Hey all! Bundle of holding is featuring the Hillfolk RPG and supplements. Does anyone have any experience or comments about what this thing is and how it plays?
http://bundleofholding.com/index/current/name/Hillfolk?utm_source=Bundle+of+Holding+subscribers&utm_campaign=f1ca8f515b-092Hillfolk20150224&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_38247a319d-f1ca8f515b-101190109
inb4 move to Other Games.
it was advertised as having "story" elements, but is it considered "not an RPG"?
Quote from: Hillfolk PageWith the Hillfolk roleplaying game, you and your group weave an epic, ongoing saga of high-stakes interpersonal conflict that grows richer with every session. Its DramaSystem rules engine, from acclaimed designer Robin D. Laws, takes the basic structure of interpersonal conflict underlying fiction, movies and television and brings it to the world of roleplaying. This simple framework brings your creativity to the fore and keep a surprising, emotionally compelling narrative constantly on the move.
What do you think?
well that indicates it is advertised for story but nothing ever really indicates they dont just mean that in the sense of any other rpg you would really need to look at the mechanics
hm i am leaning towards storygame plus some of those book themes seem a bit pretentious to me which is something that often goes with storygames but thats not really a fair way to judge it
ok i found this in the 4plebs archive
Hillfolk. Motherfucking Hillfolk. I haven't heard a single mention of this game on /tg/, but damn if it isn't cool as hell. The premise is, essentially, that you are running a game in style of an episodic TV show à la Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. It's fairly rules light, but everything is geared toward establishing a constant state of dramatic tension, of give-and-take between characters, of every resolution leading to a new complication. I cannot wait to run it.
yep storygame
to the other games section we go.
i call shotgun
The SRD free to peruse. I started perusing it, but zoned out after a few pages. Don't know if it's a dreaded storygame or not, but it is clearly not my kind of game.
i can find no such srd
It's an RPG. It's got a procedural ruleset, it's got random resolution, it's got stats and skills and all that.
OTOH, all of that is basically underneath a system that for Dramatic Scenes which incentivizes taking dramatically appropriate actions that further the plot that are not necessarily in the best interest of your character. It's specifically meant to mimic cable dramas like The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, etc.
So in a Dramatic Scene, your character may take an action, or forego an action, or give or fail to give an emotional payoff, and the plot gets more complicated. Nobody can force you to do this -- the token economy pretty explicitly allows you to jump out of such a conflict rather than be coerced.
The rules themselves are okay -- the Drama rules are where it's at, the procedural system is just kind of okay and workmanlike, and I much prefer floating the Drama system on top of another game system. I ran it once on top of Eclipse Phase, for instance, and it didn't work that well, but that was more my fault than the system's. I'd really like to use it to do a high-stakes, inside-politics version of Night's Black Agents, where the PCs are part of a CTU-like organization fighting vampires, and all of the soap opera that entails.
The settings that come with the rulebook and the supplement are incredible, though. I'd really, really like to run a quarter of them, especially the generational conflict between different parts of a Lovecraftian cultist family, of the Dark Shadows-esque soap opera, or what have you. There's a ton of good ideas in there. But as I said, I'd use the Drama rules with the rules system of my choice for procedural stuff.
Also, the SRD is, IIRC, written blandly enough that it doesn't really sell the game.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;817539It's specifically meant to mimic cable dramas like The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, etc.
It says 'Iron Age Drama' on the cover... so I'm not getting the Sopranos vibe. Is that from supplemental materials?
It kindasorta sounds like a tool for frustrated script writers.
Quote from: Simlasa;817544It says 'Iron Age Drama' on the cover... so I'm not getting the Sopranos vibe. Is that from supplemental materials?
It kindasorta sounds like a tool for frustrated script writers.
This. Like
Fiasco, this is a formalized writer's room exercise suite and not a game. Games don't give a shit about drama. If you're not--at all times--thinking and acting to your man's best advantage, you're not playing the game; you're doing something else and that isn't a proper RPG.
not entirely true you could be under a magical compulsion or something.
Quote from: Simlasa;817544It says 'Iron Age Drama' on the cover... so I'm not getting the Sopranos vibe. Is that from supplemental materials?
It kindasorta sounds like a tool for frustrated script writers.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;817566This. Like Fiasco, this is a formalized writer's room exercise suite and not a game. Games don't give a shit about drama. If you're not--at all times--thinking and acting to your man's best advantage, you're not playing the game; you're doing something else and that isn't a proper RPG.
Yeah, it sounds to me like one of those dramatist thingies, aiming to emulate literary drama. Not sure if quite a full-on storygame but not really an RPG in my book.
Quote from: Simlasa;817544It says 'Iron Age Drama' on the cover... so I'm not getting the Sopranos vibe. Is that from supplemental materials?
The default setting is Iron Age hunter/gatherers, but since the setting takes about three pages to explain, the book also includes thirty others, ranging from stuff written by Dave Gross and Ed Greenwood to Jason Morningstar.
QuoteIt kindasorta sounds like a tool for frustrated script writers.
