Touché!

So, you have no problem with what I'm on about, you just don't see that it follows with what Sett says. Is that right?

I don't know. Settembrini speaks nonsense, giving new meanings to old words, without a consistent use of those meanings from one thread to another. So any interpretation of him will be nonsense, too.

If you've got something to say about what you think about games, go ahead, I'm listening. But if you're just trying to be an interpreter for some member of the Obscure Babblers Club, whether a Ron or Mirror Ron, well then I'm not interested.

I like games where I'm zipping around a world exploring it and making the story up as I try to say, conquer the barren lands and kill my brother instead of having to go on a fetch-quest run by the wizard tourism board. Are you trying to say you like the same sort of thing, Sett? Because otherwise dude, you're just not talking sense anymore.

Quote from: estarStill Plot because if you are using any type of rule system there going to be a random so HOW you reach the expected outcome is going to be different. If the GM is good the players won't notice the railroad. Otherwise with a poor GM they will feel railroaded as the plot structure becomes very apparent.

The way a good GM would have a linear plot work is by knowing his players.

I'm not saying it can't "work". I am saying that in order to achieve the expected arc, the GM will necessarily use methods to channelize the action. One method which you describe above is to try to hide the little changes and fudges you do behind the scenes. Maybe you succeed! You're still doing it.

QuoteSetting up each scene so that players motivation will propel them to the next one.  If it location based then have what they find at the one location naturally lead them to the next. It not easy but it can be done.

And this is another method, one that's a little less forceful provided you can either predict or impose the motivations of the players. One of the most natural is to give them a geographical target and then string out a series of encounters along the way. A similar method is to put them on a ship. While in theory these may not seem any different from pre-rolling random encounters or using a provisional timetable, in practice the pre-plottedness of these methods usually gives them away to players who care & pay attention.

The basic test: can the players seriously short-circuit the planned sequence of encounters? Or is everything carefully configured so that players have to go through all the encounters (and then perhaps reinforced by biasing judgments in favor of the preplanned plot)?

Let's say the PCs need to track down a lowlife and capture him, after which the lowlife will inform them that their real enemy is Mr. X. Only, too late! Mr. X is prepared by that point and a set-piece battle will ensue. Well, what if the players suspect Mr. X well before they hear about the lowlife, and they decide to ambush him. Do you think it's fair to switch things around behind the scenes so that Mr. X isn't the boss after all, but he provides a clue pointing to the lowlife and thence to "real" boss, Mr. Y? And of course transfer all the mooks & scenery from the earlier set-piece to the final confrontation with Y?

If the answer to these questions is "yes", then your scenario design/GMing techniques might be at odds with the philosophies of RPGing that Sett is now calling "the Challenge/GDW school".

Quote from: estarAnd if your game emulate the real world or in my case the real world with a heavy dose of fantasy elements.

Well, "emulate" is another contested term. To you it may mean the same thing as what I mean when I say "simulate", but I can't be sure.

The introduction of "fantasy elements" is even more likely to muddy the waters since IMO "the good guys always win" is a very common fantasy, as is "everything happens for a good reason", and I wouldn't want to get tangled up in whether it's possible to have "fantasy" yet exclude elements like that.

So let's just talk about the real world. If I'm simulating the real world or something very close, then if I want to overcome some bad guys it will have to be either through superior force, clever tactics, or dumb luck.

A digression on luck and "simulation". Games are inevitably abstractions: if my character fires a rifle at someone, it's impossible for me to describe exactly what the character does, just as it's impossible for the GM to make a precise physical model of all the factors at play (positioning, motion, lay of the land, wind, etc.) let alone convey them to me in a way that exactly matches what my character perceives.

If you didn't have those abstractions then either you'd have something like a real-time videogame shooter (which largely depends on actual player hand-eye coordination to resolve whether the bullet hits) or a very complex version of chess carried out at the neuromuscular level.

Instead what we do in "simulation" is to represent the character's skill and combat awareness--elements which the player can't directly experience or control--through randomness. E.g. while an expert sharpshooter might be able to hit a bullseye at 500m under optimal conditions 100% of the time, I'm going to hit it none of the time at first, then later maybe 50% of the time after I've had some training. And at that point your ability to predict whether I'll hit or not will be no better than flipping a coin.* Furthermore even the expert is going to miss occasionally under suboptimal conditions, so once we've defined the conditions within a certain level of abstraction (generally, a level of detail that gives a vivid impression of the fiction from a character's perspective), there will still be significant "unknowns" whose distribution is random.

