What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

If the players all build PCs who are roguish smuggler types, what happens?

Considering you yourself presented an example where you gave your players a requirement for their characters to have a reason to fight goblins so that it matched your intended theme, surely this isn't the problem you're trying to imply it is?

 

[Ovinomancer]

But in terms of Story Now his explanation holds water. He didn't actually come up with the term, just expounded on it at great length. And since the explanation holds up with what others are saying, than I assume it's a correct definition of that technique. I am not abandoning my GM style, and when I said I was in error, it was strictly in relation to Story Now, not that my technique is wrong.

As far as Ron Edwards explanation of Story simulation, isn't that what we do in rpging, and do you find something wrong with this definition? There is no implication in the explanation that states our stories are weak or not original. In fact, Mr. Edwards himself, states that Classical play is less likely to get screwed up.

I know there is a lot of resistance to GNS, but it's not that bad. The model assumes most groups are mingling the play styles. If you go far enough into narrative, you get Story Now, which doesn't play well with others, for sure. No matter which style you lean toward, all rpging is storytelling, however. There are different styles, but very very few groups are purely one style. Any game can be used for any play style, but some games support some better than others. It's not all that controversial, is it?

Well... your description of Story Now is off -- there can be very strong established themes for Story Now. Otherwise you're claiming Blades in the Dark isn't Story Now.

And, your description of Simulationism is... very odd. It's not about simulating story so much as trying to simulate a world or genre as much as possible. It's the feel simulationism goes for, not really story. If you're bending your game or unsung a system specifically so that the sorry that emerges has the right feel, that's simulationism.

Call of Cthulu is pretty strongly simulationist -- your PCs investigate a horror that likely kills them or drives them mad and reinforces the feel of Lovcraftian horror. You aren't supposed to win so much as experience the simulation of Lovecraft's stories.

 

[Aldarc]

I wish these sort of conversations could move beyond Ron Edwards and his terminology.

 

[pemerton]

Considering you yourself presented an example where you gave your players a requirement for their characters to have a reason to fight goblins so that it matched your intended theme, surely this isn't the problem you're trying to imply it is?

It's not a rhetorical question.

 

[pemerton]

I wish these sort of conversations could move beyond Ron Edwards and his terminology.

Well, to some extent Edwards moved beyond his terminology (eg he prefers "story now" to "narrativism").

Still, one reason that people continue to use his terminology is because there is not a lot else available for serious critical discussion about the aesthetics of RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

The mistake I made earlier was assuming that I had been mixing Classical play with Story Now elements. My players had lots of agency, and made decisions which could take the story in any direction. They could even add elements to the fiction. Other times, I set up more traditional play. What could be more narrativist than that? If players weren't feeling creative, no problem, they would have my story to fall back on. This is a sound style of GMing, and will probably continue to be my preferred style, but it is not Story Now. It is in fact, as Ron Edwards describes it, simulationist. My table is simulating story. If I set up, even a loose framework of renegade outlaws rebelling against an evil king, my players are going to dive in and further those tropes. There is an assumption ahead of time of where this particular story is going, even if details are fuzzy, and the players will have buy-in. Even if the players do something unexpected, like joining the king's forces, the story is still about corrupt nobility vs. champions of the down-trodden. If I do a more sandbox style, the story and themes are still set up ahead of time. Players know they are wandering adventures seeking a variety of dangers, and probably accumulating wealth. A pre-set trope.

Thanks for this thoughtful post.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, to some extent Edwards moved beyond his terminology (eg he prefers "story now" to "narrativism").

Still, one reason that people continue to use his terminology is because there is not a lot else available for serious critical discussion about the aesthetics of RPGing.

I also wish that we could move beyond Edwards and The Forge. Though if this is all we have, then RPG theory is in a sad sorry state.

 

[pemerton]

I also wish that we could move beyond Edwards and The Forge. Though if this is all we have, then RPG theory is in a sad sorry state.

Well, what else do you want to point us to?

As far as I can recall the only person who has linked to that sort of material in this thread is me. (If I'm forgetting others, I apologise.) I've linked directly to Edwards. I've linked to Eero Tuovinen, who is heavily influenced by Edwards and The Forge. I've linked to an account of "no myth", which is derived from posts on The Forge. I've linked to Christopher Kubasik, whose essay predates The Forge and is one prominent influence on Edwards's account of "story now". And I've linked to Luke Crane, whose flagship game borrows a rule straight from DitV (which Vincent Baker, a bit self-deprecatingly, says might as well be a supplement to Edwards's game Sorcerer) and whose acknowledgements include Baker, Edwards and their RPGs.

The last time I read anything by Mearls commenting on RPG design theory (which is a while ago now), he suggested that The Forge was the best there was around.

I'm not trying to persaude you that you should change your dislike of The Forge. But if there's a different school that analyses techniques and aesthetics in a useful but different way, you're going to have to point me to it, because I'm working with what I know and, as I've just recounted, it's all ultimately part of the school you don't like.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, what else do you want to point us to?

I am self-admittedly at a loss. IME, I have simply found, however, that Ron Edwards, the Forge, and all associated terminology generally engender divisive conversations. These can be, as per [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s observation, due to differences of core gaming values, but I also think that the terminology itself has accumulated a lot of visceral connotations and negative reactions. (The terms also seem infused with presumed value-judgments of different game approaches.)

It would certainly be nice if I was familiar with academic tabletop design game theory who have likely developed their own set of jargon, but I am not. And perhaps this even points to a gap in the conversation.

I'm not trying to persaude you that you should change your dislike of The Forge. But if there's a different school that analyses techniques and aesthetics in a useful but different way, you're going to have to point me to it, because I'm working with what I know and, as I've just recounted, it's all ultimately part of the school you don't like.

Yeah, but it's just my own vain sentiment. A whim. A want. A desire to go beyond what we have as it seems that we are too attached to these terms and all their associated baggage. I can't help but shake the feeling that these terms do a massive disservice to all gamers and their preferences.

 

[Sebastrd]

If the players all build PCs who are roguish smuggler types, what happens?

That's entirely up to them, isn't it? I've set the scene and introduced a situation. It's not up to me to decide what they do with it, so I really can't say.

I can tell you what did happen, though. I presented the scene and situation to the players. They rolled up a bard, a ranger, and a monk who had just arrived via a ship racing ahead of the storm, and the last player rolled up a vagabond rogue living in an alley. Using the Bonds mechanic from Dungeon World, the players developed a quick shared history. The players decided to volunteer to deliver supplies to the lighthouse, but I asked them all to declare their motivation for doing so. They all described appropriate motivations based on their character personalities, including the rogue who wanted money up front. I had him make a charisma check, and he rolled a success. So I told him the townsfolk were desperate and pressed for time so they offered 100gp up front; that was enough to satisfy him. When we start the adventure on Saturday, they'll be off to the lighthouse.