Nope, it's Robin Laws, it's a real game. It directly deals with the fact that the average player in a role-playing game will never make what they perceive as a less than ideal choice for his character, given that the character is a) a bunch of stats on a piece of paper, who is b) rewarded for money and killing but not c) all of the things real people want, like recognition, fame, status and love/revenge, what-have-you. So it incentivizes doing all the things real people do, which is occasionally make less than ideal choices because they reward some other part of the character's personality or goals.
Each character has a set of Dramatic Poles and relationships with the rest of the party, so you may make a decision that works because you're War Leader in a Time of War, but doesn't work for the part of you that Seeks the Create a Dynasty, because the girl you want to wed to create said dynasty is now pissed at you.
To take Bradford Walker's incredibly narrow and bullshit example of what an RPG is, Hillfolk simply broadens what it means to be going for your character's best advantage. Sometimes you want to conquer the world, and sometimes you want Aggripina to warm your bed and call you her mighty Caesar, and it creates a token economy to make those scenes happen. It's not concerned with whether or not you conquer the world or get Aggripina in bed, it's concerned with creating drama around that interplay, to complement the normal procedural stuff that goes on in an RPG.
You could, and I have wanted to do this, just clip the Drama rules on top of any OSR ruleset or Pathfinder or what have you. I've wanted to do that with a Pathfinder game where adventuring companies are literal companies granted letters of marque and salvage to invade old dungeons and exploit the fuck out of them.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;817615Nope, it's Robin Laws, it's a real game.
Meh, guess I'm not in that fan club.
QuoteIt directly deals with the fact that the average player in a role-playing game will never make what they perceive as a less than ideal choice for his character
In tonight's Pathfinder game our group bought and then set free a small village worth of halfling slaves... we also bought them a farm and gave them enough cash to set themselves up. No gain for us at all except maybe a good meal next time we blow through town.
Does that mean we're not 'average'?
QuoteYou could, and I have wanted to do this, just clip the Drama rules on top of any OSR ruleset or Pathfinder or what have you. I've wanted to do that with a Pathfinder game where adventuring companies are literal companies granted letters of marque and salvage to invade old dungeons and exploit the fuck out of them.
Sounds fun! But I'm really not seeing why you'd need 'Drama rules' for that... if it's the sort of game the Players want to play. Why use behavior modification gimmicks to steer them towards stuff they're not already inclined to do?
Quote from: Simlasa;817830Meh, guess I'm not in that fan club.
In tonight's Pathfinder game our group bought and then set free a small village worth of halfling slaves... we also bought them a farm and gave them enough cash to set themselves up. No gain for us at all except maybe a good meal next time we blow through town.
Does that mean we're not 'average'?
Sounds fun! But I'm really not seeing why you'd need 'Drama rules' for that... if it's the sort of game the Players want to play. Why use behavior modification gimmicks to steer them towards stuff they're not already inclined to do?
But why not?
I mean we give XP to incentivise pcs fighting and players would fight shit no matter what.
If the rules are there to try and force characters to make more roleplay based decisions as opposed to merely following the most expedient route to the most obvious goal, then I kind of like the idea.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;817615It directly deals with the fact that the average player in a role-playing game will never make what they perceive as a less than ideal choice for his character, given that the character is a) a bunch of stats on a piece of paper, who is b) rewarded for money and killing but not c) all of the things real people want, like recognition, fame, status and love/revenge, what-have-you. So it incentivizes doing all the things real people do, which is occasionally make less than ideal choices because they reward some other part of the character's personality or goals.
In other words, narrative rules to attempt to teach the munchkin to roleplay instead of deal with mechanics by giving them another set of mechanics to force them to roleplay. :banghead:
Quote from: jibbajibba;817875But why not?
I mean we give XP to incentivise pcs fighting and players would fight shit no matter what.
My preferred systems are most often BRP-derived, where PCs get XP for whatever they do, and none for what they don't do. Fighting isn't the only path to success.
QuoteIf the rules are there to try and force characters to make more roleplay based decisions as opposed to merely following the most expedient route to the most obvious goal, then I kind of like the idea.
Most folks don't like being forced to do things... especially when it's supposed to be fun/play.
Some GMs I Play with hand out XP for 'good roleplaying'... but it comes off as sort of arbitrary and seems to encourage some folks to regretable excess.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;817539OTOH, all of that is basically underneath a system that for Dramatic Scenes which incentivizes taking dramatically appropriate actions that further the plot that are not necessarily in the best interest of your character. It's specifically meant to mimic cable dramas like The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, etc.
I'm a bit skeptical that trying to emuate a TV series such as these is a good concept for an RPG. It boils down to "art imitating art imitating life" and that seems to include a rather rendundant step.
Besides, I don't like games that want to tell me how I have to feel, which makes quite a few "drama systems" a bit annoying. So, this is probably not a game for me (which is sad, because "Iron Age hunters and gatherers" sounds cool. In a propper, historic game).
I have yet to read the SRD, but from the sound of it I'd probably try using the basic drama rules with an OSR of some kind. I disagree that "real rpgs" don't give a shit about drama. I very much enjoy Cinematic Unisystem--I didn't utilize Drama Points as much as some players, but I liked what they stood for.
I don't do full co-op narrativist stuff like Microscope of Chuubos (FUCK Chuubos) or whatever, but I'm curious about these drama rules.
Quote from: Beagle;817889I'm a bit skeptical that trying to emuate a TV series such as these is a good concept for an RPG. It boils down to "art imitating art imitating life" and that seems to include a rather rendundant step.
