Cab, the reason I asked you to provide examples wasn't to "prove" a certain definition of RPGs; as I said, you can do anything you like and call it an RPG; some people will agree with you, some will disagree. The reason was that your comments in this thread were unintelligible abstractions until you had actual examples to back them up. It was impossible to relate your claim, that Dancey wasn't proposing anything new, to any sort of baseline that would make it meaningful. It was also impossible to compare it to the preferences, and often skepticism, that others expressed in response to Dancey's ideas.

That said, your answers are off-point in many cases, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding Rob. I don't think he's emphasizing so much that the GM has to do (a)-(d) as that if anyone does those things, it's the GM, not the players. So having a GM "wing it" doesn't invalidate (a). Having "rotating GMs" doesn't invalidate (b). I'm surprised that you're distracted by the word "dice" in (c); aside from that, making rulings doesn't mean doing so without input. It does mean having final say. As for (d), I'd venture that Amber is a poor example because the players' power to create setting in that game is, if I'm not mistaken, a representation of their characters' powers to create worlds within "the World". The other examples are by your own admission rare, and in any case while I can't speak for Rob, I don't believe that certain small exceptions to general principles takes a game out of the mainstream concept of RPG, or my conception in any case. See my comment about "hero"points a few posts up.

Bringing this back to the topic, it's self-evident based on the reactions we've seen here that even if Dancey's suggesting something that's been done before, it's not "traditional" to a large number of gamers. Perhaps you haven't read the background to his proposal; it was commented on heavily in a couple other threads hereabouts.

Dancey on "Saving the Hobby"
Who should "tell the story"?

If you read those (or maybe preferably, just skim through for the links to actual Dancey stuff on his blog and at feartheboot), you'll see that what Dancey has in mind radically breaks (b) and (d), and possibly (a) as well in the sense that GM prep could be overruled at will by player improv. And the spirit of (c) is run roughshod over in the process, though it seems that could be the one way that Dancey's ideas are closest to the way you've played, I guess.

Quote from: SeanchaiThen 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.

The DM as god paradigm when it comes to rules is simply an acknowledgement that it's easier to have a single experienced player act as the rules adjudicator than to bicker all the time, or have an enormous, comprehensive rulebook to cover all eventualities.

Now, if you're asking about the paradigm of DM as god when it comes to setting and story, then my experience is that most players back in the day had no interest in working anything other than their own PC. They didn't want to help construct the game world, or offer input on political factions, or take the game off into meaningful explorations of the PCs background and motivations.

IMHO, this whole player empowerement movement is about catering to two different wants:

1) Players who just can't handle another player adjudicating the game and trust black and white game rules more than they trust their friends.

2) Players who want to help craft and improvise the game setting and step out of character to shape the story.

The former have been around forever and are quite common. The latter make up only a smally portion of RPG players, and have only recently had their preferences catered to.

So the DM as god paradigm was never about some adversarial asshole imposing his will on helpless players. It simply represented a default style of play that most people found convenient, and that has gradually been challenged as the makeup of RPG players changed, and as the most unhappy players persisted in braying the loudest to have their preferences met.

Quote from: HaffrungThe DM as god paradigm when it comes to rules is simply an acknowledgement that it's easier to have a single experienced player act as the rules adjudicator than to bicker all the time, or have an enormous, comprehensive rulebook to cover all eventualities.

A few things:

1. That's just rules. As you note, DM as god paradigm covers other aspects.

2. The DM isn't necessarily the most experienced or knowledgeable player. It's interesting that you make this assumption, but it's far from a truism.

3. The players bicker about the rules anyway and under many different paradigms and play styles. If the DM as god paradigm really evolved as a response to this, why didn't it go away as it was ineffective?

Quote from: HaffrungThey didn't want to help construct the game world, or offer input on political factions, or take the game off into meaningful explorations of the PCs background and motivations.

They didn't want to do so or were told by the rulebook and DM it wasn't how players participated in the game?  

Moreover, if this were the case, why the need for the absolute? The DM as god paradigm could run along the lines of "what I say goes until you want to help out." Instead, it's "what I say goes and your help isn't needed or appreciated."