The key here is that the "simulationist" mechanic admits abstraction but doesn't base causation on anything other than reasonable extrapolation (situational factors) and stochastic modeling. It doesn't account for the need to have a pleasing or even meaningful plot in the usual sense--characteristics which I attribute the real world, which I admit is a bit of a downer for some. (Note: I don't think the real world necessarily operates like a big game of dice. I do think that our ignorance often makes it wise to treat unknowns as if they were random in the mathematical sense.)

End of digression. You'll note that aside from "luck", overcoming bad guys in the real world depends on superior force and clever tactics--elements which a character can marshall in-game, and which can be represented above the level of abstraction by means of player decisions. (A game which operates on a very high level of abstraction might not allow players to control character tactics beyond choosing their battles, and then: to the dice! A very low level of abstraction might allow players to control positioning, movement on a map, weapon and target selection, maneuvers, etc.)

However, in an RPG, as opposed to real life, overcoming bad guys can depend on an additional factor: what do the people at the table want to have happen, and will they put their thumb on the scales to make it so? So this is the key to simulating the real world in an RPG: remove that element. A PC who wants to overcome the bad guys will have to depend on PC skill (as represented by player skill above the level of abstraction), PC resources, and impersonal, unpredictable luck (below the level of abstraction). The more that element impinges on the RPG, via mechanics or socially-determined "fudging", the more the game departs from a simulation of the real world and into...something else. "[Collaborative] storytelling" is a term I like but opposing it to "simulation" has connotations that make others uncomfortable.

Finally, I realize that my language above focuses somewhat around combat, but the same applies to any situation. E.g. if the conflict involved rival groups of envoys trying to make an alliance with a neutral government, the result would depend in the real world on material and personal factors that could be represented "in game" if we were running a scenario; however external factors not available to the "real world" could also weigh in a scenario.

*Some people believe in "hot streaks" but statisticians who've studied sports data are very skeptical of the idea.

Quote from: Elliot WilenDo you think it's fair to switch things around behind the scenes so that Mr. X isn't the boss

I consider it not fair. For me it would be a primary indication that the plot is being railroaded. The only circumstances it would be warranted if Mr. Y worked out better. Sometimes we don't think of everything or the best alternatives in our initial writeup.

The difference with my style is that if for some reason I fail to get into the player's head and get on this plot I had prepared I will respect and just go with the plot ball fell. Even if it cuts it off early or in a way I have not intended. Also I will chance a plot midstream if I think of a better (more fun) alternative and if I can seamlessly weave the change in.

With that being said I am not sure how you think this relates to the whole topic in this thread.

It relates partly in that your message still seems contradictory without entirely acknowledging the compromises involved in reconciling contradictory positions. "If Mr. Y worked out better"--what criteria would you use to decide that? On the other hand you say you're willing to have a plot cut off early or in an unintended way. So, early or unintended are okay, but only if they're better? Who decides what's better? What if the players want to strategize and win or lose on that basis, or they just want to find out about the world ("what happens if I press this button?")

And then you go back to saying you'll change the plot for the sake of fun.

This all sounds a great deal like Kyle's GMing method and I'm not saying it can't be fun as long as the GM and players are on the same page. OTOH I'm saying there are types of fun which are more or less incompatible with this method but which are (apparently) satisfied by the "set up a situation and let the chips fall" approach which Sett's now calling the "challenge school".

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, "emulate" is another contested term. To you it may mean the same thing as what I mean when I say "simulate", but I can't be sure.

I mean simulation, like Orbiter Space Simulator, Sim City, etc.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe introduction of "fantasy elements" is even more likely to muddy the waters since IMO "the good guys always win" is a very common fantasy, as is "everything happens for a good reason", and I wouldn't want to get tangled up in whether it's possible to have "fantasy" yet exclude elements like that.

I use the same techniques as a Alt History Author or Sci-Fi author. I take the world at X Time introduce magic, gods, races, geography, and cultures and project forward based on my knowledge of geography and history.

Note: I also write Alt-History on the side.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=28565

Quote from: Elliot Wilenthe level of abstraction by means of player decisions

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, in an RPG, as opposed to real life, overcoming bad guys can depend on an additional factor: what do the people at the table want to have happen,

Quote from: Elliot WilenFinally, I realize that my language above focuses somewhat around combat, but the same applies to any situation.

