Do you prefer your character to be connected or unconnected to the adventure hook?

[hawkeyefan]

This really makes me appreciate games like Blades in the Dark, and Torchbearer all the more.

In Blades, character histories are built as you play the game, with flashbacks explaining how, as an example, the guy guarding the door to the private club you want to get into just happens to be a childhood friend who owes you a favor.

I find that Blades is actually a good combination in that a lit of things are determined during play, but there are also some very specific things required during character and crew creation that immediately give the PC a place in the world.

They have to select a background and a vice and a purveyor of that vice. They also need to select a friend and an enemy of their own, and then contribute to decisions about the crew and its contacts and enemies.

All of this goes a really long way to provide a really solid skeleton at the start of play, which van then be built upon during play as you describe.

I think many games could benefit from this little bit of decision making up front.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that part of the problem when looking at story as produced by a RPG, is that after the fact, yes, it will all look like A to B to C to D and so on. Of course it will after the fact.

The question is if those letters are known ahead of time or not. What is A? What is B? Does the GM know prior to play?

I think that those advocating for emergent story are pointing out that they don’t know what will happen at each point of the “story” because they are not sitting down with a preconceived idea of what the story will be.

Most adventure paths and modern published adventures assume some kind of sequence of established events that must take place to see the adventure through to the conclusion.

But that’s a different thing than saying that a story has beats and is a sequence of events that unfolds from a beginning to an ending.

 

[Aldarc]

I find that Blades is actually a good combination in that a lit of things are determined during play, but there are also some very specific things required during character and crew creation that immediately give the PC a place in the world.

They have to select a background and a vice and a purveyor of that vice. They also need to select a friend and an enemy of their own, and then contribute to decisions about the crew and its contacts and enemies.

All of this goes a really long way to provide a really solid skeleton at the start of play, which van then be built upon during play as you describe.

I think many games could benefit from this little bit of decision making up front.

I recall from Twitter awhile back that Steven Lumpkin is working on a West Marches Dungeon Crawl version of Blades in the Dark. It's not difficult to see how it could work with loads, flashbacks, etc. I could even see the use of engagement rolls for entering a dungeon.

 

[Lanefan]

Except you are essentially switching from poker to bridge when you switch between TTRPGs.

Exactly, which comes back to my original point: instead of switching systems, find one that works and stay with it forever. Once you've settled on a system, you can then find the places in that system where meta-gaming becomes a problem and work to reduce it.

Poker and bridge are both competitive card games in the same way that D&D and PbtA are both TTRPGs. But when one goes into PbtA trying to play it like D&D, then there will be a disconnect. This is because not only the differences in rules, but also differences in the meta-games between them. I have often found that one of the biggest hurdles for players switching between TTRPGs isn't just the differences of rules but also the differences in the meta-games. This is one reason why I find taking long-time players of D&D and having them play other games is fascinating, because you can see how much the meta-game surrounding D&D informs their decision-making in other games.

Interesting, as one would think that simply playing a character would be much the same in any RPG: you inhabit its thought processes as far as you can and - bound (or not!) by the constraints of the setting - just have it try to do what it would try to do, say what it would say, and think what it would think.

The mechanics at the table would be different, of course - different dice, different terminology, etc. - but the end result of playing a character and interacting with the setting and-or other characters within it would be fairly similar.

Funny coincidence. I'm also talking about an RPG, but in which the G stands for Game. Do you think we might be talking about the same thing? Let's find out. What does the P stand for in your RPG? In mine, it stands for Playing.

Yes, hyphenated after Role.

It amazes me how many people forget that the G in RPG stands for "game," a game with rules, mechanics, and procedures.

Perhaps nto so much 'forget' as 'try to tone down where possible'. Yes there's rules and mechanics and procedures, but the less they interfere with my actual role-playing the better. This is part of why I don't like hard-coded mechanical resolution to social encounters - why bother role-playing in character if the dice are going to make the decision anyway?

(A game that people take way too seriously for how ridiculously low the stakes of play actually are.)

Agreed!

The presence of an R in RPG does not somehow negate the presence of a G in RPG, particularly since the "RP" is an adjective that modifies or describes the nominal "G." An RPG is categorically always a Game. And where there's a game, there's always a meta-game. Meta-gaming involves the method of play surrounding the rules of the game that are not formally part of the rules of play. Sorry, meta-game deniers out there, but the presence of an R does not change that meta-gaming is an inherent part of play. It may be banal to point this out, but different games have different rules or otherwise they would be the same game. So differences in rules produce differences in meta-games. Some games may have more similar meta-games than others, but meta-gaming nevertheless is still a natural, if not fundamental, part of play.