Finally, if the players generally had no interest in being involved in the story and setting, why would DMs need to stake out their territory with the paradigm in question? If the DM as god paradigm does have to do with story and setting, it seems to me it must have arisen for just the opposite reason: players were interested in contributing.  

Quote from: HaffrungSo the DM as god paradigm was never about some adversarial asshole imposing his will on helpless players.

The DM as god paradigm can be about assholes and helpless players, but generally not.

Seanchai

Quote from: VBWyrdeHi Ryan!

Greetings!

QuoteSome people here are flat out against Story-Games.  Some people are for them to varying degrees.   A lot of people here just can't stand the Forge

As much as I admire what Ron & the Forge gang have accomplished, I don't think Story Games and the Forge are synonyms.  They may have broken the box wide open but now the concept has taken on a life of its own.

QuoteAnyway, welcome aboard.  Best wishes.

Glad to be here, thanks for the welcome!

Ryan

Quote from: RSDanceyGreetings!

As much as I admire what Ron & the Forge gang have accomplished, I don't think Story Games and the Forge are synonyms.  They may have broken the box wide open but now the concept has taken on a life of its own.

Glad to be here, thanks for the welcome!

Ryan

Your quite welcome.  

Sooo...??  Soo...?   Tell us ... what do you think of all the hubbub around your pitching for story-games?   Personally, I like Great Story in my RPG.   But I've never felt the need to change the paradigm to get it.   The understanding we have is that you're advocating a new RPG paradigm involving Player Empowerment style games.   A lot of us don't feel that's necessary.  We've read quotes and stuff from your blog and other forums, but it would be much appreciated if you'd elucidate on this point for us on theRPGSite.   There's been a lot of opinions flying.   Do you really feel that the Traditionalist approach (GM owns the BackStory, Players own the Plot via their PCs) is outmoded and that Player Empowerment style games are required for Great Story?  If so then why do you think so, Ryan?   Thanks!

- Mark

The plot thickens! This game's getting more exciting by the minute!

Quote from: VBWyrdeSooo...??  Soo...?   Tell us ... what do you think of all the hubbub around your pitching for story-games?

I'm happy people are interested in seeing what I have to say.  I'm hopeful that as the project unfolds it will result in some books that are as fun to read & use as I'm sure they will be to write.

QuoteThe understanding we have is that you're advocating a new RPG paradigm involving Player Empowerment style games.

I think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.  A group of people who have been involved with the platform since inception are leaving to play MMORPGs, and they are unlikely to return.  I call those people "Power Gamers"; players who fit onto a two-axis diagram of the player space at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "combat focused".  For those people, MMORPGs offer a superior experience to the tabletop RPG, and the MMORPG experience will get better, faster, than the tabletop game could possibly be redesigned to address the deficit (if such a thing were even possible).  MMORPGs also appeal strongly, but not as strongly to the group I call "Thinkers"; players who exist at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "story focused".  We can likely make some changes to keep many of these people, and do it fast enough that the MMORPG experience can be countered before they're all gone.  If we're lucky, we might even get some of those who have already left back eventually.

Those changes in the player community will push the hobby to challenge preconceived notions we all take for granted.  I think that one successful evolution from this point is to start from a nearly blank sheet of paper and redesign the tabletop game with the criteria that it must be rewarding for the 3 groups who will remain on the tabletop, and not compromised by attempts to retain the group that is destined to leave.

The other two groups are the Storytellers, who have a long-term, story focus, and the Character Actors, who have a short-term story focus.  I think a game platform built to be fun for JUST Storytellers, Character Actors & Thinkers is something different from a classic TRPG as we (mostly) know them now.

There are a lot of very strong assumptions in the classic model of the TRPG that are based on the need to control, and provide appropriate challenges to, the Power Gamers.  If we take those assumptions out of the game format, we can create new kinds of games with new sets of assumptions.  A brief list of those assumptions would be the need to deal with near-realtime melee combat actions, the requirement that most of the information in a scenario is hidden knowledge at the start of play and that all in-game objects (characters & items) include statistics on how to destroy them, or use them to destroy other in-game objects.

