TheRPGSite

This is a response the Pistols at dawn. thread on The Pundit's Parlour, and is designated a "popcorn" thread as per message #3 of that thread.

I'm starting the thread here, rather than in The Pundit's Parlour or in The Pig Pen, because I cannot start new threads in either of those forums.  For some reason.

Now, with that out of the way...

Levi, in message #6, states (in bold, yet):

>  Roleplaying Games create stories.

From the context of the message, I'm fairly sure (but not positive) that he means "All roleplaying games create stories."

But then in message #10, he writes:

> Story-making is an element that can be brought in to roleplaying games while still having them remain roleplaying games.

Which doesn't seem to make any sense.  If story-making is an element that can be added to roleplaying games, that strongly implies that there are roleplaying games which do not already have that element.

So, Levi, what am I missing here?  Do all roleplaying games create story, or not?



Cheers,
Roger

The fourth rule of our debate is that we won't post about it outside of it until it ends.  So.  I'll check with the Pundit; if it's cool with him for me to ignore that here, I'll answer you fully.

It seems as though he's saying that RPGs create story simply by providing a series of events that can be retold later if the participants choose.

By that definition, I created a story yesterday when I went to go buy milk at the grocery store.

I've heard the concept put forth that...

All rpgs produce events that are stories, but not all rpgs create good stories.

Thus, one should create rpgs that do produce good stories.


As usual, the leap made in the 'Thus' is... a leap. I agree with the counter-statement "You are free to do so, but what you now have is not a RPG".

One could even take issue with the statement that all RPGs produce stories.

An RPG session produces an experience which several people have together.

A story is something that is told about an experience, after the experience is over.

So, if you never talk about your session, if you never tell a story, does the story exist at all? Or is there simply the potential for a story, sitting there, unused, in the minds of the participants?

Quote from: Name LipsSo, if you never talk about your session, if you never tell a story, does the story exist at all? Or is there simply the potential for a story, sitting there, unused, in the minds of the participants?

Memory is little more than recalled story, it even changes and morphs over time matching it's oral tradition.

I don't think this line is an honest engagement of the concept. It's word nitpicking and the idea deserves to be met head on for what it is.

You need to join the "Group" to be able to post.

BUT I think it is only fair that NO ONE posts in that thread until the agreed posting limited has been reached.

As much as I may disagree with Levi, I want to hear his thoughts all the same without interruptions. But then Im sure the 'pundit might say something too!

Can we do that please?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe fourth rule of our debate is that we won't post about it outside of it until it ends.  So.  I'll check with the Pundit; if it's cool with him for me to ignore that here, I'll answer you fully.

Sounds reasonable enough.  Until then we'll all just wildly speculate.



Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: LawbagBUT I think it is only fair that NO ONE posts in that thread until the agreed posting limited has been reached.

I was trying to post to the group, not the thread.



Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: RogerSounds reasonable enough.  Until then we'll all just wildly speculate.

One might say that's all at least one of them is doing...

:)

All RPGs create stories, if we define stories as stuff happening that causes other stuff to happen. This also happens to be the definition of "plot".

If we define stories as a plot, where the events don't just happen but also have some kind of meaning that holds the whole thing together, then not all RPGs create stories. Only some do.

Claiming that RPGs that do create such stories are not RPGs is elitist BS.

At the risk of my first post to this place sounding rude, the whole "story in RPG" debate in the popcorn thread seems to revolve around exactly what the definition of a story is which, frankly, is boring. We all have a basic idea of what a story is and if our entire point rests on a specific definition of "story", that's a bit lame.

Of more import - I think, anyway - is whether or not RPGs (some, if not all) should have, as their goal, the creation of a story. Or should have elements which encourages the making of a story. Does the ability to be in/make a story make the game more fun for you?

Quote from: Lady LakiraAt the risk of my first post to this place sounding rude, the whole "story in RPG" debate in the popcorn thread seems to revolve around exactly what the definition of a story is which, frankly, is boring. We all have a basic idea of what a story is and if our entire point rests on a specific definition of "story", that's a bit lame.

Of more import - I think, anyway - is whether or not RPGs (some, if not all) should have, as their goal, the creation of a story. Or should have elements which encourages the making of a story. Does the ability to be in/make a story make the game more fun for you?

I agree, welcome to Nukinland :), and my answer is no. I don't like RPGs, for the most part, whose primary goal is to "create a story". I like RPGs whose main goal is to play a game. Having a fun story arise out of the game playing is just a nice bonus as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: SigmundHaving a fun story arise out of the game playing is just a nice bonus as far as I'm concerned.

Whereas I find some RPGs rather boring without story elements added in, unless I'm in the right kind of mood. Put a different way, I continue to play in some games only because the story that has been built continues to engage me.

For the most part, the games I enjoy the most have good stories. The games I enjoy the least have little to no story. I've yet to find an RPG that happened to be devoid of (good) story but turned out to be an enjoyable game for me anyway. Which isn't to say that I don't like games that don't have story. I enjoy chinese checkers, for instance.

Wait. I lied. There have been some computer RPGs that I've played that have had thoroughly unengaging storylines but which I enjoyed playing at the time. On the other hand, I can't really remember any of their names, so that says something about how much I enjoyed them, I guess.

I enjoy playing games that utilizes the imagination of everyone at the table so that the decisions made end up creating this amazing story.

Some games do this for me better than others.

What I don't want is to walk into a situation where the players don't have meaningful decisions to make.  I like having no idea where it will end up and surfing the player's juicy brains to a satisfying conclusion.

Checked.  Good.

Quote from: RogerSo, Levi, what am I missing here?  Do all roleplaying games create story, or not?

All roleplaying games create story by their very nature, though not necessarily satisfying story of real quality.

Deliberate but not fully directed story-making can be added, to a significant extent, without cause the activity as a whole to stop being a game or to exclude roleplaying as a needed element.

For my take on "Deliberate but not fully directed", I reference you to the debate itself.  A fully directed story is one where the plot is already laid out in advance; those fail as games to me, because too much player agency is lost.

Quote from: SigmundI agree, welcome to Nukinland :), and my answer is no. I don't like RPGs, for the most part, whose primary goal is to "create a story". I like RPGs whose main goal is to play a game. Having a fun story arise out of the game playing is just a nice bonus as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Sigmund, but to a have little more to add to it with respect to myself.

My rejection of Story is rejection of the mechanical creation there of with the rules of the rpg system, no rejection of Story itself.

So I'll set up the conditions for a story. But I and no one else attempts to force the game to match or even continue those conditions. A story given is not the equal of a story earned.

Quote from: gleichmanI agree with Sigmund, but to a have little more to add to it with respect to myself.

My rejection of Story is rejection of the mechanical creation there of with the rules of the rpg system, no rejection of Story itself.

So I'll set up the conditions for a story. But I and no one else attempts to force the game to match or even continue those conditions. A story given is not the equal of a story earned.

:ditto:


:withstupid:


:)

I'm of quite the opposite take Gleichman, or certainly of a different take.  Optimally the GM organizes the exterior starting conditions (the world, the NPCs), the players set the interior starting conditions (the characters), they both work together to interpret each of these while the rules (and indirectly the dice) moderate that interaction.  Just play the damn game and the story happens. The rules do indeed write the story from the material you provide. You can if you like try to listen really hard to hear the story as accurately as it is told, dress it up some, add some commentary along the way.  Or just let it come out.

