Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Tony Vargas]

This is presupposing a story plot or antagonist that the players are expected and required to team up to defeat.
...
This was the biggest hurdle for me to overcome in my understanding -- you have to throw out the entire D&D conception of how games work and accept a completely new paradigm of play. One where the GM follows the players' moves and not the other way around.

I guess I'm a little taken aback to think that the idea of a GM-authored story has become "/the/ D&D conception of how games work" when, the first time I encountered it, it seemed so different from D&D as I'd seen it played (and read Gygax on it in the DMG). OK, so maybe D&D did jump on the storyteller bandwagon with Dragonlance (which I completely ignored), but nothing much about 3e felt particularly 'story' focused, and 4e, which did seem to go there a bit more, was rejected as /not/ matching the D&D conception of how games work. 5e doesn't seem terribly story-focused, either, as a game. APs, sure, you can lead the party through them by the nose to get a story out of them, but nothing about the game lends itself too well to that sort of play, it lends itself just as well to the party wandering off and becoming bandits, or fighting amongst themselves, or engaging in setting-tourism/sandbox-play, or focusing on acquiring treasure (OK, magic items) without regard to any overarching events. ::shrug::

 

[Campbell]

No, they are not the primary risk. The primary risk is that since it is by definition a selfish way to play (in the sense that you prioritize your character above everything else), you will make the game less fun.

Overall, when I run a game, I require all my players to prioritize making the game fun for everyone above anyone else. A play style that says "if my character would do that I will do it even if it makes the game less fun for other people" would be counter to the social contract I expect.

Everyone has had the bad play experience typified by the paladin who refuses to engage with the story because "it's not what he'd do". This style of play leads to issues like that. Sure, it can work, but I'd argue that passionately embodying your character is just as easy and a much more pleasant experience when it is within a framework that makes it secondary to respecting the story and genre.

A player should not be prioritizing their character above all us. What they should be prioritizing is following the fiction, playing to find out, and being a fan of all the main characters (PCs). A player does not get to protect his character, push the story where he would want it, dictate how other players are allowed to interact with his character. He or she owes the other players a chance to follow their character on its journey even if that means the character might suffer, be changed in fundamental ways, or even die or be removed from play. By pushing hard for what your character wants you are making the game fun for everyone else.

Remember, we (the play group) are supposed to be fans of these characters. We care about them. We want what's best for them. When they hurt, we hurt. When your character is not involved in the action you should still be on the edge of your seat cheering on the other characters. You should feel the tension of the conflicts they are involved in. When things go well you should be happy for them. When they do not you should feel for them, but not look away. This fun of being an audience member is just as fundamental to this play style as character advocacy.

As a player you owe it to the other players to present the unbridled, most honest, most vulnerable version of your character. You push hard so as audience members they get to follow you on the journey. You create a character that has complex relationships with the other characters so they have something to play off of. You approach the fiction with curiosity so interactions with NPCs and other PCs feel genuine to everyone and the play group gets to derive meaning from play.

Here's the fun: genuine tension, being a fan of the characters, and seeing where their journeys lead.

What's selfish in this play style is deciding how things should turn out, cleaving to a character conception instead of approaching play with vulnerability and curiosity, not accepting the fallout of a failed conflict, deciding how other players are allowed to interact with your character, playing to reach a given story arc. In doing so you rob the game of tension, domesticate the fiction, and present a less than authentic version of the character to the audience.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's the fun: genuine tension, being a fan of the characters, and seeing where their journeys lead.

What's selfish in this play style is deciding how things should turn out, cleaving to a character conception instead of approaching play with vulnerability and curiosity, not accepting the fallout of a failed conflict, deciding how other players are allowed to interact with your character, playing to reach a given story arc. In doing so you rob the game of tension, domesticate the fiction, and present a less than authentic version of the character to the audience.

