Doing it wrong Part 1: Taking the dragon out of the dungeon

[Libramarian]

My own view on this is that narrativist play is not all that popular among many RPGers.

I take it for granted that most players aren't very interested in a railroad game unless the railroaded plot is very much a backdrop for the real action of play (this is my sense of how the typical adventure path plays out).

But it also seems to me - and personally this is a bit more surprising - that many players don't like a game in which non-railroaded story is front and centre. Getting story front-and-centre requires the players to deliberately build their PCs to be thematically interesting, and requires the GM to deliberately frame scenes/situations in such a way as to push on those thematic pressure points, thereby triggering the emergence of story. You won't get this without fairly self-conscious metagaming by the players at the PC-build stage, and by the GM at the encounter design stage, and that sort of metagaming seems to be disliked by many RPGers.

My best understanding of Ron Edwards view of the situation is that RPGers scepticism about story arose from bad experiences with railroading and metaplot, and that once games were designed that reliably delivered story without railroading, via the techniques I've described, then those RPGs, and perhaps RPGs more generally, would grow in popularity. And my own tentative view, informed in part by the backlash against 4e, is that Edwards was wrong - at least among the existing RPGing base, there is a very strong hostility not just to railroading (which is entirely warranted), but to the metagame-heavy techniques that are the only known way (to date, ast least) for an RPG to reliably deliver story without railroad.

The Forge used to talk about "simulationism by habit", but to me it seems more like "simulationism by very strong desire".

To tie this back to dungeon crawls: one thing a dungeon crawl can achieve is some of the same results as "story now" play - a degree of pacing, some sort of narrative escalation in the stakes, etc - without the need for overt metagaming in encounter design. Instead the metagame techniques are concealed behind the ingame contrivance of "the dungeon".

I agree with all of this, including the part about how in adventure paths the plot is usually just a backdrop and not actually that important in many games. I think a lot of D&Ders nowadays could be called "railroaders by habit" -- they think a good game requires the propulsive force of a tight plot, when really most players are pretty indifferent to the quality of the larger story and just want to do some cool, adventurous things and level up their character. I think any DM who has ever used a flowchart in their prep (my indicator of excessive attention to plot) should try running a sandbox as an experiment to see whether this layer of prep really matters that much. IME the "feeling there"ness of a sandbox game makes up for the looser plot.

Many of the most highly regarded city settings are basically dungeoncrawls: you have a big map keyed with encounters and the players wander around triggering them. And just like the best dungeons, as simple and basic as they are to run, they're actually quite sophisticated in terms of where and how they disregard simulationism in favor of a higher density of fun stuff.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree with all of this, including the part about how in adventure paths the plot is usually just a backdrop and not actually that important in many games. I think a lot of D&Ders nowadays could be called "railroaders by habit" -- they think a good game requires the propulsive force of a tight plot, when really most players are pretty indifferent to the quality of the larger story and just want to do some cool, adventurous things and level up their character. I think any DM who has ever used a flowchart in their prep (my indicator of excessive attention to plot) should try running a sandbox as an experiment to see whether this layer of prep really matters that much. IME the "feeling there"ness of a sandbox game makes up for the looser plot.

It's been my experience that most DMs don't know how to run a sandbox campaign (DMs in my group who prefer to run games that way run better plot-based games), but an even bigger issue are the players.

Some players simply need direction. They're the ones who will play yak breeders or chemists if they're not handed a role. Said players often do perfectly fine when given a plot to work with.

Players often have trouble working together. If you have seven players each writing the plot, you just get seven players competing for DM time, perhaps occasionally banding once they've realized they've wasted all but an hour of session time and finally gather to beat up a random bad guy... or occasionally PC-killing, for legitimate RP reasons too. (The only time I've seen a sandbox-like campaign work was when only one or two players were writing plot, and the others were along for the ride. It helped that there was some basic plot in the background, so at the least the players had something to fall back on.)

(For my own games, which are never sandbox, I insist the PCs know each other beforehand, and at least know what people are playing first. I've seen campaigns - some run by me, some run by others - fall apart because the PCs don't trust each other. Sandboxing dissuades a DM from playing a role in building the party, which would have let them avoid some problems.)

