Quote from: Silverlion;553904So why shared world stuff? I've run a lot of games over the years, and I've had some rather brilliant friends, but what they think is cool in a setting, and what I think is cool don't always match up.

Well, doodling with design stuff and creating setting elements is a big part of the fun of RPG stuff for me, Whether it be creating planets and stuff in Traveller, or designing a campaign world for D&D, or designing vehicles for like battle-tech or something, or doing detailed character creation with some kind of life-path system. Traditionally, this 'solo' play has all been reserved to the GM, or done piecemeal. And in many cases, a lot of the stuff that a GM comes up with in prep, never sees the light of play.

So, the idea is to get everyone to have buy-in on creating their own cool world, putting together a 'playset' and adding stuff to it to play with together. Putting the collaboration on the creation of a shared world and exploring it via communal fantasy as a focus of play, Getting everyone to take part in the 'sub-creation', as spoken of by Tolkien.

cue pretentious shit

Quote'Here Tolkien coins one of his more well-known terms, defining the writing of fairy-stories as "sub-creation", the creation of a secondary world with its own rules and laws. If an author can create a full-realized and consistent secondary world, that exists within its own laws, the reader's disbelief can be suspended, whether they be adult or child. It has, as Tolkien calls it, the "inner consistency of reality" (TR pg 88). '

The terms i have been working for on this is what i call toybox play. That is, everyone agrees on a 'playset' to focus on (the broad sweep of a game world), and then what kind of 'action figures' and vehicles and accessories they want to use in that world, and then stages a game in it. All supported by a robust detailed rule set and design system.

Instead of these cool mechanical artifacts and game notes being poured into a GM's notebook, it is contributed to by all of the players in the campaigns 'World book'.

As you say, consensus and agreement can be a problem, which is why there is a going to be very explicit a structure and play sequence on how you collaborate on things, so far majorly cribbed from Universalis. The idea also is to involve more people in the prep as play elements, as well as open up more mini-game type play with set-piece games, campaign based grand story-telling via mass combat and domain management stuff, as well as traditional character based immersive play.

And yes, it won't be casual/social player friendly, but that is why the creative/design elements and setup are structured in a more detailed, board game like way. Or that is the idea thus far.

Yeah, for me the primary advantage of shared world play and group collaboration/storygaming is engagement.

I don't think these things particularly result in a better game world or story than if the GM does it alone. From the perspective of a third person reading about the campaign after the fact, it probably makes them worse. You gain something in depth and breadth but potentially also lose something in singularity of vision.

But fuck that third person. We're not running our campaign for him, we're doing it for us. And my experience is that when the whole group has ownership of the world and the story, the game becomes more fun. More fun at the table and more fun afterwards when we think about what happened. It may not have been Tolkien but it was ours and it meant something to us. If you want to put a label on it I would probably say it was some kind of immersion in the act of creating and experiencing the story (as opposed to playing a character and experiencing in-world events).

Quote from: Silverlion;553904So why shared world stuff? I've run a lot of games over the years, and I've had some rather brilliant friends, but what they think is cool in a setting, and what I think is cool don't always match up.

Oh yeah, forgot my one other big reason. It is something that computer games are unlikely to be able to do at all/quicker/easier in our lifetimes. While computer games can provide an incredible sim-immersive first person experience, actually creating new material, and new worlds is either non-existent, short of big time development.
Or has an EVEN steeper learning curve than RPG's, via 'DM's toolsets' or crowd-developed stuff. Think of steep the curve is using something like NWN toolset, or even making a mod, it is a mighty labor with high technical know-how barrier to entry. While, average gamers can still bash together some vast imaginative game worlds with kewl bits with some rulebooks and well developed procedures and components, and produce artifacts/materials that can be shared. And then used and explored on a first person level via sim-immersive RPG mechanics, or in grand storytelling mini-game, etc.)

Until we get AI moderated Pseudo-holodeck stuff going, Human moderated RPG framework stuff will be able to do it better/faster/cheaper, and targeted to a particular groups vision.

Yes, that is one of my other, why make this game? answers:)

Quote from: soviet;554062But fuck that third person. We're not running our campaign for him, we're doing it for us. And my experience is that when the whole group has ownership of the world and the story, the game becomes more fun. More fun at the table and more fun afterwards when we think about what happened.