Yeah, that seems like a very specific style.
I've certainly seen/experienced elements of that, at moments, in RPGs, even TTRPGs, over the decades, but never as a primary focus of play, let alone an exclusive one. I can see how that would be very challenging, but might be equally rewarding.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess I'm a little taken aback to think that the idea of a GM-authored story has become "/the/ D&D conception of how games work" when, the first time I encountered it, it seemed so different from D&D as I'd seen it played (and read Gygax on it in the DMG). OK, so maybe D&D did jump on the storyteller bandwagon with Dragonlance (which I completely ignored), but nothing much about 3e felt particularly 'story' focused, and 4e, which did seem to go there a bit more, was rejected as /not/ matching the D&D conception of how games work. 5e doesn't seem terribly story-focused, either, as a game. APs, sure, you can lead the party through them by the nose to get a story out of them, but nothing about the game lends itself too well to that sort of play, it lends itself just as well to the party wandering off and becoming bandits, or fighting amongst themselves, or engaging in setting-tourism/sandbox-play, or focusing on acquiring treasure (OK, magic items) without regard to any overarching events. ::shrug::

We're clearly using story in different ways. A printed adventure is a preset story for my purposes -- it's the prepared story beats and notes which the players are expected to engage. All D&D is this -- players exploring the DM's prepared notes while the DM ad libs within those notes as required. It's only this that leads to worries that a paladin refusing to engage the prepared plot points could be considered derailing the game.

Contrasted with "play to find out" styles where there are not prepared story beats to derail.

I'm not at all certain what you meant by story.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We're clearly using story in different ways. A printed adventure is a preset story for my purposes -- it's the prepared story beats and notes which the players are expected to engage. All D&D is this -- players exploring the DM's prepared notes while the DM ad libs within those notes as required.

And, old-school, the DM just let it develop - or degenerate - as the player's choices and dice fell. The EHP in room 17 wasn't "The boss villain at the end," he was the guy who'd cast Insect Plague* at you, if you came into room 17. The DM may or may not have a reason for him being there, but it wouldn't have anything to do with story arcs or character development, pacing or plot points, just that, hey, this dungeon full of evil monsters and undead could have an EHP as a leader or he could be there exploring the dungeon and acquiring undead servants and, much like the PCs, treasure, or I rolled XX on table G.

It's only this that leads to worries that a paladin refusing to engage the prepared plot points could be considered derailing the game.

Ah, that I get, I just think I have a very archaic idea of what foundationally was the "D&D way," because working towards a story, rather than just scattering monsters, traps & treasure before the party like caltrops before a rioting crowd, seems like the hallmark of 'newer' (under 40yo) games.

Contrasted with "play to find out" styles where there are not prepared story beats to derail.
I'm not at all certain what you meant by story.

Imagine we're on UseNet, and it's the 90s. (But I repeat myself.)







* OK, probably not a great idea in a dungeon, but it was just the first notorious cleric spell that leapt to mind. I suppose I should've said Flame Strike.

 

[Campbell]

Outside of more character focused play I'm a big fan of the sort of dungeon crawling and hex crawling D&D [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is talking about. Moldvay is my favorite incarnation. I'm also a big fan of Classic Traveler, Stars Without Number, and Godbound.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why is "genre logic is the model (or litmus test)" not a sufficient answer to you? Sincerely curious.
...
precisely the sort of modeling and transliteration to genre fiction that non-4e D&D doesn't produce (precisely because of its lacking of Minion mechanics).

Thoughts?

Replying to the same post a 2nd time, not sure if that's bad etiquette, but different topic than minions.

So, "transliteration of genre fiction" and "genre logic is the model?"

