Quote from: One Horse TownYou want to get one of those new fangled pretzel passing, pun making, back rubbing computers then! They're all the rage round here.

Until they go mad and slaughter all the humans:

"But the rules say I'm entitled to a saving throw!"

"I'm sorry, but I can't allow that, Drew."

Quote from: J ArcaneOne of the biggest innovations in World of Warcraft is the decision to make the lion's share of the game mechanics pretty transparent.

The computer does all the calculations, sure, but consideration of statistics and gear and talent builds is as big a thing in that game as it is in any tabletop game.

Actually, I'm not sure it is open - its just that an awful lot of very clever people with to much time on their hands have spent time decoding it.

Quote from: DrewUntil they go mad and slaughter all the humans:

"But the rules say I'm entitled to a saving throw!"

"I'm sorry, but I can't allow that, Drew."

 No doubt singing "Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do..."

Seriously, I am shocked. Not by the change of opnion of Mr. Dancey (or it might not even be a change of opinion), but by his reasoning about his reasearch does not contradict the GNS. I seriously asked him about this and he pretty much doesn't see the contradiction here, but I do.

What is even more shocking his research was used as counterargument against GNS for years and the Forgies generally agreed on the contradiction because the feel the need to reject the research of Mr. Dancey. So what we have here is strange situation.

Some people think A is right and contradicts B
Other people think B si right and contradicts A
And Dancey thinks A and B doesn't contradict each other.

WTF?

Quote from: AlnagSeriously, I am shocked. Not by the change of opnion of Mr. Dancey (or it might not even be a change of opinion), but by his reasoning about his reasearch does not contradict the GNS. I seriously asked him about this and he pretty much doesn't see the contradiction here, but I do.

I don't really see the conflict with GNS, or rather I don't think it impacts Dancey's world view all that much.

At it's core, it's simple from his PoV. He sees (or imagines) a certain type of player leaving the rpg scene in favor of MMORPGs. Casting about for an response to this event assumes that MMORPGs will win over the power-gamers- and decides as a result that rpgs must become more Story focused to hold onto (let alone gain) players.

So happens that 'Story' style games (or GNS 'N') is basically the only thing the Forge does. So it all fits nicely.

It also all flows from that 'lost of Power-Games' assumption. Unless that's true, he's deluded himself and it all falls apart.

But like most things, GNS isn't really part of the matter.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't really see the conflict with GNS, or rather I don't think it impacts Dancey's world view all that much.

At it's core, it's simple from his PoV. He sees (or imagines) a certain type of player leaving the rpg scene in favor of MMORPGs. Casting about for an response to this event assumes that MMORPGs will win over the power-gamers- and decides as a result that rpgs must become more Story focused to hold onto (let alone gain) players.

So happens that 'Story' style games (or GNS 'N') is basically the only thing the Forge does. So it all fits nicely.

It also all flows from that 'lost of Power-Games' assumption. Unless that's true, he's deluded himself and it all falls apart.

But like most things, GNS isn't really part of the matter.

this is why it's nice to have you around again.  Did you get those essays back up outside of RPG.net? I mean, I have them saved on my computer, but others might like them...

Quote from: James J Skachthis is why it's nice to have you around again.  Did you get those essays back up outside of RPG.net? I mean, I have them saved on my computer, but others might like them...

They can be found here (under RPG Theory of all things) along with some HERO System and Classic Deadlands house rules that I use for my campaigns.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~b.gleichman/


My ISPs keep buying either other out and the link tends to change as a result. Stable for now... I hope.

Ryan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:

QuoteImagine that we are going to play a long series of sessions of the story of Star Wars (Episode IV).  (Imagine for the sake of argument that none of the players have ever seen Star Wars).

We have a main villain (Darth Vader), who has the goal "find the secret base of the Rebels and wipe them out".  We have a main hero (Leia), who has the goal "get the plans to the Death Star to the rebels in time for them to plan a defense against the weapon".

Imagine that we start the game in the Cantina.  There's some good roleplaying over the fare to Alderaan, then the "group" assembles; Luke, Ben, Han, Chewie, and the two droids.  From that point forward, the story takes a life of its own.

