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

[overgeeked]

Sure. You think the GM should be the only source of story. Any player "contributions" are to be vetted, manipulated, and approved by the GM before being allowed into play. Effectively, player "contributions" are just writing oromots for the GM. Hence your focus on backstory as a GM approved set of GM prompts for GM provided story.

In this framework, ANY mention of the GM approving anything is subsumed into this thinking. No amount of "say yes" or "should" or any of the other changes to GM advice in 4e matters because we can just beeline back to "the GM is the unquestioned boss, okay, players only get things at the GM's desire". There can be no other explanation because of how obvious it is that the GM is just in charge.

To hopefully make this make sense, think of the game as an anthology, either a big book of short fiction or an anthology TV series like Twilight Zone. The important bit is there are various writers, an editor, and that all the stuff should at least roughly conform to a given theme, like say this anthology is about ghost stories...while that anthology is about time travel...and that other one is comic fantasy.

The players are the writers. The DM is the editor. The theme is generally agreed to by everyone involved. "Let's play D&D" followed by "okay" is everyone agreeing to the theme. Roughly: we're playing fantasy adventurers in a fantasy world where magic is real and dragons exist, etc. Or whatever else the theme might be. Ravenloft, Theros, etc. Epic, low-fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc.

But, it's obviously more complicated than an anthology of prose or TV episodes...it's a single game, set in a single game world...that all has to fit together to make any sense at all. The editor picks and chooses what comes in because if they don't, then you have tonal whiplash. Time travelers in faux-Medieval Europe...but it's a fantasy game without scf-fi elements, etc.

The DM isn't the source of the fiction, the players are. The DM and/or the group sets the theme and everyone agrees to engage with it. The DM, effectively, hands the players writing prompts (situations) so the players can write the fiction (engage with the setting), i.e. creating the story of the game, then the DM has to make all the fiction the players generate work together as seamlessly as possible.

So yes, generally, you do need someone in charge of making things work together. Otherwise you have a loose, nonsensical mishmash of whatever. You can share that authority around the table, but that's not how traditional games are set up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't ever remember that being a big complaint regarding 4e. Though perhaps it was there among the other ones. But the main ones were definitely about gameyness.

It was. I mean it was a huge never ending diatribe on practically every thread in the 2008-2012 time frame. Yes, people talked at least as much about a couple other topics, but honestly, that was the one substantive one that can't be denied. 4e is much more transparent and gives a lot more to players than other editions. Even where it specifically empowers the GM it does so in much more neutral and mild language than other editions. The PHB (in the introductory chapter) describes the GM as having a role as 'Referee' and 'Narrator', but only phrases her job as a responsibility, not a form of authority.

"The DM sets the pace of the story and
presents the various challenges and encounters the
players must overcome."

Note how it doesn't even claim that the GM is making up this story, just 'presenting the various challenges', which is pretty mild in D&D terms!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The player authored quests advice basically amounts to: "If PCs set a goal to themselves and accomplish it, give them XP." That's basically my reading of its intent. Is this revolutionary? Didn't people do this already? Assuming that they bother with XP in the first place of course.

Granted, Epic Destinies allow the player to sort of introduce things in the fiction, but isn't this true with prestige classes or subclasses too?

I really played very little 3.x, so I am not able to comment on PRCs. Themes, PPs, and EDs all have a lot of story significance attached to them though (which you can of course ignore). While an ED doesn't FORCE the GM to handle your PC's fate in a specific way, it is certainly going to set the boundary conditions and probably determine how it will go down. I agree with your first sentence, it basically says to tie whatever the player wants to accomplish in game to the XP system (also treasure in 4e). As I've said, we didn't use XP, but even so there was always the sense that accomplishing a major quest kind of book-ended a level.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I do believe you are missing the point.

My post is an example of how far you can strip things down, not a recommendation to do so, nor even an assertion that people do strip things down that far (hint: many don't). But that isn't the point.