Not sure I follow, but I often think of a good genre RPG as one that "models the genre." So, an FRPG shouldn't model a medieval world, and, somewhat arbitrarily and not too logically integrated, a highly mechanistic magic system, and, within the modeled world, model creatures - some of whom may become heroes and some of whom may be played as PCs, but the intersection of those two sets may be slight, and others of whom may oppose heroes or PCs or terrorize & be called monsters or be terrorized by creatures they call monsters, but, really, all of whom are just creatures using the exact same modeling.
Rather, the FRPG should model the fantasy genre, or a sub-genre thereof. Within that genre, heroes are /different/ from monsters, villains, victims, exposition characters, and backdrop peoples, and /protagonists/ are a distinct sub-set of heroes. Each sort of character in genre is different and needs to be modeled differently. The elves of the misty wood might just be mentioned in passing, they don't need to be modeled, directly, at all, the orcs of fang gap may fight the protagonists, they need to be modeled as combat adversaries, the helpful wizard Vancegolf Mythreindeer provides exposition and lights a fire, he'll be modeled differently than the heroic young wizard protagonist, Larry Trotter, etc...
...then, the resolution systems should also model not physics or hypothetical 'laws' of magic implied by hand-waving in representative sampling of genre sources, but what magic actually /does/ in the genre. If magic mostly provides exposition, or mostly sets the hero up to defeat the monster, then it's divination or buffing. If magic routinely blows up swaths of enemies, it's the go-to offense for the game. If magic acts as a foil forcing heroes to prove their courage, morality, & discipline, or confront their metaphorical demons, then PCs tend not to use it, themselves, but to overcome magical challenges.

Or am I completely off base, here?

 

[pemerton]

I think the idea that a game MUST have some internal consistency that could be maintained in the absence of PCs is simply not true. It may be a preference, but even then I’m not quite sure I understand the need. What matters in the fiction without the PCs being involved in some way? Any such detail can simply be narrated, or if random chance is required in some way, then it can be decided with the roll of a die.

I've bolded the word game. I think this can be parsed in two ways. The first is this: a fiction does not need to have some internal consistency that extends beyond what is portrayed or implied. My favourite example of this is the elves in Lorien - what do they eat? And where does it come from?

In the context of RPGing, one standard response is: but what if the PCs decide to start a business trading food to the elves of Lorien? My response would be: for my part, if my 4e D&D game starts involving trading food to the elves something has gone wrong; and if it comes up in the context of Burning Wheel play then we will just use the generic economic activity economic rules. And then narrate the appropriate fiction around that. Either way I don't need a working model of elven agronomics.

The second parsing is: the mechanics for a RPG do not need to present a universal model for determining what occurs in the ficiton. In some RPGs they purport to: Rolemaster is my own preferred example of such a game. Classic Traveller comes close in some places. This creates a certain aesthetic in play. But I think it's obvious that it's not the only possible aesthetic. As you (hawkeyefan) say, the requisite fiction can just be established via standard storytelling technqiues.

 

[pemerton]

Everyone has had the bad play experience typified by the paladin who refuses to engage with the story because "it's not what he'd do". This style of play leads to issues like that. Sure, it can work, but I'd argue that passionately embodying your character is just as easy and a much more pleasant experience when it is within a framework that makes it secondary to respecting the story and genre.

I've bolded your two uses of the story. In the sort of RPGing [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is describing there is no the story.

Here's Ron Edwards making the same point in 2003:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. . . .

The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. . . . Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," . . .


There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).]​

In reading this I don't think we need to put too much weight on the phrase problematic feature of human existence. That's just a way of trying to point to theme or drama or some similar sort of emotional depth or engagement that goes beyond the tension that is ineherent to a gambling game or tactical wargame or RPG as a result of its moments of decision. At least in my case, the literary quality of my RPGing is more at the soap opera or 4 colour comics end of the spectrum, than Ingmar Bergman or Graham Greene.

a completely new paradigm of play. One where the GM follows the players' moves and not the other way around. There's literally nothing to derail.

I can report from experience that you can post this for many years but not be believed by the majority of those reading your posts.

 

[pemerton]

Outside of more character focused play I'm a big fan of the sort of dungeon crawling and hex crawling D&D [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is talking about. Moldvay is my favorite incarnation. I'm also a big fan of Classic Traveler, Stars Without Number, and Godbound.

As I've often posted I suck at dungeon crawl both as GM and player.

I've been playing a lot of Classic Traveller over the past year or two, but not really in hex crawl mode. I've been leaning heavily on the patron and starship encounter systems, plus the implicit backstory of PC gen, to make it more like a sci fi drama. The internal lives of the characters are pretty shallow, but the dynamic of play is perhaps closer to Dungeon World than a hex crawl.