D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

We can talk about them. It's not an unbridgeable divide. The people on the 'storygames' side of the field almost all got there through more traditional play, and many of us (me included) still play and enjoy that kind of play now.

But having that discussion requires a recognition that the characteristics of one's own play are not axiomatic of the hobby, such that something featuring different characteristics isn't automatically artificial, immersion-breaking, hollow, unworkable without a group full of theatrically talented players, etc etc. It requires an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of one's own playstyle.

Also, that strengths and weaknesses thing would have to be examined by both sides to the other side's satisfaction, which seems especially unlikely.

 

[Oofta]

I'm sadly uncertain there would be much interest outside of the usual suspects in a narrative/storygame thread where you're not allowed to be critical. This is a very fraught topic, where each side thinks the other is disrespecting their preference.

Yeah, it all comes down to opinion and preferences. We're talking about games after all. But it's difficult to talk about because if I use the incorrect word to say something doesn't appeal to me, it's an attack. Throw in comments that, intentionally or not sound condescending i.e. "My game is more evolved and superior."

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I don't really see a significant difference in what you wrote over what I surmised, which is just more evidence of how much this and similar games are definitely not for me.

Also, do "burnt" and "burned" refer to character generation? I thought it was a typo. If not, I don't really understand the value of using new world to represent such a basic part of RPGs.

Yes, sorry, "burnt" and "burned" are references to character/world generation. It's a bit of a goofy affectation, but that's how the BW refers to it, and I have the book open here.

Ah, I do see a difference in what you surmised and what I wrote — "doing what the players want" and "honoring player priorities" don't strike me as the same thing. But I think it's about positioning more than meaning. Like, the former seems to suggest subservience to me, while the latter is more about being collaborative and open? I think we've seen this come up before in this thread, so I don't know that we need to pull at this string, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wait, what? Are you saying a GM is not supposed to frame a scene with elements the players can decide if they want to interact with immediately or not? That sound awfully close to a kind of railroad to me. But moving on ...


Wait, what? Are you saying a narrative game requires the players to align so that all characters are basically having the same overall topic on their agenda, or else it will fall apart? Even to the extent that you even cannot phantom having such an odd mix of character traveling together as a hypothetical? Or that at the very least the group is required to find one connecting thread between these, and only play on this connection?

Well, if the narrative games you have played in has had such draconic limitations on what is acceptable with regard to deviations from a "common norm", I guess that can explain it if there hardly ever are anything happening that might cause friction with other otherwise straight forward established facts.

This is a great reason to appreciate games like BitD or Stonetop where the alignment of fundamental background interests is built into the core premise of the game. You can do something similar in most games.

 

[Enrahim2]

Its that you (and @Micah Sweet et al) have a particular brand of Simulation/Immersionist priorities whereby you guys' particular mental framing of the internal causality of an imagined world is absolutely foundational for you to play at all. Its a cognitive framing effect; causality, content generation, resolution mechanics must have a particular "fit" or the game becomes "jarring" (as I've heard it called plenty of times).

Talking about misdiagnosis, I think this one is also very likely fitting that term.

It is true that integrity is critically important to both "camps". It is also true that the means for maintaining that integrity is very different for both "camps". I think you might take a bit to lightly on the grey featureless blob analogy though. As far as I read it it is not a claim that the entire world is a grey featureless blob - it is the claim as I understand it that everything outside what is established trough play appear like a grey featureless blob. I do not see you, nor any of the other experienced narrativist players so far arguing against that view. Rather I have seen many statements that fuels into such an impression.

The strongest counter statement I have seen is that this holds true for traditional D&D as well. Noone is running D&D with a fully fleshed out world, with every details ever to come into play established by the DM before the first session. As such I think the real "diagnosis" here rather might be a question about quantity rather than quality.