It doesn't really emulate a TV show
mechanically unless you choose to use it's explicit "hard" scene framing rules (and even then it's not exactly a TV show, but more a structured narrative in the literary sense). It also has an option for "Immersive Play" where the scene frames are "soft", in other words pretty much how most RPGs use them already.
QuoteBesides, I don't like games that want to tell me how I have to feel, which makes quite a few "drama systems" a bit annoying. So, this is probably not a game for me (which is sad, because "Iron Age hunters and gatherers" sounds cool. In a propper, historic game).
I haven't played it, but I have read it, and I don't think it tells you how to feel at all. In fact, it's the opposite, it incentivises and rewards you to act on how you (your character, actually) feels (as decided by you). The drama point system is more about how important are your feelings on something rather than on what they are.
The procedural rules kinda blow, so I'd drop the drama rules onto another system.
Quote from: CRKrueger;817879In other words, narrative rules to attempt to teach the munchkin to roleplay instead of deal with mechanics by giving them another set of mechanics to force them to roleplay. :banghead:
Either that or written by someone whos never seen players play a character "sub optimally" as part of the character.
I might know that a troll is killed and stopped regenerating by fire or acid. But my character whos never seen or heard of a troll before sure as hell isnt going to cast fire or acid spells specifically to kill it. I'll start off with whatevers my go-to attack spell and if thats not fire or acid based well boo-hoo-hoo! If I see it regenerate I might try fire then as it makes sense in that cauterize the wound sort of way. I might never hit on acid as an option. And yes playing like that might get my character DOA.
i have to agree for me the example does not really work i would never play a character who does not know how to kill a troll (largely because as a gm i would say its something every peasant would know) but i do agree with the general idea in a recent game i encountered a giant slug i knew that salt would affect it but i was not sure my character would so i made a knowledge check and we went on our merry way
Quote from: Omega;818010Either that or written by someone whos never seen players play a character "sub optimally" as part of the character.
I might know that a troll is killed and stopped regenerating by fire or acid. But my character whos never seen or heard of a troll before sure as hell isnt going to cast fire or acid spells specifically to kill it. I'll start off with whatevers my go-to attack spell and if thats not fire or acid based well boo-hoo-hoo! If I see it regenerate I might try fire then as it makes sense in that cauterize the wound sort of way. I might never hit on acid as an option. And yes playing like that might get my character DOA.
Actually, Hillfolk's drama system doesn't cover character knowledge in any way. It's only used in dramatic relationships between characters, not in procedural stuff like "how to kill a troll". It never really addresses that kind of question.
It's not a proscriptive system where it's "correcting" someone's behavior, but more something that creates incentives for characters to engage with each other in emotionally fraught (drama) ways, based on the desires and relationships you've created for your character. If you know how to kill a troll or not isn't on the menu.
Almost played this a while back, may still get an opportunity to do so in the future. I don't know anything about the system. One of my players seems to really like it. It is Laws so I am expecting GM as storyteller type stuff to be in there. My experience with Gumshoe was it wasn't for me, but I did think it did some interesting things. The sales pitch from the player has me a bit more interested in this one. At the very least, the setting seems interesting.
Quote from: CRKrueger;817879In other words, narrative rules to attempt to teach the munchkin to roleplay instead of deal with mechanics by giving them another set of mechanics to force them to roleplay. :banghead:
Nope. I think it generally assumes the players there are competent. Much like Gumshoe is just prescribing what a lot of people do anyway, Drama System is basically creating an economy for things a lot of people do as it is, and by structuring it creates a more formal rhythm.
Drama System says there are two types of scenes: Procedural and Dramatic. Procedural Scenes are ones where the good guys are shooting at the bad guys or the heist happens, where things revolve around physical action. Dramatic Scenes are the heart of the system, and are encounters between two characters, the Petitioner and the Grantor. The Petitioner wants some emotional payoff from the Grantor; the Grantor may or may not want to give it. If the Grantor gives the payoff up, they get a token; if they don't give it up, the Petitioner can force the issue, which the Grantor can then block. If the Petitioner is rebuffed, they get a token.
So in an episode of Arrow, where Oliver is off fighting Ra's Al Ghul's assassins, that's a Procedural Scene, usually. When he's in the basement of Verdant debating the morality of allying with Merlyn with Diggle and Felicity, that's a Dramatic Scene.
Since you get a token for relenting and that token can be used for various things, including triggering your own dramatic conflicts, and your character has innate paradoxes that mean that relenting in a dramatic scene isn't being false, then you have an incentive to see how things go if you're the grantor. Sons of Anarchy's final season revolved around Jax believing his mother when his mother has, at times, been a terrible person -- in game terms, Jax got a token for giving her his trust, and it triggers the events of the rest of the game.
Again, most people do this all the time, this just explicitly formalizes it, creates an incentive economy, and a framework for it to happen in. And the ideas are incredible -- thumbing through my book, there's everything from a story about being henchmen to supervillains to being mad scientists to being the Hogwarts students all grown up and teaching, etc. I don't regret buying it, even if I don't play it enough.
