Quote from: Benoist;566857That's actually incorrect. They didn't give two shits about stuff like characterization and character motivations over player choices, but these are different things from immersion, which is "seeing yourself in situation". You can immerse yourself in the situation and role play yourself in the hypothetical without giving a shit about pretending to be someone else in your mind's eye. This is radically different from pretending to be a co-author building a story from a bird's eye POV, which they definitely did not do: I asked Gary Gygax about this specifically on at least two different occasions and the answer was consistent. To him the "story" in a RPG was "the stuff you could tell people in real life AFTER the game was played and done." He actually had a few choice words for what he considered "thespies" in his usual humourous way.

Yes and yes.

It takes a complete re-read of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide to figure this out, as he spreads his opinions about immersion and characterization thinly throughout the work.

This is one of the primary objections I have with Pappy Gary's ideas.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566871Yes and yes.

It takes a complete re-read of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide to figure this out, as he spreads his opinions about immersion and characterization thinly throughout the work.

This is one of the primary objections I have with Pappy Gary's ideas.

I think that's a characteristic of RPGs generally though. Looking back over GURPs, D&D, Dragon magazine articles, throughout the internet, all sorts of sources, there are many gems tucked away in corners, sometimes only a throwaway sentence that can really make a difference in becoming a good GM. Very much Ahhh that solves that problem, why didn't I think of that. I'm not at all sure that anyone can get it just by picking up any given rules and reading them cover to cover.

When I get a chance, although I'm sure someone has already attempted this, probably several times, I might go over the whole lot and compile it into a document for the edification and enjoyment of future players and GMs, the wisdom of many designers, GMs, and players, with an emphasis on building sandboxes while running successful flexible plots.

Quote from: The Traveller;566932I think that's a characteristic of RPGs generally though. Looking back over GURPs, D&D, Dragon magazine articles, throughout the internet, all sorts of sources, there are many gems tucked away in corners, sometimes only a throwaway sentence that can really make a difference in becoming a good GM. Very much Ahhh that solves that problem, why didn't I think of that. I'm not at all sure that anyone can get it just by picking up any given rules and reading them cover to cover.

When I get a chance, although I'm sure someone has already attempted this, probably several times, I might go over the whole lot and compile it into a document for the edification and enjoyment of future players and GMs, the wisdom of many designers, GMs, and players, with an emphasis on building sandboxes while running successful flexible plots.

It's definitely like that with a number of roleplaying games.

However, I have formed this expectation in my head that an author(s) should state up front what the elements are of the game they are presenting and how they influenced the design. This will help prospective Gamemasters and players to know what they can filter out of the reading while they consider the strengths and weaknesses of a system and its setting. If I don't see that in the introduction or first 10 pages of an RPG, I typically lose interest almost immediately. I feel that it really sets the tone of the product.

It's certainly something I've given a lot of time and effort into condensing for my own system. I must have spent a good week trying to make sure that I set the tone for how I wish ZWEIHÄNDER to be perceived and how those thematic elements shaped the writing.

I dunno, I tune out quickly whenever someone starts talking about game design theory in certain terms. I have, for example, no idea what gamist means, and I don't think its going to add a whole lot to my gaming table. Solid, practical GM advice is everywhere, its just not in any one recognised source I can think of with nary an ist nor an ism in sight.

Or are you referring to inspirations?

Quote from: The Traveller;566936I dunno, I tune out quickly whenever someone starts talking about game design theory in certain terms. I have, for example, no idea what gamist means, and I don't think its going to add a whole lot to my gaming table. Solid, practical GM advice is everywhere, its just not in any one recognised source I can think of with nary an ist nor an ism in sight.

You and me both.  I don't even try to keep up with the buzzwords anymore.  God knows I have enough of those where I work at my normal job.

Quote from: The Traveller;566936I dunno, I tune out quickly whenever someone starts talking about game design theory in certain terms. I have, for example, no idea what gamist means, and I don't think its going to add a whole lot to my gaming table. Solid, practical GM advice is everywhere, its just not in any one recognised source I can think of with nary an ist nor an ism in sight.

Or are you referring to inspirations?

Inspirations mostly. Advice is best kept in the back of the book on its own.

I am chiefly opposed to writers waxing poetic about industry opinions and web "hotbutton" terminology to define what their game is about. I don't want to hear shop talk in an introduction - I don't even care about their past credentials. I don't want an author to justify their resume to me in the front of the book.

I want to see who influences are and how they've been distilled into their own writing. I also want the book to be written in both an authoritative and casual, warm tone. Gimme examples of gameplay from their own table and house rules they use, above and beyond what's already presented as RAW.

edit - I should also note that 10 page introductions to settings bore me. System design and influence upon their writing interests me more.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566940Inspirations mostly. Advice is best kept in the back of the book on its own.

Aha see that what every game designer does, and for good reasons, they are writing a game. But the result is that quality GMing, an art form of its own in many ways, isn't focused on by anyone. There should really be one place to point to and say "that there is the GM Academy, you need to read this to understand how to get the most from my game".