In a D&D setting it is enough that one participant is thinking about something on their own to make it make it something "real" in the fiction. This process is extremely more efficient than the process of going trough the procedures required in a narrative game to bring something into the shared fiction. The established shared fiction is having a similar volume, but D&D is having the GM-vision that also make a claim to a level of "reality" in the fiction, which you don't really have in a more pure narrative game. And at least early in the game this GM-vision tend to vastly outsize the shared fiction in volume.

As such, one way of reading it is like on one dimension playing a narrative game feels like standing in an enclosed elevator (at least early on) compared to sitting in a living room. Both are limited, enclosed spaces, but the feel is different. One is having all the space you feel you need, the other is a place you want to get out of as soon as possible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's often far easier, however, to just treat them as if they do exist, and proceed.

Yes there can be, and is. Where, you ask? Within the imagined game world itself, which is where a lot of us are looking when we think about these things.

If in the fiction I have my character chop down a tree, then my imaginary axe blows plus gravity cause that imaginary tree to fall over. Cause ==> effect.

But this is the whole thing… it’s imaginary axe blows, imaginary tree, imaginary gravity… it’s all imaginary, including the cause and effect.

Not sure if you remember the giant ants in an orc lair example mentioned probably dozens of pages back now. You said that if a random minster roll resulted in giant ants in an orc lair you'd change it because the orcs would have eliminated the ants. You’re trying to force cause and effect.

But there could be any number of reasons for the ants to be there. Perhaps they only recently tunneled into the orc lair. Perhaps they’re controlled by the orc shaman. Perhaps they’re controlled by a nearby wizard who has sent them to spy on the orc.

It’s all made up. Whatever winds up being “true” in the fiction, we can find a way to justify it. We can actually determine the cause after seeing the effect, so to speak. And since that’s very often how the players will learn of things, it’s not even a problem.

I said it earlier… the GM doesn’t have to know these things ahead of time. They can determine them during play.

And if at the table we all agree that this in-fiction effect naturally follows from this in-fiction cause then for all intents and purposes that cause-effect sequence might as well be real; as henceforth that's how it will appear in our memories. (memories of reality and memories of imaginations being, in the end, just memories)

And here you touch on the distinction between players and characters. For the players, everything that happens in the game happens because we all agree to the processes of play. For the characters, there’s in-world cause and effect at play. Those two things can be very different.

I still don't see how your job as GM isn't just to do whatever the players want if you're not even allow to include a scene unless it directly pertains to the PCs beliefs.

Each scene is meant to (generally speaking) present some kind of challenge to the characters. Something that speaks to them in some way. A test of their beliefs, an obstacle between them and their goals, and so on. The GM is meant to consider all these things when they present a scene. They’re meant to craft things in a way that will be meaningful to one or more PCs.

Other than that, they’re just as free as a trad GM to decide what’s specifically in a scene.

The characters don't exist in a vacuum in the setting; thus if they're for whatever reason undertaking a journey it's not like they're not going to look around at what they pass along the way.

This points to my big issue with scene-to-scene jumping - way too much potential gets missed in between, and way too much opportunity for interaction with the setting, perhaps even in ways not directly related to any existing beliefs etc. Also missed is any opportunity for the players/PCs to at some point decide to sidetrack themselves into something else (which I certainly hope is allowed; they're not on rails, are they?) e.g. they stop and do a good deed for some villagers along the way and come to realize there's a bigger issue there, so they stay and sort that before continuing to town.

Here, seeing the abandoned farms might eventually end up causing a player to change a character's beliefs (it's allowed, isn't it?). That opportunity never arises if the PCs are jumped straight into town without any narration of their journey and what they see during it.

I would agree that there’s generally less chance to simply interact with the setting. There’s less chance of introducing a random element that somehow leads to something more meaningful than anyone expected.

For me, that’s generally not a problem since the goal is to always move toward something meaningful. But yes, I’d say this is the kind of thing that is less likely to happen in story now type games.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I kinda feel that in these kinds of games, the characters  do exist in a vacuum.

