Quote from: Old GeezerThis reminds me strongly of the buzz some 10-15 years ago (That long?  Ouch. :pundit: ) about "interactive media" -- computerized books, or movies, where the reader or audience could make choices to affect which ending they'd see.  Or "hyperplot" books where they could be read in any order.

There was a lot of buzz in the "ultra techie" community that died shortly after the first attempts were made.

This is quite true.  I was in the "ultra techie" / media community during that time and remember it well.  My undergrad thesis was on "Interactive Cinema".

Quote from: Old GeezerThis reminds me strongly of the buzz some 10-15 years ago (That long?  Ouch. :pundit: ) about "interactive media" -- computerized books, or movies, where the reader or audience could make choices to affect which ending they'd see.  Or "hyperplot" books where they could be read in any order.

There was a lot of buzz in the "ultra techie" community that died shortly after the first attempts were made.

I remember the hyperplot books, turn to page x if you do this.  The question is one of content creation cost and demand.  Frankly, I don't think the demand is high enough to justify the cost at the moment for such things.

On the computer game front, I think you could use the Never Winter Nights engine, I think it is, that allowed a "DM" to build a dungeon and alter it on the fly (drop items etc.).  In working with such game level design egines you usually can toggle between design mode, to a "play" mode.  You'd just make the design mode multi-user as well and slap on an interface to determine who gets control.

I'm just thinking it's possible and could meet the goals of such games.  I have no idea that they will come if you build it.

Quote from: XantherI remember the hyperplot books, turn to page x if you do this.  The question is one of content creation cost and demand.  Frankly, I don't think the demand is high enough to justify the cost at the moment for such things.

1) The Warlock of Firetop Mountain was, and is, totally awesome.
2) The Citadel of Chaos, and The Forest of Doom also bring the awesome.
3) They're making new Fighting Fantasy books.

Quote from: Stuart1) The Warlock of Firetop Mountain was, and is, totally awesome.

That pinged some long-untouched pleasure synapse in my brain.

Quote from: Stuart2) The Citadel of Chaos, and The Forest of Doom also bring the awesome.

So did that.

Quote from: Stuart3) They're making new Fighting Fantasy books.

To the internet!

Those aren't the same thing as hypermedia. I remember those (in fact have a bunch, they are indeed awesome, you should visit gamebooks.org and http://www.the-underdogs.info/gamebook.php )

But the hypermedia stuff came later. Some of it was pretty interesting; in fact I remember one custom application for the Mac, apparently made without Hypercard for some reason, that was something like some dude's senior thesis circa 1990. They were artier than the FF type books, more Dictionary of the Khazars-ish.

And the madness continues... here on the 18th, and here on the 20th.

The post of the 18th is simply recycled Forger nonsense about "Stance" and the like. That of the 20th brings in some new ideas, very thespy stuff where the players get to make shit up to get a bonus on their dice rolls. "If I lose, you get to rescue the princess." By raising the stakes you get more dice to roll, but it's all rather abstract at this stage.

Despite RPGPundit's recent blog post, old Dancey is using the Forger definition of "story" or "narrative", or at least it's closer to that than anything else, at least anything we have in the English language.

I think Gingerbread Man Dancey has been popping too much acid and not rolling enough dice with actual gamers.

Kyle, look at my entry for today.  I think that I'm done defending him once and for all, if this is where he's going and wants to drag RPGs toward.

RPGPundit

You do realize what's he doing right? He's trying to reach the traditional gamers who might like Forge ideas. Once he's got enough who are interested, he will attempt to sell his latest product to them that basically recycles Forge concepts --- he's basically trying to capitalize on forge ideas with the maintream. A 'revolutionary' new product for an existing market.

You've seen an essay on stances, basically; a concept that even rabid anti-Forgers will probably agree is interesting and reasonably useful in abstract.  What you haven't seen is any mechanics yet.  Before mechanics could be introduced, I have to assume that the people reading the material need a primer on what the fuck I'm talking about when I say "you get the right to enter Director stance and make that change".  The rules for switching stances are coming, and I think they'll be cool (and preserve a whole lot of the D&D experience, while introducing a wider scope to the non GM players.)

