm looking & listening.  If I hear or see one, I'm on it like white on rice.  Until then, I'm stuck using the best available term, even though the term itself is causing problems.

Ryan

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhich seems like a perfectly fine, but truncated list.  What about...

"Yes, And..." (Addition of detail)

"Yes, But..." (Addition of a twist or cost)

"Yes, Because..." (Changing the reason for success by basing it on other factors)

"No, But Instead...."  (Replying with an alternative)

...Are those options missing?  Do players have them, too?

I was referring to Pundits' specific criticism that the GM could be told what to do with no recourse.

I think your list is absolutely legitimate.  I think that rules for those kinds of interactions are way more complex than "Say "Yes" or roll dice", but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile design goals, and I think will be a part of my work.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that rules for those kinds of interactions are way more complex than "Say "Yes" or roll dice", but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile design goals, and I think will be a part of my work.

More...    Complex?

:confused:

I don't see how.  Hell, I've given those abilities to players, in a LARP, by means of a subsystem for collaborative scripting, and am doing so again in the tabletop I'm working on.  The whole subsystem takes up about two pages - and it's existence doesn't weaken GM authority as the guy in charge, or make them less of a leader, specifically because it's a thing you switch to, rather than being the central body of play.

I mean, yeah, it's more complex than one line, repeated ad nauseam, if that's all you mean.  But most rules are.

Quote from: RSDanceyI wish I had a term as great as "jazz" for what I want to try to do to D20.  I hate the fact that the word "story" has this negative equity that gets in the way of communication, and sidetracks us into debates about terminology that are pedantic, not constructive.  I'm looking & listening.  If I hear or see one, I'm on it like white on rice.  Until then, I'm stuck using the best available term, even though the term itself is causing problems.

Ryan

Being married to a classical singer, your analogy was very useful.

If you'll take a nickel's worth of your old Uncle Geezer's advice, I'd drop the whole "Story telling" thing, and work harder on refining your jazz analogy, because it's a lot clearer metaphor.

Quote from: Old GeezerBeing married to a classical singer, your analogy was very useful.

If you'll take a nickel's worth of your old Uncle Geezer's advice, I'd drop the whole "Story telling" thing, and work harder on refining your jazz analogy, because it's a lot clearer metaphor.

Again, I agree with the Geezer.  (On this, and on his take on the use "story" above with regard to his own gameplay experiences; his take is similar to my own.)  Tabletop RPGs are a medium where players live out a second life in a secondary world, and as with our first lives in the primary world of everyday life the narratives that people derive from these lives are something constructed after the fact; it's akin, at first, to war stories told at the local vet's club and later moves into memoirs and (auto)biographies.  While you're at the table, you're not talking in the past tense because you're there in the moment--the present--as things happen.  There is no true protagonist because the emerging present can cut down anyone at any time for any reason; only in hindsight, after it's over, can the narrative account be put in such terms.  That's why "story" is the wrong term for this medium; it's also why tabletop RPGs that attempt to emulate other media that are good for storytelling--like movies, comics, etc.--so frequently run afoul of significant problems in their rules, their play, or both.

Quote from: RSDanceyStory.  Not a great story.

OK, so we have the gist of it. Your goal is to change the rules such that you can ensure Great Story.  We agree that John and Jane hero, standing on a featureless plain, killing wave after wave of zombie, is a story.

So, if you're a player who is content with the aforementioned story, either because you're not concerned with story to the extent of it being Great or not, or you actually disagree and think it's a Great Story, there is no need to change anything.  Is this true?

Quote from: RSDanceyThings essentially every player we surveyed who expressed a preference for playing RPGs self-identified their desires for those games to include (in addition to 6 other factors):

-> Strong Characters and Exciting Story
-> Role Playing

That is, these players essentially all said "it's not an RPG I would like unless it has Strong Characters and Exciting Story and Role Playing".

That's a pretty strong indication I'm right.

First, there are three things mentioned in this two bullet points. Second, you make a jump here, from "expressed a preference for playing games which include" to "I wouldn't like it if it doesn't have" to "It's the goal of my play," all focused on Story.  Why not Role Playing? Why not Strong Characters?

Is it possible that the dynamic between these three things is a balance - and that D&D, and games like it, have found the intuitive balance between these three things?  Is it possible that one of the reasons why current, and near future, MMORPG implementations will not destroy the player balance is that they can not achieve the balance between these three things?  Could it be that, a Pundit rants, an integral part of this balance is the GM/Player relationship?