My goal is to write a few games built with different sets of assumptions about the players who will play them and see if people enjoy them and have fun reading & playing them.

Quotethe Traditionalist approach [sic: is] (GM owns the BackStory, Players own the Plot via their PCs)

In this, I'm in agreement with some of the philosophy of the Forge.  I think the above statement is not possible.  I think that it is impossible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story.  I think that inevitably attempting to resolve the unresolvable logical fallacy of that idea creates conflicts which make the game less fun to play and experience.

The PCs are as much a part of the "backstory" as anything else in the game, and since in most classic RPGs they're "on stage" for the whole narrative, they constitute the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the backstory.  Likewise, the world they exist in must have some effect on them, either socially or economically, or educationally.  The backstory is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of who the characters are; it defines their core natures to such a degree that any evolution which happens after play begins is almost always variations on a predefined theme, and strictly limited.

What I advocate is separating the roles of "person who figures out how to resolve a challenge" from "person who decides what the challenge will be".  I also think that characters & the backstory should be a joint creation of the whole group.

If I want to see entertainment where someone else makes the world & the characters, I'll watch TV.  If I want entertainment where someone makes the world and I just do what I can within a strictly limited range of options provided for me, I'll play an MMORPG.  On the other hand, if I want to play in a game where both world & characters are things I have a hand in creating, I'll play a Storytelling Game.

Let me also say that I think that hidden knowledge is fun, and I think it has a place in the Storytelling Game concept; rather than being the default condition, I think it should be used only when appropriate for drama.  I also think that many brains working together are more creative than one brain, and getting as many brains as possible involved in "making the world cool" and "making the challenge cool" strikes me as being logically more likely to succeed than limiting that work to one brain.

For all 3 of these projects the word "GAME" is at the center of my process.  This is not meant to be an exercise in writing guidelines for improv theater.  Games should have competition, and objectives, and ideally they should have victory conditions.  I think that keeping "GAME" at the center of the work is key to avoiding the pitfalls of the medium that many in this thread (and others) have mentioned.

Ryan

Quote from: Elliot WilenCab, the reason I asked you to provide examples wasn't to "prove" a certain definition of RPGs; as I said, you can do anything you like and call it an RPG; some people will agree with you, some will disagree.

Thats where you're so far wide of the mark...

All of the things I have described, all of the elements under discussion, have been done in roleplaying games, accepted by gamers as being roleplaying games, for two decades or more. Some people will disagree will they? Yes, they probably will, but they're coming at this with the same false assumption that you've got, that this is something new that has not already been incorporated into roleplaying for a very long time.

QuoteThe reason was that your comments in this thread were unintelligible abstractions until you had actual examples to back them up. It was impossible to relate your claim, that Dancey wasn't proposing anything new, to any sort of baseline that would make it meaningful. It was also impossible to compare it to the preferences, and often skepticism, that others expressed in response to Dancey's ideas.

Errm, no, my comments were not unitelligible, its more that you hadn't understood them. Actually there is a pattern emerging here isn't there? You haven't encountered something as part of roleplaying games previously, so they're not part of roleplaying games they are something else. You haven't grasped my comments, so they are unintelligible...

QuoteThat said, your answers are off-point in many cases, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding Rob. I don't think he's emphasizing so much that the GM has to do (a)-(d) as that if anyone does those things, it's the GM, not the players. So having a GM "wing it" doesn't invalidate (a).

Nor did I say that it does; in such gaming scenarios where nothing is pre-defin
ed, each member of the group plays a role in coming up with whats in the setting. Old hat, I first played a game like that some time around 1987.

QuoteHaving "rotating GMs" doesn't invalidate (b).

Putting something that you are saying in "speech marks" doesn't suddenly mean that you can change the meaning of what I've said. Rotating GMs? What the heck are you talking about, thats not what I said, its not what I implied, it is neither part of the content or the meaning of what I posted.

QuoteI'm surprised that you're distracted by the word "dice" in (c); aside from that, making rulings doesn't mean doing so without input. It does mean having final say.

Go and read what I said. I'll make it easier, start with this bit, where in standard roleplaying games:

"most actions are detemined in a sort negotiative narrative. There is nothing at all new in that."

