D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[clearstream]

I agree and disagree. Out-of-combat is as important as combat, yes. But the mechanical weight of combat should be reduced to that of out-of-combat. OOC should not be ratcheted up in mechanical weight to match combat. That would be atrocious. Combat should be as loose and light as non-combat. Though it would be grand if there was more actual support and advice for non-combat stuff. Though adding more rules is over-hyped.

Some kind of balance, for sure. That could mean lighter combat rules, although for my group 5e combat is in a pretty good place. Fairly streamlined. Deals well with most situations we find ourselves in.

 

[clearstream]

For the OP, I don't follow the expectation. Story Now games aren't a surging new thing. That it's be a recent topic of discussion here on ENW is coincidental and not indicative of a trend in the markets. If you look at the reported online games and the sales figures, it's doing okay, but it's not gaining much at all as a category. Perhaps games like Alien are helping, but, eh, not really a huge trend or shift in the market. 5e, which is not at all Story Now, is still a massive juggernaut and still increasing share. So, the fact that a few threads here in ENW have touched on Story Now play is really not a data point worth the context of the thread -- no one's running to Story Now out of fear that computer games do their play better.

Thank you. This kind of thought addresses my question. If you are saying that from your observation it is a local blip, then that is a valuable point.

As for skilled play, I'm still not sure what you think that is, but you seem to have decided it's something you can't do in a video game, which strikes me as odd -- skillfully leveraging the system is part and parcel of computer games. I don't see any conflict in scratching a skilled play itch with a computer game or at a table -- there are clearly differences based on system and table feel, but they aren't major enough to cause a differentiation in kind for skilled play. Heck, I picked up Solasta and am having fun pairing abilities across characters for nice combination play. Sure, between fights/dungeon explorations where I get to scratch skilled play there's the enforced story bits, so there's a clear switch, but it's still there. The "social" minigames are dreadful, though.

Definitionally, "skilled play" can't happen in CRPG. There is no improvise-intelligently-and-your-DM-will-tell-you-if-it-works. I haven't decided anything: that was the definition forced upon me. You can see the other threads for context.

So, no, I don't at all agree with the hypothesis you've presented -- there's no flight to playstyles caused by computer games. I can absolutely say that I never once thought about computer games when deciding to run or play in a Story Now game. Just excitement to play the game.

In design work, users are very often unaware of the burning problems or needs that they are delighted to find solved. The very inability of users to articulate their needs is a barrier that takes insightful research to overcome.

Suddenly and surprisingly RPG became a thing. Of course, you can see its evolution in hindsight and understand some of what made it successful. That doesn't mean it would have been simply obvious that people wanted RPG ahead of time. The kind of subliminal tension I am suggesting might exist here - between TTRPG and CRPG - is not likely to be something players are consciously thinking about. Negative reactions to the very idea that they could have such worries is as likely to confirm, as disprove, that they do.

Over the arc of 4e and 5e design I have occasionally read commentary on how the TTRPG is positioned relative to CRPG. Attempts to bring things into TTRPG from CRPG. Worries about that. There is some unresolved tension there. How significant it is, and if it is valuable to solve, is another question of course.

 

[Aldarc]

Thank you. This kind of thought addresses my question. If you are saying that from your observation it is a local blip, then that is a valuable point.

You also get a bit of discussion on other forums about such approaches, though discussion tends to get less technical and bogged down into terminology. It definitely doesn't reflect mainstream thought or play, but it is an influential undercurrent to a number of indie games with conceptual roots to the Forge, even if Forge speak has largely dropped out of favor for those designers.

I would also say, in my own estimation, that the Story Now discussion here is less evangelical and more apologetic. It's definitely not about trying to sell people on One True Way* of Story Now, but, rather, to showcase alternatives and provide explanations that exist to more mainstream and traditional modes of play, which are sometimes treated as the OneTrueandOnlyWay, depending on who you talk to here. But as more traditional and mainstream approaches do tend to have a hegemonic privilege, alternatives outside of those approaches (e.g., Story Now) have been accused of being less legitimate or even badwrongways of roleplay. I think the vocality you observe here is the product of opinionated people having to defend the legitimacy of their marginalized approach over against the one that enjoys hegemonic privilege from similarly opinionated people.

* There are a number of such people who play a great diversity of games with various game agendas.

 

[Krachek]

This rather mistakes my intent. I am talking about the subliminal concern or worry TTRPGers might have regards the future validity of their pursuit in the face of CRPGs. My OP is (intended to be) silent on any fear players might have in connection with their characters.

