Quote from: James J SkachYou'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.

He ignores it because he knows that part of the theory is crap. Or he ignores it because he didn't' read that far. Or he's incoherent himself

I'm wondering how much of this is driven by 4 edition, with it coming out under different names he'll soon drift into history much like those behind 2nd. That's got to be an ego blow.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm wondering how much of this is driven by 4 edition, with it coming out under different names he'll soon drift into history much like those behind 2nd. That's got to be an ego blow.

That´s it. If even the praised story-gamers smell that stinkin´ fish, and are suspicious of this new ally...

Quote from: gleichmanI'm wondering how much of this is driven by 4 edition, with it coming out under different names he'll soon drift into history much like those behind 2nd. That's got to be an ego blow.

You know, you're right: I can't remember any of the main designers on 2nd edition aside from "Zeb" Cook, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything important he's done since Planescape.

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.

Correct.  But there is another problem, as well.  If I'm playing Luke, or Han, or C-3PO, or R2-D2, or even Chewie, I don't want to have to play Darth Vader in his fight agains Ben.  I have other things on my mind.  Shooting Stormtroopers.  Firing up the Millenium Falcon.  Escaping the Death Star.  I don't want to have to get into Vader's head to fight Ben.

And with regard to, "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.'", suppose that, instead, the player said, "I use a Story Point to add a new rule. The new rule is "When a Jedi Master sacrifices his life to save another, he explodes, taking his opponent with him."  And suppose the group, in the heat of the moment, goes along with it.  OK.  So now what?  Vader dies during his duel with Ben?  Is that just as good?

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

(Wonderful Ben Kenobi/Darth Vader example snipped for brevity...)

I find it ironic that this example of storygame play is modeled after a situation with an obvious writer/director... dare I say it... GM controlling the overall flow of events. In fact, I would say this is example of play might more easily play out with a traditional RPG.

Let's work out Dancey's scenario a little differently:

QuoteLet 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".

However, unbeknownst to the rest of the players, Ben's player and I were chatting about the game in between sessions. In these discussions (which I try to have every week to get an idea about how the game is going and where the players want to see it go), Ben's player is a little dissatisfied with his character and he wants to create a new one. Of course, this is fine, but since we are nearing the climax of the current arc where the PCs valiantly escape the Death Star, I tell Ben's player that we can't just switch him out right away and suggest that we find a better, more interesting reason for him to leave.

Ben's player suggests a cool death and I agree. Not only would that be a cool moment, but would give me a way to confirm that my uber-NPC, Vader is in fact, a nasty villain. Now, I don't want to railroad too much here. The other PCs will be engaged in a pitched battle themselves, but Ben will move to engage Vader, thus keeping him out of the way as the PCs escape.

Talking about the scene a little more, Ben's player and I decide to give Ben and Vader a little give and take before the battle and through that discussion, it comes out that perhaps Ben was Vader's master before he became evil. Cool... that gives me some interesting ideas on Vader's backstory, since Ben and Luke tied their backstories together in that Ben trained Luke's father before Vader killed him. Maybe I can work with that...

See, players have input into the plot and can insert unexpected elements, all within the context of a traditional RPG. And you know what? I'll bet my scenario is a heck of a lot more plausible than the one Dancey described.

(edited for clarity on a pronoun)

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

I don't need my D&D games to be anything like a movie, so no problem from my point of view.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  So now what?  Vader dies during his duel with Ben?  Is that just as good?

I'm a fan of anything that kills Vader.

More seriously, I don't think one can attack the concept based upon the likely quality of the result any more than one can attack D&D based upon the quality of it's tactical battles.

Sure some groups are likely to do better than others, and sure by some measures (my own for example) even the best D&D battles are tactically boring. Both statements miss the point that players will play what they enjoy at the level they enjoy it.

So, if Ben blowing up and taking Vader out is what that groups wants- so be it. We're in no place to judge unless we're forced to play in said group.

The only real question is if more people would like the story based option of hand waving Vader death to go down that way, or would prefer kicking his armored ass in an objective combat system instead. Dancey is betting on the former, and is breaking completely with D&D style rpgs as result.

Quote from: gleichmanMore seriously, I don't think one can attack the concept based upon the likely quality of the result any more than one can attack D&D based upon the quality of it's tactical battles.

I think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.  My point is that one cannot assume a Star Wars-like level of quality when players are making improvised decisions.  What we saw on the screen was not George Lucas' stream-of-consciousness first draft.  Why would we expect players to produce high-quality stories on the fly in one pass, when professional authors generally can't even do the same thing?

Quote from: gleichmanSo, if Ben blowing up and taking Vader out is what that groups wants- so be it. We're in no place to judge unless we're forced to play in said group.

There were two somewhat unrelated points I was trying to make, perhaps poorly.  

The first was that, having seen Star Wars, we know the dramatic possibilities in letting Darth Vader live, at least until the point where Han Solo blasts his fighter in the trench.  And having seen The Empire Strikes Back (regarded by many as the best o the Star Wars movies, though I disgree myself) and Return of the Jedi (for better or worse), there was other stuff for Darth Vader to do in the Star Wars saga.  If Vader dies when Ben explodes, there is no Vader vs. Luke chase in the trench, no fight on Bespin, no battle in the Emperor's throne room, etc.  I think that most people would find the straight-up story of Vader dying if Ben expodes to be far less satisfying than the trench scene that happened in the movie.  YMMV.

The second was the assumption that people would consider Ben exploding to be a pretty cheesy end to Vader and not very dramatically satisfying for the other players.  Sure a group might find that an entertaining development, but I could also imagine far more cheesy player decisions that would make everyone groan and, as Stuart pointed out, could make the game far more "gonzo".  Again, YMMV.

