Bullshit.

 A typical RPG campaign will resemble a better-written eposodic action-adventure TV series at some point.


- Ed C.

ORLY?
Either you aren´t getting what I´m talking about (and are playing just like I am)
or
You are part of the problem. (My problem being people who think RPGs are for emulating TV-shows)

Let´s make a litmus test: When does a character die in your games?

Quote from: jdrakehThe irony is that, if Sett wants to create stories during actual play, rather than be hemmed in by scripts (such as ADVENTURE MODULES),...

Either the two of us have entirely different ideas on how to use an adventure module or else you are using the term 'script' in a way I don't understand.

Edit to add:  In response to the original post, I totally see what Sett is talking about.  And I don't think this challenge-based approach is limited to GDW.  Gygax's non-tournament modules (I'm thinking primarily about the Keep on the Borderlands and the Village of Hommlet) are constructed in a similar way.

Quote from: KoltarBullshit.

 A typical RPG campaign will resemble a better-written eposodic action-adventure TV series at some point.


- Ed C.

I can't ever recall that being the case in any of the long campaigns in which I took part - unless of course you are escaping by means of the "at some point" generality.

BTW, I too would lose DP9 and ditto Talsorian. I know what you mean, but besides CP2020 there's Falkenstein, and all* DP9 games, while running on the same engine, have heavy metaplots, complete with setting secrets, Mary Sues etc.

*IIRC--I know T8 well, and the others a little bit.

OK, let´s lose DP9. And R.Talsorian except Cyberpunk?
Although Cyberpunk might be just the battleground of the early nineties...
There´s some abominations called "Adventures" made by Atlas Games under the auspices of John Nephew.
And there were more "adventures" from Atlas then from R.Talsorian.

But there´s also a lot of GDW-style modules even from Atlas Games. Night City Stories, Chasing the Dragon and Streetfighting, for example.
But CP2020 might still be just sitting on the faultline, I´m undecided.

estar, there's a long history of people stumbling over the meaning of "plot" & "story". I mean decades-long, and that's only in RPG discussion. What you refer to as "plot" in posts 26 & 28 above can be called "backstory" combined with "initial situation". What I'm used to calling "plot" is closer to how this person uses the term: "a series of events linked by either external circumstances or by the character's actions".

Which meaning of "plot" is right? Both; neither is exclusively authoritative.

Now, you're mistaking Sett's alienation from "plot" or "story" for a dislike of particular kinds of "backstory & initial situation", e.g., angsty ones or those deeply steeped in the idiosyncratic culture of a game world.

Sett, that's not what you're talking about, right?

Rob, what I believe Sett is talking about is the kind of play implied by modules which rather than just setting out the initial situation & backstory, along with the goals and motivations of the NPCs, instead present a linear sequence of scenes for the players to go through.

It's Sett's job to summarize one of those modules here. Again, one that I've read most recently was the Elric adventure "See Hwaamgarl and Die". It not only presumes the players won't do anything to upset the sequence, it even writes in "cheats" to ensure as much. (E.g., certain groups of NPCs must die or will fail to "do better" than the PCs, regardless of how the PCs actually perform.

I've never even looked at CP2020. But I bet what Edwards said about V:tM he could have said about CP2020 as well. "Story" vs. rules. Right? How many character stats in Interlok? 10? 15? How long is the skills list?

So, it's more an example of general RPG design circa 1990.

Quote from: Settembriniestar,

if everbody thought like you, we wouldn´t need to discuss this.

Clearly, when reviewing RPG history, there are enough people that weren´t satisfied with emerging narrative.
They either:

1) railroaded & illusionized
or
2) made new games
to satisfy their need for dramatic structure.

Now, there´s nothing wrong with scratching an itch. But scratching the itch for production of structured drama that mirrors TV-type tropes with RPGs is alien to me.

See, there´s the Vampire/Dragonlance school of thought, which the forge is a backlash against. Surely, Forger games deliver in that regard: Valueing player input, collaborative outset, clarified conflict rules for who gets to tell which part of the "story" etc.

But what I do not understand is the itch itself. -> my problem; which I´m reflecting upon; and upon it´s sources, in this very thread.