And enjoy the momment of the game.

But stepping back, yes just having a story as a goal is inane. Hell a story comes out of each and every Mechwarrior table, and damn straight you can find a gamer that is willing to tell you as many of them as any human can possible bear....and then tell you some more.

So it is what type of story, and the source of the story for what it is about.

But really, I think, RPGPundit is talking about something beyond that. Which is where the Swine reference comes from. A class war that falls roughly between the old guard and the new and the potential customers, only when you try to cut two people into two camps (SWINE or Pundit for example) it just doesn't really work.  It isn't really about story or not. It is about leisure enjoyment and closing off possibilities for leisure enjoyment because that just isn't how it was done and it isn't serious enough. And an industry shutting itself in and becoming incestuous, and economic pragmatism versus trying to lead the core of the industry down some "art" path that is really more self-important wanking that forgot it is all just playing a damn game.

Plus look at the damn picture he's using as an avatar. He was using Hunter S. Thompson before.  The Gonzo reporter. Cripie, he's broadcasting what his song and dance is all about. Putting right out in front. The all singing, all dancing pundit of the world! Honesty in advertising there. Which of course is plum full of irony that he is lobbing arrows at self-important wanking. :) But when you are fighting pigs you are bound to get a little filth splattered on you, and if noone steps up to fight the pigs?

Quote from: blakkieBut stepping back, yes just having a story as a goal is inane. Hell a story comes out of each and every Mechwarrior table, and damn straight you can find a gamer that is willing to tell you as many of them as any human can possible bear....and then tell you some more.

So it is really what type of story, and the source of it's is what it is about.

I will agree that stories happen in many RPGs. I don't agree that having a story as a goal is necessarily a bad idea. The idea, I think, is to allow players to create stories rather than have them happen. Active versus passive.

Quote from: blakkieIt isn't really about story or not. It is about leisure enjoyment and closing off possibilities for leisure enjoyment because that just isn't how it was done and it isn't serious enough. And an industry shutting itself in and becoming incestuous, and economic pragmatism versus trying to lead the core of the industry down some "art" path that is really more self-important wanking that forgot it is all just playing a damn game.

At the end of the day, even if those games are "art", are they any fun to play? Do they appeal to roleplayers? Is it arguable that they qualify as RPGs? Pragmatically, if "art" appeals, then isn't it economically viable to go down that path? Not that the industry should throw itself down a path of no return, but games appeal for a reason and it seems like a good idea to explore it. Hence theory (and wankery).

Quote from: blakkieBut when you are fighting pigs you are bound to get a little filth splattered on you, and if noone steps up to fight the pigs?

Mmmm, mud wrasslin'. Come on in, boys! It's slicker'n snot on a doorknob and does wonders for your skin.

Speaking for myself, despite the bad taste alot of his self-promotion and "ranting" can leave in my mouth, I can see past that to what at least part of his message is and I agree with it, which is why I've signed up on the Pundit side. The current debate between Pundit and Levi has me almost 100% agreeing with Pundit. I play RPGs to play a game with friends that I enjoy. A story happens when we play, but we don't seek to create "Story". If social or political issues are touched on, it's only because the game has gone that way through our play, not because we consciously or deliberately inject it. We don't see RPGs as social experiment, or therapy, or "Art". I like tactical games because i like tactics. That doesn't mean we can't or don't roleplay using our tactical game (DnD), or that we don't enjoy roleplaying as well as tactical combat.

The main part of my personal dislike of games like WoD is the subtle superiority it seems to exude with statements like "role-play vs. roll-play", the implication of which is that somehow WoD is better at allowing player to role-play than the unnamed "roll-play" type games. I also dislike them because in my view it's completely ruined what I used to consider a very cool and horrifying villian. I also blame Anne Rice for contributing to that. Vampires should be enigmatic, evil and terrifying, not a bunch of whiney angst-ridden punks hanging out artsy, exclusive back-alley bars. They should be rare and terrible, not the monster-world version of street gangs.

Despite my overall attraction to Blue Rose, the elements i don't like about it are the social/political ones. Blue Rose has taken a genre that for the most part promotes gender-equality (usually by not actually talking about or portraying gender-inequality), and made it almost cartoonish. It goes too far IMO and actually steps into the same bias only at the other end. None of the genre Blue Rose seeks to emulate goes anywhere near that far that I have read. I consider myself fortunate that I find those elements easy to drop/modify and I can still find lots of value in the Blue Rose setting overall. From the way it sounds most people who dislike it aren't able to do the same. IMO the "preaching" of Blue Rose is the problem with it. I don't need to be told by a RPG how i should feel about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political stand. Those elements can and should be included in settings, IMO, but only to create a feeling for the setting, and to give a framework for the players to play their characters in, not to actually teach, preach, or educate.

QuoteMmmm, mud wrasslin'. Come on in, boys! It's slicker'n snot on a doorknob and does wonders for your skin.

WOOT! I LOVE mud-wrasslin'....it really does do wonders for the skin.

:evillaugh:

Quote from: Lady LakiraI will agree that stories happen in many RPGs. I don't agree that having a story as a goal is necessarily a bad idea. The idea, I think, is to allow players to create stories rather than have them happen. Active versus passive.

Having the a story as a goal is like having breathing as a goal. Assuming you don't drop dead it is just going to happen anyway.  Having a particular type of story and the story coming out in a particular type medium is a laudible goal. Having the story already finished with only minor details left to fill in, if those? Well then you aren't playing a game anymore. You are either filling in as overacting characters in someone else's 4th rate play or attempting to be a playwrite/director but without the actual skill or money to pull it off for real being forced to use actors that are unfit to shine the shoes of the people that bring morning coffee to soap opera actors. ;)

QuoteAt the end of the day, even if those games are "art", are they any fun to play? Do they appeal to roleplayers? Is it arguable that they qualify as RPGs? Pragmatically, if "art" appeals, then isn't it economically viable to go down that path? Not that the industry should throw itself down a path of no return, but games appeal for a reason and it seems like a good idea to explore it. Hence theory (and wankery).

The industry had headed down that path, and things were looking pretty damn bleak.  Explored and turned up a duster. Next please! ;)

Well I suppose it is partially perspective.  Mismanagement and stagnation were crippling the market leader, and WW simply wasn't up to the task of being the market leader. Because that "art" wasn't economically viable to be the leader, and then it turned in on itself too in a fit of purism of the "art" and you had the two big dogs pulling off startlingly accurate "Ol' Yeller in the corn crib" impersonations.

D20 truely was the savior of the D&D legacy. Because it was a quality product that provided what AD&D did, only in a vastly improved way. It was better at giving the player (customer) what they wanted and getting the hell out of the way so it didn't give them so much of what they didn't want. And it was backed with real money and marketed with something approaching visionary brilliance.

It just happened to keep the industry from implosion and obscurity in the proccess by bringing in a flood of cash. What goes up eventually comes down, at least somewhat. So the chaft that came in with the cash surge eventually blew back out of town. But a lot of it stuck around, and along with some other publishing technology advances it has lead to some great fun games getting off the ground and being out there as well built niche options for people to enjoy.

