Quote from: StuartI think this is the distinction to focus on:

Traditional RPG:  The GM narrates what's behind the door.

Storytelling Game:  The player narrates what's behind the door.

That's the best definition I've seen thus far. For this I shall give you a small barony when I become Emperor of Earth (Earth to be renamed Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ just for kicks).

-=Grim=-

I think things would be clearer if instead of talking about adversarial vs. cooperative play we looked at the question of whether the GM's job is seen as providing challenges for the players to try overcome, and the players' interest is finding challenges and overcoming them. It's the aspect of play that, if taken to an extreme, will basically turn the game into the tabletop equivalent of a video game.

Thing is I think some people play so close to that end of the spectrum that they see everything else as "storytelling", and conversely other people play so far over on the storytelling side that they see any kind of challenge--even if it's just representing the in-game fact that something is difficult and/or requires skill to overcome--as "adversarial".

Also it might help to think of the kinds of challenges there are. There are obstacles and there are complications.

So, "your daughter is kidnapped by slavers" is an obstacle; "your daughter has fallen in love with the slavelord's son" is a complication.

An obstacle challenges the player's dice and the character's skill; a complication challenges the player's mind. Dungeon crawls and computer games offer only obstacles, but having only complications is like a soap opera. Most gamers will enjoy a bit of both.

Both obstacles and complications can be interesting or lame. The classic, "ah, you found the trap but... did you find the trap on the trap?" is lame. Complications are even easier to make lame, watch any daytime tv for examples.

I think a lot of this "storygame" babble comes from people who have only ever met lame obstacles, never fun obstacles or interesting complications. Or even as I said earlier, they haven't actually had these crap game sessions, they just imagine them, a sort of Platonic Ideal of a crap game session. "Okay, if we take all the most stupid and negative things written in the DMG thirty years ago and combine them with the most stupid and annoying gamers we can possibly imagine, what sort of game do we get? Well, let's call that "traditional" gaming. Wow, trad games suck!"

Anyway,

Challenges

• Complications
• Obstacles

Make any sense?

Pretty much but they're so different that they almost shouldn't be grouped together. What they do have in common is that both give the player a chance to do something.

Anyway, I avoided complications because they don't have much to do with the stuff Dancey's talking about. He's not trying to create a complication-filled game as an alternative to an obstacle-filled one, he's after something else entirely which he thinks is the only alternative, or at least the "key killer-app alternative" that's going to burnish his reputation as an innovator.

Sure. He obviously doesn't recognise the existence of the complication kind of challenge, or perhaps is a bit stupid as a player and so just sees a complication as an obstacle his character can't overcome.

The point is that leaving it out contributes to this false vision of the Platonic Ideal of the Crap Trad Game. If you recognise that many GMs put in complications, and that part of the fun of a game session is players dealing with those, then GMs don't look so cruelly adversarial after all.

It's easy to make something look ugly if you only focus on one small part of it. By focusing on "obstacles" as challenges, he's making "trad" gaming look ugly. And that sort of focus on the ugly will mean his gamebook's likely to be missing something. His bias will fuck things up.

Does he even game these days? I mean, a real campaign, not the occasional one-off with gingerbread men.

Quote from: SeanchaiOther issues aside, the default style of play definitely used to be player vs. DM. Check out early Dragon articles and descriptions of play - it's all there, particularly in the proclaimations of Gygax. Even now, many people follow the DM-as-god paradigm and/or gamist play styles, which are, in many ways, the philosophical children of the old DM-player relationship.

Seanchai

Hackmaster grabs the concept of the adversarial GM with gusto, because it, like any good parody, has an element of truth to it.  It may be exaggerated for comic effect, but it had to come from somewhere, it would just come across as ridiculous.  

If nothing else, I rather respect the game for that bit, even if it is tongue and cheek about it, because it's about the onyl game in recent memory that I can recall, where this specific style of play was addressed openly and proudly.

I actualyl wonder a bit if it's embracing of that style of play is in part why the game is taken so seriously by some old school fans.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHah, you know I'm with you most of the way, Rob (though multiple characters per player is okay by me), but here I object. An adventure module can be "just" a situation, such as a location and a bunch of NPCs-in-motion. This is how the old Dragonquest modules by SPI were done.

Most of Harn is done this way. One wag goes to say "If you pulled the trigger on every plot hook in the various harn article it would be armeddegon." However even Harn makes a distinction between adventures and a regular article. The Harn usually has a separate article that outlines the plot (usually involving a Nolah (harnic troll)).

Quote from: Elliot WilenEven with a full-on Dancey-esque players-make-up-the-world storytelling game, I think you could use a situational scenario as a baseline for the players to riff off of. The problem would be determining which parts of the scenario would be open knowledge, which would be secret (and known to whom?), which could be changed, which would be set in stone, and how to adapt to any changes.