DnD is constantly evolving.
All our surrounding is influencing our DnD game : Movie, Tv show, online gaming, social media, understanding of technologies. I think that DnD is aiming at a small niche that appears when people meet together and start dreaming and having fun. Movie provide fantasy better than we can imagine, online game offer an experience that cannot be match without access to technology, so DnD has found a small safe island in this crazy show off world.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you. This kind of thought addresses my question. If you are saying that from your observation it is a local blip, then that is a valuable point.


Definitionally, "skilled play" can't happen in CRPG. There is no improvise-intelligently-and-your-DM-will-tell-you-if-it-works. I haven't decided anything: that was the definition forced upon me. You can see the other threads for context.

That's not definitional, and no, it wasn't forced on you. I was unable to respond to that thread for a few days, and when I returned it had died down, so I didn't respond, but I noted that you had continued to persist to holding onto bits that weren't necessary as if they were. Skilled play doesn't require the system to be improvise, it requires that the player be able to improvise new ideas and apply them within the system. IE, skilled play means that the players have to use their smarts and improvise new strategies and approaches, but not that the system be able to extemporaneously adjudicate out-of-system rules. Skilled play can absolutely exist in games where that is the case -- like D&D, where the GM can go outside the provided system to adjudicate an action not presented within the system. But, this is not necessary. You can have skilled play without ever once altering the system, or being allowed to alter the system. Skilled Play in Blades in the Dark, for instance, while different from B/X, never requires interpreting the system into something new. Likewise, you can have skilled play in a CRPG. I mean, at the surface, making a set of characters that compliments vice one that all are the same and are very niche will have major impacts in how well you can progress the game. This is part and parcel of skilled play -- creatively leveraging the system to achieve player goals.

In design work, users are very often unaware of the burning problems or needs that they are delighted to find solved. The very inability of users to articulate their needs is a barrier that takes insightful research to overcome.

Suddenly and surprisingly RPG became a thing. Of course, you can see its evolution in hindsight and understand some of what made it successful. That doesn't mean it would have been simply obvious that people wanted RPG ahead of time. The kind of subliminal tension I am suggesting might exist here - between TTRPG and CRPG - is not likely to be something players are consciously thinking about. Negative reactions to the very idea that they could have such worries is as likely to confirm, as disprove, that they do.

I'm a systems engineer. Requirements elicitation is arguably the hardest thing in engineering for the things you list here. However, the fact that people sometimes don't know what they want is NOT evidence or proof that your idea is correct and people just don't realize it. This is a flawed argument.

Over the arc of 4e and 5e design I have occasionally read commentary on how the TTRPG is positioned relative to CRPG. Attempts to bring things into TTRPG from CRPG. Worries about that. There is some unresolved tension there. How significant it is, and if it is valuable to solve, is another question of course.

I don't think this really supports your argument, though. This is more about some disliking the modes of play in some CRPGs, notably MMORPGs. I can easily point to threads where people dislike modes of play in D&D, but there's no hidden fears flight to other RPGs, they just play D&D differently. Or OSR. Or Story Now. I mean, people like different things, and different kinds of play appeal to people differently. That some are vocal is not evidence of a trend of movement towards or away.

 

[Umbran]

Honestly, I want more neo-trad threads...

Mod Note:
Then start a [+] thread on neo-trad practices in which the base premise precludes the things you don't want to talk about.

I don't appreciate the attempt at coaching me on my assesment of their misbehavior-- my ability to understand and react to it should not be within your locus of control.

Mod Note:
You may find yourself well served to worry less about control, and listen more to advice.

If you feel they are misbehaving, and you continue to invoke them, what good, precisely, do you expect to result? Either they are going to show up, and another round will begin, which you clearly don't like, or offense will be taken, and red text will show up, and nobody will end up happy with the result. This does not seem to be a winning approach for any point you are likely to want to make.

Historically, making the discussion about the people talking, and what they are like as people, ends up poorly for all concerned.

 

[Charlaquin]

NP it also rather badly mistakes the intent of my OP. I am not propounding any Forge theories. I'm observing the recent high profile of certain concepts here and questioning if there might not be a commonality to them - a driving worry - that might inform 6e design goals?

Well, the concepts of Story Now and Story Before definitely do originate from the Forge.

 

[Shiroiken]

I mean the Teen Titans are pretty badass.

If you can get through all four hours, Zack Snyder's Justice League does an excellent job with Cyborg. He's much more integral to the plot, even more than Superman.

 

[overgeeked]

If you can get through all four hours, Zack Snyder's Justice League does an excellent job with Cyborg. He's much more integral to the plot, even more than Superman.

Doom Patrol is so much better.

 

[clearstream]

If you can get through all four hours, Zack Snyder's Justice League does an excellent job with Cyborg. He's much more integral to the plot, even more than Superman.

Please don't undermine my threads by taking them hard off-topic like this. If my thread does not interest you then please refrain from posting. If you'd like to discuss superheroes, there's a forum for that somewhere.