Quote from: gleichmanThe only real question is if more people would like the story based option of hand waving Vader death to go down that way, or would prefer kicking his armored ass in an objective combat system instead. Dancey is betting on the former, and is breaking completely with D&D style rpgs as result.

I also honestly can't imagine most players deciding to die the way Ben did.  He wasn't on the ropes or down to his last hit point.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.  My point is that one cannot assume a Star Wars-like level of quality when players are making improvised decisions.  What we saw on the screen was not George Lucas' stream-of-consciousness first draft.  Why would we expect players to produce high-quality stories on the fly in one pass, when professional authors generally can't even do the same thing?

Excellent point, and one that the storyteller advocates utterly fail to understand. Being disappointed that RPGs don't tell stories like Star Wars is like being disappointed that a tennis match doesn't produce a dance like Swan Lake.

Anyone who tries to tell a coherent, thematic story built on a traditional narrative structure using an RPG is doomed to be disappointed. A hundred gaming groups of the most sophisticated, literate, story-loving kind will never in a thousand gaming sessions tell a story half as good as Star Wars. When RPG games tell proper stories it's by accident. And even then, the incidental situations that crop up in the game are often more memorable than the stories themselves.

Quote from: HaffrungBeing disappointed that RPGs don't tell stories like Star Wars is like being disappointed that a tennis match doesn't produce a dance like the Swan Lake.

I might just have to sig that :haw:

Quote from: John MorrowI think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.  My point is that one cannot assume a Star Wars-like level of quality when players are making improvised decisions.  What we saw on the screen was not George Lucas' stream-of-consciousness first draft.  Why would we expect players to produce high-quality stories on the fly in one pass, when professional authors generally can't even do the same thing?

An excellent point, and one that is often forgotten by the "storytelling" crowd.  Real-life fiction has dozens of re-writes plus feedback from several people before it's finalized.

First drafts of screenplays are often horrible.  Star Wars went through several hideous drafts to get where it ended up.  And after the screenplay is finalized and the movie shot, then you get to the cutting room - where another several sets of changes are made.

It took an awful lot of people an awful lot of tries to get Star Wars to come out right (my issue with the prequels - it's obvious Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted, so the quality suffered from a lack of re-writes and re-edits).

I can pretty much guarantee you that a gaming group with people of questionable artistic talent coming up with random ideas on their own, trying to outdo each other, without any editing/revision process is not going to come within light years of the kind of quality you see in finished films/tv shows/fiction (and look how often many of those still turn up mediocre or bad).

Quote from: jgantsAn excellent point, and one that is often forgotten by the "storytelling" crowd.  Real-life fiction has dozens of re-writes plus feedback from several people before it's finalized.

First drafts of screenplays are often horrible.  Star Wars went through several hideous drafts to get where it ended up.  And after the screenplay is finalized and the movie shot, then you get to the cutting room - where another several sets of changes are made.

It took an awful lot of people an awful lot of tries to get Star Wars to come out right (my issue with the prequels - it's obvious Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted, so the quality suffered from a lack of re-writes and re-edits).

I can pretty much guarantee you that a gaming group with people of questionable artistic talent coming up with random ideas on their own, trying to outdo each other, without any editing/revision process is not going to come within light years of the kind of quality you see in finished films/tv shows/fiction (and look how often many of those still turn up mediocre or bad).

In fairness to the "storytelling crowd," they may be a subset of the population that, for whatever reason, can pull this off.  Perhaps the reason they do tend to play each others games and remain a kind of niche is because the rules, inherently, don't make the result a good story; but they are the right rules to help these particular small groups of folks who are good at storytelling in a game setting succeed in a way that traditional rules don't.

Maybe.

With which I would have no problem if the entire movement hadn't been born in the unfortunate way that it was....

Quote from: James J SkachIn fairness to the "storytelling crowd," they may be a subset of the population that, for whatever reason, can pull this off.  Perhaps the reason they do tend to play each others games and remain a kind of niche is because the rules, inherently, don't make the result a good story; but they are the right rules to help these particular small groups of folks who are good at storytelling in a game setting succeed in a way that traditional rules don't.

Which would bring us back to the idea that the quality of the game is dependent on the quality of the participants, not (or at least not as much as) the quality of the rules.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the assumption of high quality results was part of the sales pitch.

That's exactly what it was, a "sales pitch" in the exact same sense that "epic battles" and "fantasy adventure" was D&D's sale pitch. And I think about as true, i.e. only in the eyes of those who see it that way. I certainly never saw D&D 3.5 living up to any of its sale burbs. It still made money.


Talking about the quality of the resulting stories is a little like attacking TAG because girls aren't leaping upon anyone after its use. Sure you have a point, but it's a rather worthless one that should have been obvious to any viewer.

Instead the question is if Dancey is right about the changes in who's playing rpgs. And if so, well this new story-line marketing will attract players? And even more important- will it be able to keep them with whatever experience it actually delivers.

If Burning Wheel is the best that can currently be put forth, I'd have to say the answer is a solid no.

Quote from: gleichmanTalking about the quality of the resulting stories is a little like attacking TAG because girls aren't leaping upon anyone after its use. Sure you have a point, but it's a rather worthless one that should have been obvious to any viewer.

I've found that sometimes it helps to state the obvious because it's not obvious to everyone.  I get the impression that at least some people, if only Ryan Dancey himself, is drinking the Kool Aid that he's pitching and might actually believe it.