FVB:
Your initial sales pitch and later commentary keeps making it feel otherwise.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;818180Much like Gumshoe is just prescribing what a lot of people do anyway
Yeah, didn't care for Gumshoe's solution to a non-problem either.
QuoteDrama System is basically creating an economy for things a lot of people do as it is, and by structuring it creates a more formal rhythm.
I'm still not getting why I'd want that... just seems like adding rules and jargon for stuff that doesn't need rules and jargon.
QuoteDrama System says there are two types of scenes: Procedural and Dramatic.
Why bother?
QuoteAgain, most people do this all the time, this just explicitly formalizes it, creates an incentive economy, and a framework for it to happen in.
I don't see how that adds more fun... it actually sounds fucking annoying and nitpicky. Complicating something for no good reason.
Quote from: Simlasa;818192Yeah, didn't care for Gumshoe's solution to a non-problem either.
I'm still not getting why I'd want that... just seems like adding rules and jargon for stuff that doesn't need rules and jargon.
Why bother?
I don't see how that adds more fun... it actually sounds fucking annoying and nitpicky. Complicating something for no good reason.
You can say that about any kind of game rules, really, depending on what your priorities are.
Most games are built around the idea of adventure stories like Lord of the Rings or Conan. Those are great and fun things to play. I like those. And the rules for these games are centered around things like combat or exploration, because those things are central to adventure games. If interpersonal and personal psychological conflict comes up, it's handled either without explicit rules or a simple die roll, because that kind of conflict isn't terribly important in an adventure game.
Hillfolk/DramaSystem is built around the idea of character dramas, like A Song of Ice and Fire or Prince of Nothing. That also sounds like a fun thing to play. I like those too. And the rules are centered around things like interpersonal conflict and psychological turmoil because those things are central to character dramas. Combat and exploration are either handled without explicit rules or a simple mechanical resolution, because that kind of conflict isn't terribly important in a character drama.
Both kinds of games use mechanics to emphasize certain kinds of conflicts. Which one you'd play depends on what kind of game you want. A game of Dungeon Explorers in D&D will play out very differently than one in DramaSystem. The meaningful conflicts in the first are primarily physical ones against the environment, in the second it's primarily psychological and emotional ones against the other player characters.
I think DramaSystem has a great potential for those of us who like really getting into characters' heads and being able to play that to the hilt. I am anxious to try it.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;818180Nope. I think it generally assumes the players there are competent. Much like Gumshoe is just prescribing what a lot of people do anyway, Drama System is basically creating an economy for things a lot of people do as it is, and by structuring it creates a more formal rhythm.
Drama System says there are two types of scenes: Procedural and Dramatic. Procedural Scenes are ones where the good guys are shooting at the bad guys or the heist happens, where things revolve around physical action. Dramatic Scenes are the heart of the system, and are encounters between two characters, the Petitioner and the Grantor. The Petitioner wants some emotional payoff from the Grantor; the Grantor may or may not want to give it. If the Grantor gives the payoff up, they get a token; if they don't give it up, the Petitioner can force the issue, which the Grantor can then block. If the Petitioner is rebuffed, they get a token.
So in an episode of Arrow, where Oliver is off fighting Ra's Al Ghul's assassins, that's a Procedural Scene, usually. When he's in the basement of Verdant debating the morality of allying with Merlyn with Diggle and Felicity, that's a Dramatic Scene.
Since you get a token for relenting and that token can be used for various things, including triggering your own dramatic conflicts, and your character has innate paradoxes that mean that relenting in a dramatic scene isn't being false, then you have an incentive to see how things go if you're the grantor. Sons of Anarchy's final season revolved around Jax believing his mother when his mother has, at times, been a terrible person -- in game terms, Jax got a token for giving her his trust, and it triggers the events of the rest of the game.
Again, most people do this all the time, this just explicitly formalizes it, creates an incentive economy, and a framework for it to happen in. And the ideas are incredible -- thumbing through my book, there's everything from a story about being henchmen to supervillains to being mad scientists to being the Hogwarts students all grown up and teaching, etc. I don't regret buying it, even if I don't play it enough.
Competent? ROFL, try more interested in talking about and dealing with the characters from an OOC perspective than an IC one. Pretentiousness aside, that's all this is.
Most people do this all the time? Yeah, no. I like roleplaying, so don't do much story arc/character growth OOC thought.
All the smoke and mirrors aside, it's just an OOC storygaming narrative control system wrapper. The fact that it attempts to mimic episodic drama genres doesn't change the 100% OOC thinking.
Quote from: CRKrueger;818198Competent? ROFL, try more interested in talking about and dealing with the characters from an OOC perspective than an IC one.
What makes you think that? Because I don't see anything in the game that requires talking OOC (well not moreso than any other game), and I do see things that absolutely require not only talking IC, but being in tune with your character's desires and psychology in a very deep way.
Quote from: CRKrueger;818198The fact that it attempts to mimic episodic drama genres doesn't change the 100% OOC thinking.
This is from the Hillfolk rulebook as part of an example of play:
DELIA: Some say I have eyes for your husband. I am here to say I have done nothing dishonorable, and to assure you I never will.
BEATA: You don't deny the gossip then.
DELIA: What?
BEATA: You promise you won't act on your desires and I believe you. But you do desire him.
DELIA: I.. I...
BEATA: Do not fear girl, I question your taste not your honor.