WW has likewise redeemed itself after a fashion. Because it's nolonger trying to be what it never was, the workhorse of the industry. It's cutting back the crap (blowing up it's entire crapola, convoluted, overwrought, psudeo-arthouse storyline) and putting out a product line sized to much closer match it's optimal market size. So it's healthy and will continue to be there both for the vamp nuts/goths (slanderous way of saying gothic horror afficionatos :) ) and for the slice of people that don't like to actually to game. ;)

I think story is a red herring, or something that many gamers don't really understand. They play a game, and cool stuff happens, and that cool stuff forms an interesting, memorable story. Instead of thinking, "How did that cool stuff happen?", they just look at the end result and say, "I like RPGs that do that."

It's sort of like saying that every basketball game should end with a shot at the final buzzer that determines the winner. There's little understanding of how or why the game got there.

On top of all this, in the early 1990s TSR produced some truly abominable DMing advice that set gamers up for a lifetime of disappointment. To read some of those texts, a game was a total failure if the players weren't eager to memorize 50+ pages of setting material, or if spending four hours shopping for a new bridle wasn't a rip roaring old time for your group.

Quote from: mearlsI think story is a red herring, or something that many gamers don't really understand. They play a game, and cool stuff happens, and that cool stuff forms an interesting, memorable story. Instead of thinking, "How did that cool stuff happen?", they just look at the end result and say, "I like RPGs that do that."

It's sort of like saying that every basketball game should end with a shot at the final buzzer that determines the winner. There's little understanding of how or why the game got there.

I, for one, don't want to constantly think about "How did that cool stuff happen?". In our games it happens often enough that we keep having fun playing, and we don't need to think about it or pursue it at all. IMO, if our game were to start focusing more on "How did that cool stuff happen?", and less on  just enjoying the cool stuff when it does happen I would start having much less fun. I'm glad every basketball game doesn't end with a winning shot at the buzzer, because then that winning shot would become ordinary and kinda boring. Likewise, I don't mind several "average" games/sessions/campaigns in my RPGing, because then when that "cool stuff" does happen, it's even more cool and memorable.

Also, I do agree with what you're saying (or seem to be) that it's not really the RPG itself that makes the cool stuff happen, it's the players (including the GM of course).

I should make myself clearer.

The breakdown is when people think, "The game made a good story, so I need a good story to have a good game."

(It was exciting when the game ended on that final shot. Therefore, all games should end with a buzzer beater.)

I mean, people can and do design/run story games, but problems arise when people apply the above thinking to D&D or Vampire. Or, when they get so obsessed with building a perfect story that they try to take control of a game session (railroading DMs; attention hog players).

The fetid, rotten '90s were rife with this sort of false thinking. AD&D 2e was founded on it.

Quote from: mearlsI should make myself clearer.

The breakdown is when people think, "The game made a good story, so I need a good story to have a good game."

(It was exciting when the game ended on that final shot. Therefore, all games should end with a buzzer beater.)

I mean, people can and do design/run story games, but problems arise when people apply the above thinking to D&D or Vampire. Or, when they get so obsessed with building a perfect story that they try to take control of a game session (railroading DMs; attention hog players).

The fetid, rotten '90s were rife with this sort of false thinking. AD&D 2e was founded on it.

Ah, I'm with ya, and agree 100% :)

Huh.

Am I like the only guy in the room who doesn't see this as a "all roleplaying games" sort of thing?

Some games always make a good story when you play them.

Some games sometimes make a good story when you play them.

Some games never make a good story when you play them.

Does this say anything about whether or not these games are fun for the participants?  Heck no!  It depends on whether they want good story and how they want it.

I like a lot of things about playing RPGs.  Therefore, I play different games at different times, depending on what I want at the moment.  Right now I'm playing a game of Nine Worlds (http://www.chimera.info) which has a rocking story and good tactics but basically no characterization and a game of D&D (http://www.wotc.com) which has rocking tactics and some characterization but not a whole ton of story.  And I love both those games a lot.

Games don't have to have stories to be good to play, nor are games that produce good stories necessarily good to play.

Right?

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. Yes everything that Mike says about 90s games is true.

Ben I think you bring up a good point, and I agree with you.  One thing that gets RPGPunidt worked up is when people say that D&D doesn't produce as good a story as some other RPG, and takes this as an attack on D&D.  So what?  I've said it many times, if you want a good tactical game with some story and characterization with a vaugely fantasy feel then D&D is hard to beat.

Since this looks like the Pistols at Dawn commentary thread, one thing the Pundit said really got my attention.

QuoteYou see, what you wrote above looks good and sexy in theory. But in practice, your player will find the big bad in the first five minutes and cut off his head.
Or the other player gets the treasure, before he was supposed to.
Or the whole party gets whacked by a lucky hobgoblin.
Or Player #3 decides its more fun to try to run a tavern.
Or the whole party decides they're going to go on a quest to Corunglain instead.

Real stories do not have characters with their own agency, and real stories do not suffer from the possibilities of abrupt endings. RPGs are not story-makers because you cannot control the course of the adventure to be sure a full story will be told, at least not without either forcing the players or forcing the world. Doing this is something that creates a less enjoyable play experience, and is still a sub-optimal way of creating story. That's what I meant by "worthwhile".

He's right.  You can use the story structure in the game, with Introduction -> Rising Action -> Climax -> falling action - Denomout.  To do this without robbing the players of their Authority however, you can't plan for it ahead of time.  You can certainly plan the introduction and have several ways set up to escalate the action, but you must be prepared to create an emotionally satisfying climax on the fly.  You can plan by guessing what the players will do, but if you're wrong you *must* be willing to throw that all out and think of a good way to get the main conflict resolved.

So the solution to the problem Pundit puts forward is to learn to roll with the punches with an eye toward maintaining proper pacing.  So for the items he listed...

- your player will find the big bad in the first five minutes and cut off his head.

Maybe the Big Bad was keeping a rival in check and a bigger bad now rears his ugly head.  Or taking the Big Bad out created a power vaccuum and things quickly descend into anarchy.  Since this is the first five minutes, we need to escalate the action.  The Big Bad is still dead, but in the interest of making a good game we need to escalate things.

- Or the other player gets the treasure, before he was supposed to.

What's the purpose of this treasure?  If he wasn't supposed to get it until the climax then you use the same trick as above.  Think of a way that him getting the treasure escalates the action.

Example time - Indiana Jones is exploring a lost temple.  By pure luck he managed to avoid most of the traps and enemies and found the treasure chamber less than 30 minutes into the game.  He grabs the treasure, so the GM decides that this sets off a big rolling boulder trap sending him dashing through the trap-filled crypt and out into a crowd of hostile natives, climaxing with an exciting escape on an airplane.  The plan was finding the treasure to be the climax, the actual play is that escaping with the treasure becomes the climax.

- Or the whole party gets whacked by a lucky hobgoblin.

That's a problem with the system IMO.  If you want a story oriented game the PC should have script immunity against mooks.  That's a style and taste thing I realize, but you are right that arbitrary PC death makes for shitty stories.  That's why I don't like it.

- Or Player #3 decides its more fun to try to run a tavern.

Like I said, just have to be ready to roll with the punches and work that into the narrative somehow.  A character wanting to run a tavern is awesome, they now have goals and things their character cares about.  This is the key to drama.