"Railroading" reduces prep time. Obviously you can take it too far (some DMs are very bad at reacting to unexpected PC actions, especially in the short term), but if you're going to sandbox you actually need to do loads more prep ahead of time.

 

[Manbearcat]

The Forge used to talk about "simulationism by habit", but to me it seems more like "simulationism by very strong desire".

The whole post was excellent and deserves xp but I cannot give it. I just wanted to comment on this part right here with as much brevity as I can muster (honestly).

I still think "simulationism by habit" is correct. However, I'm certain that the habitual nature of it feeds back onto your premise of "simulationism by very strong desire." It is a synergistic relationship that likely finds the root of its causal mechanisms in evolutionary pathology. The human inclination to couple cause and effect and integrate this coupling into a pool of wisdom we call "common sense" is probably as potent a force in the animal kingdom as gene proliferation. "Making (forcing) sense" of (upon) a complex world (and the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that manifests because of this need) is a cultivated primal instinct. My guess is the habit and the very strong desire are not just wedded, but one.

I think those players and tables with a tight simulationist agenda are likely wanting and expecting this fundamental aspect to the "human experience" to be present and accounted for...and the 1st person, actor stance, meta-game averse preferences are derivative.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My own view on this is that narrativist play is not all that popular among many RPGers.I take it for granted that most players aren't very interested in a railroad game unless the railroaded plot is very much a backdrop for the real action of play (this is my sense of how the typical adventure path plays out).But it also seems to me - and personally this is a bit more surprising - that many players don't like a game in which non-railroaded story is front and centre. Getting story front-and-centre requires the players to deliberately build their PCs to be thematically interesting, and requires the GM to deliberately frame scenes/situations in such a way as to push on those thematic pressure points, thereby triggering the emergence of story.

My view is that most players are beer and pretzels players who want to do something fun and light with friends and don't want to put too much into the game. But for getting story front and centre, have you had a look at Marvel Heroic Roleplaying? It makes even FATE look like a first draft this way.

The Forge used to talk about "simulationism by habit", but to me it seems more like "simulationism by very strong desire".

Simulationism simply has the lowest barrier to entry. You don't need to work at all to get your head round simulationist mechanics, which means it's easiest to get them to an intuitive standard - and you can play anything in a simulationist game. Gamist games don't appreciate being used as part of a different game and narrativist games point to a specific type of narrative. One place I fundamentally disagree with Ron Edwards is that I distrust purity - purity of anything means that you're locking people out, and simulationism locks out the fewest because you can add a strong splash of gamism through plot and a strong splash of narrative if you want it. The incoherence in objective Ron Edwards rails against is a strength, not a weakness.

 

[howandwhy99]

I want to say that this doesn't mean DnD, as originally created anyway, is bad or anything I just think that we are going about it a little sideways. I think Gygax in essence made a very good fish ( in that it swims well, breathes underwater just fine and the like). The problem being is that for the last few decades the majority of players have been under the impression that they have a bird and are thus disappointed when they toss the poor thing out a window and lament that it doesn't fly that far.

OD&D as a pattern recognition game rather than exclusively a game about narrative expression is largely a lost concept. Current RPG designs are either kind of muddled or tend to reduce all game play to storytelling. Simply stated, we can have so much more than that. It's just a matter of reorienting design and then play style suggestions for those different designs.

I will say it is very hard to play D&D now in a manner as was provided for early on. But that's more to do with the designs and core design precepts of current versions of D&D and other RPGs. If you want something that works for you the way you want it, then try and discern what you are searching for first. Then there's an entire internet full of people who might help to provide it. Of course, you'll need to be able to articulate more clearly what that is first.

 

[Teacher Man]

The thing many people are forgetting is that the newer versions of D&D allow you to have your cake AND eat it. You can have an old school D&D style campaign where many of the party don't make it, OR you can have a more open ended style campaign where the players drive things, OR you can mix and match to your heart's content.

Personally I think that you do need to have a mix of premade adventures along with some flexibility mixed in. I also strongly believe that you need to give your group an end goal, something that they need to accomplish. Playing games like The Sims is fun, for a while, but because there is no end goal there is no sense of accomplishment because there is nothing to accomplish.