DELIA: Um, Thanks?
BEATA: I've more important concerns than making trouble for you
DELIA: (shifting to show Darkeye is edging away) Uh, good then.
BEATA: (cupping hand to mouth as if to call after her) If it were up to me, you could have him.
Yep 100% OOC alright.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818197Most games are built around the idea of adventure stories like Lord of the Rings or Conan. Those are great and fun things to play. I like those. And the rules for these games are centered around things like combat or exploration, because those things are central to adventure games. If interpersonal and personal psychological conflict comes up, it's handled either without explicit rules or a simple die roll, because that kind of conflict isn't terribly important in an adventure game.
While I can't have an actual swordfight with a troll at the table I CAN roleplay a conversation/argument with one. No need for breaking it down into 'moves' or 'Drama Points' or whatever... just act it out.
The example conversation you posted could be from any RPG... no need for extra widgits gumming it up.
Really, my favorite aspect of RPGs are those bits where the rules fall away and PCs/NPCs interact... why would I want to hand those off to mechanical whatnots that take me out of immersion?
As it is it sounds almost ANTI-immersion.
I'm not saying no one could enjoy this game, even I might like it in the proper context (writing class?)... but it sounds like its appeal is something wholly different than what I want from an RPG.
Quote from: Simlasa;818204Yeah, because... while I can't have an actual swordfight with a troll at the table I CAN roleplay a conversation/argument with one.
But you're in direct conflict with one of more of the other PCs as part of the premise of your character. Mediating disputes over outcomes without it devolving is the point of rules. Otherwise we'd all just sit around and play let's pretend like we did as kids. You're still roleplaying everything out, moreso than usual probably because now you do actually have to convince the other character, not just their player, to agree with you.
And BTW, people DO indeed play RPGs where they have actual swordfights (just not with actual swords).
QuoteNo need for breaking it down into 'moves' or 'Drama Points' or whatever... just act it out.
Really, my favorite aspect of RPGs are those bits where the rules fall away and PCs/NPCs interact... why would I want to hand those off to mechanical whatnots that take me out of immersion?
As it is it sounds almost ANTI-immersion.
I'm not saying no one could enjoy this game, even I might like it in the proper context... but it sounds like its appeal is something wholly different than what I want from an RPG.
This isn't "social combat" or "social mechanics" like you see in other games. I abhor those. It's a really new thing, so it's hard to explain it to others who are unfamiliar, especially when those others are generally suspicious of other kinds of games
It's not anti-immersive, because the drama rules come into play
outside of the roleplaying scenes as consequences of what happened inside of them. It's no less immersive than "take 10 points of damage" is. You're clearly making mental leaps to interpret those 10 points of damage as something distinct
From a page on Immersion in the rulebook:
"Over time you'll discover that the game allows a very close identification with and focus on, your character and the world. With it's minimal rules and play centered on interaction, you'll spend much more time inside your protagonist's head than in any traditional game. Now and then you breifly step out of character to discuss things like intentions and petitions, but these are still about your character's perspective. All roleplaying games require some out-of-character decision making. DramaSystem requires a different, but in practice very minimal, set of those decisions. These will soon become invisible to you, just as the artificial act of rolling a d20 to see if you hit an orc becomes natural through repetition. Having navigated the shift, you'll find it a method actor's paradise. If the ultimate goal of your immersion is tight identification with your character, DramaSystem will deliver that for you by the bucketload." -- Hillfolk, pg 60
I think that makes it worth a serious look.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818199What makes you think that? Because I don't see anything in the game that requires talking OOC (well not moreso than any other game), and I do see things that absolutely require not only talking IC, but being in tune with your character's desires and psychology in a very deep way.
From above...
"Dramatic Scenes are the heart of the system, and are encounters between two characters, the Petitioner and the Grantor. The Petitioner wants some emotional payoff from the Grantor; the Grantor may or may not want to give it. If the Grantor gives the payoff up, they get a token; if they don't give it up, the Petitioner can force the issue, which the Grantor can then block. If the Petitioner is rebuffed, they get a token."
Even if players have internalized the rules to such an extent that any IC conversation can lead to the handing out and spending of tokens naturally as breathing, it's still looking down on the characters from above, from the writer's/director's chair, even if they are roleplaying out the exchange.
Kurt, Katey and Charlie can be getting into a very deep psychological analysis of the final scene between Jax and Gemma, and even if they roleplay it out, they're still talking about the characters as characters.
Over the years, I've had hours and hours of discussion about the psychology and structure of the Jax-Gemma relationship with everyone from literature professors to psychiatrists. It's doesn't matter how in depth it goes and how well I decide I know Jax, because I'm still not roleplaying Jax, I'm discussing him as an external entity.
If I'm roleplaying, I don't want or need a system to help me get into my character's head, because I am my character's head. I don't need to internalize the rules of interaction because I've internalized my character, and when he interacts, it's with faults, biases, prejudices, and limited knowledge intact and already taken into consideration. My characters goals are mine. I have no story arc I'm wanting to see happen, my character's motivations are mine.
If you differ, cool. I don't have a problem with people liking Hillfolk, it seems to be very concerned with character integrity, which is good, but un-needed in my case and my opinion.