- Or the whole party decides they're going to go on a quest to Corunglain instead.

Again, trying to keep the pacing of a game so that it makes for a satisfying story does not require that everything is planned for in advance.

Madd --

I agree totally.  I also think that giving the players power over the story also gives them responsibility (thank you, Uncle Ben), and if you play with responsible players you'll have no problem.

You wouldn't happen to be planning to be in Shanghai any time soon?  Or be at GenCon?  There are games I think we should play...

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanMadd --

I agree totally.  I also think that giving the players power over the story also gives them responsibility (thank you, Uncle Ben), and if you play with responsible players you'll have no problem.

You wouldn't happen to be planning to be in Shanghai any time soon?  Or be at GenCon?  There are games I think we should play...

yrs--
--Ben

I will be running both All Flesh Must Be Eaten and Buffy at GenCon this year.  And I'm sure gaming a bunch more besides that.

I agree what you say about responsible players too.  I've got a great set of players right now, and they are completely eating up the autonomy.

What game always makes a good story when you play it? What game seldom does? I've been involved in plenty of DnD campaigns that were also great stories. The best stories in fact. I just don't see what is inherent in DnD that causes it to lack in the "story" department. I've been RPing for 28 years, so I've seen a few games come and go, but I've never had a bad gaming experience solely based on the game system. Or a good one based on the game system. CoC was fun, as was Mechwarrior, Werewolf, Dragonquest, GURPS (western, traveller, and WWII), Deadlands, TOON, Marvel Superheroes, Champion, Alternity, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Top Secret, MERP, Harnworld, James Bond, Stormbringer, and even DnD (all versions). There are some games whose flavor or feel I like or dislike, but I can't say I couldn't have fun playing even the ones I dislike with the right players.

I wonder how one can play a RPG and not have some kind of story result.

Sigmund --

The point is not that there are RPGs that don't produce story, but if you as players don't care about the quality of the story you produce, then the quality of that story doesn't matter, does it?

For instance, in the D&D game I'm playing right now, story isn't the focus.  (And I'm talking about this specific game, not D&D in general.)  So our story isn't that great.  I wouldn't read it if it were a book.  That's okay, we're having a blast anyway, because story isn't what we're looking for.

I think some of the real damage of the 90s is the idea that story is somehow a "better" or "more pure" goal in role-playing than, say, tactical combat.  That's just silly.  It's a recreational activity.  The goal is to have fun.

yrs--
--Ben

My take is this. When you have a group of people sitting down together, with dice in hand (or whatever conflict resolution system), they are getting ready to play characters with backgrounds and they are going to interact with denizens of a make believe world...something is going to happen. Call it story, a tale, whatever. Something does happen.

See that dungeon over there. Sitting all musty and evil. For whatever reasons the players go there, wether it's to save the village, defeat an old enemy residing there whatever..that sucker is going to be explored one way or another. And when this happens, the seed of a story is planted(when nobody is looking)

RPGs are basically  sets of rules. To me there is no way around that. And really why should you want to get around it. It's a game. But once it gets into the hands of the consumer, it has the potential to be something more, if one so wishes. I think of it this way. The industry produces product, the gamer/consumer produces the story...or art, if one is so inclined.This is why rpgs are such interesting creatures...its potential is limitless, or limited, depending on the rules and the manner of play, all of which is entirely up to the players.

In my opinion all RPGs do this. They create a situation in which a story might evolve. I mean every rpg adventure i have read has some dramatic device to get the players involved in the enfolding events. Sure call it plot whatever, but this whole rpg thing is dripping with "story potential".

Some systems encourage a certain style of play...perhaps more into the role playing aspect, others concentrate on the more tactical aspects of the game, but all rpgs i think at its core are vehicles in which various different kinds of stories could be told.

And yet story is not the goal. It is just something that happens along the way. Nobody can ever have any real control over it. Sure you can have systems designed to ensure that story becomes a goal and what not...but really story is what happens when a group of friends sit down and explore a make believe world....story happens when you are playing the game, story happens - when you least expect it.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: SigmundI agree, welcome to Nukinland :), and my answer is no. I don't like RPGs, for the most part, whose primary goal is to "create a story". I like RPGs whose main goal is to play a game. Having a fun story arise out of the game playing is just a nice bonus as far as I'm concerned.

I call story a beneficial by-product of gaming. In other words, story happens.

-mice

Quote from: Ben LehmanThe point is not that there are RPGs that don't produce story, but if you as players don't care about the quality of the story you produce, then the quality of that story doesn't matter, does it?

I don't think that reflects my mindset.

I'd rather phrase it this way: "I don't expect an RPG to always produce a quality story".

Thus I'm always rather happy when play it *on it's own* of the RPG does.

Let me trot out one of my favorite D20 stories and see if I can make a point with it (I have no idea if this will actually work).

We were playing in the Eberron campaign setting and were at the Big Fight At The End wherein we were taking on an epic level Lich. The climax to the whole fight was when Rend, our big bashy character, leaps through the air with a chain artifact we'd found along the way (which prevents the use of magic if you're bound by it) past Destructo-orbs (can't remember their actual name right now) and lands smack dab in the middle of an air elemental summoned up by the Lich. Rend uses his considerable strength to punch through the elemental and throws the chains around the Lich which promptly binds said Lich. (He breaks out by smashing apart his own artifact and chaos ensues but, frankly, that was pretty much the end for him. The only question was whether or not he could take anyone else with him.)

Now, that makes for a great story. The thing is, the gameplay wasn't like that at all. We spent way too long hashing out exactly how the air elemental held Rend, whether or not it was possible to use momentum to go through the damn thing, how punching through an air elemental would work, the exact position of the Lich, blah blah blah. The end result turned out to be a cool story but all the details to make that story happen? Boring.

I like games that can bring the "OMG taht wuz so kewl!!!11!" closer to the mechanics of the game. That's what I think of when I think of games that have story as a goal.

Quote from: Lady LakiraI like games that can bring the "OMG taht wuz so kewl!!!11!" closer to the mechanics of the game. That's what I think of when I think of games that have story as a goal.

I suggest the use of the the word "story" is a whole bucket of red herring then.

D20 is great and a boon to the entire industry. Why? Because it is well crafted general purpose RPG that has a low entry barrier and does a good job of resolving combat conflict in it's native setting, a passable job in a lot of others, and has passable mechanics for conflict/tension resolution outside of combat. It is certainly provides the ability for story.  That makes it a great entry point for new to gaming customers, and provides a general use common tongue to speak across a wide swath gamers. The later is important because to run a game you need a critical core of people, and in areas where the potential set of gamers is small it is important to have something to fall back on to bridge background gaps.

Drawbacks? Off the top I'd say:

- It is very easy to let yourself get bogged down in the mechanics. At the core they are simple and thus easy to get into, but there is a lot of bulk you can get lost in...partially because it is inviting bulk because there is coolness to be found there.

- Combat orientated, weaker outside combat. Which is true to it Chainmail ancestory.

- Related to the last; The Alignment system promotes caricature characters. To the point that it beats you with a stick if you try to encorporate more dimension to your character.  Fortuntely the system is fairly modular, and it's pretty easy to just ignore Alignment outright.