Because, with all due respect, what you've provided is a strong indication that you are not crazy for interpreting the data the way you have.  I have my doubts about whether or not it is a strong indication that you're right. But, hey, it's not my money, time, or reputation - so good luck!

Quote from: RSDanceyYes, it's just not a Great Story.

I'm not as old as OG, but if you're taking any advice - this is the kind of statement that only leads to trouble. It's an objective judgment about a completely subjective thing...

Quote from: RSDanceyEdwards notes, correctly, that other than some hand waving exposition, none of the White Wolf Storyteller Games actually presented any game content that was specifically designed to support the White Wolf proposition.  The worlds were interesting, the characters you could make with the games were really interesting, and the game mechanics were reasonably well designed (but not demonstrably better either simply as RPG rules, or specifically as RPG rules designed to generate more intense stories than other RPGs).

This is only anecdotal, but when I was approached by other people in the mid-90s who were playing White Wolf games, their big sell to me was the vampire element.  It had very little to do with telling more intense stories.

Quote from: RSDanceyOf course, just because they believed it, and communicated it, didn't make it so.  And that's where Edwards' critique hits the mark.  He bought the value proposition, but didn't see how the product actually delivered on that proposition.  Because, in large measure, it didn't.  Instead of being a system-driven success, it was really a subject-matter success.  Playing Vampires turns out to have a whole potential player population who did not, and would not play Adventuring Heroes.

Right. So if the actual sell of the games was playing vampires, rather than a more intense story, how do you reach the assumption that anyone actually bought (with their cash) that value proposition in the first place?  Is it possible that White Wolf's success (and the interest in (I'll avoid all current jargon and insert my own) uh, "experimental" games) actually came from tapping into a desire for something "new" that had very little to do with content?  Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent strategy to attempt to capture that same population (14 to, say, 25?), but it's always struck me as a function less of actuating something new, rather than young consumers looking for something different from what came before.  Progressive, alternative, college radio is a perfect example of a similar desire from a specific segment of the population.

Quote from: rsdanceyBut Edwards still thinks the value proposition is, well, valuable.  What if you could actually make game mechanics that delivers a more intense story?  Since people already demonstrated that they want that, and are willing to pay money and dedicate time to doing it, it seems foolish not to attempt to actually succeed in the engineering of the product.

Is it possible that all the other failures you elucidated (FASA, etc.) came from operating under an incorrect premise, that consumers were actually interested in a more intense story, when what they were really interested in was playing vampires?

Ron has already set the record straight -- lots of people played WW games and were not "brain damaged".  It was only the ones that went looking for "Story Now" in the wrong place, and didn't know enough to stop who Ron believes were affected.

(This is also rubbish.  I'm sure those people would have been "affected" with or without playing any particular games.)

WW games are perfectly acceptable for creating RPG sessions that emulate action movies like Blade and Underworld.  They're not so good for "Story Now" games, or emulating novels / movies like Interview with the Vampire, The Hunger, The Lost Boys, etc.

Quote from: ReimdallIs it possible that all the other failures you elucidated (FASA, etc.) came from operating under an incorrect premise, that consumers were actually interested in a more intense story, when what they were really interested in was playing vampires?

Very true.

Nitpick:

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerTabletop RPGs are a medium where players live out a second life in a secondary world,

Some of the time, yeah.

And some of the time, players instead play against the GM or each other in a game-type-game part of the rules.

And some of the time, they make shit up together, for the sheer joy of it.

And in the best of times, all those things fuse completely, becoming an indivisible whole.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, if you're a player who is content with the aforementioned story, either because you're not concerned with story to the extent of it being Great or not, or you actually disagree and think it's a Great Story, there is no need to change anything.  Is this true?

So long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

QuoteIs it possible that one of the reasons why current, and near future, MMORPG implementations will not destroy the player balance is that they can not achieve the balance between these three things?

I look at the RPG sales data.  I look at the player base sizes of MMORPGs.  I look at the collapse of RPGs in retail.  I look at the market research.  I look at the evidence of my own eyes in the game groups I'm aware of.  And I conclude that the MMORPGs are already well on their way to destroying the player balance.  In my opinion, this is no a potential future.  This is now.