And I do not understand why those who have that "soap-emulation" itch think that RPGs are REALLY ABOUT "TV-emulation". Which they are totally not. Anyone who thinks and says so, is unveiling his lack of understanding of RPGs.

I've been reading over this thread and just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in...

First, I'd like to ask you Sett...What, if anything differentiates the type of playstyle you see as true roleplaying from such boardgames as Descent and Runebound?  

I personally think it is the ability through rules, group decision, etc. to focus on aspects that can be the same as those found in your particular playstyle, but also those aspects you disregard.  The number one rule of a roleplaying game is...it's yours, do what you need to do with it in order to get what you want out of it.  

If the above is true, then how can you claim what a roleplaying game is or isn't about?  I hold that you can only state what your particular likes and dislikes for particular playstyles are...not what a roleplaying game is.

As far as the "soap-emulation" itch...I understand it and have even partaken and run games that cater to it.  It is escapism, just like the combat in the game, and that is what I believe most people play for.  It is only the particular escapism they want that may be different.  

I personally find the type of challenge based game I believe you are refering(I may be misinterpreting what you mean, and if so please expolain it to me) to, well...boring after a while.  I would, if this is the type of game I am jonesing for, rather play Heroquest(the boardgame) or Descent(especially since Descent will have campaign rules in the next exspansion).  I find it more satisfying in the "challenge" department, since resources and rewards for both sides are regulated and balanced, There is clearly "winning" and "loosing", and buy in time is low enough that I don't care whether my character lives or dies.

This is not to say that I don't enjoy challege-based gaming as a part of my roleplaying games...though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the end all and be all of them either.  If rpg's were based on pure strategy it might be different, but they're not.  They're based on a large dose of luck and DM fiat as well.  A character can make all the right decisions and roll a string of one's on the die that negate all of that in the blink of an eye, a DM can make the wrong call on how challenging something is to the players.

Elliot,
I can´t paraphrase the "GDW-style" of adventures better than you just did. I realize at this abstrac level, they sound like following the AD&D 1st paradigm. But in reality, the "GDW-school" mostly formulated groups, mortivations and an implied or explicit timeline of events that would unfold if nobody interferred. All that for 90ies style game systems.

Pierce,

...and that´s what I think makes the "GDW-school" idiosyncratic (now, if there are other adherents to this school, I´ll gladly follow a proposal for a better name): They produced (materiél for) 90ies games, but never ever went the railroady route. All of their products and supplements imply the extrapolative style that needs a Referee and not a Storyteller. Although some GM-advice sections in basic books (Dark Conspiracy) straddle the lines, the scenarios and rulessets speak a very stark message. And are vindicated by Lester Smith being very fond of them, thereby making clear his DC GM advice has to be taken as being still within the GDW-mindset.

In my book, they successfully solved the inherent contradictions in 90ies game designs via an implied culture of techniques:

1. universe plausability
2. preparedness
3. fairness

Ghost Face:
You are totally misreading me. Boardgames are totally unlike RPGs, obviously.
Bringing this comparison is insulting and venomous, although I´m giving you the benefit of the doubt you aren´t meaning harm.


As with Koltar, let me ask you a test question, to see in which boat you are:
When does a character die in your games?

Once you answer that, I can explain to you further.

Settembrini, I think what gives the GDW stuff coherence, as opposed to (I guess) CP2020 is that here form = content.

GDW games were always about hardish tech (ignoring here Dark Conspiracy and Vampire ship abominations). Cyberpunk / Vampire are games where 80s rules designed for hardish tech / "realist" fantasy meet "stories" derived from totally non-hardish literature.

So, GDW didn't solve 90s contradictions. They were dead by then, and before that they moved in a territory where those contradictions couldn't arise.

Wow, I have to chew on that post, pierce. Better keep CP2020 out of the line though, it´s rules and many, many scenarios could have been made by GDW.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd I do not understand why those who have that "soap-emulation" itch think that RPGs are REALLY ABOUT "TV-emulation". Which they are totally not. Anyone who thinks and says so, is unveiling his lack of understanding of RPGs.

Well then, I'm glad you are around to remind us what rpgs are exactly.

Regards,
David R

I'll take your word for it. But I did read all the early Cyberpunk stuff, and Gibson on haxx0rs is not exactly hard scifi.