However none of these are at the degree of magnitude that they are even approaching fatal flaws. Hammers are pretty simple to operate, and with some imagination can cover an incredible territory of job.  If you have specific jobs that require a bit more finesse that's fine. Go out and get that tool too if it is important enough for you. But that trusty old hammer will get a hell of a lot done for you....which is why so many people own hammers.  There are a lot of things out there that need wacking. ;)


D20 is a trusty stout hammer. Only a fool discounts the power and utility of the hammer. :)

Quote from: blakkieD20 is great and a boon to the entire industry.

I have to note my disagreement here.

IMO D&D was first to market and thus the creator of that market. It has always and currently holds majority market share- this by itself makes it the intro game of choice, and this by itself will keep it on top.

That is the beginning and end of it's boon.

Quote from: gleichmanI have to note my disagreement here.

IMO D&D was first to market and thus the creator of that market. It has always and currently holds majority market share- this by itself makes it the intro game of choice, and this by itself will keep it on top.

That is the beginning and end of it's boon.

Just being first to market doesn't guarantee you majority share holder. As pointed out before when TSR was doing a nose dive nobody was able to step up and capitalize and take over the industry and lead it to greater heights. Why?  Because any players in a position to try do so were looking down the wrong damn path to find that large bulk of customers.

Combat sells. Dice sell. Simple architecture, structured, general use rules sell. Light hearted entertainment sells.

They are the archor store to the RPG Mall, generating the customer traffic that helps put the bread on the table for the other stores.

Quote from: blakkieJust being first to market doesn't guarantee you majority share holder. As pointed out before when TSR was doing a nose dive nobody was able to step up and capitalize and take over the industry and lead it to greater heights. Why?

For the simple reason that they didn't have the D&D product line.

D&D had a mental lock on the market, it just had to do something to grab it's attention again. All part of the normal business cycle in a niche market.

Quote from: gleichmanFor the simple reason that they didn't have the D&D product line.

D&D had a mental lock on the market, it just had to do something to grab it's attention again. All part of the normal business cycle in a niche market.

What you are talking about is Brand name.  But hey, history is littered market leaders fallen that couldn't back up the brand name talk with something people actually wanted before a competitor showed up and provided it and took over.

Nope. Sorry, the reason was that nobody addressed desires of that big ass chunk of people that were willing to buy RPG stuff.  After all 3e isn't exactly AD&D. They had the marketing advantage of name, but with good salesmanship and a product to back it up you have more than a real chance to topple the king's palace.

If someone else would have done it first, and lifted all the boats in the harbour with the tide they could have been the boon. But they didn't and the weren't, and crying "but we just didn't have the name to do it" is a lame excuse for at the very least WW and a couple down from them.

Quote from: blakkieWhat you are talking about is Brand name.  But hey, history is littered market leaders fallen that couldn't back up the brand name talk with something people actually wanted before a competitor showed up and provided it and took over.

And it's also littered with cases of a brand name holding on when there was not logical reason for it to.

There's no way to prove this issue one way or the other, so we're just talking in circles giving our opinions.

I know that with respect to my own personal experience, that D&D became unless to me somewhere around 5-10 years ago. None of the various players who came through our group had significant D&D experience if any. TORG, yes. HERO, yes. White Wolf, yes.

Doesn't mean anything outside my own experience. But it's a hint as to where I'm coming from. It could die tomorrow and I would care not one bit.

Quote from: Ben LehmanI think some of the real damage of the 90s is the idea that story is somehow a "better" or "more pure" goal in role-playing than, say, tactical combat.  That's just silly.  It's a recreational activity.  The goal is to have fun.

Precisely.

The 1990s saw an endless parade of worthless games because of this thinking. You had designers spouting off about story, while producing rules that had nothing to do with it.

It's interesting to look at what the Forge is doing in this light. I think in a lot of ways, the Forge produces tools that you use to create a group story. They're closer to that, IMO, than they are to games.

Quote from: gleichmanAnd it's also littered with cases of a brand name holding on when there was not logical reason for it to.

There's no way to prove this issue one way or the other, so we're just talking in circles giving our opinions.

I know that with respect to my own personal experience, that D&D became unless to me somewhere around 5-10 years ago. None of the various players who came through our group had significant D&D experience if any. TORG, yes. HERO, yes. White Wolf, yes.

Doesn't mean anything outside my own experience. But it's a hint as to where I'm coming from. It could die tomorrow and I would care not one bit.

Ah yes, the "my product is better than that POS market leader, but because those damn illogical people won't buy it i'm not running this town". Cry of many a loser.  While people may be somewhat driven by irrational thoughts, and this can influence purchases, hand waving away orders of magnitude with it seems rather....weak.

But you are right about the circles in that it doesn't even matter. Nobody else picked up the ball. Nobody.

If D&D is a boon because it was the "original" or because it is actually giving a huge number of people what they are looking to buy is pretty much irrelavant. As is andetotal "well I know people that played other games and had no D&D experience". It isn't that D&D is the only game in town, but it is the one that is the major entry point for new gaming customers.

And when it was sucking turds nobody else stepped up to take it's place.

And diceless remains a niche of a niche, and WW which has had years and years to build a brand....well they did. They unfortunately built a brand of "we are freaking serious about STORY, so serious that we don't really trust it to any sort of randomness or interlopers so it needs to get set straight up front that this is what is going to happen...beginning, middle, and end of STORY".

And the marketplace says that dog don't hunt like the playing a game dog does.

Then D&D stopped sucking so many turds, got fundementally repaired, and it was back to anchoring the Mall. (EDIT: Not to say that it couldn't have used a bit more tuning, and it has been tuned in various ways, but it was a dramatic step forward.)  You don't have to shop at the anchor store yourself to benefit from it's ability to make the specialty store you want economically feasible to exist. Dismissing the anchor store's existance as a benefit to you by enabling your choice is myoptic.

Quote from: mearlsThe 1990s saw an endless parade of worthless games because of this thinking. You had designers spouting off about story, while producing rules that had nothing to do with it.

To be fair to them, I think the understood at some level that you didn't need rules to produce story.

I wouldn't as a result call them worthless for this reason.

Quote from: mearlsIt's interesting to look at what the Forge is doing in this light. I think in a lot of ways, the Forge produces tools that you use to create a group story. They're closer to that, IMO, than they are to games.

IMO, they should have taken the leap and stated that as their goal. It would have prevented a lot of hard feelings if their work didn't come across as "we're improving the RPG".

I appears blakkie that this is a real passion for you.

I find myself at a disadvantage, I don't share your passion on this issue. And I certainly don't have the market research to back up my personal opinion.

So I'm going to have to leave the field to you. I however remain highly skeptical of your claims, and certain that D&D in no way or form is of any use to myself today.

Quote from: gleichmanI appears blakkie that this is a real passion for you.

I have a passion. A passion for knowledge and understanding and sharing. :)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAll roleplaying games create story by their very nature, though not necessarily satisfying story of real quality.

Thanks, Levi.  Sorry this thread exploded, but hopefully you'll still see this.



Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Ben LehmanSigmund --

The point is not that there are RPGs that don't produce story, but if you as players don't care about the quality of the story you produce, then the quality of that story doesn't matter, does it?