What I do object to is the notion that games like Hillfolk just "make into mechanics what everyone does anyway" because neither I or anyone I've regularly gamed with in 25+ years does that.
Some people seem to always have and probably always will roleplay "one step removed" as a friend likes to say...they always have a narrative lens through which they view roleplay, so to them, narrative mechanics do simply make explicit what for them has always been implicit. The weird part is that many of them don't believe or understand that not everyone roleplays that way, and thus explicitly making rules for something we don't do at all
changes entirely the roleplaying process.
Quote from: CRKrueger;818208From above...
"Dramatic Scenes are the heart of the system, and are encounters between two characters, the Petitioner and the Grantor. The Petitioner wants some emotional payoff from the Grantor; the Grantor may or may not want to give it. If the Grantor gives the payoff up, they get a token; if they don't give it up, the Petitioner can force the issue, which the Grantor can then block. If the Petitioner is rebuffed, they get a token."
You're jumping to a heck of a lot of conclusions based off that tiny little paragraph that's trying to explain a 65 page set of rules. The only one who absolutely needs to think about who is a petitioner and who is a granter is the GM. If you've ever had a GM ask you "what are you trying to accomplish here" that's about as OOC as it needs to get.
QuoteIf I'm roleplaying, I don't want or need a system to help me get into my character's head, because I am my character's head. I don't need to internalize the rules of interaction because I've internalized my character, and when he interacts, it's with faults, biases, prejudices, and limited knowledge intact and already taken into consideration. My characters goals are mine. I have no story arc I'm wanting to see happen, my character's motivations are mine.
That is precisely the right mindset to play this game. I imagine it'd be really hard to play it without understanding all of that, or would definitely be less fun.
QuoteWhat I do object to is the notion that games like Hillfolk just "make into mechanics what everyone does anyway" because neither I or anyone I've regularly gamed with in 25+ years does that.
I don't know that it necessarily mechanizes what everyone does anyway as much as it helps bring that stuff into sharp focus and ensures that everyone gets a chance to bring their character into the mix equally (or as much as they wish, if they want to stay behind the scenes). It democratizes play more than it dictates anything.
The only thing it requires is that when everyone makes their character, they connect them to at least two different PCs by some relationship, and one of those relationships has to be a fraught relationship (emotionally asymmetrical) and that you need to pick two competing desires your character has. That's the extent the game tells you to do anything with your character. The rest of the game is exploring those relationships and their consequences.
Now I get it if that's not the kind of game you want to play, not everyone does, or is comfortable with that level of PC vs PC emotional struggle dangling all pink and naked. But to reject it because it requires playing a character from "above" or removed from that character is a grave mischaracterization of the game.
QuoteSome people seem to always have and probably always will roleplay "one step removed" as a friend likes to say...they always have a narrative lens through which they view roleplay, so to them, narrative mechanics do simply make explicit what for them has always been implicit. The weird part is that many of them don't believe or understand that not everyone roleplays that way, and thus explicitly making rules for something we don't do at all changes entirely the roleplaying process.
My wife and I are both hardcore immersionists (her more than I, she hates anything that gets in the way of her roleplaying). Having actually
read the book, instead of making snap assumptions, we're both eager to give this a try.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818206But you're in direct conflict with one of more of the other PCs as part of the premise of your character.
In which game? It's a common thing in most RPGs I've played.
QuoteYou're still roleplaying everything out, moreso than usual probably because now you do actually have to convince the other character, not just their player, to agree with you.
Again, not seeing how that isn't a common feature of RPGs I already play. Most of the guys I play with are pretty good about taking the PC's point of view... arguing with the barbarian as a barbarian, rather than Tony the guy sitting in front of me.
Are you claiming people playing trad RPGs never get deep into character?
QuoteAnd BTW, people DO indeed play RPGs where they have actual swordfights (just not with actual swords).
Out in the woods... NOT 'at the table'.
QuoteIt's a really new thing, so it's hard to explain it to others who are unfamiliar, especially when those others are generally suspicious of other kinds of games
Yeah, I'm still not getting it... not that I'm 'suspicious' of other kinds of games, I just put them under different categories.
QuoteIt's not anti-immersive, because the drama rules come into play outside of the roleplaying scenes as consequences of what happened inside of them.
How so? What mechanical bits are appended to that example conversation in your previous post?
QuoteWith it's minimal rules and play centered on interaction, you'll spend much more time inside your protagonist's head than in any traditional game.
See, bits of hype like that seem awfully presumptuous about how I'm already playing... that the games I'm playing are deficient somehow. How the fuck do they know how much time I'm spending inside my 'protagonists's' head? (With the use of the term 'protagonist' driving me further toward thinking this is a game for writers).
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818206It's not anti-immersive, because the drama rules come into play outside of the roleplaying scenes as consequences of what happened inside of them. It's no less immersive than "take 10 points of damage" is. You're clearly making mental leaps to interpret those 10 points of damage as something distinct.
I strongly disagree. Any roleplaying game needs some way to describe and influence the game world. We all know when someone swings a sword at me, the results will be anywhere between a complete miss to a one-shot kill. Exactly what happens is a ridiculously complex physics problem that gets boiled down to simple rolls of dice. The dice represent the physics of the world. They don't say WHY.