I think the rule system has influence a direction a game takes depending on how much it helps a GM. For example Dogs in the Vineyard could run gritty aliens type game, it would take a lot of work on the GM's part to make it work. But it is a lot easier if you used the setting it was built for.

I think the storytelling or any other "feel" of the game is totally dependent on the GM and how he role-plays and presents plot. I knew plenty of GM and groups that used White Wolf stuff as a sort of gonzo D&D.

I am not saying rules don't matter but I would say the GM is responsible for the 80% of how a game feels.




Rules

Quote from: Elliot Wilen*Some people believe in "hot streaks" but statisticians who've studied sports data are very skeptical of the idea.

It called the Monte Carlo fallacy. No previous random chance has an influence on the next. The probability of the next outcome is the same range as the first provided that the odds remain the same as the first. I.e. no removing cards like blackjack.

Quote from: estarIt called the Monte Carlo fallacy. No previous random chance has an influence on the next. The probability of the next outcome is the same range as the first provided that the odds remain the same as the first. I.e. no removing cards like blackjack.

Not quite. Everyone with a little math education knows you're right--that dice & roulette wheels have no "memory". The idea of a "hot streak" in sports is rather that performance on a micro scale isn't well-modelled by simply rolling d1000 against a batter's average for the season. Similar is the idea that a batter is "due" because he hasn't gotten a hit in a game or two. These are reasonable hypotheses and they bear out in other areas. For example the likelihood of having an earthquake is higher after an earthquake has already happened, then trails off over time, something you can observe based purely on historical data. So the processes that yield earthquakes "have a memory", unlike whatever it is that causes a basketball player to make a shot or not.

Anyway, this is just the thing:

QuoteI think the storytelling or any other "feel" of the game is totally dependent on the GM and how he role-plays and presents plot. I knew plenty of GM and groups that used White Wolf stuff as a sort of gonzo D&D.

Given most RPGs you're right, I don't think anyone would dispute that, the questions surrounding this thread have to do with different GMing styles and player expectations.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSettembrini's journey to the RonEdwards side is complete.

If Ron is Darth Sidious and Sett, Anakin Sykwalker....who the hell is Padme?

QuoteElliot wrote:
What Sett calls "Adventure RPGing" entails that if I want to strategize in a game, I have to use game-world logic, not story logic. But I don't have to strategize if I don't want to.

What Sett calls "Thematic RPGing" entails that if I want to strategize in a game, I must use story logic, not game-world logic.

The problem with this besides the terms is that there's a lot cross over esp in long terms campaigns. I'm not really talking about specific games here, where I'm sure the distinctions of the hobby are very evident. I'm talking about actual gameplay.

Now "challenge" gaming which I suppose is the new word, does not really help. I think I understand what Sett or rather you are talking about in terms of published adventures - see my example Empire in Flames (btw is this the kind of published story game adventures you're talking about), but I think the term "challenge" gaming breaks down when it comes to actual play, where again these types of distinctions seem to have a hard time mantaining their consistency.

Regards,
David R

Real world, long term campaign? That's a harder nut than individual scenarios. One way I can think of though is to skirt the issue and elide what happens between scenarios--the "episodic campaign"--another is to basically take direction from the players as to where to go next, use that to fill things in with a variety of "stuff" both immediately relevant and irrelevant, both easy to deal with and impossible (for the moment), and then to keep that "stuff" around so when the PCs come back it'll still be a recognizable baseline. As well, large scale elements can be handled abstractly and only need to be concretized when/if the PCs can interact with them directly. But if the PCs can't affect large scale elements, then the game shouldn't be primarily about those elements.

RPGs haven't in my opinion done a good job of developing mechanics or advice for that stuff, though I may be overlooking some games, and I know games like Aria, Burning Empires, and now Reign (none of which I've read) make efforts in that direction. Also, mind, I haven't had the pleasure of looking at any of the big RQ settings books, or Wilderlands of High Fantasy, or actually playing a long-term campaign of Traveller.

Also see my answer to Rob in Sett's previous "Story thread" here. I don't think I was entirely understood which isn't surprising given my presentation. Rob's followup is also excellent though he thought I was advocating "tailored" encounters--I wasn't. I was saying that any "new stuff" added to the campaign should follow the same framework as the initial stuff in terms of either being telegraphed to the players or being within a certain "default" level of danger/challenge. I should mention that I think this approach is iikely to be harder for D&D since low-medium-high levels are less compatible with each other than is the case in many other games.

