Again, Ryan Dancey's skills as a designer, as opposed to marketeer, have yet to be tested. What better place than here to test them, and in appropriately public fashion?

I think Ryan should get a designer blog on therpgsite.
 
Remember how GNS did that on rpg.net a couple of years ago?

It was gooood.

Quote from: SettembriniTechnically.

In others, "I accede the point."

Quote from: SettembriniBut Ryan is supposed to be business savvy. He oughta know this place ain´t gonna make him any money, no?

I'm an anti-Forge guy, but a pro-game gamer. I take a look at all kinds of stuff to see if I can find some use for it in the continuum of my game experience. I'll check out Dancey's book - if I think it's useful, I'll buy it.

In other words, this place might indeed make him some money.

Seanchai

This exchange between Ryan and Mike nicely sums up the central problem with what Ryan is setting out to do:

Quote from: Mike Mearls

Quote from: Ryan Dancey"The goal of most of the people in the hobby is not "play a role".  The goal of the hobby community is "tell a great story". "

I think this is a horribly, horribly flawed view of why people play games like D&D. It's akin to saying that people play football to tell great stories. Great stories may arise as a consequence of play, but they aren't the reason why people play in the first place.

EXACTLY!

Quote from: StuartThis exchange between Ryan and Mike nicely sums up the central problem with what Ryan is setting out to do:

[SNIP]

EXACTLY!

Mike's analogy is deeply flawed.  People do not play football to tell stories.  People absolutely play RPGs to tell stories.

Ryan

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

Ryan

Most people play RPGs to be embroiled in a story rather than to tell it.

Quote from: RSDanceyThe 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.

The implications here are incorrect.

In functional, enjoyable play which makes use of a GM or other authority position, it is generally best if the group assumes that GM authority is always active, unless the GM "cues" the group to say that they're putting it down - for example, when a GM is helping the group create characters.

Here, take a look at this.  That's a brief ramble about stances in terms of the whole group rather than individual players.  Notice that while the specific way a GM uses authority alters when the group switches "modes", they maintain a form of authority in all modes.

Even when collaborating in the kinds of ways that Pundit would sneer at, if there's a GM, they "chair" or lead that process.

There's a reason for that, and I find myself strangely pleased to steal a bit of Pundit's own phrasing and fuse it with my own, here:

There's always a big dog.  If it ain't the GM, it's someone else.   Giving them tools and encouragement so they can lead the group, instead of tying to teach them to bully invisibly, is good.  Creating an position of universal authority and then screwing about with the person in it?  That generally just don't work.

If you want pure collaboration, design a game with no GM.

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

No, he's exactly right.  People play games first and foremost for the gameplay.  You can tell a story about the gameplay, but that's not why people play the game to start with.  You can even make a game out of creating stories, but it's still a game, and if you were *really* interested in telling stories, you'd pick another format.  Certainly not a game  where the level of player contribution isn't based on the quality of their storytelling...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe implications here are incorrect.

We'll agree to disagree.  I do not want to position the GM as the leader.  I want to position the GM as a participant with different powers than those of the rest of the group.  That's why I want the GM to be playing in Narrator stance most of the time, not GM Stance, and I want GM Stance invoked and used explicitly.

Otherwise you have the situation where everyone is still asking for permission.

Turning "everything not permitted is forbidden" into "everything not forbidden is permitted" means that you have to have a mechanism to indicate what is forbidden.

Ryan

Let's talk about a game where you "tell a great story".  

Now, whatever your game is about, the challenge of the game should be based on that.  Whether you "win" or "lose" the game as an individual, team, or group, should be based on how well you can meet the challenge of the game.

If you have a game about "telling great stories" - THAT should be the challenge of the gameplay.  Not how well can you manage resources, or how lucky you are at rolling dice.  How GOOD can you tell a story?  Are you a better storyteller than Joe? Can you as a group create a really good story?  The quality of the story is what should decide if you advance or not in the game... not how many hit points you have, what spell you choose, or whether you roll a '20' or not.

System does matter.  A lot.

Quote from: StuartNo, he's exactly right.  People play games first and foremost for the gameplay.

No, 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

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

Story is a natural byproduct of roleplaying. Actively telling a story is like narrating without playing a role.

Ryan, can you sum up in one or two sentences just how a story is intentionally told rather than it being a natural occurrence from the game?

Quote from: RSDanceyWe'll agree to disagree.

If you'd prefer to do so, then certainly.

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.

If you're telling a story, you make decisions based on what would make a good story.

If you're playing an RPG, you make decisions based on keeping your character alive / in the game, managing resources, the luck of the dice, your problem solving skills, etc.

Playing a game is not the same as telling a story.
Playing a game ABOUT telling stories (eg. Once Upon A Time) is still NOT the same as telling a story.
Doing improv acting (eg. theatre sports) is also not the same as telling a story.

However, you can tell a story ABOUT a game, a storytelling game, or theatre sports.

This might help...

If I'm going to tell a story, I know what's going to happen next (or at least where I'm going with it).

If I'm playing in an RPG, I *don't* know what's going to happen next for a variety of reasons.

If you really want a game about telling great stories, it's much, much farther from where you're starting with d20 D&D.

Quote from: StuartIf you have a game about "telling great stories" - THAT should be the challenge of the gameplay.

Absolutely.  So in Ryan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to D20 Games, wherein the point is to change a stock D20 game (say D&D) from a Roleplaying Game to a Storytelling Game, players should be rewarded for telling a great story.

So there should be reward mechanisms for:

* Creating & sustaining a premise
* Challenging beliefs & goals
* Changing over time in response
* Moving towards a dramatic climax

Those mechanisms should use D20 mechanics, and should be familiar to players of D20 games.

This would be different from most stock D20 Roleplaying games, and certainly different from D&D, where players are rewarded for having their characters overcome challenges, regardless of relevance.  

A group of characters that stands in the middle of a featureless plain and kills wave after wave of mindless zombies gets as much benefit from the D20 reward mechanism (Experience Points) as a group who works through a Great Story.  The difference therefore is that in a D20 Storytelling Game, merely overcoming challenges regardless of context needs to generate no positive (and possibly negative) reinforcement, and fulfilling the objective of telling a Great Story needs to generate positive reinforcement.

Ryan

Quote from: pigames.netRyan, can you sum up in one or two sentences just how a story is intentionally told rather than it being a natural occurrence from the game?

I'm not making the argument of "intent" vs. "natural".  I'm arguing that what most players want out of the RPG experience isn't just a story.  They want a great story.  And I'm arguing that you can engineer the game to generate that result (within some obvious boundaries).

Engineering 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.

Ryan