It's also a distillation of the idea that Story Now involves exploring things from and in the present moment. Some authors talk about how they just get an idea for a few characters in a scene and start writing. They know nothing about the characters' pasts, but figure it out as they write. Story Now takes that approach, and emphasizes creating and experiencing and immersing in story—including backstory—through play with the other folks at the table, rather than alone in your own room, or through following along in/exploring a prescripted adventure path (or sandbox or whatever).

(Emphasis is not exclusion, of course. You can mix all three of these approaches in a single game, fleshing out a character in some depth and with however much weight you want, hopping into an adventure path (or sandbox or whatever), and midway asserting some new fact about your character that seems cool, and then explore how that came to be and what it leads to with the other people in the moment.)

To me it seems you are taking my stripped-down example as definitional, and as a justification to dismiss the Story Now approach, outright and altogether. If "fear of heights and love of a sister" don't immediately lead you to wonder how those came about, and what problems they might cause, and want to explore them, well, to me, that seems incredibly shallow. But, if it would of course be impossible for you to immerse into that, well, to each their own.

No, I get that your example was intentionally extreme and not necessarily a norm of how these things are actually usually approached*, nor I am dismissing Story Now. But I feel the discussion has taken a weird course. This whole tangent began when @Manbearcat objected me associating backstory with establishing the dramatic needs of the character. And I still feel these are connected. And yes, stating those two things about the character instantly makes me question why, but that is me creating 'the backstory.' The dramatic need and why the dramatic needs exist are directly related and the former lacks weight without the latter.

But yeah, this get's me back to author stance, immersion and those things. And I am bit confused for what Story Now aims here. Perhaps the enjoyment of the style also is dependent on one's ability to immerse into the character whilst simultaneously writing them from the author stance? Because whilst I wouldn't say that this is completely impossible for me, doing so definitely seriously hampers my immersion, so I'd prefer have at least solid starting point and main elements authored before playing the character...

*But how are they? What is the typical amount of character definition in the beginning of a Story Now game? And not necessarily on paper, I include things in people's heads as well. I tend to know a lot more about my characters than is written down anywhere.

 

[niklinna]

Of course not. But it seems like incredibly lacking starting point and one I literally couldn't meaningfully play immersivity.

Yes, but if I as player do not know about the character's history, about their situation, I cannot inhabit their point of view!

This is approaching something we can work out. There are different kinds of immersion, and from the other things you've said, I believe you're more interested in immersion into character than immersion into the moment or into figuring out who a character is in play. That's perfectly fine. A heavy Story Now approach isn't going to fulfill that need for you. But don't throw the whole technique out just because it seems Story Now must be all or nothing. As I mentioned above, you can use it with the other stuff in wildly different mixes. (I've had the itch to write a post about this tendency to associate approaches and techniques with whole games, or as mutually exclusive to games for a bit now.)

Only assumptions that I make are about my own feelings and preferences. I am not assuming how other needs to feel or approach these things. I could approach such tabula rasa characters from author stance, but not from immersive stance. And at least how some people (@Campbell) describe Story Now's strength for creating visceral immersive immediacy, author stance instead of immersive stance seems like a weird choice.

The "visceral" and "immediacy" there are clues that they are after a different kind of immersion than you. It's totally possible to immerse in author stance, but the nature of that immersion is quite different. And maybe weird too, but it wasn't that long ago that being into RPGs at all meant you were an outright freak!

Oh, and on the off chance you wind up in a heavy Story Now session and you just can't swing with that, might I suggest it's perfectly fine for you to create as much backstory as you want and not tell anybody until it necessarily comes up in play. Just because the approach features the GM asking questions, doesn't mean you can't have the answers figured out ahead of time.

(For the pedants, yes, that means they won't actually be doing Story Now, but they'll be playing along as best they can so that they can have fun along with everybody else. Dealing further with clashes between agendas during play is a Whole Nother Topic, though.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree that this is a valid interpretation. I look at this way, 4e is written the way it is because the torch bearing masses of grognards are NO JOKE. So it came down from on high, "don't lay it on too thick."

I am highly sceptical on any reading which includes "do not anger the grognards" among the motivations of the designers of 4e...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Of course not. But it seems like incredibly lacking starting point and one I literally couldn't meaningfully play immersivity.

