It's not playing a game, it's acting out a novel

[Barastrondo]

I've always felt that one of the big draws of RPGs is felt when you're experiencing a book or a movie or some sort of story, and you say "Aargh, if it were me, I would do this instead." And I quite understand the desire to model RPGs in a more literary/cinematic/storytelling fashion. That's where it comes from: the desire to experience the sort of situations you enjoy in stories, then to take control of the reins. To see how it plays out differently.

Thing is, it just needs to be understood that the players are the ones taking control of the reins. Yes, the GM can indulge a little bit of that: after all, there's nothing wrong with taking a basic premise in one story and then asking "So what if the antagonists did this instead of that?" But in all cases, good story gaming is generally about that premise and that context, not about predetermined results. Seeing how it plays out, not dictating how it plays out.

That said, I'm also not against some metagaming in an RPG, used with discretion. If a player says "I'd like you to set up an excuse for my character to have a religious experience," there's nothing innately wrong with doing so. In such a case, the player is interested in what the character may become, and less interested in just seeing if he gets to play that character out of simple chance. I see that as pretty similar to writing out a character for a session due to player absence with a metagaming tweak to events; the purity of the organic experience isn't in itself sacred. It is only if the players would be less comfortable with its absence.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I like writing stories. But I don't really like running games as my stories. Some adventure-path, certainly, as it is not made by me and thus I am not overly sensetive how players decide to do things.

Sometimes when I create new world I write some story into it, but it just helps me to flesh out the world before actual characters get into playing there.
I want to know all the surprising stuff players do, that's what makes roleplaying fun.

I have met horrible DMPC loving rail-roading gm's, but I haven't ever seen anything that bad as OP's experience.

I have been in some fantasy larps though, that seemed like therapy sessions to certain lady, who always got herself some powerful noble/spellcaster to be center of social attention/bootlicking. She eventually quit larps and got into some actual therapy.

And then there were Vampire larps, where there were some storytellers pretty overprotective of their characters and fought about their storyimmunities with other Storyteller in middle of game. Oh yes and went tell people "you are playing character" wrong" and changed battle events so that someone playing main villain would escape etc. after players had already gone through different resolution. Good riddance. I heard later on that those problem storytellers got kicked out.

They might not have been writing novel but they certainly had issues of letting their "story" be altered.

When I play I do prefer a storyline. Adventure path style and bit freedom in between. My experience with free worlds are they are either boring or too dangerous to adventure in. I have played couple of pretty good loose plot games, but in those games gm:s were good at throwing some interesting events for players to react. I tend to come up with colorful red herring chases if gm doesn't give me anything, I will. I make things up. Usually radical things, starting with "I heard this rumor" or even more innocent "I think that". I like making wild theories ingame about game-events too. My current GM:s actually like that. I was recently told I his some things so creepyly right and at the same times other things not even there.

 

[gamerprinter]

In my limited experience at developing a 3 part mini-campaign for Kaidan as a commercial release, I don't think it's necessary to describe every possible event (in a step-by-step fashion) to necessarily keep the continuity of a given storyline. Calculating every small nuance as a component in an adventure is unnecessary and only serves to 'railroad' the adventure - mitigating a 'most enjoyable experience' that such can be.

The way The Curse of the Golden Spear adventure trilogy has been developed, major events need to occur to propell the story forward, but large swathes of story in between these major events are not even hinted at, as this is for the individual PCs and GM to develop on their own pursuing goals they have themselves separate from the story itself. There is lots of room for the gaming group to do what they want.

In that way, it can be more 'sandbox' in design, open to side quests and personal character development that is separate from the story of the adventure itself.

In no way do I want to forcible hold the hands of the GM to lead them in the intended direction of the story. The GM is required to get from point A to Point B - at the event intervals within the adventure. But there needn't be straight lines between those points.

One can easily accomplish both a consistent storyline and be an open gaming environment for gamers to do what they want. A pre-built adventure doesn't have to be strict in following a single path to arriving at the intended conclusion by the adventure developer.

 

[mmadsen]

Forking from: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...48-playing-game-when-you-dont-know-rules.html

On the issue of a game being more like a novel than a game because the GM has the entire plot pre-determined, right down to task resolutions of everything the PC's do to make sure nothing derails the plot...

I've done it before, and hated it.

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with a rules-hidden game? I mean, sure, the GM did hide the rules from you, but that wasn't exactly the problem. The problem was that he railroaded you guys through a pre-scripted (mediocre) novel after asking you to play a role-playing game.