For instance, in the D&D game I'm playing right now, story isn't the focus.  (And I'm talking about this specific game, not D&D in general.)  So our story isn't that great.  I wouldn't read it if it were a book.  That's okay, we're having a blast anyway, because story isn't what we're looking for.

I think some of the real damage of the 90s is the idea that story is somehow a "better" or "more pure" goal in role-playing than, say, tactical combat.  That's just silly.  It's a recreational activity.  The goal is to have fun.

yrs--
--Ben

Ok, but I would say that I don't see the rules as defining the quality of the story. They might affect how one's character performs actions in the game that the story is coming from, but that just boils down to whether you care for the mechanics of the game. Other people who like a game that I don't are perfectly capable of having a rolicking good time playing that game (thereby "creating" a "story"), where I would just be annoyed by it's mechanics or flavor. Vice-versa also applies. This tells me that it's not the game that defines the quality of the "story", as I see it, but the players. All this is on top of the fact that I can honestly say that I have never played a RPG with the focus (or even the conscious thought) of creating a "story". I can also say the 99% of the games I've played in I wouldn't read if it were a book, because it wasn't a book, it was a game...it was much more fun to play it than to read about it.

Now don't get me wrong, there are lots of events that have happened to my characters in game that I enjoy telling stories about afterward, and might even make decent scenes in a book, just like I have decent fishing stories, and decent stories about my time in the Army, and my greatest story, watching my son being born (and almost passing out...I held it together though...barely :)  ). None of these event/activities ever provoked a single thought about "creating" a "story".

Now, just to let ya know, I agree 100% with your last paragraph, as well as when ya said you weren't playing DnD for a story. It's just that neither I nor anyone I've ever gamed with to my knowledge has ever had "story" as focus or thought when playing any RPG. If ya'all play different then

:emot-rock:  ON brother!  :)

If we define a "good story" as one that follows a literary structure (foreshadowing, strong central theme, three-act structure, and, most importantly, the kind of focus that only comes with revision) then I doubt very many games do this reliably (some groups may--but not games themselves. I have experienced DitV taking digressions that would likely be edited out, for example--the same, even more strongly with Sorcerer).

If we define good stories as *meaningful* to the audience then no games do this reliably but some people may do it all the time (and they may do it with any variety of mechanics).

However: both elements (structure and meaning) can be accomplished reliably via techniques that apply to just about any game so long as the player(s) are interested in engaging them.

For a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).

We have a couple of editorials concerning this:
Fault Tolerant Scenario Design (http://www.jagsrpg.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5) (how to make a scenario that has a decent shot at literary structure)

Integrated Scenario Design (http://www.jagsrpg.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=7) (how to approach play to help ensure that the PCs are relevant to the action and vice versa)

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoFor a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).


-Marco

This doesn't really appeal to me at all.

Quote from: SigmundThis doesn't really appeal to me at all.

Which piece? Having the players buy into the spirit of the game? Having the GM front-load situation to be relevant to the players? Or the whole idea of the subject of the game having anything to do with the characters in the first place?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoFor a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).

At one time or another i have done all of the above. Each proved to be a rewarding experience. I can honestly say, i can't really place any of those styles of play in any meaningful order of preference (which i realise was not your point). Just my two cents.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: MarcoWhich piece? Having the players buy into the spirit of the game? Having the GM front-load situation to be relevant to the players? Or the whole idea of the subject of the game having anything to do with the characters in the first place?

-Marco

Well, what you said here means something slightly different to me than this...

QuoteFor a lot of indie-RPGs that means a strong buy-in to the creator's vision (i.e. I am going to play DitV and I'm really going to care about judging people) for traditional RPGs as I experience them, it deals with front-loading character and situation (the Player front-loads the character with meaningful conflict, the GM front-loads the situation in a way that it will likely develop in an attractive manner).

I don't mind players "buying into" the "spirit" of a game I run, but I don't really like "front-loading" characters. By this I take it to mean loading a character up with built-in conflicts all ready to go before the game even starts. I much prefer characters starting out as "normal folks" or kids just starting out and then either have them thrust into a situation that creates conflict (disaster strikes, war breaks out, etc..), or have them just starting out on a career that involves adventure (mercs, soldiers, PIs, cops, deep space miners, etc..). I don't mind if a player includes some possible hooks in a character's background, but to force all the players to do this has, in the few times I've seen it attempted, created more confusion than good gaming. The whole group can't be Harry Potter. The groups I play with are much more interested in the "simulation" type game (to use what I believe is a theory term).

If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.

Quote from: SigmundI don't mind players "buying into" the "spirit" of a game I run, but I don't really like "front-loading" characters. By this I take it to mean loading a character up with built-in conflicts all ready to go before the game even starts. I much prefer characters starting out as "normal folks" or kids just starting out and then either have them thrust into a situation that creates conflict (disaster strikes, war breaks out, etc..), or have them just starting out on a career that involves adventure (mercs, soldiers, PIs, cops, deep space miners, etc..). I don't mind if a player includes some possible hooks in a character's background, but to force all the players to do this has, in the few times I've seen it attempted, created more confusion than good gaming. The whole group can't be Harry Potter. The groups I play with are much more interested in the "simulation" type game (to use what I believe is a theory term).

If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.

Got it. I agree strongly on a number of points:
1. The whole group can't be Harry Potter. My experience with very strong front-loading (Kickers) is that you wind up time-slicing a *lot* between characters and, in fact, the PCs may never meet (in a recent Sorcerer game our characters, indeed, never met and the game was poorer for it--I don't have an intense hatred of spectating but it's *way* not my preferred play style).

Aside: in the tradtional RPG I ran for the same group using kicker-style conflicts there was a lot of time-slicing too--but the characters did meet since there were other conditions on the character-creation that mandated it.

Things like Spiritual Attributes, flags, etc. require additional levels of structure to keep the party from being pulled apart and to set the expectation that the game will not be "all about" your specific problem but either a gestalt of other character's issues or some other clearly agreed on focus (which is what indie-games do very well: you know if you are playing DitV that it's very unlikely you will discover an old, dangerous mine-shaft filled with pitfalls that you'll go down in and adventure in).

2. A big pice of what I am talking about by "front-loading" applies to stuff like *internal conflicts*. In a space game I played in a year or so ago (entire text on the net as it was IRC) I played an uplifted Hyena who was entirely fed-up with being a second-class citizen in the sci-fi world. That conflict wasn't with anyone in particular and he was certainly a "normal kid" (15 years old, living on a back-water space station)--but I guaranteed that the conflict was gonna come out in some way during the game and I made sure the GM knew about it.

I will note that, as I prefer, the GM did not bend over backwards to *cater* to my conflict. He didn't re-design the game to spot-light my character's problems (they were already built into the world: uplifts tend to have it rough)--but it wasn't something he warped the campaign around like James Dean wrapping his porsche around a tree.

Still: the conflict was, IMO, "front-loaded" and was going to reveal itself in almost any imaginable situation.

3. In terms of the GM "front-loading story" I think that creation of games in such a way as to encourage certain evolving *structures* (but certainly not *forcing them*) is the sort of thing Cop/Merc/etc. games do lend themselves to very well.