I suspect you're defining 'meta-game' far more broadly than I. I don't see the rules that govern play as being part of the meta-game in and of themselves; though a player intentionally trying to twist those rules in ways the character couldn't/wouldn't know about so as to gain an advantage for a PC is very much meta-gaming.

The same definitely holds true for a TTRPG. It is not somehow exceptional from other games in this regard simply because "R" stands for "role." Going from D&D to other games, such as Savage Worlds, Dungeon World, Forbidden Lands, Blades in the Dark, Fate, etc., entails players engaging different mechanics that engender different meta-games. There are even differences between editions of D&D that impact the meta-game (e.g., skill checks, rest and HP/spell recovery, concentration, Vancian vs. Neo-Vancian casting, multiclassing, hit points, grid play, distance rules, falling damage, etc.). The prevalent idea of needing a healer for the party forms part of the meta-game. And the player's knowledge of these rules most definitely impacts their roleplaying decisions as a character. While one can argue that these may represent aspects that a character could also know in-universe, let's not pretend that these do not also represent outside knowledge that inform the decision-making players make for their characters.

I guess my stance is that those 'rules' that the character would know about - at least vaguely - within the fiction can be considered as part of the fiction, and therefore part of play.

However, to me it's incumbent on the players to actively divorce their in-character thinking from any rules or procedures or knowledge the character doesn't know about. And yes this can sometimes mean running your character into dangers that you-the-player know full well how to avoid; your chaaracter doesn't have that knowledge, and that level of knowledge takes precedence.

Put another way: the character still has to be able to learn by trial and error even if the player has already gone through that process, perhaps numerous times.

It's not exactly rocket science why the characters of experienced players are likelier to have this in-universe knowledge than the characters of first time players: i.e., experienced players have a greater grasp of the meta-game.

Obviously the players are going to know and learn stuff as they go along, particularly when it comes to common in-setting tropes and standards e.g. green dragons breathe deadly gas. The problem arises when they use that knowledge to inform their play instead of the lesser knowledge their characters would have (e.g. when long-time players start a new campaign at 1st level).

 

[Campbell]

But any extrapolation about sitting down with players, etc. is null and void. You are not telling a story. You are having random encounters. If they happen to go together thematically. Great. If not, great. But that is all it is - random encounters.

No protagonists. No antagonists. No real conflict. No exposition. No rising action. No climax. No resolution = random encounters made up on a whim.

There is nothing random about the way I approach running games. Scenarios are designed with the specific main characters (PCs) in minds to demand a response from the players. I just do not get to have a say in what that response will be or how it goes. This is an ongoing process.

It's a pretty simple formula. The players provide protagonism because it is their job to play the protagonists with integrity. It is my job to portray the setting with integrity and provide honest antagonism. We all pay attention to things like pacing, involving other players in the action, and being fans of each other.

This is the kind of stuff I am talking about:

Keep the story feral.
The conversation that you have with the other players and with the rules create a story that couldn’t have existed in your head alone. As you play, you might feel an impulse to domesticate that story. You form an awesome plan for exactly what could happen next, and where the story could go. In your head, it’s spectacular.

All you’d need to do is dictate what the other players should do, ignore the dice once or twice, and force your idea into existence. In short: you’d have to take control.

The game loses its magic when any one player attempts to take control of the story. It becomes small enough to fit inside one person’s head. The other players turn into audience members instead of participants. Nobody’s experience is enriched when one person turns the collective conversation into their own private story.

So avoid this impulse. Let the story’s messy, chaotic momentum guide it forward. In any given moment, focus on reacting to the other players. Allow others to foil your plans, or improve upon them. Trust that good story emerges from wildness. Play to find out what happens next. Let yourself be surprised.

No skin off my back if you want to run games where you come up with a story ahead of time to tell to players. That's exactly what most players of mainstream games expect. It's a fine way to play.

That does not mean that's only way to produce story in the game. I would argue it's not the best way because it robs the game of meaningful protagonism and tension unless the PCs are not the main characters of the story. I think that's a discussion worth having.

 

[Campbell]

Getting back to main thread my approach to setting design for a more story/character focused game (unless the game dictates otherwise like in Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark) is what I would call constellation design. Basically I will create just enough of the setting and initial scenario for players to make characters. As players are making characters I ask questions about how the characters are connected to each other, the setting, and the initial scenario. I look for ways for characters to be connected to same thing in different ways.