 

[ACreepierFolklaw]

It sounds like you had a totally appauling experience and your GM sounds like an ass.
that being said, i think that there are different ways of doing it.
I think a great game can be run like a great novel, and a really good game to me I could read afterwards and it would be as good as a novel.
but their must be a butload of trust between the players and the GM. that is why i mostly run 1on1 games with close personal friends...
A good game can be run like a novel if the plot line is compelling enough that it draws the players and PCs alike in by its inherent interest. Not if the GM forces the players into a particular path until they act like robots with the GM as tyrant god.
I think a GM could use rpg as a method of writing a novel and making a good game at the same time, but they have to be fair to the reality both of the world they create, and the players free will. and they must above all remember that there is a key difference between storytelling and gaming.
I came to rpgs through choose your own adventure books in the 80s. i was on holiday for 6weeks with nothing to do but hang out with friends and we used up all the books, so they asked me (knowing i have writing ambitions) to create them adventures on the fly. we used no dice, no rules but common sense, and i believe from the adventures we created they were the best gaming days of all of our lives. when rules and dice were introduced by new players who demanded them, all the original players dropped out one by one until only me (the GM) and the new players were left. It's kind of a different game, but when it works its like the stars aligning and it can be one of the best things ever. When it doesn't work, it can be one of the worst.

 

[wingsandsword]

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with a rules-hidden game? I mean, sure, the GM did hide the rules from you, but that wasn't exactly the problem. The problem was that he railroaded you guys through a pre-scripted (mediocre) novel after asking you to play a role-playing game.

Because, if you'd read the entire story, you would have read why.

The GM had the entire story written in advance, right down to task resolutions. We had the illusion of having game mechanics. We had character sheets and dice, but nothing we rolled or had on our sheets affected what our characters did, they were just for flavor and at-best were a suggestion of what our characters might be able to do. The GM did the same for NPC's, rolling dice for what they did but doing it purely for show.

We weren't just railroaded, she was trying to give us the illusion that we weren't being railroaded along a pre-written adventure and were playing a game with defined rules and game mechanics.

Personally, I'd say that there being NO game mechanics whatsoever in the game and all mechanics you think are there are purely for show is hiding what the actual mechanics of the game are.

It wouldn't have been a rules-hidden game is she had come out up front and said that there is no need for dice, and instead of a character sheet we could have done with an index card with our character's name, description and a few freeform bullet points about what that character is good at and bad at, instead of giving us World of Darkness character sheets, actually tracking experience and character progression throughout the game, even giving us a list of what materials from which splatbooks were approved for use . . . when that was all for show.

 

[mmadsen]

Because, if you'd read the entire story, you would have read why.

I read the story, and I replied that the GM did hide the rules from you, but that wasn't exactly the problem. The problem was that the GM railroaded you guys through a pre-scripted (mediocre) novel after asking you to play a role-playing game.

You can hide the rules without railroading the players through a pre-scripted novel. For instance, if you were playing over e-mail, and the GM had asked you what you were doing and then resolved it using either the WOD rules or the GURPS rules, without your knowledge of which, that would be playing a rules-hidden game -- and it would be nothing like what you described.

 

[wingsandsword]

I read the story, and I replied that the GM did hide the rules from you, but that wasn't exactly the problem. The problem was that the GM railroaded you guys through a pre-scripted (mediocre) novel after asking you to play a role-playing game.

You can hide the rules without railroading the players through a pre-scripted novel. For instance, if you were playing over e-mail, and the GM had asked you what you were doing and then resolved it using either the WOD rules or the GURPS rules, without your knowledge of which, that would be playing a rules-hidden game -- and it would be nothing like what you described.

Well, gee, that's why I forked the thread: that this was a discussion topic that was related (when the players think the game is working under a specific ruleset, and it isn't) and could be brought up by the issue of hidden rules, but not exactly that issue I created a new thread referencing the old one. If I thought it was an exact fit I would have posted it in that thread.

In your e-mail example, you use if the task resolution was with WoD or GURPS as an example of rules-hidden. What if it was play by e-mail and there were no real rules, but the players thought there were, but the GM was just making it all up by fiat? From the player perspective it's the same experience, but it become functionally the same thing as what I experienced. Since the GM was too obvious about her railroading, it became clear that the dice and rulebooks were entirely for show, but if she was subtle about it, it could have been much more like what you were describing.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't think 'hidden rules' was the problem. I'd think hidden rules would be just fine, as long as you can trust your GM to actually use rules to resolve the game. Your big problem is the GM - so I'd stop playing with him. Hidden rules by itself is no big deal, as long as rules are being used.

Not using rules is the problem.