QuoteAs for (d), I'd venture that Amber is a poor example because the players' power to create setting in that game is, if I'm not mistaken, a representation of their characters' powers to create worlds within "the World".

Do you even know the game? Have you gone through the advice in campaign design contained within Amber? The methodologies and encouragement that a GM should use in that game to garner such input from players?

QuoteThe other examples are by your own admission rare,

No, no, no. Complete freedom for all players to design setting and surround is quite rare, that does not mean that the players are commonly excluded from doing so. The point of my argument, my whole premis in this discussion, is that there is a continuum all the way from very prescriptive games all the way to the other end. There is nothing new in this quest to empower everyone sitting at the table.

(further cut, I can't be bothered with this unless you actually read and assimilate the points put to you before responding).

Quote from: RSDanceyI'm happy people are interested in seeing what I have to say.  I'm hopeful that as the project unfolds it will result in some books that are as fun to read & use as I'm sure they will be to write.

Well, some people are interested, in an "intrigued" sort of way.  Others are going into apoplectic fits.  But that aside...

QuoteI think that the matrix of who plays TRPGs is going to change and has already started to change.  A group of people who have been involved with the platform since inception are leaving to play MMORPGs, and they are unlikely to return.  I call those people "Power Gamers"; players who fit onto a two-axis diagram of the player space at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "combat focused".  For those people, MMORPGs offer a superior experience to the tabletop RPG, and the MMORPG experience will get better, faster, than the tabletop game could possibly be redesigned to address the deficit (if such a thing were even possible).  MMORPGs also appeal strongly, but not as strongly to the group I call "Thinkers"; players who exist at the coordinates of "short-term thinking" and "story focused".  We can likely make some changes to keep many of these people, and do it fast enough that the MMORPG experience can be countered before they're all gone.  If we're lucky, we might even get some of those who have already left back eventually.

I tend to agree.  MMORGPs are attractive to those who are less interested in Story than in Gaming.  For them the thrill of running around in colorful settings and bashing on things, solving puzzles and interacting with their friends via the computer is highly attractive and even addictive.   That is not to say, however, that they will never return to TRPGs, nor even to say that they won't play them regularly.  Some of these players will do both, because they enjoy both.   My assessment is that this group likes the convenience and thrill of MMORPGs, but they also enjoy the Story and Socializing aspects of TRPGs, and will continue to do both.   Just to add an additional wrinkle.

QuoteThose changes in the player community will push the hobby to challenge preconceived notions we all take for granted.  I think that one successful evolution from this point is to start from a nearly blank sheet of paper and redesign the tabletop game with the criteria that it must be rewarding for the 3 groups who will remain on the tabletop, and not compromised by attempts to retain the group that is destined to leave.

It's an interesting premise.  I think a lot of us are not convinced this is really necessary.  But it depends on what is kept in and what is left out.  We all seem to generally agree that certain aspects of the Traditional RPG (thinking of Dungeons & Dragons mostly) could use some streamlining, and some enhancements that make play smoother, but there's a lot of people who like the "crunch" and so complexity for them is a positive.  Of course these two don't necessarily go together.  Your assessment is that "crunch" will no longer be necessary as Power Gamers move to MMORPGs.   That may or may not be the case, depending on how many Power Gamers also continue to play TRPGs.   There might be a high percentage, or a low.  Time will tell.   In either case, if Power Games like "crutch" they can always continue to play the Traditional RPGs.   It's not as if those will vanish from the universe.  It's just that some people would have liked to see some official modifications and enhancements to the existing system to make it smoother, without fundamentally changing the paradigm.  

QuoteThe other two groups are the Storytellers, who have a long-term, story focus, and the Character Actors, who have a short-term story focus.  I think a game platform built to be fun for JUST Storytellers, Character Actors & Thinkers is something different from a classic TRPG as we (mostly) know them now.