Ryan

Quote from: ReimdallRight. So if the actual sell of the games was playing vampires, rather than a more intense story, how do you reach the assumption that anyone actually bought (with their cash) that value proposition in the first place?

If you want to burn your eyeballs, spend some time reading usenet archives of r.a.g.rpgs.  During that period I was not only gaming every week (several times a week), I was running the-then most successful mailorder hobby game store in the country (RPG International), and I was on the ConCom of one of the most successful annual gaming/genre conventions in the Pacific Northwest (Dreamcon).  I was hip deep in it, that's for sure.  And everywhere you turned was this buzz of people, many of whom had never played a TRPG in their lives, telling you how they were so excited to be STORYTELLING. And how INTENSE it was.  And how their characters were just so AMAZING.  If you invited them to play D&D, you got this hairy-eyeball look like "what the hell would I want to waste my time doing that for?"  

At the time I wasn't clear on the issue Edwards has subsequently raised.  I wish I had been, because I think it would have been really interesting to interview people in the midst of that phenomenon.  Now I have to go by memory as to what I saw and heard during the Rise of Story, coupled with sales data, and the "community memory" of my buddies in the gaming industry.

QuoteIs it possible that all the other failures you elucidated (FASA, etc.) came from operating under an incorrect premise, that consumers were actually interested in a more intense story, when what they were really interested in was playing vampires?

The thing that is starkly fascinating about that period is that as their sales dwindled, and as subsequent games from the same publishers reached smaller and smaller audiences, the publishers did not change their behaviors.  Instead, they doubled down, trying to one-up themselves on how "cool" the Stories of their new Worlds were, and how convoluted and unique their metaplots were.  (The ultimate expression of that was the game which had a metaplot that was kept secret from the players, and when revealed finally after the death of the company proved to be that the game was actually the insane inner world of a psychopathic kid.)

If anything, in my opinion, the D20 "explosion" wasn't so much people getting on the bandwagon to chase sales as it was a decade-long pent up frustration at the lack of stuff the bulk of the player community actually wanted:  self-directed tools to tell great stories, not lists of things someone else was doing that was cool to them, but theater to you.

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

Obviously anecdotal, but what's endangering my gaming group isn't MMOs.  It's growing older.  Kids, mortgages, overtime, course prep, getting that paper out, and dinner parties are endangering my gaming group.

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.  More power to you.

I, er, don't feel competed with.

My gamer friends that went away into to MMOs were mostly people that spent a lot of time bitching about RPGs, significant money collecting them, and almost no time actually playing.

They're happier.  I'm happier.  New people who want to talk with me about RPGs don't need to listen to them whining, and that means the new people are happier, too.

I doubt that my experience is universal.

I also doubt that it's unique.

Quote from: Old GeezerIn 36 years of this hobby, with literally hundreds of different people, we have NEVER mentioned "story" before, during, or after our campaigns, some of which last for literal decades.

I now understand, thanks to your previous post, that the market has widened greatly.  I am still part of this market, but I am not part of your particular target segment.

I dunno though. I go to cons regularly, so I meet all sorts of gamers. And I often ask them why they roleplay - I use the cons to expand my game acquaintance circle, and use that question as a vetting thing - and almost nobody says, "story."

They talk a lot about getting into character, kicking arse and taking names, exploring different game worlds, escapism and so on. The closest most come to saying "story" is when they say, "oh and if it all has some kind of point to it, a beginning, middle and end, that's nice, too - but not really vital."

I mean, if "story" - some kind of coherent series of events that related to each-other and had a point to them - was the most important thing to players, then they wouldn't mind being railroaded by the GM. That they hate it shows that something else, something they can't get while being railroaded, is more important to their fun. And that something is... getting into character, kicking arse and taking names, exploring different game worlds, escapism and so on.

Quote from: RSDanceySo long as you can hold your game group together in the face of withering network competition from MMORPGs, you bet.

Since I avoid gaming with social misfits, it's not a problem. Normal people with at least mediocre social skills prefer the company of others to being alone with their computer, most of the time. Just as your own company used to advertise, if you're going to sit in a basement pretending to be an elf, at least invite some friends around.

And plenty do. There are certainly social misfits who don't, but really they're no loss - not to me, though perhaps to a game company. But there are plenty left who are not catpissmen and prefer game groups, so there you go.