His current spiel reminds me of Al Franken's Stuart Smalley character from SNL: completely messed up, but he's read so many self-help books that he thinks he's an expert, so he's going to write his own book--not based on the techniques he used to actually "get better", but on some exciting stuff he read that sounds so cool it just has to work.

(Actually this is unfair to Stuart Smalley, he's really a very endearing character and he did manage to help people once in a while.)

Quote from: estarPeople forget the wargame roots of RPGs.
....
Because Storytelling games ditch the wargame parts, they are very different than RPGs.

You seem to assume that there isn't a complete continuum already in RPGs; may have started out as wargames, but they haven't been since, well, some time around when I was born I should think. Roleplaying games already cover all of those elements that people seem to think are different about 'storeytelling', there is no new or different element to them that isn't old hat.

Cab, you're misunderstanding Rob's post, which is once more spot on.

Quote from: CabYou seem to assume that there isn't a complete continuum already in RPGs; may have started out as wargames, but they haven't been since, well, some time around when I was born I should think. Roleplaying games already cover all of those elements that people seem to think are different about 'storeytelling', there is no new or different element to them that isn't old hat.

Does the game have a referee that has the following duties

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session
b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

a, b, c, d seem pretty binary to me. You and drop into a session and see who is doing what. If a,b,c, and d are being done by a single person then BINGO! you can say that could be a RPG being played. After that you see if the players are using individuals as character. If they are then you have an RPG in session. Otherwise it some type of kriegspiel style wargame that needs a referee.

Now if a,b,c, and d are split among different players or our subject group consensus. Then it is something other than an RPG.

Here is another thing to think about. In a storytelling game like Dancey proposes what is the value of an adventure module? For a traditional RPG the adventure is an already prepped adventure and plot for a referee to run. If a game doesn't lend itself to adventure modules can you say it is an RPG?

Rob Conley

Quote from: Kyle AaronWell I would just call them "attention whores" rather than "power gamers." If you're talking about people who always want the spotlight, then it's a better description.

Which makes it very ironic that Ryan Dancey is saying "no power gamers", because "attention whore" pretty well sums up what Dancey has reduced himself to as of now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: estarHere is another thing to think about. In a storytelling game like Dancey proposes what is the value of an adventure module? For a traditional RPG the adventure is an already prepped adventure and plot for a referee to run. If a game doesn't lend itself to adventure modules can you say it is an RPG?

Hah, you know I'm with you most of the way, Rob (though multiple characters per player is okay by me), but here I object. An adventure module can be "just" a situation, such as a location and a bunch of NPCs-in-motion. This is how the old Dragonquest modules by SPI were done. Even with a full-on Dancey-esque players-make-up-the-world storytelling game, I think you could use a situational scenario as a baseline for the players to riff off of. The problem would be determining which parts of the scenario would be open knowledge, which would be secret (and known to whom?), which could be changed, which would be set in stone, and how to adapt to any changes.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow what does this have to do with the topic?

Go back to the Forge, topic nazi.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron...

I mean, my very first rpg when I was 12, the DM must have been not very much against his players, or else my Strength 10 fighter would never have made it to 3rd level. And the very first campaign we call "D&D", Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, that guy had the Chainmail rules where PC vs monster was just one dice roll, winner lived, loser died - the players didn't like that, so he took his Ironclad rules ("Armor Class" and "Hit Points", with the ship sinking when reaching 0 Hit Points) and slotted them in, the players liked that much better. Doesn't sound terribly adversarial to me...

And this was 1973. I guess old Dancey is taking a while to catch up.

That last bit is so cool.  I did not know that bit of D&D lore.  Arneson came up with far more of the good stuff in D&D than I thought.

Quote from: CabWell, I rekon most players aren't power gamers, but they'll try to do the best in a tight situation with the character they have (and rightly so). But as for this streamlined stuff, what he's saying is not keeping tight track of trivialities when you trust your players. I think most of us have always done that.

So true, same with your first post.  Just because Dancey doesn't know how to run a non-adversarial game doesn't mean the rest of us don't.  Do you really need a rule to say don't be a jerk (GM or player)  I thought that was just common socialization, something people should have learned by 12.