When I argue with another roleplayer in character, we argue. There is no "ending of the scene" and a pause where we decide how the points get awarded. That's completely and totally OOC.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818206"Over time you'll discover that the game allows a very close identification with and focus on, your character and the world. With it's minimal rules and play centered on interaction, you'll spend much more time inside your protagonist's head than in any traditional game. Now and then you breifly step out of character to discuss things like intentions and petitions, but these are still about your character's perspective. All roleplaying games require some out-of-character decision making.
No, I completely and vehemently disagree. Treating my character as a person outside myself with motives and goals different from my own, and character traits and points defined by an OOC economy I can receive and spend is NEVER going to be the same as rolling to swing a sword or take damage.
All the thoughts and decisions are in game when my character acts. Sure, at any given moment sitting at the table I may be IC or OOC, but in traditional RPGs when I interact with the environment of the world, the rules face my character. I make the rolls but all the decision and thought is from the character's perspective.
About the character's perspective is NOT
from the character's perspective.
Hillfolk claims I will spend more time inside my protagonist's head...the language itself is writer/director/literary language specifically separating the character and player. I don't need rules to put me into "my protagonist's" head, because
there is no protagonist, there is no story - there is Nemedia, a war with Aquilonia on the horizon, and me with an empty belly, a couple coins, and a sword.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818206If the ultimate goal of your immersion is tight identification with your character, DramaSystem will deliver that for you by the bucketload." -- Hillfolk, pg 60
I think that makes it worth a serious look.
For people that always think of their character at one literary arm's length away, sure. This game might be the coolest and best thing ever...for them.
I've never needed "tight identification with my character" because my character is not a third person I'm trying to figure out. The whole point of Roleplaying IMO, is being Jax Teller, not trying to stay true to the nature of Jax Teller while I write about him. Robin Laws is convinced, incorrectly, that RPGs are a literary art form, and that informs all his work, including this game.
Quote from: Simlasa;818211Again, not seeing how that isn't a common feature of RPGs I already play. Most of the guys I play with are pretty good about taking the PC's point of view... arguing with the barbarian as a barbarian, rather than Tony the guy sitting in front of me.
Are you claiming people playing trad RPGs never get deep into character?
Of course not. This is just a different set of rules to explore that experience in a different way. Different. Not necessarily better. But different. I'm interested in different. I play lots and lots of games. Maybe you're different. But I find lots of different games deliver different kinds of play experience and I like that.
QuoteYeah, I'm still not getting it... not that I'm 'suspicious' of other kinds of games, I just put them under different categories.
OHHHHH I see, this is some kind of "is this an RPG" kind of thing for you that you clearly have an emotional investment in. Not really interested in that specific conversation. But given that it's really impossible to play the game without IC roleplaying (unlike D&D, which can be played 100% OOC if someone wishes) I think it probably qualifies. It's definitely not an adventure game, though.
Either way I don't care.
QuoteHow so? What mechanical bits are appended to that example conversation in your previous post?
Darkeye's player received a Drama Point. That's the sum total of the mechanical fallout from that scene.
QuoteSee, bits of hype like that seem awfully presumptuous about how I'm already playing... that the games I'm playing are deficient somehow. How the fuck do they know how much time I'm spending inside my 'protagonists's' head? ('protagonist' driving me further toward thinking this is a game for writers).
You're just trying to find things to disagree with at this point. Your mind is made up on this one.
Got it. Moving on.
Quote from: CRKrueger;818212No, I completely and vehemently disagree. Treating my character as a person outside myself with motives and goals different from my own, and character traits and points defined by an OOC economy I can receive and spend is NEVER going to be the same as rolling to swing a sword or take damage.
Except the game doesn't involve any of those things except the point economy but lots of games have those - if point economies are a killer for you, then yeah I get that, it's not for you. I understand why some people don't like point economies. But the whole "treating a character as a person outside yourself" is completely false.
BTW, I have read HillFolk. Saying the game does not include key OOC top-down mechanics is...well, ignoring the entire dramatic economy that's the point of the whole system.
I'm completely comfortable with in-depth PC emotional conflict. Rules for it are completely unnecessary and simply get in the way.
D&D could be played 100% OOC, or 100% IC. Hillfolk cannot be played 100% OOC, however it also cannot be played 100% IC (which is where I tune out).
See I agree with you that Hillfolk is different, and gives a different experience. My contention was with the concepts that it focuses you on things you do anyway, or that it allows you to get deeper into your character.
Quote from: CRKrueger;818217BTW, I have read HillFolk. Saying the game does not include key OOC top-down mechanics is...well, ignoring the entire dramatic economy that's the point of the whole system.
I can't agree at all. The point economy is, again, going to be something you see in a lot of RPGs like Savage Worlds, Deadlands, Fate, etc. Some people have no problem looking past them and not having them bother their immersion. Others have issues with them. I get that, and if your objection is because point economies are immersion breaking for you, I get that. But for those of us who are unphased by bennies or fate points or whatever, this game shouldn't be any different.
I don't see what's so different about spending a Drama Point vs. spending a Benny in Savage Worlds to reroll a diplomacy check.
QuoteD&D could be played 100% OOC, or 100% IC.
D&D cannot be played 100% IC. How does your character know what XP is or HPs are or what a d20 result means? Any time you engage with the mechanics or write something on your sheet, it's OOC. It's unavoidable.