It's my feeling that to get story-like structure (something I think RPGs do very well and can produce a very satisfying feeling by doing) without resorting to either covert or overt railroading (something that kills the buzz for me) you need to do the work on a structural level as a foundation to play rather than a guiding force during it.

-Marco

Two things struck me about your post, Marco:

Quote from: Marco...(in a recent Sorcerer game our characters, indeed, never met and the game was poorer for it--I don't have an intense hatred of spectating but it's *way* not my preferred play style).
...

Things like Spiritual Attributes, flags, etc. require additional levels of structure to keep the party from being pulled apart and to set the expectation that the game will not be "all about" your specific problem but either a gestalt of other character's issues or some other clearly agreed on focus (which is what indie-games do very well: you know if you are playing DitV that it's very unlikely you will discover an old, dangerous mine-shaft filled with pitfalls that you'll go down in and adventure in).

The additional level of structure you talked about is making up the Spiritiual Attributes or Beliefs or Keys or whatever flags you are using together.  Making characters all together is really important.  Having flags that coincide and some that directly conflict are all decisions that should be made as a group.

Same with kickers.  I have run several games with kickers where I noted that the kickers all sent the players in different directions and if they want to meet, they need to talk to me and talk to each other.  In Sorcerer, the players don't have game mandated scene framing power but they always have the option of talking to me and making suggestions that I will listen to.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: PakaTwo things struck me about your post, Marco:



The additional level of structure you talked about is making up the Spiritiual Attributes or Beliefs or Keys or whatever flags you are using together.  Making characters all together is really important.  Having flags that coincide and some that directly conflict are all decisions that should be made as a group.

Same with kickers.  I have run several games with kickers where I noted that the kickers all sent the players in different directions and if they want to meet, they need to talk to me and talk to each other.  In Sorcerer, the players don't have game mandated scene framing power but they always have the option of talking to me and making suggestions that I will listen to.

Does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense--however: the structure for doing this is not (generally) provided. Advice to simply have people "make characters together" replaces a single authority-based decision making agency (a common power accorded the traditional GM) with a consensus-based decision making agency.

Neither one is objectively preferable to the other: which of them is better depends on the specific organizational dynamic and the people involved. In my first (aborted) game of Sorcerer, we never even got to play since the email contacts fizzled at the definition of humanity and decisions about the setting stage (and I was pretty clear about what I wanted but when someone didn't want the same thing the discussion dropped in energy level dramatically).

Finally, there's an issue of vision. When I say I am interested in the GM's story when I come to play, people (of a certain theory-informed bent) often assume (un-generously, IMO) that I want a railroaded game. I don't--but I do expect the GM to, as with an author I care to read, present a vison I will find interesting.

This means that my preferable method of play has to involve both the Players and the GM in the refining process (you can see the link on Integrated Scenario Design for a sketch of what I suggest) but, again, that requires a degree of collaberation that does not always come together.

Finally, when someone presents an idea that I'm not really excited about (but do not actively *dislike*) there are practical concerns about how much refinement and negoitation that can happen. I do not want the direction of play to be *so well defined* that we have effectively written the first and second acts before play begins. I do not want to spend days and days of email or voice exchange (hard with, say 4 players who meet once every other week) to make, reject, and refine suggestions.

IME, in practice, these practical concerns usually result in some kind of compromise which may mean less than optimal play conditions.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIME, in practice, these practical concerns usually result in some kind of compromise which may mean less than optimal play conditions.

-Marco

They result in compromise if you don't say to the player, "That kicker feels flat to me and isn't turning me on. What can we do to turn up the heat here?"

The set-up is vital and when a game goes badly, I can always trace it back to a gitchy feeling during chargen, no doubt.

Quote from: PakaThey result in compromise if you don't say to the player, "That kicker feels flat to me and isn't turning me on. What can we do to turn up the heat here?"

The set-up is vital and when a game goes badly, I can always trace it back to a gitchy feeling during chargen, no doubt.

Right--exactly. And as a practical concern there is only so many times you can say that (and you, um, can't just say that because I'm gonna reply with "what don't you like?" and if you don't know or can't articulate it besides "it leaves me cold" then we've got a problem).

When game-time, face-to-face in the FLGS-time, is limited and the communication tools are things like email and Skype, there is a limited amount of back-and-forth that can happen between play schedules.

I mean, yeah: we all quits our jobs and take the time to haggle it out and we're set for some non-comprimised gaming.

But I, like you, do this quite a bit and with many different groups (some of which are literally all over the country) and there are, IME, very strong practical limits on how much negoitating one can do before play.

This doesn't, of course, kill the methodology--in fact, it's my preferred methodology. But I'd be disingunious if I said there weren't obstacles there as well or it was all sweetness and light. IME, it's a great method--but not perfect or without comprimise of any sort.

-Marco

And yes, I absolutely would say that it was leaving me cold, let's tinker with it.  I've done it before and have worked with a player until they vomitted out a shit-hot kicker.

Quote from: MarcoThis doesn't, of course, kill the methodology--in fact, it's my preferred methodology. But I'd be disingunious if I said there weren't obstacles there as well or it was all sweetness and light. IME, it's a great method--but not perfect or without comprimise of any sort.

-Marco

I'm not sure compromise is always needed and it isn't ever about perfection, just about getting the ole gaming batting average up.

Quote from: PakaAnd yes, I absolutely would say that it was leaving me cold, let's tinker with it.  I've done it before and have worked with a player until they vomitted out a shit-hot kicker.

Well, I'm not sure I like the "I don't like what you're doing but won't give you any ideas on what to change about it" mode of refinement (and I'm not sure that's what you're doing--but if you don't add anything to 'I don't like that' I become pretty unwilling to keep trying to please someone when they aren't bringing anything to the table themselves).

On the other hand, if it works, it works--so long as enough ideas don't get shot down, I guess it's okay.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoFinally, there's an issue of vision. When I say I am interested in the GM's story when I come to play, people (of a certain theory-informed bent) often assume (un-generously, IMO) that I want a railroaded game. I don't--but I do expect the GM to, as with an author I care to read, present a vison I will find interesting.

I find the issue of vision comes up most overtly when homebrews settings or systems are discussed amongst our group. To a lesser extent with published game settings/systems there is a starting base where we can all work off from.But even then with all the tampering done, there are bound to be occasions where one party feels that the spirit of the game is being compromised.

Do you guys think, that somemes the GM's vision should not be compromised?I mean there is room to manoeuver, but ultimately there are some points that can't be negotiated. This merely means that anyone who does not like the game walks away from the table and joins the group for another game where compromise can be reached.

I ask this because, because i roughly equate vision with systems, in that there are some systems which are really not for you and hence you don't really like using them, the same goes for vision - sometimes it has no appeal at all, or it does with some modifications and the gm really does not want to make said changes.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDo you guys think, that somemes the GM's vision should not be compromised?I mean there is room to manoeuver, but ultimately there are some points that can't be negotiated.

Of course there are.

And if the player doesn't walk on his own with some of these, I'll offer the mild suggestion that he take a hike.

In my terms, I think the "GM's vision" is basically stuff about the world and stuff about the situation. I don't, for example, like the structure where the villain is introduced early on but, contrary to the game-system, cannot be killed for dramatic reasons.

