• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

I was thinking of games predating Everway, but that's kind of an aside.

I mean a method where some sort of fixed ranking applies (karmic scale) i.e. no random element. So when one comes to a point that in another system might call for a roll, everyone looks at some applicable parameters and the higher prevails (nuance may be supplied by how much by).

Capital-K as in DFK, as I understand it.
Try the lightweight RPG PACE. In PACE each character has 2 attributes, and those have a point value. When a conflict comes up (the intent of the PC is tested) the player and GM each select an appropriate attribute and compare their values. The higher value wins, and the difference can be used to gauge the extent of success or failure (or what sort of twist ensues, the game is pretty open-ended in terms of what it allows for). There are also provisions for players to have extra points they can add to a total, as does the GM, so you can 'push', but you don't get new points during an adventure, so there's a pretty heavy reliance on knowing A) how to leverage what you're strengths/weaknesses are, and B) knowing how to sense or attain a sort of critical moment where pushing success will have a big payout.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

niklinna

satisfied?
What is a Roleplaying Game?

This is a difficult question, because "roleplaying game" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. However, at an extremely high level, a "roleplaying game" is firstly some kind of game--an activity with rules and many different possible outcomes, compared to things like puzzles with only one valid solution, or artistic pursuits where "rules" don't really apply. Secondly, it concerns roleplay, that is, pretending to be someone you aren't in a fictional situation. If these sound like extremely generic terms, that's because they are; a lot of different things are "roleplaying games," and it is difficult to capture all of them in a single description.

So what is Swords Thrown Among Radiant Stars?

STARS is what some call a "Story Now" roleplaying game. This means that, generally speaking, the impetus for the characters to take action, for adventure to happen, for brave deeds or craven crawling...is you, the player. A "Story Now" game is focused on protagonists (you and your fellow players) going after whatever it is they believe worth seeking (their goal), examining and exploring the places they find themselves in and the events around them (their situation), and deciding what they're willing to do or endure to achieve that goal (resulting conflict). You then repeat this process for as long as it remains interesting for you to do so! Through your process of choosing a goal, facing situations, and resolving conflicts, you'll learn about yourselves and your characters, and leave a legacy to be remembered. Or, at least, that's the hope!

Like with many other roleplaying games--some you have most likely already heard of--there is someone there to facilitate this process, the Stargazer or "SG." Unlike the game masters of those other games, however, the intended purpose of the Stargazer in STARS is not to create plot hooks for you to choose from. STARS is not meant to be a game where the players passively accept whatever things the SG tells them are valuable, nor even one where the players simply choose whatever they think is most interesting from a palette of prepared options. Instead, the players have control over what gets served up, with the Stargazer simply setting the stage so that the players can do what they like on it. Of course, sometimes in order for the players to be able to do what they like, certain things have to be on the stage: you can't challenge your fear of heights by climbing a mountain if there's no surface to climb. This process, of furnishing players with the necessary situation elements so they can experience or endure conflict, is called "scene framing" or "framing the scene." It's one of the most important skills for every SG to learn, particularly because it is very easy to accidentally move from merely framing scenes and into writing plots.

It can be helpful to compare "Story Now" games to the two main alternatives, "Story Before" and "Story After." Most roleplaying games today are "Story Before." The players carefully create their characters, perhaps working with other players to do so, and write out comprehensive backstories, which will be used as the seeds for planned-in-advance character developments. The game master creates comprehensive world lore and information, develops various potential enemies and allies, and generally fills up the world with content. This may be a fully pre-written plot where player choice doesn't actually change anything (what some people call "railroading"), or it may be open-ended, where each player choice creates branching paths, but the choices are always whatever the GM provides. But either way, the goals and the situations are mostly determined in advance, and the players react to these things as they see fit.

"Story After" games are relatively rare these days, by comparison to Story Before, but some of the earliest roleplaying games moved in this direction. For this, the GM does not really "plan" any goals or conflicts at all, and may even seem to resemble Story Now play by avoiding any semblance of "plot" or the like. The key difference is that there isn't any effort put to framing scenes at all, or at least not until well after the scene is over. If, for example, one player loses his Wizard character early on, and chooses to play as that character's Fighter sister to quickly get back into play, then after the session is over, the player could look back and describe the successful dungeon run as "my Fighter was avenging her brother's death!" Here, the goal is decided after the conflict is already over, and a progression is developed to explain the events that already occurred in a satisfying way. That is the heart of Story After gaming, and for some folks it is the best part of roleplaying experiences.

Something to keep in mind, however, is that Story Now does not mean that the Stargazer never prepares. Indeed, Stargazers absolutely SHOULD prepare things! But, in general, they prepare less than Story Before game masters do, and the things they prepare should generally take the form of useful tools and resources to draw upon, rather than well-structured, thoroughly planned-out things. So, for example, when you draft up the star chart for your game, leave large areas of it blank--not empty, but unfilled. These areas will be filled in later, through your players triggering new situations due to their choices or the consequences thereof, or through you drawing on your prepared resources to frame a new scene."

That got kind of long, but I was trying to keep it in that "conversational instruction" mode while covering all the basics and providing compare-and-contrast examples.

If I have erred in my descriptions of these things in the estimation of anyone better-versed in these things than I am--such as @pemerton or @AbdulAlhazred or others--then please fault me, not the underlying concept. I am still very new to this stuff.
I love this. So much of the confusion over "Story Now" seems to be folks focusing on the word "Story" and not realizing that it's really about the "Now". In purest form (since all this stuff can be blended or used to various degrees), Story Now encourages you to pick a few concrete things and use them to create a dramatic situation, right now. The story that generates can span past (backstory), present (Now!), and future (fallout and consequences) but all of that is generated Now, through play, rather than by pre-authoring or by looking back after play and fabricating a story to fit the events (which we're very good at, so good that we might think the story emerged through play).