The characters don't exist in a vacuum in the setting; thus if they're for whatever reason undertaking a journey it's not like they're not going to look around at what they pass along the way.

This points to my big issue with scene-to-scene jumping - way too much potential gets missed in between, and way too much opportunity for interaction with the setting, perhaps even in ways not directly related to any existing beliefs etc. Also missed is any opportunity for the players/PCs to at some point decide to sidetrack themselves into something else (which I certainly hope is allowed; they're not on rails, are they?) e.g. they stop and do a good deed for some villagers along the way and come to realize there's a bigger issue there, so they stay and sort that before continuing to town.

Here, seeing the abandoned farms might eventually end up causing a player to change a character's beliefs (it's allowed, isn't it?). That opportunity never arises if the PCs are jumped straight into town without any narration of their journey and what they see during it.

Of course the characters don't exist in a vacuum. Play is just tightly focused on the characters.

As far as scene-to-scene jumping, I actually agree that it can be overdone, but I think if I remember @pemerton's description of how play developed around the scenario in Evard's tower correctly, events leading up to that were pretty granular. Aramina didn't roll her Grand-Wizard Wise and then everyone was at the tower. There was a journey and some diversions along the way. They were all related to player priorities and beliefs, but they were there.

Regarding side-tracking and changing beliefs, they're both possible and usually related (and changing beliefs is absolutely encouraged and expected). A GM can absolutely put a character in a hard place to test their commitment to a stated belief — I've been watching a lot of westerns lately, and in Bend of the River, they've established that Cole is a former border raider looking to make it rich (keeps on talking about going down to California for gold), but for a while he accompanies Glyn and the settlers up the Columbia with the food and helps them. When he's offered $100k to bring the food to the gold strike instead, he's presented with a hard choice. In a BW sense, he's got a belief about bringing the food to the settlers, helping Glyn, or whatever and maybe the Greedy trait or something. Putting these in opposition, forces his player, Arthur, to make a choice about what Cole will do. And would likely lead to a change in beliefs and a different pattern of play.

David Mamet once said that a screenwriter should get into a scene as late as possible and out of it as early as possible. In some ways, I think the same is true about where BW play should start. From there, pacing can vary, but the GM should be driving to something hitting a belief and hard quickly.

I thought part of the drive in BW was that the players were also responsible for bringing their beliefs into play? That is, it is good if the GM helps, but if the GM is not helpful the players still can work to make the tings the GM narrate into something that affects their beliefs (and hence keeps the artha flowing)

Yes, players should be acting on their beliefs, too, and you're right to bring up artha flow, but I think it's absolutely a responsibility of the GM to target beliefs (and traits) constantly and keep the pressure on. On some level, if players aren't acting on their beliefs from the drop, then it speaks to a situation that's probably half-baked and needs to be ratcheted up a bit. There should be urgency.

Edit: Jimmy Stewart's character is Glyn.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it's fair to say that discussion of the nature of narrative/storygames is not best done in the D&D forum.

D&D is a big tent game that contains all sorts of game styles and preferences. Many other posters have experiences with other games that have informed and shaped our own play of D&D that we feel are pertinent.

Any evidence that something like that is forthcoming? I'm talking practical conversation here.

Also, that strengths and weaknesses thing would have to be examined by both sides to the other side's satisfaction, which seems especially unlikely.

If you are interested in hearing about the respective strengths and weaknesses of different games out there, yould probably catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. These posts read to me as pretty confrontational and cynical. Regardless of whether these weaknesses have been mentioned in passing already or not, I'm not sure if people will be forthcoming with potential answers if they weren't already being viewed with supsicious hostility.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

honestly finding the letters matters less to me than the spellbooks, the letters were not what you were looking for and were GM generated fiction as a consolation prize for failing the check (although in DnD finding the letters would've also probably required a successful search/investigation check as it's something that makes progressing the story easier and getting such outcomes typically requires successful checks or none at all if it was sufficiently significant to continuing the plot).