I'm not sure you explained who the First Group of TRPG players remaining will be.  We have the Power Players who will leave.   Are you saying there are only three groups all together?   Above you say "the 3 groups who will remain on the tabletop", which would seem to indicate four groups all together.  I'm not sure if that's a quibble on my part, or an oversight on yours, but if there's a fourth group I'd be curious to hear about them as well.   As for the game for JUST Storytellers... I think we see that there are new games out there focused on that.   However, from what we can tell these games are actually not doing very well in the Market.   For example, a good run is considered 1200 sales in three years.   IF that's true, then I'm curious how you plan to address that, and whether or not that's indicative of something fundamentally at odds with your analysis.   Or is there more to it that we're not seeing?

QuoteThere are a lot of very strong assumptions in the classic model of the TRPG that are based on the need to control, and provide appropriate challenges to, the Power Gamers.  If we take those assumptions out of the game format, we can create new kinds of games with new sets of assumptions.  A brief list of those assumptions would be the need to deal with near-realtime melee combat actions, the requirement that most of the information in a scenario is hidden knowledge at the start of play and that all in-game objects (characters & items) include statistics on how to destroy them, or use them to destroy other in-game objects.

I'm not at all convinced that "the requirement that most of the information in a scenario is hidden knowledge at the start of play" fits in with the other two requirements because the other two do actually deal with Power Gamers desires.  This one however, while being Story oriented, does not necessarily follow from your premise as explained thus far.   And it is actually a very crucial point.   Hidden knowledge in the game has certain benefits to play which if removed will also remove those aspects from the game, to the degree that they are removed.   The point that has come up about this numerous times is that removing the Hidden Aspects, and opening the World to Co-Creation by the Players during game play, reduces the chance for the sense of immersion.   You haven't mentioned immersion, but for some players it's a very important and desirable aspect of the game.   To feel that you're actually entering into Another World... somebody Else's World, that you would not have imagined, and that has it's own twists and turns and surprises within it, not only in terms of what's around the next corner, but the social, political, historical and Fantastical elements of the World.   This feeling is what a lot of Players hope for.   However, how to achieve it is something that requires more than what you're suggesting, and it seems to some that adding Co-Creationism to the game is in fact counter to that goal.   It is much harder to have that sense of "I'm in a New World I never would have Dreamed Of and it's so Fascinating" when you're also being placed in the position of Co-Creating it.   That's not just my opinion, but that of a fair number of posters as well.   What's your take on that?

QuoteMy goal is to write a few games built with different sets of assumptions about the players who will play them and see if people enjoy them and have fun reading & playing them.

Well good on ya, soldier.   We'll see how it pans out.  

QuoteIn this, I'm in agreement with some of the philosophy of the Forge.  I think the above statement is not possible.  I think that it is impossible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story.  I think that inevitably attempting to resolve the unresolvable logical fallacy of that idea creates conflicts which make the game less fun to play and experience.

Ok, this is where we disagree.   I, and others, think it is not only possible, but preferable.  How does that work?  As far as I've been concerned since 1978 when I started Gamesmastering, this model is perfectly valid, and doable.  We've been playing just such an "impossible" system all along, and until only very recently, from a small number of Game Designers who wanted to create "something different" did we start to hear anything approaching a complaint.   That it was not merely a complaint, but an actual series of barbed accusations didn't really help us to warm up to these concepts, just to let you know.   For example, you could look up the use of the term "BadWrongFun", "Brain Damage", and "GM Fiat" (which is pre-loaded to the negative).   We, or at least I, feel that these terms are being used to cast aspersions on the Traditionalist model, not because it is bad, but simply in order to try to drive a new Market into being.   While creating new Markets is laudable, and I have nothing against it, it's the attack on the existing one that we find repugnant.   Just so that's clear to you, Ryan, and no offense to you intended.  For myself, I want to remain open minded on all of these issues, and I want to be perfectly frank with you about where I see things, if for no other reason that to get this debate off on the right, reasonably discussed, track.  Fortunately I woke up early so I have a chance to respond before the wave hits... hehe.

QuoteThe PCs are as much a part of the "backstory" as anything else in the game, and since in most classic RPGs they're "on stage" for the whole narrative, they constitute the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the backstory.  Likewise, the world they exist in must have some effect on them, either socially or economically, or educationally.  The backstory is the MOST IMPORTANT PART of who the characters are; it defines their core natures to such a degree that any evolution which happens after play begins is almost always variations on a predefined theme, and strictly limited.