Edit: Added emphasis.
 
Last edited:

hawkeyefan

Legend
From 4E PHB1, p258.

"You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character."

So...explicitly under the DM’s control.

"The Dungeon Master’s Guide includes guidelines for your DM about creating quests, evaluating player-created quests, and assigning rewards for completing quests."

I guess everyone just skips over the "with your DM’s approval" and "evaluating" bits of those lines...for reasons. If you have to explicitly ignore what the book actually says so that you can talk about what you think the book says...there's a problem with your argument.

No one is saying that players just take over and decide all elements of a quest. Of course there will need to be collaboration and cooperation involved.

From 4E DMG, p103.

"Player-Designed Quests. You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!"

"Should" is not the same word as "must". I guess it's convenient to make those synonyms...for reasons. "As often as possible" is pure DM interpretation. Pure DM fiat.

At no point does this edition tell players they can simply invent whatever quests they want and the DM must follow along. It's literally not there. If you see it there, that's you putting it there.

I mean, “should” and “must” are indeed not synonyms. But neither are “should” and “may”, which seems to be what you want it to say. There’s a much stronger element of obligation with “should” than with “may”.

If you don’t see words like “should” and “encourage” and “as often as possible” to be more than simply neutral, then I think you’re quite guilty of what you’re accusing others of with this post.
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
So you're saying that the inclusion of this type of thing in the text of the game is significant? That it can make for a different experience when playing? You wouldn't agree with the idea that such text is a "throwaway line"?

And do you think that the history of design has led to the expectation that this is how a game will play? That the way previous editions were written and designed as a whole have led to this kind of default stance of "this is how D&D plays"?
Yes, absolutely.
 

"Game" as in the process of game being played at the table. Call it what you want.


There is some potato. Whether you like it is a main ingredient or as a side dish doesn't alter the existence of the potato.


So character's "dramatic needs" are not related to their backstory? They exist unmoored without fictional elements in which they're anchored to? I seriously doubt this.
Well, the more elaborate it is, the more predefined and constrained things are. Note how games like PbtAs are structured. In Dungeon World for instance there's no call for character background at all. You have a bond, that's it. Bonds are one sentence, 2 at most. Some things can be inferred from the other character choices, but its not much. One problem with elaborate backstories is they tend to step on each other. Its hard to get 3 or 5 characters together with these heavy backstories, unless perhaps the milieu is very tight, like "you're a team of super heroes", in which case maybe each one has a fairly elaborate origin story. The problem still exists though that this will hobble the GM to a degree in framing. I'm not sure I have as strong an aversion here as Manbearcat does, but I don't find these backstories to add a lot, its better if they emerge during play.
Also this hardly has anything to do with the throwaway line about player authored quest in 4e, it doesn't contain any particularly deep commentary of how it is to be handled, and definitely does not contain any principled Story Now imperatives you seem to be projecting into it.
I think it is pregnant with meaning. Quests are literally described as a central mechanical feature of 4e. 'Say yes' is an admonition that appears again and again throughout the DMG. Player empowerment of all kinds, the opportunity and RIGHT of the players to define the subject matter of the game is widely noted and provoked such a reaction that THE ENTIRE THEME OF 5th EDITION is "the story and adjudication of everything in play is COMPLETELY the purview of the GM." It couldn't be more clear how loud those lines echoed throughout the community than the giant gnashing of teeth which ensued! lol. I mean, I admit, the quest element was less harped upon than others, and I agree it is partly because its easy enough to characterize as being similar to existing practice. I just don't think it IS that similar. It is in fact the game design equivalent of a wolf in sheep's clothing!
 

I'd like to point out that the text about player authored quest is super short and vague and "come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure," do not me necessarily imply massive creative input like some people seem to it interpret. It doesn't to me read like the player is expected to invent significant setting material. You of course could let the player to invent an entire secret organisation of extraplanar entities along with the goal of infiltrating to the organisation, but more conservative (and I'd argue intended) reading is merely that the player can declare the goal of infiltrating such an organisation when the organisation is introduced by he GM and the GM merely sets XP rewards etc for such a self imposed goal.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Yes, absolutely.

I agree (in case it wasn’t obvious)!

So if you were going to try and shift that traditional paradigm… the GM holds most of the authorial power over the fiction, and the players very little… who would you target try and make that shift?

Players? Or GMs?

I think GMs would be the obvious answer. Would you disagree? If so, why would you say targeting players would be the smarter approach?
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I'd like to point out that the text about player authored quest is super short and vague and "come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure," do not me necessarily imply massive creative input like some people seem to it interpret. It doesn't to me read like the player is expected to invent significant setting material. You of course could let the player to invent an entire secret organisation of extraplanar entities along with the goal of infiltrating to the organisation, but more conservative (and I'd argue intended) reading is merely that the player can declare the goal of infiltrating such an organisation when the organisation is introduced by he GM and the GM merely sets XP rewards etc for such a self imposed goal.

Sure. Baby steps, and all that.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
No, they're not. And no, it isn't.

4E DMG, p102. "Quests are the fundamental story framework of an adventure—the reason the characters want to participate in it. They’re the reason an adventure exists, and they indicate what the characters need to do to solve the situation the adventure presents."

Wow, quests sound really important! Fundamental, even!

That's it. The rest of the section is about what their components are and how to put them together and how to use them. There's nothing even approaching the level of import you say is there. It's simply not. I get rose-colored glasses, but damn.

Yeahbutwhat?!?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top