But do you think that's a quality of the approach, or a quality of your preference?

If the former, why?

If the latter, then your comment about shallowness and what Nik likes maybe will seem more clearly rude to you now in hindsight?

Yes, but if I as player do not know about the character's history, about their situation, I cannot inhabit their point of view!

I don't see why not. The scene described placed the two traits we know of the character into direct opposition. Her love for her sister and her fear of heights. Your sister is hanging from a precipice, you're terrified...what do you do? Which wins out?

You have all you need for that moment. If you want more information to help imagine the character, this is when the backstory takes shape. Perhaps you think of the event that caused your fear of heights. Now we know something new about the character.

We're learning about the characters and who they are NOW instead of deciding it all BEFORE.

Only assumptions that I make are about my own feelings and preferences. I am not assuming how other needs to feel or approach these things. I could approach such tabula rasa characters from author stance, but not from immersive stance. And at least how some people (@Campbell) describe Story Now's strength for creating visceral immersive immediacy, author stance instead of immersive stance seems like a weird choice.

Think of just about any other form of fiction. It's exactly how we learn of any and all fictional characters when they're first introduced. There may be some exceptions for well known characters who've existed for decades...your Sherlock Holmeses and Batmans... but any other character is introduced gradually to us. RPGs don't need to be different.

They may be. But they don't need to be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Of course not. But it seems like incredibly lacking starting point and one I literally couldn't meaningfully play immersivity.


Yes, but if I as player do not know about the character's history, about their situation, I cannot inhabit their point of view!


Only assumptions that I make are about my own feelings and preferences. I am not assuming how other needs to feel or approach these things. I could approach such tabula rasa characters from author stance, but not from immersive stance. And at least how some people (@Campbell) describe Story Now's strength for creating visceral immersive immediacy, author stance instead of immersive stance seems like a weird choice.

Aren't we just arguing about timing? I mean, at some point you will flesh out the relationship with the sister. It could have been 2 days before playing, it could be in the midst of the scene described above, or it could be tomorrow, or maybe even never. All those are possibilities in any sort of game, right? So, all Story Now says is "explore that in the moment." You could expend some sort of 'hero point' or something and then expound on how your sister once saved your life and she's your hero and by gosh you're going to get her out of this jam no matter what it costs you! Heck, it took me around 8 seconds to make that up, and most of that was probably typing. Maybe I'm unusual, but spinning story elements like that is something that I can pretty much just improv freely. I think most people could handle that one. Its cool too because you really generate and explore a bunch of motives and such there. What if your intent fails? Now you've really got some fun RP to do! Down goes your heroic idol sister and even your best was not enough to save the day. Ouch! This character is going to feel that for a LONG time, can she be redeemed?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

Bluntly?

Why do you normally target groups that don't have power in a status quo, rather than those that do?

Who do you think is more interested in the change?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Aren't we just arguing about timing? I mean, at some point you will flesh out the relationship with the sister. It could have been 2 days before playing, it could be in the midst of the scene described above, or it could be tomorrow, or maybe even never. All those are possibilities in any sort of game, right? So, all Story Now says is "explore that in the moment." You could expend some sort of 'hero point' or something and then expound on how your sister once saved your life and she's your hero and by gosh you're going to get her out of this jam no matter what it costs you! Heck, it took me around 8 seconds to make that up, and most of that was probably typing. Maybe I'm unusual, but spinning story elements like that is something that I can pretty much just improv freely. I think most people could handle that one. Its cool too because you really generate and explore a bunch of motives and such there. What if your intent fails? Now you've really got some fun RP to do! Down goes your heroic idol sister and even your best was not enough to save the day. Ouch! This character is going to feel that for a LONG time, can she be redeemed?

I feel immersion to my character suffers when I am inventing who they are at the same time. Or that's not quite true, once I have a foundational core, I can extrapolate what 'feels true' but at this instance we are basically talking about improvising that foundational core, which sort of feels like lifting yourself to air by your own hair sort of situation.