Other issues aside, the default style of play definitely used to be player vs. DM. Check out early Dragon articles and descriptions of play - it's all there, particularly in the proclaimations of Gygax. Even now, many people follow the DM-as-god paradigm and/or gamist play styles, which are, in many ways, the philosophical children of the old DM-player relationship.

Seanchai

Quote from: NicephorusI knew he was just trying get attention to get ready to sell something.
 
"The intent is to replace the traditional DM vs. Player relationship with a cooperative storytelling mode. "
 
This really isn't necessary.  Many groups play D&D as a more cooperative game.  Those who want to, do so.  They don't need a book about it.

My first reaction to this was agreement. I've been doing this sort of gaming for years.

But then, given how many people I run into online that don't seem to be able to approach D20 in this way, perhaps there could be something to a little methodology here. :shrug:

Quote from: jrientsThe difference is that some people want to be mechanically rewarded for inefficient choices.  If I choose to have my fighter beat up a demon with his bare hands rather than his magic sword, the reward is that my guy is awesome.  To alter the game so that a punch is equal to a magic sword takes that awesome-osity away.  This example is from an actual game.  I chose the suboptimal route as a way of demonstrating how stonecold badass my PC was.  That would not have worked if the game had rewarded me mechanically.

"Yeah that's right baby, beat your demon ass down with my bare hands wild west style.  Don't need no holy avenger for your ass."  

I love when players do this stuff.  And in a way they get a reward in my games, the game-world reacts in a reasonable fashion to this.  Other demons that hear of this will fear the PCs more.  A demon lord may have to now get the PC for humialting him.  If any one observed this the PCs rep (I use a little point system to keep track) gets a nice boost.  I may even give an xp bonus for thinking outside the box or making it a greater challenge.

However, if they decide to attack unarmed and they have no skill in such and their normal gauntlets will not harm the demon, while their sword would, the dice fall where they may.  It could very well be PC death.  

But sub-optimal I sometimes think people think not bash-slash style.  I make knowledge valuable for combat (numbers, postions, mission, motive of the enemy) so that if players decide to get a few language and culture skills to understand their enemey, instead of maxed combat, they can gain the advantage of surprise and the accurate application of force.   A better adavntage than they could likely get from bashing alone.  

To me there is a whole other dimension of game rules that are just common sense, if the GM sets the game world to react in a logical fashion world-oriented fashion, things that are "good role-playing" get a reward through thr role-play and interaction with the world.  You save a village, you don't need a rule to know many folks are going to be grateful, you may have made friends for life who will pass you information, aid you in time of need etc.  The GM running a "living" world provides the reward in a better way than you gain one power dice for your "humanity."  People do it for the fun and role play with the world, even if Machiavellian, not the dice.

Quote from: SeanchaiOther issues aside, the default style of play definitely used to be player vs. DM. Check out early Dragon articles and descriptions of play - it's all there, particularly in the proclaimations of Gygax. Even now, many people follow the DM-as-god paradigm and/or gamist play styles, which are, in many ways, the philosophical children of the old DM-player relationship.

Seanchai

I have to disagree having started playing back then. OD&D came out of an older than 12-16 scene, more like 18-21 and then those old guys in Wisconsin.  Gygax got a lot of flack about the DM=god thing and any game I ever saw where the GM tried to be an arbitrary god ende quick, that is, no matter what Gygax said poeple didn't suffer jerk DMs.  

Gygax in the Dragon and DMG describes a very formalistic style of play that does not come out of the rules or inherently flow from them.  How common was the "caller" for example.  That is why he had to rail so hard about playing one way, people just ignored him and the rules never forced such play.  Ranting was just harder back then when post frequencey was once a month.  It was hard to respond to such things as well and call bullshit, unlike on the internet now.  People even ignored the rules despite Gary's rants, critcal hits anyone?

The premise that the traditional RPG, where the GM says what is behind the door, inherenty causes an adversarial GM vs player situation in the GM is "out to get you, looking for the gotcha, is unfair, etc." is false.  Nor was this the norm of how people played in all my experience.  You are really saying that what was called a "killer DM" back then was the norm and default game.