The rescue of Leia, battle between Ben & Vader, the escape from the Death Star, the Battle of Yavvin, and the resolution at the awards ceremony are all exciting, fun sessions driven by the goals of the characters.  It doesn't matter to the group if they all know that Darth Vader is out to get them, or that the Death Star can destroy a planet.  The fun of the story lies in the adventure.

So how does my theory on making a more fun RPG come into effect?

Let us imagine the scene where Ben & Vader face off.  Until this moment, Vader is a cardboard character; he's been off stage except for perhaps a scene with Leia & Tarkin when Alderaan is destroyed.  He has no real depth in the story -- he could just as easily be labeled "generic Villain".

Comes now the confrontation.  One player (playing Ben) decides to stand and fight, having perhaps tried and failed at several Jedi tricks to avoid the need for physical violence, or maybe even having used Jedi tricks to place himself where he needs to be to block Vader from reaching the landing bay in time to organize the Stormtroopers and keep the Falcon from departing.

Another player takes the role of Vader for the scene.  Since the goal is "tell a great story", and everyone wants to have fun, there's no reason NOT to do your best to make this encounter more than "roll some dice and see who wins".  So the player taking the role of Vader begins the dialog in the scene with a surprise to the other players:

"When last we met, I was the learner.  Now, I am the master!"

Suddenly, the ENTIRE STORY changes.  Suddenly, Vader is not some generic villian.  He INSTANTLY has back story - back story that REALLY MATTERS!  This guy, in black armor, who destroys worlds, this guy used to be associated with humble, gentle Ben Kenobi?  He was Ben's STUDENT?

Nothing mechanically has changed.  Nothing has even changed with the character of Ben Kenobi (he's clearly a teaching type person, he's teaching Luke at the story unfolds.  The idea that he might have had other students is not out of character.  The odds that one of those students "went bad" is very likely, and a great storyline element.  Nobody at the table objects to this storyline moment, and it becomes "real".

Now the battle between Ben & Vader has huge emotional impact.  They trade blows, and words, building from this initial moment.  Ben's player knows his goal has been accomplished when he sees the other members of the party break into the clear and run for the Falcon; he's done everything he set out to do - the tractor beam has been disabled, the princess has been rescued, and Vader has been delayed.

Now Ben's character says:

"If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine."

This statement has zero mechanical impact, but a lot of story impact.  The player taking the role of Vader considers his options:  I let him live, and I've got a fully trained Jedi Master on my hands.  Or I kill him, and finish something that's clearly been brewing between these two characters for a long time.  He decides to press his advantage.

An attack is made, but to his surprise, Ben's character refuses to defend, and is cut down.

Now Ben's character says "I use a Story Point to add a new rule. The new rule is "When a Jedi Master sacrifices his life to save another, his essence becomes a ghost who follows that person and can occasionally provide good counsel in times of great need.""  The group considers this a fine new rule, fully in keeping with everything that has been established about the mystical nature of the Force and the power the Jedi have over it.

Ben's character dies.  But his player announces:  "the robes, empty, fall to the floor, and Vader finds no solace in his victory."  Luke's character says "I shout "Ben! NOOOOO!".  Ben's character says "Luke, in his mind, hears my voice:  "Run Luke, RUN!", and he turns and races for the Falcon."

In this scene, the characters, without the need of a game master authority, added depth and richness to the world, including things that will likely have implications later in the story, and revealed surprises that none of them really knew were coming.  They changed the game rules on the fly to meet their needs, without requiring a lot of detailed pre-game design & development.  And their characters all took part in various actions that lead to a certain moment (the Falcon flies away) without a game master railroading them to that point.

Wouldn't this be more fun than the traditional RPG experience?

The storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

I would *love* for someone to prove me wrong -- please post (or send me) an .mp3 of a game session where the resulting story was so much better than what you'd expect from a traditional RPG that I'll be impressed like Ryan was.

