Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Player-driven campaigns and developing strong stories
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="andreszarta" data-source="post: 8999184" data-attributes="member: 7036985"><p>Lovely! I feel like your post really shifted the conversation in this thread away from pure speculation , which was very fundamental to reach an important yet somewhat obvious resolution: <em>system matters.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's why you have rules for resolution. Not fully disagreeing with you here! I think there's both strengths and drawbacks in designs by committee just like you suggested before this response. When approaching something like story creation by way of player-empowered creative collaboration, you need rules to help you accomplish some things that are kind of essential for "<strong>strong stories"</strong>:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Introduction of content that is totally unexpected yet inevitable given the previous circumstances. Vincent alludes to this <a href="http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/360" target="_blank">here</a> when he says:</li> </ul><p></p><p>(Emphasis mine)</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sustained conflicts of interest, with fit opponents that won't back down until something irreversibly and consequentially changes the nature of their dynamic. <a href="http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html" target="_blank">Here</a> Vincent outlines the following:</li> </ul><p></p><p>(Emphasis mine)</p><p></p><p></p><p>This I am not so sure.</p><p></p><p>The argument in the posts I've linked to above presupposes that when we talk about <em>Design by committee </em>we are talking about a functional arrangement of <em>design by committee</em>, right? Those instances in which all participants are willing collaborators, with the right disposition to purposefully unify their vision towards coherence. This naturally requires skills like listening, accepting what others offer and endow, being curious about other peoples ideas, showing excitement about other peoples ideas, reincorporating, compromising, etc... Classic improv stuff. They are creative muscles you build and get better at, but they necessarily demand that participants join this process with the right mindset.</p><p></p><p>When we engage in this process, in good faith, we get good unified vision. I report this, Vincent Baker reports this, Ron Edwards reports this and I think most of the Story Now crowd here would also report this. Take that unified vision and use it to build strong stories? Tips in the paragraphs above.</p><p></p><p>However, if we are not doing any of those things; if we are lacking empathy, ignoring others' input, dismissing their ideas, showing disinterest in their thoughts, refusing to compromise, and monopolizing conversations, we are no longer in the realm of functional <em>design by committee, </em>this is totally dysfunctional and we are better served by abandoning the pretension of a committee altogether.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But, like it's not an illusion...they ARE in control of the game. Collectively. And it's not just the players, it's the GM too. All players are IN on the act of creation at any given moment. How could they not be?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="andreszarta, post: 8999184, member: 7036985"] Lovely! I feel like your post really shifted the conversation in this thread away from pure speculation , which was very fundamental to reach an important yet somewhat obvious resolution: [I]system matters.[/I] That's why you have rules for resolution. Not fully disagreeing with you here! I think there's both strengths and drawbacks in designs by committee just like you suggested before this response. When approaching something like story creation by way of player-empowered creative collaboration, you need rules to help you accomplish some things that are kind of essential for "[B]strong stories"[/B]: [LIST] [*]Introduction of content that is totally unexpected yet inevitable given the previous circumstances. Vincent alludes to this [URL='http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/360']here[/URL] when he says: [/LIST] (Emphasis mine) [LIST] [*]Sustained conflicts of interest, with fit opponents that won't back down until something irreversibly and consequentially changes the nature of their dynamic. [URL='http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html']Here[/URL] Vincent outlines the following: [/LIST] (Emphasis mine) This I am not so sure. The argument in the posts I've linked to above presupposes that when we talk about [I]Design by committee [/I]we are talking about a functional arrangement of [I]design by committee[/I], right? Those instances in which all participants are willing collaborators, with the right disposition to purposefully unify their vision towards coherence. This naturally requires skills like listening, accepting what others offer and endow, being curious about other peoples ideas, showing excitement about other peoples ideas, reincorporating, compromising, etc... Classic improv stuff. They are creative muscles you build and get better at, but they necessarily demand that participants join this process with the right mindset. When we engage in this process, in good faith, we get good unified vision. I report this, Vincent Baker reports this, Ron Edwards reports this and I think most of the Story Now crowd here would also report this. Take that unified vision and use it to build strong stories? Tips in the paragraphs above. However, if we are not doing any of those things; if we are lacking empathy, ignoring others' input, dismissing their ideas, showing disinterest in their thoughts, refusing to compromise, and monopolizing conversations, we are no longer in the realm of functional [I]design by committee, [/I]this is totally dysfunctional and we are better served by abandoning the pretension of a committee altogether. But, like it's not an illusion...they ARE in control of the game. Collectively. And it's not just the players, it's the GM too. All players are IN on the act of creation at any given moment. How could they not be? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Player-driven campaigns and developing strong stories
Top