In my view the default game of Gary's vision, to be fair to Gary, was the DM should fairly referee the world and challenge the players, the players should not whine or excessively argue with the DM, they can make their case but once a decision is made move on.  Really what you would do anyway if you are a reasonable person.  

I can only think he said these things because most folks came from symmetrtic games where it was fair for each player to work as hard as they could to defeat the other because the same rules applied to each side.  The descriptions of the paly at Gary's own table don't sound like he is out to get anyone at all or ever was.  They are actually more on the "Monty Hall" side of it.

Just like Dnacey's rants are giving BW a bad rep, don't take Gary's rants as the reality of how people played or the play that resulted form the rules.  I do agree that Gary's rants to this day give AD&D a bad rep.

Further, there are other traditional RPGs where the GM narrates what is behind the door, and where the game designer never went off ranting like Gary.

Quote from: jrientsThe difference is that some people want to be mechanically rewarded for inefficient choices.  If I choose to have my fighter beat up a demon with his bare hands rather than his magic sword, the reward is that my guy is awesome.  To alter the game so that a punch is equal to a magic sword takes that awesome-osity away.  This example is from an actual game.  I chose the suboptimal route as a way of demonstrating how stonecold badass my PC was.  That would not have worked if the game had rewarded me mechanically.

I can understand that. It's one of the things that's always put me off HeroQuest. I like having character creation be a hundred word narrative, I like freeform traits, but I don't like that there's no game-mechanical difference between "Heavy Puncher 17" and "Munty Big Sword 17". All the choices become cosmetic, sword vs fists is no more significant than red hair vs black hair.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhich makes it very ironic that Ryan Dancey is saying "no power gamers", because "attention whore" pretty well sums up what Dancey has reduced himself to as of now.

Well, all of us with high postcounts and strong opinions are a little bit guilty of that I'm more interested in talking about what he's saying than thinking about whether he's saying it so everyone will look at him or whatever.

Quote from: XantherThat last bit is so cool. I did not know that bit of D&D lore. Arneson came up with far more of the good stuff in D&D than I thought.

Check out the Big List of Links in my sig, there's some stuff about the development of roleplaying there.

Quote from: XantherGygax in the Dragon and DMG describes a very formalistic style of play that does not come out of the rules or inherently flow from them.

I dunno about Dragon, but in the DMG he also had some non-adversarial things described, like how if some PC was killed through no fault of the player, just shitty luck, the DM should let them live, just maybe limping or something. And in his talk about "troublesome players" there's a lot of thought about the interests of the group as a whole.

I think perhaps Gygax in his articles was like a lot of us on forums - stating a pretty extreme opinion which rarely is expressed in play. In play almost everyone is more moderate.

Quote from: XantherI have to disagree having started playing back then.

I started with the old red box and moved on to first edition AD&D. I started reading Dragon back when it was still in the double digits.

Quote from: XantherGygax got a lot of flack about the DM=god thing and any game I ever saw where the GM tried to be an arbitrary god ende quick, that is, no matter what Gygax said poeple didn't suffer jerk DMs.  

Then where does the DM as god paradigm come from? If it's as you say, then why do we have a generation of DMs who feel that their voice and vision is the only one that matters? It had to spring from somewhere and be perpetuated by something. If not play groups, then what? If, as you say, play groups

Quote from: XantherThe premise that the traditional RPG, where the GM says what is behind the door, inherenty causes an adversarial GM vs player situation in the GM is "out to get you, looking for the gotcha, is unfair, etc." is false.

Shrug.

Quote from: XantherNor was this the norm of how people played in all my experience.

It has been in mine.

Quote from: XantherThe descriptions of the paly at Gary's own table don't sound like he is out to get anyone at all or ever was.

He's the guy who said if you weren't playing by all his rules, you weren't really playing D&D. Was he "out to get" his players? Shrug. He certainly seems pretty didactic, rigid and...not exactly collaborative to me.

Seanchai