I don't see dancey style storytelling game having much use if any for that plot sheet I mentioned for Harn module. Without that plot sheet used by one person it is damn hard to maintain any sense of mystery. I think that will be the signature weakness of Storytelling Games just as the amount of work a DM has to do is a signature weakness of RPGs.

I truly believe Dancey doesn´t understand the implications regarding success and mystery.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPretty much but they're so different that they almost shouldn't be grouped together. What they do have in common is that both give the player a chance to do something.

They fall under the header of plot. Plot is to RPGs as a script is to film and stage. I am not saying that the are the same thing. Only that they fill a similar role. A play doesn't happen until the actor perform the script. A story doesn't result until the DM starts refereeing what the player do in reaction to his plot.

A bad script can sink a play, a good script badly executed can sink a play, a bad plot can sink a RPG session, a good plot badly executed can sink a RPG session. So plot is important to a good game. Now it can be a simple as a well  design dungeon with lots of interesting monsters, tricks, traps, and puzzles. To a game revolving around the intrigues of the Court of the Thousand Year Imperium.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnyway, I avoided complications because they don't have much to do with the stuff Dancey's talking about. He's not trying to create a complication-filled game as an alternative to an obstacle-filled one, he's after something else entirely which he thinks is the only alternative, or at least the "key killer-app alternative" that's going to burnish his reputation as an innovator.

His whole premise reside on his opinion that traditional RPGs take too much time to prepare for on the DM part. That holds back RPGs from truly a mass-market game. His solution effectively ditches the RPG and replaces with a different type of game.

My own opinion that D&D needs a section of its product line that is marketed like FtA! You buy this game to go into deep dark dungeons to kill monsters and win treasure.We give a dungeon and show you how to make your own for countless hours of entertainment.

Simple focused and easy to grasp. I am not saying cripple the game or anything. The box you put in Toys-R-Us should be focused on the dungeon crawl or any other easy to grasp theme. Any element not important to that them you leave out. The three core rulebooks and remaining splat-book you make available to the hobby channel.

Funny. Ryan Dancey registered here.

Now some of you will actually have option to explain him, why the Forge theory is wrong all the way.

Quote from: AlnagFunny. Ryan Dancey registered here.

I just saw that myself.

You know, considering how many people say disparaging remarks about this site, it sure does appear to be influential.

Quote from: AlnagFunny. Ryan Dancey registered here.

Now some of you will actually have option to explain him, why the Forge theory is wrong all the way.

Hi Ryan!

I'm new here too, but welcome aboard.  This is a hell of a freewheeling fistfest and there's lots of diverging opinions roaming around in this here unmoderated RPG Forum.   Some people here are flat out against Story-Games.  Some people are for them to varying degrees.   A lot of people here just can't stand the Forge, and the reason why comes down to a few specific reasons:

1. Their marketing strategy has been to denigrate Traditionalist Gamesmasters with terminology such as "GM Fiat" (for being a phrase preloaded with negative connotation), "BadWrongFun" and "Brain Damage", and many people here find it offensive to no small degree.  If you don't know what these refer to, just ask.  

2. Concepts such as "Player Empowerment", which appear to denigrate the Traditionalist approach to Gamesmastering where the GM owns the BackStory and the Players own the Plot via the actions of their Characters.   A lot of GMs and Players have had great experiences with the Traditionalist style, and so these people (myself included) question the validity of the "Player Empowerment" movement, especially given its drawbacks (such as the loss of suspense).  You could read more about that debate in associated threads such as this one.

Well, there are additional reasons, probably, but these are the two that I've noticed most frequently alluded to, and the ones I feel most strongly about personally.  

Anyway, welcome aboard.  Best wishes.

- Mark

A game where people could build an adventure in the non GM manner, intending for it to be played by other players, would be kinda cool.

The game could build the background and setting and NPC's and places. Kind of like a random dungeon generator. But with different people competing to get their idea in and a mechanic to arbitrate differences of opinion.

As long as it didn't try to mix trad style gaming in, which would defeat all my fun of gaming, I think I would have to check it out.

I know burning empires and a couple other games approach this, but they don't seem enough 'building to be played in by others later' to suite what I want. Those games get the goals of the endeavor to confused for me.

I'm not sure that Mr. Dancy meant anything like this, but I would like to encourage it.

Quote from: darThe game could build the background and setting and NPC's and places. Kind of like a random dungeon generator.

uh... but the point would be it would be a game. With others. Could play it off times with some other group. RDG's are cool and all... and are a game and all... but I'm thinking I'd like a little bit of competition with others mixed in.