It's true in that the PCs are "part of the BackStory" in a sense.  They constitute the Protagonists of the Story.  But when I say BackStory, what I mean is the Background Story elements such as the history (not only of the World, but also of the PCs before they come into play, say their lives before they are at the age where the Player picks them up), politics, social constructions, and whatever Fantastic elements may be present.  These elements are designed by the Gamesmaster in what I call the World Weaving function of the game.   That function could be shared, by the way, or taken whole cloth from another source, which is what frequently happens such as in the case of using Modules, or Grey Hawk, and other Worlds created by someone other than the Gamesmaster who is refereeing the game.   It's interesting to note, as was done recently, that it is not a requirement that the Players be the one's to Co-Create the World.   My argument has been that it diminishes the game, *for the Players* when they are asked to do so, in terms of Immersion, surprise, and mystery.   But you get to this point soon, so I'll get back to it later.

QuoteWhat I advocate is separating the roles of "person who figures out how to resolve a challenge" from "person who decides what the challenge will be".  I also think that characters & the backstory should be a joint creation of the whole group.

Or the joint creation of a separate group of World Weavers.   I like that idea very much.   A council of World Weavers would be absolutely smashing.  But the idea of Co-Creating in-game with the Players leaves me less than thrilled.  I see too many Story problems with the introduction of Player-Driven elements in the BackStory by the Players in game.  By the time the Players start actively roaming around in the World, in my opinion that World should already be fairly well formed, and the idea that you could introduce entire new elements willy nilly on the whim of the Players desires (to benefit their Characters) seems counter to what I think of as a good way to build toward Great Story.   I'm just not seeing how it would work out well from an overall Story perspective.   Maybe it would, but my guess is that this would require that the Players also be Great Story Tellers, AND that they know sufficiently the BackStory in order to be able to add elements to that story that make sense in the Big Picture of the World.  

Now, you might counter that Players do like to Create Story too.   Well, that's true.   I do.   But when I want to Create Story, I work on my World in the World Weaving aspect which I do sporadically all the time.   But when I want to Play a Character I want to do just that.   I don't have a big desire to Co-Create my fellow Gamesmaster's Worlds.   I think it would be disruptive to their Vision, potentially, and kind of ruin the "I'm not sure what's going on here yet but I'm keen to explore" feeling of the game for me, as a Player.   So I'm not really seeing this aspect working out.   Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so.

QuoteIf I want to see entertainment where someone else makes the world & the characters, I'll watch TV.  If I want entertainment where someone makes the world and I just do what I can within a strictly limited range of options provided for me, I'll play an MMORPG.  On the other hand, if I want to play in a game where both world & characters are things I have a hand in creating, I'll play a Storytelling Game.

There's a middle ground that you missed... which is where the current style of TRPGs is at, though.  And personally, I like it very much because I can enjoy the exploration of Another's World, but still be Active in the Story.  Nor, in the TRPGs that I've played, are my Characters options "strictly limited", but in fact, most GMs I know provide a huge amount of flexibility in letting my Characters try whatever they can think of.   My Character may not succeed - but he can *always* try.  

The way I look at it is that by "owning" the Plot, or Actions of the Protagonists, the Players ARE co-Creating the Story.   We're just NOT co-Creating the BackStory of the World.   So it's not really as stark as your definition here, I don't think.  There's that sweet spot in-between, which is where I think a lot of us are at, and prefer to stay, quite honestly.  

QuoteLet me also say that I think that hidden knowledge is fun, and I think it has a place in the Storytelling Game concept; rather than being the default condition, I think it should be used only when appropriate for drama.  I also think that many brains working together are more creative than one brain, and getting as many brains as possible involved in "making the world cool" and "making the challenge cool" strikes me as being logically more likely to succeed than limiting that work to one brain.

This is an interesting point.   How much of the World can you cede to the Players, effectively?   Again, the problem for me with this concept is that it becomes the dreaded slippery slope.   Right now I can simply say, "No, Tod, Brocknar can not "Just find a race of Squaglles that can eat through stone" because no such race exists in MY World." and that stands.  In the Player Empowered game, however, it doesn't.   And I see that as highly problematic for the maintenance of a coherent World.   My Coherent World, btw.   How would you go about framing rules to handle this fairly to both the Gamesmaster / World Weaver and the Players?   Another point that I think should be made:  Players who traditionally wanted to Create Worlds went and did that, by becoming Gamesmasters themselves.  Why is this approach no longer "Good enough"?