Here's a section in the Stances chapter I wrote but did not post because I wanted to see what the reaction would be to no discussion of GM "uniqueness".  This section also contains no mechanics, but it is a roadmap for the territory ahead.  You might find it interesting:


GM Stance
   
In a D20 Game, one participant is usually going to play as the GM.  Therefore we need to talk about the Stance used by the GM.  GMs of course can move freely between Director, Narrator and Actor Stance just like the other players.  But by mutual agreement of all the players, the GM also has access to a special kind of Stance called GM Stance.  GM Stance allows the GM to affect the Metagame.  The Metagame refers to all the things outside the game which relate to the game.  In that sense, it is even more powerful than Director Stance.
   
GM Stance is used prior to the start of play to set the conditions for the game.  GM Stance defines the genre of the game, the basic rules that will be used in the game, the kinds of characters that can be usd in the game, the kinds of materials each participant is expected to bring to the game, and can even be extended to include things like rules for adding new players to the group, setting up regularly scheduled play sessions, etc.
   
GM Stance also provides access to The Plot.  Some groups want The Plot to emerge from the character's actions, and the decisions of the players in Narrator Stance.  This is sometimes called "Sandbox Mode"; initially there is no clear over-arching plot structure to the game, and the players create it from sharing ideas and exploring the world.  Other times, the group calls on the GM to actually structure The Plot and to be responsible for managing Plot related aspects of the game, including substantial facts about the game world which are unknown to the other players.  This is sometimes called "Guided Mode".
   
The most important aspect of GM Stance with regard to The Plot is that it enables the GM to have access to Hidden Information.  Hidden Information means facts about the game world which are not shared with some or all of the other players.  These facts can be trivial, like how many hit points a monster has left after taking wounds in combat, or epic, like the real motives and long term plans of the Villain.  When the GM takes GM Stance, it vests the GM with Authority to tell the group "you don't know" in response to certain lines of inquiry.  It also gives the GM Authority to surprise the players with Plot Twists - changes to the story that are not driven by the behavior of the characters, but instead by the will of the GM.
   
This is very dangerous territory.  The difference between creating a shared story, and having the GM tell a story can be very hard to define.  If the GM uses GM Stance to force the characters into situations the players don't like or understand, the GM has overstepped his or her Authority.  The concept of The Plot and how to manage it is covered in its own section, but for now, simply remember that GMs, like all the other players, have Responsibility to keep the game fun for everyone, along with the Right to create the story.
   
GM Stance allows the GM to access Author Stance for all the NPCs and monsters (because they have Hidden Information).  The GM also has Narrator Stance rights over the organizations in the story as well; essentially a mode of play where the GM Narrates as if an organization were a character.  Generally speaking, the GM uses a combination of GM Stance and Narrator Stance to introduce new shared knowledge into the game for use by the other players.  GM Stance allows the GM to place persistent objects in a scene which can immediately be used within the context of the rules; GM Stance bypasses the general rule that things do not become persistent until used by another player in a later scene.
   
The final aspect of GM Stance is the ability to Judge.  The group authorizes the GM to adjudicate the use of the rules, to set various game values, and to decide when a factor is relevant or not.  This power is not unlimited.  When Judging, the GM has the Authority to use the rules as written to alter the progress of the game, but does not have the ability to alter those rules by fiat (which would instead by a use of Director Stance).  The GM has the ability to translate the effects of Hidden Knowledge into the game via the use of the rules, which means the GM has the power to refuse to explain why a certain ruling may be made if the explanation would reveal Hidden Knowledge.  This establishes an extraordinary bond of trust between GM and players.  So long as the players believe the GM is acting in accordance with their overall wishes regarding the Premise, all will be well.  But if the GM appears to be pursuing a separate agenda, divisive conflict may arise.  Therefore, it is crucial that the GM only use the powers of GM Stance when absolutely necessary, and only to advance the major goals of the group as a whole.
   