I will then build out a set of relationship maps about these different connections. They become the focus of my prep so I can call on them later. This builds over time as new connections emerge, old ones fade, and existing ones change. They become the focus of my scene framing.

 

[pemerton]

Exactly, which comes back to my original point: instead of switching systems, find one that works and stay with it forever.

I don't think this is very good advice.

There are a variety of RPG systems out there, that do different things and deliver different experiences. My problem is too many systems that I would like to experience!

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly, which comes back to my original point: instead of switching systems, find one that works and stay with it forever. Once you've settled on a system, you can then find the places in that system where meta-gaming becomes a problem and work to reduce it.

Again, you are constructing a non-existent problem for the sake of creating a nonsensical non-solution: i.e., "don't switch systems."

My point about switching from bridge to poker is to illustrate that playing different games can highlight the differences between the meta-games. One can learn more about the meta-game your game cultivates by playing other games. This is because we sometimes don't realize the extent to which the meta-game informs our decision-making in play until we play other games. "Don't switch systems" misses the point entirely. Completely. Totally. Wholly. So to use another example, if someone said "You can learn a lot about your own cultural biases and presumptions by visiting other nations or countries," your whole answer is tantamount to "then the solution is to not visit other countries." Solution to what? Actually learning what your cultural biases are? It comes across as an appeal to remaining ignorant. I don't know. Maybe you actually believe this is a good thing. Maybe you would argue that people should not learn what their cultural biases are or that they should not visit other countries.

Now, if you repeat this whole "don't switch systems" nonsense if I bring up poker and bridge again, then I will know by this point that you aren't listening because at this point I think that I have made my point abundantly clear.

Interesting, as one would think that simply playing a character would be much the same in any RPG: you inhabit its thought processes as far as you can and - bound (or not!) by the constraints of the setting - just have it try to do what it would try to do, say what it would say, and think what it would think.

The mechanics at the table would be different, of course - different dice, different terminology, etc. - but the end result of playing a character and interacting with the setting and-or other characters within it would be fairly similar.

Sure, but this ignores how mechanics and rules will impact that roleplaying experience. Your strategies for "managing the best you can with the cards that you are dealt" will vary considerably based upon what card game we happen to be playing. How one goes about inhabiting or playing a role will likewise vary based upon game systems. And your assumptions going into a game will vary. How one inhabits a role will vary between playing The Sims and playing Grand Theft Auto because the game cultivates different play experiences and expectations. This is also true for various TTRPGs. System matters and the mechanics will impact the process of roleplaying a character. If system doesn't matter for this process, then you playing D&D would hardly be necessary, but you presumably keep to your modified 1e for a particular reason that is conducive to the particular approach to roleplaying that you prefer.

Perhaps nto so much 'forget' as 'try to tone down where possible'. Yes there's rules and mechanics and procedures, but the less they interfere with my actual role-playing the better.

If my main interest was in method acting a particular role over playing a game, I'm not sure that I would choose what at its heart is a tactical skirmish game for that, but, rather, I would join a community theater troupe. But keep in mind that what you see as "interference," others will see as prompts, triggers, and ques that enrich the roleplay experience.

This is part of why I don't like hard-coded mechanical resolution to social encounters - why bother role-playing in character if the dice are going to make the decision anyway?

Why bother role-playing in character if the dice are going to make the decision anyway for exploration and combat encounters? IMHO, social encounters are as much of an obstacle as exploration and/or combat ones. Why should social encounters be any different when it comes to roleplaying or use of dice? Do you honestly think that people don't roleplay social encounters when there are dice resolution mechanics in place to support them?

I suspect you're defining 'meta-game' far more broadly than I. I don't see the rules that govern play as being part of the meta-game in and of themselves; though a player intentionally trying to twist those rules in ways the character couldn't/wouldn't know about so as to gain an advantage for a PC is very much meta-gaming.

I am defining meta-gaming as per its use in how it applies to and is understood in games and sports, of which TTRPGs are categorically a part. This is how I use the term. However, I am not arguing that "rules that govern play as being part of the meta-game in and of themselves," but, rather, that the meta-game exists alongside the rules. Bluffing, for example, is not part of the rules-as-written for poker, but it is part of poker's meta-game. The idea that D&D would or should not have a meta-game that has formed around its rules is absurd. Meta-gaming (as defined above) is inextricably linked to how games are naturally played: It's not something that one should or needs to reduce. It simply is. A game without a meta-game isn't a game at all. It becomes a RPT (roleplaying theater) rather than a RPG (roleplaying game).