QuoteHillfolk cannot be played 100% OOC, however it also cannot be played 100% IC (which is where I tune out).
No RPG can be played 100% IC without ever breaking out of character at least partially to deal with the game mechanics. I imagine the only game which can be 100% (or nearly 100%) IC is a very detailed LARP.
Again, it depends on what breaks your immersion, and for me point economies don't do that. I can stay in character and manage a point, as spending points ends up being an emotional decision based on my character's feelings. This does require a little sliding into OOC to spend the point, but it's no different for me from rolling a die.
But for people who dislike point economies, this isn't the game for them.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818221But for those of us who are unphased by bennies or fate points or whatever, this game shouldn't be any different.
I don't see what's so different about spending a Drama Point vs. spending a Benny in Savage Worlds to reroll a diplomacy check.
I don't own the game and haven't read it, but I have played it at a gathering. Maybe the GM was straying from the system as written, but I found that the game was more jarring to immersion than just spending story points (as in Savage Worlds or Cinematic Unisystem). Things that affected this:
1) The split of scenes into procedural and dramatic. Just having explicit "scenes" as part of the mechanics makes it so, along with the idea that there is a point to each type of scene.
2) The split of the tokens into yellow, green, and red made it very explicit that as a player, I should get ahead by choosing to fail on some things.
I don't think there's much behind trying to binary divide RPGs into story game vs. traditional. However, Hillfolk's DramaSystem did seem to involve a bunch more out-of-character activity than many other games that have plot points or similar mechanics.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;818213OHHHHH I see, this is some kind of "is this an RPG" kind of thing for you that you clearly have an emotional investment in.
Nope, you're totally off on your own 'emotional investment' there.
I just mean I categorize games/fun by what they bring to me... and this one sounds like it's a different kind of fun, from a different perspective, than what I want when I sit down to play most RPGs... which is first person immersion as a character in an imaginary world.
I know other RPGs have a different approach... and I generally don't enjoy those as much.
QuoteYou're just trying to find things to disagree with at this point. Your mind is made up on this one.
What? You don't think language matters? You don't think that choosing to refer to the PC as a 'protagonist' carries with it a certain literary assumption?
My mind isn't looking to be 'made up'... I'm looking for what this game would bring that's different, to understand when/why/if I would want to play it instead of something else and what my expectations ought to be.
QuoteI don't see what's so different about spending a Drama Point vs. spending a Benny in Savage Worlds to reroll a diplomacy check.
Yeah, I didn't enjoy the Bennies in SW... that whole aspect took me OOC ever time it came up... messed with my fun... and seemed to steer the game toward low consequence comedy.
Quote from: Simlasa;818192I'm still not getting why I'd want that... just seems like adding rules and jargon for stuff that doesn't need rules and jargon.
[SNIP]
Why bother?
[SNIP]
I don't see how that adds more fun... it actually sounds fucking annoying and nitpicky. Complicating something for no good reason.
Alright? I mean, I'm trying to explain it for people like the OP who might be interested, not sell it to people who aren't buying.
Quote from: jhkim;818230I don't own the game and haven't read it, but I have played it at a gathering. Maybe the GM was straying from the system as written, but I found that the game was more jarring to immersion than just spending story points (as in Savage Worlds or Cinematic Unisystem). Things that affected this:
1) The split of scenes into procedural and dramatic. Just having explicit "scenes" as part of the mechanics makes it so, along with the idea that there is a point to each type of scene.
2) The split of the tokens into yellow, green, and red made it very explicit that as a player, I should get ahead by choosing to fail on some things.
I don't think there's much behind trying to binary divide RPGs into story game vs. traditional. However, Hillfolk's DramaSystem did seem to involve a bunch more out-of-character activity than many other games that have plot points or similar mechanics.
I don't know how much this ties in with Gumshoe, but number 1 was what I kept struggling with when I ran Esoterrorist. It wasn't anything you couldn't ignore, but I was trying to run the game as written to get a genuine experience of the system and the book assumes scene structures. Personally I do have to admit, structuring play around scenes makes my brain kind of fizzle out a bit, I just don't think that way when I play. However I will say, at least with Gumshoe, we could easily have just ignored that entirely.
Personally I am not troubled if some RPGs use this approach and if there are folks out there enjoying it. It isn't the sort of thing I find myself hoping for in a game, but I am willing to try such a system if one of my players really wants to give it a go. If Hillfolk is anything like my experience with Gumshoe, I expect there will be bits of it that really impress me, and bits that just don't resolve issues I have with systems or go against my natural style of play.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;818250I mean, I'm trying to explain it for people like the OP who might be interested, not sell it to people who aren't buying.
I very well might be inclined to buy... if I had a good impression of what sort of new experience it brought to the table.
To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't have anything to do with the Gumeshoe system other than that it was developed by Robin Laws. It's supposed to emulate dramatic TV shows like Game of Thrones or the Wire. While it's a story-style game, to hear Robin talk about it, his focus was mostly on figuring out how to emulate those dramatic TV shows rather than as some sort of generic replacement for all role-playing games (e.g., he doesn't market it on his podcast as a cure-all replacement like Fate often is sold). I've got zero interest in it but that's just me.