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566940I am chiefly opposed to writers waxing poetic about industry opinions, game design principles and using web "hotbutton" terminology to define what their game is about. I don't want to hear shop talk in an introduction - I don't even care about their past credentials. I don' want an author to justify their resume to me in the front of the book.

I want to see who influences are and how they've been distilled into their own writing. I also want the book to be written in both an authoritative and casual, warm tone. Gimme examples of gameplay from their own table and house rules they use, above and beyond what's already presented as RAW.

100% agree. I'm a bit groggy, having just returned from thirteen hours on the road, pardon misinterpretations.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566940edit - I should also note that 10 page introductions to settings bore me. System design and influence upon their writing interests me more.

Depends really, if its just purple prose and semi predictable fluff, it can be a drag. If there is a lot of useful setting information to enrich sandbox playing, it can be important.

Quote from: Benoist;566857That's actually incorrect. They didn't give two shits about stuff like characterization and character motivations over player choices, but these are different things from immersion, which is "seeing yourself in situation". You can immerse yourself in the situation and role play yourself in the hypothetical without giving a shit about pretending to be someone else in your mind's eye.

Fair enough, you're probably right here. But the point I was trying to make remains, which is that D&D may not be that useful as a template for what all RPGs must fundamentally look like. There is still room for plenty of variation without leaving the 'it's an RPG' sphere.

Quote from: CRKrueger;566854Are you talking about Burning Wheel or Burning Empires?  Unless the Gold Edition added a bunch of stuff, a lot of the things you are referring to there are not specifically mechanical additions, even though they are addressed in the author's sidebar comments.

Hmm, you may be right. I'm more familiar with BE than BW and may have read the latter through the prism of the former. OK, assume I said BE then.

Quote from: soviet;566788So WFRP 1e isn't a roleplaying game because of fate points?

A game can have mechanics that can be used looking at the game from the character's perspective that reflect the resolution of things that the character decides to try to do and mechanics that require thinking outside of the character or involve making decisions about things that the character would have no control over.  Fate Points in Warhammer FRP are clearly the latter and so are the problematic mechanics in storygames, so in that regard, one could call Fate Points a storygame-like mechanic.  But the presence of a single storygame-like mechanic does not make Warhammer FRP a storygame for the important reason that the game can be played without them, with the players ignoring them, with them being used by the GM on the players' behalf, and even if the player does use them, they are used when the player's character is dying and the player's perspective is already likely out of character.  There are plenty of games that include storygame-like elements but are not storygames, including Fudge and versions of Fate, because the storygame-like elements are not a core part of the game and can be safely ignored by the players.

What makes a storygame distinct from a role-playing game is that it includes mechanics that require the player think outside of their character to play the game.  They force you to think out of character, even if you don't want to.  In other words, you need to not role-play and do something else, instead, to play the game.  A game where the resolution mechanics require the players to decide whether their character succeeds or fails or follow the results of die rolls to determine how their character behaves and what they decide to do during conflicts can't be ignored and can't be played in character.  And that's what makes them a different kind of game.

And while Gary Gygax and the early role-players seemed to play in a way that I'd personally find unappealing, they were still playing from a character-oriented perspective where he player didn't get to decide if their character succeeded or failed and didn't have to behave the way die rolls and mechanics told them to behave, except in a few rare cases such as fear and broken morale where real people often lack full control over their choices and actions.

Quote from: John Morrow;566999A game can have mechanics that can be used looking at the game from the character's perspective that reflect the resolution of things that the character decides to try to do and mechanics that require thinking outside of the character or involve making decisions about things that the character would have no control over.  Fate Points in Warhammer FRP are clearly the latter and so are the problematic mechanics in storygames, so in that regard, one could call Fate Points a storygame-like mechanic.  But the presence of a single storygame-like mechanic does not make Warhammer FRP a storygame for the important reason that the game can be played without them, with the players ignoring them, with them being used by the GM on the players' behalf, and eve if the player does use them, they are used when the player's character is dying and the player's perspective is already likely out of character.  There are plenty of games that include storygame-like elements but are not storygames, including Fudge and versions of Fate, because the storygame-like elements are not a core part of the game and can be safely ignored by the players.

What makes a storygame distinct from a role-playing game is that it includes mechanics that require the player think outside of their character to play the game.  They force you to think out of character, even if you don't want to.  In other words, you need to not role-play and do something else, instead, to play the game.  A game where the resolution mechanics require the players to decide whether their character succeeds or fails or follow the results of die rolls to determine how their character behaves and what they decide to do during conflicts can't be ignored and can't be played in character.  And that's what makes them a different kind of game.

And while Gary Gygax and the early role-players seemed to play in a way that I'd personally find unappealing, they were still playing from a character-oriented perspective where he player didn't get to decide if their character succeeded or failed and didn't have to behave the way die rolls and mechanics told them to behave, except in a few rare cases such as fear and broken morale where real people often lack full control over their choices and actions.