QuoteFor all 3 of these projects the word "GAME" is at the center of my process.  This is not meant to be an exercise in writing guidelines for improv theater.  Games should have competition, and objectives, and ideally they should have victory conditions.  I think that keeping "GAME" at the center of the work is key to avoiding the pitfalls of the medium that many in this thread (and others) have mentioned.

GAME is good.  I like it.  It's a keeper.  

QuoteRyan

Ok, well Ryan, thanks a million for elucidating!   It's certainly interesting.   I'll be very curious to see what your responses are, and what others have to say, and moreover what New Games you come up with!   Thanks again!

- Mark

Welcome to the site Ryan.

Have you watched the D&D Experience documentary?
http://youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=SpiroLee&page=2

Or listened to Hal and his group from RPGMP3.com?
http://www.podnova.com/channel/365425/  (Try the BaneWarrens sessions)

Do the groups you see/hear from these sources match up with your idea of how D&D games are played?

One more question: What's your favourite version of D&D?

Which game was the last one you have been a player in, Ryan?
How long ago was that?

These are loaded questions, sure. But fair questions, don´t you think?

And from the other side of the fence, Ryan: what is your view of this Forge thread, in which Ron Edwards identifies different forms of authority present in roleplaying games. I find your position somewhat less nuanced than his.

Quote from: VBWyrdeYou haven't mentioned immersion, but for some players it's a very important and desirable aspect of the game.   To feel that you're actually entering into Another World... somebody Else's World, that you would not have imagined, and that has it's own twists and turns and surprises within it... It is much harder to have that sense of "I'm in a New World I never would have Dreamed Of and it's so Fascinating" when you're also being placed in the position of Co-Creating it. What's your take on that?

This is key. We play for immersion. MMORPGs do not give us anywhere near the immersion we enjoy sitting around a table sparking one another's imaginations. The stuff I dream in my head while we play is way, way better than any videogame.

For my players, that immersion is spoiled if they control anything more than their own PC. They don't want to be active agents in world-creation. The one other player who has that kind of creative desire satisfies it by DMing once in a while. And when I take off my DM hat and put on my Player hat, I don't want to control anything more than my PC either.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAs far as I've been concerned since 1978 when I started Gamesmastering, this model is perfectly valid, and doable.  We've been playing just such an "impossible" system all along, and until only very recently, from a small number of Game Designers who wanted to create "something different" did we start to hear anything approaching a complaint.

Indeed. It's not only possible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story, it's the preferred format for most people who play RPGs.

Ryan, you seem to have fallen into the Forge assumption that most people who have played RPGs in the last 25 years were not really having a good time. Don't let the persistent and elaborate complaints of a sub-set of the hobby distort your impression of what players enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

While a small fraction of RPGers may want a shared setting with collective authorship, most groups neither want nor are capable of running such a game. My group, for instance, though they are long-time RPGers and close friends outside gaming, have a difficult enough time deciding whether to climb the walls of the bandit fort or disguise themselves as bandits and go in the front gate. They bicker constantly over such decisions. They are incapable of harmonious, collective world-building of the sort you posit. And they recognize that limitation. That's why we have one GM - it's simply convenient to have one adjudicator instead of six negotiators.

Wow.  Umm.  So much to say, so little time.  I think I'll just focus on this part for now:

Quote from: RSDanceyI think that it is impossible to have one side of the game "own" a part of the story, and the other side of the game "own" another part of the story. I think that inevitably attempting to resolve the unresolvable logical fallacy of that idea creates conflicts which make the game less fun to play and experience.

Unresolvable logical fallacy? Life, in which a trillion other influences own part of the story and I own my part, is an unresolvable logical fallacy that is less fun?

Good luck with your endeavors!

To think that videogames cannot be played for their story, or the stories that people can make out of them, is a display of sheer ignorance.