Your concern above again gets to what I see as the heart of your problem. The fight against meta-gaming as a principle stems from a misdiagnosis of the root problem. As I mentioned before, the core problem IMHO is not with the meta-gaming that surrounds the "G in RPG," but, rather, with how players perform the "R in RPG." It's less that the players are meta-gaming, but, rather, that they aren't following your preferred meta-game when it comes to playing the Role.

I guess my stance is that those 'rules' that the character would know about - at least vaguely - within the fiction can be considered as part of the fiction, and therefore part of play.

It's still part of the meta-game. Just to be clear here: All you are doing here is distinguishing between "acceptable meta-gaming" and "unacceptable meta-gaming."

Put another way: the character still has to be able to learn by trial and error even if the player has already gone through that process, perhaps numerous times.

Other people have demonstrated to you repeatedly in past discussions why this sort of going-through-the-motions play is ridiculously farcical (and also meta-gaming), but if you don't get that yet, I suspect that pursuing this line of discussion further is undoubtedly fruitless for both of us.

 

[Hussar]

Just once, I would love for people to post (and I mean this in the most observant of ways) their sessions that they believe does not follow A to B to C. But I get what you are saying about prepping. Sometimes only the next is needed. But, to say you do not have a grip on the world, or the C, D, E, F, etc. is absurd. You are the DM, and probably a good one, so you do have an idea.
/snip

Well, to give an easy example - I gave my PC's three treasure maps. The maps were completely unrelated to each other and to the main point of the game. Three (largely) self contained adventures that the players could choose to do or not. The players chose not to do them. I had no control over that, nor could I have predicted that.

Were there a couple of adventures in the campaign that were going to happen? Sure, I was running Ghosts of Saltmarsh, so, the Saltmarsh adventures were going to happen. But, the other ones? Or the party going off on its own and forging a new direction? Entirely possible.

My current campaign is very sandboxy and I'm actually having a bit of a time getting everyone pointed in somewhat the same direction as they keep glomming onto everything and running with it. Tons of fun, but, I honestly cannot tell you where or what they will be doing three sessions from now.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just once, I would love for people to post (and I mean this in the most observant of ways) their sessions that they believe does not follow A to B to C. But I get what you are saying about prepping. Sometimes only the next is needed. But, to say you do not have a grip on the world, or the C, D, E, F, etc. is absurd. You are the DM, and probably a good one, so you do have an idea.

I know that you were addressing @Ovinomancer and that you’re mostly talking about D&D, but looking at other games in this instance can help illustrate how this can be done.

In a past Blades in the Dark game, my players were a group of Hawkers, and they were peddling a top quality drug called Third Eye. They operated in Nightmarket, a district of the city where much of the commerce and trade takes place, and which is going through an infusion of “new money” and a bit of gentrification (this is all based on details offered in the book, but then expanded upon for our version of the city).

I set up an initial situation for them....that two gangs were vying for control of Nightmarket; one was the current top gang and the second saw the district as a source of income to fund their gang war in another part of the city.

Once that initial set up was established, along with the details of character and crew creation, the Crew already has some existing relationships, both good and bad. The players contribute significantly to those details, with the GM offering some suggestions or possible ideas here and there.

Once that’s all set, the game world then becomes incredibly reactive. The PCs do something, and the setting reacts. Perhaps they piss off a rival gang. Perhaps they come to the attention of a powerful faction. Perhaps they forge an alliance with another gang to wipe out a third.

With each session, the direction the game takes is more and more in the players’ hands. They need fewer direct prompts from the GM of the sort that exist in D&D; “the local mayor has heard of your deeds in the region, and he requests you meet him at his manor....” or “there among the treasure trove you see a parchment that when unfurled shows you a map of the valley beyond the mountains, with a Silver Spire indicated....”

Instead the players decide what a given session is going to be about; “I’m tired of these Red Sashes....let’s hit them where it’ll hurt the most, let’s take over their luxury den...” or “the Grinders are too dangerous to trust, but also too tough for us to take them out at this point. But maybe that ghost we met last session would help us against them....”

So it’s not that the game doesn’t progress from A to B to C and so on....it’s just that once A and B are kind of established, its the players that are determining what C is and what D is and so on.

It’s just a different approach. It can be adopted to other games, though, at least to some extent. This approach has very much influenced how I run my 5E game. I have setting elements I’ve crafted, and I have those elements react to what the PCs do in order to help move the game along and prompt the players to decide what’s next.

The result is, for me, that the game is the story of the characters. It’s their journey specifically, rather than “the story of the war against evil overlord, featuring the PCs”.