It is possible, and even likely, that the GM will agree to share GM Stance from time to time with another player.  Cooperative modes of GMing are possible, where one person is responsible for "running the world" and another is responsible for "running the GM characters".  In a game with very little Hidden Knowledge, being played in Sandbox Mode, the GM may play a character just like the other players, only using GM Stance occasionally to resolve disputes.
   
The GM should make absolutely clear to the other members of the group when he or she has taken GM Stance.  The difference between Narrator Stance and GM Stance can be subtle, and the players need to know which mode the GM is working in.  As with the other Stances, some physical manifestation of GM Stance may be an appropriate visual cue.

Ryan

Oh boy!

I bet €uros to Dollar$ that Ryan hasn´t tried this out even once.

Good luck, Mr. Gorski!

Ryan, pardon the use of the word but what you're saying here sounds extremely "incoherent".

I mean, If the GM has "GM stance" and the players can get "Director stance" then what happens when the players start saying something happens in the world that goes against the GM's "GM Stance"-based "hidden information"?
At the end of the day, what you are suggesting only adds confusion and solves nothing, and in fact it creates a power struggle between players and GMs that never existed before, because you're suddenly saying players are supposed to be allowed to do the GM's job, only not all of the GM's job, and the GM can still trump them, but they're supposed to vote, but the GM knows secret things the players don't, but the players can use director stance to change the world outside their own character, etc etc. ad fucking nauseum.

Its an absurd jumbled mess.

If you want to create some kind of a player "empowerment" where you give players the ability to dictate what goes on in the world, you HAVE TO by default castrate the GM.
The Forgers know this, you must realize it to: you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the GM is the ultimate power, or he isn't.

Beyond that is still the entire question about whether its practical as far as the typical player group's stability to castrate the GM, and whether its financially marketable to promote games where the GM is castrated. I'd answer no to both those questions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, If the GM has "GM stance" and the players can get "Director stance" then what happens when the players start saying something happens in the world that goes against the GM's "GM Stance"-based "hidden information"?

DM Stance trumps Director Stance.  The GM can cancel the proposed Director Stance action.

Entering Director stance needs to occur in very strictly limited, very controlled situations, to achieve very precise objectives.  Having a player (even the GM) play the game from Director Stance leads to disaster.

You use Director stance for a handful of really good reasons, and for nothing else.  Director stance can be toxic to the body of Storytelling, but occasionally it is the only useful and fun way to play.

A brief (but probably not exhaustive list) would be:

*  You earned to the right to "add or modify a rule" and you're exercising  that right.

*  Something went horribly awry in a scene, and rather than continue on and cope with it, the scene needs to be rewound and run again to obtain a "better" outcome (and rules for this power need to be strictly limited as well; we can't just have a player who fucked up something call to re-write a scene willy-nilly).

*  A major aspect of The Plot needs to be introduced, and rather than working through it in a long session of Narration, it gets introduced quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

*  The characters have moved into an area of the game world which is mostly undefined, and rather than explore it in a long session of narration, the area is brought into the game quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

Now you might ask:  Aren't all of these things usually GM fiat?  And my answer would be "yes", they usually are.  But in the Storytelling Game, sometimes players get to do this stuff as well.  Some will choose to do it, and some will choose not to do it, but having the option to do it creates a very different animal than the classic RPG.

Ryan

Quote from: pigames.netYou do realize what's he doing right? He's trying to reach the traditional gamers who might like Forge ideas. Once he's got enough who are interested, he will attempt to sell his latest product to them that basically recycles Forge concepts --- he's basically trying to capitalize on forge ideas with the maintream. A 'revolutionary' new product for an existing market.

Nothing wrong with that.

"Gee, I'll take this good idea, smooth it out, and sell it to people who don't know about it."

Sounds plenty OK to me if you can make it work.

But why, oh why, Oldest of all Geezers:

Why here?

Because somebody here went out to Dancey's blog and elsewhere, and brought stuff back here to argue about. At that point, it's kind of fair game.