Eloquently put, John.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;566865Most linear adventures are presented as scene-scene-scene-conclusion; these tend to lead to railroading because of the necessity of transitioning from scene to scene. I think this is a consequence of trying to impose a story structure on roleplaying games. (Fuck you, Doug Niles.)

Instead, I would present them as a timeline in which the antagonists are acting and the adventurers are free to respond, like in Operation: Ace of Clubs for Top Secret, or as a series of events to which the adventurers may or may not respond, like in Burned Bush Wells for Boot Hill, or the referee is given a slew of options for how the npcs react depending on what the adventurers do, like in "The Lady of La Rochelle" for Flashing Blades.

When you get away from trying to tell as story, then linear adventures can be constructed in such a way that they still lead from A to E but provide for meaningful player choices instead of hamfisted transitions between scenes or chapters.

See, I see exactly what you are talking about. I ran a lot of timeline adventures in the 90s, particularly when running games like Call of Cthulhu, In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas, Nephilim and other French role playing games, where this format is well represented.

I don't think of it as a linear adventure format. I think of it as a sandbox that considers time and relationships in its development. "At D+2, the cultists show up at the appartment of Ms. Trewlaney, witness to the murders on St. Peter's St., at 3:15 PM. They silence her forever, then stage a robbery inside the apartment to leave the building at 4:05 PM." Then whether the PCs met with Ms. Trewlaney before hand, whether they are even aware of her, or show exactly in that time frame and somehow prevent the murder, is entirely up to them.

That's not a linear adventure in my mind.

Quote from: silva;566862So they didnt assume an actual character role, then ? Weird.

Do you consider this an roleplaying game ?

There were characters, but as far as I can tell, they were like "Jersey shirts" you were wearing over your own personality as a player. Some choices (such as Robilar changing his alignment to become Evil) were clearly player-driven (Rob Kuntz just decided that he was bored with being Neutral and wanted to try playing Evil for a while), as opposed to character-driven/motivated (some in-game reason that would have caused Robilar to become Evil). I definitely construe this as a role playing game, since for me the critical element is the illusion of reality of the game world, aka verisimilitude, the visualization of situations in the game to then react to them live, as they occur, as though you were yourself in situation, rather than think about them as "narrative constructs" or "plot points" or a "story-building exercise" you participate in as an author from afar, etc.

Whether the character is a "jersey shirt" or a full-fledged personality different than your own which you assume and play with as an actor would inhabit another's personality and experience is a different matter altogether, to me.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566871Yes and yes.

It takes a complete re-read of the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide to figure this out, as he spreads his opinions about immersion and characterization thinly throughout the work.

This is one of the primary objections I have with Pappy Gary's ideas.

From what I understand your objection is that you have to go through a complete reading of the DMG to piece the puzzle together, instead of having a clear cut "this is the design theory of this game" thing at the beginning of the book right then and there.

If that's what you mean, I can see both sides of the issue, but in this particular case, AD&D's case I mean, I would have to side with Gygax in the sense that I think this is a component that makes the game what it is. You have to go through the DMG and think for yourself. It's a book basically written with the assumption that you are smart and want to learn and have the drive needed to read through the book, and I think that in the end, despite the misunderstandings, the contradictions and omissions, the more arcane aspects of the rules and methodologies therein, it makes for a better game because it puts you, DM, in the driver's seat.

"Here are some ideas, some thoughts I have had piecing this toolbox together, and now you have to take it from there, dear DM. Be a the greatest referee you can be" is what the book really wants to communicate IMO. I think that when you have the passion, the love of the game to begin with, it works wonders for the DM.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the sort of matter-of-fact common wisdom that absolute clarity and toaster-oven-manual rules are better for RPGs is false wisdom. It's more complicated than this. It's about what the structure of the game and the didactic approach of the game incite you to do and not to do as a GM or a player, to me. Therefore, just as there are many ways to create rules and approach different concepts to then bring to life a world or game concept at the table, there are different types of didactics and dialectics that will affect the way one approaches and plays the game in the end. I think Gygax's approach was right in many, many ways. After, whether you feel up to the challenge, or give up for a variety of reasons, or completely fuck up the game in a way that isn't fun to anyone, is another matter entirely.

Quote from: Benoist;567010There were characters, but as far as I can tell, they were like "Jersey shirts" you were wearing over your own personality as a player. Some choices (such as Robilar changing his alignment to become Evil) were clearly player-driven (Rob Kuntz just decided that he was bored with being Neutral and wanted to try playing Evil for a while), as opposed to character-driven/motivated (some in-game reason that would have caused Robilar to become Evil). I definitely construe this as a role playing game, since for me the critical element is the illusion of reality of the game world, aka verisimilitude, the visualization of situations in the game to then react to them live, as they occur, as though you were yourself in situation, rather than think about them as "narrative constructs" or "plot points" or a "story-building exercise" you participate in as an author from afar, etc.

Whether the character is a "jersey shirt" or a full-fledged personality different than your own which you assume and play with as an actor would inhabit another's personality and experience is a different matter altogether, to me.

Ok, I agree. It continues to be a roleplaying game for me. Its like youre roleplaying yourself inside the game world. Nothing wrong really.