Bollocks. You lose surprise. Without surprise, you have no adventure. You also lose risk when you aren't as invested in your character. Without risk, you have no adventure.

ADVENTURE

ad·ven·ture/adˈvenCHər/

Noun: An unusual and exciting, typically hazardous, experience or activity.
Verb: Engage in hazardous and exciting activity, esp. the exploration of unknown territory: "they had adventured into the forest".

a : an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks b : the encountering of risks .

An adventure is defined as an exciting or unusual experience; it may also be a bold, usually risky undertaking, with an uncertain outcome.

There's not even any argument on this. You may handwave surprise away as random encounter tables to one degree or another, but that's bollocks. Hell why even roll the dice, just sit around having a conversation. I can have a conversation any time I want, I can't have an adventure any time I want. If its more fun for you to have a conversation, go hang around a bus stop.

The closest I would come to shared storytelling is in chargen at the start of the campaign, where players work out their backgrounds and goals together so they synch nicely. If they want secrets from one another in the process, that works fine too. If a new Baron, seedy city, or even whole country is needed at that point, why not. Once the game starts though, players play within the framework and the GM creates the adventures.

And here's what shared narrative types are uncomprehending of. Its the adventure that's the fun. The GM does not get to share in that adventure, he already knows most of whats going to happen. A good group can pull all sorts of rabbits out of their hats, even disregard the whole thing, but the GM still doesn't have any risk. Hes a facilitator and as such is helping others enjoy themselves, losing out on some of the fun in the process. This bizarre concept that you're all puppets dancing for the amusement of one person MISSES THE POINT OF GAMING. Ownership? Its an imaginary world. What do you imagine you're owning?

Pfeh.

Quote from: The Traveller;554957Bollocks. You lose surprise.

No you don't, not in my experience. In fact I would say there are more surprises because you have more minds actively working on creating them.

Quote from: The Traveller;554957You also lose risk when you aren't as invested in your character.

Why wouldn't you be as invested in your character?

You're arguing against a strawman. It's clear to me that you do not understand what you're talking about.

Quote from: The Traveller;554957This bizarre concept that you're all puppets dancing for the amusement of one person MISSES THE POINT OF GAMING.

What on earth? Who said anything like that? See - strawman.

Quote from: soviet;555011No you don't, not in my experience. In fact I would say there are more surprises because you have more minds actively working on creating them.

No. What players have are occasionally good ideas. That's very far from the same thing as first-person surprise. Particularly in those games where you can change anything as long as it suits your whim. And hey, players can have good ideas in non-narrative games too, except they get to enjoy the element of surprise, and hence actual adventures.

Your rejoinder amounts to nuh-uh.

Quote from: soviet;555011Why wouldn't you be as invested in your character?

You're arguing against a strawman. It's clear to me that you do not understand what you're talking about.

Quote from: soviet;555011I would probably say it was some kind of immersion in the act of creating and experiencing the story (as opposed to playing a character and experiencing in-world events).

And now the doubletalk and backpedalling begins.

Quote from: soviet;555011What on earth? Who said anything like that? See - strawman.

Quote from: soviet;555011From the perspective of a third person reading about the campaign after the fact, it probably makes them worse. You gain something in depth and breadth but potentially also lose something in singularity of vision.

But fuck that third person.

You may not be saying that RPGs are a pile of bottom compared to storygames, but I am saying storygames are a pile of bottom compared to RPGs. Take the adventure out, all you have left is a conversation. With that said I also don't enjoy soccer, and think its rubbish compared to RPGs. But I don't go round calling soccer roleplaying either, or talk about soccer on roleplaying forums.

Quote from: The Traveller;555033No. What players have are occasionally good ideas. That's very far from the same thing as first-person surprise. Particularly in those games where you can change anything as long as it suits your whim. And hey, players can have good ideas in non-narrative games too, except they get to enjoy the element of surprise, and hence actual adventures.

Of course players can have good ideas. And the more leeway those players have to express those ideas, the more ideas will come up in the game. More good ideas = more surprises for the other people.