[Sorry, can't answer re: Empire in Flames as I've never glanced at a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay adventure. Again I'd really like Sett to provide a couple solid examples from his library to prove (a) railroady modules & advice exist and (b) non railroady modules and advice exist.]

Quote from: Elliot WilenReal world, long term campaign? That's a harder nut than individual scenarios. One way I can think of though is to skirt the issue and elide what happens between scenarios--the "episodic campaign"--another is to basically take direction from the players as to where to go next, use that to fill things in with a variety of "stuff" both immediately relevant and irrelevant, both easy to deal with and impossible (for the moment), and then to keep that "stuff" around so when the PCs come back it'll still be a recognizable baseline. As well, large scale elements can be handled abstractly and only need to be concretized when/if the PCs can interact with them directly. But if the PCs can't affect large scale elements, then the game shouldn't be primarily about those elements.

Here's where the whole discussion gets really messy. One possible reason for the departure of most indie/forge games from the trad GM/player power dynamic is because (IMO) "taking directions from the players" wanders of into collaboration territory or at least the thinking is that to ensure that there's no railroading a certain amount of collaboration is needed (let's forget about story creation for a minute). Now I do think that there's a certain structure - vision if you will - that most players are comfortable participating in. I'm refering to E's post here :

QuoteE wrote here : http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=124006#post124006
GM Fiat and vision make traditional games *better* -- it's one of the reasons the traditional model is so robust and popular.

Now my post is a bit muddled, but I think there's a certain amount of wanting to particpate in a "narrative" and buying into the " GM's story" that makes collaboration an unattractive option to most players.

Note, I'm not saying this is what you meant, but the paths are tangled with vines, so you will forgive me, if I'm hacking a new one.

Edit: In fact I'll go out on a limb and say that the reason why these old time adventures were not so rail roady was because they understood that it needed to be slipped into on ongoing campaign which had their own stories ....which just goes to show IMO how "vision" plays an important part in most trad campaigns.

Regards,
David R

I dunno, my truly long-term gaming experiences were all in the 80's. Of these one had no recognizable theme other than a gang of people wandering around, getting into trouble, forming some relationships with NPCs, and perhaps establishing roles for themselves in the world. Another, which sucked, was just the wandering.

The other two had quite recognizable themes or shall I say primary conflicts. In both, the PCs as a group were significant players, but the role of the PCs was far more proactive in one than the other. That is in the first one they were basically walking into a situation with latent conflict and blowing it up. (In a very rough sense, they were like William Wallace--insurgents/troublemakers.) In the second they were reacting to a situation that couldn't be ignored--much more Fellowship of the Ring-like. (Though, IIRC I think we failed!) The "insurgent" campaign also had more going back & forth over the same geographical territory, developing relationships outside the party, and interacting with ongoing factions.

Of these the most fun was probably the "good" wandering game, edging out the "insurgent" game. And of course the "quest" game beat out the "bad" wandering game.

I'd probably better go but you might see some patterns in the above.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut I suspect, given that the magazine seemed to be pulled from freelancers as well as designers working for the topic games, that there was no such unified approach unless the editor was very heavy handed. And somehow, I doubt they had enough submissions to be picky.

Good assessment. I was a freelance writer in the early 90s and worked a lot with GDW on Challenge. A lot of what was written for the magazine, after about 1987-88 and the advent of MegaTraveller, was written by freelancers. The GDW's writers guidlines were fairly broad and I'm not aware of any 'handedness' on the part of the editor at all. GDW's own line managers did provide some level of review of submissions of their own games but since my experience was limited to MT and TNE, I can only speak of my experiences with one individual. As far as I know, other than editing to catch grammar and the like, non-GDW games were not closely looked at.

One of the great difficulties writing for a publication like Challenge was trying to write a meaningful article while staying within the allotted number of words. That and the fact that readers fell into two camps: those that wanted everything laid out for them in an adventure and those who wanted a more bare bones approach because they were going to mod the heck out of it anyway. Trying to meet the customer's needs in this regard did more to shape how adventures were written than anything else.

The bottom line is that while Challenge may have taken its cue from earlier GDW products, there was no set 'GDW style' imposed from above.

Quote from: Lazy WombatThat and the fact that readers fell into two camps: those that wanted everything laid out for them in an adventure and those who wanted a more bare bones approach because they were going to mod the heck out of it anyway. Trying to meet the customer's needs in this regard did more to shape how adventures were written than anything else.

I figured as much. I really did not think there was any form of "gaming ideology" behind the Challenge articles/adventures.

Regards,
David R