If that's the "GM's vision" then it's *not* what I'm coming for.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI don't, for example, like the structure where the villain is introduced early on but, contrary to the game-system, cannot be killed for dramatic reasons.

If that's the "GM's vision" then it's *not* what I'm coming for.

For reference given my answer above, It took it to mean something else completely.

However I could imagine a GM who thinks is the coolest thing in the world. And I could see him refusing to change it- and I could see myself walking on his game.

I would think such a GM sucks eggs, but he's certainly within his rights to run his game that way and find players who agree with him.

Oh, I agree. If the GM wants to do that and people are fine with it, I wouldn't like revile him forever or anything. In fact: if I otherwise dig a game I'll put up with a certain amount of stuff I don't like (for example: in Sorcerer, the fact that I realized early on we weren't going to meet was something I didn't really like but I could see the game had other merrits).

But mostly, when I think of vision, I am thinking of the creative and intellectual input that goes into situation (I also expect competent craft--that is a different axis, IMO). The GM who shows me something insightful about politics or science or metaphysics in the game is the GM (or author) that I want to listen to.

-Marco

Quote from: gleichmanFor reference given my answer above, It took it to mean something else completely.

Yeah, by vision i meant stuff like theme and atmosphere. How specific cultures in the setting interacted with one another (for example). The kind of game rules which would be used to reflect the kind of atmosphere i wanted to generate.

For instance in a game like Jorune, all pcs begin trying to get citizenship. Now i not saying that this is the only beginning goal in the game - but this would  definately be the premise i would want all the players to start with. i'm using Jorune as an example - one own's game world may have different starting constraints - if there is any off course.

Now i am not saying that players would have no option to influence the themes of the game in question - although truth be told i dig it when they do it in character - but there is a general framework they would have to work within.

Regards,
David R

I think ya'all think about the game too much.

:eyecrazy:

I tend to find that if the game is meant to follow a story that the GM has in mind, I want to know that that is the intent.  Provided that I know that I'm in for a railroad, there really isn't a problem because I'm playing to see the story that they've created for me to explore.

Now if I enter a game without knowing that this is the case, I'll get frustrated and typically leave.  Honestly, to me it's a matter of preference and knowing the intent of the game that you're entering.

Quote from: David RFor instance in a game like Jorune, all pcs begin trying to get citizenship. Now i not saying that this is the only beginning goal in the game - but this would  definately be the premise i would want all the players to start with. i'm using Jorune as an example - one own's game world may have different starting constraints - if there is any off course.

That's what I thought you meant with Vision.

Some of this is fixed with the game choice, if you're playing Shadowrun the likely expected default for the GM is that you're going to be playing Shadowrunners. If Champions, superheroes, etc.

Individual GMs will take those rather wide starting parts and narrower it. For example the Shadowrun game I have in mind specifics an overarching goal for the PCs and puts them under the influence of the primary NPC for that goal in the campaign.

I make all this sort of stuff known up front. If enough people buy into it, we play the game. I may have one or two members of the group opt out and they just don't come on the nights we're playing that campaign.

The thing that struck me about this at first however is not the campaigns starting vision, but rather the tendency of players to bring an unacceptable vision to the campaign. Vision may be the wrong word for it as that implies thought and it's more often just a question of style.

This includes power-gamers and (for use) other trouble makers.

Those generally get removed from the game as such characteristics indicate that they are unacceptable no matter the specific campaign.

Generally only an issue with people new to the group.

Quote from: gleichmanThe thing that struck me about this at first however is not the campaigns starting vision, but rather the tendency of players to bring an unacceptable vision to the campaign. Vision may be the wrong word for it as that implies thought and it's more often just a question of style.

Yes, style is an element (and by style I assume play style-right?). But I also think the question of taste comes into play. There are times when the whole idea of what the campaign is about is unappealing to the player in question.Dare I say it-sometimes for ideological/philosophical reasons. So they want to have some input to make the game more compatible with their taste.

Furthermore there may be opposition to how you as the gm molds the published setting(for example)to fit your idea as to what the game should/could be about.In contrast to how the game/setting is generally perceived. To some players(old or new) this is exceptable, to others, not so.Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RDo you get what I'm trying to say?

Yep. I think that covers it well.

This is generally handled (or should be handled) by the social contract, i.e. the group agreement of what the campaign will be about, it's tone, and anything else important to the group.

It would seem logical that anyone who insists on breaking the social contract should find another group.

Speaking of GM visions and possible conflicts, I just couldn't resist this example:

-----

GM: Hi Joe, welcome to our gaming group. As you know we're starting a new campaign based on the X-Men, and it's going to be a complete reboot starting over with issue 1 so the PCs are going to be teenagers. Prof X is just starting his school for mutants.

You have a lot of freedom with the characters and can even make up new ones if you like...

Joe: Great! Ok, here's what I want to do. I want to be mutant killing machine, with claws- make those claws able to cut anything. I'll need defenses, unbreakable bones and the ability to heal anything would be nice.

GM: well, we could work something up based on that I guess...

Joe: Oh, and I've been around. I fought in Desert Storm, hell I may have fought in WWII.

GM: But I said up front that this was to be about teenage mutants...

Joe:  I'm a mutant. That counts. I know! I'm only joining the group to assassinate their mentor, that Prof X guy.

GM: This isn't what I was thinking of when...

Joe: And while I'm here, I think I get me some jailbait. That redhead over there looks to be the cutest and the most powerful to boot. That's hot!

Jean Player: Wait a sec...

Joe: Sorry girl, my seduction skill is just too high for you.

Oh, and I'm one mean assed dude. If she has a boyfriend or takes a liking to someone else, I'll try and murder him.

GM: I see a lot of inter-group problems here. They may want to get rid of you for even trying some of these stunts...

Joe: Oh it's no big deal, I'm too cool to get rid of. I make this game ROCK! So they all have to forgive me and let me stay.

GM: ?

Joe: Oh, and I get more spotlight time than any of the other characters because I'm cool. You're doing a Hulk game next week right? I want to run this guy there too.




That's a player vision that the GM (and other players) either have to embrace, or walk away from (saving themselves $3 a issue at that :))

Quote from: gleichmanSpeaking of GM visions and possible conflicts, I just couldn't resist this example:

-----Joe: And while I'm here, I think I get me some jailbait. That redhead over there looks to be the cutest and the most powerful to boot. That's hot!

This is about the only part I could have accomadated. You would not believe how many times this character (character, mind you) contribution has come up. :hmm:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThis is about the only part I could have accomadated. You would not believe how many times this character (character, mind you) contribution has come up. :hmm:

I bet you were joking but even so, there's places I won't let a game go no matter what I or anyone else thinks about a character. And that's certainly one of them.

Quote from: gleichmanI bet you were joking but even so, there's places I won't let a game go no matter what I or anyone else thinks about a character. And that's certainly one of them.

Yeah, it was a joke. But really, I have observed a few games where something like this happened. I wish I could say they were all kids - I can't. I was given a nice lecture on "not taking the game too seriously" though. Needless to say I didn't stay for the game or lecture.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBut really, I have observed a few games where something like this happened. I wish I could say they were all kids - I can't. I was given a nice lecture on "not taking the game too seriously" though. Needless to say I didn't stay for the game or lecture.

Oh yes, the "not taking the game too seriously" lecture. I know it well.