Quote from: StuartRyan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:



The storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

I would *love* for someone to prove me wrong -- please post (or send me) an .mp3 of a game session where the resulting story was so much better than what you'd expect from a traditional RPG that I'll be impressed like Ryan was.

i agree with your main point and:
Personally I'd be a lot more impressed if it were an actual play session that turned into an awesome story as opposed to a pre existing story that has been mapped onto a  hypothetical play session. Furthermore, games might be intended to simulate stories, but what are stories meant to simulate, if not the actions and experiences of people? These actions and experiences may be completely unreal and impossible, as in the case of Star Wars, but there are still some correlations with reality that should remain in place. For instance, in the example above everybody finds out about Darth's past at the same time- Darth's player when he says it, Ben's player, and all the rest. The players in charge of Ben and Darth should have had this knowledge from the beginning, and the same goes for the "Jedi master ghost rule"- these things would impact PC decision making processes. After killing Ben and finding out he would turn into an annoying advice giving ghost for Luke, if I were playing Darth, I'd be like, "shit I wouldn't have killed him if I'd had even an inkling that was going to happen. Fuck this,  lets play Carwars." and considering Darth's back story, he should have had at least a possibility of having a clue. How does a GM work with shit like that? And as a player I'd feel rooked. Any decision I ever make could be screwed into invalididty by ANYONE else at the table, at pretty much any time, if it gives them storywood. ARRRGH. As a GM I wing it all the time, but I don't change fundamental facts about player characters or even significant NPCs- for the most part anyway, and were I to do so I wouldn't make that change if it invalidated previous PC decisions, and more likely than not I would clear it with the group first, regardless.
This creates a situation of false revelation- Luke did not know that Darth was his father, so when he found out it was real revelation. Ben should have known Darth was his student, so when he finds out midway through the campaign, it is false revelation, and fucks up every decision ben's made to date.
I doubt any of the above makes any sense, though. Whatever.

Quote from: StuartThe storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

It sounds like a session of Universalis.  At least in that game, you have a veto power.  Vader's player could spend a token to say, "Dude, that's lame."  (There's a bidding system.)

It makes sense, and I agree.

Here's my comment from Ryan's blog:

Quote from: StuartIt's easy enough to take a finished story (one that an author has spent a long time writing and revising) and imagine how a group of players could make all the right improvisational choices to end up with that story.

It's the same idea as infinite monkeys on infinite type-writers eventually producing Hamlet.  In practice, it's not likely to happen.  

The storygame might make it easier for players to introduce unexpected elements... but it also makes it easier for the players to introduce unexpected elements.  Lots of play reports of story games indicate the sessions often get "gonzo" and out of hand very easily unless the group is experienced with the game and works well together.

This is not a good thing for a broadly successful mass market game.

The interesting factoid:

Thematic Gaming´s "Story Now!" is not producing stories most people would like to hear.
There are other techniques needed for this, and they are shunned by the Forgers.

OMG!
Dancey doesn´t even know what GNS/tBM is about!
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3716695&postcount=321
No wonder he still thinks it´s a good thing.

Quote from: RD (from ENWorld)Finding a place where all 4 + the Basic Gamers respond strongly will be rare. But once found, you would have the blueprint for a game system that would likely be very competitive in the market.

I get his point.  The question is why does he think that now it's Story Games.  Seems to me this has been the very strength of D&D and games like it for the last, I don't know, 30 years?

You're right Sett - how does he combine this idea with GNS/tBM, wherein a game such as this would be "Inchoerent" and "Drifted" by players to serve their "Creative Agenda" - and if there are different "Creative Agendas"  at the table, conflict is likely to ensue - all of which is, to my understanding, the opposite of the conclusion to create games that are by design focused on a single "Creative Agenda" to avoid the possible conflict.

Quote from: StuartRyan's comment on Storygames and Star Wars illustrates a common problem with the genre:

I'm thinking that Lucus used Ryan's method to write the prequels- with the result we saw on screen. Man those were terrible, but now we know why.


Besides, if I wanted that type of game I could do it with D&D as it stands. "Player suggests, others agree" has been a meta-game technique for decades. The only thing including mechanics on the subject does is a) limit your options as they are now governed by those mechanics, b) force you to take some option when the mechanics are invoked, and c) play to your marketing campaign for selling the game.

From a player PoV, C doesn't matter a whit to me while A and B certainly does.