I am running module G1 converted to version 3.5 in a tournament style setting for our high school RPG club and they are really enjoying it. They are also keeping me on my toes because they tend to think outside of the box and I have a feeling that the campaign will go in an unintended direction.

Besides why can't you have a gaming world and then incorporate pre-made modules into that world?

One more thing, I also believe that characters can and should get killed, especially if the player does something insanely stupid. It shows them that actions do have consequences, and that they need to think before they act. Secondly, it adds a sense of tragedy to a campaign which makes it more realistic. And can open up new avenues for both the DM and the players. 'Yes we can bring him back to life, but in return..."

Anyway lunch is over and I need to get ready to inflict, er teach my 9th graders about the Odyssey...

 

[am181d]

I take it for granted that most players aren't very interested in a railroad game unless the railroaded plot is very much a backdrop for the real action of play (this is my sense of how the typical adventure path plays out).

This is probably just my hang-up on terminology, but "railroad game" doesn't make a lot of sense as a generic descriptor. It would be better to say "plot-driven game" or "event-driven game" where railroading is a potential danger to be avoided. It's sort of like describing hunting as "that sport where you occasionally shoot yourself in the foot." No, that's just one thing that CAN happen while hunting, and which generally only happens if you're doing it wrong.

(Unless your foot is about to make a break for it, in which case: HAVE AT IT!)

 

[S'mon]

The incoherence in objective Ron Edwards rails against is a strength, not a weakness.

That's always been my experience, too.

 

[pemerton]

"railroad game" doesn't make a lot of sense as a generic descriptor. It would be better to say "plot-driven game" or "event-driven game" where railroading is a potential danger to be avoided.

What I had in mind is that "plot-driven" without railroading requires rather specific techniques - roughly, the techniques that the Forge calls "story now" and "narrativisim". And those techniques are (at least as best I can tell) contentious. Consider, for example, the next quote:

I also strongly believe that you need to give your group an end goal, something that they need to accomplish. Playing games like The Sims is fun, for a while, but because there is no end goal there is no sense of accomplishment because there is nothing to accomplish.

I much prefer it when the goal comes from the players. As a GM I see my role being to provide antagonism and conflict that puts pressure on the PCs (in part by following the hooks that the players have built into their PCs) but how the PCs respond to that pressure, and the resolutions they seek to the conflict, aren't for me to decide.

For me, this issue of authority over the plot, and the PC goals, is a key point of contrast between GM-driven plot (which I think of as railroading) and plot that emerges from play (which is what "story now" is about).

My view is that most players are beer and pretzels players who want to do something fun and light with friends and don't want to put too much into the game.

<snip>
Simulationism simply has the lowest barrier to entry. You don't need to work at all to get your head round simulationist mechanics, which means it's easiest to get them to an intuitive standard

I'm not certain, but I think I disagree with you on some of this. I don't think there is anything especially intuitive about simuationism. And I think good "story now" design can be just as intuitive.

I do agree that many people want a relaxed game. But "story now" doesn't have to be hard work - my game certainly isn't! (it's pretty generic fantasy stuff) and of more cutting edge narrativist games, The Dying Earth shows what a clever, light but clearly non-simulationinst design can look like. It's a bit heavier than Moldvay Basic or Tunnels & Trolls, but much, much mechanically lighter than 3E or 4e, and pretty intuitive in its point of play.

have you had a look at Marvel Heroic Roleplaying?

No, though I've heard good things about it on these boards.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not certain, but I think I disagree with you on some of this. I don't think there is anything especially intuitive about simuationism. And I think good "story now" design can be just as intuitive.

I do agree that many people want a relaxed game. But "story now" doesn't have to be hard work - my game certainly isn't!

I don't think it's an issue of mechanical complexity. It's more that story creation via Premise & Resolution is not as intuitive as "You are the hero. What do you do?". Sim only requires actor-stance, while Narrativism I think requires at least occasional author-stance. And the idea of both playing a character and authoring part of the character's story is not particularly intuitive.

I actually think pure Storygames, where all the players/storycreators are always in author-stance, are a more intuitive enterprise. Most people have no trouble with the concept of round-robin storytelling. I think Nar RPGs are a tougher idea to grok.