Quote from: The Traveller;555033And now the doubletalk and backpedalling begins.

Immersion and investment are not the same thing. You can be invested without being immersed.

Quote from: The Traveller;555033You may not be saying that RPGs are a pile of bottom compared to storygames, but I am saying storygames are a pile of bottom compared to RPGs. Take the adventure out, all you have left is a conversation. With that said I also don't enjoy soccer, and think its rubbish compared to RPGs. But I don't go round calling soccer roleplaying either, or talk about soccer on roleplaying forums.

Why would you take out the adventure? What do you imagine happens in a storygame, exactly?

Quote from: soviet;555046Of course players can have good ideas. And the more leeway those players have to express those ideas, the more ideas will come up in the game. More good ideas = more surprises for the other people.

Two falsehoods there. The first is that more leeway=more ideas. On the contrary, more and better ideas arise in response to challenges that can't be handwaved away. The second is that you're conflating a good idea with a surprise. Surprises can be bad ideas, or good ideas, what makes it a surprise is that you have no control over it. You cannot get "surprise by committee".

Quote from: soviet;555046 Immersion and investment are not the same thing. You can be invested without being immersed.

Seriously? You're actually trying to divorce immersion in a character and investment in a character? Storygames may run over that from time to time like a bump in the road, but when the focus is on the story, you're losing a lot of character. And almost all of the adventure.

Quote from: soviet;555046Why would you take out the adventure? What do you imagine happens in a storygame, exactly?

So you don't have an answer to the facts -> just try repeating yourself?

As I've already said, I do agree that players should all have some input into the world at the beginning, to help flesh out their characters. Further if they don't like a world idea at the beginning, they won't play in it. My group can't handle supers for example, maybe its the spandex. They refuse to budge even in the face of a stunningly charismatic Tony Stark on the big screen.

But storygaming isn't roleplaying, and its not adventure. Its an isometric strategy game where you have all the cheat codes and are encouraged to use them. Which is a perfectly valid way to spend your evenings as as long as you recognise that. Its when people start thinking they're roleplaying when they are actually playing soccer that things get a bit funky.

Hey Rob!

have you checked out the thing Levi Kornelsen was doing? I can't remember the name of the game, but basically you defined the world through chargen. Really sweet!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;555107Hey Rob!

have you checked out the thing Levi Kornelsen was doing? I can't remember the name of the game, but basically you defined the world through chargen. Really sweet!

-clash

You talking about Awen? I have his situation builder stuff and Oroborous stuff. It's on my inspirations list.

Quote from: The Traveller;555071On the contrary, more and better ideas arise in response to challenges that can't be handwaved away.

What? Who is handwaving away challenges?

Quote from: The Traveller;555071when the focus is on the story, you're losing a lot of character. And almost all of the adventure.

What? Rubbish

Quote from: The Traveller;555071So you don't have an answer to the facts -> just try repeating yourself?

You haven't provided any facts, just a string of non-sequitors and strawmen.
 

Quote from: The Traveller;555071But storygaming isn't roleplaying, and its not adventure. Its an isometric strategy game where you have all the cheat codes and are encouraged to use them.

QED

Okay, lets try it your way.

Quote from: soviet;555351What? Who is handwaving away challenges?

What? Have you ever even played a storygame?

Quote from: soviet;555351What? Rubbish

Absolute tosh.

Quote from: soviet;555351You haven't provided any facts, just a string of non-sequitors and strawmen.

What? Rubbish.

Quote from: soviet;555351QED

LOL

Quote from: The Traveller;555356What? Have you ever even played a storygame?

So you're admitting that you haven't read the thread? No wonder your contribution was so incoherent.

Quote from: soviet;555358So you're admitting that you haven't read the thread? No wonder your contribution was so incoherent.

What? Rubbish.

I really recommend 'The Mountain Witch' for a story-game that has loads of Adventure!


It helps that the mechanics allow the players to narrate elements that the GM doesn't expect (and thus change how each "run" plays out by introducing unique backstory and active plot elements that the GM can then use). Also, depending on how many PCs there are there's a good chance one of the PCs is actually working for the Sorcerer on Mt. Fuji and has joined the band of ronin to sabotage it from within.