where my issue comes from is that if your character wishes to search for spellbooks, and in the scenario that you suceed on their roll to look for them, then there are no circumstances (to my understanding) that your character will not find the spellbooks in that location (barring specific exceptions wherein the standing results of another dice result has already influenced the GM's ability to make a move on the matter that says they don't find them?),

because you suceeded on the roll, your actions as a player controling your character have been able to influence the fiction in a way that should be beyond the scope of the direct influence of the actions of your character, your capability to look for those books should have no bearing on if they were ever actually there.

because you suceeded on your roll the spellbooks are now there in that location, because you looked for them there, rather than in any other number of possible locations that they maybe 'should' of been in if you had of been following the cause and effect of the narrative of the world itself rather than the narrative of the players, the spellbooks were allowed to be found on that bookshelf or whereever they were found becuase they weren't actually anywhere before that moment, which is what i'm talking about when referring to the 'grey featureless blob' of the world, anything can appear anywhere because nothing is anywhere until it get's established that it's somewhere, and for people who value the integrity of a world the knowledge that basically anything can be made to appear anywhere on the rolling of the dice violently shatters their immersion.

Maybe you can look at it this way: characters certainly know and have good reason to believe many things about the game world which are not known or even suspected by the players or even the GM. Why can't a declaration of an action, searching, with the intent of finding spell books, be a strong indicator of the likelihood that this idea is a good one? Most characters are not idiots, right?

 

[bloodtide]

Well, I asked you what games you had in mind to try and get an idea of what you might be familiar with, but you didn’t share.

I’m not gonna write the whole rulebook in a post. So examples are what we’ve got.

It seems odd you can't or won't provide a complete example.

Saying your game does one small thing that does nothing overall...and your game has dozens of secret things you can't or won't talk about that do amazing things, is not helpful to the conversation.

It helps me understand how and why you use railroading, yes. It doesn’t make it sound great to me, but I don’t expect there's anything you can say that would.

I understand your not open to new idea, and oddly you think everyone else should be. But assuming an open minded person that was willing to change their mind, they would need a good argument and example to do so. Not just a vague example and a random "my way is better, because".

Except the GM has no function or power to enact a plot or story of their own. At the start of play the PCs have allies, rivals, and some turf. Every cycle there's an entanglement role to see what new problems arise, and the GM can spin that a bit or a player might provide an interpretation. Maybe some cops beat up one of the characters. Turns out the crew's cop ally tells them their rival gang set it up. So the PCs beat up one of their guys and he gives up the location of a stash. Maybe the GM suggested this, or maybe a PC demanded that info.

This is a good example of why detailed game play examples are very helpful.

Any comment I make, will quickly be met with "Oh there are a bunch of secret rules, styles, things we do, and such " that were not mentioned.

But...ok, so now..."suddenly" Blades has the GM making up a TON of stuff at the start of the game. So EXACTLY like a traditional game. A GM HAD to do a TON of work making up the whole setting. Though sure a player can make a random comment, and then leave the GM to do 99.9% of the work.

Yes the GM gets to make up parts of the situation, he can also make up consequences for failure, etc. The players are a huge part of this process and the GM has no reason to want one story over another really. Obviously he will make sure the situation is challenging and run the bad guys in a fair way. However a lot of stuff like difficulty is pretty standard, like dungeon level in D&D.

Well, aGM has "no reason" to "want one story over another"....and YET they do. So, this is just as common in Blades as it is in D&D. A GM "wants" a Railroad thing to happen...so they do. JUST like in D&D. The GM still has absolute power. All they really need do is hide behind the "rules" (aka, like I said up thread....the GM just needs to say something like "by the Fiction and the players will fall for that).

Perhaps being able to distinguish between players and characters when speaking helps make things clearer?

It get tricking wrtiting things out when you know several people will jump out a post with a "Oh you attack players in your game?" because someone typed "attack the player instead of attack the characters".