Good to see Ryan's going to put into motion his ideas for revolutionizing the RPG industry.

QuoteRyan Dancey's Storyteller's Guide to The D20 System

This book is designed to take a stock D&D game (or any reasonably close to stock D20 variant) and transform it into a Storytelling Game.  The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode.  It will include my take on:  Player created content, character motivation mechanics, abstract resource management, and streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers.  I will also be writing extensive notes on how to convert 3rd party materials for D20 for use in Storytelling Games using these concepts.

Plus 2 other Storytelling game ideas he's talking about doing.

It explains a lot about his recent, radical change in perspective of the RPG hobby.  

I wonder if he'll setup a sub-forum on the Forge?

I knew he was just trying get attention to get ready to sell something.
 
"The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode. "
 
This really isn't necessary.  Many groups play D&D as a more cooperative game.  Those who want to, do so.  They don't need a book about it.

QuoteThe intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode.

In that one statement he betrays the fact that he's speaking out of his arse. That isn't the traditional way to play D&D, it is not DM versus players, its a game where the DM creates challenges appropriate to the PCs within the context of a shared story. Or, in other words, a 'cooperative storytelling mode'.

What a pile of complete tosh.

Quote from: CabIn that one statement he betrays the fact that he's speaking out of his arse. That isn't the traditional way to play D&D, it is not DM versus players, its a game where the DM creates challenges appropriate to the PCs within the context of a shared story. Or, in other words, a 'cooperative storytelling mode'.

What a pile of complete tosh.

My thoughts exactly. When I read this blurb, I thought 'OK, now I've been unknowingly been playing Forgey d20 for 20 years ?! No shit !'.

Besides, I'd rather like to know how many players are actually interested in getting input on the campaign beyond their characters' actions. My guess is 'not so many'.

And this 'streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers' sillines is just pathetic. Most players are power gamers, they just manage not to be assholes about, that's all.

Cab, that's what I meant to say. Versus mode is uncommon and often a sign of dysfunctional group.
 
Many of these ideas have already been in the DMG.

That he considers this sort of thing to be amazingly innovative, and hack-hack-hack-levelup-whaddayamean-what's-my-name-I'm-the-fighter to be normal explains why his game sessions have been, he says, "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours"

THank God at least this fuckstick isn't a part of D&D anymore.  This'll get buried in discount bins faster than a glossy hardback of FATAL.

The funny part is, I've been telling people this guy was full of shit for years now, and here he is citing rehashed blather that was garbage when it was first uttered.

It's realyl quite a joyous thing to me.

The guy who min/maxes his character is no less a power gamer than the guy who wants more of the spotlight for his improv acting performances and to tell the narrative he's setup in 14 pages of back-story.  They're both power gamers -- they're just pursuing different goals -- and in essence powering gaming at different games at the same table.  One sees the goal of the game as number optimization.  The other sees the goal as excellence in "roleplaying".  Both are going all out -- power gaming -- to reach the goal they've selected.

The player that finds a balance, does a little bit of narration, a little bit of strategy, and doesn't try to monopolize the amount of time they're taking for their turn (whether in combat or in monologuing) -- those are the people who aren't power gamers.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat he considers this sort of thing to be amazingly innovative, and hack-hack-hack-levelup-whaddayamean-what's-my-name-I'm-the-fighter to be normal explains why his game sessions have been, he says, "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours"

I wouldn't even give him that much.  My group does plenty of stupid lowbrow hack-n-slash.  If we only got 20 minutes of fun out of each session we'd quit.  When I first heard the 20 minutes/4 hours line I thought it was referring to the poor bastards who have to endure 3 hours 40 minutes of roleplaying for every 20 minutes of orc-killing.

Well I would just call them "attention whores" rather than "power gamers." If you're talking about people who always want the spotlight, then it's a better description.

If this guy honestly thinks rpgs are all about GM vs player, well fuck, I wonder how many games he's played in apart from his Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men one-off.

I mean, my very first rpg when I was 12, the DM must have been not very much against his players, or else my Strength 10 fighter would never have made it to 3rd level. And the very first campaign we call "D&D", Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, that guy had the Chainmail rules where PC vs monster was just one dice roll, winner lived, loser died - the players didn't like that, so he took his Ironclad rules ("Armor Class" and "Hit Points", with the ship sinking when reaching 0 Hit Points) and slotted them in, the players liked that much better. Doesn't sound terribly adversarial to me...

And this was 1973. I guess old Dancey is taking a while to catch up.

Quote from: WeeklyAnd this 'streamlined mechanics for groups without Power Gamers' sillines is just pathetic. Most players are power gamers, they just manage not to be assholes about, that's all.

Well, I rekon most players aren't power gamers, but they'll try to do the best in a tight situation with the character they have (and rightly so). But as for this streamlined stuff, what he's saying is not keeping tight track of trivialities when you trust your players. I think most of us have always done that.

There are very few RPGs that are actually GM vs Players.  

Fewer still that are GM vs Player vs Player.

My game is one of them. :wizard:

Quote from: jrientsI wouldn't even give him that much.  My group does plenty of stupid lowbrow hack-n-slash.  If we only got 20 minutes of fun out of each session we'd quit.  When I first heard the 20 minutes/4 hours line I thought it was referring to the poor bastards who have to endure 3 hours 40 minutes of roleplaying for every 20 minutes of orc-killing.

I've had two kinds of 4/20 experiences before, several times each, and they are always people-related issues, not game-related issues:

* Games where way too much time is spent on rules arguments (ironically, most of these were D&D 3.X games) - caused by GMs who lack the guts to make hard and fast rulings and players who want to be rules-lawyers.

* Games where the PCs sit around and agonize over the most pointless decisions that have nothing to do with anything (micro-managing their gold, spending hours trying to plan an attack, exhaustively cataloging the supplies they want to buy for a 2 day trip, etc.) - caused by current or past bad-GMing and players who like to hog the spotlight by focusing on minutia.

Eh.  A healthy spirit of friendly competition between GM and player is the cornerstone of a good, challenging game of D&D, and has been for a long time.  In fact, it was one of the things that held me off the game for a long time, until I played it, and realize it added a dynamic that was quite enjoyable.

There are far less shaky grounds to go after Dancey for being full of shit, so I recommend you go after those, because this current line of rhetoric just makes you sound like a dismissive, insulting jackass.

Which, knowing Kyle, is probably what he's going for anyway . . .

There's a difference between "competitive" and "adversarial". In one, each is using their abilities to a strong degree to give the other an interesting challenge, and to each do their best for personal excellence. In the other, each tries to destroy the other.

For example, the players within a football team are competitive with other members of their team, at the same time as co-operating towards a common goal - but they're adversarial towards the opposing team.

That sort of distinction would obviously be beyond a guy who thinks playing gingerbread men is revolutionary, though.